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
Non-Statutory Obviousness-Type Double Patenting: Rejection Based on Anticipation Analysis
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 conflicting claims 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); 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 nonstatutory double patenting provided the reference application or patent either is shown to be commonly owned with the examined application, or claims an invention made as a result of activities undertaken within the scope of a joint research agreement. See MPEP § 717.02 for applications subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA as explained in MPEP § 2159. See MPEP §§ 706.02(l)(1) - 706.02(l)(3) for applications not subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA . A terminal disclaimer must be signed in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(b).
The USPTO Internet website contains terminal disclaimer forms which may be used. Please visit www.uspto.gov/patent/patents-forms. The filing date of the application in which the form is filed determines what form (e.g., PTO/SB/25, PTO/SB/26, PTO/AIA /25, or PTO/AIA /26) 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 www.uspto.gov/patents/process/file/efs/guidance/eTD-info-I.jsp.
Claims 1, 11, and 18 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1, 14, and 20 of U.S. Patent No. 11,580,737 B1. It is clear that all the elements of the application claims 1, 11, and 18 are to be found in patent claims 1, 14, and 20 (as the application claims 1, 11, and 18 fully encompasses patent claims 1, 14, and 20). The difference between the application claims 1, 11, and 18 and the patent claims 1, 14, and 20 lies in the fact that the patent claim includes many more elements and is thus much more specific. Thus, the invention of claims 1, 14, and 20 of the patent is in effect a “species” of the “generic” invention of the application claims 1, 11, and 18. It has been held that the generic invention is “anticipated” by the “species”. See In re Goodman, 29 USPQ2d 2010 (Fed. Cir. 1993). Since application claims 1, 11, and 18 are anticipated by claims 1, 14, and 20 of the patent, it is not patentably distinct from claims 1, 14, and 20 of the patent.
Claims 1, 11, and 18 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1, 17, and 20 of U.S. Patent No. 12,664,798 B2. It is clear that all the elements of the application claims 1, 11, and 18 are to be found in patent claims 1, 17, and 20 (as the application claims 1, 11, and 18 fully encompasses patent claims 1, 17, and 20). The difference between the application claims 1, 11, and 18 and the patent claims 1, 17, and 20 lies in the fact that the patent claim includes many more elements and is thus much more specific. Thus, the invention of claims 1, 17, and 20 of the patent is in effect a “species” of the “generic” invention of the application claims 1, 11, and 18. It has been held that the generic invention is “anticipated” by the “species”. See In re Goodman, 29 USPQ2d 2010 (Fed. Cir. 1993). Since application claims 1, 11, and 18 are anticipated by claims 1, 17, and 20 of the patent, it is not patentably distinct from claims 1, 17, and 20 of the patent.
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) 1-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Jassin et al., US 2018/0035152 A1 (Jassin), and further in view of Saggi et al., US 2020/0372066 A1 (Saggi).
Regarding claim 1, Jassin teaches a method (a method for summarizing multimedia content) ([0019]), comprising:
obtaining a transcript associated with video content of a communication session (obtaining a transcript associated with video content; that includes people speaking) (Fig. 2A; [0025]);
performing video-based segmentation on the video content (performing video based segmentation on a video) (Fig. 2A; [0024-0025]) to determine a category label from a list of category labels for each video frame of the video content (determining a category label, based on the list of category labels 210, for each frame within the video) (Fig. 2A; [0027]),
the video content comprising topic segments of consecutive frames associated with a same category label (the video content comprising topic segments 210E; wherein the topics correspond to frames that have the same topic category) (Fig. 2A; [0027]); and
performing transcript-based segmentation to divide one of the topic segments into a first topic segment (dividing one of the topic segments into a first topic segment such as “Greeting”) (Fig. 2A; [0027-0028]) and a second topic segment (a second topic segment such as “Broadcast”) (Fig. 2A; [0027-0028]).
However, Jassin does not explicitly teach that the different topics are associated with different titles (i.e. a first topic associated with a first title, a second topic segment associated with a second title, etc.).
Saggi teaches a system or process that may generate a summarization of multimedia content (Abstract); wherein the video can be segmented based on topics ([0058]); and wherein generating different titles for the plurality of different segments ([0055]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Jassin to include generating titles for video segments since it allows for better representation and thus leads to more accurate similarity analyses (Saggi; [0012]).
Regarding claim 2, Jassin teaches further comprising: receiving, from a client device (client device 190) (Fig. 1; [0032]), a request to search for specified text within the video content (wherein the user can input a search query via a graphical user interface (GUI) 310; such as searching for OCRed text from the video content) (Fig. 3C; [0033]); determining, based on the request (search query) (Fig. 3C; [0033]), one or more topic segments related to the request (the search query can be used to identify relevant enhanced segmented video) ([0033]); and presenting, to the client device (client device 190) (Fig. 1; [0032]), content from at least one of the one or more topic segments related to the request (wherein the GUI can display representations of the plurality of relevant enhanced segmented videos) (Fig. 3C; [0033] and [0039]).
Regarding claim 3, Jassin teaches further comprising: presenting (presenting through a GUI) (Fig. 3C), to the client device (client device 190) (Fig. 1; [0032]), a portion of the transcript associated with the at least one of the one or more topic segments related to the request (displaying a part of the transcript associated with at least one or more topic segments related to the search query) (Figs. 2A and 3C; [0033-0034]).
Regarding claim 4, Jassin teaches further comprising: presenting (presenting through a GUI) (Fig. 3C), to a client device associated with a user (client device 190) (Fig. 1; [0032]), the video content (video content 330) (Fig. 3C; [0034]) and a timeline associated with the video content (displaying a timeline with segment bubbles associated with the video content) (Fig. 3C; [0034]), wherein the timeline is visually segmented into the topic segments (wherein the timeline is visually segmented, based on the corresponding segment bubbles, which can be based on a topic) (Fig. 3C; [0034]).
Regarding claim 5, Jassin teaches further comprising: determining, during the video-based segmentation (performing video based segmentation on a video) (Fig. 2A; [0024-0025]), topic segments (topic segments 210E) (Fig. 2A; [0025-0028]).
However, Jassin does not explicitly teach that the different topics are associated with different titles (i.e. a first topic associated with a first title, a second topic segment associated with a second title, etc.).
Saggi teaches a system or process that may generate a summarization of multimedia content (Abstract); wherein the video can be segmented based on topics ([0058]); and wherein generating different titles for the plurality of different segments ([0055]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Jassin to include generating titles for video segments since it allows for better representation and thus leads to more accurate similarity analyses (Saggi; [0012]).
Regarding claim 6, Jassin teaches using optical character recognition (Fig. 2A; [0027] and [0034]). Saggi teaches wherein the title is extracted using optical character recognition (readable text is identified in and extracted from each frame, via OCR (optical character recognition), and this visual text extracted can be used to generate titles) ([0061], [0074], and [0099]).
Regarding claim 7, Jassin teaches wherein the performing transcript-based segmentation comprises determining the one of the topic segments is longer than a preset threshold (segment reconstruction rules define an occurrence that when true is an indication that a segment should be reconstructed; i.e. a duration limit/threshold) ([0030]).
Regarding claim 8, Saggi teaches wherein the performing transcript-based segmentation comprises determining the first title by extracting text from the transcript (determining a plurality of keywords from the transcript; wherein the title can be based the transcript) ([0019], [0061], and [0064]).
Regarding claim 9, Saggi teaches wherein the performing transcript-based segmentation comprises determining the first title from a list of title candidates (wherein a list of candidate keywords are determined; and keywords are used for a title) ([0064], [0104], and [0107]).
Regarding claim 10, Jassin teaches further comprising: merging two of the topic segments into a third topic segment (wherein adjacent time-based segments can be merged) ([0030]), wherein the third topic segment comprises frames associated with a first category label and frames associated with a second category label (wherein the merged segment can include the same speaker (category 1), scene (category 2), etc.) ([0030]).
Regarding claim 11, see the rejection made to claim 1, as well as Jassin for an apparatus (computing device 800) (Fig. 8; [0047]), comprising: one or more processors (comprising one or more processors 814) (Fig. 8; [0047]) configured to execute instructions (the processor executing instructions) ([0044]), for they teach all the limitations within this claim.
Regarding claim 12, see the rejection made to claim 2, as well as Jassin for an apparatus (computing device 800) (Fig. 8; [0047]), comprising: one or more processors (comprising one or more processors 814) (Fig. 8; [0047]) configured to execute instructions (the processor executing instructions) ([0044]), for they teach all the limitations within this claim.
Regarding claim 13, see the rejection made to claim 3, as well as Jassin for an apparatus (computing device 800) (Fig. 8; [0047]), comprising: one or more processors (comprising one or more processors 814) (Fig. 8; [0047]) configured to execute instructions (the processor executing instructions) ([0044]), for they teach all the limitations within this claim.
Regarding claim 14, see the rejection made to claim 5, as well as Jassin for an apparatus (computing device 800) (Fig. 8; [0047]), comprising: one or more processors (comprising one or more processors 814) (Fig. 8; [0047]) configured to execute instructions (the processor executing instructions) ([0044]), for they teach all the limitations within this claim.
Regarding claim 15, see the rejection made to claim 8, as well as Jassin for an apparatus (computing device 800) (Fig. 8; [0047]), comprising: one or more processors (comprising one or more processors 814) (Fig. 8; [0047]) configured to execute instructions (the processor executing instructions) ([0044]), for they teach all the limitations within this claim.
Regarding claim 16, see the rejection made to claim 9, as well as Jassin for an apparatus (computing device 800) (Fig. 8; [0047]), comprising: one or more processors (comprising one or more processors 814) (Fig. 8; [0047]) configured to execute instructions (the processor executing instructions) ([0044]), for they teach all the limitations within this claim.
Regarding claim 17, see the rejection made to claim 10, as well as Jassin for an apparatus (computing device 800) (Fig. 8; [0047]), comprising: one or more processors (comprising one or more processors 814) (Fig. 8; [0047]) configured to execute instructions (the processor executing instructions) ([0044]), for they teach all the limitations within this claim.
Regarding claim 18, see the rejection made to claim 1, as well as Jassin for one or more non-transitory computer readable medium (non-transitory computer-readable storage media) ([0038] and [0049]) storing instructions (storing computer-executable instructions) ([0038]) operable to cause one or more processors to perform operations (causes the one or more processors to perform the method) ([0038]), for they teach all the limitations within this claim.
Regarding claim 19, see the rejection made to claim 2, as well as Jassin for one or more non-transitory computer readable medium (non-transitory computer-readable storage media) ([0038] and [0049]) storing instructions (storing computer-executable instructions) ([0038]) operable to cause one or more processors to perform operations (causes the one or more processors to perform the method) ([0038]), for they teach all the limitations within this claim.
Regarding claim 20, see the rejection made to claim 3, as well as Jassin for one or more non-transitory computer readable medium (non-transitory computer-readable storage media) ([0038] and [0049]) storing instructions (storing computer-executable instructions) ([0038]) operable to cause one or more processors to perform operations (causes the one or more processors to perform the method) ([0038]), for they teach all the limitations within this claim.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Prior art Jin et al., US 2023/0386208 A1 teaches: systems and methods for video segmentation and summarization are described (Abstract); wherein embodiments of the present disclosure receive a video and a transcript of the video (Abstract); generate visual features representing frames of the video using an image encoder (Abstract); generate language features representing the transcript using a text encoder, wherein the image encoder and the text encoder are trained based on a correlation between training visual features and training language features (Abstract); and segment the video into a plurality of video segments based on the visual features and the language features (Abstract).
Contact
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MICHAEL J VANCHY JR whose telephone number is (571)270-1193. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 9am - 5pm.
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, Emily Terrell can be reached at (571) 270-3717. 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.
/MICHAEL J VANCHY JR/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2666 Michael.Vanchy@uspto.gov
Prosecution Insights