Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Response to Arguments
First applicant argues Baheti does not disclose search based on posture and direction combined with camera capturing range, and that Mukai's camera searching is for background retrieval, not content search based on object posture/direction. Examiner disagrees. Baheti teaches obtaining object identification information including posture and direction and using it for search (pars. 119-120). Mukai teaches using camera metadata including capturing range as search parameters (par. 498). The combination teaches search based on both object identification information and camera information. The claim does not require a single fused parameter; it requires search based on both categories, which the combination provides.
Next the applicant argues the cited references do not teach outputting selected content on a first partial screen and real-time video on a second partial screen via a multi-views screen to enable motion comparison. Examiner relies on newly cited Anderson (US 2015/0099252). Anderson teaches searching a movement database for movements matching the user's posture, sorting by match likelihood, and displaying a gallery for user selection (pars. 71-72). Anderson teaches displaying a trainer video window 480 (first partial screen, selected content) alongside a user video window 482 (second partial screen, captured movement) to enable comparison of motions (FIG. 4G, pars. 90-93). This teaches the amended limitation.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
Claim(s) 1, 3-6, 11, 13-16 and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Baheti (20120027290) in view of Mukai (20100149399) in further view of Li (20190286892).
Regarding claim 1, Baheti teaches an operating method of an electronic device, the operating method comprising: obtaining object identification information of an object based on an image obtained from a camera (par. 119);
obtaining search information based on at least one of the object identification information and the camera information (par. 25 and 120);
transmitting the search information to a server (par. 120);
receiving a content list from the server wherein the content list is searched based on the search information; and outputting the content list (par. 120, display results).
Baheti does not explicitly teach obtaining camera information indicating a capturing range of the camera.
Mukai teaches this in par. 498 (searching based on camera meta data).
Mukai teaches receiving a selection of content from the content list (see par. 269, 283-284. Displaying a list of landmarks that a user selects).
outputting the selected content and a real time video of the object captured by the camera (par. 285 and abstract, pars. 455-457, real time video)
via multi-views. by using a plurality of partial screens (pars 274-276, display portions).
It would have been obvious prior to the effective filing date of the invention to one of ordinary skill in the art to include in Baheti and the ability to use camera metadata as taught by Mukai to enhance search accuracy.
Li teaches finding foot and hand contact points based on heatmaps from camera and this is used for searching in a database in pars. 27-28, 30 and 32-34.
It would have been obvious prior to the effective filing date of the invention to one of ordinary skill in the art to include in Baheti and Muaki the ability to find hand and feet data as taught by Li. The reason is to find information in specific locations.
Anderson teaches receiving a selection of content from a content list, specifically, searching a movement database for movements matching the user's movement/posture, sorting results by match likelihood, displaying a gallery of thumbnails, and receiving user selection of a target movement (pars. 71-72). Anderson teaches outputting the selected content on a first partial screen (trainer video window 480) and outputting real-time captured movement on a second partial screen (user video window 482), via a multi-views screen to enable comparison of a motion of a comparative subject included in the selected content with a motion of the object (FIG. 4G, pars. 79, 82, 90-93).
It would have been obvious to include in Li, Baheti and Mukai the multi-view motion comparison display as taught by Anderson to enable users to visually compare retrieved content with real-time captured video (Anderson, pars. 90-93).
Regarding claim 3, see par. 182 and 498 of Mukai and par. 182 of Baheti.
Regarding claim 4, see pars. 63-65 of Baheti and par. 498-499 of Mukai, tracking an object and updating.
Regarding claim 5, see pars. 64-65 and pars. 498-499 of Mukai, changing tracking parameters.
Regarding claim 6, see par. 120 of Baheti and pars. 457-459 of Muaki, Multiview output.
Regarding claims 11, 13-16 and 20, see the rejection of claims 1-6.
Claim(s) 7 and 17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Baheti (20120027290) in view of Mukai (20100149399) in view of Anderson in further view of Wittich (20150125835).
Wittich teaches obtaining matching information by comparing a motion of a comparative subject included in the selected content with a motion of the object included in the real time video; and outputting the matching information (see par. 56-57).
It would have been obvious prior to the effective filing date of the invention to one of ordinary skill in the art to include in Baheti, Anderson and Muaki the ability to match as taught by Wittich in order to determine accuracy.
Regarding claim 17, see the rejection of claim 7.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 8-10 and 18-19 are objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to HADI AKHAVANNIK whose telephone number is (571)272-8622. The examiner can normally be reached 9 AM - 5 PM Monday to Friday.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Henok Shiferaw can be reached at (571) 272-4637. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of published or unpublished applications may be obtained from Patent Center. Unpublished application information in Patent Center is available to registered users. To file and manage patent submissions in Patent Center, visit: https://patentcenter.uspto.gov. Visit https://www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/patent-center for more information about Patent Center and https://www.uspto.gov/patents/docx for information about filing in DOCX format. For additional questions, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/HADI AKHAVANNIK/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2676
Prosecution Insights