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 .
Priority
Receipt is acknowledged of certified copies of papers required by 37 CFR 1.55.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 8 March 2024 is being considered by the examiner.
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 data generation unit that generates…” in claim 1 (No detailed description);
“a user emotion prediction unit that predicts…” in claim 7 (No detailed description);
“a display control unit that controls…” in claim 8 (No detailed description);
“an extraction unit that extracts…” in claim 9 (No detailed description);
“a reproduction control unit that controls…” in claim 16 (No detailed description); and
“an edit control unit that controls…” in claim 17 (No detailed description).
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.
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 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 1-6 and 8-17 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 limitations “a data generation unit that generates…” in claim 1, a user emotion prediction unit that predicts…” in claim 7, “a display control unit that controls…” in claim 8, “an extraction unit that extracts…” in claim 9, “a reproduction control unit that controls…” in claim 16, and “an edit control unit that controls…” 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 any structure that performs the function in the claims. 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.
For examination purposes, the examiner will interpret that any structure that performs the claimed functions are the “units”, respectfully, as claimed.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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 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 5-6 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Ajito Takeyuki (JP 2011-166405 A).
Regarding claim 1, Ajito Takeyuki discloses an information processing device comprising:
a data generation unit (Figure 1) that generates correlation data obtained by associating a user emotion with video quality on a basis of the user emotion and the video quality for each scene of moving image content (Figure 4 and paragraphs [0027]-[0028] and [0035], the emotion vs imaging mode, where the imaging modes are shown in Figure 2 which involve “image quality” [special effects, contrast correction, saturation correction, sharpness correction, etc.]. See also paragraph [0082] which says the teachings can be used for a digital video camera, thus for moving image content.).
Regarding claim 2, Ajito Takeyuki discloses the information processing device according to claim 1, wherein the correlation data includes combination data of the user emotion and the video quality for each scene (Figure 4 and paragraphs [0027]-[0028]).
Regarding claim 5, Ajito Takeyuki discloses the information processing device according to claim 1, wherein the data generation unit generates the correlation data for each user attribute using the user emotion for each user attribute (Figure 4 and paragraphs [0027]-[0028], where the correlation data is found in the table for each user emtion attribute, i.e. “weighting factor” for “pleasant”, “scary” etc.).
Regarding claim 6, this claim is rejected under the same rationale as claim 1.
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.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
Claims 3-4 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ajito Takeyuki (JP 2011-166405 A) in view of Osborne et al. (US 2020/0286505).
Regarding claim 3, Ajito Takeyuki discloses the information processing device according to claim 1.
Ajito Takeyuki fails to teach wherein the correlation data includes data of a regression equation calculated on a basis of combination data of the user emotion and the video quality for each scene.
Osborne et al. disclose wherein correlation data includes data of a regression equation calculated on a basis of combination data (Paragraph [0012]: linear regression algorithm)
Therefore, it would have been obvious to “one of ordinary skill” in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use the linear regression teachings of Osborne et al. in the information processing device taught by Ajito Takeyuki such that the data is calculated on a basis of combination data of the user emotion and the video quality for each scene. The motivation to combine would have been in order to apply the known benefits of regression, such as better understanding relationships between variables, which allows for performance optimization and informed decision making.
Regarding claim 4, Ajito Takeyuki and Osborne et al. disclose the information processing device according to claim 3, wherein data of a correlation coefficient is added to the data of the regression equation (Where the “correlation coefficient” is the weightings, Osborne et al.: Paragraph [0012] recites “…is based on a combination of one or more or all of the base feature parameters, with weightings determined by linear regressions.).
Claims 7-8, 15-16 and 18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ajito Takeyuki (JP 2011-166405 A) in view of Sud et al. (US 2018/0314881).
Regarding claim 7, please refer to the rejection of claim 1, where Ajito Takeyuki discloses of generating correlation data obtained by associating a user emotion with the video quality for each scene of moving image content.
However, Ajito Takeyuki fails to teach
a user emotion prediction unit that predicts, on a basis of video quality for each scene of moving image content and the correlation data obtained by associating a user emotion with the video quality, the user emotion for each scene of the moving image content.
Sud et al. disclose a user emotion prediction unit (Figure 1) that predicts, on a basis of correlation data, a user emotion for each image (Paragraphs [0016]-[0017]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to “one of ordinary skill” in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use the prediction teachings of Sud et al. and apply them to the correlation data obtained by associating a user emotion with the video quality for each scene of moving image content such that the correlation data can be used to predict the user emotion. The motivation to combine would have been in order to make use of t a machine learning algorithm and its known benefits, such as allowing for personalization of content.
Regarding claim 8, Ajito Takeyuki and Sud et al. disclose the information processing device according to claim 7, further comprising:
a display control unit (Sud et al.: Figures 1-2) that controls display of the predicted user emotion for each scene of the moving image content (Sud et al.: Paragraph [0046]).
Regarding claim 15, Ajito Takeyuki and Sud et al. disclose the information processing device according to claim 7, wherein the user emotion prediction unit predicts the user emotion for each scene of the moving image content on a basis of the correlation data of a predetermined attribute selected from the correlation data for each user attribute (In the prediction in the combination. Ajito Takeyuki discloses in paragraphs [0027]-[0028], where the emotions are the attributes: pleasant, scary, etc., and the weights are correlation data, and the selection is done based on the weights.).
Regarding claim 16, Ajito Takeyuki and Sud et al. disclose the information processing device according to claim 7, further comprising:
a reproduction control unit (Sud et al.: Figures 1-2) that controls reproduction of the moving image content on a basis of the extracted emotion representative scene (Sud et al.: Paragraph [0046] in the combination.).
Regarding claim 18, this claim is rejected under the same rationale as claim 7.
Claims 9-11 and 17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ajito Takeyuki (JP 2011-166405 A) in view of Sud et al. (US 2018/0314881) and further in view of Matsuyama et al. (JP 2005-128884 A).
Regarding claim 9, Ajito Takeyuki and Sud et al. disclose the information processing device according to claim 7.
Ajito Takeyuki and Sud et al. fail to teach the information processing device further comprising:
Matsuyama et al. disclose an extraction unit that extracts an emotion representative scene for each scene of the moving image content (Figure 3B and see page 26 of the provided document, the paragraph reciting: “In the above embodiment, information content editing processing is performed based on emotion parameters based on biometric information. However, in addition to emotion information, scene extraction based on position information and time information is performed, and the same position and same time A summary content collection can also be created. Thereby, for example, an experience history based on various information can be created from the experience videos accumulated every day and looked back.).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to “one of ordinary skill” in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use the scene extraction taught by Matsuyama et al. and apply them to the information processing device taught by the combination of Ajito Takeyuki and Sud et al. such that the extraction will be based on the predicted user emotion. The motivation to combine would have been in order to provide customized user experience videos where a user can easily grasp what impressive scenes existed in daily experiences (See the top of page 27 of the provided document for Matsuyama et al.).
Regarding claim 10, Ajito Takeyuki, Sud et al. and Matsuyama et al. disclose the information processing device according to claim 9, wherein the extraction unit extracts the emotion representative scene on a basis of a type of the user emotion (In the combination, Ajito Takeyuki: Figure 4 shows “types”, see paragraphs [0027]-[0028].).
Regarding claim 11, Ajito Takeyuki, Sud et al. and Matsuyama et al. disclose the information processing device according to claim 9, wherein the extraction unit extracts the emotion representative scene on a basis of a degree of the user emotion (In the combination, Ajito Takeyuki, paragraphs [0027]-[0028], the weights are a “degree.”).
Regarding claim 17, Ajito Takeyuki and Sud et al. disclose the information processing device according to claim 7.
Ajito Takeyuki and Sud et al. fail to teach the information processing device further comprising:
an edit control unit that controls editing of the moving image content on a basis of the extracted emotion representative scene.
Matsuyama et al. disclose an edit control unit that controls editing of the moving image content on a basis of an extracted emotion representative scene (Figure 1 and see page 21 of the provided document, the paragraph reciting: “Next, the summary creation application will be described. The summary creation application is described in XML (Extensible Markup Language) and creates a summary of video and audio collected by the user. In the summary creation application, necessary video and audio are edited based on the emotional state when the user takes a video. The editing processing unit is called a command, and the processing method is described between <Command> tags. Then, editing is performed by arranging a plurality of commands in time series and sequentially executing each command in the command sequence in time series.”).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to “one of ordinary skill” in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use the editing teachings of Matsuyama et al. and apply them to the information processing device taught by the combination of Ajito Takeyuki and Sud et al. The motivation to combine would have been in order to provide customized user experience videos where a user can easily grasp what impressive scenes existed in daily experiences (See the top of page 27 of the provided document for Matsuyama et al.).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 12-14 would be allowable if rewritten to overcome the rejection(s) under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), 2nd paragraph, set forth in this Office action and to include all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter:
The primary reasons for indicating allowable subject matter in claim 12 is the inclusion of the limitations reciting “wherein the extraction unit extracts a scene in which the degree of the user emotion exceeds a threshold as the emotion representative scene” which, in combination with the other recited features, is not taught and/or suggested either singularly or in combination within the prior art.
The primary reasons for indicating allowable subject matter in claim 13 is the inclusion of the limitations reciting “wherein the extraction unit extracts the emotion representative scene on a basis of a statistical value of the degree of the user emotion of the entire moving image content” which, in combination with the other recited features, is not taught and/or suggested either singularly or in combination within the prior art.
Claim 14 is objected to due to its dependency from claim 13.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to STEPHEN G SHERMAN whose telephone number is (571)272-2941. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday, 8:00am - 4pm ET.
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, AMR AWAD can be reached at (571)272-7764. 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.
/STEPHEN G SHERMAN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2621
7 January 2026