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 .
Double Patenting
The nonstatutory double patenting rejection is based on a judicially created doctrine grounded in public policy (a policy reflected in the statute) so as to prevent the unjustified or improper timewise extension of the “right to exclude” granted by a patent and to prevent possible harassment by multiple assignees. A nonstatutory double patenting rejection is appropriate where the claims at issue are not identical, but at least one examined application claim is not patentably distinct from the reference claim(s) because the examined application claim is either anticipated by, or would have been obvious over, the reference claim(s). See, e.g., In re Berg, 140 F.3d 1428, 46 USPQ2d 1226 (Fed. Cir. 1998); In re Goodman, 11 F.3d 1046, 29 USPQ2d 2010 (Fed. Cir. 1993); In re Longi, 759 F.2d 887, 225 USPQ 645 (Fed. Cir. 1985); In re Van Ornum, 686 F.2d 937, 214 USPQ 761 (CCPA 1982); In re Vogel, 422 F.2d 438, 164 USPQ 619 (CCPA 1970); and In re Thorington, 418 F.2d 528, 163 USPQ 644 (CCPA 1969).
A timely filed terminal disclaimer in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(c) or 1.321(d) may be used to overcome an actual or provisional rejection based on a nonstatutory double patenting ground provided the reference application or patent either is shown to be commonly owned with this application, or claims an invention made as a result of activities undertaken within the scope of a joint research agreement. A terminal disclaimer must be signed in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(b).
The USPTO internet Web site contains terminal disclaimer forms which may be used. Please visit http://www.uspto.gov/forms/. The filing date of the application will determine what form should be used. A web-based eTerminal Disclaimer may be filled out completely online using web-screens. An eTerminal Disclaimer that meets all requirements is auto-processed and approved immediately upon submission. For more information about eTerminal Disclaimers, refer to http://www.uspto.gov/patents/process/file/efs/guidance/eTD-info-I.jsp.
Claims 1 and 11, of instant application rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1 and 6, of U.S. Patent No. 12,142,041 B2, in view of Chang (US PGPUB 2020/0193163 A1), as being explained below.
Instant Application 18/896,598.
US Patent 12,142,041 B2
Claim 1. A method comprising: receiving, at a first computing device, a capture of an event, wherein the capture comprises a plurality of frames; receiving an input indicating a participant in the event; identifying, based on the input, the participant in a first location in a first frame of the capture; generating, for output, an indicator to apply to the identified participant at the first location and in the first frame; identifying, via a trained model, that the participant has moved to a second location in a subsequent frame of the capture; and generating, for output, the indicator to apply to the identified participant in the second location in the subsequent frame of the capture.
Claim 11. A system comprising: input/output circuitry configured to: receive, at a first computing device, a capture of an event, wherein the capture comprises a plurality of frames; and receive an input indicating a participant in the event; and processing circuitry configured to: identify, based on the input, the participant in a first location in a first frame of the capture; generate, for output, an indicator to apply to the identified participant at the first location and in the first frame; identify, via a trained model, that the participant has moved to a second location in a subsequent frame of the capture; and generate, for output, the indicator to apply to the identified participant in the second location in the subsequent frame of the capture.
Claim 1. A method comprising: receiving, at a first computing device, a capture of an event, wherein the capture comprises a plurality of frames; receiving a time stamp and location data associated with the capture; querying a first database with the time stamp and the location data to identify a type of the event; querying a second database with the type of the event to select a first key instrument; accessing a setting to select a second key instrument; identifying, at the first computing device, the first key instrument and the second key instrument in the capture, wherein the first key instrument is in a first frame of the capture and at a first location in the capture, and wherein the second key instrument is in a second location in the capture; generating, for display, a first indicator to apply to the identified first key instrument in the first frame of the capture and at the first location; generating, for display, a second indicator to apply to the identified second key instrument at the second location; identifying, in a second frame of the capture subsequent to the first frame, that the first key instrument has moved to a third location in the capture; and generating for display, the first indicator to apply to the identified first key instrument in the second frame of the capture and at the third location.
Claim 6. A system comprising: a communication port; a memory storing instructions; and control circuitry communicably coupled to the memory and the communication port and configured to execute the instructions to: receive, at a first computing device, a capture of an event, wherein the capture comprises a plurality of frames; receive a time stamp and location data associated with the capture; query a first database with the time stamp and the location data to identify a type of the event; query a second database with the type of the event to select a first key instrument; access a setting to select a second key instrument; identify, at the first computing device, the first key instrument and the second key instrument in the capture of the event, wherein the first key instrument is in a first frame of the capture and at a first location in the capture, and wherein the second key instrument is in a second location in the capture; and generate, for display, a first indicator to apply to the identified first key instrument in the first frame of the capture and the first location; generate, for display, a second indicator to apply to the identified second key instrument at the second location; identify, in a second frame of the capture subsequent to the first frame, that the first key instrument has moved to a third location in the capture; and generate for display, the first indicator to apply to the identified first key instrument in the second frame of the capture and at the third location.
As can be seen from above comparison the patent 041, claims 1 and 6, discloses all the claim limitations of the instant application’s claims 1 and 11, respectively, however does not explicitly disclose identifying, via a trained model,
Chang discloses identifying, via a trained model (Chang, paragraphs 8, 198-199, 227, 241, and 281).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify patent 041, teachings by implementing a machine learn model to the system, as taught by Chang.
The motivation would be to improve the user experience viewing a sporting event (paragraph 194), as taught by Chang.
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.
Claim(s) 1-3, 7-13, and 17-20, is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Chang (US PGPUB 2020/0193163 A1) and further in view of Williams (US PGPUB 2018/0018510 A1).
As per claim 1, Chang discloses a method (Chang, Figs. 1-54) comprising:
receiving, at a first computing device, a capture of an event, wherein the capture comprises a plurality of frames (Chang, paragraphs 8, 73, 83, 224, 241, 248 and 268);
receiving an input indicating a participant in the event (Chang, paragraph 248, discloses Examples of event metadata 4918 may include, but is not limited to, an event type (e.g., a basketball shot, a dunk, a football blitz, a touchdown, a soccer goal));
identifying, based on the input, the participant in a first location in a first frame of the capture (Chang, paragraphs 8, 241, 248-250, 268, 273 and 275);
Chang discloses identifying, via a trained model, that the participant has moved to a second location in a subsequent frame of the capture (Chang, paragraphs 8, 198-199, 227, 241, and 281); however Chang does not explicitly disclose generating, for output, an indicator to apply to the identified participant at the first location and in the first frame; and generating, for output, the indicator to apply to the identified participant in the second location in the subsequent frame of the capture. Although said limitations would have been obvious in view of Chang teachings, further said limitations are well known in the art for instance Williams discloses generating, for output, an indicator to apply to the identified participant at the first location and in the first frame (Williams, Fig. 4A, and Fig. 9, and paragraphs 43-45 and 109); and
generating, for output, the indicator to apply to the identified participant in the second location in the subsequent frame of the capture (Williams, Fig. 4B, Fig. 7:714, and paragraphs 90, 104 and 110).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Chang teachings by tracking objects in successive frames, as taught by Williams.
The motivation would be to correctly analyze the performance, the video stream and the positional information in the sporting event (paragraphs 5 and 145), as taught by Williams.
As per claim 2, Chang in view of Williams further discloses the method of claim 1, wherein the method further comprises generating, for output, a content item comprising the plurality of frames of the capture and the indicator at the first location and the second location (Williams, paragraphs 44 and 48).
As per claim 3, Chang in view of Williams further discloses the method of claim 1, wherein: the method further comprises generating, for display at a touchscreen (Chang, paragraphs 256 and 261), the capture; and
receiving the input further comprises receiving the input via the touchscreen (Chang, paragraph 261).
As per claim 7, Chang in view of Williams further discloses the method of claim 1, wherein: the capture comprises a plurality of streams from a plurality of different capture devices (Chang, paragraphs 27, and 29);
identifying the participant in the first location further comprises identifying the participant in the first location in a first stream of the plurality of streams (Williams, paragraphs 64 and 66); and
identifying that the participant has moved to the second location further comprises identifying that the participant has moved to the second location in a second stream of the plurality of streams (Williams, paragraphs 64 and 66).
As per claim 8, Chang in view of Williams further discloses the method of claim 1, wherein the input comprises a continuous input drawing around a participant (Chang, paragraphs 127, 243, and 451).
As per claim 9, Chang in view of Williams further discloses the method of claim 1, wherein: generating the indicator to apply to the identified participant at the first location further comprises generating a first indicator of a first type to apply to the identified participant at the first location (Williams, paragraph 56);
generating the indicator to apply to the identified participant in the second location further comprises generating a second indicator of a second type to apply to the identified participant at the first location (Williams, paragraph 66); and
the first type and the second type are different (Williams, paragraph 66).
As per claim 10, Chang in view of Williams further discloses the method of claim 1, wherein the input is received via a second computing device (Chang, Fig. 50:5080:5000).
As per claim 11, Chang discloses a system (Chang, Figs. 1-54) comprising:
input/output circuitry (Chang, Fig. 51:5108) configured to:
processing circuitry (Chang, Fig. 51:5100:5102).
For rest of claim limitations please see the analysis of claim 1.
As per claim 12, please see the analysis of claim 2.
As per claim 13, Chang in view of Williams further discloses the system of claim 11, wherein: the system further comprises processing circuitry configured to generate, for display at a touchscreen, the capture (Chang, paragraphs 256 and 261); and
the input/output circuitry configured to receive the input is further configured to receive the input via the touchscreen (Chang, paragraph 261).
As per claim 17, please see the analysis of claim 7.
As per claim 18, Chang in view of Williams further discloses the system of claim 11, wherein the input/output circuitry is further configured to receive an input comprising a continuous input drawing around a participant (Chang, paragraphs 127, 243, and 451).
As per claim 19, please see the analysis of claim 9.
As per claim 20, Chang in view of Williams further discloses the system of claim 11, wherein the input/output circuitry is further configured to receive the input via a second computing device (Chang, Fig. 50:5080:5000).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 4-6, and 14-16, 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.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to SYED Z HAIDER whose telephone number is (571)270-5169. The examiner can normally be reached MONDAY-FRIDAY 9-5:30 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, SAM K Ahn can be reached at 571-272-3044. 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.
/SYED HAIDER/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2633
Prosecution Insights