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
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 9/5/2024 is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement is being considered by the examiner.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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 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 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)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
(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, 2, 5, 7, 10, 13, 15 and 16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) and/or 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by McLaughlin et al. (US 2014/0325034). Regarding claim 1, McLaughlin teaches a non-transitory recording medium storing a video output program for causing a computer (paragraph 142), to which an external device (paragraph 18 teaches wherein the client device is connected as an external device) is connected, to execute a process of outputting a content video that is a video created based on contents comprising at least one of a video and an image (paragraph 18 teaches outputting video using EDL (“content data”)),
wherein the contents comprise content data in which a configuration of the content video is written in a human-readable format (paragraphs 18, 46 and 138 teaches wherein “content data” in the form of an edit decision list (EDL) which configures how the video is configured/edited is written in HTML language, a human readable/perceptible form),
the computer comprises an output part that generates the content video based on the content data and outputs the content video to the external device (at least paragraphs 18, 46 and 138 teaches wherein the EDL (“content data”) is used to generate an output video. Paragraph 18 teaches wherein the client computer is able to download a copy of the video generated from an EDL), and
the video output program causes the computer to load content data included in an output target content selected from a plurality of the contents into the output part and output the content video based on the content data to the external device (Paragraphs 17-19 further teaches wherein the client computer is able to download a copy of the video generated from an EDL. EDL’s consists of a plurality of In points and Out points of a plurality of video segments that are referenced to generate an output video which is output to the client computer (external device)).
Regarding claim 2, McLaughlin teaches the claimed wherein for each of the contents, setting data is provided, in which a setting state of an aspect of the content is stored (the claimed “settings” is met by the editing settings performed by the user on the web browser utilizing the UI for performing edits to the video. Paragraphs 87-93 further teaches wherein the client computer is able to enter an edit mode wherein changes to the video output can be made. Paragraphs 17-19 teaches an output video generated using the EDL, therefore the system performs the outputting part as claimed), and
the content data corresponding to the selected output target content and the setting data corresponding to the content data are loaded into the output part (the claimed “settings” is met by the editing settings performed by the user on the web browser utilizing the UI for performing edits to the video. Paragraphs 87-93 further teaches wherein the client computer is able to enter an edit mode wherein changes to the video output can be made. Paragraphs 17-19 teaches an output video generated using the EDL, therefore the system performs the outputting part as claimed), and
the content video in which the setting data is applied to the loaded content data is output to the external device (the claimed “settings” is met by the editing settings performed by the user on the web browser utilizing the UI for performing edits to the video. Paragraphs 51-57 and 118-124 further teaches wherein the client computer is able to enter an editing user interface wherein changes to the video output can be made. Paragraphs 17-19 teaches an output video generated using the EDL, therefore the system performs the outputting part as claimed).
Regarding claim 5, McLaughlin teaches the claimed wherein the content data comprises data which represents an aspect of the content and a control signal in which a processing content of the external device is written (the claimed “settings” is met by the editing settings performed by the user on the web browser utilizing the UI for performing edits to the video. Paragraphs 87-93 further teaches wherein the client computer is able to enter an edit mode wherein changes to the video output can be made. Paragraphs 17-19 teaches an output video generated using the EDL, therefore the system performs the outputting part as claimed. The control signal is met by the updated EDL that is also downloaded to and modified on the client computer), and
the video output program further causes the computer to transmit the control signal included in the content data to the external device (Paragraphs 17-19 further teaches wherein the client computer is able to download a copy of the video generated from an EDL. EDL’s consists of a plurality of In points and Out points of a plurality of video segments that are referenced to generate an output video which is output to the client computer (external device)).
Regarding claim 7, 10 and 13, McLaughlin teaches the claimed wherein the content data is written in HTML (paragraphs 46, 51, 127 and 138 teaches the EDL is written in HTML).
Apparatus claim 15 and method claim 16 are rejected for the same reasons as discussed above because the system is implemented by the system encapsulated in claim 1. Similarly, the methodology of claim 16 is also implemented by the components of claim 1.
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 3, 4, 6, 8, 11, 12 and 14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over McLaughlin et al. (US 2014/0325034) in view of Svendsen (US 2012/0284176).
Regarding claim 3, McLaughlin teaches the claimed as discussed in claim 2 above, however fails to teach, but Svendsen teaches the claimed wherein the computer further comprises an editing part that edits the setting data (content editor server 102 in paragraphs 27-33), and a controller (Fig. 1, collaborative online content editor client/system) that controls the output part and the editing part, and
the video output program further causes the computer to:
edit the setting data by the editing part (Fig. 1 and paragraph 27 and 32: content editor server 102 performs edit of setting data instructed);
transmit the edited setting data to the controller (Fig. 1 and paragraph 27 and 32: content editor server 102 performs edit of setting data instructed. Sent back to collaborative online content editor client/system);
transmit the setting data transmitted to the controller to the output part (paragraph 33 teaches a list of modification instructions are sent to the collaborative online content editor client/system and utilizes by the editing system); and
apply the setting data transmitted to the output part to the content being output by the output part (paragraphs 33 teaches a list of modification instructions are sent to the collaborative online content editor client/system and utilizes by the editing system for the generation of the modified content corresponding to the list of modifications made).
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 Svendsen into the system of McLaughlin because such an incorporation allows for the benefit of using less network bandwidth and also for reducing computing resources while processing high quality content (paragraph 12).
Regarding claim 4, McLaughlin teaches the claimed wherein the content data corresponding to the selected output target content and the setting data corresponding to the content data are loaded into the output part, and the setting data and editing screen data, in which a configuration of an editing screen for editing the setting data is written in a human-readable format (paragraphs 18, 46 and 138 teaches wherein “content data” in the form of an edit decision list (EDL) which configures how the video is configured/edited is written in HTML language, a human readable/perceptible form), are loaded into the editing part (Paragraphs 51-57 and 118-124 further teaches wherein the client computer is able to enter an editing user interface wherein changes to the video output can be made. Paragraphs 17-19 teaches an output video generated using the EDL, therefore the system performs the outputting part as claimed),
the video output program further causes the computer to display the editing screen based on the editing screen data, and reflect the setting data on the editing screen in response to the setting data and the editing screen data being loaded into the editing part (Paragraphs 51-57 and 118-124 further teaches wherein the client computer is able to enter an editing user interface wherein changes to the video project is reflected on the user interface), and
the setting data is edited using the editing screen displayed by the editing part (Paragraphs 51-57 and 118-124 further teaches wherein the client computer is able to enter an editing user interface wherein changes to the video project is reflected on the user interface).
Regarding claim 6, McLaughlin teaches the claimed wherein the video output program further causes the computer to:
receive a control signal from the external device (paragraphs 51-54 teaches user interface controls received from the client device); and
execute a process according to the received control signal in the output part or the editing part (paragraphs 51-54 teaches user interface controls received from the client device which is applied to the video editing project).
Regarding claim 8, McLaughlin teaches the claimed wherein the editing screen data is written in HTML (paragraphs 46, 51, 127 and 138 wherein user interface is also written in HTML and viewable on a web browser).
Regarding claims 11, 12 and 14, McLaughlin teaches the claimed wherein the content data is written in HTML (paragraphs 46, 51, 127 and 138 teaches the EDL is written in HTML).
Claim 9 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over McLaughlin et al. (US 2014/0325034) in view of Baughman et al. (US 2020/0314488).
Regarding claim 9, McLaughlin teaches the claimed as discussed in claim 1 above, however fails to teach, but Baughman teaches wherein a foreground content and a background content different from the foreground content are selected as the output target contents (paragraph 12 and Fig. 1),
the computer comprises, as the output part, a foreground output part that generates a foreground video based on content data included in the foreground content, and a background output part that generates a background video based on content data included in the background content (paragraph 12 and Fig. 1 teaches a foreground video and a background video, both of which are output by the system), and
a content video, in which the background video generated by the background output part is superimposed on the foreground video generated by the foreground output part, is output (paragraph 12 teaches that the output video by an editing system allows for overlapping/superimposing a background video on a foreground video during a dissolve or crossfade effect).
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 Baughman into the system of McLaughlin because said incorporation allows for the benefit of improving the combined system by enabling video effects to create a more pleasing user experience (paragraph 12).
Remarks
Examiner recommends further clarification to the claim language and potentially add limitations capturing some of the features of the setting data (in Figs. 6A-7B) and how it appears to be slightly different than in the prior art of McLaughlin and Svendsen. Additional features of note could be related to the MIDI messages in paragraphs 151-169.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Forget et al. (US 9,633,694) teaches a full fidelity remote video editing system that enables an editor to edit a video project for which source media assets are located at a media storage server located remotely from the editor with substantially the same fidelity and editing feature set.
DeWitt et al. (US 2018/0113540) teaches a multipurpose media player that allows a user to edit videos via a website using HTML protocols.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications 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