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 .
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, 24, 26, 27, 32, 34, and 35 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lee (U.S. PGPUB 2018/0359041) in view of Beauchesne (U.S. PGPUB 2023/0143574).
Re claim 1, 27, and 35: Lee discloses a method for identifying a cutscene in gameplay footage (see paragraph [0099], however Lee fails to disclose the method presented in the claim.
conversely, Beauchene discloses receiving a first video signal and a second video signals (see paragraph [0052, 0087]: The cited paragraph states “Upon receiving the new movie 208, the system generates a hash/embedding/fingerprint 210 for the new movie, and submits the fingerprint 210 as a query to the ANN DB 20.” The cited reference also discuses previously processing a plurality of other videos, i.e. a second video. Thus, the system receives a first and second video for processing and creating fingerprints.);
generating (i) a first video fingerprint based at least on the first signatures generated for the multiple images in the first video signal, and (ii) a second video fingerprint based at least on the second signatures generated for the multiple images in the second video signal (see paragraph [0082, 0099, 0100]: The system creates a plurality of sub-fingerprints, i.e. signatures, for each fingerprint, wherein the signatures, comprise of perceptual hashes that represents a window);
generating (i) a first video fingerprint based at least on the first signatures generated for the multiple images in the first video signal, and (ii) a second video fingerprint based at least on the second signatures generated for the multiple images in the second video signal (see paragraph [0025]: The cited paragraphs states, “During the matching steps, the sequence can then be compared to known fingerprints of previously processed media content.” Thus, the previously processed video follows the same process of creating a plurality of signatures within the video fingerprint based off of video frames.);
determining that the first video fingerprint and the second video fingerprint have at least a threshold level of similarity (see paragraph [0100, 0102]: “The system compares the series of segment fingerprints 724 to other, known fingerprints 726, 728, 730;” see paragraph [0085]: The system identifies copyrighted video when the first video fingerprint matches at least a threshold level of known copyrighted video, i.e. a second video fingerprint);
and in response to determining that the first video fingerprint and the second video fingerprint have at least a threshold of similarity, identifying a non-interactive cutscene (see paragraph [0006]: establishes that cutscenes can be scenes outside of gameplay) when at least a portion of the first video fingerprint has at least a threshold level of similarity with at least a portion of the second video fingerprint (see paragraph [0085]: The system identifies copyrighted video when the first video fingerprint matches at least a threshold level of known copyrighted video, i.e. a second video fingerprint).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to simply substitute the fingerprint based cutscene video identification system of Lee, for the fingerprint based video identification system of Beauchesne as such would have achieved predictable results of identifying cutscene videos using a fingerprint and signature based system.
Re claims 24 and 32: Although Lee discloses with respect to the computer-implemented method of claim 1, wherein generating (i) a respective first signature for each of multiple images in the first video signal, and (ii) a respective second signature for each of multiple images in the second video signal (see paragraph [0082, 0099, 0100]), Lee fails to disclose generating the respective first signature by applying a hashing algorithm to each of the multiple images in the first video signal; and generating the respective second signature by applying the hashing algorithm to each of the multiple images in the second video signal. However, Beauchesne discloses applying a hash function to every frame within a video segment to create a video fingerprint (see paragraphs [0040-0042]). See claim 1 for reasons for obviousness.
Re claims 26 and 34: Lee discloses with respect to the computer-implemented method of claim 1, wherein the first and second video signals comprise one or more scenes from a video game (see paragraph [0052]: video segments).
Claim(s) 25 and 33 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lee in view of Beauchesne, in further view of Lu (U.S. PGPUB 2007/0253594).
Re claim 25 and 33: Lee in view of Beauchesne, fails to disclose with respect to the computer-implemented method of claim 1, wherein each signature of the first and second plurality of signatures comprises a plurality of characters, each character of the plurality of characters representing a similar feature within the at least one image of the plurality of images. However, Lu like Beauchesne discloses identifying similar video clips based upon signatures, wherein Lu further discloses that said signatures are spatial signatures (see Abstract). Lu also discloses that each character in the spatial signature, represents average pixel value rank (see claim 7). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed, to simply substitute the spatial signatures of Lu for the signatures of Beauchesne for the produce the predictable results of fingerprints that include signatures that represent frame characteristics.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 20-23, 28-31, 36-38 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.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 02/09/2006 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. Applicant has amended the language of claim 1, however the language is merely restating the previous language but using different verbiage. For these reasons, claim 1 and the associated claims remain rejected, while the claims that are associated with previously allowable subject matter, would be allowed if rewritten in independent form.
Conclusion
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. 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 REGINALD A RENWICK whose telephone number is (571)270-1913. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 11am-7pm.
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, Kang Hu can be reached at (571)270-1344. 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.
REGINALD A. RENWICK
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 3714
/REGINALD A RENWICK/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3715
Prosecution Insights