DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
1. The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Priority
2. Receipt is acknowledged of certified copies of papers required by 37 CFR 1.55.
Information Disclosure Statement
3. The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 10/02/2025 has been received, entered into the record, and considered. The submission is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement is being considered by the examiner.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101
4. 35 U.S.C. 101 reads as follows:
Whoever invents or discovers any new and useful process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter, or any new and useful improvement thereof, may obtain a patent therefor, subject to the conditions and requirements of this title.
5. Claims (1-11), (12-19), and (20) are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to non-statutory subject matter because the claimed invention is directed to a judicial exception (i.e., a law of nature, a natural phenomenon, or an abstract idea) without significantly more.
Under the 2019 PEG, when considering subject matter eligibility under 35 U.S.C. § 101, it must be determined whether the claim is directed to one of the four statutory categories of invention, i.e., process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter (step 1). If the claim does fall within one of the statutory categories, it must then be determined whether the claim is directed to a judicial exception (i.e., law of nature, natural phenomenon, and abstract idea) (step 2A prong 1), and if so, it must additionally be determined whether the claim is integrated into a practical application (step 2A prong 2). If an abstract idea is present in the claim without integration into a practical application, any element or combination of elements in the claim must be sufficient to ensure that the claim amounts to significantly more than the abstract idea itself (step 2B).
In the instant case, claims (1-11), (12-19), and (20) are directed to a method, an electronic device, and non-transitory computer-readable storage medium respectively. Thus, each of the claims falls within one of the four statutory categories. However, the claims also fall within the judicial exception of an abstract idea.
Under Step 2A Prong 1, the test is to identify whether the claims recite a judicial exception. The examiner notes that the claimed invention recites an abstract idea in that the instant application recites a mental processes, specifically presenting a cover image.
The examiner further notes that claims (1-11), (12-19), and (20) recite a method, an electronic device, and non-transitory computer-readable storage medium for presenting a cover image which is similar to themes defined above of method of mental processes such as performing the presenting a cover image, and is similar to the abstract idea identified in the 2019 PEG in grouping “c” in that the claims recite certain methods of mental processes such as performing the presenting of a cover image. The limitations, substantially comprising the body of the claim, recite a process of presenting a cover image. The examiner notes that the claimed invention presents a cover image. Because the limitations above closely follow the steps in presenting a cover image, and the steps of the claims involve mental processes, the claim recites an abstract idea consistent with the “mental processes” grouping set forth in the 2019 PEG.
Claim 1:
A method for content searching, comprising: receiving a search request from a user; and
presenting, in response to the search request, a cover image of media content in a search interface, the media content being determined based on the search request;
the cover image being generated based on a plurality of images in the media content satisfying a predetermined condition.
These limitations, as drafted, is an apparatus that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers the performance of mental processes specifically presenting a cover image. Presenting a cover image has long before the modern computer was invented, and continues to be predominantly a product of human endeavor. The instant application recites presenting a cover image. Moreover, the generation of a cover image based on multiple images satisfying a condition can be performed by a human via their mind and/or pen & paper. Because the limitations above closely follow the steps of presenting a cover image, and the steps involved human judgments, observations and evaluations that can be practically or reasonably performed in the human mind and/or pen & paper, the claim recites an abstract idea consistent with the “mental process” grouping set forth in the 2019 PEG.
The mere nominal recitation of generic computing components such as a "search interface" does not take the claim out of certain methods of mental processes grouping. Therefore, the limitation is directed to an abstract idea.
If the claims recite the judicial exception of an abstract idea, it must then be determined under Step 2A Prong 2 whether the judicial exception is integrated into a practical application. The Examiner notes that considerations under Step 2A Prong 2 comprise most the consideration previously evaluated in the context of Step 2B. The Examiner submits that the considerations discussed previously determined that the claim does not recite “significantly more” at Step 2B would be evaluated the same under Step 2A Prong 1 and result in the determination that the claim does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application.
The instant application fails to integrate the judicial exception into a practical application because the instant application merely recites words “apply it” (or an equivalent) with the judicial exception or merely includes instructions to implement an abstract idea. The instant application is directed to an apparatus instructing the reader to implement the identified apparatus of mental processes of presenting a cover image. The elements of the claim do not themselves amount to an improvement to the computer, to a technology or another technical field. Moreover, the receiving of a search request is a data gathering operation that is an insignificant data gathering operation that does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application. Furthermore, the presentation of a cover image is a data output operation that is an insignificant data output operation that does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application.
Here, the claim elements entirely comprise the abstract idea, leaving little if any aspects of the claim for further consideration under Step 2A Prong 2. In short, the claims have failed to integrate a practical application (see at least 84 Fed. Reg. (4) at 55). Under the 2019 PEG, this supports the conclusion that the claim is directed to an abstract idea, and the analysis proceeds to Step 2B.
While many considerations in Step 2A need not be reevaluated in Step 2B because the outcome will be the same. Here, on the basis of the additional elements other than the abstract idea, considered individually and in combination as discussed above, the Examiner respectfully submits that the claim 1 does not contain any additional elements that individually or as an ordered combination amount to an inventive concept and the claims are ineligible.
With respect to the dependent claims do not recite anything that is found to render the abstract idea as being transformed into a patent eligible invention. The dependent claims are merely reciting further embellishments of the abstract idea and do not claim anything that amounts to significantly more than the abstract idea itself.
With respect to the dependent claims, they have been considered and are not found to be reciting anything that amounts to being significantly more than the abstract idea. Claims 2-11 are directed to further embellishments of the central theme of the abstract idea in that the claims are directed to further embellishments of the presenting a cover image of the steps of claim 1 and do not amount to significantly more.
Specifically, claim 2 recites the determination of a cover image based off of template which can be performed by a human via their mind and/or pen & paper and does not amount to significantly more.
Additionally, claim 3 recites the determination of a cover image based off of template associated with an aspect ratio which can be performed by a human via their mind and/or pen & paper and does not amount to significantly more.
Furthermore, claim 4 recites a cover image including defined text which can be performed by a human via their mind and/or pen & paper and does not amount to significantly more.
Moreover, claim 5 recites a cover image including defined text which can be performed by a human via their mind and/or pen & paper and does not amount to significantly more.
Additionally, claim 6 recites the determination of images that satisfy a defined condition which can be performed by the human mind and/or pen & paper and does not amount to significantly more.
Furthermore, claim 7 recites the defining of description information which can be performed by the human mind and/or pen & paper and does not amount to significantly more.
Moreover, claim 8 recites the determination of images based on a search request which can be performed by a human via their mind and/or pen & paper and does not amount to significantly more.
Additionally, claim 9 recites a similarity of images being less than a threshold which can be performed by a human via their mind and/or pen & paper and does not amount to significantly more.
Furthermore, claim 10 recites the determination of images satisfying a defined condition which can be performed by the human mind and/or pen & paper and does not amount to significantly more.
Moreover, claim 11 recites the defining of a constraint which can be performed by a human via their mind and/or pen & paper and does not amount to significantly more.
Claim 12:
An electronic device, comprising: at least one processor; and
at least one memory coupled to the at least one processor and storing instructions for execution by the at least one processor, the instructions, when executed by the at least one processor, causing the electronic device to perform acts comprising: receiving a search request from a user; and
presenting, in response to the search request, a cover image of media content in a search interface, the media content being determined based on the search request;
the cover image being generated based on a plurality of images in the media content satisfying a predetermined condition.
These limitations, as drafted, is an apparatus that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers the performance of mental processes specifically presenting a cover image. Presenting a cover image has long before the modern computer was invented, and continues to be predominantly a product of human endeavor. The instant application recites presenting a cover image. Moreover, the generation of a cover image based on multiple images satisfying a condition can be performed by a human via their mind and/or pen & paper. Because the limitations above closely follow the steps of presenting a cover image, and the steps involved human judgments, observations and evaluations that can be practically or reasonably performed in the human mind and/or pen & paper, the claim recites an abstract idea consistent with the “mental process” grouping set forth in the 2019 PEG.
The mere nominal recitation of generic computing components such as an "electronic device", “at least one processor”, “at least one memory”, and a “search interface” do not take the claim out of certain methods of mental processes grouping. Therefore, the limitation is directed to an abstract idea.
If the claims recite the judicial exception of an abstract idea, it must then be determined under Step 2A Prong 2 whether the judicial exception is integrated into a practical application. The Examiner notes that considerations under Step 2A Prong 2 comprise most the consideration previously evaluated in the context of Step 2B. The Examiner submits that the considerations discussed previously determined that the claim does not recite “significantly more” at Step 2B would be evaluated the same under Step 2A Prong 1 and result in the determination that the claim does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application.
The instant application fails to integrate the judicial exception into a practical application because the instant application merely recites words “apply it” (or an equivalent) with the judicial exception or merely includes instructions to implement an abstract idea. The instant application is directed to an apparatus instructing the reader to implement the identified apparatus of mental processes of presenting a cover image. The elements of the claim do not themselves amount to an improvement to the computer, to a technology or another technical field. Moreover, the receiving of a search request is a data gathering operation that is an insignificant data gathering operation that does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application. Furthermore, the presentation of a cover image is a data output operation that is an insignificant data output operation that does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application.
Here, the claim elements entirely comprise the abstract idea, leaving little if any aspects of the claim for further consideration under Step 2A Prong 2. In short, the claims have failed to integrate a practical application (see at least 84 Fed. Reg. (4) at 55). Under the 2019 PEG, this supports the conclusion that the claim is directed to an abstract idea, and the analysis proceeds to Step 2B.
While many considerations in Step 2A need not be reevaluated in Step 2B because the outcome will be the same. Here, on the basis of the additional elements other than the abstract idea, considered individually and in combination as discussed above, the Examiner respectfully submits that the claim 12 does not contain any additional elements that individually or as an ordered combination amount to an inventive concept and the claims are ineligible.
With respect to the dependent claims do not recite anything that is found to render the abstract idea as being transformed into a patent eligible invention. The dependent claims are merely reciting further embellishments of the abstract idea and do not claim anything that amounts to significantly more than the abstract idea itself.
With respect to the dependent claims, they have been considered and are not found to be reciting anything that amounts to being significantly more than the abstract idea. Claims 13-19 are directed to further embellishments of the central theme of the abstract idea in that the claims are directed to further embellishments of the presenting a cover image of the steps of claim 12 and do not amount to significantly more.
Specifically, claim 13 recites the determination of a cover image based off of template which can be performed by a human via their mind and/or pen & paper and does not amount to significantly more.
Additionally, claim 14 recites the determination of a cover image based off of template associated with an aspect ratio which can be performed by a human via their mind and/or pen & paper and does not amount to significantly more.
Furthermore, claim 15 recites a cover image including defined text which can be performed by a human via their mind and/or pen & paper and does not amount to significantly more.
Moreover, claim 16 recites a cover image including defined text which can be performed by a human via their mind and/or pen & paper and does not amount to significantly more.
Additionally, claim 17 recites the determination of images that satisfy a defined condition which can be performed by the human mind and/or pen & paper and does not amount to significantly more.
Furthermore, claim 18 recites the defining of description information which can be performed by the human mind and/or pen & paper and does not amount to significantly more.
Moreover, claim 19 recites the determination of images based on a search request which can be performed by a human via their mind and/or pen & paper and does not amount to significantly more.
Claim 20:
A non-transitory computer-readable storage medium having a computer program stored thereon, wherein the computer program is executable by a processor to implement acts comprising: receiving a search request from a user; and
presenting, in response to the search request, a cover image of media content in a search interface, the media content being determined based on the search request;
the cover image being generated based on a plurality of images in the media content satisfying a predetermined condition.
These limitations, as drafted, is an apparatus that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers the performance of mental processes specifically presenting a cover image. Presenting a cover image has long before the modern computer was invented, and continues to be predominantly a product of human endeavor. The instant application recites presenting a cover image. Moreover, the generation of a cover image based on multiple images satisfying a condition can be performed by a human via their mind and/or pen & paper. Because the limitations above closely follow the steps of presenting a cover image, and the steps involved human judgments, observations and evaluations that can be practically or reasonably performed in the human mind and/or pen & paper, the claim recites an abstract idea consistent with the “mental process” grouping set forth in the 2019 PEG.
The mere nominal recitation of generic computing components such as a " non-transitory computer-readable storage medium”, “computer program”, “processor”, and a “search interface” do not take the claim out of certain methods of mental processes grouping. Therefore, the limitation is directed to an abstract idea.
If the claims recite the judicial exception of an abstract idea, it must then be determined under Step 2A Prong 2 whether the judicial exception is integrated into a practical application. The Examiner notes that considerations under Step 2A Prong 2 comprise most the consideration previously evaluated in the context of Step 2B. The Examiner submits that the considerations discussed previously determined that the claim does not recite “significantly more” at Step 2B would be evaluated the same under Step 2A Prong 1 and result in the determination that the claim does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application.
The instant application fails to integrate the judicial exception into a practical application because the instant application merely recites words “apply it” (or an equivalent) with the judicial exception or merely includes instructions to implement an abstract idea. The instant application is directed to an apparatus instructing the reader to implement the identified apparatus of mental processes of presenting a cover image. The elements of the claim do not themselves amount to an improvement to the computer, to a technology or another technical field. Moreover, the receiving of a search request is a data gathering operation that is an insignificant data gathering operation that does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application. Furthermore, the presentation of a cover image is a data output operation that is an insignificant data output operation that does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application.
Here, the claim elements entirely comprise the abstract idea, leaving little if any aspects of the claim for further consideration under Step 2A Prong 2. In short, the claims have failed to integrate a practical application (see at least 84 Fed. Reg. (4) at 55). Under the 2019 PEG, this supports the conclusion that the claim is directed to an abstract idea, and the analysis proceeds to Step 2B.
While many considerations in Step 2A need not be reevaluated in Step 2B because the outcome will be the same. Here, on the basis of the additional elements other than the abstract idea, considered individually and in combination as discussed above, the Examiner respectfully submits that the claim 12 does not contain any additional elements that individually or as an ordered combination amount to an inventive concept and the claims are ineligible.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
6. 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.
7. 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.
8. Claims 1, 8, 10-12, and 19-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Bergsma (U.S. PGPUB 2017/0249367).
9. Regarding claims 1, 12, and 20, Bergsma teaches a method, an electronic device, and non-transitory computer-readable storage medium comprising:
A) receiving a search request from a user (Paragraphs 34 and 40); and
B) presenting, in response to the search request, a cover image of media content in a search interface (Abstract, Paragraphs 48 and 49);
C) the media content being determined based on the search request (Abstract, Paragraphs 41, 48, and 49);
D) the cover image being generated based on a plurality of images in the media content satisfying a predetermined condition (Abstract, Paragraphs 45, 47, 48 and 49).
The examiner notes that Bergsma teaches “receiving a search request from a user” as “The search unit 110 is configured for receiving search queries and outputting search results that correspond to the search requests. Search queries may be based on interaction with a user of the searching system 100, or may be automatically generated by the searching system 100 based on predefined rules and algorithms” (Paragraph 34) and “The search query, as described above, includes one or more still images, one or more portions of video, one or more textual strings, or any suitable combination thereof. In some embodiments, the search query includes a textual string containing keywords” (Paragraph 40). The examiner further notes that a search query from a user teaches the claimed search request. The examiner further notes that Bergsma teaches “presenting, in response to the search request, a cover image of media content in a search interface” as “The present disclosure is drawn to methods and systems for providing a representative image for a search result in a search result listing of a searching system. At least one search result based on a search query is received. Each search result has a plurality of images. For each search result, a similarity score for at least some of the images is computed, based on a similarity with the search query. Then, at least one of the images is selected, on the basis of the similarity score, and the selected image is assigned as the representative image of the search result” (Abstract), “At step 350, the at least one selected image is assigned as the representative image of the search result” (Paragraph 48), and “At step 360, the method optionally includes presenting a search result listing 200 of the search results, as shown in the example of FIG. 2. The search result listing 200 includes the representative image for each one of the entries 210” (Paragraph 49). The examiner further notes that a selected representative image (i.e. the claimed cover image) of multiple images of a respective search result (i.e. media content in the broadest reasonable interpretation) is displayed (i.e. presented). The examiner further notes that Bergsma teaches “the media content being determined based on the search request” as “The present disclosure is drawn to methods and systems for providing a representative image for a search result in a search result listing of a searching system. At least one search result based on a search query is received. Each search result has a plurality of images. For each search result, a similarity score for at least some of the images is computed, based on a similarity with the search query. Then, at least one of the images is selected, on the basis of the similarity score, and the selected image is assigned as the representative image of the search result” (Abstract), “The search result received based on the search query includes a series of images. The search result images are based on original images stored in the database 130, which may be sequentially-acquired still images forming video tracks. The search result images may include any number of the original images, any number of sequences of the original images, and may include whole original images or only portions or sections thereof. For example, for a given video track showing a person walking along a street, the search result images may include the entire video track, or may include one or more portions thereof. Additionally, the search result images may each be an entire original image of the video track, or may only be a portion of the original image, such as an area surrounding the person” (Paragraph 41), “At step 350, the at least one selected image is assigned as the representative image of the search result” (Paragraph 48), and “At step 360, the method optionally includes presenting a search result listing 200 of the search results, as shown in the example of FIG. 2. The search result listing 200 includes the representative image for each one of the entries 210” (Paragraph 49). The examiner further notes that search results (i.e. the claimed media content in the broadest reasonable interpretation) (which contain multiple images) are based off of received user queries (i.e. search requests). The examiner further notes that Bergsma teaches “the cover image being generated based on a plurality of images in the media content satisfying a predetermined condition” as “The present disclosure is drawn to methods and systems for providing a representative image for a search result in a search result listing of a searching system. At least one search result based on a search query is received. Each search result has a plurality of images. For each search result, a similarity score for at least some of the images is computed, based on a similarity with the search query. Then, at least one of the images is selected, on the basis of the similarity score, and the selected image is assigned as the representative image of the search result” (Abstract), “Referring back to FIG. 3, at step 330, a similarity score is computed for at least some images of the plurality of search result images. These images are taken from the set of search result images 400, the set of modified images 430, or the larger set of images 440. The similarity score is computed based on a similarity between each image and the search query. This similarity is computed using any suitable algorithm, such as edge detection, a combining scaling algorithm, a structural similarity algorithm, or any other suitable algorithm or combination of algorithms. The similarity score is represented in any suitable way, such as a decimal value between 0 and 1, a percent score between 0% and 100%, a letter grade ranging from A to F, and the like. In some embodiments, the similarity score is an absolute similarity score based on the similarity of the image to the search query. In some other embodiments, the similarity score is relative, such that the images are ranked relative to one another in terms of similarity. In some other embodiments, the similarity score is a combination of absolute and relative scores” (Paragraph 45), “At step 340, at least one of the images is selected on the basis of the similarity score. The selected image can be the image with the highest or best similarity score” (Paragraph 47), “At step 350, the at least one selected image is assigned as the representative image of the search result” (Paragraph 48), and “At step 360, the method optionally includes presenting a search result listing 200 of the search results, as shown in the example of FIG. 2. The search result listing 200 includes the representative image for each one of the entries 210” (Paragraph 49). The examiner further notes that a selected representative image (i.e. the claimed cover image) of multiple images of a respective search result (i.e. media content in the broadest reasonable interpretation) is “generated” based off of a similarity score (i.e. the claimed undefined predetermined condition in the broadest reasonable interpretation).
Regarding claims 8 and 19, Bergsma further teaches a method and an electronic device comprising:
A) wherein the plurality of images are determined based on the search request (Abstract, Paragraphs 41, 42, 44, 45, and 48).
The examiner notes that Bergsma teaches “wherein the plurality of images are determined based on the search request” as “The present disclosure is drawn to methods and systems for providing a representative image for a search result in a search result listing of a searching system. At least one search result based on a search query is received. Each search result has a plurality of images. For each search result, a similarity score for at least some of the images is computed, based on a similarity with the search query. Then, at least one of the images is selected, on the basis of the similarity score, and the selected image is assigned as the representative image of the search result” (Abstract), “The search result received based on the search query includes a series of images. The search result images are based on original images stored in the database 130, which may be sequentially-acquired still images forming video tracks. The search result images may include any number of the original images, any number of sequences of the original images, and may include whole original images or only portions or sections thereof. For example, for a given video track showing a person walking along a street, the search result images may include the entire video track, or may include one or more portions thereof. Additionally, the search result images may each be an entire original image of the video track, or may only be a portion of the original image, such as an area surrounding the person” (Paragraph 41), “At step 320, the search result images are optionally modified. For example, the search result images can be rotated, reflected, skewed, color-corrected, and the like. Additionally, the search result images can be expanded and/or cropped based on the original images” (Paragraph 42), “In some embodiments, the particular modification steps are selected on the basis of the search query. The search query may be used as a guide to narrow down all the various modification steps to a subset of modification steps which are more likely to generate images with higher similarity to the query” (Paragraph 44), “Referring back to FIG. 3, at step 330, a similarity score is computed for at least some images of the plurality of search result images. These images are taken from the set of search result images 400, the set of modified images 430, or the larger set of images 440” (Paragraph 45), and “At step 350, the at least one selected image is assigned as the representative image of the search result” (Paragraph 48), and “At step 360, the method optionally includes presenting a search result listing 200 of the search results, as shown in the example of FIG. 2. The search result listing 200 includes the representative image for each one of the entries 210” (Paragraph 49). The examiner further notes that search results (i.e. the claimed media content in the broadest reasonable interpretation) include multiple images (which in turn include multiple modified images). Such modified images are based off of the initial search query (i.e. search request).
Regarding claim 10, Bergsma further teaches a method comprising:
A) wherein the cover image is generated through: determining, in response to at least one condition being satisfied, the plurality of images satisfying the predetermined condition from the media content to generate the cover image (Abstract, Paragraphs 40, 45, 47, 48 and 49);
B) the at least one condition comprising at least one of the following: a genre of the media content satisfies a first constraint; the search request is associated with a predetermined theme; no cover image is set for the media content; or a set cover image for the media content fails to satisfy a second constraint (Abstract, Paragraphs 40, 45, 47, 48 and 49).
The examiner notes that Bergsma teaches “wherein the cover image is generated through: determining, in response to at least one condition being satisfied, the plurality of images satisfying the predetermined condition from the media content to generate the cover image” as “The present disclosure is drawn to methods and systems for providing a representative image for a search result in a search result listing of a searching system. At least one search result based on a search query is received. Each search result has a plurality of images. For each search result, a similarity score for at least some of the images is computed, based on a similarity with the search query. Then, at least one of the images is selected, on the basis of the similarity score, and the selected image is assigned as the representative image of the search result” (Abstract), “The search query, as described above, includes one or more still images, one or more portions of video, one or more textual strings, or any suitable combination thereof. In some embodiments, the search query includes a textual string containing keywords. The search unit 110 is configured for interpreting the keywords to determine a reference image, and the reference image is provided to the representative image selection unit 120 and/or the database 130. For example, a search query corresponding to a textual string of “adult male”, “red truck”, or “female on bicycle” is input. Each search query falls into at least one query class, such as “person”, “vehicle”, and the like, and template images which define what an appropriate subject looks like for each query class are stored in the database 130. For example, an appropriate subject for a “person” query may present all body parts of a person, be facing the camera, have lowered arms, be wearing nondescript clothing, and the like. There are also template images which define appropriate subjects for search queries which encompass multiple query classes, such as the aforementioned “female on bicycle”. The template images may be based on stock images, for example, and may be stored in the database 130. The stock images may be, for example, search results obtained via an online search engine, or may be based on the results of an earlier, similar search. Additionally, the template images may be altered based on certain modifier keywords, such as colors, sizes and other keywords representative of characteristics. For example, a representative image for the textual string “red truck” may be based on a template image of a truck which is then modified to incorporate the color red” (Paragraph 40), “Referring back to FIG. 3, at step 330, a similarity score is computed for at least some images of the plurality of search result images. These images are taken from the set of search result images 400, the set of modified images 430, or the larger set of images 440. The similarity score is computed based on a similarity between each image and the search query. This similarity is computed using any suitable algorithm, such as edge detection, a combining scaling algorithm, a structural similarity algorithm, or any other suitable algorithm or combination of algorithms. The similarity score is represented in any suitable way, such as a decimal value between 0 and 1, a percent score between 0% and 100%, a letter grade ranging from A to F, and the like. In some embodiments, the similarity score is an absolute similarity score based on the similarity of the image to the search query. In some other embodiments, the similarity score is relative, such that the images are ranked relative to one another in terms of similarity. In some other embodiments, the similarity score is a combination of absolute and relative scores” (Paragraph 45), “At step 340, at least one of the images is selected on the basis of the similarity score. The selected image can be the image with the highest or best similarity score” (Paragraph 47), “At step 350, the at least one selected image is assigned as the representative image of the search result” (Paragraph 48), and “At step 360, the method optionally includes presenting a search result listing 200 of the search results, as shown in the example of FIG. 2. The search result listing 200 includes the representative image for each one of the entries 210” (Paragraph 49). The examiner further notes that a selected representative image (i.e. the claimed cover image) of multiple images of a respective search result (i.e. media content in the broadest reasonable interpretation) is “generated” based off of a similarity score (i.e. the claimed undefined predetermined condition in the broadest reasonable interpretation) that is based on a “theme” of the received query (See examples of person, vehicle, etc). The examiner further notes that Bergsma teaches “the at least one condition comprising at least one of the following: a genre of the media content satisfies a first constraint; the search request is associated with a predetermined theme; no cover image is set for the media content; or a set cover image for the media content fails to satisfy a second constraint” as “The present disclosure is drawn to methods and systems for providing a representative image for a search result in a search result listing of a searching system. At least one search result based on a search query is received. Each search result has a plurality of images. For each search result, a similarity score for at least some of the images is computed, based on a similarity with the search query. Then, at least one of the images is selected, on the basis of the similarity score, and the selected image is assigned as the representative image of the search result” (Abstract), “The search query, as described above, includes one or more still images, one or more portions of video, one or more textual strings, or any suitable combination thereof. In some embodiments, the search query includes a textual string containing keywords. The search unit 110 is configured for interpreting the keywords to determine a reference image, and the reference image is provided to the representative image selection unit 120 and/or the database 130. For example, a search query corresponding to a textual string of “adult male”, “red truck”, or “female on bicycle” is input. Each search query falls into at least one query class, such as “person”, “vehicle”, and the like, and template images which define what an appropriate subject looks like for each query class are stored in the database 130. For example, an appropriate subject for a “person” query may present all body parts of a person, be facing the camera, have lowered arms, be wearing nondescript clothing, and the like. There are also template images which define appropriate subjects for search queries which encompass multiple query classes, such as the aforementioned “female on bicycle”. The template images may be based on stock images, for example, and may be stored in the database 130. The stock images may be, for example, search results obtained via an online search engine, or may be based on the results of an earlier, similar search. Additionally, the template images may be altered based on certain modifier keywords, such as colors, sizes and other keywords representative of characteristics. For example, a representative image for the textual string “red truck” may be based on a template image of a truck which is then modified to incorporate the color red” (Paragraph 40), “Referring back to FIG. 3, at step 330, a similarity score is computed for at least some images of the plurality of search result images. These images are taken from the set of search result images 400, the set of modified images 430, or the larger set of images 440. The similarity score is computed based on a similarity between each image and the search query. This similarity is computed using any suitable algorithm, such as edge detection, a combining scaling algorithm, a structural similarity algorithm, or any other suitable algorithm or combination of algorithms. The similarity score is represented in any suitable way, such as a decimal value between 0 and 1, a percent score between 0% and 100%, a letter grade ranging from A to F, and the like. In some embodiments, the similarity score is an absolute similarity score based on the similarity of the image to the search query. In some other embodiments, the similarity score is relative, such that the images are ranked relative to one another in terms of similarity. In some other embodiments, the similarity score is a combination of absolute and relative scores” (Paragraph 45), “At step 340, at least one of the images is selected on the basis of the similarity score. The selected image can be the image with the highest or best similarity score” (Paragraph 47), “At step 350, the at least one selected image is assigned as the representative image of the search result” (Paragraph 48), and “At step 360, the method optionally includes presenting a search result listing 200 of the search results, as shown in the example of FIG. 2. The search result listing 200 includes the representative image for each one of the entries 210” (Paragraph 49). The examiner further notes that a selected representative image (i.e. the claimed cover image) of multiple images of a respective search result (i.e. media content in the broadest reasonable interpretation) is “generated” based off of a similarity score (i.e. the claimed undefined predetermined condition in the broadest reasonable interpretation) that is based on a “theme” of the received query (See examples of person, vehicle, etc).
Regarding claim 11, Bergsma further teaches a method comprising:
A) wherein the second constraint is associated with at least one of an image quality or image content of the set cover image (Abstract, Paragraphs 40, 45, 47, 48 and 49).
The examiner notes that Bergsma teaches “wherein the second constraint is associated with at least one of an image quality or image content of the set cover image” as “The present disclosure is drawn to methods and systems for providing a representative image for a search result in a search result listing of a searching system. At least one search result based on a search query is received. Each search result has a plurality of images. For each search result, a similarity score for at least some of the images is computed, based on a similarity with the search query. Then, at least one of the images is selected, on the basis of the similarity score, and the selected image is assigned as the representative image of the search result” (Abstract), “The search query, as described above, includes one or more still images, one or more portions of video, one or more textual strings, or any suitable combination thereof. In some embodiments, the search query includes a textual string containing keywords. The search unit 110 is configured for interpreting the keywords to determine a reference image, and the reference image is provided to the representative image selection unit 120 and/or the database 130. For example, a search query corresponding to a textual string of “adult male”, “red truck”, or “female on bicycle” is input. Each search query falls into at least one query class, such as “person”, “vehicle”, and the like, and template images which define what an appropriate subject looks like for each query class are stored in the database 130. For example, an appropriate subject for a “person” query may present all body parts of a person, be facing the camera, have lowered arms, be wearing nondescript clothing, and the like. There are also template images which define appropriate subjects for search queries which encompass multiple query classes, such as the aforementioned “female on bicycle”. The template images may be based on stock images, for example, and may be stored in the database 130. The stock images may be, for example, search results obtained via an online search engine, or may be based on the results of an earlier, similar search. Additionally, the template images may be altered based on certain modifier keywords, such as colors, sizes and other keywords representative of characteristics. For example, a representative image for the textual string “red truck” may be based on a template image of a truck which is then modified to incorporate the color red” (Paragraph 40), “Referring back to FIG. 3, at step 330, a similarity score is computed for at least some images of the plurality of search result images. These images are taken from the set of search result images 400, the set of modified images 430, or the larger set of images 440. The similarity score is computed based on a similarity between each image and the search query. This similarity is computed using any suitable algorithm, such as edge detection, a combining scaling algorithm, a structural similarity algorithm, or any other suitable algorithm or combination of algorithms. The similarity score is represented in any suitable way, such as a decimal value between 0 and 1, a percent score between 0% and 100%, a letter grade ranging from A to F, and the like. In some embodiments, the similarity score is an absolute similarity score based on the similarity of the image to the search query. In some other embodiments, the similarity score is relative, such that the images are ranked relative to one another in terms of similarity. In some other embodiments, the similarity score is a combination of absolute and relative scores” (Paragraph 45), “At step 340, at least one of the images is selected on the basis of the similarity score. The selected image can be the image with the highest or best similarity score” (Paragraph 47), “At step 350, the at least one selected image is assigned as the representative image of the search result” (Paragraph 48), and “At step 360, the method optionally includes presenting a search result listing 200 of the search results, as shown in the example of FIG. 2. The search result listing 200 includes the representative image for each one of the entries 210” (Paragraph 49). The examiner further notes that due to the diction of “at least one of the following” in parent dependent claim 10, the claimed “second constraint” is purely optional and does not trigger when parent dependent claim 10 is interpreted as the search request being associated with a predetermined theme in the broadest reasonable interpretation.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
10. 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.
11. This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
12. Claims 2 and 13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Bergsma (U.S. PGPUB 2017/0249367) as applied to claims 1, 8, 10-12, and 19-20 above, in view of Angiulo et al. (U.S. PGPUB 2002/0135621).
13. Regarding claims 2 and 13, Bergsma does not explicitly teach a method and an electronic device comprising:
A) wherein the cover image is generated through: determining, based on a number of the plurality of images, a cover template corresponding to the number; and
B) generating the cover image based on the cover template and the plurality of images.
Angiulo, however, teaches “wherein the cover image is generated through: determining, based on a number of the plurality of images, a cover template corresponding to the number” as “The selected template is used to generate a Web page that includes the plurality of thumbnail images and each hyperlink in the format and layout defined by the template. The plurality of templates preferably include a vertically oriented template, a horizontally oriented template, a slide show oriented template, and a montage template. Alternatively, a user can define a custom template, save the custom template, and select the custom template, rather than selecting one of the plurality of templates that is provided. Preferably, the templates are defined using extensible style language. In at least one embodiment, each template includes at least one default parameter. The default parameter can define a number of thumbnail images per row of the template, a height of each thumbnail, a width of each thumbnail, a title of the template, a description of the template, a preview image file name, and indicate any dependent files relating to the template” (Paragraph 08) and “generating the cover image based on the cover template and the plurality of images” as “The selected template is used to generate a Web page that includes the plurality of thumbnail images and each hyperlink in the format and layout defined by the template. The plurality of templates preferably include a vertically oriented template, a horizontally oriented template, a slide show oriented template, and a montage template. Alternatively, a user can define a custom template, save the custom template, and select the custom template, rather than selecting one of the plurality of templates that is provided. Preferably, the templates are defined using extensible style language. In at least one embodiment, each template includes at least one default parameter. The default parameter can define a number of thumbnail images per row of the template, a height of each thumbnail, a width of each thumbnail, a title of the template, a description of the template, a preview image file name, and indicate any dependent files relating to the template” (Paragraph 08).
The examiner further notes that Angiulo teaches the concept of defining the number of thumbnails (i.e. images) for a template. The combination would result in using the number of the plurality of images of Bergsma to define a template.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of instant invention to combine the teachings of the cited references because teaching Angiulo’s would have allowed Bergsma’s to provide a method for automating the display of multiple thumbnails, as noted by Angiulo (Paragraphs 5-6).
14. Claims 3 and 14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Bergsma (U.S. PGPUB 2017/0249367) as applied to claims 1, 8, 10-12, and 19-20 above, in view of Angiulo et al. (U.S. PGPUB 2002/0135621) as applied to claims 2 and 13 above, and further in view of Hayakawa (U.S. PGPUB 2019/0324695).
15. Regarding claims 3 and 14, Bergsma and Angiulo do not explicitly teach a method and an electronic device comprising:
A) wherein the cover template is further associated with aspect ratio information of the plurality of images.
Hayakawa, however, teaches “wherein the cover template is further associated with aspect ratio information of the plurality of images” as “The layout determination unit 204 follows predetermined conditions to determine the template and arrange the images. For example, the layout determination unit 204 may determine the template with the closest image-slot aspect ratios to the aspect ratios of the images allocated to the processing target double-page spread” (Paragraph 41).
The examiner further notes that Hayakawa teaches the concept of templates being associated with aspect rations of images. The combination would result in the template of Angiulo to be associated with aspect rations of images.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of instant invention to combine the teachings of the cited references because teaching Hayakawa’s would have allowed Bergsma’s and Angielo’s to provide a method for improving user satisfaction for layouts of images, as noted by Hayakawa (Paragraph 3).
16. Claims 4 and 15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Bergsma (U.S. PGPUB 2017/0249367) as applied to claims 1, 8, 10-12, and 19-20 above, in view of Chew et al., (U.S. PGPUB 2011/0283242).
17. Regarding claims 4 and 15, Bergsma does not explicitly teach a method and an electronic device comprising:
A) wherein the cover image further comprises a text element generated based on at least one of the media content or the plurality of images.
Chew, however, teaches “wherein the cover image further comprises a text element generated based on at least one of the media content or the plurality of images” as “Upon completion of a search, touch device 202 may display thumbnails 250 or stacks of thumbnails 252 on GUI 221a, as illustrated in FIG. 2 and as shown in screen shot of FIG. 3. Thumbnail 250 is a graphical representation of the report, document, image, or other file type returned by the system based on the input search query. The thumbnail 250 provides access to the document or other file type represented, such as through a hyperlink to the represented document whether internal or external to the client. For example, the user may click on the thumbnail to open the file” (Paragraph 45) and “text, such as headings or titles, images, graphs, spreadsheets, or any other data or information that is available and displayed visually to a user may be reproduced in the thumbnail” (Paragraph 48).
The examiner further notes that Chew teaches the concept of a thumbnail (i.e. cover image) including text based on a report (i.e. an example of the claimed media content in the broadest reasonable interpretation). The combination would result in the cover images of Bergsma to also include text.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of instant invention to combine the teachings of the cited references because teaching Chew’s would have allowed Bergsma’s to provide a method for representing a file graphically while also providing a user with the actual data represented in the file, as noted by Chew (Paragraph 48).
18. Claims 5 and 16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Bergsma (U.S. PGPUB 2017/0249367) as applied to claims 1, 8, 10-12, and 19-20 above, in view of Chew et al., (U.S. PGPUB 2011/0283242) as applied to claims 4 and 15 above, and further in view of Eastes (U.S. PGPUB 2025/0238465).
19. Regarding claims 5 and 16, Bergsma and Chew do not explicitly teach a method and an electronic device comprising:
A) wherein text content corresponding to the text element is further determined based on the search request.
Eastes, however, teaches “wherein text content corresponding to the text element is further determined based on the search request” as “The search query 608 can include text, text descriptions, timeframe parameters, and/or freeform natural language for example, as shown in FIG. 6, the search query 608 contains the text “Raven.” As shown, the time-travel content search system 108 provides search results that include a video thumbnail 610, a video thumbnail 612, a video thumbnail 614, and a video thumbnail 616 that contain digital content relating to the search query 608, but in different ways. As shown, each of the video thumbnail 610, the video thumbnail 612, the video thumbnail 614, and the video thumbnail 616 all contain a reference, text or content item relating to the search query 608 (e.g., the text “Raven”)” (Paragraph 82).
The examiner further notes that although Bergsma clearly teaches that search requests from a user can contain text (See Paragraph 40), there is no explicit teaching that such text-based queries return query results that include text elements. Nevertheless, Eastes teaches the concept of a text-based query to return results that include text elements. The combination would result in the text element that is included in the thumbnail of Chew to include such found text elements via a text-based query.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of instant invention to combine the teachings of the cited references because teaching Eastes’s would have allowed Bergsma’s and Chew’s to provide a method a displaying a portion where queried text appears in a video, as noted by Eastes (Paragraph 88).
20. Claims 6-7 and 17-18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Bergsma (U.S. PGPUB 2017/0249367) as applied to claims 1, 8, 10-12, and 19-20 above, in view of Gao et al. (Article entitled “Thematic Video Thumbnail Selection”, dated 2009), and further in view of Bellad et al. (U.S. PGPUB 2025/0190489).
21. Regarding claims 6 and 17, Bergsma further teaches a method and an electronic device comprising:
B) determining the plurality of images satisfying the predetermined condition from an image set of the media content (Abstract, Paragraphs 45, 47, 48 and 49).
The examiner notes that Bergsma teaches “determining the plurality of images satisfying the predetermined condition from an image set of the media content” as “The present disclosure is drawn to methods and systems for providing a representative image for a search result in a search result listing of a searching system. At least one search result based on a search query is received. Each search result has a plurality of images. For each search result, a similarity score for at least some of the images is computed, based on a similarity with the search query. Then, at least one of the images is selected, on the basis of the similarity score, and the selected image is assigned as the representative image of the search result” (Abstract), “Referring back to FIG. 3, at step 330, a similarity score is computed for at least some images of the plurality of search result images. These images are taken from the set of search result images 400, the set of modified images 430, or the larger set of images 440. The similarity score is computed based on a similarity between each image and the search query. This similarity is computed using any suitable algorithm, such as edge detection, a combining scaling algorithm, a structural similarity algorithm, or any other suitable algorithm or combination of algorithms. The similarity score is represented in any suitable way, such as a decimal value between 0 and 1, a percent score between 0% and 100%, a letter grade ranging from A to F, and the like. In some embodiments, the similarity score is an absolute similarity score based on the similarity of the image to the search query. In some other embodiments, the similarity score is relative, such that the images are ranked relative to one another in terms of similarity. In some other embodiments, the similarity score is a combination of absolute and relative scores” (Paragraph 45), “At step 340, at least one of the images is selected on the basis of the similarity score. The selected image can be the image with the highest or best similarity score” (Paragraph 47), “At step 350, the at least one selected image is assigned as the representative image of the search result” (Paragraph 48), and “At step 360, the method optionally includes presenting a search result listing 200 of the search results, as shown in the example of FIG. 2. The search result listing 200 includes the representative image for each one of the entries 210” (Paragraph 49). The examiner further notes that a selected representative image (i.e. the claimed cover image) of multiple images of a respective search result (i.e. media content in the broadest reasonable interpretation) is “generated” based off of a similarity score (i.e. the claimed undefined predetermined condition in the broadest reasonable interpretation).
Bergsma does not explicitly teach:
A) wherein the plurality of images are determined through: obtaining description information of the media content.
Gao, however, teaches “wherein the plurality of images are determined through: obtaining description information of the media content” as “Given a set of keyframes extracted from a short video clip, our next task is to rank these frames based on how well they represent the video theme. We assume that each video is associated with a central theme, which can be covered by one or more keywords. For example, for birthday party videos, thematic keywords can include “birthday”, “cake”, “candle”, etc. These keywords can be obtained from the video title, through explicit Q/A, or by other automatic methods. For instances, keywords can be extracted from a) speech from the audio channel; b) tags from video sharing websites; or c) OCR results directly from video frames” (Section 3, Page 4334).
The examiner further notes that Gao teaches the concept of a central theme of videos (i.e. media content) that is indicated via keywords (i.e. the claimed description information in the broadest reasonable interpretation). The combination would result in the media content of Bergsma to have such indicated themes.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of instant invention to combine the teachings of the cited references because teaching Gao’s would have allowed Bergsma’s to provide a method for providing semantically relevant thumbnails, as noted by Gao (Section 1, Page 4333).
Bergsma and Gao do not explicitly teach:
C) the predetermined condition indicating that a correlation between the plurality of images and the description information is greater than a first threshold.
Bellad, however, teaches “the predetermined condition indicating that a correlation between the plurality of images and the description information is greater than a first threshold” as “The thumbnail engine 102 classifies a genre utilizing a dataset that gives a score to a set of expressions. For example, in Table 1 infra, a frame 400 can be classified as “Comedy” genre, where a sum of values corresponding to the expressions identified in the video content satisfy a first expression threshold. A frame 400 that is classified as “Romantic,” will satisfy a second expression threshold. A third expression threshold is satisfied for the frame 400 classified as “Horror.” For one or more additional expressions, the thumbnail engine 102 can implement one or more additional expression thresholds. In at least one implementation, Table 1 can be stored in a genre database that stores data indicative of each genre” (Paragraph 59).
The examiner further notes that although Bergsma and Gao both select thumbnails to represent a video as well as the use of thresholds, and Gao clearly teaches description information of media content, there is no explicit teaching of the use of a threshold to correlate a candidate thumbnail to a genre (an example of description information). Nevertheless, Bellad teaches the concept of using a threshold to classify candidate thumbnails to specific genres (i.e. examples of description information). The combination would result in the use of a threshold to correlate the thumbnails Gao to its description information.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of instant invention to combine the teachings of the cited references because teaching Bellad’s would have allowed Bergsma’s and Gao’s to provide a method a method for increasing media selection via the use of genre-specific thumbnails, as noted by Bellad (Paragraph 31).
Regarding claims 7 and 18, Bergsma does not explicitly teach a method and an electronic device comprising:
A) wherein the description information indicates at least a theme of the media content.
Gao, however, teaches “wherein the description information indicates at least a theme of the media content” as “Given a set of keyframes extracted from a short video clip, our next task is to rank these frames based on how well they represent the video theme. We assume that each video is associated with a central theme, which can be covered by one or more keywords. For example, for birthday party videos, thematic keywords can include “birthday”, “cake”, “candle”, etc. These keywords can be obtained from the video title, through explicit Q/A, or by other automatic methods. For instances, keywords can be extracted from a) speech from the audio channel; b) tags from video sharing websites; or c) OCR results directly from video frames” (Section 3, Page 4334).
The examiner further notes that Gao teaches the concept of a central theme (i.e. the claimed theme) of videos (i.e. media content) that is indicated via keywords (i.e. the claimed description information in the broadest reasonable interpretation). The combination would result in the media content of Bergsma to have such indicated themes.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of instant invention to combine the teachings of the cited references because teaching Gao’s would have allowed Bergsma’s to provide a method for providing semantically relevant thumbnails, as noted by Gao (Section 1, Page 4333).
22. Claim 9 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Bergsma (U.S. PGPUB 2017/0249367) as applied to claims 1, 8, 10-12, and 19-20 above, in view of Lebrun et al. (U.S. PGPUB 2021/0035281).
23. Regarding claim 9, Bergsma does not explicitly teach a method comprising:
A) wherein a visual similarity between the plurality of images is less than a second threshold and/or a semantic similarity of the plurality of images is less than a third threshold.
Lebrun, however, teaches “wherein a visual similarity between the plurality of images is less than a second threshold and/or a semantic similarity of the plurality of images is less than a third threshold” as “In some implementations, at least one of the one or more selected video frames may be filtered out as a similar video frame based on similarity to another selected video frame retained as a retained video frame. That is, the video frames selected by the selection component 110 may be analyzed to determine if two or more of the video frames are similar to each other, and similar video frames may be filtered out from the selection/unselected. The similarity analysis of video frames may be performed on full-resolution video frames and/or lower-resolution video frames (e.g., on thumbnails). The similar video frame may be filtered out based on depiction of one or more objects within the similar video frame and the retained video frame and/or other information. For example, a video frame may be filtered out as being similar to another video frame based on the video frame including depiction of one or more objects that are similar to the depiction included within the other video frame” (Paragraph 114) and “the similarity of video frames may be computed as a similarity score between the video frames. If the similarity score is below a similarity threshold, the video frames may be retained as being sufficiently dissimilar. If the similarity score meets the similarity threshold, one of the video frames may be retained while the other video frame(s) may be removed from the selection” (Paragraph 115).
The examiner further notes that the secondary reference of Lebrun teaches the concept of determining dissimilar images based off of images with similarity scores below a threshold for subsequent selection. The combination would result in the use of such similarity as a basis to determine the candidate thumbnails of Bergsma.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of instant invention to combine the teachings of the cited references because teaching Lebrun’s would have allowed Bergsma’s to provide a method for representing a file graphically while also providing diverse video frames when making a selection, as noted by Lebrun (Paragraph 114).
Conclusion
24. The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
U.S. PGPUB 2016/0103830 issued to Cheong et al. on 14 April 2016. The subject matter disclosed therein is pertinent to that of claims 1-20 (e.g., methods to select thumbnails).
U.S. PGPUB 2014/0074759 issued to Lewis et al. on 13 March 2014. The subject matter disclosed therein is pertinent to that of claims 1-20 (e.g., methods to select thumbnails).
Contact Information
25. Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Mahesh Dwivedi whose telephone number is (571) 272-2731. The examiner can normally be reached on Monday to Friday 8:20 am – 4:40 pm.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Charles Rones can be reached (571) 272-4085. The fax 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).
Mahesh Dwivedi
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 2168
June 17, 2026
/MAHESH H DWIVEDI/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2168
Prosecution Insights