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 Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claims 39-64 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. The Examiner notes that in the previous Office Action stated “The claims are generally narrative and indefinite, failing to conform with current U.S. practice. They appear to be a literal translation into English from a foreign document and are replete with grammatical and idiomatic errors.” Applicant has failed to addressed these issues and has further invoked additional 112(b) issues based on the amendments to the independent claims. The Examiner has addressed these issues below. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Objections
Claim 39 is objected to because of the following informalities: On Page 2, Line 2 the limitation “which is intended for” is redundant. The Examiner recommends amending this limitation to “for”.
Referring to independent claim 39, Page 2, Line 2, the limitation “these” is indefinite. The Examiner recommends amending this limitation to recite “the”. The Examiner recommends this amendment to the remaining recitations of the term “these”.
Claim 42 recites the limitation “therefore being” which is conclusory. The Examiner recommending amending the claim limitation to recite “being”.
Claim 49 recites the limitation “to be ordered” at the end of the claim. The Examiner recommends removing these limitations.
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 39-64 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.
Referring to independent claim 39, Page 2, Line 2, the limitation “these” is indefinite. The Examiner recommends amending this limitation to recite “the”. The Examiner notes that the claims continually recite the limitation “these” throughout the claims and correction is required of the additional recitations.
Claim 39 recites the limitation “these original video files" on Page 2, Lines 2-3. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 39 recites the limitation “the video files" on Page 2, Line 3. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. The Examiner further notes that the claims require consistent recitation of the initial recitation of “original digital video files” in order to recite proper antecedence. The claims are replete with the inconsistent recitation of “original digital video files”.
Claim 39 recites the limitation “allow it to be identified” on Page 2, Line 16. There is insufficient antecedent basis for the limitation “it” in the claim.
Claim 39 recites the limitation “by” on Page 2, Line 19 and Page 3, Line 5. This limitation is indefinite because the claim is unclear which functional language the multimodal analysis module or the sequencer module is executing (step c, step d or both).
Claim 39 recites the limitation “is itself” on Page 3, Lines 5-6. There is insufficient antecedent basis for the limitation “itself” in the claim because the claim is unclear which module the multimodal analysis module is connected to.
Claim 39 recites the limitation “with the aim of” on Page 3, Line 8. The phrase "with the aim of" renders the claims indefinite because the claims includes elements not actually disclosed (those encompassed by "with the aim of"), thereby rendering the scope of the claim(s) unascertainable. See MPEP § 2173.05(d).
Claim 39 recites the limitation “and which are referred to, at the end of this step” on Page 3, Lines 10-11. This limitation is indefinite because the recitation if unclear which step is being referred to.
Claim 39 recites the limitation "the minimum duration" and “the maximum duration” on Page 3, Line 19. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 39 recites the limitations "the minimum duration" and “the maximum duration” on Page 3, Line 19. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 39 recites the limitations “the same field”, “one and the same minimum duration” and “one and the same maximum duration” on Page 4, Lines 1-2. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. The Examiner further notes that the limitation “one and the same” is a relative term which renders the claim indefinite. The term “one and the same” is not defined by the claim, the specification does not provide a standard for ascertaining the requisite degree, and one of ordinary skill in the art would not be reasonably apprised of the scope of the invention.
Claim 39 recites the limitations "these sequence start” on Page 4, Line 3. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 39 recites the limitations "the descriptors” on Page 4, Line 5. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 39 recites the limitation “these descriptors then being referred to as “secondary descriptors” on Page 4, Line 8 and “some of the descriptors…being referred to as “primary descriptors” on Page 4, Lines 10-12. These limitations are indefinite because the recitation if unclear when descriptors are required to be referred to as “secondary descriptors” and “primary descriptors” in addition to which descriptors are to be divided into subsets. The Examiner notes using language to clearly indicate that the secondary and primary descriptors are two separate subsets of “the descriptors”.
Claim 39 recites the limitation “characterizing each video file in question in a general manner” on Page 4, Line 12. These limitations are indefinite because the claim limitations “in question” and “general manner” are relative terms.
Claim 40 recites the limitation “of a generic nature” on the bottom of Page 4. The Examiner notes this is a relative term which renders the claim indefinite. The term “of a generic nature” is not defined by the claim, the specification does not provide a standard for ascertaining the requisite degree, and one of ordinary skill in the art would not be reasonably apprised of the scope of the invention.
Claim 40 recites the limitation “but which become relevant to a particular virtual sequence feed the secondary index from the primary index” on Page 5, Lines 1-2. The claim is simply not written in proper English and therefore the scope cannot be ascertained. The claims are generally narrative and indefinite, failing to conform with current U.S. practice. They appear to be a literal translation into English from a foreign document and are replete with grammatical and idiomatic errors.
Claim 41 recites the limitation “feed each other” on Page 5, Line 5. The term “feed each other” is not defined by the claim, the specification does not provide a standard for ascertaining the requisite degree, and one of ordinary skill in the art would not be reasonably apprised of the scope of the invention.
Claim 42 recites the limitation “the enrichment module” on Page 5, Line 10. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 42 recites the limitation “and from outside the multimodal analysis on Page 5, Line 12. The claim is indefinite because the limitation the claim is unclear what is “outside” of the multimodal analysis. the specification does not provide a standard for ascertaining the requisite degree, and one of ordinary skill in the art would not be reasonably apprised of the scope of the invention.
Claim 44 recites the limitation “the virtual cutting” on Page 5, Line 20. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 46 recites the claim limitation “allows to distinguish” on Page 6, Line 10. The claim is indefinite because the limitation the claim is unclear what part of “the method” allows to distinguish. The specification does not provide a standard for ascertaining the requisite degree, and one of ordinary skill in the art would not be reasonably apprised of the scope of the invention.
Claim 47 recites the claim limitation “and so on” on Page 7, Line 13. The claim is indefinite because the limitation the claim is unclear what “and so on” is referring to. The specification does not provide a standard for ascertaining the requisite degree, and one of ordinary skill in the art would not be reasonably apprised of the scope of the invention.
Claim 44 recites the limitation “the action modality analyzer” on Page 8, Line 6. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Regarding claim 50, the phrase "in particular with a view" renders the claim indefinite because the claim includes elements not actually disclosed (those encompassed by "in particular with a view"), thereby rendering the scope of the claims unascertainable. See MPEP § 2173.05(d).
Regarding claim 50, the phrase "such as" renders the claim indefinite because it is unclear whether the limitations following the phrase are part of the claimed invention. See MPEP § 2173.05(d).
Regarding claim 51, the phrase "for example" renders the claim indefinite because it is unclear whether the limitations preceding the phrase are part of the claimed invention. See MPEP § 2173.05(d).
Referring to claims 53-60, see the rejections above. The Examiner further notes that all corresponding 112(b) issues must be addressed in claims 53-60.
Referring to claim 60, the claim limitation “to the preceding claim” is indefinite for failing to identify which preceding claim is being referred to.
Referring to claims 61-64, see the rejections above. The Examiner further notes that all corresponding 112(b) issues must be addressed in claims 61-64.
Conclusion
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. 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 JASON P SALCE whose telephone number is (571)272-7301. The examiner can normally be reached 5:30am-10:00pm M-F (Flex Schedule).
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, Nathan Flynn can be reached at 571-272-1915. 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.
/Jason Salce/Senior Examiner, Art Unit 2421
Jason P Salce
Senior Examiner
Art Unit 2421
January 26, 2026
Prosecution Insights