DETAILED ACTION
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
This Office Action is in response to the claim amendment filed on May 15, 2026 and wherein claims 1, 8, 12, 15, 19 amended, claims.
In virtue of this communication, claims 1-20 are currently pending in this Office Action.
The Office appreciates the explanation of the amendment and analyses of the prior arts, and however, although the claims are interpreted in light of the specification, limitations from the specification are not read into the claims. See In re Van Geuns, 988 F.2d 1181, 26 USPQ2d 1057 (Fed. Cir. 1993) and MPEP 2145.
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 1-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Chandra et al. (US 20190371192 A1, hereinafter Chandra) and in view of reference Hunt et al. (US 20170084185 A1).
Claim 1: Chandra teaches a method for generating automated video tutorials (title and abstract, ln 1-13, generating training video in figs. 1-2, 4-5), the method comprising:
receiving, by a processor (processor 719 in fig. 7), a test script document (User Interface Descriptive Language UDL document at step 150 in fig. 1, UDL example in fig. 6), wherein the test script document includes element identifiers (including “elementId: *textbox*”, “elementId: *submitButton”, “elementId: /traning-screenshot1.png” in fig. 6 and other such as timestamp, para 44), test steps (actions within the identified user interface flow, para 35, “action: *enterText*”, “action: *highlight*” etc., in fig. 6) and test text (training objectives or “description” within the identified user interface flow, such as “*flowintroduction*: *First, we will learn how to enter data*”, “*text*”: “*demonstration” or “*description*: we entered the text ‘demonstration’*”, etc. in fig. 6),
wherein each element identifier is configured to identify a specific user interface component (e.g., graphic user interface represented by providing a “textbox” identified by elementId or a button display for submitButton identified by an elementID in fig. 6), the user interface component comprising a graphical user interface element (e.g., displayed textbox or button, identified by an elementID, respectively in fig. 6) configured to receive user input (the text entered by a user in the TextBox identified by the elementID in fig. 6), enable selection among options or trigger execution of a function, including a browser, a text box, a toggle switch or an action button (e.g., selecting “submitButton” identified by an elementID, for highlight action or click action in fig. 6);
parsing, by the processor (via a UDL parsing unit 160 in fig. 1, para 35), the test script document to identify the element identifiers (parsing the UDL to determine video clip generation instructions, para 28, based on the actions and user interface flows in the UDL document, para 38, the user interface flows include one or more actions, para 36, and each of action in the user interface flows contains action name, elementID, steps, and text described in UDL document in fig. 6, para 38), the test steps and the test text (included in the user interface flow such as from “flowinstrudciton” to “flowWindup” in fig. 6, and having actions included in the generated video clip generation instructions, para 28);
generating, by the processor (via video generation unit 170 of the processor in figs. 1, 3), a video component (e.g., a video portion generated by closed caption generation unit 350, etc., of the video generation unit 170, para 42 or generated by video director 310, para 38) based on the identified elements, the identified test steps and the identified test text (based on the actions, text descriptions, and steps defined in the UDL via the video user interface flows of the UDL and the video clip generation instructions, e.g., the video clip generation instructions are determined upon the actions and user interface flows in the UDL, para 38, 65, and the user interface flows includes elementID, action text descriptions, and the text to be presented in fig. 6, e.g., from “flowintroduction” to “flowWindup: we just learned basic feature of the application” in fig. 6, para 64-66, and starting at a second user interface flow with an introduction, and then ended at the second “flowWindup” in fig. 6, para 66-68);
generating, by the processor (through an audio generating unit 340, para 41), an audio component based on the identified elements, and the identified test text (the audio portion generated upon the elementID and the text description to be voiced through the video clip generation instructions, and the user interface flow related to converting the text description to the speech via text-to-speech conversion, para 41); and
synchronizing, by the processor (via a synchronizer in a combiner 360, para 44), the video component and the audio component based on the identified element (coordinating the timing of an audio portion with a video portion, para 44, the video portion and audio portion are based on action and then based on the identified user interface flow at step 450 for the action or step 470 for the identified user interface flow in fig. 4) based on the identified element (timestamp defined in the UDL document, para 44).
However, Chandra does not explicitly teach wherein the synchronization of the video component and the audio component is based on the identified elements, other than element.
Hunt teaches an analogous field of endeavor by disclosing a method for generating automated video tutorials (title and abstract, ln 1-11 and method steps in fig. 2 and testing with video channel, para 18 and for instructional video documentation, para 2 and video-based training documentation, para 3) and wherein a test script document is disclosed (user interface UI properties file 122 with added UIDs via step 202 in fig. 2, para 22 or integrated UI properties file and task properties file with added UIDs via step 202, para 14) to include element identifiers (UIDs as markers to link media channels comprising video, audio, and closed caption so that training videos created, para 8 and the UIDS added into UI properties files at step 202 in fig. 2, para 20-22) and wherein the test script document is parsed to identify the element identifiers (at step 206 and creating task instructions associated with retrieved UID from the UI properties file in fig. 2, i.e., the UI properties files are parsed) and a video component is generated based on the identified element identifiers (video with UIDs is created at step 210 in fig. 2, para 25) and an audio component is generated based on the element identifiers (audio with UIDs is created at step 212 in fig. 2, para 26) and the video component and the audio component are synchronized based on the identified element identifiers (UIDs are utilized to synchronize video, audio, and cc texts at step 216 in fig. 2, and details in fig. 3, para 28) for benefits of reducing cost and complexity in generating automated video tutorial (by combining video and audio in a cost-saving and error-prone reduction manner, para 2; supporting multi-lingual needs and for hearing impaired by quickly and accurately producing training videos, para 9).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have applied the element identifiers in the test script document and wherein the synchronization of the video component and the audio component is performed based on the identified element identifiers, as taught by Hunt, to the synchronization of the video component and the audio component being performed based on the identified element identifier in the method for generating automated video tutorials, as taught by Chandra, for the benefits discussed above.
Claim 8 has been analyzed and rejected according to claim 1 above and the combination of Chandra and Hunt further teaches a computer system (Chandra, title and abstract, a system in fig. 1 and Hunt, a system in fig. 1), comprising: a processor (Chandra, 719 in fig. 7 and Hunt, processor 404 in fig. 4); and a computer-readable storage medium storing computer-readable instructions (Chandra, memory 722 having application software 721 and operation g system 720 in fig. 7 and Hunt, memory 406 connected to the processor 404 through communications fabric 402 and cache 416 in fig. 4), which when executed by the processor, cause the processor to implement the method of claim 1 (Chandra, discussed in claim 1 above and Hunt, program in non-transitory computer readable storage media and executed by the processors, para 3).
Claim 15 has been analyzed and rejected according to claims 1, 8 above.
Claim 2: the combination of Chandra and Hunt further teaches, according to claim 1 above, the method further comprising the audio component using text-to-speech (Chandra, using text-to-speech to generate the audio portion of the video clip, para 29 and Hunt, through speech generator 130 comprising a text-to-speech converter used to produce an audio channel, para 19).
Claim 3: the combination of Chandra and Hunt further teaches, according to claim 1 above, the method further comprising receiving, by the processor, the test script document includes at least one of receiving the test script document via a network or receiving the test script document from a storage location at an associated address (Chandra, e.g., receiving the UDL document via a network, para 5 or from a storage location at the address, para 5 and Hunt, the UI properties file 122 stored in the host computer system in fig. 1).
Claim 4: the combination of Chandra and Hunt further teaches, according to claim 1 above, wherein the test script document is a text-based data structure (Chandra, UDL document is formatted as a text-based data structure such as JavaScriptTM Object Notation JSON, etc., para 36, and Hunt, UI text included in the UI properties file 122, para 15 and the task properties file 124 contains one or more UIDs and instructional text, para 17).
Claim 5: the combination of Chandra and Hunt further teaches, according to claim 1 above, the method further comprising, prior to generating, by the processor, the audio component based on the identified element identifiers and the identified test text, receiving a selection of one or more languages (Chandra, translating the text to a language of the trainee before using the text-to-speech conversion via a language translation unit, para 41, based on trainee’s language specified in the personalization unit 305 in fig. 3, or custom language conversion utility, para 48 or parsing unit 160 is to translate the descriptions in the UDL document prior to the application of audio generation unit 340 in fig. 3, para 38, and including language translation, para 41, and Hunt, the task instruction text is updated with alternate natural language prior to being used for audio with UID at step 212 in fig. 2, para 23, 26).
Claim 6: the combination of Chandra and Hunt further teaches, according to claim 5 above, the method further comprising translating, by the processor, the test text based on the received selection of the one or more languages (Chandra, selected according to the language of trainee recorded in the personalization unit 305 in fig. 3 and discussed in claim 5 above and Hunt, ).
Claim 7: the combination of Chandra and Hunt further teaches, according to claim 6 above, the method further comprising generating, by the processor, the audio component based on the translated test text based on the received selection of the one or more languages (Chandra, the text is translated to the language of trainee prior to the text-to-speech conversion based on trainee’s language specified in personalization unit 305 as discussed in claim 5 above and the description in the UDL document is also translated by parsing unit according to the language specified in the personalization unit 305, para 38, 48, and audio generation unit is executed after the personalization unit application in fig. 3, discussed in claim 5 above, and Hunt, reference settings based on user locale in support of alternate natural languages, para 16 and discussion in claims 5-6 above).
Claim 9 has been analyzed and rejected according to claims 8, 2 above.
Claim 10 has been analyzed and rejected according to claims 8, 3 above.
Claim 11 has been analyzed and rejected according to claims 8, 4 above.
Claim 12 has been analyzed and rejected according to claims 8, 5 above.
Claim 13 has been analyzed and rejected according to claims 12, 6 above.
Claim 14 has been analyzed and rejected according to claims 13, 7 above.
Claim 16 has been analyzed and rejected according to claims 15, 2 above.
Claim 17 has been analyzed and rejected according to claims 15, 3 above.
Claim 18 has been analyzed and rejected according to claims 15, 4 above.
Claim 19 has been analyzed and rejected according to claims 15, 5 above.
Claim 20 has been analyzed and rejected according to claims 19, 6 above.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed on May 15, 2026 have been fully considered and but are moot in view of the new ground(s) of rejection necessitated by the applicant amendment. Although a new ground of rejection has been used to address additional limitations that have been added to claims 1, 8, 15, etc. a response is considered necessary for several of applicant’s arguments since references Chandra and Hunt will continue to be used to meet several claimed limitations.
With respect to the prior art rejection of independent claim 1, similar to claims 8, 15, under 35 USC §103(a), as set forth in the Office Action above, applicant argued: “the cited references fail to teach or suggest a specific user interface including a graphical user interface element configured to receive user input, enable selection among options or trigger execution of a function, including a browser, a text box, a toggle switch or an action button as now recited in the claim. Thus, this feature is a distinction over the cited references”, as asserted in paragraph 3 of page 8 and paragraphs 1-3 of page 9 in Remarks filed on May 15, 2026.
In response to the argument cited above, the Office respectfully disagrees because according to the claim amendment and as discussed in the office action above, Chandra teaches the argued limitations “a specific user interface including a graphical user interface element (“textBox” by elementID and “submitButton” by elementID of specific user interface flow in fig. 6) configured to receive user input (the “textBox” interface for accepting text input by user and “button” for accepting clicking by the user in fig. 6), enable selection among options or trigger execution of a function (allowing user’s input for entry of text or submitting button click in fig. 6), including a browser, a text box, a toggle switch or an action button (including “textBox” by elementID, clicking “button” for “wait” in fig. 6), but applicant is in silence. In addition, Hunt also teaches UIDs are associated with user interface elements for delimiting videos and audios, specifically for synchronizing the videos and the audios, which also meets part of the argued limitations above, e.g., “identified element identifiers” for synchronizing the video component and the audio component, as discussed in the office action above for the benefits such as reduction of cost and achievement of simplicity, etc., which is also essentially consistent with the portion of claim amendment and thus, the prior art rejection to claim 1, similar to claims 8, 15, and prior art rejection to dependent claims 2-7, 9-14, 16-20 maintained.
In the response to this office action, the Office respectfully requests that support be shown for language added to any original claims on amendment and any new claims. That is, indicate support for newly added claim language by specifically pointing to page(s) and line numbers in the specification and/or drawing figure(s). This will assist the Office in prosecuting this application.
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 communications from the examiner should be directed to LESHUI ZHANG whose telephone number is (571)270-5589. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 6:30amp-4:00pm 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, Vivian Chin can be reached at 571-272-7848. 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.
/LESHUI ZHANG/
Primary Examiner,
Art Unit 2695
Prosecution Insights