DETAILED ACTION
Claims 2-21 are presented for consideration.
Specification
Examiner requests Applicants to update status of related applications as mentioned in specification, paragraph 0001.
Double Patenting
The nonstatutory double patenting rejection is based on a judicially created doctrine grounded in public policy (a policy reflected in the statute) so as to prevent the unjustified or improper timewise extension of the “right to exclude” granted by a patent and to prevent possible harassment by multiple assignees. A nonstatutory double patenting rejection is appropriate where the conflicting claims are not identical, but at least one examined application claim is not patentably distinct from the reference claim(s) because the examined application claim is either anticipated by, or would have been obvious over, the reference claim(s). See, e.g., In re Berg, 140 F.3d 1428, 46 USPQ2d 1226 (Fed. Cir. 1998); In re Goodman, 11 F.3d 1046, 29 USPQ2d 2010 (Fed. Cir. 1993); In re Longi, 759 F.2d 887, 225 USPQ 645 (Fed. Cir. 1985); In re Van Ornum, 686 F.2d 937, 214 USPQ 761 (CCPA 1982); In re Vogel, 422 F.2d 438, 164 USPQ 619 (CCPA 1970); In re Thorington, 418 F.2d 528, 163 USPQ 644 (CCPA 1969).
A timely filed terminal disclaimer in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(c) or 1.321(d) may be used to overcome an actual or provisional rejection based on nonstatutory double patenting provided the reference application or patent either is shown to be commonly owned with the examined application, or claims an invention made as a result of activities undertaken within the scope of a joint research agreement. See MPEP § 717.02 for applications subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA as explained in MPEP § 2159. See MPEP § 2146 et seq. for applications not subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA . A terminal disclaimer must be signed in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(b).
The filing of a terminal disclaimer by itself is not a complete reply to a nonstatutory double patenting (NSDP) rejection. A complete reply requires that the terminal disclaimer be accompanied by a reply requesting reconsideration of the prior Office action. Even where the NSDP rejection is provisional the reply must be complete. See MPEP § 804, subsection I.B.1. For a reply to a non-final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.111(a). For a reply to final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.113(c). A request for reconsideration while not provided for in 37 CFR 1.113(c) may be filed after final for consideration. See MPEP §§ 706.07(e) and 714.13.
The USPTO Internet website contains terminal disclaimer forms which may be used. Please visit www.uspto.gov/patent/patents-forms. The actual filing date of the application in which the form is filed determines what form (e.g., PTO/SB/25, PTO/SB/26, PTO/AIA /25, or PTO/AIA /26) should be used. A web-based eTerminal Disclaimer may be filled out completely online using web-screens. An eTerminal Disclaimer that meets all requirements is auto-processed and approved immediately upon submission. For more information about eTerminal Disclaimers, refer to www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/applying-online/eterminal-disclaimer.
Claims 2-21 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-17 of U.S. Patent No. 11,184,648, and claims 1-26 of U.S. Patent No 12,047,616. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because the claims of the patents anticipate all claims of instant application, and they are claiming common subject matter.
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.
Claim(s) 2, 3, 7, 9-13, 17, and 19-21 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Nelson et al. [ US Patent Application No 2014/0016696 ], in view of Hoang [ US Patent No 6,014,183 ].
5. As per claim 2, Nelson discloses the invention as claimed including a method for pre-downloading and replacing video frames in a content item, comprising:
identifying sets of video frames for the content item [ i.e. primary object contents of the video frames ] [ Abstract; and paragraph 0020 ], wherein the sets of video frames include identified scenes mapped to other video frames within the content item [ i.e. object landmarks points ] [ paragraphs 0004, 0005, and 0023-0025 ];
pre-downloading the sets of video frames to a device before streaming the content item to the device [ i.e. previously stored video frames ] [ Abstract; and paragraphs 0004, 0021, and 0039 ]; and
replacing video frames affected by streaming quality reduction with the pre-downloaded video frames [ i.e. the video frame with most similar face content can be then be used to replace the current video frame to provide a smoother display of the video transmission ] [ 316, 320, Figure 3B; and paragraphs 0031, and 0039-0042 ].
Nelson does not specifically disclose
replacing video frames at the beginning of the scene.
Hoang discloses
replacing video frames at the beginning of the scene [ i.e. replace the frame associated with each frame with the first frame in the scene ] [ col 10, lines 15-24 ].
It would have been obvious to a person skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the teaching of Nelson and Hoang because the teaching of Hoang would enable to provide system and method for detecting scene changes in a digital video stream [ Hoang, col 1, lines 6-9 ].
6. As per claim 3, Nelson discloses pre-processing the content item to identify replacement sets of video frames for each scene before causing the content item to be displayed or streamed to the device [ i.e. morph the image ] [ paragraphs 0030, and 0040 ].
7. As per claim 7, Hoang discloses wherein the pre-processing includes: choosing sets of video frames based at least in part on a longest duration of consecutive video frames, wherein a first set of video frames having a longer duration is chosen over a second set with a shorter duration [ i.e. calculate duration ] [ col 10, lines 1-33 ].
8. As per claim 9, Nelson discloses packaging metadata for mapping video frame sets [ i.e. parameters ] [ paragraphs 0004, and 0005 ].
9. As per claim 10, Nelson discloses packaging the replaced video frames into a package; storing the package as part of metadata of the content item; and identifying the replaced video frames by time segment tags, scene number, or any suitable identification mark to map a set of video frames to at least one other video frame [ paragraphs 0021, 0029, and 0039 ].
10. As per claim 11, Hoang discloses generating a data structure or pointer linking data of the replaced video frames associated with a first camera angle to a time segment associated with a video frame at a second camera angle [ i.e. first camera and second camera ] [ Figure 4; and col 5, lines 15-33 ]; causing the package to be received by the device before the content item is streamed, based at least in part on network bandwidth availability or device storage capacity; and receiving portions of the package when network bandwidth or storage capacity is sufficient [ i.e predetermined amount of storage space left ] [ col 7, lines 43-47 ].
11. As per claims 12, 13, 17, and 19-21, they are rejected for similar reasons as stated above in claims 2,3, 7, and 9-11.
Claim(s) 4-6, 8, 14-16, and 18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Nelson et al. [ US Patent Application No 2014/0016696 ], in view of Hoang [ US Patent No 6,014,183 ], and further in view of Barker et al. [ US Patent Application No 2012/0041759 ].
13. As per claim 4, Nelson in view of Hoang does not specifically disclose wherein the pre-processing includes: selecting replacement video frames by determining which scenes depict an actor who is either silent or making minimal lip movements to ensure synchronized audio and video playback. Barker discloses wherein the pre-processing includes: selecting replacement video frames by determining which scenes depict an actor who is either silent or making minimal lip movements to ensure synchronized audio and video playback [ i.e. synchronization with recorded video and audio ] [ paragraphs 0034, and 0035 ]. It would have been obvious to a person skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the teaching of Nelson, Hoang and Barker because the teaching of Barker would enable to allow the post-production facility to quickly and conveniently et a replacement dialogue item which can be used in substitution for the original track [ Barker, paragraph 0018 ].
14. As per claim 5, Barker discloses using audio processing to identify video frames accompanied by audio of an actor performing spoken dialogue; and using image processing to determine which of the identified video frames do not depict the actor performing the spoken dialogue [ i.e. replacement dialogue items ] [ Abstract; and paragraphs 0017, and 0026 ].
15. As per claim 6, Barker discloses wherein the image processing includes: selecting video frames in which another actor is making minimal lip movements for replacement [ i.e. lip movement ] [ paragraph 0035 ].
16. As per claim 8, Barker discloses selecting multiple sets of video frames for each scene or each video frame in a scene, wherein the multiple sets include a first set of video frames with an actor directly facing a camera and a second set of video frames with a side view of another actor that obscures lip movements [ Figure 5; and paragraphs 0069, and 0070 ].
17. As per claims 14-16, and 18, they are rejected for similar reasons as stated above in claims 4-6, and 8.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Wan et al. [ US Patent Application 2006/0026628 ] discloses apparatus for insertion of additional content into video
Peleg et al. [ US Patent No 6,492,990 ] discloses method for audio visual dubbing of movies by computerized image copying of the characteristic features of the lip movements of the dubber onto the mouth area of the original speaker
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to DUSTIN NGUYEN whose telephone number is (571)272-3971. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 9-6 PST.
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, Brian Gillis can be reached at 571-2727952. 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.
/DUSTIN NGUYEN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2446