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
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.
Claim 1 is rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 1 of U.S. Patent No. 12,273,572. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because the instant application claim is broader than the parent patent claim.
Claim 2 is rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 2 of U.S. Patent No. 12,273,572. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because the instant application claim is broader than the parent patent claim.
Claim 3 is rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 3 of U.S. Patent No. 12,273,572. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because the instant application claim is broader than the parent patent claim.
Claim 4 is rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 7 of U.S. Patent No. 12,273,572. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because the instant application claim is broader than the parent patent claim.
Claim 5 is rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 4 of U.S. Patent No. 12,273,572. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because the instant application claim is broader than the parent patent claim.
Claim 6 is rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 5 of U.S. Patent No. 12,273,572. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because the instant application claim is broader than the parent patent claim.
Claim 7 is rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 8 of U.S. Patent No. 12,273,572. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because the instant application claim is broader than the parent patent claim.
Claim 8 is rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 6 of U.S. Patent No. 12,273,572. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because the instant application claim is broader than the parent patent claim.
Claim 9 is rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 9 of U.S. Patent No. 12,273,572. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because the instant application claim is broader than the parent patent claim.
Claim 10 is rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 10 of U.S. Patent No. 12,273,572. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because the instant application claim is broader than the parent patent claim.
Claim 11 is rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 11 of U.S. Patent No. 12,273,572. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because the instant application claim is broader than the parent patent claim.
Claim 12 is rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 15 of U.S. Patent No. 12,273,572. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because the instant application claim is broader than the parent patent claim.
Claim 13 is rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 12 of U.S. Patent No. 12,273,572. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because the instant application claim is broader than the parent patent claim.
Claim 14 is rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 13 of U.S. Patent No. 12,273,572. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because the instant application claim is broader than the parent patent claim.
Claim 15 is rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 16 of U.S. Patent No. 12,273,572. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because the instant application claim is broader than the parent patent claim.
Claim 16 is rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 14 of U.S. Patent No. 12,273,572. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because the instant application claim is broader than the parent patent claim.
Claim 17 is rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 17 of U.S. Patent No. 12,273,572. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because the instant application claim is broader than the parent patent claim.
Claim 18 is rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 18 of U.S. Patent No. 12,273,572. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because the instant application claim is broader than the parent patent claim.
Claim 19 is rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 19 of U.S. Patent No. 12,273,572. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because the instant application claim is broader than the parent patent claim.
Claim 20 is rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 20 of U.S. Patent No. 12,273,572. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because the instant application claim is broader than the parent patent claim.
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) 1,6,9,14,17,20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ossim (US 11,386,683) in view of Asam (US 2012/0116883).
Regarding claim 1, 9, 17, Ossim discloses a computer implemented method comprising:
Determining, based on a set of frames of video content, a mean image (fig. 6, col. 7 lines 5-37);
Extracting, from the determined mean image, a reference template of static content (fig. 6, col. 7 lines 5-37 A composite image is formed from a sequence of frames. Static content such as a logo is identified in the composite image);
Ossim does not specifically disclose identifying in a frame of the set of frames of the video content, the extracted reference template of static content is present in the frame; labeling a segment of the set of frames as a program segment or an advertisement segment based on the presence of the extracted reference template of static content in the frame; and generating data identifying the labeled segment.
However, Asam discloses identifying in a frame of the set of frames of the video content, the extracted reference template of static content is present in the frame; labeling a segment of the set of frames as a program segment or an advertisement segment based on the presence of the extracted reference template of static content in the frame; and generating data identifying the labeled segment ([0069-0070] The detection of a logo indicates main program content, while detecting that a logo is no longer present indicates an advertisement. The logo represents the “reference template of static content” Information regarding the advertisement content is used to determine which to maintain and replace). It would have been obvious before the filing date of the invention to incorporate the logo detection of Asam into the system of Ossim in order to easily detect segment types in video content.
Regarding claim 6, 14, 20, Asam discloses labeling the frame of the video content as program content rather than advertisement content based on the identified presence of the extracted reference template of static content in the frame of the video content ([0069-0070]).
Claim(s) 2,3,10,11,18 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ossim (US 11,386,683) in view of Asam (US 2012/0116883) in view of Ma (US 2017/0236003).
Regarding claim 2, 10, 18, Ossim in view of Asam does not specifically disclose generating a binary image from the image; and using the binary image as the reference template of static content.
However, Ma discloses generating a binary image from the image; and using the binary image as the reference template of static content ([0060, 0065, 0084]). It would have been obvious before the filing date the invention to incorporate the binary image of Ma into the system of Ossim in view of Asam in order to generate a simple reference image to perform identification with.
Regarding claim 3, 11, Ma discloses generating a binary image from the mean image;
Applying one or more morphological operations to the binary image so as to identify a residual component of the binary image; and extracting a reference template of static content based on the residual component ([0060, 0065, 0084]).
Claim(s) 4,12 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ossim (US 11,386,683) in view of Asam (US 2012/0116883) in view of Ma (US 2017/0236003) in view of Tsai (US 2021/0319592).
Regarding claim 4, 12, Ossim in view of Asam in view of Ma does not specifically disclose determining a bounding box of the residual component; and extracting a reference template of static content from a sub-region of the binary image corresponding to the bounding box.
However, Tsai discloses determining a bounding box of the residual component; and extracting a reference template of static content from a sub-region of the binary image corresponding to the bounding box ([0043-0046]. It would have been obvious before the filing date of the invention to incorporate the bounding box of Tsai into the system of Ossim in view of Asam in view of Ma in order to select a specific region of the frame to perform identification and matching.
Claim(s) 5,13,19 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ossim (US 11,386,683) in view of Asam (US 2012/0116883) in view of Lo (US 2019/0205433).
Regarding claim 5, 13, 19, Ossim in view of Asam does not specifically disclose matching the extracted reference template of static content against the frame of the video content so as to determine a match score; and identifying presence of the extracted reference template of static content based on the match score.
Lo discloses matching the extracted reference template of static content against the frame of the video content so as to determine a match score; and identifying presence of the extracted reference template of static content based on the match score ([0062-0063]). It would have been obvious before the filing date of the invention to incorporate the threshold score of Lo into the system of Ossim in view of Asam in order to determine a threshold for matching frames with reference content.
Claim(s) 8,16 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ossim (US 11,386,683) in view of Asam (US 2012/0116883) in view of Pacella (US 2017/0193548).
Regarding claim 8, 16, Osim in view of Asam does not specifically disclose wherein output data identifying the labeled segment is useable to facilitate taking an action, wherein the action comprises dynamic ad insertion.
However, Pacella discloses wherein output data identifying the labeled segment is useable to facilitake taking an action, wherein the action comprises dynamic ad insertion ([0041]). It would have been obvious before the filing date of the invention to incorporate the dynamic ad insertion of Pacella into the system of Osim in view of Asam in order to provide a functionality after identifying an ad segment.
Conclusion
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