DETAILED ACTION
Status of the Claims
Claims 1-20 are pending.
Claim Objections
Claims 1, 14, and 20 are objected to because of the following informalities:
Claim 1 recites the limitation “activating a first content augmentation editing mode of an [sic] content augmentation editing application to activate one of a plurality of c editing tools.” The phrase “a plurality of c editing tool” appears to contain a typographical error. Appropriate correction is required.
Claims 14 and 20 are objected to for substantially the same reasons given above.
Priority
Claims 1-20 are not entitled to the benefit of prior-filed Application No. 17/748,496.
Applicant’s claim for the benefit of a prior-filed application under 35 U.S.C. § 119(e) or under 35 U.S.C. §§ 120, 121, or 365(c) is acknowledged. Applicant has not complied with one or more conditions for receiving the benefit of an earlier filing date under 35 U.S.C. § 120. The later-filed application must be an application for a patent for an invention which is also disclosed in the prior-filed application (nonprovisional application or provisional application). The disclosure of the invention in the prior-filed application and in the later-filed application must be sufficient to comply with the requirements of 35 U.S.C. § 112(a) or the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. § 112, except for the best mode requirement. See Transco Products, Inc. v. Performance Contracting, Inc., 38 F.3d 551, 32 USPQ2d 1077 (Fed. Cir. 1994).
The disclosure of the prior-filed application fails to provide adequate support or enablement in the manner provided by 35 U.S.C. § 112(a) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. § 112, first paragraph for one or more claims of this application.
Regarding claim 1, there is a lack of support for at least the following limitation(s): “detecting user selection of a selected project element indicium, the user selection corresponding to moving a change of the appearance of the identified objects to a different period of time in the project timeline; and responsive to the detection of the user selection of the selected project element indicium: … removing the change of the appearance of the identified objects starting from the first period of time.”
The prior-filed applications do not disclose these limitations for at least the same reasons provided below with respect to the disclosure of the instant application.
Claims 2-13 are rejected for substantially the same reason indicated above for claim 1, at least due to their dependence on the claim.
Claims 14-20 are rejected for substantially the same reasons given above.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112(a)
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. § 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
Claims 1-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 112(a) as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention.
Regarding claim 1, there does not appear to be adequate support for the following limitation(s): “detecting user selection of a selected project element indicium, the user selection corresponding to moving a change of the appearance of the identified objects to a different period of time in the project timeline; and responsive to the detection of the user selection of the selected project element indicium: … removing the change of the appearance of the identified objects starting from the first period of time.”
The specification does not disclose the above limitation. Rather, the specification discloses a delete button that removes a selected effect from a video editing application. Specification ¶ 115.
Furthermore, the claim defines the invention in functional language specifying a desired result. A claim may lack written description support when the claim defines the invention in functional language specifying a desired result but the disclosure fails to sufficiently identify how the function is performed or the result is achieved. MPEP § 2163.03(V). Specifically, a software-related claim must adequately describe, in sufficient detail, a computer and algorithm that achieves the claimed functionality. Id. § 2161.01(I). With regards to the claim at issue, the written description fails to provide an algorithm for removing a change of appearance of identified objects starting from a first period of time in response to detecting user selection of a project element indicium.
Claims 2-13 are rejected for substantially the same reason indicated above for claim 1, at least due to their dependence on the claim.
Claims 14-20 are rejected for substantially the same reasons given above.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112(b)
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.
Claims 1-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 112(b) as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
Claim 1 recites the limitation “detecting user selection of a selected project element indicium, the user selection corresponding to moving a change of the appearance of the identified objects to a different period of time in the project timeline.”
Frist, concerning the clause “detecting user selection of a selected project element indicium,” it is unclear how a user may select and indicium that is already selected.
Second, the clause “the user selection corresponding to moving a change of the appearance of the identified objects to a different period of time in the project timeline” imparts an unclear meaning. The phrase “corresponding to” may mean “matching or equivalent” or “related or accompanying.” Based on this definition, the use of the phrase renders the claim indefinite. Neither the claims itself nor the specification clearly and specifically delimit the intended scope of the phrase.
Accordingly, one of ordinary skill in the art would not be reasonably apprised of the scope of the invention.
Claims 2-13 are rejected for substantially the same reason indicated above for claim 1, at least due to their dependence on the claim.
Claims 14-20 are rejected for substantially the same reasons given above.
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.
Claims 1-6 and 8-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Latulipe et al., US 2016/0247535 A1.
Regarding claim 1, Latulipe discloses a method, the method comprising:
Presenting a content augmentation display within a user interface of a user device, the content augmentation display presenting a content augmentation of a content augmentation project at a playhead location of a project timeline, the content augmentation changing an appearance of identified objects by adding one or more digital media content items on the identified objects starting from a time associated with the playhead location of the project timeline. Latulipe teaches displaying a graphical user interface comprising a comment (e.g., text) associated with a point of time in a timeline corresponding to a video. Latulipe fig. 6, ¶ 110. The comment may change the appearance of the corresponding video frames by being overlayed on the video frames. Id. fig. 9H, 9I, ¶ 112.
Activating a first content augmentation editing mode of an [sic] content augmentation editing application to activate one of a plurality of editing tools. Latulipe teaches enabling a comment addition interface comprising multiple editing tools. Latulipe ¶ 114, fig. 9B.
Detecting user selection of a selected project element indicium, the user selection corresponding to moving a change of the appearance of the identified objects to a different period of time in the project timeline; and responsive to the detection of the user selection of the selected project element indicium: moving a playhead of the project timeline to an updated playhead location such that the change of the appearance of the identified objects starts from a second period of time in the project timeline spanning from the time associated with the updated playhead location; and removing the change of the appearance of the identified objects starting from the first period of time. Latulipe teaches a user selecting a comment in a comment display pane or corresponding marker on the timeline. Latulipe ¶ 116. The selection causes the playhead to be moved to the point of time associated with comment and the comment to be overlaid on the video. Id. ¶ 117.
Regarding claim 2, which depends on claim 1, Latulipe discloses presenting a video preview display within the user interface of the content augmentation editing application, the video preview display presenting a preview video of the content augmentation project at the playhead location of the project timeline. Latulipe fig. 6 (video pane 12).
Regarding claim 3, which depends on claim 2, Latulipe discloses responsive to the detection of the user selection of the selected project element indicium, presenting the selected project element corresponding to the selected project element indicium within the video preview display of the user interface of the video editing application. Latulipe teaches a user selecting a comment in a comment display pane or corresponding marker on the timeline. Latulipe ¶ 116. The selection causes the comment to be overlaid on the video. Id. ¶ 117.
Regarding claim 4, which depends on claim 2, Latulipe discloses wherein the content augmentation further changes the appearance of the video preview display by adding the one or more digital media content items on objects identified in the preview video. Latulipe teaches changing the appearance of a video by positioning the comment to overlay objects within a frame of the video. Latulipe ¶ 112. Additionally, Latulipe teaches graying out portions of a frame outside of a defined focus area. Id. ¶ 123, fig. 12.
Regarding claim 5, which depends on claim 1, Latulipe discloses wherein the content augmentation display displays an effect element starting from a first period of time in the project timeline spanning from the time associated with the playhead location. Latulipe teaches displaying visual effects such as an annotation, a mask, or a zoom. Latulipe ¶¶ 114-115, 123.
Regarding claim 6, which depends on claim 1, Latulipe discloses:
Presenting a project element display within the user interface of the content augmentation editing application. Latulipe fig. 6.
Responsive to the activation of the first content augmentation editing mode, presenting a first set of project element indicia within a project element display of the user interface, each project element indicium of the first set of project element indicia representing a respective project element of a first set of project elements of the content augmentation project. Latulipe teaches presenting a comment display pane and corresponding marker on the timeline. Latulipe ¶ 116, fig. 6.
Regarding claim 8, which depends on claim 6, Latulipe discloses wherein the first set of project elements represents a subset of project elements of the content augmentation project. Latulipe ¶ 116, fig. 6.
Regarding claim 9, which depends on claim 1, Latulipe discloses presenting a tool display within the user interface of the content augmentation editing application. Latulipe teaches presenting a comment addition interface comprising editing tools. Latulipe fig. 9B.
Regarding claim 10, which depends on claim 1, Latulipe discloses wherein one of a plurality of content augmentation editing tools are provided by the content augmentation editing application. Latulipe teaches presenting a comment addition interface comprising editing tools. Latulipe fig. 9B.
Regarding claim 11, which depends on claim 1, Latulipe discloses adding one or more digital media content items on the identified objects starting from the second period of time. Latulipe teaches displaying a graphical user interface comprising multiple comments (e.g., text) associated with corresponding points of time in the timeline. Latulipe fig. 6, ¶ 110.
Regarding claim 12, which depends on claim 1, Latulipe discloses wherein the updated playhead location is a chronological position on the project timeline where the selected project element associated with the selected project element indicium first appears. Latulipe teaches a user selecting a comment causes the playhead to be moved to the point of time associated with initial display of the comment. Latulipe ¶ 117.
Regarding claim 13, which depends on claim 1, Latulipe discloses wherein the project elements of the content augmentation project comprise at least one of a content augmentation content item, an image content item, an audio content item, a caption content item, an effect content item, an augmentation content item, a layout content item, and a transition content item. Latulipe teaches the comment may be, for example, text, sketch, voice, or video. Latulipe ¶ 109.
Claims 14-19 are drawn to a system that implements the methods recited in claims 1-6, respectively. Accordingly, these claims are rejected for substantially the same reasons as indicated in the above rejections of the corresponding claims.
Claim 20 is drawn to instructions stored in a medium that implement the method recited in claim 1. Accordingly, this claim is rejected for substantially the same reasons as indicated in the above rejection of the corresponding claim.
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 of this title, 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 7 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over Latulipe et al., US 2016/0247535 A1, in view of Badoiu et al., US 2009/0210779 A1.
Regarding claim 7, which depends on claim 6, Latulipe does not explicitly disclose, but Badoiu discloses wherein the first set of project element indicia comprises a plurality of thumbnail images, and the selected project element indicium comprises a selected thumbnail image. Badoiu teaches a set of project indicia comprising a plurality of thumbnail images. Badoiu ¶ 84, fig. 8 (section 880). Additionally, Badoiu teaches a selected project indicium comprising a thumbnail image. Id. ¶ 84, fig. 8 (indication for annotation clip 810 and associated thumbnail 850A).
It would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person with ordinary skill in the art to modify Latulipe’s process of using project element indicia in a video editing application with Badoiu’s process of using project element indicia comprising thumbnail images. Such a modification would facilitate usability by providing the use with additional information for quickly ascertaining the video content associated with a comment.
Conclusion
Although particular portions of the prior art may have been cited in support of the rejections, the specified citations are merely representative of the teachings. Other passages and figures in the cited prior art may apply. Accordingly, Applicant should consider the entirety of the cited prior art for potentially teaching all or part of the claims.
The following prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant’s disclosure:
Rodriguez, US 2010/0042251 A1, discloses a video editing application comprising moving the position of a playhead to the position associated with a selected thumbnail image.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Asher D Kells whose telephone number is (571)270-7729. The examiner can normally be reached Mon. - Fri., 8 a.m. - 4 p.m..
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, Kieu Vu can be reached at 571-272-4057. 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.
Asher D. Kells
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 2171
/Asher D Kells/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2171