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 .
This Office Action is responsive to the Amendment filed 09 June 2026. Claims 1-6, 8-17, 19, and 20 are currently under consideration. The Office acknowledges the amendments to claims 1-6, 8-17, 19, and 20.
Terminal Disclaimer
The terminal disclaimer filed on 09 June 2026 disclaiming the terminal portion of any patent granted on this application which would extend beyond the expiration date of U.S. Patent No. 12,268,646 has been reviewed and is accepted. The terminal disclaimer has been recorded.
Claim Objections
Claims 1 and 13 are objected to because of the following informalities:
In claim 1, lines 24-25: “consecutive video frames” should apparently read --the consecutive video frames--.
In claim 13, line 29: “feature points” should apparently read --the feature points--.
In claim 13, lines 29-30: “consecutive video frames” should apparently read --the consecutive video frames--.
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 1-6, 8-17, 19, and 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 1 recites the limitation “determining, by the server system, a second set of visual features” in line 15. However, the claim does not recite determining a first set of visual features. It is not clear if the recitation of a second set of visual features is intended to implicitly recite a first set (such that the claim includes two sets of visual features) or if the use of “second” is arbitrary (such that the claim includes only a single set of visual features).
Claim 4 recites the limitation “wherein determining the first set of visual features and performing selection of the one or more target video frames in the video are based at least on” in lines 7-9. However, the claim does not previously recite performing selection of the one or more target video frames in the video; instead, it recites performing selection of video frames comprising the first set of visual features in the video.
Claims 2-6 and 8-12 are rejected by virtue of their dependence upon at least one rejected base claim.
Claim 13 recites the limitation “determining a second set of visual features” in line 20. However, the claim does not recite determining a first set of visual features. It is not clear if the recitation of a second set of visual features is intended to implicitly recite a first set (such that the claim includes two sets of visual features) or if the use of “second” is arbitrary (such that the claim includes only a single set of visual features).
Claim 15 recites the limitation “wherein determining the first set of visual features and selection of the one or more target video frames in the video are based at least on” in lines 7-9. However, the claim does not previously recite selection of the one or more target video frames in the video; instead, it recites selection of video frames comprising the first set of visual features in the video.
Claims 14-17, 19, and 20 are rejected by virtue of their dependence upon at least one rejected base claim.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 1-6, 8-17, 19, and 20 would be allowable if rewritten or amended 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.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter: similarly to as detailed in the previous Office action, none of the prior art of record teaches or reasonably suggests identifying a frame type of the one or more target video frames comprising at least a long shot frame and a close shot frame, along with determining a second set of visual features corresponding to motion information of characters in the one or more target video frames of the identified frame type based on 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.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to the objections to the claims, the rejections under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) and (d), the rejections under 35 U.S.C. 103, and the double patenting rejections have been fully considered and are persuasive in light of the amendments and the above-cited terminal disclaimer. The objections and rejections have been withdrawn.
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
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
Prosecution Insights