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
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 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)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 1, 3, 5-8, 10, 12-15, 17, 19, and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Sethi et al. (US Pub. No. 2021/0158845).
Consider claim 1. Sethi et al. discloses a computer-implemented method to generate short-form content from a library of media files, the computer-implemented method comprising: identifying, by at least one computer processor (para. 0022 describes a processor), a media file in the library using a machine learning model that is an interaction-based model trained, based on recorded user interactions, to identify one or more features in the media file that satisfy one or more classifications that exceed a user-engagement threshold based on user-engagement metrics derived from data of user consumption of media content (para. 0016 describes machine learning to analyze videos to determining where to place a chapter marker in the videos; para. 0021 describes the machine learning may modify chapter marks based on user interactions); analyzing the media file using the machine learning model, wherein the analyzing comprises: determining, using the machine learning model, a first portion of the media file that has a feature that satisfies the one or more classifications that the machine learning model is configured to identify, wherein the one or more classifications are based on the user-engagement metrics (para. 0016 describes determining where a change in topic occurs in the video); and tagging the first portion of the media file using one or more position tags indicative of a beginning of the first portion of the media file or an end of the first portion of the media file (para. 0016 describes placing a chapter marker where the change in topic occurs in the video; para. 0051 describes creating segments in the video); and generating a segment from the media file based on the one or more position tags, wherein the segment comprises the first portion of the media file and excludes one or more second portions of the media file (paras. 0061 and 0062 describes extracting the audio and video portions of the video to create audio and video files).
Consider claim 5. Sethi et al. discloses the computer-implemented method of claim 1, further comprising: outputting, to an output device, a listing of short-form content based on the classification, wherein the listing of short-form content comprises the segment (para. 0024 describes displaying video segment names).
Consider claim 6. Sethi et al. discloses the computer-implemented method of claim 1, wherein the classification is an action sequence classification (paras. 0017 and 0018 describe wherein the classification is an action sequence classification).
Consider claim 7. Sethi et al. discloses the computer-implemented method of claim 1, wherein the classification is a product identifier classification (paras. 0017 and 0018 describe wherein the classification is a product identifier classification).
Consider claim 8. Sethi et al. discloses a system for generating short-form content from a library of media files, the system comprising: one or more memories; and at least one processor each coupled to at least one of the memories (para. 0022 describes the system comprising a memory and a processor coupled to the memory).
Claims 3, 10, 12-15, 17, 19, and 20 are rejected using similar reasoning as corresponding claims above.
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.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
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 2, 4, 9, 11, 16, and 18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sethi et al. (US Pub. No. 2021/0158845) in view of Rapaport et al. (US Pub. No. 2024/0048818).
Consider claim 2. Sethi et al. discloses all claimed limitations as stated above, except storing the segment as a short-form media file.
However, Rapaport et al. teaches storing the segment as a short-form media file (para. 0048 describes storing short-form video segments).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one with ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to store the segment as a short-form media file, in order to automate video processing as suggested by the prior art.
Consider claim 4. Sethi et al. discloses all claimed limitations as stated above, except storing the segment and the other segment as short-form media files; and indexing the short-form media files for search and playback.
However, Rapaport et al. teaches storing the segment and the other segment as short-form media files; and indexing the short-form media files for search and playback (para. 0048 describes storing short-form video segments, and indexing the short-form segments for search and playback).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one with ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to store the segment and the other segment as short-form media files; and indexing the short-form media files for search and playback, in order to automate video processing as suggested by the prior art.
Claims 9, 11, 16, and 18 are rejected using similar reasoning as corresponding claims above.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Mishawn N Hunter whose telephone number is (571)272-7635. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 7am-4pm.
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 Tran can be reached on 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.
/MISHAWN N. HUNTER/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2484
