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 Interpretation
Claims 1-9 are not interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, because they are all method claims.
Claims 10-18 are not interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, because the recitations of “memory”, “processor” and “instructions” provide sufficient structure to perform all claimed limitations.
Claim 19 is not interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, because it is an article of manufacture claim.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101
35 U.S.C. 101 reads as follows:
Whoever invents or discovers any new and useful process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter, or any new and useful improvement thereof, may obtain a patent therefor, subject to the conditions and requirements of this title.
Claims 1-4, 8-13, and 17-19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
Regarding claim 11 as a presentative claim, the 101 analysis is presented below.
Step 1: It is noted that claim 1 recites a method which is a process. Thus, claim 1 is directed to one of statutory categories of invention.
Step 2A Prong 1: Limitations (i) “identifying, based on the one or more image frames corresponding to the video stream, an object in focus and a position of the object in focus”, (ii) “identifying a position of at least one light source illuminating the identified object in focus by identifying one or more light characteristics surrounding the object in focus”, (iii) “identifying one or more frame quality features associated with the video stream based on at least one of the position of the object in focus or the position of the at least one light source”, and (iv) “identifying one or more adjustment parameters corresponding to the one or more frame quality features for generating suggestions for the user to enhance illumination of the identified object in focus in the video stream” are interpreted as practically performed in the human mind.
With regard to (i), it is similar to mentally identify characters (i.e., actors, actresses, players and/or objects; any of these is considered to be “an object in focus and a position of the object in focus” in view of BRI) in the video (i.e., images, movies, video clips, live TV, and/or video games) by looking at or observing it.
With regard to (ii), it is similar to mentally identify a position of at least one light source by looking and/or observing the video.
With regard to (iii), it is similar to mentally identify frame quality features (i.e., darker or brighter clear view of characters in the video) by looking and/or observing the video.
With regard to (iv), it is similar to mentally identify adjustment parameters for suggestion (i.e., suggesting the settings such as lighting to make characters appeared brighter or darker in the video) by looking and/or observing it.
Thus, these limitations also fall into the “mental process” grouping of abstract idea. Therefore, claim 1 recites an abstract idea.
Step 2A Prong 2: It is noted that claim does include an additional limitation “receiving one or more image frames corresponding to the video stream”. However, such additional limitation is nothing more than data gathering and thus is insignificant extra-solution activity. The additional limitation does not amount to an integration of the judicial exception into a practical application. Therefore, claim is directed to an abstract idea.
Step 2B: The additional limitation, as pointed out in Step 2A prong 2 above, is nothing more that data gathering and is insignificant extra-solution activity. The additional limitation, taken individually and/or in combination, does not contribute to an inventive concept and does not amount to significant mor than the judicial exception. Therefore, claim is not a patent eligible.
The advanced statements as applied to claim 1 above are incorporated hereinafter.
Regarding claim 2, the claim recites “wherein identifying the one or more adjustment parameters corresponding to the one or more frame quality features comprises:
receiving metadata associated with the video stream, wherein the metadata indicates a context of the video stream;
assigning a priority to each of the one or more frame quality features based on the received metadata; and
identifying the one or more adjustment parameters corresponding to the one or more frame quality features based on the assigned priority of each of the one or more frame quality features”.
With regard to claim limitations “assigning…metadata” and “identifying…features”, these claim limitations are interpreted as practically performed in the human mind. Thus, these limitations also fall into the “mental process” grouping of abstract idea. Therefore, claim 2 recites an abstract idea.
With regard to claim “metadata”, it is noted that it is described as “metadata indicates a context of the video stream” (Specification, para. [11]), and “metadata may include at least one of a purpose of the video stream, an identify of the user. A relation of the user with another user captured in the video stream, a time of the video stream, or a location of the video stream” (Specification, para. [12]). The claim recites an additional limitations “receiving metadata…video stream”. However, such an additional limitation is nothing more than data gathering and thus is insignificant extra-solution activity. The additional limitation does not amount to an integration of the judicial exception into a practical application. Therefore, claim 2 is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
Regarding claim 3, the claim recites an additional limitation “wherein the metadata comprises at least one of a purpose of the video stream, an identity of the user, a relation of the user with another user captured in the video stream, a time of the video stream, or a location of the video stream” that is nothing more than data gathering and thus is insignificant extra-solution activity. The additional limitation does not amount to an integration of the judicial exception into a practical application. Therefore, claim 3 is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
Regarding claim 4, the claim recites claim limitation “wherein the one or more frame quality features comprises at least one of a contrast, an intensity, a quality, or a direction of a camera device capturing the video stream” that is interpreted as practically performed in the human mind. Thus, these limitations also fall into the “mental process” grouping of abstract idea. Therefore, claim 4 recites an abstract idea. The claim does not recite any additional limitation that could amount to an integration of the judicial exception into a practical application. Therefore, claim 4 is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
Regarding claim 8, the claim recites claim limitation “wherein the one or more adjustment parameters comprises at least one of a path calibration, a rotation calibration, or a head calibration, wherein the path calibration corresponds to a change in at least one of a longitudinal and latitude direction of a camera device capturing the video stream, a rotation calibration corresponds to a degree of horizontal rotation of the camera device, or a head calibration corresponds to a degree of vertical rotation of the camera device” that is interpreted as practically performed in the human mind. Thus, these limitations also fall into the “mental process” grouping of abstract idea. Therefore, claim 8 recites an abstract idea. The claim does not recite any additional limitation that could amount to an integration of the judicial exception into a practical application. Therefore, claim 8 is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
Regarding claim 9, the claim recites claim limitation “wherein the one or more light characteristics comprises an intensity and a direction of light on the identified object in focus” that is interpreted as practically performed in the human mind. Thus, these limitations also fall into the “mental process” grouping of abstract idea. Therefore, claim 9 recites an abstract idea. The claim does not recite any additional limitation that could amount to an integration of the judicial exception into a practical application. Therefore, claim 9 is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
Claim 10 recites an apparatus and claim 19 recites an article of manufacture so each of these claims falls within one of the statutory categories of invention. It is noted that each of these claims recites similar claim limitations called for in the counterpart claim 1. Thus, the advanced statements as applied to claim 1 above are incorporated herein. It is also noted that claim 10 recites addition elements “memory” and “processor” and claim 19 recites additional elements “media” and “processor”. The additional elements “memory”, “processor”, and “media” are recited at a high level of generality such that they amount to no more than mere instructions to implement the abstract idea on a conventional computer. The claims do not point to a specific improvement in computer itself. The additional elements, taken individually and in combination, do not contribute to an inventive concept. Therefore, claims 10 and 19 are also directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
Claim 11 recites an apparatus and thus it falls within one of the statutory categories of invention. It is noted that claim recites similar claim limitations called for in the counterpart claim 2. Thus, the advanced statements as applied to claim 2 above are incorporated herein. The claim depends on claim 10 and recites similar addition elements “memory” and “processor” called for in claim 10. Thus, the rejection as applied to claim 10 above are incorporated herein as well.
Claim 12 recites an apparatus and thus it falls within one of the statutory categories of invention. It is noted that claim recites similar claim limitations called for in the counterpart claim 3. Thus, the advanced statements as applied to claim 3 above are incorporated herein. The claim depends on claim 10 and recites similar addition elements “memory” and “processor” called for in claim 10. Thus, the rejection as applied to claim 10 above are incorporated herein as well.
Claim 13 recites an apparatus and thus it falls within one of the statutory categories of invention. It is noted that claim recites similar claim limitations called for in the counterpart claim 4. Thus, the advanced statements as applied to claim 4 above are incorporated herein. The claim depends on claim 10 and recites similar addition elements “memory” and “processor” called for in claim 10. Thus, the rejection as applied to claim 10 above are incorporated herein as well.
Claim 17 recites an apparatus and thus it falls within one of the statutory categories of invention. It is noted that claim recites similar claim limitations called for in the counterpart claim 8. Thus, the advanced statements as applied to claim 8 above are incorporated herein. The claim depends on claim 10 and recites similar addition elements “memory” and “processor” called for in claim 10. Thus, the rejection as applied to claim 10 above are incorporated herein as well.
Claim 18 recites an apparatus and thus it falls within one of the statutory categories of invention. It is noted that claim recites similar claim limitations called for in the counterpart claim 9. Thus, the advanced statements as applied to claim 9 above are incorporated herein. The claim depends on claim 10 and recites similar addition elements “memory” and “processor” called for in claim 10. Thus, the rejection as applied to claim 10 above are incorporated herein as well.
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 (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of pre-AIA 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.
Claim(s) 1-4, 8-13, and 17-19 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Rathour et al. (U.S. Pat. App. Pub. No. 2020/0045218 A1, referred as Rathour hereinafter).
Regarding claim 1 as a representative claim, Rathour teaches a method for generating suggestions to enhance illumination in a video stream, the method comprising:
receiving one or more image frames corresponding to the video stream (see figure 5 and para. [0088] (an audio/video A/V inputter 1600 in addition to the camera 1610); para. [0106] (the A/V inputter 1600 is used to input an audio signal or a video signal and include the camera 1610 and a microphone 1620. The camera 1610 may receive an image frame such as still image or a moving image by using an image sensor in a video call mode or a photographing mode));
identifying, based on the one or more image frames corresponding to the video stream, an object in focus and a position of the object in focus (see para. [0051] (a clear image of a moving object is captured; thus, object is in focus and in a position of focus);
identifying a position of at least one light source illuminating the identified object in focus by identifying one or more light characteristics surrounding the object in focus (see figure 7 (based on brightness of ambient environment (710), identifying light source om ambient environment (740), then controlling light source of ambient environment (760)); also see figure 9 and paras. [0146] – [0148]);
identifying one or more frame quality features associated with the video stream based on at least one of the position of the object in focus or the position of the at least one light source (see paras. [0144] – [0145] (luminance values of the image is determined based on brightness of the ambient environment and color of subject included in the image; thus, luminance values refer to the so-called quality features)); and
identifying one or more adjustment parameters corresponding to the one or more frame quality features for generating suggestions for the user to enhance illumination of the identified object in focus in the video stream (see figure 7 (controlling light source of ambient environment (760) and brightness of display (770)).
Regarding claim 2, Rathour further teaches wherein identifying the one or more adjustment parameters corresponding to the one or more frame quality features comprises:
receiving metadata associated with the video stream, wherein the metadata indicates a context of the video stream (see paras. [0089] – [0090] (user input to control device 1000; user input to control brightness), and [0162] (image capturing is performed by the camera according to user input); also see para. [0054] – [0055] (aperture, shutter speed, ISO));
assigning a priority to each of the one or more frame quality features based on the received metadata (see figure 11 (1103, 1106, and 1108 buttons; each button is moved from left to right or dark to brighter; thus it refers to priority) and para. [0166] - [0169]; see para. [0054] – [0055] (aperture, shutter speed, ISO; these are priority setting)); and
identifying the one or more adjustment parameters corresponding to the one or more frame quality features based on the assigned priority of each of the one or more frame quality features (see paras. [0089] – [0090] (user input to control device 1000; user input to control brightness), and [0162] (image capturing is performed by the camera according to user input); also see para. [0054] – [0055] (aperture, shutter speed, ISO)).
Regarding claim 3, Rathour further teaches wherein the metadata comprises at least one of a purpose of the video stream (see paras. [0089] – [0090] (user input to control device 1000; user input to control brightness), and [0162] (image capturing is performed by the camera according to user input); also see para. [0054] – [0055] (aperture, shutter speed, ISO); these are used to control brightness which corresponds to the so-called purpose)).
Regarding claim 4, Rathour further teaches wherein the one or more frame quality features comprises at least one of a contrast, an intensity, a quality, or a direction of a camera device capturing the video stream (see paras. [0144] – [0145] (luminance values and brightness; color of subject included in the image (direction of camera is inherently included in order to capture subject included in the image); para. [0039] (image captured by camera 120 includes an image of the ambient environment of a light source 110; thus, direction of camera is included in order to capture such image); also see para. [0051] (shutter speed; amount light; dark and clear image; moving object is captured so direction of camera is included).
Regarding claim 8, Rathour further teaches wherein the one or more adjustment parameters comprises at least one of a path calibration, a rotation calibration, or a head calibration, wherein the path calibration corresponds to a change in at least one of a longitudinal and latitude direction of a camera device capturing the video stream, a rotation calibration corresponds to a degree of horizontal rotation of the camera device, or a head calibration corresponds to a degree of vertical rotation of the camera device (see paras. [0039] (device 100 includes camera 120), [0073] and figure 2 (device 1000 includes cameras 211 and 221), [0079] (user is behind light as shown in figure 3; user looks at device 1000; device 1000 captures an image behind user and an image in front of user; such calibrations are included), [0081] (user looks at device 1000, it identifies a camera to capture an image to control a brightness of a display facing the user; thus, thus such calibrations are included), [0083] (capturing an image behind the user; thus such calibrations are included) and [0129] (device 1000 faces an opaque object, brightness is not adjusted; thus such calibrations are included)).
Regarding claim 9, Rathour further teaches wherein the one or more light characteristics comprises an intensity and a direction of light on the identified object in focus (see paras. [0050] - [0051] (aperture values; shutter speed; amount of light; a clear image of a moving object is captured; thus intensity and direction of light are included)).
Regarding claims 10 and 19, the advanced statements as applied to claim 1 above are incorporated hereinafter. Rathour further teaches a processor and memory storing instructions (see para. [0186] (computer and medium including instructions)).
The advanced statements as applied to claims 10 and 19 above are incorporated hereinafter.
Regarding claim 11, the claim recites similar claim limitations called for in the counterpart claim 2. Thus, claim 11 is also rejected for the same reasons as set forth in claim 2 above.
Regarding claim 12, the claim recites similar claim limitations called for in the counterpart claim 3. Thus, claim 12 is also rejected for the same reasons as set forth in claim 3 above.
Regarding claim 13, the claim recites similar claim limitations called for in the counterpart claim 4. Thus, claim 13 is also rejected for the same reasons as set forth in claim 4 above.
Regarding claim 17, the claim recites similar claim limitations called for in the counterpart claim 8. Thus, claim 17 is also rejected for the same reasons as set forth in claim 8 above.
Regarding claim 18, the claim recites similar claim limitations called for in the counterpart claim 9. Thus, claim 18is also rejected for the same reasons as set forth in claim 9 above.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability should not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
Claim(s) 3 and 12 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Rathour.
The advanced statements as applied to claims 1-4, 8-13 and 17-19 above are incorporated hereinafter.
Regarding claim 3, Rathour does not further teach claim limitations “wherein the metadata comprises at least one of an identity of the user, a relation of the user with another user captured in the video stream, a time of the video stream, or a location of the video stream”.
However, such claim limitations are well known in the art (Official Notice).
The motivation for doing so is to provide an easy/simple way to organize video stream.
Therefore, before the effective filing date of instant claim invention, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to incorporate such claim limitations in combination with Rathour for that reasons. It would also have been obvious to incorporate such claim limitation into Rathour because doing so would merely combine prior art elements according to known method to yield predictable results.
Regarding claim 12, the claim recites similar claim limitations called for in the counterpart claim 3. Thus, claim 12 is also rejected for the same reasons as set forth in claim 3 above.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 5-7 and 14-16 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.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter:
Regarding claim 5, the cited prior art does not teach or suggest claim limitations “further comprising: identifying whether the user of a camera device used for capturing the video stream views a display of the camera device based on at least one of a relative position of the camera device or the object in focus; based on identifying that the user views the display of the camera device, displaying the generated suggestions on a display interface associated with the camera device; and based on identifying that the user does not view the display of the camera device, generating non-visual indicators corresponding to the generated suggestions”.
Claim 6 depends on claim 5 and thus is allowable for the same reasons as above.
Regarding claim 7, the cited prior art does not teach or suggest claim limitations “wherein identifying the position of the at least one light source illuminating the identified object in focus comprises: scaling the identified object in focus based on a reference object stored in a database; applying a shape mask on the scaled object in focus based on the reference object; normalizing at least one frame among the one or more image frames based on the object in focus applied the shape mask; generating a pixel scattering matrix based on the normalized at least one frame, wherein the pixel scattering matrix indicates distribution of the at least one light source illuminating the identified object in focus; and identifying the position of the at least one light source illuminating the identified object in focus based on the generated pixel scattering matrix”.
Claim 14 recites similar claim limitations called for in the counterpart claim 5. Thus, claim 14 is allowable for the same reasons as above.
Claim 15 depends on claim 14 and thus is allowable for the same reasons as above.
Claim 16 recites similar claim limitations called for in the counterpart claim 6. Thus, claim 16 is allowable for the same reasons as above.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to DUY M DANG whose telephone number is (571)272-7389. The examiner can normally be reached Monday to Friday from 7:00AM to 3:00PM.
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, Amandeep Saini can be reached at 571-272-3382. 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.
DMD
9/2026
/DUY M DANG/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2662
Prosecution Insights