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 .
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claims 1-26 have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument.
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.
Claims 1-8, 15-17 and 23-26 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Voss et al. (U.S. Patent No. 10,943,371) in view of Bhat et al. (U.S. Patent No. 11,582,519).
Referring to claim 1, Voss discloses accessing a short-form video, wherein the short-form video includes a performance by a first individual (see Column 2, Lines 6-8 and Column 2, Lines 33-35)
Voss also discloses isolating, using one or more processors, the performance by the first individual from within the short-form video (see Column 7, Lines 5-15).
Voss also discloses retrieving an image, wherein the image includes a representation of a second individual (see Figure 5, Figure 7, Column 2, Lines 38-40 and Column 5, Lines 54-60).
Voss also discloses extracting information on the second individual from the image (see Column 7, Line 61 through Column 8, Line 26).
Voss also discloses creating a second short-form video by replacing the performance by the first individual, that was isolated, with the second individual (see Column 8, Lines 30-31), wherein the replacing is accomplished by machine learning (see Column 7, Line 61 through Column 8, Line 26).
Voss also discloses rendering the second short-form video (see Column 2, Lines 44-46 for playing back the reel with the modified face).
Voss also discloses augmenting the second short-form video, wherein the augmenting is based on viewer interactions, and wherein the augmenting occurs dynamically (see Column 4, Line 63 through Column 5, Line 4).
Voss fails to teach that replacing further comprises determining attributes of the first individual, wherein the attributes include gestures.
Bhat discloses replacing a performance of an individual using machine learning, wherein replacing further comprises determining attributes of the first individual, wherein the attributes include gestures (see Column 9, Lines 22-42 and Column 12, Line 57 through Column 13, Line 53).
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the short-form video first individual replacement system, as taught by Voss, using the gesture attribute replacement functionality, as taught by Bhat, for the purpose of accurately render and/or blend a replacement 3D model of the replacement actor into the frame, so as to minimize artifacts and/or jitter in the frame (see Column 9, Lines 39-42 of Bhat).
Referring to claim 2, Voss discloses that the augmenting further comprises switching audio content in the second short-form video with additional audio content, wherein the additional audio content matches a voice of the second individual (see Column 2, Lines 61-67).
Referring to claim 3, Voss discloses that the augmenting further comprises adding additional audio content to the second short-form video, wherein the additional audio content matches a voice of the second individual (see Column 2, Lines 61-67).
Referring to claim 4, Voss discloses that the augmenting is controlled by a human operator (see Column 2, Lines 61-67 for the user/human operator recording his/her voice to place over the first individual’s voice).
Referring to claim 5, Voss discloses that the augmenting further comprises including additional short-form video content to the second short-form video (see Column 3, Lines 33-38).
Referring to claim 6, Voss discloses that the additional short-form video content comprises an additional performance by the first individual, wherein the first individual is replaced by the second individual (see Column 2, Lines 13-35 for selecting from a “Recent” category which contains multiple performances of a user, therefore additional short-form content can be selected and altered resulting in an additional performance being accessed and modified).
Referring to claim 7, Voss discloses that the additional audio content is based on comments received while the second short-form video is viewed (see Column 2, Lines 51-58).
Referring to claim 8, Voss discloses that the audio content is selected from a library of responses to viewers of other short-form videos (see Column 21, Lines 51-58).
Referring to claim 15, Voss discloses that the replacing further comprises determining attributes of the first individual (see Column 6, Line 31 through Column 7, Line 46).
Referring to claim 16, Voss discloses applying the attributes of the first individual to the second individual (see Column 6, Line 31 through Column 7, Line 46).
Referring to claim 17, Voss discloses that the replacing further comprises changing attributes of the second individual (see Column 6, Line 31 through Column 7, Line 46 and Column 8, Lines 31-61).
Referring to claim 23, Voss discloses that the image includes multiple views of the second individual (see Column 3, Lines 19-26).
Referring to claim 24, Voss discloses that the augmenting is used to train a machine learning model (see block 1120 in Figure 11). The Examiner notes that Bhat discloses that the machine learning model includes a GAN (see Column 30, Lines 5-22).
Referring to claims 25-26, see the rejection of claim 1.
Claims 9-10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Voss et al. (U.S. Patent No. 10,943,371) in view of Bhat et al. (U.S. Patent No. 11,582,519) in further view of Rothman et al. (U.S. Patent Application Publication 2002/0072984).
Referring to claims 9-10, Voss and Bhat discloses all of the limitations of claim 3, but fails to teach that augmenting includes questions and answers from viewers and that the questions and answers are based on a product for sale.
Rothman discloses that augmenting a video includes questions and answers from viewers and that the questions and answers are based on a product for sale (see Paragraph 0073).
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify the short-form video modification system, as taught by Voss and Bhat, using the product question and answer functionality, as taught by Rothman, for the purpose of selling, promoting and distributing a product online (see Paragraph 0002 of Rothman).
Claim 11 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Voss et al. (U.S. Patent No. 10,943,371) in view of Bhat et al. (U.S. Patent No. 11,582,519) in further view of Bova (U.S. Patent Application Publication 2004/0123314).
Referring to claim 11, Voss and Bhat discloses all of the limitations of claim 3, but fails to teach that augmenting includes highlighting a special offer.
Bova discloses that augmenting a video includes highlighting a special offer (see Paragraph 0019).
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify the short-form video modification system, as taught by Voss and Bhat, using the special offer functionality, as taught by Bova, for the purpose of integrating television brand advertising with promotional marketing (see Paragraph 0001 of Bova).
Claims 12-13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Voss et al. (U.S. Patent No. 10,943,371) in view of Bhat et al. (U.S. Patent No. 11,582,519) in further view of Lazar et al. (U.S. Patent Application Publication 2022/0256253).
Referring to claims 12-13, Voss and Bhat discloses all of the limitations of claim 3, but fails to teach that augmenting includes a shoutout to a viewer and that the shoutout is in response to a donation, purchase, or subscription.
Lazar discloses that augmenting a video includes a shoutout to a viewer and that the shoutout is in response to a donation, purchase, or subscription (see Paragraph 0203).
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify the short-form video modification system, as taught by Voss and Bhat, using the shoutout functionality, as taught by Lazar, for the purpose of enabling viewers to engage with live media broadcasts in ways that provide rich interactive experiences (see Paragraph 0008 of Lazar).
Claim 14 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Voss et al. (U.S. Patent No. 10,943,371) in view of Bhat et al. (U.S. Patent No. 11,582,519).
Referring to claim 14, Voss and Bhat and Bova discloses all of the limitations of claim 1, but fails to teach that that the first individual is computer generated.
The Examiner takes Official Notice that short-form videos can be created using an avatar commonly known as a V-tuber.
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify the short-form video modification system, as taught by Voss and Bhat, using the computer-generated character, as taught by the Examiner’s statement of Official Notice, for the purpose of allowing a user to create an alternative personality of the user creating the short-form video or preserve the anonymity of the user creating the short-form video.
Claims 18-19 and 22 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Voss et al. (U.S. Patent No. 10,943,371) in view of Bhat et al. (U.S. Patent No. 11,582,519) in further view of Ress et al. (U.S. Patent Application Publication 2010/0153990).
Referring to claims 18-19, Voss and Bhat discloses all of the limitations of claim 1, but fails to teach enabling an ecommerce purchase, within the second short-form video, of a product for sale which includes a representation of the product in an on-screen product card.
Ress discloses enabling an ecommerce purchase, within the second short-form video, of a product for sale (see Paragraphs 0019, 0022, 0050 and 0057) which includes a representation of the product in an on-screen product card (see Figure 4 and Paragraph 0039).
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify the short-form video modification system, as taught by Voss and Bhat, using the ecommerce functionality, as taught by Ress, for the purpose of economically modify content, such as an advertisement, so that the content is personalized for a particular subscriber (see Paragraph 0004 of Ress).
Claim 22 corresponds to claim 18, wherein Ress further discloses highlighting of the product for sale for the viewer (see Figure 4 and Paragraph 0039).
Claims 20-21 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Voss et al. (U.S. Patent No. 10,943,371) in view of Bhat et al. (U.S. Patent No. 11,582,519) in further view of Ress et al. (U.S. Patent Application Publication 2010/0153990) in further view of Jouhikainen et al. (U.S. Patent Application Publication 2017/0372165).
Referring to claims 20-21, Voss, Bhat and Ress discloses all of the limitations of claim 18, but fail to teach enabling includes a virtual purchase cart, wherein the second short-form video that was rendered displays the virtual purchase cart while the second short-form video plays.
Jouhikainen discloses enabling includes a virtual purchase cart, wherein the second short-form video that was rendered displays the virtual purchase cart while the second short-form video plays (see Figure 6A and Paragraph 0095).
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify the short-form video modification system, as taught by Voss, Bhat and Ress, using the virtual purchase cart functionality, as taught by Jouhikainen, for the purpose of providing product types a viewer is interested in (see Paragraph 0070 of Jouhikainen).
Conclusion
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JASON P SALCE whose telephone number is (571)272-7301. The examiner can normally be reached 5:30am-10:00pm M-F (Flex Schedule).
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, Nathan Flynn can be reached at 571-272-1915. 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.
/Jason Salce/Senior Examiner, Art Unit 2421
Jason P Salce
Senior Examiner
Art Unit 2421
October 28, 2025