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 .
Application Status
This office action is responsive to the amendments filed on 12/18/2025 (Foreign Priority Date: 09/02/2021).
The claim objection is withdrawn in view of the Applicant’s amendments.
The 35 USC 101 rejection is withdrawn in view of the Applicant’s amendments.
This action has been made FINAL.
Priority
Receipt is acknowledged of certified copies of papers required by 37 CFR 1.55.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 12/18/2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
The Applicant alleges the following: “Without acquiescing in any way to the Examiner's characterization of the cited art with respect to the previously recited subject matter, Applicant hereby amends the independent claims in order to clarify patentable distinctions of the claimed invention. Applicant respectfully submits that Matsumura in view of Chang clearly does not teach or suggest, inter alia, "evaluating validity of a detected gaze region based on a prediction region that is an image region in which a recognition target is predicted to exist by image recognition using artificial intelligence on an input image, and a detection result related to the gaze region that is an image region within the input image that is a basis for predicting existence of the recognition target ," as recited by amended independent claim 1 (emphasis added), and the Office Action does not assert otherwise”. The examiner is not persuaded. The examiner asserts that the combination of MATSUMURA and Chang discloses the Applicant’s claimed invention. More specifically, Chang discloses in Paragraphs 0376-0379; 0394-0395; Paragraph 0425, “evaluating validity”. MATSUMURA goes on to disclose “of a detected gaze region based on a prediction region in Paragraphs 0048-0052; 0125-0127. Moreover, MATSUMURA teaches “that is an image region in which a recognition target is predicted to exist by image recognition” in Paragraphs 0125-0127. Chang discloses “using artificial intelligence on an input image” in Paragraphs 0225; 0276. Additionally, MATSUMURA discloses “a detection result related to the gaze region that is an image region within the input image that is a basis for predicting existence of the recognition target” in Paragraphs 0050-0052; 0125-0127. MPEP § 2106 states Office personnel are to give claims their broadest reasonable interpretation in light of the supporting disclosure. In re Morris, 127 F.3d 1048, 1054-55, 44 USPQ2d 1023, 1027-28 (Fed Cir. 1997). Accordingly, the examiner maintains the rejection.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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.
Claim(s) 1-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over MATSUMURA, US 20210264188 in view of Chang, US 20170238055.
Claim 1:
MATSUMURA discloses a non-transitory computer-readable storage medium having embodied thereon a program, which when executed by a computer causes the computer to execute a method (See MATSUMURA Abstract). MATSUMURA fails to explicitly disclose “evaluating validity” and “using artificial intelligence”. However, Chang discloses these features in Paragraphs 0225; 02761 and Paragraphs 0376-03792, 0394-0395 and Paragraph 04253. It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have further modified MATSUMURA by the teachings of Chang to enable enhance content within a video feed, such as of a sporting event, systems for discovering, learning, extracting, and analyzing such events, metrics and analytic results relating to such events, and methods and systems for display, visualization, and interaction with outputs, more effectively (See Chang Abstract & Field of Invention). In addition, both of the references teach features that are directed to analogous art and they are directed to the same field of endeavor, such as, image/video processing. This close relation between both of the references highly suggests an expectation of success.
As modified:
The combination of MATSUMURA and Chang discloses the following:
evaluating validity (See Chang Paragraphs 0376-0379; 0394-0395; Paragraph 0425) of a detected gaze region (See MATSUMURA Paragraphs 0050-00524) based on
a prediction region (See MATSUMURA Paragraphs 0048-0052; 0125-01275) that is an image region in which a recognition target is predicted to exist by image recognition (See MATSUMURA Paragraphs 0125-0127) using artificial intelligence on an input image (See Chang Paragraphs 0225; 0276),
a detection result related to the gaze region that is an image region (See MATSUMURA Paragraphs 0050-00526) within the input image that is a basis for predicting existence of the recognition target (See MATSUMURA Paragraphs 0050-0052; 0125-0127).
Claim 2:
The combination of MATSUMURA and Chang discloses wherein evaluation of the validity determines whether the gaze region (See MATSUMURA Paragraphs 0125-0127) is valid (See Chang Paragraphs 0376-0379; 0394-0395; Paragraph 0425).
Claim 3:
The combination of MATSUMURA and Chang discloses wherein the evaluation of the validity is based on (See Chang Paragraphs 0376-0379; 0394-0395; Paragraph 0425) comparison between the prediction region and the gaze region (See MATSUMURA Paragraphs 0125-01277).
Claim 4:
The combination of MATSUMURA and Chang discloses wherein the evaluation of the validity is further based on (See Chang Paragraphs 0376-0379; 0394-0395; Paragraph 0425) a positional relationship between the prediction region and the gaze region (See MATSUMURA Paragraph 01318).
Claim 5:
The combination of MATSUMURA and Chang discloses wherein the evaluation of the validity is further based on (See Chang Paragraphs 0376-0379; 0394-0395; Paragraph 0425) whether or not the gaze region is positioned within the prediction region (See MATSUMURA Paragraph 01319).
Claim 6:
The combination of MATSUMURA and Chang discloses wherein the evaluation of the validity is (See Chang Paragraphs 0376-0379; 0394-0395; Paragraph 0425) further based on a number of gaze regions (See MATSUMURA Figure 6 & Paragraph 0078-0081).
Claim 7:
The combination of MATSUMURA and Chang discloses wherein the evaluation of the validity (See Chang Paragraphs 0376-0379; 0394-0395; Paragraph 0425) determines that the gaze region is valid in a case where the gaze region exists only in the prediction region and the prediction of the recognition target is correct (See Chang Figure 39F; Paragraphs 0376-0379; 0394-0395; Paragraph 0425).
Claim 8:
The combination of MATSUMURA and Chang discloses classifying a prediction result (See Chang Figure 8; Paragraphs 0314-0315) of the image recognition according to whether or not the gaze region exists in a case where the gaze region cannot be determined to be valid (See Chang Figure 39F; Paragraphs 0376-0379; 0394-0395; Paragraph 0425).
Claim 9:
The combination of MATSUMURA and Chang discloses determining priority such that a priority of confirmation is higher (See Chang Paragraph 0539) in a case where the gaze region cannot be determined to be valid and the gaze region exists than in a case where the gaze region cannot be determined to be valid and the gaze region does not exist (See Chang Paragraphs 0329; 044310).
Claim 10:
The combination of MATSUMURA and Chang discloses calculating a contribution degree (See Chang Paragraphs 0329; 044311) to a prediction result by the image recognition for each partial image region in the input image (See Chang Paragraph 0023); and specifying the gaze region based on the calculated contribution degree (See Chang Paragraphs 0329; 0395; 044312).
Claim 11:
The combination of MATSUMURA and Chang discloses wherein the evaluation of the validity is further based on (See Chang Paragraphs 0376-0379; 0394-0395; Paragraph 0425) a difference between the contribution degree for the prediction region (See Chang Paragraphs 0329; 044313) and the contribution degree for a region other than the prediction region (See Chang Paragraphs 0329; 044314).
Claim 12:
The combination of MATSUMURA and Chang discloses wherein the contribution degree is calculated (See Chang Paragraphs 0329; 044315) based on a prediction result likelihood for the prediction region (See MATSUMURA Paragraph 0131) obtained as a result of performing the prediction on a plurality of mask images in which patterns of presence or absence of a mask (See MATSUMURA Paragraphs 0075-0076) are made different for different partial image regions in the input image (See MATSUMURA Paragraph 013116).
Claim 13:
The combination of MATSUMURA and Chang discloses wherein each partial image region is a pixel region divided in a lattice shape (See MATSUMURA Paragraphs 0005; 0006; 0172).
Claim 14:
The combination of MATSUMURA and Chang discloses presenting at least one prediction result of the image recognition (See MATSUMURA Paragraphs 0047--0054).
Claim 15:
The combination of MATSUMURA and Chang discloses wherein the display control is performed (See MATSUMURA Paragraph 0054) such that an image is displayed in which the prediction region (See MATSUMURA Paragraphs 0047--0052) and the gaze region are superimposed on the input image (See MATSUMURA Paragraphs 0047--0054).
Claim 16:
The combination of MATSUMURA and Chang discloses determining a priority of confirmation (See Chang Paragraph 0539) for each prediction result of the image recognition and executing display control function (See MATSUMURA Paragraph 0054) such that display (See MATSUMURA Paragraph 0054) based on the priority (See Chang Paragraph 0539) is performed in presentation of each prediction result of the image recognition (See MATSUMURA Paragraphs 0047--0052).
Claim 17:
The combination of MATSUMURA and Chang discloses wherein the display control is executed such that display (See MATSUMURA Paragraph 0054) of the at least one prediction result (See MATSUMURA Paragraphs 0047--0054) is performed in a display order based on the priority (See Chang Paragraph 0539).
Claim 18:
The combination of MATSUMURA and Chang discloses wherein the display control is executed (See MATSUMURA Paragraph 0054) such that each prediction result of the image recognition (See MATSUMURA Paragraphs 0047--0052) with a priority below a predetermined threshold priority is not displayed (See Chang Paragraph 0539).
Claim 19:
Claim 19 is rejected on the same basis as claim 1.
Claim 20:
Claim 20 is rejected on the same basis as claim 1.
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.
Contact Information
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to SHEREE N BROWN whose telephone number is (571)272-4229. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 5:30-2:00 PM EST.
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, SAID BROOME can be reached at (571) 272-2931. 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.
/SHEREE N BROWN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2612 January 6, 2026
1 Chang discloses “artificial intelligence” in Paragraphs 0225 and 0276.
2 Chang discloses “evaluating validity” in Paragraphs 0376-0379 teachings of “Photo consistency methods may also check to ensure the color of the pixels is consistent with the same pixel from another camera, or with nearby pixels, such as to avoid unrealistic discontinuities.” The examiner is interpreting “check(s)” to be the same as “validity”.
3 Chang teachings in Paragraph 0425 of “First, one may use validation algorithms to detect all events, including the basic events such as possession, pass, dribble, shot, and rebound that are provided with the XYZ data. Possession/Non-possession may use a Hidden Markov Model to best fit the data to these states. Shots and rebounds may use the possession model outputs, combined with 1) projected destination of the ball, and 2) PBP information. Dribbles may be identified using a trained ML algorithm and also using the output of the possession model” teaches the Applicant’s claim language of “evaluating validity”.
4 MATSUMURA Paragraphs 0050-0052 discloses “the gaze unit 130 detects an object of interest such as a person or a vehicle that newly appears in the image, and controls a region including the detected object. In the embodiment, when the first gaze region and the second gaze region can be understood without distinction, simply gaze region may be described.”.
5 MATSUMURA teachings in Paragraphs 0125-0126 the following “gaze region determination unit 133 can constitute a search algorithm for the region corresponding to the first gaze region using an object tracking algorithm in a computer vision field. When the change in the image is small and the prediction image can be generated with high accuracy, such a search method can be used. [0126] On the other hand, when the change in the image is large and the accuracy of the prediction image is low, matching processing of the new observation image (t=2), the image latent vector 1102, and the prediction non-image 1105 are executed for the purpose of more robust matching.”
6 MATSUMURA Paragraphs 0050-0052 discloses “the gaze unit 130 detects an object of interest such as a person or a vehicle that newly appears in the image, and controls a region including the detected object. In the embodiment, when the first gaze region and the second gaze region can be understood without distinction, simply gaze region may be described.”.
7 MATSUMURA teachings in Paragraphs 0125-0126 the following “gaze region determination unit 133 can constitute a search algorithm for the region corresponding to the first gaze region using an object tracking algorithm in a computer vision field. When the change in the image is small and the prediction image can be generated with high accuracy, such a search method can be used. [0126] On the other hand, when the change in the image is large and the accuracy of the prediction image is low, matching processing of the new observation image (t=2), the image latent vector 1102, and the prediction non-image 1105 are executed for the purpose of more robust matching.”
8 MATSUMURA Paragraph 0131 discloses the following “The calculated difference is compared to a predetermined threshold value (S164). When the difference is smaller than the predetermined threshold value, it is determined whether the first gaze region in the observation image is in the vicinity of the predicted first gaze region (S165)”, in which is the same as the Applicant’s teachings of “evaluation”.
9 MATSUMURA Paragraph 0131 discloses the following “The calculated difference is compared to a predetermined threshold value (S164). When the difference is smaller than the predetermined threshold value, it is determined whether the first gaze region in the observation image is in the vicinity of the predicted first gaze region (S165)”, in which is the same as the Applicant’s teachings of “evaluation”.
10 Paragraphs 0329; 0443 of Chang discloses “Probabilistic outputs (which measure degree of confidence) assist in this error detection/correction.”
11 Paragraphs 0329; 0443 of Chang discloses “Probabilistic outputs (which measure degree of confidence) assist in this error detection/correction.”
12 Paragraphs 0329; 0443 of Chang discloses “Probabilistic outputs (which measure degree of confidence) assist in this error detection/correction.”
13 Paragraphs 0329; 0443 of Chang discloses “Probabilistic outputs (which measure degree of confidence) assist in this error detection/correction.”
14 Paragraphs 0329; 0443 of Chang discloses “Probabilistic outputs (which measure degree of confidence) assist in this error detection/correction.”
15 Paragraphs 0329; 0443 of Chang discloses “Probabilistic outputs (which measure degree of confidence) assist in this error detection/correction.”
16 MATSUMURA Paragraph 0131 discloses the following “The calculated difference is compared to a predetermined threshold value (S164). When the difference is smaller than the predetermined threshold value, it is determined whether the first gaze region in the observation image is in the vicinity of the predicted first gaze region (S165)”, in which is the same as the Applicant’s teachings of “evaluation”.
Prosecution Insights