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 .
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 1, 7, 9, 14, and 16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Truong et al. (US 2025/0140292 A1 – hereinafter Truong).
Regarding claim 1, Truong discloses a video recording apparatus (Fig. 18; [0178]-[0179] – apparatus 1800) comprising at least one processor (Fig. 18; [0178]-[0179] – processor(s) 1814) and a memory storing instructions that are operable, when executed by the processor (Fig. 18; [0177]-[0180] – memory 1812), to cause the apparatus to: receive a recorded video object that is configured to cause playback, on a client device, of a video recording of at least one speaker (Fig. 2 – receiving input video 204 that is configured to cause playback, on a client device 102 as further shown in Fig. 1A, of a video recording of at least one speaker as further shown at least in Figs. 7A-7L); generate a transcript of the video recording based on the recorded video object ([0046] – generating an augmented transcript of the video recording based on the input video, e.g. generating augmented transcript for each visual scene followed by each sentence an a speaker ID for each sentence as further shown in Fig. 5); cause rendering of a video edit prompt interface to a display of the client device (Fig. 7B; [0146] – rendering a video edit prompt interface 710B to a display); receive video edit instructions following user interaction with the video edit prompt interface (Fig. 7B; [0146] – following user interaction with the video edit prompt interface such as to create a title for the trimmed video, insert a query, such as a topic for the trimmed video, and select a desired duration of the trimmed video, receiving edit instructions as further described at least in [0157]-[0158] to select a video segment and apply at least a face-aware scale magnification effect to the video segment); identify a replacement portion of the recorded video object based on the video edit instructions (Fig. 7G – identifying a replacement portion, i.e. the video segment after the video segment of Fig. 7F and before the video segment of Fig. 7H); generate an alternate video segment using a video segment replacement model (Fig. 7G; [0152] – generating an alternate video segment, in which a face-aware scale magnification effect is applied using face-aware scale magnification effect model 192 shown in Fig. 1A); and generate an updated recorded video object that includes the alternate video segment in place of the replacement portion (Fig. 7G; [0152] – generating an edited recorded video object that includes the video segment with the applied effect).
Regarding claim 7, Truong also discloses the video recording apparatus of claim 1, wherein the video edit prompt interface is configured to enable user selection of at least a portion of the transcript of the video recording to define the video edit instructions (Fig. 7C; [0053]; [0067]; [0147] – the video edit prompt interface is configured to allow the user to input a prompt to return IDs of sentences and/or select specific words).
Claim 9 is rejected for the same reason as discussed in claim 1 above.
Claim 14 is rejected for the same reason as discussed in claim 7 above.
Claim 16 is rejected for the same reason as discussed in claim 1 above in view of Truong also disclosing a non-transitory computer-readable medium storing instructions (Fig. 18; [0177]-[0180] – memory 1812) that, when executed by at least one processor (Fig. 18; [0178]-[0179] – processor(s) 1814), cause the at least one processor to perform the recited operations (see discussion of claim 1 above).
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.
Claims 4-5, 12, and 19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Truong as applied to claims 1, 7, 9, 14, and 16 above.
Regarding claim 4, see the teachings of Truong as discussed in claim 1 above. However, Truong does not disclose the video segment replacement model comprises a generative artificial intelligence video generation model.
Official Notice is taken that a generative artificial intelligence video generation model is well known in the art.
One of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention would have been motivated to implement the video segment replacement model as taught by Truong to comprise a generative artificial intelligence video generation model to boost creativity and saving time in content creation.
Regarding claim 5, see discussion of claim 4 above. However, the generative artificial intelligence video generation model in claim 4 is not comprised at least partially of a vector quantized generative adversarial network.
Official Notice is further taken that a vector quantized generative adversarial network is well known in the art.
One of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention would have been motivated to further incorporate a vector quantized generative adversarial network into the generative artificial intelligence video generation model discussed in claim 4 above because a vector quantized generative adversarial network were known to have been advantageous in producing high quality images with more defined structure and sharp edges.
Claim 12 is rejected for the same reason as discussed in claim 4 above.
Claim 19 is rejected for the same reason as discussed in claim 4 above.
Claims 2, 8, 10, 15, and 17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Truong as applied to claims 1, 4-5, 7, 9, 12, 14, 16, and 19 above, and further in view of Qaddoura et al. (US 10,088,983 – hereinafter Qaddoura).
Regarding claim 2, Truong also discloses the video recording apparatus of claim 1, wherein the replacement portion of the recorded video object is removed ([0152] – the video segment with original shot size is removed by replacing the segment with a segment with applied effects).
Truong does not disclose the replacement portion is removed by a video trimming process.
Qaddoura discloses a replacement portion is removed by a video trimming process (column 11, lines 50-61- a content modification component performs a trimming process to remove a segment of video content item).
One of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention would have been motivated to incorporate the teachings of Qaddoura into the apparatus taught by Truong to remove offensive subject matter to make the recorded video object suitable for playback to minor viewers.
Regarding claim 8, Truong also discloses the video recording apparatus of claim 1, wherein the video edit prompt interface is configured to enable user selection of one or more terms to define the video edit instructions (Fig. 7C; [0053]; [0067]; [0147] – the video edit prompt interface is configured to allow the user to input a prompt to return IDs of sentences, via which the user can select and define the video edit instructions, and/or select specific words, via which the user can select and define the video edit instructions).
However, Truong does not disclose the one or more terms as one or mor replacement terms.
Qaddoura discloses one or more terms as one or mor replacement terms to define video edit instructions (column 17, lines 14-24).
One of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention would have been motivated to incorporate the teachings of Qaddoura into the apparatus taught by Truong to allow the user to replace offensive terms in order to make the video content suitable to watch by minor viewers.
Claim 10 is rejected for the same reason as discussed in claim 2 above.
Claim 15 is rejected for the same reason as discussed in claim 8 above.
Claim 17 is rejected for the same reason as discussed in claim 2 above.
Claims 3, 11, and 18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Truong as applied to claims 1, 4-5, 7, 9, 12, 14, 16, and 19 above, and further in view of Zhuang et al. (US 202/40289546 A1 – hereinafter Zhuang).
Regarding claim 3, see the teachings of Truong as discussed in claim 1 above. However, Truong does not disclose the video recording apparatus of claim 1, wherein the alternate video segment is appended to a remaining recorded portion of the recorded video object by a video stitching process when generating the updated recorded video object.
Zhuang discloses an alternate video segment is appended to a remaining recorded portion of a recorded video object by a video stitching process when generating an updated recorded video object ([0077]).
One of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention would have been motivated to incorporate the teachings of Zhuang into the apparatus taught by Truong so that the video segments can be played without noticeable transitions.
Claim 11 is rejected for the same reason as discussed in claim 3 above.
Claim 18 is rejected for the same reason as discussed in claim 3 above.
Claims 6, 13, and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Truong as applied to claims 1, 4-5, 7, 9, 2, 14, 16, and 19 above, and further in view of Argawal et al. (US 2026/0030043 A1 – hereinafter Argawal).
Regarding claim 6, see the teachings of Truong as discussed in claim 1 above. However, Truong does not disclose the video segment replacement model comprises a generative artificial intelligence video generation model and a text to speech generative artificial intelligence model.
Official Notice is taken that a generative artificial intelligence video generation model is well known in the art.
One of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention would have been motivated to implement the video segment replacement model as taught by Truong to comprise a generative artificial intelligence video generation model to boost creativity and saving time in content creation.
Truong in view of Official Notice above does not disclose the video segment replacement model comprises a text to speech generative artificial intelligence model.
Argawal discloses a text to speech generative artificial intelligence model ([0058] - a generative AI performing a text-to-speech process).
One of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention would have been motivated to incorporate the teachings of Argawal into the video segment replacement model taught by Truong to create dynamically adapted audio content that replaces one or more original audio segments with a new audio segment that resembles the voice of the speaker.
Claim 13 is rejected for the same reason as discussed in claim 6 above.
Claim 20 is rejected for the same reason as discussed in claim 6 above.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to HUNG Q DANG whose telephone number is (571)270-1116. The examiner can normally be reached IFT.
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, Thai Q Tran can be reached at 571-272-7382. 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.
/HUNG Q DANG/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2484
Prosecution Insights