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 .
This Office Action is to replace the previous Action dated on 02/25/2026. Examiner apologies for any inconveniences that might cause.
1. Status of claims as of 03/19/2026:
Claims amended: none
Claims canceled: none
Clams newly added: none
Claim pending: 1-6
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
2. Notification regarding 35 USC § 112f
The following is a quotation of AIA 35 U.S.C. 112f:
An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
In claim 1:
Claim limitation "a scene detector having a video content input and an output representing scene boundaries" has been interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f), because it uses/they use a generic placeholder "a scene detector" coupled with functional language "having a video content input and an output representing scene boundaries" without reciting sufficient structure to achieve the function. Furthermore, the generic placeholder is not preceded by a structural modifier.
Claim limitation "a metadata extractor responsive to content of a scene as identified by said scene boundaries to extract metadata corresponding to several extraction modes" has been interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f), because it uses/they use a generic placeholder "a metadata extractor" coupled with functional language "responsive to content of a scene as identified by said scene boundaries to extract metadata corresponding to several extraction modes" without reciting sufficient structure to achieve the function. Furthermore, the generic placeholder is not preceded by a structural modifier.
Claim limitation "a metadata embedding for each extraction mode" has been interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f), because it uses/they use a generic placeholder "a metadata embedding" coupled with functional language "for each extraction mode" without reciting sufficient structure to achieve the function. Furthermore, the generic placeholder is not preceded by a structural modifier.
Claim limitation "an embedding aggregator responsive to said metadata embedding is to formulate an aggregated embedding for each scene indexing said content" has been interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f), because it uses/they use a generic placeholder' "an embedding aggregator" coupled with functional language "responsive to said metadata embedding is to formulate an aggregated embedding for each scene indexing said content" without reciting sufficient structure to achieve the function. Furthermore, the generic placeholder is not preceded by a structural modifier.
Claim limitation "an embedding extractor responsive to a text input with an embedding model coordinated with said embedding model for one or more of said embedding modes" has been interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f), because it uses/they use a generic placeholder "an embedding extractor" coupled with functional language "responsive to a text input with an embedding model coordinated with said embedding model for one or more of said embedding modes" without reciting sufficient structure to achieve the function. Furthermore, the generic placeholder is not preceded by a structural modifier.
Since the claim limitation(s) invokes 35 U.S.C. 112(f), claim 1 has been interpreted to cover the corresponding structure described in the specification that achieves the claimed function, and equivalents thereof.
A review of the present specification shows that the limitations “a scene detector having a video content input and an output representing scene boundaries; a metadata extractor responsive to content of a scene as identified by said scene boundaries to extract metadata corresponding to several extraction modes; a metadata embedding for each extraction mode; an embedding aggregator responsive to said metadata embedding is to formulate an aggregated embedding for each scene indexing said content; an embedding extractor responsive to a text input with an embedding model coordinated with said embedding model for one or more of said embedding modes” are not clear, however the limitations may be used or performed by a computer, a processor and/or programing…
If applicant wishes to provide further explanation or dispute the examiner's interpretation of the corresponding structure, applicant must identify the corresponding structure with reference to the specification by page and line number, and to the drawing, if any, by reference characters in response to this Office action.
If applicant does not intend to have the claim limitation(s) treated under 35 U.S.C. 112(f), applicant may amend the claim(s) so that it/they will clearly not invoke 35 U.S.C. 112(f), or present a sufficient showing that the claim recites/recite sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function to preclude application of 35 U.S.C. 112(f).
For more information, see MPEP § 2173 et seq. and Supplementary Examination Guidelines for Determining Compliance With 35 U.S.C. 112 and for Treatment of Related Issues in Patent Applications, 76 FR 7162, 7167 (Feb. 9, 2011).
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.
3. Claims 1-6 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b), as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which applicant regards as the invention.
In claim 1: in light of Notification of 112f above, the limitations: “a scene detector having a video content input and an output representing scene boundaries; a metadata extractor responsive to content of a scene as identified by said scene boundaries to extract metadata corresponding to several extraction modes; a metadata embedding for each extraction mode; an embedding aggregator responsive to said metadata embedding is to formulate an aggregated embedding for each scene indexing said content; an embedding extractor responsive to a text input with an embedding model coordinated with said embedding model for one or more of said embedding modes, wherein said embeddings are in the form of a vector” are indefinite because it is unclear what they are. Although the limitations may be used or performed by a processor, a computer, or a programing, but the present disclosure does not describe an algorithm for performing the claimed specific computer function, such that the claim also indefinite. Correction is required. See Section 2181.II.B.
See Section 2181.II.B: “…For a computer-implemented 35 U.S.C. 112(f) claim limitation, the specification must disclose an algorithm for performing the claimed specific computer function, or else the claim is indefinite under 35 U.S.C. 112(b). See Net MoneyIN, Inc. v. Verisign. Inc., 545 F.3d 1359, 1367, 88 USPQ2d 1751, 1757 (Fed. Cir. 2008). See also In re Aoyama, 656 F.3d 1293, 1297, 99 USPQ2d 1936, 1939 (Fed. Cir. 2011) ("[W]hen the disclosed structure is a computer programmed to carry out an algorithm, ‘the disclosed structure is not the general purpose computer, but rather that special purpose computer programmed to perform the disclosed algorithm.’") (quoting WMS Gaming, Inc. v. Int’l Game Tech., 184 F.3d 1339, 1349, 51 USPQ2d 1385, 1391 (Fed. Cir. 1999))…”
Allowable Subject Matter
4. Claims 1-6 will be allowed when applicant(s) has overcome the current rejection.
The following is an examiner's statement of reasons for allowance:
The reason for allowance was indicated in the Office Action dated on 09/23/2025. Claims 2-6 are allowed under the same reason as to claim 1.
Any comments considered necessary by applicant must be submitted no later than the payment of the issue fee and, to avoid processing delays, should preferably accompany the issue fee. Such submissions should be clearly labeled "Comments on Statement of Reasons for Allowance."
Conclusion
5. Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to BAOQUOC N TO whose telephone number is (571)272-4041. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Fri 9AM - 6PM.
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, Boris Gorney can be reached at 571-270-5626. 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.
BAOQUOC N. TO
Examiner
Art Unit 2154
/BAOQUOC N TO/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2154
Prosecution Insights