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
Priority
Acknowledgment is made of Applicant's claim for foreign priority based on a Patent Applications filed on 12/29/22. It is noted that Applicant has filed a certified copy of the application as required by 35 U.S.C. 119(b).
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 pointingout and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as theinvention.
Claims 15, 25, 34 is/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, or for pre-AIA the applicant regards as the invention.
Claims 15, 25, 34 each recite ‘if not all video segments of the initial video being received’, in response…” whereby it is unclear what ‘in response’ is in response to (i.e. missing segments or the state of missing segments) and thereby unclear how to properly construe the limitation. In addition, each claim recites ‘on the editing track’ whereby ‘a video editing track’ was instead previously defined. Appropriate clarification/correction is required.
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.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or non-obviousness.
Claims 15, 25, 34 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over LERMAN et al. (Pub. No: US 2007-0189708) in view of CHAUDHRY et al. (US Pub. No: 2018-0012463) in view of HU et al. (Pub. No: US 2022-0256205).
As per Claim 15 LERMAN discloses A method for online video editing, comprising (Figs. 1-8 online editing of classifieds [0050]):
in response to importing an initial video within a video editing task, receiving a video segment of the initial video, wherein the video segment comprises at least one video frame within the initial video (Figs. 1-8 initial video imported for editing [0101] [0212-0214] - online editing [0050] editor enhancements for video clips [0101] [0214]);
in response to a first editing instruction for the initial video of a video editing interface, presenting a video segment corresponding to the initial video (Figs. 1-8 – as in Fig. 7 [0101-0107] [0101] [0214]), and presenting, in a video preview area, a video frame image of a received video segment within the initial video (Figs. 1-8 preview window with at least a video frame [0067] [0114]);
in response to a second editing instruction for the video segment corresponding to the initial video, presenting an identifier of the second editing instruction (Figs. 1-8 second editing instruction embodiment for edit tool 724 enhancements with further presentation [0044-0050] [0075] [0083-0087] [0101]) and presenting a target video frame image in the video preview area, wherein the second editing instruction is configured to edit the initial video (Figs. 1-8 second editing instruction enhancements with further presentation as in 714 [0044-0050] [0075] [0083-0087] for previews – at least one frame for the clip [0101, 0114]);
and the target video frame image is configured to display an editing result of the video frame image of the received video segment within the initial video being edited under the second editing instruction (Figs. 1-8 – items 714 target playback [0044-0050] [0072-0075, 0078] [0087] [0101]);
LERMAN does not disclose but CHAUDHRY discloses video which is sent in slice by a cloud (Figs. 1-18 cloud computing system [0048] video slices [0198-0206] [0223]); a video track segment (Figs. 1-18 [0198-0206] motion tracks [0223-0229]); video being placed on a video editing track (Figs. 1-18 Fig. 11A video editor [0195-0206] [0223-0229])
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to include video which is sent in slice by a cloud; a video track segment; video being placed on a video editing track as taught by CHAUDHRY into the system of LERMAN because of the benefit taught by CHAUDHRY to enhance object detection in video feeds and assemble video tracks in a video editing environment to improve upon video editing features whereby LERMAN is directed towards a video editor for video segmentation and would benefit from the related improvements in CHAUDHRY.
LERMAN and CHAUDHRY do not disclose but HU discloses if not all video segments of the initial video being received (Figs. 1-5 missing video slices [0009-0010] [0025] [0119])
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to include if not all video segments of the initial video being received as taught by HU into the system of LERMAN and CHAUDHRY because of the benefit taught by HU to extend video segment editing and processing by ensuring missing video segments are detected /recovered which would naturally benefit both video edition systems of LERMAN and CHAUDHRY.
As per Claim 25 LERMAN discloses An electronic device, comprising (in at least Fig. 7):
a processor, and a memory communicatively connected to the processor (Figs. 1-7 [0009] [0025, 0029] [0044] [0059]); the memory storing computer executable instructions (Figs. 1-7 [0009] [0025, 0029] [0044] [0059]); the processor executing the computer executable instructions stored in the memory (Figs. 1-7 [0009] [0025, 0029] [0044] [0059]), to perform at least (Figs. 1-7 [0009] [0025, 0029] [0044] [0059]):
in response to importing an initial video within a video editing task, receiving a video segment of the initial video (See said analysis for Claim 15), wherein the video segment comprises at least one video frame within the initial video (See said analysis for Claim 15); in response to a first editing instruction for the initial video of a video editing interface (See said analysis for Claim 15), presenting a video segment corresponding to the initial video, and presenting (See said analysis for Claim 15), in a video preview area, a video frame image of an received video segment within the initial video (See said analysis for Claim 15); in response to a second editing instruction for the video segment corresponding to the initial video (See said analysis for Claim 15), presenting an identifier of the second editing instruction and presenting a target video frame image in the video preview area (See said analysis for Claim 15), wherein the second editing instruction is configured to edit the initial video (See said analysis for Claim 15); and the target video frame image is configured to display an editing result of the video frame image of the received video segment within the initial video being edited under the second editing instruction (See said analysis for Claim 15)
LERMAN does not disclose but CHAUDHRY discloses video which is sent in slice by a cloud (See said analysis for Claim 15); a video track segment (See said analysis for Claim 15); video being placed on a video editing track (See said analysis for Claim 15)
LERMAN and CHAUDHRY do not disclose but HU discloses if not all video segments of the initial video being received (See said analysis for Claim 15)
As per Claim 34 LERMAN discloses A non-transitory computer readable storage medium (Figs. 1-7 [0009] [0025, 0029] [0044] [0059]), the computer readable storage medium storing computer executable instructions (Figs. 1-7 [0009] [0025, 0029] [0044] [0059]), when a processor executes the computer executable instructions, are configured to perform at least (Figs. 1-7 [0009] [0025, 0029] [0044] [0059]):
in response to importing an initial video within a video editing task, receiving a video segment of the initial video (See said analysis for Claim 15), wherein the video segment comprises at least one video frame within the initial video (See said analysis for Claim 15);
in response to a first editing instruction for the initial video of a video editing interface (See said analysis for Claim 15), presenting a video segment corresponding to the initial video, and presenting, in a video preview area, a video frame image of an received video segment within the initial video (See said analysis for Claim 15); in response to a second editing instruction for a video segment corresponding to the initial video, presenting an identifier of the second editing instruction and presenting a target video frame image in the video preview area (See said analysis for Claim 15), wherein the second editing instruction is configured to edit the initial video (See said analysis for Claim 15); and the target video frame image is configured to display an editing result of the video frame image of the received video segment within the initial video being edited under the second editing instruction (See said analysis for Claim 15)
LERMAN does not disclose but CHAUDHRY discloses video which is sent in slice by a cloud (See said analysis for Claim 15); a video track segment (See said analysis for Claim 15); video being placed on a video editing track (See said analysis for Claim 15)
LERMAN and CHAUDHRY do not disclose but HU discloses if not all video segments of the initial video being received (See said analysis for Claim 15)
Claim 24 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over LERMAN et al. (Pub. No: US 2007-0189708) in view of CHAUDHRY et al. (US Pub. No: 2018-0012463) in view of HU et al. (US Pub. No: 2022-0256205), as applied in Claims 15, 25, 34, and further in view of BELAN et al (US Pub. No. 2011-0264676)
As per Claim 24 LERMAN discloses The method of claim 15, wherein presenting a video frame image of the received video segment in the initial video in the video preview area comprises (See said analysis for Claim 15):
obtaining a playback progress corresponding to the video segment corresponding to the initial video (Figs 7-8 – items 714 target playback [0044-0050] [0072-0075, 0078] [0087] [0101]); the playback progress, playing the video frame image of the video segment (Figs 7-8 – items 714 target playback [0044-0050] [0072-0075, 0078] [0087] [0101])
LERMAN CHAUDHRY HU do not disclose but BELAN discloses a download progress ([0006-0008] [0020]); and in response to a difference value between the download progress, being greater than a predetermined duration (Figs. 1-4 [0006-0009] download relative to seek/playback time [0016-0017] [0020-0021] [0038])
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to include a download progress; and in response to a difference value between the download progress, being greater than a predetermined duration as taught by BELAN into the system of LERMAN CHAUDHRY HU because of the benefit taught by BELAN to expand upon video editing techniques and features by including teachings for downloaded content for edition for improvements to the combine system.
Allowable Subject Matter
REASON FOR ALLOWANCE
Claims 16-23, 26-33 is/are objected to as being dependent upon the 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.
Claims 16-23, 26-33 is/are allowed. The following is an examiner’s statement of reasons for allowance:
As per Claim 16 the prior art of record either alone or in reasonable combination fails to teach or suggest “The method of claim 15, wherein receiving the video segment of the initial video which is sent in slice by the cloud comprises: obtaining download information corresponding to the initial video, the download information representing a current download progress of the initial video; determining a video segment identifier in accordance with the download information; and sending a download request to the cloud in accordance with the video segment identifier, and receiving a target video segment corresponding to the video segment identifier sent by the cloud” These limitations in combination with the other limitations of the independent claim are thus deemed allowable.
As per Claim 17 the prior art of record either alone or in reasonable combination fails to teach or suggest “The method of claim 16, wherein obtaining the download information corresponding to the initial video comprises: loading cache data corresponding to the initial video; and generating the download information corresponding to the initial video in accordance with an amount of the cache data loaded” These limitations in combination with the other limitations of the independent claim are thus deemed allowable.
As per Claim 18 the prior art of record either alone or in reasonable combination fails to teach or suggest “The method of claim 16, wherein sending the download request to the cloud in accordance with the video segment identifier comprises: obtaining reference information of the initial video, the reference information representing a slicing rule of the initial video; and generating and sending a download request to the cloud in accordance with the reference information and the video segment identifier” These limitations in combination with the other limitations of the independent claim are thus deemed allowable.
As per Claim 19 the prior art of record either alone or in reasonable combination fails to teach or suggest “The method of claim 16, further comprising: detecting a local remaining memory space; determining a target storage position in accordance with the local remaining memory space, the target storage position comprising a memory or a hard disk; and storing the target video segment to the target storage position” These limitations in combination with the other limitations of the independent claim are thus deemed allowable.
As per Claim 20 the prior art of record either alone or in reasonable combination fails to teach or suggest “The method of claim 15, wherein the second editing instruction comprises a target editing parameter, and presenting the target video frame image in the video preview area comprises: obtaining at least one to-be-processed video frame in the video segment, the at least one to-be-processed video frame being a video frame after a video frame image currently played in the video preview area; generating at least one corresponding target video frame image by editing the at least one to-be-processed video frame in sequence based on a corresponding timestamp in accordance with the target editing parameter; and in response to the video segment being played to the at least one to-be-processed video frame, presenting the at least one corresponding target video frame image in sequence in a video preview area of the video editing interface” These limitations in combination with the other limitations of the independent claim are thus deemed allowable.
As per Claim 21 the prior art of record either alone or in reasonable combination fails to teach or suggest “The method of claim 20, wherein the video editing interface comprises a first playback component and a second playback component, wherein the first playback component is configured to play a video frame image of the video segment, and the second playback component is configured to play the target video frame image; presenting the at least one corresponding target video frame image in sequence in the video preview area of the video editing interface comprises: based on the timestamp of the at least one to-be-processed video, invoking the first playback component to play the at least one to-be-processed video frame in sequence, and invoking the second playback component to play the target video frame image in sequence synchronously, respectively” These limitations in combination with the other limitations of the independent claim are thus deemed allowable.
As per Claim 22 the prior art of record either alone or in reasonable combination fails to teach or suggest “The method of claim 15, wherein the method further comprises: generating interrupt data by performing a serialization on the video segment and corresponding editing information, and storing the interrupt data to a hard disk; and after receiving an import instruction for the initial video, obtaining the video segment and the corresponding editing information by performing an inverse serialization on the interruption data and loading into a memory” These limitations in combination with the other limitations of the independent claim are thus deemed allowable.
As per Claim 23 the prior art of record either alone or in reasonable combination fails to teach or suggest “The method of claim 15, wherein the video segment comprises a jumping video segment, and receiving the video segment of the initial video which is sent in slice by the cloud comprises: in response to a video jumping instruction, determining a corresponding video jumping position; determining, m accordance with the corresponding video jumping position, a corresponding jumping video segment; and downloading the jumping video segment from the cloud, and suspending receiving other video segments until finishing downloading the jumping video segment” These limitations in combination with the other limitations of the independent claim are thus deemed allowable.
As per Claim 26 the prior art of record either alone or in reasonable combination fails to teach or suggest “The electronic device of claim 25, wherein receiving the video segment of the initial video which is sent in slice by the cloud comprises: obtaining download information corresponding to the initial video, the download information representing a current download progress of the initial video; determining a video segment identifier in accordance with the download information; and sending a download request to the cloud in accordance with the video segment identifier, and receiving a target video segment corresponding to the video segment identifier sent by the cloud” These limitations in combination with the other limitations of the independent claim are thus deemed allowable.
As per Claim 27 the prior art of record either alone or in reasonable combination fails to teach or suggest “The electronic device of claim 26, wherein obtaining download information corresponding to the initial video comprises: loading cache data corresponding to the initial video; and generating download information corresponding to the initial video in accordance with loading quantity of the cache data” These limitations in combination with the other limitations of the independent claim are thus deemed allowable.
As per Claim 28 the prior art of record either alone or in reasonable combination fails to teach or suggest “The electronic device of claim 26, wherein sending the download request to the cloud in accordance with the video segment identifier comprises: obtaining reference information of the initial video, the reference information representing a slicing rule of the initial video; and generating and sending a download request to the cloud in accordance with the reference information and the video segment identifier” These limitations in combination with the other limitations of the independent claim are thus deemed allowable.
As per Claim 29 the prior art of record either alone or in reasonable combination fails to teach or suggest “The electronic device of claim 26, further comprising: detecting a local remaining memory space; determining a target storage position in accordance with the local remaining memory space, the target storage position comprising a memory or a hard disk; and storing the target video segment to the target storage position” These limitations in combination with the other limitations of the independent claim are thus deemed allowable.
As per Claim 30 the prior art of record either alone or in reasonable combination fails to teach or suggest “The electronic device of claim 25, wherein the second editing instruction comprises a target editing parameter, and presenting the target video frame image in the video preview area comprises: obtaining at least one to-be-processed video frame in the video segment, the at least one to-be-processed video frame being a video frame after a video frame image currently played in the video preview area; generating at least one corresponding target video frame image by editing the at least one to-be-processed video frame in sequence based on a corresponding time stamp in accordance with the target editing parameter; and in response to the video segment being played to the at least one to-be-processed video frame, presenting the at least one corresponding target video frame image in sequence in a video preview area of the video editing interface” These limitations in combination with the other limitations of the independent claim are thus deemed allowable.
As per Claim 31 the prior art of record either alone or in reasonable combination fails to teach or suggest “The electronic device of claim 30, wherein the video editing interface comprises a first playback component and a second playback component, wherein the first playback component is configured to play a video frame image of the video segment, and the second playback component is configured to play the target video frame image; presenting the at least one corresponding target video frame image in sequence in the video preview area of the video editing interface comprises: based on the time stamp of the at least one to-be-processed video, invoking the first playback component to play the at least one to-be-processed video frame in sequence, and invoking the second playback component to play the target video frame image in sequence synchronously, respectively” These limitations in combination with the other limitations of the independent claim are thus deemed allowable.
As per Claim 32 the prior art of record either alone or in reasonable combination fails to teach or suggest “The electronic device of claim 25, wherein the processor executing the computer executable instructions stored in the memory is further configured to perform at least: generating interrupt data by performing a serialization on the video segment and corresponding editing information, and storing the interrupt data to a hard disk; and after receiving an import instruction for the initial video, obtaining the video segment and the corresponding editing information by performing an inverse serialization on the interruption data and loading into a memory” These limitations in combination with the other limitations of the independent claim are thus deemed allowable.
As per Claim 33 the prior art of record either alone or in reasonable combination fails to teach or suggest “The electronic device of claim 25, wherein the video segment comprises a jumping video segment, and receiving the video segment of the initial video sent in slices by the cloud comprises: in response to a video jumping instruction, determining a corresponding video jumping position; determining, in accordance with the corresponding video jumping position, a corresponding jumping video segment; and downloading the jumping video segment from the cloud, and suspending receiving other video segments until finishing downloading the jumping video segment” These limitations in combination with the other limitations of the independent claim are thus deemed allowable.
The closest prior art of record LERMAN et al. (Pub. No: US 2007-0189708) for Claims 16-23, 26-33 does not teach all the elements in combination with the other limitations of the independent claim. LERMAN only discloses in response to importing an initial video within a video editing task, receiving a video segment of the initial video, wherein the video segment comprises at least one video frame within the initial video as well as teaches presenting a video segment corresponding to the initial video, and presenting, in a video preview area, a video frame image of a received video segment within the initial video. The prior art further discloses in response to a second editing instruction for a video segment corresponding to the initial video, presenting an identifier of the second editing instruction and presenting a target video frame image in the video preview area, wherein the second editing instruction is configured to edit the initial video. Finally, the prior art discloses the target video frame image is configured to display an editing result of the video frame image of the received video segment within the initial video being edited under the second editing instruction.
Any comments considered necessary by applicant must be submitted no later than the payment of the issue fee and, to avoid processing delays, should preferably accompany the issue fee. Such submissions should be clearly labeled “Comments on Statement of Reasons for Allowance.”
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to EILEEN M ADAMS whose telephone number is 571-270-3688. The examiner can normally be reached on Monday-Friday from 8:30am-5:00pm EST. If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner's supervisor, William Vaughn can be reached on (571) 272-3922. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-270-4688.
Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. Should you have any questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/EILEEN M ADAMS/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2481
Prosecution Insights