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 .
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 (1-3, 6, 8-10, 13, 15-17, 20) are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to non-statutory subject matter, specifically an abstract idea without significantly more.
Claims (1-3, 6, 8-10, 13, 15-17, 20) are directed to the abstract idea of Mathematical concepts (mathematical relationships, mathematical formulas or equations, mathematical calculations); Mental processes – concepts performed in the human mind (including an observation, evaluation, judgement, opinion)
“training, via machine learning based on the training data, a temporal attention zone model for predicting a temporal attention zone in a video clip representing an event of interest”.
“predicting, based on the input video clip, a temporal attention zone represented by consecutive frames in the input video clip that capture the event of interest in accordance with the temporal attention zone model.”
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. The claims recite additional limitations such as “obtaining training data comprising a plurality of training samples, each of which includes a historic video clip with a temporal attention region corresponding to consecutive frames of the historic video clip to represent an event of interest captured in the temporal attention region; receiving an input video clip”. However, these limitations are not enough to qualify as “practical application” being recited in the claims along with the abstract idea since these limitations are merely invoked as a tool to perform instruction of Abstract idea in a particular technological environment and/or are generally linking the use of the abstract idea to a particular technological environment or field of use, and merely applying and abstract idea in a particular technological environment and merely limiting use of an abstract idea to a particular field or a technological environment do not provide practical application for an abstract idea (MPEP 2106.05 (f) & (h)). The claims do not amount to "practical application" for the abstract idea because they neither (1) recite any improvements to another technology or technical field; (2) recite any improvements to the functioning of the computer itself; (3) apply the judicial exception with, or by use of, a particular machine; (4) effect a transformation or reduction of a particular article to a different state or thing; (5) provide other meaningful limitations beyond generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment.
The claim(s) does/do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. The claims recite additional limitations which are “obtaining training data comprising a plurality of training samples, each of which includes a historic video clip with a temporal attention region corresponding to consecutive frames of the historic video clip to represent an event of interest captured in the temporal attention region; receiving an input video clip”. However, these limitations are not enough to qualify as “significantly more” being recited in the claims along with the abstract idea since these limitations are merely invoked as a tool to perform instruction of Abstract idea in a particular technological environment and/or are generally linking the use of the abstract idea to a particular technological environment or field of use, and merely applying and abstract idea in a particular technological environment and merely limiting use of an abstract idea to a particular field or a technological environment do not provide significantly more to an abstract idea (MPEP 2106.05(f) & (h)). The claims do not amount to "significantly more" than the abstract idea because they neither (1) recite any improvements to another technology or technical field; (2) recite any improvements to the functioning of the computer itself; (3) apply the judicial exception with, or by use of, a particular machine; (4) effect a transformation or reduction of a particular article to a different state or thing; (5) add a specific limitation other than what is well-understood, routine and conventional in the field; (6) add unconventional steps that confine the claim to a particular useful application; nor (7) provide other meaningful limitations beyond generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment.
Therefore, since there are no limitations in the claims (1-3, 6, 8-10, 13, 15-17, 20) that transform the exception into a patent eligible application such that the claims amount to significantly more than the exception itself, and looking at the limitations as a combination and as an ordered combination adds nothing that is not already present when looking at the elements taken individually, claims 1-3, 6, 8-10, 13, 15-17, 20 are rejected under 35 USC § 101 as being directed to non-statutory subject matter.
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) (1, 8, 15) are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Cheng et al. (hereinafter Cheng)(US Publication 2023/0055636 A1)
Re claim 1, Cheng discloses a method, comprising: obtaining training data comprising a plurality of training samples, each of which includes a historic video clip with a temporal attention region corresponding to consecutive frames of the historic video clip to represent an event of interest captured in the temporal attention region (See figs. 1-2; ¶ 52-55 where it teaches training the system.); training, via machine learning based on the training data, a temporal attention zone model for predicting a temporal attention zone in a video clip representing an event of interest (See figs. 1-2; ¶ 54 where it teaches training the system comprising a neural network); receiving an input video clip (See fig. 1; ¶ 55, 116 where it teaches once trained the system may be deployed wherein suggesting inputting video clips.);
and predicting, based on the input video clip, a temporal attention zone represented by consecutive frames in the input video clip that capture the event of interest in accordance with the temporal attention zone model. (See fig. 1, 16-20; ¶ 104-116 where it teaches predicting likelihood of an event of interest in a video clip.)
Claims (8, 15) have been analyzed and rejected w/r to claim 1 above.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims (4-5, 7, 11-12, 14, 18-20) are objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
Contact
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to LEON FLORES whose telephone number is (571)270-1201. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8am - 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, HENOK SHIFERAW can be reached at 571-272-4637. 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.
/LEON FLORES/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2676 February 17, 2026