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
Claims 1-20 of this application is patentably indistinct from claims 1-20 of Application No. 18/958,523. Pursuant to 37 CFR 1.78(f), when two or more applications filed by the same applicant or assignee contain patentably indistinct claims, elimination of such claims from all but one application may be required in the absence of good and sufficient reason for their retention during pendency in more than one application. Applicant is required to either cancel the patentably indistinct claims from all but one application or maintain a clear line of demarcation between the applications. See MPEP § 822.
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 1-20 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 34-55 of U.S. Patent No. 11,290,791. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because the claims of the instant application are a broader version of the patented invention.
Claims 1-20 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-18 of U.S. Patent No. 11,778,287. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because the claims of the instant application are a broader version of the patented invention.
Although claims of Patent 11,778,287 include the scope of claims 1-20 of instant application, Patent 11,778,287 claims do not include determining a threshold for a length of a customized highlight sequence; comparing the length of the generated customized highlight sequence to the threshold; and adjusting, based on the comparing, the length of the generated customized highlight sequence.
However, Tian teaches a system that generates video summaries based on users’ preferences which include maximum length of a desired summary. The system adjusts the selected segments of video in order to comply with the duration limit ([0122]; [0124]; [0129]; [0136]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to have modified Patent 11,778,287 claims with Tian’s feature of having a summary length threshold for the benefit of creating summaries that fit users’ time availability.
Claims 1-20 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-20 of U.S. Patent No. 12,262,100. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because the claims of the instant application are a broader version of the patented invention.
Although claims of Patent 11,778,287 include the scope of claims 1-20 of instant application, Patent 11,778,287 claims do not include determining a threshold for a length of a customized highlight sequence; comparing the length of the generated customized highlight sequence to the threshold; and adjusting, based on the comparing, the length of the generated customized highlight sequence.
However, Tian teaches a system that generates video summaries based on users’ preferences which include maximum length of a desired summary. The system adjusts the selected segments of video in order to comply with the duration limit ([0122]; [0124]; [0129]; [0136]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to have modified Patent 11,778,287 claims with Tian’s feature of having a summary length threshold for the benefit of creating summaries that fit users’ time availability.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
Claim(s) 1-5, 7-15 and 17-20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Tian et al. (hereinafter ‘Tian’, Pub. No. 2010/0005485) in view of Osminer (Pub. No. 2013/0268620).
Regarding claims 1, 10 and 19, Tian teaches a system (with corresponding method and a non-transitory storage medium) (Fig. 3; [0067]) comprising:
a computer readable non-transitory storage medium storing computer program instructions; and at least one processor configured to execute the computer program ([0067]; [0069]) instructions to cause the system to perform operations comprising:
identifying a plurality of occurrences within a source content ([0064]; [0072]-[0076]);
prioritizing the plurality of occurrences ([0122]; [0134]); and
determining a threshold for a length of a customized highlight sequence ([0122]);
generating the customized highlight sequence (Abstract; [0122]) by:
selecting, based on the prioritizing, a subset of the plurality of occurrences ([0122]-[0130]);
assembling segments corresponding to the subset of the plurality of occurrences to generate the customized highlight sequence ([0122]-[0130]);
comparing the length of the generated customized highlight sequence to the threshold; and adjusting, based on the comparing, the length of the generated customized highlight sequence (the customized highlight sequence can be adjusted based on the user required total length, [0122]; [0124]; [0129]; [0136]).
On the other hand, Tian does not explicitly teach prioritizing the plurality of occurrences based on an excitement level associated with a user.
However, in analogous art, Osminer teaches a system for automated, targeted highlight reel creation from sources by identifying moments and events of interest ([0139]; [0140]). Excitement data is used to mark, along with timestamp, to uniquely identify the clips. The system uses different criteria to target the clips for a user or group of users. Among the criteria, the system identifies occurrences using popularity on social networks ([0087]); user preferences ([0109]; [0146]); threshold level of excitement ([0151]); different type of events and circumstances of the content ([0162]-[0166]); crowdsourcing ([0171]; [0172]); and using the judgment of the user along with other users if a piece of the content is believed the exciting by passing a threshold excitement level ([0174]) (among other criteria). Once the video clips are put together are sent to the user for viewing ([0139]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Tian’s invention with Osminer’s feature of using excitement level data to prioritize the sections/segments to be used for the summary wherein the individualized excitement level is unique to a group of user comprising the user for the benefit of increasing the chance of providing summaries that are closer to the preference of the most number of viewers possible.
Regarding claims 2, 11 and 20, Tian and Osminer teach further comprising:
automatically determining, by the computing system, the excitement level (Osminer: [0146]; [0158]-[0160]; [0164]; [0174]).
Regarding claims 3 and 12, Tian and Osminer teach determining, by the computing system, a characteristic of the user, the characteristic comprising the user’s affinity for at least one a team, sport, player, or league of the sporting event (Tian: [0064]; [0065]; [0068]; [0122]; [0134]).
Regarding claims 4 and 13, Tian and Osminer teach wherein automatically determining the excitement level comprises:
tracking, by the computing system, user behavior of the user (Tian: [0134]. Osminer: [0146]; [0158]-[0160]; [0164]; [0174]).
Regarding claims 5 and 14, Tian and Osminer teach wherein automatically determining the excitement level comprises:
querying, by the computing system, the user (Tian: [0122]).
Regarding claims 6 and 15, Tian and Osminer teach wherein the source content is associated with a sporting event (Tian: [0064]; [0076]; [0128]), wherein the excitement level is based on attributes of the sporting event (Osminer: threshold level of excitement ([0151]); different type of events and circumstances of the content ([0162]-[0166]).
Regarding claims 7 and 16, Tian and Osminer teach wherein the attributes of the sporting event comprise at least one of teams playing at the sporting event, players playing at the sporting event, pace of the sporting event, parity between the teams playing at the sporting event, novelties during the sporting event, momentum of the sporting event, or social media activity associated with the sporting event (Tian: [0064]; [0065]; [0068]; [0122]; [0134]. Osminer: [0162]-[0166]).
Regarding claims 9 and 18, Tian, Osminer and Baker teach wherein the source content comprises at least one of: a live broadcast; a recorded broadcast; a video archive; content from a website; content from a video-sharing site; content stored on a server; content stored on a mobile computing device; content stored on a camera; on-demand content; content stored locally; content captured by a device associated with the user; and pre-curated content (Tian: [0062]).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 8 and 17 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
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Hoang et al. (Pub. No. 2014/0325568): teaches including transitional videos in between selected videos in a highlight reel ([0040]-[0047]).
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to OMAR S PARRA whose telephone number is (571)270-1449. The examiner can normally be reached M-F: Mostly 10-6PM.
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, Nathan Flynn can be reached at 571-2721915. 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.
/OMAR S PARRA/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2421