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 .
Priority
Receipt is acknowledged of certified copies of papers required by 37 CFR 1.55.
Drawings
The drawings were received on 05/27/2025. These drawings are acceptable.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101
35 U.S.C. 101 reads as follows:
Whoever invents or discovers any new and useful process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter, or any new and useful improvement thereof, may obtain a patent therefor, subject to the conditions and requirements of this title.
Claim 17 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to non-statutory subject matter. The claim(s) does/do not fall within at least one of the four categories of patent eligible subject matter.
Regarding claim 17, the claim is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because "storage medium” as claimed, per se do not fit within recognized categories of statutory subject matter. "Storage medium” in light of the supporting disclosure is broad enough to encompass transitory embodiments. Transitory signals are not within one of the four statutory categories (i.e. non-statutory subject matter). See MPEP 2106(I); In re Nuijten, 500 F.3d 1346, 1357 (Fed. Cir. 2007). However, claims directed toward a non-transitory computer readable medium may qualify as a manufacture and make the claim patent-eligible subject matter. MPEP 2106(II)(A).
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.
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.
Claims 1, 2, 9, 10, 17, and 18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Mahar et al. US 2025/0047969 A1, hereafter Mahar, in view of Herberger et al. US 2005/0084232 A1, hereafter Herberger.
Regarding claim 1, Mahar discloses a video processing method (user interaction method) [title], comprising:
in response to a template editing operation input for a video template (when the second user selects to use the template, the template system 230 provides a user interface to the second user; displays a media selection interface) [0095; 0122], displaying a plurality of slots corresponding to the video template (provides a user interface to the second user, for selecting the video/photos for assigning to the media slots; the media selection interface includes a media slot for each of the media slots) [0095; 0122], the slots corresponding to a first material used for making the video template (videos/photos; each media slot is assignable to a respective video or photo that is selectable by the user) [0095; 0122];
in response to a material addition operation input for the slots (the media selection interface provides for the second user to select the video/photo from a media library…the selectable videos/photos may be presented as respective tiles in a grid, which each tile being selectable for assigning to the corresponding media slot) [0123], adding a second material into a triggered first slot among the plurality of slots (assigns a respective video/photo to each media slot) [0096]; and
in response to a video generation operation (generates the media content item in response to user input selecting an element (e.g., a check button) confirming that the media content item is complete) [0130], generating a target video based on the second material and the video template (generates a media content item based on the template and on the second user input. Based on the sequence of media slots as defined by the template…combine the respective video and/or photos assigned to the media slots…to generate the media content item) [0130].
However, while Mahar discloses automatically filling empty slots with material (with proper user permissions, the interaction server system 110 may be configured to preselect videos/photos from the media library based on context of the video/photos…that matches context of the template) [0170], Mahar fails to explicitly disclose in response to a video generation operation, when the plurality of slots comprise a second slot not filled with the second material, adding a third material into the second slot, and generating a target video based on the second material, the third material and the video template.
Herberger, in an analogous environment, discloses in response to a video generation operation, when the plurality of slots comprise a second slot not filled with the second material, adding a third material into the second slot (when the template is rendered and/or viewed that the cells which are empty simply be omitted from the rendering and/or viewing. Other variations are certainly possible including, for example, automatic selection of a themed movie clip to fill in a video cell which is empty) [0053], and
generating a target video based on the second material, the third material and the video template (render completed video work and store 250) [FIG. 2].
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use the filling of an empty video cell, as disclosed by Herberger, with the invention disclosed by Mahar, the motivation being assisting a user quickly organize video images into a coherent work [0007].
Regarding claim 2, Mahar and Herberger address all of the features with respect to claim 1 as outlined above.
Mahar further discloses the adding a third material into the second slot comprises: determining a third material to be added into the second slot according to the second material added into the first slot, and adding the third material into the second slot (with proper user permissions, the interaction server system 110 may be configured to preselect videos/photos from the media library based on context of the video/photos…that matches context of the template) [0170].
Claims 9 and 10 are drawn to an electronic device adapted to implement the method of claims 1 and 2, and are therefore rejected in the same manner as above. However, the claims also recite one or more processor and a storage apparatus, which Mahar also teaches (processors 1504, memory 1506) [0207].
Storage medium claims 17 and 18 are drawn to the instructions corresponding to claims 1 and 2, and are therefore rejected in the same manner as above. However, the claims also recite one or more processor and a storage apparatus, which Mahar also teaches (processors 1504, memory 1506) [0207].
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 3-8, 11-16, and 19-20 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.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure: Kim et al. US 2011/0041086 A1 discloses a video editing user interface with slots for adding video, image and audio material. Zhu et al. US 2025/0287076 A1 discloses automatic generation of video templates including filling out empty slots of a video editing interface. Lui et al. US 2005/0213656 A1 discloses reorganizing video data portions.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to STEFAN GADOMSKI whose telephone number is (571)270-5701. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday, 12-8PM 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, Jay Patel can be reached at 571-272-2988. 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.
STEFAN GADOMSKI
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 2485
/STEFAN GADOMSKI/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2485
Prosecution Insights