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 .
DETAILED ACTION
This office action is in response to communication filed 11/19/2024. Claims 1-20 are pending for examination, the rejection cited as stated below.
Double Patenting
2. 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 obviousness-type 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); 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 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).
3. Claims 1, 5-9, 11, 14-18 and 20 are provisionally rejected on the ground of nonstatutory obviousness-type double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 1 of copending Application No. 18928108 (claim set dated 7/16/2025, hereafter “Application’108”) in view of Wong (US 2011/0282906).
As to claim 1, Application’108 discloses a method comprising:
rendering, by an application associated with a device, over a network, a video related to an event (Claim 1, “rendering, by a device, a video, the video corresponding to a program broadcast over a network, the video being viewed by a user at a location”);
receiving, by the application, during the rendering of the video, a request from a user related to at least one frame of the video (Claim 1, “receiving, by the device, during the rendering of the video, input from a second device, the input comprising a request to capture a frame of the video, the frame of the video corresponding to a time proximate to a time the input is received”); and
communicating, by the application, an output based on the at least one frame of the video to a device of a user in response to the request (Claim 1, “determining, by the device, based on the analysis, entity information, the entity information corresponding to a category of entities digitally depicted within the frame of the video; retrieving, by the device, over a network, content related to the entity information; and communicating, by the device, to an account of the user, an output comprising the entity information and related retrieved content”),
but does not expressly disclose that the event is a live event, searching, by the application, based on the request, a repository of video content, the video content in the repository corresponding to a plurality of live events occurring at a time proximate to the live event; identifying, by the application, based on the search, the at least one frame from the video content within the repository; and communicating, by the application, an output based on the identified at least one frame to a device of the user in response to the request.
Wong discloses
an event is a live event (Figure 3, “Media Content” provided via “Communication Network” to “User Television Equipment”; See [0022], “The term multimedia is defined herein as media and content that utilizes at least two different content forms, such as text, audio, still images, animation, video, and interactivity content forms. Multimedia content may be recorded and played, displayed, or accessed by information content processing devices, such as computerized and electronic devices, but may also be part of a live performance. It should be understood that the invention embodiments that are described in relation to media or media content are also applicable to other types of content, such as video, audio and/or multimedia”. The above discloses that “media content” as described in Wong can be “multimedia” comprising “video”, which can be “live performance”. See also [0023], “A user accessing any form of media content may wish to perform a search based on the media content. The user may, for example, want to identify something shown on a display, such as an actor or a handbag in a scene. The user may also want to identify the media content if the user is viewing a short video clip taken, for example, from a movie or television show);
searching, by the application, based on the request, a repository of video content, the video content in the repository corresponding to a plurality of live events (see [0029], “The captured snapshot image is sent from media device 102 or controller 104 to processor 106…..Processor 106 analyzes the image to determine any features of the image that may be used to perform a search. Processor 106 may recognize, for example, faces, logos, objects, text, any other suitable features, or any combination thereof. The recognized features of the image are used to translate the image into text descriptors that can be packaged with search images in a search query and used to supplement the search performed based on the snapshot image”; [0034], “Identifier 110 analyzes text descriptors and search images in the search query in an attempt to target the search to a subset of data to efficiently identify images and information as potential matches for targeted features of the captured snapshot image”; [0066], “Identifier 502 includes a collection of searchable data 508 that may be used to perform a search based on the received query. Searchable data 508 may include images and/or text descriptors. In some embodiments, searchable data 508 includes images related to media content, and each image is associated with a set of text descriptors that indicate features of the image. For example, searchable data 508 may include a collection of images of actors from movies and televisions shows. Each actor image may have a text descriptor that includes the actor's name and movies or television shows that the actor has appeared in. Searchable data 508 may be a collection of data specific to the searching system in which search engine 500 is implemented, a collection of all available Internet data, a media content database”. See citation and Examiner’s explanation in rejection to limitation 1, e.g., [0022], wherein “media content” can be “multimedia” comprising “video”, which can be “live performance”) occurring at a time proximate to the live event (see 112 rejection and Examiner’s interpretation therein that “a time proximate to the live event” is interpreted as using any criterion to determine “a time proximate to the live event”. See citation in rejection to limitation 1, e.g., [0022], any disclosed “media content” can be “multimedia” comprising “video” which can be “live performance”. As a result, both the “media content” that the instant user is viewing and the “media content” in the database for searching and matching can be “live performance”. Because both media contents are “live” at the time, they can be considered to be happening in “proximate time” to each other);
identifying, by the application, based on the search, the at least one frame from the video content within the repository ([0034], “The search query created by processor 106 is sent to search engine 108….Identifier 110 analyzes text descriptors and search images in the search query in an attempt to target the search to a subset of data to efficiently identify images and information as potential matches for targeted features of the captured snapshot image. Once potential matching images are identified, accepted matches are determined. Accepted matches may be determined by evaluating the similarity between images and descriptors for potential matches and images and descriptors in the search query”; [0035], “Results generator 112 uses the identifications to locate information and content related to the targeted features of the snapshot image to present to the user. Results generator 112 may include media content sources, information sources, Internet sources, display template sources, or any other suitable sources for gathering and presenting search results to the user.” See [0066] as cited in preceding limitation for searching images related to “media content” in a “media content database” to match the image from the video. See [0022] for “media content” to be “multimedia” which can be “video” and “live performance”); and
communicating, by the application, an output based on the identified at least one frame to a device of the user in response to the request (see citation in rejection to the preceding limitation for identified/matched at least one frame, which is based on to communicate an output to the user device, see [0035], “Results generator 112 uses the identifications to locate information and content related to the targeted features of the snapshot image to present to the user. Results generator 112 may include media content sources, information sources, Internet sources, display template sources, or any other suitable sources for gathering and presenting search results to the user; [0035], “The search results may then be presented to the user on media device 102, on controller 104, by email, through an Internet browser, or by any other suitable approach”).
Before the effective filing date of the invention, it would have been obvious for an ordinary skilled in the art to combine Application’108 with Wong. The suggestion/motivation of the combination would have been to efficiently find matching contents (Wong, [0034]).
As to claim 11, see similar rejection to claim 1.
As to claim 18, see similar rejection to claim 1.
As to claims 5-9, 14-17 and 20, see citations of Wong in the 102 rejection set forth below for the respective claims.
This is a provisional obviousness-type double patenting rejection.
4. Claims 2 and 12 are provisionally rejected on the ground of nonstatutory obviousness-type double patenting as being unpatentable over Application’108 in view of Wong, as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Kim (US 20150138385).
As to claim 2, Application’108 in view of Wong discloses the claimed invention substantially as discussed in claim 1 but does not expressly disclose communicating a search to a cloud device; and causing the search to be performed by the cloud device, wherein the repository is a cloud hosted data storage of the video content. Kim discloses communicating a search to a cloud device; and causing the search to be performed by the cloud device, wherein a repository is a cloud hosted data storage of video content ([0047], “initiate transmission of relevant captured image data and/or graphical feature points to a digital annotation database to conduct an image match search, as shown in a second screenshot (303). Preferably, the digital annotation database is executed in the cloud computing server”; abstract, “the digital annotation database that stores relational data between the page image of the book and the book pronunciation content recited by a human narrator, and a related image analysis and matching program”).
Before the effective filing date of the invention, it would have been obvious for an ordinary skilled in the art to combine Application’108 in view of Wong and Kim. The suggestion/motivation of the combination would have been to enable a dynamically-updatable selection of voice pronunciation files and contents, which can be virtually-attached to or associated with a physical book or a printed publication via digital annotation across a cloud-computing network (Kim, [0005]).
As to claim 12, see similar rejection to claim 2.
This is a provisional obviousness-type double patenting rejection.
5. Claims 3-4, 10, 13 and 19 are provisionally rejected on the ground of nonstatutory obviousness-type double patenting as being unpatentable over Application’108 in view of Wong, as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Yong (US 20190351335).
As to claim 3, Application’108 in view of Wong discloses the claimed invention substantially as discussed in claim 1, but does not expressly disclose that the video content corresponds to a previously performed rendering by a plurality of other devices on the network, such that the request from the user corresponds to a previously rendered at least one frame of the video. Yong discloses video content corresponding to a previously performed rendering by a plurality of other devices on the network, such that a request from a user corresponds to a previously rendered at least one frame of the video (abstract, “user generated content include video recordings or screenshots from within the video game that pertain to events that have occurred. Corresponding metadata would then be used to describe substantive aspects about the user-generated content such as details about where the recording or screenshot was taken, who was included in the user-generated content, and what objects are found in the user-generated content. The associated metadata would 1) allow users to search among various uploaded user generated content and 2) search within portions of those usegenerated content for particular sub-sections of interest”; [0047], “FIG. 3 is a method 300 for scene tagging and using the scene tagging information. The method 300 allows users to tag user generated content. Based on the metadata used to tag the user generated content, other users are able to query for particular user generated content”).
Before the effective filing date of the invention, it would have been obvious for an ordinary skilled in the art to combine Application’108 in view of Wong and Yong. The suggestion/motivation of the combination would have been to store game play information (Yong, abstract).
As to claim 19, see similar rejection to claim 3.
As to claim 4, Application’108 in view of Wong and Yong discloses the method of claim 3, further comprising each of the plurality of other devices serially performing captures during such renderings, and uploading to the repository (Yong, see citation in rejection to claim 3 above, e.g., abstract, “Exemplary user generated content include video recordings or screenshots from within the video game that pertain to events that have occurred.” Since events occur serially, each user device capture the respective screen shots serially).
As to claim 13, see similar rejection to claim 4.
As to claim 10, Applicantion’108 in view of Wong and Yong discloses the method of claim 1, further comprising the video content within the repository comprising a set of previously rendered frame captures from the plurality of live events (see citation in rejection to claims 3 and 4, Yong, wherein the game playing is a live event).
This is a provisional obviousness-type double patenting rejection.
---------------
6. Claims 1, 5-9, 11, 14-18 and 20 are provisionally rejected on the ground of nonstatutory obviousness-type double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 1 of copending Application No. 18952052 (claim set dated 11/19/2024, hereafter “Application’052”) in view of Wong (US 2011/0282906).
As to claim 1, Application’052 discloses a method comprising:
receiving, by the application, a request from a user related to at least one frame of a video (Claim 1, “receiving, by an application, a request from a user, the request corresponding to a frame of
a video”), and
communicating, by the application, an output based on the at least one frame of video to a device of the user (Claim 1, “determining, by the application, information related to a product depicted within the frame of the video; analyzing, by the application, the product information based on user data associated with the user; determining, by the application, a version of the product that corresponds to the user data; and communicating, by the device, an output to a device of the user that includes information related to the determined version of the product”),
but does not expressly disclose
rendering, by an application associated with a device, over a network, a video related to a live event; the receiving of the request is during rendering of the video; searching, by the application, based on the request, a repository of video content, the video content in the repository corresponding to a plurality of live events occurring at a time proximate to the live event; identifying, by the application, based on the search, the at least one frame from the video content within the repository; and communicating, by the application, an output based on the identified at least one frame to a device of the user in response to the request.
Wong discloses
rendering, by an application associated with a device, over a network, a video related to a live event (Figure 3, “Media Content” provided via “Communication Network” to “User Television Equipment”; See [0022], “The term multimedia is defined herein as media and content that utilizes at least two different content forms, such as text, audio, still images, animation, video, and interactivity content forms. Multimedia content may be recorded and played, displayed, or accessed by information content processing devices, such as computerized and electronic devices, but may also be part of a live performance. It should be understood that the invention embodiments that are described in relation to media or media content are also applicable to other types of content, such as video, audio and/or multimedia”. The above discloses that “media content” as described in Wong can be “multimedia” comprising “video”, which can be “live performance”. See also [0023], “A user accessing any form of media content may wish to perform a search based on the media content. The user may, for example, want to identify something shown on a display, such as an actor or a handbag in a scene. The user may also want to identify the media content if the user is viewing a short video clip taken, for example, from a movie or television show);
receiving of the request is during rendering of the video ([0023], “A user accessing any form of media content may wish to perform a search based on the media content. The user may, for example, want to identify something shown on a display, such as an actor or a handbag in a scene. The user may also want to identify the media content if the user is viewing a short video clip taken, for example, from a movie or television show; [0024], “A snapshot image can be captured from the media content and used, along with any available supplemental data and user input, to perform the desired search”; [0028], “To initiate the search, the user captures a snapshot image of the on-screen media content and uses the captured snapshot image as a search entry. The user captures a snapshot image that contains the items or features of the media content that the user wishes to use for the search. For example, if the user is trying to find the name of an actor, the snapshot image is captured when the actor's face is on screen);
searching, by the application, based on the request, a repository of video content, the video content in the repository corresponding to a plurality of live events (see [0029], “The captured snapshot image is sent from media device 102 or controller 104 to processor 106…..Processor 106 analyzes the image to determine any features of the image that may be used to perform a search. Processor 106 may recognize, for example, faces, logos, objects, text, any other suitable features, or any combination thereof. The recognized features of the image are used to translate the image into text descriptors that can be packaged with search images in a search query and used to supplement the search performed based on the snapshot image”; [0034], “Identifier 110 analyzes text descriptors and search images in the search query in an attempt to target the search to a subset of data to efficiently identify images and information as potential matches for targeted features of the captured snapshot image”; [0066], “Identifier 502 includes a collection of searchable data 508 that may be used to perform a search based on the received query. Searchable data 508 may include images and/or text descriptors. In some embodiments, searchable data 508 includes images related to media content, and each image is associated with a set of text descriptors that indicate features of the image. For example, searchable data 508 may include a collection of images of actors from movies and televisions shows. Each actor image may have a text descriptor that includes the actor's name and movies or television shows that the actor has appeared in. Searchable data 508 may be a collection of data specific to the searching system in which search engine 500 is implemented, a collection of all available Internet data, a media content database”. See citation and Examiner’s explanation in rejection to limitation 1, e.g., [0022], wherein “media content” can be “multimedia” comprising “video”, which can be “live performance”) occurring at a time proximate to the live event (see 112 rejection and Examiner’s interpretation therein that “a time proximate to the live event” is interpreted as using any criterion to determine “a time proximate to the live event”. See citation in rejection to limitation 1, e.g., [0022], any disclosed “media content” can be “multimedia” comprising “video” which can be “live performance”. As a result, both the “media content” that the instant user is viewing and the “media content” in the database for searching and matching can be “live performance”. Because both media contents are “live” at the time, they can be considered to be happening in “proximate time” to each other);
identifying, by the application, based on the search, the at least one frame from the video content within the repository ([0034], “The search query created by processor 106 is sent to search engine 108….Identifier 110 analyzes text descriptors and search images in the search query in an attempt to target the search to a subset of data to efficiently identify images and information as potential matches for targeted features of the captured snapshot image. Once potential matching images are identified, accepted matches are determined. Accepted matches may be determined by evaluating the similarity between images and descriptors for potential matches and images and descriptors in the search query”; [0035], “Results generator 112 uses the identifications to locate information and content related to the targeted features of the snapshot image to present to the user. Results generator 112 may include media content sources, information sources, Internet sources, display template sources, or any other suitable sources for gathering and presenting search results to the user.” See [0066] as cited in preceding limitation for searching images related to “media content” in a “media content database” to match the image from the video. See [0022] for “media content” to be “multimedia” which can be “video” and “live performance”); and
communicating, by the application, an output based on the identified at least one frame to a device of the user in response to the request (see citation in rejection to the preceding limitation for identified/matched at least one frame, which is based on to communicate an output to the user device, see [0035], “Results generator 112 uses the identifications to locate information and content related to the targeted features of the snapshot image to present to the user. Results generator 112 may include media content sources, information sources, Internet sources, display template sources, or any other suitable sources for gathering and presenting search results to the user; [0035], “The search results may then be presented to the user on media device 102, on controller 104, by email, through an Internet browser, or by any other suitable approach”).
Before the effective filing date of the invention, it would have been obvious for an ordinary skilled in the art to combine Application’052 with Wong. The suggestion/motivation of the combination would have been to efficiently find matching contents (Wong, [0034]).
As to claim 11, see similar rejection to claim 1.
As to claim 18, see similar rejection to claim 1.
As to claims 5-9, 14-17 and 20, see citations of Wong in the 102 rejection set forth below for the respective claims.
This is a provisional obviousness-type double patenting rejection.
7. Claims 2 and 12 are provisionally rejected on the ground of nonstatutory obviousness-type double patenting as being unpatentable over Application’052 in view of Wong, as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Kim (US 20150138385).
As to claim 2, Application’052 in view of Wong discloses the claimed invention substantially as discussed in claim 1 but does not expressly disclose communicating a search to a cloud device; and causing the search to be performed by the cloud device, wherein the repository is a cloud hosted data storage of the video content. Kim discloses communicating a search to a cloud device; and causing the search to be performed by the cloud device, wherein a repository is a cloud hosted data storage of video content ([0047], “initiate transmission of relevant captured image data and/or graphical feature points to a digital annotation database to conduct an image match search, as shown in a second screenshot (303). Preferably, the digital annotation database is executed in the cloud computing server”; abstract, “the digital annotation database that stores relational data between the page image of the book and the book pronunciation content recited by a human narrator, and a related image analysis and matching program”).
Before the effective filing date of the invention, it would have been obvious for an ordinary skilled in the art to combine Application’052 in view of Wong and Kim. The suggestion/motivation of the combination would have been to enable a dynamically-updatable selection of voice pronunciation files and contents, which can be virtually-attached to or associated with a physical book or a printed publication via digital annotation across a cloud-computing network (Kim, [0005]).
As to claim 12, see similar rejection to claim 2.
This is a provisional obviousness-type double patenting rejection.
8. Claims 3-4, 10, 13 and 19 are provisionally rejected on the ground of nonstatutory obviousness-type double patenting as being unpatentable over Application’052 in view of Wong, as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Yong (US 20190351335).
As to claim 3, Application’052 in view of Wong discloses the claimed invention substantially as discussed in claim 1, but does not expressly disclose that the video content corresponds to a previously performed rendering by a plurality of other devices on the network, such that the request from the user corresponds to a previously rendered at least one frame of the video. Yong discloses video content corresponding to a previously performed rendering by a plurality of other devices on the network, such that a request from a user corresponds to a previously rendered at least one frame of the video (abstract, “user generated content include video recordings or screenshots from within the video game that pertain to events that have occurred. Corresponding metadata would then be used to describe substantive aspects about the user-generated content such as details about where the recording or screenshot was taken, who was included in the user-generated content, and what objects are found in the user-generated content. The associated metadata would 1) allow users to search among various uploaded user generated content and 2) search within portions of those usegenerated content for particular sub-sections of interest”; [0047], “FIG. 3 is a method 300 for scene tagging and using the scene tagging information. The method 300 allows users to tag user generated content. Based on the metadata used to tag the user generated content, other users are able to query for particular user generated content”).
Before the effective filing date of the invention, it would have been obvious for an ordinary skilled in the art to combine Application’052 in view of Wong and Yong. The suggestion/motivation of the combination would have been to store game play information (Yong, abstract).
As to claim 19, see similar rejection to claim 3.
As to claim 4, Application’052 in view of Wong and Yong discloses the method of claim 3, further comprising each of the plurality of other devices serially performing captures during such renderings, and uploading to the repository (Yong, see citation in rejection to claim 3 above, e.g., abstract, “Exemplary user generated content include video recordings or screenshots from within the video game that pertain to events that have occurred.” Since events occur serially, each user device capture the respective screen shots serially).
As to claim 13, see similar rejection to claim 4.
As to claim 10, Applicantion’052 in view of Wong and Yong discloses the method of claim 1, further comprising the video content within the repository comprising a set of previously rendered frame captures from the plurality of live events (see citation in rejection to claims 3 and 4, Yong, wherein the game playing is a live event).
This is a provisional obviousness-type double patenting rejection.
---------------------
9. Claims 1, 5-9, 11, 14-18 and 20 are provisionally rejected on the ground of nonstatutory obviousness-type double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 2 of copending Application No. 18951837 (claim set dated 11/19/2024, hereafter “Application’837”) in view of Wong (US 2011/0282906).
As to claim 1, Application’837 discloses a method comprising:
rendering, by an application associated with a device, a video related to a live event (Claim 2’s Parent Claim 1, “rendering, by a device, a video, the video corresponding to a program broadcast over a network, the video being viewed by a user at a location”);
receiving, by the application, during the rendering of the video, a request from a user related to at least one frame of the video (Claim 2’s Parent Claim 1, “receiving, by the application, during the rendering of the video, a request from a user related to at least one frame of the video”);
searching, by an application, based on a request, a repository of video content, the video content in the repository corresponding to a plurality of live events occurring at a time proximate to the live event (Claim 2, “causing, by the application, a search to be communicated to a cloud device, the cloud device connected in association with a set of devices rendering a plurality of live events; analyzing, by the application, via the search, video content for each of the plurality of live events; and determining, by the application, based on the analysis, a set of frames from video content from a live event rendered by a device of the set of devices that corresponds to the live event of the video.” See 112 rejection and Examiner’s interpretation regarding “a time proximate to the live event”. Since all the events recited are “live events” at the time of the rendering and searching, they are happening at proximate times); and
communicating, by the application, an output based on the at least one frame of the video to a device of the user in response to the request (Patent 2’s Parent Claim 1, “determining, by the application, based on the analysis of the other rendering of the video, the at least one frame of the video from the other rendering; and communicating, by the application, an output based on the determined at least one other frame from the video from the other rendering to a device of the user in response to the request”),
but does not expressly disclose that the rendering is via a network; identifying, by the application, based on the search, the at least one frame from the video content within the repository; and communicating, by the application, an output based on the identified at least one frame to a device of the user in response to the request.
Wong discloses
rendering is via a network (Figure 3),
identifying, by the application, based on the search, the at least one frame from the video content within the repository ([0034], “The search query created by processor 106 is sent to search engine 108….Identifier 110 analyzes text descriptors and search images in the search query in an attempt to target the search to a subset of data to efficiently identify images and information as potential matches for targeted features of the captured snapshot image. Once potential matching images are identified, accepted matches are determined. Accepted matches may be determined by evaluating the similarity between images and descriptors for potential matches and images and descriptors in the search query”; [0035], “Results generator 112 uses the identifications to locate information and content related to the targeted features of the snapshot image to present to the user. Results generator 112 may include media content sources, information sources, Internet sources, display template sources, or any other suitable sources for gathering and presenting search results to the user.” See [0066] as cited in preceding limitation for searching images related to “media content” in a “media content database” to match the image from the video. See [0022] for “media content” to be “multimedia” which can be “video” and “live performance”); and
communicating, by the application, an output based on the identified at least one frame to a device of the user in response to the request (see citation in rejection to the preceding limitation for identified/matched at least one frame, which is based on to communicate an output to the user device, see [0035], “Results generator 112 uses the identifications to locate information and content related to the targeted features of the snapshot image to present to the user. Results generator 112 may include media content sources, information sources, Internet sources, display template sources, or any other suitable sources for gathering and presenting search results to the user; [0035], “The search results may then be presented to the user on media device 102, on controller 104, by email, through an Internet browser, or by any other suitable approach”).
Before the effective filing date of the invention, it would have been obvious for an ordinary skilled in the art to combine Application’837 with Wong. The suggestion/motivation of the combination would have been to efficiently find matching contents (Wong, [0034]).
As to claim 11, see similar rejection to claim 1.
As to claim 18, see similar rejection to claim 1.
As to claims 5-9, 14-17 and 20, see citations of Wong in the 102 rejection set forth below for the respective claims.
This is a provisional obviousness-type double patenting rejection.
10. Claims 2 and 12 are provisionally rejected on the ground of nonstatutory obviousness-type double patenting as being unpatentable over Application’837 in view of Wong, as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Kim (US 20150138385).
As to claim 2, Application’837 in view of Wong discloses the claimed invention substantially as discussed in claim 1 but does not expressly disclose communicating a search to a cloud device; and causing the search to be performed by the cloud device, wherein the repository is a cloud hosted data storage of the video content. Kim discloses communicating a search to a cloud device; and causing the search to be performed by the cloud device, wherein a repository is a cloud hosted data storage of video content ([0047], “initiate transmission of relevant captured image data and/or graphical feature points to a digital annotation database to conduct an image match search, as shown in a second screenshot (303). Preferably, the digital annotation database is executed in the cloud computing server”; abstract, “the digital annotation database that stores relational data between the page image of the book and the book pronunciation content recited by a human narrator, and a related image analysis and matching program”).
Before the effective filing date of the invention, it would have been obvious for an ordinary skilled in the art to combine Application’837 in view of Wong and Kim. The suggestion/motivation of the combination would have been to enable a dynamically-updatable selection of voice pronunciation files and contents, which can be virtually-attached to or associated with a physical book or a printed publication via digital annotation across a cloud-computing network (Kim, [0005]).
As to claim 12, see similar rejection to claim 2.
This is a provisional obviousness-type double patenting rejection.
11. Claims 3-4, 10, 13 and 19 are provisionally rejected on the ground of nonstatutory obviousness-type double patenting as being unpatentable over Application’837 in view of Wong, as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Yong (US 20190351335).
As to claim 3, Application’837 in view of Wong discloses the claimed invention substantially as discussed in claim 1, but does not expressly disclose that the video content corresponds to a previously performed rendering by a plurality of other devices on the network, such that the request from the user corresponds to a previously rendered at least one frame of the video. Yong discloses video content corresponding to a previously performed rendering by a plurality of other devices on the network, such that a request from a user corresponds to a previously rendered at least one frame of the video (abstract, “user generated content include video recordings or screenshots from within the video game that pertain to events that have occurred. Corresponding metadata would then be used to describe substantive aspects about the user-generated content such as details about where the recording or screenshot was taken, who was included in the user-generated content, and what objects are found in the user-generated content. The associated metadata would 1) allow users to search among various uploaded user generated content and 2) search within portions of those usegenerated content for particular sub-sections of interest”; [0047], “FIG. 3 is a method 300 for scene tagging and using the scene tagging information. The method 300 allows users to tag user generated content. Based on the metadata used to tag the user generated content, other users are able to query for particular user generated content”).
Before the effective filing date of the invention, it would have been obvious for an ordinary skilled in the art to combine Application’837 in view of Wong and Yong. The suggestion/motivation of the combination would have been to store game play information (Yong, abstract).
As to claim 19, see similar rejection to claim 3.
As to claim 4, Application’837 in view of Wong and Yong discloses the method of claim 3, further comprising each of the plurality of other devices serially performing captures during such renderings, and uploading to the repository (Yong, see citation in rejection to claim 3 above, e.g., abstract, “Exemplary user generated content include video recordings or screenshots from within the video game that pertain to events that have occurred.” Since events occur serially, each user device capture the respective screen shots serially).
As to claim 13, see similar rejection to claim 4.
As to claim 10, Applicantion’837 in view of Wong and Yong discloses the method of claim 1, further comprising the video content within the repository comprising a set of previously rendered frame captures from the plurality of live events (see citation in rejection to claims 3 and 4, Yong, wherein the game playing is a live event).
This is a provisional obviousness-type double patenting rejection.
---------------
12. Claims 1, 5-9, 11, 14-18 and 20 are provisionally rejected on the ground of nonstatutory obviousness-type double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 1 of copending Application No. 18951983 (claim set dated 11/19/2024, hereafter “Application’983”) in view of Wong (US 2011/0282906).
As to claim 1, Application’983 discloses a method comprising:
receiving, by the application, a request from a user related to at least one frame of a video of an event (Claim 1, “receiving, by an application, a request from a user, the request corresponding to a frame of a video of an event”), and
communicating, by the application, an output based on the at least one frame of video in response to the request (Claim 1, “analyzing, by the application, the frame of the video based on user data associated with the user; determining, by the application, based on the analysis of the frame, entity information, the entity information corresponding to an entity digitally depicted within the frame of the video; searching, by the application, based on the entity information, social media content available over a network; determining, by the application, based on the search of social media content, a social media file that includes information related to the entity information; and communicating, by the application, in response to the request, the social media file”),
but does not expressly disclose
rendering, by an application associated with a device, over a network, a video related to a live event; the receiving of the request is during rendering of the video; searching, by the application, based on the request, a repository of video content, the video content in the repository corresponding to a plurality of live events occurring at a time proximate to the live event; identifying, by the application, based on the search, the at least one frame from the video content within the repository; and communicating, by the application, an output based on the identified at least one frame to a device of the user in response to the request.
Wong discloses
rendering, by an application associated with a device, over a network, a video related to a live event; the receiving of the request is during rendering of the video (Figure 3, “Media Content” provided via “Communication Network” to “User Television Equipment”; See [0022], “The term multimedia is defined herein as media and content that utilizes at least two different content forms, such as text, audio, still images, animation, video, and interactivity content forms. Multimedia content may be recorded and played, displayed, or accessed by information content processing devices, such as computerized and electronic devices, but may also be part of a live performance. It should be understood that the invention embodiments that are described in relation to media or media content are also applicable to other types of content, such as video, audio and/or multimedia”. The above discloses that “media content” as described in Wong can be “multimedia” comprising “video”, which can be “live performance”. See also [0023], “A user accessing any form of media content may wish to perform a search based on the media content. The user may, for example, want to identify something shown on a display, such as an actor or a handbag in a scene. The user may also want to identify the media content if the user is viewing a short video clip taken, for example, from a movie or television show);
receiving of the request is during rendering of the video ([0023], “A user accessing any form of media content may wish to perform a search based on the media content. The user may, for example, want to identify something shown on a display, such as an actor or a handbag in a scene. The user may also want to identify the media content if the user is viewing a short video clip taken, for example, from a movie or television show; [0024], “A snapshot image can be captured from the media content and used, along with any available supplemental data and user input, to perform the desired search”; [0028], “To initiate the search, the user captures a snapshot image of the on-screen media content and uses the captured snapshot image as a search entry. The user captures a snapshot image that contains the items or features of the media content that the user wishes to use for the search. For example, if the user is trying to find the name of an actor, the snapshot image is captured when the actor's face is on screen);
searching, by an application, based on a request, a repository of video content, the video content in the repository corresponding to a plurality of live events occurring at a time proximate to the live event ([0029], “The captured snapshot image is sent from media device 102 or controller 104 to processor 106…..Processor 106 analyzes the image to determine any features of the image that may be used to perform a search. Processor 106 may recognize, for example, faces, logos, objects, text, any other suitable features, or any combination thereof. The recognized features of the image are used to translate the image into text descriptors that can be packaged with search images in a search query and used to supplement the search performed based on the snapshot image”; [0034], “Identifier 110 analyzes text descriptors and search images in the search query in an attempt to target the search to a subset of data to efficiently identify images and information as potential matches for targeted features of the captured snapshot image”; [0066], “Identifier 502 includes a collection of searchable data 508 that may be used to perform a search based on the received query. Searchable data 508 may include images and/or text descriptors. In some embodiments, searchable data 508 includes images related to media content, and each image is associated with a set of text descriptors that indicate features of the image. For example, searchable data 508 may include a collection of images of actors from movies and televisions shows. Each actor image may have a text descriptor that includes the actor's name and movies or television shows that the actor has appeared in. Searchable data 508 may be a collection of data specific to the searching system in which search engine 500 is implemented, a collection of all available Internet data, a media content database”. See citation in rejection to limitation 1, e.g., [0022], wherein “media content” can be “multimedia” comprising “video”, which can be “live performance”) occurring at a time proximate to the live event (see 112 rejection and Examiner’s interpretation therein that “a time proximate to the live event” is interpreted to using any criterion to determine “proximate”. See citation in rejection to limitation 1, e.g., [0022], any disclosed “media content” can be “multimedia” comprising “video” which can be “live performance”. As a result, both the “media content” that the instant user is viewing and the “media content” in the database for searching and matching can be “live performance”. Because both media contents are “live” at the time, they can be considered to be happening in “proximate time” to each other);
identifying, by the application, based on the search, the at least one frame from the video content within the repository ([0034], “The search query created by processor 106 is sent to search engine 108….Identifier 110 analyzes text descriptors and search images in the search query in an attempt to target the search to a subset of data to efficiently identify images and information as potential matches for targeted features of the captured snapshot image. Once potential matching images are identified, accepted matches are determined. Accepted matches may be determined by evaluating the similarity between images and descriptors for potential matches and images and descriptors in the search query”; [0035], “Results generator 112 uses the identifications to locate information and content related to the targeted features of the snapshot image to present to the user. Results generator 112 may include media content sources, information sources, Internet sources, display template sources, or any other suitable sources for gathering and presenting search results to the user.” See [0066] as cited in preceding limitation for searching images related to “media content” in a “media content database” to match the image from the video. See [0022] for “media content” to be “multimedia” which can be “video” and “live performance”); and
communicating, by the application, an output based on the identified at least one frame to a device of the user in response to the request (see citation in rejection to the preceding limitation for identified/matched at least one frame, which is based on to communicate an output to the user device, see [0035], “Results generator 112 uses the identifications to locate information and content related to the targeted features of the snapshot image to present to the user. Results generator 112 may include media content sources, information sources, Internet sources, display template sources, or any other suitable sources for gathering and presenting search results to the user; [0035], “The search results may then be presented to the user on media device 102, on controller 104, by email, through an Internet browser, or by any other suitable approach”).
Before the effective filing date of the invention, it would have been obvious for an ordinary skilled in the art to combine Application’983 with Wong. The suggestion/motivation of the combination would have been to efficiently find matching contents (Wong, [0034]).
As to claim 11, see similar rejection to claim 1.
As to claim 18, see similar rejection to claim 1.
As to claims 5-9, 14-17 and 20, see citations of Wong in the 102 rejection set forth below for the respective claims.
This is a provisional obviousness-type double patenting rejection.
13. Claims 2 and 12 are provisionally rejected on the ground of nonstatutory obviousness-type double patenting as being unpatentable over Application’983 in view of Wong, as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Kim (US 20150138385).
As to claim 2, Application’983 in view of Wong discloses the claimed invention substantially as discussed in claim 1 but does not expressly disclose communicating a search to a cloud device; and causing the search to be performed by the cloud device, wherein the repository is a cloud hosted data storage of the video content. Kim discloses communicating a search to a cloud device; and causing the search to be performed by the cloud device, wherein a repository is a cloud hosted data storage of video content ([0047], “initiate transmission of relevant captured image data and/or graphical feature points to a digital annotation database to conduct an image match search, as shown in a second screenshot (303). Preferably, the digital annotation database is executed in the cloud computing server”; abstract, “the digital annotation database that stores relational data between the page image of the book and the book pronunciation content recited by a human narrator, and a related image analysis and matching program”).
Before the effective filing date of the invention, it would have been obvious for an ordinary skilled in the art to combine Application’983 in view of Wong and Kim. The suggestion/motivation of the combination would have been to enable a dynamically-updatable selection of voice pronunciation files and contents, which can be virtually-attached to or associated with a physical book or a printed publication via digital annotation across a cloud-computing network (Kim, [0005]).
As to claim 12, see similar rejection to claim 2.
This is a provisional obviousness-type double patenting rejection.
14. Claims 3-4, 10, 13 and 19 are provisionally rejected on the ground of nonstatutory obviousness-type double patenting as being unpatentable over Application’983 in view of Wong, as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Yong (US 20190351335).
As to claim 3, Application’983 in view of Wong discloses the claimed invention substantially as discussed in claim 1, but does not expressly disclose that the video content corresponds to a previously performed rendering by a plurality of other devices on the network, such that the request from the user corresponds to a previously rendered at least one frame of the video. Yong discloses video content corresponding to a previously performed rendering by a plurality of other devices on the network, such that a request from a user corresponds to a previously rendered at least one frame of the video (abstract, “user generated content include video recordings or screenshots from within the video game that pertain to events that have occurred. Corresponding metadata would then be used to describe substantive aspects about the user-generated content such as details about where the recording or screenshot was taken, who was included in the user-generated content, and what objects are found in the user-generated content. The associated metadata would 1) allow users to search among various uploaded user generated content and 2) search within portions of those usegenerated content for particular sub-sections of interest”; [0047], “FIG. 3 is a method 300 for scene tagging and using the scene tagging information. The method 300 allows users to tag user generated content. Based on the metadata used to tag the user generated content, other users are able to query for particular user generated content”).
Before the effective filing date of the invention, it would have been obvious for an ordinary skilled in the art to combine Application’983 in view of Wong and Yong. The suggestion/motivation of the combination would have been to store game play information (Yong, abstract).
As to claim 19, see similar rejection to claim 3.
As to claim 4, Application’983 in view of Wong and Yong discloses the method of claim 3, further comprising each of the plurality of other devices serially performing captures during such renderings, and uploading to the repository (Yong, see citation in rejection to claim 3 above, e.g., abstract, “Exemplary user generated content include video recordings or screenshots from within the video game that pertain to events that have occurred.” Since events occur serially, each user device capture the respective screen shots serially).
As to claim 13, see similar rejection to claim 4.
As to claim 10, Applicantion’983 in view of Wong and Yong discloses the method of claim 1, further comprising the video content within the repository comprising a set of previously rendered frame captures from the plurality of live events (see citation in rejection to claims 3 and 4, Yong, wherein the game playing is a live event).
This is a provisional obviousness-type double patenting rejection.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
15. The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
16. The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
17. Claims 1-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
a) Claim 1 recites “searching, by the application, based on the request, a repository of video content, the video content in the repository corresponding to a plurality of live events occurring at a time proximate to the live event.” The scope of the recited “occurring at a time proximate to the live event” cannot be definitely determined, lacking a readily ascertainable criterion to determine “a time proximate to the live event” either in the specification or in the claim. Applicant is required to clarify. For the sake of the examination, Examiner assumes any criterion to determine “a time proximate to the live event”. Claim 2-20 are similarly rejected.
b) Claim 8 recites “the output of the identified at least one frame” which lacks sufficient antecedent basis. Neither claim 8 nor its parent claim 1 recites “an output of the identified at least one frame”. Instead, the parent claim 1 merely recites “an output based on the identified at least one frame”. Applicant is required to clarify. For the sake of the examination, Examiner interprets as “the output based on the identified at least one frame”. Claim 16 is similarly rejected.
c) Claim 9 recites “the network being provided by an internet service provider (ISP) that provides services to a location of the device and the user, the location being a different location that is associated with an account of the user”. It is unclear what the claimed “the location” is different from. Applicant is required to clarify. For the sake of the examination, Examiner assumes different from any location. Claims 17 and 20 are similarly rejected.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
18. 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.
19. 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.
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
20. Claims 1, 5-9, 11, 14-18 and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) and (a)(2) as being anticipated by Wong (US 2011/0282906).
As to claim 1, Wong discloses a method comprising:
rendering, by an application associated with a device, over a network, a video related to a live event (Figure 3, “Media Content” provided via “Communication Network” to “User Television Equipment” and [0047], “The media devices may be coupled to communications network 314. Namely, user television equipment 302, user computer equipment 304, and wireless user communications device 306 are coupled to communications network 314 via communications paths 308, 310, and 312, respectively. Communications network 314 may be one or more networks including the Internet”. See [0022], “The term multimedia is defined herein as media and content that utilizes at least two different content forms, such as text, audio, still images, animation, video, and interactivity content forms. Multimedia content may be recorded and played, displayed, or accessed by information content processing devices, such as computerized and electronic devices, but may also be part of a live performance. It should be understood that the invention embodiments that are described in relation to media or media content are also applicable to other types of content, such as video, audio and/or multimedia”. The above discloses that “media content” as described in Wong can be “multimedia” comprising “video”, which can be “live performance”. See also [0023], “A user accessing any form of media content may wish to perform a search based on the media content. The user may, for example, want to identify something shown on a display, such as an actor or a handbag in a scene. The user may also want to identify the media content if the user is viewing a short video clip taken, for example, from a movie or television show”);
receiving, by the application, during the rendering of the video, a request from a user related to at least one frame of the video ([0023], “A user accessing any form of media content may wish to perform a search based on the media content. The user may, for example, want to identify something shown on a display, such as an actor or a handbag in a scene. The user may also want to identify the media content if the user is viewing a short video clip taken, for example, from a movie or television show; [0024], “A snapshot image can be captured from the media content and used, along with any available supplemental data and user input, to perform the desired search”; [0028], “To initiate the search, the user captures a snapshot image of the on-screen media content and uses the captured snapshot image as a search entry. The user captures a snapshot image that contains the items or features of the media content that the user wishes to use for the search. For example, if the user is trying to find the name of an actor, the snapshot image is captured when the actor's face is on screen”);
searching, by the application, based on the request, a repository of video content, the video content in the repository corresponding to a plurality of live events (see [0029], “The captured snapshot image is sent from media device 102 or controller 104 to processor 106…..Processor 106 analyzes the image to determine any features of the image that may be used to perform a search. Processor 106 may recognize, for example, faces, logos, objects, text, any other suitable features, or any combination thereof. The recognized features of the image are used to translate the image into text descriptors that can be packaged with search images in a search query and used to supplement the search performed based on the snapshot image”; [0034], “Identifier 110 analyzes text descriptors and search images in the search query in an attempt to target the search to a subset of data to efficiently identify images and information as potential matches for targeted features of the captured snapshot image”; [0066], “Identifier 502 includes a collection of searchable data 508 that may be used to perform a search based on the received query. Searchable data 508 may include images and/or text descriptors. In some embodiments, searchable data 508 includes images related to media content, and each image is associated with a set of text descriptors that indicate features of the image. For example, searchable data 508 may include a collection of images of actors from movies and televisions shows. Each actor image may have a text descriptor that includes the actor's name and movies or television shows that the actor has appeared in. Searchable data 508 may be a collection of data specific to the searching system in which search engine 500 is implemented, a collection of all available Internet data, a media content database”. See citation and Examiner’s explanation in rejection to limitation 1, e.g., [0022], wherein “media content” can be “multimedia” comprising “video”, which can be “live performance”) occurring at a time proximate to the live event (see 112 rejection and Examiner’s interpretation therein that “a time proximate to the live event” is interpreted as using any criterion to determine “a time proximate to the live event”. See citation in rejection to limitation 1, e.g., [0022], any disclosed “media content” can be “multimedia” comprising “video” which can be “live performance”. As a result, both the “media content” that the instant user is viewing and the “media content” in the database for searching and matching can be “live performance”. Because both media contents are “live” at the time, they can be considered to be happening in “proximate time” to each other);
identifying, by the application, based on the search, the at least one frame from the video content within the repository ([0034], “The search query created by processor 106 is sent to search engine 108….Identifier 110 analyzes text descriptors and search images in the search query in an attempt to target the search to a subset of data to efficiently identify images and information as potential matches for targeted features of the captured snapshot image. Once potential matching images are identified, accepted matches are determined. Accepted matches may be determined by evaluating the similarity between images and descriptors for potential matches and images and descriptors in the search query”; [0035], “Results generator 112 uses the identifications to locate information and content related to the targeted features of the snapshot image to present to the user. Results generator 112 may include media content sources, information sources, Internet sources, display template sources, or any other suitable sources for gathering and presenting search results to the user.” See [0066] as cited in preceding limitation for searching images related to “media content” in a “media content database” to match the image from the video. See [0022] for “media content” to be “multimedia” which can be “video” and “live performance”); and
communicating, by the application, an output based on the identified at least one frame to a device of the user in response to the request (see citation in rejection to the preceding limitation for identified/matched at least one frame, which is based on to communicate an output to the user device, see [0035], “Results generator 112 uses the identifications to locate information and content related to the targeted features of the snapshot image to present to the user. Results generator 112 may include media content sources, information sources, Internet sources, display template sources, or any other suitable sources for gathering and presenting search results to the user; [0035], “The search results may then be presented to the user on media device 102, on controller 104, by email, through an Internet browser, or by any other suitable approach.”).
As to claim 11, see similar rejection to claim 1.
As to claim 18, see similar rejection to claim 1.
As to claim 5, Wong discloses the method of claim 1, further comprising:
analyzing the video content within the repository; extracting, based on information associated with the request, a portion of the video content; and compiling the portion of video content for communication to the user device (see citation in rejection to claim 1, e.g., [0034], “The search query created by processor 106 is sent to search engine 108….Identifier 110 analyzes text descriptors and search images in the search query in an attempt to target the search to a subset of data to efficiently identify images and information as potential matches for targeted features of the captured snapshot image. Once potential matching images are identified, accepted matches are determined. Accepted matches may be determined by evaluating the similarity between images and descriptors for potential matches and images and descriptors in the search query… Identifier 110 then outputs one or more feature identifications based on the accepted matches for the targeted features of the snapshot image”; [0035], “The feature identifications from identifier 110 are sent to results generator 112 to be used for gathering and preparing search results to be presented to the user. Results generator 112 uses the identifications to locate information and content related to the targeted features of the snapshot image to present to the user. Results generator 112 may include media content sources, information sources, Internet sources, display template sources, or any other suitable sources for gathering and presenting search results to the user”. See [0066] for searching images related to “media content” in a “media content database” to match the image from the video).
As to claim 6, Wong discloses the method of claim 5, further comprising the portion of the video content being related to the at least one frame of the video (see citation in rejection to claim 5, e.g., [0034], “The search query created by processor 106 is sent to search engine 108….Identifier 110 analyzes text descriptors and search images in the search query in an attempt to target the search to a subset of data to efficiently identify images and information as potential matches for targeted features of the captured snapshot image. Once potential matching images are identified, accepted matches are determined. Accepted matches may be determined by evaluating the similarity between images and descriptors for potential matches and images and descriptors in the search query…Identifier 110 then outputs one or more feature identifications based on the accepted matches for the targeted features of the snapshot image”; [0035], “The feature identifications from identifier 110 are sent to results generator 112 to be used for gathering and preparing search results to be presented to the user. Results generator 112 uses the identifications to locate information and content related to the targeted features of the snapshot image to present to the user. Results generator 112 may include media content sources, information sources, Internet sources, display template sources, or any other suitable sources for gathering and presenting search results to the user.” Also see [0066] for searching these images related to “media content” in a “media content database” to match the screenshot from the video).
As to claim 14, see similar rejection to claim 6.
As to claim 7, Wong discloses the method of claim 1, further comprising the request comprising an indication of entity information, wherein the communicated output further comprises information related to the entity information as related to the identified at least one frame ([0062], “The user input may be used to clarify which features of the snapshot image the user wishes to target for the search.…If the user input includes an indication that the user wishes to target a face in the search image, a list of the cast of the show contained in the supplemental data may be determined to be more relevant than other information, such as the time at which the show is broadcast”; [0084], “User input provided along with snapshot image 610 may indicate that the user is trying to target a face and identify actor 602”; [0070], “if the snapshot image is captured from a television show and contains an actor's face, interpreter 506 may use the targeted face and supplemental information to determine that a search for an actor in a specific show is desired”; [0087], “Once a potential identity of actor 602 is found, images for the actor with that identity are retrieved by the search engine and compared to the portion of snapshot image 610 isolated by targeted feature indicator 612a. If the similarity between the retrieved images and snapshot image 610 is satisfactory, the search engine accepts the known identity of the actor in the retrieved images as the identity of actor 602. The identity of actor 602 is then used to retrieve information, media content, Internet content, or any other suitable content related to actor 602 to include in a search results display”).
As to claim 15, see similar rejection to claim 7.
As to claim 8, Wong discloses the method of claim 1, further comprising configuring the output of the identified at least one frame as a renderable media file, such that the communicated output further comprises the renderable media file (see 112 rejection and Examiner’s interpretation stated therein that the claimed “the output of the identified at least one frame” is interpreted as “the output based on the identified at least one frame”. See citation in rejection to claim 1, e.g., [0034], “Identifier 110 then outputs one or more feature identifications based on the accepted matches for the targeted features of the snapshot image”; [0035], “The feature identifications from identifier 110 are sent to results generator 112 to be used for gathering and preparing search results to be presented to the user. Results generator 112 uses the identifications to locate information and content related to the targeted features of the snapshot image to present to the user. Results generator 112 may include media content sources, information sources, Internet sources, display template sources, or any other suitable sources for gathering and presenting search results to the user”. See [0066]. Also see [0041], “the display of search results”).
As to claim 16, see similar rejection to claim 8.
As to claim 9, Wong discloses the method of claim 1, further comprising the network being provided by an internet service provider (ISP) that provides services to a location of the device and the user, the location being a different location that is associated with an account of the user (see 112 rejection and Examiner’s interpretation stated therein as any location that the claimed “the location” is different from. See Figure 3 and [0047], “The media devices may be coupled to communications network 314. Namely, user television equipment 302, user computer equipment 304, and wireless user communications device 306 are coupled to communications network 314 via communications paths 308, 310, and 312, respectively. Communications network 314 may be one or more networks including the Internet”, wherein the network that the media device is connected to being “the internet” implies an internet service provider (ISP) that provides services to the media device, at a location of the media device and the respective user viewing the display on the media device. This location, such as home is different from another location such as office that is associated with an account of the user, see e.g., [0046], “if a user sets a channel as a favorite on, for example, the website www.tvguide.com on their personal computer at their office, the same channel would appear as a favorite on the user's in-home devices (e.g., user television equipment and user computer equipment) as well as the user's mobile devices, if desired”, wherein the user preference set “on the user’s personal computer at their office” reflects an account of the user. It is to be noted that the claim merely requires “associated with” without requiring a location that physically stores the user account).
As to claim 17, see similar rejection to claim 9.
As to claim 20, see similar rejection to claim 9.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
21. 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.
22. 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 of this title, 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.
23. The factual inquiries set forth in Graham v. John Deere Co., 383 U.S. 1, 148 USPQ 459 (1966), that are applied 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.
24. Claims 2 and 12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wong, as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Kim (US 20150138385).
As to claim 2, Wong discloses the claimed invention substantially as discussed in claim 1 but does not expressly disclose communicating a search to a cloud device; and causing the search to be performed by the cloud device, wherein the repository is a cloud hosted data storage of the video content. Kim discloses communicating a search to a cloud device; and causing the search to be performed by the cloud device, wherein a repository is a cloud hosted data storage of video content ([0047], “initiate transmission of relevant captured image data and/or graphical feature points to a digital annotation database to conduct an image match search, as shown in a second screenshot (303). Preferably, the digital annotation database is executed in the cloud computing server”; abstract, “the digital annotation database that stores relational data between the page image of the book and the book pronunciation content recited by a human narrator, and a related image analysis and matching program”).
Before the effective filing date of the invention, it would have been obvious for an ordinary skilled in the art to combine Wong and Kim. The suggestion/motivation of the combination would have been to enable a dynamically-updatable selection of voice pronunciation files and contents, which can be virtually-attached to or associated with a physical book or a printed publication via digital annotation across a cloud-computing network (Kim, [0005]).
As to claim 12, see similar rejection to claim 2.
25. Claims 3-4, 10, 13 and 19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wong, as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Yong (US 20190351335).
As to claim 3, Wong discloses the claimed invention substantially as discussed in claim 1, but does not expressly disclose that the video content corresponds to a previously performed rendering by a plurality of other devices on the network, such that the request from the user corresponds to a previously rendered at least one frame of the video. Yong discloses video content corresponding to a previously performed rendering by a plurality of other devices on the network, such that a request from a user corresponds to a previously rendered at least one frame of the video (abstract, “user generated content include video recordings or screenshots from within the video game that pertain to events that have occurred. Corresponding metadata would then be used to describe substantive aspects about the user-generated content such as details about where the recording or screenshot was taken, who was included in the user-generated content, and what objects are found in the user-generated content. The associated metadata would 1) allow users to search among various uploaded user generated content and 2) search within portions of those usegenerated content for particular sub-sections of interest”; [0047], “FIG. 3 is a method 300 for scene tagging and using the scene tagging information. The method 300 allows users to tag user generated content. Based on the metadata used to tag the user generated content, other users are able to query for particular user generated content”).
Before the effective filing date of the invention, it would have been obvious for an ordinary skilled in the art to combine Wong and Yong. The suggestion/motivation of the combination would have been to store game play information (Yong, abstract).
As to claim 19, see similar rejection to claim 3.
As to claim 4, Wong-Yong discloses the method of claim 3, further comprising each of the plurality of other devices serially performing captures during such renderings, and uploading to the repository (Yong, see citation in rejection to claim 3 above, e.g., abstract, “Exemplary user generated content include video recordings or screenshots from within the video game that pertain to events that have occurred.” Since events occur serially, each user device capture the respective screen shots serially).
As to claim 13, see similar rejection to claim 4.
As to claim 10, Wong-Yong discloses the method of claim 1, further comprising the video content within the repository comprising a set of previously rendered frame captures from the plurality of live events (see citation in rejection to claims 3 and 4, Yong, wherein the game playing is a live event).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to HUA FAN whose telephone number is (571)270-5311. The examiner can normally be reached on 9-6.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Umar Cheema can be reached at 571-270-3037. 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.
/HUA FAN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2458
Prosecution Insights