DETAILED ACTION
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
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 person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 1-4 and 6-11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Ishida et al., US 2017/0085786.
1 and 10 and 11. Ishida teaches an electronic device for managing video shooting with a scenario including a plurality of sections, the electronic device comprising:
a controller, memory, and program [Fig. 2A, paras. 25-27] to:
a display that displays information [Figs. 1, 2, 3A, paras. 24, 25, 31, 33, 44, 48];
an input interface that inputs a user operation [input unit, Figs. 2A, 3A, 3B, paras. 33, 44]; and
a controller that controls the display in accordance with the user operation input from the input interface, wherein the controller causes the display to display a selection screen including the plurality of sections and the input interface to receive the user operation selecting a specific section from the plurality of sections [user can select a section from displayed selection screen, S303, Fig. 3A, paras. 43-45], and
in response to shooting of a video associated with the specific section, the controller causes the display to display a rating screen to acquire rating information from the input interface, the rating screen prompting the user to rate the video, and the rating information indicating a user rating of the video [user is prompted to rate the displayed video, either OK or NG (no good), Fig. 3B, paras. 47, 48].
2. Ishida teaches the electronic device according to claim 1, wherein the controller updates the selection screen in accordance with the acquired rating information, to identify whether the video shooting of the specific section is completed or not, the specific section being associated with the video of which the user rating is indicated by the rating information [selection screen is changed to display shown in S304 based on a rating of the specific section as NG in S307, Figs. 3A, 3B, paras. 45, 48, 49].
3. Ishida teaches the electronic device according to claim 1, wherein when the rating information for every video associated with the specific section indicates a first rating, the controller identifies that the video shooting of the specific section is not completed, and when the rating information for at least one video associated with the specific section indicates a second rating different from the first rating, the controller identifies that the video shooting of the specific section is completed [for each section, a rating of OK results in the video being identified as completed, and a rating of NG results in the video being identified as not completed and the display returning to S304, Figs. 3A, 3B, paras. 48, 49].
4. Ishida teaches the electronic device according to claim 1, wherein the controller has a playback mode to play a shot video on the display, and the controller receives, by the input interface, the user operation changing a rating of a playable video in the playback mode, to update the selection screen in accordance with the changed rating [S307 shows a playback mode (see play control on video) and user can change the rating to either OK or NG which results in either S308 or screen shown in S304, Figs. 3A, 3B, paras. 48, 49].
6. Ishida teaches the electronic device according to claim 1, wherein the controller receives the user operation providing an additional section from the plurality of sections in the scenario by the input interface, and updates the selection screen to include the additional section [selection of any section (i.e. “additional” sections may be selected) updates the display shown in S304 to show the selected section, Fig. 3A, paras. 43-45].
7. Ishida teaches the electronic device according to claim 1, further comprising a memory that stores management information managing the video associated with each section of the plurality of sections in the scenario, wherein the controller causes the display to display the selection screen, based on the management information [all steps are implemented/managed based on programs and data stored in memory, Fig. 2A, paras. 25-31].
8. Ishida teaches the electronic device according to claim 1, further comprising a communication interface that communicates data with an imaging apparatus for shooting the video, wherein the controller manages the video shot by the imaging apparatus, based on the data communication via the communication interface [communication unit 116 and processor 111 implement the method based on communicated data, Fig. 2A, para. 32].
9. Ishida teaches the electronic device according to claim 1, further comprising an image sensor that captures a subject image to generate image data, wherein the controller manages the video including the image data generated by the image sensor [camera 30, Figs. 1, 2A, paras. 25, 30].
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.
Claim 5 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ishida as cited above in view of Hayakawa, US 2018/0220014.
5. Ishida is silent on filtering the sections (e.g. templates) by location. Hayakawa teaches a system wherein the controller receives, by the input interface, the user operation selecting a shooting location for the video shooting, and updates the selection screen to narrow down the plurality of sections in accordance with the selected shooting location [e.g. sections/templates are selected (narrowed down) based on location, Figs. 5, 11, paras. 75, 92].
Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to one skilled in the art to combine the references, giving the user a convenient manner to select multiple sections or shooting templates with one action (filtering by location).
Other Relevant Prior Art
Also considered relevant to the present invention is Ishii, US 2012/0237178, Figs. 5, 7, 12 and Li, US 2023/0353844, Figs. 1, 2, 4, 10, 16.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Timothy R Newlin whose telephone number is (571)270-3015. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8-5 Mountain Time.
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, Benjamin Bruckart can be reached at 571-272-3982. 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.
/TIMOTHY R NEWLIN/ Examiner, Art Unit 2424