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 .
Priority
Acknowledgment is made of applicant's claim for foreign priority based on an application filed in Korea on August 28, 2023. It is noted, however, that applicant has not filed a certified copy of the foreign application as required by 37 CFR 1.55.
Claim Objections
Claims 8 and 12 are objected to because of the informalities outlined below. Appropriate correction is required.
Regarding claim 8, this claim recites “the number of the plurality of code values” and “the number of the different characters” which do not have antecedent basis in the claims, although the Examiner can understand the meaning and scope of the claim. The Examiner suggests amending each of these limitations to read --a
Regarding claim 12, this claim recites “the number of the plurality of scene images” and “the number of characters” which do not have antecedent basis in the claims, although the Examiner can understand the meaning and scope of the claim. The Examiner suggests amending each of these limitations to read --a
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 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), 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):
(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). The presumption that the claim limitation is interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f), 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). The presumption that the claim limitation is not interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f), 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), 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), 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), 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 limitations are:
In claim 16: “a communication unit configured to…;”
“a control unit configured to…;” and
Because these claim limitations are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f), they are being interpreted to cover the corresponding structure described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof.
A review of the specification shows the following structure corresponding to the claimed control unit:
“The control unit 130 may be any device capable of processing data including, for example, a processor. The term 'processor,' as used herein, refers to, for example, a hardware- implemented data processing device having circuitry that is physically structured to execute desired operations including, for example, operations represented as code and/or instructions included in a program. Examples of the above-referenced hardware-implemented data processing device include, but are not limited to, a microprocessor, a central processing unit (CPU), a processor core, a multiprocessor, an application-specific integrated circuit (ASIC), and a field programmable gate array (FPGA).” [Specification, paragraph 50]
However, regarding the claimed communication unit, the specification does not appear to disclose corresponding structure, but rather only describes it in terms of its function. For example, paragraph 34 of the specification states that:
“The communication unit 110 may be configured to perform communications with at least one of a user terminal 1 and a content server 2.”
Accordingly, this term is indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter, as discussed further below.
If applicant does not intend to have these limitations interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f), applicant may: (1) amend the claim limitations to avoid them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) (e.g., by reciting sufficient structure to perform the claimed function); or (2) present a sufficient showing that the claim limitations recite sufficient structure to perform the claimed function so as to avoid them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
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.
Claim 16 is 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.
Regarding claim 16, the claim limitations referenced above in the 112(f) section invoke 35 U.S.C. 112(f). However, regarding the claimed “communication unit,” the written description fails to disclose the corresponding structure, material, or acts for performing the entire claimed function and to clearly link the structure, material, or acts to the function.
The specification appears to first describe the communication unit in paragraph 34, stating “The communication unit 110 may be configured to perform communications with at least one of a user terminal 1 and a content server 2.” Paragraphs 35, 37, 55, and 56 also describe functions performed by the communication unit. However, the specification does not tie these functions to a particular structural element that can be construed as comprising the communication unit. Therefore, the claim is indefinite and is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b).
Applicant may:
(a) Amend the claim so that the claim limitation will no longer be interpreted as a limitation under 35 U.S.C. 112(f);
(b) Amend the written description of the specification such that it expressly recites what structure, material, or acts perform the entire claimed function, without introducing any new matter (35 U.S.C. 132(a)); or
(c) Amend the written description of the specification such that it clearly links the structure, material, or acts disclosed therein to the function recited in the claim, without introducing any new matter (35 U.S.C. 132(a)).
If applicant is of the opinion that the written description of the specification already implicitly or inherently discloses the corresponding structure, material, or acts and clearly links them to the function so that one of ordinary skill in the art would recognize what structure, material, or acts perform the claimed function, applicant should clarify the record by either:
(a) Amending the written description of the specification such that it expressly recites the corresponding structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function and clearly links or associates the structure, material, or acts to the claimed function, without introducing any new matter (35 U.S.C. 132(a)); or
(b) Stating on the record what the corresponding structure, material, or acts, which are implicitly or inherently set forth in the written description of the specification, perform the claimed function. For more information, see 37 CFR 1.75(d) and MPEP §§ 608.01(o) and 2181.
Claims 7-10 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.
Regarding claim 7, in the fourth and fifth lines of this claim, the claim references “the edit code,” which does not have antecedent basis in the claims. The claim previously recites different editing codes matched to different characters, and editing styles matched to different code values, but it is unclear to what “the edit code” refers. The meaning and scope of this claim is therefore indefinite. Consistent with the specification, the Examiner suggests amending this to read --each
Regarding claims 8-10, these claims are rejected because they incorporate, and do not resolve, the deficiencies of the claim(s) from which they depend.
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)(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.
Claims 1-6, 11, 13, and 15-17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Chen et al. (U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2024/0385736), referred herein as Chen.
Regarding claim 1, Chen teaches a method of providing content executed by a control unit (figs 1 and 2; title) comprising: receiving a viewing request for content from a user terminal, and identifying user information for a user account logged in to the user terminal at the user terminal (paragraph 4, lines 1-9; paragraph 31, lines 1-8 and the last 7 lines; paragraph 32, lines 1-9; paragraph 38, lines 1-9 and the last 7 lines; paragraph 39, lines 1-9; a user logged in to an account at the terminal requests content to be viewed);
editing a plurality of scene images constituting the content, on the basis of the user information, and providing the content that includes the plurality of edited scene images to the user terminal (paragraph 32, the last 4 lines; paragraph 39, lines 13-16 and 20-22; the content is edited based on the user information and are then transmitted to the user terminal).
Regarding claim 2, Chen teaches the method of claim 1, wherein a post-editing aspect ratio of at least some scene images of the plurality of scene images may be different from a pre-editing aspect ratio of the at least some scene images after the plurality of scene images is edited (paragraph 36; cropping and tilting change the aspect ratio, for example).
Regarding claim 3, Chen teaches the method of claim 2, wherein a change in an aspect ratio of any scene image of the plurality of scene images varies depending on the user information (paragraph 32, lines 1-9; paragraph 33, lines 1-6; paragraphs 35 and 36; editing selections vary based on user profiles, user history, preferences, etc.).
Regarding claim 4, Chen teaches the method of claim 1, wherein each of the plurality of scene images is edited according to one of a first editing style, a second editing style, or a third editing style (paragraph 32, lines 1-9),
the first editing style is an editing style that inserts a pixel into a scene image to be edited among the plurality of scene images (paragraph 63, lines 1-4 and 13-21; paragraph 68; the resolution increase, for example),
the second editing style is an editing style that removes some pixels of the scene image to be edited among the plurality of scene images (paragraph 32, lines 1-9; paragraph 36, lines 1-3; cropping removes pixels, for example), and
the third editing style is an editing style that retains the scene image to be edited among the plurality of scene images (paragraph 42, the last 7 lines; paragraph 53, lines 1-14; restoring and/or retaining the original image, for example).
Regarding claim 5, Chen teaches the method of claim 4, wherein the editing of the plurality of scene images is performed in combination of the first editing style, the second editing style, and the third editing style, on the basis of the user information (paragraph 33, lines 1-6; paragraphs 35 and 36).
Regarding claim 6, Chen teaches the method of claim 5, wherein whether editing is to be performed according to any one of the first to third editing styles for each of the plurality of scene images is determined on the basis of the user information (paragraph 32, lines 1-9; paragraph 39, lines 1-9).
Regarding claim 11, Chen teaches the method of claim 1, wherein in the editing of the plurality of scene images, the user information is inserted into the plurality of scene images through the editing of the plurality of scene images (paragraph 32, lines 1-9 and the last 4 lines; paragraph 34; paragraph 39, lines 1-16; paragraph 63, lines 1-21; paragraph 68).
Regarding claim 13, Chen teaches the method of claim 1, wherein in the editing of the plurality of scene images, an edit target area in which editing is to be performed is specified for each of the plurality of scene images on the basis of a preset reference, and wherein the editing of the plurality of scene images is performed such that the edit target area includes the user information (paragraph 32, lines 1-9; paragraph 34; paragraph 47, lines 1-8 and 19-31; paragraph 66, lines 1-9).
Regarding claim 15, Chen teaches the method of claim 13, wherein in the editing of the plurality of scene images, the edit target area is specified with reference to pixel energy of a plurality of pixels constituting each of the plurality of scene images (paragraph 32, lines 6-13; paragraph 33, lines 1-6; paragraph 34; paragraph 57, lines 1-6; paragraph 58).
Regarding claim 16, the limitations of this claim substantially correspond to the limitations of claim 1 (except for the system and units, which are taught by Chen, figs 1, 2, and/or 4, and paragraphs 29 and 30); thus they are rejected on similar grounds.
Regarding claim 17, the limitations of this claim substantially correspond to the limitations of claim 1 (except for the medium, which is taught by Chen, paragraphs 29 and 30); thus they are rejected on similar grounds.
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 12 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Chen, in view of Letocha et al. (U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2016/0042546), referred herein as Letocha.
Regarding claim 12, Chen teaches the method of claim 1, wherein a number of the plurality of scene images varies according to selections constituting the user information (paragraph 31, lines 1-8 and the last 7 lines; paragraph 38, lines 1-9 and the last 7 lines).
Chen does not explicitly teach the method, wherein a number of the plurality of images varies according to a number of characters.
However, in a similar field of endeavor, Letocha teaches a method for providing content, comprising receiving a viewing request for content from a user terminal, editing content based on the request, and providing the content to the user (paragraph 42, lines 1-14; paragraph 43, lines 1-9; paragraph 44, lines 1-11; paragraphs 46 and 53), wherein a number of the plurality of images varies according to a number of characters (paragraph 51, lines 1-13; paragraph 54; paragraph 56, lines 1-11; paragraph 57).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the image number variance of Letocha with the image editing of Chen because this this helps to ensure that there is a one-to-one correspondence between a user’s desired input and the ultimately output image information, thereby improving the efficiency and accuracy of the image modifications (see, for example, Letocha, paragraph 5; paragraph 9, lines 1-20).
Claim 14 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Chen, in view of Gupta et al. (U.S. Patent No. 10,817,739), referred herein as Gupta.
Regarding claim 14, Chen teaches the method of claim 13, wherein the preset reference corresponds to a type of graphical object included in the plurality of scene images, and wherein in the editing of the plurality of scene images, editing is performed in consideration of the type of graphical object (paragraph 32, lines 1-13; paragraph 34).
Chen does not explicitly teach that the editing is performed on a remaining area except for an area that includes an important object in each of the plurality of scene images, according to the preset reference.
However, in a similar field of endeavor, Gupta teaches a method for providing content, comprising receiving a viewing request for content from a user terminal, enabling editing of the content based on the request, and providing the edited content to the user (column 9, lines 20-42 and 55-65), wherein the editing is performed on a remaining area except for an area that includes an important object in each of the plurality of scene images, according to the preset reference (column 30, lines 43-51 and 54-63).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine selective area editing of Gupta with the editing of Chen because this makes the image editing process more efficient and simpler, and focuses the editing on desires areas, thereby improving both the user experience and image output (see, for example, Gupta, column 7, lines 52-59).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claim 7-10 are objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if they were 1) rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and all intervening claims, 2) amended to overcome the claim objections and 112 rejections outlined above. The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter:
Regarding claim 7, the prior art teaches the claimed editing styles, characters matched with edit styles, among other claim features. In the context of claims 1, 4, 5, 6, and 7 as a whole, however, the prior art does not appear to teach the method of claim 6, wherein first matching information having a different edit code matched to each of different characters that are available for setting as the user information, and second matching information having one of the first editing style, the second editing style, or the third editing style matched to each of different code values constituting each edit code, are present in a system for providing the content, wherein different editing styles are matched to the different code values.
Regarding claims 8-10, these claims incorporate the subject matter of claim 7, and therefore also comprise allowable subject matter.
Conclusion
The following prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure:
Borg (U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2016/0247305); Providing visualizations of characteristics of an image.
Dalke (U.S. Patent No. 10,805,684); Systems and methods for creating and editing multi-component media.
Bialynicka-Birula (U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2018/0196587); Systems and methods for selective retention and editing of images captured by mobile image capture device.
Amirghodsi (U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2019/0287224); Interactive system for automatically synthesizing a content-aware fill.
Kopf (U.S. Patent No. 10,789,723); Image object extraction and in-painting hidden surfaces for modified viewpoint rendering.
Bui (U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2020/0042286); Collecting multimodal image editing requests.
Murata (U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2023/0333709); Information processing device, information processing method, and program.
Takahashi (U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2022/0319079); Content creation support system, server, terminal, method for supporting content creation, and storage medium.
Judi (U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2023/0352054); Editing video captured by electronic devices.
Canberk (U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2023/0351627); Automatically cropping of landscape videos.
Smetanin (U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2024/0412433); Techniques for generating a stylized media content item with a generative neural network.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to DAVID T WELCH whose telephone number is (571)270-5364. The examiner can normally be reached on Monday-Thursday, 8:30-5:30 EST, and alternate Fridays, 9:00-2:30 EST.
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, Xiao Wu can be reached on 571-272-7761. 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.
DAVID T. WELCH
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 2613
/DAVID T WELCH/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2613