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 .
DETAILED ACTION
Claims 1–12 have been submitted for examination.
Claims 1–3 and 10–12 have been examined and rejected.
Claims 4–9 are objected to.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 4–9 are objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
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 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 of this title, 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.
The factual inquiries set forth in Graham v. John Deere Co., 383 U.S. 1, 148 USPQ 459 (1966), that are applied for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
Claims 1 and 10–12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yamamoto et al. (US 2012/0076357) in view of Kellerer et al. (US 2012/0192242).
Regarding claims 1 and 11–12, Yamamoto discloses:
A video processing apparatus comprising: preset information in which various scores representing features of a past camerawork used in the image work under the category are registered; (Yamamoto, ¶ [0051], “Segments 310 include video streams captured by three different cameras, and segments 310 of video streams 301, 302 and 303 have different images. The generation unit 103 associates segments 304, 305 and 306, and segments 307, 308 and 309 which are considered as important since they are shot by several cameras. As a result, the segments 304, 305 and 306, and the segments 307, 308 and 309 are called as associated segment groups, respectively.”) and a camerawork generation processing unit that refers to the preset information under the category desired by a user, (Yamamoto, ¶ [0048], “In step S209, the selection unit 106 selects summarization segments from each common video segment group based on the summarization scores. The segments within the common video segment group having the highest summarization scores or having scores greater than or equal to a threshold value are selected as the summarization segments.”) and generates a new camerawork recreating the features of the past camerawork on a basis of a new script that is a script of an image work to be newly produced. (Yamamoto, ¶ [0023], “A selection unit is configured to select summarization segments to be used for the summarized video from the common video segment groups based on the summarization score.”)
Yamamoto does not explicitly teach “a preset processing unit that generates, from a video image and a script of a past image work belonging to a predetermined category, preset information”.
In a similar field of endeavor Niamut teaches:
a preset processing unit that generates, (Kellerer, ¶ [0085], “each video metric under consideration is weighted based on the users' expectation from a specific event. For instance, background noise is expected to be a main issue for users watching a concert, while for soccer games the relevance of the scene (angle, steadiness and distance) is more important. The mapping of "context information" into a corresponding "relevance parameter" therefore may depend on the event.”) from a video image and a script of a past image work belonging to a predetermined category, preset information (Kellerer, ¶ [0063], “the scene-based relevance parameters are repeatedly sent and repeatedly evaluated to obtain repeatedly a (new) priority value for each video. In this way changes in the "sample" of available videos can be taken into account, e.g. if a video stream now has become more relevant because the user has moved more towards the stage from his previous place, then the priority of this view may increase. As a consequence, in a video portal it may be offered for viewing on a more prominent place at a higher rank, e.g. more on top of the list of available videos. Similarly the resource allocation may be adapted to the new priority value.”)
Therefore it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to combine the system for scoring camerawork as taught by Yamamoto with the system for scoring scene-based relevance parameters based on predetermined category as taught by Kellerer, the motivation is “in a video portal it may be offered for viewing on a more prominent place at a higher rank, e.g. more on top of the list of available videos” as taught by Kellerer (¶ [0063]).
Regarding claim 10, the combination of Yamamoto and Kellerer teaches:
The video processing apparatus according to claim 1, wherein the camerawork includes chronological changes in an imaging target, a shot type, a shot size, a shot direction, and a shot angle. (Kellerer, ¶ [0091], “A video content can be represented by a set of parameters such as brightness, luminance, contrast, angle (given by a combination of spatial coverage information via GPS, which gives also the distance from the event, and facial recognition software or orientation sensors), picture motion, steadiness, camera resolution, frame rate and background noise. For the sake of simplicity, it is hereby considered again only the subset of parameters that can be translated into a machine processable figure/representation, such as brightness and distance for instance.”)
Claims 2–3 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yamamoto et al. (US 2012/0076357) in view of Kellerer et al. (US 2012/0192242) and further in view of Sanders et al. (US 2015/0350628).
Regarding claim 2, the combination of Yamamoto and Kellerer teaches:
The video processing apparatus according to claim 1, further comprising
The combination does not explicitly teach “a video generation unit that generates a video image of the image work to be newly produced, in accordance with the new camerawork, using 3DCG that is data indicating a three-dimensional operation of a time- series CG model created on a basis of the new script and is data without a camerawork.”.
In a similar field of endeavor Sanders teaches:
a video generation unit that generates a video image of the image work to be newly produced, in accordance with the new camerawork, using 3DCG that is data indicating a three-dimensional operation of a time- series CG model created on a basis of the new script and is data without a camerawork. (Sanders, ¶ [0029], “the interactive content system 102 can render images from the user's point of view with respect to the immersion system 104 and provide real-time renders (e.g., renders performed at interactive frame rates) of the interactive content as the user moves throughout the environment of the immersion system 104. In some embodiments, users can control aspects of the interactive content, such as camera angles, characters, animation models, and so forth, to customize scenes in the interactive content system 102.”)
Therefore it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to combine the system for scoring camerawork as taught by Yamamoto with the system for scoring scene-based relevance parameters based on predetermined category as taught by Kellerer still further with the ability to re-render with computer graphics a different camera angle as taught by Sanders, the motivation is “users can experience a lifelike interaction with the content” as taught by Sanders (¶ [0030]).
Regarding claim 3, the combination of Yamamoto, Kellerer, and Sanders teaches:
The video processing apparatus according to claim 2, wherein the preset processing unit includes: a cut dividing unit that acquires the video image of the past image work belonging to the category, and divides the video image into respective cuts that are sections between which a camera is switched in the video image; and a script portion identifying unit that acquires the script of the past image work acquired by the cut dividing unit, and identifies script portions that are portions of the script corresponding to the respective cuts. (Yamamoto, ¶ [0051], “FIG. 3 shows input video streams 301, 302 and 303 captured by video cameras A, B and C. It is assumed that the video streams were shot at a wedding ceremony. Segments 304 to 306 show a scene of the bride and groom's entrance, and the first and last images in the sequence are shown as thumbnails. Segments 307 to 309 show a scene of the cake being cut by the bride and groom, and the first and last images in the sequence are shown as thumbnails. The scenes of the bride and groom's entrance and the cutting of the cake are important in the event, and they are captured by all cameras A, B and C. The shaded segments 310 are unimportant scenes of the event. Segments 310 include video streams captured by three different cameras, and segments 310 of video streams 301, 302 and 303 have different images.”)
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MICHAEL B PIERORAZIO whose telephone number is (571)270-3679. The examiner can normally be reached on Monday - Thursday, 8am - 5pm.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Nasser Goodarzi can be reached on 5712704195. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/MICHAEL B. PIERORAZIO/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2426
Prosecution Insights