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 .
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments, see pages 7-8 of remarks, filed 8/11/2026, with respect to the 112(b) rejections have been fully considered and are persuasive. The 112(b) rejection of claim 5 has been withdrawn.
Applicant's arguments filed 8/11/2026 with respect to Milosevski have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. Specifically, Applicant argues that Milosevski fails to disclose “displaying alert information indicating that the shot video associated with a specific section of video is a mistake shot”. The examiner cannot agree. Applicant points out that the alert information in Milosevski is feedback regarding the current video recording. However, the current claim language does not require the alert information to be anything other than that. Specifically, any video captured includes “a shot video associated with a specific section of video”. Therefore, the current video recording in Milosevski is a shot video associated with a specific section of video.
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.
Claim(s) 1-2, 9-12, 14-16 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Watanabe (US 2023/0199138 A1) in view of Milosevski et al. (US 2015/0189139 A1) hereinafter referenced as Milosevski.
Regarding claim 1, Watanabe discloses
An electronic device for managing video shooting, the electronic device comprising:
a display (fig. 5; [0077]) that displays information with respect to each of a plurality of sections of video (Takes 522; fig. 5; [0079]; Scenes and takes created can be retrieved and played back.) included in a scenario (Scene 521; fig. 5);
an input interface (fig. 5; Touch panel; [0077]) that inputs a user operation;
a memory (301; fig. 3) that stores management information for managing each of the plurality of sections of video included in the scenario (Each take 522 is provided with a rating 511. The rating associated with each take along with association information associating each take with a scene 521 is the management information; fig. 5); and
a controller (110; fig. 1) that controls the display according to the user operation input in the input interface ([0094]-[0095]; The user can start and end recording a video using a plurality of different camera sources using the interface shown in fig. 5), wherein
the controller
receives an instruction to shoot in the input interface (Press of start button 505; fig. 5; [0094]), a video in association with a specific section of the plurality of sections of video,
.
However, Watanabe, fails to explicitly disclose determining whether or not a video is a mistake shot based on audio data and displaying alert information indicating the mistake shot. However, the examiner maintains that it was well known in the art to provide this, as taught by Milosevski.
In a similar field of endeavor, Milosevski discloses the controller (100; fig. 1)…acquires a result of determination processing to determine whether or not the video in association with the specific section of video is a mistake shot, based on audio data in the shot video in association with the specific section of video ([0040]; Audio input analysis component 145 monitors audio input to detect wind noise. Video shot while wind noise is present may be considered a “mistake shot” as claimed.), and
when the acquired result of the determination processing is the mistake shot, displays alert information in association with the specific section of video indicating the mistake shot on the display ([0040]; A graphical icon is displayed that indicates wind noise).
Watanabe teaches a video editing application and interface allowing a user to switch among a plurality of video sources to create different scenes/takes which can then be rated or retaken according to the user’s wishes. Milosevski teaches capturing a video segment and determining whether the video segment has wind noise (is a mistake shot) and providing visual feedback to the user that the video segment is a mistake shot. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to improve Watanabe by applying the technique of Milosevski to achieve the predictable result of notifying a user when a take could possibly be bad so that the user can take action to correct the take.
Regarding claim 2, Watanabe and Milosevski, the combination, discloses everything claimed as applied above (see claim 1), in addition, Milosevski discloses, wherein the determination processing detects noise in the audio data to determine whether or not the video is the mistake shot, based on a detection result of the noise ([0040]).
Watanabe teaches a video editing application and interface allowing a user to switch among a plurality of video sources to create different scenes/takes which can then be rated or retaken according to the user’s wishes. Milosevski teaches capturing a video segment and determining whether the video segment has wind noise (is a mistake shot) and providing visual feedback to the user that the video segment is a mistake shot. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to improve Watanabe by applying the technique of Milosevski to achieve the predictable result of notifying a user when a take could possibly be bad so that the user can take action to correct the take.
Regarding claim 9, Watanabe and Milosevski, the combination, discloses everything claimed as applied above (see claim 1), in addition, Watanabe discloses, further comprising a communication interface (Network I/F 190; fig. 4) that communicates data with an imaging apparatus (1500; fig. 4) for shooting the video, wherein the controller (110; fig. 1) manages the video shot by the imaging apparatus, based on data communication via the communication interface ([0094]; The CPU 110 sends a command to start recording to the video source. The video source is connected via the network interface 190 as shown in fig. 4.).
Regarding claim 10, Watanabe and Milosevski, the combination, discloses everything claimed as applied above (see claim 1), in addition, Watanabe discloses, further comprising an image sensor (1500; fig. 4; The network cameras 1500 inherent have image sensors as this is the only way a video can be captured.) that captures a subject image to generate image data, wherein the controller (110; fig. 1) manages the video including the image data generated by the image sensor (Video is managed by associating takes with a plurality of video sources as shown in section 507 of fig. 5.).
Regarding claim 11, it discloses a method for implementing the apparatus of claim 1. Thus, claim 11 is an inherent variation of claim 1 and is interpreted and rejected for the same reasons as stated above (see claim 1).
Regarding claim 12, Watanabe and Milosevski, the combination, discloses everything claimed as applied above (see claim 11), in addition, Watanabe discloses, A non-transitory computer-readable recording medium storing a program for causing the controller to execute the shooting management method according to claim 11 (OS and programs are stored on RAM 120; [0044], [0060]).
Regarding claim 14, Watanabe and Milosevski, the combination, discloses everything claimed as applied above (see claim 1), in addition, Watanabe discloses, wherein, based on the displayed alert information, the controller receives a further instruction to re-shoot the video in association with a specific section in the input interface (The user is capable of performing retakes for each scene; [0138]. When combined with Milosevski, the user is notified of a mistake shot with a displayed alert (Milosevski; [0040]). Therefore, the combined device is capable of a user recognizing the displayed alert and reshooting based on that alert.).
Regarding claim 15, Watanabe and Milosevski, the combination, discloses everything claimed as applied above (see claim 1), in addition, Milosevski discloses, wherein the alert information indicates that the shot video in association with the specific section is the mistake shot ([0040]; The video on the video screen 120 in this case would be the specific section.).
Watanabe teaches a video editing application and interface allowing a user to switch among a plurality of video sources to create different scenes/takes which can then be rated or retaken according to the user’s wishes. Milosevski teaches capturing a video segment and determining whether the video segment has wind noise (is a mistake shot) and providing visual feedback to the user that the video segment is a mistake shot. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to improve Watanabe by applying the technique of Milosevski to achieve the predictable result of notifying a user when a take could possibly be bad so that the user can take action to correct the take.
Regarding claim 16, Watanabe and Milosevski, the combination, discloses everything claimed as applied above (see claim 1), in addition, Milosevski discloses, wherein the alert information identifies, in a list of the plurality of sections or a plurality of videos, the mistake shot in association with the specific section (Watanabe provides “a list of the plurality of sections or a plurality of videos” (scenes/takes; fig. 5). As admitted by Applicant in the arguments, Milosevski provides the alert information for the currently recorded video ([0040]). Therefore, the alert information has identified the currently recorded video segment as being a mistake shot. When Watanabe and Milosevski are combined, the currently recorded video would be part of the “list of the plurality of sections or plurality of videos”. Therefore, the combination identifies the mistake shot in a list of the plurality of sections or a plurality of videos. It should also be noted that the “list of the plurality of sections or a plurality of videos” is an abstract idea. Specifically, the list can simply exist as simply an idea. The claim does not require the list to be stored in a memory or displayed on the display. Any captured video segment is part of a list of plurality of video segments where that list can be any arbitrary list. Therefore, any video segment being currently recorded identified as being a mistake shot would be “in a list of the plurality of sections or a plurality of videos” as broadly claimed.).
Claim(s) 3 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Watanabe in view of Milosevski further in view of Official Notice.
Regarding claim 3, Watanabe and Milosevski, the combination, discloses everything claimed as applied above (see claim 2), however, the combination fails to explicitly disclose that the noise is detected by separating the sound component from the noise. However, the examiner takes official notice of the fact that it was well known in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention (AIA ) to provide this.
The combination teaches analyzing an audio component to detect noise. Detecting noise in audio by separating sound from noise is well-known. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention (AIA ) to substitute the undisclosed way of detecting the noise in the audio component with separating the noise from a sound component to achieve the predictable result of determining when noise is present in audio.
Claim(s) 4, 6 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Watanabe in view of Milosevski further in view of Okiyama et al. (US 2025/0294311 A1) hereinafter referenced as Okiyama.
Regarding claim 4, Watanabe and Milosevski, the combination, discloses everything claimed as applied above (see claim 2), however, the combination, fails to explicitly disclose the alert information displayed includes timing at which the noise is detected or a volume level of the noise. However, the examiner maintains that it was well known in the art to provide this, as taught by Okiyama.
In a similar field of endeavor, Okiyama discloses wherein the alert information includes at least one of a timing at which the noise is detected or a volume level of the noise in the video ([0126]; fig. 17).
The combination teaches providing a graphical indicator when noise is present in a video. Okiyama teaches providing a graphical indicator including a volume level of noise in the video. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to improve the combination by applying the technique of displaying a volume level of the noise to achieve the predictable result of allowing a user to see how close they are to desirable audio.
Regarding claim 6, Watanabe and Milosevski, the combination, discloses everything claimed as applied above (see claim 1), however, the combination, fails to explicitly disclose controlling the display to visualize a plurality of sound components. However, the examiner maintains that it was well known in the art to provide this, as taught by Okiyama.
In a similar field of endeavor, Okiyama discloses wherein the controller controls the display to visualize a plurality of sound components (fig. 17), based on the user operation input to the input interface ([0099]; The user selects the volume range and the that volume range is used when determining the noise and subject audio; figs. 6, 17), the plurality of sound components being components of an audio indicated by the audio data separated as a plurality of types ([0126]; The indicator on the display shows a ratio between the desired sound and the environmental sound; [0126]).
The combination teaches providing a graphical indicator when noise is present in a video. Okiyama teaches providing a graphical indicator including a volume level of noise in the video. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to improve the combination by applying the technique of displaying a volume level of the noise to achieve the predictable result of allowing a user to see how close they are to desirable audio.
Claim(s) 7 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Watanabe in view of Milosevski further in view of McKinnell et al. (GB 2507729) hereinafter referenced as McKinnell.
Regarding claim 7, Watanabe and Milosevski, the combination, discloses everything claimed as applied above (see claim 1), however, the combination, fails to explicitly disclose setting a criterion for determining that the video is the mistake shot based on the user input. However, the examiner maintains that it was well known in the art to provide this, as taught by McKinnell.
In a similar field of endeavor, McKinnell discloses wherein the controller (4; fig. 1) sets a criterion for determining that the video is the mistake shot in the determination processing, based on the user operation input (9; fig. 1) to the input interface (The user selects how alerts are provided for different analyses for determining errors in the video wherein one of the analyses is an audio analysis for determining noise; 5:17-23, 15:35-49; fig. 3).
The combination teaches determining whether there is noise in a video and then indicating that to the user. McKinnell teaches determining whether there is noise in a video and then indicating that to the user wherein the user has control over what is determined as noise. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to improve the combination by applying the technique of McKinnell to achieve the predictable result of allowing the user to more accurately achieve the video desired.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claim 5 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.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter:
Regarding claim 5, the prior art of record fails to disclose a target is determined to be detected as noise according to the information indicating the sound subject to collect sound when the management information includes information indicating a sound subject to collect sound.
Claim 13 is allowed.
The following is an examiner’s statement of reasons for allowance:
Regarding claim 13, the prior art of record fails to disclose a target is determined to be detected as noise according to the information indicating the sound subject to collect sound when the management information includes information indicating a sound subject to collect sound.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Hosoda et al. (US 2005/0234719 A1) discloses displaying a plurality of video segments along a timeline of a larger video indicating whether or not the video segments reach a desired quality score (fig. 8-9).
Kinuta et al. (US 2025/0308559 A1) discloses displaying management information for a plurality of cuts/takes of a video including ratings for each take (figs.15, 21).
Kinuta et al. (US 2025/0299700 A1) discloses displaying management information for a plurality of cuts/takes of a video including ratings for each take (figs.12, 17).
Kanno et al. (US 2025/0358487 A1) discloses displaying management information for a plurality of cuts/takes of a video including ratings for each take (figs.4, 12).
Kanno et al. (US 2026/0172644 A1) discloses displaying management information for a plurality of cuts/takes of a video including ratings for each take (figs.9, 11).
Patten et al. (US 2007/0074115 A1) discloses displaying management information for a plurality of clips of a video including ratings (432; fig. 5A) for each take.
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 PAUL M BERARDESCA whose telephone number is (571)270-3579. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Thurs 10-8, Fri 10-2.
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, Sinh Tran can be reached at (571)272-7564. 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.
PAUL M. BERARDESCA
Examiner
Art Unit 2637
/PAUL M BERARDESCA/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2637 10/14/2026
Prosecution Insights