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 § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 1-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Claims 1, 15 and 20 recite limitations – “defining a set of key frames within a video based on movement of an object portrayed in the video; generating splines that collectively define inner and outer bounds of the object as portrayed in sequentially proximate key frames included in the set of key frames by: generating at least one curved feature corresponding to at least one pixel mask of the object across the sequentially proximate key frames; and applying an iterative algorithm to the curved feature; and interpolating the splines to define the object in at least one frame included between the sequentially proximate key frames”, appears to be directed to generating curved feature of the object in sequential frame and interpolating spline generated from the sequential key frames. However, it is not clear if the generated curved feature in the key frames is same feature across the frames or different in different frames. Further, the recited one pixel mask of the object is corresponding the one curved features. However, it is not clear as to there is possible one or more pixel mask to the object or not. Further, iterative algorithm is applied to curved feature. It is not clear as to if the curved feature to derive which specific result. Further, inner and outer bounds of the object are defined to generate splines which is mere boundary of the any object and spline or curved feature is mere representation of any object that has curved angle and does not explicitly define the specific of which image processing technique is used to arrive or derive curved feature from the proximate key frames.
The above discussed features do not explicitly define the features in relation with each other. Therefore, Examiner suggests to the Applicant amending claims in order to render the claims definite by explicitly defining the above discussed features as originally disclosed in the specifications.
Dependent claims do not remedy the deficiencies introduced by the independent claims. Therefore, dependent claims are rejected similarly.
Double Patenting
The nonstatutory double patenting rejection is based on a judicially created doctrine grounded in public policy (a policy reflected in the statute) so as to prevent the unjustified or improper timewise extension of the “right to exclude” granted by a patent and to prevent possible harassment by multiple assignees. A nonstatutory double patenting rejection is appropriate where the conflicting claims are not identical, but at least one examined application claim is not patentably distinct from the reference claim(s) because the examined application claim is either anticipated by, or would have been obvious over, the reference claim(s). See, e.g., In re Berg, 140 F.3d 1428, 46 USPQ2d 1226 (Fed. Cir. 1998); In re Goodman, 11 F.3d 1046, 29 USPQ2d 2010 (Fed. Cir. 1993); In re Longi, 759 F.2d 887, 225 USPQ 645 (Fed. Cir. 1985); In re Van Ornum, 686 F.2d 937, 214 USPQ 761 (CCPA 1982); In re Vogel, 422 F.2d 438, 164 USPQ 619 (CCPA 1970); In re Thorington, 418 F.2d 528, 163 USPQ 644 (CCPA 1969).
A timely filed terminal disclaimer in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(c) or 1.321(d) may be used to overcome an actual or provisional rejection based on nonstatutory double patenting provided the reference application or patent either is shown to be commonly owned with the examined application, or claims an invention made as a result of activities undertaken within the scope of a joint research agreement. See MPEP § 717.02 for applications subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA as explained in MPEP § 2159. See MPEP § 2146 et seq. for applications not subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA . A terminal disclaimer must be signed in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(b).
The filing of a terminal disclaimer by itself is not a complete reply to a nonstatutory double patenting (NSDP) rejection. A complete reply requires that the terminal disclaimer be accompanied by a reply requesting reconsideration of the prior Office action. Even where the NSDP rejection is provisional the reply must be complete. See MPEP § 804, subsection I.B.1. For a reply to a non-final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.111(a). For a reply to final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.113(c). A request for reconsideration while not provided for in 37 CFR 1.113(c) may be filed after final for consideration. See MPEP §§ 706.07(e) and 714.13.
The USPTO Internet website contains terminal disclaimer forms which may be used. Please visit www.uspto.gov/patent/patents-forms. The actual filing date of the application in which the form is filed determines what form (e.g., PTO/SB/25, PTO/SB/26, PTO/AIA /25, or PTO/AIA /26) should be used. A web-based eTerminal Disclaimer may be filled out completely online using web-screens. An eTerminal Disclaimer that meets all requirements is auto-processed and approved immediately upon submission. For more information about eTerminal Disclaimers, refer to www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/applying-online/eterminal-disclaimer.
Claims 1-20 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims (1, 3, 7), 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, (1, 3, 7), 16, 17, 18, 19 and (1, 3, 7) of U.S. Patent No. 20230064431 A1. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because both are directed to interpolating adjusted feature of object detected in sequential frames. The only difference between current application and the cited US Pub No 20230064431 A1 is that the current application claims curved features is similar to feature of spline in the cited. Therefore, both are similar in scope and therefore rejected as shown below is the table.
Current Application
US Pub No. 20230064431 A1
Claim 1. A computer-implemented method comprising:
defining a set of key frames within a video based on movement of an object portrayed in the video;
generating splines that collectively define inner and outer bounds of the object as portrayed in sequentially proximate key frames included in the set of key frames by: generating at least one curved feature corresponding to at least one pixel mask of the object across the sequentially proximate key frames; and
applying an iterative algorithm to the curved feature; and
interpolating the splines to define the object in at least one frame included between the sequentially proximate key frames.
Claim 1. (Currently Amended) A computer-implemented method comprising:
accessing a video portraying an object within a set of frames; defining a subset of key frames within the video based on movement of the object across the set of frames by calculating a movement metric describing movement of the object between a sequential pair of frames included in the set of frames; determining that the movement metric exceeds a predetermined threshold; and
in response to determining that the movement metric exceeds the predetermined threshold, adding one of the sequential pair of frames to the subset of key frames;
generating, for each key frame within the subset of key frames, a spline outlining the object within the key frame; receiving input to adjust, for a selected key frame within the subset of key frames, a corresponding spline; and
interpolating the adjusted spline with a spline in a sequentially proximate key frame to define the object in frames between the selected key frame and the sequentially proximate key frame.
Claim 3. wherein calculating, for each sequential pair of frames, the movement metric comprises: matching a set of local features between the object in a first image of the sequential pair of frames and in the object in a second image of the sequential pair of frames; and for each local feature within the set of local features, calculating a difference of position between the local feature in the first image and the local feature in the second image.
Claim 7. wherein generating, for each key frame within the subset of key frames, the spline outlining the object within the key frame comprises: identifying, for each key frame within the subset of key frames, a pixel mask of the object; and generating the spline to outline the pixel mask.
Claim 2
Claim 2
Claim 3
Claim 3
Claim 4
Claim 4
Claim 5
Claim 5
Claim 6
Claim 6
Claim 7
Claim 7
Claim 8
Claim 8
Claim 9
Claim 9
Claim 10
Claim 10
Claim 11
Claim 11
Claim 12
Claim 12
Claim 13
Claim 13
Claim 14
Claim 14
Claim 15
Claim 1, 3, 7
Claim 16
Claim 16
Claim 17
Claim 17
Claim 18
Claim 18
Claim 19
Claim 19
Claim 20
Claim 1, 3, 7
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 1-20 would be allowable if rewritten to overcome the rejection(s) under 35 U.S.C. non-statutory double patenting by timely submission and approval of eTD, 35 U.S.C. 112(b) set forth in this Office action and to include all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure:
Suzuki et al. (US-20210133987-A1, specific time-point position calculating unit 34 calculates a position of the head of the golf club at a specific time point at which the head during a swing motion satisfies a prescribed condition. As described earlier, specific time points according to the present embodiment are an address time point, a take-back end time point, an impact time point, a finish time point, and an uppermost time point. In addition, the specific time-point position calculating unit 34 may interpolate a position of the head between image frames in the analysis object video with a spline curve and adopt a position on the spline curve that satisfies a prescribed condition as the position of the head at the specific time point. For example, the uppermost time point may be identified between an image frame and another image frame included in the analysis object video, [0042]).
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to PINALBEN V PATEL whose telephone number is (571)270-5872. The examiner can normally be reached M-F: 10am - 8pm.
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, Chineyere Wills-Burns can be reached at 571-272-9752. 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.
/Pinalben Patel/Examiner, Art Unit 2673
Prosecution Insights