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 Objections
1. Claims 4, 19 and 27 are objected to because of the following informalities:
Claims 4, 19 and 27 recite the phrase “if the radio is less than the first threshold” but should be “if the ratio is less than the first threshold”.
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101
2. 35 U.S.C. 101 reads as follows:
Whoever invents or discovers any new and useful process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter, or any new and useful improvement thereof, may obtain a patent therefor, subject to the conditions and requirements of this title.
3. Claim 1 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more. The claim recite(s) the limitations obtaining a live stream image of a live streamer during live streaming, and determining a live scene of the live streamer according to the live stream image, the live scene including a far-field scene and a near-field scene; in response to a change of the live scene, switching audio input and output of a live streaming device according to the change of the live scene.
The obtaining a live stream image, determining a live stream scene, and switching audio input or output based on scene change as drafted are processes that, under their broadest reasonable interpretation covers performances of the limitations in the mind. If a claim limitation covers performances of the limitation in the mind, then it falls within the “Mental Processes” grouping of abstract ideas. Accordingly, the claim recites an abstract idea.
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application because Claim 1 recites no additional element which imposes any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea.
The claim(s) does/do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. As discussed above with respect to integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, Claim 1 recites no additional elements other than the mental processes recited and does not provide an inventive concept. The Claim is not patent eligible.
Claim 2 rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more. The claim(s) recite(s) the limitations obtaining a first recognition result by recognizing the live stream image, wherein the first recognition result is used to characterize a correlation between a first human feature of the live streamer in the live stream image and a second human feature of the live streamer in a real scene; determining the live scene according to the correlation.
The obtaining a first recognition result used to characterize a correlation between a first human feature and a second human feature, and determining the live scene according to the correlation, under their broadest reasonable interpretation covers performances of the limitations in the mind. If a claim limitation covers performances of the limitation in the mind, then it falls within the “Mental Processes” grouping of abstract ideas. Accordingly, the claim recites an abstract idea.
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application because Claim 2 recites no additional element which imposes any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea.
The claim(s) does/do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. As discussed above with respect to integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, Claim 2 recites no additional elements other than the mental processes recited and does not provide an inventive concept. The Claim is not patent eligible.
Claim 3 rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more. The claim(s) recite(s) the limitation the correlation characterizes a ratio of the first human feature to the second human feature.
The correlation of a ratio of the first and second human feature under their broadest reasonable interpretation covers performance of the limitation in the mind. If a claim limitation covers performance of the limitation in the mind, then it falls within the “Mental Processes” grouping of abstract ideas. Accordingly, the claim recites an abstract idea.
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application because Claim 3 recites no additional element which imposes any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea.
The claim(s) does/do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. As discussed above with respect to integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, Claim 3 recites no additional elements other than the mental processes recited and does not provide an inventive concept. The Claim is not patent eligible.
Claim 4 rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more. The claim(s) recite(s) the limitations if the ratio is greater than a preset first threshold, the live scene is a far-field scene; if the ratio is less than the first threshold, the live scene is a near-field scene.
The observation of if the ratio is greater or less than a threshold to indicate a far-field or near-field scene under their broadest reasonable interpretation covers performance of the limitations in the mind. If a claim limitation covers performance of the limitation in the mind, then it falls within the “Mental Processes” grouping of abstract ideas. Accordingly, the claim recites an abstract idea.
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application because Claim 4 recites no additional element which imposes any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea.
The claim(s) does/do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. As discussed above with respect to integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, Claim 4 recites no additional elements other than the mental processes recited and does not provide an inventive concept. The Claim is not patent eligible.
Claim 5 rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more. The claim(s) recite(s) the limitations if the change of the live scene is changing from the near-field scene to the far-field scene, switching audio input and output of a live streaming device according to the change of the live scene comprises: switching the audio input of the live streaming device to a microphone input of the live streaming device, and switching the audio output of the live streaming device to an external output of the live streaming device.
The switching of audio input and output of a live stream due to a change in the scene under its broadest reasonable interpretation covers performance of the limitation in the mind. If a claim limitation covers performance of the limitation in the mind, then it falls within the “Mental Processes” grouping of abstract ideas. Accordingly, the claim recites an abstract idea.
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application because Claim 5 recites no additional element which imposes any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea.
The claim(s) does/do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. As discussed above with respect to integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, Claim 5 recites no additional elements other than the mental processes recited and does not provide an inventive concept. The Claim is not patent eligible.
Claim 6 rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more. The claim(s) recite(s) the limitations switching the audio input of the live streaming device to a microphone input of a headphone connected to the live streaming device, and switching the audio output of the live streaming device to an output of the headphone.
The switching of audio input and output of a live stream due to a change in the scene under its broadest reasonable interpretation covers performance of the limitation in the mind. If a claim limitation covers performance of the limitation in the mind, then it falls within the “Mental Processes” grouping of abstract ideas. Accordingly, the claim recites an abstract idea.
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application because Claim 6 recites no additional element which imposes any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea.
The claim(s) does/do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. As discussed above with respect to integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, Claim 6 recites no additional elements other than the mental processes recited and does not provide an inventive concept. The Claim is not patent eligible.
Claim 7 rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more. The claim(s) recite(s) the limitations obtaining a second recognition result by recognizing the live stream image, wherein the second recognition result is used to characterize a relative distance between the live streamer and the live streaming device; determining the live scene according to the relative distance.
The obtaining of a recognition result of live stream used to characterize a distance between the streamer and streaming device to determine a live scene under their broadest reasonable interpretation covers performance of the limitations in the mind. If a claim limitation covers performance of the limitation in the mind, then it falls within the “Mental Processes” grouping of abstract ideas. Accordingly, the claim recites an abstract idea.
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application because Claim 7 recites no additional element which imposes any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea.
The claim(s) does/do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. As discussed above with respect to integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, Claim 7 recites no additional elements other than the mental processes recited and does not provide an inventive concept. The Claim is not patent eligible.
Claim 8 rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more. The claim(s) recite(s) the limitations if the relative distance is less than a preset second threshold, the live scene is a near-field scene; if the relative distance is greater than the second threshold, the live scene is a far-field scene.
The observing of a distance being greater or less than a threshold to indicate a far-field or near-field scene under their broadest reasonable interpretation covers performance of the limitations in the mind. If a claim limitation covers performance of the limitation in the mind, then it falls within the “Mental Processes” grouping of abstract ideas. Accordingly, the claim recites an abstract idea.
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application because Claim 8 recites no additional element which imposes any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea.
The claim(s) does/do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. As discussed above with respect to integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, Claim 8 recites no additional elements other than the mental processes recited and does not provide an inventive concept. The Claim is not patent eligible.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
4. 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.
5. Claim(s) 1, 5, 6, 16, 20, 21, and 24 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Snyder et al. (U.S. Pat. No. 8,560,951 B1, hereinafter "Snyder") in view of Chang (U.S. Pub. No. 2017/0214945 A1), and further in view of Yin et al. (Chinese Pub. No. CN 106791906 B, hereinafter "Yin").
Regarding Claim 1, Snyder teaches a method of switching audio input and output applied to live streaming (method of switching audio input of live stream, Fig. 31, Col. 42, Ln. 30 thru Col. 43, Ln. 25; see also Abstract, Col. 26, Ln. 18 thru Col. 28, Ln. 39), comprising:
obtaining a live stream image of a live streamer during live streaming, and determining a live scene of the live streamer according to the live stream image, the live scene including a far-field scene and a near-field scene (processing unit 102 obtains live stream image of live streamer from cameras 120, 122, 124 and the live scene includes close-up camera shot [near-field scene] and wide camera shot [far-field], Fig. 15, Col. 26, Ln. 18 thru Col. 28, Ln. 39);
in response to a change of the live scene, switching audio input and output of a live streaming device according to the change of the live scene (in response to a change of the live scene audio input from host and guest microphones 1516 and 1518 is switched to audio input from RPD 128, Fig. 16, Col. 29, Lns. 5-54).
Snyder fails to explicitly teach method of switching audio input and output applied to live streaming, comprising:
determining a live scene of the live streamer according to the live stream image;
in response to a change of the live scene, switching audio input and output of a live streaming device according to the change of the live scene.
However, Chang teaches method of switching audio input and output applied to live streaming (method of switching audio input and output of a life stream, Fig. 1, Paras. [0064] and [0065]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the method (as taught by Snyder) to include the switching of audio input and output of a live stream (as taught by Chang). Doing so, will enable streaming from difficult view points and angles (Chang Para. [0064]).
However, Yin teaches determining a live scene of the live streamer according to the live stream image (face recognition is performed on the live stream, Paras. [0208] and [0219]);
in response to a change of the live scene, switching audio input and output of a live streaming device according to the change of the live scene (in response to a change in the live scene, audio signals are switched, Para. [0216]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the method (as taught by Snyder in view of Chang) to include determining a live scene and switching of audio input and output of a live stream in response to a change of live scene (as taught by Yin). Doing so, increases viewer immersion and interactivity when watching (Yin Para. [0221]).
Regarding Claim 5, Snyder in view of Chang, and further in view of Yin teach wherein if the change of the live scene is changing from the near-field scene to the far-field scene (Snyder, near-field scene from camera 120 is switched to far-field scene from camera 122, Fig. 15, Col. 26, Ln. 18 thru Col. 28, Ln. 39), switching audio input and output of a live streaming device according to the change of the live scene comprises:
switching the audio input of the live streaming device to a microphone input of the live streaming device, and switching the audio output of the live streaming device to an external output of the live streaming device (Chang, switching audio input of live streaming device to a microphone of the streaming device and switching the audio output of the live streaming device to an external output of the live streaming device, Fig. 1, Paras. [0064] and [0065]; see also Paras. [0027]-[0032]).
Regarding Claim 6, Snyder in view of Chang, and further in view of Yin teach wherein if the change of the live scene is changing from the far-field scene to the near-field scene (Snyder, far-field scene from camera 122 is switched to near-field scene from camera 124, Fig. 15, Col. 26, Ln. 18 thru Col. 28, Ln. 39), switching audio input and output of a live streaming device according to the change of the live scene comprises:
switching the audio input of the live streaming device to a microphone input of a headphone connected to the live streaming device, and switching the audio output of the live streaming device to an output of the headphone (Chang, switching audio input of live streaming device to a microphone of a headphone and switching the audio output of the live streaming device to an output of the headphone, Fig. 1, Paras. [0064] and [0065]; see also Paras. [0027]-[0032]).
Regarding Claim 16, Snyder teaches an electronic device (electronic device of production studio 1502, Fig. 15), comprising: at least one processor (processor 102, Fig. 15) and memory (an implementation of processor 102 is shown as processing unit 2500, with memory 2506, Fig, 25, Col. 38, Ln. 23 thru Col. 39, Ln. 9);
the memory storing computer executable instructions (memory 2506, Fig, 25, Col. 38, Ln. 23 thru Col. 39, Ln. 9);
the at least one processor executing computer executable instructions stored in the memory (processing unit 2500 executes instructions stored in memory 2506, Fig, 25, Col. 38, Ln. 23 thru Col. 39, Ln. 9) to cause the at least one processor to perform a method of switching audio input and output applied to live streaming (method of switching audio input of live stream, Fig. 31, Col. 42, Ln. 30 thru Col. 43, Ln. 25; see also Abstract, Col. 26, Ln. 18 thru Col. 28, Ln. 39), the method comprising:
obtaining a live stream image of a live streamer during live streaming, and determining a live scene of the live streamer according to the live stream image, the live scene including a far-field scene and a near-field scene (processing unit 102 obtains live stream image of live streamer from cameras 120, 122, 124 and the live scene includes close-up camera shot [near-field scene] and wide camera shot [far-field], Fig. 15, Col. 26, Ln. 18 thru Col. 28, Ln. 39);
in response to a change of the live scene, switching audio input and output of a live streaming device according to the change of the live scene (in response to a change of the live scene audio input from host and guest microphones 1516 and 1518 is switched to audio input from RPD 128, Fig. 16, Col. 29, Lns. 5-54).
Snyder fails to explicitly teach the at least one processor executing computer executable instructions stored in the memory to cause the at least one processor to perform a method of switching audio input and output applied to live streaming, the method comprising:
and determining a live scene of the live streamer according to the live stream image;
in response to a change of the live scene, switching audio input and output of a live streaming device according to the change of the live scene.
However, Chang teaches method of switching audio input and output applied to live streaming (method of switching audio input and output of a life stream, Fig. 1, Paras. [0064] and [0065]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the method performed by the electronic device (as taught by Snyder) to include the switching of audio input and output of a live stream (as taught by Chang). Doing so, will enable streaming from difficult view points and angles (Chang Para. [0064]).
However, Yin teaches determining a live scene of the live streamer according to the live stream image (face recognition is performed on the live stream, Paras. [0208] and [0219]);
in response to a change of the live scene, switching audio input and output of a live streaming device according to the change of the live scene (in response to a change in the live scene, audio signals are switched, Para. [0216]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the method performed by the electronic device (as taught by Snyder in view of Chang) to include determining a live scene and switching of audio input and output of a live stream in response to a change of live scene (as taught by Yin). Doing so, increases viewer immersion and interactivity when watching (Yin Para. [0221]).
Regarding Claim 20, Snyder in view of Chang, and further in view of Yin teach wherein if the change of the live scene is changing from the near-field scene to the far-field scene (Snyder, near-field scene from camera 120 is switched to far-field scene from camera 122, Fig. 15, Col. 26, Ln. 18 thru Col. 28, Ln. 39), switching audio input and output of a live streaming device according to the change of the live scene comprises:
switching the audio input of the live streaming device to a microphone input of the live streaming device, and switching the audio output of the live streaming device to an external output of the live streaming device (Chang, switching audio input of live streaming device to a microphone of the streaming device and switching the audio output of the live streaming device to an external output of the live streaming device, Fig. 1, Paras. [0064] and [0065]; see also Paras. [0027]-[0032]).
Regarding Claim 21, Snyder in view of Chang, and further in view of Yin teach wherein if the change of the live scene is changing from the far-field scene to the near-field scene (Snyder, far-field scene from camera 122 is switched to near-field scene from camera 124, Fig. 15, Col. 26, Ln. 18 thru Col. 28, Ln. 39), switching audio input and output of a live streaming device according to the change of the live scene comprises:
switching the audio input of the live streaming device to a microphone input of a headphone connected to the live streaming device, and switching the audio output of the live streaming device to an output of the headphone (Chang, switching audio input of live streaming device to a microphone of a headphone and switching the audio output of the live streaming device to an output of the headphone, Fig. 1, Paras. [0064] and [0065]; see also Paras. [0027]-[0032]).
Regarding Claim 24, it is similarly rejected as Claim 16. The non-transitory computer readable storage medium is found in Snyder (Fig, 25, Col. 38, Ln. 23 thru Col. 39, Ln. 9).
6. Claim(s) 2, 3, 17, 18, 25, and 26 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Snyder et al. (U.S. Pat. No. 8,560,951 B1, hereinafter "Snyder") in view of Chang (U.S. Pub. No. 2017/0214945 A1) in view of Yin et al. (Chinese Pub. No. CN 106791906 B, hereinafter "Yin"), and further in view of Huang et al., (Chinese Pub. No. CN 111738099 A, hereinafter "Huang").
Regarding Claim 2, Snyder in view of Chang, and further in view of Yin teaches wherein the determining a live scene of the live streamer according to the live stream image comprises:
obtaining a first recognition result by recognizing the live stream image (Yin, a first recognition result is obtained when face recognition is performed on the live stream, Paras. [0208] and [0219]).
Snyder in view of Chang, and further in view of Yin fail to explicitly teach wherein the first recognition result is used to characterize a correlation between a first human feature of the live streamer in the live stream image and a second human feature of the live streamer in a real scene;
determining the live scene according to the correlation.
However, Huang teaches wherein the first recognition result is used to characterize a correlation between a first human feature of the live streamer in the live stream image and a second human feature of the live streamer in a real scene (first recognition result of step 5 characterizes a correlation between the first human feature of image input of step 5 with a second human feature of face picture of step 1, Paras. [0042]-[0057]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the method (as taught by Snyder in view of Chang, and further in view of Yin) to include the first recognition result as a correlation between a first human feature and a second human feature and using the correlation to determine the live scene (as taught by Huang). Doing so, improves accuracy of face detection and maintains faster detection speed (Huang Para. [0041]).
Regarding Claim 3, Snyder in view of Chang in view of Yin, and further in view of Huang teaches wherein the correlation characterizes a ratio of the first human feature to the second human feature (Huang, the correlation of the first human feature in step 5 and the second human feature in step 1 characterizes a ratio, Paras. [0042]-[0057]).
Regarding Claim 17, Snyder in view of Chang, and further in view of Yin teaches wherein the determining a live scene of the live streamer according to the live stream image comprises:
obtaining a first recognition result by recognizing the live stream image (Yin, a first recognition result is obtained when face recognition is performed on the live stream, Paras. [0208] and [0219]).
Snyder in view of Chang, and further in view of Yin fail to explicitly teach wherein the first recognition result is used to characterize a correlation between a first human feature of the live streamer in the live stream image and a second human feature of the live streamer in a real scene;
determining the live scene according to the correlation.
However, Huang teaches wherein the first recognition result is used to characterize a correlation between a first human feature of the live streamer in the live stream image and a second human feature of the live streamer in a real scene (first recognition result of step 5 characterizes a correlation between the first human feature of image input of step 5 with a second human feature of face picture of step 1, Paras. [0042]-[0057]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the method (as taught by Snyder in view of Chang, and further in view of Yin) to include the first recognition result as a correlation between a first human feature and a second human feature and using the correlation to determine the live scene (as taught by Huang). Doing so, improves accuracy of face detection and maintains faster detection speed (Huang Para. [0041]).
Regarding Claim 18, Snyder in view of Chang in view of Yin, and further in view of Huang teaches wherein the correlation characterizes a ratio of the first human feature to the second human feature (Huang, the correlation of the first human feature in step 5 and the second human feature in step 1 characterizes a ratio, Paras. [0042]-[0057]).
Regarding Claim 25, it is similarly rejected as Claim 17. The non-transitory computer readable storage medium is found in Snyder (Fig, 25, Col. 38, Ln. 23 thru Col. 39, Ln. 9).
Regarding Claim 26, it is similarly rejected as Claim 18. The non-transitory computer readable storage medium is found in Snyder (Fig, 25, Col. 38, Ln. 23 thru Col. 39, Ln. 9).
7. Claim(s) 4, 19, and 27 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Snyder et al. (U.S. Pat. No. 8,560,951 B1, hereinafter "Snyder") in view of Chang (U.S. Pub. No. 2017/0214945 A1) in view of Yin et al. (Chinese Pub. No. CN 106791906 B, hereinafter "Yin") in view of Huang et al., (Chinese Pub. No. CN 111738099 A, hereinafter "Huang"), and further in view of Chen et al. (Chinese Pub. No. CN 112017179 B, hereinafter "Chen").
Regarding Claim 4, Snyder in view of Chang in view of Yin, and further in view of Huang fails to explicitly teach wherein if the ratio is greater than a preset first threshold, the live scene is a far-field scene;
if the ratio is less than the first threshold, the live scene is a near-field scene.
However, Huang teaches an automatic face detection based on a video image scene that uses a threshold value to determine far-field scene or near-field scene, Paras. [0042]-[0057]).
However, Chen teaches if ratio is greater, the live scene is a far-field scene (when main person in the frame is fully displayed it is considered a wide shot, Para. [0065];
if the ratio is less, the live scene is a near-field scene (if only the chest or shoulders or face of the main person is displayed it is considered a close-up, Para. [0065]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the method including the threshold (as taught by Snyder in view of Chang, and further in view of Yin, and further in view of Huang) to include the ratio if greater or less than a threshold to indicate a far-field or near-field scene (as taught by Chen). Doing so, provides an improved context aware processing of the video stream.
Regarding Claim 19, Snyder in view of Chang in view of Yin, and further in view of Huang fails to explicitly teach wherein if the ratio is greater than a preset first threshold, the live scene is a far-field scene;
if the ratio is less than the first threshold, the live scene is a near-field scene.
However, Huang teaches an automatic face detection based on a video image scene that uses a threshold value to determine far-field scene or near-field scene, Paras. [0042]-[0057]).
However, Chen teaches if ratio is greater, the live scene is a far-field scene (when main person in the frame is fully displayed it is considered a wide shot, Para. [0065];
if the ratio is less, the live scene is a near-field scene (if only the chest or shoulders or face of the main person is displayed it is considered a close-up, Para. [0065]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the method including the threshold (as taught by Snyder in view of Chang, and further in view of Yin, and further in view of Huang) to include the ratio if greater or less than a threshold to indicate a far-field or near-field scene (as taught by Chen). Doing so, provides an improved context aware processing of the video stream.
Regarding Claim 27, it is similarly rejected as Claim 19. The non-transitory computer readable storage medium is found in Snyder (Fig, 25, Col. 38, Ln. 23 thru Col. 39, Ln. 9).
8. Claim(s) 7, 8, 22, and 23 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Snyder et al. (U.S. Pat. No. 8,560,951 B1, hereinafter "Snyder") in view of Chang (U.S. Pub. No. 2017/0214945 A1) in view of Yin et al. (Chinese Pub. No. CN 106791906 B, hereinafter "Yin") in view of Huang et al., (Chinese Pub. No. CN 111738099 A, hereinafter "Huang"), and further in view of Zhang et al. (Chinese Pub. No. CN 112286347 A, hereinafter "Zhang").
Regarding Claim 7, Snyder in view of Chang in view of Yin, and further in view of Huang fail to explicitly teach wherein determining a live scene of the live streamer according to the live stream image comprises:
obtaining a second recognition result by recognizing the live stream image, wherein the second recognition result is used to characterize a relative distance between the live streamer and the live streaming device;
determining the live scene according to the relative distance.
However, Zhang teaches obtaining a second recognition result by recognizing the live stream image (image captured by camera is input into the distance model for recognition to identify the face image [i.e. the second recognition result of the live stream image], Paras. [0068]-[0075]), wherein the second recognition result is used to characterize a relative distance between the live streamer and the live streaming device (the face image recognized by the distance model is used to characterize a relative distance between the face and the screen, Paras. [0068]-[0083]);
determining the live scene according to the relative distance (the method is used to acquire face images in real time and recognize the face based on distance, Para. [0068]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the method (as taught by Snyder in view of Chang in view of Yin, and further in view of Huang) to include the second recognition result characterizing a distance between the steamer and streaming device (as taught by Zhang). Doing so leads to fast recognition speed (Zhang Para. [0068]).
Regarding Claim 8, Snyder in view of Chang in view of Yin in view of Huang, and further in view of Zhang teach wherein if the relative distance is less than a preset second threshold, the live scene is a near-field scene (Zhang, distance of user from the screen is based on ratio value, when the ratio is less than a threshold the face image is marked as near-field, Para. [0081]);
if the relative distance is greater than the second threshold, the live scene is a far-field scene (Zhang, distance of user from the screen is based on ratio value, when the ratio is greater than a threshold the face image is marked as far-field, Para. [0081]).
Regarding Claim 22, Snyder in view of Chang in view of Yin, and further in view of Huang fail to explicitly teach wherein determining a live scene of the live streamer according to the live stream image comprises:
obtaining a second recognition result by recognizing the live stream image, wherein the second recognition result is used to characterize a relative distance between the live streamer and the live streaming device;
determining the live scene according to the relative distance.
However, Zhang teaches obtaining a second recognition result by recognizing the live stream image (image captured by camera is input into the distance model for recognition to identify the face image [i.e. the second recognition result of the live stream image], Paras. [0068]-[0075]), wherein the second recognition result is used to characterize a relative distance between the live streamer and the live streaming device (the face image recognized by the distance model is used to characterize a relative distance between the face and the screen, Paras. [0068]-[0083]);
determining the live scene according to the relative distance (the method is used to acquire face images in real time and recognize the face based on distance, Para. [0068]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the method (as taught by Snyder in view of Chang in view of Yin, and further in view of Huang) to include the second recognition result characterizing a distance between the steamer and streaming device (as taught by Zhang). Doing so leads to fast recognition speed (Zhang Para. [0068]).
Regarding Claim 23, Snyder in view of Chang in view of Yin in view of Huang, and further in view of Zhang teach wherein if the relative distance is less than a preset second threshold, the live scene is a near-field scene (Zhang, distance of user from the screen is based on ratio value, when the ratio is less than a threshold the face image is marked as near-field, Para. [0081]);
if the relative distance is greater than the second threshold, the live scene is a far-field scene (Zhang, distance of user from the screen is based on ratio value, when the ratio is greater than a threshold the face image is marked as far-field, Para. [0081]).
Conclusion
9. Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to CHIMEZIE E BEKEE whose telephone number is (571)272-0202. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 7.30-5.
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, Duc Nguyen can be reached at 571-272-7503. 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.
/CHIMEZIE EZERIWE BEKEE/ Examiner, Art Unit 2691
/DUC NGUYEN/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2691