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 .
2. Claims 1-20 filed on 03/28/2024 are pending and being examined. Claims 1, 11, and 20 are independent form.
Priority
3. This application is a continuation of US patent application 17/344,752, filed on Jun. 10, 2021, now US Patent 11,948,360.
Nonstatutory Double Patenting
4. The nonstatutory double patenting rejection is based on a judicially created doctrine grounded in public policy (a policy reflected in the statute) so as to prevent the unjustified or improper timewise extension of the “right to exclude” granted by a patent and to prevent possible harassment by multiple assignees. A nonstatutory double patenting rejection is appropriate where the conflicting claims are not identical, but at least one examined application claim is not patentably distinct from the reference claim(s) because the examined application claim is either anticipated by, or would have been obvious over, the reference claim(s). See, e.g., In re Berg, 140 F.3d 1428, 46 USPQ2d 1226 (Fed. Cir. 1998); In re Goodman, 11 F.3d 1046, 29 USPQ2d 2010 (Fed. Cir. 1993); In re Longi, 759 F.2d 887, 225 USPQ 645 (Fed. Cir. 1985); In re Van Ornum, 686 F.2d 937, 214 USPQ 761 (CCPA 1982); In re Vogel, 422 F.2d 438, 164 USPQ 619 (CCPA 1970); In re Thorington, 418 F.2d 528, 163 USPQ 644 (CCPA 1969).
A timely filed terminal disclaimer in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(c) or 1.321(d) may be used to overcome an actual or provisional rejection based on nonstatutory double patenting provided the reference application or patent either is shown to be commonly owned with the examined application, or claims an invention made as a result of activities undertaken within the scope of a joint research agreement. See MPEP § 717.02 for applications subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA as explained in MPEP § 2159. See MPEP §§ 706.02(l)(1) - 706.02(l)(3) for applications not subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA . A terminal disclaimer must be signed in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(b).
The USPTO Internet website contains terminal disclaimer forms which may be used. Please visit www.uspto.gov/patent/patents-forms. The filing date of the application in which the form is filed determines what form (e.g., PTO/SB/25, PTO/SB/26, PTO/AIA /25, or PTO/AIA /26) should be used. A web-based eTerminal Disclaimer may be filled out completely online using web-screens. An eTerminal Disclaimer that meets all requirements is auto-processed and approved immediately upon submission. For more information about eTerminal Disclaimers, refer to www.uspto.gov/patents/process/file/efs/guidance/eTD-info-I.jsp.
5. Claims 1-20 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-18 of U.S. Patent No. 11,948,360. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because the respective claims between the instant application and U.S. Patent No. 11,948,360 describe the same invention. The examiner has explained in detail how claim 1 of the instance application is unpatentable over claim 1 of U.S. Patent No. 11,948,360 in the following table. The examiner shall not detail the minor difference and the mapping between each of the instant application claims and its corresponding patented claims in U.S. Patent No. 11,948,360. However, should applicant request such a detailed breakdown, the examiner will be happy to oblige in subsequent Office Action.
Instant application 18/620,764
U.S. Patent No. 11,948,360 (360’)
The examiner’s explanation
1. A computer-implemented method for determining representative frames for a media title, the method comprising:
[1] aggregating a plurality of face embeddings into a plurality of clusters representing a plurality of characters included in the media title;
[2] computing a first interaction score between two characters included in the plurality of characters based on a co-occurrence of the two characters in a set of frames associated with the media title; and
[3] selecting, from the set of frames, a first frame as representative of the media title based, at least in part, on the first interaction score.
1. A computer-implemented method, comprising:
[a] applying an embedding model to a plurality of faces included in a set of frames of video content for a media title to generate a plurality of face embeddings;
[b] aggregating the plurality of face embeddings into a plurality of clusters representing a plurality of characters included in the media title, wherein each face embedding included in the plurality of face embeddings is associated with a face of a particular character included in the plurality of characters;
[c] computing a plurality of prominence scores for the plurality of characters, wherein each prominence score is computed for a given character based on a number of face embeddings included in a cluster that corresponds to the given character and a total number of frames in the video content that include at least one face of a character included in the plurality of characters; and
[d] selecting, from the set of frames, a frame of video content as representative of the media title based at least in part, on at least one prominence score for at least one character included in the frame.
[1] is interpreted as a 102 limitation taught by [b] of 360’.
[2] is interpreted as a 102 limitation disclosed by [c] of 360’.
[3] is interpreted as a 102 limitation disclosed by [d] of 360’.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101
6. 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.
7. Claims 1-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed inventions are directed to non-statutory subject matter (an abstract idea without significantly more).
7-1. Regarding independent claim 1, the claim recites a computer-implemented method for determining representative frames for a media title, the method comprising:
[1] aggregating a plurality of face embeddings into a plurality of clusters representing a plurality of characters included in the media title;
[2] computing a first interaction score between two characters included in the plurality of characters based on a co-occurrence of the two characters in a set of frames associated with the media title; and
[3] selecting, from the set of frames, a first frame as representative of the media title based, at least in part, on the first interaction score.
Step 1:
With regard to step (1), claim 1, is directed to a computer-implemented method for determining representative frames for a media title. The claim 1 therefore is one of statutory categories of invention, i.e., a process.
Step 2A-1:
With regard to 2A-1, The elements recited in claim 1, as drafted, under their broadest reasonable interpretation, encompass a process(es) which is/are directed to organizing human activity, can be practically performed in human mind, or falls within mathematical concepts. For example, “aggregating a plurality of face embeddings into a plurality of clusters representing a plurality of characters included in the media title” in step [1] in the context of this claim, encompasses mental observation, evaluations, judgments, and/or opinions that “can be performed in human mind, or by a human using a pen and paper”, therefore the limitation falls within the “mental processes” grouping of abstract ideas. Similarly, “computing a first interaction score between two characters included in the plurality of characters based on a co-occurrence of the two characters in a set of frames associated with the media title” in step [2] is mathematical calculations and fall within the “mathematical concepts” grouping of abstract ideas. Similarly, “selecting, from the set of frames, a first frame as representative of the media title based, at least in part, on the first interaction score” in step [3] encompasses mental observation, evaluations, judgments, and/or opinions that “can be performed in human mind, or by a human using a pen and paper”, therefore the limitation falls within the “mental processes” grouping of abstract ideas. Claim 1 therefore recites an abstract idea. If a claim limitation is directed to organizing human activity, can be practically performed in human mind, or falls within mathematical concepts, then the claim recites an abstract idea. See MPEP 2106.04(a)(2).
Step 2A-2:
The 2019 PEG defines the phrase "integration into a practical application" to require an additional element or a combination of additional elements in the claim to apply, rely on, or use the judicial exception. In the instant case, the additional element of “a computer-implemented method” is recited in the preamble of the claim at high level of generality and amount to no more than mere instruction to apply the exception using a generic computer. Therefore, the claim as a whole does not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application.
Step 2B:
As explained above, the computer-implemented method for determining representative frames for a media title, is at best the equivalent of merely adding the words “apply it” to the judicial exception. Even when considered in combination, the additional elements present mere instructions to apply an exception, which cannot provide an inventive concept. The claim therefore is ineligible.
7-2. Regarding dependent claims 2-10, they are viewed individually, these additional elements are under its broadest reasonable interpretation, either covers performance of the limitation in the mind, performing a mathematical algorithm or extra solution activity for data gathering and do not provide meaningful limitations to transform the abstract idea into a patent eligible application of the abstract idea such that the claims amount to significantly more than the abstract idea itself. And, when the claims are viewed as a whole, they do not improve a technology by allowing the technology to perform a function that it previously was not capable of performing; and they do not provide any limitations beyond generally linking the use of the abstract idea to a broad technological environment (i.e., computer-based analysis of generic data). Hence, the claimed invention does not constitute significantly more than the abstract idea, so the claims are rejected under 35 USC § 101 as being directed to non-statutory subject matter.
7-3. Regarding independent claims 11 and 20, the claims recite a non-transitory storage medium (claim 11) a system including a memory and a processor (claim 20) and each of which is analogous to apparatus claim 1, grounds of rejection analogous to those applied to claim 1 are applicable to claims 11 and 20. Furthermore, the claim is a method that does not recite any additional elements, and according to step 2A-2 does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because it does not recite any additional elements that impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. The claim recites an abstract idea.
Because the claim fails under (2A), the claim is further evaluated under (2B). The claim herein does not include any additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. The claims are not patent eligible.
7-4. Regarding dependent claims 12-19, they are dependent claim 11 and viewed individually, these additional elements are under its broadest reasonable interpretation, either covers performance of the limitation in the mind, performing a mathematical algorithm or extra solution activity for data gathering and do not provide meaningful limitations to transform the abstract idea into a patent eligible application of the abstract idea such that the claims amount to significantly more than the abstract idea itself. And, when the claims are viewed as a whole, they do not improve a technology by allowing the technology to perform a function that it previously was not capable of performing; and they do not provide any limitations beyond generally linking the use of the abstract idea to a broad technological environment (i.e., computer-based analysis of generic data). Hence, the claimed invention does not constitute significantly more than the abstract idea, so the claims are rejected under 35 USC § 101 as being directed to non-statutory subject matter.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
8. 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.
9. The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
10. Claims 1-8, 11-18, and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1)/102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Mei et al (US 20120263433, hereinafter “Mei”).
Regarding claim 1, Mei discloses a computer-implemented method for determining representative frames for a media title (the method the device for automatic generation of visual presentations by acquiring key roles from a video. See Abstract), the method comprising:
aggregating a plurality of face embeddings into a plurality of clusters representing a plurality of characters included in the media title (see the face cluster 212 of fig.2 and para.38: the method “detects faces from the key frames [which are extracted from the video 206] and performs face grouping to output a face cluster 212 for each role in the video.” Also see para.24: “The techniques detect faces that appear in the key frames and groups the faces into face clusters according to role.” It should be noticed that: each role (hereinafter a role, a character, a person, a cluster, and a vertex all are interchangeable) is corresponding to a person (i.e., a character) having a corresponding cluster including a plurality of face images of the person as shown by fig.4.);
computing a first interaction score between two characters included in the plurality of characters based on a co-occurrence of the two characters in a set of frames associated with the media title (to determine “a role importance function f(v)” in the video, the generation tool 218 calculates the degree of the vertex v in the community graph, i.e., Degree(v), on the basis of “the sum of the weight of the edges connected to v”, see para.63; wherein the weights (i.e., the impotencies) between each vertex A and B (i.e., each face cluster A and B) is determined by the correlations (i.e., the interaction scores) of two faces a and b occurred in the same scene defined by Eqs.(4)-(5), see para.54-para.55); and
selecting, from the set of frames, a first frame as representative of the media title based, at least in part, on the first interaction score (“the generation tool 218 selects a key frame that contains key roles”, see para.65. As stated in para.63, how key/important a role is determined by “a role importance function f(v)” that is further determined based on the correlations (i.e., the interaction scores) of the character v to the other characters in the scene, as stated in para.54-55. Therefore, a key frame is selected on the basis of the interaction scores between the character v and each of the other characters in the video).
Regarding claim 2, 12, Mei discloses, wherein the first interaction score is computed based on a number of frames included in the set of frames in which a first character of the two characters occurs within a predetermined number of frames of a second character of the two characters (wherein the Degree(v) is determined on the basis of “the sum of the weight of the edges connected to [vertex] v”, see para.63. In other words, the more the number of vertexes (i.e., the clusters, or the key frames) is, the larger the Degree(v) is.).
Regarding claim 3, 13, Mei discloses, further comprising computing a second interaction score between two other characters included in the plurality of characters based on a co-occurrence of the two other characters in the set of frames, wherein the first frame is selected as representative of the media title based on the second interaction score as well (wherein the weights (i.e., the impotencies) between each vertex A and B (i.e., each face cluster A and B) is determined by the correlations (i.e., the interaction scores) of two faces a and b occurred in the same scene defined by Eqs.(4)-(5), see para.54-para.55).
Regarding claim 4, 14, Mei discloses, further comprising: generating a character interaction graph that stores a plurality of interaction scores for a plurality of pairs of characters included in the plurality of characters; and storing the first interaction score in the character interaction graph (see the community graph shown by fig.5, wherein the correlation values, such as 1, 0.22 and the like, between the nodes are the interaction scores between the roles, see para.59).
Regarding claim 5, 15, Mei discloses, wherein the character interaction graph comprises a set of nodes representing the plurality of characters and a set of edges that interconnect the set of nodes and represent interactions between pairs of characters (ibid.).
Regarding claim 6, 16, Mei discloses, further comprising traversing the character interaction graph to retrieve a second interaction score associated with two other characters included in the plurality of characters, wherein the first frame is selected as representative of the media title based on the second interaction score as well (as shown by fig.5, wherein the character 506 is selected as the first key role on the basis of the second key role 508 which is associated two other characters 504 and 510.).
Regarding claim 7, 17, Mei discloses, further comprising: computing a plurality of prominence scores for the plurality of characters; and selecting the first frame of video content based on at least one prominence score for at least one character as well (see para.65: “the generation tool 218 selects a key frame that contains key roles”; where a key frame is selected on the basis of the interaction scores between the character v and each of the other characters in the video.).
Regarding claim 8, 18, Mei discloses, wherein the first frame of video content is selected based on a weighted combination of the first interaction score and the at least one prominence score (see para.63, wherein “a role importance function f(v)” is further determined on the basis of the correlations (i.e., the interaction scores) of the character v to each of the other characters in the scene, as stated in para.54-55.).
Regarding claim 11, 20, each of them is an inherent variation of claim 1, thus it is interpreted and rejected for the reasons set forth in the rejection of claim 1.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
11. 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 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.
12. Claims 9-10, and 19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Mei in view of Kulbhushan (WO2019/018434, hereinafter “Kulbhushan”).
Regarding claim 9, Mei discloses the claimed invention except for applying a convolutional neural network to a plurality of faces to generate a plurality of face scores. However, the technique of applying a convolutional neural network to a plurality of faces to generate a plurality of face scores is well-known and widely used in the field of video summarization. As evidence, Kulbhushan teaches neural network-based methods that may generate key images form a video and determining whether the key images are likely to contain characters. See para.15. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention was made to incorporate the teachings of Kulbhushan into the teachings of Mei and apply a convolutional neural network to a plurality of faces taught by Kulbhushan to generate key frames from a video taught by Mei. Suggestion or motivation for doing so would have been to generate “actor/person centric thumbnails for media content”. See, Paragraph [0001] in Kulbhushan. Therefore, the claim is unpatentable over Mei in view of Kulbhushan.
Regarding claim 10, the combination of Mei and Kulbhushan discloses the computer-implemented method of claim 9, wherein the first frame of video content is selected based on a weighted combination of the first interaction score and the at least one face score (Kulbhushan , see para.58: “the system may proceed to create a personalized thumbnail by increasing the weight factor of key images or image clusters containing the face of the particular character, resulting in a relatively high probability that the particular character appears or is highlighted in the thumbnail.”).
Regarding claim 19, claim 19 essentially includes the similar elements recited by the combination of claims 9 and 10, thus it is interpreted and rejected for the reasons set forth in the rejections of claims 9 and 10.
Conclusion
13. Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to RUIPING LI whose telephone number is (571)270-3376. The examiner can normally be reached 8:30am--5:30pm.
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, HENOK SHIFERAW can be reached on (571)272-4637. 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; 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.
/RUIPING LI/Primary Examiner, Ph.D., Art Unit 2676