DETAILED ACTION
This Action is in response to Applicant’s response filed on 05/22/2026. Claims 1-20 are still pending in the present application. This Action is made FINAL.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments have been considered but are moot in view of the new ground(s) of rejection in view of Kansara (US 2023/0064431 A1).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
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.
The factual inquiries set forth in Graham v. John Deere Co., 383 U.S. 1, 148 USPQ 459 (1966), that are applied for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
Claims 1, 14-16 and 19-20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Xu (“Deep Flow-Guided Video Inpainting”) in view of Kansara (US 2023/0064431 A1).
Regarding claims 1 and 16, Xu discloses a method performed by an electronic apparatus, the method comprising:
[claim 16: at least one processor; and at least one memory storing computer executable instructions that, when executed by the at least one processor, cause the at least one processor configured to: (section 3)]
extracting at least one key frame and at least one non-key frame from a video; (section 4, “Data Preparation and Evaluation Metric”: Xu operates on a video sequence and picks a frame in the sequence for image inpainting, while also referencing the rest of the sequence for propagation.)
inpainting the at least one key frame based on at least one mask corresponding to the at least one key frame; and (abstract: “guide the propagation of pixels to fill up the missing regions in the video”; sections 3.1-3.3 and 4: Xu describes video inpainting where a mask is given to indicate the missing or removed region (foreground object removal setting). Xu further states that when some missing regions cannot be filled by flow propagation, they pick a frame and apply an image inpainting technique to complete it.)
inpainting the at least one non-key frame based on the at least one inpainted key frame. (sections 3.1-3.3 and 4: After inpainting the selected frame, Xu states the “inpainting result is then propagated to the entire video sequence based on the estimated optical flow.” Other frames are filled using the inpainted result from the selected frame.)
Xu fails to specifically disclose the extracted at least one key frame includes at least a first key frame and a second key frame, and the first key frame and the second key frame are non-consecutive frames in the video and the second key frame is a next key frame following the first key frame.
In related art, Kansara discloses the extracted at least one key frame includes at least a first key frame and a second key frame, (Kansara discloses defining a subset of video frames as key frames and distinguishes those key frames from intervening non-key frames. In paragraph 44, Kansara explains that a key frame is a frame designated for separate treatment and that splines for key frames are independently generated or edited, whereas splines for non-frames may be generated from surrounding key frames. More specifically, in paragraph 70, Kansara identifies video frames 710, 712, 714, 716, 718, 720, 722, 724, 726, 728 and 730 and designated frames 710, 720, 726, and 730 as key frames. Thus, frame 710 may be the claimed first key frame, and frame 720 may be the claimed second key frame. Also see figure 7) and the first key frame and the second key frame are non-consecutive frames in the video (Kansara’s first and second successive key frames are non-consecutive frames in the underlying video. In paragraph 70, Kansara identifies frames 710 and 720 as key frames while listing frames 712, 714, 716, 718 between them. In paragraph 73, Kansara characterizes frames 712, 714, 716 and 718 as non-key frames and explains that the spline for key frame 710 is interpolated with the adjusted spline for key frame 720 to update those intervening non-key frames. Accordingly, key frames 710 and 720 are not consecutive video frames because multiple video frames intervene between them. Also see figures 7 and 10) and the second key frame is a next key frame following the first key frame. (Kansara defines the relevant relationship between the selected key frame and the next key frame. In paragraph 56, Kansara states the sequentially proximate key frame may be the key frame that directly follows the selected key frame. In paragraph 73, Kansara provides an example in which the spline for key frame 710 is interpolated with the spline for key frame 720 to generate or update the intervening non-key frames. Because no other key frame occurs between key frames 710 and 720, key frame 720 is the next key frame following key frame 710. Similarly, in paragraph 73, Kansara discloses interpolation between key frames 720 and 726, confirming the successive key frame arrangement)
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to incorporate the teachings of Kansara into the teachings of Xu to effectively improve the accuracy of object tracking and of video editing.
Regarding claims 14 and 19, Xu, as modified by Kansara, discloses the claimed invention wherein the inpainting the at least one non-key frame based on the at least one inpainted key frame comprises inpainting each of the at least one non-key frame by: obtaining at least one aligned first key frame by aligning at least one first key frame related to a current non-key frame to the current non-key frame; and inpainting the current non-key frame based on the at least one aligned first key frame. (Xu: sections 3.1-3.3 and 4)
Regarding claim 15, Xu, as modified by Kansara, discloses the claimed invention wherein the obtaining the at least one aligned first key frame comprises: for each first key frame, obtaining the one aligned first key frame based on motion vector information of the current non-key frame relative to the one first key frame, to obtain one aligned first key frame. (Xu: sections 3.1-3.3 and 4)
Regarding claim 20, Xu, as modified by Kansara, discloses the claimed invention wherein non-transitory computer readable storage medium storing instructions that, when executed by at least one processor, cause the at least one processor to perform the method according to claim 1. (section 3)
Claims 2-4, 6 and 17-18 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Xu in view of Kansara and in further view of Luo (US 2025/0056001 A1).
Regarding claims 2 and 17, Xu, as modified by Kansara, discloses the claimed invention except for wherein the extracting the at least one key frame and the at least one non-key frame from the video comprises extracting the at least one key frame and the at least one non-key frame from the video based on decoding information of the video.
In related art, Luo discloses extracting the at least one key frame and the at least one non-key frame from the video comprises extracting the at least one key frame and the at least one non-key frame (extracting a key point from a to-be-processed video frame and a previous video frame respectively to obtain first position information and second position information) from the video based on decoding (video decoding) information of the video. (abstract, paragraphs 15, 97, 143-149 and 208)
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to incorporate the teachings of Luo into the teachings of Xu and Kansara so that a high-quality video can be restored as much as possible based on a video with a low byte stream.
Regarding claim 3, Xu, as modified by Kansara and Luo, discloses the claimed invention wherein the extracting the at least one key frame from the video based on the decoding information of the video comprises: extracting at least one frame from the video based on the decoding information of the video; and identifying the at least one key frame from the extracted frame based on a predetermined frame interval. (abstract, paragraphs 15, 97, 143-149 and 208)
Regarding claims 4, 6 and 18, Xu, as modified by Kansara, discloses the claimed invention wherein the inpainting the at least one key frame based on the at least one mask corresponding to the at least one key frame comprises inpainting each group of a plurality of groups of key frames by: extracting a feature of a group of key frames, among the plurality of groups, to be inpainted; (Xu: sections 3.1-3.3 and 4) processing the extracted feature based on at least one of a first feature related to all of the plurality of groups of inpainted key frames or a second feature related to a previous group of inpainted key frames and updating the second feature based on the processed feature (claim 6); (Xu: sections 3.1-3.3 and 4) but fails to disclose decoding the group of key frames based on the processed feature.
In related art, Luo discloses decoding the group of key frames based on the processed feature. (Luo: abstract, paragraphs 15, 97, 143-149 and 208).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to incorporate the teachings of Luo into the teachings of Xu and Kansara so that a high-quality video can be restored as much as possible based on a video with a low byte stream.
Claim 5 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Xu in view of Kansara and Luo and in further view of Yu (“Generative Image Inpainting with Contextual Attention”).
Regarding claim 5, Xu, as modified by Kansara and Luo, fails to specifically disclose extracting a third feature from the processed feature based on semantic correlation; fusing the third feature with the first feature; and storing a fusion result as an updated first feature.
In related art, Yu discloses extracting a third feature from the processed feature based on semantic correlation; fusing the third feature with the first feature; and storing a fusion result as an updated first feature. (sections 1, 4.1 and 4.2)
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to incorporate the teachings of Yu into the teachings of Xu, Kansara and Luo to effectively borrow or copy feature information from known background patches to generate missing patches.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 7-13 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.
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the 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 BOBBAK SAFAIPOUR whose telephone number is (571)270-1092. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday, 8:00am - 5:00pm.
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, Stephen Koziol can be reached at (408) 918-7630. 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.
/BOBBAK SAFAIPOUR/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2665
Prosecution Insights