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
Claim(s) 1-20 do not use “means for” (or “step for”) language, or generic placeholders for "means” coupled with functional language without recitation of sufficient structure for carrying out the claimed functions and therefore do not invoke 35 U.S.C. 112(f) (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.
Claim 8 is 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 8]
Claim 8 recites the limitation "at the one or more timestamps" in lines 3-4. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
For the purposes of applying prior art, claim 8 will be read as requiring “at one or more timestamps”
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.
Claim(s) 1, 2, 4-7, 9-11, 14, 16, 17, 19 and 20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Brook (US 2018/0124299 A1) in view of Kwon (US 2011/0074971 A1).[claim 6]
Regarding claim 6, Brook discloses a system for generating a modified video based on analyzing a video captured in a User Equipment (UE) (Figure 3), the system comprising:
a memory storing one or more instructions (Figures 6 and 7, 730); and
one or more processors operatively coupled to the memory (Figure 3, 221; Figure 7, 710; Paragraphs 0107-0124);
wherein the one or more instructions, when executed by the one or more processors, cause the system to:
capture a plurality of first frames of a video of a scene in a first mode upon detecting an initiation of a video capture (Figure 4A, 402-404);
analyze the captured plurality of first frames in the first mode to determine camera settings for video capture(Figure 4A, 406-408);
capture a plurality of second frames of the video in accordance with the camera settings (Figure 4A, 410); and
record metadata associated with the captured plurality of second frames in the second mode (Paragraph 0083, additional information including final camera settings);
apply the metadata associated with the plurality of second frames onto the plurality of first frames to generate a plurality of modified first frames (Figure 4A, 412; Paragraph 0054; “In other embodiments, one or more images may undergo additional post-processing to match the initial image or images captured during the auto bracketing operations with the images captured using the final camera settings”; note that the claim as written does define how to “apply the metadata”, thus processing the first frames using the metadata, i.e. the final camera settings, so that the frames match as described is considered to read on the claimed “apply the metadata” limitation); and
merge the plurality of modified first frames applied with the metadata, and the plurality of second frames to generate an output video (Figure 4A, 414).
However, Brook does not disclose that the determined camera settings comprise at least one second mode from a plurality of second modes for the video capture where the plurality of second frames are captured using the determined second mode.
Kwon discloses a similar system which uses a bracketing system to capture a plurality of first images and suggest a plurality of modes to a user for user selection based on a bracketing operation performed on the first images (Figures 4-5 and 14; displaying bracketed images for user selection of a desired mode). The system of Kwon allows for a plurality of modes appropriate to the current scene to be selected and presented to a user for user selection, thereby allowing easy selection of an appropriate mode.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to include a mode selection operation in the bracketing system of Brook as taught by Kwon so that the camera may suggest appropriate modes to a user for user selection, thereby allowing an appropriate mode to the selected and further allowing the second images to be captured in an appropriate mode.[claim 7]
Regarding claim 7, Brook in view of Kwon discloses wherein the metadata comprises one or more settings indicating a mode of the video capture associated with a capturing device capturing the video, wherein the one or more settings comprises a Dynamic Shot Condition (DSP), a time stamp, a location, and a scene detection (Kwon, Paragraphs 0054-0058, scene modes for scenes such as night, landscape, backlight, portrait or combinations thereof).[claim 9]
Regarding claim 9, Brook in view of Kwon discloses wherein the first mode is a default mode for capturing the video (Brook, Figure 4A, 402; Kwon, Figure 14, 1420; note that the bracketing capture is the default mode set at the start of the process and thus may be considered “a default mode” as claimed).[claim 10]
Regarding claim 10, see the rejection of claim 7 above.[claim 14]
Regarding claim 11, Brook in view of Kwon wherein the at least one second mode is displayed on the UE, and the plurality of second frames of the video is captured after a selection of the at least one second mode (Kwon, Figures 5 and 7).[claims 1, 2, 4, 5 and 11]
Claims 1, 2, 4, 5 and 11 are method claims corresponding to apparatus claims 6, 7, 9, 10 and 14. Therefore, claims 1, 2, 4, 5 and 11 are analyzed and rejected as previously discussed with respect to claims 6, 7, 9, 10 and 14.[claims 16, 17, 19 and 20]
Regarding claims 16, 17, 19 and 20, see the rejection of claims 6, 7, 9 and 10 above and note that Brook teaches a memory which is a non-transitory medium as claimed (Brook, Paragraph 0124).
Claim(s) 3, 8 and 15 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Brook (US 2018/0124299 A1) in view of Kwon (US 2011/0074971 A1) in view of Official Notice.[claim 8]
Regarding claim 8, Brook in view of Kwon discloses wherein applying the metadata comprises: applying at least one of the first mode and the at least one second mode on the video at one or more times where a requirement for a change of a mode amongst the first mode and the at least one second mode is detected (Brook, Figure 3; note that the first mode is “applied”, i.e. used, at a first times when capturing first frames, i.e. 402, and then the second mode is “applied”, i.e. used, at a second time where a requirement for a change to the second mode is detected, i.e. transitioning from 408 to 410.
However, Brook in view of Kwon does not teach the use of timestamps.
Official Notice is taken that it is well known in the art to provide timestamps for frames of a video so that the capture time of the video may be referenced during later processing. Therefore, it would have been obvious to provide timestamps for each frame of the video so that the capture time of the frames may be stored and referenced during later processing.
Note that the times discussed above would directly relate to the timestamps for the frames of the video at which the first mode is switched to the second mode.[claim 3]
Claim 3 is a method claim corresponding to apparatus claim 8. Therefore, claim 3 is analyzed and rejected as previously discussed with respect to claim 8.[claim 18]
Regarding claim 18, see the rejection of claim 8 above and note that Brook teaches a memory which is a non-transitory medium as claimed (Brook, Paragraph 0124).
Claim(s) 12, 13 and 15 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Brook (US 2018/0124299 A1) in view of Kwon (US 2011/0074971 A1) in view of Sonenblick et al. (US 2020/0329194 A1).[claim 15]
Regarding claim 15, Brook in view of Kwon does not teach wherein the one or more instructions further cause the system, to analyze the captured plurality of first frames, to: input the captured plurality of first frames into a machine learning model to determine the at least one second mode.
Sonenblick discloses a device in which a machine learning model such as a neural network analyzes image data to recognize and scene and select a capture mode accordingly (e.g. Paragraph 0095). Therefore, it would have been obvious to use a neural network to detect a scene from captured image data and automatically set a capture mode as taught by Sonenblick so that an appropriate scene mode may be automatically selected and set (e.g. Paragraph 0003).[claim 12]
Claim 12 is a method claim corresponding to apparatus claim 15. Therefore, claim 12 is analyzed and rejected as previously discussed with respect to claim 15.[claim 13]
Regarding claim 13, see the rejection of claim 15 above.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. The following references show similar systems/methods to those claimed:
Petrescu et al. US 11,019,252 B2
Tico et al. US 2019/0370948 A1
Borel et al. US 2017/0076156 A1
Terashima US 2010/0194963 A1
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to TIMOTHY J HENN whose telephone number is (571)272-7310. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday ~10-6.
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, Twyler Haskins can be reached at (571) 272-7406. 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.
/Timothy J Henn/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2639
Prosecution Insights