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 .
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 2/23/2024 is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement is being considered by the examiner.
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 (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.
Claim(s) 1, 5, 7, 18 and 20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kansara (US20170337427) in view of Haritaoglu (US20140044355).
Regarding claim 1, Kansara teaches a video recognition method (para. [0064]), performed by a computer device, comprising:
obtaining a target video and a series reference video in a video series (301 and 302 in fig. 3; para. [0085]), the video series comprising videos belonging to a same series (para. [0083]);
recognizing a series local similar clip in the target video relative to the series reference video according to a first matching result obtained by performing video frame matching on the target video and the series reference video (para. [0064], [0132], [0140], determining a closeness value based on a threshold; para. [0153], determining a segment boundary);
determining a comprehensive similar clip in the target video relative to the series reference video and a reference video based on respective positions of the series local similar clip and the global similar clip in the target video (para. [0074], [0153], determining a segment boundary).
Kansara fails to teach obtaining a platform reference video from a video platform to which the target video belongs;
recognizing a platform global similar clip in the target video relative to the platform reference video according to a second matching result obtained by performing video frame matching on the target video and the platform reference video.
However Haritaoglu teaches obtaining a platform reference video from a video platform to which a target video belongs (para. [0046], [0058]);
recognizing a platform global similar clip in the target video relative to the platform reference video according to a second matching result obtained by performing video frame matching on the target video and the platform reference video (para. [0045]); and
determining a comprehensive similar clip based on respective positions of a series local similar clip and the global similar clip in the target video (para. [0022]).
Therefore taking the combined teachings of Kansara and Haritaoglu as a whole, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to incorporate the steps of Haritaoglu into the method of Kansara. The motivation to combine Kansara and Haritaoglu would be to provide a reliable identification of near-duplicate videos in situations where existing identification techniques fail (para. [0043] of Haritaoglu).
Regarding claim 5, the modified invention of Kansara teaches a video recognition method wherein the platform reference video comprises a platform public video clip obtained from a public video library of the video platform to which the target video belongs and a platform associated video obtained from the video platform (para. [0057] of Haritaoglu); and
the recognizing the platform global similar clip comprises:
performing video frame matching on the target video and the platform public video clip to obtain a public video matching result (para. [0022] of Haritaoglu);
performing video frame matching on the target video and the platform associated video based on similar clip being recognized according to the public video matching result to obtain an associated video matching result (para. [0045] of Haritaoglu); and
recognizing the platform global similar clip in the target video relative to the platform associated video based on the associated video matching result (para. [0045] of Haritaoglu).
Regarding claim 7, the modified invention of Kansara teaches a video recognition method wherein obtaining the platform reference video from the video platform comprises:
obtaining a platform public video clip from a public video library of the video platform to which the target video belongs (para. [0057] of Haritaoglu); and
wherein recognizing the platform global similar clip in the target video relative to the platform reference video comprises:
recognizing the platform global similar clip in the target video relative to the platform public video clip according to a public video matching result obtained by performing video frame matching on the target video and the platform public video clip (para. [0045] of Haritaoglu).
Regarding claim 18, the claim recites similar subject matter as claim 1 and is rejected for the same reasons as stated above.
Regarding claim 20, the claim recites similar subject matter as claim 1 and is rejected for the same reasons as stated above.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 2-4, 6, 8-17, and 19 are objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
Related Art
Wang (US20220383910) - see fig. 1; para. [0039], [0042], [0047]
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to LEON VIET Q NGUYEN whose telephone number is (571)270-1185. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Fri 11AM-7PM.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Gregory Morse can be reached at 571-272-3838. 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.
/LEON VIET Q NGUYEN/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2663
Prosecution Insights