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 .
Specification
The lengthy specification has not been checked to the extent necessary to determine the presence of all possible minor errors. Applicant’s cooperation is requested in correcting any errors of which applicant may become aware in the specification.
Claim Objections
Claims 1, 2, 4-7, 9-18, and 20 are objected to because of the following informalities:
In claim 1, line 4: “of the user” should apparently be deleted for consistency throughout the claims.
In claim 1, line 17: “associated with the user” should apparently be deleted for consistency throughout the claims.
In claim 2, line 2: “the at least feature” should apparently read --the at least one feature--.
In claim 4, line 3: “erotic factor” should apparently read --an erotic factor--.
In claim 4, line 6: “erotic factor” should apparently read --the erotic factor--.
In claim 4, line 8: “artificial intelligence (AI)” should apparently read --AI--.
In claim 4, line 9: “deep learning technique” should apparently read --a deep learning technique--.
In claim 5, line 4: “artificial intelligence (AI)” should apparently read --AI--.
In claim 6, lines 5-6: “artificial intelligence (AI)” should apparently read --AI--.
In claim 6, last line: “comprises” should apparently read --comprise--.
In claim 7, line 8: “artificial intelligence (AI)” should apparently read --AI--.
In claim 9, line 4: “associated with the user” should apparently be deleted for consistency throughout the claims.
In claim 9, line 8: “associated with the user” should apparently be deleted for consistency throughout the claims.
In claim 10, line 4: “associated with the user” should apparently be deleted for consistency throughout the claims.
In claim 10, line 8: “associated with the user” should apparently be deleted for consistency throughout the claims.
In claim 11, line 2: “artificial intelligence (AI)” should apparently read --AI--.
In claim 12, line 2: “subsequent set” should apparently read --a subsequent set--.
In claim 12, line 4: “artificial intelligence (AI)” should apparently read --AI--.
In claim 13, line 9: “of the user” should apparently be deleted for consistency throughout the claims.
In claim 13, lines 21-22: “associated with the user” should apparently be deleted.
In claim 14, line 12: “the type of sexual stimulation device,” should apparently be deleted, as this is already recited in the claim.
In claim 15, line 2: “erotic factor” should apparently read --an erotic factor--.
In claim 15, line 6: “erotic factor” should apparently read --the erotic factor--.
In claim 15, line 7: “artificial intelligence (AI)” should apparently read --AI--.
In claim 16, line 4: “artificial intelligence (AI)” should apparently read --AI--.
In claim 17, line 5: “artificial intelligence (AI)” should apparently read --AI--.
In claim 17, line 7: “obtain” should apparently read --obtaining--.
In claim 17, line 8: “identify” should apparently read --identifying--.
In claim 17, line 10: “compare” should apparently read --comparing--.
In claim 18, lines 6-7: “artificial intelligence (AI)” should apparently read --AI--.
In claim 20, lines 1-2: “artificial intelligence (AI)” should apparently read --AI--.
Appropriate correction is required.
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 2, 3, and 5-20 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 2 recites the limitation “the one or more acoustic feature parameters comprising acoustic category, decibel, tone, periodicity, and semantics” in lines 7-8. It is not clear if the parameters must include each of these five elements or merely at least one of them. For sake of compact prosecution, and based on the specification, the latter interpretation has been adopted herein.
Claim 2 also recites the limitation "the acoustic features" in line 10. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim; only a single acoustic feature has been previously recited.
Claim 3 is rejected by virtue of its dependence upon claim 2.
Claim 5 recites the limitation “a cyclic neural network” in line 5. It is not clear what is meant by this limitation. Certain cyclic neural networks are now known that have connections based on circular geometry rather than linear relationships; this does not appear to be what is used in the present application. Some prior art references use cyclic to be interchangeable with recurrent neural networks. The present specification does not use the word recurrent at any time.
Claim 5 also recites the limitation "the visual features" in line 9. It is not clear which visual features this is intended to refer to, as a first set of visual features and a second set of visual features have been previously recited.
Claim 6 recites the limitation “wherein the one or more target video frames corresponds to a category of intra-frame” in line 3. It is not clear what is meant by this limitation. Based upon the specification, “intra-frame” appears to refer to how the parameters are determined; i.e., by analyzing within single frames instead of comparing multiple frames to each other.
Claim 6 also recites the limitation “at each time” in line 5. However, only a single time has been previously recited, so it is not clear what is intended by this limitation.
Claim 6 also recites the limitation “identifying at least one image factor in terms of at least color, texture, and line” in line 9. It is not clear if the at least one image factor must include each of these three elements or merely at least one of them. It is also not clear what is meant by “line” in this context.
Claim 7 recites the limitation "the frame type" in line 2. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 7 also recites the limitation "the one or more video frames" in line 2. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim; only one or more target video frames have been previously recited. It is noted that the claim also recites this limitation in lines 5-6, which may need to be amended in kind.
Claim 8 recites the limitation "the visual features related to a gender" in lines 3-4. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claims 5-8 are rejected by virtue of their dependence upon claim 5.
Claim 9 recites the limitation “at least one of the video comprising the sexual content” in line 3. It is not clear if this is intended to mean that the streaming platform can render multiples of the same video on the first user device or that it can render multiples of the same video on separate user devices.
Claim 9 also recites the limitation “a first user device” in line 6. It is not clear if this is intended to refer to the first user device recited in lines 3-4 of this claim or to refer to a separate device.
Claim 10 recites the limitation "the live streaming " in line 6. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim; only a live stream broadcast has been previously recited. It is noted that the claim also recites this limitation in line 9, which may need to be amended in kind.
Claim 10 is also rejected by virtue of its dependence upon claim 9.
Claim 11 recites the limitation “the training data comprising at least sexual content data, control signals data, audio data corresponding to the sexual content and feature points” in lines 2-4. It is not clear if the training data must include all of these elements or merely at least one of them.
Claim 11 also recites the limitation “audio data corresponding to the sexual content and feature points” in lines 3-4. It is not clear if the audio data also corresponds to the feature points or if the feature points are a separate component of the training data.
Claim 12 recites the limitation “one or more artificial intelligence (AI) models” in line 4. It is not clear if this is intended to refer to the same one or more AI models recited by claim 1 or to separate model(s).
Claim 13 recites the limitation “the at least one feature comprising an acoustic feature and a visual feature” in lines 15-16. It is not clear if the extracted at least one feature must include both an acoustic feature and a visual feature or merely at least one of them.
Claims 14-18 each recite the limitation “wherein the server system is further caused to” in line 1, while claim 19 recites “wherein the type of sexual stimulation device associated with the control signal is determined to be” in lines 1-2. The scope of these claims is not clear, as there is no indication of what components are causing the server system to perform the later-recited steps. Suggested language would be --wherein the processor is configured to execute the executable instructions to further cause the server system to:--.
Claim 14 also recites the limitation "the acoustic features" in lines 7-8. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim; only a single acoustic feature has been previously recited. It is noted that the claim also recites this limitation in lines 8-9, which may need to be amended in kind.
Claim 16 also recites the limitation "the visual features" in line 8. It is not clear which visual features this is intended to refer to, as a first set of visual features and a second set of visual features have been previously recited.
Claim 17 also recites the limitation “wherein the one or more target video frames corresponds to a category of intra-frame” in line 3. It is not clear what is meant by this limitation. Based upon the specification, “intra-frame” appears to refer to how the parameters are determined; i.e., by analyzing within single frames instead of comparing multiple frames to each other.
Claim 17 also recites the limitation “at each time” in lines 4-5. However, only a single time has been previously recited, so it is not clear what is intended by this limitation.
Claim 18 also recites the limitation "the frame type" in line 2. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 18 also recites the limitation "the one or more video frames" in line 2. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim; only one or more target video frames have been previously recited. It is noted that the claim also recites this limitation in line 4, which may need to be amended in kind.
Claim 19 also recites the limitation "the visual features related to a gender" in line 3. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 20 recites the limitation “the training data comprising at least sexual content data, control signals data, audio data corresponding to the sexual content and feature points” in lines 2-3. It is not clear if the training data must include all of these elements or merely at least one of them.
Claim 20 also recites the limitation “audio data corresponding to the sexual content and feature points” in line 3. It is not clear if the audio data also corresponds to the feature points or if the feature points are a separate component of the training data.
Claims 14-20 are rejected by virtue of their dependence upon at least one rejected base claim.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(d):
(d) REFERENCE IN DEPENDENT FORMS.—Subject to subsection (e), a claim in dependent form shall contain a reference to a claim previously set forth and then specify a further limitation of the subject matter claimed. A claim in dependent form shall be construed to incorporate by reference all the limitations of the claim to which it refers.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, fourth paragraph:
Subject to the following paragraph [i.e., the fifth paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112], a claim in dependent form shall contain a reference to a claim previously set forth and then specify a further limitation of the subject matter claimed. A claim in dependent form shall be construed to incorporate by reference all the limitations of the claim to which it refers.
Claim 3 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(d) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, 4th paragraph, as being of improper dependent form for failing to further limit the subject matter of the claim upon which it depends, or for failing to include all the limitations of the claim upon which it depends. Claim 3 recites “determining the parameters for the control signal further comprises determining at least one of: the type of sexual stimulation device, and an update value for the amplitude and frequency based on performing a comparison of the one or more acoustic feature parameters with one or more preset values defined for at least the type of sexual stimulation device, amplitude and frequency.” However, claim 2 already recites that determining the parameters for the control signal can comprise determining the type of sexual stimulation device; thus, as claim 3 recites its determinations in the alternative, it can fail to further limit the subject matter of claim 2. Applicant may cancel the claim(s), amend the claim(s) to place the claim(s) in proper dependent form, rewrite the claim(s) in independent form, or present a sufficient showing that the dependent claim(s) complies with the statutory requirements.
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.
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.
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 factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
Claims 1-6, 8-17, 19, and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Li (U.S. Pub. No. 2023/0116280 A1; cited in the Third-Party Submission of 22 August 2025, as well as in related applications 18/754,742 and 18/944,598), in view of Hsu (TW 202040507 A1; cited in the Third-Party Submission of 22 August 2025).
Regarding claim 1, Li discloses a computer-implemented method (Abstract), comprising: facilitating, by a server system, a communication between at least one user device and a sexual stimulation device associated with a user via an application equipped in the at least one user device of the user ([0006]-[0007]; [0063]; [0077]); performing, by the server system, selection of one or more target video frames of a video representing sexual content being displayed in the at least one user device, wherein the one or more target video frames are selected based at least on performing a real-time analysis of the sexual content in the video ([0045]-[0050]); extracting, by the server system, at least one feature from the one or more target video frames of the video based at least on one or more artificial intelligence (AI) models, the at least one feature comprising a visual feature ([0040]; [0045]-[0050]); generating, by the server system, a control signal comprising parameters corresponding to the at least one feature being extracted from the one or more target video frames of the video, wherein the parameters of the control signal are determined based at least on quantifying the at least one feature; and transmitting, by the server system, the control signal in real time to the at least one user device associated with the user for operating the sexual stimulation device to provide sexual stimulation to the user corresponding to the sexual content being displayed in the video ([0027]-[0028]; [0036]; [0065]-[0072]; [0135]-[0141]). Li fails to expressly disclose quantifying the at least one feature with predefined weights. Hsu discloses a similar method (Abstract) comprising determining parameters of a control signal for a sexual stimulation device based on quantifying at least one visual feature with predefined weights in order to appropriately model and generate the corresponding stimulation ([0040]; [0049]; [0051]). 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 invention of Li by quantifying the at least one feature with predefined weights, as taught by Hsu, in order to appropriately model and generate the corresponding stimulation.
Regarding claim 2, the combination of Li and Hsu discloses the invention as claimed, see rejection supra, and Li further discloses that the at least feature further comprises an acoustic feature, and wherein extracting the acoustic feature further comprises: obtaining, by the server system, audio information from the one or more target video frames comprising the sexual content; extracting, by the server system, one or more acoustic feature parameters from the audio information, the one or more acoustic feature parameters comprising acoustic category, decibel, tone, periodicity, and semantics ([0040]; [0051]; [0090]; [0092]); and determining, by the server system, the parameters for the control signal corresponding to the acoustic features, wherein the parameters of the control signal corresponding to the acoustic features comprise at least one of a type of sexual stimulation device, amplitude, and frequency ([0075]; [0147]; [0150]-[0153]).
Regarding claim 3, the combination of Li and Hsu discloses the invention as claimed, see rejection supra, and Li further discloses that determining the parameters for the control signal further comprises determining at least one of: the type of sexual stimulation device, and an update value for the amplitude and frequency based on performing a comparison of the one or more acoustic feature parameters with one or more preset values defined for at least the type of sexual stimulation device, amplitude and frequency ([0150]-[0153]).
Regarding claim 4, the combination of Li and Hsu discloses the invention as claimed, see rejection supra, and Li further discloses determining, by the server system, a first set of visual features corresponding to erotic factor in the video; and performing, by the server system, selection of video frames comprising the first set of visual features in the video as the one or more target video frames, wherein determining the first set of visual features corresponding to erotic factor in the video and performing selection of the one or more target video frames in the video are based at least on the one or more artificial intelligence (AI) models implementing deep learning technique ([0027]-[0028]; [0036]; [0065]-[0072]; [0135]-[0141]).
Regarding claim 5, the combination of Li and Hsu discloses the invention as claimed, see rejection supra, and Li further discloses determining, by the server system, a second set of visual features corresponding to motion information of at least characters of the sexual content in the one or more target video frames of the video based at least on the one or more artificial intelligence (AI) models implementing a cyclic neural network ([0040]; [0065]-[0066]; [0119]); and determining, by the server system, the parameters for the control signal corresponding to at least the first set of visual features and the second set of visual features of the visual feature, wherein the parameters of the control signal corresponding to the visual features comprise at least one of a type of sexual stimulation device, amplitude and frequency ([0075]; [0147]; [0150]-[0153]).
Regarding claim 6, the combination of Li and Hsu discloses the invention as claimed, see rejection supra, and Li further discloses receiving, by the server system, the one or more target video frames at a time, wherein the one or more target video frames corresponds to a category of intra-frame ([0045]-[0047]); extracting, by the server system, a difference value between the one or more target video frames at each time based at least on the one or more artificial intelligence (AI) models, wherein extracting the difference value comprises: obtaining a foreground of each of the one or more target video frames at each time, identifying at least one image factor in terms of at least color, texture, and line of the foreground, and comparing the one or more target video frames received at each time with respect to the at least one image factor ([0040]; [0047]-[0048]; [0050]; [0108]; [0119]); and determining, by the server system, the parameters for the control signal corresponding to the difference value between the one or more target video frames at each time, wherein the parameters of the control signal corresponding to the one or more target video frames at each time comprises at least one of an amplitude and frequency ([0088]; [0091]; [0122]; [0157]).
Regarding claim 8, the combination of Li and Hsu discloses the invention as claimed, see rejection supra, and Li further discloses that the type of sexual stimulation device associated with the control signal is determined to be at least one of a female sexual stimulation device and a male sexual stimulation device based on the visual features related to a gender of the characters in the sexual content of the video ([0075]; [0151]; [0153]).
Regarding claim 9, the combination of Li and Hsu discloses the invention as claimed, see rejection supra, and Li further discloses facilitating, by the server system, a connection with a third party video streaming platform rendering at least one of the video comprising the sexual content on a first user device of the at least one user device associated with the user ([0059]-[0060]; generating, by the server system, the control signal based on real-time analysis of the sexual content of the video rendered in a first user device and transmitting, by the server system, the control signal to a second user device of the at least one user device associated with the user for operating the sexual stimulation device to provide sexual stimulation to the user corresponding to the sexual content being displayed in the video ([0153]; [0166]).
Regarding claim 10, the combination of Li and Hsu discloses the invention as claimed, see rejection supra, and Li further discloses facilitating, by the server system, a live stream broadcast of the sexual content created by a content creator in the application equipped in the at least one user device associated with the user; generating, by the server system, the control signal based on performing a real-time analysis of actions performed by the content creator in the live streaming; and transmitting, by the server system, the control signal to the at least one user device associated with the user for operating the sexual stimulation device to provide sexual stimulation to the user corresponding to the actions performed in the live streaming by the content creator ([0059]-[0060]).
Regarding claim 11, the combination of Li and Hsu discloses the invention as claimed, see rejection supra, and Li further discloses that the one or more artificial intelligence (AI) models are trained with a training data, the training data comprising at least sexual content data, control signals data, audio data corresponding to the sexual content and feature points ([0033]; [0037]-[0040]; [0050]).
Regarding claim 12, the combination of Li and Hsu discloses the invention as claimed, see rejection supra, and Li further discloses predicting, by the server system, subsequent set of target video frames based at least on the one or more target video frames, wherein the subsequent set of target video frames is predicted based on one or more artificial intelligence (AI) models implementing prediction algorithms; generating, by the server system, the control signal in real-time for a time window corresponding to the subsequent set of target video frames; and updating, by the server system, a training data based on the control signal associated with the one or more target video frames and the predicted subsequent set of target video frames ([0037]-[0040]).
Regarding claim 13, Li discloses a server system (Abstract), comprising: a communication interface, a memory storing executable instructions, and a processor operatively coupled with the communication interface and the memory ([0007]; [0145]; [0168]-[0169]; [0173]), the processor configured to execute the executable instructions to cause the server system to at least: facilitate a communication between at least one user device and a sexual stimulation device associated with a user via an application equipped in the at least one user device of the user ([0006]-[0007]; [0063]; [0077]); perform selection of one or more target video frames of a video representing sexual content being displayed in the at least one user device, wherein the one or more target video frames is selected based at least on performing a real-time analysis of the sexual content in the video ([0045]-[0050]); extract at least one feature from the one or more target video frames of the video based at least on one or more artificial intelligence (AI) models, the at least one feature comprising an acoustic feature and a visual feature ([0040]; [0045]-[0054]); generate a control signal comprising parameters corresponding to the at least one feature being extracted from the one or more target video frames of the video, wherein the parameters of the control signal are determined based at least on quantifying the at least one feature; and transmit the control signal in real time to the at least one user device associated with the user for operating the sexual stimulation device to provide sexual stimulation to the user corresponding to the sexual content being displayed in the video ([0027]-[0028]; [0036]; [0065]-[0072]; [0135]-[0141]). Li fails to expressly disclose quantifying the at least one feature with predefined weights. Hsu discloses a similar method (Abstract) comprising determining parameters of a control signal for a sexual stimulation device based on quantifying at least one visual feature with predefined weights in order to appropriately model and generate the corresponding stimulation ([0040]; [0049]; [0051]). 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 invention of Li by quantifying the at least one feature with predefined weights, as taught by Hsu, in order to appropriately model and generate the corresponding stimulation.
Regarding claim 14, the combination of Li and Hsu discloses the invention as claimed, see rejection supra, and Li further discloses that the server system is further caused to obtain audio information from the one or more target video frames comprising the sexual content; extract one or more acoustic feature parameters from the audio information, the one or more acoustic feature parameters comprising acoustic category, decibel, tone, periodicity, and semantics ([0040]; [0051]; [0090]; [0092]); and determine the parameters for the control signal corresponding to the acoustic features, wherein the parameters of the control signal corresponding to the acoustic features comprise at least one of a type of sexual stimulation device, amplitude, and frequency ([0075]; [0147]; [0150]-[0153]), wherein determining the parameters for the control signal further comprises determining the type of sexual stimulation device, an update value for the amplitude and frequency based on performing a comparison of the one or more acoustic feature parameters with one or more preset values defined for at least the type of sexual stimulation device, amplitude and frequency ([0150]-[0153]).
Regarding claim 15, the combination of Li and Hsu discloses the invention as claimed, see rejection supra, and Li further discloses that the server system is further caused to determine a first set of visual features corresponding to erotic factor in the video; and perform selection of video frames comprising the first set of visual features in the video as the one or more target video frames, wherein determining the first set of visual features corresponding to erotic factor in the video and performing selection of the one or more target video frames in the video are based at least on the one or more artificial intelligence (AI) models implementing deep learning technique ([0027]-[0028]; [0036]; [0065]-[0072]; [0135]-[0141]).
Regarding claim 16, the combination of Li and Hsu discloses the invention as claimed, see rejection supra, and Li further discloses that the server system is further caused to determine a second set of visual features corresponding to motion information of at least characters of the sexual content in the one or more target video frames of the video based at least on the one or more artificial intelligence (AI) models implementing a cyclic neural network ([0040]; [0065]-[0066]; [0119]); and determine the parameters for the control signal corresponding to at least the first set of visual features and the second set of visual features of the visual feature, wherein the parameters of the control signal corresponding to the visual features comprise at least one of a type of sexual stimulation device, amplitude and frequency ([0075]; [0147]; [0150]-[0153]).
Regarding claim 17, the combination of Li and Hsu discloses the invention as claimed, see rejection supra, and Li further discloses that the server system is further caused to receive the one or more target video frames at a time, wherein the one or more target video frames corresponds to a category of intra-frame ([0045]-[0047]); extract a difference value between the one or more target video frames at each time based at least on the one or more artificial intelligence (AI) models, wherein extracting the difference value comprises: obtain a foreground of each of the one or more target video frames at each time, identify at least one image factor in terms of at least color, texture, and line of the foreground, and compare the one or more target video frames received at each time with respect to the at least one image factor ([0040]; [0047]-[0048]; [0050]; [0108]; [0119]); and determine the parameters for the control signal corresponding to the difference value between the one or more target video frames at each time, wherein the parameters of the control signal corresponding to the one or more target video frames at each time comprises at least one of an amplitude and frequency ([0088]; [0091]; [0122]; [0157]).
Regarding claim 19, the combination of Li and Hsu discloses the invention as claimed, see rejection supra, and Li further discloses that the type of sexual stimulation device associated with the control signal is determined to be at least one of a female sexual stimulation device and a male sexual stimulation device based on the visual features related to a gender of the characters in the sexual content of the video ([0075]; [0151]; [0153]).
Regarding claim 20, the combination of Li and Hsu discloses the invention as claimed, see rejection supra, and Li further discloses that the one or more artificial intelligence (AI) models are trained with a training data, the training data comprising at least sexual content data, control signals data, audio data corresponding to the sexual content and feature points ([0033]; [0037]-[0040]; [0050]).
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 1-5, 7-16, and 18-20 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1 and 7-16 of U.S. Patent No. 12,268,646. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because they recite essentially identical limitations such that they would not meet a one-way test for distinctness. Claim 1 of the issued patent recites each of the limitations of the first, second, fourth, and fifth paragraph of present claim 1; further, claim 1 of the issued patent recites extracting at least two body features based on AI models; such features are taken to read on the at least one visual feature recited in the third paragraph of present claim 1. Claim 15 of the issued patent also includes these limitations and maps to present claims 1 and 13. Claim 16 of the issued patent maps to present claims 2, 3, and 14. Claim 11 of the issued patent maps to present claims 4 and 15. Claim 12 of the issued patent maps to present claims 5 and 16. Claim 13 of the issued patent maps to present claims 7 and 18. Claim 14 of the issued patent maps to present claims 8 and 19. Claim 7 of the issued patent maps to present claim 9, while claim 8 of the issued patent maps to present claim 10. Claim 9 of the issued patent maps to present claims 11 and 20. Claim 10 of the issued patent maps to present claim 12.
Claims 1 and 13 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1, 11, and 19 of U.S. Patent No. 12,343,299 in view of Hsu. Claim 1 of the issued patent recites each of the limitations of the first, second, and fifth paragraph of present claim 1; further, claim 1 of the issued patent recites extracting a point set representing a human body including two or more key points based on AI models; such features are taken to read on the at least one visual feature recited in the third paragraph of present claim 1. Claims 11 and 19 of the issued patent also includes these limitations and extracting point sets, so also map to present claims 1 and 13. The claims of the issued patent fails to recite quantifying the at least one feature with predefined weights. As detailed supra, Hsu teaches quantifying at least one visual feature with predefined weights in order to appropriately model and generate the corresponding stimulation ([0040]; [0049]; [0051]). 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 claims of the issued patent by quantifying the at least one feature with predefined weights, as taught by Hsu, in order to appropriately model and generate the corresponding stimulation.
Claims 1 and 13 are provisionally rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1, 3, and 14 of copending Application No. 19/255,587 (reference application). Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because they recite essentially identical limitations such that they would not meet a one-way test for distinctness. Claim 3 of the reference application recites each of the limitations of the first, second, fourth, and fifth paragraph of present claim 1; further, claim 3 of the reference application recites extracting at least two body features based on AI models; such features are taken to read on the at least one visual feature recited in the third paragraph of present claim 1. Claim 14 of the reference application also includes these limitations and maps to present claims 1 and 13.
This is a provisional nonstatutory double patenting rejection because the patentably indistinct claims have not in fact been patented.
Subject Matter Allowable Over Prior Art
Claims 7 and 18 would be allowable if the double patenting rejections are overcome and if rewritten to overcome the rejection(s) under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), 2nd paragraph, set forth in this Office action and to include all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter: while Sloan (U.S. Pub. No. 2023/0039784 A1) teaches a similar method and system that provides control signals for a sexual stimulation device based upon a video, wherein motion estimates can be made as the video changes between long shots and close-ups, neither Sloan nor any other prior art of record teaches or reasonably suggests identifying the frame type of the one or more video frames comprising at least a long shot frame and a close shot frame, along with determining the second set of visual features in the one or more video frames of the frame type being at least one of the long shot frame and the close shot frame based at least one or more feature detection techniques associated with the one or more AI models, and computing a change in position of feature points between consecutive video frames of the sexual content in the video associated with the second set of visual features in the one or more target video frames, in combination with the other recited steps.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Lee (U.S. Pub. No. 2023/0252775 A1) discloses an interactive platform that comprises sexual stimulation devices that can correspond to actions in videos based upon AI analysis of the videos/live streams. Omar (U.S. No. 11,589,116 B1) teaches using a neural network to detect a type of prurient activity in a video.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to THADDEUS B COX whose telephone number is (571)270-5132. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 9am-6pm.
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, Jason M. Sims can be reached at (571)272-7540. 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.
/THADDEUS B COX/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3791