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 .
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 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); 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 nonstatutory double patenting provided the reference application or patent either is shown to be commonly owned with the examined application, or claims an invention made as a result of activities undertaken within the scope of a joint research agreement. See MPEP § 717.02 for applications subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA as explained in MPEP § 2159. See MPEP § 2146 et seq. for applications not subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA . A terminal disclaimer must be signed in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(b).
The filing of a terminal disclaimer by itself is not a complete reply to a nonstatutory double patenting (NSDP) rejection. A complete reply requires that the terminal disclaimer be accompanied by a reply requesting reconsideration of the prior Office action. Even where the NSDP rejection is provisional the reply must be complete. See MPEP § 804, subsection I.B.1. For a reply to a non-final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.111(a). For a reply to final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.113(c). A request for reconsideration while not provided for in 37 CFR 1.113(c) may be filed after final for consideration. See MPEP §§ 706.07(e) and 714.13.
The USPTO Internet website contains terminal disclaimer forms which may be used. Please visit www.uspto.gov/patent/patents-forms. The actual filing date of the application in which the form is filed determines what form (e.g., PTO/SB/25, PTO/SB/26, PTO/AIA /25, or PTO/AIA /26) should be used. A web-based eTerminal Disclaimer may be filled out completely online using web-screens. An eTerminal Disclaimer that meets all requirements is auto-processed and approved immediately upon submission. For more information about eTerminal Disclaimers, refer to www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/applying-online/eterminal-disclaimer.
Claims 52 – 71 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 52 - 71 of U.S. Patent No. 12,225,248. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because claims 52 - 71 of the instant application are similar in scope and content of claims 52 - 71 of the cited patent.
It would have been obvious to an artisan at the time the invention was made to use the teaching of claims 52 - 71 of the patent (248) as a general teaching for identifying caption error, to perform method/system as claimed in the present invention. The instant claims obviously encompass the claimed invention of the '248' patent and differ only in the method steps. The extent that the instant claims are broaden and therefore generic to claimed invention of '248' patent [species], In re Goodman 29 USPQ 2d 2010 CAFC 1993, states that a generic claim cannot be issued without a terminal disclaimer, if a species claim has been previously been claimed in a patent/copending application. And since the structure is as recited, the method step is obtained and therefore, obvious.
Here is a comparison between claim 52 of the instant application and claim 52 of the cited patent.
Instant Application 19/007,213
Cited patent 12,225,248
Comparison
52. A method comprising:
52. A method comprising:
Same
generating for display a video media asset; identifying an erroneous term in a text portion of the video media asset;
identifying an erroneous term in a text portion of a video asset;
Similar
analyzing one or more video frames of the video media asset corresponding to the text portion, using image recognition, to identify a depiction of a particular sports team in the one or more video frames;
identifying a non-textual visual object in a video frame from the video asset that is associated with the erroneous term, wherein a descriptor of the identified non-textual visual object is not a candidate correction term for the erroneous term, and wherein the non-textual visual object comprises an image of a person;
Similar
identifying a candidate correction term for the erroneous term based at least in part on a contextual term associated with the depiction of the particular sports team; and
analyzing the identified non-textual visual object in the video frame, using image recognition, to identify an object category based on the descriptor of the identified non-textual visual object, wherein the identified object category comprises an indication of an identity of the person;
identifying the candidate correction term for the erroneous term that belongs to the identified object category; and
Similar
replacing the erroneous term in the text portion of the video media asset with the identified candidate correction term.
replacing the erroneous term in the text portion of the video asset with the identified candidate correction term.
Same
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.
Claims 52 – 57, 60 – 67, 70, and 71 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kasvari et al. (US PAP 2007/0118357) in view of Tofighbakhsh (US PAP 2011/0321100).
As per claims 52, 62, Kasvari et al. teach a method/system comprising:
generating for display a video media asset; identifying an erroneous term in a text portion of the video media asset ("sufficiently uncertain that those words may be considered to be ambiguous'; paragraphs 21, 27, 30);
identifying a candidate correction term for the erroneous term based at least in part on a contextual term associated with the depiction of the particular video media set ("The speech information 104 or character image information 106 may be in a physical form (e.g., sound pressure vibrations, a visual display), or in an electronic form, such as an analog (i.c., continuous time) recording, or in a digitally sampled form. In some examples, the information 104, 106 may be derived from a radio, television, or satellite broadcasts, or from a telephone conversation, microphone, video image capture device (e.g., video camera), or the like… , the context analyzer 126 may score the candidate words individually (i.e., each word in the improved word list 124) and/or in groups. For example, the context analyzer 126 may determine a composite score for a sequence of words (e.g., a sentence) that contains more than one ambiguous word."; paragraphs 20, 38 - 45); and
replacing the erroneous term in the text portion of the video media asset with the identified candidate correction term ("select the highest scoring word or sequence of words to replace an ambiguous word in the text 102 with a candidate word (or sequence of words) that is identified as having the highest score."; paragraphs 19, and 41).
However, Kasvari et al. do not specifically teach analyzing one or more video frames of the video media asset corresponding to the text portion, using image recognition, to identify a depiction of a particular sports team in the one or more video frames.
Tofighbakhsh discloses that the one or more object data files 164 may include files of information used to identify standard objects or people within the media content being processed. For example, the one or more object data files 164 may contain information that may be used to identify particular models of cars, particular types of balls (e.g., soccer balls), particular types of plants or trees, particular type of appliances, and famous people. In another example, the one or more object data files 164 may contain face recognition information… The user who records the media content of the amateur sporting event may send the request for recording the amateur sporting event to the network computing device 102. The request may include an option to tag occurrences of an object used in the amateur sporting event (e.g., a game ball)[paragraphs 28, 42].
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to identify a depiction of a particular sports team as taught by Tofighbakhsh in Kasvari et al., because that would help identify particular object of the sporting event (paragraph 42).
As per claims 53, 63, Kasvari et al. in view of Tofighbakhsh further disclose identifying the candidate correction term for the erroneous term comprises accessing a data structure comprising a plurality of potential correction terms, wherein the data structure indicates respective relationships between a plurality of contextual terms and a plurality of depictions of sports teams (Kasvari et al., paragraphs 38 – 45; Tofighbakhsh, paragraphs 28, 42).
As per claims 54, 64, Kasvari et al. in view of Tofighbakhsh further disclose accessing the data structure comprises: extracting a keyword from in the text portion of the video media asset; searching in the data structure for nodes corresponding to the contextual term and the keyword; analyzing the nodes for properties associated with the contextual term and the keyword; and determining at least one other node based at least in part on the properties associated with the contextual term and the keyword, wherein the at least one other node corresponds to the candidate correction term (“The context analyzer 126 may select the highest scoring word or sequence of words to replace an ambiguous word in the text 102 with a candidate word (or sequence of words) that is identified as having the highest score. After substituting the ambiguous words in the text 102 with the high scoring words, the context analyzer 126 may output the output text 132…Such non-textual information may be defined to be associated with links or nodes in an ontology. The context analyzer 126 may then use such non-textual information in scoring candidate words. By accounting for non-textual information, the accuracy of the word recognition process may be further improved.”; Kasvari et al. paragraphs 36 – 48; Tofighbakhsh, paragraphs 28, 42).
As per claims 55, 65, Kasvari et al. in view of Tofighbakhsh further disclose accessing the data structure comprises: determining the plurality of potential correction terms for the erroneous term from the data structure; based at least in part on the determining, assigning a weight to each potential correction term of the plurality of potential correction terms; and identifying a potential correction term associated with a highest weight as the candidate correction term (“the scores may be functions of weights that are associated with links between nodes of interest in an ontology. The probabilities associated with possible parts-of-speech, as discussed with reference to Table 2, for example, may influence scoring. As mentioned elsewhere herein, the results of the grammatical analysis may be applied to adjust the scores. In some implementations, the score may be a function of weights that may be assigned to grammar rules, such as those defined in Table 3. Important grammar rules are assigned relatively heavy weights, less important grammar rules are assigned relatively light weights.”; Kasvari et al. paragraphs 36 – 48; Tofighbakhsh, paragraphs 28, 42).
As per claims 56, 66, Kasvari et al. in view of Tofighbakhsh further disclose a more recent potential correction term of the plurality of potential correction terms is assigned a higher weight, and wherein the more recent potential correction term is a potential correction term associated with a more recent time-stamp (“The data entered in the user interface may identify a start time and an end time for recording the media content from the media source 108”), a potential correction term that has been updated more recently or a potential correction term that has gained popularity in recent searches (“the scores may be functions of weights that are associated with links between nodes of interest in an ontology. The probabilities associated with possible parts-of-speech, as discussed with reference to Table 2, for example, may influence scoring. As mentioned elsewhere herein, the results of the grammatical analysis may be applied to adjust the scores. In some implementations, the score may be a function of weights that may be assigned to grammar rules, such as those defined in Table 3. Important grammar rules are assigned relatively heavy weights, less important grammar rules are assigned relatively light weights.”; Kasvari et al. paragraphs 36 – 48; Tofighbakhsh, paragraphs 17, 28, 42).
As per claims 57, 67, Kasvari et al. in view of Tofighbakhsh further disclose updating existing nodes of the data structure (Kasvari et al. paragraphs 36 – 48, 68 - 72).
As per claims 60, 70, Kasvari et al. in view of Tofighbakhsh further disclose replacing the erroneous term in the text portion of the video media asset with the identified candidate correction term comprises replacing the erroneous term with the identified candidate correction term while a live broadcast of the video media asset is being generated for presentation ("The user interface 300 may include a closed captioning (CC) option 336. Selection of the closed captioning option 336 may allow a closed captioning stream of oration in the media content to be presented in the processed media content."; Tofighbakhsh; paragraphs 3, 36, 59; Kasvari et al. paragraphs 38 - 45).
As per claims 61, 71, Kasvari et al. in view of Tofighbakhsh further disclose replacing the erroneous term in the text portion of the video media asset with the identified candidate correction term comprises replacing the erroneous term with the identified candidate correction term when the video media asset is being stored as on-demand content ("may access presentations such as lectures, seminars, simulcasts of public events, and other multimedia presentations at scheduled times. Lectures and seminars may be provided by educational institutions and companies. Public events may include simulcasts or recordings of weddings, parties, other types of celebrations, business meetings, professional or amateur sporting events, and other presentations available via the public network."; Tofighbakhsh; paragraphs 2, 57; Kasvari et al. paragraphs 38 - 45).
Claims 58, 59, 68, 69 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kasvari et al. (US PAP 2007/0118357) in view of Tofighbakhsh (US PAP 2011/0321100); and further Streijl (US PAP 2009/0185074).
As per claims 58, 68, Kasvari et al. in view of Tofighbakhsh do not specifically teach identifying the depiction of the particular sports team in the one or more video frames of the video media asset comprises extracting a first video frame at a position of the video media asset corresponding to a position of a time-stamped text portion of the video media asset.
Streijl discloses that as the synchronizer 300 receives and/or processes the audio-visual stream 302 of data and the stream 306 of closed captioning data, the closed captioning correction application 30 compares timing information 310 contained within each stream 302 and 306. The timing information 310 allows the closed captioning correction application 30 to determine if a synchronization error is present. The timing information 310, for example, may be time stamps or markers that are embedded within the audio-visual stream 302 of data and the stream 306 of closed captioning data (paragraph 61).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use time stamped text portion of the video asset as taught by Streijl, because that would help correct synchronization errors between the spoken, audible words and the textual, closed captioning data (paragraph 4).
As per claims 59, 69, Kasvari et al. in view of Tofighbakhsh do not specifically teach the text portion of the video media asset is generated for display by analyzing an audio stream of the video media asset, and wherein the text portion of the video media asset is time-stamped, the method further comprising: extracting the one or more video frames at a position of the video media asset corresponding to a position of the erroneous term in a time-stamped text portion of the video media asset.
Streijl discloses that as the synchronizer 300 receives and/or processes the audio-visual stream 302 of data and the stream 306 of closed captioning data, the closed captioning correction application 30 compares timing information 310 contained within each stream 302 and 306. The timing information 310 allows the closed captioning correction application 30 to determine if a synchronization error is present. The timing information 310, for example, may be time stamps or markers that are embedded within the audio-visual stream 302 of data and the stream 306 of closed captioning data (paragraph 61).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use time stamped text portion of the
video asset as taught by Streijl, because that would help correct synchronization errors between the spoken, audible words and the textual, closed captioning data (paragraph 4).
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Kang teaches METHOD FOR CORRECTING SYNCHRONIZATION ERRORS BETWEEN AUDIO SIGNALS AND VIDEO SIGNALS. Labrozzi et al. teach METHOD FOR TRANSCODING LIVE CLOSED CAPTIONS AND SUBTITLES. Cormack et al. teach Translation Of Text Encoded In Video Signals
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to LEONARD SAINT-CYR whose telephone number is (571)272-4247. The examiner can normally be reached Monday- Friday.
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, Richemond Dorvil can be reached at (571)272-7602. 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.
/LEONARD SAINT-CYR/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2658
Prosecution Insights