DETAILED ACTION
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 office action is in response to communications filed 12/8/2023. Claims 11, 13, and 15 are cancelled. Claims 1-10, 12, 14, and 16-23 are pending in this action.
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.
Claims 1-2, 7-8, 12, 14, 16, 19 and 22 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Spitz et al. (US20150074710, hereinafter Spitz) in view of Jo (US20200125600, hereinafter Jo). ** Spitz incorporates by reference (US8769053, hereinafter Spitz ‘053) at [0031]. **
Regarding claims 1, 12 and 14, Spitz discloses an information processing method, comprising:
determining a frame in a target video corresponding to a player (see Spitz, at least at [0044], [0046]-[0048], [0052]-[0053], [0058], Figs. 3, and other related text);
acquiring target prompt information of a prompt object in the frame (see Spitz, at least at [0051], [0058], Figs. 3, and other related text);
determining, based on a playing area of the player, an information prompt area of the prompt object (see Spitz, at least at [0054], and other related text); and
when the player plays the target video to the frame, displaying the target prompt information in the information prompt area (see Spitz, at least at [0051]-[0052], [0054], [0063], Figs. 3, and other related text).
Spitz does not specifically disclose determining a key frame in a target video corresponding to a player.
In an analogous art relating to a system for providing content and information, Jo discloses determining a key frame in a target video corresponding to a player (see Jo, at least at [0025], [0031], [0044]-[0045], [0047], [0052]-[0053], [0055], and other related text);
acquiring target prompt information of a prompt object in the key frame (see Jo, at least at [0025], [0031], [0044]-[0045], [0047], [0052]-[0053], [0055], and other related text); and
displaying the target prompt information in an information prompt area (see Jo, at least at [0025], [0031], [0044]-[0045], [0047], [0052]-[0053], [0055], and other related text).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective date of the invention to modify the system of Spitz to include the limitations as taught by Jo for the advantage of more robustly providing information of content.
Regarding claims 2 and 16, Spitz in view of Jo discloses detecting a playing request initiated by a first user for the target video (see Spitz, at least at [0052], [0054], and other related text);
starting the player for the first user in response to the playing request (see Spitz, at least at [0051]-[0052], and other related text, and see Spitz ‘053, at least at col 16, lines 59-64, and other related text); and
acquiring, from a video server, the target video corresponding to the player, wherein the target video is uploaded to the video server by a second user terminal of a second user (see Spitz ‘053, at least at col 4, lines 1-18, col 16, lines 59-64, col 17, lines 57-67, and other related text).
Regarding claims 7, 19, and 22, Spitz in view of Jo discloses wherein determining the information prompt area of the prompt object based on the playing area of the player comprises:
determining the information prompt area of the prompt object at a predetermined position of the playing area of the player according to a predetermined shape and size (see spitz, at least at [0054], [0069], Figs. 3, and other related text).
Regarding claim 8, Spitz in view of Jo discloses determining an object prompt area of the prompt object in the playing area of the player (see Jo, at least at [0052], Fig. 7, and other related text); and when the player plays the target video to the key frame, displaying the target prompt information in the information prompt area, comprises:
when the player plays the target video to the key frame, displaying the object prompt area (see Jo, at least at [0052], Fig. 7, and other related text), and displaying the target prompt information in the information prompt area (see Jo, at least at [0052], Fig. 7, and other related text).
Claims 3-4 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Spitz (previously cited) in view of Jo (previously cited), as applied to claims 1-2 above, and further in view of McIntire et al. (US20070250901, hereinafter McIntire).
Regarding claim 3, Spitz in view of Jo discloses wherein acquiring the target prompt information of the prompt object in the key frame comprises:
identifying the prompt object in the key frame (see Jo, at least at [0044]-[0045], and other related text); and
acquiring the target prompt information (see Spitz, at least at [0051]-[0052], and related text, and see Spitz ‘053, at least at col 10, lines 28-38, and other related text, and see Jo, at least at [0047]-[0048], and other related text), but does not specifically disclose the target prompt information being preset by the second user for the prompt object, wherein the target prompt information is provided when the second user uploads the target video by means of the second user terminal.
In an analogous art relating to a system for providing content and information, McIntire discloses target prompt information being preset by a second user for a prompt object (see McIntire, at least at [0070], [0076], and other related text), wherein the target prompt information is provided when the second user uploads the target video by means of the second user terminal (see McIntire, at least at [0157]-[0158], and other related text).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective date of the invention to modify the system of Spitz in view of Jo to include the limitations as taught by McIntire for the advantage of more robustly providing information of content.
Regarding claim 4, Spitz in view of Jo, and further in view of McIntire discloses
determining an interaction displaying area based on the position of the information prompt area in the playing area of the player (see Spitz, at least at [0059], Fig. 3B, and related text);
acquiring interaction information corresponding to the interaction displaying area (see Spitz, at least at [0059], Fig. 3C, and other related text), wherein the interaction information is obtained by the input of the first user in the interaction displaying area of the first user terminal and/or by the input of the second user in the second user terminal for the interaction displaying area (i.e., user clicks the item, see Spitz, at least at [0059], and other related text); and
when the player plays the target video to the key frame, displaying the target prompt information in the information prompt area, comprises:
when the player plays the target video to the key frame, displaying the target prompt information in the information prompt area, and displaying the interaction information in the interaction displaying area (see Spitz, at least at Fig. 3B, and other related text).
Claims 5, 9, 17, and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Spitz (previously cited) in view of Jo (previously cited), as applied to claims 1, 12, and 14 above, and further in view of Lemmons (US20030028873, hereinafter Lemmons).
Regarding claims 5, 17, and 20, Spitz in view of Jo discloses wherein acquiring the target prompt information of the prompt object in the key frame comprises:
identifying the prompt object in the key frame (see Jo, at least at [0025], [0045], [0051]-[0052], and other related text), but does not specifically disclose searching, from a plurality of candidate objects of an object database, for a target object matching the prompt object, wherein the plurality of candidate objects respectively correspond to object prompt information; and determining the object prompt information of the target object to be the target prompt information of the prompt object.
In an analogous art relating to a system for providing content and information, Lemmons discloses identifying a prompt object (see Lemmons, at least at [0031]-[0033], [0070]-[0072], and other related text);
searching, from a plurality of candidate objects of an object database (see Lemmons, at least at [0032]-[0033], [0049], Fig. 3B, and other related text), for a target object matching the prompt object (see Lemmons, at least at [0032]-[0033], [0049], Fig. 3B, and other related text),
wherein the plurality of candidate objects respectively correspond to object prompt information (see Lemmons, at least at [0031]-[0033], [0070]-[0072], and other related text); and
determining the object prompt information of the target object to be the target prompt information of the prompt object (see Lemmons, at least at [0049], [0074]-[0075], and other related text).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective date of the invention to modify the system of Spitz in view of Jo to include the limitations as taught by Lemmons for the advantage of more robustly providing information of content.
Regarding claim 9, Spitz in view of Jo, and further in view of Lemmons discloses acquiring the prompt object set by a third user for the target video (see Lemmons, at least at [0032]-[0033], [0049], [0070]-[0072], [0074]-[0075], Fig. 3B, and other related text); and
determining the key frame in the target video corresponding to the player comprises:
determining a plurality of image frames in the target video corresponding to the player (see Jo, at least at [0055], and other related text); and
identifying, from the plurality of image frames, the key frame containing the prompt object (see Jo, at least at [0055], and other related text).
Claims 6, 18, and 21 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Spitz (previously cited) in view of Jo (previously cited), as applied to claims 1, 12, and 14 above, and further in view of Moore et al. (US20190362154, hereinafter Moore).
Regarding claims 6, 18, and 21, Spitz in view of Jo discloses wherein acquiring the target prompt information of the prompt object in the key frame comprises receiving the target prompt information sent by the server (see Spitz, at least at [0061]-[0067], but does not specifically disclose sending the key frame to a server, extracting, by the server, object information of the prompt object in the key frame, and searching for the target prompt information matching the object information.
In an analogous art relating to a system for providing information and content, Moore discloses sending a key frame (see Moore, at least at [0016]-[0017], [0020], [0067]-[0068], [0074], and other related text) to a server (see Moore, at least at [0080]-[0081], and other related text), extracting, by the server, object information of the prompt object in the key frame (see Moore, at least at [0016]-[0017], [0020], [0067]-[0068], [0074], [0080]-[0081], [0091], and other related text), and searching for the target prompt information matching the object information (see Moore, at least at [0080]-[0081], and other related text).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective date of the invention to modify the system of Spitz in view of Jo to include the limitations as taught by Moore for the advantage of more robustly providing information of content.
Claims 10 and 23 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Spitz (previously cited) in view of Jo (previously cited), as applied to claims 1 and 14 above, and further in view of Zhang (US20050228849, hereinafter Zhang) and Rav-Acha et al. (US20150015735, hereinafter Rav-Acha).
Regarding claims 10 and 23, Spitz in view of Jo discloses determining the key frame in the target video corresponding to the player, but does not specifically disclose wherein determining the key frame in the target video corresponding to the player comprises:
extracting, from the target video corresponding to the player and as the key frame, an image frame where an object with an occurrence duration exceeding a predetermined time threshold value is located; and the method further comprises:
determining the object with the occurrence duration exceeding the predetermined time threshold value to be the prompt object.
In an analogous art relating to a system for determining meaningful content, Zhang discloses extracting, from target video and as a key frame, an image frame where a meaningful object is located (see Zhang, at least at [0018], [0045], and other related text).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective date of the invention to modify the system of Spitz in view of Jo to include the limitations as taught by Zhang for the advantage of more robustly determining important information.
Spitz in view of Jo, and further in view Zhang does not specifically disclose an object with an occurrence duration exceeding a predetermined time threshold value, and determining the object with the occurrence duration exceeding the predetermined time threshold value to be the prompt object.
In an analogous art relating to a system for determining meaningful occurrences, Rav-Acha discloses an object with an occurrence duration exceeding a predetermined time threshold value (see Rav-Acha, at least at [0014], [0063], [0088], and other related text), and determining the object with the occurrence duration exceeding the predetermined time threshold value to be a prompt object (see Rav-Acha, at least at [0014], [0063], [0088], and other related text).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective date of the invention to modify the system of Spitz in view of Jo, and further in view if Zhang to include the limitations as taught by Rav-Acha for the advantage of more robustly determining important information.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to CHENEA DAVIS whose telephone number is (571)272-9524 and whose email address is CHENEA.SMITH@USPTO.GOV. The examiner can normally be reached M-F: 8:00 am - 4:00 pm.
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, Nathan Flynn can be reached at 571-272-1915. 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.
/CHENEA DAVIS/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2421