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 .
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: “an effect interface display module”, “an effect element selection module” and “an applying mode determination module” as initialized in claim 13, “a candidate applying mode display unit” and “an applying mode determination unit” as initialized in claim 15, “a unit editing module” as initialized in claim 18.
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. In this case, paragraphs [0157], [0170]-[0172] of the specification (in the PG-PUB) note that the terms “module” and “unit” correspond to functions, which may be implemented by hardware.
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.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
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.
Claim(s) 1-2, 10, 13-14, 19-20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1)/(a)(2) as being anticipated by Keng et al. (US 2011/0276881 A1).
In regards to claim 1, Keng teaches an effect editing method, comprising:
in response to an interface display triggering operation for an effect processing image, displaying an effect editing interface, and displaying, in the effect editing interface, at least one element identifier of at least one effect element that has been added in the effect processing image (e.g. [0045]-[0046],Fig.5: user interface 502 of the editing system 114 executed on the editing system 102; whereby a user can incorporate graphics into an existing video; the user interface 502 allows a user to control the motion of the graphic 508 (a star in this example); user selects one of the pre-defined templates 504, which specifies the motion (effect element) of the star 508 on the display; thumbnail graphics such as the one 506 (at least one element identifier) shown in Fig.5 … represent the various special effects being incorporated into the video; Examiner’s note: Fig.5 shows that the effect editing interface is displayed; in this instance, there must have been some type of triggering operation to initiate the display of this window);
in response to an identification selection triggering operation for the at least one element identifier, identifying an effect element corresponding to a selected element identifier as an element to be edited (e.g. as above, [0045]-[0046],Fig.5: the user interface 502 allows a user to control the motion of the graphic 508 (a star in this example); user selects one of the pre-defined templates 504, which specifies the motion of the star 508 on the display; Examiner’s note: Fig.5 shows that the selected special effect which is a star (selected element identifier) where the motion (effect element) of the star is edited/manipulated by the user); and
in response to an apply-mode-editing triggering operation for the element to be edited, determining a target applying mode that the element to be edited is applied to the effect processing image (e.g. [0070],Fig.13: as shown, the viewer can also drag other objects (for example, a graphic or icon) into the timeline-based template, which will then be shown on the display area; see also [0056]: thumbnails 610, 612, 614, 616, 618, 620 may comprise customized graphics selected by the user during editing of multimedia content by using an editing system; Examiner’s note: Fig.13 shows timeline of the video; portion labeled 612 on the timeline shows that a target applying mode for a special effect (corresponding to the previously edited star special effect) is selected only for a certain subset of frames in the video).
In regards to apparatus claim 13, device claim 19 and medium claim 20, claim(s) 13, 19-20 recite(s) limitations that is/are similar in scope to the limitations recited in claim 1. Therefore, claim(s) 13, 19-20 is/are subject to rejections under the same rationale as applied hereinabove for claim 1. To note, Keng discloses the use of a processing device 202 and memory 214 (see paragraphs [0032]-[0033],Fig.2)
In regards to claim 2, Keng teaches a method,
wherein the effect editing interface is presented with an effect element selection item (e.g. as above, [0045]-[0046],Fig.5: the user interface 502 allows a user to control the motion of the graphic 508 (a star in this example); user selects one of the pre-defined templates 504 (effect element selection items), which specifies the motion of the star 508 on the display);
the displaying, in the effect editing interface, at least one element identifier of at least one effect element that has been added in the effect processing image (e.g. as above, [0045]-[0046],Fig.5: the user interface 502 allows a user to control the motion of the graphic 508 (a star in this example); user selects one of the pre-defined templates 504, which specifies the motion (effect element) of the star 508 on the display; thumbnail graphics such as the one 506 (at least one element identifier) shown in Fig.5 … represent the various special effects being incorporated into the video) comprises:
displaying, in the effect editing interface, the at least one element identifier of the at least one effect element that has been added in the effect processing image in response to an element selection triggering operation acting on the effect element selection item (e.g. as above, [0045]-[0046],Fig.5: the user interface 502 allows a user to control the motion of the graphic 508 (a star in this example); user selects one of the pre-defined templates 504, which specifies the motion (effect element) of the star 508 on the display; Examiner’s note: as shown in Fig.5, the bottom right pre-defined template of 504 is selected, which in turn is displayed with the star in 508 corresponding to the at least one element identifier).
In regards to apparatus claim 14, claim(s) 14 recite(s) limitations that is/are similar in scope to the limitations recited in claim 2. Therefore, claim(s) 14 is/are subject to rejections under the same rationale as applied hereinabove for claim 2.
In regards to claim 10, Keng teaches a method, wherein the target applying mode corresponding to a single element to be edited comprises at least one selected from a group comprising: a dynamic display mode of an element display parameter of the effect element, an association mode of the effect element with respect to an image subject associated with the effect element in the effect processing image, and a behavior mode of the effect element (e.g. as above, [0070],Fig.13: as shown, the viewer can also drag other objects (for example, a graphic or icon) into the timeline-based template, which will then be shown on the display area; see also [0056]; Examiner’s note: Fig.13 shows timeline of the video; portion labeled 612 on the timeline shows that a target applying mode for a special effect (corresponding to the previously edited star special effect) is selected only for a certain subset of frames in the video; this shows association of the effect to the video/image subject).
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) 3, 6-7, 15 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Keng as applied to claims 1, 13 above, and further in view of Gilley (US 2006/0265657 A1).
In regards to claim 3, Keng teaches the method of claim 1, but does not explicitly teach the method,
wherein the effect editing interface further comprises an apply-mode-editing item corresponding to the element to be edited;
the in response to an apply-mode-editing triggering operation for the element to be edited, determining a target applying mode that the element to be edited is applied to the effect processing image, comprises:
in response to a mode display triggering operation for the apply-mode-editing item, displaying at least one candidate applying mode corresponding to the element to be edited; and
in response to a mode selection triggering operation for a candidate applying mode, taking the candidate applying mode selected as the target applying mode for the element to be edited to be applied to the effect processing image.
However, Gilley teaches a method,
wherein the effect editing interface further comprises an apply-mode-editing item corresponding to the element to be edited (e.g. [0133],[0135],Fig.9G: effects editor interface 1000; after the editor selects an effect in effects area 1010, and adjust slider 1035, the editor clicks apply button 1033 (apply-mode-editing item) to apply the effect);
the in response to an apply-mode-editing triggering operation for the element to be edited, determining a target applying mode that the element to be edited is applied to the effect processing image (e.g. further in [0135],Fig.9G: texture strip 1030 (target applying mode) indicates the frame representations of the movie selected for effects, such as frame representation 1031; slider 1035 has a left and right edge that can be adjusted by the editor, to indicate frames to receive an effect), comprises:
in response to a mode display triggering operation for the apply-mode-editing item, displaying at least one candidate applying mode corresponding to the element to be edited (e.g. further in [0135],Fig.9G: after the editor has finished applying effects, he or she clicks preview button 896 to preview; see also [0093]: in response to preview button 896, transcoder 40 creates preview window 802 having viewing area 803; Examiner’s note: where the preview displayed is the candidate applying mode); and
in response to a mode selection triggering operation for a candidate applying mode, taking the candidate applying mode selected as the target applying mode for the element to be edited to be applied to the effect processing image (e.g. further in [0135],Fig.9G: publish button 897, burn button 898, and back button 899 function as described above; see also [0094]: publish button 897 enables the user to indicate to transcoder 40 that publication of the mash-up is desired; Examiner’s note: this suggests that edited effect is applied/published).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the teachings/combination of Keng to have a preview mode, in the same conventional manner as taught by Gilley as both deal with editing effects. The motivation to combine the two would be that it would allow the user to see a preview of what the applied effect looks like.
In regards to apparatus claim 15, claim(s) 15 recite(s) limitations that is/are similar in scope to the limitations recited in claim 3. Therefore, claim(s) 15 is/are subject to rejections under the same rationale as applied hereinabove for claim 3.
In regards to claim 6, the combination of Keng and Gilley teaches a method, wherein the apply-mode-editing item comprises a behavior-mode-editing item, and the behavior-mode-editing item is used for editing a target behavior mode of the element to be edited displayed in the effect processing image (e.g. Gilley as above, [0135],Fig.9G: texture strip 1030 (target applying mode) indicates the frame representations of the movie selected for effects, such as frame representation 1031; slider 1035 (behavior-mode-editing item) has a left and right edge that can be adjusted by the editor, to indicate frames to receive an effect; Examiner’s note: this shows adjustment of the behavior of the effect, i.e. how long the effect would be shown in the movie).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the teachings/combination of Keng to have a edit the occurrence of the effect, in the same conventional manner as taught by Gilley as both deal with editing effects. The motivation to combine the two would be that it would allow the user to adjust the behavior and triggering of the effect (when and how long the effect is shown).
In regards to claim 7, the combination of Keng and Gilley teaches a method, wherein the apply-mode-editing item comprises a trigger-mode-editing item, and the trigger-mode-editing item is used for editing a target trigger mode of the element to be edited displayed in the effect processing image (e.g. Gilley as above, [0135],Fig.9G: texture strip 1030 (target applying mode) indicates the frame representations of the movie selected for effects, such as frame representation 1031; slider 1035 (trigger-mode-editing item) has a left and right edge that can be adjusted by the editor, to indicate frames to receive an effect; Examiner’s note: this shows adjustment of the trigger of the effect, i.e. when the effect will be triggered to be shown in the movie).
In addition, the same rationale/motivation of claim 6 is used for claim 7.
Claim(s) 8-9, 11-12, 18 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Keng as applied to claims 1, 13 above, and further in view of Nadas et al. (US Pat. 6,621,504 B1).
In regards to claim 8, Keng teaches the method of claim 1, but does not explicitly teach the method, wherein the effect editing interface comprises at least one effect element editing unit, and an effect element editing unit comprises at least one effect editing item; and the method further comprises:
displaying an edited effect element editing unit in the effect editing interface in response to a unit editing triggering operation for the effect element editing unit,
wherein the unit editing triggering operation comprises a unit addition triggering operation for adding a new effect element editing unit, and the unit editing triggering operation further comprises a unit deletion triggering operation for deleting an effect element editing unit that has been added.
However, Nadas teaches a method, wherein the effect editing interface comprises at least one effect element editing unit, and an effect element editing unit comprises at least one effect editing item (e.g. c.4 L.66-c.5 L.11: multiple effects may be linked together to form a more complex effect; Examiner’s note: Fig.4C shows a menu (effect element editing unit) opened for an effect, which has different options (effect editing item), such as cut, copy delete); and the method further comprises:
displaying an edited effect element editing unit in the effect editing interface in response to a unit editing triggering operation for the effect element editing unit (e.g. as above, c.4 L.66-c.5 L.11; Examiner’s note: Fig.4C shows a menu (effect element editing unit) opened for an effect, which has different options (effect editing item), such as cut, copy delete; suggests triggering operation to open menu),
wherein the unit editing triggering operation comprises a unit addition triggering operation for adding a new effect element editing unit, and the unit editing triggering operation further comprises a unit deletion triggering operation for deleting an effect element editing unit that has been added (e.g. as above, c.4 L.66-c.5 L.11; Examiner’s note: Fig.4C shows a menu (effect element editing unit) opened for an effect, which has different options (effect editing item), such as cut, copy delete; see also c.5 L.54-63: adding or deleting other effects to create the new effect tree; Examiner’s note: suggests option to add effects to the effect tree).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the teachings/combination of Keng to have different options available in a menu, in the same conventional manner as taught by Nadas as both deal with editing effects. The motivation to combine the two would be that it would allow a user to have different options when editing effects, such as adding or deleting other effects.
In regards to apparatus claim 18, claim(s) 18 recite(s) limitations that is/are similar in scope to the limitations recited in claim 8. Therefore, claim(s) 18 is/are subject to rejections under the same rationale as applied hereinabove for claim 8.
In regards to claim 9, the combination of Keng and Nadas teaches a method, further comprising:
in response to the effect element editing unit comprising two or more effect editing items, performing an editing start triggering operation for a next effect editing item in response to an editing completion triggering operation for an effect editing item currently edited, wherein the effect editing item is an information item that the effect element editing unit is capable of editing by an interactive operation (e.g. Nadas, c.2 L.3-11: a separate instance of the property editor is not invoked for each effect within the effect tree, but rather the property editor permits the modification of multiple effects from the same instance of the editor; furthermore, a user is not required to navigate between a view of the effect tree and a property editor to select an effect for editing; Examiner’s note: this shows that a user may edit multiple effects within the same interface).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the teachings/combination of Keng to have different options available in a menu, in the same conventional manner as taught by Nadas as both deal with editing effects. The motivation to combine the two would be that it would allow a user to edit multiple effects without having to navigate between views (see c.2 L.3-11).
In regards to claim 11, Keng teaches the method of claim 1, but does not explicitly teach the method, after the determining a target applying mode that the element to be edited is applied to the effect processing image, further comprising:
displaying a parameter adjustment control corresponding to the target applying mode.
However, Nadas teaches a method, after the determining a target applying mode that the element to be edited is applied to the effect processing image (e.g. c.6 L.54-64: for illustrative purposes, it will be assumed that effect tree 450 of Fig.4B is the active effect tree), further comprising:
displaying a parameter adjustment control corresponding to the target applying mode (e.g. further in c.6 L.54-64,Fig.6: after the edge effect 465 of Fig.4B has been selected from the effect list 520, a property screen 620 is displayed to present the parameter values associated with the effect selected from the effect list 520; using the edge effect as the example, the parameter values for edge sensitivity 630 and blackness 640 are displayed for the user to review and possibly modify).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the teachings/combination of Keng to modify parameters, in the same conventional manner as taught by Nadas as both deal with editing effects. The motivation to combine the two would be that it would allow a user to edit the effect by modifying parameters of the effect.
In regards to claim 12, the combination of Keng and Nadas teaches a method, after the displaying a parameter adjustment control corresponding to the target applying mode (e.g. Nadas as above, c.6 L.54-64,Fig.6: the parameter values for edge sensitivity 630 and blackness 640 are displayed for the user to review and possibly modify), further comprising:
in response to a control triggering operation acting on the parameter adjustment control, determining a target action parameter adopted when applying the element to be edited to the effect processing image based on the target applying mode (e.g. Nadas as above, c.6 L.54-64,Fig.6: the parameter values for edge sensitivity 630 and blackness 640 are displayed for the user to review and possibly modify; Examiner’s note: this suggests modifications to a certain parameter would be able to be applied to the effect).
In addition, the same rationale/motivation of claim 11 is used for claim 12.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claim(s) 4-5, 16-17 is/are objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter:
Claim(s) 4-5, 16-17 was/were carefully reviewed and a search with regards to independent claim(s) 1, 13 and intervening claim(s) 3, 15 has been made. Accordingly, those claim(s) are believed to be distinct from the prior art searched. To note, claims 5, 17 are included as they depend respectively on claims 4, 16.
Regarding claim(s) 4-5, 16-17 (and specifically independent claim(s) 1, 13), the prior art search was found to neither anticipate nor suggest the method of claim 3/apparatus of claim 15, wherein the displaying at least one candidate applying mode corresponding to the element to be edited comprises: based on at least one selected from a group comprising a total number of at least one element to be edited and at least one effect type corresponding to each of the at least one element to be edited, determining the at least one candidate applying mode corresponding to the element to be edited from preset applying modes corresponding to at least one effect type corresponding to the element to be edited, and displaying the at least one candidate applying mode (emphasis added).
It is viewed that any of the previously cited references or any of the prior art searched, in part or in whole, cannot be combined in such a way to render the claimed invention obvious.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JED-JUSTIN IMPERIAL whose telephone number is (571)270-5807. The examiner can normally be reached Monday to Friday, 9am - 6pm.
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, Daniel Hajnik can be reached at (571) 272-7642. 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.
/JED-JUSTIN IMPERIAL/Examiner, Art Unit 2616
/DANIEL F HAJNIK/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2616
Prosecution Insights