DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
1. 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
2. The amendment filed February 4, 2026 has been entered. Claims 1-20 remain pending in the application. Applicant’s amendments to the claims have overcome almost all objections. An objection to claim 4 remains. The Applicant’s amendments to claims have also overcome the 35 U.S.C. 112(b) and 35 U.S.C. 101 rejections previously set forth in the Non-Final Office Action mailed January 29, 2026.
Response to Arguments
3. Applicant's arguments filed February 4, 2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
4. Applicant argues that Popkiewicz et al. (U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2015/0078733 A1), hereinafter referred to as Popkiewicz, fails to teach that the “design file includes instructions as to how personalized data is to be applied to the reference video.” The Applicant asserts that specifying advertisement components to be inserted into the video material cannot be construed as instructions as to how the personalized data is to be applied to the reference video and is not equivalent to a file including instructions.
Examiner replies that Popkiewicz in Paragraph 18 does teach that the additional material information carries instructions on how the personalized data is to be positioned, start and end points, size, and mask. These are instructions on how to apply the personalized data to the reference video as disclosed in the rejection for Claim 8. Thus, the additional material information taught by Popkiewicz teaches a design file including instructions on how personalized data is to be applied to the reference video.
5. Conclusion: The rejections set in the previous Office Action are shown to have been proper, and the claims are rejected below. Therefore, the present Office Action is made final.
Claim Objections
6. Claim 4 is objected to because of the following informalities:
On line 4, "the first frame" should be "the first video frame " for consistent wording.
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
7. 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.
8. The text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office action.
9. Claim(s) 1-4, 6-20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) and (a)(2) as being anticipated by Popkiewicz et al. (U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2015/0078733 A1 -- cited in IDS), hereinafter referred to as Popkiewicz.
10. Regarding claim 1, Popkiewicz teaches a video processing system comprising:
one or more processors to: retrieve a first video frame from a reference video based on a design file comprising one or more personalization elements (Paragraph 106-117 teaches receiving and analyzing video material which comprises a plurality of frames. One of the frames can be considered the first video frame and the video material the reference video. Paragraphs 106-117 also teach analyzing insertion zones in the frames for inserting additional material like graphical imagery. The graphical imagery can be considered the personalization elements and the additional material information the design file; Paragraph 169 teaches the processor retrieves and analyzes video material and additional material. The video material has frames and can be considered the reference video. The additional material information can be considered the design file comprising of one or more personalization elements),
wherein the design file includes instructions as to how personalized data is to be applied to the reference video (Paragraph 18 teaches the additional material information has instructions on how the personalized data or additional material is to be positioned, the start and end points, size, and mask. This teaches instructions on how the personalized data is to be applied);
apply personalized data to the first video frame within a boundary box personalization element included in the design file to generate a first output image (Paragraph 198 and Figure 7 teaches in steps 750 and 770 applying personalized data to the video frame; Paragraph 169-173 teach inserting advertising components or other materials into the insertion zone. The insertion zone is the boundary box personalization element and the advertising components applied are the personalized data. Paragraph 170 teaches this can be saved as a new file which teaches a first output image.);
retrieve a second video frame from the reference video (Paragraph 169-173 teach repeating the insertion operation for each frame between a start and stop. This teaches a second video frame will be retrieved from the video);
compare pixels in the second video frame associated with pixels within the boundary box in the first video frame (Paragraph 139 teaches comparing pixels between frames within the insertion zones; Paragraph 141 teaches comparing pixel colors in the insertion zone, or boundary box, between frames. This teaches comparing pixels within the boundary box between a first and second video frame);
apply the personalized data to the second video frame to generate a second output image, wherein the second output image excludes personalized data at pixels in the second video frame determined to be different from pixels in the first video frame; and generate a video file comprising the first output image and the second output image (Paragraph 141 and Figure 4B teaches detected the occluded spaces in the insertion zone which are detected from the pixel comparison. Then the additional material or personalized data can be added to the non-occluded places. The occluded places do not have the personalized data shown and are thus excluded; Paragraph 170 teaches outputting the resulting video material which comprises of the processed first and second frames which are the first and second output images).
11. Regarding claim 2, Popkiewicz teaches the limitations of claim 1. Popkiewicz further teaches the system wherein the one or more processors generating the second output image further comprises applying a first mask to the second video frame to determine the pixels in the second video frame that are to be included in the second output image (Paragraph 141 teaches using alpha channels and masks to mark certain areas as occluded throughout the frames which includes the first and second video frames. This teaches a mask is applied to a second video frame. Depending on the occluded zones for each frame the masks are created which affect whether the background or the additional material is visible are not for output in the second output image).
12. Regarding claim 3, Popkiewicz teaches the limitations of claim 2. Popkiewicz further teaches the system wherein the one or more processors generating the second output image further comprises comparing the first mask with a second mask applied to the first video frame (Paragraphs 140-141 teach detecting when objects are obscuring the insertion zones throughout the frames of the video material. Masks are created for the obscured zones and pixel colors are compared between the frames. The Applicant does not specify how the masks are compared so comparing the pixel colors after the mask has been applied can be considered comparing the first and second mask. Thus, the first mask applied for a first video frame and another mask applied for a second video frame are compared.).
13. Regarding claim 4, Popkiewicz teaches the limitations of claim 3. Popkiewicz further teaches the system wherein the one or more processors generating the second output image further comprises removing from the second output image differences between the personalized data in the second video frame and the personalized data in the first frame that exceed a mask difference threshold (Paragraphs 140-141 teach detecting when objects are obscuring the insertion zones throughout the frames of the video material. Masks are created for the obscured zones and pixel colors are compared between the frames. Based on the comparison, alpha values are created which can occluded or create semi-transparency in the frame which affects whether the background or personalized data to show or not. Deciding an area is now occluded can be considered to exceed a mask difference threshold).
14. Regarding claim 6, Popkiewicz teaches the limitations of claim 1. Popkiewicz further teaches the system wherein second video frame comprises a video frame appearing after the first video frame (Paragraph 173 teaches repeating the insertion operation for each frame between a start and stop. If there are consecutive frames between a start and stop, the first video frame can a frame at an earlier time and the second video frame can be the frame at a later time; Paragraphs 195-196 teach the process can be done forward and backward. Thus, the second video frame can be after the first video frame.).
15. Regarding claim 7, Popkiewicz teaches the limitations of claim 1. Popkiewicz further teaches the system wherein second video frame comprises a video frame appearing before the first video frame (Paragraph 173 teach repeating the insertion operation for each frame between a start and stop. If there are consecutive frames between a start and stop, the first video frame can a frame at a later time and the second video frame can be the frame at an earlier time; Paragraph 195-196 teaches the process can be done forward and backward. Thus, the second video frame can be before the first video frame).
16. Regarding claim 8, Popkiewicz teaches the limitations of claim 1. Popkiewicz further teaches the system wherein the one or more personalization elements within the design file provide instructions as to how the personalized data is to be applied to the reference video (Paragraph 18 teaches the additional material information has instructions on how the personalized data or additional material is to be positioned, the start and end points, size, and mask. This teaches instructions on how the personalized data is to be applied).
17. Regarding claim 9, Popkiewicz teaches the limitations of claim 1. Popkiewicz further teaches the system wherein the one or more processors to retrieve the first video frame based on a time stamp personalization element included in the design file (Paragraph 173 teaches repeating the insertion operation for each frame between a start and stop. One of the frames the operation is retrieved and executed for can be considered the first frame. The start and stop are the time stamp personalization element included in the design file).
18. Regarding claim 10, Popkiewicz teaches the limitations of claim 1. Popkiewicz further teaches the system wherein personalized data associated with the one or more personalization elements comprises variable content data that is customized to an individual viewing the reference video at a client system (Paragraphs 115 and 175 teach the content data is different depending on where the user is. For example, it will show one advertisement if the viewer is in the US and show another advertisement if the viewer is in the UK. Both are shown in the same insertion zone but different depending on the viewer’s location. Thus, Popkiewicz discloses variable content data which is customized to the individual; Paragraph 214 teaches the content is viewed from an electronic device which teaches an individual viewing the video at a client system).
19. Regarding claim 11, Popkiewicz teaches the limitations of claim 1. Popkiewicz further teaches the system further comprising the one or more processors to: receive the personalized data; receive the reference video; and receive the design file (Paragraph 194 and Figure 7 teach at step 700 receiving the reference video, and in step 75 receiving the personalized data and design file; Paragraph 169 teaches the processor analyzes and receives the video material and additional material which is the personalized data and design file).
20. Regarding claim 12, Popkiewicz teaches the limitations of claim 1. Popkiewicz further teaches the system wherein the second output image does not exclude the personalized data at pixels in the second video frame determined not to be different from pixels in the first video frame (Paragraph 139-141 and Figure 4B teaches detecting the occluded spaces in the insertion zone which are detected from the pixel color comparison. The pixels determined not to be different are not marked as obscured zones and are not excluded. The additional material or personalized data can be added to the non-occluded places).
21. Regarding claim 13, Popkiewicz teaches the limitations of claim 12. Popkiewicz further teaches the system wherein the second output image applies an alpha channel to the personalization image pixels where the background has changed from an optimal frame (Paragraphs 140-141 teach detecting a foreground object passing between frames which may occlude part of the occlusion zone. This detects when the background changed from the first or optimal frame due to the moving foreground object. It discloses comparing pixels between the frames to then output an alpha channel. Some pixels may be semi-transparent allowing for the personalized data to still be shown and not excluded).
22. Regarding claim 14, claim 14 is the method claim of claim 1 and is accordingly rejected using substantially similar rationale as to that which is set for with respect to claim 1.
23. Regarding claim 15, Popkiewicz teaches the method wherein generating the second output image further comprises: applying a first mask to the second video frame to determine the pixels in the second video frame that are to be included in the second output image (Paragraph 141 teaches using alpha channels and masks to mark certain areas as occluded throughout the frames which includes the first and second video frames. This teaches a mask is applied to a second video frame. Depending on the occluded zones for each frame the masks are created which affect whether the background or the additional material is visible are not for output in the second output image); comparing the first mask with a second mask applied to the first video frame (Paragraphs 140-141 teach detecting when objects are obscuring the insertion zones throughout the frames of the video material. Masks are created for the obscured zones and pixel colors are compared between the frames. The Applicant does not specify how the masks are compared so comparing the pixel colors after the mask has been applied can be considered comparing the first and second mask. Thus, the first mask applied for a first video frame and another mask applied for a second video frame are compared); and removing from the second output image differences between the personalized data in the second video frame and the personalized data in the first video frame that exceed a mask difference threshold (Paragraphs 140-141 teach detecting when objects are obscuring the insertion zones throughout the frames of the video material. Masks are created for the obscured zones and pixel colors are compared between the frames. Based on the comparison, alpha values are created which can occluded or create semi-transparency in the frame which affects whether the background or personalized data to show or not. Deciding an area is now occluded can be considered to exceed a mask difference threshold).
24. Regarding claim 16, Popkiewicz teaches the limitations of claim 15. Claim 16 is similar in scope to claim 8. Therefore, similar rationale as applied in the rejection of claim 8 applies herein.
25. Regarding claim 17, Popkiewicz teaches the limitations of claim 16. Claim 17 is similar in scope to claim 10. Therefore, similar rationale as applied in the rejection of claim 10 applies herein.
26. Regarding claim 18, claim 18 is the computer readable medium claim (Popkiewicz Paragraph 78 teaches a non-transitory computer readable medium with computer readable code causes a computer to execute the method disclosed by Popkiewicz) of claim 1 and is accordingly rejected using substantially similar rationale as to that which is set for with respect to claim 1.
27. Regarding claim 19, Popkiewicz teaches the limitations of claim 18. Claim 19 is similar in scope to claim 15. Therefore, similar rationale as applied in the rejection of claim 15 applies herein.
28. Regarding claim 20, Popkiewicz teaches the limitations of claim 19. Claim 20 is similar in scope to claim 8. Therefore, similar rationale as applied in the rejection of claim 8 applies herein.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
29. The text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office action.
30. Claim(s) 5 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Popkiewicz et al. (U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2015/0078733 A1 -- cited in IDS), hereinafter referred to as Popkiewicz, as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Astle et al. (European Patent No. 0,796,541 B1 -- cited in IDS), hereinafter referred to as Astle.
Regarding claim 5, Popkiewicz teaches the limitations of claim 1. However, Popkiewicz fails to teach the system wherein the one or more processors generating the second output image further comprises applying anti-aliasing to edges of the first mask.
Astle teaches the system wherein the one or more processors generating the second output image further comprises applying anti-aliasing to edges of the first mask (Paragraph 80 teaches an occlusion mask that is low-pass filtered to smooth off edges. Smoothing off the edges of the mask teaches applying anti-aliasing).
Popkiewicz and Astle are considered analogous to the claimed invention as because both are in the same field of adding an advertisement to a video. Thus, it would have been obvious to a person holding ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify the system of applying personalized data to a video frame taught by Popkiewicz with the anti-aliasing taught by Astle in order to improve appearance of the personalized data and avoid introducing high-frequency components into the video frame (Astle Paragraph 80).
Conclusion
31. THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. 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.
32. Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to CHRISTINE Y AHN whose telephone number is (571)272-0672. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8-5pm.
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, Alicia Harrington can be reached at (571)272-2330. 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.
/CHRISTINE YERA AHN/Examiner, Art Unit 2615
/ALICIA M HARRINGTON/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2615
Prosecution Insights