DETAILED ACTION
This is in response to the application filed on February 7th 2025, in which claims 1-20 are presented for examination.
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 .
Priority
Applicant’s claim for the benefit of a prior-filed application under 35 U.S.C. 119(e) or under 35 U.S.C. 120, 121, 365(c), or 386(c) is acknowledged.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 8/22/25 is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement is being considered by the examiner.
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) 1-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Chong et al. US 10,771,835 B1.
Regarding claim 1, Chong discloses receiving, by a computing device (computer – Fig. 5), a content segment (receive media content – abstract, Figs. 1-2, col. 2 ln. 10-19);
determining, based on a frame … of the content segment, one or more sample frames (analyze respective frames of content, these are “sample frames” – Figs. 1B, 3 and col. 3 ln. 22-24, col. 10 ln. 43-67);
determining an average color associated with pixels of the one or more sample frames (use color data for frame to generate color values which correspond to “average color” – Figs. 1B, 3, col. 12 ln. 25-31 and col. 18 ln. 11-18);
sending, to one or more light emitting devices, color information comprising the average color (send commands to cause lights to output color that matches or complements the video – abstract, Figs. 2, 4, col. 2 ln. 29-43, col. 3 ln. 21-51); and
causing, based on the color information, output of one or more visual effects synchronized with output of the content segment (lights output color that matches or complements the video – see abstract, Figs. 2, 4, col. 2 ln. 29-43, col. 3 ln. 21-51 and col. 16 ln. 38-49).
Chong discloses analyzing a sample frame as discussed above and also teaches a frame rate (e.g. 24 FPS – col. 10 ln. 56-57). However, Chong does not explicitly disclose determining a sample frame based on the frame rate. However, this would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention. It is a very well-known idea to sample data – that is, to analyze a portion or subset. In terms of the claim, the frame rate controls how much data there is to choose from per second of content. Chong teaches the standard video format of 24 frames per second. Thus, using standard data sampling techniques (i.e. statistics), it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to determine one or more sample frames based on the amount of data, or frame rate. This allows the sample/analyze process to execute efficiently without overly consuming the processing resources while still providing a representation of the data. This is merely the combination of a well-known technique according to its established function in order to yield a predictable result.
Regarding claim 2, Chong discloses selecting the one or more sample frames based on a first time stamp (each frame corresponds to a time – see col. 10 ln. 43-67; as explained above, respective/sample frames are analyzed); and
excluding a plurality of additional frames, of the content segment, based on time stamps of the plurality of additional frames (color parameters are determined by analyzing respective frame for “respective portion” of content – this is equivalent to a segment – see Fig. 1D which shows time values for content segments/portions; also see col. 12 ln. 35 – col. 13 ln. 5 which describes analyzing a first frame for a first portion of content at a first time and then a fourth frame corresponding to a second portion of content at a second time, thus it is clear that a plurality of additional frames are excluded based on time stamps; furthermore, one of ordinary skill in the art would easily recognize that attempting to change light colors 24 times a second for every frame would not provide an immersive experience; instead, Chong clearly teaches changing colors from one portion of the video to another portion – col. 4 ln. 38-42 and col. 17 ln. 15-17).
Regarding claim 3, Chong discloses determining the average color is based on performing pixel analysis of whole pixels (analyze pixels – see col. 12 ln. 17-19).
Regrading claim 4, Chong discloses sending the color information comprises sending one or more manifest files comprising the color information (Chong does not explicitly use the term “manifest file”, but under the BRI consistent with the specification, a manifest file includes data indicating features associated with the content – see paragraph 24 of specification; Chong teaches sending metadata including color data that indicates features associated with the content – see Figs. 1C-1E and col. 14 ln. 65 – col. 15 ln. 14; thus, Chong teaches sending one or more “manifest file” under the BRI of the claims; also see Fig. 2 step 204).
Regarding claim 5, Chong discloses modifying, based on one or more user preferences associated with the one or more light emitting devices, the color information (lighting parameters determined based on user profile which includes user preference information – see col. 9 ln. 40-52).
Regarding claim 6, Chong discloses the color information comprises values indicating average hue, brightness, and saturation values associated with the pixels of the one or more sample frames (color data includes average color values of the colors which is at least equivalent to average hue – col. 18 ln. 1-18; Chong also explicitly discloses color brightness – col. 9 ln. 49-52; Chong does not explicitly disclose saturation but teaches the color metadata enables a scene such as a flash of light, explosion, etc. to be created – see col. 8 ln. 45-60, thus Chong at least suggests this well-known parameter; alternatively, color saturation would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention because it is simply a standard color attribute).
Regarding claim 7, Chong discloses sending the color information [via] a manifest message as discussed above in the rejection of claim 4. Chong does not explicitly disclose using a subscription to a message queue. However, this is very well-known in the art. In lieu of requesting (i.e. a pull), subscribing/publishing (i.e. push) is extremely common and well-known in the art, and yields predictable results. Thus, this is merely the combination of a well-known technique according to its established function in order to yield a predictable result.
Regarding claim 8, it corresponds to the method of claim 1 so it is rejected for the same reasons. Chong also discloses a first device, and a computing device comprising one or more processors and memory (Figs. 1A, 5, and col. 5 ln. 18-20 and col. 22 ln. 41-44).
Regarding claims 9-14, they correspond to claims 2-7 respectively and therefore are also rejected for the same reasons.
Regarding claim 15, it is a non-transitory computer readable medium claim that corresponds to the method of claim 1; thus it is rejected for the same reasons.
Regarding claims 16-20, they correspond to claims 2-6 respectively and therefore are also rejected for the same reasons.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Salters US 2009/0046477 A1 discloses an ambient light source that is controlled in response to displayed media content including color hue, saturation, brightness, average color, etc. (abstract, Fig. 1, paragraph 3).
Archdale US 2016/0338180 A1 discloses a system for synchronizing playback of video and lighting data (abstract, Fig. 1).
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JASON D RECEK whose telephone number is (571)270-1975. The examiner can normally be reached Flex M-F 9-5.
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, Umar Cheema can be reached at 571-270-3037. 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.
/JASON D RECEK/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2458
Prosecution Insights