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 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.
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. The broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim element (also commonly referred to as a claim limitation) is limited by the description in the specification when 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is invoked.
As explained in MPEP § 2181, subsection I, claim limitations that meet the following three-prong test will be interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
(A) the claim limitation uses the term “means” or “step” or a term used as a substitute for “means” that is a generic placeholder (also called a nonce term or a non-structural term having no specific structural meaning) for performing the claimed function;
(B) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is modified by functional language, typically, but not always linked by the transition word “for” (e.g., “means for”) or another linking word or phrase, such as “configured to” or “so that”; and
(C) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function.
Use of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim with functional language creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites sufficient structure, material, or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Absence of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is not to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is not interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites function without reciting sufficient structure, material or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Claim limitations in this application that use the word “means” (or “step”) are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action. Conversely, claim limitations in this application that do not use the word “means” (or “step”) are not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action.
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 limitation(s) is/are:
“generation unit configured to generate” in claims 1, 6-13.
“detecting unit” in claims 2-5.
“determination unit” in claims 14-15 and 17.
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.
Specification
The title of the invention is not descriptive. A new title is required that is clearly indicative of the invention to which the claims are directed.
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.
Claim 20 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to non-statutory subject matter.
Claim 20 recites “a program for causing a computer to execute processing of...” without specifying any tangible computer-readable medium or physical implementation. As such, the claim encompasses the program code itself, which constitutes a software per se and non-statutory under 101. Applicant may overcome this rejection by amending the claim to recite a “non-transitory computer readable storage medium storing a program for causing a computer to execute...”.
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 1-20 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.
Claims 1, 19, and 20 recites “reproduction assisting information”. The claim fails to define what constitutes such information or how it assists reproduction. Without structural or procedural context, one of ordinary skill cannot ascertain its boundaries.
Claims 1, 19, and 20 recites the terms “first degree of importance” and “second degree of importance” are relative term which renders the claim indefinite. The term “degree of importance” is not defined by the claim, the specification does not provide a standard for ascertaining the requisite degree, and one of ordinary skill in the art would not be reasonably apprised of the scope of the invention. Therefore, the scope is uncertain.
Claims 1, 19, and 20 recites “target clip among a plurality of clips”. The manner in which a “target clip” is selected is not specified, leaving the scope of “target clip” indeterminate.
Claims 1, 19, and 20 recites “plurality of clips...further dividing...sections...” could be misread; clarify operation sequence is required. Suggest amendment: “dividing the data into a plurality of clips, selecting a target clip, and further diving the target clip into a plurality of video sections and a plurality of sound sections.”
Allowable Subject Matter
Examiner notes that but for the rejections above, the independent claims 1, 19, and 20 do not have any prior art rejections. This is because the prior art of record does not teach or suggest every limitation of the claims at issue. More specifically, the prior art of record does not teach the various scenarios as they relate to reproducing assisting information for reproducing a video contents that a video and sound divided into a plurality of clips, obtaining a target clip among the plurality of clips, the reproducing assisting information generated according to a first degree of importance that is a degree of importance of a plurality of sections obtained by further dividing the video included in the target clip and a second degree of importance that is a degree of importance of a plurality of sections obtained by further dividing the sound included in the target clip.
The relevant prior art references of record are:
Jiang (U.S. 2012/0281969), which discloses segmentation of video and audio data and assignment of respective importance values for summarization purposes (See Abstract, paras. [0030] and [0032)). However, Jiang does not discloses generating reproduction assisting information based on importance values for both video sections and audio sections in the target clip among a plurality of clips.
JP 2000-253351 A1, which discloses a moving image summarizing device having: a feature of dividing a moving image such as an educational video into scene units; a feature of grouping divided scenes (the "grouped scenes" and "scenes" in document respectively correspond to the "clip" and "sections" obtained by dividing a clip in the present application); a feature of setting a priority for a scene on the basis of the result of grouping; and a summary output means for sorting out the scenes in accordance with the priority for each scene and creating a summarized video image (see claim 1, paragraphs [0035]-[0051], and fig. 5, 7). JP 2000-253351 A1 does not disclose dividing audio into sections, computing a second importance degree for audio sections, nor generating reproducing assisting information based on combined video and audio importance values.
JP 2016-046705 discloses a feature in which stream data presenting a video image and sound of a conference is divided into a plurality of sections, the importance of each of the plurality of sections is evaluated on the basis of the video image and sound, and editing is performed on the basis of the importance (see claims 1, 5, and 6 and paragraphs [0038], [0042], [0054]-[0058]). However, JP 2016-046705 does not disclose generating reproduction assisting information based on importance values of video sections and audio sections of the target clips among plurality of clips.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
US Pub 2022/0129679 A1 (Panda et al.) — Disclose machine learning-based techniques for summarizing videos via side information.
US Pub 2012/0106925 A1 (Dirik et al.) — Disclose automatic static video summarization.
US Patent 7,552,382 B1 (Munetsugu et al.) — Disclose data processing device and method for selecting media segments on the basis of a score.
US Pub 2008/0019665 A1 (Huang et al.) — Disclose systems and methods for embedding scene processing information in a multimedia source.
Examiner has cited particular columns and line and/or paragraph numbers in the references applied to the claims above for the convenience of the applicant. Although the specified citations are representative of the teachings of the art and are applied to specific limitations within the individual claim, other passages and figures may apply as well. It is respectfully requested from the applicant in preparing responses, to fully consider the references in entirety as potentially teaching all or part of the claimed invention, as well as the context of the passage as taught by the prior art or disclosed by the Examiner.
The examiner requests, in response to this Office action, support be shown for language added to any original claims on amendment and any new claims. That is, indicate support for newly added claim language by specifically pointing to page(s) and line no(s) in the specification and/or drawing figure(s). This will assist the examiner in prosecuting the application.
When responding to this office action, Applicant is advised to clearly point out the patentable novelty which he or she thinks the claims present, in view of the state of the art disclosed by the references cited or the objections made. He or she must also show how the amendments avoid such references or objections See 37 CFR 1.111(c).
Point of Contact
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to PHUONG H NGUYEN whose telephone number is (571)270-1300. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 9:30-4:00 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, William Bashore can be reached at 571-272-4088. 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.
/PHUONG H NGUYEN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2174