DETAILED ACTION
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, 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 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 1-2, 5-6, 9-12,15-16, 19-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Mahyar et al (US 10999566 B1), and further in view of Fedyk et al (US 20260162327 A1).
RE claim 1, Mahyar teaches A method for generating a video having a border image (Fig 1, see reproduced below, abstract), comprising:
acquiring a first video; extracting, from the first video, a text for describing content in the first video (Figs 1S120, 3, col 3 lines 65-67); and
generating the border image and compositing the first video with the border image (Fig 1S160, 3S398 col 5 lines 32-35, col 12 lines29-35).
PNG
media_image1.png
446
616
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Mahyar is silent RE: generating the border image based on the text, wherein the text is used to determine content of the border image; and compositing the first video with the border image to obtain a second video.
However Fedyk teaches generating image based on the textual description and compositing with a video stream to generate a second video for video communication and display in Figs 3-4, 7S712, abstract, [0085]- [0087], [0101]-[0103]. This can equally applied in Mahyar to convey the visual depiction with graphical image as the border image, further enhancing user experience.
Thus, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to include in Mahyar a system and method generating the border image based on the text, wherein the text is used to determine content of the border image; and compositing the first video with the border image to obtain a second video, as set forth above applying Fedyk, in order to convey the visual depiction with graphical image as the border image and thereby increasing system effectiveness and user experience.
RE claim 2, Mahyar as modified by Fedyk teaches wherein the generating of the border image based on the text, comprises: inputting the text into an image generation model to obtain at least two candidate images; determining a degree of correlation between each of the candidate images and a vertical category of the first video; and selecting the border image from the candidate images based on the degree of correlation (Fedyk Fig 7, [0005]-[0008], [0024]).
RE claim 5, Mahyar teaches wherein the extracting, from the first video, the text for describing the content in the first video, comprises: extracting a content description text from the first video; splitting the content description text based on a subject and a scene to obtain a subject description text and a scene description text; and generating, based on the subject description text and the scene description text, the text for describing the content in the first video (Figs 2-3, 5, abstract, col 2 lines 48-55, col 4 lines 22-35).
RE claim 6, Mahyar teaches wherein the generating, based on the subject description text and the scene description text, the text for describing the content in the first video, comprises: performing tokenization on the subject description text and the scene description text to obtain a plurality of tokens; and determining, based on the plurality of tokens, the text for describing the content in the first video (Figs 2-3, 5, abstract, col 4 lines 48-59, claim 11).
RE claim 9, Mahyar as modified by Fedyk teaches wherein the text is used to determine an attribute of the border image, and the attribute of the border image comprises at least one selected from the group consisting: a target location in the border image for adding a video, color, a size, a style, and a shape (Fedyk Fig 3, [0082]).
Claims 10, 12, 15, 16, 19 recite limitations similar in scope with limitations of claim 1, 2, 5-6 and 9 and therefore rejected under the same rationale. In addition Mayhar teaches An electronic device, comprising: at least one processor and a memory, wherein the memory stores computer-executable instructions; and the at least one processor executes the computer-executable instructions stored in the memory (Fig 6, abstract).
Claims 11 and 20 recite limitations similar in scope with limitations of claims 1-2 and therefore rejected under the same rationale. In addition Mayhar teaches A non-transitory computer-readable storage medium, wherein the non-transitory computer-readable storage medium stores computer-executable instructions (Fig 6, abstract).
Claims 3-4, 8, 13-14, 18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Mahyar as modified by Fedyk, and further in view of Bakunov et al (US 20240296535 A1).
RE claim 3, Mahyar as modified by Fedyk is silent RE: wherein the selecting the border image from the candidate images based on the degree of correlation, comprises: acquiring first quality information of each of the candidate images; and selecting the border image from the candidate images based on the first quality information and the degree of correlation.
However Bakunov teaches acquiring first quality information of each of the candidate images; and selecting the image from the candidate images based on the first quality information in Figs 3-4, 7-10, abstract, [0024]- [0028]. This can equally applied to generate the border image to include the quality metrics with the degree of correlation further enhancing user experience.
Thus, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to include in Mahyar a system and method wherein the selecting the border image from the candidate images based on the degree of correlation, comprises: acquiring first quality information of each of the candidate images; and selecting the border image from the candidate images based on the first quality information and the degree of correlation, as set forth above applying Bakunov, in order to further increasing system effectiveness and user experience.
RE claim 4, Mahyar as modified by Fedyk and Bakunov teaches wherein the first quality information comprises at least one selected from the group consisting of: resolution, exposure, noise, color, a composition, a degree of subject emphasis, whether a subject being missing, and whether a scene being missing (Bakunov [0025]).
RE claim 8, Mahyar as modified by Fedyk is silent RE: wherein the extracting of the content description text from the first video, comprises: determining second quality information respectively corresponding to video frames in the first video, wherein the second quality information comprises at least one selected from the group consisting: content richness, video frame resolution, a degree of exposure, and a color contrast; selecting a target video frame from the video frames based on the second quality information; and extracting the content description text from the target video frame.
However Bakunov teaches acquiring first quality information of each of the candidate images; and selecting the image from the candidate images based on the first quality information in Figs 3-4, 7-10, abstract, [0024]- [0028]. This can equally applied to generate the border image to include the quality metrics with the degree of correlation to select the video frame and extracting the content description text from the target video frame to generate the text description from the best quality frame.
Thus, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to include in Mahyar a system and method wherein the extracting of the content description text from the first video, comprises: determining second quality information respectively corresponding to video frames in the first video, wherein the second quality information comprises at least one selected from the group consisting: content richness, video frame resolution, a degree of exposure, and a color contrast; selecting a target video frame from the video frames based on the second quality information; and extracting the content description text from the target video frame, as set forth above applying Bakunov, in order to generate the text description from the best quality frame further increasing system effectiveness and user experience.
Claims 13-14 and 18 recite limitations similar in scope with limitations of claims 3-4, 8 and therefore rejected under the same rationale.
Claims 7 and 17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Mahyar as modified by Fedyk, and further in view of Keen et al (US 20240362473 A1).
RE claim 7, Mahyar as modified by Fedyk is silent RE: wherein before the determining, based on the plurality of tokens, the text for describing the content in the first video, the method further comprises: determining a first degree of importance of tokens corresponding to the subject description text in the subject description text, and determining a second degree of importance of tokens corresponding to the scene description text in the scene description text; and deleting target tokens from the plurality of tokens, wherein the target tokens comprise: one or more tokens of which the first degree of importance is smallest, and one or more tokens of which the second degree of importance is smallest.
However Keen teaches acquiring first quality information of each of the candidate images; and selecting the image from the candidate images based on the first quality information in Figs 2-3, abstract, [0010]-[0011]. This can equally applied to generate the appropriate textual description from the video frame with a reduced data set with higher importance level.
Thus, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to include in Mahyar a system and method wherein before the determining, based on the plurality of tokens, the text for describing the content in the first video, the method further comprises: determining a first degree of importance of tokens corresponding to the subject description text in the subject description text, and determining a second degree of importance of tokens corresponding to the scene description text in the scene description text; and deleting target tokens from the plurality of tokens, wherein the target tokens comprise: one or more tokens of which the first degree of importance is smallest, and one or more tokens of which the second degree of importance is smallest, as set forth above applying Keen, in order to generate the appropriate textual description from the video frame with a reduced data set with higher importance level further increasing system effectiveness and user experience.
Claim 17 recites limitations similar in scope with limitations of claim 7 and therefore rejected under the same rationale.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.(see attached 892)
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to SULTANA MARCIA ZALALEE whose telephone number is (571)270-1411. The examiner can normally be reached Monday- Friday 8:00am-4:30pm.
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, Kent Chang can be reached at (571)272-7667. 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.
/Sultana M Zalalee/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2614
Prosecution Insights