DETAILED ACTION
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 Amendment
Applicant’s arguments have been considered but are moot in view of the new rejections below, necessitated by amendment.
Double Patenting
Claims 1, 12, and 16 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory obviousness-type double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-13 of U.S. Patent No. 12,143,679.
Although the conflicting claims are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because the examined application claim would have been anticipated by the reference claims. Both sets of claims are directed to a method of detecting the location of objects of interest in a video stream, and one of ordinary skill would see the claims in question as obvious variants of each other.
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 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 conflicting 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.
Effective January 1, 1994, a registered attorney or agent of record may sign a terminal disclaimer. A terminal disclaimer signed by the assignee must fully comply with 37 CFR 3.73(b).
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.
Claims 1, 12, and 16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Saffari et al., US 2011/0289535, in view of Lemmons, US 2003/0028873.
Claim 1. Saffari teaches a method in a system for blending interactive applications with television programming, comprising:
receiving, at a media device, a video program of a content stream comprising a plurality of video frames [Figs. 2, 4, 6-9, 20-22, paras. 31, 34, 35];
detecting, by an application running on the media device, one or more objects of interest within the plurality of video frames [e.g. location of interactive content, Figs. 5, 6, 8, 21, 22, paras. 38, 39, 41],
wherein the detecting, by the application running on the media device, one or more objects of interest within the plurality of video frames includes, for each video frame of a plurality of video frames, generating, by the media device, non-video object of interest data that:
includes information that identifies where an object of interest is in the video frame [location of interactive content is extracted and stored, Figs. 5, 6, 8, para. 38; also see paras. 37-42; location is identified on screen, Figs. 21, 22]; and
includes information to identify the object of interest in a presented scene [interactive objects are identified, Figs. 5, 6, 8, 21, 22, paras. 38, 39, 41];
outputting, by the media device, the video program to a presentation device for presentation [Figs. 2, 5, 6, 8, 21, 22, paras. 31, 35].
Saffari is silent on the above steps being performed at the client device.
Lemmons teaches a system for object recognition in which the client media device performs the steps of the object recognition method [placement contour data may be generated at the set top box, i.e. client device, Figs. 10, 11, paras. 64, 70-72], including receiving a video program [step 1101, Figs. 10, 11, paras. 70, 71, 72], detecting objects of interest [e.g. steps 1104, 1106, Fig. 11, paras. 70, 71], generating non-video data identifying the object and the object location [e.g. step 1108, Fig. 11; coordinates of the recognized object, paras. 70, 71], and outputting video [e.g. step 1114, Fig. 11, paras. 70, 71].
It would have been obvious to one skilled in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to implement the system taught in Saffari while having the processing occur at the client device, as shown by Lemmons. This has the advantage of providing the claimed functionality even when a certain provider does not participate by pre-analyzing the stream and sending the necessary metadata to the client. With the combined reference teachings, the client can perform the object recognition etc. on any received video stream from any provider. This allows a wider reach for any participating retailers who provide video-related shopping services; the system can be installed at any consumer sites (client devices) without regard to agreements with a specific provider platform.
12. Saffari teaches a system for generating an application for blending interactive applications with television programs, comprising:
a processor and memory [Figs. 2, 3, paras. 34-36] to:
detect, by the application running on a media device configured to output a video program of a content stream, an object of interest in a video frame of the video program [e.g. location of interactive content, Figs. 5, 6, 8, 21, 22, paras. 38, 39, 41], wherein the detecting, by the application running on the media device, the object of interest within the video frame includes:
generating, by the media device, non-video object of interest data that:
includes information that identifies where the object of interest is in the video frame [location of interactive content is extracted and stored, Figs. 5, 6, 8, para. 38; also see paras. 37-42; location is identified on screen, Figs. 21, 22]; and
includes information to identify the object of interest in a presented scene [interactive objects are identified, Figs. 5, 6, 8, 21, 22, paras. 38, 39, 41].
Saffari is silent on the above steps being performed at the client device.
Lemmons teaches a system for object recognition in which the client media device performs the steps of the object recognition method [placement contour data may be generated at the set top box, i.e. client device, Figs. 10, 11, paras. 64, 70-72], including receiving a video program [step 1101, Figs. 10, 11, paras. 70, 71, 72], detecting objects of interest [e.g. steps 1104, 1106, Fig. 11, paras. 70, 71], generating non-video data identifying the object and the object location [e.g. step 1108, Fig. 11; coordinates of the recognized object, paras. 70, 71], and outputting video [e.g. step 1114, Fig. 11, paras. 70, 71].
It would have been obvious to one skilled in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to implement the system taught in Saffari while having the processing occur at the client device, as shown by Lemmons. This has the advantage of providing the claimed functionality even when a certain provider does not participate by pre-analyzing the stream and sending the necessary metadata to the client. With the combined reference teachings, the client can perform the object recognition etc. on any received video stream from any provider. This allows a wider reach for any participating retailers who provide video-related shopping services; the system can be installed at any consumer sites (client devices) without regard to agreements with a specific provider platform.
16. Saffari teaches the system of claim 12 wherein the application is configured to electronically communicate a prompt to a user regarding the object of interest within the video program [interactive content marker 68, icons 62, 64, Figs. 6, 8, 10, 20-22, paras. 38-43].
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). 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 Timothy R Newlin whose telephone number is (571)270-3015. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8-5 Mountain Time.
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, Benjamin Bruckart can be reached at 571-272-3982. 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.
/TIMOTHY R NEWLIN/Examiner, Art Unit 2424
Prosecution Insights