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 .
DETAILED ACTION
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments filed 8/6/25 with respect to claim(s) 1-20 have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument.
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.
Claims 1-2 and 6-19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sidener (US 2016/0275108) in view of Torres et al. (US 11,205,458) further in view of Schwartz (US 2008/0004946) further in view of Dachs (US 2008/0010601) further in view of Alvarez et al. (US 2019/0318244) and further in view of Agrawal et al. (US 2023/0196834).
Regarding claims 1 and 19, Sidener teaches a computing device to implement a short film (examiner notes the length of the film is a choice for the director) production system (Figs. 10-12), comprising:
a memory circuit storing computer executable instructions (Fig. 10, memory 1020 and 1022);
a movie-stitching algorithm (at least Figs. 10-12); and
a processing device (paragraphs 34-35 and 73 teaches processing device 1010), wherein execution of the computer executable instructions by the processing device, causes the processing device to:
invite one or more users via a communication protocol (paragraphs 41-43, 82 and 88);
generate a link of an app of the short film production system and wherein the app of the short film production system is configured for a new user to download (paragraphs 41-43, 82 and 88);
However, while Sidener teaches the claimed as discussed above, fails to teach, however, Torres teaches the claimed:
a director algorithm for guiding a director (Figs. 3A-3B, wherein the user is guided by the movie making program as a director, to follow it up with script, planning, casting, etc.);
an act algorithm for inviting users to engage in open-call casting (Figs. 9C4-9D4 teaches casting to allow actors to claim scenes in the media production and contribute their user generated video);
generate a first movie script (Fig. 3A, script is generated by user in step 102);
receive one or more scenes, based on the first movie script, from the one or more users (Fig. 3A, steps 112, 114, 116, 118 and 120 teaches the claimed);
combine, using the movie-stitching algorithm, the one or more scenes into a first movie based on the first movie script (Fig. 3B, steps 128-134 teaches the claimed and Fig. 9A teaches generating a movie); and
monitor data of the first movie (Fig. 9A and col. 12, lines 56-63 wherein the system is able to monitor interactions with the movie from users that watch it).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the current application to incorporate the teachings of Torres into the system of Sidener because such an incorporation allows for the benefit of improving the user experience by making automatic movie/video creation on social media platforms as well (col. 1, lines 16-42).
However, while Sidener and Torres teaches the claimed as discussed above, fails to teach, however, Schwartz teaches a compete algorithm for providing daily acting competition (Schwartz US 2008/0004946, paragraphs 97-99: see claim 12 above);
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the current application to incorporate the teachings of Schwartz into the system of Sidener and Torres because said incorporation allows for the benefit of improving the content by allowing the highest voted/rated scene to be utilized (paragraph 99).
However, the proposed combinations of Sidener, Torres and Schwartz fails to teach, but in analogous art, Dachs teaches the claimed wherein the processing device causes the processing device to: an interact algorithm for introducing system features (paragraph 50 teaches different versions of the motion picture to be generated based on different scenes/takes/shots which meet the claimed system features)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the current application to incorporate the teachings of Dachs into the proposed combination of Sidener, Torres and Schwartz because such an incorporation allows for the benefit of improving the user experience by giving them choices over which version to watch (paragraph 50).
However, the proposed combination fails to teach, but Alvarez teaches wherein the director utilizes an Al-powered tool to generate movie scripts and ideas, with AI feedback providing a strong starting point or inspiration for scriptwriting (paragraphs 30, 32-34 and 41 teaches an AI tool used as an idea creator for assisting writers (directors/artists) to come up with an idea/inspiration to create new content).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the current application to incorporate the teachings of Alvarez into the proposed combination of Sidener, Torres, Schwartz and Dachs because said incorporation allows for the benefit of helping creators by being a muse and assisting in writers block (paragraph 34).
However, the proposed combination of Sidener, Torres, Schwartz, Dachs and Alvarez fails to teach, but Agrawal teaches the claimed wherein Al-based filter systems automatically screen and filter harmful content to ensure that content displayed to users is age-appropriate and differentiates between user age groups (paragraphs 16, 51 and 56 teaches the claimed).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the current application to incorporate the teachings of Agrawal into the proposed combination of Sidener, Torres, Schwartz, Dachs and Alvarez because said incorporation allows for the benefit of preventing unintended content to be shown to younger viewers/consumers (paragraph 2).
The methodology of claim 19 is implemented by the device of claim 1.
Regarding claim 2, Sidener teaches the claimed wherein the communication protocol is a short message service (SMS) (paragraph 13).
Regarding claim 6, Dachs teaches the claimed wherein the processing device causes the processing device to: generate a second movie, using an interact algorithm, based on an addition of at least one scene to the first movie script. (paragraph 50 teaches different versions of the motion picture to be generated based on different scenes/takes/shots.)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the current application to incorporate the teachings of Dachs into the proposed combination of Sidener and Torres because such an incorporation allows for the benefit of improving the user experience by giving them choices over which version to watch (paragraph 50).
Regarding claim 7, Dachs teaches the claimed wherein the processing device causes the processing device to: determine, using a cloning algorithm, one or more parameters of the first movie script to be adjusted; and responsive to the adjustment of the first movie script, generate a second movie (paragraph 50 teaches different versions of the motion picture to be generated based on different scenes/takes/shots, thus different scripts.)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the current application to incorporate the teachings of Dachs into the proposed combination of Sidener and Torres because such an incorporation allows for the benefit of improving the user experience by giving them choices over which version to watch (paragraph 50).
Regarding claim 8, Sidener teaches the claimed wherein the one or more parameters is background music (abstract and paragraph 15).
Regarding claim 9, Sidener teaches the claimed wherein the one or more parameters is a scene transition (well known in the art for automatic editing).
Regarding claim 10, Sidener teaches the claimed wherein the one or more parameters is a filter effect (abstract).
Regarding claim 11, Sidener teaches the claimed wherein the one or more parameters is a background image (abstract).
Regarding claim 12, Schwartz teaches the claimed wherein the processing device causes the processing device to: responsive to monitoring the data of the first movie, activate a competition based on a quantity of votes for one or more scenes of the first movie. (paragraphs 97-99 teaches wherein scenes captured by many actors are collected and voted upon by other users). The prior motivation as discussed above is incorporated herein.
Regarding claim 13, Sidener teaches the claimed wherein the processing device causes the processing device to:
publish the first movie to a public feed; and concurrently generates an alert to indicate a publication of the first movie (Figs. 9I2, wherein the user is able to share/publish the movie on social media platforms and a confirm share button results in publishing, which is the confirmation).
Regarding claim 14, Dachs teaches the claimed wherein the processing device causes the processing device to:
determine, using an adaptive algorithm, one or more parameters to be dynamically adjusted; and responsive to the dynamic adjustment, generate a second movie, using an automated post-production algorithm (paragraph 50 teaches different versions of the motion picture to be generated based on different scenes/takes/shots. The adjustment to the first version to generate the second version meets the claimed adaptive algorithm).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the current application to incorporate the teachings of Dachs into the proposed combination of Sidener and Torres because such an incorporation allows for the benefit of improving the user experience by giving them choices over which version to watch (paragraph 50).
Claims 15-18 are rejected for the same reasons as discussed above in claims 8-11, respectively.
Claims 3-5 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sidener (US 2016/0275108) in view of Torres et al. (US 11,205,458) further in view of Schwartz (US 2008/0004946) further in view of Dachs (US 2008/0010601) further in view of Alvarez et al. (US 2019/0318244) and further in view of Agrawal et al. (US 2023/0196834) and further in view of Luan (US 2016/0063540).
Regarding claim 3, while Sidener, Torres, Schwartz, Dachs, Alvarez and Agrawal teaches the claimed as discussed above in claim 1, fails to explicitly teach, however, Luan (US 2016/0063540) teaches wherein the processing device causes the processing device to: measure, via a K-factor (examiner notes that the term “K-factor” is treated based on how virile an application is), a rate at which the new user downloads the app of the short film production system (paragraphs 51-52 teaches wherein a first user is given rewards based on the referral of an application to other users); and provide the new user with a digital currency reward (paragraphs 51-52).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the current application to incorporate the teachings of Luan into the proposed combination of Sidener, Torres, Schwartz, Dachs, Alvarez and Agrawal because such an incorporation allows for the benefit of improving exposure and virility of the platform by attracting more users and incentivizing promotion of said platform (paragraphs 7-22 of Luan).
Regarding claim 4, Luan teaches the claimed wherein the processing device causes the processing device to: generate digital currency for an in-app transaction (Luan: paragraph 52). The prior motivation as discussed above is incorporated herein.
Regarding claim 5, Luan teaches the claimed wherein the digital currency is a ticket. (Luan: paragraph 52 teaches digital currency to be used within the application, performs the same function as the termed “ticket”). The prior motivation as discussed above is incorporated herein.
Claim 20 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Torres et al. (US 11,205,458) and further in view of Schwartz (US 2008/0004946) further in view of Dachs (US 2008/0010601) further in view of Alvarez et al. (US 2019/0318244) and further in view of Agrawal et al. (US 2023/0196834).
Regarding claim 20, Torres teaches a movie production system comprising: hardware for running an application (Figs. 2A-3B and 9A); and
a movie stitching algorithm (Figs. 2A-3B and 9A) comprising:
a direct algorithm for guiding a director in a production of a movie (Figs. 3A-3B, wherein the user is guided by the movie making program as a director, to follow it up with script, planning, casting, etc.);
an automated post-production algorithm for applying one or more (examiner notes the alternatively state language) post-production features, including background music, scene transitions, background images, and filters (Figs. 7A-8B, automatic production algorithms for music, scene transition/sequencing, images and filters);
wherein the movie production system is an advanced movie-stitching system which combines individual scenes submitted by actors following a sequence laid out by the director during the production of the movie (Fig. 3B, steps 128-134 teaches the claimed and Fig. 9A teaches generating a movie including the layout submitted by actors and laid out according to the script);
an act algorithm for users to participate in open-call casting, claiming scenes and contributing in user created film portions (Figs. 9C4-9D4 teaches casting to allow actors to claim scenes in the media production and contribute their user generated video);
However, while Torres teaches the claimed as discussed above, fails to teach, however, Schwartz teaches a compete algorithm for providing daily acting competition for one or more actors; (Schwartz US 2008/0004946, paragraphs 97-99: see claim 12 above);
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the current application to incorporate the teachings of Schwartz into the system of Torres because said incorporation allows for the benefit of improving the content by allowing the highest voted/rated scene to be utilized (paragraph 99).
Further, while Torres partially teaches an interact algorithm for allowing the users to add content (Figs. 3A-3B process of adding user content), fails to teach a director’s cut per se. In an analogous art, Dachs teaches the claimed an interact algorithm for allowing the director to produce a director’s cut (paragraph 50 teaches different versions of the motion picture to be generated based on different scenes/takes/shots).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the current application to incorporate the teachings of Dachs into the proposed combination of Torres and Schwartz because such an incorporation allows for the benefit of improving the user experience by giving them choices over which version to watch (paragraph 50).
However, the proposed combination fails to teach, but Alvarez teaches wherein the director utilizes an Al-powered tool to generate movie scripts and ideas, with AI feedback providing a strong starting point or inspiration for scriptwriting (paragraphs 30, 32-34 and 41 teaches an AI tool used as an idea creator for assisting writers (directors/artists) to come up with an idea/inspiration to create new content).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the current application to incorporate the teachings of Alvarez into the proposed combination of Torres, Schwartz and Dachs because said incorporation allows for the benefit of helping creators by being a muse and assisting in writers block (paragraph 34).
However, the proposed combination of Torres, Schwartz, Dachs and Alvarez fails to teach, but Agrawal teaches the claimed wherein Al-based filter systems automatically screen and filter harmful content to ensure that content displayed to users is age-appropriate and differentiates between user age groups (paragraphs 16, 51 and 56 teaches the claimed).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the current application to incorporate the teachings of Agrawal into the proposed combination of Torres, Schwartz, Dachs and Alvarez because said incorporation allows for the benefit of preventing unintended content to be shown to younger viewers/consumers (paragraph 2).
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 communication from the examiner should be directed to GELEK W TOPGYAL whose telephone number is (571)272-8891. The examiner can normally be reached M-F (9:30-6 PST).
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, William Vaughn can be reached at 571-272-3922. 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.
/GELEK W TOPGYAL/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2481