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
The amendment received 07/21/26 has been entered in full.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to the pending 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.
Claims 1-3, 6-11, 14-17, and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Merler et al. Automatic Curation of Sports Highlights Using Multimodal Excitement Features (hereinafter “Merler”) in view of Girgensohn et al. US 2008/0088706 (hereinafter “Girgensohn”).
Regarding claim1, Merler discloses
An information processing apparatus comprising: at least one memory configured to store one or more instructions; and at least one processor configured to execute the one or more instructions to: (see section V where the system of the article for determining the most interesting moment of a game [abstract] ran on a Redhat Linux box with tow K40 GPUS)
PNG
media_image1.png
536
456
media_image1.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image2.png
242
454
media_image2.png
Greyscale
determine, based on a specified time point, a portion of a first moving image acquired by capturing a player (see section III Technical approach where the start and end of a potential highlight clip of a player is determined [thus the start and finish are specified time points of a moving image capturing a player)
PNG
media_image3.png
521
452
media_image3.png
Greyscale
; extract, by analyzing the player as shown in the first moving image a scene of interest from the determined portion of the first moving image, wherein a time range of the scene of interest is shorter than the determined portion (player reaction within the candidate segments of images are analyzed looking for player celebration and facial expression recognition, see section C visual marker detection and section F where this is used to form a fusion score which identifies a highlight, note the facial expression is shorter than the entire video segment)
PNG
media_image4.png
238
456
media_image4.png
Greyscale
; and output information
PNG
media_image5.png
354
912
media_image5.png
Greyscale
Merler does not explicitly disclose outputting the time position of the scene of interest [such as when the woman is giving the fist pump]), however it would be obvious to display the time in the video where the action occurred as is shown by Girgensohn.
Girgensohn discloses displaying video streams keyframes and sample images and specifically discloses that times are displayed within the videostreams or keyframes (see paragraph 0059)
PNG
media_image6.png
182
352
media_image6.png
Greyscale
Merler and Girgensohn are analogous art because they are from the same field of endeavor of video display.
Before the effective filing date of the invention it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill to combine Merler and Girgensohn to output the time position of the keyframe as taught by Girgensohn. The motivation would be to allow the user to find the portion of the video where the event occurred easily.
Regarding claim 2, Merler discloses the scene of interest is a scene in which the player is in a predetermined pose is captured (see figure 2 where the player is serving and fist pumping).
Regarding claim 3, as shown in figure 2 Merler discloses a predetermined player is captured.
Regarding claim 6, Merler discloses classify the extracted scene of interest into a group according to a content thereof, and output, separately for each of the groups, (see figure 2 copied above where video analysis is used to measure the excitement levels of the player, spectators and commentators and output key shot highlights).
Merler does not explicitly disclose outputting information indicating a position of the scene of interest within the first moving image but as discussed above in the rejection of claim 1 it would be obvious to do so as taught by Girgensohn to allow the user to easily find the portion of the video where the event occurred.
Regarding claim 7, as discussed Merler discloses classifying the scene of interest based on a capture pose of the player (see figure 2).
Claims 8-9 are similarly analyzed to claim 1.
Claim 10 is similarly analyzed to claim 2.
Claim 11 is similarly analyzed to claim 3.
Claims 14-15 are similarly analyzed to claim 6.
Claims 16-17 are similarly analyzed to claim 2-3.
Claim 20 is similarly analyzed to claim 6.
Claims 4-5, 12-13, and 18-19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Merler in view of Girgensohn and further in view of Benedetto US 2019/0244639.
Regarding claim 4, Merler and Girgensohn as discussed discloses the invention of claim 1.
Merler nor Girgensohn do not explicitly disclose extracting the scene of interest in the first moving image, based on a result of analyzing a second moving image acquired by capturing a spectator watching the player.
Benedetto discloses receiving a video file for video content and spectator reaction data to identify slices of interest in the video (see the abstract)/
Merler and Benedetto are analogous art because they are from the same field of endeavor of presenting content to a user.
Before the effective filing date of the invention it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to combine Merler and Benedetto to determine the audience reaction to a scene in order to find a scene of interest. The motivation would be to show segments that would appear to be interesting to the viewer.
Regarding claim 5, Benedetto discloses the scene of interest is a scene, within the first moving image, captured at same timing as a scene, within the second moving image, in which a spectator in a predetermined pose is captured, a spectator in a predetermined motion is captured, or a spectator with a predetermined facial expression is captured (see the abstract).
Claims 12-13 are similarly analyzed to claims 4-5.
Claims 18-19 are similarly analyzed to claims 4-5.
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.
Contact Information
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JOHN B STREGE whose telephone number is (571)272-7457. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 9-5 (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, Chan Park can be reached at (571)272-7409. 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.
/JOHN B STREGE/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2669
Prosecution Insights