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 .
DETAILED ACTION
Claim Objections
Claim 5 recites “wherein of obtaining a” wherein ‘of’ is construed as a typographical issue. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION. The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointingout and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as theinvention.
Claims 6, 10, 11, 18, 21 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b), as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor, or for pre-AIA the applicant regards as the invention.
Claims 6, 18, 21 each recite “for a third object to be edited ordered first” and “for a third object to be edited not ordered first” whereby it is unclear if the ‘edited ordered first’ applies to an object ‘to be ordered in sequence’ or ‘appearing in sequence’ as well as how/why the ‘third’ object differs from other ordered objects. Appropriate clarification is required.
Claim 10 recites “in response to monitor that the user performs edit processing” whereby it is unclear if the limitation should read ‘a monitor’ or if ‘monitoring’ was intended. Appropriate clarification is required.
Claim 11 recites “providing instructions for use of the editing tool at a designated position of the video editing interface” whereby it is unclear if the ‘instructions’ or ‘editing tool’ is at a ‘designated‘ position. Appropriate clarification is required.
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 non-obviousness.
Claims 1, 3, 10-11, 13-14 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over GUPTA et al. (Pub. No: US 2022-0222875) in view of MASON et al. (US Pub. No: 2024-0361994).
As per Claim 1 GUPTA discloses An editing method, comprising (Figs. 1-5 [Abstract]):
presenting objects to be edited and editing tools on an editing interface, wherein the editing tools are configured for triggering editing operations on the objects to be edited (Figs. 1-5C plurality image by image editing [Abstract] UI interface [0031] objects for editing [0045, 0053] for multitool editing and input of user values, objects [0090-0092, 0095-0096]);
in response to triggering a first editing tool in the editing tools for a first object to be edited in the objects to be edited (Figs. 1-5C tool/input generated triggers [0064-0067]), performing edit processing on the first object to be edited by executing a preset script corresponding to the first editing tool, so as to obtain a second object to be edited (Figs. 1-5C object specific presets [0031] script driven automation for editing plurality of objects and edits – next successive edit for and newly generated object [0049] [0064-0067] [0074]);
in response to triggering a second editing tool in the editing tools for a third object to be edited in the objects to be edited (Figs. 1-5 multiple target objects for edition and plurality of tools [0034-0035] [0053] for multitool editing and input of user values, objects [0090-0092, 0095-0096]);
generating a target based on at least one of the second object to be edited and the fourth object to be edited (Figs. 1-5 resultant output based on plurality of successive direct/indirect edits and presentation of streamline successive and related images [0034])
GUPTA does not disclose but MASON discloses video editing ([0195][0226] [0255-0256]); presenting a script editing interface of the third object to be edited (Figs. 1-2, 3B, 3H, 4A script editor 4200 for plurality of object edits [0029] [0146]), acquiring a target script input in the script editing interface and performing edit processing on the third object to be edited by executing the target script, so as to obtain a fourth object to be edited (Figs. 1-2, 3B, 3H disclosing UI editor for scripts [0020]; Figs. 4A, 17A, 18 custom scripts [0083-0084] making edits to scripts effecting changes to related objects encompassing target script [0146, 0148] [0193] rapid editing of objects [0261-0262]); a target video ([0195][0226] [0255-0256])
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to include video editing; presenting a script editing interface of the third object to be edited, acquiring a target script input in the script editing interface and performing edit processing on the third object to be edited by executing the target script, so as to obtain a fourth object to be edited; a target video as taught by MASON into the system of GUPTA because of the benefit taught by MASON to include script and object editing which improves and expands upon GUPTA that uses scripts for object editing and would have exceptional ability to control edits with the inclusion of MASON to tailor custom script development.
As per Claim 3 GUPTA discloses The method according to claim 1, wherein
GUPTA does not disclose but MASON discloses a script editing window through which script codes can be entered is presented on the script editing interface (Figs. 1-2, 3B, 3H, 4A, 17A, 18 disclosing UI window editor for scripts [0020] [0083-0084] making edits to scripts effecting changes to related objects encompassing target script [0146, 0148] [0193]); the acquiring a target script input in the script editing interface comprises (Figs. 1-2, 3B, 3H, 4A, 17A, 18 [0020] [0083-0084]): acquiring script codes entered by a user through the script editing window (Fig. 4C script 4300 [0144, 0146, 0148]); and obtaining a target script based on the script codes entered by the user (Figs. 1-2, 3B, 4A-C [0020] [0144, 0146, 0148] [0193]) (The motivation that applied in Claim 1 applies equally to Claim 3).
As per Claim 10 GUPTA discloses The method according to claim 1, further comprising:
in response to monitor that the user performs edit processing on a fourth object to be edited through the first editing tool (Figs. 1-5 UI monitor - multiple target objects for edition and plurality of tools [0034-0035] [0053] for multitool editing and input of user values, objects [0090-0092, 0095-0096]), modifying a target for generating the fourth object to be edited based on the edit processing way corresponding to the first editing tool (Figs. 1-5 resultant output based on plurality of successive direct/indirect edits and presentation of streamline successive and related images [0034]).
GUPTA does not disclose but MASON discloses modifying a target script (Figs. 1-2, 3B, 3H disclosing UI editor for scripts [0020] [0083-0084] making edits to scripts effecting changes to related objects encompassing target script [0146, 0148] [0193] rapid editing of objects [0261-0262]) (The motivation that applied in Claim 1 applies equally to Claim 10)
As per Claim 11 GUPTA discloses The method according to claim 1, further comprising:
providing instructions for use of the editing tool at a designated position of the video editing interface (Figs. 1-5C plurality image by image editing [Abstract] UI interface [0031] objects for editing [0045, 0053] for multitool editing and input of user values, objects [0090-0092, 0095-0096]); wherein the instructions for use comprise a script language instruction and a script function instruction corresponding to the objects to be edited (Figs. 1-5C object specific presets [0031] script driven automation for editing plurality of objects and edits – next successive edit for and newly generated object [0049] [0064-0067] [0074]).
As per Claim 13 GUPTA discloses An electronic device, comprising (Figs 1-5): a processor (Figs. 1-5 [0146]); and a memory for storing executable instructions of the processor (Figs. 1-5 [0146]); wherein the processor is configured for reading the executable instructions from the memory and executing the executable instructions so as to implement an editing method comprising (Figs. 1-5 [Abstract] [0146]): presenting objects to be edited and editing tools on an editing interface, wherein the editing tools are configured for triggering editing operations on the objects to be edited (See said analysis for Claim 1); in response to triggering a first editing tool in the editing tools for a first object to be edited in the objects to be edited (See said analysis for Claim 1), performing edit processing on the first object to be edited by executing a preset script corresponding to the first editing tool, so as to obtain a second object to be edited (See said analysis for Claim 1); in response to triggering a second editing tool in the editing tools for a third object to be edited in the objects to be edited (See said analysis for Claim 1), and generating a target based on at least one of the second object to be edited and the fourth object to be edited (See said analysis for Claim 1)
GUPTA does not disclose but MASON discloses video editing (See said analysis for Claim 1); presenting a script editing interface of the third object to be edited, acquiring a target script input in the script editing interface (See said analysis for Claim 1), and performing edit processing on the third object to be edited by executing the target script, so as to obtain a fourth object to be edited (See said analysis for Claim 1); a target video (See said analysis for Claim 1)
As per Claim 14 GUPTA discloses A non-transitory computer readable storage medium storing a computer program for executing the editing method comprising (Figs. 1-5 [Abstract] [0146]):
presenting objects to be edited and editing tools on an editing interface, wherein the editing tools are configured for triggering editing operations on the objects to be edited (See said analysis for Claim 1); in response to triggering a first editing tool in the editing tools for a first object to be edited in the objects to be edited (See said analysis for Claim 1), performing edit processing on the first object to be edited by executing a preset script corresponding to the first editing tool, so as to obtain a second object to be edited (See said analysis for Claim 1); in response to triggering a second editing tool in the editing tools for a third object to be edited in the objects to be edited (See said analysis for Claim 1), and generating a target based on at least one of the second object to be edited and the fourth object to be edited (See said analysis for Claim 1)
GUPTA does not disclose but MASON discloses video editing (See said analysis for Claim 1); presenting a script editing interface of the third object to be edited, acquiring a target script input in the script editing interface (See said analysis for Claim 1), and performing edit processing on the third object to be edited by executing the target script, so as to obtain a fourth object to be edited (See said analysis for Claim 1); a target video (See said analysis for Claim 1)
Claims 2, 16, 20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over GUPTA et al. (Pub. No: US 2022-0222875) in view of MASON et al. (US Pub. No: 2024-0361994), as applied in Claims 1, 3, 10-11, 13-14, and further in view of CARPENTER (US Pub. No: 2010-0058220)
As per Claim 2 GUPTA discloses The method according to claim 1, wherein
GUPTA and MASON do not disclose but CARPENTER discloses a video editing track is presented on the video editing interface (in at least Figs. 2-3), and the objects to be edited comprise at least one of elements on the video editing tack and attributes of the target video (Figs. 2-5 editing for meta-content video tracks [Abstract] [0366-0369] user input controls for the data object editing and features for the target instant video [0476]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to include a video editing track is presented on the video editing interface, and the objects to be edited comprise at least one of elements on the video editing tack and attributes of the target video as taught by CARPENTER into the system of GUPTA and MASON because of the benefit taught by CARPENTER to include video track production along with increased and improved media asset editing functionality which will extend the capabilities of GUPTA and MASON as both are directed towards media asset edition systems.
As per Claim 16 GUPTA discloses The electronic device according to claim 13, wherein
GUPTA and MASON do not disclose but CARPENTER discloses a video editing track is presented on the video editing interface, and the objects to be edited comprise at least one of elements on the video editing tack and attributes of the target video (See said analysis for Claim 2).
As per Claim 20 GUPTA discloses The non-transitory computer readable storage medium according to claim 14 (See said analysis for Claim 14), wherein
GUPTA and MASON do not disclose but CARPENTER discloses a video editing track is presented on the video editing interface, and the objects to be edited comprise at least one of elements on the video editing track and attributes of the target video (See said analysis for Claim 2).
Claim 9 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over GUPTA et al. (Pub. No: US 2022-0222875) in view of MASON et al. (US Pub. No: 2024-0361994), as applied in Claims 1, 3, 10-11, 13-14, and further in view of ZHANG et al. (US Pub. No: 2018-0373792).
As per Claim 9 GUPTA discloses The method according to claim 1, wherein; the method further comprises: editing interface (See said analysis for Claim 1) presenting an editing effect corresponding to the target script (Figs. 1-5C object specific presets [0031] script driven automation for editing plurality of objects and edits – next successive edit for and newly generated object [0049] [0064-0067] [0074]);
GUPTA and MASON do not disclose but ZHANG discloses a preview player is also presented on the video interface (Figs. 1-3 [0015-0017]); presenting on the preview player (Figs. 1-3 [0015-0017])
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to include a preview player is also presented on the video interface; presenting on the preview player as taught by ZHANG into the system of GUPTA and MASON because of the benefit taught by ZHANG to include a preview feature to assist with media development whereby GUPTA and MASON are directed towards media asset editing tools and would benefit from previewing prior to live execution for better system development.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 4-8, 17-19, 21-22 is/are objected to as being dependent upon the 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, and but for the outstanding rejections under 35 U.S.C. section 112(b).
Claims 4-8, 17-19, 21-22 is/are allowed, but for the outstanding rejections under 35 U.S.C. section 112(b). The following is an examiner’s statement of reasons for allowance:
As per Claim 4 the prior art of record either alone or in reasonable combination fails to teach or suggest “The method according to claim 1, wherein a script acquisition link is presented on the script editing interface; the acquiring a target script input in the script editing interface comprises: in response to the script acquisition link being triggered, jumping to a script library; wherein the script library comprises at least one of a personal script library and a public script library; acquiring a script selected by a user from the script library; and obtaining a target script based on the script selected by the user” These limitations in combination with the other limitations of the independent claim are thus deemed allowable.
As per Claim 5 the prior art of record either alone or in reasonable combination fails to teach or suggest “The method according to claim 4, wherein of obtaining a target script based on the script selected by the user comprises: in response to determine that the user performs editing for the selected script, taking the edited script as the target script” These limitations in combination with the other limitations of the independent claim are thus deemed allowable.
As per Claim 6 the prior art of record either alone or in reasonable combination fails to teach or suggest “The method according to claim 1, wherein the third object to be edited comprises a plurality of third objects to be edited, and the performing edit processing on the third object to be edited by executing the target script comprises: based on start times indicated in the target scripts corresponding to the plurality of third objects to be edited, ordering the target scripts corresponding to the plurality of third objects to be edited in an ascending order of time; for a third object to be edited ordered first, when a current time reaches the start time corresponding to the third object to be edited, performing edit processing on the third object to be edited by executing the target script corresponding to the third object to be edited; and for a third object to be edited not ordered first, when a target script corresponding to a previous third object to be edited of the third object to be edited has been executed and the current time reaches the start time corresponding to the third object to be edited, performing edit processing on the third object to be edited by executing the target script corresponding to the third object to be edited” These limitations in combination with the other limitations of the independent claim are thus deemed allowable.
As per Claim 7 the prior art of record either alone or in reasonable combination fails to teach or suggest “The method according to claim 6, further comprising: in response to determine that a target script corresponding to the third object to be edited indicates that the start time corresponding to the third object to be edited is modified, re-ordering the target scripts corresponding to the plurality of third objects to be edited in an ascending order of time” These limitations in combination with the other limitations of the independent claim are thus deemed allowable.
As per Claim 8 the prior art of record either alone or in reasonable combination fails to teach or suggest “The method according to claim 6, further comprising: building a tree diagram based on hierarchical relationships among the plurality of third objects to be edited; determining a script initialization order of the plurality of third objects to be edited according to the tree diagram and a preset traversal algorithm; and executing an initialization operation on the target scripts of the plurality of the third objects to be edited based on the script initialization order” These limitations in combination with the other limitations of the independent claim are thus deemed allowable.
As per Claim 17 the prior art of record either alone or in reasonable combination fails to teach or suggest “The electronic device according to claim 13, wherein a script acquisition link is presented on the script editing interface; the acquiring a target script input in the script editing interface comprises: in response to the script acquisition link being triggered, jumping to a script library; wherein the script library comprises at least one of a personal script library and a public script library; acquiring a script selected by a user from the script library; and obtaining a target script based on the script selected by the user” These limitations in combination with the other limitations of the independent claim are thus deemed allowable.
As per Claim 18 the prior art of record either alone or in reasonable combination fails to teach or suggest “The electronic device according to claim 13, wherein the third object to be edited comprises a plurality of third objects to be edited, and the performing edit processing on the third object to be edited by executing the target script comprises: based on start times indicated in the target scripts corresponding to the plurality of third objects to be edited, ordering the target scripts corresponding to the plurality of third objects to be edited in an ascending order of time; for a third object to be edited ordered first, when a current time reaches the start time corresponding to the third object to be edited, performing edit processing on the third object to be edited by executing the target script corresponding to the third object to be edited; and for a third object to be edited not ordered first, when a target script corresponding to a previous third object to be edited of the third object to be edited has been executed and the current time reaches the start time corresponding to the third object to be edited, performing edit processing on the third object to be edited by executing the target script corresponding to the third object to be edited” These limitations in combination with the other limitations of the independent claim are thus deemed allowable.
As per Claim 19 the prior art of record either alone or in reasonable combination fails to teach or suggest “The electronic device according to claim 18, the video editing method further comprising: building a tree diagram based on hierarchical relationships among the plurality of third objects to be edited; determining a script initialization order of the plurality of third objects to be edited according to the tree diagram and a preset traversal algorithm; and executing an initialization operation on the target scripts of the plurality of the third objects to be edited based on the script initialization order” These limitations in combination with the other limitations of the independent claim are thus deemed allowable.
As per Claim 21 the prior art of record either alone or in reasonable combination fails to teach or suggest “The non-transitory computer readable storage medium according to claim 14, wherein the third object to be edited comprises a plurality of third objects to be edited, and the performing edit processing on the third object to be edited by executing the target script comprises: based on start times indicated in the target scripts corresponding to the plurality of third objects to be edited, ordering the target scripts corresponding to the plurality of third objects to be edited in an ascending order of time; for a third object to be edited ordered first, when a current time reaches the start time corresponding to the third object to be edited, performing edit processing on the third object to be edited by executing the target script corresponding to the third object to be edited; and for a third object to be edited not ordered first, when a target script corresponding to a previous third object to be edited of the third object to be edited has been executed and the current time reaches the start time corresponding to the third object to be edited, performing edit processing on the third object to be edited by executing the target script corresponding to the third object to be edited” These limitations in combination with the other limitations of the independent claim are thus deemed allowable.
As per Claim 22 the prior art of record either alone or in reasonable combination fails to teach or suggest “The non-transitory computer readable storage medium according to claim 21, the video editing method further comprising: building a tree diagram based on hierarchical relationships among the plurality of third objects to be edited; determining a script initialization order of the plurality of third objects to be edited according to the tree diagram and a preset traversal algorithm; and executing an initialization operation on the target scripts of the plurality of the third objects to be edited based on the script initialization order” These limitations in combination with the other limitations of the independent claim are thus deemed allowable.
The closest prior art of record GUPTA for Claims 4-8, 17-19, 21-22 does not teach all the elements in combination with the other limitations of the independent claim. GUPTA only discloses presenting objects to be edited and editing tools on an editing interface, wherein the editing tools are configured for triggering editing operations on the objects to be edited and in response to triggering a first editing tool in the editing tools for a first object to be edited in the objects to be edited, performing edit processing on the first object to be edited by executing a preset script corresponding to the first editing tool, so as to obtain a second object to be edited. The prior art further discloses that in response to triggering a second editing tool in the editing tools for a third object to be edited in the objects to be edited, generating a target based on at least one of the second object to be edited and the fourth object to be edited.
Any comments considered necessary by applicant must be submitted no later than the payment of the issue fee and, to avoid processing delays, should preferably accompany the issue fee. Such submissions should be clearly labeled “Comments on Statement of Reasons for Allowance.”
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to EILEEN M ADAMS whose telephone number is 571-270-3688. The examiner can normally be reached on Monday-Friday from 8:30am-5:00pm EST. If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner's supervisor, William Vaughn can be reached on (571) 272-3922. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-270-4688.
Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. Should you have any questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/EILEEN M ADAMS/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2481
Prosecution Insights