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 .
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on April 3, 2025 and January 30, 2025 is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement is being considered by the examiner.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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 (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) 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.
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)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claim(s) 1, 2, 4, 10, 11, 13, 19, 20, 22 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by US Patent 20210349773A1, hereinafter, “Gusat” et. al.
Regarding claim 1, 10, and 19, Gusat discloses the following as claimed:
A class boundary detection apparatus (Fig. 1; par. 0008), a control method executed by a computer (claim 16), and a non-transitory computer-readable medium storing a program that causes a computer to execute the computer program product
PNG
media_image1.png
802
770
media_image1.png
Greyscale
comprising: at least one memory that is configured to store instructions (Fig. 1, 101; par. 0041);
and at least one processor that is configured to execute the instructions (Fig. 1) to:
acquire target time-series data that is time-series data to be analyzed (Fig. 1, “time series”; pars. 0041-42);
PNG
media_image2.png
444
788
media_image2.png
Greyscale
extract a plurality of pieces of extracted time-series data from the target time-series data and calculate a similarity between reference time-series data representing class boundaries of two different classes and each piece of the extracted time-series data (pars. 00043-45);
PNG
media_image3.png
426
768
media_image3.png
Greyscale
and detect a class boundary represented by the reference time-series data from the extracted time-series data having the calculated similarity equal to or more than a threshold, wherein the reference time-series data includes, after a tail portion of time-series data belonging to a preceding class indicated by the class boundary, a head portion of time-series data belonging to a subsequent class indicated by the class boundary (pars. 0057, 0062 e.g., “measurand” within a “time window” is construed as class boundary; “set of time series” establishes tail/head portion of time-series data belonging to a measurand(s)).
PNG
media_image4.png
254
774
media_image4.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image5.png
242
770
media_image5.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 2, 11, 20, Gusat discloses the class boundary detection apparatus according to claim 1, the control method according to claim 10, and non-transitory computer readable medium according to claim 19, wherein the calculation of the similarity includes calculating a similarity between a feature value of the reference time-series data and a feature value of the extracted time-series data as the similarity between the reference time-series data and the extracted time-series data (Gusat [0062] similarity techniques for comparing pair wise the values of every measurand of the second group with all measurands of the third group).
Regarding claim 4, 13, and 22, Gusat discloses the class boundary detection apparatus according to claim 1, control method according to claim 10, and the non-transitory computer readable medium of claim 19, wherein the calculation of the similarity further includes calculating a similarity with each piece of the extracted time-series data for each piece of the reference time-series data corresponding to each of a plurality of types of class boundaries, and the detection of the class boundary further includes detecting, from the extracted time-series data in which the similarity with the reference time-series data is equal to or more than a threshold, a class boundary of a type corresponding to that reference time-series data ([0068] where a threshold is calculated from the similarity techniques described to identify the root cause of the anomaly).
PNG
media_image6.png
501
630
media_image6.png
Greyscale
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.
The factual inquiries 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.
Claim(s) 3, 5, 6, 12, 14, 21 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Gusat (US Patent 2021/0349773 A1) in view of Cooper et. al. (US Patent 2006/0107216 A1).
Regarding claim 3, 12, and 21, Gusat discloses the class boundary detection apparatus according to claim 2, the control method according to claim 11, and the non-transitory computer readable medium according to claim 20. However, Gusat fails to disclose wherein the target time-series data is video data that is a sequence of video frames, the feature value of the extracted time-series data indicates a feature value of each frame constituting the extracted time-series data, and the calculation of the similarity further includes calculating, for each video frame constituting the extracted time-series data, a feature value that indicates an image feature of the video frame and data indicating a posture of a predetermined object included in the video frame.
Cooper et. al. teaches wherein the target time-series data is video data that is a sequence of video frames, the feature value of the extracted time-series data indicates a feature value of each frame constituting the extracted time-series data, and the calculation of the similarity further includes calculating, for each video frame constituting the extracted time-series data, a feature value that indicates an image feature of the video frame and data indicating a posture of a predetermined object included in the video frame (Cooper et. al. Figure 1, [0008] where media that can be videos are segmented and analyzed to determine segment boundaries).
It is key to the claimed invention that the time-series data analyzed is video data. Thus, it would have been obvious to one skilled in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have combined the teachings of Gusat with the teachings of Cooper et. al. so that video data is analyzed for boundary determination.
PNG
media_image7.png
402
636
media_image7.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image8.png
810
604
media_image8.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 5 and 14, Gusat discloses the class boundary detection apparatus according to claim 1 and the control method according to claim 10. However, Gusat fails to disclose wherein the at least one processor is configured to execute the instructions further to: a verification unit configured to determine whether two class boundaries adjacent to each other detected from the target time-series data are consistent with each other; and correct a class boundary when it is determined that two class boundaries adjacent to each other are not consistent with each other.
Cooper et. al. teaches wherein the at least one processor is configured to execute the instructions further to: a verification unit configured to determine whether two class boundaries adjacent to each other detected from the target time-series data are consistent with each other; and correct a class boundary when it is determined that two class boundaries adjacent to each other are not consistent with each other (Cooper et. al. [0038] where neighboring kernels are compared within a subset to determine a boundary).
PNG
media_image9.png
412
705
media_image9.png
Greyscale
The claimed invention emphasizes that the video segments are compared in terms of similarity, especially with neighboring time frames. Thus, it would have been obvious to one skilled in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have combined the teachings of Gusat and the teachings of Cooper et. al. to include neighboring video frame comparisons for similarity to allow for a more robust performance of the class boundary device for video boundary delineation.
Regarding claim 6, Cooper et. al. further teaches the class boundary detection apparatus according to claim 5, wherein the correction of the class boundary further includes, for each of the two class boundaries determined not to be consistent with each other, comparing degrees of similarity between frames in the extracted time-series data in which the class boundary is detected and the reference time-series data corresponding to a type of the class boundary between a portion before the class boundary and a portion after the class boundary, and determining that there is an error in the class boundary when a difference therebetween is equal to or more than a threshold ([0040] where an integer parameter is used as a threshold determination for a boundary or non-boundary classification).
PNG
media_image10.png
822
628
media_image10.png
Greyscale
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 7-9, 15, and 23 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.
The prior art of record does not disclose the claimed invention as recited in dependent claims 7-9, 15, and 23.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JESSICA YIFANG LIN whose telephone number is (571)272-6435. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 7:00am-6:15pm, with optional day off.
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, Vu Le can be reached at 571-272-7332. 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.
/JESSICA YIFANG LIN/Examiner, Art Unit 2668 January 23, 2026
/VU LE/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2668