DETAILED ACTION
Response to Amendment
Claims 26-50 were previously pending. Applicant’s amendment filed August 18, 2026, has been entered in full. Claims 26, 32, 33, 39, 45, and 46 are amended. No claims are added or cancelled. Accordingly, claims 26-50 are now pending.
Response to Arguments
Applicant argues that the Non-Final Rejection was incomplete because Examiner did not identify any claims he judged to be allowable and/or suggest any way that he considered that the rejected claims may be amended to make them allowable (Remarks filed August 18, 2026, hereinafter Remarks: Page 6). Examiner respectfully disagrees. By identifying all claims as rejected, Examiner indicated that no claims were in condition for allowance. Furthermore, Examiner’s consideration of the application did not identify any ways that the rejected claims may be amended to make them allowable, hence the absence of any such suggestion in the Office Action.
Applicant argues that the previous objections for informalities have been overcome by amendments to the claims (Remarks: Page 6). Examiner agrees. The previous objections for informalities are withdrawn.
Applicant traverses the previous rejections of the claims under 35 U.S.C. 101 (Remarks: Pages 6-8). Examiner respectfully disagrees, as explained further in the responses and rejection below.
Applicant first argues that Examiner has evaluated the claims at too high a level of generality and dismissed “meaningful technical limitations” such as limitations that “explicitly require the computational extraction of feature vectors and machine learning transformations on digital video data” (Remarks: Pages 6-7). Examiner respectfully disagrees. The claims themselves are recited at a high level of generality. For example, contrary to Applicant’s assertions, none of the claims explicitly recite feature vectors or machine learning transformations. As explained in the Non-Final Rejection, the human mind is capable of performing the feature transformations at the high level of generality recited in the claims.
Applicant second argues that the claimed invention is eligible because it provides a technological improvement (Remarks: Pages 7-8). Applicant points to pars. [0023] and [0043] of the specification, but Examiner notes that the quotations appear to come from pars. [0024] and [0044] of the specification in the file wrapper. Par. [0024] states that other prior art keyframe extraction or procedure segmentation techniques “suffer from low accuracies for scoring applications” and par. [0044] asserts that scoring accuracy is improved using the “proposed solution.”
As an initial matter, Examiner notes that Applicant’s arguments focus on the use of an action-procedure relationship learning module. For example, Applicant argues that “[t]he claimed invention overcomes this technical deficiency by employing an action-procedure relationship learning module” that “specifically models and discovers the relationship between the plurality of action features and scoring oriented procedures” and thus provides an improvement (Remarks: Page 7). However, the claims have been amended to delete all references to “an action procedure relationship learning module”. The amended claims plainly do not require using this specific module.
“It is important to note, the judicial exception alone cannot provide the improvement.” MPEP 2106.05(a). Claim 26 can be taken as a representative claim for the purpose of responding to Applicant’s arguments. As explained in the Non-Final Rejection, each of the steps of claim 26 is recited at such a high level of generality that it encompasses a mental process abstract idea judicial exception. Therefore, even if performing an action segmentation process, transforming the action features into action-procedure features, and performing a procedure classification does amount to an improvement over existing alternatives, this improvement would be derived from the judicial exception itself, not any additional elements. Also, “An important consideration in determining whether a claim improves technology is the extent to which the claim covers a particular solution to a problem or a particular way to achieve a desired outcome, as opposed to merely claiming the idea of a solution or outcome.” Id. Claim 26 is recited at a high level of generality that does not require a particular solution or a particular way to achieve a desired outcome. For example, “transform the plurality of action features into a plurality of action-procedure features based on discovering a relationship between the plurality of action features and a plurality of scoring oriented procedures associated with the procedural video” covers any way of discovering a relationship between the plurality of action features and a plurality of scoring oriented procedures associated with the procedural video and covers any way of transforming the action features based on the discovered relationship. The claim is not limited to any specific way of transforming the action features that provides the improvement asserted in the specification.
In summary, the claim is recited at such a high level of generality that it encompasses mental processes, such that any improvement is derived from a mental process judicial exception itself, and the claim does not cover a particular solution to a problem or a particular way to achieve a desired outcome. For at least these reasons, the currently-recited claims are not integrated into a practical application.
Applicant has amended claims 26 and 39 (Remarks: Page 8). The amendment deletes the nonce word “module”. For at least this reason, the previous interpretation under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) and related rejection under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) are withdrawn.
Applicant traverses the previous prior art rejections under 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103, arguing that the previously-cited prior art does not disclose or teach all elements of the claimed invention (Remarks: Pages 8-10).
Applicant first argues that the ‘Li’ reference fails to teach performing “an action segmentation process” (Remarks: Pages 8 and 10). In particular, Applicant argues that Li does not describe “segmenting a video by action” and thus does not fall within the scope of the claimed “action segmentation process” (Id.). Examiner respectfully disagrees. As explained in the Non-Final Rejection, Li splits (i.e., segments) a video depicting actions into
N
different segments (Sec. 3.1). This is within the broadest reasonable interpretation (BRI) of an “action segmentation process” at least because the video (and the actions within it) are divided into segments. If Applicant intends to mean something more specific by this phrase, then they are invited to amend the claim to positively recite it.
Applicant second argues that Li does not “perform a procedure classification process to infer the plurality of scoring oriented procedures from the plurality of action-procedure features” (Remarks: Pages 9 and 10). In particular, Applicant argues that “Outputting a single, aggregate skill score does not identify, classify, or output a plurality of distinct procedures as required by claim 26.” Applicant is again arguing features that are not actually recited in the claims. Claim 26 does not require any identification, classification, or output of distinct procedures. Claim 26 merely requires performing a procedure classification process for the purpose of inferring the plurality of scoring oriented procedures from the plurality of action-procedure features. As explained in the Non-Final Rejection (Page 17), Li’s disclosure falls within the scope of the claim as it is presented.
Admitted Prior Art
In the Office Action dated ----March 18, 2026, Examiner took Official Notice of facts in the following instance(s):
At Page 21:
“However, Examiner takes Official Notice that it is old and well-known in the art of image analysis to implement a video processing method as an apparatus comprising interface circuitry and processor circuitry coupled to the interface circuitry and configured to perform the method. Use of interface circuitry advantageously allows processing circuitry to access input data necessary to perform the method and the processing circuitry advantageously allows the method to be performed quickly and efficiently.”
At Page 23:
“However, Examiner takes Official Notice that it is old and well-known in the art of image analysis to implement a video processing method as a non-transitory computer-readable medium having instructions stored thereon, wherein the instructions, when executed by processor circuitry, cause the processor circuitry to perform the method. Such computer implementation advantageously allows the method to be performed quickly and efficiently.”
Regarding Official Notice, MPEP 2144.03(C) includes the following instructions:
“To adequately traverse such a finding, an applicant must specifically point out the supposed errors in the examiner’s action, which would include stating why the noticed fact is not considered to be common knowledge or well-known in the art.”
“A general allegation that the claims define a patentable invention without any reference to the examiner’s assertion of official notice would be inadequate.”
“If applicant does not traverse the examiner’s assertion of official notice or applicant’s traverse is not adequate, the examiner should clearly indicate in the next Office action that the common knowledge or well-known in the art statement is taken to be admitted prior art because applicant either failed to traverse the examiner’s assertion of official notice or that the traverse was inadequate. If the traverse was inadequate, the examiner should include an explanation as to why it was inadequate.”
In the reply filed August 18, 2026, Applicant acknowledges the Official Notice statements but does not traverse them. For example, at page 9, Applicant states that “The Examiner’s invocation of Official Notice is directed only to generic computer implementation”. While Applicant argues that the Official Notice “does not cure the substantive deficiencies of Li”, Applicant does not argue that the Official Notice statements are in error or not considered to be common knowledge or well-known in the art.
Therefore, as required by the MPEP, Examiner clearly indicates that the Official Notice statement(s) noted above is/are taken to be admitted prior art because Applicant either failed to traverse it/them or inadequately traversed it/them.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on August 19, 2026, is being considered by the examiner.
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 26-50 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea judicial exception without significantly more.
The patent subject matter eligibility (SME) test is set forth in MPEP 2106. It includes multiple steps, sub-steps, and prongs, which are addressed below.
Step 1: Is the claim to a statutory category?
Claims 26-38 are to a machine and/or manufacture. Claims 39-49 are to a process. Claim 50 is to a machine and/or manufacture.
Step 2A, Prong One: Does the claim recite a judicial exception?
Claim 26 recites a step to “perform an action segmentation process for a procedural video … to obtain a plurality of action features associated with the procedural video.” This step recites a mental process type of abstract idea judicial exception. See MPEP 2106.04(a)(2), Subsection III. A human can view a procedural video, mentally divide it into different segments/sections for different actions, and recognize different features of the actions portrayed in the video. For example, a person could view a video of a person washing their hands (a hand washing procedure), recognize that specific parts/segments of the video correspond to particular actions (e.g., actions of applying water, applying soap, scrubbing, rinsing, etc.) and obtain features for those actions (e.g., whether they were performed, whether they were performed in a correct order, whether they were performed well in the subjective opinion of the human, how long they were performed, etc.).
Claim 26 further recites a step to “transform the plurality of action features into a plurality of action-procedure features based on discovering a relationship between the plurality of action features and a plurality of scoring oriented procedures associated with the procedural video”. This also recites a mental process. The claim does not specify what exactly is meant by “action-procedure features” but a person can mentally relate different actions they observe to an overall procedure. Following the hand washing example, a person can mentally recognize that an action of applying soap is important and should occur relatively early in a handwashing procedure. The claim further recites that the transformation is “based on discovering a relationship between the plurality of action features and a plurality of scoring oriented procedures associated with the procedure video.” Humans can mentally recognize relationships between actions and scores for a procedure. For example, recognizing that there is an important relationship between an action of applying soap and a correctness “score” of a handwashing procedure.
Claim 26 further recites a step to “perform a procedure classification process to infer the plurality of scoring oriented procedures from the plurality of action-procedure features.” This also recites a mental process because a person can mentally perform classification (i.e., make a decision or judgement) to infer a plurality of scoring oriented procedures from a plurality of action-procedure features. For example, a human can make a mental judgement of whether a video shows that a person has correctly washed their hands based on the actions observed in the video and their relationship to the overall handwashing procedure (e.g., handwashing requires application of soap, scrubbing, and rinsing; the video shows all of these actions in the correct order and for at least a minimum amount of time; therefore, the handwashing procedure was successful).
In summary, claim 26 recites a mental process that could be performed mentally by observing a video of a procedure, recognizing different actions performed in the video, and making a judgement about the procedure based on the recognized actions and their relationship to the procedure. Claim 39 recites similar limitations.
Claims 27-29 and 40-42 recite extracting a main key frame, which can also be performed mentally by choosing a key frame of video according to certain criteria, such as the key frame being an ending frame of an action. For example, a human can observe a video and pause it at a particular frame of interest.
Claims 30 and 43 recite “auto-scoring” that can be performed mentally, such as by mentally rating a video on a scale from 1 to 10.
Claims 31 and 44 recite training based on supervision, which is recited at such a high level of generality that it encompasses mentally learning through known examples.
Claims 32 and 45 recite “contextualizing the action features based on action attentions learnt for the action features”, which is recited at such a high level of generality that it encompasses mentally learning what action features are most important and should be paid attention to. In the handwashing example, this could include mentally learning that the time spent scrubbing is a more-important action feature than the color of the soap when determining whether the handwashing procedure is completed correctly.
Claims 33 and 46 recite “scaling the action features based on a pre-learnt action translation matrix”, which is recited at such a high level of generality that it encompasses basic arithmetic that may be performed mentally (possibly with use of a physical aid, such as pen and paper).
Claims 34 and 47 recite performing “uniform sampling or average pooling in a temporal dimension after the action segmentation process to obtain sampled action features in the temporal dimension as the plurality of action features.” This is also recited at such a high level of generality that it encompasses a mental process. For example, a human could mentally pick one representative frame to review for each action, thereby achieving a uniform sampling. In another example, a person could mentally rate the intensity of a person’s scrubbing in a handwashing activity as only 3 out of 10 for the first half of the activity, rate the intensity as 7 out of 10 for the second half of the activity, and mentally choose an average rating of 5 out of 10 as a representative score for the entire handwashing activity (i.e., average pooling in a temporal dimension).
Claims 35-36 and 48-49 recite performing visual perception, such as object detection, hand detection, face recognition, or emotion recognition, which can all be performed mentally.
Claims 37-38 further recite training based on supervision, which are recited at such a high level of generality that they can be performed mentally. For example, a human can mentally learn through examples.
Step 2A, Prong Two: Does the claim recite additional elements that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application?
As discussed above, most of the elements of the claims are directed to a mental process type of abstract idea so they are not considered additional elements. None of the additional elements that are recited amount to anything more than
Merely reciting the words "apply it" (or an equivalent) with the judicial exception, or merely including instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer, or merely using a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea, as discussed in MPEP § 2106.05(f);
Adding insignificant extra-solution activity to the judicial exception, as discussed in MPEP § 2106.05(g); and
Generally linking the use of a judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use, as discussed in MPEP § 2106.05(h),
none of which integrates a judicial exception into a practical application.
Claim 26 recites interface circuitry and processor circuitry. Reciting an interface configured to receive video and processing circuitry configured to perform a mental process on that video amount to implementing an abstract idea on a generic computer, which “does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application.” MPEP 2106.05(f). Claim 39 similarly recites a non-transitory computer-readable medium and processor circuitry, which also amounts to implementing an abstract idea on a generic computer. For example, claim 26 recites that the interface circuitry is to receive video data, but does not restrict how this outcome is accomplished, and recites that processing circuitry is configured to perform steps, but does not restrict how these steps are performed or their results are accomplished by using the processing circuitry.
Step 2B: Does the claim recite additional elements that amount to significantly more than the judicial exception?
The identification of additional elements from Step 2A, Prong Two, is carried over. The conclusions from Step 2A, Prong Two, are carried over. No additional elements were considered to be insignificant extra-solution activity.
As explained above, the only additional elements relate to computer implementation using interface circuitry to receive video and processor circuitry to process the video. Especially at the level of generality recited in the claims, these do not amount to significantly more than an abstract idea. For example, receiving video via interface circuitry could include receiving or transmitting data over a network or retrieving information in memory, both of which have been recognized by the courts as well‐understood, routine, and conventional computer functions. MPEP 2106.05(d), Subsection II. Furthermore, as explained above, the interface and processor circuitry, especially at the high level of generality recited in the claims, amount to no more than mere instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer.
Conclusion
Claims 26-50 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because they are directed to an abstract idea and do not integrate that abstract idea into a practical application or otherwise recite additional elements that amount to significantly more than the abstract idea.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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.
Claim(s) 39-49 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by ‘Li’ (“Manipulation-skill Assessment from Videos with Spatial Attention Network,” 10 April 2019).
Regarding claim 39, Li discloses a method, comprising:
performing an action segmentation process (e.g., Section 3.1, video depicting actions is divided into
N
segments, which falls within the scope of an action segmentation process) for a procedural video (e.g., Sec. 3.1, a video of a procedure is the input, the video including various actions; Secs. 4.1.1-4.1.2, various different types of procedures are considered, including infant grasping, chopstick using, dough rolling, drawing, and surgery) to obtain a plurality of action features associated with the procedural video (e.g., Fig. 1, Feature Encoding; see Sec. 3.2);
transforming the plurality of action features into a plurality of action-procedure features (e.g., Fig. 1, Sec. 3.3, attention pooling transforms the encoded/action features by adjusting spatial attention based on “the high-level knowledge about the undergoing task”; Thus, the transformed features are within the scope of action-procedure features at least because they consider the relationship between the imaged action and the undergoing task/procedure) based on discovering a relationship between the plurality of action features and a plurality of scoring oriented procedures associated with the procedure video (See above; Also, Fig. 2 of Li illustrates many different attention blocks and at least the weights
W
in equation 5 of Li can be considered an action transition matrix of an action transition block; Note from Sec. 3.5, last par., that
W
x
a
is a 32x512 matrix and
W
h
a
is a 32x128 matrix); and
performing a procedure classification process (e.g., Fig. 1, Sec. 3.4, Temporal aggregation includes an FC layer to classify the video) to infer the plurality of scoring oriented procedures from the plurality of action-procedure features (e.g., Sec. 3.4, the purpose of the classification is to infer whether the procedure was done skillfully – i.e., whether the scoring oriented procedures were performed correctly; For example, Sec. 4.1.1 describes a procedure including grasping a transparent block and putting it into a specified hole, so the score produced by the classifier infers whether the procedures important for determining the score – i.e., the grasping and putting procedures – were performed properly).
Regarding claim 40, Li discloses the method of claim 39, further comprising: performing a key frame extraction process (Sec. 3.1, “randomly sample one frame in each segment to form a sparse sampling of the whole video”) to extract, for each scoring oriented procedure, a main key frame (The randomly sampled frame is an extracted main key frame; They are extracted throughout the video, which includes each scoring oriented procedure) to show completeness of the procedure (as shown in, e.g., Fig. 3, the extracted keyframe images show completeness of the procedure).
Regarding claim 41, Li discloses the method of claim 40, further comprising: performing the key frame extraction process to extract, for each scoring oriented procedure, one or more intermediate key frames (Sec. 3.1, “randomly sample one frame in each segment to form a sparse sampling of the whole video”; The randomly sampled frame is an “intermediate” key frame at least because it falls within the segment) to show one or more important actions or objects in the procedure (e.g., Fig. 3, the images show important actions such as grasping and important object, such as the transparent block being grasped).
Regarding claim 42, Li discloses the method of claim 40, wherein the main key frame is an ending frame of the procedure (Sec. 3.1, “randomly sample one frame in each segment to form a sparse sampling of the whole video”; The randomly-sampled frame is the end of a sub-segment spanning the start of the
N
th segment to the sampled frame, so it falls within the scope of an “ending” frame; Also, at least one extracted frame will be the last frame extracted for a given procedure).
Regarding claim 43, Li discloses the method of claim 40, further comprising: performing auto-scoring for the main key frame of each scoring oriented procedure (e.g., Sec. 3.4, score
S
is automatically generated for the sequence of extracted key frames) by use of an auto-scoring algorithm (e.g., Sec. 3.4, various algorithm steps including the FC layer) and based on one or more predetermined scoring items associated with the procedure (e.g., Sec. 3.4, eqn. 8 and supporting text, current task state vector).
Regarding claim 44, Li discloses the method of claim 43, wherein the key frame extraction process is trained based on a scoring oriented supervision that labels each frame with a score on each scoring item associated with the frame (e.g., Sec. 3.5, scoring supervision).
Regarding claim 45, Li discloses the method of claim 39, wherein discovering a relationship between the plurality of action features comprises utilizing an action attention block (e.g., Fig. 2, various attention blocks) for contextualizing the action features based on action attentions learnt for the action features (Sec. 3.3, throughout).
Regarding claim 46, Li discloses the method of claim 45, wherein discovering a relationship between the plurality of action features comprises utilizing an action transition block for scaling the action features based on a pre-learnt action transition matrix (e.g., Sec. 3.3, eqn. 5, action features
x
are scaled by values in weight/action transition matrix
W
x
a
; Note from Sec. 3.5, last par., that
W
x
a
is a pre-learnt 32x512 matrix).
Regarding claim 47, Li discloses the method of claim 39, further comprising: performing uniform sampling (Sec. 3.1, “randomly sample one frame in each segment to form a sparse sampling of the whole video”; Randomly sampling one frame from each segment is uniform sampling) or average pooling in a temporal dimension after the action segmentation process to obtain sampled action features in the temporal dimension as the plurality of action features (e.g., Sec. 3.1 and Fig. 1, the sampled frames are input to Feature Encoding to obtain sampled action features).
Regarding claim 48, Li discloses the method of claim 39, further comprising: performing a visual perception on the procedural video before the action segmentation process (e.g., Fig. 3, facial regions have been recognized (as distinguished from other types of image regions) and blurred for privacy; e.g., Fig. 1 and Sec. 3.5, last par., optical flow is calculated, which is a visual perception of motion).
Regarding claim 49, Li discloses the method of claim 48, wherein the visual perception comprises at least one of object detection, hand detection, face recognition (e.g., Fig. 3, face regions have been selectively blurred; This falls within the scope of object detection or face recognition at least because these image regions have been detected/recognized for blurring to protect privacy), or emotion recognition.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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) 26-38 and 50 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Li.
Regarding claim 26, Examiner notes that the claim recites an apparatus comprising interface circuitry and processor circuitry coupled to the interface circuitry and configured to perform a method that is substantially the same as the method of claim 39.
Li discloses the method of claim 39 (see above).
While Li at least implies computer implementation, Li does not explicitly teach the hardware used to implement its video processing method. In particular, Li does not explicitly teach implementing its method as an apparatus comprising interface circuitry and processor circuitry coupled to the interface circuitry and configured to perform the method.
However, it has been taken as admitted prior art that it is old and well-known in the art of image analysis to implement a video processing method as an apparatus comprising interface circuitry and processor circuitry coupled to the interface circuitry and configured to perform the method. Use of interface circuitry advantageously allows processing circuitry to access input data necessary to perform the method and the processing circuitry advantageously allows the method to be performed quickly and efficiently.
Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art implement the video processing method of Li as an apparatus comprising interface circuitry and processor circuitry coupled to the interface circuitry and configured to perform the method with the reasonable expectation that such computer implementation would advantageously allow the video processing method to obtain data for performing the method and perform the method quickly and efficiently.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to combine the teachings of Li to obtain the invention as specified in claim 26.
Examiner notes that claims 27-36 depend from claim 26 and recite apparatuses that perform methods substantially the same as the methods of claims 40-49, respectively. The invention of claim 26 is obvious over Li (see above). Li further discloses the features of claims 40-49 (see above). Accordingly, claims 27-36 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Li for substantially the same reasons as presented in the rejections of claim 26 and claims 40-49, respectively.
Regarding claim 37, Li teaches the apparatus of claim 26, wherein the action segmentation process is trained based on an action level supervision that labels each frame with an action type associated with the frame (e.g., Sec. 4.1.1, each video, and therefore each frame in each video, is labeled as corresponding to “a whole procedure of an infant grasping a transparent block and putting it into a specified hole”, which includes one or more action types; This falls within the scope of the claim; Note the statement that the “process is trained” is significantly broad; For example, no machine learning is required).
Regarding claim 38, Li teaches the apparatus of claim 26, wherein the procedure classification process is trained based on a procedure level supervision that labels each frame with a procedure type associated with the frame (e.g., Sec. 4.1.1, each video, and therefore each frame in each video, is labeled as corresponding to “a whole procedure of an infant grasping a transparent block and putting it into a specified hole”; e.g., Table 1, the model training is performed for each individual procedure).
Regarding claim 50, Li discloses the method of claim 39 (see above).
While Li at least implies computer implementation, Li does not explicitly teach the hardware used to implement its video processing method. In particular, Li does not explicitly teach implementing its method as a non-transitory computer-readable medium having instructions stored thereon, wherein the instructions, when executed by processor circuitry, cause the processor circuitry to perform the method.
However, it has been taken as admitted prior art that it is old and well-known in the art of image analysis to implement a video processing method as a non-transitory computer-readable medium having instructions stored thereon, wherein the instructions, when executed by processor circuitry, cause the processor circuitry to perform the method. Such computer implementation advantageously allows the method to be performed quickly and efficiently.
Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art implement the video processing method of Li as a non-transitory computer-readable medium having instructions stored thereon, wherein the instructions, when executed by processor circuitry, cause the processor circuitry to perform the method with the reasonable expectation that such computer implementation would advantageously allow the video processing method to perform the method quickly and efficiently.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to combine the teachings of Li to obtain the invention as specified in claim 50.
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated any 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 GEOFFREY E SUMMERS whose telephone number is (571)272-9915. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday, 7:00 AM to 3:30 PM ET.
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, Chan Park can be reached at (571) 272-7409. 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.
/GEOFFREY E SUMMERS/Examiner, Art Unit 2669
Prosecution Insights