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 Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claim(s) 1-20 have been considered but are moot in view of new grounds of rejection.
Examiner has brought in Geun (KR10-2214421) to disclose the newly amended features.
Claim Objections
Claim 14 is objected to because of the following informalities:
In claim 14, line 1, change “claim 0” to –claim 9--.
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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) 1-3, 6-7, 9-10, 13-14, 16-17, and 19-20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wilson (2021/0329310) in view of Geun (KR10-2214421; Examiner’s note: Examiner referenced attached machine translation).
As for claims 1, 9, and 16, Wilson discloses a method for bundling data files, wherein the method comprises:
receiving a player video file (media data), wherein the player video file is generated on a social media platform (Media data including video is generated and shared on content sharing platforms such as Facebook, Instagram, Tumblr, and Twitter; [0041], [0042]);
identifying a storage section of the player video file configured to store an editable video file (Sidecar file comprises metadata that is associated with the media data. Sidecar file is presented concurrently with the media data that is the video file. Referring to Fig. 7, sidecar file 710 is stored within video file 170; [0129], [0131], [0134], [0142]);
generating the editable video file comprising metadata that includes a plurality of parameters associated with the player video file, wherein a parameter of the plurality of parameters identifies an editable element of the player video file (Sidecar file comprises metadata and is associated with the media data; [0129], [0145]; Profile 118 includes descriptive information which is customizable information editable by a user for inclusion as descriptive information as metadata in association with media data; [0114]);
generating a bundled video file by appending the editable video file in the storage section of the player video file (Referring to Fig. 7, sidecar file 710 is stored within video file 170; [0129], [0131], [0134]); and
exporting the bundled video file to storage located external to the social media platform ([0019], [0028], [0042], [0142], [0144]).
However, Wilson fails to disclose:
Wherein the editable element comprises at least one of a synchronization structure between a video component and an audio component of the player video file, a music track file, or image data;
In an analogous art, Geun discloses:
Wherein the editable element comprises at least one of a synchronization structure between a video component and an audio component of the player video file, a music track file, or image data (Project file includes time sequence in which the video clip and audio are arranged; [0006], [0010], [0011], [0015], [0034], [0042], [0074]);
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Wilson’s invention to include the abovementioned limitation, as taught by Geun, for the advantage of efficient storage and/or decoding.
As for claims 2, Wilson discloses wherein each parameter of the plurality of parameters comprises a unique identifier ([0114], [0129], [0145]).
As for claims 3, 10, and 17, Wilson discloses further comprising updating the metadata in response to a change to the player video file (As the video progresses, the associated metadata in the sidecar file changes; [0024], [0133], [0134], [0148], [0149], [0150], [0156], [0157]).
As for claims 6, 13, and 20, Wilson discloses further comprising authenticating access to the bundled video file based on an attempt to access the bundled video file ([0100]).
As for claims 7, 14, and 19, Wilson discloses further comprising retrieving the bundled video file and determining whether the parameter is valid ([0019], [0028], [0042], [0142], [0144]).
Claim(s) 4 and 11 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wilson and Geun as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Yamagishi (2016/0315987).
As for claims 4 and 11, Wilson and Geun fail to disclose generating the metadata after a predetermined timing threshold has elapsed from initiating of the player video file.
In an analogous art, Yamagishi discloses generating the metadata after a predetermined timing threshold has elapsed from initiating of the player video file ([0146]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Wilson and Geun’s invention to include the abovementioned limitation, as taught by Yamagishi, for the advantage of conserving resources.
Claim(s) 5, 12, and 18 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wilson and Geun as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Cohen (2008/0052161).
As for claims 5, 12, and 18, Wilson and Geun fail to disclose restricting a parameter such that a value or configuration associated with the player video file is restricted from alteration.
In an analogous art, Cohen discloses restricting a parameter such that a value or configuration associated with the player video file is restricted from alteration ([0271], [0418], [0452], [0483]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Wilson and Geun’s invention to include the abovementioned limitation, as taught by Cohen, for the advantage of protecting the content.
Claim(s) 8 and 15 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wilson and Geun as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Nielsen (10516911).
As for claims 8 and 15, Wilson and Geun fail to disclose wherein a notification is provided to a user that access to adjust the player video file or bundled video file is denied, wherein the parameter is not valid.
In an analogous art, Nielsen discloses wherein a notification is provided to a user that access to adjust the player video file or bundled video file is denied, wherein the parameter is not valid (col. 3, lines 31-48).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Wilson and Geun’s invention to include the abovementioned limitation, as taught by Nielsen, for the advantage of enabling only authorized users to make changes.
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 SUMAIYA A CHOWDHURY whose telephone number is (571)272-8567. The examiner can normally be reached 9:00-3:00 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, NATHAN FLYNN can be reached at (571)272-1915. 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.
SUMAIYA A. CHOWDHURY
Examiner
Art Unit 2421
/SUMAIYA A CHOWDHURY/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2421
Prosecution Insights