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 .
Priority
Receipt is acknowledged of certified copies of papers required by 37 CFR 1.55.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) was submitted on 01/17/2025. 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 § 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 (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) 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, 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 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.
Claim(s) 1-4, 8, 11, 16-17, 20-24 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wang et al. (US 20220027634 A1) (Wang) in view of You et al (US 20210390318 A1) (You).
Regarding claim 1, Wang discloses a video processing method (See Figs. 2-3), comprising:
acquiring key frames (e.g. differences between frames) corresponding to transition images in a video (See Fig. 2; para. 0049);
determining split nodes of the video according to the key frames (e.g. when the difference between frames is greater than a threshold) corresponding to the transition images (See Figs. 2 and 6; para. 0049);
splitting the video according to the split nodes of the video so as to obtain video fragments (See Figs. 2 and 6; para. 0049).
Wang discloses parallel processing (See Fig. 3), however doesn’t explicitly disclose performing video parallel processing on the basis of the video fragments.
You discloses a video splitter and merger system. You discloses performing video parallel processing on the basis of the video fragments (See Figs. 4 and 9; para. 0069).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the video splitter and merger system of You with the video processing method as disclosed by Wang in order to increase speed and improve efficiency of the video processing (See You para. 0050).
Regarding claim 2, The video processing method according to Claim 1, wherein the acquiring key frames corresponding to transition images in a video comprises:
determining the key frames corresponding to the transition images by analyzing a color (e.g. hue) change degree and a color family change degree of two adjacent frames among video frames (See Wang para. 0049).
Regarding claim 3, The video processing method according to Claim 2, wherein the determining the key frames corresponding to the transition images by analyzing a color change degree and a color family change degree of two adjacent frames among video frames comprises:
comparing a color value (e.g.hue) corresponding to each pixel point in a current frame and in a previous frame (e.g. adjacent frames) (See Wang See Fig. 1; para. 0043, 0049);
if it is judged according to a comparison result of the color value that the current frame and the previous frame have a color change rate greater than a first preset threshold and a color family change meeting a preset span condition (e.g. greater than a threshold), then determining the key frame corresponding to the transition image according to the current frame (See Wang See Fig. 1; para. 0043, 0049).
Regarding claim 4, The video processing method according to Claim 3, wherein the determining the key frame corresponding to the transition image according to the current frame comprises:
if each of a predetermined number of frames following the current frame and said previous frame have a color change rate greater than a second preset threshold and a color family change meeting the preset span condition (e.g. similarity matching), then determining the current frame as the key frame corresponding to the transition image (e.g. merging frames) (See Wang See Figs. 1 and 6; para. 0043, 0049, 0073-0074).
Regarding claim 8, The video processing method according to Claim 1, wherein the determining split nodes of the video according to the key frames corresponding to the transition images comprises:
filtering out key frames corresponding to transition images that meet a preset highlight moment condition (e.g. similarity matching and merging frames); determining split nodes of the video according to the remaining key frames corresponding to the transition images after filtering (See Wang See Figs. 1 and 6; para. 0043, 0049, 0073-0074).
Regarding claim 11, Wang discloses a video processing method (See Figs. 2-3), comprising:
acquiring video fragments of a video, wherein the video fragments are obtained by splitting the video according to split nodes which are determined according to key frames (e.g. when the difference between frames is greater than a threshold) corresponding to transition images in the video (See Fig. 2; para. 0049).
Wang discloses obtaining a target video according to the video fragments (See Figs. 3, 6, and 8), however doesn’t explicitly disclose playing the video according to the video fragments.
You discloses a video splitter and merger system. You discloses playing (e.g. outputting ) the video according to the video fragments (See Figs. 1, 4, and 9; para. 0041 and 0096).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the video splitter and merger system of You with the video processing method as disclosed by Wang in order to increase speed and improve efficiency of the video processing (See You para. 0050).
Regarding claim 16, this claim is drawn to a non-transitory computer readable storage medium storing therein computer executable instructions, wherein a processor, when executing the computer executable instructions (See Wang Fig. 8; para. 0086), implements the method of claim 1. Claim 16 contains the same limitations as claim 1 and is therefore rejected upon the same basis.
Regarding claim 17, this claim is drawn to an electronic device, comprising: a processor and a memory; the memory storing computer executable instructions; the processor executing the computer executable instructions stored in the memory (See Wang Fig. 8; para. 0086), so that the processor executes the video processing method according to Claim 1. Claim 17 contains the same limitations as claim 1 and is therefore rejected upon the same basis.
Regarding claim 20, this claim is drawn to a non-transitory computer readable storage medium storing therein computer executable instructions, wherein a processor, when executing the computer executable instructions (See Wang Fig. 8; para. 0086), implements the method of claim 2. Claim 20 contains the same limitations as claim 2 and is therefore rejected upon the same basis.
Regarding claim 21, this claim is drawn to a non-transitory computer readable storage medium storing therein computer executable instructions, wherein a processor, when executing the computer executable instructions (See Wang Fig. 8; para. 0086), implements the method of claim 3. Claim 21 contains the same limitations as claim 3 and is therefore rejected upon the same basis.
Regarding claim 22, this claim is drawn to a non-transitory computer readable storage medium storing therein computer executable instructions, wherein a processor, when executing the computer executable instructions (See Wang Fig. 8; para. 0086), implements the method of claim 4. Claim 22 contains the same limitations as claim 4 and is therefore rejected upon the same basis.
Regarding claim 23, this claim is drawn to a non-transitory computer readable storage medium storing therein computer executable instructions, wherein a processor, when executing the computer executable instructions (See Wang Fig. 8; para. 0086), implements the method of claim 11. Claim 23 contains the same limitations as claim 11 and is therefore rejected upon the same basis.
Regarding claim 24, this claim is drawn to an electronic device, comprising: a processor and a memory; the memory storing computer executable instructions; the processor executing the computer executable instructions stored in the memory (See Wang Fig. 8; para. 0086), so that the processor executes the video processing method according to Claim 11. Claim 24 contains the same limitations as claim 11 and is therefore rejected upon the same basis.
Claim(s) 5 and 6 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wang et al. (US 20220027634 A1) (Wang) in view of You et al (US 20210390318 A1) (You) as applied to claims 1-4, 8, 11, 16-17, 20-24 above, and further in view of Nandakumar et al. (US 10997426 B1) (Nandakumar).
Regarding claim 5, Wang in view of You discloses the video processing method according to Claim 1.
However, Wang in view of You does not disclose wherein the determining split nodes of the video according to the key frames corresponding to the transition images comprises:
determining the split nodes of the video according to the key frames corresponding to the transition images and a preset time length range of each fragment.
Nandakumar discloses a video fragmentation system (See Fig. 1). Nandakumar discloses determining the split nodes of the video according to the key frames corresponding to the transition images and a preset time length range of each fragment (See Figs. 5-8, col. 18 line 55 – col. 19 line 10).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the video fragmentation system of Nandakumar with the video processing method as disclosed by Wang in of You in order to increase speed and improve efficiency of the video processing to ensure reliable viewing of the video by an end user(See Nandakumar col. 1 lines 6-35).
Regarding claim 6, the video processing method according to Claim 5, wherein the determining the split nodes of the video according to the key frames corresponding to the transition images and a preset time length range of each fragment comprises:
determining, based on the key frames corresponding to the transition images, split nodes meeting a first preset condition (e.g. minimum/maximum fragment duration) as split nodes of the video, so that a video time length of each video fragment obtained by splitting according to the split nodes meeting the first preset condition is within the preset time length range (See Nandakumar Figs. 5-8, col. 18 line 55 – col. 19 line 10).
Please see the motivation stated in claim 5 above.
Claim(s) 9 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wang et al. (US 20220027634 A1) (Wang) in view of You et al (US 20210390318 A1) (You) as applied to claims 1-4, 8, 11, 16-17, 20-24 above, and further in view of Bender et al. (US 20200401621 A1) (Bender).
Regarding claim 9, Wang in view of You discloses the video processing method according to Claim 1. Wang in view of You does disclose wherein the splitting the video according to the split nodes of the video so as to obtain video fragments as discussed in claim 1 above.
However, Wang in view of You does not disclose displaying recommendations and performing operations based on input.
Bender discloses a video processing system. Bender discloses displaying recommended split nodes of the video according to the determined split nodes of the video (e.g. list of extracted entities) (See para 0064);
splitting (e.g. correcting) the video according to split nodes confirmed by a video publisher so as to obtain video fragments (See para 0064).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the video processing system of Bender with the video processing method as disclosed by Wang in of You in order to ensure the operations are accurate (See Bender para 0064).
Claim(s) 10 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wang et al. (US 20220027634 A1) (Wang) in view of You et al (US 20210390318 A1) (You) as applied to claims 1-4, 8, 11, 16-17, 20-24 above, and further in view of Huang (US 20160247025 A1).
Regarding claim 10, Wang in view of You discloses the video processing method according to Claim 1.
However, Wang in view of You does not disclose wherein the performing video parallel processing on the basis of the video fragments comprises:
acquiring video fragment content items respectively corresponding to the video fragments;
selecting to recommend to a user from a beginning fragment content item among the video fragment content items, or recommend to a user from a fragment content item meeting a preset highlight moment condition among the video fragment content items.
Huang discloses a video managing system. Huang discloses acquiring video fragment content items respectively corresponding to the video fragments (See Figs. 3, 5, 7; para. 117);
selecting to recommend to a user from a beginning fragment content item among the video fragment content items, or recommend to a user from a fragment content item meeting a preset highlight moment condition (e.g. locating interested role) among the video fragment content items (See Figs. 3, 5, 7; para. 117).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the video managing system of Huang with the video processing method as disclosed by Wang in of You in order to automatically select videos in which the user is interested(See Huang para 04).
Claim(s) 12 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wang et al. (US 20220027634 A1) (Wang) in view of You et al (US 20210390318 A1) (You) as applied to claims 1-4, 8, 11, 16-17, 20-24 above, and further in view of Mayer (US 20040128343 A1).
Regarding 12, Wang in view of You discloses the video processing method according to Claim 11.
However, Wang in view of You does not disclose wherein the playing the video according to the video fragments comprises:
preloading a video fragment content item of the (n+1)-th fragment among the video fragments when playing a video fragment content item of the n-th fragment, wherein the n-th fragment is any one of the video fragments, and the (n+1)-th fragment is a next fragment of the n- th fragment.
Mayer discloses a video distribution system. Mayer discloses preloading a video fragment content item of the (n+1)-th fragment among the video fragments when playing a video fragment content item of the n-th fragment, wherein the n-th fragment is any one of the video fragments, and the (n+1)-th fragment is a next fragment of the n- th fragment (See Fig. 4 and 7; para. 41-42, 56).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the video distribution system of Mayer with the video processing method as disclosed by Wang in of You in order to efficiently play video to the user even when bandwidth is inadequate (See Mayer para. 43).
Claim(s) 13 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wang et al. (US 20220027634 A1) (Wang) in view of You et al (US 20210390318 A1) (You) and Mayer (US 20040128343 A1) as applied to claim 12 above, and further in view of Huang (US 20160247025 A1).
Regarding claim 13, Wang in view of You and Mayer discloses the video processing method according to Claim 12.
Wang in view of You and Mayer discloses playing a video fragment content item of the target video fragment (e.g. user requested program video), and preloading a video fragment content item of a next fragment of the target video fragment (See Mayer Fig. 4 and 7; para. 41-42, 50, and 56).
However, Wang in view of You and Mayer does not disclose acquiring, in response to a user's instruction to adjust a playback progress of the video, a target video fragment corresponding to a progress position specified by the user and a next fragment of the target video fragment.
Huang discloses a video managing system. Huang discloses acquiring, in response to a user's instruction to adjust a playback progress of the video (e.g. progress bar, forward/back button), a target video fragment corresponding to a progress position specified by the user and a next fragment of the target video fragment (See Figs. 3, 5, 7; para. 117).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the video managing system of Huang with the video processing method as disclosed by Wang in of You in order to provide an efficient way for the user to select videos in which the user is interested (See Huang para 04 ad 117).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claim 7 is 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.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Joseph G Ustaris whose telephone number is (571)272-7383. The examiner can normally be reached 9-5pm M-Th.
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, Colleen A Fauz can be reached at 571-272-1667. 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.
/JOSEPH G USTARIS/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2483
Prosecution Insights