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 Action is responsive to the Application filed on 10/11/2024. Claims 1-10, 12-13, 16-23 are pending in the case.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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.
Claims 1-4, 12-13, 16-18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Vuskovic et al. US 20140092990 A1 in view of Snibbe et al. (US 20150221339 A1, hereinafter Snibbe).
As to independent claim 1, Vuskovic teaches a method for prompting, comprising:
determining whether target description information of a target video satisfies a target condition (“video analyzer 210 is a rules engine that determines optimizations for a video based on a set of optimization rules 260.” Paragraph 0032, “Each optimization rule 260 may check the video for one or more inefficiencies, deficiencies, errors, and so forth. Each optimization rule 260 may further include one or more optimizations that may be performed on the analyzed video. Optimization rules 260 may be used to examine contents of a video (e.g., image contents, audio contents, etc.) as well as metadata associated with the video (e.g., tags, titles, descriptions, etc.).” paragraph 0035); and
in response to a determination that the target description information satisfies the target condition (“An optimization rule 260 may include conditional elements (e.g., and, or, not, exists, etc.), constraints (e.g., equal to, not equal to, greater than, contains, etc.) and consequences or actions (e.g., generate recommendation, process next rule, edit video, etc.).” paragraph 0033), by posting the suggestion/recommendation to an account of the entity and/or by sending a message to the entity (e.g., via email, text message, instant message, etc.).” paragraph 0060).
Vuskovic does not appear to expressly teach displaying prompt information for the target video.
Snibbe teaches displaying prompt information for the target video (In FIG. 4E, remix options 458 is displayed for the target media item, paragraph 0084).
Accordingly, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the method of Vuskovic to comprise displaying prompt information for the target video. One would been motivated to make such a combination to improve convenience for user in editing a video.
As to dependent claim 2, Vuskovic teaches the method of claim 1, Vuskovic further teaches wherein the target description information comprises at least one type of description sub-information: a resource link of a display object in the target video, a description text of the display object and a picture of the display object (“Video content class optimization rules include rules the analyze the contents of videos for potential improvements. Examples of optimization rules within the video content class include rules that check for optimal lighting conditions, to check for blur, to check for color problems, to check for cropping problems, to check for image stability, to check for optimal video length, etc. Such rules may perform image analysis on one or more frames of the videos to determine image properties of the video and compare those image properties to image properties that have been determined to be optimal.” paragraph 0044); and the target condition comprises at least one of: the resource link does not exist, the word number of the description text is less than a predetermined word number threshold, and a picture format of the picture is a target format (“Video content class optimization rules may suggest that any identified problems of lighting, stability, audio quality, blur, and so forth be corrected (e.g., to cause the image and/or audio properties of the video to be closer to the determined optimal image and/or audio properties).” Paragraph 0044).
As to dependent claim 3, Vuskovic teaches the method of claim 1, Vuskovic does not appear to expressly teach wherein displaying the prompt information for the target video comprises: displaying the prompt information in a sub-region of the target video, wherein the subregion comprises one of the following: a blank sub-region and a background image sub-region.
Snibbe teaches wherein displaying the prompt information for the target video comprises: displaying the prompt information in a sub-region of the target video, wherein the subregion comprises one of the following: a blank sub-region and a background image sub-region (In FIG. 4E, remix options 458 is display in sub-region of the video)
Accordingly, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the method of Vuskovic to comprise wherein displaying the prompt information for the target video comprises: displaying the prompt information in a sub-region of the target video, wherein the subregion comprises one of the following: a blank sub-region and a background image sub-region. One would been motivated to make such a combination to improve convenience for user in editing a video.
As to dependent claim 4. Vuskovic teaches the method of claim 2, Vuskovic does not appear to expressly teach wherein the prompt information comprises at least one piece of prompt sub-information, each type of the description sub-information corresponds to one piece of prompt sub-information, and displaying the prompt information for the target video comprises: displaying the prompt sub-information corresponding to each of the at least one type of description sub-information.
Snibbe teaches wherein the prompt information comprises at least one piece of prompt sub-information, each type of the description sub-information corresponds to one piece of prompt sub-information, and displaying the prompt information for the target video comprises: displaying the prompt sub-information corresponding to each of the at least one type of description sub-information (“In FIG. 4E, remix options 458 includes: affordance 460 for adding, removing, and/or modifying audio and/or video effect associated with the respective media item; affordance 462 for adding and/or removing one or more video clips associated with the respective media item; affordance 464 for adding and/or removing one or more audio tracks associated with the respective media item; and affordance 466,” paragraph 0084).
Accordingly, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the method of Vuskovic to comprise wherein the prompt information comprises at least one piece of prompt sub-information, each type of the description sub-information corresponds to one piece of prompt sub-information, and displaying the prompt information for the target video comprises: displaying the prompt sub-information corresponding to each of the at least one type of description sub-information. One would been motivated to make such a combination to improve convenience for user in editing a video.
Claims 12-13 and 16-18 are substantially the same as claims 1-4 and are therefore rejection under similar rationale as above.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 5-10 and 19-23 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
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure:
Li et al. US 20250337974 A1 – teaches techniques for generating videos.
Zhang et al. US 20220383907 A1 – teaches method for processing video and playing video.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MAHELET SHIBEROU whose telephone number is (571)270-7493. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 9:00 AM-5:00 PM Eastern Time.
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, Kieu Vu can be reached at 571-272-4057. 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.
/MAHELET SHIBEROU/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2171
Prosecution Insights