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
1. This action is responsive to applicant’s amendment dated 7/14/2026.
2. Claims 1, 2, 4-12, 14-18 and 20 are pending in the case.
3. Claims 3, 13 and 19 are cancelled.
4. Claims 1, 11 and 17 are independent claims.
Applicant’s Response
5. In Applicant’s response dated 7/14/2026, applicant has amended the following:
a) Claims 1, 2, 4-12, 14-18 and 20
b) Title of Specification
Based on Applicant’s amendments and remarks, the following objection and rejections previously set forth in Office Action dated 4/14/2026 are withdrawn:
a) Objection to Specification
b) Prior Art Rejections to claims 1-20
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101
35 U.S.C. 101 reads as follows:
Whoever invents or discovers any new and useful process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter, or any new and useful improvement thereof, may obtain a patent therefor, subject to the conditions and requirements of this title.
Claims 1, 2, 4, 5, 7, 8, 11, 12, 14,16-18 and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to a judicial exception (i.e., a law of nature, a natural phenomenon, or an abstract idea) without significantly more.
Step 1
Claims 1, 2, 4-10 are directed towards a video processing method (i.e., process) for generating an initial video script.
Claims 11, 12, 14-16 are directed towards an apparatus (i.e., machine) for generating an initial video script.
Claims 17, 18 and 20 are directed towards a non-transitory computer readable storage medium for generating an initial video script.
Therefore, claims 1, 2, 4-12, 14-18 and 20 recite one of the enumerated statutory categories of eligible subject matter in 35 U.S.C. 101.
Step 2A – Prong 1
If a claim limitation, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, cover concepts performed in the human mind (including an observation, evaluation, judgment, opinion), then it falls within the "mental process" grouping of abstract ideas. The independent claims recite method, machine and manufacture product for generating an initial video script. Specifically, the independent claims recite
Claim 1:
receiving input content, the input content used for characterizing video production requirements;
identifying a video type corresponding to the input content using a preset script generation model;
generating an initial video script using the preset script generation model based on a video production style corresponding to the video type and a keyword of the input content, the initial video script including video production outlines and video production elements corresponding to the video production outlines, the video production elements including shooting information and copywriting content corresponding to the video production outlines, the shooting information including at least one of a shooting location, a shooting angle, a shooting prop and a shooting example material, the initial video script being used to assist a video creator in video creation;
and displaying the initial video script on a first page.
Claim 11:
receiving input content, the input content used for characterizing video production requirements;
identifying a video type corresponding to the input content using a preset script generation model;
generating an initial video script using the preset script generation model based on a video production style corresponding to the video type and a keyword of the input content, the initial video script including video production outlines and video production elements corresponding to the video production outlines, the video production elements including shooting information and copywriting content corresponding to the video production outlines, the shooting information including at least one of a shooting location, a shooting angle, a shooting prop and a shooting example material, the initial video script being used to assist a video creator in video creation;
and displaying the initial video script on a first page.
Claim 17:
receiving input content, the input content used for characterizing video production requirements;
identifying a video type corresponding to the input content using a preset script generation model;
generating an initial video script using the preset script generation model based on a video production style corresponding to the video type and a keyword of the input content, the initial video script including video production outlines and video production elements corresponding to the video production outlines, the video production elements including shooting information and copywriting content corresponding to the video production outlines, the shooting information including at least one of a shooting location, a shooting angle, a shooting prop and a shooting example material, the initial video script being used to assist a video creator in video creation;
and displaying the initial video script on a first page.
These limitations, under its broadest reasonable interpretations, cover performance of the limitations in the human mind, or by a human using a pen and paper. For example, the receiving and identifying and generating steps can be performed via observation, evaluation and judgment and the displaying step can be performed using the aid of pen and paper. Examiner notes that the use of a “preset script generation model” is generically recited and is merely applying a table of information to determine how to interpret the input content as a predetermined type of a video script. In other words, the received input content and the video script may be based on the same content input. For example, under Broadest reasonable interpretation, the claims read on a user receiving a script and identifying the script as a video script with various types of elements. Therefore, these limitations are grouped within the "mental process" grouping (including an observation, evaluation, judgement, opinion) of abstract ideas. (see MPEP 2016.04(a)(2)(iii)). Accordingly, the independent claims recite an abstract idea.
Step 2A- Prong 2
The independent claims recite the combination of additional elements of 1) using a preset script generation model 2) electronic device 3) memory 4) processor 5) non-transitory computer-readable storage medium
The independent claims merely use computer elements as tools to perform abstract ideas and generally link the use of a judicial exception to a particular technological environment. The use of the computer elements as tools to implement the abstract idea and generally to link the use of the abstract idea to a particular technological environment does not render the claim patent eligible because it requires no more than a computer performing functions that correspond to acts required to carry out the abstract idea.
The 2) electronic device 3) memory 4) processor 5) non-transitory computer-readable storage medium are recited at a high-level of generality such that it amounts no more than mere generic computer component limitations to apply the exception using a generic computer component or amounts to merely invoking a computer as a tool to perform the abstract idea. Specifically, the computer components may be any number of hardware architectures including processors, user devices or storage devices, and function to perform data storage and processing (see specification paras. 41, 180, Figure 12).
The 1) using a preset script generation model generally links the abstract idea to a particular technological environment or field of use. MPEP 2106.04(d)(I) indicates that generally linking an abstract idea to a particular technological environment or field of use cannot provide a practical application.
Integration into a practical application requires an additional element or a combination of additional elements in the claim to apply, rely on, or use the judicial exception in a manner that imposes a meaningful limit on the judicial exception, such that the claim is more than a drafting effort designed to monopolize the exception.
As explained above, the additional elements do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea and the additional limitations are not indicative of materializing into a practical application. Accordingly, the claims are directed to an abstract idea.
Step 2B
The independent claims do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. As discussed above with respect to integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, the additional element of using computer elements such as 2) electronic device 3) memory 4) processor 5) non-transitory computer-readable storage medium to perform the noted steps amounts to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using generic computer components. Generic computer elements recited as performing generic computer functions that are well-understood, routine, or conventional activities amount to no more than implementing the abstract idea with a computerized system. Mere instructions to apply an exception using a generic computer component cannot provide an inventive concept ("significantly more").
The 1) using a preset script generation model which is recited in a generic manner is considered well-understood, routine, conventional activity in the field. Under Broadest reasonable interpretation, a preset script generation model may be merely considered applying a table of information to determine if a script input is a video script.
Therefore, the additional elements in the independent claims do not amount to significantly more than a judicial exception. Furthermore, there is no indication that the additional limitations alone or in combination improves the functioning of a computer or any other technology, improves another technology or technical field, or effects a transformation or reduction of a particular article to a different state or thing. Therefore, the claims are not patent eligible.
Remaining Claims
Dependent claims 2, 4-5,7,8,11,12,14,16-18 and 20 are similarly rejected because they either further define/narrow the abstract idea and/or do not further limit the claim to a practical application or provide as inventive concept such that the claims are subject matter eligible even when considered individually or as an ordered combination.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 6, 9, 10 and 15 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.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to HENRY ORR whose telephone number is (571)270-1308. The examiner can normally be reached 9AM-5PM EST M-F.
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, Adam Queler can be reached at (571)272-4140. 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.
HENRY ORR
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 2172
/HENRY ORR/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2172
Prosecution Insights