DETAILED ACTION
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
Applicant’s arguments filed on June 24, 2026 have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument.
The 35 U.S.C. 101 rejections for claims 1-20 have been withdrawn with respect to the amendment and arguments filed on June 24, 2026.
Response to Amendment
The amendment to the claims received on June 24, 2026 has been entered.
The amendment of claims 1, 3-5, 7-9, 11 and 13-20 is acknowledged.
The cancelation of claims 2, 6, 10 and 12 are acknowledged.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 1, 3-5, 7, 8, 11, 13-19 rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Lundin’581 (US 2022/0180581).
With respect to claim 11, Lundin’581 teaches an apparatus [regarding to the system shown in Fig.1 (paragraph 39)] comprising:
at least one memory (Fig.5, item 504):
instruction (Fig.5, item 524); and
at least one processor circuit (Fig.5, item 502) to be programed based on the instructions (Fig.5, item 524) to:
cause a trained neural network to operate on a frame of a video, the trained neural network to perform object detection on the frame to output inference data associated with one or more objects detected in the frame (Fig.6, steps 602-606);
identify one or more salient bounding regions in the frame based on the inference from the neural network (Fig.6, steps 606-612);
perform object tracking based on (i) the inference data, (ii) content in consecutive frames of the video including the frame, and (iii) a correlation filter to select location of a text bounding region in the frame into which text is to be inserted, the text bounding region to not overlap with the one or more salient bounding regions (paragraph 37, Fig.4 and Fig.6);
cause the text to be display in the text bounding region corresponding to the selected location (Fig.6, step 612).
With respect to claim 13, which further limits claim 11, Lundin’581 teaches wherein the one or more salient bounding regions correspond to one or more of: a largest image in the frame, a moving image, a centered image, existing text in the frame (Fig.4), or an image of a human (Fig.4).
With respect to claim 14, which further limits claim 11, Lundin’581 teaches wherein the text to be inserted in the text bounding region includes at least one of subtitles or closed captioning (CC) text (Fig.4).
With respect to claim 15, which further limits claim 11, Lundin’581 teaches wherein the text bounding region is a first text bounding region, and one or more of the at least one processor circuit is to select the location of the first text bounding region based on locations of another one or more other text bounding regions in another one or more of the consecutive frames (Fig. 4).
With respect to claim 16, which further limits claim 11, Lundin’581 teaches wherein one or more of the at least one processor circuit is to select the location of the text bounding region in the frame based on a per-pixel raster order scan of the frame (Fig.4 and paragraphs 20 and 21).
With respect to claims 1, 3, 5 and 8, they are method claims that claim how the apparatus of claims 11, 13, 15 and 16 to arrange text location on video frames. Claims 1, 3, 5 and 8 are rejected for the same manner as described in the rejected claims 11, 13, 15 and 16.
With respect to claims 17-19, they are non-transitory computer-readable medium claims that claim how the apparatus of claims 11, 13 and 16 to arrange text location on video frames. Claims 17-19 are rejected for the same manner as described in the rejected claims 11, 13 and 16.
With respect to claim 4, which further limits claim 1, Lundin’581 teaches wherein the regions of interest exclude a solid colored region [as shown in Fig.4, the media content item in image 404 has a transparent component is being detected to insert the text “SHOP JACKTS” (paragraph 34)].
With respect to claim 7, which further limits claim 1, wherein the text bounding region is a first text bounding region, and the instructions are to cause at least one of the one ore more processor circuits to select the location of the first text bounding region based on location of another one or more other text bounding regions in another one or more of the consecutive frames (paragraph 36).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
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.
Claims 9 and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lundin’581 (US 2022/0180581), and further in view of MICHIKO’613 (JP 2007-316613).
With respect to claim 9, which further limits claim1, Lundin’581 does not teach wherein the instructions are cause at least one of the one or more processor circuits to reduce a size of the text to be inserted in the fame until the text bounding region does not overlap with the one or more salient bounding regions.
MICHIKO’613 teaches wherein the instructions are cause at least one of the one or more processor circuits to reduce a size of the text to be inserted in the fame until the text bounding region does not overlap with the one or more salient bounding regions [the size of the character font associated with the character string is being reduced when the number of characters associated with the character string exceeds the reference character number (pages 4 and 5).]
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the invention of Lundin’581 according to the teaching of MICHIKO’613 to reduce the front size of the text to be inserted when the original front size of the text is too big to be fitted into the bounding box because this will allow the inserted text to displayed more effectively.
With respect to claim 20, which further limits claim 17, Lundin’581 does not teach wherein the selecting of the location of the bounding box includes reducing a size of the subtitle text to be inserted in the frame until the bounding box does not overlap with the one ore more regions of interest.
MICHIKO’613 teaches wherein the selecting of the location of the bounding box includes reducing a size of the subtitle text to be inserted in the frame until the bounding box does not overlap with the one or more regions of interest [the size of the character font associated with the character string is being reduced when the number of characters associated with the character string exceeds the reference character number (pages 4 and 5).]
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the invention of Lundin’581 according to the teaching of MICHIKO’613 to reduce the front size of the text to be inserted when the original front size of the text is too big to be fitted into the bounding box because this will allow the inserted text to displayed more effectively.
Claim 22 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lundin’581 (US 2022/0180581), and further in view of Gaucas’215 (US 2008/0292215).
With respect to claim 22, which further limits claim 7, Lundin’581 does not teach wherein the instructions are to cause at least one of the one or more processor circuits to select the location of the first text bounding region based on a weighted average of an initial location of the first text bounding region and the locations of the another one or more other text bounding regions in the another one or more of the consecutive frames.
Gaucas’215 teaches wherein the instructions are to cause at least one of the one or more processor circuits to select the location of the first text bounding region based on a weighted average of an initial location of the first text bounding region and the locations of the another one or more other text bounding regions in the another one or more of the consecutive frames [a corresponding position may be defined as the location of the text's position centroid in the output image. The centroid may be computed from the average of the maximum and minimum global X-coordinates and the average of the maximum and minimum global Y-coordinates, or the median global (X, Y) position, or the average global (X, Y) position of a bounding contour containing text, or more generally from a weighted median or weighted average position of a contour region enclosing the text (paragraph 55). Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to recognize to define the location of a text bounding region based on a weighted average of its bounding region and the locations of the another one or more other text bounding regions in the another one or more of the consecutive frames because this will allow the text to be inserted in a desired location more effectively]
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the invention of Lundin’581 according to the teaching of Gaucas’215 to define the location a text bounding region based on a weighted average of its bounding region and the locations of the another one or more other text bounding regions in the another one or more of the consecutive frames because this will allow the text to be inserted in a desired location more effectively
Claims 21, 23 and 24 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lundin’581 (US 2022/0180581), and further in view of Confidence map based KCF object tracking algorithm.
With respect to claim 23, which further limits claim 11, Lundin’581 does not teach wherein the correlation filter is a kernelized correlation filter.
Confidence map based KCF object tracking algorithm teaches wherein the correlation filter is a kernelized correlation filter (abstract and introduction (page 2187))
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the invention of Lundin’581 according to the teaching of Confidence map based KCF object tracking algorithm to track the desired text location to insert the additional text to the said desired text location
With respect to claim 21, which further limits claim1, it is being rejected for the same manner as described in the rejected claim 23.
With respect to claim 24, which further limits claim17, it is being rejected for the same manner as described in the rejected claim 23
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 extension fee 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 date of this final action.
Contact
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to HUO LONG CHEN whose telephone number is (571)270-3759. The examiner can normally be reached on M-F 9am - 5pm. If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Tieu, Benny can be reached on (571) 272-7490. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is (571) 273-8300. Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/HUO LONG CHEN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2682
Prosecution Insights