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 .
Claim Objections
Claims 1-16 and 18-20 are objected to because of the following informalities:
For claim 1, Examiner believes this claim should be amended in the following manner:
A computer-implemented method for generating an animation, the computer-implemented method comprising:
obtaining digital content data comprising one or more digital components;
obtaining an animation template that defines a structure for the animation, the template comprising (i) one or more component slots, each component slot configured to hold at least one of the one or more digital components, and (ii) animation parameters that define animation properties for at least one of the one or more digital components;
processing input data comprising at least the digital content data to determine one or more style features of the animation;
generating animation data defining the animation by applying the one or more style features to the one or more digital components and the animation template; and
distributing the animation to one or more client devices.
For claim 2, Examiner believes this claim should be amended in the following manner:
The computer-implemented method of claim 1, wherein the one or more digital components comprise one or more of: an image, text data, a logo, or a graphic shape.
For claim 3, Examiner believes this claim should be amended in the following manner:
The computer-implemented method of claim 2, wherein the one or more style features comprise one or more of: a scale, a position, a font, a font size, an aspect ratio, a display color, a rotation, an opacity, an animation timing of one or more components of the animation.
For claim 4, Examiner believes this claim should be amended in the following manner:
The computer-implemented method of claim 1, wherein processing the input data to determine the one or more style features of the animation comprises:
processing a first input comprising data characterizing at least one of the one or more digital components using a first machine learning model to generate an output comprising at least one of the one or more style features.
For claim 5, Examiner believes this claim should be amended in the following manner:
The computer-implemented method of claim 4, wherein the first input further comprises contextual data characterizing one or more of:
a device type of the one or more client devices, user interface settings, viewing mode, a user profile, digital content presented prior to or concurrently with the animation, or a time of day.
For claim 6, Examiner believes this claim should be amended in the following manner:
The computer-implemented method of claim 1, wherein obtaining the animation template comprises:
processing an input characterizing one or more of: attributes of the one or more digital components, or contextual information, to select the animation template from a set of animation templates.
For claim 7, Examiner believes this claim should be amended in the following manner:
The computer-implemented method of claim 6, further comprising:
receiving a query that comprises characteristics of one or more videos in a video feed, wherein
the contextual information comprises the characteristics of the one or more videos in the video feed.
For claim 8, Examiner believes this claim should be amended in the following manner:
The computer-implemented method of claim 6, wherein processing the input to select the animation template comprises:
processing the input using a second machine learning model to generate an output that identifies the animation template.
For claim 9, Examiner believes this claim should be amended in the following manner:
The computer-implemented method of claim 1, wherein obtaining the digital content data comprising the one or more digital components comprises:
receiving a query that comprises characteristics of one or more videos in a video feed; and
selecting the one or more digital components based on the characteristics of the one or more videos in [[a]] the video feed.
For claim 10, Examiner believes this claim should be amended in the following manner:
The computer-implemented method of claim 1, wherein distributing the animation to the one or more client devices comprises:
generating a rendered animation file; and
distributing the rendered animation file to the one or more client devices.
For claim 11, Examiner believes this claim should be amended in the following manner:
The computer-implemented method of claim 1, wherein distributing the animation to the one or more client devices comprises:
distributing a file that defines animation instructions to the one or more client devices and rendering the animation at the one or more client devices using an animation engine.
For claim 12, Examiner believes this claim should be amended in the following manner:
A system comprising:
one or more computers; and
one or more storage devices storing instructions that when executed by the one or more computers, cause the one or more computers to perform operations for generating an animation, the operations comprising:
obtaining digital content data comprising one or more digital components;
obtaining an animation template that defines a structure for the animation, the template comprising (i) one or more component slots, each component slot configured to hold at least one of the one or more digital components, and (ii) animation parameters that define animation properties for at least one of the one or more digital components;
processing input data comprising at least the digital content data to determine one or more style features of the animation;
generating animation data defining the animation by applying the one or more style features to the one or more digital components and the animation template; and
distributing the animation to one or more client devices.
For claim 13, Examiner believes this claim should be amended in the following manner:
The system of claim 12, wherein the one or more digital components comprise one or more of: an image, text data, a logo, or a graphic shape.
For claim 14, Examiner believes this claim should be amended in the following manner:
The system of claim 12, wherein the one or more style features comprise one or more of: a scale, a position, a font, a font size, an aspect ratio, a display color, a rotation, an opacity, an animation timing of one or more components of the animation.
For claim 15, Examiner believes this claim should be amended in the following manner:
The system of claim 12, wherein processing the input data to determine the one or more style features of the animation comprises:
processing a first input comprising data characterizing at least one of the one or more digital components using a first machine learning model to generate an output comprising at least one of the one or more style features.
For claim 16, Examiner believes this claim should be amended in the following manner:
The system of claim 15, wherein the first input further comprises contextual data characterizing one or more of:
a device type of the one or more client devices, user interface settings, viewing mode, a user profile, digital content presented prior to or concurrently with the animation, or a time of day.
For claim 18, Examiner believes this claim should be amended in the following manner:
One or more non-transitory computer-readable storage media storing instructions that, when executed by one or more computers, cause the one or more computers to perform operations for generating an animation, the operations comprising:
obtaining digital content data comprising one or more digital components;
obtaining an animation template that defines a structure for the animation, the template comprising (i) one or more component slots, each component slot configured to hold at least one of the one or more digital components, and (ii) animation parameters that define animation properties for at least one of the one or more digital components;
processing input data comprising at least the digital content data to determine one or more style features of the animation;
generating animation data defining the animation by applying the one or more style features to the one or more digital components and the animation template; and
distributing the animation to one or more client devices.
For claim 19, Examiner believes this claim should be amended in the following manner:
The one or more non-transitory computer-readable storage media of claim 18, wherein the one or more digital components comprise one or more of: an image, text data, a logo, or a graphic shape.
For claim 20, Examiner believes this claim should be amended in the following manner:
The one or more non-transitory computer-readable storage media of claim 18, wherein the one or more style features comprise one or more of: a scale, a position, a font, a font size, an aspect ratio, a display color, a rotation, an opacity, an animation timing of one or more components of the animation.
Appropriate correction is required.
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 pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 3, 14 and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
For dependent claim 3, parent claim 1 establishes “one or more style features” and “determined style features”. Claim 3 goes on to recite the phrase “the style features” and it is unclear and ambiguous to which of the previously established “one or more style features” and “determined style features” is being referenced by the phrase “the style features”. Examiner has suggested amendments in the claim objections discussed above to resolve the ambiguities.
For dependent claim 14, parent claim 12 establishes “one or more style features” and “determined style features”. Claim 14 goes on to recite the phrase “the style features” and it is unclear and ambiguous to which of the previously established “one or more style features” and “determined style features” is being referenced by the phrase “the style features”. Examiner has suggested amendments in the claim objections discussed above to resolve the ambiguities.
For dependent claim 20, parent claim 18 establishes “one or more style features” and “determined style features”. Claim 20 goes on to recite the phrase “the style features” and it is unclear and ambiguous to which of the previously established “one or more style features” and “determined style features” is being referenced by the phrase “the style features”. Examiner has suggested amendments in the claim objections discussed above to resolve the ambiguities.
Appropriate correction is required.
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.
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 nonobviousness.
Claim(s) 1-3, 10-14 and 18-20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Vigneras et al. (U.S. Patent Application Publication 2015/0130816 A1, hereinafter “Vigneras”) in view of Weber et al. (U.S. Patent Application Publication 2011/0069085 A1, hereinafter “Weber”).
For claim 1, Vigneras a computer-implemented method for generating an animation (disclosing a computer-implemented method for generating a multimedia animation presentation (par. 3)), the method comprising: obtaining digital content data comprising one or more digital components (disclosing acquisition of digital content data of digital components such as images (par. 10, 13 and 17)); obtaining an animation template that defines a structure for the animation, the template comprising (i) one or more component slots, each component slot configured to hold at least one of the digital components, and (ii) animation parameters that define animation properties for at least one of the digital components (disclosing acquisition of a SmartShow template defining a structure for the animation where the template includes component slots for holding the images and visual content items of the digital components and animation parameters defining animation properties for the images and visual content items (Fig. 1; par. 23, 28 and 67)); and distributing the animation to one or more client devices (disclosing the animation generated in accordance with the SmartShow may be represented with a file that may be shared for distribution with other client devices (par. 12, 20, 23 and 67)).
Vigneras does not specifically disclose processing input data comprising at least digital content data to determine one or more style features of an animation; and generating animation data defining the animation by applying the determined style features to the one or more digital components and the animation template.
However, these limitations are well-known in the art as disclosed in Weber.
Weber similarly discloses a system and method for acquiring an animation template defining a structure for an animation with drop-zones as component slots for holding digital images as digital components (par. 2, 28 and 36). Weber explains its system processes input data of digital content data of the digital images to determine an animation style with features of an animation, e.g. features of a Ken Burns technique for the animation, and generates animation data defining the animation by applying the determined style features to the digital images and the animation template, e.g. the features of the Ken Burns technique is applied to the digital images and the animation template to define the animation of the digital images (par. 35-36 and 64-70). It follows Vigneras may be accordingly modified with the teachings of Weber to process input data comprising its digital content data to determine style features of its animation and generate animation data defining its animation by applying the style features to its one or more digital components and its animation template.
A person having ordinary skill in the art (PHOSITA) before the effective filing date of the claimed invention would find it obvious to modify Vigneras with the teachings of Weber. Weber is analogous art in dealing with a system and method for acquiring an animation template defining a structure for an animation with drop-zones as component slots for holding digital images as digital components (par. 2, 28 and 36). Weber discloses its determination of a animation style is advantageous in determining features of an animation technique to appropriately animate digital content associated with an animation template (par. 35-36 and 64-70). Consequently, a PHOSITA would incorporate the teachings of Weber into Vigneras for determining features of an animation technique to appropriately animate digital content associated with an animation template. Therefore, claim 1 is rendered obvious to a PHOSITA before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
For claim 2, depending on claim 1, Vigneras as modified by Weber discloses wherein the digital components comprise one or more of: an image, text data, a logo, or a graphic shape (Vigneras discloses digital components such as images (par. 10, 13 and 17)).
For claim 3, depending on claim 2, Vigneras as modified by Weber discloses wherein the style features comprise one or more of: a scale, a position, a font, a font size, an aspect ratio, a display color, a rotation, an opacity, an animation timing of one or more components of the animation (Weber similarly discloses a system and method for acquiring an animation template defining a structure for an animation with drop-zones as component slots for holding digital images as digital components (par. 2, 28 and 36); Weber explains its system processes input data of digital content data of the digital images to determine an animation style with features of an animation, e.g. features of a Ken Burns technique for the animation, and generates animation data defining the animation by applying the determined style features to the digital images and the animation template, e.g. the features of the Ken Burns technique is applied to the digital images and the animation template to define the animation of the digital images (par. 35-36 and 64-70); Weber further explains the style features include an animation timing of the digital images of the animation (par. 68-70); and it follows Vigneras may be accordingly modified with the teachings of Weber to process input data comprising its digital content data to determine style features of its animation and generate animation data defining its animation by applying the style features to its one or more digital components and its animation template).
For claim 10, depending on claim 1, Vigneras as modified by Weber discloses wherein distributing the animation to one or more client devices comprises: generating a rendered animation file; and distributing the rendered animation file to the client devices (Vigneras discloses it is known in the art to render an animation file that may be shared for distribution with other client devices (par. 20-22 and 67); Weber likewise discloses it is known to generate a rendered animation file for distribution across a network (par. 5 and 29-30)).
For claim 11, depending on claim 1, Vigneras as modified by Weber discloses wherein distributing the animation to one or more client devices comprises: distributing a file that defines animation instructions to the client devices and rendering the animation at the client devices using an animation engine (Vigneras discloses the animation generated in accordance with the SmartShow may be represented with a file definition animation instructions that may be shared for distribution with other client devices for rendering at the other client devices using respective processors as animation engines (par. 12, 20, 23, 67 and 112)).
For claim 12, Vigneras as modified by Weber discloses a system comprising: one or more computers; and one or more storage devices storing instructions that when executed by the one or more computers (Vigneras discloses a system including a computer and memory storing instructions for execution by the computer to perform the functions of the system (par. 112)), cause the one or more computers to perform operations corresponding to the method of claim 1 (see above as to claim 1).
For claim 13, depending on claim 12, this claim is a combination of the limitations of claim 12 and claim 2. It follows claim 13 is rejected for the same reasons as to claim 12 and claim 2.
For claim 14, depending on claim 12, this claim is a combination of the limitations of claim 12 and claim 3. It follows claim 14 is rejected for the same reasons as to claim 12 and claim 3.
For claim 18, Vigneras as modified by Weber discloses one or more non-transitory computer-readable storage media storing instructions that, when executed by one or more computers (Vigneras discloses a system including a computer and memory storing instructions for execution by the computer to perform the functions of the system (par. 112)), cause the one or more computers to perform operations corresponding to the method of claim 1 (see above as to claim 1).
For claim 19, depending on claim 18, this claim is a combination of the limitations of claim 18 and claim 2. It follows claim 19 is rejected for the same reasons as to claim 18 and claim 2.
For claim 20, depending on claim 18, this claim is a combination of the limitations of claim 18 and claim 3. It follows claim 20 is rejected for the same reasons as to claim 18 and claim 3.
Claim(s) 4, 5, 15 and 16 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Vigneras in view of Weber further in view of Smith (WO 2023/146685 A1).
For claim 4, depending on claim 1, Vigneras as modified by Weber does not disclose processing a first input comprising data characterizing a digital component using a machine learning model to generate an output comprising a style.
However, these limitations are well-known in the art as disclosed in Smith.
Smith similarly discloses a system and method for generating an animation of digital components such as digital pages and digital documents arranged with a plurality of templates (par. 49 and par. 87). Smith discloses a machine learning model for processing input of data characterizing the digital pages to generate an output for identifying a style and stylistic choices as style features for the digital pages (par. 53-55). It follows Vigneras and Weber may be accordingly modified with the teachings of Smith for processing a first input comprising data characterizing at least one of its digital components using a first machine learning model to generate an output of at least one of its one or more style features.
A PHOSITA before the effective filing date of the claimed invention would find it obvious to modify Vigneras and Weber with the teachings of Smith. Smith is analogous art in dealing with a system and method for generating an animation of digital components such as digital pages and digital documents arranged with a plurality of templates (par. 49 and par. 87). Smith discloses its use of machine learning is advantageous in identifying styles of digital components to organize templates for generating an animation of digital components (par. 49, 53-55 and 87). Consequently, a PHOSITA would incorporate the teachings of Smith into Vigneras and Weber for identifying styles of digital components to organize templates for generating an animation of digital components. Therefore, claim 4 is rendered obvious to a PHOSITA before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
For claim 5, depending on claim 4, Vigneras as modified by Weber and Smith discloses wherein the first input further comprises contextual data characterizing one or more of: a device type of the client devices, user interface settings, viewing mode, a user profile, digital content presented prior to or concurrently with the animation, or a time of day (Weber similarly discloses a system and method for acquiring an animation template defining a structure for an animation with drop-zones as component slots for holding digital images as digital components (par. 2, 28 and 36); Weber explains its system processes input data of digital content data of the digital images presented concurrently with the animation to determine an animation style with features of the animation, e.g. features of a Ken Burns technique for the animation, and generates animation data defining the animation by applying the determined style features to the digital images and the animation template, e.g. the features of the Ken Burns technique is applied to the digital images and the animation template to define the animation of the digital images (par. 35-36 and 64-70); and it follows Vigneras may be accordingly modified with the teachings of Weber and Smith to process input data comprising its digital content data as contextual data to determine style features of its animation and generate animation data defining its animation by applying the style features to its one or more digital components and its animation template).
For claim 15, depending on claim 12, this claim is a combination of the limitations of claim 12 and claim 4. It follows claim 15 is rejected for the same reasons as to claim 12 and claim 4.
For claim 16, depending on claim 15, this claim is a combination of the limitations of claim 15 and claim 5. It follows claim 16 is rejected for the same reasons as to claim 15 and claim 5.
Claim(s) 6 and 17 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Vigneras in view of Weber further in view of Bekmambetov et al. (U.S. Patent Application Publication 2014/0225899 A1, hereinafter “Bekmambetov”).
For claim 6, depending on claim 1, Vigneras as modified by Weber does not disclose processing an input characterizing one or more of: attributes of the one or more digital components, or contextual information, to select an animation template from a set of animation templates.
However, these limitations are well-known in the art as disclosed in Bekmambetov.
Bekmambetov similarly discloses a system and method for generating an animation in accordance with templates (par. 1). Bekmambetov explains its system processes input characterizing attributes and contextual information of text as digital components such as styles for selecting animation templates from a list (set) of animation templates (par. 99-100, 103, 119 and 129). It follows Vigneras and Weber may be accordingly modified with the teachings of Bekmambetov for processing input characterizing attributes of its one or more digital components or contextual information to set its animation template from a set of animation templates.
A PHOSITA before the effective filing date of the claimed invention would find it obvious to modify Vigneras and Weber with the teachings of Bekmambetov. Bekmambetov is analogous art in dealing with a system and method for generating an animation in accordance with templates (par. 1). Bekmambetov discloses its processing of input characterizing digital components is advantageous in determining and selecting templates to appropriately animate digital components (par. 99-100, 103, 119 and 129). Consequently, a PHOSITA would incorporate the teachings of Bekmambetov into Vigneras and Weber for determining and selecting templates to appropriately animate digital components. Therefore, claim 6 is rendered obvious to a PHOSITA before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
For claim 17, depending on claim 12, this claim is a combination of the limitations of claim 12 and claim 6. It follows claim 17 is rejected for the same reasons as to claim 12 and claim 6.
Claim(s) 7 and 8 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Vigneras in view of Weber further in view of Bekmambetov further in view of Yu et al. (U.S. Patent Application Publication 2022/0180052 A1, hereinafter “Yu”).
For claim 7, depending on claim 6, Vigneras as modified by Weber and Bekmambetov does not disclose receiving a query that comprises characteristics of one or more videos in a video feed, wherein contextual information comprises the characteristics of the one or more videos in the video feed.
However, these limitations are well-known in the art as disclosed in Yu.
Yu similarly discloses a system and method for generating an animation of digital content in accordance with a template (par. 21). Yu explains its system receives a query including characteristics of videos in a video feed to process contextual information of the characteristics of the videos in the video feed to identify and select the template for generating the animation (par. 20, 53, 58-59 and 105). It follows Vigneras, Weber and Bekmambetov may be accordingly modified with the teachings of Yu for receiving a query comprising characteristics of videos in a video feed wherein its contextual information comprises the characteristics of the videos in the video feed.
A PHOSITA before the effective filing date of the claimed invention would find it obvious to modify Vigneras, Weber and Bekmambetov with the teachings of Yu. Yu is analogous art in dealing with a system and method for generating an animation of digital content in accordance with a template (par. 21). Yu discloses its processing of a video feed is advantageous in determining and selecting an animation template to appropriately animate digital components of the video feed (par. 20, 53, 58-59 and 105). Consequently, a PHOSITA would incorporate the teachings of Yu into Vigneras, Weber and Bekmambetov for determining and selecting an animation template to appropriately animate digital components of the video feed. Therefore, claim 7 is rendered obvious to a PHOSITA before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
For claim 8, depending on claim 6, Vigneras as modified by Weber, Bekmambetov and Yu discloses wherein processing the input to select the animation template comprises: processing the input using a second machine learning model to generate an output that identifies the animation template (Yu similarly discloses a system and method for generating an animation of digital content in accordance with a template (par. 21); Yu explains its system receives a query including characteristics of videos in a video feed as input to an artificial intelligence (AI) model as a machine learning model to process contextual information of the characteristics of the videos in the video feed to identify and select the template for generating the animation (par. 20, 53, 58-59 and 105); and it follows Vigneras, Weber and Bekmambetov may be accordingly modified with the teachings of Yu for implementing a sconed machine learning model to process its input to generate an output that identifies its animation template).
Claim(s) 9 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Vigneras in view of Weber further in view of Yu.
For claim 9, depending on claim 1, Vigneras as modified by Weber and Yu discloses wherein obtaining digital content data comprising one or more digital components comprises: receiving a query that comprises characteristics of one or more videos in a video feed; and selecting the one or more digital components based on the characteristics of one or more videos in a video feed (Yu similarly discloses a system and method for generating an animation of digital content in accordance with a template (par. 21); Yu explains its system receives a query including characteristics of videos in a video feed to process contextual information of the characteristics of the videos in the video feed to identify and select the template for generating the animation and to select digital components from the video feed based on the characteristics of the videos in the video feed for inclusion in the template for animation (par. 20, 53, 58-59 and 105); and it follows Vigneras and Weber may be accordingly modified with the teachings of Yu for receiving a query comprising characteristics of videos in a video feed and selecting its one or more digital components based on the characteristics of videos in the video feed).
The rationale for combining Yu with Vigneras and Weber is incorporated from claim 9.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to CHARLES TSENG whose telephone number is (571)270-3857. The examiner can normally be reached 8-5.
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, Xiao Wu can be reached at (571) 272-7761. 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.
/CHARLES TSENG/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2613
Prosecution Insights