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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114.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 February 4, 2026 has been entered.
Ownership
As discussed in the below 102 rejection, it may be that the present technology is owned by the Chinese Academy of Sciences rather than Tencent. However, the examiner is treating Tencent as the owner of this application because 37 C.F.R. 3.73(a) states “The original applicant is presumed to be the owner of an application for an original patent, and any patent that may issue therefrom, unless there is an assignment.”
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments and amendment have persuasively overcome the drawing objections, the 112b rejection and the prior art rejection.
The remaining issues are addressed below.
Applicant argues:
Moreover, the Applicant hereby rescinds any prior disclaimer of claim scope, to the extent they exist, made during the prosecution of this application or made during the prosecution of any patent or other related patents/applications, and advises the Examiner that any such previous disclaimers and the cited references that they were made to avoid may need to be revisited.
Examiner responds:
Applicant is not able to rescind disclaimer of claim scope. If Applicant wishes to have an issue revisited, Applicant needs to explicitly raise the issue to the office (e.g., in a supplemental re-examination).
101
Applicant argues:
These operations do not fall into a mental process and cannot be performed practically by any human mind.
Examiner responds:
The examiner understands the guidance to say that these processes are mental, see example 47, claim 2, element (d) (from the July 2024 AI subject matter eligibility examples
Applicant argues:
These features can provide improvement to the technical field of feature fusing.
Examiner responds:
These features are part of the abstract idea, and thus considered in step 2A, prong 1 instead of prong 2.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112:
The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor of carrying out his invention.
Claims 1-5, 7-12, 14-18, and 20 (all claims) are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, because the specification, while being enabling for consecutive images (see, e.g., specification [0044]) recited in the independent claims, does not reasonably provide enablement for images that are not close enough in time to recognize behavior. The specification does not enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to practice the invention commensurate in scope with these claims.
For example, specification [0042] discusses tracking the arc of a basketball. However, given one image from a team on offense and a second image of that team, perhaps five minutes later, playing defense, there is no guidance in the specification as to how one would recognize the behavior or put the images in order. Here, Wands factors B-E play little role in the weighing. Factor A is at issue and discussed above. For F, there is no direction provided for images that are not close in time, for G, there are no working examples and for H, the amount of experimentation appears insurmountable.
This claim language is also rejected for lack of written description support for corresponding reasons.
Claims 1, 8, and 15 recite “first adjustment” and “second adjustment,” but the specification does not support the genus of any possible adjustment. Limiting the claim to the specific types of adjustment taught in the specification is expected to overcome this rejection, however, this may require a new translation to use recognized terminology.
Dependent claims are likewise rejected.
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 1-5, 7-12, 14-18, and 20 (all claims) 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.
The below terms appear to be artifacts of translation from Chinese.
Claims 1, 8, and 15 recite “cohesive feature,” but this is new terminology. MPEP 2173.05(a). Claiming the structure shown in Fig. 8 (where steps E and M are explained in specification [0159]) is expected to overcome this rejection. Another option is to show that this term is known in the art.
Claims 1, 8, and 15 recite “priori information,” but this is new terminology. MPEP 2173.05(a). According to specification [0090] and [0091], the priori information is the weight parameters β1 and β2. See, e.g., specification [0154]. Claiming how these weights are determined, such as specification [0157], is expected to overcome this rejection.
Claims 1, 8, and 15 recite “the temporal feature of the intermediate image feature.” The claims specify that the intermediate image feature is for a single frame, see, e.g., “an intermediate image feature for the each of the at least two frames.” However, for a feature to be temporal, there needs to be an aspect of time, i.e., more than one frame such that time passes between the two frames. This language is indefinite because it is unclear what is meant by a temporal feature for a single point in time.
Dependent claims are likewise rejected.
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 1-5, 7-12, 14-18, and 20 (all claims) are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea (mental process) without significantly more.
Step 1: Claim 1 (and its dependents) recite a method, i.e., a process, which is eligible subject matter. Claim 8 and its dependents recite a device, i.e., a machine, which is eligible subject matter. Claim 15 and its dependents recite a non-transitory computer-readable storage medium, i.e., an article of manufacture, which is eligible subject matter.
Step 2A, prong one: All of the elements of the claims are a mental process. Further, the various models are also mental processes, see example 47, claim 2, element (d) (from the July 2024 AI subject matter eligibility examples). Additionally, the processing steps are also mathematical steps. MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(III)(C) explains that use of a generic computer or in a computer environment is still a mental process. In particular, this section begins by citing Gottschalk v. Benson, 409 US 63 (1972). “The Supreme Court recognized this in Benson, determining that a mathematical algorithm for converting binary coded decimal to pure binary within a computer’s shift register was an abstract idea.” In Benson the Supreme Court did not separately analyze the computer hardware at issue; the specifics of what hardware was claimed is only included in an appendix to the decision.
Because there are no additional elements, no further analysis is required for Step 2A, prong two or Step 2B.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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 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 1-5, 7-12, 14-18, and 20 (all claims) are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being clearly anticipated by Yihui Hu’s master’s thesis (“MS thesis”).
The previous action found that CN113435430 (“Chen”) anticipated all of the claims. Applicant has removed Chen as prior art, but has not contested that Chen otherwise teaches all of the claims. Rather, Applicant has shown that Chen qualifies for an exception under 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(1)(A) because Chen published within one year of the earliest effective date.
The claims are presently rejected over the MS thesis because the MS thesis has the same disclosure but an earlier date.
Date of Availability
The examiner was not able to access the URL provided in the affidavit for information regarding the MS thesis, nor was the examiner able to find a copy of the MS thesis. However, the URL’s paper ID contains “20190622” which appears to be a publication date (i.e., June 22, 2019). This date aligns with the other dates in the affidavit. Hu testified that he/she finished their bachelor’s degree in July 2017, began studying for their master’s in September 2018 at the Chinese Academy of Sciences and began working at Tencent in April 2020.
The Chen reference is assigned to the Chinese Academy of Sciences, and not to Tencent. The examiner believes that this shows that the content of Chen was owned by the Chinese Academy of Sciences and not Tencent. The examiner believes that, had Hu started working at Tencent while developing the content of Chen, then Tencent would be at least a joint assignee of the Chen reference. Because Tencent is not an assignee, the examiner believes that the content of Chen was developed prior to April 2020 when Hu began working for Tencent, and thus is available as prior art because April 2020 is more than one year prior to the earliest priority date. The examiner notes that the MS thesis may have additionally become public through a thesis defense.
Disclosure
Section 8 of the affidavit states that Hu “was primarily responsible for all of the inventions covered by CN113435430A.” This appears to be a reference to section 7, which states that Hu “was responsible for developing all the key features in CN113435430A, … which are also the basis of my MS thesis.” Therefore, the examiner concludes that the key features of the Chen reference were the basis of the MS thesis, and thus the MS thesis anticipates the claims for the same reason that the Chen reference did.
Showing that the MS thesis was not publicly available outside of the grace period overcomes this rejection.
Conclusion
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 DAVID ORANGE whose telephone number is (571)270-1799. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Fri, 9-5.
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, Gregory Morse can be reached at 571-272-3838. 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.
/DAVID ORANGE/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2663