DETAILED ACTION
Response to Amendment
1. The amendment filed on 8/7/2026 has been entered. Claims 1, 12 and 20 have been amended. No claims have been added or cancelled. Accordingly, claims 1-20 are pending in this office action.
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
2. 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 Arguments
3. Applicant’s arguments with respect to claim(s) 1-20 have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
4. 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.
Claim(s) 1-20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US 2018/0337994 (hereinafter Dachille) in view US 2023/0103305 (hereinafter Xu) and in further view of US 2022/0107645 (hereinafter Kalantidis) (Art of record).
As for claim 1 Dachille discloses: A method of comprising: obtaining a first data segment and a second data segment respectively from a first data sequence in a plurality of data sequences for training the learning model (See paragraphs 0032, 0049 note portions/segments are collected/obtained as sequences) the first data sequence comprising a plurality of data frames, and the first data segment and the second data segment each comprising at least a portion of data frames of the plurality of data frames (See paragraphs 0032, 0049 note portions/segments are collected/obtained as sequences further note the segments can be frames); selecting a data frame from a second data sequence in the plurality of data sequences (See abstract and paragraphs 0009 and 0013 note a selection of an image or images are received via user input) ; generating a third data segment based on the second data segment and the data frame (See paragraphs 0059-0062 and 0076 note information is generated based on the received user input and selections).
Dachille, however, does not explicitly disclose: generating a sample pair of a contrastive learning model (i.e. generation of pairs and training of a contrastive learning model) nor determining a positive sample pair for training the contrastive learning model by using the first data segment and the third data segment. Xu however discloses: generating a sample pair of a contrastive learning model (See paragraph 0065 note the system uses contrastive learning to match embeddings) and determining a positive sample pair for training the contrastive learning model by using the first data segment and the third data segment (See paragraphs 0018, and 0066 note both positive samples are used to train the contrastive learning model).
Neither Dachille nor Xu disclose: wherein at least the portion of data frames in the second data segment are modified using the data frame to generate the third data segment nor the positive sample pair comprising the first data segment and the third data segment. Kalantidis however discloses: wherein at least the portion of data frames in the second data segment are modified using the data frame to generate the third data segment (See paragraphs 0006, 0012 and 0023-0024 note three vectors are generated, representative of features within the images) and the positive sample pair comprising the first data segment and the third data segment (See paragraphs 0054-0060 note positive sample can be generated as pairs from any of the generated vectors). It would have been obvious to an artisan of ordinary skill in the pertinent at the time the instantly claimed invention was filed to have incorporated the teaching of Dachille and Kalantidis into the system of Xu. The modification would have been obvious because the three references are concerned with the solution to problem of processing training information, therefore there is an implicit motivation to combine these references (i.e. motivation from the references themselves). In other words, the ordinary skilled artisan, during his/her quest for a solution to the cited problem, would look to the cited references at the time the invention was made. Consequently, the ordinary skilled artisan would have been motivated to combine the cited references since Kalantidis and Xu’s teaching would enable users of the Dachille system to have more efficient processing.
As for claim 2 the rejection of claim 1 is incorporated and further Dachille discloses: wherein generating the third data segment comprises: generating a noise data frame based on the data frame; and updating the data frame in the second data segment with the noise data frame (See paragraphs 0069 and 0088 note noise is identified).
As for claim 3 the rejection of claim 2 is incorporated and further Dachille discloses: wherein generating the noise data frame comprises: generating an intermediate data frame by adjusting dimensions of the data frame according to a predetermined ratio; generating a plurality of copied intermediate data frames by copying the intermediate data frame; and generating the noise data by joining the plurality of copied intermediate data frames (See paragraph 0182).
As for claim 4 the rejection of claim 3 is incorporated and further Dachille discloses: wherein the dimensions of the data frame comprise at least one of a width and a height (See paragraph 0067).
As for claim 5 the rejection of claim 3 is incorporated and further Xu discloses: further comprising: in response to determining that a resolution of the noise data frame is different from that of the data frame in the second data segment, performing at least one of: cropping the noise data frame to the resolution of the data frame in the second data segment; and scaling the noise data frame to the resolution of the data frame in the second data segment (See paragraph 0087).
As for claim 6 the rejection of claim 2 is incorporated and further Dachille discloses: wherein updating the data frame in the second data segment with the noise data frame comprises: for a given data point in the data frame in the second data segment, obtaining a data value of the given data point; obtaining a corresponding data value of a data point in the noise data frame corresponding to the given data point; and determining a data value of a data point in the data frame corresponding to the given data point based on the data value, the corresponding data value, and a weight of the noise data frame (See paragraph 0088 note there can be noise thresholds).
As for claim 7 the rejection of claim 1 is incorporated and further Dachille discloses: wherein obtaining the first data segment comprises: selecting the first data segment satisfying a predetermined length from the first data sequence, the first data segment comprising only a single shot (See paragraph 0067 note threshold distance for each particular portion/segment).
As for claim 8 the rejection of claim 7 is incorporated and further Dachille discloses: wherein obtaining the second data segment comprises: selecting the second data segment satisfying the predetermined length from a portion of the first data sequence comprising the single shot, the second data segment being different from the first data segment (See paragraph 0067 note threshold distance for each particular portion/segment).
As for claim 9 the rejection of claim 1 is incorporated and further Dachille discloses: determining a first data range of the plurality of data frames in the first data sequence; determining a data range of a plurality of data frames in a given data sequence in the plurality of data sequences; and in response to determining that a difference between the data range and the first data range satisfies a predetermined condition, selecting the given data sequence as the second data sequence (See paragraphs 0055-0056 note the ranges are based on times/dates).
As for claim 10 the rejection of claim 1 is incorporated and further Xu discloses: determining a fourth data segment from the second data sequence; and determining a negative sample pair for training the contrastive learning model by using the first data segment and the fourth data segment (See paragraph 0066 note the system will use a negative sample).
As for claim 11 the rejection of claim 10 is incorporated and further Xu discloses: training the contrastive learning model with the positive sample pair and the negative sample pair (See paragraph 0066).
Claims 12-19 are device claims substantially corresponding to the method of claims 1-11 and are thus rejected for the same reasons as set forth in the rejection of claims 1-11.
Claim 20 is a non-transitory claim substantially corresponding to the method of claim 1 and is thus rejected for the same reasons as set forth in the rejection of claim 1.
Conclusion
Applicant's submission of an information disclosure statement under 37 CFR 1.97(c) with the timing fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(p) on 9/1/2026 prompted the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 609.04(b). 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 ELIYAH STONE HARPER whose telephone number is (571)272-0759. The examiner can normally be reached on Monday-Friday 10:00 am - 6:00 pm.
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, Sanjiv Shah can be reached on (571)270-375098. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300. Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/Eliyah S. Harper/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2166 September 9, 2026
Prosecution Insights