Prosecution Insights
Last updated: April 17, 2026
Application No. 18/499,409

AI ASSISTED VIDEO EDITING TOOL

Non-Final OA §102§103
Filed
Nov 01, 2023
Examiner
AUGUSTIN, MARCELLUS
Art Unit
2682
Tech Center
2600 — Communications
Assignee
unknown
OA Round
1 (Non-Final)
82%
Grant Probability
Favorable
1-2
OA Rounds
2y 8m
To Grant
98%
With Interview

Examiner Intelligence

Grants 82% — above average
82%
Career Allow Rate
684 granted / 838 resolved
+19.6% vs TC avg
Strong +16% interview lift
Without
With
+15.9%
Interview Lift
resolved cases with interview
Typical timeline
2y 8m
Avg Prosecution
31 currently pending
Career history
869
Total Applications
across all art units

Statute-Specific Performance

§101
11.0%
-29.0% vs TC avg
§103
50.7%
+10.7% vs TC avg
§102
18.5%
-21.5% vs TC avg
§112
12.0%
-28.0% vs TC avg
Black line = Tech Center average estimate • Based on career data from 838 resolved cases

Office Action

§102 §103
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 . Filed IDS of 04/09/2025, and 11/01/2023 have been entered and considered. Claims 1-20 are currently pending. Please refer to the action below. Examiner Notes The claims in this application are given their broadest reasonable interpretation using the plain meaning of the claim language in light of the specification as it would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art. However, the claimed subject matter, not the specification, is the measure of the invention. 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 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. 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, 11, and 16 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102 as being unpatentable over Allibhai et al. (US 11626139, A1). Regarding claim 1, Allibhai teaches a method of Col. 1 and Figs. 16-21 comprising: generating a transcript based on a video (generating in at least the Abstract at least a text transcript based on a video); generating one or more labels for one or more video clips of the video (generating further in at least the Abstract, and Col. 1 video segments and timecode/time-markers as one or more labels for one or more video clips of the video); generating an edit of the video based on the one or more labels and the one or more video clips (generating at least in Figs. 16-21 and Fig. 3 a synchronized and/or ordering and/or reordering edit of the video based on the one or more labels and the one or more video clips); and revising the edit of the video based on one or more user commands (receiving further at least user commands further in Figs. 19-21 for revising the edit of the video based on said one or more user commands). Regarding claim 11, Allibhai teaches in at least Col. 18, and Figs. 1 and 3 a system comprising: at least one processor (Col. 18); and a memory (Col. 18) storing instructions that, when executed by the at least one processor, cause the system to perform: generating a transcript based on a video (generating in at least the Abstract at least a text transcript based on a video); generating one or more labels for one or more video clips of the video (generating further in at least the Abstract, and Col. 1 video segments and timecode/time-markers as one or more labels for one or more video clips of the video); generating an edit of the video based on the one or more labels and the one or more video clips (generating at least in Figs. 16-21 and Fig. 3 a synchronized and/or ordering and/or reordering edit of the video based on the one or more labels and the one or more video clips); and revising the edit of the video based on one or more user commands (receiving further at least user commands further in Figs. 19-21 for revising the edit of the video based on said one or more user commands). Regarding claim 16, Allibhai teaches at least in Col. 18 a non-transitory computer-readable storage medium including instructions that, when executed by at least one processor of a computing system, cause the computing system to perform: generating a transcript based on a video (generating in at least the Abstract at least a text transcript based on a video); generating one or more labels for one or more video clips of the video (generating further in at least the Abstract, and Col. 1 video segments and timecode/time-markers as one or more labels for one or more video clips of the video); generating an edit of the video based on the one or more labels and the one or more video clips (generating at least in Figs. 16-21 and Fig. 3 a synchronized and/or ordering and/or reordering edit of the video based on the one or more labels and the one or more video clips); and revising the edit of the video based on one or more user commands (receiving further at least user commands further in Figs. 19-21 for revising the edit of the video based on said one or more user commands). Claims 1-3, 11-13, and 16-18 is/are further rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102 as being unpatentable over Brickner et al. (US 11902042, A1). Regarding claim 1, Brickner teaches a method of the Abstract and Fig. 6 comprising: generating a transcript based on a video (Abstract and Fig. 2A); generating one or more labels for one or more video clips of the video (generating further in at least Fig. 6 and Col. 12, at least titles, timecode/time-markers linking of video clips/segments as one or more labels for one or more video clips of the video); generating an edit of the video based on the one or more labels and the one or more video clips (Col. 12 and Figs 2 and 6, an add edit 610); and revising the edit of the video based on one or more user commands (receiving further at least user commands further in Col. 12 for revising the edit of the video and create at least a highlight based on said one or more user commands). Regarding claim 11, Brickner teaches in at least Col. 14, lines 24-67 a system comprising: at least one processor (Col. 14, lines 24-67) and a memory storing (Col. 14, lines 24-67) instructions that, when executed by the at least one processor (Col. 14, lines 24-67), cause the system to perform: generating a transcript based on a video (Abstract and Fig. 2A); generating one or more labels for one or more video clips of the video (generating further in at least Fig. 6 and Col. 12, at least titles, timecode/time-markers linking of video clips/segments as one or more labels for one or more video clips of the video); generating an edit of the video based on the one or more labels and the one or more video clips (Col. 12 and Figs 2 and 6, an add edit 610); and revising the edit of the video based on one or more user commands (receiving further at least user commands further in Col. 12 for revising the edit of the video and create at least a highlight based on said one or more user commands). Regarding claim 16, Brickner teaches in at least Col. 14, lines 24-67 a non-transitory computer-readable storage medium including instructions that, when executed by at least one processor of a computing system, cause the computing system to perform: generating a transcript based on a video (Abstract and Fig. 2A); generating one or more labels for one or more video clips of the video (generating further in at least Fig. 6 and Col. 12, at least titles, timecode/time-markers linking of video clips/segments as one or more labels for one or more video clips of the video); generating an edit of the video based on the one or more labels and the one or more video clips (Col. 12 and Figs 2 and 6, an add edit 610); and revising the edit of the video based on one or more user commands (receiving further at least user commands further in Col. 12 for revising the edit of the video and create at least a highlight based on said one or more user commands). Regarding claim 2 (according to claim 1), and 12 (according to claim 11), and claim 17 (according to claim 16), Brickner further teaches further wherein comprising: synchronizing one or more portions of the transcript with the one or more video clips (time linking of at least Col. 12 and Figs 6 as said synchronizing one or more portions of the transcript with said one or more video clips). Regarding claim 3 (according to claim 1), and 13 (according to claim 11), and claim 18 (according to claim 16), Brickner further teaches further wherein the one or more labels are generated based on at least one of: a topic, a concept, an emotion, a dialogue, a character, an action, or a location identified in the one or more video clips (Col. 12 further illustrates said one or more labels or video segments are generated based on at least one of a topic, a dialogue, a character, an action, or a location identified in the one or more video clips). Claims 1-8, and 10-20 is/are further rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102 as being unpatentable over Grillo et al. (US 20250063140, A1). Regarding claim 1, Grillo teaches a method of the Abstract comprising: generating a transcript based on a video (Abstract); generating one or more labels for one or more video clips of the video (generating further in at least the Abstract and para. 0003 topic-based search contents which contents are further defined in para. 0045 as video clips as said one or more labels for said one or more video clips of the video); generating an edit of the video based on the one or more labels and the one or more video clips (para. 0033, 0093); and revising the edit of the video based on one or more user commands (receiving further in para. 0113 at least user commands for revising the edit of the video). Regarding claim 2 (according to claim 1), Grillo further teaches further wherein comprising: synchronizing one or more portions of the transcript with the one or more video clips (para. 0195-0196). Regarding claim 3 (according to claim 1), Grillo further teaches further wherein the one or more labels are generated based on at least one of: a topic, a concept, an emotion, a dialogue, a character, an action, or a location identified in the one or more video clips (topic based labels of Abstract). Regarding claim 4 (according to claim 1), Grillo further teaches further wherein further comprising: generating one or more summaries for the one or more video clips based on the one or more labels (Figs. 2-3, and 5). Regarding claim 5 (according to claim 1), Grillo further teaches wherein further comprising: storing the one or more labels in a data structure associated with the video (the generated video/clips topics of at least Fig. 3 are inherently stored in a data structure associated with the video); wherein the data structure includes an array, and wherein each element of the array corresponds to a line or an action depicted in the video (the inherent storage device of at least Fig. 3 storing the generated topic based search segments further understoodly in a case comprise said data structure includes an array, and wherein each element of the array corresponds to an action depicted in the video). Regarding claim 6 (according to claim 1), Grillo further teaches wherein the generating the edit comprises: ranking the one or more video clips based on ranking criteria (para. 0095 further teaches a case of associating and display video contents by at least a date further indicative of the ranking the one or more video clips based on ranking criteria); and ordering the one or more video clips based on the ranking, wherein the generating the edit is based on the ordering (para. 0095 further teaches the at least ordering the one or more video contents/clips based on the date ranking, wherein the generating the edit of further para. 0095-0096 is based on the ordering). Regarding claim 7 (according to claim 1), Grillo further teaches wherein the revising the edit comprises: parsing the one or more user commands for an additive edit (parsing at least user updating or revised commands of further para. 0096 where the update editing may obviously be in a case an additive edit); performing a search to identify a video clip that satisfies the additive edit (received revised or modifications commands of further para. 0096 further obviously entail a performed search to identify a video content/clip that satisfies the additive edit); and revising a script associated with the edit of the video based on the video clip, wherein the revising the edit of the video is based on the revised script (the modifications editing process further para. 0096 further lastly comprise revising a script associated with the edit of the video based on the video clip, wherein the revising the edit of the video is based on the revised script). Regarding claim 8 (according to claim 1), Grillo further teaches wherein the revising the edit comprises: parsing the one or more user commands for a subtractive edit (parsing at least user updating or revised commands of further para. 0096 where the update editing may obviously be in a case a subtractive edit); performing a search of a script associated with the edit to identify a portion of the script that satisfies the subtractive edit (received revised or modifications commands of further para. 0096 further obviously entail a performed search to identify a video content/clip that satisfies said subtractive editing to remove at least one content or clip); and revising the script associated with the edit of the video to remove the identified portion, wherein the revising the edit of the video is based on the revised script (the modifications editing process further para. 0096 further lastly comprise revising a script associated with the edit of the video based on the video clip, wherein the revising the edit of the video is based on the revised script). Regarding claim 10 (according to claim 1), Grillo further teaches wherein further comprising: performing a search of the one or more video clips for a label that satisfies a search command (Figs. 5); and surfacing a video clip associated with the label that satisfies the search command (surfacing content of at least para. 0033). Regarding claim 11, Grillo teaches in the Abstract a system comprising: at least one processor (Abstract); and a memory (readable media of at least the Abstract) storing instructions that, when executed by the at least one processor, cause the system to perform: generating a transcript based on a video (Abstract); generating one or more labels for one or more video clips of the video (generating further in at least the Abstract and para. 0003 topic-based search contents which contents are further defined in para. 0045 as video clips as said one or more labels for said one or more video clips of the video); generating an edit of the video based on the one or more labels and the one or more video clips (para. 0033, 0093); and revising the edit of the video based on one or more user commands (receiving further in para. 0113 at least user commands for revising the edit of the video). Regarding claim 12 (according to claim 11), Grillo further teaches further wherein 12. The system of claim 11, further comprising: synchronizing one or more portions of the transcript with the one or more video clips (para. 0195-0196). Regarding claim 13 (according to claim 11), Grillo further teaches further wherein the one or more labels are generated based on at least one of: a topic, a concept, an emotion, a dialogue, a character, an action, or a location identified in the one or more video clips (topic based labels of Abstract). Regarding claim 14 (according to claim 11), Grillo further teaches further wherein further comprising: generating one or more summaries for the one or more video clips based on the one or more labels (Figs. 2-3, and 5). Regarding claim 15 (according to claim 11), Grillo further teaches wherein further comprising: storing the one or more labels in a data structure associated with the video (the generated video/clips topics of at least Fig. 3 are inherently stored in a data structure associated with the video); wherein the data structure includes an array, and wherein each element of the array corresponds to a line or an action depicted in the video (the inherent storage device of at least Fig. 3 storing the generated topic based search segments further understoodly in a case comprise said data structure includes an array, and wherein each element of the array corresponds to an action depicted in the video). Regarding claim 16, Grillo teaches at least tin the Abstract a non-transitory computer-readable storage medium including instructions that, when executed by at least one processor of a computing system, cause the computing system to perform: generating a transcript based on a video (Abstract); generating one or more labels for one or more video clips of the video (generating further in at least the Abstract and para. 0003 topic-based search contents which contents are further defined in para. 0045 as video clips as said one or more labels for said one or more video clips of the video); generating an edit of the video based on the one or more labels and the one or more video clips (para. 0033, 0093); and revising the edit of the video based on one or more user commands (receiving further in para. 0113 at least user commands for revising the edit of the video). Regarding claim 17 (according to claim 16), Grillo further teaches further wherein comprising: synchronizing one or more portions of the transcript with the one or more video clips (para. 0195-0196). Regarding claim 18 (according to claim 16), Grillo further teaches further wherein the one or more labels are generated based on at least one of: a topic, a concept, an emotion, a dialogue, a character, an action, or a location identified in the one or more video clips (topic based labels of Abstract). Regarding claim 19 (according to claim 16), Grillo further teaches further wherein further comprising: generating one or more summaries for the one or more video clips based on the one or more labels (Figs. 2-3, and 5). Regarding claim 20 (according to claim 16), Grillo further teaches wherein further comprising: storing the one or more labels in a data structure associated with the video (the generated video/clips topics of at least Fig. 3 are inherently stored in a data structure associated with the video); wherein the data structure includes an array, and wherein each element of the array corresponds to a line or an action depicted in the video (the inherent storage device of at least Fig. 3 storing the generated topic based search segments further understoodly in a case comprise said data structure includes an array, and wherein each element of the array corresponds to an action depicted in the video). 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 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(s) 9 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable and obvious over Grillo in view of Lowry et al. (US 10094903, A1). Regarding claim 9 (according to claim 1), Grillo is silent regarding wherein further comprising: tracking iterative edits made to the edit of the video; and rolling back to one of a plurality of versions of the video based on a user selection. Lowry teaches in at least Fig. 2 performing an additive and revised edit of a video and further in Col. 12 tracking video data and iteratively editing of the video and further obviously tracking iterative edits made to the edit of the video and further understoodly configured for scrolling or rolling back to obviously one of a plurality of original, cuts or versions of said video based on a user selection. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the teachings of Grillo in view of Lowry to include said tracking iterative edits made to the edit of the video; and rolling back to one of a plurality of versions of the video based on a user selection, as Grillo in view of Lowry are in the same field of endeavor of generating at least a transcription and an edit of an acquired video, Lowry complements the generated editing of the video clips of Grillo with an augmented iterative editing tracking process and rolling back to one of a plurality of versions of the video based on a user selection where a user may subsequently perform a revised edit of the items and/or confirm the generated editing according to further known methods to yield predictable results since known work in one field of endeavor may prompt variations of it for use in either the same field or a different one based on design incentives or other market forces if the variations are predictable to one of ordinary skill in the art as said combination is thus the adaptation of an old idea or invention using newer technology that is either commonly available and understood in the art thereby a variation on already known art (See MPEP 2143, KSR Exemplary Rationale F). Conclusion Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MARCELLUS AUGUSTIN whose telephone number is (571)270-3384. The examiner can normally be reached 9 AM- 5 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, BENNY TIEU can be reached at 571-272-7490. 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. /MARCELLUS J AUGUSTIN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2682 09/29/2025
Read full office action

Prosecution Timeline

Nov 01, 2023
Application Filed
Oct 02, 2025
Non-Final Rejection — §102, §103
Mar 25, 2026
Applicant Interview (Telephonic)
Mar 26, 2026
Examiner Interview Summary
Mar 31, 2026
Response Filed

Precedent Cases

Applications granted by this same examiner with similar technology

Patent 12597126
IMAGE SETTING DEVICE, IMAGE SETTING METHOD, AND IMAGE SETTING PROGRAM
2y 5m to grant Granted Apr 07, 2026
Patent 12586170
SYSTEM AND METHOD FOR GENERATING PREDICTIVE IMAGES FOR WAFER INSPECTION USING MACHINE LEARNING
2y 5m to grant Granted Mar 24, 2026
Patent 12573079
System and Method for Identifying Feature in an Image of a Subject
2y 5m to grant Granted Mar 10, 2026
Patent 12573388
BEHAVIOR DETECTION
2y 5m to grant Granted Mar 10, 2026
Patent 12569129
ANATOMICAL LOCATION DETECTION OF FEATURES OF A GASTROINTESTINAL TRACT OF A PATIENT
2y 5m to grant Granted Mar 10, 2026
Study what changed to get past this examiner. Based on 5 most recent grants.

AI Strategy Recommendation

Get an AI-powered prosecution strategy using examiner precedents, rejection analysis, and claim mapping.
Powered by AI — typically takes 5-10 seconds

Prosecution Projections

1-2
Expected OA Rounds
82%
Grant Probability
98%
With Interview (+15.9%)
2y 8m
Median Time to Grant
Low
PTA Risk
Based on 838 resolved cases by this examiner. Grant probability derived from career allow rate.

Sign in for Full Analysis

Enter your email to receive a magic link. No password needed.

Free tier: 3 strategy analyses per month