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 .
35 USC § 101
Claims 1 – 20 are considered to be patent eligible under 101.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 4 – 10, 14-16 and 20 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.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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 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)(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.
Claim(s) 1, 3, 11, 13, 17 and 19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Benedetto et al. (US 20240299851 A1).
Regarding claim 1 Benedetto teaches a method comprising (See title, “Methods And Systems For Artificial Intelligence (AI)-Based Storyboard Generation”):
presenting a storyboard user interface (See Fig. 1A, ¶23, Fig. 1 labels the interface AI-Based Storyboard Generator), wherein the storyboard user interface includes a visual media timeline (See Fig. 1A. Fig. 1 illustrates a visual media time line from either the path starting from frame 1 image to the end path Frame N Description or the scrolling portion at the bottom which includes element 119, 121, 123A, 123B pulls ¶23-24 for further support of the figure and figure elements ) and a representation of a first frame located on the visual media timeline (See Fig. 1A element 109-1 Frame 1 Image ¶27);
receiving, by the storyboard user interface, an input prompt (See Fig. 1A element 151, ¶23) to be associated with the first frame (See Fig 1 A element 101, 151, 108, 109-1, ¶23-¶27. ¶27, “When the initial seed input is received through the seed input control 101 and the go control 107 is first activated by the user, the AI-based storyboard generator conveys the initial seed input as input to a first AI model (AI1) and executes the first AI model (AI1) to automatically generate a first frame image 109-1 based on the initial seed input, as indicated by arrow 108. The first frame image 109-1 and the initial seed input are stored together to define a first frame of the storyboard. It should be understood that while the first frame image 109-1 is based on the initial seed input, the first frame image 109-1[…]”), wherein the input prompt can include prompt text and visual media (See Fig. 1A, ¶23, “ FIG. 1A shows a user interface 100A for an AI-based storyboard generator set to operate in a free-run mode, in accordance with some embodiments. The user interface 100A includes a seed input control 101 through which a user is able to enter an initial seed input for the AI-based storyboard generation process. In some embodiments, the seed input control 101 includes a text entry field 151 that provides for specification of the initial seed input in a textual format. In some embodiments, the initial seed input is provided in an image format. In some embodiments, an image selection control 152 is provided to enable navigation to and selection of an image file to be used as the initial seed input.” The visual media is 152, the image selection control.); and
sending the input prompt to a visual media generative response engine to generate output visual media in response to the input prompt (See Fig. 1 101, 108, 109-1 […] -> 111-N and 128 Render. ¶23-¶35. The examiner notes the AI-Based Storyboard Generator is a visual media generative based upon response. As per ¶67, “ In some embodiments, the AI-based storyboard generator 717 includes a controller 722 that is configured to manage the provision and operation of the user interfaces 100A, 100B, 100C, 200, and 300, as well as direct the operation of the deep learning engine 725 to perform the methods disclosed herein.” Meaning the AI-based story board generator is carried out by an engine as cited in Fig. 1.)
Regarding claim 3, Benedetto teaches the method of claim 1, wherein the input prompt sent to the visual media generative response engine includes the first frame and prompt text that instructs to generate the output visual media from the first frame, and the output visual media responsive to the input prompt includes the first frame as part of the visual media responsive to the input prompt (See Fig. 1A and ¶23-35. Fig. 1A shows a text prompt 151 that instructs generation from one 108 to the frame 109-1. This frame is outputted from Render 128.).
Claim 11 recites similar limitations to that of claim 1 but doesn’t explicitly disclose A non-transitory computer-readable storage medium comprising instructions that when executed by at least one processor, cause the at least one processor to:
Benedetto teaches a non-transitory computer-readable storage medium comprising instructions that when executed by at least one processor, cause the at least one processor to (See ¶80-81, ¶88).
Thus claim 11 is rejected under similar rationale as detailed above for claim 1.
Claim 13 recites similar limitation to that of claim 3 and thus is rejected under similar rationale above.
Claim 17 recites similar limitations to that of claim 1 but doesn’t explicitly disclose a system comprising: at least one processor; and a memory storing instructions that, when executed by the at least one processor, configure the system to:
Benedetto teaches a system comprising: at least one processor; and a memory storing instructions that, when executed by the at least one processor, configure the system to (See ¶3 and ¶81):
Thus claim 17 is rejected under similar rationale as detailed above for claim 1.
Claim 19 recites similar limitation to that of claim 3 and thus is rejected under similar rationale above.
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 nonobviousness.
Claim(s) 2, 12 and 18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Benedetto et al. (US 20240299851 A1) in view of Santos et al. (US 12,513,374 B2).
Regarding claim 2, Benedetto teaches the method of claim 1, further comprising:
receiving a command to generate the output visual media by the visual media generative response engine, wherein the input prompt associated with the first frame is provided to the visual media generative response engine along (See claim 1 rejection above) but doesn’t explicitly disclose with a first timestamp indicating that the input prompt describes a desired output frame at the first timestamp that is based off the input prompt; and
receiving the output visual media having a frame corresponding to the input prompt at the first timestamp.
Santos teaches with a first timestamp indicating that the input prompt describes a desired output frame at the first timestamp that is based off the input prompt (See abstract, “The present document discloses a method to generate a database for synchronization of a text, a video and/or audio media, namely a computer-implemented method to generate a database for synchronization of a text, a video and/or audio media with a video stream to be generated using said database, comprising the steps of: receiving an input text; splitting the input text into text segments; clustering the text segments into at least one text group; labelling each text segment with a sequential timestamp; and, storing each text segment with the label on a data record wherein the text group comprises a time interval label which corresponds to the duration of at least a portion of a video and/or audio media. It is further disclosed a method for retrieving information from said database, a system, and a computer program thereof.”); and
receiving the output visual media having a frame corresponding to the input prompt at the first timestamp (See col. 3 lines 8-16, “In an embodiment, the input text is a screenplay. It is further disclosed, a computer-implemented method for retrieving information from said database, by a user selection on a video and/or audio media comprising the steps: selecting a frame from said video and/or audio media; identifying a timestamp of said frame; retrieving from said database the text group which comprises that timestamp; and, outputting the text group related with the selected frame.”).
Therefore it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine Benedetto in view of Santos as doing so would synchronize and help organize all of the data, eliminate discrepancies and reducing the need for manual entry in an efficient way.
Claim 12 and 18 recites similar limitations to that claim 2 and thus is rejected under similar rationale as detailed above.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ROBERT J CRADDOCK whose telephone number is (571)270-7502. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 10:00 AM - 6 PM EST.
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, Devona E Faulk can be reached at 571-272-7515. 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.
/ROBERT J CRADDOCK/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2618
Prosecution Insights