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 .
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) was submitted on 08/08/2024. The submission is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement is being considered by the examiner.
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 1-7 and 16-20 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.
Independent claim 1 states that “in response to detecting the motion associated with the presenter, changing from the first codec to a second codec that is a higher quality codec than the first codec”. The closest support for this limitation was found in Para. 0043 of the applicant’s published specification and is reproduced below.
“As shown, second presenter 328 is currently speaking. When a speaker is detected, the video quality for the speaker may be increased while the speaker is speaking. The video quality may be increased at media services 206 and/or at client device 202. For example, a video super-resolution algorithm may be applied to the video stream for second presenter 328. Alternatively, or additionally, media services 206 may request client device 202 to encode the presenter video stream for the speaker at a higher quality. In some embodiments, speakers may be detected using various machine learning algorithms that analyze received audio, along with motion associated with the speaker, such as the lips, face, shoulders, hands, or any combination thereof. In some embodiments, the frame rate, bitrate, and/or the resolution for second presenter 328 may be increased upon detection of second presenter 328 speaking. In some embodiments, the codec for second presenter 328 is changed to a higher quality codec, such as from H.263 to H.264.”
This paragraph states that video quality for the speaker is increased while the speaking, speakers are detected using machine learning algorithms that analyze both audio and video, and the codec for a presenter is changed to a higher quality codec. Therefore, where is there support for changing a codec based on a motion for a presenter. It appears that this limitation is too broad based on the support in the specification (i.e. changing the codec/quality is for a speaker which is detected via audio and video via a machine learning algorithm). Please clarify and/or provide support for the limitation above.
Claim 7 states the limitation “applying a Gaussian blur to a background in response to detecting the motion of the presenter”. The examiner could not locate support for applying a gaussian blur to a background based on motion detection for a presenter. For example, para. 0044 describes “a Gaussian blur may be applied to the background to reduce the bandwidth required to stream the presenter video stream for third presenter 330.” and para. 0066 describes “applying a Gaussian blur based in part on the dynamism of the background”. Please clarify and provide support for where this Gaussian blur is applied based on a motion of a presenter.
Independent claim 16 states the limitation “wherein cropping the frame comprises reducing an encoded size of an updated video stream relative to the video stream by encoding the updated video stream with the frame without the background after said cropping”. The examiner could not locate support for encoding the updated video stream with the frame without the background after said cropping. In other words, the frame is cropped and then the background is removed, or the background gets removed via cropping. Please clarify and/or provide support for the limitation above.
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 1-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being incomplete for omitting essential steps, such omission amounting to a gap between the steps. See MPEP § 2172.01. The omitted steps are: The receiving device (i.e. video server, not claimed) provides feedback to the presenter computing device on how to adjust/change the video coding.
For example, independent claim 1 states in part “receiving a video stream that is associated with a presenter computing device and that is encoded using a first codec; detecting a motion associated with a presenter in the video stream using a machine learning algorithm; in response to detecting the motion associated with the presenter, changing from the first codec to a second codec that is a higher quality codec than the first codec; receiving an updated video stream from the presenter computing device that is encoded using the second codec;” It appears that there is a missing step between the two limitations underlined above. How is the presenter computing device changing from a first codec to a second codec? It appears that a server (i.e. not claimed, but receives a presenter video stream) requests a client to change from a first codec to a second codec. Therefore, it is unclear how the presenter computing device provides an updated video stream (i.e. changing the encoding to a higher quality codec) to the receiving device (i.e. video server) without any signaling or providing feedback between the receiving device and the presenter computing device. Please clarify.
For example, independent claim 8 states in part “receiving a video stream associated with a presenter computing device; determining regions of interest amongst a plurality of regions in the video stream using a machine learning algorithm; in response to detecting the regions of interest in the video stream, increasing a video quality for the regions of interest that differentiates from a video quality for other regions of the plurality of regions not in the regions of interest; receiving an updated video stream from the presenter computing device with an increased video quality for the regions of interest;”. It appears that there is a missing step between the two limitations underlined above. Please refer to the analysis provided above in regards to claim 1 which is analogous and applicable for the analysis of claim 8.
For example, independent claim 16 states in part “receiving a video stream associated with a presenter computing device; detecting a motion in a background of the video stream; in response to detecting the motion in the background of the video stream, cropping a frame of the video stream, wherein cropping the frame comprises reducing an encoded size of an updated video stream relative to the video stream by encoding the updated video stream with the frame without the background after said cropping; receiving the updated video stream from the presenter computing device;” It appears that there is a missing step between the two limitations underlined above. Please refer to the analysis provided above in regards to claim 1 which is analogous and applicable for the analysis of claim 16.
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 1-2 and 5 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Bader-Natal et al. (herein after will be referred to as Bader) (US 20190088153) in view of Swaminathan (US Patent No. 11,178,395).
Regarding claim 1, Bader discloses
a computer-implemented method for adaptively adjusting video quality in a virtual event, the method comprising: [See Bader [0002] Web/virtual conferencing.]
receiving a video stream that is associated with a presenter computing device and that is encoded using a first codec; [See Bader [0002] Central web conferencing server receives video/audio from participants (the video will inherently be encoded/compressed using a codec). Also, see Fig. 2, presenter/speaker.]
receiving an updated video stream from the presenter computing device that is encoded using the second codec; and [See Bader [0002] Web conferencing is under coordination of a server. Also, see 0081, current speaker delivers higher quality video. Also, see 0161, various different forms of video compression including H.264. Also, see 0188, client-server network environment.]
selectively forwarding at least a portion of the updated video stream to other computing devices. [See Bader [Fig. 19] Stream Forwarding to the clients.]
Bader does not explicitly disclose
detecting a motion associated with a presenter in the video stream using a machine learning algorithm;
in response to detecting the motion associated with the presenter, changing from the first codec to a second codec that is a higher quality codec than the first codec;
However, Swaminathan does disclose
detecting a motion associated with a presenter in the video stream using a machine learning algorithm; [See Swaminathan [Col. 15 lines 37-45] Machine learning is employed based on features extracted from video data, including motion received.]
in response to detecting the motion associated with the presenter, changing from the first codec to a second codec that is a higher quality codec than the first codec; [See Swaminathan [Col. 3 lines 42-48] Machine learning is applied for video features including a calculated amount of motion. Also, see Col. 3 lines 58-67, dynamically adjusting the codec being applied considering the quality achieved by the codec in the context of the current scene in the video.]
It would have been obvious to the person of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the effective filing date to modify the method by Bader to add the teachings of Swaminathan, in order to adaptively select a codec for video data transmission due to the different costs and benefits associated with different codecs [See Swaminathan [Col. 1 lines 15-18]].
Regarding claim 2, Bader (modified by Swaminathan) disclose the method of claim 1. Furthermore, Bader discloses
wherein in response to detecting the motion of the presenter further changing a frame rate, bitrate, or a resolution of the video stream. [See Bader [0081] The resolution and/or frame rate of each video stream is dependent on the current state of the video conference. For example, when a participant is designated as the current speaker and is provided with the central speaking position within the GUI, that participant's client may capture video having a relatively higher resolution and/or frame rate than when the participant is not the speaker.]
Regarding claim 5, Bader (modified by Swaminathan) disclose the method of claim 1. Furthermore, Bader does not explicitly disclose
wherein changing from the first codec to the second codec comprises changing to H.264.
However, Swaminathan does disclose
wherein changing from the first codec to the second codec comprises changing to H.264. [See Swaminathan [Col. 3 lines 58-67] dynamically adjusting the codec being applied considering the quality achieved by the codec in the context of the current scene in the video. Also, see Col. 1 line 39, list of available codecs. It is obvious that H.264 is a type of video codec utilized in video coding and will be included in this list. Furthermore, Bader discloses H.264 as a type of video compression used in virtual conferencing (para. 0161).]
Applying the same motivation as applied in claim 1.
Claims 3-4 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Bader (US 20190088153) in view of Swaminathan (US Patent No. 11,178,395) and in further view of Zingade et al. (herein after will be referred to as Zingade) (US 20220237735).
Regarding claim 3, Bader (modified by Swaminathan) disclose the method of claim 1. Furthermore, Bader does not explicitly disclose
wherein detecting the motion of the presenter in the video stream comprises detecting lips, face, shoulders or hands motions.
However, Zingade does disclose
wherein detecting the motion of the presenter in the video stream comprises detecting lips, face, shoulders or hands motions. [See Zingade [0068] Identify speaking via lips movement.]
It would have been obvious to the person of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the effective filing date to modify the method by Bader (modified by Swaminathan) to add the teachings of Zingade, in order to enhance user experience in video conferencing applications [See Zingade [0001]].
Regarding claim 4, Bader (modified by Swaminathan) disclose the method of claim 1. Furthermore, Bader does not explicitly disclose
wherein in response to detecting the motion of the presenter further applying a video-super resolution algorithm to the video stream.
However, Zingade does disclose
wherein in response to detecting the motion of the presenter further applying a video-super resolution algorithm to the video stream. [See Zingade [0104] Super-resolution imaging techniques for speaker.]
Applying the same motivation as applied in claim 3.
Claim 6 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Bader (US 20190088153) in view of Swaminathan (US Patent No. 11,178,395) and in further view of Takahashi et al. (herein after will be referred to as Takahashi) (US 20170041570).
Regarding claim 6, Bader (modified by Swaminathan) disclose the method of claim 1. Furthermore, Bader does not explicitly disclose
wherein in response to detecting the motion of the presenter further cropping the video stream.
However, Takahashi does disclose
wherein in response to detecting the motion of the presenter further cropping the video stream. [See Takahashi [0056] In a typical video conferencing system having a speaker-tracking function, when any one of conference participants speaks, a close-up cropped image of the speaker is displayed.]
It would have been obvious to the person of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the effective filing date to modify the method by Bader (modified by Swaminathan) to add the teachings of Takahashi, in order to implement more-realistic video conferencing [See Takahashi [0007]].
Claim 7 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Bader (US 20190088153) in view of Swaminathan (US Patent No. 11,178,395) in view of Lehtiniemi et al. (herein after will be referred to as Lehtiniemi) (US 20220264156) and in further view of He et al. (herein after will be referred to as He) (US 20060268101).
Regarding claim 7, Bader (modified by Swaminathan) disclose the method of claim 1. Furthermore, Bader does not explicitly disclose
wherein in response to detecting the motion of the presenter further applying a Gaussian blur to a background.
However, Lehtiniemi does disclose
wherein in response to detecting the motion of the presenter further applying a [See Lehtiniemi [0027] When user decides to speak, the background is blurred.]
It would have been obvious to the person of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the effective filing date to modify the method by Bader (modified by Swaminathan) to add the teachings of Lehtiniemi, in order to block out any unwanted aspects of the video feed [See Lehtiniemi [0002]].
Bader (modified by Swaminathan and Lehtiniemi) do not explicitly disclose
However, He does disclose
[See He [0062] Gaussain blur filter to the background.]
It would have been obvious to the person of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the effective filing date to modify the method by Bader (modified by Swaminathan and Lehtiniemi) to add the teachings of He, in order to utilize a Guassian blur filter for the background such that it blurs less closer to the face in the image and blues more as the distance from the face increases [See He [0062]].
Claims 8-11 and 13-15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Bader (US 20190088153) in view of Zingade (US 20220237735).
Regarding claim 8, Bader discloses
a computer-readable media storing computer-executable instructions that, when executed by a processor, cause the processor to perform a method for adaptively adjusting video quality in a virtual event, the method comprising: [See Bader [0002] Web/virtual conferencing.]
receiving a video stream associated with a presenter computing device; [See Bader [0002] Central web conferencing server receives video/audio from participants. Also, see Fig. 2, presenter/speaker.]
receiving an updated video stream from the presenter computing device with an increased video quality for the regions of interest; and [See Bader [0002] Web conferencing is under coordination of a server. Also, see 0081, current speaker delivers higher quality video. Also, see 0188, client-server network environment.]
selectively forwarding at least a portion of the updated video stream to other computing devices. [See Bader [Fig. 19] Stream Forwarding to the clients.]
Bader does not explicitly disclose
determining regions of interest amongst a plurality of regions in the video stream using a machine learning algorithm;
in response to detecting the regions of interest in the video stream, increasing a video quality for the regions of interest that differentiates from a video quality for other regions of the plurality of regions not in the regions of interest;
However, Zingade does disclose
determining regions of interest amongst a plurality of regions in the video stream using a machine learning algorithm; [See Zingade [0075] Image regions are detected using machine learning techniques such as face detection.]
in response to detecting the regions of interest in the video stream, increasing a video quality for the regions of interest that differentiates from a video quality for other regions of the plurality of regions not in the regions of interest; [See Zingade [0104] Enlarge or upscale the selected image regions in regards to the speaker.]
It would have been obvious to the person of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the effective filing date to modify the method by Bader to add the teachings of Zingade, in order to enhance user experience in video conferencing applications [See Zingade [0001]].
Regarding claim 9, Bader (modified by Zingade) disclose the method of claim 8. Furthermore, Bader does not explicitly disclose
wherein determining the regions of interest in the video stream comprises determining a presenter's face.
However, Zingade does disclose
wherein determining the regions of interest in the video stream comprises determining a presenter's face. [See Zingade [0075] Image regions are detected using machine learning techniques such as face detection.]
Applying the same motivation as applied in claim 8.
Regarding claim 10, Bader (modified by Zingade) disclose the method of claim 9. Furthermore, Bader does not explicitly disclose
wherein in response to determining the presenter's face further encoding the presenter's face at a higher frame rate than a background.
However, Zingade does disclose
wherein in response to determining the presenter's face further encoding the presenter's face at a higher frame rate than a background. [See Bader [0081] The resolution and/or frame rate of each video stream is dependent on the current state of the video conference. For example, when a participant is designated as the current speaker and is provided with the central speaking position within the GUI, that participant's client may capture video having a relatively higher resolution and/or frame rate than when the participant is not the speaker.]
Applying the same motivation as applied in claim 8.
Regarding claim 11, Bader (modified by Zingade) disclose the method of claim 8. Furthermore, Bader does not explicitly disclose
wherein in response to determining the regions of interest further applying a video super-resolution algorithm to the video stream.
However, Zingade does disclose
wherein in response to determining the regions of interest further applying a video super-resolution algorithm to the video stream. [See Zingade [0104] Face enhancement super-resolution.]
Applying the same motivation as applied in claim 8.
Regarding claim 13, Bader (modified by Zingade) disclose the method of claim 8. Furthermore, Bader does not explicitly disclose
wherein determining the regions of interest in the video stream comprises detecting lips, face, shoulders or hands motions.
However, Zingade does disclose
wherein determining the regions of interest in the video stream comprises detecting lips, face, shoulders or hands motions. [See Zingade [0076] Facial landmarks correspond to upper/lower lip.]
Applying the same motivation as applied in claim 8.
Regarding claim 14, Bader (modified by Zingade) disclose the method of claim 8. Furthermore, Bader does not explicitly disclose
wherein in response to determining the regions of interest further cropping a frame of the video stream.
However, Zingade does disclose
wherein in response to determining the regions of interest further cropping a frame of the video stream. [See Zingade [0089] Crop the image regions depicting the speaker.]
Applying the same motivation as applied in claim 8.
Regarding claim 15, Bader (modified by Zingade) disclose the method of claim 9. Furthermore, Bader discloses
wherein in response to determining the regions of interest further changing a frame rate, bitrate, and/or a resolution of the video stream. [See Bader [0081] The resolution and/or frame rate of each video stream is dependent on the current state of the video conference. For example, when a participant is designated as the current speaker and is provided with the central speaking position within the GUI, that participant's client may capture video having a relatively higher resolution and/or frame rate than when the participant is not the speaker.]
Claim 12 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Bader (US 20190088153) in view of Zingade (US 20220237735) and in further view of Van Der Auwera et al. (herein after will be referred to as Van Der Auwera) (US 20180160123).
Regarding claim 12, Bader (modified by Zingade) disclose the media of claim 8. Furthermore, Bader does not explicitly disclose
wherein in response to determining the regions of interest further changing the video stream to a higher quality codec.
However, Van Der Auewera does disclose
wherein in response to determining the regions of interest further changing the video stream to a higher quality codec. [See Van Der Auwera [0115] ROI information is used for transcoding optimization via a different codec.]
It would have been obvious to the person of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the effective filing date to modify the system by Bader (modified by Zingade) to add the teachings of Van Der Auwera, in order to utilize the various different forms of video codecs provided within Bader (i.e. para. 0161) such that a higher quality is achieved for a speaker by utilizing a higher quality codec.
Claim 16 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Bader (US 20190088153) in view of Magi et al. (herein after will be referred to as Magi) (US 20210218845) and in further view of Andresen et al. (herein after will be referred to as Andresen) (US 20240054786).
Regarding claim 16, Bader discloses a system for adaptively adjusting video quality, comprising:
a processor; and a memory storing instructions that, when executed by the processor, cause the processor to perform the instructions to: receiving a video stream associated with a presenter computing device; [See Bader [0002] Central web conferencing server receives video/audio from participants. Also, see Fig. 2, presenter/speaker.]
receiving the updated video stream from the presenter computing device; and [See Bader [0002] Web conferencing is under coordination of a server. Also, see 0081, current speaker delivers higher quality video. Also, see 0188, client-server network environment.]
selectively forwarding at least a portion of the updated video stream to other computing devices. [See Bader [Fig. 19] Stream Forwarding to the clients.]
Bader does not explicitly disclose
detecting a motion in a background of the video stream; in response to detecting the motion in the background of the video stream, cropping a frame of the video stream, wherein cropping the frame comprises reducing an encoded size of an updated video stream relative to the video stream by encoding the updated video stream with the frame without the background after said cropping;
However, Magi does disclose
detecting a motion in a background of the video stream; in response to detecting the motion in the background of the video stream, cropping a frame of the video stream, [See Magi [0229] Analyzes the environment of the user such as objects/people in the background of the user. Also, see 0233, Frame the user more tightly in order to crop out the distraction behind the user….transmitted video.]
It would have been obvious to the person of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the effective filing date to modify the system by Bader to add the teachings of Magi, in order to crop out any distractions in the background of a user in a video conference [See Magi [0233]].
Bader (modified by Magi) do not explicitly disclose
wherein cropping the frame comprises reducing an encoded size of an updated video stream relative to the video stream by encoding the updated video stream with the frame without the background after said cropping
However, Andresen does disclose
wherein cropping the frame comprises reducing an encoded size of an updated video stream relative to the video stream by encoding the updated video stream with the frame without the background after said cropping; [See Andresen [0210] The background in a given crop region or frame is blurred or replaced for an active speaker.]
It would have been obvious to the person of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the effective filing date to modify the system by Bader (modified by Magi) to add the teachings of Andresen, in order to reduce the bandwidth required via obvious image altering techniques such as image cropping and/or background removal.
Claim 17 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Bader (US 20190088153) in view of Magi (US 20210218845) in view of Andresen (US 20240054786) and in further view of Harrison et al. (herein after will be referred to as Harrison) (US Patent No. 10,834,358).
Regarding claim 17, Bader (modified by Magi and Andresen) disclose the system of claim 16. Furthermore, Bader does not explicitly disclose
wherein in response to detecting the motion in the background further applying a Gaussian blur to the background.
However, Harrison does disclose
wherein in response to detecting the motion in the background further applying a Gaussian blur to the background. [See Harrison [Col. 9 line 62 to Col. 10 line 20] Detect background motion and the processor blurs the background via a Gaussian blur to reduce background motion of video data.]
It would have been obvious to the person of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the effective filing date to modify the system by Bader (modified by Magi and Andresen) to add the teachings of Harrison, in order to enhance the quality of the video data in a video conference [See Harrison [Col. 9 lines 48-61]].
Claims 18-19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Bader (US 20190088153) in view of Magi (US 20210218845) in view of Andresen (US 20240054786) and in further view of Dal Zotto (US 20230005159).
Regarding claim 18, Bader (modified by Magi and Andresen) disclose the system of claim 16. Furthermore, Bader does not explicitly disclose
wherein in response to detecting the motion in the background further switching to a static background.
However, Dal Zotto does disclose
wherein in response to detecting the motion in the background further switching to a static background. [See Dal Zotto [0040 and Fig. 2] Mitigation action occurs when motion is detected in the background. Replacing the background with an image or with a solid color.]
It would have been obvious to the person of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the effective filing date to modify the system by Bader (modified by Magi and Andresen) to add the teachings of Harrison, in order to improve upon video conferencing when there is movement in the background [See Dal Zotto [0001]].
Regarding claim 19, see examiners rejection for claim 18 which is analogous and applicable for the rejection of claim 19.
Claim 20 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Bader (US 20190088153) in view of Magi (US 20210218845) in view of Andresen (US 20240054786) in view of Dal Zotto (US 20230005159) and in further view of Lim et al. (herein after will be referred to as Lim) (US Patent No. 10,122,969).
Regarding claim 20, Bader (modified by Magi and Andresen) disclose the system of claim 16. Furthermore, Bader does not explicitly disclose
wherein in response to detecting the motion in the background further freezing the background.
However, Dal Zotto does disclose
wherein in response to detecting the motion in the background [See Dal Zotto [0040 and Fig. 2] Mitigation action occurs when motion is detected in the background. Also, see 0024, The image is any suitable image.]
It would have been obvious to the person of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the effective filing date to modify the system by Bader (modified by Magi and Andresen) to add the teachings of Dal Zotto, in order to improve upon video conferencing when there is movement in the background [See Dal Zotto [0001]].
Bader (modified by Magi, Andresen and Lim) do not explicitly disclose
However, Lim does disclose
[See Lim [Col. 17 lines 10-15] Background image is frozen and background image will be reused from a previous frame.]
It would have been obvious to the person of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the effective filing date to modify the system by Bader (modified by Magi, Andresen and Dal Zotto) to add the teachings of Lim, in order to perform a simple substitution of which static image is being utilized as a static background in Dal Zotto.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JAMES T BOYLAN whose telephone number is (571)272-8242. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 7am-3pm.
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, JAMIE ATALA can be reached at 571-272-7384. 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.
/JAMES T BOYLAN/Examiner, Art Unit 2486
Prosecution Insights