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 .
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments, see pgs. 10-11 of Remarks, filed 10/1/25, with respect to the rejection of claims 1-15 and 21-25 under 35 USC 112(b) have been fully considered and are persuasive. Therefore, the rejection has been withdrawn. However, upon further consideration, a new grounds of rejection is made in view of newly found prior art.
Applicant’s arguments, see pg. 11 of Remarks, with respect to the objection of the drawings have been fully considered and are persuasive. The objection of the drawings has been withdrawn.
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)(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.
Claims 1 and 10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Dhawan et al. (US Pub. No. 2018/0046879).
Consider claim 1. Dhawan et al. discloses a data augmentation apparatus comprising: at least one memory that is configured to store instructions (fig. 1 shows a memory 118); and at least one processor that is configured to execute the instructions (fig. 1 shows a processing system 116) to: acquire source time-series data including a plurality of frames in a time series (para. 0038 describes recording a video containing a series of frames); and generate augmented time-series data from the source time-series data by executing, on one or more pieces of target time-series data that are included in the source time- series data and configured by a plurality of consecutive frames belonging to a same class as each other, a deletion process of deleting target time-series data, a length change process of changing a length of the target time-series data, or a position change process of changing a position of the target time-series data on a time axis (para. 0049 describes editing a video for length), wherein the source time-series data includes a plurality of frames belonging to different classes, and wherein the class represents a scene or a situation represented by a plurality of consecutive frames belonging to that class (para. 0075 describes a scene represented as a collection of consecutive frames).
Consider claim 10. Dhawan et al. discloses the data augmentation apparatus according to the data augmentation apparatus according to wherein the source time-series data is video data, and wherein a class to which the frame belongs represents a type of work captured on that frame (para. 0032 describes a candidate frame determination module, including a scene detection module, to determine multiple candidate frames that are suitable for consideration as salient frames).
Claims 11 and 21 are rejected using similar reasoning as corresponding claim 1 above.
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 (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 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.
Claims 2, 3, 5, 12, 13, 15, 22, 23, and 25 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Dhawan et al. (US Pub. No. 2018/0046879) in view of Wang et al. (US Pat. No. 10,158,907).
Consider claim 2. Dhawan et al. discloses all claimed limitations as stated above, except wherein the length change process includes: a process of lengthening the target time-series data by copying one or more frames included in the target time-series data; or a process of shortening the target time-series data by deleting one or more frames included in the target time-series data.
However, Wang et al. teaches wherein the length change process includes: a process of lengthening the target time-series data by copying one or more frames included in the target time-series data (col. 15, lines 3-7 describe modifying video by repeating frames); or a process of shortening the target time-series data by deleting one or more frames included in the target time-series data (col. 15, lines 3-7 describe modifying video by dropping frames).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one with ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, wherein the length change process includes: a process of lengthening the target time-series data by copying one or more frames included in the target time-series data; or a process of shortening the target time-series data by deleting one or more frames included in the target time-series data, in order to synchronize multiple video as suggested by the prior art.
Consider claim 3. Dhawan et al. discloses all claimed limitations as stated above, except wherein the length change process is a process of lengthening the target time-series data by causing a part or a whole of the target time-series data to be repeated in the augmented time-series data (col. 15, lines 3-7 describe modifying video by repeating frames).
Consider claim 5. The data augmentation apparatus according to claim 1, wherein the position change process is a process of changing a position of the target time-series data by exchanging positions of two pieces of the target time-series data.
However, Wang et al. teaches wherein the position change process is a process of changing a position of the target time-series data by exchanging positions of two pieces of the target time-series data (col. 15, lines 3-7 describe modifying video by interpolating frames).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one with ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, wherein the position change process is a process of changing a position of the target time-series data by exchanging positions of two pieces of the target time-series data, in order to synchronize multiple video as suggested by the prior art.
Claims 12, 13, 15, 22, 23, and 25 are rejected using similar reasoning as corresponding claims above.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 4, 6-9, 14, and 24 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 Mishawn N Hunter whose telephone number is (571)272-7635. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 7am-4pm.
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, Thai Tran can be reached at 571-272-7382. 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.
/MISHAWN N. HUNTER/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2484