DETAILED ACTION
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 .
Applicant(s) Response to Official Action
The response filed on 12/10/2025 has been entered and made of record.
Response to Arguments/Amendments
Presented arguments have been fully considered, but some are rendered moot in view of the new ground(s) of rejection necessitated by amendment(s) initiated by the applicant(s).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
Summary of Arguments:
Regarding claims 1, 9, 17 the applicant argues:
“Minkovitch does not disclose voice recognition of referee calls using sport-specific trigger words.” [Remarks: Page 8]
“Minkovitch does not disclose annotation of the video stream by interpreting a spoken call.” [Remarks: Page 8]
“Rigazio fails to teach (1) recognizing a referee call (which is recorded within the video stream and not added by a third person) using voice recognition based on sport-specific trigger words; (2) annotating the video stream with the recognized referee call, which is synchronized to a time period during which the sport action corresponding to the referee call occurs.” [Remarks: Page 9]
“Notably, the cited references do not disclose: (1) constructing datasets that pair referee speech labels with synchronized video clips; (2) feeding those datasets into an AI engine to train or optimize a model; and (3) deploying that model later to generate AI-based referee calls.” [Remarks: Page 9]
“The Office Action suggests that one of ordinary skill "would have" combined Minkovitch with Rigazio and Schmid to "improve" annotation or AI features, but does not provide a concrete rationale supported by the references […] Combining those references in the manner proposed would require substantial redesign, specifically: (1) relocating cameras to referee-worn smart glasses; (2) introducing speech recognition tuned to sport-specific referee phrases ("trigger words"); (3) restructuring storage formats to preserve temporal alignment between video frames and recognized calls; and (4) adding AI training and deployment infrastructure that generates calls during later events. […] Therefore, independent claim 1 is not obvious over the cited combination.” [Remarks: Page 10]
Regarding claims 2-8, 10-16, 18-20, the applicant argues:
“are for the same reasons, as well as for reasons of the unique combinations recited in such claims, in condition for allowance.” [Remarks: Page 10]
Examiner’s Response:
Regarding claims 1, 9, 17, the examiner contends:
Presented arguments have been fully considered, but some are rendered moot in view of the new ground(s) of rejection implemented by 35 U.S.C. 112(a). Further, in response to applicant's argument that the references fail to show certain features of the invention, it is noted that the features upon which applicant relies (i.e., “voice recognition of referee calls using sport-specific trigger words”) are not recited in the rejected claim(s). Although the claims are interpreted in light of the specification, limitations from the specification are not read into the claims. See In re Van Geuns, 988 F.2d 1181, 26 USPQ2d 1057 (Fed. Cir. 1993). Furthermore, Minkovitch is not relied upon to disclose: “… recognize the referee call using voice recognition and sport-specific trigger words …” as cited in claim 1. Instead, Rigazio teaches recogniz[ing] the referee call using voice recognition and sport-specific trigger words (Rigazio – Fig. 4 & Paras. [0005], [0020]-[0023], [0033] disclose recognizing 54 the user’s speech [referee call] using a speech recognizer for voice recognition of lexica related to sport events, e.g., “interception by player 12 of team A”, “Field goal by player 6 of team A”.).
In response to applicant's argument that the references fail to show certain features of the invention, it is noted that the features upon which applicant relies (i.e., “annotation of the video stream by interpreting a spoken call.”) are not recited in the rejected claim(s). Although the claims are interpreted in light of the specification, limitations from the specification are not read into the claims. See In re Van Geuns, 988 F.2d 1181, 26 USPQ2d 1057 (Fed. Cir. 1993). Therefore, the argument is moot.
In response to applicant's argument that the references fail to show certain features of the invention, it is noted that the features upon which applicant relies (i.e., “(1) recognizing a referee call (which is recorded within the video stream and not added by a third person) using voice recognition based on sport-specific trigger words; (2) annotating the video stream with the recognized referee call, which is synchronized to a time period during which the sport action corresponding to the referee call occurs.”) are not recited in the rejected claim(s). Although the claims are interpreted in light of the specification, limitations from the specification are not read into the claims. See In re Van Geuns, 988 F.2d 1181, 26 USPQ2d 1057 (Fed. Cir. 1993).
Furthermore, Rigazio discloses annotating the video stream with the recognized referee call, wherein, in the annotated video stream, the recognized referee call is synchronized to a time period during which an action corresponding to the referee call occurs (Rigazio – Fig. 4 & Paras. [0005], [0020]-[0023], [0033] disclose recognizing 54 the user’s speech [referee call] using a speech recognizer for voice recognition of lexica related to sport events and annotating/tags the video stream with the recognized user’s speech (e.g., “interception by player 12 of team A”) based on close temporal relation between receipt of recognized user speech and capture of the captured media [synchronized to a time period during which an action corresponding to the referee call occurs].).
In response to applicant's argument that the references fail to show certain features of the invention, it is noted that the features upon which applicant relies (i.e., “(1) constructing datasets that pair referee speech labels with synchronized video clips; (2) feeding those datasets into an AI engine to train or optimize a model; and (3) deploying that model later to generate AI-based referee calls.”) are not recited in the rejected claim(s). Although the claims are interpreted in light of the specification, limitations from the specification are not read into the claims. See In re Van Geuns, 988 F.2d 1181, 26 USPQ2d 1057 (Fed. Cir. 1993).
In response to applicant’s argument that there is no teaching, suggestion, or motivation to combine the references, the examiner recognizes that obviousness may 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), In re Jones, 958 F.2d 347, 21 USPQ2d 1941 (Fed. Cir. 1992), and KSR International Co. v. Teleflex, Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 82 USPQ2d 1385 (2007). In this case, the primary reference (Minkovitch – US 2018/0140926 A1), provides the overall structure regarding the independent claims (see paragraphs [0074]-[0077]). In addition to Minkovitch addressing all the physical components of the system (see 35 U.S.C. 103 for details), Rigazio and Schmid are added to address the limitations that are implied by Minkovitch, but are not explicit. For example, the sports action system of Minkovitch is modified to include the recognizing referee call annotation video stream feature as described in Rigazio (US 2005/0075881 A1) the motivation to combine Rigazio with Minkovitch would have been to improve organization of collected media content (translates into sports content) by providing simultaneous text tag generation during media capture (Rigazio: [0002], [0015]). Furthermore, Schmid (WO 2023/149898 A1) who also has a wearable device configuration, simply teaches using human-generated captions [referee call] for describing a video, which can be used as training data to train models to generate a video classification output. Therefore, the sports action system of Minkovitch-Rigazio is modified to include the annotated video stream corresponding referee call to be used as training data for AI-based calls and generating feature as described in Schmid, to improve user experience with respect to client-server configurations by providing algorithms that enhance accuracy for video labeled data (Schmid: [0057]).
Regarding claims 2-8, 10-16, 18-20, the examiner contends:
See comments for claims 1, 9 and 17.
Claim Interpretation
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(f):
(f) ELEMENT IN CLAIM FOR A COMBINATION.—An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The claims in this application are given their broadest reasonable interpretation using the plain meaning of the claim language in light of the specification as it would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art. The broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim element (also commonly referred to as a claim limitation) is limited by the description in the specification when 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is invoked.
As explained in MPEP § 2181, subsection I, claim limitations that meet the following three-prong test will be interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
(A) the claim limitation uses the term “means” or “step” or a term used as a substitute for “means” that is a generic placeholder (also called a nonce term or a non-structural term having no specific structural meaning) for performing the claimed function;
(B) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is modified by functional language, typically, but not always linked by the transition word “for” (e.g., “means for”) or another linking word or phrase, such as "configured to" or "so that"; and
(C) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function.
Use of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim with functional language creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites sufficient structure, material, or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Absence of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is not to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is not interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites function without reciting sufficient structure, material or acts to entirely perform the recited function. Claim limitations in this application that use the word “means” (or “step”) are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action. Conversely, claim limitations in this application that do not use the word “means” (or “step”) are not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action.
This application includes one or more claim limitations that do not use the word “means,” but are nonetheless being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, because the claim limitation(s) uses a generic placeholder that is coupled with functional language without reciting sufficient structure to perform the recited function and the generic placeholder is not preceded by a structural modifier. Such claim limitation(s) is/are: replay mechanism (claims 1, 4).
Because this/these claim limitation(s) is/are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, it/they is/are being interpreted to cover the corresponding structure described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof.
If applicant does not intend to have this/these limitation(s) interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, applicant may: (1) amend the claim limitation(s) to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph (e.g., by reciting sufficient structure to perform the claimed function); or (2) present a sufficient showing that the claim limitation(s) recite(s) sufficient structure to perform the claimed function so as to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112:
The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor of carrying out his invention.
Claims 1-8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for pre-AIA the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention.
Re. Claim 1, the following limitation does not appear to be found or adequately described in the applicant’s disclosure:
“… a replay mechanism coupled to the display …(emphasis added)”. For example, according to the applicant’s disclosure (see US 2025/0245987 A1), paragraph [0004] states that the “system also includes a replay mechanism coupled to the mobile computing unit to provide a replay”, however, there appears to be no description of the display mechanism coupled to the display, found in the applicant’s disclosure.
For the purposes of examination, the limitation is interpreted as the following:
“… a replay mechanism .
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claim 2 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor, or for pre-AIA the applicant regards as the invention.
Claim 2 recites the limitation "… wherein the wearable video unit is a pair of glasses which comprises one or more video cameras …" (emphasis added to accentuate insufficient antecedent basis). Claim 1, recites the limitation: “… a video capture mechanism, which includes at least one video camera …”. Therefore, it’s unclear whether the “at least one video camera” of claim 1 corresponds to the “one or more video cameras” of claim 2 or, if they are separate (different cameras) from claim 2.
For the purposes of examination, claim 2 is interpreted as the following:
“… wherein the wearable video unit is a pair of glasses which comprises the at least one video camera …”.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(d):
(d) REFERENCE IN DEPENDENT FORMS.—Subject to subsection (e), a claim in dependent form shall contain a reference to a claim previously set forth and then specify a further limitation of the subject matter claimed. A claim in dependent form shall be construed to incorporate by reference all the limitations of the claim to which it refers.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, fourth paragraph:
Subject to the following paragraph [i.e., the fifth paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112], a claim in dependent form shall contain a reference to a claim previously set forth and then specify a further limitation of the subject matter claimed. A claim in dependent form shall be construed to incorporate by reference all the limitations of the claim to which it refers.
Claim 2 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(d) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, 4th paragraph, as being of improper dependent form for failing to further limit the subject matter of the claim upon which it depends, or for failing to include all the limitations of the claim upon which it depends.
Claim 2 recites the limitation: “… wherein the wearable video unit is a pair of glasses which comprises one or more video cameras.” (emphasis added). Claim 1 recites the limitation: “… a video capture mechanism, which includes at least one video camera …” (emphasis added).
Therefore, the limitation fails to further limit the subject matter of the claim upon which it depends. The applicant may cancel the claim(s), amend the claim(s) to place the claim(s) in proper dependent form, rewrite the claim(s) in independent form, or present a sufficient showing that the dependent claim(s) complies with the statutory requirements.
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.
Claims 1-3, 5-6, 8-11, 13-14, 16, 18-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Minkovitch (US 2018/0140926 A1) in view of Rigazio et al., hereinafter referred to as Rigazio (US 2005/0075881 A1) in further view of Schmid et al., hereinafter referred to as Schmid (WO 2023/149898 A1).
As per claim 1, Minkovitch discloses a system for facilitating recording, replay, and analysis of sport actions (Minkovitch – Abstract; Fig. 3), the system comprising:
a wearable video unit (102) comprising a video capture mechanism (108), which includes at least one video camera, and a communication subsystem (145), wherein the video capture mechanism (108) is configured to capture a video stream of a sport action (e.g., “free kick”) and a corresponding referee call associated with the sport action (Minkovitch – Figs. 1, 3 & Paras. [0051], [0069], [0071], [0075]-[0076], [0078] disclose smart glasses 102 includes imaging unit 108 and a wireless medium 145, wherein the imaging unit 108 is configured to capture video of all sport action (e.g., “free kick”) events and log the verbal and visual data associated with the event for all match events);
a mobile computing unit (FB-MM 150) comprising a processor (processes all data) and a storage device (collects all data for storage), wherein the mobile computing unit is in communication with the communication subsystem (145) and configured to store the video stream and the corresponding referee call, wherein the mobile computing unit (FB-MM 150) is further configured to (Minkovitch – Figs. 1, 3 & Paras. [0075]-[0077] disclose FB-MM 150 may additionally collect data associated with all match events, including all data and commands, including verbal and visual data, including verbal recordings, into a log file which may serve for record purposes and as input to the match log.);
a display (Minkovitch – Figs. 1, 3 & Para. [0074] disclose display 107.); and
a replay mechanism coupled to the display and the mobile computing unit (FB-MM 150) and configured to provide a replay of the video stream in response to a replay command (Minkovitch – Figs. 1, 3 & Paras. [0048], [0069], [0074], [0076] disclose imaging unit 108 of glasses 102 allows the referee or refereeing personnel to replay events associated with a player being “off-side”, a “hand ball” penalty, a “goal”, ball “out of bounds”, among many other aspects of a football match's events, which is input to and/or processed by the FB-MM 150. The FB-MM 150 may be adapted to transmit data, which may include data stored in the device, data processed by the device, and command data, to glasses 102, some of which may be displayed on data display screen 107, which may be wired or wirelessly coupled.);
wherein the mobile computing unit (FB-MM 150) is further configured to transmit the (170)(Minkovitch – Figs. 1, 3 & Para. [0075] disclose the events of the match (verbal and visual data) may be stored in glasses 102 and the data may be downloaded to FB-MM 150 for generating the report. Additionally, the events of the match may be stored in data server 170).
However, Minkovitch does not explicitly disclose “… recognize the referee call using voice recognition and sport-specific trigger words, and to annotate the video stream with the recognized referee call, wherein, in the annotated video stream, the recognized referee call is synchronized to a time period during which an action corresponding to the referee call occurs … transmit the annotated video stream … , thereby allowing the annotate video stream and the corresponding referee call to be used as training data for an artificial intelligence (AI) engine to optimize an AI model for generating AI-based calls for sport actions.”
Further, Rigazio is in the same field of endeavor and teaches recognize the referee call using voice recognition and sport-specific trigger words (e.g., “interception by player 12 of team A”, “Field goal by player 6 of team A”), and to annotate the video stream with the recognized referee call, wherein, in the annotated video stream, the recognized referee call is synchronized to a time period during which an action corresponding to the referee call occurs (Rigazio – Fig. 4 & Paras. [0005], [0020]-[0023], [0033] disclose recognizing 54 the user’s speech [referee call] using a speech recognizer for voice recognition of lexica related to sport events and annotating/tags the video stream with the recognized user’s speech (e.g., “interception by player 12 of team A”) based on close temporal relation between receipt of recognized user speech and capture of the captured media [synchronized to a time period during which an action corresponding to the referee call occurs].);
transmit the annotated video stream (Rigazio – Figs. 1-2 & Paras. [0024]-[0025] disclose Finally, captured media 80 may be transmitted to a post-processor via external data interface 20.).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, and having the teachings of Minkovitch and Rigazio before him or her, to modify the sports action system of Minkovitch to include the recognizing referee call annotation video stream feature as described in Rigazio. The motivation for doing so would have been to improve organization of collected media content by providing simultaneous text tag generation during media capture.
However, Minkovitch-Rigazio do not explicitly disclose “… thereby allowing the annotate video stream and the corresponding referee call to be used as training data for an artificial intelligence (AI) engine to optimize an AI model for generating AI-based calls for sport actions.”
Further, Schmid is in the same field of endeavor and teaches thereby allowing the annotate video stream and the corresponding referee call to be used as training data for an artificial intelligence (AI) engine to optimize an AI model for generating AI-based calls for sport actions (Schmid – Fig. 1A & Paras. [0040], [0052], [0054]-[0056], [0066]-[0067], [0079] disclose wearable device 102 can include human-generated captions [referee call] for images that can be utilized for other modalities (e.g., video, audio). To illustrate, the caption ‘person throws a pitch during a game against university’ from an image captioning dataset can describe a still image and/or motion [video stream] that would occur in a video, which can be used as training data 162 to train models 120 to generate a video classification output.).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, and having the teachings of Minkovitch-Rigazio and Schmid before him or her, to modify the sports action system of Minkovitch-Rigazio to include the annotated video stream corresponding referee call for AI-based training and generating feature as described in Schmid. The motivation for doing so would have been to improve user experience with respect to client-server configurations by providing algorithms that enhance accuracy for video labeled data.
As per claim 17, Minkovitch discloses a non-transitory computer-readable storage medium storing instructions which when executed by a processor cause the processor to perform a method for facilitating recording, replay, and analysis of sport actions (Minkovitch – Abstract; Fig. 3), the method comprising:
capturing a video stream of a sport action and a corresponding referee call associated with the sport action (Minkovitch – Figs. 1, 3 & Paras. [0051], [0069], [0071], [0075]-[0076], [0078] disclose smart glasses 102 includes imaging unit 108 and a wireless medium 145, wherein the imaging unit 108 is configured to capture video of all sport action (e.g., “free kick”) events and log the verbal and visual data associated with the event for all match events.);
storing the video stream and the corresponding referee call on a mobile device (Minkovitch – Figs. 1, 3 & Paras. [0075]-[0077] disclose FB-MM 150 may additionally collect data associated with all match events, including all data and commands, including verbal and visual data, including verbal recordings, into a log file which may serve for record purposes and as input to the match log.);
(Minkovitch – Figs. 1, 3 & Paras. [0075]-[0077] disclose FB-MM 150 may additionally collect data associated with all match events, including all data and commands, including verbal and visual data, including verbal recordings, into a log file which may serve for record purposes and as input to the match log.);
(Minkovitch – Figs. 1, 3 & Paras. [0075]-[0077] disclose FB-MM 150 may additionally collect data associated with all match events, including all data and commands, including verbal and visual data, including verbal recordings, into a log file which may serve for record purposes and as input to the match log.);
providing a replay of the video stream in response to a replay command (Minkovitch – Figs. 1, 3 & Paras. [0048], [0069] disclose imaging unit 108 allows the referee or refereeing personnel to replay events associated with a player being “off-side”, a “hand ball” penalty, a “goal”, ball “out of bounds”, among many other aspects of a football match's events, which is input to and/or processed by the FB-MM 150); and
transmitting the (Minkovitch – Figs. 1, 3 & Para. [0075] disclose the events of the match (verbal and visual data) may be stored in glasses 102 and the data may be downloaded to FB-MM 150 for generating the report. Additionally, the events of the match may be stored in data server 170).
However, Minkovitch does not explicitly disclose “… recognizing the referee call using voice recognition and sport-specific trigger words; annotating the video stream with the recognized referee call, wherein, in the annotated video stream, the recognized referee call is synchronized to a time period during which an action corresponding to the referee call occurs … transmitting the annotated video stream … , thereby allowing the annotate video stream and the corresponding referee call to be used as training data for an artificial intelligence (AI) engine to optimize an AI model for generating AI-based calls for sport actions.”
Further, Rigazio is in the same field of endeavor and teaches recognizing the referee call using voice recognition and sport-specific trigger words (Rigazio – Fig. 4 & Paras. [0005], [0020]-[0023], [0033] disclose recognizing 54 the user’s speech [referee call] using a speech recognizer for voice recognition of lexica related to sport events, e.g., “interception by player 12 of team A”, “Field goal by player 6 of team A”.);
annotating the video stream with the recognized referee call, wherein, in the annotated video stream, the recognized referee call is synchronized to a time period during which an action corresponding to the referee call occurs (Rigazio – Fig. 4 & Paras. [0005], [0020]-[0023], [0033] disclose recognizing 54 the user’s speech [referee call] using a speech recognizer for voice recognition of lexica related to sport events and annotating/tags the video stream with the recognized user’s speech (e.g., “interception by player 12 of team A”) based on close temporal relation between receipt of recognized user speech and capture of the captured media [synchronized to a time period during which an action corresponding to the referee call occurs].);
transmit the annotated video stream (Rigazio – Figs. 1-2 & Paras. [0024]-[0025] disclose Finally, captured media 80 may be transmitted to a post-processor via external data interface 20.).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, and having the teachings of Minkovitch and Rigazio before him or her, to modify the sports action system of Minkovitch to include the recognizing annotation video stream feature as described in Rigazio. The motivation for doing so would have been to improve organization of collected media content by providing simultaneous text tag generation during media capture.
However, Minkovitch-Rigazio do not explicitly disclose “… thereby allowing the annotate video stream and the corresponding referee call to be used as training data for an AI engine to optimize an AI model for generating AI-based calls for sport actions.”
Further, Schmid is in the same field of endeavor and teaches thereby allowing the annotate video stream and the corresponding referee call to be used as training data for an artificial intelligence (AI) engine to optimize an AI model for generating AI-based calls for sport actions (Schmid – Fig. 1A & Paras. [0040], [0052], [0054]-[0056], [0066]-[0067], [0079] disclose wearable device 102 can include human-generated captions [referee call] for images that can be utilized for other modalities (e.g., video, audio). To illustrate, the caption ‘person throws a pitch during a game against university’ from an image captioning dataset can describe a still image and/or motion [video stream] that would occur in a video, which can be used as training data 162 to train models 120 to generate a video classification output).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, and having the teachings of Minkovitch-Rigazio and Schmid before him or her, to modify the sports action system of Minkovitch-Rigazio to include the annotated video stream corresponding referee call for AI-based training and generating feature as described in Schmid. The motivation for doing so would have been to improve user experience with respect to client-server configurations by providing algorithms that enhance accuracy for video labeled data.
As per claim 9, the claim(s) recites analogous limitations to claim(s) 1, 17 above, and is/are therefore rejected on the same premise.
As per claim 2, Minkovitch-Rigazio-Schmid disclose the system of claim 1, wherein the wearable video unit is a pair of glasses which comprises one or more video cameras (Minkovitch – Figs. 1, 3 & Para. [0052] disclose smart glasses 102 includes imaging unit 108).
As per claim 3, Minkovitch-Rigazio-Schmid disclose the system of claim 1, wherein the mobile computing unit is further configured to record the video stream in response to a voice command (Minkovitch – Figs. 1, 3 & Para. [0071] disclose microphone 110 may be used by the wearer to verbally provide instructions to FB-RS 100 regarding system operation and/or operation of glasses 102. The wearer may provide verbal instructions for operating imaging unit 108 including for measuring distances and for zooming operation); and
wherein the wearable video unit comprises an audio input device (110) configured to capture the voice command (Minkovitch – Fig. 1, 3 & Para. [0071] disclose microphone 110 configured to capture the voice command).
As per claim 5, Minkovitch-Rigazio-Schmid disclose the system of claim 1, wherein the mobile computing unit is further configured to receive the AI model to generate a referee call (Schmid – Fig. 1A & Paras. [0040], [0052], [0066]-[0067], [0079] disclose wearable device 102 is further configured to receive the ML model to generate a prediction output [referee call]).
As per claim 6, Minkovitch-Rigazio-Schmid disclose the system of claim 5, further comprising a notification mechanism configured to provide the AI-generated referee call to a user wearing the wearable video unit (Minkovitch – Fig. 3 & Paras. [0051]-[0052], [0074], [0077] disclose a user wearing the wearable glasses 102 and a FB-MM 150 (smartphone) may be additionally adapted to receive data from glasses 102, which may include data acquired by the wearer (e.g. imaging data from imaging unit 108) and data, including command data, input by the wearer (e.g. through microphone 110) and Schmid – Fig. 1A & Paras. [0040], [0052], [0066]-[0067], [0079] disclose wearable device 102 is further configured to receive the ML model to generate a prediction output [AI-generated referee call]).
As per claim 8, Minkovitch-Rigazio-Schmid disclose the system of claim 6, wherein the notification mechanism comprises a display mechanism configured to display the AI-generated referee call (Minkovitch – Fig. 4 & Para. [0078] disclose: FB-MM 150 may display a warning screen 160 may additionally display against the colored background a number of a player who is being issued the warning, and may automatically change color from a yellow background to a red background when the same player has been twice issued a yellow background warning. Further, Schmid – Fig. 1A & Paras. [0040], [0052], [0066]-[0067], [0079] disclose wearable device 102 is further configured to receive the ML model to generate a prediction output [AI-generated referee call]).
As per claim 10, Minkovitch-Rigazio-Schmid disclose the method of claim 9, wherein the video stream is captured by a pair of glasses which comprises one or more video cameras (Minkovitch – Figs. 1, 3 & Para. [0052] disclose smart glasses 102 includes imaging unit 108).
As per claim 11, Minkovitch-Rigazio-Schmid disclose the method of claim 9, further comprising:
capturing a voice command (Minkovitch – Figs. 1, 3 & Para. [0071] disclose microphone 110 may be used by the wearer to verbally provide instructions to FB-RS 100 regarding system operation and/or operation of glasses 102. The wearer may provide verbal instructions for operating imaging unit 108 including for measuring distances and for zooming operation); and
recording the video stream in response to the voice command (Minkovitch – Fig. 1, 3 & Para. [0071] disclose microphone 110 configured to capture the voice command).
As per claims 13, the claim(s) recites analogous limitations to claim(s) 5 above, and is/are therefore rejected on the same premise.
As per claim 14, Minkovitch-Rigazio-Schmid disclose the method of claim 13, further comprising generating a referee call using the AI model on the video stream and providing the AI-generated referee call to a user (Minkovitch – Fig. 3 & Paras. [0051]-[0052], [0074], [0077] disclose a user wearing the wearable glasses 102 and a FB-MM 150 (smartphone) may be additionally adapted to receive data from glasses 102, which may include data acquired by the wearer (e.g. imaging data from imaging unit 108) and data, including command data, input by the wearer (e.g. through microphone 110) and Schmid – Fig. 1A & Paras. [0040], [0052], [0066]-[0067], [0079] disclose wearable device 102 is further configured to receive the ML model to generate a prediction output [AI-generated referee call]).
As per claim 16, Minkovitch-Rigazio-Schmid disclose the method of claim 14, wherein providing the AI-generated referee call to the user comprises displaying the AI-generated referee call (Minkovitch – Fig. 4 & Para. [0078] disclose: FB-MM 150 may display a warning screen 160 may additionally display against the colored background a number of a player who is being issued the warning, and may automatically change color from a yellow background to a red background when the same player has been twice issued a yellow background warning. Further, Schmid – Fig. 1A & Paras. [0040], [0052], [0066]-[0067], [0079] disclose wearable device 102 is further configured to receive the ML model to generate a prediction output [AI-generated referee call]).
As per claim 18, Minkovitch-Rigazio-Schmid disclose the non-transitory computer-readable storage medium of claim 17, wherein the method further comprises capturing a voice command and recording the video stream in response to the voice command (Minkovitch – Figs. 1, 3 & Para. [0071] disclose microphone 110 may be used by the wearer to capture the voice command and to verbally provide instructions to FB-RS 100 regarding system operation and/or operation of glasses 102. The wearer may provide verbal instructions for operating imaging unit 108 including for measuring distances and for zooming operation).
As per claim 19, Minkovitch-Rigazio-Schmid disclose the non-transitory computer-readable storage medium of claim 17, wherein the method further comprises receiving the AI model and generating a referee call using the AI model on the video stream (Minkovitch – Fig. 3 & Paras. [0051]-[0052], [0074], [0077] disclose a user wearing the wearable glasses 102 and a FB-MM 150 (smartphone) may be additionally adapted to receive data from glasses 102, which may include data acquired by the wearer (e.g. imaging data from imaging unit 108) and data, including command data, input by the wearer (e.g. through microphone 110) and Schmid – Fig. 1A & Paras. [0040], [0052], [0066]-[0067], [0079] disclose wearable device 102 is further configured to receive the ML model to generate a prediction output [AI-generated referee call]).
As per claim 20, Minkovitch-Rigazio-Schmid disclose the non-transitory computer-readable storage medium of claim 19, wherein the method further comprises displaying the generated referee call to a user (Minkovitch – Fig. 4 & Para. [0078] disclose: FB-MM 150 may display a warning screen 160 may additionally display against the colored background a number of a player who is being issued the warning, and may automatically change color from a yellow background to a red background when the same player has been twice issued a yellow background warning. Further, Schmid – Fig. 1A & Paras. [0040], [0052], [0066]-[0067], [0079] disclose wearable device 102 is further configured to receive the ML model to generate a prediction output [AI-generated referee call]).
Claims 4, 12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Minkovitch in view of Rigazio in view of Schmid in further view of Flint et al., hereinafter referred to as Flint (US 2019/0004605 A1).
As per claim 4, Minkovitch-Rigazio-Schmid disclose the system of claim 1, wherein the replay mechanism is configured to adjust a playback (Minkovitch – Fig. 3 & Para. [0069] disclose imaging unit 108 may allow the referee or refereeing personnel to replay events which may be associated with a player being “off-side”, a “hand ball” penalty, a “goal”, ball “out of bounds”, among many other aspects of a football match's events).
However, Minkovitch-Rigazio-Schmid do not explicitly disclose “… adjust a playback speed …”.
Further, Flint is in the same field of endeavor and teaches adjust a playback speed (Flint: Paras. [0026]-[0027], [0033] disclose adjusting a playback speed on a user device based on touch input).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, and having the teachings of Minkovitch-Rigazio-Schmid and Flint before him or her, to modify the sports action system of Minkovitch-Rigazio-Schmid to include the playback speed adjustment feature as described in Flint. The motivation for doing so would have been to improve user experience by providing efficient methods and interfaces for controlling media presentation.
As per claim 12, the claim(s) recites analogous limitations to claim(s) 4 above, and is/are therefore rejected on the same premise.
Claims 7, 15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Minkovitch in view of Rigazio in view of Schmid in further view of Balest (US 11,736,775 B1).
As per claim 7, Minkovitch-Rigazio-Schmid disclose the system of claim 6, wherein the notification mechanism comprises an artificial voice generator configured to deliver the AI-generated referee call (Schmid – Fig. 1A & Paras. [0040], [0052], [0066]-[0067], [0079] disclose wearable device 102 is further configured to receive the ML model to generate a prediction output [AI-generated referee call]).
However, Minkovitch-Rigazio-Schmid do not explicitly disclose “… deliver the AI-generated referee call in a voice message.”
Further, Balest is in the same field of endeavor and teaches deliver the AI-generated referee call in a voice message (Balest: Col. 1, ll. 30-34 & Col. 2, ll. 9-12, 24-25 disclose AI generated audio descriptions of live events. Live events, (e.g., sports and concerts) typically include providing segments of a media presentation of the live event to a client device, which include AI generated audio description of a referee’s call [voice message] in near real time to the live event).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, and having the teachings of Minkovitch-Rigazio-Schmid and Balest before him or her, to modify the sports action system of Minkovitch-Rigazio-Schmid to include the voice message feature as described in Balest. The motivation for doing so would have been to improve user experience for visually impaired consumers by providing a configuration that enables AI-based playback of media content.
As per claim 15, the claim(s) recites analogous limitations to claim(s) 7 above, and is/are therefore rejected on the same premise.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure and can be viewed in the list of references.
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). 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 PEET DHILLON whose telephone number is (571)270-5647. The examiner can normally be reached M-F: 5am-1:30pm.
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, Sath V. Perungavoor can be reached at 571-272-7455. 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.
/PEET DHILLON/Primary Examiner
Art Unit: 2488
Date: 12-29-2025