Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 11/20/2025 and 09/15/2026 ware 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 § 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)(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, 7-8, 10-12, 14-15, 17-18, and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by O’Neil, USPG_Pub. 20240404496.
Regarding claims 1, 8, 15, O’Neil discloses a system comprising:
one or more memories (Para. 60); and
at least one processor coupled to at least one of the one or more memories and configured to perform operations (Para. 59-60) comprising:
receiving first content (Para. 26 (video captured by camera is first content and it is received));
generating an animated background including one or more items associated with the first content based on context information associated with the first content (Para. 31, 33, 36 (background animation is dynamically generated based on who is in the video-the gestures of individuals in the scene forms the context and is associated with the scene/video-one or more items include lyrics and other effects)); and
placing the first content within the animated background (Para. 36 (background animation is dynamically generated to surround the individuals)).
Regarding claims 3, 10, O’Neil discloses the system, wherein the context information comprises a target user (Para. 33 (the individual of individuals whose gesture is captured makes the user a targeted user-see also demographics in Para. 65)).
Regarding claims 4, 11, 17 O’Neil discloses the system, wherein the context information comprises a source identifier identifying a brand or entity associated with the first content (Para. 33, 65 (the target individual associated with the scene/media is identified by for example demographic data or personal information-each of which are source identifiers)).
Regarding claims 5, 12, 18 O’Neil discloses the system, wherein the first content comprises a sequence of video frames, and wherein the context information identifies and characterizes a content associated with the sequence of video frames (Para. 33, 36 (the captured video scenes are a sequence of video frames and an actor can be identified and associated with the scene where they appear)).
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 2, 9, 16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over O’Neil, USPG_Pub. 20240404496, in view of Zhu, CN 116245985.
Regarding claims 2, 9, 16 O’Neil does not explicitly disclose the system, wherein at least a portion of the animated background is generated using a machine learning model.
Zhu discloses background animation processing for display using machine learning (artificial intelligence) (claim 3) which meets “the system, wherein at least a portion of the animated background is generated using a machine learning model”.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to include the system, wherein at least a portion of the animated background is generated using a machine learning model as disclosed by Zhu in order to improve the efficiency of the automation process of generating the animated backgrounds.
Claims 7, 14, 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over O’Neil, USPG_Pub. 20240404496, in view of Gandhi, USPG_Pub. 20180160054.
Regarding claims 7, 14, 20, O’Neil discloses displaying media content within the animated video background (Para. 36), However, O’Neil does not explicitly disclose the computer system performing operation comprising resizing a display size of the first content based on a point in time during playback of the first content.
Gandhi discloses a, bottom half of the display screen that is dynamically partitioned into one or more partition views with varying aspect ratio based on the proximity between the one or more objects in the cropped dynamic scenes (fig. 1-6; Para. 39 (wide scenes with proximate objects meet “a point during playback” based on which the aspect ratio is dynamically adjusted or resized)).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the system of O’Neil to include resizing a display size of the first content based on a point in time during playback of the first content as disclosed by Gandhi in order to be able to display finer details like emotions, lip movements, and body language in a shot or scene.
Claim Objections
Claims 6,13,19 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. The claims recite the allowable subject matter found in parent application claims.
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 of the instant application are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-20 of U.S. Patent No. 12,506,937. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because the claims of the application are broader variation of the claims recited in the 937’ patent.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ANTHONY BANTAMOI whose telephone number is (571)270-3581. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 9-5 EST.
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, John Miller can be reached at 571-272-7353. 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.
/ANTHONY BANTAMOI/Examiner, Art Unit 2422
Prosecution Insights