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 .
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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114.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 5/27/2026 has been entered.
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 and 41-64 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.
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.
Referring to claim 39, the claim recites “sequencing the original digital video files into virtual sequences, indexing of the virtual sequences in a secondary index, by automatically and virtually cutting…”. The claim is syntactically broken and the boundaries of the required steps and relationships are unclear (the claim states the method comprises and then the method comprising the following steps). The claims further are unclear regarding what acts are actually required, what is being indexed and what descriptors are “primary” versus “secondary”.
Claim 39 further recites “automatically producing…candidate sequence time markers, and bounding virtual sequences during a search, and descriptors associated with the candidate sequence time markers, which are” -either…-or…”. The claim is syntactically broken and the boundaries of the required steps and relationships are unclear. The claims are further unclear regarding which modules are connected to each other and what is being automatically produced.
Claim 39 further recites “a portion of the descriptors automatically generated by the multimodal analyzer throughout the original digital video file according to the four modalities being primary descriptors that are different than the secondary descriptors and characterizing each video file in question based on the digital video files from which the virtual sequences are derived”. The claim is syntactically broken and the boundaries of the required steps and relationships are unclear (for example the recitation according to the four modalities being primary descriptors that are different than the secondary descriptors is unclear and grammatically incorrect). The recitation “throughout” is unclear which portions of the original digital video file are being analyzed. The recitation according to the four modalities are unclear regarding which modalities is being used to analyze the original digital video file. The recitations “in question” and “from which the virtual sequences are derived” are further unclear.
Referring to claim 41, the claim recites “the primary and secondary indexes are multiple-field indexes and provide information to each other”. The claim is unclear which information is provided using the inter-index relationship.
Referring to claim 42, the recitation “and from separate from the multimode analysis” is grammatically incomplete and incoherent. One of ordinary skill in the art cannot tell what additional descriptors or sources are required.
Referring to claim 44, the recitation “unit of meaning” is unclear. The term is a relative term which renders the claim indefinite. The term “unit of meaning” 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.
Referring to claim 48, the recitation “wherein said maximum duration of each selected sequence is equal to or less than two minutes, 1 minute or 30 seconds” is unclear whether the claim means less than or equal to two minutes, less than or equal to 1 minutes, less than or equal to 30 seconds or some nested/alternative set of embodiments, which fails to define the meets and bounds.
Referring to claim 49, the claim recites “classified according to two categories, depending on the number of associated secondary descriptors, and the results of a subsequent virtual sequence search”. The claim is unclear whether classification depends on both factors, either factor, or some rule not stated.
Referring to claim 53, the claim recites “the original digital video files having previously been delinearized by the computerized method for audiovisual delinearization according to claim 39”. The claim is syntactically broken and the boundaries of the required steps and relationships are unclear. The claim is unclear regarding which portions of claim 39 apply to the original digital video files in claim 53.
Referring to claim 53, the claim recites “in the order of the playlist or in a predetermined order the files associated with each excerpt being created and having to be opened or closed”. The claim is syntactically broken and the boundaries of the required steps and relationships are unclear. The claim is unclear whether the files are created or at not created in step 4.
Referring to claim 58, the claim recites “the method access the original digital video files in streaming mode”. The claim is unclear in what manner the method access that video files are in streaming mode and is grammatically improper.
Referring to claim 61, the claim recites “at t least one sequencing module” which contains broken syntax and is grammatically improper.
The claim further recites “and bounding virtual sequences during a search, and descriptors associated with the candidate sequences” which is syntactically broken and the boundaries of the required steps and relationships are unclear.
The claim further recites the numbering “8” in two different areas of the claim. The claim is unclear based on the duplicated step numbering.
The claim recitation “enrichment module” has not been clearly introduced and therefore lacks antecedence. Further the claims recite an unclear relationship between the system components and recited acts.
Referring to claim 62, the claim recites “the virtual sequence being found in the automatic list of step 3”. In claim 61, step 3 is extraction of data streams, not receipt of the automatic list. This erroneous step reference creates ambiguity as to what list is being referenced.
The Examiner further notes that all pending dependent claims are rejected based on their dependency to the rejected independent claims.
Conclusion
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
August 3, 2026
Prosecution Insights