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 .
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
Claim(s) 2-3, 6-7, 9, 12-13, 16-17 and 19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lu et al. (US Pat. Pub. No. 20220377403, “Lu”) in view of Voss (US Pat. No. 11269967, “Voss”) and Panse et al. ( US Patent publication: 20210398316, “Panse”).
Regarding claim 12, Lu teaches. A system (“[0018] As such, it may be advantageous, among other things, to provide a method, computer system, and computer program product for enhancing video content by automatically and cognitively generating a comment overlay window”) comprising:
input/output circuitry ( Fig. 1 element 110)
generate for display a frame of a media asset on a user device; ; ([0028] “……Specifically, the video 204 may be a live video where the video content 206 includes content that is being displayed in real-time, whereby users are viewing the video 204 live”);
control circuity (Fig. 6 element 720) configured to: identify one or more objects displayed in the frame of the media asset; ([0030] “…..recognize objects rendered at various points in time in the video using an image recognition algorithm and a machine learning model”);
calculate a score for each of the one or more objects; (Col 11 lines 44-50 “(54) The media item scoring module 416 analyzes the collection of media items received from the media item exchange history module 419. The media item scoring module 416 assigns scores to the media items based on any number of factors, including relevance to the group of users collectively, a number of likes or dislikes of a given media item in the collection on a social media network, a number of comments associated with a given media item”);
select an object, from the one or more objects, based on the score corresponding to the object; Col 12 lines 20-33 “Voss The media item scoring module 416 sorts the collection of media items based on the assigned scores to generate a ranked list of media items that are in the collection of media items. The media items with the highest scores may be positioned first in a list.
The media item selection module 418 selects randomly, pseudo-randomly, or based on an assigned score one or more media items that are in the collection received from the media item”)
Lu and Voss are analogous art as both of them are related to video and comment processing.
Therefore it would have been obvious for an ordinary skilled person in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Lu to calculate a score for each of the one or more objects select an object, from the one or more objects, based on the score corresponding to the object as taught by Voss.
The motivation for the above is to organize the objects based on which display of the object can be prioritized.
Lu as modified by Voss teaches, identify a virtual object associated with selected object; and overlaying virtual object over the frame of the media asset ([0023] “…….The comment overlay generator program 108A, 108B may provide a comment overlay window, for overlaying in a main window of video content, user comments that correspond to particular points in time and context of the video content”) but doesn’t teach so based on a overlay policy.
Lu as modified by Voss doesn’t expressly teach, identify an overlay policy associated with the media asset; and wherein the input/output circuitry is further configured to: overlay the virtual object over the frame of the media asset based on the overlay policy
However, Panse teaches, identify an overlay policy associated with the media asset; ; [0096] In a ninth positioning mode, as shown in FIG. 6, virtual object 54 may only be positioned within any spatial area of physical world 10 or only within a M number of authorization zones 80 of physical world 10, M≥0. Concurrently or alternatively, virtual object 54 may not be positioned within a N number of forbidden zones 81 of physical world 10, N≥0.and
and wherein the input/output circuitry is further configured to: overlay the virtual object over the frame of the media asset based on the overlay policy. (Panse, [0116] The virtual reality launch of stage S94 further encompasses a delineation of virtual object positioning rule(s) including, but not limited to, procedural specification(s), positioning regulations and positioning stipulations
Lu as modified by Voss and Panse are analogous art as both of them are related to virtual image processing.
Therefore it would have been obvious for an ordinary skilled person in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Lu as modified by Voss to , identify an overlay policy associated with the media asset and the input/output circuitry is further configured to: overlay the virtual object over the frame of the media asset based on the overlay policy as taught by Panse.
The motivation for the above is to control the placement of virtual object as a proper position of the media item.
Claim 2 is directed to a method and its steps are similar in scope and function of the elements of the device claim 12 and therefore claim 2 is rejected with same rationales as specified in the rejection of claim 12.
Claims 3 and 23, Lu as modified by Voss and Panse teaches, teaches, wherein the virtual object is overlaid over a permitted location in the frame of the media asset, wherein the permitted location is outside of a restricted zone indicated by the overlay policy.( Panse, [0096] In a ninth positioning mode, as shown in FIG. 6, virtual object 54 may only be positioned within any spatial area of physical world 10 or only within a M number of authorization zones 80 of physical world 10, M≥0. Concurrently or alternatively, virtual object 54 may not be positioned within a N number of forbidden zones 81 of physical world 10, N≥0.”)
The motivation is same as the motivation in claim 1.
Regarding claim 6 and 16, Lu as modified by Voss and Panse teaches wherein the virtual object comprises one or more comments associated with the selected object. (Lu, [0023] “…….The comment overlay generator program 108A, 108B may provide a comment overlay window, for overlaying in a main window of video content, user comments that correspond to particular points in time and context of the video content
Regarding claims 7 and 17, Lu as modified by Voss and Panse teaches, wherein calculating the score for each of the one or more objects comprises determining a number of comments associated with each of the one or more objects. (Voss, Col 11 lines 44-50 “(54) The media item scoring module 416 analyzes the collection of media items received from the media item exchange history module 419. The media item scoring module 416 assigns scores to the media items based on any number of factors, including relevance to the group of users collectively, a number of likes or dislikes of a given media item in the collection on a social media network, a number of comments associated with a given media item”);
Regarding claims 9 and 19, Lu as modified by Voss and Panse teaches, teaches, wherein the media asset is a part of a live broadcast stream, and the virtual object comprises real-time comments posted by a plurality of viewers of the live broadcast stream. (Lu shows comments are posted by user A, user B and user C. [0025] “……User A may suggest an alternative gluten free ingredient for making cookies by using “150 g almond flour” as opposed to the “cookie flour” that may have been mentioned in the video 204. Furthermore, as depicted in comment 210b, User B may refer to User A's comment and similarly suggest using almond flour but with 140 g. As indicated by popularity indicator 212”).
Claim(s) 8 and 18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lu modified by Voss and Panse as applied to claim 6 above, and further in view of Wang et al. (US Patent No. 11321886, “Wang”).
Regarding claim 44 Lu modified by Voss and Panse is silent about overlaying the virtual object over the frame of the media asset comprises overlaying each of the one or more comments within a predetermined distance of the selected object.
Wang teaches overlaying the virtual object over the frame of the media asset comprises overlaying each of the one or more comments within a predetermined distance of the selected object.
(Col 12 lines 65-col 13 lines 2 “In one or more examples, each comment of the subset of comments may be provided for display such that they are positioned in the VR view within a predetermined distance of the position at which the point of interest is visible in the video imagery”);
Wang and Lu modified by Voss and Panse are analogous art as both of them are related to comment processing.
Therefore it would have been obvious for an ordinary skilled person in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Lu modified Voss and Panse by overlaying the virtual object over the frame of the media asset comprising overlaying each of the one or more comments within a predetermined distance of the selected object as taught by Wang.
The motivation for the above is to place the comment in a suitable location so that user can easily relate the objects and comments.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 4-5, 10-11, 14-15 and 20-21 are objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
Claims 4 and 14 are objected because combination of available prior arts fails to expressly teach the limitations.
Claims 5 and 15 are also objected by virtue of dependency.
Claims 10 and 20 are objected because combination of available prior arts fails to expressly teach the limitations.
Claims 11 and 21 are objected because combination of available prior arts fails to expressly teach the limitations.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Tapas Mazumder whose telephone number is (571)270-7466. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8:00 AM-5:00 PM PST.
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, Alicia Harrington can be reached at 571-272-2330. 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.
/TAPAS MAZUMDER/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2615
Prosecution Insights