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 .
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 10-15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to non-statutory subject matter.
Regarding method claim 10, this claim is not directed to one of the four patent-eligible subject matter categories: process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter. This claim is drawn as a whole to a Signal per se, See In re Nuijten, 500 F.3d 1346, 84 USPQ2d 1495 (Fed. Cir. 2007) and MPEP 2106.
As to claims 11-15 they do not cure the deficiencies of the claim on which they depend. Therefore, they are rejected for the same reasons.
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)(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.
Jones
Claims 1, 2, 10, 11, 16 and 17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1)/(a)(2) as being anticipated by Jones et al.(USPubN 2011/0205441; hereinafter Jones).
As per claim 1, Jones teaches a video processing device, outputting a composite video, wherein the composite video is a video in which a plurality of media data are disposed, the media data is formed by an image and/or a video, the video processing device comprises(“A video production apparatus advantageously includes at least one embedded multi-previewer (14) that receives at least some of a plurality video signals generated by one or more elements in the switcher, such as a mix-effects engine (10). The multi-previewer generates an output signal which when displayed yields of mosaic of images, each representative of a respective input signal. In this way, an operator can observe, via a single video monitor, the status of multiple video signals, thus obviating the need for multiple device outputs, multiple monitors, and associated cabling” in Abs):
a first output device, outputting the composite video; a second output device, outputting a composite video different from the composite video output by the first output device; at least one processor; and at least one display device, having a first display region and a second display region different from the first display region, wherein the at least one processor is configured to: perform display for setting the composite video output by the first output device in the first display region, and perform display for setting the composite video output by the second output device in the second display region(“(a) four images Program A-Program D, each representative of a corresponding one of the four signals PGM A-PGM D, respectively, appearing on bus 13.sub.5” in Para.[0019], “(b) four images Preview A-Preview D, each representative of a corresponding one of the four signals PVW A-PVW D, respectively, appearing on bus 13.sub.6;” in Para.[0020], “(c) six images Key 1-Key 6, each corresponding to a separate one of the key signals Key 1-Key 6, on bus 13.sub.1” in Para.[0021], “the apparatus 10 takes the form of a mix-effect engine for processing video signals.” in Para.[0010]).
As per claim 2, Jones teaches wherein a plurality of scene information for forming the composite videos from the media data are provided, the composite videos are created based on the media data and the scene information, and wherein the at least one processor is configured to: select first scene information for creating the composite video output by the first output device in accordance with an instruction input from the first input device, and select second scene information for creating the composite video output by the second output device in accordance with an instruction input from the second input device(“(a) four images Program A-Program D, each representative of a corresponding one of the four signals PGM A-PGM D, respectively, appearing on bus 13.sub.5” in Para.[0015], “FIG. 3 depicts a block schematic diagram of an apparatus 100 in accordance with a second preferred embodiment of the present principles that combines multiple video input signals into a single output signal, which when displayed, appears as a mosaic of images, each corresponding to a separate one of the input signals. In the embodiment of FIG. 3, the apparatus 100 comprises a video switcher but could also be a video router or other production equipment which includes cross-point matrix 11 that feeds the input signals of the multi-Previewer 17 directly as the primary purpose of the signal. The output of the multi-Previewer could re-enter into the cross-point matrix 11 for further routing and/or go directly to an external monitor. This differs from the embodiment of FIG. 1 in that the multi-Previewer input signals can be any signal internal to the apparatus 100 and do not have to be associated with mix effect engine 10 inputs or outputs” in Para.[0023]).
As per claim 10, Jones teaches A computer-readable recording medium, storing a video processing program that causes a computer to execute a process for outputting a composite video(“Embedding the multi-previewer 17 within the mix-effects engine 10 allows the setup and configuration of the multi-previewer to be incorporated into the effects memory function for learn and/or recall purposes.” in Para.[0022]) and the limitations in the claim 10 has been discussed in the rejection claim 1 and rejected under the same rationale.
As per claim 11, the limitations in the claim 11 has been discussed in the rejection claim 2 and rejected under the same rationale.
As per claim 16, the limitations in the claim 16 has been discussed in the rejection claim 1 and rejected under the same rationale.
As per claim 17, the limitations in the claim 17 has been discussed in the rejection claim 2 and rejected under the same rationale.
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.
Jones in view of McNeil
Claims 7 and 15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Jones et al.(USPubN 2011/0205441; hereinafter Jones) in view of McNeill et al.(USPN 9,390,752;hereinafter McNeil).
As per claim 7, Jones teaches all of limitation of claim 2.
Jones is silent about wherein the first input device or the second input device is formed by a touch panel disposed on the first display region or the second display region.
McNeil teaches wherein the first input device or the second input device is formed by a touch panel disposed on the first display region or the second display region(“One or more input devices may be connected to the computer system. Example input devices include, but are not limited to, a keyboard, keypad, track ball, mouse, pen and tablet, touchscreen, camera, communication device, and data input devices” in Col. 14 lines 27-42).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the teachings Jones with the above teachings of McNeil in order to improve user experience.
As per claim 15, the limitations in the claim 15 has been discussed in the rejection claim 7 and rejected under the same rationale.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 3-6, 8, 9, and 18-20 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.
Claims 12-14 would be allowable if rewritten to overcome the rejection under 35 U.S.C. 101, set forth in this Office action and to include 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 SUNGHYOUN PARK whose telephone number is (571)270-1333. The examiner can normally be reached M - Thur 6:00 am - 4 pm.
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 Q 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.
/SUNGHYOUN PARK/Examiner, Art Unit 2484