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 Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claim(s) 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.
In response to applicant's argument that the references fail to show certain features of the invention, it is noted that the features upon which applicant relies (i.e., claim 1 requires the respective translation files to be stored separately from the video file) are not recited in the rejected claim(s). Although the claims are interpreted in light of the specification, limitations from the specification are not read into the claims. See In re Van Geuns, 988 F.2d 1181, 26 USPQ2d 1057 (Fed. Cir. 1993).
Griffin’s copy of the Spanish-dubbed version of the video comprises translated audio with video. The present claim language is open to broader interpretations and fails to limit claim to only translated file (without video). The examiner suggest amending claim limitations to only translated file to be obtained and downloaded.
In response to applicant's argument that the references fail to show certain features of the invention, it is noted that the features upon which applicant relies (i.e., cloud server of Olkha is not specific to any translation language type) are not recited in the rejected claim(s). Although the claims are interpreted in light of the specification, limitations from the specification are not read into the claims. See In re Van Geuns, 988 F.2d 1181, 26 USPQ2d 1057 (Fed. Cir. 1993).
Olkha et al teaches the media guidance application may request a translation 110 to a language native to the user 112 from a cloud server 106. In some embodiments, the media guidance application may determine that a language track in a language native to the user is included in the metadata corresponding to the media asset 104, and may retrieve the language track in the language native to the user as the translation 110. In response to receiving the translation 110 from the cloud server 108 and/or retrieving the translation 110 from the metadata corresponding to the media asset 104, the media guidance application may generate an output comprising the translation 110 at the first device 102 (Para. 0048). The cloud server is able to serve a language native to the user meeting limitations of downloading a translation file from at least one target server corresponding to the first language type. The present claim language is open to broader interpretation and fails to capture any specific(s) as to how different target server(s) correspond to different language(s).
With respect to claim 10, In response to applicant's argument that the references fail to show certain features of the invention, it is noted that the features upon which applicant relies (i.e., an arrangement enables separate storage of translation files according to their corresponding language types, so that the video file and the translation files are stored independently) are not recited in the rejected claim(s). Although the claims are interpreted in light of the specification, limitations from the specification are not read into the claims. See In re Van Geuns, 988 F.2d 1181, 26 USPQ2d 1057 (Fed. Cir. 1993). As discussed above, the present claim language is open to broader interpretation and fails to capture arrangement enabling separate storage of translation files according to their corresponding language types, so that the video file and the translation files are stored independently.
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) 1-5, 8-9, 14, 17-20 and 23-24 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Griffin et al (US PG Pub No. 2024/0211704), in view of Olkha et al (US PG Pub No. 2020/0007946), further in view of Ingel et al (US PG Pub No. 2021/0224319).
Regarding claims 1 and 14, Griffin et al teaches a method of cross-language video processing (Abstract), comprising:
in response to a video playing request by a first user (S208) (i.e. receiving request for dubbed content)(Figure 9; Para. 0117), obtaining a first video to be played (Para. 0119), the first video being a video posted by a second user (i.e. content provider provides video(s) to service providing systems and audio processing systems) (S204) (Figure 1A; Para. 0020, 0034);
obtaining a video file associated with the first video, and at least one translation file (i.e. Spanish-dubbed version of the video corresponding to the video snapshot 902) (Para. 0122), the at least one translation file being obtained based on an original audio file (i.e. audio data) of the first video being translated according to a respective language type of at least one language type (Figure 4; Para. 0020, 0075), and the original audio file and the video file being obtained by decoupling the first video (i.e. speech processor 316 to separate audio data from the original AV content received from content provider) (Figure 4; Para. 0075);
obtaining first language type matching play demand information of the first user, according to the respective language type corresponding to the at least one translation file (i.e. AV device 110 transmits a request 122 to service providing system 106 to provide the version of the video corresponding to video snapshot 902 in Spanish) (Figure 8-9; Para. 0122); and
a first translation file from at least one target server corresponding to the first language type, and playing the video file and the first translation file (Para. 0124).
The reference teaches AV device comprising memory and able to play dubbed content. However, fails to explicitly state downloading and synchronizing.
In similar field of endeavor, Olkha et al teaches concept of downloading and synchronizing (Para. 0048, 0111, claim 8). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the reference before the effectively filing date of the claimed invention for the purpose of providing a translation of the media content in a language that is native to the user when the user is unable to sufficiently comprehend the media content in its original language (Para. 0002).
The combination teaches during playing the video file and the first translation file (See Griffin: Para. 0027, 0122). The combination is unclear with respect to receiving a selection of a second language type by the first user; and switching from playing the video file and the first translation file to playing the video file and a second translation file corresponding to the second language type.
In similar field of endeavor, Ingel et al teaches receiving a selection of a second language type by the first user; and switching from playing the video file and the first translation file to playing the video file and a second translation file corresponding to the second language type (Para. 0438). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the combination before the effectively filing date of the claimed invention for the purpose of providing a translation of the media content in a language that is native to the user when the user is unable to sufficiently comprehend the media content in its original language.
Regarding claims 2 and 17, Griffin, Olkha and Ingel, the combination teaches wherein obtaining the first language type matching the play demand information of the first user, according to the respective language type corresponding to the at least one translation file comprises:
displaying the at least one language type on a playing interface of the first video (Griffin: Figure 9); and in response to selecting by the first user on the at least one language type (Griffin: Para. 0119), obtaining the first language type selected by the first user (Griffin: Para. 0121-122).
Regarding claims 3 and 18, Griffin, Olkha and Ingel, the combination teaches wherein obtaining the first language type matching the play demand information of the first user, according to the respective language type corresponding to the at least one translation file comprises:
obtaining an application language of the first user according to user information of the first user; and obtaining the first language type as a language type of the application language, according to the respective language type corresponding to the at least one translation file (i.e. determines, based on the profile, whether the language is a language native to the user) (Olkha: Para. 0116-117).
Regarding claims 4 and 19, Griffin, Olkha and Ingel, the combination teaches wherein the translation file comprises a track audio file, and obtaining the video file associated with the first video, and the at least one translation file comprises:
in accordance with a determination that the first video has multi-track playing permission, obtaining the video file associated with the first video, and at least one track audio file (i.e. application that allows a user to select a media asset, compares a language proficiency level required to comprehend the media asset and the language proficiency level of the user to determine whether to automatically provide translations, and selectively delivers an output comprising the translation) (Olkha: Para. 0020, 0048, 0130).
Regarding claims 5 and 20, Griffin, Olkha and Ingel, the combination teaches wherein displaying a multi-track switch on a playing interface of the first video (Griffin: Fig. 9); and in response to triggering by the first user on the multi-track switch (Griffin: Figure 9; Para. 0119-120) , determining that the first video has multi-track play permission, the multi-track play permission being used to enable playing permission of a track audio file of the first video, corresponding to the respective language type of the at least one language type (i.e. application that allows a user to select a media asset, compares a language proficiency level required to comprehend the media asset and the language proficiency level of the user to determine whether to automatically provide translations, and selectively delivers an output comprising the translation) (Olkha: Para. 0020, 0048, 0130).
Regarding claims 8 and 23, Griffin, Olkha and Ingel, the combination teaches wherein downloading the target translation file from the target server corresponding to the target language type comprises:
obtaining, according to the target server, a target download address of the first video, corresponding to the first language type; and downloading the first translation file using the target download address (Griffin: Figure 8; Para. 0114-115 and Olkha: Para. 0048, 0111, claim 8).
Regarding claims 9 and 24, Griffin, Olkha and Ingel, the combination teaches wherein downloading the first translation file and synchronously playing the video file and the first translation file (Griffin: Para. 0122 and Olkha: Para. 0048, 0111, claim 8) comprises:
obtaining at least one translation file segment of the first translation file matching the first language type and a segment order corresponding to a respective translation file segment of the at least one translation file segment (Griffin: Figures 6-7; Para. 0108-109);
downloading, the translation file segment based on the segment order of the respective translation file segment (Griffin: Para. 0111);
coupling the downloaded translation file segment to a video file segment corresponding to the video file to obtain a target video segment, the downloaded translation file and the video file segment having a same timestamp (Griffin: Figure 6-7; Para. 0076, 0100, 0110-111 and Olkha: Para. 0048, 0111, claim 8); and
playing the target video segment to synchronously play the translation file segment in the first translation file and the video file segment in the video file (Griffin: Griffin: Para. 0122 and Olkha: Para. 0048). The combination is unclear with respect to sequentially downloading and precaching. However, the examiner takes official notice that both concepts and advantages are well known and expected in the art. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the combination by specifically providing sequentially downloading and precaching before the effectively filing date of the claimed invention for the common knowledge purpose of providing user content accurately and in timely manner without interruption.
Claim(s) 6-7 and 21-22 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Griffin et al, in view of Olkha et al, in view of Ingel et al, further in view of Arsenault et al (US PG Pub No. 2018/0241836).
Regarding claims 6 and 21, Griffin, Olkha and Ingel, the combination teaches wherein before downloading the first translation file matching the first language type, from the target server corresponding to the first language type: in accordance with a determination, by querying, that the first target translation file corresponding to the first language type as discussed above. The combination is unclear with respect stored in a local server, determining that the local server is the target server.
In similar field of endeavor, Arsenault et al teaches stored in a local server, determining that the local server is the target server (i.e. Client device plays chunks for one or more segments from buffer and/or edge server) (Para. 0041-42). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the combination before the effectively filing date of the claimed invention for the purpose of providing content that is not susceptible to a buffer stall, delay and degradation of quality.
Regarding claims 7 and 22, Griffin, Olkha and Ingel, the combination teaches wherein before downloading the first translation file from the target server corresponding to the first language type; querying at least one server associated with the first language type of the first video, as discussed above.
The combination is unclear with respect to obtaining, from the at least one server, a target server with a minimum transmission distance from the first user.
In similar field of endeavor, Arsenault et al teaches determining, from the at least one server, a target server with a minimum transmission distance from the first user (i.e. Client device plays chunks for one or more segments from buffer and/or edge server) (Figure 2; Para. 0041-42). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the combination before the effectively filing date of the claimed invention for the purpose of providing content that is not susceptible to a buffer stall, delay and degradation of quality.
Claim(s) 10-11 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Griffin et al (US PG Pub No. 2024/0211704), in view of Olkha et al (US PG Pub No. 2020/0007946).
Regarding claim 10, Griffin et al teaches a method of cross-language video processing, comprising:
in response to a video posting request by a second user, obtaining a first video to be posted (i.e. content provider provides video(s) to service providing systems and audio processing systems) (S204) (Griffin: Figure 1A; Para. 0020, 0034);
decoupling the first video to be posted, to obtain an original audio file and a video file (i.e. audio portion of the AV content are separated) (Griffin: Para. 0020); converting the original audio file into a translation file based on a respective language type of at least one language type to obtain at least one translation file (text of each language is converted to speech) (Griffin: Para. 0020);
posting the video file, the original audio file and the at least one translation file, to store the at least one translation file in at least one server matching the respective language type corresponding to the at least one translation file (i.e. Memory of the audio processing system stores respective language type corresponding to translations) (Griffin: Figure 8; Para. 0020, 0034, 0114-115); and
wherein the video file and a first translation file of the at least one translation file are used for play in response to a cross-language video processing request by a first user, and the first translation file matches a play demand of the first user (Griffin: Figure 1A; Para. 0020, 0034).
The reference teaches AV device comprising memory and able to play dubbed content. However, fails to explicitly state synchronizing.
In similar field of endeavor, Olkha et al teaches concept synchronizing (Para. 0048, 0111, claim 8). In addition, the reference also teaches posting the video file, the original audio file and the at least one translation file, to store the at least one translation file in at least one server matching the respective language type corresponding to the at least one translation file (Para. 0048, 0111, claim 8). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the reference before the effectively filing date of the claimed invention for the purpose of providing a translation of the media content in a language that is native to the user when the user is unable to sufficiently comprehend the media content in its original language (Para. 0002).
Regarding claim 11, Griffin and Olkha, the combination teaches wherein storing the at least one translation file in the at least one server matching the respective language type corresponding to the at least one translation file (Griffin: Para. 0111-112 and Olkha: Para. 0048) comprises:
obtaining a language application region corresponding to a respective translation file of the at least one translation file, according to the language type corresponding to the respective translation file (Olkha: Para. 0049, 0062, 0116-117);
querying at least one server associated with the language application region corresponding to the respective translation file (Griffin: Para. 0111-112 and Olkha: Para. 0062-63); and
sending the respective translation file to the server associated with the corresponding language application region (Griffin: Para. 0111-112 and Olkha: Para. 0062-63).
Conclusion
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. 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 KUNAL LANGHNOJA whose telephone number is (571)270-3583. The examiner can normally be reached M-F: 9:00AM - 5:00PM ET.
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, Brian Pendleton can be reached at (571) 272-7527. 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.
/KUNAL LANGHNOJA/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2425
Prosecution Insights