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 with respect to claims 1-11 have been considered but are moot because the arguments do not apply to the new rejection made below. Examiner recommends describing the device “a handheld camera” and/or how the image is captured “based on user input” in order to overcome the references cited and current interpretation of the claims.
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) 1-2, 4, 6, 8-11is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Small et al. (US 20120124604, hereinafter Small) in view of Sampathkumaran et al. (US 20140089954, hereinafter Sampathkumaran.)
Regarding claim 1, “An information processing apparatus comprising: a processor; and a memory connected to or built in the processor” Small teaches (¶0019 and Fig. 1) system 10 used to recognize, analyze, and/or track one or more human targets includes computing device 12 with a processor such as a standardized processor, a specialized processor, a microprocessor, or the like that may execute instructions stored on a processor readable storage device for performing the processes.
As to “wherein the processor acquires an image captured by a user during a target event for which a satisfaction level of the user is measured” Small teaches (¶0020, ¶0043, ¶0045) the tracking system 10 may further include a capture device 20. The capture device 20 may be, for example, a camera that may be used to visually monitor one or more users, such as the users 18 and 19, such that movements, postures and gestures performed by the users may be captured and tracked by the capture device 20; (¶0018, ¶0038-¶0039) a user's response to viewed multimedia content is obtained by tracking the user's movements, gestures, postures and facial expressions while viewing the multimedia content; (¶0019 and ¶0042) from a client device.
As to “derives the satisfaction level of the user with the target event based on the image” Small teaches (Table 1, ¶0048-¶0049, Table 2) engagement level describing user satisfaction with the program.
As to “and presents an attribute of the user and satisfaction level-related information which is related to the satisfaction level to an organizer of the target event.” Small teaches (¶0047-¶0051) the user-specific response tracking module 202 generates a user-specific report of a response to a viewed program for each user identified by the capture device 20 based on the gestures, postures, movements and facial expressions performed by each of the users. And provides the report to television rating agencies/content provider/advertisers.
Small does not teach “an event ID of the target event being registered in accessory information of the image captured by the user.” However, Sampathkumaran teaches (¶0004 and ¶0027) The instructions also cause the processor to generate a signal representative of at least one expression of the viewer made at or around the time the content was presented based on the image of the viewer, and to receive metadata identifying the content. The instructions then cause the processor to associate the metadata identifying the content with the at least one expression of the viewer; (¶0018, ¶0020) taken by camera of consumer electronics device; (¶0023) a viewer of the CE device may optionally instruct the processor of the CE device to take a picture using the camera on the CE device. Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the system as taught by Small with the metadata association as taught by Sampathkumaran for the benefit of content providers to better determine the viewer reactions to content (¶0003.)
Regarding claim 2, “The information processing apparatus according to claim 1, wherein the processor derives a specific attribute, which is an attribute of a user who tends to prefer the target event among the users who participate in the target event, by statistically analyzing the satisfaction level, and presents the specific attribute as the satisfaction level-related information.” Small teaches (¶0049 Table 2) generating a user's average engagement level to a viewed program may be displayed as a list of the user's engagement levels to each program episode viewed by the user; (¶0052-¶0053) computing device 12 may receive personalized content related to a viewed program, for one or more users, based on the user-specific reports, from the content providers or advertisers; (¶0054 and ¶0075) for multiple users
Regarding claim 4, “The information processing apparatus according to claim 2, wherein the processor presents, in addition to the specific attribute, a set attribute, which is an attribute of the user set by the organizer in the target event, as the satisfaction level-related information.” Small teaches (¶0037, ¶0053) taking into account the user’s demographics (e.g., age group 30-35).
Regarding claim 6, “The information processing apparatus according to claim 1, wherein the processor presents information in which the satisfaction level and the attribute of the user are associated with each other, as the satisfaction level-related information.” Small teaches (¶0037, ¶0052-¶0053) taking into account the user’s demographics (e.g., age group 30-35).
Regarding claim 8, “The information processing apparatus according to claim 1, wherein the processor derives the satisfaction level based on an analysis result of an expression of a person appearing in the image.” Small teaches (¶0038, ¶0040-¶0045, ¶0073, ¶0079-¶0080) The mobile computing device may determine a user's response to multimedia content being viewed by the user by tracking the user's movements, gestures, postures and facial expressions via a camera.
Regarding claim 9, “The information processing apparatus according to claim 1, wherein the processor derives the satisfaction level for at least any one of an imaging location or an imaging time slot of the image in the target event.” Small teaches (Table 1 and Table 2, ¶0043, ¶0047, ¶0049) for a certain time interval/program.
Regarding claim 10, its rejection is similar to claim 1.
Regarding claim 11, its rejection is similar to claim 1.
Claim(s) 3 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Small and Sampathkumaran in view of Tischer et al. (US 20070271580, hereinafter Tischer.)
Regarding claim 3, Small and Sampathkumaran do not teach “The information processing apparatus according to claim 2, wherein the processor performs heavier weighting in a case of deriving the specific attribute on an attribute of the user having a higher satisfaction level.” However, Tischer teaches (¶0053, Fig. 13-14) an audience member who supplies information at Block 340 may have a heightened interest in the content that is displayed on the content presentation system. This audience member's demographics may, therefore, be given greater weight than the unknown audience member; (¶0118) attentiveness involves a retinal scan to determine an interest level; (¶0104, ¶0106-¶0107, Fig. 13-14) the attentiveness of various individual audience members may be classified as being high or low, and the content presentation device may be controlled based strongly on the audience members having relatively high attentiveness and based weakly on the audience members having low attentiveness. Stated differently, the demographics and/or preferences of those audience members having relatively low attentiveness may be given little or no weight in controlling the content. In still other embodiments, the demographics of the plurality of unknown members may be weighted differently based on the individual attentiveness of the plurality of unknown audience members. Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the system as taught by Small and Sampathkumaran with the heavier weighting as taught by Tischer for the benefit of better catering the content towards the engaged audience.
Claim(s) 5 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Small and Sampathkumaran in view of Roberts et al. (US 20080155588, hereinafter Roberts.)
Regarding claim 5, Small and Sampathkumaran do not teach “The information processing apparatus according to claim 1, wherein the processor derives a first representative satisfaction level, which represents the satisfaction levels of all the users who participate in the target event, and a second representative satisfaction level, which represents the satisfaction level of a user having a set attribute set by the organizer in the target event among the users who participate in the target event, and presents a notification prompting to change the set attribute to the organizer in a case in which the second representative satisfaction level is lower than the first representative satisfaction level, and an absolute value of a difference between the first representative satisfaction level and the second representative satisfaction level satisfies a threshold value condition set in advance.” However, Roberts teaches (¶0121) the user demographics of actual consumers of media content may be used to qualify media content attribute data (e.g., intended audience) provided by a content producer 125. In some cases, for example, the actual consumer demographic information can be given more weight than the user-provided target audience data. This can improve the accuracy of the system 100 by self-correcting user-provided data that turns out not to be accurate. For example, a content producer 125 may believe that a particular one of his media content instances is targeted to a first demographic of consumers 135, but actual requests for the media content instance may indicate that a second demographic of consumers 135 is more interested in the media content instance. With the demographic data for the actual consumers 135 of the media content instance, the content host subsystem 110 may account for actual distribution patterns and associated demographic data when matching advertising content to the media content instance. Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the system as taught by Small and Sampathkumaran with the demographic correction as taught by Roberts for the benefit of better knowing the target audience thus catering the content/additional content towards the engaged audience.
Claim(s) 7 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Small and Sampathkumaran in view of Katz et al. (US 20180084310, hereinafter Katz.)
Regarding claim 7, Small and Sampathkumaran do not teach “The information processing apparatus according to claim 1, wherein the processor derives the satisfaction level based on a condition related to an image-related evaluation value, which is at least any one of the number of the captured images, the number of times of reproduction of the image, or the number of posts of the image.” However, Wheatley teaches (¶0030, ¶0043-¶0045, ¶0047) engagement level for a given post, video, or photo on social media may be taken into account in determining a media value associated with the post, video, or photo. Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the system as taught by Small and Sampathkumaran with the determining engagement based on social media as taught by Katz for the benefit of measuring popularity of the content and better understanding its audience.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Kamhi et al. (US 20130243270) – (¶0011) During presentation of the media, the various sensors may capture particular attributes of the user, including, but not limited to, physical characteristics indicative of user interest and/or attentiveness to subject matter of the media being presented. The system may be configured to determine the interest level of the user based on the captured user attributes; (¶0061) The operations include receiving an image of a user, detecting a facial region in the image of the user, identifying one or more user characteristics of the user in the image, the one or more user characteristics are associated with corresponding subject matter of the media, identifying at least one of a plurality of scenarios associated with media for presentation to the user based, at least in part, on the identified one or more user characteristics and providing the at least one identified scenario for presentation to the user.
Alcantara et al. (US 20200145620) - (¶0100) Each display window 305 includes text 317 derived from metadata associated with the event, which identifies, for example, the type of event comprised in the video stream, a priority level assigned to the event, a location of camera 108 that captured or is associated with the event, as well as a timestamp associated with a current image being shown in display window 305
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.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to FRANK J JOHNSON whose telephone number is (571)272-9629. The examiner can normally be reached 9:00AM-3:00PM EST.
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, Brian T. Pendleton can be reached on 571-272-7527. 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.
/Frank Johnson/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2425
Prosecution Insights