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 .
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
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.
Claims 1-8 are 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 applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Claim 1 partly recites “generating the summary associated with the at least one of the plurality of multimedia content based on the analysis” in line 13 and “identifying, by the electronic device, the at least one of the plurality of multimedia content in response to analysis” in line 20. (Emphasis added). It is unclear whether the terms “the analysis” and “analysis” refer to analysing a temporal token file that is previously indicated in the claim.
Claim 1 partly recites “wherein the summary generated for at least one of the plurality of multimedia content present, includes an image corresponding to the generated summary is mapped to corresponding textual token and presented to the user.” in lines 16-18. The claim language is confusing and inadequate. The boundaries of the claim scope are unclear. As best understood with reference to the applicant’s specification at paragraphs 046 and 054, the examiner considers the above limitation as -- wherein the summary generated for at least one of the plurality of multimedia content includes an image that is mapped to corresponding textual token and presented to the user; -- for the purpose of examination only.
Claim 1 recite the limitation “the standardized set of information” in line 14. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim recites the limitation “the generated summary” in lines 17-18. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claims 4 and 8 recite the limitation "the displayed summary” lines 8-9. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claims 4 and 8.
Claim 5 recites similar features as claim 1. Accordingly, claim 5 is rejected by the same above reasons as applied to claim 1.
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.
Claims 1-8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over NI et al. (US 20180020243 A1) in view of Schmitz et al. (US 5544318 A).
Regarding claim 1, NI discloses a method for accessing selective multimedia content within a multimedia file, the method comprising:
receiving, by an electronic device from a user, a user input for accessing at least one of a plurality of multimedia content present within the multimedia file, wherein each of the plurality of multimedia content comprises a plurality of snippets, and wherein each of the plurality of snippets includes one or more attributes (receiving, via an apparatus, instructions from a user for rending or viewing video content of a media file, wherein the media file includes a plurality of video segments/scenes, wherein each of video segments/scenes includes one or more attributes/features - see 0042, 0045, 0174, 0176, 0226, 0227, 0233);
analysing, by the electronic device, a temporal token file associated with each of the plurality of multimedia content upon receiving the user input, wherein the temporal token file is generated based on a token file and a timestamp associated with each of the plurality of snippets (analyzing a video/output file to determine the number of highlight sections or scenes and non-highlight sections upon receiving user’s instruction, wherein the video/output file is generated based on time-stamped information and text file providing descriptive component – see 0160, 0177, 0227, 0228), and wherein the token file comprises a textual token representing the one or more attributes present within the plurality of snippets (the text file comprises attribute information associated with the video segments/scenes – see 0122, 0138, 0177);
generating a summary associated with the at least one of the plurality of multimedia content based on the analysis, wherein the summary is generated based on the standardized set of information associated with each of the plurality of snippets (creating a summary video file associated with the video segments/scenes based on analysis, wherein the created summary video file is associated with specific users, or types of plays, or any other attribute or parameter that is derivable from the content of the video – see 0203, 0207-0209, 0220, 0221),
identifying, by the electronic device, the at least one of the plurality of multimedia content in response to analysis (identifying, via the apparatus, the labeled scenes of the video in response to analyzing the frames of the video – see 0151-0153); and
selectively providing, by the electronic device, access of the at least one of the plurality of multimedia content to the user (selectively providing, via the apparatus, access of the highlight segments to the user – see 0245).
NI does not explicitly disclose that wherein the summary generated for at least one of the plurality of multimedia content includes an image that is mapped to corresponding textual token and presented to the user. However, Schmitz teaches generating a review for segments of video included an image that is mapped to corresponding to text data and presented to the user. See FIGs. 4 & 7, col. 13, lines 33-48; col. 14, lines 25-40; col. 20, lines 41-67. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify NI by the summary generated for at least one of the plurality of multimedia content includes an image that is mapped to corresponding textual token and presented to the user as taught or suggested by Schmitz to allow the user to rapidly navigate the review associated with the multimedia content.
Regarding claim 2, NI teaches presenting, via a Graphical User Interface (GUI), the plurality of multimedia content present within the multimedia file to the user in a plurality of ways (e.g., UI 1300/1400 - see FIGs, 13-14).
Regarding claim 3, NI teaches that wherein the user input comprises a user selection of at least one of a set of information associated with at least one of the plurality of snippets based on a requirement of the user, wherein the set of information includes a sentiment associated with each of the plurality of snippets, a number of occurrences of each of the one or more attributes within each of the plurality of snippets, and a content classification category (using information associated with the video segments/scene based on user’s profile indicating favorite players/team in user’s profile, the activity occurring in the video, one or more attributes/parameters from the content of the video, user interest in a particular type of content – 0043-0046, 0176).
Regarding claim 4, NI in combination with Schmitz teaches that wherein the user input corresponds to an input from the user for generating a summary corresponding to at least one of the plurality of multimedia content present within the multimedia file (creating a summary video in response to user’s request – see NI: 0204) , and wherein generating the summary comprises: analysing the temporal token file associated with the plurality of multimedia content (analyzing the video/output file associated with the video segments/scenes – see NI: 0228) ; and displaying the summary generated corresponding to the at least one of the plurality of multimedia content of the multimedia file to the user, wherein the displayed summary comprises an image of one of the one or more attributes mapped to corresponding textual token representing one of the one or more attributes (displaying the review/summary for segments of video included an image that is mapped to corresponding text data representing one or more attributes, e. g., description and/or keywords. See Schmitz: FIGs. 4 & 7, col. 13, lines 33-48; col. 14, lines 25-40; col. 20, lines 41-67), and wherein mapping of the image with the corresponding textual token is done based on the timestamp of the occurrence of each of the one or more attributes within each of the plurality of snippets (mapping the image according to the timecode, description, keywords associated with the respective segment/clip – see Schmitz: FIGs. 4 & 7; col. 13, lines 40-48; col. 20, lines 41-67).
Regarding claims 5-8, see the rejection of claims 1-4, respectively.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Verma et al. (US 20220138474 A1) teach a method for personalized playback of a video as performed by a video platform includes parsing a video into segments based on visual and audio content of the video.
Hazanovich et al. (US 10528208 B2) teach a method, and system and a computer program product for previewing a data stream in accordance with a relevance score corresponding to an attribute of interest.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to NGOC K VU whose telephone number is (571)272-7306. The examiner can normally be reached Monday & Thursday: 10AM-6:30PM EST; Tuesday, Wednesday & Friday: out of office.
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, NATHAN FLYNN can be reached at 571-272-1915. 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.
/NGOC K VU/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2421
Prosecution Insights