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 .
Double Patenting
The nonstatutory double patenting rejection is based on a judicially created doctrine grounded in public policy (a policy reflected in the statute) so as to prevent the unjustified or improper timewise extension of the “right to exclude” granted by a patent and to prevent possible harassment by multiple assignees. A nonstatutory double patenting rejection is appropriate where the conflicting claims are not identical, but at least one examined application claim is not patentably distinct from the reference claim(s) because the examined application claim is either anticipated by, or would have been obvious over, the reference claim(s). See, e.g., In re Berg, 140 F.3d 1428, 46 USPQ2d 1226 (Fed. Cir. 1998); In re Goodman, 11 F.3d 1046, 29 USPQ2d 2010 (Fed. Cir. 1993); In re Longi, 759 F.2d 887, 225 USPQ 645 (Fed. Cir. 1985); In re Van Ornum, 686 F.2d 937, 214 USPQ 761 (CCPA 1982); In re Vogel, 422 F.2d 438, 164 USPQ 619 (CCPA 1970); In re Thorington, 418 F.2d 528, 163 USPQ 644 (CCPA 1969).
A timely filed terminal disclaimer in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(c) or 1.321(d) may be used to overcome an actual or provisional rejection based on nonstatutory double patenting provided the reference application or patent either is shown to be commonly owned with the examined application, or claims an invention made as a result of activities undertaken within the scope of a joint research agreement. See MPEP § 717.02 for applications subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA as explained in MPEP § 2159. See MPEP § 2146 et seq. for applications not subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA . A terminal disclaimer must be signed in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(b).
The filing of a terminal disclaimer by itself is not a complete reply to a nonstatutory double patenting (NSDP) rejection. A complete reply requires that the terminal disclaimer be accompanied by a reply requesting reconsideration of the prior Office action. Even where the NSDP rejection is provisional the reply must be complete. See MPEP § 804, subsection I.B.1. For a reply to a non-final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.111(a). For a reply to final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.113(c). A request for reconsideration while not provided for in 37 CFR 1.113(c) may be filed after final for consideration. See MPEP §§ 706.07(e) and 714.13.
The USPTO Internet website contains terminal disclaimer forms which may be used. Please visit www.uspto.gov/patent/patents-forms. The actual filing date of the application in which the form is filed determines what form (e.g., PTO/SB/25, PTO/SB/26, PTO/AIA /25, or PTO/AIA /26) should be used. A web-based eTerminal Disclaimer may be filled out completely online using web-screens. An eTerminal Disclaimer that meets all requirements is auto-processed and approved immediately upon submission. For more information about eTerminal Disclaimers, refer to www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/applying-online/eterminal-disclaimer.
Claims 1-20 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-20 of U.S. Patent No. 12,327,574. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because
Regarding claim 1 of the instant application:
Claim 1 of the instant application
Claim 1 of US 12,327,574
1. A method in a data processing system for providing overlapping time range redactions in media items, the method comprising:
receiving, by a processor, a media item comprising video or audio;
receiving, by the processor, a set of redactions associated with the media item including a first redaction and a second redaction, wherein the first redaction corresponds to a first time range within the media item and the second redaction corresponds to a second time range within the media item, and wherein the first time range overlaps with the second time range;
1. A method in a data processing system for providing overlapping time range redactions in media items, the method comprising:
receiving, by a processor, a media item comprising video or audio;
receiving, by the processor, a set of redactions associated with the media item including a first redaction and a second redaction, wherein the first redaction corresponds to a first time range within the media item and the second redaction corresponds to a second time range within the media item, and wherein the first time range overlaps with the second time range;
assigning, by the processor, an initial region to a duration of media item, the initial region being unassociated with any redactions; and
for each redaction in the set of redactions:
determining whether each redaction overlaps another redaction; and
after determining that a given redaction overlaps the another redaction, splitting by the processor, a region in an overlapping region into two new regions;
for each redaction in the set of redactions, determining, by the processor, whether a given redaction starts after an end of a preceding redaction;
in response to the given redaction starting after the end of the preceding redaction:
introducing, by the processor, two new regions to the duration of the media item including a first region adjacent to a second region, wherein the first region represents the given redaction, wherein the second region represents a remaining duration of the media item, and wherein the second region is unassociated with any redactions; and
determining, by the processor, a set of non-overlapping time ranges based on the set of redactions, wherein the set of redactions comprises the two new regions; and
(Claims 2, 3 and 5 of instant application is noted here as being anticipated by claim 1 of US 12,237,574)
in response to the given redaction starting before the end of the preceding redaction:
splitting, by the processor, a region containing a start time of the given redaction into two new regions at the start time of the given redaction; and
in response to the given redaction ending before the end of the preceding redaction:
splitting, by the processor, a region containing an end time of the given redaction into another two new regions at the end time of the given redaction, wherein the given redaction is associated with each region between the start time and the end time of the given redaction;
determining, by the processor, a set of non-overlapping time ranges based on the set of redactions; and
associating, by the processor, redaction information with individual non-overlapping time ranges, wherein the redaction information relates to two or more redactions in the set of redactions.
associating, by the processor, redaction information with individual non-overlapping time ranges, wherein the redaction information relates to two or more redactions in the set of redactions.
As noted in the table above, each of the limitations of claim 1 of the instant application is broader than and encompassed by the corresponding and narrower limitations of claim 1 of US 12,327,574 and is therefore fully anticipated under the grounds for nonstatutory double patenting.
Independent claim 14 of the instant application is also fully anticipated by claim 14 of US 12,327,574 for the same comparison as discussed above. The limitations correspond to one another.
Claims 2-5 of the instant application is also fully anticipated by claim 1 of US 12,237,574 (see table above).
Claims 6-8 of the instant application is also fully anticipated by claims 5 and 8-9, respectively, of US 12,237,574.
Claim 9 of the instant application is also fully anticipated by claim 6 of US 12,237,574.
Claims 10-13 of the instant application are also fully anticipated by claims 10-13, respectively, of US 12,237,574.
Platform claims 15-20 of the instant application are rejected for the same reasons as discussed in method claims 2-5, 8 and 13, respectively.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 1-20 are allowed over any prior art rejections, however, are still rejected under double patenting as discussed above.
The following is an examiner’s statement of reasons for allowance: the closest prior art in Sharma et al. (US 2012/0110455), Zarom (US 2010/0174783) and O’Brien et al. (US 2010/0169786) fail to teach the following limitations of “receiving, by a processor, a media item comprising video or audio; receiving, by the processor, a set of redactions associated with the media item including a first redaction and a second redaction, wherein the first redaction corresponds to a first time range within the media item and the second redaction corresponds to a second time range within the media item, and wherein the first time range overlaps with the second time range; for each redaction in the set of redactions: determining whether each redaction overlaps another redaction; and after determining that a given redaction overlaps the another redaction, splitting by the processor, a region in an overlapping region into two new regions; determining, by the processor, a set of non-overlapping time ranges based on the set of redactions, wherein the set of redactions comprises the two new regions; and associating, by the processor, redaction information with individual non-overlapping time ranges, wherein the redaction information relates to two or more redactions in the set of redactions” as recited in Independent claim 1 and similarly recited in claim 14. Sharma and Zarom teaches a collaborative video editing by multiple users on the same set of video content. The video edits are aggregated together to generate a final edit on the video content. O’Brien teaches a collaborative video tagging system that allows multiple users to tag portions of the video content to be shared with other user for online collaboration. Whereas the limitations above are different in nature of its set of redactions, assigning initial region of durations, finding sets of non-overlapping redactions wherein the set of redactions comprises the two new regions, associating redaction information with individual non-overlapping time ranges, wherein the redaction information relates to two or more redactions in the set of redactions, etc. in the underlined portion above.
Furthermore, the underlined claim limitations above as recited in claims 1 and 14 appear to fall outside of the abstract idea groupings (as per 2019 Revised Patent Subject Matter Eligibility Guidance (PEG)) including mathematical concepts, mental process and certain methods of organizing human activity. The claimed limitations are stated in such a manner the processes aren’t broad enough (for each of the claims as a whole) for them to fall into one of the three groupings of abstract ideas.
So as indicated by the above statements, the closest prior art as discussed above, either singularly or in combination, fail to anticipate or render the above combination of the discussed features/limitations obvious and additionally, applicant’s arguments have been considered persuasive, in light of the claim limitations as well as the enabling portions of the specification.
The dependent claims further limit the independent claims and are considered allowable on the same basis as the independent claims as well as for the further limitations set forth.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to GELEK W TOPGYAL whose telephone number is (571)272-8891. The examiner can normally be reached M-F (9:30-6 PST).
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, William Vaughn can be reached at 571-272-3922. 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.
/GELEK W TOPGYAL/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2481
Prosecution Insights