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 .
Response to Arguments
Claims 1-7, 9, and 11-12 are amended.
Claim 16 is newly added.
Claims 1-16 are presently pending.
Applicant's arguments filed 20 April 2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Regarding Applicant’s arguments with respect to the rejections of the Claims under 35 USC 103 over Tang in view of Wang (see Remarks, pgs. 5-7), the Examiner disagrees. Applicant particularly attacks Tang as failing to teach ‘generating a separate control instruction’ or ‘distinguishing between generating and executing’ instructions ‘in a monolithic manner, immediately applying visual modifications based on internal logic’ (see Remarks, pg. 6) and further arguing that Tang fails to describe transmitting these instructions to a separate component , “let alone an AI SoC” (see Remarks, pg. 7). The Examiner notes that the test for obviousness is not whether the features of a secondary reference may be bodily incorporated into the structure of the primary reference; nor is it that the claimed invention must be expressly suggested in any one or all of the references. Rather, the test is what the combined teachings of the references would have suggested to those of ordinary skill in the art. Furthermore, one cannot show nonobviousness by attacking references individually where the rejections are based on combinations of references. See In re Keller, 642 F.2d 413, 208 USPQ 871 (CCPA 1981); In re Merck & Co., 800 F.2d 1091, 231 USPQ 375 (Fed. Cir. 1986).
Tang [Fig. 6] and corresponding description [0097-100] disclose displaying a screen 600 on a user equipment 406 which comprises a mobile application interface. Screen 600 (i.e., a mobile application interface), presents the users with a list of identified objects/people detected in the media presented in screen 500 on television 402. Tang [0099] notes that users may select any of the options presenting screen 600 (i.e., the mobile application interface), i.e., selection of an object from the list show in screen 600. Tang [0102] and [0119] disclose that such a selection causes the control circuitry to determine some manner to mark the user selected object (i.e., some overlay) on television 402. It would be noted that the embodiments of use of a look-up table (LUT) are described in an exemplary manner, and the cogent teaching of the disclosure of Tang is that the control circuitry must be able to determine some sort of instruction in one way or another to be provided to the display system of television 402 so as to affect the overlay/border 704, i.e., the control circuitry 304 must generate some instruction to tell the television 402 to display the overlay to cause the selected object/objects to be marked as shown between [Fig. 6] and [Fig. 7], including with any instruction on how to present the markings.
Even if the feature of the LUT were necessarily required by the disclosure of Tang, the information retrieved from the LUT is used to provide attributes to the overlay. That does not diminish the fact that the control circuitry still reacts to control the system according to the user selections/inputs, and understandably generates the appropriate control signals to provide the overlays responsive to the user selections, and where the LUT information would be incorporated into such control signals as a means to control the appearance of the overlay. It is further noted that the recited limitation of ‘generating, based on the selection, a control instruction and an overlay associated with the specific object’ offers no details of the generation, nor precludes use of information from a LUT. Tang [Fig. 3] and [0057] describe the possible architecture of the control circuitry 304, and particular note that the circuitry 304 may be embodied as a plurality of distributed processors and/or ASICs. It would follow that the implicit control signals of the system may be distributed across different processors/ASICs of the system. Walter is further relied upon to teach that such processor systems may be embodied as Artificial Intelligence System on Chips (AI SoC) executing machine learning models. Therefore, the combination of Tang and Walter disclose, teach, and suggest all of the limitations of the claimed invention.
Furthermore, with respect to the limitation of ‘selection of a location on the specific object to provide the overlay’, ‘initiating a poll’, and ‘overlay comprising animations’ it is noted that the Examiner took Official Notice that these features are widely understood to be known in the art. As Applicant has failed to traverse the Official Notice in a timely manner, the Official Notice is taken to be admitted prior art, and the Official Notice is made final. See MPEP 2144.03(C).
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 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.
The factual inquiries set forth in Graham v. John Deere Co., 383 U.S. 1, 148 USPQ 459 (1966), that are applied 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 1-7, 9, and 13-16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Tang (US 2015/0248918 A1) (of record, hereinafter Tang), in view of Walter et al. (US 2019/0370072 A1) (of record, hereinafter Walter).
Regarding Claim 1, Tang discloses a method, comprising:
executing, using an artificial intelligence, a machine learning model on received televised content, the machine learning model configured to identify objects displayed on the received televised content; [0038-39: guidance application may use various learning systems (e.g., neural networks) to perform content recognition on some media asset to detect objects, people, etc. within the media]
displaying, through a mobile application interface, the identified objects for selection; [Fig. 6: 0097-100: screen 600 provides selectable list of objects/people in detected in the media presented in screen 500]
receiving, from the mobile application interface, a selection of a specific object; [Fig. 6: 0097-100: screen 600 provides selectable list of objects/people in detected in the media presented in screen 500]
generating, based on the selection, a control instruction and an overlay associated with the specific object; [Figs. 6-7; 0102, 0121-123: once selected, system will highlight or otherwise mark the selected objected detected in the media utilizing various overlays to provide various information about the selected object, such as player statistics, etc.] and
transmitting the control instruction to cause modification of a display of the received televised content to render the overlay in association with the specific object within image frames of the received televised content. [Figs. 6-7; 0102, 0121-123: once selected, system will highlight or otherwise mark the selected objected detected in the media utilizing various overlays to provide various information about the selected object, such as player statistics, etc.]
Tang further discloses wherein the system may be implemented utilizing any type of processing circuitry comprising one or more processors or ASICs. [0057]
Tang fails to explicitly disclose using an artificial intelligence System on Chip (AI SoC).
Walter, in analogous art, teaches an artificial intelligence System on Chip (AI SoC). [0010: platforms, such as a learning machine or STB, may be implemented as System on Chip (SOC)]
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the filing date of the invention to modify the method of Tang with the teachings of Walter to specify use of an AI SoC as it is understood that SoCs have the benefits of lower power consumption due to a higher level of integration. [Walter – 0010]
Regarding Claim 2, Tang and Walter disclose all of the limitations of Claim 1, which are analyzed as previously discussed with respect to that claim.
Furthermore, Tang discloses retrieving information associated with the specific object; and generating the overlay from the retrieved information. [Tang – Figs. 6-7; 0102, 0121-123: once selected, system will highlight or otherwise mark the selected objected detected in the media utilizing various overlays to retrieve and provide various information about the selected object, such as player statistics, etc.]
Regarding Claim 3, Tang and Walter disclose all of the limitations of Claim 1, which are analyzed as previously discussed with respect to that claim.
Furthermore, Tang discloses the modifying the display of the received televised content to display the overlay comprises displaying the visual overlay on the specific object. [Tang – Figs. 6-7; 0102, 0121-123: once selected, system will highlight or otherwise mark the selected objected detected in the media utilizing various overlays to retrieve and provide various information about the selected object, such as player statistics, etc.]
Regarding Claim 4, Tang and Walter disclose all of the limitations of Claim 3, which are analyzed as previously discussed with respect to that claim.
Furthermore, Tang discloses wherein the modifying the display comprises: identifying a selection of a person and an object, displaying the visual overlay on the object when the object is associated with the person. [Tang – Figs. 6-7; 0102, 0121-123: once selected, system will highlight or otherwise mark the selected objected detected in the media utilizing various overlays to retrieve and provide various information about the selected object, such as player statistics, etc.]
Regarding Claim 5, Tang and Walter disclose all of the limitations of Claim 1, which are analyzed as previously discussed with respect to that claim.
Furthermore, Tang discloses receiving a selection of one or more users through the mobile application interface, modifying the display of the received televised content of the selected one or more users to display the overlay. [Tang – Figs. 6-7; 0102, 0121-123: once selected, system will highlight or otherwise mark the selected objected detected in the media utilizing various overlays to retrieve and provide various information about the selected object, such as player statistics, etc.]
Regarding Claim 6, Tang and Walter disclose all of the limitations of Claim 1, which are analyzed as previously discussed with respect to that claim.
Furthermore, Tang discloses retrieving information for display on the mobile application interface for the specific object. [Tang – Figs. 6-7; 0069: second screen device may be used to select information to be provided, where both the television equipment 402 and wireless user device 406 may show the same information and programming]
Regarding Claim 7, Tang and Walter disclose all of the limitations of Claim 1, which are analyzed as previously discussed with respect to that claim.
Furthermore, Tang and Walter disclose wherein the AI SoC is disposed on one of a television, a set top box, or an edge device, [Tang – Figs. 3-4; 0030: user device may be a STB or television, or any other receiver or computing equipment; Walter – 0010] wherein the method further comprises receiving, through the mobile application interface, a channel to obtain the received television content. [Tang – 0030, 0069, 0091-93: second screen device may be used to receive user inputs to select programming to be displayed on the user television equipment 402]
Regarding Claim 9, Tang and Walter disclose all of the limitations of Claim 1, which are analyzed as previously discussed with respect to that claim.
Furthermore, Tang discloses receiving, through the mobile application interface preferences and customizations of display is presented. [Tang – 0052, 0068-70: second screen may provide an interface for adjusting settings and display preferences of information on the first device; 0122, 0132: preferences of user may affect how the selected object is to be marked/highlighted]
Tang and Walter fail to explicitly disclose receiving, through the mobile application interface, a selection of a location on the specific object to provide the overlay; wherein the modifying the display of the received televised content to display the overlay comprises providing the overlay on the specific object.
However, the Examiner takes Official Notice that selection of overlay location is a well-known and utilized presentation customization that users may manually set in order to ensure that any overlay information does not overly interfere with some underlying content or object in a video.
Regarding Claim 13, Tang and Walter disclose all of the limitations of Claim 1, which are analyzed as previously discussed with respect to that claim.
Tang and Walter fail to explicitly disclose receiving, through the mobile application interface, instructions to initiate a poll; wherein the poll is provided to mobile application interfaces of one or more users viewing the received television content.
However, the Examiner takes Official Notice that creating and providing polls to users viewing received television are a well-known and common means of user engagement and social interaction between viewers who are experiencing the same media at the same time.
Regarding Claim 14, Tang and Walter disclose all of the limitations of Claim 1, which are analyzed as previously discussed with respect to that claim.
Furthermore, Tang discloses that the overlay may comprise a variety of different manners of marking or highlighting an object, including changing coloring, bordering, shape, rhythm, or any other manner of visually marking an object. [0102, 0106-108, 0119-120
Tang and Walter fail to explicitly disclose wherein the overlay comprises animations.
However, the Examiner takes Official Notice that overlaying animations is a well-known and common means of visually marking or annotating video data.
Regarding Claim 15, Tang and Walter disclose all of the limitations of Claim 1, which are analyzed as previously discussed with respect to that claim.
Furthermore, Tang discloses wherein the overlay comprises statistics associated with the specific object. . [Tang – Figs. 6-7; 0102, 0121-123: once selected, system will highlight or otherwise mark the selected objected detected in the media utilizing various overlays to retrieve and provide various information about the selected object, such as player statistics, etc.]
Regarding Claim 16, Tang and Walter disclose all of the limitations of Claim 1, which are analyzed as previously discussed with respect to that claim.
Furthermore, Tang discloses determining, for the specific identified object, spatial position information within the received televised content, and rendering the overlay based on the spatial position information. [Tang – Figs. 6-7; 0102, 0121-123: once selected, system will highlight or otherwise mark the selected objected detected in the media utilizing various overlays to retrieve and provide various information about the selected object, such as player statistics, etc.; 0007, 0105, 0117: position of the object will be determined to render 704 as the object moves]
Claim(s) 8 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Tang and Walter as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Liu et al. (US 2021/0329306 A1) (of record, hereinafter Liu)
Regarding Claim 8, Tang and Walter disclose all of the limitations of Claim 1, which are analyzed as previously discussed with respect to that claim.
Furthermore, Tang discloses receiving, through the mobile application interface, a selection of preferences and customizations of the system. [Tang – 0052, 0068-70: second screen may provide an interface for adjusting settings and preferences of information on the first device]
Tang and Walter fail to explicitly disclose receiving, through the mobile application interface, a selection of the machine learning model; wherein the AI SoC is configured to execute the selected machine learning model in response to the selection.
Liu, in analogous art, teaches receiving, through the mobile application interface, a selection of the machine learning model; wherein the AI SoC is configured to execute the selected machine learning model in response to the selection. [0596-0599: a plurality of pre-trained AI models may exist, where a user may select a machine learning model to be used in specific applications (such as the AI of Tang and Walter above)]
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the filing date of the invention to modify the method of Tang and Walter with the teaches of Liu to all selection of the machine learning model to execute as is understood that users may select specific machine learning models from a plurality of models to be used in specific applications. [Liu – 0599]
Claim(s) 10 and 12 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Tang and Walter as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Ortiz et al. (US 2012/0167001 A1) (of record, hereinafter Ortiz)
Regarding Claim 10, Tang and Walter disclose all of the limitations of Claim 1, which are analyzed as previously discussed with respect to that claim.
Furthermore, Tang discloses wherein the system may provide chat sessions between users. [0027, 0043]
Tang and Walter fail to explicitly disclose wherein the overlay comprises text messages; wherein the modifying the display of the received televised content to display the overlay comprises modifying the display of a plurality of users to display the text messages.
Ortiz, in analogous art, teaches wherein the overlay comprises text messages; wherein the modifying the display of the received televised content to display the overlay comprises modifying the display of a plurality of users to display the text messages. [Fig. 5; 0082-83: facial recognition application (such as the AI SoC of Tang and Walter above) may identify persons within a video content, wherein selecting one of the identified persons in the image (such as selection of objects in Tang and Walter above) may open a communication window on the display device, wherein communications may be video chat, text messages, etc.]
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the filing date of the invention to modify the method of Tang and Walters with the teachings of Ortiz to specify overlaying text messages as it is understood that video systems may allow users to communicate with other users through overlaid text messaging. [Ortiz – 0082-83]
Regarding Claim 12, Tang and Walter disclose all of the limitations of Claim 1, which are analyzed as previously discussed with respect to that claim.
Furthermore, Tang discloses wherein the system may provide chat sessions between users. [0027, 0043]
Tang and Walter fail to explicitly disclose receiving a selection of a person, and generating a chat application in the mobile application interface to facilitate chat with the person.
Ortiz, in analogous art, teaches receiving a selection of a person, and generating a chat application in the mobile application interface to facilitate chat with the person. [Fig. 5; 0082-83: facial recognition application (such as the AI SoC of Tang and Walter above) may identify persons within a video content, wherein selecting one of the identified persons in the image (such as selection of objects in Tang and Walter above) may open a communication window on the display device, wherein communications may be video chat, text messages, etc.]
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the filing date of the invention to modify the method of Tang and Walters with the teachings of Ortiz to specify overlaying text messages as it is understood that video systems may allow users to communicate with other users by selecting a detected person in a group video. [Ortiz – 0082-83]
Claim(s) 11 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Tang and Walter as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Morrison (US 2019/0288972 A1) (of record, hereinafter Morrison).
Regarding Claim 11, Tang and Walter disclose all of the limitations of Claim 1, which are analyzed as previously discussed with respect to that claim.
Tang and Walter fail to explicitly disclose receiving a selection of a first person having a first face and a second person having a second face, and the generating comprises generating an overlay of the second face on the first person and an overlay of the first face on the second person.
Morrison, in analogous art, teaches receiving a selection of a first person having a first face and a second person having a second face, and the generating comprises generating an overlay of the second face on the first person and an overlay of the first face on the second person. [0020: video content items may allow graphic overlay options that may create a modified version of an image, such as AR software for swapping peoples’ heads or faces (which implicitly suggests selection of the faces to swap)]
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the filing date of the invention to modify the method of Tang and Walters with the teachings of Morrison to provide features to allow overlay of two peoples’ faces on the other’s respective bodies as it is a known form of entertainment to generate a distorted version an image. [Morrison – 0020]
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). 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.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to WILLIAM J KIM whose telephone number is (571)272-2767. The examiner can normally be reached 9:30am - 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, Hadi Armouche can be reached at (571) 270-3618. 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.
/WILLIAM J KIM/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2409
Prosecution Insights