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 .
Response to Amendment / Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to the amended claims have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument.
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) 1-3, 8-13, 18, 19 and 41 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Moehrle (U.S. Patent App. Pub. No. 2011/0137753 A1) in view of Rathod (U.S. Patent App. Pub. No. 2022/0179665 A1).
Regarding claim 1:
Moehrle teaches: a method (claim 1, a method) comprising:
receiving a recording, wherein recording was recorded by a first camera (claim 1, receiving a video; para. 10, video recorded by cameras has been known);
identifying, by a server (para. 1), a first object within the recording (see Fig. 2: 106, segmentation classification with related description, which is performed by or one component of Fig. 2: 300: server. The segmentation classification identifies objects within segments of video recordings);
comparing the first object with a plurality of three-dimensional (3D) models stored in a database (para. 68, “video objects are compared with objects in an object library, which may be 2D (two-dimensional) or 3D (three-dimensional) wire frame data representing objects within the video.”);
identifying a first 3D model of the plurality of 3D models based, at least in part, on comparing the first object with the plurality of 3D models stored in the database (para. 68, “If a match is detected then the object is associated with the product description and/or meta-data from the object library.”);
generating for display a piece of content, by combining the first 3D model of the plurality of 3D models with the recording, wherein the piece of content is a video comprising a plurality of segments (Moehrle teaches, in many locations, generating “a piece of content” made by combining the 3D model with the video recording and an overlay, such as a hyperlink or advertisement. Video recording has segments. See above mapping re: segmentation of recording. For generating a piece of content, here are some non-limiting, example teachings:
matching occurrences of video objects in said object inventory library with three dimensional wireframe representations of at least one video object and creating a video overlay including matched wire frame representations of the at least one video object wherein the shape and position of the wire frame representation tracks a dynamic location of said video object in the video, wherein said video overlay includes at least one selectable hyperlink whose shape and position tracks a dynamic location of said video object in the video (also teaches adding a hyperlink overlay),. (claim 20); AND/OR
Para. 36: “ The aforementioned overlay generation application matches occurrences of video objects in the object inventory library with three-dimensional wireframe representations of at least one video object and creates a video overlay including matched wire frame representations of the at least one video object wherein the shape and position of the wire frame representation tracks a dynamic location of the video object in the video.”; AND/OR
See Figs. 10A-10D.; and
generating an index associated with the piece of content (e.g. Fig. 2: 112: object library, and Fig. 2: 112a light + 3D wire frame library, both teach the index associated with the second piece of content (wireframe or 3D model)), wherein: the index associated with the piece of content comprises a plurality of entries (Id. both libraries (index) mapped immediately above have multiple entries);
a first entry of the plurality of entries, associates the first 3D model with the first segment of the piece of content (e.g. para. 134: “A video content analysis application executed on the processor, segments the video files to identify locations of video objects. The application searches for a matching (corresponding) occurrence of the video object in the wireframe database. For each match, the application retrieves information describing the video object from the wireframe database, and stores in the object inventory database 112 information describing the dynamic location of the video object within the video and information describing the video object.”. The storage of the dynamic location of the video object and information describing the video object is an association of the first 3D model with the first segment, said segment being location of video object and describing information, for each match – which associated the segment with the matched 3D model or wireframe. Having this be a “first entry” is an obvious embodiment of maintaining and managing a library database or index); and
the index is stored in at least one memory (e.g. para. 130, the libraries/index are stored in memory)…
identifying the first segment of the piece of content based, at least in part, on the first entry of the plurality of entries that associates the first 3D model with the first segment of the piece of content (this is a redundant claim limitation, the first entry was already claimed to associate with first 3D model with the first segment, and mapped above).
Regarding:
receiving a user input, wherein the user input corresponds to removing one or more segments of the piece of content comprising the first 3D model;…
generating an updated piece of content by removing the first segment from the piece of content; and
generating for display the updated piece of content, wherein the updated piece of content does not comprise the first segment, consider the following.
In analogous art, Rathod teaches the above receiving step in multiple non-limiting ways (e.g. Fig, 16: a user can edit 1653 & remove 1643 advertisement related visual media items 1635, 1638 & 1640 (see para. 341). This teaches a user input removing one or more segments of content) (alternatively, Figs. 92, 95-96 show editing interfaces) (alternatively, para. 766). For the last two generating steps, this is taught by basically displaying the results of the edit, whether the removal of one or more segments, or removal or the first segment, such as in Figs. 6A-D of Moehrle.
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art to have combined and modified the applied reference(-s), in view of same, to have obtained the above, and the results of the modification would have been obvious and predictable to one of ordinary skill in the art as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention. See MPEP §2143(A). Additional motivation would be to enable editing and user control over desired design results.
The prior art included each element recited in claim 1, although not necessarily in a single embodiment, with the only difference being between the claimed element and the prior art being the lack of actual combination of certain elements in a single prior art embodiment, as described and mapped.
One of ordinary skill in the art could have combined the elements as claimed by known methods, and in that combination, each element merely performs the same function as it does separately. One of ordinary skill in the art would have also recognized that the results of the combination were predictable as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Regarding claim 2:
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art to have further modified the applied reference(-s), in view of same, to have obtained: the method of claim 1, further comprising: identifying, by the server, a second object within the recording (Moehrle, paras. 67-68, the segmentation looks for “objects”, plural. This teaches a “second object” as claimed);
comparing the second object with the plurality of 3D models stored in the database (para. 68, the video objects (i.e. second object) compared with 3D objects in an object library); and
in response to determining that at least one 3D model of the plurality of 3D models corresponds to the second object, identifying a second 3D model of the plurality of 3D models based, at least in part, on comparing the second object with the plurality of 3D models stored in the database (see mapping to claim 1, this is basically done for a second object, As mapped above. Moehrle teaches multiple objects and does not teach or prevent one or ordinary skill from basically repeating the methods of Moehrle),
and the results of the modification would have been obvious and predictable to one of ordinary skill in the art as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention. See MPEP §2143(A).
One of ordinary skill in the art could have combined the elements as claimed by known methods, and in that combination, each element merely performs the same function as it does separately. One of ordinary skill in the art would have also recognized that the results of the combination were predictable as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Regarding claim 3:
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art to have further modified the applied reference(-s), in view of same, to have obtained: the method of claim 2, wherein: the piece of content is generated by combining the first 3D model of the plurality of 3D models and the second 3D model of the plurality of 3D models with the recording; and
a second entry of the plurality of entries, associates the second 3D model with a second segment of the piece of content, and the results of the modification would have been obvious and predictable to one of ordinary skill in the art as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention. See MPEP §2143(A).
See above mapping to claim 1, which applies here. Claim 3 is basically claim 1 but with a second object, second content being generated by combining the first and second models with the video (first piece of content), and updating or adding to the library/index/database accordingly. This is a taught and obvious embodiment over Moehrle.
One of ordinary skill in the art could have combined the elements as claimed by known methods, and in that combination, each element merely performs the same function as it does separately. One of ordinary skill in the art would have also recognized that the results of the combination were predictable as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention
Regarding claim 8:
Moehrle teaches: the method of claim 1, wherein the server identifies the first object within the recording using an object recognition algorithm (paras. 6, 68, 101, video object recognition is taught and known).
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art, as of the effective filing date of Applicant’s claims, to have further modified the applied reference(-s) in view of same to have obtained the above, motivated to use known image processing techniques to analyze and process image/video data.
Regarding claim 9:
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art to have further modified the applied reference(-s), in view of same, to have obtained: the method of claim 1, further comprising: generating for display a selectable option, based, at least in part, on the first entry of the plurality of entries (Moehrle, Fig. 6C, one example of a selectable option to “buy now” or “add to list”), wherein: the selectable option corresponds to an additional piece of content (the selectable options, to buy or add to list, correspond to a second segment of a third piece of content – i.e., segment related to buying or adding, and related content); and
the selectable option is generated for display prior to the receiving of the user input corresponding to removing one or more segments of the piece of content comprising the first 3D model (see mapping to claim 1, this is an embodiment whereby user does this edit (removing one or more segments) at some later time); and
the first entry also associates the first 3D model with the additional piece of content (see mapping to claim 1, associating the 3D model with the non-limiting example of the segment/content when a user selects buying or adding to list, is an obvious modification of the prior art, to keep information of graphics/models organized and stored);
receiving a selection of the selectable option (Moehrle, Fig. 6D, user selects to buy/purchase); and
in response to receiving the selection of the selectable option:
stopping the generating for display of the piece of content; and
generating for display the additional piece of content (in the Moehrle example, user selects to purchase, and in so doing, Fig. 6D is displayed (second segment of third piece of content) and the previous second piece of content (Fig. 6A) is no longer displayed),
and the results of the modification would have been obvious and predictable to one of ordinary skill in the art as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention. See MPEP §2143(A).
The prior art included each element recited in claim 9, although not necessarily in a single embodiment, with the only difference being between the claimed element and the prior art being the lack of actual combination of certain elements in a single prior art embodiment, as described above.
One of ordinary skill in the art could have combined the elements as claimed by known methods, and in that combination, each element merely performs the same function as it does separately. One of ordinary skill in the art would have also recognized that the results of the combination were predictable as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Regarding claim 10:
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art to have further modified the applied reference(-s), in view of same, to have obtained: the method of claim 1, further comprising: generating for display a second segment of the piece of content (Fig. 6C: the buy now/add to list segment);
detecting a first user input during the generating for display of the second segment of the piece of content (Moehrle, Fig. 6C, user can select one of buy now, or add to list, in one example, user decides to buy), wherein the user input that corresponds to removing one or more segments of the piece of content comprising the first 3D model is a second user input and the first user input occurs before the second user input (see mapping to claim 1, this is an embodiment whereby user does this edit (removing one or more segments) at some later time); and
in response to detecting the first user input:
determining that the first user input corresponds to the first 3D model within the piece of content (input corresponds to the shirt or 3D model within the piece of content);
accessing the index associated with the piece of content; identifying the first entry of the plurality entries (see mapping to claim 1, accessing index),
wherein the first entry of the plurality of entries associates the first 3D model with the first segment of the piece of content (see mapping to claim 1, associating 3D model with first segment, this was mapped and recited in claim 1);
stopping generating for display of the second segment of the piece of content (Fig. 6D); and
generating for display the first segment of the piece of content based, at least in part, on the first entry of the plurality of entries (Fig. 6D, all that this requires is the “first segment” is generated. Applicant uses very broad claim language, the “first segment” can be a frame of a video (first piece of content), and can be generated if a user learns more about the object that he/she bought. See para. 148),
and the results of the modification would have been obvious and predictable to one of ordinary skill in the art as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention. See MPEP §2143(A).
One of ordinary skill in the art could have combined the elements as claimed by known methods, and in that combination, each element merely performs the same function as it does separately. One of ordinary skill in the art would have also recognized that the results of the combination were predictable as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Regarding claim 11: see also claim 1.
Moehrle teaches: an apparatus (para. 37, system) comprising: control circuitry (para. 37, processor); and at least one memory including computer program code for one or more programs (para. 37, memory, para. 37, software stored in memory; see also para. 111 for a more explicit recitation of memory to store program instructions) the at least one memory and the computer program code configured to, with the control circuitry, cause the apparatus to perform (para. 37) at least the following. The code corresponds to the method of claim 1; the same rationale for rejection applies.
Regarding claim 12: see claim 2.
These claims are similar; the same rationale for rejection applies.
Regarding claim 13: see claim 3.
These claims are similar; the same rationale for rejection applies.
Regarding claim 18: see claim 8.
These claims are similar; the same rationale for rejection applies.
Regarding claim 19: see claim 9.
These claims are similar; the same rationale for rejection applies.
Regarding claim 41:
Moehrle and/or Rathod teach: the method of claim 3, wherein the generating for display of the updated piece of content comprises generating for display the second segment of the updated piece of content comprising the second 3D model (see Moehrle, e.g. Figs. 6A-6D, displaying content, and/or Rathod, e.g. paras. 42, edit and update media, 235, 298, 325, 345, all paras. that teach editing, updating and displaying media).
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art, as of the effective filing date of Applicant’s claims, to have further modified the applied reference(-s) in view of same to have obtained the above, motivated to use known image processing techniques to analyze and process image/video data.
Claim(s) 4-7 and 14-17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Moehrle in view of Rathod, and further in view of Bathija (U.S. Patent App. Pub. No. 2022/0006922 A1).
Regarding claim 4:
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art to have combined and modified the applied reference(-s), in view of same, to have obtained: the method of claim 3, further comprising, in response to determining that none of the plurality of 3D models corresponds to the first object:
transmitting a notification to the first camera, wherein the notification requests additional information (Bathija, para. 4, 185, transmitting a notification for adjusting a position or orientation of the responding device, which corresponds to a camera. See also Fig. 35);
receiving from the first camera, additional information (Bathija, Fig. 25: 3514, 3516, these two steps are capturing, via the camera, an image, and receiving the image from the responding device (the device with the camera)); and
generating, by the server (see mapping to claim 1, by the server), the first 3D model using the recording the additional information (Bathija, Fig. 35: 3518 and para. 216, the resulting image can be 3D image/model) (also, per para. 216 of Bathija, an alternate teaching of server, “In some examples, the first image, the second image, and any additional images taken by the initiating device, the responding device, and any other responding devices may be uploaded to a server for image processing and generation of the image file.”),
and the results of the modification would have been obvious and predictable to one of ordinary skill in the art as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention. See MPEP §2143(A).
Bathija is related to capturing multiple images to obtain a 3D image (Background). Modifying the applied references, such that in the case that there are no 3D models that correspond to the first object, applying the teachings of Bathija to obtain image information to generate a 3D model, is all of taught and suggested by the prior art, and would have been obvious and predictable to one of ordinary skill.
The prior art included each element recited in claim 4, although not necessarily in a single embodiment, with the only difference being between the claimed element and the prior art being the lack of actual combination of certain elements in a single prior art embodiment, as described above.
One of ordinary skill in the art could have combined the elements as claimed by known methods, and in that combination, each element merely performs the same function as it does separately. One of ordinary skill in the art would have also recognized that the results of the combination were predictable as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Regarding claim 5:
Bathija teaches: the method of claim 4, wherein the additional information comprises additional pieces of content depicting the first object from a plurality of different angles (para. 63, “ in some embodiments a responding wireless device may receive adjustment instructions…and display prompts to enable a user to adjust the elevation, tilt angle, camera lens focal depth, camera zoom magnification, and distance from a point of interest of the wireless device to set up a desired multi-camera image or images.”, see also para. 107, which teaches at least three camera view angles for capturing images).
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art, as of the effective filing date of Applicant’s claims, to have further modified the applied references, in view of same, to have obtained the above, motivated to make use of known methods to generate 3D models.
Regarding claim 6:
Bathija teaches: the method of claim 5, wherein the notification comprises a first instruction (Bathija, para. 4, 185, transmitting a notification for adjusting a position or orientation of the responding device, which corresponds to a camera. See also Fig. 35 or para. 63).
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art, as of the effective filing date of Applicant’s claims, to have further modified the applied references, in view of same, to have obtained the above, motivated to make use of known methods to generate 3D models and assist users in same.
Regarding claim 7:
Bathija teaches: the method of claim 6, further comprising changing the first camera from a first position to a second position according to the first instruction, wherein the additional information is captured using the first camera at the second position (para. 63, “ in some embodiments a responding wireless device may receive adjustment instructions…and display prompts to enable a user to adjust the elevation, tilt angle, camera lens focal depth, camera zoom magnification, and distance from a point of interest of the wireless device to set up a desired multi-camera image or images.”). Any one of these is a “position” of a camera.
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art, as of the effective filing date of Applicant’s claims, to have further modified the applied references, in view of same, to have obtained the above, motivated to make use of known methods to generate 3D models and assist users in same.
Regarding claim 14: see claim 4.
These claims are similar; the same rationale for rejection applies.
Regarding claim 15: see claim 5.
These claims are similar; the same rationale for rejection applies.
Regarding claim 16: see claim 6.
These claims are similar; the same rationale for rejection applies.
Regarding claim 17: see claim 7.
These claims are similar; the same rationale for rejection applies.
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 Sarah Lhymn whose telephone number is (571)270-0632. The examiner can normally be reached M-F, 9:00 AM to 6:00 PM EST.
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, Xiao Wu can be reached at 571-272-7761. 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.
Sarah Lhymn
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 2613
/Sarah Lhymn/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2613
Prosecution Insights