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 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.
Claim(s) 1, 3-4, 6-10, 12-13, 15-17, 19-22 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Zavesky (US 2017/0186241) in view of Begeja (US 2010/0122286).
Regarding claim 1, 10, 17, Zavesky discloses A system, comprising:
One or more memories; and
At least one processor each coupled to at least one of the memories and configured to perform operations comprising:
Identifying a first object in a frame of a content ([0019-0023]);
Generating an identifier for the first object in the frame, wherein the identifier comprises an array of numbers representing the first object in the frame ([0019, 0020, 0032] Using BRI, the generation of the 3d model with visual features includes the generation of an array of numbers) ;
Identifying a second object based on the identifier and a matching between the first and second objects ([0019-0023], fig. 5);
Zavesky does not specifically disclose displaying the second object on the first object in the frame of the content.
However, Begeja discloses displaying the second object on the first object in the frame of the content ([0042, 0043, 0046], fig. 4A, 4b, 5A, 5B). It would have been obvious before the filing date of the invention to incorporate the insertion of Begeja into the system of Zavesky in order to use space in order to display different content.
Regarding claim 3, 12,19, Begeja discloses identifying a homogeneous surface on the first object; and displaying the second object on the homogeneous surface of the first object ([0042,0043,0046).
Regarding claim 4, 13, 20, Begeja discloses wherein fitting the second object onto the homogeneous surface of the first object ([0042, 0043, 0046]).
Regarding claim 6, Zavesky discloses wherein displaying the second object on the first object in the frame of the content comprises modifying the frame of the content according to a content modification rule ([0034, 0037, 0043]).
Regarding claim 7, Zavesky discloses wherein the operations further comprise: identifying the second object according to a user preference ([0021]).
Regarding claim 8, 15, Zavesky discloses generating an additional identifier for the second object wherein the additional identifier comprises an additional array of numbers representing the second object ([0016]).
Regarding claim 9, 16, Zavesky discloses wherein identifying the second object comprises determining a distance between the array of numbers and the additional array of numbers ([0024, 0028, 0031, 0032, 0050]).
Regarding claim 21, Zavesky discloses wherein the array of numbers represents visual features and context of the first object in the frame of the content ([0028, 0031, 0032])
Regarding claim 22, Zavesky discloses wherein the array of numbers represents visual features and context of the first object in the frame of the content ([0028, 0031, 0032]).
Claim(s) 2, 11, 18 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Zavesky (US 2017/0186241) in view of Begeja (US 2010/0122286) in view of Ahanger (US 2008/0307454).
Regarding claim 2, 11,18, Zavesky in view of Begeja does not specifically disclose wherein displaying the second object on the first object in the frame of the content comprises displaying the second object during a pause of the content.
However, Ahanger discloses wherein displaying the second object on the first object in the frame of the content comprises displaying the second object during a pause of the content ([0159]). It would have been obvious before the filing date of the invention to incorporate the pause insertion of Ahanger into the system of Zavesky in view of Begeja in order to insert objects/content at break periods of content such as pauses.
Response to Arguments
Arguments are moot in view of new grounds of rejection.
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MICHAEL HYUN HONG whose telephone number is (571)270-1553. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 9:00-5:30.
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, Nasser Goodarzi can be reached at (571)272-4195. 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.
/MICHAEL H HONG/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2426
Prosecution Insights