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 .
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.
Priority
Receipt is acknowledged of certified copies of papers required by 37 CFR 1.55.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 09/09/2025 was filed on or after the effective filing date of the instant application on 01/24/2025. The submission is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement is being considered by the examiner.
Double Patenting
The nonstatutory double patenting rejection is based on a judicially created doctrine grounded in public policy (a policy reflected in the statute) so as to prevent the unjustified or improper timewise extension of the “right to exclude” granted by a patent and to prevent possible harassment by multiple assignees. A nonstatutory double patenting rejection is appropriate where the conflicting claims are not identical, but at least one examined application claim is not patentably distinct from the reference claim(s) because the examined application claim is either anticipated by, or would have been obvious over, the reference claim(s). See, e.g., In re Berg, 140 F.3d 1428, 46 USPQ2d 1226 (Fed. Cir. 1998); In re Goodman, 11 F.3d 1046, 29 USPQ2d 2010 (Fed. Cir. 1993); In re Longi, 759 F.2d 887, 225 USPQ 645 (Fed. Cir. 1985); In re Van Ornum, 686 F.2d 937, 214 USPQ 761 (CCPA 1982); In re Vogel, 422 F.2d 438, 164 USPQ 619 (CCPA 1970); In re Thorington, 418 F.2d 528, 163 USPQ 644 (CCPA 1969).
A timely filed terminal disclaimer in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(c) or 1.321(d) may be used to overcome an actual or provisional rejection based on nonstatutory double patenting provided the reference application or patent either is shown to be commonly owned with the examined application, or claims an invention made as a result of activities undertaken within the scope of a joint research agreement. See MPEP § 717.02 for applications subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA as explained in MPEP § 2159. See MPEP § 2146 et seq. for applications not subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA . A terminal disclaimer must be signed in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(b).
The filing of a terminal disclaimer by itself is not a complete reply to a nonstatutory double patenting (NSDP) rejection. A complete reply requires that the terminal disclaimer be accompanied by a reply requesting reconsideration of the prior Office action. Even where the NSDP rejection is provisional the reply must be complete. See MPEP § 804, subsection I.B.1. For a reply to a non-final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.111(a). For a reply to final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.113(c). A request for reconsideration while not provided for in 37 CFR 1.113(c) may be filed after final for consideration. See MPEP §§ 706.07(e) and 714.13.
The USPTO Internet website contains terminal disclaimer forms which may be used. Please visit www.uspto.gov/patent/patents-forms. The actual filing date of the application in which the form is filed determines what form (e.g., PTO/SB/25, PTO/SB/26, PTO/AIA /25, or PTO/AIA /26) should be used. A web-based eTerminal Disclaimer may be filled out completely online using web-screens. An eTerminal Disclaimer that meets all requirements is auto-processed and approved immediately upon submission. For more information about eTerminal Disclaimers, refer to www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/applying-online/eterminal-disclaimer.
Claims 1-5, 7, 9-12, 15 and 17 are provisionally rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-2, 5-6, 8-9, 12-13, 16-17 and 19-20 of copending Application No. 19/042,319 (reference application). Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because:
Regarding claim 1, the instant application claim 1 and the reference application claim 1 are both drawn to the same invention.
The claims differ in scope since the instant application claim 1 is broader in every aspect than the reference application claim 1 and is therefore an obvious variant thereof.
Claim 1 of the instant application is anticipated by the reference application claim 1 in that claim 1 of the reference application contains all the limitations of claim 1 of the instant application. Claim 1 of the instant application therefore is not patently distinct from the reference application claim and as such is unpatentable for obvious-type double patenting.
Claim 2 corresponds to the reference application claim 6.
Claim 3 corresponds to the reference application claim 2.
Claim 4 corresponds to the reference application claim 8.
Claim 5 corresponds to the reference application claim 9.
Claim 7 corresponds to the reference application claim 5.
Claim 9 corresponds to the reference application claim 12.
Claim 10 corresponds to the reference application claim 17.
Claim 11 corresponds to the reference application claim 13.
Claim 12 corresponds to the reference application claim 19.
Claim 15 corresponds to the reference application claim 16.
Claim 17 corresponds to the reference application claim 20.
This is a provisional nonstatutory double patenting rejection because the patentably indistinct claims have not in fact been patented.
Claims 1-2, 9-10 and 17-18 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1 and 17-18 of U.S. Patent No. 12,562,194. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because:
Regarding claim 1, the instant application claim 1 and the US patent claim 1 are both drawn to the same invention.
The claims differ in scope since the instant application claim 1 is broader in every aspect than the patent claim 1 and is therefore an obvious variant thereof.
Claim 1 of the instant application is anticipated by the patent claim 1 in that claim 1 of the patent contains all the limitations of claim 1 of the instant application. Claim 1 of the instant application therefore is not patently distinct from the earlier patent claim and as such is unpatentable for obvious-type double patenting.
Claim 2 corresponds to the patent claim 1.
Claims 9-10 correspond to the patent claim 17.
Claims 17-18 correspond to the patent claim 18.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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)(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, 3-5, 7-9, 11-13, 15-17 and 19-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Edson (US 2024/0273796).
Regarding claim 1, Edson discloses a method for generating media content, comprising:
in response to receiving a content generation request, presenting a configuration interface comprising at least a first input component and a second input component (Figures 4C; ¶ [0029], ¶ [0035] and ¶ [0061] for presenting a user interface having two buttons for obtaining inputs in response to user’s content generation request);
obtaining a plurality of reference images via the first input component and a prompt item via the second input component (Figures 4D-4E; ¶ [0029], ¶ [0035]-[0036] and ¶ [0061]-[0063] for obtaining reference image or image file and text instructions); and
generating a target media content based on the plurality of reference images and the prompt item (Figures 4F-4H; ¶ [0029], ¶ [0052]-[0053], ¶ [0063]-[0067] for generating an animated image file based on selected reference image or image file and the text instructions), wherein the target media content comprises a plurality of frames corresponding to the plurality of reference images (Figures 5A-5E and 8-9 for the animated image file generated from a plurality of frames corresponding to reference image file).
Regarding claim 3, Edson discloses the method as discussed in the rejection of claim 1. Edson further discloses wherein presenting the configuration interface comprises: receiving a selection for a target generation mode among a plurality of candidate generation modes; and presenting the configuration interface corresponding to the target generation mode (Figures 4C-4F and 4K).
Regarding claim 4, Edson discloses the method as discussed in the rejection of claim 1. Edson further discloses wherein the configuration interface further comprises a third input component, and the method further comprises: obtaining at least one media parameter via the third input component, such that the target media content is further generated based on the at least one media parameter (Figures 4F-4G and 4L-4N).
Regarding claim 5, Edson discloses the method as discussed in the rejection of claim 4. Edson further discloses wherein the at least one media parameter comprises at least one of: a first media parameter indicating an action amplitude of the media content to be generated; a second media parameter indicating lens information of the media content to be generated; or a third media parameter indicating scale information of the media content to be generated (¶ [0036], ¶ [0048] and ¶ [0081]-[0086]).
Regarding claim 7, Edson discloses the method as discussed in the rejection of claim 1. Edson further discloses wherein positions of the plurality of frames in the target media content are determined based on a configuration operation (¶ [0046]-[0050]).
Regarding claim 8, Edson discloses the method as discussed in the rejection of claim 1. Edson further discloses wherein obtaining the plurality of reference images via the first input component comprises: determining, based on a selection of an existing video content, a target image in the existing video content as the reference image in the plurality of reference images (Figures 4D-4E; ¶ [0029], ¶ [0035]-[0036] and ¶ [0061]-[0063]).
Regarding claim 9, all functionalities of an electronic device are analyzed and rejected corresponding to claim 1. Edson discloses an electronic device comprising at least one processor; and at least one memory, wherein the at least one memory is coupled to the at least one processor and stores instructions for execution by the at least one processor (Figure 1).
Regarding claims 11-13 and 15-16, all limitations of claims 11-13 and 15-16 are analyzed and rejected corresponding to claims 3-5 and 7-8 respectively.
Regarding claims 17 and 19-20, all limitations of claims 17 and 19-20 are analyzed and rejected corresponding to claims 1 and 3-4 respectively.
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.
Claims 2, 6, 10, 14 and 18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Edson (US 2024/0273796) in view of Khan (US 2022/0020396).
Regarding claim 2, Edson discloses the method as discussed in the rejection of claim 1. Edson further discloses generating the target media content based on the plurality of reference images and the prompt item (Figures 4F-4H).
Edson is silent about determining a reference start frame of media content to be generated based on a first image in the plurality of reference images; determining a reference end frame of the media content to be generated based on a second image in the plurality of reference images; and generating the target media content based on the reference start frame, the reference end frame, and the prompt item.
Khan discloses generating the target media content based on the plurality of reference images and the prompt item comprising determining a reference end frame of the media content to be generated based on a second image in the plurality of reference images; and generating the target media content based on the reference start frame, the reference end frame, and the prompt item (¶ [0020]-[0021] and ¶ [0072]-[0076]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Edson system with the teaching of Khan about determining reference start and end frames for each video clip to be generated corresponding to selected label item, so to identify and generate intelligent temporal segments of media content in order to improving temporal consistency between a plurality of generated video clips.
Regarding claim 6, Edson discloses the method as discussed in the rejection of claim 1. Edson further discloses the configuration interface comprises a control component indicating a target control mode (Figures 4G and 4O-4R), but is silent about a frame control component, and determining a target reference image in the plurality of reference images as an end frame of the target media content in response to the frame control component indicating a target control mode.
Khan discloses a configuration interface comprises a frame control component, and determining a target reference image in the plurality of reference images as an end frame of the target media content in response to the frame control component indicating a target control mode (Figures 8A-8B, 9A-9B and 10A-10B; and ¶ [0096]-[0104]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Edson system with the teaching of Khan about the configuration interface comprises a frame control component, so to enhance user control and interaction with processing of generating target media content.
Regarding claims 10 and 14, all limitations of claims 10 and 14 are analyzed and rejected corresponding to claims 2 and 6 respectively.
Regarding claim 18, all limitations of claim 18 are analyzed and rejected corresponding to claim 2.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to GIGI L DUBASKY whose telephone number is (571)270-5686. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 9:00-5:00.
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 at 571-272-1915. 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.
/GIGI L DUBASKY/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2421