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 Amendment
The amendments, filed 1/2/2026, have been entered and made of record. Claims 1-2, 4-6, 8-11, 13-18, and 20 have been amended. Claims 1, 2, and 4-20 are pending.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments in the Remarks filed on 1/2/2026 have been considered but are moot in view of the new ground(s) of rejection.
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.
Shichman in view of Gupta and Phillips
Claims 1, 2, 4-8 and 10-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Shichman et ail.(USPubN 2018/0132011; hereinafter Shichman) in view of Gupta et al.(USPubN 2019/0132520; hereinafter Gupta) further in view of Phillips et al.(USPubN 2019/0230258; hereinafter Phillips).
As per claim 1, Shichman teaches an image processing apparatus, comprising:
An electronic processor configured to: acquire image content and metadata associated with the image content, the metadata including a shot mark that was added to the image content in accordance with a received user operation, the image content including a plurality of images(“Metadata for (or of) a data object as referred to herein may be, or may include, one or more data elements that describe, or provide other information for, other data, beyond the primary data (e.g., the video clip itself) for the data object. For example, metadata of a video clip may be its length, the time it was received by a server, specific times of the clip, or who is seen in the video clip (e.g., a name of a player shown in a video may be included in metadata), or what happens in the clip (such as ‘3-point basket’). Other metadata may be or may include the number of users who commented on an event shown in a video segment or any other information related to a video clip. As described herein, metadata received as input (e.g., in input 215) may be stored in metadata objects that may be associated with a video clip or with other content” in Para.[0043], “any of: a close-up, a pan, tilt and/or zoom (PTZ effects) of a camera may be identified and used for generating metadata, identifying events or otherwise used for generating an output video content” in Para.[0139], Para.[0042], [0102]),
Selects an image to be used for production of a video from the acquired image content on a basis of a time length of the video to be produced and the metadata, the time length being set on a setting screen(“Some embodiments of the invention may select to include, in the output video content, one or more events, or parts of events, based on a desired length of the output video content. For example, a desired length may be based on a rule, or it may be based on a specification received from a user. For example, a rule may include a threshold and may further dictate or indicate that the length of an output video clip for a specific category cannot be longer than the threshold. It will be understood that any logic related to a length of an output video produced as described may be included in a rule as described. For example, a rule may specify the maximum length or the minimal length of an output video with respect to a category, a game, a player, a target audience and the like” in Para.[0165]), and
produce the video using the selected image(“encoding one or more transition video segments to produce encoded transition segments, and producing the output video content object by concatenating one or more encoded transition segments and one or more of the cached encoded event segments” in Para.[0015]).
Shichman is silent about the metadata indicating information including in-focus coordinate information and user operation received at a time of capturing the image content.
Gupta teaches the metadata indicating information including in-focus coordinate information(Para.[0066]).
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 Shichman with the above teachings of Gupta in order to improve image management systems efficiently.
Phillips teaches user operation received at a time of capturing the image content(“The second input 34 controls active record and marking of an event. In particular, in embodiments of the invention where the first input 32 places the camera component 12 in a standby mode, the user can quickly instruct recording by depressing or otherwise actuating the second input 34. During recording of an event, the user can also mark the captured video. “Marking” of the captured video provides an indication of a point in time, i.e., the time when the user depresses the second input 34. The user can then quickly move to marked locations in the captured video upon viewing of the video using standardized video viewing software. Marking of the captured video allows the user to identify the point in time at which a particular event in the captured video occurs. Actuation of the second input 34 thus serves as both an instruction to begin recording and to mark the captured video to identify a time or location in the captured video corresponding to actuation of the second input 34.” in Para.[0052]).
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 Shichman and Gupta with the above teachings of Phillips in order to improve usability and edit efficiency of video data editing.
As per claim 2, Shichman, Gupta and Phillips teach all of limitation of claim 1.
Shichman teaches wherein the metadata includes camera metadata added by a camera that captured the image content(“Effects, operations, sources and camera manipulations or operations in, of, or related to, an input video content may be identified, by embodiments of the invention, as described and the effects, operations and other elements identified may be used in order to identify events, start and/or end times of events or any other metadata related to events” in Para.[0140]).
As per claim 4, Shichman, Gupta and Phillips teach all of limitation of claim 1.
Shichman teaches wherein the electronic processor is further configured to: group images of the acquired image content on a basis of the time length of video, and select, on a basis of the shot mark, the image to be used for production of the video from the grouped images(“A category of an input video content may be received or determined and selecting to include, in an output video content, one or more of a plurality of events may be based on the category. A plurality of events in the input video content may be identified and selecting to include, in an output video content, one or more events or parts of events may be based on a target audience of the output video content. Selecting to include, in an output video content, one or more events or parts of events may be based on a desired length of the output video content” in Para.[0010], [0165]).
As per claim 5, Shichman, Gupta and Phillips teach all of limitation of claim 1.
Shichman teaches wherein the time length of video is set on the setting screen in accordance with a second user operation that is received before production of the video(Para.[0073], [0074]).
As per claim 6, Shichman, Gupta and Phillips teach all of limitation of claim 1.
Shichman teaches wherein the time length of video is set on the setting screen in accordance with a second user operation that is received before capturing the image content(Para.[0073], [0074]).
As per claim 7, Shichman, Gupta and Phillips teach all of limitation of claim 1.
Shichman teaches wherein the time length of video is changeable on an editing screen for editing the video(Para.[0073], [0074]).
As per claim 8, Shichman, Gupta and Phillips teach all of limitation of claim 1.
Shichman teaches wherein the setting screen includes a setting of a number of the images to be used for production of the video, and the electronic processor is further configured to select the image on a basis of the set time length of video, the setting of the number of the images, and the metadata(Para.[0010], [0165]).
As per claim 10, Shichman, Gupta and Phillips teach all of limitation of claim 1.
Shichman teaches wherein the image is moving image or a still image(Para.[0043]).
As per claim 11, Shichman, Gupta and Phillips teach all of limitation of claim 1.
Shichman teaches wherein the electronic processor is further configured to receive the image via a network, and transmits the produced video to a terminal apparatus operated by a user(Para.[0033], [0049]).
As per claim 12, Shichman, Gupta and Phillips teach all of limitation of claim 11.
Shichman teaches wherein the setting screen is displayed on the terminal apparatus and operated by the user(Para.[0073], [0074]).
As per claim 13, the limitations in the claim 13 has been discussed in the rejection claim 1 and rejected under the same rationale.
As per claim 14, the limitations in the claim 14 has been discussed in the rejection claim 1 and rejected under the same rationale.
As per claim 15, the limitations in the claim 15 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 4 and rejected under the same rationale.
As per claim 17, the limitations in the claim 17 has been discussed in the rejection claim 5 and rejected under the same rationale.
As per claim 18, the limitations in the claim 18 has been discussed in the rejection claim 6 and rejected under the same rationale.
As per claim 19, the limitations in the claim 19 has been discussed in the rejection claim 7 and rejected under the same rationale.
As per claim 20, the limitations in the claim 20 has been discussed in the rejection claim 8 and rejected under the same rationale.
Shichman in view of Gupta, Phillips and Garak
Claim 9 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Shichman et ail.(USPubN 2018/0132011; hereinafter Shichman) in view of Gupta et al.(USPubN 2019/0132520; hereinafter Gupta) further in view of Phillips et al.(USPubN 2019/0230258; hereinafter Phillips) further in view of Garak(USPubN 2021/0295875).
As per claim 9, Shichman, Gupta and Phillips teach all of limitation of claim 1.
Shichman, Gupta and Phillips are silent about wherein an aspect ratio is further set on the setting screen, and the processing unit produces the video corresponding to the set aspect ratio.
Garak teaches wherein an aspect ratio is further set on the setting screen, and the processing unit produces the video corresponding to the set aspect ratio(Para.[0012]).
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 Shichman, Gupta and Phillips with the above teachings of Garak in order to improve user experience.
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). 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 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
Prosecution Insights