DETAILED ACTION
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 .
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on 2/19/26 has been entered.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 2/19/26 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant argues the claims are amended to be more clearly directed toward statutory subject matter. For example, amended claim 1 recites the following: acquiring start and end time points for each of a plurality of distinct elemental actions related to a target action from a moving
image; referencing a rule that: at least one of a logical condition for the elemental actions or an
order condition between the elemental actions, the logical condition or the order condition being satisfied in a case where the target action is performed, and a correspondence relationship that defines a mapping structure mapping an end time point of a first elemental action from among the plurality of distinct elemental actions to a start time of a target action, and at least one of a start time point or an end time point of a second elemental action, which is different from the first elemental action, from among the plurality of distinct elemental actions to an end time
of the target action; determining whether the acquired start and end time points of
the plurality of distinct elemental actions satisfy the logical condition or the order condition defined in the rule; and in response to determining that the rule is satisfied, generating
new time data representing a time period in which the target action has been performed by assigning the acquired end time point of the first elemental action as the start time of the target action, and assigning the acquired start time point or end time point of the second
elemental action as the end time of the target action, thereby transforming the acquired time points of the elemental actions into a more accurate time specification for the target action that excludes a time period of the first elemental action, wherein the first elemental
action is a preparatory action for the target action. As evidenced by the above, amended claims 1, 9 and 10 recite a specific process for improving the accuracy of video analysis by a computer. The process is not a mere mental process that can be performed with pen and paper. It involves a series of concrete technical process executed by a computer that include (1) referencing a rule that defines a specific "mapping structure". (2) This structure explicitly maps an end time point of a first elemental action to a start time of the target action, and a start time point or an end time point of a second, different elemental action to the end time of the target action. (3) The process generates new time data by assigning these mapped time points, thereby transforming the acquired data into a more accurate time specification that excludes the time period of the first elemental action, which is identified as a preparatory action.
This process transforms raw time point data into a refined, accurate time specification for a complex action, which is a tangible improvement in the field of computer-based process control and video analysis. This is not a mere mental observation. It is a specific computational method that solves a technical problem inherent in computer-based video analysis-namely, the misattribution of preparatory time to the main action time. This process improves the computer's ability to analyze video data, yielding a more accurate and meaningful result than conventional methods and represents a practical application of the underlying concept. Thus, the claims recite significantly more than a judicial exception and satisfy the requirements of § 101.
However, the Examiner respectfully disagree.
Statutory Category? Yes. The claim recites a series of steps and, therefore, is a process.
2A - Prong 1: Judicial Exception Recited? Yes.
The claim(s) recites the limitations of acquiring start and end time points for each of a plurality of distinct elemental actions related to a target action from a moving image by reference a rule. The determining limitation, as drafted, is a process that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind but for the recitation of generic computer components. That is, other than reciting “by a processor,” nothing in the claim precludes the determining step from practically being performed in the human mind. For example, but for the “by a processor” language, the claim encompasses acquiring start and end time points (e.g., determining by referencing a time piece) for each of a plurality of distinct elemental actions related to a target action from a moving image (e.g., observing actions in a video) by reference a rule (e.g., determining and applying a list of rules read by a person). This limitation is a mental process. The referencing, determining and generating limitations, as drafted, is also a process that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind but for the recitation of generic computer components. That is, other than reciting “by a processor,” nothing in the claim precludes the referencing, determining and generating from practically being performed in the human mind. For example, but for the “by a processor” language, the claim encompasses the user referencing written rules, observing the actions satisfy a condition, mapping mentally or on paper, determining whether the start and end times satisfy a logical condition and mentally generating by assigning times accordingly (e.g., scheduling). Thus, these limitations is also a mental process.
Claims 4-7 merely recite establishing rules which is mental process.
Claim 8 can be diagrammed by pencil and paper based on the mental observation and a rule application.
Claims 9 and 10 are rejected based on similar rationale.
2A - Prong 2: Integrated into a Practical Application? No. The claim recites the additional elements: that a processor and memory (i.e., generic computer)is used to perform the steps.
The elements for the steps are recited at a high level of generality, i.e., as a generic processor and memory performing a generic computer function of observing images and applying rules. This generic processing limitation is no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer components. Accordingly, this additional element does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because it does not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea.
The claim is directed to the abstract idea.
2B: Claim provides an Inventive Concept? No. As discussed with respect to Step 2A Prong Two, the additional element in the claim amounts to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using generic computer components.
The same analysis applies here in 2B, i.e., mere instructions to apply an exception using a generic computer components cannot integrate a judicial exception into a practical application at Step 2A or provide an inventive concept in Step 2B. The claims are ineligible.
Examiner note: Calls were made to the Applicant to discuss language to potentially overcome the rejection, however, the Examiner was unable to reach the Applicant or receive a response.
The Examiner suggest including language that explicitly recite recognizing, by image recognition device e.g., a motion in each frame included in a moving image using a NN model. Remove thereby because it implies a result versus explicit action in the context of claim 2 and paragraph 0063 of the Original written disclosure.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101
35 U.S.C. 101 reads as follows:
Whoever invents or discovers any new and useful process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter, or any new and useful improvement thereof, may obtain a patent therefor, subject to the conditions and requirements of this title.
Claims 1-2, 4-8 and 9-10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an information processing program for causing a computer to execute processing without significantly more.
Claim 1 recites acquiring start and end time points for each of a plurality of distinct elemental actions related to a target action from a moving image–A human observing the times of particular actions in a video- determining the time something happens can be determined by a human being -this is a mental process.
referencing a rule that: at least one of a logical condition for the elemental actions or an order condition between the elemental actions related to the target action, the logical condition or the order condition being satisfied in a case where the target action is performed – A human making logical decisions based on a rule- this is a mental process; and a correspondence relationship that defines a mapping structure mapping an end time point of a first elemental action from among the plurality of distinct elemental actions to a start time of a target action, and at least one of a start time point or an end time point of a second elemental action, which is different from the first elemental action, from among the plurality of distinct elemental actions to an end time of the target action; determining whether the acquired start and end time points of the plurality of distinct elemental actions satisfy the logical condition or the order condition defined in the rule; and in response to determining that the rule is satisfied, the rule generating new time data representing a time period in which the target action has been performed by assigning the acquired end time point of the first elemental action as the start time of the target action, and assigning the acquired start time point or end time point of the second elemental action as the end time of the target action, thereby transforming the acquired time points of the elemental actions into a more accurate time specification for the target action that excludes a time period of the first elemental action, wherein the first elemental action is a preparatory action for the target action.– In other words, determining a sequence of action and their correspondence relationship (e.g., where a particular set of actions fits in a sequence of actions based on a target action) – A human observing a video and associating a sequence of actions in a video with respect to a target action – This is a mental process. The judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application because each of the claims outline limitation that can be executed by mental (observation) process with the aid of pencil and paper if needed. The claim(s) does/do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because the claims merely recite that a generic processor.
Claim 2 recites wherein the acquiring includes recognizing a motion for each frame included in the moving image (this can be observed by a human watching a video- this is a mental step), specifying a frame that corresponds to the elemental action related to the action from among the frames included in the moving image on a basis of the motion(this can be observed by a human watching a video and determining a correspondence and noting the correspondence with at least paper and pencil- this is a mental step), and
specifying, in a case where a ratio of the specified frames included in each period of two consecutive periods satisfies a condition that corresponds to the period, a time point at a boundary between the two periods as the one of time points of start or end of the elemental action related to the action(this can be observed by a human watching a video- and noting the correspondence with at least paper and pencil- determining ratios is a simple mathematical operation that can be accomplished by the human mind- this is a mental step).
Claim 4 recites wherein the rule provides the order condition that defines a predetermined order in which each elemental action of two or more elemental actions related to the action is performed, the order condition being satisfied in the case where the action is performed(this can be observed by a human watching a video and applying a rule based mental logic- this is a mental step).
Claim 5 recites wherein the rule provides the logical condition that defines that two or more elemental actions related to the action are performed at a same time, the logical condition being satisfied in the case where the action is performed this can be observed by a human watching a video and applying a rule based mental logic- this is a mental step).
Claim 6 recites wherein the rule provides the logical condition that defines that at least one of two or more elemental actions related to the action is performed, the logical condition being satisfied in the case where the action is performed this can be observed by a human watching a video and applying a rule based mental logic- this is a mental step).
Claim 7 recites, wherein the rule provides the logical condition that defines that one of elemental actions related to the action is not performed, the logical condition being satisfied in the case where the action is performed this can be observed by a human watching a video and applying a rule based mental logic- this is a mental step).
Claim 8 can be diagrammed by pencil and paper based on the mental observation and a rule application.
Claims 9 and 10 are rejected based on similar rationale as Claim 1.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to CHARLES TERRELL SHEDRICK whose telephone number is (571)272-8621. The examiner can normally be reached 8A-5P.
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, Matthew D Anderson can be reached at 571 272 4177. 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.
/CHARLES T SHEDRICK/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2646
Prosecution Insights