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 .
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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 the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 1-5, 8-9, and 15-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Hohteri et al., US 2013/0305156.
Regarding claims 1 and 15, Hohteri discloses one or more non-transitory computer-readable media for dynamic video generation, the non-transitory computer readable-media comprising instructions which, when executed by one or more processors, cause the one or more processors to:
obtain a video of a game session in which a plurality of participants are participating (602-604 figure 6; paragraph 33);
detect a set of individuals depicted in the video of the game session, the set of individuals comprising the plurality of participants (606-608 figure 6; paragraph 33);
determine a location for each of the plurality of participants within the video (606-608 figure 6; paragraph 33);
determine an action location of the video as a function of the location of each of the plurality of participants within the video (610-616 figure 6; paragraph 33); and
adjust a zoom characteristic of the video based on the action location (610-616 figure 6; paragraph 6, 28 and 33).
Regarding claims 2 and 16, Hohteri discloses the one or more non-transitory computer-readable media of claim 1, wherein execution of the instructions causes the one or more processors to: identify the plurality of participants of the game session from the detected set of individuals detected in the video of the game session (paragraph 33).
Regarding claims 3 and 17, Hohteri discloses the one or more non-transitory computer-readable media of claim 2, wherein execution of the instructions causes the one or more processors to identify the plurality of participants responsive to determining the plurality of participants are located within a defined area of the video (paragraph 33).
Regarding claim 4, Hohteri discloses the one or more non-transitory computer-readable media of claim 3, wherein execution of the instructions further causes the one or more processors to receive the defined area as a user input (paragraph 30).
Regarding claim 5, Hohteri discloses the one or more non-transitory computer-readable media of claim 3, wherein execution of the instructions further causes the one or more processors to automatically identify the defined area from the video based on visual characteristics of a playing area for the game session depicted in the video (paragraph 35).
Regarding claim 8, Hohteri discloses the one or more non-transitory computer-readable media of claim 1, wherein execution of the instructions causes the one or more processors to adjust a zoom characteristic of the video by:
zooming in on the video according to a preconfigured zoom setting to generate zoomed-in frames of the video (paragraph 6 and 28); and
moving the zoomed-in frames of the video such that the action location is within the zoomed-in frames (as shown figure 7 and 8, paragraph 6 and 28).
Regarding claim 9, Hohteri discloses the one or more non-transitory computer-readable media of claim 8, wherein execution of the instructions causes the one or more processors to move the zoomed-in frames of the video such that the action location is in a middle of the zoomed-in frames (as shown figure 7 and 8, paragraph 6 and 28).
Regarding claim 18, Hohteri discloses a method for dynamic video generation, comprising:
obtaining, by one or more processors, a video of a game session in which a plurality of participants are participating (602-604 figure 6; paragraph 33);
detecting, by the one or more processors, a set of individuals depicted in the video of the game session, the set of individuals comprising the plurality of participants (606-608 figure 6; paragraph 33);
identifying, by the one or more processors, the plurality of participants of the game session from the detected set of individuals detected in the video of the game session responsive to determining the plurality of participants are located within a defined area of the video (paragraph 33);
determining, by the one or more processors, a location for each of the plurality of participants within the video (606-608 figure 6; paragraph 33);
determining, by the one or more processors, an action location of the video as a function of the location of each of the plurality of participants within the video (610-616 figure 6; paragraph 33); and
adjusting, by the one or more processors, a zoom characteristic of the video based on the action location (610-616 figure 6; paragraph 6, 28 and 33).
Regarding claim 19, Hohteri discloses the method of claim 18, further comprising receiving, by the one or more processors, the defined area as a user input (paragraph 30).
Regarding claim 20, Hohteri discloses the method of claim 18, further comprising: automatically identifying, by the one or more processors, the defined area from the video based on visual characteristics of a playing area for the game session depicted in the video (paragraph 35).
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, 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 10-11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over the Hohteri in view of Loebl, US 2021/0192355.
Regarding claim 10, Hohteri discloses the one or more non-transitory computer-readable media of claim 8.
Hohteri is silent about to crop out any portions of the video that are not included in the zoomed-in frames.
In an analogous art, Loebl discloses to crop out any portions of the video that are not included in the zoomed-in frames (paragraph 53).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Hohteri’s media with the teachings of Loebl. The motivation would have been to remove the unwanted media for the benefit of providing quality of service.
Regarding claim 11, Hohteri and Loebl disclose the one or more non-transitory computer-readable media of claim 10, wherein execution of the instructions causes the one or more processors to transmit the zoomed-in frames to a remote computing device (Hohteri paragraph 39).
Claim 12 is are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over the Hohteri in view of Kaplanis et al., US 2024/0249702.
Regarding claim 12, Hohteri discloses the one or more non-transitory computer-readable media of claim 1.
Hohteri is silent about to detect the set of individuals depicted in the video of the game session using an object detection machine learning model.
In an analogous art, Kaplanis discloses to detect the set of individuals depicted in the video of the game session using an object detection machine learning model (paragraph 48).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Hohteri’s media with the teachings of Kaplanis. The motivation would have been to automate the detection for the benefit of providing superior accuracy.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 6-7 and 13-14 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.
Contact
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to OSCHTA I MONTOYA whose telephone number is (571)270-1192. The examiner can normally be reached on Monday-Friday 8 am - 5 pm.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Nathan Flynn can be reached on 571-272-1915. 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.
OM
Oschta Montoya
Patent Examiner
Art Unit 2421
/OSCHTA I MONTOYA/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2421
Prosecution Insights