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 .
Information Disclosure Statement
The Information Disclosure Statement (IDS) submitted on 05/07/2019 is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the IDS statement has been considered by the Examiner.
Priority
The instant application is a national stage entry of PCT/KR2022/002246 filed on 02/15/2022, which claims priority to Korean patent applications 10-2021-0085986 filed on 2021-06-30 and 10-2021-0138643 filed on 2021-10-18. A certified copy of the Japanese patent application has been provided.
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.
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: “a transaction module configured to receive the user contract template”, “an authentication module configured to verify the transaction”, “media content generation module is configured to execute a camera” and “network request module configured to issue a transaction” in claim 2 and “preprocessing module configured to perform preprocessing” in claim7.
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.
.
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 2 is 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.
Claim 7-9 are also rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph based on their dependencies form claim 2.
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.
Claims 1 and 10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Theunis; Laurens US 20200410616 (hereinafter Theunis) in view of OPOKU-WARE; Romeo et al. US 20210125163 (hereinafter Opoku-Ware).
As per claim 1, Theunis teaches: An apparatus for providing a service of issuing a media content token, the apparatus comprising:
an application installed in a user terminal, and configured to generate media content data, receive a user contract template corresponding to media content data from a template factory server (“a freelancer, offers a service to a second user, a customer, and the video contract specifies the details of the service and the price that is to be paid by the customer to the freelancer once the assignment relating to the service is completed. Hereby, the invention relates to the use of an app, here called LXGG app, which allows the users to compose the video contract by means of pre-defined template and provides the interface with a blockchain-related distributed computing platform.” Para. 157),
the template factory server configured to generate the user contract template corresponding to the media content data on the basis of a pre-stored standard contract template (“said step of composing said video contract relates to the use of a template present on said server and/or a template present on the device of the user. Said template relates to the composition of the video according to a step-by-step process or “wizard”, whereby different elements of the video contract are requested to the user(s) in a sequential manner, preferably whereby different separate sub-portions of the portion of video content are provided, preferably recorded, independently and are subsequently spliced/stitched to obtain the final portion of video content. This is advantageous since it enhances user experience. In one embodiment, the template may, in a first phase, request the first user to identify himself e.g. by means of text input and/or by means of a sub portion of video content wherein the first user is present in the sub portion and/or is filmed, to then repeat the process for the second user and any further users”. Theunis: para. 82).
Theunis does not teach; however, Opoku-Ware disclose: generate a media content token, and add an electronic signature to the media content token, and
issue the media content token to which the electronic signature is added, to a blockchain network (“As can be seen in FIG. 1, the transaction token 28 comprises a signature 206 generated by the private key 26, such that the token 18 may be verified by any device having access to the public key 24 on the blockchain 18. In this example, the transaction token 28 comprises the UID 202 of the content 16, a set of random data 204, and the digital signature 206. The signature 206 is generated at 208 by signing the random data 204 with the private key 26. However, it should be appreciated that the transaction token 28 may comprise any other information such that it is associated to the blockchain 18 corresponding to the specific content 16 and may be validated by the public key 24.” Opoku-Ware: para. 34. Also, see para. 43).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine Theunis with the teachings of Opoku-Ware to meet the preceding limitations. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make such modification since such techniques were known at the time of the instant invention and would have been applied in a predictable manner to ensure security of system resources.
As per claim 10, this claim defines a method that corresponds to the apparatus of claim 1 and does not define beyond limitations of claim 1. Therefore, claim 10 is rejected with the same rational as the rejection of claim 1.
Claims 2-9 and 11-16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Theunis in view of Opoku-Ware and further in view of PARK; Chan Ik US 20200053081 (hereinafter Park).
As per claim 2, the rejection of claim 1 is incorporated herein. Theunis teaches:
a media content generation module configured to generate the media content data (Theunis: para. 82);
a transaction module configured to receive the user contract template from the template factory server (Theunis: para. 157);
Theunis does not explicitly teach; however, Opoku-Ware discloses:
an authentication module configured to verify the transaction to generate the electronic signature (Opoku-Ware: para. 34. Also, see para. 43); and
a network request module configured to issue a transaction to which the electronic signature is attached, to the blockchain network (Opoku-Ware: para. 43);
generate a transaction that defines the media content token (Opoku-Ware: para. 34. Also, see para. 43).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine Theunis with the teachings of Opoku-Ware to meet the preceding limitations. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make such modification since such techniques were known at the time of the instant invention and would have been applied in a predictable manner to ensure security of a blockchain transaction.
As per claim 3, the rejection of claim 2 is incorporated herein. Theunis teaches:
the media content generation module is configured to execute a camera or a recorder to generate at least one selected from a group of image data, video data, and audio data, as the media content data (Theunis: para. 177).
As per claim 4, the rejection of claim 2 is incorporated herein. Theunis teaches:
the transaction module is configured to transmit a contract generation request corresponding to a format of the media content data to the template factory server when the media content data is generated, and write the user contract template provided by the contract generation request to generate the transaction (“said step of composing said video contract relates to the use of a template present on said server and/or a template present on the device of the user. Said template relates to the composition of the video according to a step-by-step process or “wizard”, whereby different elements of the video contract are requested to the user(s) in a sequential manner, preferably whereby different separate sub-portions of the portion of video content are provided, preferably recorded, independently and are subsequently spliced/stitched to obtain the final portion of video content. This is advantageous since it enhances user experience. In one embodiment, the template may, in a first phase, request the first user to identify himself e.g. by means of text input and/or by means of a subportion of video content wherein the first user is present in the subportion and/or is filmed, to then repeat the process for the second user and any further users.” Theunis: para. 177. Also, see para. 82).
As per claim 5, the rejection of claim 4 is incorporated herein. Theunis teaches: the one or more standard contract templates according to the formats of the media content data are pre-stored in the template factory server (“said step of composing said video contract relates to the use of a template present on said server and/or a template present on the device of the user. Said template relates to the composition of the video according to a step-by-step process or “wizard”, whereby different elements of the video contract are requested to the user(s) in a sequential manner, preferably whereby different separate sub-portions of the portion of video content are provided, preferably recorded, independently and are subsequently spliced/stitched to obtain the final portion of video content.” Theunis: para. 82), and the template factory server is configured to select any one of the standard contract templates according to the contract generation request, and change the selected standard contract template according to a preset interface rule to generate the user contract template (“Said template relates to the composition of the video according to a step-by-step process or “wizard”, whereby different elements of the video contract are requested to the user(s) in a sequential manner, preferably whereby different separate sub-portions of the portion of video content are provided.” Theunis: para. 82 and “the invention relates to the use of an app, here called LXGG app, which allows the users to compose the video contract by means of pre-defined template and provides the interface with a blockchain-related distributed computing platform. Particularly, in this embodiment, said step of composing said video contract comprises storing a smart contract on Ethereum” Theunis: para. 157).
As per claim 6, the rejection of claim 5 is incorporated herein. Theunis teaches:
the interface rule is a rule for selecting at least one piece of meta data of the media content data (“Said template relates to the composition of the video according to a step-by-step process or “wizard”, whereby different elements [elements of metadata] of the video contract are requested to the user(s) in a sequential manner, preferably whereby different separate sub-portions of the portion of video content are provided, preferably recorded, independently and are subsequently spliced/stitched to obtain the final portion of video content.” . Theunis: para. 82),
As per claim 7, the rejection of claim 2 is incorporated herein.
The apparatus of claim 2, wherein the authentication module is configured to verify the transaction by using a private key (Theunis: para. 56).
As per claim 8, the rejection of claim 2 is incorporated herein. Theunis teaches:
the application further comprises a preprocessing module configured to perform preprocessing on the media content data into a preset data structure (“In a preferred embodiment, said step of composing said video contract comprises the receiving by said first device, of an editing of said portion of video content and/or a modification of said contract specification from one of said first and said second user; wherein said editing preferably relates to a trimming [preprocessing on the media content data] and/or slicing and/or splicing of one or more draft portions of video content and/or the composing of an overlay associated with said portion of video content, and wherein said modification of said contract specification may relate to the inclusion of one or more selected and/or edited frames of said portion of video content to said contract specification.” Theunis: para. 69).
As per claim 9, the rejection of claim 8 is incorporated herein. Theunis teaches: the preprocessing module is configured to perform preprocessing on the media content data into a preset capacity and a preset extension (“In one embodiment, said editing relates to a trimming and/or slicing and/or splicing of one or more draft portions of video content, providing the users with the benefit of providing the portion of video content in several separate draft portions” Theunis: para. 69).
As per claim 11, this claim defines a method that corresponds to the apparatus of claim 3 and does not define beyond limitations of claim 3. Therefore, claim 11 is rejected with the same rational as the rejection of claim 3.
As per claim 12, this claim defines a method that corresponds to the apparatus of claim 5 and does not define beyond limitations of claim 5. Therefore, claim 12 is rejected with the same rational as the rejection of claim 5.
As per claim 13, this claim defines a method that corresponds to the apparatus of claim 6 and does not define beyond limitations of claim 6. Therefore, claim 13 is rejected with the same rational as the rejection of claim 6.
As per claim 14, this claim defines a method that corresponds to the apparatus of claim 2 and does not define beyond limitations of claim 2. Therefore, claim 14 is rejected with the same rational as the rejection of claim 2.
As per claim 15, this claim defines a method that corresponds to the apparatus of claim 8 and does not define beyond limitations of claim 8. Therefore, claim 15 is rejected with the same rational as the rejection of claim 8.
As per claim 16, this claim defines a method that corresponds to the apparatus of claim 9 and does not define beyond limitations of claim 9. Therefore, claim 16 is rejected with the same rational as the rejection of claim 9.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to GHODRAT JAMSHIDI whose telephone number is (571)270-1956. The examiner can normally be reached 10:00-6:00.
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, Carl Colin can be reached at 5712723862. 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.
/GHODRAT JAMSHIDI/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2493