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 .
Response to Election/Restrictions
1. Applicant’s election without traverse of species I including claims 1-15 in the reply filed on 10/14/2025 for examination is acknowledged. All other claims are therefore withdrawn from the examination and the election/restriction is herein made final.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
2. 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.
3. Claims 1-15 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.
Regarding claim 1, claim 1 recites limitation “one or more processor configured by machine-readable instructions for: identifying a plurality of candidate field lines in one or more frame of video”. This limitation recites “one or more processor” and “one or more frame” – seems like the word “more” requires to have more processors, not one processor; and more frames, not one frame, thus making the claim language indefinite. Proper correction is required, such that “frame” should be “frames”; and “processor” should be “processors”.
Claim 1 further recites limitation “training a neural network to detect one or more field object”. This limitation recites “one or more field object” – seems like the word “more” requires to have more objects, not one object, thus making the claim language indefinite. Proper correction is required, such that “object” should be “objects”.
Claim 1 further recites limitation “detecting, using the neural network, one or more field object in the one or more fame of video”. This limitation recites “one or more field object” and “one or more frame” – seems like the word “more” requires to have more objects, not one object; and, “more” requires to have more frames, not one frame, and thus making the claim language indefinite. Proper correction is required, such that “object” should be “objects”; and “fame” should be “frames”.
Claim 1 further recites limitation “assigning, using the detected one or more field object, a confidence value to each of the plurality of candidate field lines”. This limitation recites “one or more field object” – seems like the word “more” requires to have more objects, not one object., thus making the claim language indefinite. Proper correction is required, such that “object” should be “objects”.
Claim 1 further recites limitation “removing one or more low confidence candidate field line from the plurality of candidate field lines”. This limitation recites “one or more low confidence candidate field line” – seems like the word “more” requires to have more lines, not one line, thus making the claim language indefinite. Proper correction is required, such that “line” should be “lines”.
Claim 1 further recites limitation “retaining one or more high confidence candidate field line from the plurality of candidate field lines”. This limitation recites “one or more high confidence candidate field line” – seems like the word “more” requires to have more lines, not one line, thus making the claim language indefinite. Proper correction is required, such that “line” should be “lines”.
All other claims depending on claim 1 are rejected for just being dependent on claim 1.
Further analyzing claim 3, claim 3 recites “The system of claim 1, wherein the one or more field object includes one or more hashmark and field number”. This limitation recites “one or more field object” and “one or more hashmark and field number” – seems like the word “more” requires to have more objects, not one object; and, “more” requires to have more hashmarks and numbers, not one hashmark and number, and thus making the claim language indefinite. Proper correction is required, such that “object” should be “objects”; “hashmark” should be “hashmarks”; and “numbers”.
Further analyzing claim 4, claim 4 recites “The system of claim 1, wherein the one or more processor is further configured by machine- readable instructions for: recalibrating the alignment of the one or more high confidence candidate field line to intercept the middle of the detected one or more field object”. This limitation recites “one or more high confidence candidate field line” and “one or more field object” – seems like the word “more” requires to have more lines, not one line; and, “more” requires to have more objects, not one object, and thus making the claim language indefinite. Proper correction is required, such that “line” should be “lines” and “object” should be “objects”. Similarly, “processor” should be “processors”.
Further adding, claim 4 recites the limitation “the middle of the detected”. There is insufficient antecedent basis for “the middle” in the claim. There is nothing in the preceding claim 1 that talks about “the middle of the detected object”.
Similarly, in claim 5, “processor” should be “processors”, “line” should be “lines”; and, “sideline” should be “sidelines”.
Similarly, in claim 6, “processor” should be “processors”, “line” should be “lines”.
Similarly, in claim 7, “processor” should be “processors”, “line” should be “lines”.
Similarly, in claim 8, “processor” should be “processors”, “line” should be “lines”; and “frame” should be “frames”.
Similarly, in claim 10, “processor” should be “processors”, “line” should be “lines”, “hashmark” should be “hashmarks”, “number” should be “numbers”, and, “sideline” should be “sidelines”.
Similarly, in claim 13, “processor” should be “processors”, “line” should be “lines”, and “object” should be “objects”.
Similarly, in claim 14, “hashmark” should be “hashmarks”.
Correction is required to the cited rejected claims in order to resolve indefinite claim language.
4. Regarding claim 1 analysis with respect to prior art(s), none of the closest prior art(s) of record as cited teach “assigning, using the detected one or more field objects, a confidence value to each of the plurality of candidate field lines” as recited in claim 1, in combination with other limitations.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Manav Seth whose telephone number is (571) 272-7456. The examiner can normally be reached on Monday to Friday from 8:30 am to 5:00 pm.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner's supervisor, Sumati Lefkowitz, can be reached on (571) 272-3638. 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:/Awww.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
/Manav Seth/
Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2672
November 26, 2025