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 § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 3 and 17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Claim 3 and 17 recite the limitation "the system-validated truths" and “the subject identifiers”. There is insufficient antecedent basis for each of these limitations in the claims.
The claims are therefore indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Double Patenting
A rejection based on double patenting of the “same invention” type finds its support in the language of 35 U.S.C. 101 which states that “whoever invents or discovers any new and useful process... may obtain a patent therefor...” (Emphasis added). Thus, the term “same invention,” in this context, means an invention drawn to identical subject matter. See Miller v. Eagle Mfg. Co., 151 U.S. 186 (1894); In re Vogel, 422 F.2d 438, 164 USPQ 619 (CCPA 1970); In re Ockert, 245 F.2d 467, 114 USPQ 330 (CCPA 1957).
A statutory type (35 U.S.C. 101) double patenting rejection can be overcome by canceling or amending the claims that are directed to the same invention so they are no longer coextensive in scope. The filing of a terminal disclaimer cannot overcome a double patenting rejection based upon 35 U.S.C. 101.
Claims 1-2, 15-16, and 18-19 are provisionally rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 as claiming the same invention as that of claims 1-2, 8-9, and 15-16 of copending Application No. 19/680404 (reference application). This is a provisional statutory double patenting rejection since the claims directed to the same invention have not in fact been patented.
Regarding claims 1-2, 15-16, and 18-19, claims 1-2, 8-9, and 15-16 of reference application recite each and every limitation recited respectively. As such, claims 1-2, 15-16, and 18-19 are provisionally rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 as claiming the same invention as that of claims 1-2, 8-9, and 15-16 of reference application.
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 1-6, 10-13, and 15-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Moon et al. (US 2017/0201562 A1 – hereinafter Moon) and Axen et al. (US 2010/0067882 A1 – hereinafter Axen).
Regarding claim 1, Moon discloses a computer-implemented method for generating a multi-perspective memory ([0038]-[0041] – a method for generating a personal video content, which is a multi-perspective memory implemented by a computer as further shown and described at least in Fig. 5 and [0100]), the method including: receiving, via at least one processor ([0100]; Fig. 5 – via processor 501), a plurality of media elements and contextual information from one or more author-users (Fig. 1; [0040] – receiving a plurality of media elements, i.e. text, video, images, documents, etc. with contextual information, e.g. the semantics, from one or more individuals or alternatively, the contextual information corresponds to a scenario as further described at least in [0073]-[0077], or alternatively, the contextual information corresponds to metadata as further described at least in [0064]); extracting, via the processor executing instructions (Fig. 5; [0100]-[0101]), the received plurality of media elements and contextual information into a machine-readable format, wherein the processor executing instructions is configured to employ a retrieval-augmented generation (RAG) natural language processing technique ([0052]; [0057]; [0065]; [0078] – extracting the received plurality of media elements with semantics into a machine-readable format, i.e. media fragments and semantics information or content of scenario, or metadata, the processor executing instructions is configured to employ a retrieval-augmented generation (RAG) natural language processing technique as further described at least in [0024] and [0079]-[0080]); organizing, via the processor executing instructions, the extracted plurality of media elements into one or more memory structures ([0065]; [0077]-[0078]; [0093]; Fig. 3C; Fig. 4A – organizing the fragments, the semantics, and scenario template in one or more memory structures for retrieval); sequencing, via the processor executing instructions, the one or more memory structures into an underlying plurality of ordered events ([0017]; [0026]; [0041]; [0049]; [0078]; [0088] – sequencing the one or more structures into a sequence of events, each of which corresponds to a media fragment, ordered in the sequence); and enhancing, the processor executing instructions, the plurality of ordered events to form one or more narrative sequences ([0017]; [0026]; [0041]; [0049]; [0078]; [0088] – combining the assembled fragments, each of which is an event, into a narrative sequence for playback).
However, Moon does not explicitly disclose the processor executing instructions as via an API.
Axen discloses a processor executing instructions as via an API (Fig. 5 – via system API 86).
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 Axen into the method taught by Moon because using an API would have been advantageous in improving collaborations among developers by allowing different software systems to communicate and share data or functionality seamlessly.
Regarding claim 2, Moon in view of Axen also discloses the method of claim 1, further comprising compiling, using a multi-modal video compiler ([0045]-[0046]; Fig. 3B), the one or more enhanced narrative sequences into an audio-visual depiction of a first memory (Fig. 4B – compiling the narrative sequence into an audio-visual depiction of a first personal memory for playback); providing the audio-visual depiction to one or more users via a media consumption broker ([0090] – providing the audio-visual depiction to a user via a player); and updating the one or more memory structures based on user interactions with the audio-visual depiction to generate a first evolving memory representation (Fig. 4B; [0092] – updating length and various effects of the one or more memory via user interactions to edit the memory).
Regarding claim 3, Moon in view of Axen also discloses the method of claim 1, wherein the associations between each media element, system-validated truths, and subject identifiers are based on neural network routines within an artificial intelligence (AI) foundation model ([0048]; [0056]; [0058]-[0059]).
Regarding claim 4, Moon in view of Axen also discloses the method of claim 1, wherein organizing the extracted plurality of media elements includes generating a multidimensional array configured to relate each media element to one or more contextual descriptors and subject relationships ([0066]-[0067]; [0069] – generating an ontology configured to relate media element to semantics and relationship therebetween).
Regarding claim 5, Moon in view of Axen also discloses the method of claim 1, wherein the received contextual information includes at least one of: captions, page placement, media emphasis, time metadata, subject identity, or user-supplied annotations ([0064] – at least time metadata).
Regarding claim 6, Moon in view of Axen also discloses the method of claim 1, further comprising: generating one or more alternate video depictions using a multi-creator perspective multiplexer, wherein each alternate video depiction corresponds to a different user viewpoint ([0048]; [0052]; [0073]-[0076] – generating alternate video depictions, each of which corresponds to a storyline or scenario inputted by a user using a multi-creator perspective multiplexer as shown in Fig. 4A).
Regarding claim 10, Moon in view of Axen also discloses the method of claim 1, further comprising: generating subject-specific timelines by associating memory structures with corresponding identified subjects ([0022]; [0041]; [0046]; [0065]-[0066] – generating a subject-specific data, e.g. person and actions, arranged in a sequence along a storyline by associating memory structures with corresponding identified subjects so that subject-specific media fragments can be retrieved and combined into a sequence defined by the storyline).
Regarding claim 11, Moon in view of Axen also discloses the method of claim 1, wherein compiling the one or more enhanced narrative sequences includes applying saliency detection to emphasize relevant regions of the media elements ([0013] – applying saliency detection to emphasize regions where an object and actions are detected, i.e. media fragments).
Regarding claim 12, Moon in view of Axen also discloses the method of claim 1 above, wherein updating the memory structures further includes retraining a foundation model using reinforcement learning derived from user interactions (Fig. 3B; [0058]).
Regarding claim 13, Moon in view of Axen also discloses the method of claim 2, further comprising: generating one or more child memory depictions as sub-structures of the compiled audio-visual memory depiction, wherein each child memory depiction represents a moment within the audio-visual depiction of the first memory ([0017]; [0026]; [0041]; [0049]; [0078]; [0088] – each of the assembled fragments corresponds to a child memory).
Claim 15 is rejected for the same reason as discussed in claim 1 above in view of Moon also disclosing a non-transitory computer-readable storage medium having stored thereon instructions, which, when executed by a processor ([0100]-[0101]; Fig. 5 - a non-transitory computer readable medium with computer executable instructions stored thereon, when executed by the processor, the computer readable instructions perform a method as discussed in claim 1 above), result in one or more operations as recited (see discussion of claim 1 above).
Claim 16 is rejected for the same reason as discussed in claim 2 above.
Claim 17 is rejected for the same reason as discussed in claim 3 above.
Claim 18 is rejected for the same reason as discussed in claim 1 above in view of Moon also disclosing a system for generating a multi-perspective memory (Fig. 5; [0100]-[0101] – system 500), the system comprising: at least one processor ([0100]; Fig. 5 –processor 501) configured to execute one or more operations as recited (see discussion of claim 1 above).
Claim 19 is rejected for the same reason as discussed in claim 2 above.
Claim 20 is rejected for the same reason as discussed in claim 4 above.
Claim 7 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Moon and Axen as applied to claims 1-6, 10-13, and 15-20 above, and further in view of Rein et al. (US 2023/0186953 A1 – hereinafter Rein).
Regarding claim 7, Moon in view of Axen also discloses the method of claim 1, wherein enhancing the ordered events includes at least one of: assigning soundtrack selections, narration, or visual styles based on inferred emotional context of the memory ([0077]).
However, Moon and Axen do not disclose the context of the memory as inferred emotional context.
Rein discloses assigning soundtrack selections, narration, or visual styles based on inferred emotional context of a memory ([0079]-[0082] – assigning at least soundtrack selections based on inferred emotion of a memory, i.e. a scene of a video).
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 Rein into assigning soundtrack selections, narration, or visual styles in the method taught by Moon and Axen to select a soundtrack that best fits the memory.
Claim 8 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Moon and Axen as applied to claims 1-6, 10-13, and 15-20 above, and further in view of Baum (US 2014/0304729 A1 – hereinafter Baum).
Regarding claim 8, see the teachings of Moon in view of Axen as discussed in claim 2 above. However, Moon and Axen do not disclose updating the one or more memory structures includes non-destructively incorporating user edits, commentary, or personalization as additional context.
Baum discloses updating one or more memory structures includes non-destructively incorporating user edits, commentary, or personalization as additional context ([0026] – using an edit decision list, incorporating non-destructive user modifications to the video, i.e. the memory, at specific points in the video).
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 Baum into the method taught by Moon and Axen to preserve the original media which would have been advantageous in allowing users to explore editing ideas freely, correct mistakes easily, and maintain the integrity of the original media throughout the production process.
Claim 9 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Moon and Axen as applied to claims 1-6, 10-13, and 15-20 above, and further in view of Torman et al. (US 2018/0096613 A1 – hereinafter Torman).
Regarding claim 9, see the teachings of Moon in view of Axen as discussed in claim 2 above. However, Moon and Axen do not disclose maintaining separate role-based permissions for users, wherein each user is designated as at least one of: an author, a contributor, or a consumer.
Torman discloses maintaining separate role-based permissions for users, wherein each user is designated as at least one of: an author, a contributor, or a consumer ([0040]).
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 Torman into the method taught by Moon and Axen to reduce the risk of unauthorized data access or misuse.
Claim 14 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Moon and Axen as applied to claims 1-6, 10-13, and 15-20 above, and further in view of Gauglitz et al. (US 2022/0239987 A1 – hereinafter Gauglitz).
Regarding claim 14, Moon in view of Axen also discloses the method of claim 2, further comprising: enabling cross-user augmentation of one or more memory structures, such that additional contextual information supplied by a first user associated with the first evolving memory representation is integrated into a second evolving memory representation associated with a second user, wherein both the first and second users are identified as participating in at least one common event from the underlying plurality of ordered events included in the first evolving memory representation.
Gauglitz discloses enabling cross-user augmentation of one or more memory structures, such that additional contextual information supplied by a first user associated with the first evolving memory representation is integrated into a second evolving memory representation associated with a second user, wherein both the first and second users are identified as participating in at least one common event included in the first evolving memory representation ([0034]; [0058] – users identified as attending the same event can participate in a collaborative editing session of the event, thus editing data supplied by a first user associated with the first evolving memory representation, i.e. associated with representation corresponding to the first user’s work is integrated into a second evolving memory representation associated with a second user, i.e. associated with the representation corresponding to the second user’s work).
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 Gauglitz into the underlying plurality of ordered events in the first evolving memory representation method taught by Moon and Axen to allow users attending the same event to collaboratively edit the memory, e.g. adding effects desired by a specific user to own’s image in the memory.
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