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 .
1. This communication is responsive to the application filed 8/13/2024.
2. Claims 21-39 are pending in this application. Claims 21, 32 and 39 are independent claims. This action is made Non-Final.
Double Patenting
3. The nonstatutory double patenting rejection is based on a judicially created doctrine grounded in public policy (a policy reflected in the statute) so as to prevent the unjustified or improper timewise extension of the “right to exclude” granted by a patent and to prevent possible harassment by multiple assignees. A nonstatutory double patenting rejection is appropriate where the conflicting claims are not identical, but at least one examined application claim is not patentably distinct from the reference claim(s) because the examined application claim is either anticipated by, or would have been obvious over, the reference claim(s). See, e.g., In re Berg, 140 F.3d 1428, 46 USPQ2d 1226 (Fed. Cir. 1998); In re Goodman, 11 F.3d 1046, 29 USPQ2d 2010 (Fed. Cir. 1993); In re Longi, 759 F.2d 887, 225 USPQ 645 (Fed. Cir. 1985); In re Van Ornum, 686 F.2d 937, 214 USPQ 761 (CCPA 1982); In re Vogel, 422 F.2d 438, 164 USPQ 619 (CCPA 1970); In re Thorington, 418 F.2d 528, 163 USPQ 644 (CCPA 1969).
A timely filed terminal disclaimer in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(c) or 1.321(d) may be used to overcome an actual or provisional rejection based on nonstatutory double patenting provided the reference application or patent either is shown to be commonly owned with the examined application, or claims an invention made as a result of activities undertaken within the scope of a joint research agreement. See MPEP § 717.02 for applications subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA as explained in MPEP § 2159. See MPEP § 2146 et seq. for applications not subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA . A terminal disclaimer must be signed in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(b).
The filing of a terminal disclaimer by itself is not a complete reply to a nonstatutory double patenting (NSDP) rejection. A complete reply requires that the terminal disclaimer be accompanied by a reply requesting reconsideration of the prior Office action. Even where the NSDP rejection is provisional the reply must be complete. See MPEP § 804, subsection I.B.1. For a reply to a non-final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.111(a). For a reply to final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.113(c). A request for reconsideration while not provided for in 37 CFR 1.113(c) may be filed after final for consideration. See MPEP §§ 706.07(e) and 714.13.
The USPTO Internet website contains terminal disclaimer forms which may be used. Please visit www.uspto.gov/patent/patents-forms. The actual filing date of the application in which the form is filed determines what form (e.g., PTO/SB/25, PTO/SB/26, PTO/AIA /25, or PTO/AIA /26) should be used. A web-based eTerminal Disclaimer may be filled out completely online using web-screens. An eTerminal Disclaimer that meets all requirements is auto-processed and approved immediately upon submission. For more information about eTerminal Disclaimers, refer to www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/applying-online/eterminal-disclaimer.
4. Claims 21-39 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-20 of U.S. Patent No. 12,073,852. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because they are substantially similar.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
5. In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
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.
6. Claim(s) 21-39 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Roberts et al (“Roberts” US 2009/0087161) in view of Hymel et al (“Hymel” EP 2450898).
Regarding claim 21, Roberts discloses an electronic device comprising:
a display; at least one processor comprising processing circuitry, and memory storing instructions executable by the at least one processor; wherein the at least one processor is individually and/or collectively configured to cause the electronic device to (see paragraph [0113]; e.g., mobile phone):
receive a first input to select a video from a plurality of videos (see fig 3, 310; e.g., clip browsing and grouping 224 and acquiring devices),
perform audio signal synchronization for the plurality of the videos based on a timeline of the selected video (see fig 4 and paragraphs [0212]-[0215]; e.g., synchronization of content on different timelines; audio/video),
extract segmental clips in each of a plurality of sections from the plurality of the videos (see paragraphs [0055], [0087] and [0213]; e.g., combining sections of different clips),
generate a cross-edited video at least by joining the extracted segmental clips (see fig 7, 708; e.g., combine at least some of the media clips based on their time relation to generate a presentation), and
control to display the generated cross-edited video on the display (see fig 5, preview).
Roberts does not expressly disclose select a main object among objects included in the plurality of the videos synchronized based on an object recognition function; nor extracting based on the selected main object.
However, Hymel discloses select a main object among objects included in the plurality of the videos synchronized based on an object recognition function; nor extracting based on the selected main object (see paragraphs [0021]-[0025]; e.g., it may be preferable that only scenes showing the actual singer, but not scenes showing the picture of the singer, be included in the mashup. The mashing algorithm might be able to automatically exclude scenes that include such still images from the final mashup.). It would have been obvious to an artisan before the effective filing date of the present invention to include Hymel’s teachings in Roberts’ user interface in an effort to provide a more user-friendly interface that saves user time by reducing the number of manual input steps.
Regarding claim 22, Roberts discloses wherein the at least one processor is individually and/or collectively configured to cause the electronic device to: control to display a user interface screen related to video edition on the touchscreen display, and wherein the user interface screen comprises a first area displaying the plurality of videos, a second area displaying the cross-edited video, a third area displaying the timelines and/or timestamps of the videos, and a cross-edited video generation item (see fig 4; e.g., video editing interface).
Regarding claim 23, Roberts discloses the at least one processor is individually and/or collectively configured to cause the electronic device to control the touchscreen display to import and/or invoke the plurality of videos selected based on an input detected in the first area of the user interface screen (see paragraphs [0022], [0086] and [0120]; e.g., source clips pulled from video sharing sites).
Regarding claim 24, Roberts discloses wherein the at least one processor is individually and/or collectively configured to cause the electronic device to identify a characteristic pattern in the selected video at least by analyzing the selected video to determine an editing theme, based on the characteristic pattern, wherein the characteristic pattern comprises at least one of a subject face feature, a subject behavior feature, an audio feature, and a camera moving feature (see fig 2; e.g., the mashing component might be capable of recognizing in one of the at least two videos a still image related to a moving image in the one of the at least two videos and might be further capable of refraining from including in the video compilation a scene that includes the still image.).
Regarding claim 25, Roberts discloses wherein the at least one processor is individually and/or collectively configured to cause the electronic device to cause the electronic device to perform at least one of unnecessary noise section deletion and video color correction for each video (see paragraphs [0087]-[0106]; e.g., noise reduction; color correction).
Regarding claim 26, Roberts discloses wherein the at least one processor is individually and/or collectively configured to cause the electronic device to cause the electronic device to perform the audio signal synchronization, based on feature points included in an audio signal of each video (see paragraph [0055]; e.g., beat detection software to sync clips to the beat).
Regarding claim 27, Roberts and Hymel disclose wherein the at least one processor is individually and/or collectively configured to cause the electronic device to designate a candidate point proximate a midpoint between a first feature point and a second feature point of the audio signal for each video, a first section between the first feature point and the candidate point, and a second section between the candidate point and the second feature point, and extract the segmental clips based on comparing image frames corresponding to the first feature point, the second feature point, and the candidate point designated for each video to analyze similarity between the image frames and cropping part of a recommended video for each section among the videos (well-known alternative in the art).
Regarding claim 28, Roberts and Hymel disclose wherein the at least one processor is individually and/or collectively configured to cause the electronic device to select the main object, based on the image frames corresponding to the first feature point, the second feature point, and the candidate point, and wherein at least one of an object equally exposed at the first feature point, the second feature point, and the candidate point, an object displayed most in the videos, and an object positioned at a center of a screen in the videos is to be selected as the main object (well-known alternative in the art).
Regarding claim 29, Roberts discloses wherein the at least one processor is individually and/or collectively configured to cause the electronic device to extract a second segmental clip from a different video having similarity in the main object, based on a first segmental clip comprising the main subject (see paragraphs [0065], [0080] and [0087]; e.g., subject sync on each clip so that main subject in first and second clips are similar).
Regarding claim 30, Roberts discloses wherein the at least one processor is individually and/or collectively configured to cause the electronic device to identify data about a crop size, a crop direction, rotation, and a video ratio, and to perform object synchronization on each segmental clip, based on the identified data, so that feature points of the main object included in the first segmental clip and the second segmental clip are similar (see paragraph [0055]; e.g., beat detection software to sync clips to the beat).
Regarding claim 31, Roberts discloses wherein the at least one processor is individually and/or collectively configured to cause the electronic device to automatically impart a scene change effect between the segmental clips, and wherein the scene change effect comprises at least one of a cut effect, a dissolve effect, and a fade effect (see paragraphs [0087]-[0092]; e.g., video/audio fade).
Claim 32 is similar in scope to claim 21 and is therefore rejected under similar rationale.
Regarding claim 33, Roberts discloses wherein the performing of the audio signal synchronization comprises performing synchronization so that feature points of audio signals corresponding to different videos coincide with a feature point of an audio signal included in the video (see paragraph [0055]; e.g., beat detection software to sync clips to the beat).
Regarding claim 34, Roberts discloses further comprising: automatically performing at least one of unnecessary noise section deletion and video color correction for each video (see paragraphs [0087]-[0106]; e.g., noise reduction; color correction).
Regarding claim 35, Roberts and Hymel disclose wherein the extracting of the segmental clips comprises: designating a candidate point proximate and/or at a midpoint between a first feature point and a second feature point of the audio signal for each video; and designating a first section between at least the first feature point and the candidate point and a second section between at least the candidate point and the second feature point, and wherein the segmental clips are extracted at least by comparing image frames corresponding to the first feature point, the second feature point, and the candidate point designated for each video to analyze similarity between the image frames and cropping part of recommended video for each section among the videos (well-known alternative in the art).
Regarding claim 36, Roberts and Hymel disclose wherein the extracting of the segmental clips further comprises: selecting the main object, based on the image frames corresponding to the first feature point, the second feature point, and the candidate point, and wherein at least one of an object equally exposed at the first feature point, the second feature point, and the candidate point, an object displayed most in the videos, and an object positioned at a center of a screen in the videos is selected as the main object (well-known alternative in the art).
Regarding claim 37, Roberts discloses wherein the extracting of the segmental clips comprises recommending and extracting a second segmental clip from a different video having similarity in the main object, based on a first segmental clip comprising the main object (see paragraphs [0064]-[0066] and [0223]; e.g., recommend and extract clip).
Regarding claim 38, Roberts discloses wherein the performing of the video synchronization comprises identifying data about a crop size, a crop direction, rotation, and a video ratio and performing subject synchronization on each segmental clip, based on the identified data, so that feature points of the main object included in the first segmental clip and the second segmental clip are similar (see paragraph [0055]; e.g., beat detection software to sync clips to the beat).
Claim 39 is similar in scope to claim 21 and is therefore rejected under similar rationale.
Conclusion
7. The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Fleischhauer et al (US 2013/0125000).
Rav-Acha et al (US 2013/0343727).
8. Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to RASHAWN N TILLERY whose telephone number is (571)272-6480. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 9:00a - 5:30p.
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 L Bashore can be reached at (571) 272-4088. 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.
/RASHAWN N TILLERY/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2174
Prosecution Insights