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 Interpretation
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(f):
(f) Element in Claim for a Combination. – An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The claims in this application are given their broadest reasonable interpretation using the plain meaning of the claim language in light of the specification as it would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art. The broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim element (also commonly referred to as a claim limitation) is limited by the description in the specification when 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is invoked.
As explained in MPEP § 2181, subsection I, claim limitations that meet the following three-prong test will be interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
(A) the claim limitation uses the term “means” or “step” or a term used as a substitute for “means” that is a generic placeholder (also called a nonce term or a non-structural term having no specific structural meaning) for performing the claimed function;
(B) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is modified by functional language, typically, but not always linked by the transition word “for” (e.g., “means for”) or another linking word or phrase, such as “configured to” or “so that”; and
(C) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function.
Use of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim with functional language creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites sufficient structure, material, or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Absence of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is not to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is not interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites function without reciting sufficient structure, material or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Claim limitations in this application that use the word “means” (or “step”) are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action. Conversely, claim limitations in this application that do not use the word “means” (or “step”) are not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action.
This application includes one or more claim limitations that do not use the word “means,” but are nonetheless being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, because the claim limitation(s) uses a generic placeholder that is coupled with functional language without reciting sufficient structure to perform the recited function and the generic placeholder is not preceded by a structural modifier. Such claim limitation(s) is/are:
“a content execution engine,” “an input reception interface,” and “a bookmarking processor” found in at least claim 15.
Because this/these claim limitation(s) is/are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, it/they is/are being interpreted to cover the corresponding structure described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof.
A review of the instant application’s specification does not show the structure for “a content execution engine,” “an input reception interface,” and “a bookmarking processor.” Thus, this disclosure is devoid of adequate structure to perform the claimed function.
If applicant does not intend to have this/these limitation(s) interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, applicant may: (1) amend the claim limitation(s) to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph (e.g., by reciting sufficient structure to perform the claimed function); or (2) present a sufficient showing that the claim limitation(s) recite(s) sufficient structure to perform the claimed function so as to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112:
The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor of carrying out his invention.
Claims 15-26 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement.
The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention. The Specification is devoid of details describing the following elements: “a content execution engine,” “an input reception interface,” and “a bookmarking processor.” The Specification does not explain how these elements function or if they are hardware or software elements. The Specification only describes that they are elements that can perform a task. Claims 16-26 depend from claim 15 and are therefore rejected to on the same grounds.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 7, and 15-26 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Claim 7 recites the limitation “enabling the player to share” in line 1 of the claim. It is unclear how the method would “enable” a player to share their data on social media or a game network.
Claim limitations “a content execution engine,” “an input reception interface,” and “a bookmarking processor” invoke 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. However, the written description fails to disclose the corresponding structure, material, or acts for performing the entire claimed function and to clearly link the structure, material, or acts to the function. The Specification is devoid of adequate structure to perform the claimed function and it is unclear if these limitations are hardware or software elements. Therefore, the claim is indefinite and is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, second paragraph.
Applicant may:
(a) Amend the claim so that the claim limitation will no longer be interpreted as a limitation under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph;
(b) Amend the written description of the specification such that it expressly recites what structure, material, or acts perform the entire claimed function, without introducing any new matter (35 U.S.C. 132(a)); or
(c) Amend the written description of the specification such that it clearly links the structure, material, or acts disclosed therein to the function recited in the claim, without introducing any new matter (35 U.S.C. 132(a)).
If applicant is of the opinion that the written description of the specification already implicitly or inherently discloses the corresponding structure, material, or acts and clearly links them to the function so that one of ordinary skill in the art would recognize what structure, material, or acts perform the claimed function, applicant should clarify the record by either:
(a) Amending the written description of the specification such that it expressly recites the corresponding structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function and clearly links or associates the structure, material, or acts to the claimed function, without introducing any new matter (35 U.S.C. 132(a)); or
(b) Stating on the record what the corresponding structure, material, or acts, which are implicitly or inherently set forth in the written description of the specification, perform the claimed function. For more information, see 37 CFR 1.75(d) and MPEP §§ 608.01(o) and 2181.
Claim 16 recites the limitation “significant moment” in lines 2-3 of the claim. It is unclear what the metes and bounds are for a “significant moment” and the Specification does not define what the AI model is looking for when trying to identify a “significant moment.” For the purposes of examination, Examiner will interpret a significant moment under BRI.
Claim 18 recites the limitation “said content" in line 2 of the claim. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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.
Claims 1-2, and 9-15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Alexander Brian Marshall Lucas et al. (US 20190076742 A1; hereinafter Lucas).
Regarding claim 1, Lucas discloses a method for recording gameplay moments during gameplay of a video game, comprising: executing the video game to generate a plurality of video frames (“the interactive computing system 120 can establish electronic communication a gameplay session of the game application on the player computing system 102” (recited in at least: Lucas paragraph [0116])); receiving inputs from a player of the video game, the inputs facilitate said gameplay of the video game by the player and causes updating of said plurality of video frames as the player makes progress in the video game (“The term “user” can refer to a person that is accessing the game metric analysis system 130 to view gameplay data associated player's gameplay sessions through the data visualization system 132. Though illustrated as separate systems, the player computing system 102 and the user computing system 103 can be the same computing system depending on whether the system is providing the gameplay session data or accessing the gameplay session data through the data visualization system 132” (recited in at least: Lucas paragraph [0024])); receiving an input to bookmark a frame region rendered in a video frame of said plurality of video frames (“the interactive computing system can receive data associated with the gameplay session. The data associated with the gameplay session may include video data, telemetry data, system data, player profile data, and/or other data associated with the execution of the game application” (recited in at least: Lucas paragraph [0118])); associating an identifier to the bookmark, the identifier is descriptive of content present in the frame region (“The video data can include with timestamps for the gameplay session. For example, the video data may generate timestamps associated with each frame of video data received during the gameplay session. The interactive computing system 120 can associate the video data with the session ID. Similarly, the interactive computing system 120 can associate the received telemetry data with the session ID” (recited in at least: Lucas paragraph [0119])); and saving state data for the bookmark, the state data for the bookmark enables subsequent selection of the bookmark from a user interface to load at least the video frame along with said identifier (“the interactive computing system 120 can locate video data associated with the gameplay session using the session ID provided in the user's request. The video data may be a complete video that includes what was previously recorded and stored by the video acquisition system. In some embodiments, the video data may be a portion of a video data that is concurrently being recorded, such as, for example, by the video acquisition system” (recited in at least: Lucas paragraph [0125])).
Regarding claim 2, Lucas discloses the claimed matter as stated above, and further discloses wherein the identifier is descriptive text data generated from a combination of image analysis of the content present in the frame region and analysis of state data associated with said plurality of video frames that include the video frame (“The event may be an event that occurs over specified time frame, such as a cut scene. The timestamps may indicate the initiation of the event, the end of the event, and/or interim periods of time during the occurrence of the event. The interactive computing system 120 can determine the portion of the video corresponding to the event based on the timestamp information. For example, the interactive computing system may identify a time within the video that is a defined time before the time indicated on the timestamp (such as, for example, 1 second before the timestamp)” (recited in at least: Lucas paragraph [0125])).
Regarding claim 9, Lucas discloses the claimed matter as stated above, and further discloses further comprising generating a highlight reel comprising a sequence of bookmarked video frames, each associated with its respective identifier, and enabling playback of the highlight reel (“The event module 350 can include a list of events associated with the gameplay session. For example, as shown in FIG. 3, the event module 350 may include the date, time, type, and description of the event” (recited in at least: Lucas paragraph [0103])).
Regarding claim 10, Lucas discloses the claimed matter as stated above, and further discloses wherein the highlight reel is automatically generated based on criteria selected by the player, including bookmarks associated with high scores or critical gameplay moments (“The user can obtain more details about an event by clicking on the event in the event module. For example, the data visualization system 132 may take the user to a page with error details when a user clicks on an error in the event module” (recited in at least: Lucas paragraph [0103])).
Regarding claim 11, Lucas discloses the claimed matter as stated above, and further discloses further comprising enabling the player to edit the identifier associated with a bookmark to provide a custom description of the content present in the frame region (“the data analysis system 144 can communicate with the data visualization system 132 and present the game metrics data in a variety of formats such as, for example, graphs (for example pie charts, heat maps, tables, line graphs), tables, word descriptions, or the like. In some embodiments, the data analysis system 144 may contain multiple modules where each module is for a certain type of analysis… The user can customize the data analysis system 144” (recited in at least: Lucas paragraph [0049])).
Regarding claim 12, Lucas discloses the claimed matter as stated above, and further discloses wherein the state data for the bookmark includes game state information such as character attributes of the player, inventory, and position in a game world of the video game at a time of the bookmark, and access to executable code for enabling replay of the plurality of video frames that include the video frame having the bookmark (“The user may file a bug report via the user computing system 103. The bug report may contain information associated with the issue such as, for example, description of the bug, player's position in the game, timestamp of the issue, session ID, or the like. The debug system 140 may generate a bug ID associated with the bug report filed by the user” (recited in at least: Lucas paragraph [0052])).
Regarding claim 13, The method of claim 1, further comprising enabling the player to tag the bookmark with one or more keywords for retrieval and organization of bookmarks (“The user interface 400 can include a filtering tool 410. The filtering tool 410 can be a part of the interface control module 260 (such as, for example, as described with reference to FIG. 2). The filtering tool 410 may communicate with one or more systems and/or modules and display a subset of the telemetry data… Similarly, a user may use the filtering tool to only show an event's description and session ID in module 430” (recited in at least: Lucas paragraph [0113])).
Regarding claim 14, The method of claim 13, further comprising, enabling input to filter and sort bookmarks based on the tags, the identifier, or other metadata associated with the bookmarks (“The user interface 400 can also include a search tool 420. As shown in FIG. 4, a user can input a session ID into the search tool 420 and receive all telemetry data associated with that session ID” (recited in at least: Lucas paragraph [0114])).
Regarding claim 15, Lucas discloses a system for capturing and managing memorable moments in interactive media content, comprising: a content execution engine configured to execute interactive media content and generate a sequence of content frames (“the interactive computing system 120 can establish electronic communication a gameplay session of the game application on the player computing system 102” (recited in at least: Lucas paragraph [0116])); an input reception interface configured to receive inputs from a user interacting with the interactive media content, wherein said inputs influence a progression of the content and updating of the content frames (“The term “user” can refer to a person that is accessing the game metric analysis system 130 to view gameplay data associated player's gameplay sessions through the data visualization system 132. Though illustrated as separate systems, the player computing system 102 and the user computing system 103 can be the same computing system depending on whether the system is providing the gameplay session data or accessing the gameplay session data through the data visualization system 132” (recited in at least: Lucas paragraph [0024])); a bookmarking processor configured to receive a bookmarking input corresponding to a particular content frame, associate an identifier with the content frame, wherein the identifier provides descriptive information related to the content within the content frame, and store data associated with the content frame for later retrieval (“the interactive computing system can receive data associated with the gameplay session. The data associated with the gameplay session may include video data, telemetry data, system data, player profile data, and/or other data associated with the execution of the game application” (recited in at least: Lucas paragraph [0118])); a user interface configured to display the content frames bookmarked along with their associated identifiers and additional metadata, and to enable user interaction for selecting, editing, and organizing the bookmarked content frames (“The video data can include with timestamps for the gameplay session. For example, the video data may generate timestamps associated with each frame of video data received during the gameplay session. The interactive computing system 120 can associate the video data with the session ID. Similarly, the interactive computing system 120 can associate the received telemetry data with the session ID” (recited in at least: Lucas paragraph [0119])); and a sharing interface configured to facilitate sharing of bookmarked content frames and their associated information on external media platforms (“the interactive computing system 120 can locate video data associated with the gameplay session using the session ID provided in the user's request. The video data may be a complete video that includes what was previously recorded and stored by the video acquisition system. In some embodiments, the video data may be a portion of a video data that is concurrently being recorded, such as, for example, by the video acquisition system” (recited in at least: Lucas paragraph [0125])).
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 3-6 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lucas in view of Bjorn Ardo and Fredrik Pihl (US 20180191952 A1; hereinafter Ardo).
Regarding claim 3, Lucas discloses the claimed matter as stated above; however, does not explicitly disclose wherein eye-gaze information captured of the player is used in part to identify frame region.
Ardo teaches wherein eye-gaze information captured of the player is used in part to identify frame region (“The gaze area may include a gaze point and an area of foveal focus. For example, an operator may sit in front of display 130 of monitoring station 125. Eye tracker 140 determines which portion of display 130 the operator is focusing on” (recited in at least: Ardo paragraph [0047])).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have combined the eye-gaze information captured as taught by Ardo into the system of Lucas for the added benefit of further identifying what parts of the game that a user is more likely to pay attention to when debugging or making bookmarks so that game developers can fix or make similar assets into the game to keep the users attention.
Regarding claim 4, Lucas in view of Ardo teach the disclosed subject matter as stated above, and Lucas further suggests wherein the bookmark is a thumbnail image that includes the video frame along with the overlay content, and wherein the thumbnail image is displayed in the user interface with other metadata that is descriptive of a gameplay moment of the player, wherein the identifier is overlay content rendered over the video frame to identify the frame region (“The video data associated with the event can retrieved and can be displayed at the specific time that the event occurs during the gameplay session. For example, a person may want to view how someone earned an achievement for defeating a specific boss within a game application. The person may select the event and the data visualization system 132 can display the video of the gameplay session at the moment that the person received the achievement or at a specific time associated with the achievement, such as defined amount of time before the achievement was earned” (recited in at least: Lucas paragraph [0023])).
Regarding claim 5, Lucas in view of Ardo teach the disclosed subject matter as stated above, and Lucas further suggests wherein the thumbnail image is one of a plurality of thumbnail images for a respective plurality of gameplay moments of the player, the plurality of thumbnail images are individually selectable, wherein selection of one of the thumbnail images provides additional descriptive information related to the bookmark and enablement to trigger a replay of one or more video frames showing interactivity that occurred before and or after the video frame having the bookmark associated therewith (“The term “user” can refer to a person that is accessing the game metric analysis system 130 to view gameplay data associated player's gameplay sessions through the data visualization system 132. Though illustrated as separate systems, the player computing system 102 and the user computing system 103 can be the same computing system depending on whether the system is providing the gameplay session data or accessing the gameplay session data through the data visualization system 132” (recited in at least: Lucas paragraph [0024])).
Regarding claim 6, Lucas in view of Ardo teach the disclosed subject matter as stated above, and Lucas further suggests wherein the additional descriptive information includes at least one of a timestamp (“The session ID may be based on a variety of information such as, for example, an IP address, a timestamp when the game application begins to be executed, and a player's profile information, in combination or the like” (recited in at least: Lucas paragraph [0043])).
Claim 7 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lucas in view of Ardo in further view of James Lewis Van Welzen et al., (US 20220410004 A1; hereinafter Van Welzen).
Regarding claim 7, Lucas in view of Ardo teach the disclosed subject matter as stated above; however, they do not explicitly disclose enabling the player to share the thumbnail image along with its associated descriptive information on a social media platform or a game network.
Van Welzen teaches enabling the player to share the thumbnail image along with its associated descriptive information on a social media platform or a game network (“The communications interface 122 may be configured to communicate via any number of the network(s) 102, described herein, for example, to receive and/or transmit data used to generate one or more game summaries (e.g., a video stream of a gameplay session, a recording of a gameplay session, recordings, video clips, screenshots, user inputs to the input device(s) 112, streaming content, etc. used to generate metadata and/or generated from data associated with gameplay). The data store(s) 124 may be used to store any of the various information associated with the game summary server 116 (e.g., video clips, screenshots, thumbnails, game summaries, metadata, etc.)” (recited in at least: Van Welzen paragraph [0034])).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have included the ability to share information to a streaming platform so that the streamer/player can have content available to share with others during a streaming session.
Claim 8 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lucas in view of James M. Powderly (WO 2018195099 A1; hereinafter Powderly).
Regarding claim 8, Lucas discloses the claimed matter as stated above; however, does not explicitly disclose wherein the input to bookmark a frame region is received via a voice command issued by the player.
Powderly teaches wherein the input to bookmark a frame region is received via a voice command issued by the player (“Voice recognition is another input, which can be used alone or in combination with other inputs (e.g., totem tracking, eye tracking, gesture tracking, etc.). The system 900 can include an audio sensor 232 (e.g., a microphone) that receives an audio stream from the environment The received audio stream can be processed (e.g., by processing modules 260, 270 or central server 16S0) to recognize a user's voice (from other voices or background audio), to extract commands, subjects, parameters, etc. from the audio stream. For example, the system 900 may identify from an audio stream that the phrase "move that there" was said, identity that this phrase was said by the wearer of the system 900 (rather than another person in the user's environment), and extract f om the phrase that there is an executable command ("move") and an object to be moved ("that") to a location ("there")” (recited in at least: Powderly paragraph [0120])).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to have added voice input/command for users as an input for users who need assistance while playing games due to medical issues or the inability to control inputs that are held by two hands.
Claim 16-26 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lucas in view of Allen O’Neill (US 20240412542 A1; hereinafter O’Neill).
Regarding claim 16, Lucas discloses the claimed matter as stated above; however, does not explicitly disclose wherein the bookmarking processor comprises an artificial intelligence (AI) module configured to automatically identify significant moments in the interactive media content and generate a bookmarking input for those moments.
O’Neill teaches an artificial intelligence (AI) module configured to automatically identify significant moments in the interactive media content (“processor may align the timing of specific visual events (e.g., scene changes, the appearance of an object, etc.) with key moments in the audio track (e.g., changes in music tempo, start of a dialogue, etc.) and/or evaluate the synchronization between audio and video” (recited in at least: O’Neill paragraph [0214])) and generate a bookmarking input for those moments (“The media ingestion engine 122 may be responsible for the collection and processing of various forms of media (e.g., videos, images, audio files, text, etc.) from different sources and preparing them for further processing and analysis” (recited in at least: O’Neill paragraph [0148])).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art to have added an artificial intelligence (AI) model as taught by O’Neill into the system of Lucas so that users can easily add more content into their bookmarked session id automatically.
Regarding claim 17, Lucas discloses the claimed matter as stated above; however, does not explicitly disclose wherein an artificial intelligence (AI) model is further configured to analyze the content within the content frame using machine learning techniques to generate the identifier with said descriptive information.
O’Neill teaches wherein an artificial intelligence (AI) model is further configured to analyze the content within the content frame using machine learning techniques to generate the identifier with said descriptive information (“the processor may use image recognition techniques to identify objects, faces, text, and scenes within the video, determine visual quality (e.g., resolution, frame rate, etc.), evaluate the visual composition (e.g., color balance, lighting, camera movement, etc.), detect and categorize actions or events depicted in the video” (recited in at least: O’Neill paragraph [0194])).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have used machine learning techniques like image recognition (the instant application’s specification states that this is an example of a machine learning technique in paragraph [0049]) as taught by O’Neil into the system of Lucas for the added benefit of the AI system learning how to generate identifiers similar to the one created by user.
Regarding claim 18, Lucas in view of O’Neill teach the disclosed subject matter as stated above, and O’Neill further suggests wherein eye gaze of the user is analyzed using said AI model to identify a type of said content within the content frame (“the processor may determine emotion. For example, the processor may analyze facial expressions, body language, and other visual cues within the video segment, evaluate changes in facial muscle movements, eye movements, and gestures, and perform other similar operations to determine emotions such as happiness, sadness, anger, or surprise” (recited in at least: O’Neill paragraph [0276])).
Regarding claim 19, Lucas in view of O’Neill teach the disclosed subject matter as stated above, and O’Neill further teaches wherein the machine learning techniques include one of natural language processing for audio analysis for analyzing sound within the content frame (“the processor may use LXMs, advanced natural language processing, and/or image recognition techniques to infer emotional tones and sentiments conveyed in both audio and video components, which may include analyzing speech patterns, word choices, and vocal tones in the audio for emotional cues, as well as interpreting facial expressions, body language, and visual context in the video” (recited in at least: O’Neill paragraph [0199])).
Regarding claim 20, Lucas in view of O’Neill teach the disclosed subject matter as stated above, and O’Neill further teaches wherein the AI model is trained to recognize patterns associated with memorable moments based on user feedback on previously bookmarked content frames (“the processor may create the rule by binding the condition and action and/or so as to allow the users to craft customized rules tailored to their specific needs or preferences” (recited in at least: O’Neill paragraph [0549])).
Regarding claim 21, Lucas in view of O’Neill teach the disclosed subject matter as stated above, and O’Neill further suggests wherein the AI model utilizes deep learning algorithms to continuously improve its accuracy in identifying significant moments and generating descriptive identifiers over time (“the processor may automatically scrape and process additional relevant information from external sources, update the database with the new data (e.g., to improve future searches, etc.)” (recited in at least: O’Neill paragraph [0622])).
Regarding claim 22, Lucas in view of O’Neill teach the disclosed subject matter as stated above, and O’Neill further suggests wherein the AI model is further configured to suggest edits to the descriptive information associated with bookmarked content frames based on contextual analysis of the interactive media content (“analyzing media content to generate keywords and tags that would improve the content's visibility and ranking on search engines and within the platform's search function, generating and sending feedback or suggestions for improvement to content creators based on the analysis of their content's performance” (recited in at least: O’Neill paragraph [0201])).
Regarding claim 23, Lucas in view of O’Neill teach the disclosed subject matter as stated above, and O’Neill further suggests wherein the AI model is configured to detect detecting emotional cues in the interactive media content to identify moments of heightened emotional impact for bookmarking (“ As further examples, the processor may use speech recognition technology to transcribe spoken words, use sentiment analysis algorithms to determine the emotional tone conveyed in the audio, analyze the audio quality to identify factors such as volume levels, clarity, and distortions or artifacts. In some embodiments, the processor may detect and categorize specific sounds or music and link them with a database for contextual analysis (e.g., identify a song, identify sounds as being from a particular environment” (recited in at least: O’Neill paragraph [0193])).
Regarding claim 24, Lucas in view of O’Neill teach the disclosed subject matter as stated above, and O’Neill further suggests wherein the AI model is further configured to categorize bookmarked content frames based on types of memorable moments, such as action sequences (“Examples of media content segments include an action sequence in a film in which a timestamp attribute marks its occurrence in the film and a scene attribute that describes the setting depicted in the segment as an intense emotional setting” (recited in at least: O’Neill paragraph [0192])).
Regarding claim 25, Lucas in view of O’Neill teach the disclosed subject matter as stated above, and O’Neill further suggests wherein the AI model is configured to generate summaries of the bookmarked content frames, providing an overview of the memorable moments captured (“the processor may be configured to generate reports or summaries of the analyzed video content highlighting key themes and contextually relevant information” (recited in at least: O’Neill paragraph [0627])).
Regarding claim 26, Lucas in view of O’Neill teach the disclosed subject matter as stated above, and O’Neill further suggests wherein the AI model is further configured to personalize the identification and description of memorable moments based on user preferences and viewing history (“the processor may perform, initiate, or trigger any or all of the responsive actions discussed in this application (e.g., responsive actions discussed with reference to block 446 in FIG. 4D, etc.), such as recommending related content, generating insights, triggering specific operations, or other similar actions are aimed at enhancing the overall user experience and/or improving the performance and functioning of the computing device” (recited in at least: O’Neill paragraph [0295])).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to SELWA A ALSOMAIRY whose telephone number is (703)756-5323. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 7:30AM to 5PM EST.
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, Peter Vasat can be reached at (571) 270-7625. 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.
/SELWA A ALSOMAIRY/Examiner, Art Unit 3715
/Jay Trent Liddle/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3715
Prosecution Insights