DETAILED ACTION
Contents
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status 2
Response to Amendment 2
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101 2
Response to Arguments 3
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103 3
Conclusion 24
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 Amendment
This action is responsive to applicant’s amendment and remarks received on 10/28/25. Claims 1-20 are currently pending.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101
In light of applicant’s amendment of claims 17-20, the previous rejection is withdrawn.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claim(s) 1, 9, 17 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.
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 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 claimedinvention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102 of this title, 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 1 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Tsai et al (Pattern Recognition: “2DVTE: A two-directional videotext extractor for rapid and elaborate design”) in view of Pal et al (PAA: “Context-aware television-internet mash-ups using logo detection and character recognition”).
Regarding claim 1, Tsai discloses a method comprising: receiving content for presentation on a display (see abstract, introduction; we can achieve a real-time system on detecting, localizing, and extracting the scrolling videotexts);
obtaining one or more sample frames of the content (see abstract, introduction; only one frame usage instead of multi-frame integration in other literatures);
generating a set of features based on one or more horizontal edge signals and one or more vertical edge signals of the one or more sample frames (see section 3, abstract; vertical edge map is used to localize the possible text region and horizontal edge map is used to refine the text region). Tsai does not teach utilizing a classification model to classify the set of features with a classification identifying a content channel which the content originates from: and detecting, based on the classification, a region of interest of moving text in the one or more sample frames.
Pal, in the same field of endeavor, teaches utilizing a classification model to classify the set of features with a classification identifying a content channel which the content originates from (see section 3.1.1, 3.1.3, 2.1); and detecting, based on the classification, a region of interest of moving text in the one or more sample frames (see 2.3, 3.3.1-3.3.2, abstract, 2, 3.1).
It would have been obvious (before the effective filing date of the claimed invention) or (at the time the invention was made) to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify Tsai to utilize the cited limitations as suggested by Pal. The suggestion/motivation for doing so would have been to enhance the user experience by allowing mash0up applications based on the context (see abstract). Furthermore, the prior art collectively includes each element claimed (though not all in the same reference), and one of ordinary skill in the art could have combined the elements in the manner explained above using known engineering design, interface and/or programming techniques, without changing a “fundamental” operating principle of Tsai, while the teaching of Pal continues to perform the same function as originally taught prior to being combined, in order to produce the repeatable and predictable result. It is for at least the aforementioned reasons that the examiner has reached a conclusion of obviousness with respect to the claim in question.
Claims 9, 17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Tsai et al (Pattern Recognition: “2DVTE: A two-directional videotext extractor for rapid and elaborate design”) with Caba Heilbron et al (US 2023/0325685 A1), and further in view of Pal et al (PAA: “Context-aware television-internet mash-ups using logo detection and character recognition”).
Regarding claim 9, Tsai teaches a method comprising: receiving content for presentation on a display (see abstract, introduction; we can achieve a real-time system on detecting, localizing, and extracting the scrolling videotexts);
obtaining one or more sample frames of the content (see abstract, introduction; only one frame usage instead of multi-frame integration in other literatures);
generating a set of features based on one or more horizontal edge signals and one or more vertical edge signals of the one or more sample frames (see section 3, abstract; vertical edge map is used to localize the possible text region and horizontal edge map is used to refine the text region).
Tsai does not teach expressly a system comprising: at least one processor; and a non-transitory processor-readable memory device storing instructions that when executed by the at least one processor causes the at least one processor to perform operations including utilizing a classification model to classify the set of features with a classification identifying a content channel which the content originates from: and detecting, based on the classification, a region of interest of moving text in the one or more sample frames.
Caba Heilbron, in the same field of endeavor, teaches a system comprising: at least one processor; and a non-transitory processor-readable memory device storing instructions that when executed by the at least one processor causes the at least one processor to perform operations including (see 0088-0094; Computer readable storage media are stored… As previously described, hardware elements 810 and computer-readable media 806 are representative of modules, programmable device logic and/or fixed device logic implemented in a hardware form that is employed in some embodiments to implement at least some aspects of the techniques described herein, such as to perform one or more instructions. Hardware, in certain implementations, includes components of an integrated circuit).
It would have been obvious (before the effective filing date of the claimed invention) or (at the time the invention was made) to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify Tsai to utilize the cited limitations as suggested by Caba Heilbron. The suggestion/motivation for doing so would have been to accurately classify both video and text in latent space (see 0021). Furthermore, the prior art collectively includes each element claimed (though not all in the same reference), and one of ordinary skill in the art could have combined the elements in the manner explained above using known engineering design, interface and/or programming techniques, without changing a “fundamental” operating principle of Tsai, while the teaching of Caba Heilbron continues to perform the same function as originally taught prior to being combined, in order to produce the repeatable and predictable result. It is for at least the aforementioned reasons that the examiner has reached a conclusion of obviousness with respect to the claim in question.
Pal, in the same field of endeavor, teaches utilizing a classification model to classify the set of features with a classification identifying a content channel which the content originates from (see section 3.1.1, 3.1.3, 2.1); and detecting, based on the classification, a region of interest of moving text in the one or more sample frames (see 2.3, 3.3.1-3.3.2, abstract, 2, 3.1).
It would have been obvious (before the effective filing date of the claimed invention) or (at the time the invention was made) to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify Tsai with Caba Heilbron to utilize the cited limitations as suggested by Pal. The suggestion/motivation for doing so would have been to enhance the user experience by allowing mash0up applications based on the context (see abstract). Furthermore, the prior art collectively includes each element claimed (though not all in the same reference), and one of ordinary skill in the art could have combined the elements in the manner explained above using known engineering design, interface and/or programming techniques, without changing a “fundamental” operating principle of Tsai with Caba Heilbron, while the teaching of Pal continues to perform the same function as originally taught prior to being combined, in order to produce the repeatable and predictable result. It is for at least the aforementioned reasons that the examiner has reached a conclusion of obviousness with respect to the claim in question.
Regarding claim 17, Tsai teaches a method comprising: receiving content for presentation on a display (see abstract, introduction; we can achieve a real-time system on detecting, localizing, and extracting the scrolling videotexts);
obtaining one or more sample frames of the content (see abstract, introduction; only one frame usage instead of multi-frame integration in other literatures);
generating a set of features based on one or more horizontal edge signals and one or more vertical edge signals of the one or more sample frames (see section 3, abstract; vertical edge map is used to localize the possible text region and horizontal edge map is used to refine the text region). .
Tsai does not teach expressly a non-transitory processor-readable medium that includes a program that when executed by a processor performs a method comprising utilizing a classification model to classify the set of features with a classification identifying a content channel which the content originates from: and detecting, based on the classification, a region of interest of moving text in the one or more sample frames.
Caba Heilbron, in the same field of endeavor, teaches a non-transitory processor-readable medium that includes a program that when executed by a processor performs a method comprising (see 0088-0094; Computer readable storage media are stored… As previously described, hardware elements 810 and computer-readable media 806 are representative of modules, programmable device logic and/or fixed device logic implemented in a hardware form that is employed in some embodiments to implement at least some aspects of the techniques described herein, such as to perform one or more instructions. Hardware, in certain implementations, includes components of an integrated circuit).
It would have been obvious (before the effective filing date of the claimed invention) or (at the time the invention was made) to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify Tsai to utilize the cited limitations as suggested by Caba Heilbron. The suggestion/motivation for doing so would have been to accurately classify both video and text in latent space (see 0021). Furthermore, the prior art collectively includes each element claimed (though not all in the same reference), and one of ordinary skill in the art could have combined the elements in the manner explained above using known engineering design, interface and/or programming techniques, without changing a “fundamental” operating principle of Tsai, while the teaching of Caba Heilbron continues to perform the same function as originally taught prior to being combined, in order to produce the repeatable and predictable result. It is for at least the aforementioned reasons that the examiner has reached a conclusion of obviousness with respect to the claim in question.
Pal, in the same field of endeavor, teaches utilizing a classification model to classify the set of features with a classification identifying a content channel which the content originates from (see section 3.1.1, 3.1.3, 2.1); and detecting, based on the classification, a region of interest of moving text in the one or more sample frames (see 2.3, 3.3.1-3.3.2, abstract, 2, 3.1).
It would have been obvious (before the effective filing date of the claimed invention) or (at the time the invention was made) to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify Tsai with Caba Heilbron to utilize the cited limitations as suggested by Pal. The suggestion/motivation for doing so would have been to enhance the user experience by allowing mash0up applications based on the context (see abstract). Furthermore, the prior art collectively includes each element claimed (though not all in the same reference), and one of ordinary skill in the art could have combined the elements in the manner explained above using known engineering design, interface and/or programming techniques, without changing a “fundamental” operating principle of Tsai with Caba Heilbron, while the teaching of Pal continues to perform the same function as originally taught prior to being combined, in order to produce the repeatable and predictable result. It is for at least the aforementioned reasons that the examiner has reached a conclusion of obviousness with respect to the claim in question.
Claim 2 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Tsai et al (Pattern Recognition: “2DVTE: A two-directional videotext extractor for rapid and elaborate design”) with Pal et al (PAA: “Context-aware television-internet mash-ups using logo detection and character recognition”), and further in view of Crandall et al (IJDAR: “Extraction of special effects caption text events from digital video”).
Regarding claim 2, Tsai with Pal teaches all elements as mentioned above in claim 1. Tsai does not teach expressly peak strengths and corresponding positions from averages of normalized values of the following: the one or more vertical edge signals, and ratios of the one or more horizontal edge signals to the one or more vertical edge signals.
Crandall, in the same field of endeavor, teaches peak strengths and corresponding positions from averages of normalized values of the following: the one or more vertical edge signals, and ratios of the one or more horizontal edge signals to the one or more vertical edge signals (see section 2, 3.1).
It would have been obvious (before the effective filing date of the claimed invention) or (at the time the invention was made) to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify Tsai with Pal to utilize the cited limitations as suggested by Crandall. The suggestion/motivation for doing so would have been to help users navigate libraries of video via automatically index video based on content (see abstract). Furthermore, the prior art collectively includes each element claimed (though not all in the same reference), and one of ordinary skill in the art could have combined the elements in the manner explained above using known engineering design, interface and/or programming techniques, without changing a “fundamental” operating principle of Tsai with Pal, while the teaching of Crandall continues to perform the same function as originally taught prior to being combined, in order to produce the repeatable and predictable result. It is for at least the aforementioned reasons that the examiner has reached a conclusion of obviousness with respect to the claim in question.
Claim 3 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Tsai et al (Pattern Recognition: “2DVTE: A two-directional videotext extractor for rapid and elaborate design”) with Pal et al (PAA: “Context-aware television-internet mash-ups using logo detection and character recognition”), and further in view of Xu et al (SPIC: “End-to-end subtitle detection and recognition for videos in East Asian languages via CNN ensemble”).
Regarding claim 3, Tsai with Pal teaches all elements as mentioned above in claim 1. Tsai does not teach expressly learn different sets of features indicative of where and how moving text is displayed by a plurality of different content channels.
Xu, in the same field of endeavor, teaches learn different sets of features indicative of where and how moving text is displayed by a plurality of different content channels (see abstract, 3.2, 3.1).
It would have been obvious (before the effective filing date of the claimed invention) or (at the time the invention was made) to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify Tsai with Pal to utilize the cited limitations as suggested by Xu The suggestion/motivation for doing so would have been to enhance the accuracy of detection of text within videos (see abstract). Furthermore, the prior art collectively includes each element claimed (though not all in the same reference), and one of ordinary skill in the art could have combined the elements in the manner explained above using known engineering design, interface and/or programming techniques, without changing a “fundamental” operating principle of Tsai with Pal, while the teaching of Xu continues to perform the same function as originally taught prior to being combined, in order to produce the repeatable and predictable result. It is for at least the aforementioned reasons that the examiner has reached a conclusion of obviousness with respect to the claim in question.
Claim 4 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Tsai et al (Pattern Recognition: “2DVTE: A two-directional videotext extractor for rapid and elaborate design”) with Pal et al (PAA: “Context-aware television-internet mash-ups using logo detection and character recognition”), and further in view of Droettboom (Digital Knowledge center: “Correcting broken characters in the recognition of historical printed documents”).
Regarding claim 4, Tsai with Pal teaches all elements as mentioned above in claim 1. Tsai with Pal does not teach expressly correcting one or more visual artifacts in the region of interest, wherein the one or more visual artifacts include broken text.
Droettboom, in the same field of endeavor, teaches correcting one or more visual artifacts in the region of interest, wherein the one or more visual artifacts include broken text (see abstract, section 1, 3).
It would have been obvious (before the effective filing date of the claimed invention) or (at the time the invention was made) to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify Tsai with Pal to utilize the cited limitations as suggested by Droettboom. The suggestion/motivation for doing so would have been to robustly identify broken characters in older documents (see introduction). Furthermore, the prior art collectively includes each element claimed (though not all in the same reference), and one of ordinary skill in the art could have combined the elements in the manner explained above using known engineering design, interface and/or programming techniques, without changing a “fundamental” operating principle of Tsai with Pal, while the teaching of Droettboom continues to perform the same function as originally taught prior to being combined, in order to produce the repeatable and predictable result. It is for at least the aforementioned reasons that the examiner has reached a conclusion of obviousness with respect to the claim in question.
Claim 5 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Tsai et al (Pattern Recognition: “2DVTE: A two-directional videotext extractor for rapid and elaborate design”) with Pal et al (PAA: “Context-aware television-internet mash-ups using logo detection and character recognition”), and further in view of Katz et al (US 10,430,662 B2).
Regarding claim 5, Tsai with Pal teaches all elements as mentioned above in claim 1. Tsai with Pal does not teach expressly classification model is trained offline.
Katz, in the same field of endeavor, teaches classification model is trained offline (see col. 21, lines 45-col. 22, lines 8).
It would have been obvious (before the effective filing date of the claimed invention) or (at the time the invention was made) to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify Tsai with Pal to utilize the cited limitations as suggested by Katz. The suggestion/motivation for doing so would have been to identify a video segment via fingerprint so that an overall media value of brand can be determined (see col. 3, lines 15-55). Furthermore, the prior art collectively includes each element claimed (though not all in the same reference), and one of ordinary skill in the art could have combined the elements in the manner explained above using known engineering design, interface and/or programming techniques, without changing a “fundamental” operating principle of Tsai with Pal, while the teaching of Katz continues to perform the same function as originally taught prior to being combined, in order to produce the repeatable and predictable result. It is for at least the aforementioned reasons that the examiner has reached a conclusion of obviousness with respect to the claim in question.
Claim 6 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Tsai et al (Pattern Recognition: “2DVTE: A two-directional videotext extractor for rapid and elaborate design”) with Pal et al (PAA: “Context-aware television-internet mash-ups using logo detection and character recognition”), and further in view of Ho (US 6,009,199).
Regarding claim 6, Tsai with Pal teaches all elements as mentioned above in claim 1. Tsai with Pal does not teach expressly classification model comprises a decision tree.
Ho, in the same field of endeavor, teaches classification model comprises a decision tree (see abstract).
It would have been obvious (before the effective filing date of the claimed invention) or (at the time the invention was made) to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify Tsai with Pal to utilize the cited limitations as suggested by Ho. The suggestion/motivation for doing so would have been to enhance the detection accuracies (see col. 2, lines 40-60). Furthermore, the prior art collectively includes each element claimed (though not all in the same reference), and one of ordinary skill in the art could have combined the elements in the manner explained above using known engineering design, interface and/or programming techniques, without changing a “fundamental” operating principle of Tsai with Pal, while the teaching of Ho continues to perform the same function as originally taught prior to being combined, in order to produce the repeatable and predictable result. It is for at least the aforementioned reasons that the examiner has reached a conclusion of obviousness with respect to the claim in question.
Claim 7 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Tsai et al (Pattern Recognition: “2DVTE: A two-directional videotext extractor for rapid and elaborate design”) with Pal et al (PAA: “Context-aware television-internet mash-ups using logo detection and character recognition”), and further in view of Guillou et al (US 8,320,674 B2).
Regarding claim 7, Tsai with Pal teaches all elements as mentioned above in claim 1. Tsai with Pal does not teach expressly classification model comprises a neural network.
Guillou, in the same field of endeavor, teaches classification model comprises a neural network (see col. 4, lines 65-col. 5, lines 10).
It would have been obvious (before the effective filing date of the claimed invention) or (at the time the invention was made) to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify Tsai with Pal to utilize the cited limitations as suggested by Guillou. The suggestion/motivation for doing so would have been to accurately recognize low resolution text (see col. 4, lines 35-45). Furthermore, the prior art collectively includes each element claimed (though not all in the same reference), and one of ordinary skill in the art could have combined the elements in the manner explained above using known engineering design, interface and/or programming techniques, without changing a “fundamental” operating principle of Tsai with Pal, while the teaching of Guillou continues to perform the same function as originally taught prior to being combined, in order to produce the repeatable and predictable result. It is for at least the aforementioned reasons that the examiner has reached a conclusion of obviousness with respect to the claim in question.
Claim 8 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Tsai et al (Pattern Recognition: “2DVTE: A two-directional videotext extractor for rapid and elaborate design”) with Pal et al (PAA: “Context-aware television-internet mash-ups using logo detection and character recognition”), and further in view of Xu et al (CV: “End-to-End Subtitle Detection and Recognition for Videos in East Asian Languages via CNN Ensemble with Near-Human-Level Performance”).
Regarding claim 8, Tsai with Pal teaches all elements as mentioned above in claim 1. Tsai with Pal does not teach expressly an image patch segmented from a middle bottom of a subsampled grayscale image of the content.
Xu, in the same field of endeavor, teaches an image patch segmented from a middle bottom of a subsampled grayscale image of the content (see abstract).
It would have been obvious (before the effective filing date of the claimed invention) or (at the time the invention was made) to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify Tsai with Pal to utilize the cited limitations as suggested by Xu. The suggestion/motivation for doing so would have been to enhance the detection of subtitles with high accuracy (see abstract). Furthermore, the prior art collectively includes each element claimed (though not all in the same reference), and one of ordinary skill in the art could have combined the elements in the manner explained above using known engineering design, interface and/or programming techniques, without changing a “fundamental” operating principle of Tsai with Pal, while the teaching of Xu continues to perform the same function as originally taught prior to being combined, in order to produce the repeatable and predictable result. It is for at least the aforementioned reasons that the examiner has reached a conclusion of obviousness with respect to the claim in question.
Claim 10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Tsai et al (Pattern Recognition: “2DVTE: A two-directional videotext extractor for rapid and elaborate design”) with Caba Heilbron et al (US 2023/0325685 A1) with Pal et al (PAA: “Context-aware television-internet mash-ups using logo detection and character recognition”), and further in view of Crandall et al (IJDAR: “Extraction of special effects caption text events from digital video”).
Regarding claim 10, Tsai, Caba Heilbron with Pal teaches all elements as mentioned above in claim 9. Tsai, Caba Heilbron with Pal does not teach expressly peak strengths and corresponding positions from averages of normalized values of the following: the one or more vertical edge signals, and ratios of the one or more horizontal edge signals to the one or more vertical edge signals.
Crandall, in the same field of endeavor, teaches peak strengths and corresponding positions from averages of normalized values of the following: the one or more vertical edge signals, and ratios of the one or more horizontal edge signals to the one or more vertical edge signals (see section 2, 3.1).
It would have been obvious (before the effective filing date of the claimed invention) or (at the time the invention was made) to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify Tsai, Caba Heilbron with Pal to utilize the cited limitations as suggested by Crandall. The suggestion/motivation for doing so would have been to help users navigate libraries of video via automatically index video based on content (see abstract). Furthermore, the prior art collectively includes each element claimed (though not all in the same reference), and one of ordinary skill in the art could have combined the elements in the manner explained above using known engineering design, interface and/or programming techniques, without changing a “fundamental” operating principle of Tsai, Caba Heilbron with Pal, while the teaching of Crandall continues to perform the same function as originally taught prior to being combined, in order to produce the repeatable and predictable result. It is for at least the aforementioned reasons that the examiner has reached a conclusion of obviousness with respect to the claim in question.
Claim 11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Tsai et al (Pattern Recognition: “2DVTE: A two-directional videotext extractor for rapid and elaborate design”) with Caba Heilbron et al (US 2023/0325685 A1) with Pal et al (PAA: “Context-aware television-internet mash-ups using logo detection and character recognition”), and further in view of Xu et al (SPIC: “End-to-end subtitle detection and recognition for videos in East Asian languages via CNN ensemble”).
Regarding claim 11, Tsai, Caba Heilbron with Pal teaches all elements as mentioned above in claim 9. Tsai, Caba Heilbron with Pal does not teach learn different sets of features indicative of where and how moving text is displayed by a plurality of different content channels.
Xu, in the same field of endeavor, teaches learn different sets of features indicative of where and how moving text is displayed by a plurality of different content channels (see abstract, 3.2, 3.1).
It would have been obvious (before the effective filing date of the claimed invention) or (at the time the invention was made) to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify Tsai, Caba Heilbron with Pal to utilize the cited limitations as suggested by Xu The suggestion/motivation for doing so would have been to enhance the accuracy of detection of text within videos (see abstract). Furthermore, the prior art collectively includes each element claimed (though not all in the same reference), and one of ordinary skill in the art could have combined the elements in the manner explained above using known engineering design, interface and/or programming techniques, without changing a “fundamental” operating principle of Tsai, Caba Heilbron with Pal, while the teaching of Xu continues to perform the same function as originally taught prior to being combined, in order to produce the repeatable and predictable result. It is for at least the aforementioned reasons that the examiner has reached a conclusion of obviousness with respect to the claim in question.
Claim 12 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Tsai et al (Pattern Recognition: “2DVTE: A two-directional videotext extractor for rapid and elaborate design”) with Caba Heilbron et al (US 2023/0325685 A1) with Pal et al (PAA: “Context-aware television-internet mash-ups using logo detection and character recognition”), and further in view of Droettboom (Digital Knowledge center: “Correcting broken characters in the recognition of historical printed documents”).
Regarding claim 12, Tsai, Caba Heilbron with Pal teaches all elements as mentioned above in claim 9. Tsai, Caba Heilbron with Pal does not teach expressly correcting one or more visual artifacts in the region of interest, wherein the one or more visual artifacts include broken text.
Droettboom, in the same field of endeavor, teaches correcting one or more visual artifacts in the region of interest, wherein the one or more visual artifacts include broken text (see abstract, section 1, 3).
It would have been obvious (before the effective filing date of the claimed invention) or (at the time the invention was made) to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify Tsai, Caba Heilbron with Pal to utilize the cited limitations as suggested by Droettboom. The suggestion/motivation for doing so would have been to robustly identify broken characters in older documents (see introduction). Furthermore, the prior art collectively includes each element claimed (though not all in the same reference), and one of ordinary skill in the art could have combined the elements in the manner explained above using known engineering design, interface and/or programming techniques, without changing a “fundamental” operating principle of Tsai, Caba Heilbron with Pal, while the teaching of Droettboom continues to perform the same function as originally taught prior to being combined, in order to produce the repeatable and predictable result. It is for at least the aforementioned reasons that the examiner has reached a conclusion of obviousness with respect to the claim in question.
Claim 13 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Tsai et al (Pattern Recognition: “2DVTE: A two-directional videotext extractor for rapid and elaborate design”) with Caba Heilbron et al (US 2023/0325685 A1) with Pal et al (PAA: “Context-aware television-internet mash-ups using logo detection and character recognition”), and further in view of Katz et al (US 10,430,662 B2).
Regarding claim 13, Tsai, Caba Heilbron with Pal teaches all elements as mentioned above in claim 9. Tsai, Caba Heilbron with Pal does not teach expressly classification model is trained offline.
Katz, in the same field of endeavor, teaches classification model is trained offline (see col. 21, lines 45-col. 22, lines 8).
It would have been obvious (before the effective filing date of the claimed invention) or (at the time the invention was made) to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify Tsai, Caba Heilbron with Pal to utilize the cited limitations as suggested by Katz. The suggestion/motivation for doing so would have been to identify a video segment via fingerprint so that an overall media value of brand can be determined (see col. 3, lines 15-55). Furthermore, the prior art collectively includes each element claimed (though not all in the same reference), and one of ordinary skill in the art could have combined the elements in the manner explained above using known engineering design, interface and/or programming techniques, without changing a “fundamental” operating principle of Tsai, Caba Heilbron with Pal, while the teaching of Katz continues to perform the same function as originally taught prior to being combined, in order to produce the repeatable and predictable result. It is for at least the aforementioned reasons that the examiner has reached a conclusion of obviousness with respect to the claim in question.
Claim 14 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Tsai et al (Pattern Recognition: “2DVTE: A two-directional videotext extractor for rapid and elaborate design”) with Caba Heilbron et al (US 2023/0325685 A1), with Pal et al (PAA: “Context-aware television-internet mash-ups using logo detection and character recognition”), and further in view of Ho (US 6,009,199).
Regarding claim 14, Tsai, Caba Heilbron with Pal teaches all elements as mentioned above in claim 9. Tsai, Caba Heilbron with Pal does not teach expressly classification model comprises a decision tree.
Ho, in the same field of endeavor, teaches classification model comprises a decision tree (see abstract).
It would have been obvious (before the effective filing date of the claimed invention) or (at the time the invention was made) to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify Tsai, Caba Heilbron with Pal to utilize the cited limitations as suggested by Ho. The suggestion/motivation for doing so would have been to enhance the detection accuracies (see col. 2, lines 40-60). Furthermore, the prior art collectively includes each element claimed (though not all in the same reference), and one of ordinary skill in the art could have combined the elements in the manner explained above using known engineering design, interface and/or programming techniques, without changing a “fundamental” operating principle of Tsai, Caba Heilbron with Pal, while the teaching of Ho continues to perform the same function as originally taught prior to being combined, in order to produce the repeatable and predictable result. It is for at least the aforementioned reasons that the examiner has reached a conclusion of obviousness with respect to the claim in question.
Claim 15 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Tsai et al (Pattern Recognition: “2DVTE: A two-directional videotext extractor for rapid and elaborate design”) with Caba Heilbron et al (US 2023/0325685 A1) with Pal et al (PAA: “Context-aware television-internet mash-ups using logo detection and character recognition”), and further in view of Guillou et al (US 8,320,674 B2).
Regarding claim 15, Tsai, Caba Heilbron with Pal teaches all elements as mentioned above in claim 9. Tsai, Caba Heilbron with Pal does not teach expressly classification model comprises a neural network.
Guillou, in the same field of endeavor, teaches classification model comprises a neural network (see col. 4, lines 65-col. 5, lines 10).
It would have been obvious (before the effective filing date of the claimed invention) or (at the time the invention was made) to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify Tsai, Caba Heilbron with Pal to utilize the cited limitations as suggested by Guillou. The suggestion/motivation for doing so would have been to accurately recognize low resolution text (see col. 4, lines 35-45). Furthermore, the prior art collectively includes each element claimed (though not all in the same reference), and one of ordinary skill in the art could have combined the elements in the manner explained above using known engineering design, interface and/or programming techniques, without changing a “fundamental” operating principle of Tsai, Caba Heilbron with Pal, while the teaching of Guillou continues to perform the same function as originally taught prior to being combined, in order to produce the repeatable and predictable result. It is for at least the aforementioned reasons that the examiner has reached a conclusion of obviousness with respect to the claim in question.
Claim 16 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Tsai et al (Pattern Recognition: “2DVTE: A two-directional videotext extractor for rapid and elaborate design”) with Caba Heilbron et al (US 2023/0325685 A1) with Pal et al (PAA: “Context-aware television-internet mash-ups using logo detection and character recognition”), and further in view of Xu et al (CV: “End-to-End Subtitle Detection and Recognition for Videos in East Asian Languages via CNN Ensemble with Near-Human-Level Performance”).
Regarding claim 16, Tsai, Caba Heilbron with Pal teaches all elements as mentioned above in claim 9. Tsai, Caba Heilbron with Pal does not teach expressly an image patch segmented from a middle bottom of a subsampled grayscale image of the content.
Xu, in the same field of endeavor, teaches an image patch segmented from a middle bottom of a subsampled grayscale image of the content (see abstract).
It would have been obvious (before the effective filing date of the claimed invention) or (at the time the invention was made) to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify Tsai, Caba Heilbron with Pal to utilize the cited limitations as suggested by Xu. The suggestion/motivation for doing so would have been to enhance the detection of subtitles with high accuracy (see abstract). Furthermore, the prior art collectively includes each element claimed (though not all in the same reference), and one of ordinary skill in the art could have combined the elements in the manner explained above using known engineering design, interface and/or programming techniques, without changing a “fundamental” operating principle of Tsai, Caba Heilbron with Pal, while the teaching of Xu continues to perform the same function as originally taught prior to being combined, in order to produce the repeatable and predictable result. It is for at least the aforementioned reasons that the examiner has reached a conclusion of obviousness with respect to the claim in question.
Claim 18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Tsai et al (Pattern Recognition: “2DVTE: A two-directional videotext extractor for rapid and elaborate design”) with Caba Heilbron et al (US 2023/0325685 A1) with Pal et al (PAA: “Context-aware television-internet mash-ups using logo detection and character recognition”), and further in view of Crandall et al (IJDAR: “Extraction of special effects caption text events from digital video”).
Regarding claim 18, Tsai, Caba Heilbron with Pal teaches all elements as mentioned above in claim 17. Tsai, Caba Heilbron with Pal does not teach expressly peak strengths and corresponding positions from averages of normalized values of the following: the one or more vertical edge signals, and ratios of the one or more horizontal edge signals to the one or more vertical edge signals.
Crandall, in the same field of endeavor, teaches peak strengths and corresponding positions from averages of normalized values of the following: the one or more vertical edge signals, and ratios of the one or more horizontal edge signals to the one or more vertical edge signals (see section 2, 3.1).
It would have been obvious (before the effective filing date of the claimed invention) or (at the time the invention was made) to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify Tsai, Caba Heilbron with Pal to utilize the cited limitations as suggested by Crandall. The suggestion/motivation for doing so would have been to help users navigate libraries of video via automatically index video based on content (see abstract). Furthermore, the prior art collectively includes each element claimed (though not all in the same reference), and one of ordinary skill in the art could have combined the elements in the manner explained above using known engineering design, interface and/or programming techniques, without changing a “fundamental” operating principle of Tsai, Caba Heilbron with Pal, while the teaching of Crandall continues to perform the same function as originally taught prior to being combined, in order to produce the repeatable and predictable result. It is for at least the aforementioned reasons that the examiner has reached a conclusion of obviousness with respect to the claim in question.
Claim 19 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Tsai et al (Pattern Recognition: “2DVTE: A two-directional videotext extractor for rapid and elaborate design”) with Caba Heilbron et al (US 2023/0325685 A1) with Pal et al (PAA: “Context-aware television-internet mash-ups using logo detection and character recognition”), and further in view of Droettboom (Digital Knowledge center: “Correcting broken characters in the recognition of historical printed documents”).
Regarding claim 19, Tsai, Caba Heilbron with Pal teaches all elements as mentioned above in claim 17. Tsai, Caba Heilbron with Pal does not teach expressly correcting one or more visual artifacts in the region of interest, wherein the one or more visual artifacts include broken text.
Droettboom, in the same field of endeavor, teaches correcting one or more visual artifacts in the region of interest, wherein the one or more visual artifacts include broken text (see abstract, section 1, 3).
It would have been obvious (before the effective filing date of the claimed invention) or (at the time the invention was made) to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify Tsai, Caba Heilbron with Pal to utilize the cited limitations as suggested by Droettboom. The suggestion/motivation for doing so would have been to robustly identify broken characters in older documents (see introduction). Furthermore, the prior art collectively includes each element claimed (though not all in the same reference), and one of ordinary skill in the art could have combined the elements in the manner explained above using known engineering design, interface and/or programming techniques, without changing a “fundamental” operating principle of Tsai, Caba Heilbron with Pal, while the teaching of Droettboom continues to perform the same function as originally taught prior to being combined, in order to produce the repeatable and predictable result. It is for at least the aforementioned reasons that the examiner has reached a conclusion of obviousness with respect to the claim in question.
Claim 20 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Tsai et al (Pattern Recognition: “2DVTE: A two-directional videotext extractor for rapid and elaborate design”) with Caba Heilbron et al (US 2023/0325685 A1) with Pal et al (PAA: “Context-aware television-internet mash-ups using logo detection and character recognition”), and further in view of Katz et al (US 10,430,662 B2).
Regarding claim 20, Tsai, Caba Heilbron with Pal teaches all elements as mentioned above in claim 17. Tsai, Caba Heilbron with Pal does not teach expressly classification model is trained offline.
Katz, in the same field of endeavor, teaches classification model is trained offline (see col. 21, lines 45-col. 22, lines 8).
It would have been obvious (before the effective filing date of the claimed invention) or (at the time the invention was made) to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify Tsai, Caba Heilbron with Pal to utilize the cited limitations as suggested by Katz. The suggestion/motivation for doing so would have been to identify a video segment via fingerprint so that an overall media value of brand can be determined (see col. 3, lines 15-55). Furthermore, the prior art collectively includes each element claimed (though not all in the same reference), and one of ordinary skill in the art could have combined the elements in the manner explained above using known engineering design, interface and/or programming techniques, without changing a “fundamental” operating principle of Tsai, Caba Heilbron with Pal, while the teaching of Katz continues to perform the same function as originally taught prior to being combined, in order to produce the repeatable and predictable result. It is for at least the aforementioned reasons that the examiner has reached a conclusion of obviousness with respect to the claim in question.
Conclusion
Claims 1-20 are rejected.
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 EDWARD PARK. The examiner’s contact information is as follows:
Telephone: (571)270-1576 | Fax: 571.270.2576 | Edward.Park@uspto.gov
For email communications, please notate MPEP 502.03, which outlines procedures pertaining to communications via the internet and authorization. A sample authorization form is cited within MPEP 502.03, section II.
The examiner can normally be reached on M-F 9-6 CST.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Andrew Moyer, can be reached on (571) 272-9523. 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.
/EDWARD PARK/
Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2666