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 .
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments have been fully considered but some of them are not persuasive.
For example, Applicant argues on pg. 8 “…Svendsen merely describes receiving a modified version of the first timeline from the client and the modified version is stored on a database. Svendsen does not describe user input, or input analysis. Accordingly, Svendsen fails to teach or suggest "analyzing the input information by the user received from the client," as recited in Claim 1.”
Examiner contends that Svendsen’s abstract reads “…The present disclosure provides a method for analyzing an input by a user received by a client on a server…”. Furthermore, Svendsen shows that the user edits the content (i.e. provides user input, Fig. 5 and para. 65), which is then sent to the server for analysis (Fig. 4 and para. 63). Therefore, the argument is rendered unpersuasive.
Applicant continues on pg. 9” “…Svendsen is silent regarding any transmission step and Svendsen fails to describe sending rendered output or media data to the client for display. That is, Svendsen fails to describe sending changed content from the server to the client, and client receiving updated rendered media. Accordingly, Svendsen fails to teach or suggest "changing the content to be displayed by the client based on a result of the analysis; and sending the changed content to the client," as recited in Claim 1.
Examiner contends that Svendsen clearly shows transmission of content from the server (Fig. 4 and para. 59) and to the server (Fig. 4 and para. 63). Furthermore, Svendsen shows that previously edited/created content is stored on the server (i.e. “latest version”, paras. 22 and 59). This content is sent to the client for display (i.e. preview, para. 69). Therefore, the argument is rendered unpersuasive.
Also, Applicant’s remaining arguments with respect to the amendments have been considered but are moot in view of the new grounds of rejection (see below).
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)(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 and 3 – 9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Svendsen et al. (US Pub. No. 2012/0254752 A1).
As to claims 1, 8 and 9, Svendsen shows a method, an associated server and an associated non-transitory computer readable medium (Fig. 6 and para. 78) for analyzing an input by a user (i.e. editing, for example) received by a client on a server (Figs. 4 and 5 and paras. 63 and 65); the method comprising of; sending a content to be displayed by the client from the server to the client (Figs. 3 and 5 paras. 55 and 69), wherein the content comprises one or more 3d objects (i.e. 3D video, para. 67); receiving from the client, an input information (i.e. modification) by the user to the client (Fig. 3 and para. 56) while the content is displayed (i.e. via a preview, for example, Fig. 5 and para. 69), wherein the input information comprises a request to modify a 3D object of the one or more 3D object (i.e. video, para. 67): analyzing the input information by the user received from the client; and changing the content to be displayed by the client based on the result of the analysis (i.e. replacing the previous version, Fig. 3 and paras. 22, 56 and 59): and sending the changed content to the client (i.e. rendering the newly edited content, Figs. 3 and 5 paras. 57 and 69).
As to claim 3, Svendsen shows that the content is a content in a space of three or more dimensions (i.e. 3D video, para. 67).
As to claim 4, Svendsen shows that the content is generated in three dimensions (i.e. 3D video, para. 67).
As to claim 5, Svendsen shows receiving from the client, time information when the input information by the user is made (i.e. date of creation of content, duration information, etc., Fig. 5 and para. 69); and accumulating and analyzing the time information (i.e. including time information in the content and providing it back to the client for display, Fig. 5 and para. 69), wherein the changing the content comprises changing the content to be displayed by the client based on a result of the analysis of the input information and the time information (i.e. including time information in the content and providing it back to the client for display, Fig. 5 and para. 69).
As to claim 6, Svendsen shows receiving from the client, time information when the input information by the user is made and information on an event generated by the input information (i.e. date of creation of content, duration information, etc., Fig. 5 and para. 69).
As to claim 7, Svendsen shows analyzing the time information and the information on the event generated by the input information (i.e. including time information in the content and providing it back to the client for display, Fig. 5 and para. 69), wherein the changing the content comprises changing the content to be displayed by the client based on a result of the analysis of the input information, the time information, and the information on the event (i.e. including time information in the content and providing it back to the client for display, Fig. 5 and para. 69).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claim 2 is 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.
Specifically, Svendsen shows that the input information by the user includes a request to redraw one of the one or more 3D objects (i.e. delete and add new content, Fig. 5 and paras. 73 and 74); wherein the changing the content to be displayed by the client comprises redrawing the one of the one or more 3D objects (i.e. delete and add new content, Fig. 5 and paras. 73 and 74); wherein the method further comprises: encoding the content information as a stream (Fig. 5 and paras. 50 and 70); and wherein the sending the changed content to the client comprises sending the changed content as the stream to the client (Fig. 5 and paras. 50 and 70).
Svendsen does not show extracting color information, alpha information, and geometry information from the redrawn 3D object, and simplifying the geometry information.
The prior art does not show this configuration; therefore, this claim contains allowable subject matter.
CONCLUSION
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to CARL ADAMS whose telephone number is (571)270-7448. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday, 9AM - 5PM 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, Ke Xiao can be reached at 571-272-7776. 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.
/CARL ADAMS/ Examiner, Art Unit 2627
Prosecution Insights