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 .
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 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.
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 of this title, 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 set forth in Graham v. John Deere Co., 383 U.S. 1, 148 USPQ 459 (1966), that are applied 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.
Claims 2 – 21 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Nishida et al, (Publication: US 2011/0208593 A1) in view of Ioffe et al. (Publication: US 2017/0078718 A1).
1. (Cancelled)
Regarding claim 2, see rejection on claim 10.
Regarding claim 3, see rejection on claim 11.
Regarding claim 4, see rejection on claim 12.
Regarding claim 5, see rejection on claim 13.
Regarding claim 6, see rejection on claim 14.
Regarding claim 7, see rejection on claim 15.
Regarding claim 8, see rejection on claim 16.
Regarding claim 9, see rejection on claim 17.
Regarding claim 10, Nishida discloses one or more non-transitory computer readable medium storing instructions that, upon execution, cause one or more data processing apparatus to perform a method comprising ([0027], [0045], Fig. 1 - an electronic advertisement apparatus contains a computer. It is known that a computer has a memory stored instruction, processed by the processor to perform the following: ):
providing one or more portions of executable code configured to cause a client device to perform operations comprising ( [0027], [0045], Fig. 1 – several devices, clients, controlled by the main control device, contains a computer, to perform operations: ):
obtaining rendering parameters specifying a sub-portion of rendered content that is required to be processed to determine whether a specified content element is included in the rendered content, wherein the sub-portion is less than all of the rendered content (
[0054] – S11 Extract Facial Image from a passerby, “sub-portion” , “sub-portion is less than all of the rendered content”.
[0054] to [0058] - S12 control unit 37 determines (examines) whether or not the following four requirements are satisfied , included in the rendere content(step S12). The followings steps obtaining the values of “rendering parameters”
(1) The passerby 10 is near the center of a field of view of the camera 3.
(2) The passerby 10 is within a predetermined range in the vicinity of the camera 3.
(3) The face of the passerby 10 directly opposes the display device 2.
(4) A predetermined time has elapsed since the image of the passerby 10 was captured by the camera 3 (the passerby 10 has remained within the range of the field of view of the camera 3 for longer than the predetermined time). );
capturing a representation of the sub-portion of the rendered content ([0054] – S11 Extract Facial Image from a passerby, “sub-portion” , “sub-portion is less than all of the rendered content”.);
determining, based on the comparing, whether the specified content element is included in the sub-portion of the rendered content ([0054] to [0058] - S12 control unit 37 determines (examines) whether or not the following four requirements are satisfied , included in the rendered content(step S12). Comparing (1) The passerby 10 is near the center of a field of view of the camera 3, “determine”.);
generating verification data specifying whether the specified content element is included in the sub-portion of the rendered content based on the determination (
[0054], [0065], Fig. 8, Facial Image was not displayed in response to the step S12, Fourt Requirements is not satisfied, “generating verification data”.
The followings steps obtaining “whether the specified content element is included in the sub-portion”
(1) The passerby 10 is near the center of a field of view of the camera 3.
(2) The passerby 10 is within a predetermined range in the vicinity of the camera 3.
(3) The face of the passerby 10 directly opposes the display device 2. ); and
receiving the verification data specifying whether the content element was detected in the rendered content (
[0066] After determining that the four requirements described are satisfied (step S12: YES), “content element was detected in the rendered content”, the'control unit 37 (the facial image extraction device 5) extracts a feature value from the facial region image of the passerby 10 (step S13), “receiving the verification data”.).
Nishida does not disclose; however, loffe discloses
comparing one or more pixels of the sub-portion of the rendered content to a separately stored version of the specified content element ([0030], [0031] - The content identifier 135 obtains digital summaries, pixels, from various portions of an uploaded video and compares the digital summaries to a database of digital summaries for other content. The digital summary may be a fingerprint (i.e., a condensed representation of the content), a watermark (i.e., a perceptible or imperceptible marker inserted into the content by the content creator or distributor), or any other condensed information extracted from content to enable identification.);
transmitting the data to the one or more data processing apparatus ([0098] The degraded content generator 314 may store 460 the degraded video in the content store 131. Subsequently, the video server 130 provides the degraded video to client devices 110 requesting the uploaded video. The video server 130 may access the degraded video from the content store 131 in response to a client device request, or the video server 130 may use the content degrader 137 to generate the degraded video in response to the request from the client device); and
receiving, from the client device, the data ([0098] The degraded content generator 314 may store 460 the degraded video in the content store 131. Subsequently, the video server 130 provides the degraded video to client devices 110 requesting the uploaded video. The video server 130 may access the degraded video from the content store 131 in response to a client device request, or the video server 130 may use the content degrader 137 to generate the degraded video in response to the request from the client device).
Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify Nishida with comparing one or more pixels of the sub-portion of the rendered content to a separately stored version of the specified content element ; transmitting the data to the one or more data processing apparatus; and receiving, from the client device, the data as taught by Ioffe. The motivation for doing is to compare the content with the power of server thus have less complicate method of determination of whether the uploaded video contains third party content.
Regarding claim 11, Nishida in view of loffe disclose all the limitation of claim 10.
Nishida discloses wherein obtaining the rendering parameters comprises obtaining rendering parameters specifying distortions that are present in the sub-portion of the rendered content ([0059], [0065] - determining that the four requirements in the facial region.
The following is the parameters specifying distortions:
[0060] Next, to determine whether or not condition (1) is satisfied, a determination is made as to whether or not the facial image is positioned within a circle having a predetermined radius r or a predetermined rectangle from the center of a frame image. When the facial image is positioned within the circle or rectangle, it is determined that the condition is satisfied.
[0061] Next, to determine whether or not condition (2) is satisfied, a determination is made as to whether or not a size of the face in the frame image is equal to or greater than a reference value. When the size of the face is equal to or greater than the reference value, it may be determined that the passerby 10 is within the predetermined range in the vicinity of the camera 3.
[0062] Next, to determine whether or not condition (3) is satisfied, a determination is made as to whether or not a set of two black points (estimated to be images of eyes) at a fixed distance (corresponding to 10 to 18 cm) can be extracted from the facial image. When a set of two black points (estimated to be images of eyes) at a fixed distance (corresponding to 10 to 18 cm) can be extracted from the facial image, it may be determined that both eyes are oriented in the direction of the camera 3, and therefore that the passerby 10 directly opposes the display device 2.
[0063] Next, to determine whether or not condition (4) is satisfied, a feature value of the face is determined from the facial image. Furthermore, the image output by the camera 3 is checked again following the elapse of a predetermined time to determine whether or not conditions (1) to (3) remain satisfied and the feature value is identical.).
Regarding claim 12, Nishida in view of loffe disclose all the limitation of claim 10.
Nishida discloses wherein capturing a representation of the sub-portion of the rendered content comprises capturing an audio clip ([0040] - The speaker 4 is a device that outputs audio in alignment with the images displayed on the display device 2.
[0048] - an address (a URL (Uniform Resource Locator)) of a storage position of an advertising image (a moving image including audio, for example) to be displayed, “audio clip” .).
Regarding claim 13, Nishida in view of loffe disclose all the limitation of claim 10.
Ioffe discloses only presenting the rendered content in response to determining that the content element is included in the rendered content ([0071] - If the matching portion is a video portion including a matching display area, the portion separator 303 identifies the frames of the video that include the display area. The portion separator 303 crops the identified frames to include only the pixels in the display area and outputs the cropped identified frames as the matching portion. The portion separator 303 outputs the original portion by combining the frames that do not include a display area with the pixels of the identified frames that are outside of the identified display area, the crop is performed after determining that only the pixels in the display area and outputs the cropped identified frames as the matching portion.).
Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify Nishida in view of Ioffe with only presenting the rendered content in response to determining that the content element is included in the rendered content as taught by Ioffe. The motivation for doing is to have less complicate method of determination of whether the uploaded video contains third party content.
Regarding claim 14, Nishida in view of loffe disclose all the limitation of claim 10.
Nishida discloses transmitting a signal to a specified system indicating whether the content element was detected in the rendered content (
[0071] - for example a character image (facial image) 13 shown in FIG. 10, on the display device 2 together with a predetermined message 14. Note that in FIG. 10, "70% similar" is displayed, “indicating”.
As shown in Fig. 2 – signals are transmitted between different devices including Display and Main Control Device.
PNG
media_image1.png
520
488
media_image1.png
Greyscale
).
Regarding claim 15, Nishida in view of loffe disclose all the limitation of claim 10.
Nishida discloses transmitting a signal to the client device prohibiting the client device from displaying the rendered content in response to the verification data specifying that the content element was not detected in the sub-portion of the rendered content (
[0054], [0065], Fig. 8, Facial Image was not displayed in response to the step S12, Fourt Requirements is not satisfied, “content element was not detected”.
The followings steps obtaining the values of “rendering parameters”
(1) The passerby 10 is near the center of a field of view of the camera 3.
(2) The passerby 10 is within a predetermined range in the vicinity of the camera 3.
(3) The face of the passerby 10 directly opposes the display device 2.
As shown in Fig. 2 – signals are transmitted between different devices including Display and Main Control Device.
PNG
media_image1.png
520
488
media_image1.png
Greyscale
).
Regarding claim 16, Nishida in view of loffe disclose all the limitation of claim 10.
Nishida discloses determining one or more distortions of the content element caused by rendering the rendered content (
[0059], [0065] - determining that the four requirements in the facial region, distortions.
The following is the parameters specifying distortions:
[0060] Next, to determine whether or not condition (1) is satisfied, a determination is made as to whether or not the facial image is positioned within a circle having a predetermined radius r or a predetermined rectangle from the center of a frame image. When the facial image is positioned within the circle or rectangle, it is determined that the condition is satisfied.
[0061] Next, to determine whether or not condition (2) is satisfied, a determination is made as to whether or not a size of the face in the frame image is equal to or greater than a reference value. When the size of the face is equal to or greater than the reference value, it may be determined that the passerby 10 is within the predetermined range in the vicinity of the camera 3.
[0062] Next, to determine whether or not condition (3) is satisfied, a determination is made as to whether or not a set of two black points (estimated to be images of eyes) at a fixed distance (corresponding to 10 to 18 cm) can be extracted from the facial image. When a set of two black points (estimated to be images of eyes) at a fixed distance (corresponding to 10 to 18 cm) can be extracted from the facial image, it may be determined that both eyes are oriented in the direction of the camera 3, and therefore that the passerby 10 directly opposes the display device 2.
[0063] Next, to determine whether or not condition (4) is satisfied, a feature value of the face is determined from the facial image. Furthermore, the image output by the camera 3 is checked again following the elapse of a predetermined time to determine whether or not conditions (1) to (3) remain satisfied and the feature value is identical.).
Regarding claim 17, Nishida in view of loffe disclose all the limitation of claim 10.
Nishida discloses cause the client device to perform operations comprising presenting the rendered content in at least one of a browser, social network application, game, map application, or newsfeed based on the determination that the specified content element is included in the rendered content (
[0054], [0070] - Fig. 8 - Facial Image and Message are displayed on Step S17 on a program, “social network”, based on the determination of S12, Four Requirement Satisfied from the Main Control Device.
[0040], Fig. 2 - display device, “client” performs display from the Main Control Device. ).
Regarding claim 18, see rejection on claim 10.
Regarding claim 19, see rejection on claim 11.
Regarding claim 21, see rejection on claim 12.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MING WU whose telephone number is (571)270-0724. The examiner can normally be reached on Monday - Thursday and alternate Fridays: 9:30am - 6:00pm EST .
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, Devona Faulk can be reached on 571-272-7515. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/MING WU/
Primary Examiner, Art Unit 261
Prosecution Insights