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 .
Status of Claims
This office action is in response to the patent application 18/334,044 originally filed on June 13, 2023. Claims 1-20 are presented for examination. Claims 1, 10, and 17 are independent.
Priority
This application is a continuation-in-part of US Application 17/190,066, filed March 2, 2021.
The Examiner notes that the limitations regarding “looping” of video segments are not found in the parent application 17/190,066, and therefore cannot be afforded the priority date of March 2, 2021. The limitations regarding looping of video segments will have a priority date of June 13, 2023, the filing date of the instant application.
Drawings
Regarding FIG. 8G, 37 CFR 1.84(b)(1), stated in part, indicates that black and white photographs, including photocopies of photographs, are not ordinarily permitted in utility and design patent applications. The Office will accept photographs in utility and design patent applications, however, if photographs are the only practicable medium for illustrating the claimed invention. The photographs must be of sufficient quality so that all details in the photographs are reproducible in the printed patent. Therefore, the use of a black and white photographs lacking sufficient reproducible quality prevents FIG. 8G from complying with 37 CFR 1.84(b)(1).
Regarding FIG. 9 (see element “980A”), 37 CFR 1.84(a)(1), stated in part, normally requires black and white drawings. India ink, or its equivalent that secures solid black lines, must be used for drawings. In the present case, the drawings have very faint lines. Therefore, the failure to use solid black lines render FIG. 9 from complying with 37 CFR 1.84(a)(1).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(d):
(d) REFERENCE IN DEPENDENT FORMS.—Subject to subsection (e), a claim in dependent form shall contain a reference to a claim previously set forth and then specify a further limitation of the subject matter claimed. A claim in dependent form shall be construed to incorporate by reference all the limitations of the claim to which it refers.
Claim 8 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(d), as being of improper dependent form for failing to further limit the subject matter of the claim upon which it depends, or for failing to include all the limitations of the claim upon which it depends.
Claim 8 recites the following: “The method of claim 8,…” Specifically, claim 8 is dependent on itself. As such, claim 8 fails to recite a reference to a claim previously set forth and then specify a further limitation of the subject matter claimed. Therefore, claim 8 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(d).
Applicant may cancel the claim, amend the claim to place the claim in proper dependent form, rewrite the claim in independent form, or present a sufficient showing that the dependent claim complies with the statutory requirements.
For this office action, claim 8 will be assumed to depend on independent claim 1.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101
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.
Claims 1-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 101 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.
Claim 1 is directed to “a method” (i.e. a process), claim 10 is directed to “an electronic device” (i.e. a machine), and claim 17 is directed to “a non-transitory computer readable storage medium” (i.e. a machine), hence the claims are directed to one of the four statutory categories (i.e. process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter). In other words, Step 1 of the subject-matter eligibility analysis is “Yes.”
However, the claims are drawn to an abstract idea of “playing a video tutorial,” either in the form of “certain methods of organizing human activity,” in terms of managing personal behavior or relationships or interactions between people (including social activities, teaching and following rules or instructions), or reasonably in the form of “mental processes,” in terms of processes that can be performed in the human mind (including an observation, evaluation, judgement or opinion) which are “performed on a computer” (per MPEP 2106(III)(C) “A Claim That Requires a Computer May Still Recite a Mental Process”).
Regardless, the claims are reasonably understood as either “certain methods of organizing human activity” or “mental processes,” which require the following limitations (as in exemplary claim 1):
“providing data to present a video tutorial, the video tutorial comprising a plurality of segments;
automatically looping a first video segment;
during playback of the first video segment, receiving input that corresponds to a request to display a second video segment; and
in response to receiving the input that corresponds to the request to display the second video segment, automatically looping the second video segment.”
These limitations simply describe a process of data gathering and manipulation, which is partially analogous to “collecting information, analyzing it, and displaying certain results of the collection analysis” (i.e. Electric Power Group, LLC, v. Alstom, 830 F.3d 1350, 119 U.S.P.Q.2d 1739 (Fed. Cir. 2016)). Hence, these limitations are akin to an abstract idea which has been identified among non-limiting examples to be an abstract idea. In other words, Step 2A, Prong 1 of the subject-matter eligibility analysis is “Yes.”
Furthermore, the claims do not include additional elements that either alone or in combination are sufficient to claim a practical application because to the extent that, e.g., “an electronic device,” “one or more processors,” “memory,” “a display,” and “a non-transitory computer readable storage medium” are claimed, as these are merely claimed to add insignificant extra-solution activity to the judicial exception (e.g., data gathering) and/or do no more than generally link the use of a judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use. In other words, the claimed “playing a video tutorial,” is not providing a practical application, thus Step 2A, Prong 2 of the subject-matter eligibility analysis is “No.”
Likewise, the claims do not include additional elements that either alone or in combination are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because to the extent that, e.g., “an electronic device,” “one or more processors,” “memory,” “a display,” and “a non-transitory computer readable storage medium” are claimed these are all generic, well-known, and conventional computing elements. As evidence that these are generic, well-known, and conventional computing elements, Applicant’s specification discloses them in a manner that indicates that the additional elements are sufficiently well-known that the specification does not need to describe the particulars of such additional elements to satisfy 35 U.S.C. § 112(a), per MPEP § 2106.07(a) III (a), which satisfies the Examiner’s evidentiary burden requirement per the Berkheimer memo.
Specifically, the Applicant’s claimed “electronic device” is described in paragraph [0081] as follows: “a portable electronic device such as a mobile device.”
Applicant’s claimed “processor” is described in paragraph [0108], “Connection 1205 can be a physical connection via a bus, or a direct connection into processor 1210, such as in a chipset architecture.”
Applicant’s claimed “memory” is described in paragraph [00110], “system memory 1215, such as read only memory (ROM) 1220 and random access memory (RAM) 1225 to processor 1210. Computing system 1200 can include a cache 1212 of high-speed memory” and paragraph [00114], “Storage device 1230 can be a non-volatile memory device and can be a hard disk or other types of computer readable media which can store data that are accessible by a computer, such as magnetic cassettes, flash memory cards, solid state memory devices, digital versatile disks, cartridges, random access memories (RAMs), read only memory (ROM), and/or some combination of these devices.”
Applicant’s claimed “display” is described in paragraph [00121], “a display device, e.g., a CRT (cathode ray tube) or LCD (liquid crystal display) monitor, for displaying information to the user.”
Applicant’s claimed “a non-transitory computer readable storage medium” is described in paragraph [00105], “Examples of computer readable media include, but are not limited to, CD-ROMs, flash drives, RAM chips, hard drives, EPROMs, etc. The computer readable media does not include carrier waves and electronic signals passing wirelessly or over wired connections.”
These elements are reasonably interpreted as a generic computers or generic computer components, which provides no details of anything beyond ubiquitous standard equipment. As such, the claimed limitations are reasonably understood as not providing anything significantly more than the judicial exception. Therefore, Step 2B, of the subject-matter eligibility analysis is “No.”
In addition, dependent claims 2-9, 11-16, and 18-20 do not provide a practical application and are insufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. As such, dependent claims 2-9, 11-16, and 18-20 are also rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 101, based on their respective dependencies to independent claims 1, 10, and 17.
Therefore, claims 1-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 101 as being directed to non-statutory subject matter.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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.
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 1, 4, 7-10, 13, 17, and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) and 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Barron et al. (hereinafter “Barron,” US 2021/0298458).
Regarding claim 1, and substantially similar limitations in claims 10 and 17, Barron discloses a method for playing a video tutorial (Barron Abstract, “Systems, methods, and computer readable media for augmented reality beauty product tutorials are disclosed”), the method comprising:
at an electronic device with one or more processors and memory, wherein the device is in communication with a display (Barron [0129], “The machine 2100 may include processors 2102, memory 2104, and I/O components 2138, which may be configured to communicate with each other via a bus 2140”)
providing, to the display, data to present a video tutorial, the video tutorial comprising a plurality of segments (see Barron Fig. 16, showing steps of an AR tutorial; also Barron [0052], “AR tutorial video 228 is the video of the presenter 236 for step N 204 of the AR tutorial data 202,” each step is a video tutorial segment);
automatically looping a first video segment (Barron [0069], “AR tutorial 143 will loop for each step of the AR tutorial 143 until the user 238 selects to move to a next step”);
during playback of the first video segment, receiving input that corresponds to a request to display a second video segment (Barron [0169], “the user can indicate a command to move to the next step by a selection of a user interface element, a movement of the user 238 within the AR user display 144, a sound, and so forth.”); and
in response to receiving the input that corresponds to the request to display the second video segment, automatically looping the second video segment (Barron [0069], “AR tutorial 143 will loop for each step of the AR tutorial 143 until the user 238 selects to move to a next step,” each step is looped, and user selection prompts move to a next step).
Regarding claim 4, and substantially similar limitations in claims 13 and 20, Barron discloses during playback of the second video segment, receiving input that corresponds to a request to display a third video segment and in response to receiving the input that corresponds to the request to display the third video segment, automatically looping the third video segment (see Barron Fig. 16, showing Step 3 as a third video segment).
Regarding claim 7, Barron discloses wherein the first video segment is configured to aid a user in applying a cosmetic material onto a first area of a face of the user (Barron [0075], “the user may be watching a video or receive an image and be offered a link to AR tutorial 606 that will teach the user how to apply makeup to look like a person in the video or image.”).
Regarding claim 8, Barron discloses wherein the second video segment is configured to aid a user in applying a cosmetic material onto a second area of a face of the user (Barron [0075], “the user may be watching a video or receive an image and be offered a link to AR tutorial 606 that will teach the user how to apply makeup to look like a person in the video or image.”).
Regarding claim 9, and substantially similar limitations in claim 16, Barron discloses wherein the video tutorial comprises a cosmetic application (Barron [0075], “the user may be watching a video or receive an image and be offered a link to AR tutorial 606 that will teach the user how to apply makeup to look like a person in the video or image.”).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
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.
Claims 2, 3, 11, 12, 18, and 19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Barron in view of Pena et al. (hereinafter “Pena,” US 2020/0382724).
Regarding claim 2, and substantially similar limitations in claims 11 and 18, Barron does not explicitly teach automatically altering a playback speed of the first video upon each successive loop.
However, Pena discloses automatically altering a playback speed of the first video upon each successive loop (Pena [0684], “The Boomi special effect can include a Forward/Forward special effect whereby the video can play forward to a predetermined point in the video, then skips back several seconds in the video, then plays forward again, and may or may not repeat.”; also Pena [0763], “The presets can include the number of loops of the Boomi segment, and how fast or slow to play the Boomi segment.”; also Pena [1138], “The playing of the resultant video stream could be described as playing the first segment (frames 1-196) as normal speed with no changes, and then playing the Boomi segment (frames 197-227) as 41 loop in a forward direction at a slow motion speed of −3 or three times slower than the original speed,” Pena discloses looping video segments that can change in playback speed).
Pena is analogous to Barron, as both are drawn to the art of video display. It would be obvious to try by one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to have modified the method as taught by Barron, to include automatically altering a playback speed of the first video upon each successive loop, as taught by Pena, since it applies a known technique of changing speed of looping video to a known device of Barron ready for improvement to yield predictable results. Doing so is a predictable solution that one of ordinary skill in the art could have pursued with a reasonable expectation of success.
Regarding claim 3, and substantially similar limitations in claims 12 and 19, Barron does not explicitly teach altering the playback speed upon each successive loop until a predetermined minimum playback speed is achieved.
However, Pena discloses altering the playback speed upon each successive loop until a predetermined minimum playback speed is achieved (Pena [0684], “The Boomi special effect can include a Forward/Forward special effect whereby the video can play forward to a predetermined point in the video, then skips back several seconds in the video, then plays forward again, and may or may not repeat.”; also Pena [0763], “The presets can include the number of loops of the Boomi segment, and how fast or slow to play the Boomi segment.”; also Pena [1138], “The playing of the resultant video stream could be described as playing the first segment (frames 1-196) as normal speed with no changes, and then playing the Boomi segment (frames 197-227) as 41 loop in a forward direction at a slow motion speed of −3 or three times slower than the original speed,” Pena discloses looping video segments that can change in playback speed. In this case, playback can stop when minimum speed of “-3” is reached).
Pena is analogous to Barron, as both are drawn to the art of video display. It would be obvious to try by one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to have modified the method as taught by Barron, to include altering the playback speed upon each successive loop until a predetermined minimum playback speed is achieved, as taught by Pena, since it applies a known technique of changing speed of looping video to a known device of Barron ready for improvement to yield predictable results. Doing so is a predictable solution that one of ordinary skill in the art could have pursued with a reasonable expectation of success.
Claims 5, 6, 14, and 15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Barron in view of Ortins et al. (hereinafter “Ortins,” US 2010/0170052).
Regarding claim 5, and substantially similar limitations in claim 14, Barron does not explicitly teach wherein the video tutorial comprises an individualized cosmetic treatment program.
Barron does disclose that the video tutorial comprises a cosmetic treatment program (Barron [0075], “the user may be watching a video or receive an image and be offered a link to AR tutorial 606 that will teach the user how to apply makeup to look like a person in the video or image.”), but it is not an individualized cosmetic treatment program.
However, Ortins discloses wherein the video tutorial comprises an individualized cosmetic treatment program (Ortins [0109], “the receiving unit may be configured to track a user's cosmetic application to compare the right and left sides of the user's face to ensure that both sides of the user's cosmetics application are even and symmetrical. If a user's cosmetic application is asymmetrical, the display device can highlight such irregularities and provide correcting images and/or instructions,” providing correcting images and instructions to the user).
Ortins is analogous to Barron, as both are drawn to the art of cosmetics tutorial devices. It would be obvious to try by one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to have modified the method as taught by Barron, to include wherein the video tutorial comprises an individualized cosmetic treatment program, as taught by Ortins, in order to provide a more neat and/or symmetrical application or removal of cosmetics (Ortins [0109]). Doing so is a predictable solution that one of ordinary skill in the art could have pursued with a reasonable expectation of success.
Regarding claim 6, and substantially similar limitations in claim 15, Barron does not explicitly teach wherein the individualized cosmetic treatment program is based on a symmetry of facial features of a user.
However, Ortins discloses wherein the individualized cosmetic treatment program is based on a symmetry of facial features of a user (Ortins [0109], “the receiving unit may be configured to track a user's cosmetic application to compare the right and left sides of the user's face to ensure that both sides of the user's cosmetics application are even and symmetrical. If a user's cosmetic application is asymmetrical, the display device can highlight such irregularities and provide correcting images and/or instructions,” the correcting images and instructions are based on the symmetry of facial features of the user).
Ortins is analogous to Barron, as both are drawn to the art of cosmetics tutorial devices. It would be obvious to try by one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to have modified the method as taught by Barron, to include wherein the individualized cosmetic treatment program is based on a symmetry of facial features of a user, as taught by Ortins, in order to provide a more neat and/or symmetrical application or removal of cosmetics (Ortins [0109]). Doing so is a predictable solution that one of ordinary skill in the art could have pursued with a reasonable expectation of success.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure:
Kim et al. (US 2016/0357578) Method and device for providing makeup mirror
Mouizina et al. (US 2020/0336705) Smart mirror system and methods of use thereof
Da Veiga et al. (US 2023/0336865) Device, methods, and graphical user interfaces for capturing and displaying media
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Stephen Alvesteffer whose telephone number is (571)272-8680. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8:00-6:00.
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, Peter Vasat can be reached at 571-270-7625. 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.
/STEPHEN ALVESTEFFER/Examiner, Art Unit 3715