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 .
Election/Restrictions
Applicant’s election without traverse of claims 1-8 in the reply filed on 1/5/26 is acknowledged.
Claim Interpretation
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(f):
(f) Element in Claim for a Combination. – An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
This application includes one or more claim limitations that do not use the word “means,” but are nonetheless being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, because the claim limitation(s) uses a generic placeholder that is coupled with functional language without reciting sufficient structure to perform the recited function and the generic placeholder is not preceded by a structural modifier. Such claim limitations are: “a Text Processing and Segmentation Module configured to receive and segment textual content” in claim 1, “a GPT Integration Module configured to process the segmented textual content” in claim 1, “a Visual Generator Module configured to create visualizations” in claim 1, “a Narration Generation Module configured to generate narration for the processed content” in claim 1, “an Animation Module configured to animate the generated visualizations; a Video Editing Software Module configured to integrate the generated narration, animations, visualizations, and/or other user-uploaded content” in claim 1, “a Management Module configured to manage performance of one or more asynchronous tasks” in claim 2, “a Feedback and Iteration Module configured to allow users to provide feedback and revise the generated video” in claim 3, and “a Content Validation Module configured to verify a legal right to usage of the uploaded textual content” in claim 8.
Because this/these claim limitation(s) is/are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, it/they is/are being interpreted to cover the corresponding structure described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof.
If applicant does not intend to have this/these limitation(s) interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, applicant may: (1) amend the claim limitation(s) to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph (e.g., by reciting sufficient structure to perform the claimed function); or (2) present a sufficient showing that the claim limitation(s) recite(s) sufficient structure to perform the claimed function so as to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 3 and 6 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Regarding claims 3 and 6, the phrase "such as" renders the claim indefinite because it is unclear whether the limitations following the phrase are part of the claimed invention. See MPEP § 2173.05(d).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(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, 2, 4, and 5 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 1029a)(2) as being anticipated by Jang et al. (US Pub. No. 2022/0309936).
Consider claim 1. Jang et al. discloses a video generation system for converting textual content into educational videos, the system comprising: a User Interface module (para. 0033 describes a video education I/O device), comprising one or more predefined templates and/or customization settings (paras. 0094-0096 describe a video education content providing apparatus automatically changing and displaying a participant's face or body with a different type of character in real time according to an age group of the participant, a keyword of the dialogue, etc.); a Text Processing and Segmentation Module configured to receive and segment textual content into distinct sections, to identify one or more key educational components and to generate narrative elements based on analysis of the key educational components to enhance viewer engagement (para. 0036 describes dividing dialogue chapter text to provide the generated video education content to the video education I/O device); a GPT Integration Module configured to process the segmented textual content, wherein the processing comprises determining whether to summarize, modify, and/or retain verbatim the segmented textual content (para. 0039 describes summarizing by the video education content providing apparatus by applying the artificial intelligence natural language processing function); a Visual Generator Module configured to create visualizations based on the processed textual content (para. 0037 describes generating virtual avatar characters); a Narration Generation Module configured to generate narration for the processed content 9para. 0037 describes generating virtual avatar characters using the divided dialogue chapter with voice speech); an Animation Module configured to animate the generated visualizations (para. 0037 describes generating virtual avatar characters); a Video Editing Software Module configured to integrate the generated narration, animations, visualizations, and/or other user-uploaded content, into a video (paras. 0032-0038 describes integrating the voice speech, text, avatars, and/or other user-uploaded content into a video); and an Export and Integration Module configured to enable publication of the integrated video (para. 0034 describes video education I/O device is formed as a personal device of a participant such as a PC or a smartphone).
Consider claim 2. Jang et al. discloses the system of claim 1, further comprising a Management Module configured to manage performance of one or more asynchronous tasks constrained by one or more allocated resources and performance of one or more synchronous tasks in real-time (paras. 0061-0063 describe changing the character in real time by reflecting the facial expression or the body motion of the participant to the selected character).
Consider claim 4. Jang et al. discloses the system of claim 1, wherein the Text Processing and Segmentation Module is configured to accept digital documents, wherein the digital documents comprise one or more of Portable Document Format files (PDFs), text documents, image files, video clips, audio files, and/or any other digital file types (para. 0048 describes inputting one-way lectures, books, and news into the deo education content providing apparatus).
Consider claim 5. Jang et al. discloses the system of claim 1, wherein the GPT Integration Module employs algorithms to retain the essence of the original textual content in the summarized version, and a user- selectable option to indicate whether to perform summarization of the input textual content, the summarization based on the Al model's linguistic comprehension abilities (para. 0039 describes summarizing by the video education content providing apparatus by applying the artificial intelligence
natural language processing function).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
Claim 8 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Jang et al. (US Pub. No. 2022/0309936) in view of Official Notice.
Consider claim 8. Jang et al. discloses all claimed limitations as stated above except a Content Validation Module configured to verify a legal right to usage of the uploaded textual content, based on one or more pre-defined legal parameters and user adherence to terms and conditions.
However, the examiner takes official notice that it is well known in the art to verify a legal right to usage of content based on pre-defined legal parameters and user adherence to terms and conditions.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one with ordinary skill in the art, to provide a Content Validation Module configured to verify a legal right to usage of the uploaded textual content, based on one or more pre-defined legal parameters and user adherence to terms and conditions, in order to verify a legal right to usage of the provided content.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claim 7 is objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Mishawn N Hunter whose telephone number is (571)272-7635. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 7am-4pm.
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, Thai Tran can be reached at 571-272-7382. 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.
/MISHAWN N. HUNTER/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2484