DETAILED ACTION
This action is responsive to Applicant Arguments and Remarks filed on May 26, 2026.
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 .
Response to Amendment
Applicant's Remarks, filed May 26, 2026, has been fully considered and entered.
Accordingly, Claims 1-20 are pending in this application. Claims 1, 11 and 20 are independent. No claim amendments.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments, see pages 8-12, filed May 26, 2026, with respect to the rejection of claims 1, 11 and 20 have been fully considered, but they are not persuasive.
Argument 1: Applicant argues on pages 10-11 of Applicant Arguments and Remarks that Pereira does not disclose comparing a second subset of query fingerprints to a subset of secondary reference fingerprints, because Pereira’s signature correlation process compares the query signatures against the corresponding reference signatures rather than a separated non-matching subset.
Response to Argument 1: Examiner respectfully disagrees. Claim 1 recites “comparing the second subset of query fingerprints to a subset of secondary reference fingerprints”. The claim requires that the second subset be compared, it does not recite comparing only the second subset, and it does not exclude the first subset from that comparison. Pereira [0134] disclose that “For each query signature, a similarity search is performed, with a specified signature distance, within this small set of signatures from the reference database.” The signatures compared are those of query fingerprint 224 (the set from which both the first and second subsets are obtained). A comparison performed on every member of that set is necessarily a comparison performed on each of it subsets, including the second subset.
Applicant’s specification [0037] confirms that the secondary identification server “also compares the set of matching fingerprints with the subset of fingerprints from the secondary reference library”, with the second threshold determination made “based on the comparison of both the set of matching fingerprints and the set of non-matching fingerprints with the subset of reference fingerprints” Thus, Pereira teaches the required limitation of claim 1.
Therefore, the Examiner has determined that this argument is not persuasive.
Argument 2: Applicant argues on page 10 of Applicant Arguments and Remarks that “no subset of the query signatures is identified by Pereira as not matching or being similar”
Response to Argument 2: Examiner respectfully disagrees. This argument is directed to a limitation that was addressed by the combination of Pereira and Reference2. Page 5 of the Office Action indicate that “Pereira lacks details regarding identifying a second subset of query fingerprints does not satisfy the first threshold extent of similarity to one or more reference fingerprints in the set of reference fingerprints” and applied Reference2 for this limitation. Pereira [0127] inherently partitions the query signatures during the similarity search, where a signature record is inserted into candidate list 1010 only “If the distance computed is less than or equal to the specified signature distance R”, so signatures exceeding R form a distinct set. Reference2 [0033-0036, 0049-0051] explicitly disclose making the partition by selecting local components above 90% match/confidence threshold and determining the condition in which no component matches. Thus, Pereira in view of Reference2 teaches this limitation.
Therefore, the Examiner has determined that this argument is not persuasive.
Argument 3: Applicant argues on pages 10-11 of Applicant Arguments and Remarks that Pereira’s correlation compares query signatures to the corresponding reference signatures, not to secondary reference fingerprints that are based on an identified candidate reference media file.
Response to Argument 3: Examiner respectfully disagrees. The argued claim limitation recites “wherein the subset of secondary reference fingerprints is based on the identified at least one candidate reference media file;” Pereira selects the set of reference signatures accessed for signature correlation using the identifier of the candidate itself. See Pereira [0072, 0132-0133] “For each of the clips in the top clips list 244 [Thus, in response to identifying the at least one candidate reference media file], a set of signatures is accessed from the reference database 208 given the multimedia identifier and any temporal and/or spatial information… the matching time range can be inferred from the candidate list… with a matching time range and the associated database clip, corresponding signatures [e.g. a subset of secondary reference fingerprints] are accessed from the signature database using the secondary index [e.g. a secondary reference library]”
Both the multimedia identifier and the time range are obtained based on the candidate clip identified from the first subset, and the matched/accessed subset is based on the identified candidate. Thus, Pereira teaches that the subset of secondary reference fingerprints is based on the identified at least one candidate reference media file.
Therefore, the Examiner has determined that this argument is not persuasive.
Argument 4: Applicant argues on page 11 of Applicant Arguments and Remarks “At paragraph [0053], relied on by the Office Action at pages 8-9 as allegedly disclosing the features identified above, Reference2 discusses that one or more identifier databases are communicatively coupled to the user system that comprise mapping information between different identifiers for given media content components/files… even assuming for the sake of argument that the local media content identifiers of Reference2 that do not match a playlist/matchup disclose the claimed second subset of query fingerprints, those local media content identifiers are not compared to secondary reference fingerprints that are based on an identified candidate reference media file.”
Response to Argument 4: Examiner respectfully disagrees. The argued claim limitation recites in part “comparing the second subset of query fingerprints to a subset of secondary reference fingerprints associated with a plurality of secondary reference media files stored in a secondary reference library”, Pereira alone teaches the argued limitation in its entirety, so Applicant’s argument directed to Refrence2 does not reach the rejection. As indicated in Response to Arguments 3 above, Pereira [0072, 0132-0134] accesses the set of reference signature for signature correlation “given the multimedia identifier and any temporal and/or spatial information” of the clip taken from top clips list 244, with the matching time range inferred from the candidate list 1306, and then compares the query signatures against that set. Pereira teaches a comparison of the second subset, against a subset of reference fingerprints, obtained from the secondary index.
Regarding Reference2 teachings, Applicant states that “the local media content identifiers of Reference2 that do not match a playlist/matchup disclose the claimed second subset of query fingerprints”, but this is not the mapping of record. The Office Action mapped the playlist/mashup identifiers 602, which are received by the user system 102 from media server 104, to the query fingerprints, and the local media content identifiers 114 to the reference fingerprints against which they are compared. Reference2 [0053-0055] teaches that upon determining that none of the local media content identifiers match a playlist/mashup identifier 602, the media manager queries one or more identifier databases (repositories distinct from the local identifier store, comprising “mapping information between different identifiers for given media content components/files”) for alternative identifiers associated with that identifier 602. The media manager then “compares each of these alternative identifiers to its local media content identifiers 114 and determines if a match exists”, and upon a match “determines that a local media content component 113 (or file 112) corresponding to the playlist/mashup identifier 602 is available”. Thus, Reference2 teaches that a fingerprint failing the first comparison are resolved trough a second comparison against a different repository, and a particular corresponding file is identified from that second comparison.
Reference2 [0042-0046] (used of claims 3-5) further teaches that “If a match is found the media manager 110 analyzes the matching local media content identifier 114 to determine if it is associated with any other identifiers or content/files. For example, an identifier can be associated with metadata comprising identifiers corresponding to other versions of the media component/file. The media manager 110 analyzes these other identifiers or media content components/files to identify a given version, such as a different language version”. Thus, the matching local identifier is the identified candidate, the other version identifiers associated with it are a subset of secondary fingerprints, the alternative version files are a plurality of secondary reference media files, and the subset is obtained because the candidate was first identified.
Because Pereira independently teaches the argued limitation, Applicant’s argument as to what Reference2 teaches not are not persuasive. Therefore the Examiner has determined that this argument is not persuasive.
Argument 5: Applicant argues on page 11 of Applicant Arguments and Remarks “without conceding the propriety of the proposed combination, the Applicant respectfully submits that, even in view of the knowledge of one of ordinary skill in the art, the proposed combination cannot and does not teach or suggest the entirety of the features”
Response to Argument 5: Examiner respectfully disagrees. The Examiner respectfully points out that the test for obviousness is not that the claimed invention must be expressly suggested in any one or all of the references. Rather, the test is what the combined teachings of the references would have suggested to those of ordinary skill in the art. Obviousness can only be established by combining or modifying the teachings of the prior art to produce the claimed invention where there is some teaching, suggestion, or motivation to do so found either in the references themselves or in the knowledge generally available to one of ordinary skill in the art. See In re Fine, 837 F.2d 1071, 5 USPQ2d 1596 (Fed. Cir. 1988) and In re Jones, 958 F.2d 347, 21 USPQ2d 1941 (Fed. Cir. 1992).
One cannot show non-obviousness by attacking references individually where the rejections are based on combinations of references. See In re Keller, 642 F.2d 413,208 USPQ 871 (CCPA 1981); In re Merck & Co., Inc., 800 F.2d 1091, 231 USPQ 375 (Fed. Cir. 1986). See MPEP 2145. As set forth in the latest Non-Final office action, the combined teachings of Pereira and Reference2 would have suggested the claimed subject matter to those of ordinary skill in the art.
In order to be entitled to reconsideration or further examination, the applicant or patent owner must reply to the Office action. The reply by the applicant or patent owner must be reduced to a writing which distinctly and specifically points out the supposed errors in the examiner’s action and must reply to every ground of objection and rejection in the prior Office action.
No argument is directed to the rationale at page 6 of the Office Action, and a general allegation that the claims define a patentable invention without specifically pointing out how the language of the claims patentably distinguishes them from the references does not comply with the requirements of this section (37 C.F.R. § 1.111(b) Reply by applicant or patent owner to a non-final Office action).
The rationale of record combining Pereira; which teaches a subset split via an initial similarity search, where query signatures that satisfies a distance threshold compared to signatures in a reference database are collected into a candidate list (e.g. first subset), and implicitly identifies query signatures that do not contribute to the candidate list (e.g. second subset), with Reference2 which identifies matching vs non-matching subsets of fingerprints when comparing them to fingerprints associated with local media component based on a given similarity threshold, and when non-matching fingerprints are identified, it queries an external source associated with query fingerprints to further identify a corresponding media content component (or file), to improve robustness by further matching query media against reference libraries, is maintained.
Therefore, the Examiner has determined that this argument is not persuasive.
Examiner note that Applicant’s footnote 1 is correct and the typographical error is acknowledged and addressed in this Office Action. The statement at page 2 that “claims 1-20 are rejected” over Pereira in view of Reference2 should have read “claims 1-8, 10-17 and 19-20” Claims 9 and 18 stand rejected under the separate ground set forth in page 19.
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.
Claims 1-8, 10-17 and 19-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Pereira (US Patent Application Publication No. US 20190251114 A1), in view of Choque (US Patent Application Publication No. US 20140280272 A1 – Hereinafter Reference2).
Regarding claim 1, Pereira teaches a method comprising: receiving a set of query fingerprints associated with a media file; (See Pereira [0069] “FIG. 2B illustrates a query fingerprint generation process 220… The query multimedia clip 222 is processed by the video fingerprinting function 203 to generate query signatures, hash data, and associated metadata, known collectively as a query fingerprint 224” See also Pereira claim 1 “obtaining [Thus, receiving], by one or more computing devices, a pair of query signatures [e.g. receiving a set of query fingerprints] corresponding to a query sequence of media content [e.g. associated with a media file];”
Examiner notes that based on the Specification paragraph [0015] “As used herein, "media content" and "media files" are used interchangeably”, the broadest reasonable interpretation of the term “media file” include media content.)
comparing the set of query fingerprints to a set of reference fingerprints associated with a plurality of primary reference media files stored in a primary reference library; (See Pereira [0067] “FIG. 2A illustrates a reference media database [e.g. primary reference library] generation process 200 in accordance with the present invention. Reference multimedia clips 202 1, 202 2, . . . 202 N that are relevant to the application at hand are identified. The clips 202 1, 202 2, . . . 202 N refer to distinct pieces of multimedia content [e.g. plurality of primary reference media files]… Using a video fingerprinting function 203 of the video fingerprinting and search system 112, reference signatures [e.g. reference fingerprints] 204 1, 204 2, . . . 204 N are generated for the reference multimedia clips 202 1, 202 2, . . . 202 N” See also Pereira claim 1 “searching, by the one or more computing devices, a reference database [e.g. primary reference library], using the pair of query signatures so as to identify a set of reference signatures [e.g. set of reference fingerprints associated with a plurality of primary reference media files stored in a primary reference library] that are within a distance measure of the pair of query signatures [Thus, comparing the set of query fingerprints to a set of reference fingerprints];”)
based on comparing the set of query fingerprints to the set of reference fingerprints, identifying, from the set of query fingerprints, a first subset of query fingerprints and a second subset of query fingerprints, wherein the first subset of query fingerprints satisfies a first threshold extent of similarity to one or more reference fingerprints in the set of reference fingerprints, and wherein the second subset of query fingerprints does not satisfy the first threshold extent of similarity to one or more reference fingerprints in the set of reference fingerprints; (See Pereira [0069-0070, 0127] “FIG. 2B illustrates a query fingerprint generation process 220… The query multimedia clip 222 is processed by the video fingerprinting function 203 to generate query signatures, hash data, and associated metadata, known collectively as a query fingerprint 224… For each query signature [e.g. a first subset of query fingerprints and a second subset of query fingerprints] in the query fingerprint 224, a similarity search function 232 is initiated to find similar signatures in the reference database 208 [Thus, by using each query signature to initiate a similarity search to find similar signatures, it is identifying each query signature (e.g. subsets of query fingerprints)]… Only reference signatures that are “similar” within a distance measure to the query signature [e.g. first subset of query fingerprints] are returned [Thus, satisfies a first threshold extent of similarity to one or more reference fingerprints in the set of reference fingerprints]. These classified similar reference signatures are added to a candidate list 234, which contains identifying information regarding which reference multimedia clip 202 1, 202 2, . . . 202 N the similar reference signature belongs… the distance between the query signature and each signature in the set to be compared, is computed… If the distance computed is less than or equal to the specified signature distance R, then this signature record is inserted into a candidate list 1010. [Thus, query fingerprints that exceed distance R do not contribute to the candidate list (e.g. second subset of query fingerprints)].”)
Pereira lacks details regarding identifying a second subset of query fingerprints does not satisfy the first threshold extent of similarity to one or more reference fingerprints in the set of reference fingerprints.
However, Reference2 teaches identifying the second subset of query fingerprints does not satisfy the first threshold extent of similarity to one or more reference fingerprints in the set of reference fingerprints more explicitly. (See Reference2 [0033-0036, 0049-0051] “Once the identifier(s) [e.g. query fingerprints] for the external media content component 113 has been computed/obtained the comparator 124 of the media manager 110 compares this identifier to the identifiers 114 of the user's local media content components 113 [e.g. comparing the set of query fingerprints to the set of reference fingerprints] to identify a matching or substantially similarly set of media content components [e.g. identifying a first subset of query fingerprints and a second subset of query fingerprints]. For example, FIG. 3 shows one example of an identifier 302 [e.g. first/second subset of query fingerprints] calculated for a media content component 121 of an external media file 120 and a plurality 304 of identifiers [e.g. set of reference fingerprints] associated with local media content components 113… the media manager 110 selects the local media content component 113 with the highest matching signature/fingerprint that is above a 90% match/confidence [e.g. first subset of query fingerprints satisfies a first threshold extent of similarity]… If the media manager 110 cannot identify a local media content component 113 that matches the external media component 121 at least within a given threshold [e.g. second subset of query fingerprints does not satisfy the first threshold extent of similarity to one or more reference fingerprints in the set of reference fingerprints], the media manager 110 notifies the user… the user system 102 receives the playlist/mashup 600 from the media server 104… and identifies each of the identifiers 602 within the playlist/mashup 600. The media manager 110 compares each of the playlist/mashup identifiers 602 from with the local media content identifiers 114. The media manager 110 then determines if any of the local media content identifiers 114 match any of the playlist/mashup identifiers 602… if a local match does not exist for a playlist/mashup identifier 602 [e.g. second subset of query fingerprints does not satisfy the first threshold extent of similarity to one or more reference fingerprints in the set of reference fingerprints] the media manager 110 queries the external source associated with the playlist/mashup identifier 602 to identify the corresponding media content component (or file).”)
It would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Pereira; which teaches a subset split via an initial similarity search, where query signatures that satisfies a distance threshold compared to signatures in a reference database are collected into a candidate list (e.g. first subset), and implicitly identifies query signatures that do not contribute to the candidate list (e.g. second subset), to incorporate the teachings of Reference2 which identifies matching vs non-matching subsets of fingerprints when comparing them to fingerprints associated with local media component based on a given similarity threshold, and when non-matching fingerprints are identified, it queries an external source associated with query fingerprints to further identify a corresponding media content component (or file).
One would be motivated to do so to improve robustness by further matching query media against reference libraries.
Pereira further in view of Reference2, [hereinafter Pereira-Reference2 additionally disclose based on identifying the first subset of query fingerprints, identifying at least one candidate reference media file of the plurality of primary reference media files associated with the one or more reference fingerprints in the set of reference fingerprints; (See Pereira [0007, 0070-0071] “the invention addresses a method of searching reference multimedia signatures that represent audio and video content of reference multimedia clips for a corresponding query multimedia clip… For each query signature in the query fingerprint 224 [Thus, based on identifying the first subset of query fingerprints], a similarity search function 232 is initiated to find similar signatures in the reference database 208… Only reference signatures that are “similar” within a distance measure to the query signature are returned. These classified similar reference signatures are added to a candidate list 234… The candidate list 234 is sorted in top multimedia clips function 242 to find the top most likely matching multimedia clips [e.g. identifying at least one candidate reference media file of the plurality of primary reference media files associated with the one or more reference fingerprints in the set of reference fingerprints]. The resulting data is stored in a list of top clips 244.”
Reference2 also teaches based on identifying the first subset of query fingerprints, identifying at least one candidate reference media file of the plurality of primary reference media files associated with the one or more reference fingerprints in the set of reference fingerprints; (See Reference2 [0036] “ Therefore, the media manager 110 selects the local media content component 113 [Thus, based on identifying the first subset of query fingerprints, identifying at least one candidate reference media file of the plurality of primary reference media files associated with the one or more reference fingerprints in the set of reference fingerprints] with the highest matching signature/fingerprint that is above a 90% match/confidence.”)
in response to identifying the at least one candidate reference media file, comparing the second subset of query fingerprints to a subset of secondary reference fingerprints associated with a plurality of secondary reference media files stored in a secondary reference library, wherein the subset of secondary reference fingerprints is based on the identified at least one candidate reference media file; (See Pereira [0072, 0132-0134] “For each of the clips in the top clips list 244 [Thus, in response to identifying the at least one candidate reference media file], a set of signatures is accessed from the reference database 208 given the multimedia identifier and any temporal and/or spatial information… In a first step 1302, a time range of the potentially matching reference multimedia clip is determined from the reference database… the matching time range can be inferred from the candidate list 1306 [Thus, in response to identifying the at least one candidate reference media file] by analyzing a correspondence in time between the database clip and the query clip… with a matching time range [Thus, based on the identified at least one candidate reference media file] and the associated database clip, corresponding signatures [e.g. a subset of secondary reference fingerprints] are accessed from the signature database using the secondary index [e.g. a secondary reference library] as illustrated in FIG. 9B… The signatures for the matching time range of the reference are now compared [e.g. comparing the second subset of query fingerprints to a subset of secondary reference fingerprints associated with a plurality of secondary reference media files stored in a secondary reference library] with the query signatures [e.g. second subset of query fingerprints].”
Reference2 also teaches comparing the second subset of query fingerprints to a subset of secondary reference fingerprints associated with a plurality of secondary reference media files stored in a secondary reference library. (See Reference2 [0053] “once the media manager 110 determines that none of its local media content identifiers match a playlist/mashup identifier 602 [e.g. second subset of query fingerprints] the media manager 110 queries one or more identifier databases [e.g. secondary reference library] for alternative identifiers [e.g. subset of secondary reference fingerprints] associated with the playlist/mashup identifier 602 [Thus, comparing the second subset of query fingerprints to a subset of secondary reference fingerprints associated with a plurality of secondary reference media files stored in a secondary reference library]… The media manager receives one or more alternative identifiers associated with the playlist/mashup identifier 602 from the queried identifier database(s).”)
based on comparing the second subset of query fingerprints to the subset of secondary reference fingerprints associated with the plurality of secondary reference media files, identifying a particular reference media file of the plurality of secondary reference media files, wherein the second subset of query fingerprints satisfies a second threshold extent of similarity to reference fingerprints associated with the particular reference media file; and (See Pereira [0134-0136] “The signatures for the matching time range of the reference are now compared with the query signatures [Thus, based on comparing the second subset of query fingerprints to the subset of secondary reference fingerprints associated with the plurality of secondary reference media files]… In a third step 1310, for each query signature, a score is derived based on the distances to the closest signatures in the reference database signature subset [e.g. secondary reference media files]… The score for each query signature may be averaged for the entire set of query signatures to give an overall score for the particular reference clip match [Thus, identifying a particular reference media file of the plurality of secondary reference media files]… the overall score is subjected to a threshold test which determines whether the database clip is considered a match 1314. [Thus, satisfies a second threshold extent of similarity to reference fingerprints associated with the particular reference media file]”)
Reference2 also teaches based on comparing the second subset of query fingerprints to the subset of secondary reference fingerprints associated with the plurality of secondary reference media files, identifying a particular reference media file of the plurality of secondary reference media files, wherein the second subset of query fingerprints satisfies a second threshold extent of similarity to reference fingerprints associated with the particular reference media file. (See Reference2 [0054-0055] “The media manager 110 compares each of these alternative identifiers [Thus, based on comparing the second subset of query fingerprints to the subset of secondary reference fingerprints associated with the plurality of secondary reference media files] to its local media content identifiers 114 and determines if a match exists. If a match does exist [e.g. the second subset of query fingerprints satisfies a second threshold extent of similarity to reference fingerprints associated with the particular reference media file], the media manager 110 determines that a local media content component 113 (or file 112) corresponding to the playlist/mashup identifier 602 is available… the corresponding local media content components/files have been identified (or obtained) [e.g. identifying a particular reference media file of the plurality of secondary reference media files]”)
transmitting an indication that the media file matches the particular reference media file of the plurality of secondary reference media files. (See Pereira [0132-0135] “One of the goals of the signature correlation process 1300 is to verify that the signatures of a potentially matching reference multimedia clip 1304 do indeed correspond with the signatures of the query multimedia clip 1305 [e.g. the media file]… The score for each query signature may be averaged for the entire set of query signatures to give an overall score for the particular reference clip match [e.g. the particular reference media file of the plurality of secondary reference media files]… the overall score is subjected to a threshold test which determines [e.g. transmitting an indication that the media file matches the particular reference media file of the plurality of secondary reference media files] whether the database clip is considered a match 1314.”
PNG
media_image1.png
818
700
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Thus, the output of the scores and threshold steps are transmitting steps for an indication that the media file matches the particular reference media file.)
Reference2 also teaches transmitting an indication that the media file matches the particular reference media file. (See Reference2 [0055] “Once the corresponding local media content components/files have been identified (or obtained), the media manager 110 performs one more substitution operations… the media manager substitutes each identifier 602 within the playlist/mashup 600 with its corresponding local media content component 113 (or file 112). The media client 116 processes the playlist/mashup 600 comprising the substituted components/files and presents [Thus, transmitting an indication that the media file matches the particular reference media file of the plurality of secondary reference media files] the components/files to the user.”)
Regarding claim 2, Pereira-Reference2 teaches all limitations and motivations of claim 1, wherein the primary reference media files are associated with a first language and the secondary reference media files are associated with a second language. (See Reference2 [0051-0052] “if a local match does not exist for a playlist/mashup identifier 602 the media manager 110 queries the external source associated with the playlist/mashup identifier 602 to identify the corresponding media content component (or file) [e.g. secondary reference media files are associated with a second language]… The source sends the media manager 110 an information set associated with the unmatched playlist/mashup identifier(s) 602. This information set can include metadata … The media manager 110 utilizes this information set to determine if any local media content components/files have metadata matching this received information.” See also Reference2 [0046] “the media manager 110 substitutes a media component 121 of an external media file 120 associated with a first language with a local media component 113 associated with a second language [e.g. primary reference media files are associated with a first language]… an identifier can be associated with metadata comprising identifiers corresponding to other versions of the media component/file. The media manager 110 analyzes these other identifiers or media content components/files to identify a given version, such as a different language version [e.g. secondary reference media files are associated with a second language], of the external media component 121.”)
Regarding claim 3, Pereira-Reference2 teaches all limitations and motivations of claim 1, wherein audio content of the at least one candidate reference media file comprises a first language and audio content of the particular reference media file comprises a second language. (See Reference2 [0042-0046] “if the external media file 120 is a movie the media manager 110 can identify attributes of the movie such as location information, product information, etc. based on the signatures/fingerprints of the video and/or audio components [e.g. audio content] of the movie… the media manager 110 substitutes a media component 121 of an external media file 120 associated with a first language with a local media component 113 associated with a second language… If a match is found [e.g. candidate reference media file] the media manager 110 analyzes the matching local media content identifier 114 to determine if it is associated with any other identifiers or content/files. For example, an identifier can be associated with metadata comprising identifiers corresponding to other versions of the media component/file. The media manager 110 analyzes these other identifiers or media content components/files [e.g. particular reference media file] to identify a given version, such as a different language version [e.g. a second language/ an alternative language version], of the external media component 121.”)
Regarding claim 4, Pereira-Reference2 teaches all limitations and motivations of claim 3, wherein the first language and the second language are different languages. (See Reference2 [0042-0046] “if the external media file 120 is a movie the media manager 110 can identify attributes of the movie such as location information, product information, etc. based on the signatures/fingerprints of the video and/or audio components [e.g. audio content] of the movie… the media manager 110 substitutes a media component 121 of an external media file 120 associated with a first language with a local media component 113 associated with a second language… If a match is found [e.g. candidate reference media file] the media manager 110 analyzes the matching local media content identifier 114 to determine if it is associated with any other identifiers or content/files. For example, an identifier can be associated with metadata comprising identifiers corresponding to other versions of the media component/file. The media manager 110 analyzes these other identifiers or media content components/files [e.g. particular reference media file] to identify a given version, such as a different language version [e.g. a second language/ an alternative language version], of the external media component 121.”)
Regarding claim 5, Pereira-Reference2 teaches all limitations and motivations of claim 3, further comprising determining that the at least one candidate reference media file comprises an alternative language version of the particular reference media file. (See Reference2 [0042-0046] “if the external media file 120 is a movie the media manager 110 can identify attributes of the movie such as location information, product information, etc. based on the signatures/fingerprints of the video and/or audio components [e.g. audio content] of the movie… the media manager 110 substitutes a media component 121 of an external media file 120 associated with a first language with a local media component 113 associated with a second language… If a match is found [e.g. candidate reference media file] the media manager 110 analyzes the matching local media content identifier 114 to determine if it is associated with any other identifiers or content/files. For example, an identifier can be associated with metadata comprising identifiers corresponding to other versions of the media component/file. The media manager 110 analyzes these other identifiers or media content components/files [e.g. particular reference media file] to identify a given version, such as a different language version [e.g. a second language/ an alternative language version], of the external media component 121.”)
Regarding claim 6, Pereira-Reference2 teaches all limitations and motivations of claim 1, wherein transmitting the indication that the media file matches the particular reference media file comprises transmitting metadata associated with the particular reference media file. (See Pereira [0135-0136] “The score for each query signature may be averaged for the entire set of query signatures [e.g. corresponding to the media file] to give an overall score [e.g. metadata] for the particular reference clip match… the overall score [e.g. metadata] is subjected to a threshold test which determines [e.g. transmitting the indication that the media file matches the particular reference media file comprises transmitting metadata associated with the particular reference media file] whether the database clip is considered a match 1314.”)
Regarding claim 7, Pereira-Reference2 teaches all limitations and motivations of claim 6, wherein the metadata comprises one or more of: (i) a title; (ii) a language; (iv) an identifier associated with the particular reference media file. (See Reference2 [0031, 0046] “Non-limiting examples of metadata are title, publisher, play length, album, artist, description, etc. associated with the content and/or its media file… an identifier can be associated with metadata comprising identifiers corresponding to other versions of the media component/file [e.g. identifier associated with the particular reference media file] … such as a different language version”)
Regarding claim 8, Pereira-Reference2 teaches all limitations and motivations of claim 1, further comprising, prior to comparing the set of query fingerprints to the set of reference fingerprints associated with the plurality of primary reference media files stored in the primary reference library, identifying metadata associated with the media file, and based on the identified metadata, comparing the set of query fingerprints to a subset of the set of reference fingerprints associated with a subset of the plurality of primary reference media files stored in the primary reference library. (See Pereira abstract “the fingerprint for a piece of multimedia content is composed [Thus, prior to comparing the set of query fingerprints to the set of reference fingerprints associated with the plurality of primary reference media files stored in the primary reference library] of a number of compact signatures, along with traversal hash signatures and associated metadata [Thus, identifying metadata associated with the media file].” See also Pereira [0069] “The query multimedia clip 222 is processed by the video fingerprinting function 203 to generate query signatures, hash data, and associated metadata, known collectively as a query fingerprint 224” [Thus, prior to comparing the set of query fingerprints to the set of reference fingerprints associated with the plurality of primary reference media files stored in the primary reference library, identifying metadata associated with the media file]” See also Pereira claim 1 “searching, by the one or more computing devices, a reference database [e.g. primary reference library], using the pair of query signatures [Thus, based on the identified metadata] so as to identify a set of reference signatures [e.g. set of reference fingerprints associated with a plurality of primary reference media files stored in a primary reference library] that are within a distance measure of the pair of query signatures [Thus, comparing the set of query fingerprints to a set of reference fingerprints];”
Reference2 also teaches prior to comparing the set of query fingerprints to the set of reference fingerprints associated with the plurality of primary reference media files stored in the primary reference library, identifying metadata associated with the media file. (See Reference2 [0031-0032] “The identifier generator 122 then computes or generates the identifier 114 of the extracted media content 113, 121. [Thus, prior to comparing the set of query fingerprints to the set of reference fingerprints] In one embodiment, the identifier 114 is generated/determined based on metadata associated with the media content 113, 121 and/or its media file 112, 120 [Thus, identifying metadata associated with the media file]… where the identifier is a signature/fingerprint”)
Regarding claim 10, Pereira-Reference2 teaches all limitations and motivations of claim 8, wherein the metadata comprises a language associated with the media file. (See Reference2 [0046] “an identifier can be associated with metadata comprising identifiers corresponding to other versions of the media component/file… such as a different language version”)
Regarding claim 11, Pereira-Reference2 teaches all of the elements of claim 1 in method form rather than computer readable medium. Pereira also discloses a computer readable medium [0051]. Therefore, the supporting rationale of the rejection to claim 1 applies equally as well to those elements of claim 11.
Regarding claim 12, Pereira-Reference2 teaches all of the elements of claim 2 in method form rather than computer readable medium. Pereira also discloses a computer readable medium [0051]. Therefore, the supporting rationale of the rejection to claim 2 applies equally as well to those elements of claim 12.
Regarding claim 13, Pereira-Reference2 teaches all of the elements of claim 3 in method form rather than computer readable medium. Pereira also discloses a computer readable medium [0051]. Therefore, the supporting rationale of the rejection to claim 3 applies equally as well to those elements of claim 13.
Regarding claim 14, Pereira-Reference2 teaches all of the elements of claim 4 in method form rather than computer readable medium. Pereira also discloses a computer readable medium [0051]. Therefore, the supporting rationale of the rejection to claim 4 applies equally as well to those elements of claim 14.
Regarding claim 15, Pereira-Reference2 teaches all of the elements of claim 5 in method form rather than computer readable medium. Pereira also discloses a computer readable medium [0051]. Therefore, the supporting rationale of the rejection to claim 5 applies equally as well to those elements of claim 15.
Regarding claim 16, Pereira-Reference2 teaches all of the elements of claim 6 in method form rather than computer readable medium. Pereira also discloses a computer readable medium [0051]. Therefore, the supporting rationale of the rejection to claim 6 applies equally as well to those elements of claim 16.
Regarding claim 17, Pereira-Reference2 teaches all of the elements of claim 8 in method form rather than computer readable medium. Pereira also discloses a computer readable medium [0051]. Therefore, the supporting rationale of the rejection to claim 8 applies equally as well to those elements of claim 17.
Regarding claim 19, Pereira-Reference2 teaches all of the elements of claim 10 in method form rather than computer readable medium. Pereira also discloses a computer readable medium [0051]. Therefore, the supporting rationale of the rejection to claim 10 applies equally as well to those elements of claim 19.
Regarding claim 20, Pereira-Reference2 teaches all of the elements of claim 1 in method form rather than system. Pereira also discloses a system [0051]. Therefore, the supporting rationale of the rejection to claim 1 applies equally as well to those elements of claim 20.
Claims 9 and 18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Pereira-Reference2 in view of Pickens (US Patent Application Publication No. US 20110314026 A1).
Regarding claim 9, Pereira-Reference2 teaches all limitations and motivations of claim 8.
Pereira-Reference2 does not explicitly disclose the metadata comprises a geographic location associated with the media file.
However, Pickens teaches the metadata comprises a geographic location associated with the media file. (See Pickens [0043-0044, 0052] “the search system 106 acquires (402) a plurality of basis queries… the basis queries may include… the set of all metadata features in a collection (e.g. document geographic location [e.g. geographic location associated with the media file], creation time and date, last access time and date, and so forth)… the respective basis query includes (404) one or more identifiable features of documents from the set of documents… the identifiable features include (406) one or more of… an image fingerprint, an audio fingerprint, a video fingerprint… it should be understood that, while the examples above relate particularly to text documents, the basis queries described herein also apply to other types of documents, such as images, audio files, video files, representations of physical objects (e.g., using location coordinates, etc.)… the search system 106 executes the basis query to produce a list of documents that are relevant to the search query”)
It would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Pereira-Reference2 to incorporate the teachings of Pickens of using geographic location associated with the media file to produce a list of documents such as images, audio files, video files that are relevant to the search query.
One would be motivated to use metadata like geographic location in search as it significantly enhances precision by enabling location-aware results, finding relevant results.
Regarding claim 18, Pereira-Reference2 further in view of Pickens teaches all of the elements of claim 9 in method form rather than computer readable medium. Pereira also discloses a computer readable medium [0051]. Therefore, the supporting rationale of the rejection to claim 9 applies equally as well to those elements of claim 18.
Conclusion
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. 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 OSCAR WEHOVZ whose telephone number is (571)272-3362. The examiner can normally be reached 8:00am - 5:00pm ET.
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, APU M MOFIZ can be reached at (571) 272-4080. 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.
/OSCAR WEHOVZ/Examiner, Art Unit 2161
/APU M MOFIZ/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2161
Prosecution Insights