IDSDETAILED 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 .
Priority
Applicant’s claim for the benefit of a prior-filed application under 35 U.S.C. 119(e) or under 35 U.S.C. 120, 121, or 365(c) is acknowledged.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statements (IDS) submitted on 07/07/2025, 09/15/2025 and 06/04/2026 are in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement is being considered by the examiner.
Double Patenting
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).
Claims 21, 31 and 37 are rejected on a ground of non-statutory obviousness-type double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 7 of a parent patent (12,197,868) in view of Pfeiffer (US PG Pub. 2008/0154889, referred to as Pfeiffer).
In this continuation application (CON), applicant broadened claims by deleting several limitations (or moving some limitations to one or more dependent claims) from the independent claims of its parent patent. Applicant added two new limitations (“receiving …”, “causing…”) related to searching a video clip based on a user’s query. For example, comparing independent claim 21 with claim 7 of its parent claim (see below).
Instant independent claim 21
Claim 7 of ‘868 parent patent
OMITTED to broaden claim
obtaining one or more terms, wherein the one or more terms comprise a target n-gram
identifying, by a computing system comprising one or more processors and from a corpus of electronic video files, a set of candidate video clips, wherein a target n-gram is uttered in a target context in each candidate video clip of the set;
identifying, from a corpus of electronic video files, a set of candidate video clips based on the one or more terms, wherein the target n-gram is uttered in a target
context in each candidate video clip of the set;
OMITTED to broaden claim
for each candidate video clip of the set:
comparing pre-existing manual subtitles associated with the candidate video clip to text that is generated based on speech recognition processing of an audio
portion of the candidate video clip
(broaden limitations)
selecting, by the computing system, one or more of the candidate video clips from the set of candidate video clips based on measures of suitability as usage examples for the set of candidate video clips, wherein the measures of suitability were determined based on the candidate video clip being previously viewed by a user
based at least in part on the comparing, calculating a measure of suitability as a dictionary usage example for the candidate video clip based at least in part on wherein the calculating is
further based on a determination that a given user who seeks
a similarity between the pre-existing manual subtitles and the text that is generated based on speech recognition processing of the audio portion of the
candidate video clip, wherein the calculating is further based on a measured speech rate of speech
uttered in the candidate video clip, information about the target n-gram has viewed the candidate video clip previously.
associating, by the computing system, the one or more selected video clips with the target n-gram in a searchable database
associating the one or more selected video clips with the
target n-gram in a searchable database
receiving, by the computing system, a search query associated with the user, wherein the search query comprises the target n-gram
(NOT in parent claim)
causing, by the computing system, the one or more selected video clips to be output to the user with a definition of the target n-gram
(NOT in parent claim)
The instant claims are broader than the allowed parent claims. In addition, the instant claims include two additional limitations (“receiving …” / “causing …”) that are related to searching a video clip based on a user query. Although the parent claims do not have the last two limitations related to searching a video based on a user’s search query, Pfeiffer discloses a video search engine that a user could input a search query to search related video clips (Pfeiffer, [0132-0134], Fig. 5).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to claims of ‘868 parent patent with Pfeiffer’s teaching to include a video clip search interface. One having ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make such a modification so that a user could find a relevant video clip to see how to use a word.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
(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.
Claims 21, 29, 31, and 36-40 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. §102 (a)(1) as being anticipated by Zhu et al. (“ViVo: Video-Augmented Dictionary for Vocabulary Learning”, published in 2017, submitted by the applicant in an IDS, referred to as Zhu).
Zhu discloses a video augmented dictionary for vocabulary learning. Zhu discloses associating a short video clip with each of targe words (e.g., word list from TOEFL test, page 3, “we considered the TOEFL and GRE word lists”). The short video clips are extracted from TV series or Movies (Zhu, page 1, the idea behind is to automatically retrieve short video clips from existing subtitled movies or TV genres to illustrate the keywords of interest and incorporate them into a dictionary to facilitate vocabulary learning). Zhu further discloses selecting a candidate video being previously viewed by a user (Zhu, page 6, by prioritizing those clips that the user has previously viewed). Zhu further discloses receiving a user’s search query and displaying word definition with an associated short video clip (Zhu, page 6, pop-up search interface Fig. 4).
Regarding claims 21, 31 and 37, Zhu discloses a method, a system and an non-transitory computer readable medium, implemented using one or more processors, (Zhu, page 6, an implementation of video-augmented dictionary; Fig. 1 and Fig. 4 shows a computer implemented online dictionary with augmented video clips showing word usage in TV / Movies and word definitions) comprising:
identifying, by a computing system comprising one or more processors and from a corpus of electronic video files, a set of candidate video clips, wherein a target n-gram is uttered in a target context in each candidate video clip of the set (Zhu, page 3, Data Resources, associating each of target words in TOEFL list / GRE list with a video clip obtain from TV series or Movies according to contextual information; Note, the subtitles in TV / Movies are words uttered in the video);
selecting, by the computing system, one or more of the candidate video clips from the set of candidate video clips based on measures of suitability as usage examples for the set of candidate video clips, wherein the measures of suitability were determined based on the candidate video clip being previously viewed by a user (Zhu, page 7, video clip ranking and selection, selecting a short video clip with length less than 2 seconds from video clips that match a keyword; page 6, prioritizing these video clips that the user has previously viewed);
associating, by the computing system, the one or more selected video clips with the target n-gram in a searchable database (Zhu, page 5, associating video clips to keywords as example; page 6 All clips associated with the keyword are listed on the right panel of ViVo);
receiving, by the computing system, a search query associated with the user, wherein the search query comprises the target n-gram (Zhu, page 6, Fig. 4, a user search definition of a word in a pop-up search window); and
causing, by the computing system, the one or more selected video clips to be output to the user with a definition of the target n-gram (Zhu, page 1, Fig. 1, page 6, Fig. 4, the video augmented dictionary shows definition of a word with a video clip illustrate word usage in a TV series).
Regarding claim 29, Zhu further discloses the one or more selected video clips to be output to the user with the definition of the target n-gram comprises: causing a graphical user interface to be rendered on a client device (Zhu, Fig. 1 and Fig. 4).
Regarding claim 36, Zhu further discloses causing the one OR more selected video clips to play as a sequence, one after another (Zhu, page 5, Fig. 1, playing video showing how to use a word; Note, the reference only needs to teach ONE recited using “OR”).
Regarding claim 38, Zhu further discloses: the operations further comprise: processing the search query to determine a plurality o
f responsive results (Zhu, Fig. 1 / Fig. 4, when a user search a word from the video augmented dictionary, the system displays a word definition and an associated video clip showing how to use the word in real word).
Regarding claim 39, Zhu further discloses: the plurality of responsive results comprises a definition of the target n-gram and a usage example (Zhu, Fig. 1 / Fig. 4, the video augmented dictionary showing word definition and a video clip showing how the search word was used in a TV program).
Regarding claim 40, Zhu further discloses: the plurality of responsive results comprises a plurality of web pages (Zhu, page 6, ViVo is an online application and was implemented using HTML5 and WebVTT format).
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 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.
Claims 22, 32-35 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. §103 as being unpatentable over Zhu in view of Tur et al. (US PG Pub. 2017/0061316, applicant submitted IDS, referred to as Tur).
Regarding claims 22 and 33, Zhu discloses ranking and selecting video clips based on various information (Zhu, page 7, clip ranking). Zhu does not disclose “wherein the measures of suitability were determined based on determining a detected pose of a speaker in the candidate video clip”.
In the same field of endeavor, Tur teaches: [0042] “Features extracted by the body movement feature extractor 300 include, but are not limited to: pose or motion of the user's head, arms, hands, legs, and feet as a function of time .”
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to combine Zhu’s teaching with Tur’s teaching to detect user’s pose to be sure that the user/speaker’s mouth is visible so that the video clip is more suitable as a dictionary usage example
Regarding claims 32, Zhu discloses ranking and selecting video clips based on various information (Zhu, page 7, clip ranking). Zhu does not disclose: “wherein the measures of suitability are further calculated based at least in part on a detected gaze of a speaker in the candidate video clip while the speaker uttered the target n-gram in the target context”
In the same field of endeavor, Tur teaches: [0037] “The video camera focused on the user's face may provide sensed data to feature extractors 300 including of at least one of: a face detection and feature extractor 300 and eye gaze detection and feature extractor 300.”
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate the teachings of Tur in the system (as taught Zhu) to detect user’s eye gaze to be sure that the user/speaker’s mouth is visible so that the video clip is more suitable as a dictionary usage example.
Regarding claim 34, Zhu discloses ranking and selecting video clips based on various information (Zhu, page 7, clip ranking). Zhu does not disclose the measures of suitability are further calculated based at least in part on an identity of a speaker of the target n-gram in the candidate video clip or an identity of a crew member who aided in creation of the candidate video clip.
In the same field of endeavor, TUR teaches: [0049] “The system 100, configured as illustrated in FIGS. 1-3, enhances the user experience by tailoring the output of the system 100 to the user's preferences, personality, and mood. For instance, many people have pleasant experiences interacting with someone of their own age, ethnic group, gender, or socioeconomic group (e.g., religious, corporate culture, retired, student, etc.).”
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate the teachings of TUR in the system (as taught by Zhu) with a ready mechanism (identifying a user’s particular characteristics) to identify a speaker to be sure that the user is more likely to be interested in video clips that feature the speaker, so that the video clip is more suitable as a dictionary usage example.
Regarding claim 35, Zhu discloses ranking and selecting video clips based on various information (Zhu, page 7, clip ranking). Zhu does not disclose the measures of suitability are further calculated based at least in part on an accent of a speaker of the target n-gram in the candidate video clip.
In the same field of endeavor, TUR teaches: [0019] “This secondary data may aid the system 100 in adapting or “personalizing” its outputs to the user .. the secondary data may be indicative of personal characteristics about the user (e.g., the user's age, gender, accent, personal appearance, or the like)).”
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate the teachings of TUR in the system (as taught by ZHU) with a ready mechanism to detect a speaker’s accent to be sure that the user is more likely to be interested in video clips that feature the speaker, so that the video clip is more suitable as a dictionary usage example
Claim 23 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Zhu in view of Yu et al. (US PG Pub. 2009/0177468, applicant submitted IDS, referred to as Yu).
Regarding claims 23, Zhu discloses ranking and selecting video clips based on various information (Zhu, page 7, clip ranking). Zhu does not disclose the measures of suitability were determined based on a detected background noise level of the candidate video clip.
In the same field of endeavor, Yu teaches: [Abstract] “Noise reduction as part of the feature extractor is provided by feature enhancement in which feature-domain noise reduction in the form of Mel-frequency cepstra is provided based on the minimum means square error criterion. The feature-domain noise reduction is performed in a dimension-wise fashion to the individual dimensions of the feature vectors input to the automatic speech recognition system, in order to perform environment-robust speech recognition.”
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate the teachings of YU in the system (as taught by ZHU) to detect and reduce background noise so that the video clip is more suitable as a dictionary usage example.
Claim 24 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Zhu in view of Chen et al. (US PG Pub. 2012/0276504, referred to as Chen).
Regarding claim 25, Zhu discloses ranking / selecting video clips based on various information (Zhu, page 7, clip ranking). Zhu does not disclose the measures of suitability were determined based on a pace of dialog spoken in the candidate video clip.
Chen discloses a user learning foreign language words by watching a video clip. The user could adjust video playing speed (Chen, [0023], [0027]) according to user’s language level.
Both Zhu and Chen are dealing with learning foreign language by watching a video clip. It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to modify Zhu’s teaching with Chen’s teaching to select a voice clip with speaking pace that is suitable for the user’s language level. One having ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make such a modification so that the selected video clip with speaking rate that is more suitable for user’s foreign language level.
Claim 25 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Zhu in view of Guthery et al. (US PG Pub. 2013/0006627, referred to as Guthery).
Regarding claim 25, Zhu discloses ranking / selecting video clips based on various information (Zhu, page 7, clip ranking). Zhu does not disclose the measures of suitability were determined based on determining the target n-gram is being sung in the candidate video clip.
Guthery discloses communication between users by selecting a media clip (audio / video) with lyric words to express emotional message (Guthery, Fig. 4, selecting a song clip from a media recording with lyrics text “You are just so beautiful”).
Both Zhu and Guthery are dealing with selecting a clip of media to express words. It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to modify Zhu’s teaching with Guthery’s teaching to select a video clip with singing lyric that matches the word. One having ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make such a modification so that words can be expressed in a desired emotion (Guthery, [0093]).
Claim 26-28 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Zhu in view of Zinovieva et al. (US PG Pub. 2013/0100347, referred to as Zinovieva).
Claims 16-28 includes features of generating a speech transcript from audio track and comparing the generated speech transcript with existing subtitles.
Zhu discloses using existing subtitles to location video clips and does not disclose using speech recognition to generate a transcript. Zinovieva discloses aligning video clips with words in a pre-existing caption file (Zinovieva, Abstract, Fig. 2). Zinovieva discloses using speech-to-text to obtain boundaries of words in the video clips (Zinovieva, [0002-0004], [0022], Fig. 3). Zinovieva discloses alignment between recognized words from speech-to-text and pre-existing captions (Zinovieva, [0008], [0021], Fig. 2, #112).
Both Zhu and Zinovieva are processing video clips. It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to modify Zhu’s teaching with Zinovieva’s teaching to align outputs from speech-to-text with pre-existing caption text to location starting / ending point (boundary) of words in the video clip so that a more accurate video clip can be extracted as an example to illustrate usage of a word in the video-augmented dictionary.
Claim 30 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Zhu in view of Lau et al. (US PG Pub. 2014/0282001, referred to as Lau).
Regarding claim 30, Zhu discloses a video augmented dictionary with a graphical user interface. Zhu does not explicitly mention “the graphical user interface is operable by the user to swipe through a plurality of selected video clips”.
Lau discloses graphical user interface that a user could use swipe gesture to select a video clip (Lau, [0028-0030], [0038], Fig. 4).
Both Zhu and Lau are dealing with video clips. It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to modify Zhu’s teaching with Lau’s teaching to select a video using swipe gesture on a touch screen. One having ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make such modification so that it is easier to operation using a touch screen.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. The examiner discovered several relevant prior art references that are related to one or more concepts disclosed by the instant application. These references are included in the attached PTO-892 form for completeness of the record.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Jialong He, whose telephone number is (571) 270-5359. The examiner can normally be reached on Monday – Friday, 8:00AM – 4:30PM, EST.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner's supervisor, Pierre Desir can be reached on (571) 272-7799. 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.
/JIALONG HE/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2659
Prosecution Insights