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
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 1-24 of U.S. Patent No. 11,915,722. 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 instant application
Claim 1 of US 11,915,722
A computing device comprising:
one or more processors; and
a tangible, non-transitory computer-readable medium comprising instructions that, when executed by the one or more processors, cause performance of a set of operations comprising:
identifying a search query;
accessing a video sequence;
1.A system comprising:
a memory that stores instructions;
one or more databases that store a plurality of music tracks and a plurality of video sequences; and
one or more processors configured by the instructions to perform operations comprising:
identifying a plurality of transitions within a video sequence; and
accessing a music track from the one or more databases, the music track having a tempo corresponding to a frequency of beats in the music track and one or more portions;
measuring respective distances between successive frames in the individual video sequence;
based on a plurality of the respective distances between successive frames in the individual video sequence, identifying transitions within the individual video sequence, wherein the identified transitions include a first transition after a beginning of the individual video sequence and a second transition before an end of the individual video sequence, and wherein the identified transitions indicate one or more events of the individual video sequence; and
accessing a video sequence;
accessing an individual video sequence from the one or more databases;
generating an audio/video sequence that comprises the video sequence and a portion of a music track, wherein the portion of the music track comprises a subset portion of at least one of: (i) a chorus of the music track and (ii) a verse of the music track, and wherein generating the audio/video sequence comprises modifying a duration of the video sequence between the plurality of transitions such that the plurality of transitions align with respective beats of the subset portion of the music track.
generating an audio/video sequence that comprises the individual video sequence and at least one of the one or more portions of the music track, wherein the at least one of the one or more portions of the music track is a subset portion of at least one of: (i) a chorus of the music track; and (ii) a verse of the music track, and wherein generating the audio/video sequence comprises modifying a duration of the individual video sequence between the first and second transitions so that the first and second transitions align with respective beats of the at least one of the one or more portions of the music track and identifying the at least one of the one or more portions of the music track based on a duration of the audio/video sequence.
As seen above in the table, each and every limitation of claim 1 of the instant application is broader than and fully encompassed by the limitations of claim 1 of US 11,915,722 and is therefore fully anticipated and rejected under Double Patenting.
Claims 2-11 of the instant application are similarly rejected because of claims 1 and claims 2-14 of US 11,915,722.
NTCRM claims 12-19 are also rejected for the same reasons as discussed above in claims 1-8 of the instant application.
Method claim 20 is also rejected for the same reasons as discussed above in claim 1 of the instant application.
Claims 1-20 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-2 of U.S. Patent No. 12,400,683. 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 instant application
Claim 18 of US 12,400,683
A computing device comprising:
one or more processors; and
a tangible, non-transitory computer-readable medium comprising instructions that, when executed by the one or more processors, cause performance of a set of operations comprising:
identifying a search query;
accessing a video sequence;
A computing device comprising:
one or more processors; and
a tangible, non-transitory machine-readable medium comprising instructions that, when executed by the one or more processors, cause the computing device to perform a set of operations comprising:
accessing a music track comprising a tempo corresponding to a frequency of beats in the music track; accessing a video sequence;
identifying a plurality of transitions within a video sequence; and
identifying a plurality of transitions within the video sequence; and
accessing a video sequence;
generating an audio/video sequence that comprises the video sequence and a portion of a music track, wherein the portion of the music track comprises a subset portion of at least one of: (i) a chorus of the music track and (ii) a verse of the music track, and wherein generating the audio/video sequence comprises modifying a duration of the video sequence between the plurality of transitions such that the plurality of transitions align with respective beats of the subset portion of the music track.
generating an audio/video sequence that comprises the video sequence and a portion of the music track, wherein the portion of the music track is identified based on a duration of the audio/video sequence, and wherein the portion of the music track comprises a subset portion of at least one of: (i) a chorus of the music track and (ii) a verse of the music track, and wherein generating the audio/video sequence comprises modifying a duration of the video sequence between the plurality of transitions such that the plurality of transitions align with respective beats of the subset portion of the music track.
As seen above in the table, each and every limitation of claim 1 of the instant application is broader than and fully encompassed by the limitations of claim 18 of US 12,400,683 and is therefore fully anticipated and rejected under Double Patenting.
Claims 2-11 of the instant application are similarly rejected because of claims 1 & 18 and claims 2-14 of US 12,400,683.
NTCRM claims 12-19 are also rejected for the same reasons as discussed above in claims 1-8 of the instant application.
Method claim 20 is also rejected for the same reasons as discussed above in claim 1 of the instant application.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 6/30/2026 is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement is being considered by the examiner.
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 of this title, 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.
Claims 1-8, 12-18 and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lothian et al. (US 2015/0160916) in view of Matias et al. (US 9,838,731) and further in view of Zhiwen (US 2017/0026719).
Regarding claims 1, 12 and 20, Lothian teaches a computing device comprising:
one or more processors (paragraphs 5 and 64-66 and 69-70 teaches a processor that performs the system's functions); and
a tangible, non-transitory computer-readable medium comprising instructions that, when executed by the one or more processors (paragraphs 5 and 64-66 and 69-70 teaches a processor that performs the system's functions), cause performance of a set of operations comprising:
accessing a video sequence (Fig. 2, step 204 and paragraphs 33-37 teaches accessing the system 102 to acquire a plurality of video clips);
While Lothian teaches an input video sequence, fails to explicitly teach, however, Matias teaches
identifying a plurality of transitions within a video sequence (Figs. 7E and 7F and col. 20, lines 18-28 and col. 20, line 66-col. 21, line 10); and
generating an audio/video sequence that comprises the video sequence and a portion of a music track, and, wherein the portion of the music track comprises a subset portion of at least one of: (i) a chorus of the music track and (ii) a verse of the music track (Matias partially teaches the claimed in Figs. 7A-7F, wherein the segments within the video sequence are altered in length/duration such that the visual events are aligned with the audio events/beats. The generation of this altered version is termed the revised version of the video clip. Col. 3, lines 1-46 teaches wherein the duration of the video is adjusted to allow for the generation of the revised version of the video clip), and
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the current application to incorporate the teachings of Matias into the system of Lothian such that Lothian can utilize the teachings of Matias to determine transitions within a particular track and to alter the duration of the video segments within between the first and second transitions, because such incorporation allows for the benefit of reducing timing constraints and for automatically generating a video summary (Matias: col. 1, lines 8 through col. 2, line 34).
However, while Matias in its combination with Lothian teaches the claimed as discussed above teaches aligning visual events with audio events/beats including searching user’s video’s by content criteria (Paras. 34-35), fails to explicitly teach that the portion of the music track includes a particular segment and therefore fails, however, Zhiwen teaches:
identifying a search query (Figs. 1D-1E and paragraphs 0015-0017);
wherein the portion of the music track comprises a subset portion of at least one of: (i) a chorus of the music track and (ii) a verse of the music track (paragraph 32 teaches portions of an audio track, including refrains, chorus, crescendos, etc.)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the current application to incorporate the teachings of Zhiwen into the proposed combination of Lothian and Matias such that the visual segments that are aligned with audio portion utilizes Zhiwen to identify specific portions of the audio track (such as the chorus or verse), because such incorporation allows for the benefit of improving the user friendliness of the system by automatically generating an initial version of a video sequence and reducing the amount of work needed to be completed by a user (Zhiwen: paragraph 14).
As to claim 12, the non transitory computer readable storage medium comprising instructions to be executed by one or more processors is discussed in system claim above.
Regarding claim 2, Lothian as modified by Zhiwen teaches the claimed wherein the search query comprises a video content search query (Lothian teaches accessing video clips by searching the user’s video according to selection criteria (Lothian paragraphs 33-34), and Zhiwen teaches identifying a search query to locate an audio track (Zhiwen in Figs. 1D-1E and paragraphs 0015-0017) and , once the user selected the audio track, accessing the visual files for the composition (Zhiwen: paragraph 0016). The prior motivation as discussed above is incorporated herein and furthermore it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the current application to access Lothian’s video sequence in response to Zhiwen’s identified search query, so that video retrieval proceeds from the user’s search input and the composition workflow stays streamlined (see Zhiwen: paragraphs 0012 and 0016), yielding predictable results.
Regarding claim 3, Lothian as modified by Zhiwen teaches the claimed wherein the search query comprises a music content search query. Lothian teaches searching the user’s videos according to video content criteria, such as the most colorful videos, the sharpest videos, and videos containing the best facial expression (Lothian: paragraphs 0034-0035), and Zhiwen teaches identifying a user-entered search query to retrieve media from a media database that includes videos (Zhiwen: Figs. 1D-1E and paragraphs 0015-0017). The prior motivation as discussed above is incorporated herein and furthermore it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the current application to direct Zhiwen’s search query to video content, as Lothian does with its video content search criteria, so the user can locate desired video content among a large collection. This applies a known search technique to a known type of media and yields predictable results.
Regarding claim 4, Lothian as modified by Zhiwen teaches the claimed wherein accessing the video sequence comprises accessing the video sequence in response to identified search query (Lothian: paragraphs 34-35 and Zhiwen: Figs. 1D-1E and paragraphs 0015-0017 results in accessing and presenting video sequences).
Regarding claim 5, Lothian as modified by Zhiwen teaches wherein accessing the video sequence is based on the identified search query (Lothian: paragraphs 34-35 and Zhiwen: Figs. 1D-1E and paragraphs 0015-0017. As further discussed in claims 2-3 above, Lothian teaches a video search).
Regarding claim 6, Lothian teaches wherein generating the audio/video sequence comprises generating the audio/video sequence with a predetermined duration (as discussed in claims 1, 12 and 20 above, Lothian teaches that with respect to the movie providing the determination of a predetermined duration (paragraphs 41 and 61)).
Regarding claim 7, Lothian teaches the claimed wherein generating the audio/video sequence comprises generating the audio/video sequence with a duration equal to the duration of the music track (as discussed in claims 1, 12 and 20 above, Lothian teaches that with respect to the movie providing the determination of a predetermined duration (paragraphs 41 and 61).
Regarding claim 8, Lothian teaches the claimed wherein generating the audio/video sequence comprises generating the audio/video sequence with a user-selected duration (paragraph 41 teaches that “a user may request a particular movie length”).
Claim 13 is rejected for the same reasons as discussed in claims 2-3 above. Additionally, examiner notes that the limitation in claim 13 is presented in the alternative and either claim 2 or 3, or both meets the claimed (if both are to be considered together).
Claims 14-18 are rejected for the same reasons as discussed above in claims 4-8, respectively.
Claims 10-11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lothian et al. (US 2015/0160916) in view of Matias et al. (US 9,838,731) and further in view of Zhiwen (US 2017/0026719) and further in view of Ratakonda (US 5,995,095).
Regarding claim 10, the proposed combination of Lothian, Matias and Zhiwen fails to teach, however, Ratakonda teaches wherein the system further comprises: measuring respective distances between successive frames in the video sequence (col. 4, lines 37-65 teaches wherein shot boundaries are detected on an input video sequence to detect a number of shots in the video sequence by determining the frames that start the shot and end the shot based on “color histograms” that represents the feature vectors of each video frame are compared to a difference threshold); and
based on a plurality of the respective distances between successive frames in the video sequence, identifying transitions within the video sequence (col. 4, lines 37-65 teaches wherein shot boundaries are detected on an input video sequence to detect a number of shots in the video sequence. Therefore, the video sequence includes a plurality of shots/events that are identified after the beginning of the video input and identified before the end of the video input).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the current application to incorporate the teachings of Ratakonda into the proposed combination of Lothian, Matias and Zhiwen such that meaningful portions of an input video are identified (Ratakonda: col. 1, lines 25 – col. 2, line 37).
Regarding claim 11, Ratakonda teaches the claimed wherein the identified transitions include a first transition after a beginning of the video sequence and a second transition before an end of the video sequence, and wherein the identified transitions indicate one or more events of the video sequence (col. 4, lines 37-65 teaches wherein shot boundaries are detected on an input video sequence to detect a number of shots in the video sequence. Therefore, the video sequence includes a plurality of shots/events that are identified after the beginning of the video input and identified before the end of the video input). The prior motivation as discussed in claim 10 above is incorporated herein.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 9 and 19 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.
Claims 9 and 19 recites the same language that was included in allowed claim 1 in parent application’s 18/407,9020 (now US Patent No. 12,400,683) and is therefore 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
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
