PATENT
`
`IN THE UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`
`In re Application of: Bartlett Wade Smith, IV, Examiner: Delomia L. Gilliard
`et al.
`
`Application No.: 16/271,773 Group Art Unit: 2661
`
`Filing Date: February 8, 2019 Confirmation No. 2215
`
`Office Action Date: October 29, 2020 Docket No. 19299.0009C1
`
`Title: VIDEO TO DATA
`
`Commissioner for Patents
`P. O. Box 1450
`Alexandria, VA 22313-1450
`
`Response to Office Action
`
`This amendment is filed in response to the Office Action dated October 29, 2020 (“Office
`Action”), and is timely filed.
`
`Doc. # DC-14772213 v.1 IPR2025-00877
`Patent Owner 2014
`
`Page 1 of 6
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Appl. No. 16/271,773 Docket No. 19299.0009Cl
`
`Reply to Office Action of October 29, 2020
`
`Amendments to the Claims
`
`This listing of claims will replace all prior versions, and listings, of claims in the
`application.
`
`Listing of Claims:
`
`1. (Currently Amended) A system for generating data from a video, comprising;
`
`a coordinator communicatively coupled to a splitter and to a plurality of demultiplexer
`nodes, wherein the splitter is configured to segment the video, wherein the demultiplexer nodes
`are configured to extract audio files from the video and to extract still frame images from the
`video;
`
`an image detector configured to detect an image of an object in the still frame images,
`
`wherein the image detector is adjustable to increase detection of non-primary images in the
`
`video; and
`an object recognizer configured to compare the image of the object to a fractal, wherein
`the fractal includes a representation of the object based on landmarks associated with the object,
`
`wherein the recognizer is further configured to update the fractal with the image.
`2-28. (Canceled)
`
`29. (Currently Amended) The system of claim 1, wherein the image-deteetor-ean
`
`eo coordinator is configured
`
`to increase the plurality of demultiplexer nodes when a threshold of processing capacity is
`
`reached.
`
`30. (Previously Presented) The system of claim 1, wherein the recognizer is
`
`configured to determine distinguishing geometric features of the object.
`
`31 (Previously Presented) The system of claim 30, wherein the distinguishing
`
`geometric features comprise a contour of eye sockets, a nose, and a chin.
`
`2 IPR2025-00877
`Patent Owner 2014
`Page 2 of 6
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Appl. No. 16/271,773 Docket No. 19299.0009Cl
`
`Reply to Office Action of October 29, 2020
`
`32. (Previously Presented) The system of claim 31, wherein the recognizer is
`
`configured to determine skin textures of the object.
`
`33. (Previously Presented) The system of claim 32, wherein the distinguishing
`
`geometric features or the skin textures are determined based on a three-dimensional model.
`
`34. (Previously Presented) The system of claim 33, wherein the three-dimensional
`
`model is a three-dimensional morphable model.
`
`35. (Previously Presented) The system of claim 1, further comprising a processor
`
`and a camera for capturing the video.
`
`36. (Previously Presented) The system of claim 35, wherein the processor is
`
`configured to transform the video into a rectilinear format.
`
`37. (Previously Presented) The system of claim 1, wherein the coordinator is
`configured to embed metadata about the object into the video, and wherein the metadata
`
`comprises a timestamp and a coordinate location of the object in the still frame images.
`
`38. (Previously Presented) The system of claim 1, wherein the coordinator is
`configured to generate a metadata stream corresponding to the image, wherein the metadata
`stream includes one or more timestamps corresponding to the image, and wherein the
`
`coordinator is configured to embed the metadata stream in the video.
`
`3 IPR2025-00877
`Patent Owner 2014
`
`Page 3 of 6
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Appl. No. 16/271,773 Docket No. 19299.0009Cl
`
`Reply to Office Action of October 29, 2020
`
`Remarks
`
`Claims 1 and 29-38 are pending. Claims 1 and 29 are amended. Support for the
`amendment can be found in the original claims themselves as well as throughout the original
`disclosure, including for example pages 12 and 24-25 of the specification. No new matter has
`been added. Applicant respectfully requests allowance of the pending claims.
`
`Applicant focuses below on elements of the independent claim that are neither taught nor
`suggested in the prior art of record, with the understanding that dependent claims also set forth
`independent bases of invention and distinction over the prior art. Thus, in the interest of
`efficiency, any silence or lack of comment on specific aspects of any rejection should not be
`
`construed as any kind of agreement with or concession to such specific aspects of a rejection.
`
`A. Claim Rejections — 35 U.S.C. § 102
`
`Claim 1 stands rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) and (a)(2) as allegedly anticipated by
`US 2015/005001 (“Lakhani”). See Office Action at 3. Applicant respectfully traverses the
`rejection.
`
`Lakhani disclosed neither the coordinator nor the fractal as set forth in claim 1. The
`rejection fails to identify either element having been expressly disclosed by Lakhani, and no
`argument based on inherency is presented in the Office Action. For this reason alone, the
`rejection 1s deficient.
`
`Further, Lakhani did not disclose, teach, or suggest that “the image detector is adjustable
`to increase detection of non-primary images in the video.” For this additional reason, claim 1
`
`overcomes Lakhani. Accordingly, Applicant requests withdrawal of the rejection.
`
`B. Claim Rejections — 35 U.S.C. § 103(a)
`
`Claims 29, 35, and 36 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as allegedly unpatentable over
`Lakhani in view of US 2006/0187305 (“Trivedi”). See Office Action at 5. Claims 30-34 stand
`rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as allegedly unpatentable over Lakhani in view of US 2010/018931
`“Prokoski”). See Office Action at 6. Claims 37 and 38 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as
`allegedly unpatentable over Lakhani in view of US 2011/0305539 (“Singer”). See Office Action
`
`4 IPR2025-00877
`Patent Owner 2014
`Page 4 of 6
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Appl. No. 16/271,773 Docket No. 19299.0009Cl
`
`Reply to Office Action of October 29, 2020
`
`at 8. Applicant respectfully traverses each rejection.
`
`Each rejection relies on Lakhani as the primary reference. But as discussed above,
`Lakhani did not teach or suggest any coordinator or fractal or that “the image detector is
`adjustable to increase detection of non-primary images in the video.” The identified secondary
`references, Trivedi, Prokoski, and Singer, did not cure deficiencies of Lakhani. To the extent any
`of the alleged prior art discussed at all anything that could be considered non-primary images, it
`expressly taught away from increasing detection of such images because they were considered
`noise to be filtered out. See, for example, Prokoski at paragraphs 24, 89, 97, 101, 131, 541;
`Trivedi at paragraphs 94 and 113.
`
`Because the alleged prior art did not teach or suggest, either alone or in combination,
`each claimed element, the claims overcome the prior art. Accordingly, Application requests
`withdrawal of the rejections.
`
`Further with regard to claim 29, the prior art of record failed to teach or disclose a
`coordinator that was “configured to increase the plurality of demultiplexer nodes when a
`threshold of processing capacity is reached.” Accordingly, Applicant requests withdrawal of the
`
`rejection.
`
`C. Double Patenting
`
`Claim 1 stands rejected for alleged non-statutory double patenting over claim 1 of U.S.
`Patent No. 10,204,274 (“Smith”). See Office Action at 10. Applicant respectfully traverses the
`rejection.
`
`Claim 1, as amended herewith, is patentably distinct from the claims of Smith. For
`example, Smith did not claim that “the image detector is adjustable to increase detection of non-
`
`primary images in the video.” Accordingly, Applicant requests withdrawal of the rejection.
`
`Conclusion
`
`Applicant has made an earnest and bona fide effort to clarify the issues before the
`Examiner and to place this case in condition for allowance. Reconsideration and allowance of all
`
`pending claims is believed to be in order, and a timely Notice of Allowance to this effect is
`
`5 IPR2025-00877
`Patent Owner 2014
`Page 5 of 6
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Appl. No. 16/271,773 Docket No. 19299.0009Cl
`
`Reply to Office Action of October 29, 2020
`
`respectfully requested.
`
`The Director is hereby authorized to charge the fees indicated in the Fee Transmittal, any
`additional fee(s) or underpayment of fee(s) under 37 CFR 1.16 and 1.17, or to credit any
`overpayments, to Deposit Account No. 19-4293 Deposit Account Name Steptoe & Johnson LLP.
`
`Should the Examiner have any questions concerning the foregoing, the Examiner is
`invited to telephone the undersigned attorney at (202) 713-8196. The undersigned attorney can
`normally be reached Monday through Friday from about 10:00 AM to 9:00 PM Eastern.
`
`Respectfully submitted,
`
`Date: February 24, 2021 /Scott M. Richey, Reg # 69653/
`Scott M. Richey
`Reg. No. 69,653
`
`Customer Number: 27890
`STEPTOE & JOHNSON LLP
`1330 Connecticut Avenue, N.W.
`Washington, DC 20036-1795
`Telephone: (202) 429-3000
`Facsimile: (202) 429-3902
`
`6 IPR2025-00877
`Patent Owner 2014
`
`Page 6 of 6
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`