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 .
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 limitations are: “acquisition unit”, “generation unit”, “application unit”, “reception unit”, and “correction unit” in claims 1-13.
Because these claim limitations are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, they are being interpreted to cover the corresponding structure described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof (see published specification [0065], Fig. 2).
If applicant does not intend to have these limitations 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 § 102
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 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.
Claims 1-2, 4, 10-15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Doken et al. (US Pub. 2024/0321266), herein referenced as Doken.
Regarding claim 1, Doken discloses “An information processing apparatus (Figs. 1-2) comprising: an acquisition unit configured to acquire explanatory information describing content of a moving image ([0005], [0045]-[0046], Fig. 1, i.e., system 100 may access the contextual data relating to the movie when generating subtitles, wherein contextual data includes at least one of content item metadata, one or more (audio and/or textual) comments relating to or referencing the media content or subject matter thereof, and/or any other appropriate data relating to the content item, such as data accessible over a network, e.g., an internet source);
a generation unit configured to generate subtitles to be applied to the moving image based on the explanatory information acquired by the acquisition unit ([0007], [0047], [0070], Fig. 3, i.e., generating second subtitles based on contextual data); and
an application unit configured to apply the subtitles generated by the generation unit to the moving image.” ([0026], [0029], [0046]-[0047], Figs. 1-3, 4A-B, i.e., second subtitles are displayed to the user).
Regarding claim 2, Doken discloses “wherein the generation unit generates the subtitles indicating an imaging object of the moving image.” ([0007], [0028]-[0029], Figs. 1-3, 4A-B, i.e., second subtitles are provided indicating an individual speaking of the media content).
Regarding claim 4, Doken discloses “wherein the generation unit generates the subtitles indicating a situation of an imaging object of the moving image.” ([0052]-[0054], [0070], Figs. 6A-B, i.e., control circuitry generates second subtitles 614 “ . . . doesn't look good for the dems (Democrats), right?”, in which “Democrats” has been inserted following “dems”. That is, the subtitles indicate a situation of the character).
Regarding claim 10, Doken discloses “wherein the generation unit generates a plurality of the subtitles to be applied to the moving image, and the application unit applies, to the moving image, the subtitles selected by the provider of the moving image among the plurality of subtitles.” ([0028]-[0030], Fig. 1, i.e., the content provider displays different subtitles to different users).
Regarding claim 11, Doken discloses “a reception unit configured to receive, from the provider of the moving image, correction information indicating correction content for the subtitles; and a correction unit configured to correct the subtitles based on the correction information received by the reception unit, wherein the application unit applies the subtitles corrected by the correction unit to the moving image.” ([0044]-[0046], Figs. 2-3, i.e., control circuitry may identify one or more separate entities, such as “vol”, for which a confidence level in the auto-generated transcription of the entity is low. Control circuitry may replace the entity “vol” with the entity “volatility”, and perform a check to determine if the replacement of the entity has affected the confidence level and/or the comprehension level in the transcription of the utterance data).
Regarding claim 12, Doken discloses “wherein the correction unit corrects the subtitles by inputting the correction information, the subtitles, and an instruction sentence for instruction to correct the subtitles based on the correction information to a model trained to output an answer to an input question.” ([0087]-[0088], i.e., translated subtitles may be generated by a machine learning device. The machine learning device can translate the sounds from the media asset. Further, the machine learning device can identify key translation elements that may need an emotion booster to improve the translation).
Regarding claim 13, Doken discloses “wherein the reception unit receives the correction information in a conversation form with the provider.” ([0046], Fig. 3, i.e., replacement of the entity “vol” with “volatility” may have increased a confidence level relating to the accuracy of the transcription, but not affected a comprehension level of the transcription, since the entity “volatility” is a term relating to the finance industry, and thus may not be widely understood. In response to control circuitry determining that the confidence level has increased above the threshold confidence level but the comprehension level not decreasing below the threshold comprehension threshold, control circuitry may cause one or more further replacements until such criteria have been met).
Regarding claim 14, Doken discloses “An information processing method executed by a computer (Figs. 1-3), the method comprising the steps of: acquiring explanatory information describing content of a moving image ([0005], [0045]-[0046], Fig. 1, i.e., system 100 may access the contextual data relating to the movie when generating subtitles, wherein contextual data includes at least one of content item metadata, one or more (audio and/or textual) comments relating to or referencing the media content or subject matter thereof, and/or any other appropriate data relating to the content item, such as data accessible over a network, e.g., an internet source);
generating subtitles to be applied to the moving image based on the explanatory information acquired by the acquiring step ([0007], [0047], [0070], Fig. 3, i.e., generating second subtitles based on contextual data); and
applying the subtitles generated by the generating step to the moving image.” ([0026], [0029], [0046]-[0047], Figs. 1-3, 4A-B, i.e., second subtitles are displayed to the user).
Regarding claim 15, Doken discloses “A non-transitory computer readable storage medium (Figs. 1-3) having stored therein an information processing program causing a computer to execute procedures of:
acquiring explanatory information describing content of a moving image ([0005], [0045]-[0046], Fig. 1, i.e., system 100 may access the contextual data relating to the movie when generating subtitles, wherein contextual data includes at least one of content item metadata, one or more (audio and/or textual) comments relating to or referencing the media content or subject matter thereof, and/or any other appropriate data relating to the content item, such as data accessible over a network, e.g., an internet source);
generating subtitles to be applied to the moving image based on the explanatory information acquired by the acquiring procedure ([0007], [0047], [0070], Fig. 3, i.e., generating second subtitles based on contextual data); and
applying subtitles generated by the generating procedure to the moving image.” ([0026], [0029], [0046]-[0047], Figs. 1-3, 4A-B, i.e., second subtitles are displayed to the user).
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 3, 5-6 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Doken in view of Aher et al. (US Pub. 2023/0007359), herein referenced as Aher.
Regarding claim 3, Doken fails to disclose “wherein the generation unit generates the subtitles indicating a state of mind of an imaging object of the moving image.”
Aher teaches the technique of providing wherein the generation unit generates the subtitles indicating a state of mind of an imaging object of the moving image ([0025], [0033]-[0034], Figs. 1, 3, i.e., an emoticon 114 conveying a happy emotion may be displayed as a supplement to the subtitle). Thus, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to apply the technique of providing wherein the generation unit generates the subtitles indicating a state of mind of an imaging object of the moving image as taught by Aher, to improve the subtitle generation system of Doken for the predictable result of improving a user’s consumption of the media asset in an inexpensive and efficient way ([0003]).
Regarding claim 5, Doken fails to disclose “wherein the generation unit generates the subtitles in a display mode according to an imaging object of the moving image.”
Aher teaches the technique of providing wherein the generation unit generates the subtitles in a display mode according to an imaging object of the moving image ([0015], [0050], Figs. 1, 3, i.e., the media guidance application may format the emoticon in a different color or font size for display with the subtitle). Thus, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to apply the technique of providing wherein the generation unit generates the subtitles in a display mode according to an imaging object of the moving image as taught by Aher, to improve the subtitle generation system of Doken for the predictable result of improving a user’s consumption of the media asset in an inexpensive and efficient way ([0003]).
Regarding claim 6, Doken fails to disclose “wherein the generation unit generates the subtitles in a display mode according to a state of mind of an imaging object of the moving image.”
Aher teaches the technique of providing wherein the generation unit generates the subtitles in a display mode according to a state of mind of an imaging object of the moving image ([0002]-[0003], [0015], [0050], [0052], [0054], Figs. 1, 3, i.e., in response to determining that the emotion is not properly conveyed, the media guidance application may optionally insert an emoticon into the media asset's frame during the duration of the emotion not being properly conveyed). Thus, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to apply the technique of providing wherein the generation unit generates the subtitles in a display mode according to a state of mind of an imaging object of the moving image as taught by Aher, to improve the subtitle generation system of Doken for the predictable result of improving a user’s consumption of the media asset in an inexpensive and efficient way ([0003]).
Claims 7-8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Doken in view of Chou et al. (US Pub. 2018/0199113), herein referenced as Chou.
Regarding claim 7, Doken fails to disclose “wherein the generation unit generates the subtitles in a display mode according to a situation of an imaging object of the moving image.”
Chou teaches the technique of providing wherein the generation unit generates the subtitles in a display mode according to a situation of an imaging object of the moving image ([0024]-[0025], i.e., if a character is yelling in a scene of the video stream, the corresponding text can be presented in all capital letters and at a larger size than usual, or, if they are whispering, the text size is presented as smaller than usual). Thus, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to apply the technique of providing wherein the generation unit generates the subtitles in a display mode according to a situation of an imaging object of the moving image as taught by Chou, to improve the subtitle generation system of Doken for the predictable result of improving text captioning via real-time processing to further enhance viewer experience and comprehension ([0009]).
Regarding claim 8, Doken fails to disclose discloses “wherein the generation unit generates the subtitles by inputting the explanatory information and an instruction sentence for instruction to output the subtitles of the moving image based on the explanatory information to a model trained to output an answer to an input question.”
Chou teaches the technique of providing wherein the generation unit generates the subtitles by inputting the explanatory information and an instruction sentence for instruction to output the subtitles of the moving image based on the explanatory information to a model trained to output an answer to an input question ([0021]-[0023], Fig. 1, i.e., input analyzer 106 runs a model that has been trained with the ability to identify objects and human actors (e.g., pre-trained models are available with deep learning frameworks such as Berkeley Vision and Learning Center (BVLC) Caffe or International Business Machines Corporation's (IBM) Watson). Input analyzer 106 also has a model to analyze the increasing amplitude of speech. When it detects that speech is increasing in amplitude, it has the ability to parse speech using NLP (natural language processing) models).
Thus, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to apply the technique of providing wherein the generation unit generates the subtitles by inputting the explanatory information and an instruction sentence for instruction to output the subtitles of the moving image based on the explanatory information to a model trained to output an answer to an input question as taught by Chou, to improve the subtitle generation system of Doken for the predictable result of improving text captioning via real-time processing to further enhance viewer experience and comprehension ([0009]).
Claim 9 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Doken in view of Chou and in further view of Marten (US Pub. 2022/0174368), herein referenced as Marten.
Regarding claim 9, the combination fails to disclose “wherein the generation unit generates the subtitles by inputting, to the model, the explanatory information, a rule specified by a provider of the moving image, and an instruction sentence for instruction to output the subtitles of the moving image according to the rule based on the explanatory information.”
Marten teaches the technique of providing wherein the generation unit generates the subtitles by inputting, to the model, the explanatory information, a rule specified by a provider of the moving image, and an instruction sentence for instruction to output the subtitles of the moving image according to the rule based on the explanatory information ([0015], [0034], i.e., information provider 138 may generate and/or provide closed captions; perform closed captioning services; provide information to the receiving device 118 regarding customer or user accounts associated with the program content stream, per-user closed captions preferences and corresponding thresholds, and/or receiving device 118. Such services may include artificial intelligence and machine learning functionality to improve the user preference determination based on a feedback loop including information regarding volume control and/or closed captioning setting habits received from the receiving device 118. That is, the information provider provides closed caption services via artificial and machine learning functionality using per-user preferences, thresholds captioning setting habits).
Thus, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to apply the technique of providing wherein the generation unit generates the subtitles by inputting, to the model, the explanatory information, a rule specified by a provider of the moving image, and an instruction sentence for instruction to output the subtitles of the moving image according to the rule based on the explanatory information as taught by Marten, to improve the subtitle generation system of Doken for the predictable result of improving the efficiency and effectiveness of closed captioning systems ([0004]).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Alexander Q Huerta whose telephone number is (571)270-3582. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 9:00 AM-5:00 PM.
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, Brian Pendleton can be reached at (571)272-7527. 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.
/ALEXANDER Q HUERTA/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2425 June 12, 2026
Prosecution Insights