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 .
DETAILED ACTION
This office action is in response to communication filed 4/9/2025. Claims 1-16 are pending for examination, the rejection cited as stated below.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
2. 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.
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 1, 8-11 and 14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) and (a)(2) as being anticipated by Krahnstoever et al (US 20180158485 hereafter Krahnstoever).
As to claim 1, Krahnstoever discloses a user terminal (Fig. 1, “User Device 106”) comprising:
a transceiver configured to transmit and receive data with a server (Fig. 1, “User Device 106” communicating with the “media sharing system 102” over a network. See Fig. 2, “Network Adaptor 216”);
a display configured to output video content received from the server (Fig. 2, “Display 218”); and
a processor configured to control the transceiver and the display (Fig. 2, “Processor 202”), wherein the processor is configured to:
generate marker information including a start time point and an end time point ([0005], “receive a request to create a media clip from the original media stream from the user device. The request indicates a clip start time defined with respect to the transcoded media stream and a clip end time defined with respect to the transcoded media stream”);
transmit a request for summary video content including the generated marker information to the server ([0005], “receive a request to create a media clip from the original media stream from the user device. The request indicates a clip start time defined with respect to the transcoded media stream and a clip end time defined with respect to the transcoded media stream”; [0016], “A media stream is a feed of media content, such as a live feed of video, audio content, and/or text”. Here a video clip extracted from the streamed video can be considered summary video content); and
receive information on the summary video content in response to the request ([0005], “The instructions further cause the one or more processors to identify one or more identified media segments from the plurality of media segments corresponding to the clip start time and the clip end time, create the media clip based on content included in the identified media segments, and transmit the media clip to the user device”).
As to claim 8, Krahnstoever discloses the user terminal of claim 1, wherein the processor is configured to output a user input interface for inputting the marker information on the display, and detect the input for the marker information via the user input interface ([0029], “FIG. 6A illustrates an example of a media player 602 presenting a media stream. If the user wishes to create a media clip from the media stream, the user selects button 604 to set the clip start time for the clip and button 606 to set the clip end time”).
As to claim 9, Krahnstoever discloses a server comprising:
a transceiver configured to transmit and receive data with a user terminal (Fig. 1, “User Device 106” communicating with the “media sharing system 102” over a network); and
a processor configured to control the transceiver ([0005], “The media sharing system includes one or more processors that execute computer readable instructions. When executed by the one or more processors, the instructions cause the one or more processors to receive an original media stream from an additional system and stream a transcoded media stream to a user device, wherein the transcoded media stream is transcoded from the original media stream. The transcoded media stream includes a plurality of transcoded chunks”),
wherein the processor is configured to:
receive a request for summary video content including marker information from the user terminal, the marker information including a start time point and an end time point (see citation in rejection to claim 1); and
transmit information on the summary video content to the user terminal in response to the request (see citation in rejection to claim 1).
As to claim 10, Krahnstoever discloses the server of claim 9, wherein the processor is configured to extract the summary video content based on the marker information from original video content indicated by the request (see citation in rejection to claim 1. See also [0023], “Based on the information received from the user's user device 106, the media sharing system 102 identifies stored media segments that include content that the user desires in the media clip. From the identified media segments, the media sharing system 102 creates the media clip requested by the user”).
As to claim 11, Krahnstoever discloses the server of claim 10, wherein the processor is configured to generate access address information of the extracted summary video content ([0073], “The media sharing system 102 stores 518 the media clip and makes 520 the media clip available for access by the user”; [0065], “Upon request, the media module 312 provides to a user device 106 an interface through which users can search for and request specific media clips made available by the media sharing system 102 for access”).
As to claim 14, Krahnstoever discloses a system comprising:
a user terminal (Fig. 1, “User Device 106”); and
a server configured to provide summary video content to the user terminal (Fig. 1, “User Device 106” communicating with the “media sharing system 102” over a network. See Fig. 2, “Network Adaptor 216”; [0005]), wherein the user terminal is configured to generate marker information including a start time point and an end time point, and transmit a request for summary video content including the generated marker information to the server (see citation in rejection to claim 1),
wherein the server is configured to receive the request for the summary video content including the marker information from the user terminal, the marker information including the start time point and the end time point, extract the summary video content based on the marker information from original video content indicated by the request, and transmit information on the summary video content to the user terminal (see citation in rejection to claim 1).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
5. 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.
6. 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.
7. 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.
8. Claim 2 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Krahnstoever, as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Huang (US 9210460 B2).
As to claim 2, Krahnstoever discloses the claimed invention substantially as discussed in claim 1, wherein the processor is configured to:
play the summary video content using the received information on the summary video content (see citation in rejection to claim 1. Also see [0065], “The media module 312 transmits (e.g., streams) the requested media clip to the user device 106. The media clip is presented by a media player loaded on the user device 106”), but does not expressly disclose start a unicast downlink streaming session with the server.
Huang discloses start a unicast downlink streaming session with a server (Claim 9, “receiving, by a content delivery system and from a user device, a content request for particular video-on-demand (VOD) content; determining, by the content delivery system, if the particular VOD content is currently being provided via an multicast stream; when the particular VOD content is currently being provided via the multicast stream, sending, by the content delivery system and to the user device, a unicast link that provides access to a unicast stream of the particular VOD content from a beginning of the particular VOD content and a multicast link that provides access to the multicast stream of the particular VOD content; when the particular VOD content is not currently being provided via the multicast stream and when a multicast channel is not available to use for the particular VOD content, sending, by the content delivery system and to the user device, the unicast link”).
Before the effective filing date of the invention, it would have been obvious for an ordinary skilled in the art to combine Krahnstoever with Huang. The suggestion/motivation of the combination would have been to stream the requested content the particular VOD content is not currently being provided via the multicast stream and when a multicast channel is not available to use for the particular VOD content (Huang, claim 9).
9. Claims 3-4 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Krahnstoever, as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Townsend et al (US 2019/0273837 hereafter Townsend).
As to claim 3, Krahnstoever discloses the claimed invention substantially as discussed in claim 1, but does not expressly disclose that the marker information includes theme-related information of the summary video content. Townsend discloses marker information includes theme-related information of summary video content ([0056], “the user 10 may request the video summarization to emphasize a child, a holiday video summarization may include video clips having a Christmas tree, or the like”).
Before the effective filing date of the invention, it would have been obvious for an ordinary skilled in the art to combine Krahnstoever with Townsend. The suggestion/motivation of the combination would have been to emphasize specific type of video summarization (Townsend, claim 9).
As to claim 4, Krahnstoever in view of Townsend discloses the user terminal of claim 1, wherein the marker information includes information indicating a specific object of the summary video content (Townsend, [0056], “the user 10 may request the video summarization to emphasize a child, a holiday video summarization may include video clips having a Christmas tree, or the like”; [0176], “ such as when the user 10 requests a video summarization, the server(s) 112 may receive characteristics/parameters to include in the video summarization. For example, if the system receives a request for video summarization (such as a request initiated by the user 10 using device 102), the indication may comprise identities of people to include, objects to include and/or other characteristics/parameters that may be indicated by annotation data”).
10. Claim 6-7, 12-13 and 15-16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Krahnstoever, as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of MAEHARA (CN-1625895-A).
As to claim 6, Krahnstoever discloses the claimed invention substantially as discussed in claim 1, wherein the summary video content includes video content extracted based on the marker information from video content (see citation in rejection to claim 1) but does not expressly disclose that the video content is filmed by a plurality of cameras. MAEHARA discloses video content is filmed by a plurality of cameras (page 2, “The above functions are explained below by citing an example of recording a live concert video of a musician. In this case, at the concert hall site, various scenes of the concert are photographed and recorded by a plurality of cameras. For example, five cameras each take footage of "the whole band", only the "singer", only the "guitarist", only the "bassist", and only the "drummer". In this way, five corresponding scenes shot from five camera angles are repeatedly edited until the video production is completed”).
Before the effective filing date of the invention, it would have been obvious for an ordinary skilled in the art to combine Krahnstoever with MAEHARA. The suggestion/motivation of the combination would have been to make multiple shots based on scenes (MAEHARA, page 2).
As to claim 7, Krahnstoever in view of MAEHARA discloses the user terminal of claim 1, wherein the summary video content includes video content extracted based on the marker information from video content filmed by at least one user's camera (MAEHARA, see citation in rejection to claim 6. It is to be noted that the claim does not require a specific type of user for “at least one user”, or what entity the claimed “at least one user” is a user of. Here, the operator(s) of the cameras as disclosed by MAEHERA reads on the claimed “at least one user”).
As to claim 12, Krahnstoever in view of MAEHARA discloses the server of claim 9, wherein the summary video content includes video content extracted based on the marker information from video content filmed by a plurality of cameras (MAEHARA, see similar rejection to claim 6).
As to claim 13, Krahnstoever in view of MAEHARA discloses the server of claim 9, wherein the summary video content includes video content extracted based on the marker information from video content filmed by at least one user's camera (MAEHARA, see similar rejection to claim 7).
As to claim 15, Krahnstoever in view of MAEHARA discloses the system of claim 14, wherein the summary video content includes video content extracted based on the marker information from video content filmed by a plurality of cameras (MAEHARA, see similar rejection to claim 6).
As to claim 16, Krahnstoever in view of MAEHARA discloses the system of claim 14, wherein the summary video content includes video content extracted based on the marker information from video content filmed by at least one user's camera (MAEHARA, see similar rejection to claim 7).
11. Claim 5 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Krahnstoever in view of Townsend, as applied to claim 3 above, and further in view of MAEHARA (CN-1625895-A).
As to claim 5, Krahnstoever in view of Townsend discloses the claimed invention substantially as discussed in claim 3, but does not expressly disclose wherein the processor is configured to receive a setting for requestable theme-related information of the summary video content from the server.
MAEHARA discloses a concept for a processor to be configured to receive a setting for requestable theme-related information of a summary video content from a server (pages 6-7, “FIG. 5 shows the menu screen 25 displayed on the display method 12. The menu screen displays, for example, a list of movies produced by the multi-angle software. Assume that the user selects a movie title, for example, "Hannibal" on the menu screen 25 using the control method 10. Then, the control method 10 sends an explanation screen request for "Hannibal" to the video digest providing method 6, as shown in an explanation screen request 43 in FIG. Upon receiving the explanation screen request 43, the video digest providing method 6 sends the explanation screen to the receiving method 11 of the information terminal 9, as shown in the explanation screen sending 44 in FIG. The interpretation screen received by the receiving method 11 is displayed on the display method 12. FIG. 6 shows an example of the explanation screen 26 displayed on the display method 12. This screen explains the content of the movie "Hannibal", which is multi-angle software. In the software, the shootout scene (47 minutes and 5 seconds) is a multi-angle video. By selecting and specifying Watch 27 and Buy 28, users can watch a video summary of "Hannibal" and purchase the full version. Assume that the user of the information terminal 9 is considering purchasing the full version of "Hannibal" and is considering whether to purchase it. In this case, the user operates the control method 10 and selects and specifies viewing 27 on the explanation screen 26 . Then, the control method 10 sends a request for a video summary to the video summary providing method 6, as shown in the video summary request 45 in FIG. 8. When receiving the video summary request 45 (S20), the video summary providing method 6 sends the video summary (S3), as shown in the video summary sending 46 in FIG.8. The video digest sent from the video digest providing method 6 is received by the receiving method 11 and displayed on the display method 12 . In the video summary displayed on the display method 12, the part specified by the playback start time and playback end time as shown in FIG. 3 in the multi-angle video is played back on the display method 12. Then, by selecting and specifying the leading still image of the video summary with the control method 10, the angle of the multi-angle video can be freely switched. The user of the information terminal 9 can interactively switch and enjoy the video summary. Therefore, after the user of the information terminal 9 interactively operates and appreciates the video summary and operates the control method 10, the explanation screen 26 shown in FIG. 6 is displayed on the display method 12.”).
Before the effective filing date of the invention, it would have been obvious for an ordinary skilled in the art to combine Krahnstoever in view of Townsend with MAEHARA. The suggestion/motivation of the combination would have been to provide buyer options to select the topic of content to request summary (MAEHARA, pages 6-7).
Prior Art Cited but not Applied in the Rejection
12. Below is a list of prior art reference(s) cited but not applied in the rejection:
a) Woolley (US 10083360), disclosing time-lapse representation of video footage, wherein a requesting user may select a start time 234 and an end time 236 for the requested summary video (time-lapse of video footage from doorbell camera); for example, the user may request summary video footage recorded between 12:00 p.m. (start time) and 3:00 p.m. (end time) on May 17, 2016. After the time range selection, the user may request to view the summary video for the selected time range via element 232, see Figures 2A-2C.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to HUA FAN whose telephone number is (571)270-5311. The examiner can normally be reached on 9-6.
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 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.
/HUA FAN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2426
Prosecution Insights