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 .
Claims Status
Claims 1-20 are currently pending in the application.
Double Patenting
The non-statutory 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 non-statutory 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 non-statutory 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 non-statutory 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 non-statutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-2, 4-5, 9-14 and 19-20 of US Patent 12,413,829 B2. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because the pending claims 1-12 and Patent Claims 1-10 and 12 are directed to the same invention with a different in scope (broader in scope than the patent claim) and are therefore an obvious variant thereof. (See the mapping of pending claims and patent claims).
Claim 1 in the pending application independent claims is anticipated by conflicting patent independent claim 1.
Claims 2-3 in the pending application is anticipated by conflicting patent claim 9.
Claim 5 in the pending application is anticipated by conflicting patent claim 2.
Claim 6 in the pending application is anticipated by conflicting patent claim 1.
Claim 7 in the pending application is anticipated by conflicting patent claim 4.
Claim 8 in the pending application is anticipated by conflicting patent claim 5.
Claim 9 in the pending application independent claims is anticipated by conflicting patent independent claim 11.
Claims 10-11 in the pending application is anticipated by conflicting patent claim 19.
Claim 13 in the pending application is anticipated by conflicting patent claim 12.
Claim 14 in the pending application is anticipated by conflicting patent claim 13.
Claim 15 in the pending application is anticipated by conflicting patent claim 11.
Claim 16 in the pending application is anticipated by conflicting patent claim 14.
Claim 17 in the pending application independent claims is anticipated by conflicting patent independent claim 20.
Claim 18-19 in the pending application is anticipated by conflicting patent claims 9,19
As to claims 4, 12 and 20 the patent discloses “wherein the video output is an animated video of the target object” in conflicting claim 10.
However, the patent does not explicitly disclose “wherein the text input comprises an image animation request to transform the input image containing the target object into the video output containing the same target object”
In a related art, LIU et al (US 2023/0118966 A1) discloses wherein the text input comprises an image animation request to transform the input image containing the target object into the video output containing the same target object.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the Patent and LIU to arrive at the claimed subject matter, to creating visual storytelling makes information more memorable, and enhanced engagement.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
US 2024/0395061 A1 to JIN et al.
US 12,118,787 B2 to Jin et al.
US 2025/0119624 A1 to Oh et a.
US 2023/0118966 A1 to LIU et al.
US 2024/0087179 A1 to Min et al.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MULUGETA MENGESHA whose telephone number is (469)295-9212. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 9:00AM-5:30PM ET.
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, Benjamin Bruckart can be reached at 571-272-3982. 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.
MULUGETA MENGESHA
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 2424
/Mulugeta Mengesha/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2424
Prosecution Insights