DETAILED ACTION
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 .
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 1/23/2025 is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement is being considered by the examiner.
Claim Objections
Claims 1-13 are objected to because of the following informalities: Claims, page 18-20, filed 1/23/2025, indicate claims 1-11 as original claims and claims, page 3-9, filed 1/23/2025 indicate claims 1-20 as a preliminary amendments. Claims 1-20 indicating a preliminary amendment do not appear to comply with the requirements cited in MPEP §714 Amendments citing 37 C.F.R. 1.121:
(2) When claim text with markings is required. All claims being currently amended in an amendment paper shall be presented in the claim listing, indicate a status of “currently amended,” and be submitted with markings to indicate the changes that have been made relative to the immediate prior version of the claims. The text of any added subject matter must be shown by underlining the added text. The text of any deleted matter must be shown by strike-through except that double brackets placed before and after the deleted characters may be used to show deletion of five or fewer consecutive characters. The text of any deleted subject matter must be shown by being placed within double brackets if strike-through cannot be easily perceived. Only claims having the status of “currently amended,” or “withdrawn” if also being amended, shall include markings. If a withdrawn claim is currently amended, its status in the claim listing may be identified as “withdrawn— currently amended.”
For example, the preliminary amendment to claim 1 is directed to “a method for multimedia resource processing” and original claim 1 is directed to “a method for video generation” and while the subject matter of the claims is not directed to the original presentation, the preliminary amendments are not made in accordance with MPEP § 714 cited above. Furthermore, wherein the original claims on page 18-19 only show 11 original claims, the preliminary amendment appears to incorrectly indicate 13 original claims but the examiner is unable to ascertain the correct changes to the claims as the claims do not contain the necessary claim text with markings of the original claims. Appropriate correction is required.
Specification
The specification is objected to as failing to provide proper antecedent basis for the claimed subject matter. See 37 CFR 1.75(d)(1) and MPEP § 608.01(o). Correction of the following is required: MPEP §714.01(e) states the following:
(a) A preliminary amendment is an amendment that is received in the Office (§ 1.6) on or before the mail date of the first Office action under § 1.104. The patent application publication may include preliminary amendments (§ 1.215(a)).
(1) A preliminary amendment that is present on the filing date of an application is part of the original disclosure of the application.
(2) A preliminary amendment filed after the filing date of the application is not part of the original disclosure of the application.
The originally filed specification does not appear to support the antecedent basis for the claimed subject matter as recited in the preliminary amendments (wherein the preliminary amendments recite elements for genre and genre switch control provided on a resource display page in relation to a “target switch genre”) and the preliminary amendments do not appear to be directed to the same subject matter (i.e., a method for video generation related to navigation data) of the original claim page 18-20, filed 1/23/2025. Claims, page 18-20, filed 1/23/2025, indicate claims 1-11 as original claims and claims, page 3-9, filed 1/23/2025 indicate claims 1-20 as a preliminary amendments. For example, the preliminary amendment to claim 1 is directed to “a method for multimedia resource processing” and original claim 1 is directed to “a method for video generation” and while the subject matter of the preliminary amended claims is not directed to the original presentation, the preliminary amendments are not made in accordance with MPEP § 714 cited above. Furthermore, wherein the original claims on page 18-19 only show 11 original claims, the preliminary amendment appears to incorrectly indicate that there were 13 original claims but the examiner is unable to ascertain the correct changes to the claims as the claims do not contain the necessary claim text with markings of the original claims. No prior art rejection is being made in the present Office Action. Correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112:
The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor of carrying out his invention.
Claims 1-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention.
MPEP § 2163 states “[t]here is a presumption that an adequate written description of the claimed invention is present when the application is filed. In re Wertheim, 541 F.2d 257, 263, 191 USPQ 90, 97 (CCPA 1976) (“[W]e are of the opinion that the PTO has the initial burden of presenting evidence or reasons why persons skilled in the art would not recognize in the disclosure a description of the invention defined by the claims.”). However, as discussed in subsection I, supra, issues of adequate written description may arise even for original claims, for example, when an aspect of the claimed invention has not been described with sufficient particularity such that one skilled in the art would recognize that the inventor had possession of the claimed invention at the time of filing… An invention described solely in terms of a method of making and/or its function may lack written descriptive support where there is no described or art-recognized correlation between the disclosed function and the structure(s) responsible for the function.”
Claims, page 18-20, filed 1/23/2025, indicate claims 1-11 as original claims and claims, page 3-9, filed 1/23/2025 indicate claims 1-20 as a preliminary amendments. The originally filed specification does not appear to support the antecedent basis for the claimed subject matter as recited in the preliminary amendments (wherein the preliminary amendments recite elements for genre and genre switch control provided on a resource display page in relation to a “target switch genre” and in further relation toa pop-up layer as claimed; nor image-text segments) and the preliminary amendments do not appear to be directed to the same subject matter (i.e., a method for video generation related to navigation data) of the original claim page 18-20, filed 1/23/2025. For example, the preliminary amendment to claim 1 is directed to “a method for multimedia resource processing” and original claim 1 is directed to “a method for video generation” and while the subject matter of the preliminary amended claims is not directed to the original presentation, the preliminary amendments are not made in accordance with MPEP § 714 cited above. No prior art rejection is being made in the present Office Action.
CONCLUSION
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ALFONSO CASTRO whose telephone number is (571)270-3950. The examiner can normally be reached on Monday to Friday from 10am to 6pm.
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, Nathan Flynn can be reached. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
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 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.
/ALFONSO CASTRO/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2421