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
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(f):
(f) Element in Claim for a Combination. – An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The claims in this application are given their broadest reasonable interpretation using the plain meaning of the claim language in light of the specification as it would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art. The broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim element (also commonly referred to as a claim limitation) is limited by the description in the specification when 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is invoked.
As explained in MPEP § 2181, subsection I, claim limitations that meet the following three-prong test will be interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
(A) the claim limitation uses the term “means” or “step” or a term used as a substitute for “means” that is a generic placeholder (also called a nonce term or a non-structural term having no specific structural meaning) for performing the claimed function;
(B) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is modified by functional language, typically, but not always linked by the transition word “for” (e.g., “means for”) or another linking word or phrase, such as “configured to” or “so that”; and
(C) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function.
Use of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim with functional language creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites sufficient structure, material, or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Absence of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is not to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is not interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites function without reciting sufficient structure, material or acts to entirely perform the recited function. Examples of this condition found in the claims include:
Claims 11, 23-24:
reception device
transmission device;
Claims 16-18 and 20: transmission device
Claim limitations in this application that use the word “means” (or “step”) are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action. Conversely, claim limitations in this application that do not use the word “means” (or “step”) are not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action.
Because this/these claim limitation(s) is/are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, it/they is/are being interpreted to cover the corresponding structure described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof.
If applicant does not intend to have this/these limitation(s) interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, applicant may: (1) amend the claim limitation(s) to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph (e.g., by reciting sufficient structure to perform the claimed function); or (2) present a sufficient showing that the claim limitation(s) recite(s) sufficient structure to perform the claimed function so as to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(d):
(d) REFERENCE IN DEPENDENT FORMS.—Subject to subsection (e), a claim in dependent form shall contain a reference to a claim previously set forth and then specify a further limitation of the subject matter claimed. A claim in dependent form shall be construed to incorporate by reference all the limitations of the claim to which it refers.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, fourth paragraph:
Subject to the following paragraph [i.e., the fifth paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112], a claim in dependent form shall contain a reference to a claim previously set forth and then specify a further limitation of the subject matter claimed. A claim in dependent form shall be construed to incorporate by reference all the limitations of the claim to which it refers.
Claim 20 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(d) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, 4th paragraph, as being of improper dependent form for failing to further limit the subject matter of the claim upon which it depends, or for failing to include all the limitations of the claim upon which it depends. Claim 20 recites: “The image display method of claim 11”, describing a method. However, the specific limitations of claim 20 reciting: “wherein the first image transmission device is a camera device equipped with an AI processor and second image transmission device is another camera device without an AI processor” limit a device. These device limitations do not properly narrow the steps of image display. Applicant may cancel the claim(s), amend the claim(s) to place the claim(s) in proper dependent form, rewrite the claim(s) in independent form, or present a sufficient showing that the dependent claim(s) complies with the statutory requirements.
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 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.
Claim(s) 11-15 and 21 and 23-24 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by BUTT et al., (US 2018/0157939).
Regarding claim 11: Butt teaches an image display method [¶0004 teaches: images represented by the image data are displayed for contemporaneous screening] performed by instructions in an image reception device including a processor and a memory storing the instructions executable by the processor [¶0007 teaches: The system comprises one or more processors and memory comprising computer program code stored on the memory and configured when executed by the one or more processors to cause the one or more processors to perform a method. … and transmitting an instruction for presenting on a display one or more of the images of the objects], the image display method comprising:
receiving first metadata related to a first main object [¶0063 teaches: additional information is commonly understood as metadata] from a first image transmission device connected to the image reception device via a network [¶0080: each of the at least one video capture device 108 is connected to a network 140. Each video capture device 108 is operable to output image data representing images that it captures and transmit the image data over the network.];
receiving a first best shot, which is a cropped portion of a first image frame containing the first main object, the first image frame being extracted from a video obtained by the first image transmission device [¶0106 teaches: the location metadata may be further used to generate a bounding box (such as, for example, when encoding video or playing back video) outlining the detected foreground visual object. The image within the bounding box is extracted, called a cropped bounding box (also referred to as a “Chip”), for inclusion in metadata which along with the associated video may be processed further at other devices, such as workstation 156, on the network 140. In short, the cropped bounding box, or Chip, is a cropped portion of an image frame of the video containing the detected foreground visual object.];
receiving second metadata related to a second main object from a second image transmission device connected to the image reception device via a network [Fig. 4: See Chips 404 related to second main object];
receiving a second image frame containing the second main object, extracted from a video obtained by the second image transmission device [¶0114 teaches: The meaning of “video” as used herein includes video files and video segments with associated metadata that have indications of time and identify which camera 108, in cases when there is more than one camera.];
generating a second best shot by cropping a region occupied by the second main object within the second image frame using the second metadata related to the second main object [¶0115 teaches: The video is processed by the video analytics module 224 in the camera 108 to produce metadata with cropped bounding boxes 404. The video analytics module 224 performs the object detection and classification, and also generates images (cropped bounding boxes) from the video that best represent the objects in the scene 402.]; and
displaying both the received first best shot and the generated second best shot on a screen [Abstract teaches: transmitting an instruction for presenting on a display one or more of the images of the objects].
Regarding claim 12: the essence of the claim is taught above in the rejection of claim 11.
In addition, BUTT teaches wherein each of the first and second metadata includes an identifier for identifying an identity of the first or second main object [¶0113 teaches: extract cropped bounding boxes of the human objects, with reference coordinates of each of the cropped bounding boxes, for inclusion in metadata], and
the displaying includes collecting a limited number of the first and second best shots for each object having a different identifier and displaying the collected partial images on the screen [Abstract teaches: The method further comprises comparing the signatures (i.e. metadata) of the identified objects with the signature of the object of interest to generate similarity scores for the identified objects (i.e. collecting best shots), and transmitting an instruction for presenting on a display one or more of the images of the objects based on the similarity scores.].
Regarding claim 13: the essence of the claim is taught above in the rejection of claim 11.
In addition, BUTT teaches receiving an object search condition from a user [¶0114 teaches: The video where such persons of interest are found in the search may then be reviewed by users; and ¶0122 teaches: appearance search system will keep updating the parameters of the model based on some source of truth (for example, user feedback in the selection of the images of the objects of interest]; and
filtering only at least one best shot satisfying the object search condition among the first and second best shots [¶0115 teaches: The video analytics module 224 performs the object detection and classification, and also generates images (cropped bounding boxes) from the video that best represent the objects in the scene 402. In this example, the images of the objects, classified as people or humans, are extracted from the video and included in the metadata as cropped bounding boxes 404 for further identification processing. The metadata with the cropped bounding boxes 404 and the video are sent over the network 140 to a server 406. The server 406 may be the workstation 156 or a client device 164.] and
displaying the filtered best shot on the screen [¶0124 teaches: The client 420 also has the video playback module 264 for the user to view the video].
Regarding claim 14: the essence of the claim is taught above in the rejection of claim 11.
In addition, BUTT teaches further comprising: receiving an object search condition and an environment condition from a user [¶0005 teaches: detecting objects such as humans, vehicles, animals, etc. that move through the environment; and ¶0106 teaches: the metadata may define the location (i.e. environment), reference coordinates, of the foreground visual object, or object, within the image frame]; and
filtering the at least one best shot and displaying the filtered best shot on the screen when the at least one best shot satisfies the object search condition and image frames including the at least one best shot satisfy the environment condition [¶0106 teaches: The size of the image being extracted, for example, should be close to, but outside of, the actual boundaries of the object that has been detected. The bounding boxes are typically rectangular in shape, but may also be irregular shapes which closely outline the objects. A bounding box may, for example, closely follow the boundaries (outline) of a human object.].
Regarding claim 15: the essence of the claim is taught above in the rejection of claim 11.
In addition, BUTT teaches further comprising performing image analysis in order to identify identities of the first and second main objects [¶0015 teaches: The one or more cameras may be further configured to generate reference coordinates (i.e. identities) for allowing extraction from the video of the images of the objects, wherein the displaying includes collecting a limited number of the first and second best shot for each object having a different identifier and displaying the collected best shot on the screen [¶0040 teaches: generating, by the processor, signatures from the images of the objects using a learning machine; storing the signatures of the objects and the videos, associated with the objects, in a storage system; generating, by the processor, a signature from an image of any object of interest using the learning machine; comparing, by the processor, the signatures from the images in the storage system with the signature of the object of interest to generate a similarity score for each comparison; and preparing the images of the objects with higher similarity scores for presentation to users at a display].
Regarding claim 21: the essence of the claim is taught above in the rejection of claim 11.
In addition, BUTT teaches wherein, when a best shot is selected by a user among the first and second best shots, an image frame containing a main object corresponding to the selected best shot is displayed on the screen [¶0086 teaches: the client device 164 includes at least one display device and at least one user input device (such as, for example, a mouse, keyboard, or touchscreen). The client device 164 is operable to display on its display device a user interface for displaying information, receiving user input, and playing back video.].
Regarding claim 23: the claim is merely a non-transitory, machine-readable storage medium comprising instructions that when executed by a computer cause the computer to carry out the method of claim 11. BUTT teaches a non-transitory, machine-readable storage medium comprising instructions [there is provided a computer-readable medium having stored thereon computer program code executable by one or more processors, ¶0022]. Therefore, the rejection of claim 11 applies equally to this claim.
Regarding claim 24: the claim is merely an image reception device to carry out the method of claim 11. BUTT teaches image reception device [the workstation 156 may receive raw image data from the video capture device 108. Alternatively, or additionally, the workstation 156 may receive image data that has already undergone some intermediate processing, such as processing at the video capture device 108 and/or at a processing appliance 148. The workstation 156 may also receive metadata from the image data and perform further processing of the image data. ¶0084]. Therefore, the rejection of claim 11 applies equally to this claim.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
Claim(s) 16 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over BUTT in view of SHU et al., (From IDS: US 2022/0309789).
Regarding claim 16: the essence of the claim is taught above in the rejection of claim 11.
However, it does not appear that BUTT explicitly teaches further comprising transmitting a back-end request to the second image transmission device, wherein the second image frame containing the second main object, received from the second image transmission device is changed according to the back-end request.
In a related field of endeavor, SHU teaches further comprising transmitting a back-end request to the second image transmission device [¶0234 teaches: [0234] Another terminal device (for example, the terminal device 2 and the terminal device 3) may request to obtain the video 1 from the server.], wherein the second image frame containing the second main object, received from the second image transmission device is changed according to the back-end request [¶0234 teaches: the server determines, based on a preference (user information)(i.e. back-end request) of the user 0002, that the user 0002 prefers a landscape video, and therefore the server sends the video 1 and the cover image 1 to the terminal device 2.].
Given the teachings as a whole, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate SHU’s teaching of a back-end request into BUTT’s image display method for the benefit, as taught by SHU, of improving the quality of the determined image. [SHU, Abstract]
Claim(s) 17 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over BUTT in view of CULBERTSON et al., (From IDS: US 2021/0110163).
Regarding claim 17: the essence of the claim is taught above in the rejection of claim 11.
However, it does not appear that BUTT explicitly teaches further comprising transmitting a back-end request to the second image transmission device, wherein a the second metadata received from the second image transmission device is changed according to the back-end request.
In a relate field of endeavor, CULBERTSON teaches further comprising transmitting a back-end request to the image transmission device, wherein a set of the metadata received from the image transmission device is changed according to the back-end request [¶0015 teaches:: For each video anchor, the user device displays a corresponding time indicator in a progress bar of the video player, and a visual link from the corresponding time indicator (i.e. metadata, an appearance time of the object) to the visual anchor. Each displayed video anchor is selectable by a user and upon a selection of the video anchor the instruction of the video anchor causes the video player on a user device to begin playback of the video at the playback time specified by the time index value.].
Given the teachings as a whole, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate CULBERTSON’s teaching of image frame change into BUTT’s image display method for the benefit, as taught by CULBERTSON, of quickly ascertaining key moments in the video. [CULBERTSON, Summary]
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 18 and 22 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.
Conclusion
Prior art not relied upon: Please refer to the references listed in an attached PTO-892 and that are not relied upon for the claim rejections detailed above. The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
In particular, KRITT et al., (US 2013/0322687) teaches surveillance including modified video data stream; and
SASAKI et al., (US 2014/0245367) teaches a method for providing a video, a transmitting device, and a receiving device for creating, transmitting, and playing video content..
In the case of amending the claimed invention, Applicant is respectfully requested to indicate the portion(s) of the specification which dictate(s) the structure relied on for proper interpretation and also to verify and ascertain the metes and bounds of the claimed invention.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Marnie Matt whose telephone number is (303)297-4255. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday, 8:30-5:00.
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, Jay Patel can be reached on 571-272-2988. 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.
/MARNIE A MATT/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2485