CTNF 18/780,657 CTNF 97319 DETAILED ACTION Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status 07-03-aia AIA 15-10-aia The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA. Priority 02-26 AIA Receipt is acknowledged of certified copies of papers submitted under 35 U.S.C. 119(a)-(d), which papers have been placed of record on file. Preliminary Amendment The preliminary amendment filed on July 23ed, 2024 has been acknowledged and entered. Information Disclosure Statement(s) The Information disclosure statement (IDS) filed on July 23 rd , 2024 has been acknowledged and considered by the examiner. Specification Applicant is reminded of the proper content of an abstract of the disclosure. A patent abstract is a concise statement of the technical disclosure of the patent and should include that which is new in the art to which the invention pertains. The abstract should not refer to purported merits or speculative applications of the invention and should not compare the invention with the prior art. Extensive mechanical and design details of an apparatus should not be included in the abstract. The abstract should be in narrative form and generally limited to a single paragraph within the range of 50 to 150 words in length. See MPEP § 608.01(b) for guidelines for the preparation of patent abstracts. Claim Objections Claim 1 and 3-16 are objected to because of the following reasons: Claim 1 , “i. an interframe…” in line 3, “ii. a first interframe…” in line 5, “iii. a second interframe…” in line 7, “iv. for a first colour…” in line 10, and “v. for a second colour…” in line 13, should be read as: “metric i. by an interframe…” in line 3, “metric ii. by a first interframe…” in line 5, “metric iii. by a second interframe…” in line 7, “metric iv. by, for a first colour…” in line 10, and “metric v. by, for a second colour…” in line 13, to follow antecedent basis and proper claim language and formality, since the following dependent claims will mention the references of such metrics i., ii., iii., and the preamble recites “two or metrics from among:”. Appropriate correction is required to avoid 112(b) antecedent basis issue. Claim 1 , “ and immediately preceding frame ”, in lines 3-4, should be read as “ and an immediately preceding frame ” to follow proper claim language and formality, since a frame should be addressed as in singular form using “an” article. Appropriate correction is required. Claim 1, “and immediately preceding frame”, in line 6, should be read as “and an immediately preceding frame” to follow proper claim language and formality, since a frame should be addressed as in singular form using “an” article. Appropriate correction is required. Claim 1, “and immediately preceding frame” , in line 8, should be read as “and an immediately preceding frame” to follow proper claim language and formality, since a frame should be addressed as in singular form using “an” article. Appropriate correction is required. Claim 1, “to the first colour channel” , in line 8, should be read as “to a first colour channel” . There is no antecedent basis for “the first color channel” since claim 1 recites “generating two or more metrics from among:”, in line 2, indicating a selection, therefore, each of the limitations i. to v. is independent from each other, one can be selected and the others are not in some instances, therefore, there is no antecedent basis for “the first colour channel” in iii. if ii. was not selected. Appropriate correction is required to avoid 112(b) antecedent basis issue. Claim 1, “between mean and” , in line 10, should be read as “between a mean and” to follow proper claim language and formality, since a frame should be addressed as in singular form using “a” article. Appropriate correction is required. Claim 1, “between mean and” , in line 13, should be read as “between a mean and” to follow proper claim language and formality, since a frame should be addressed as in singular form using “a” article. Appropriate correction is required. Claim 1, “of the generated metrics” , in line 16, should be read as “of the generated two or more metrics ” to follow proper antecedent basis reference to the limitation, of the antecedent initiation, “generating two or more metrics” in line 2. Appropriate correction is required to avoid 112(b) antecedent basis issue. Claim 1, “of the generated metrics” , in line 16, should be read as “of the generated two or more metrics” to follow proper antecedent basis reference to the limitation, of the antecedent initiation, “generating two or more metrics” in line 2. Appropriate correction is required to avoid 112(b) antecedent basis issue. Claim 1, “for the frame” , in line 17, should be read as “for the current video frame” to follow proper antecedent basis reference to the limitation, of the antecedent initiation, “for a current video frame” in line 2. Appropriate correction is required to avoid 112(b) antecedent basis issue. Claim 1, “between the current” , in line 3, should be read as “between the current video frame” to follow proper antecedent basis reference to the limitation, of the antecedent initiation, “for a current video frame” in line 2. Appropriate correction is required to avoid 112(b) antecedent basis issue. Claim 1, “between the current”, in line 6, should be read as “between the current video frame” to follow proper antecedent basis reference to the limitation, of the antecedent initiation, “for a current video frame” in line 2. Appropriate correction is required to avoid 112(b) antecedent basis issue. Claim 1, “between the current” , in line 8, should be read as “between the current video frame” to follow proper antecedent basis reference to the limitation, of the antecedent initiation, “for a current video frame” in line 2. Appropriate correction is required to avoid 112(b) antecedent basis issue. Claim 1, “for the current frame”, in lines 19-20 , should be read as “for the current video frame” to follow proper antecedent basis reference to the limitation, of the antecedent initiation, “for a current video frame” in line 2. Appropriate correction is required to avoid 112(b) antecedent basis issue. Claim 3, “in which the step of summing”, in line 1, should be read as “wherein the summing” to follow proper antecedent basis. Appropriate correction is required to avoid 112(b) antecedent basis issue. Claim 3, “the weighting of” , in line 2, should be read as “a weighting of” to follow proper antecedent basis, since there is no first instantiation of “a weighting” priorly to have such antecedent reference. Appropriate correction is required to avoid 112(b) antecedent basis. Claim 4, “in which for any” , in line 1, should be read as “wherein for any” to follow proper claim language and formality. Appropriate correction is required. Claim 4, “the delta sum of absolute differences” , in lines 1-2, should be read as “a delta sum of absolute differences between the current video frame and an immediately preceding frame” , to follow proper antecedent basis, since claim 4 depends on claim 1, wherein claim 1 recites “generating two or more metrics from among:” therefore, only two selections are being the instant scope of the claims 4 and 1, in the instances, i. was not selected, there would not be “the delta sum of absolute differences” in the current claim 4 to have such antecedent reference. Appropriate correction is required to avoid 112(b) antecedent basis issue. Claim 4, “between the current frame” , in line 2 , should be read as “between the current video frame” to follow proper antecedent basis reference to the limitation, of the antecedent initiation, “for a current video frame” in line 2 of claim 1. Appropriate correction is required to avoid 112(b) antecedent basis issue. Claim 5, “in which for any” , in line 1, should be read as “wherein for any” to follow proper claim language and formality. Appropriate correction is required. Claim 5 , the numbering “i.” and “ii.” should be removed to avoid indefiniteness issue, since these numberings have been used in claim 1, and claim 5 depends on claim 1, hence, appear contradicting usage and definition of the same references/symbols. Appropriate correction is required to avoid 112(b) indefiniteness issue. Claim 5, “the standard deviation” , in line 4, should be read as “a standard deviation” , since there is no first instantiation of “a standard deviation” priorly for claim 5 to have such antecedent reference. Appropriate correction is required to avoid 112(b) antecedent basis issue. Claim 6, “in which” , in line 1, should be read as “wherein” to follow proper claim language and formality. Appropriate correction is required. Claim 6, “of the image frame” , in line 2, should be read as “of the current video frame” to follow proper antecedent basis reference. Appropriate correction is required to avoid 112(b) antecedent basis issue. Claim 7, “in which”, in line 1, should be read as “wherein” to follow proper claim language and formality. Appropriate correction is required. Claim 7, “at the start”, in line 2, should be read as “at a start” to follow proper antecedent basis, since there is no prior instantiation of “at a start” to have such antecedent reference in claim 7. Appropriate correction is required to avoid 112(b) antecedent basis issue. Claim 8, “in which the further processing comprises” , in line 1, should be read as “wherein the further processing comprises” to follow proper claim language and formality. Appropriate correction is required. Claim 8, “comprises the steps of” , in lines 1-2, should be read as “comprises of” to follow proper claim language and formality and follow proper antecedent basis, since there is no prior instantiation of “steps of” to have such antecedent reference in claim 8. Appropriate correction is required to avoid 112(b) indefiniteness antecedent basis issue. Claim 8, “the current frame” , in line 3, should be read as “the current video frame” to follow proper antecedent basis. Appropriate correction is required to avoid 112(b) antecedent basis issue. Claim 8, “the frame score for the further frame” , in line 4, should be read as “the frame score for the current video frame” to follow proper antecedent basis reference to follow the antecedent feature of claim 1, “a frame score for the frame/the current video frame”, in line 17 of claim 1. Appropriate correction is required to avoid 112(b) antecedent basis issue. Claim 8, “non-longer exceeds” , in lines 4-5, should be read as “stop exceeding” to follow proper claim language and grammar. Appropriate correction is required. Claim 8, “thereby generating or identifying” , in lines 5-6, should be read as “to generate or identify” to follow proper claim language and formality. Appropriate correction is required. Claim 9, “comprising the step of” , in line 1, should be read as “comprising of” to follow proper claim language and formality, and to follow proper antecedent basis. Appropriate correction is required to avoid 112(b) antecedent basis issue. Claim 9, “adjusting the sensitivity” , in line 2, should be read as “adjusting a sensitivity” to follow proper antecedent basis, since there is no prior instantiation of “a sensitivity” to have such antecedent reference in claim 9. Appropriate correction is required to avoid 112(b) antecedent basis issue. Claim 9, “the number of preceding frames” , in line 4, should be read as “a number of preceding frames” to follow proper antecedent basis, since there is no prior instantiation of such antecedent basis reference. Appropriate correction is required to avoid 112(b) antecedent basis issue. Claim 9, “the length of the predetermined period” , in line 4, should be read as “a length of a predetermined period” to follow proper antecedent basis, since there is no prior instantiation of such antecedent basis reference. Appropriate correction is required to avoid 112(b) antecedent basis issue. Claim 9, “the number of preceding” , in line 6, should be read as “a number of preceding” to follow proper antecedent basis, since there is no prior instantiation of such antecedent basis reference. Appropriate correction is required to avoid 112(b) antecedent basis issue. Claim 9, “used to compute the z-scores for the selected measurements” , in lines 6-7, should be read as “used to generate the respective z-scores of the generated two or more metrics” to follow proper antecedent basis reference to claim 1, line 16, “generating respective z-scores of the generated metrics/the generated two or more metrics”. Appropriate correction is required to avoid 112(b) antecedent basis issue. Claim 9, “the relative weights used to generate a weighted sum of z scores” , in line 8, should be read as “relative weights used to generate a weighted sum of the respective z-scores” to follow proper antecedent basis. Appropriate correction is required to avoid 112(b) antecedent basis issue. Claim 9, “the number of” , in line 9, should be read as “a number of” to follow proper antecedent basis reference, since there is no prior instantiation of such antecedent reference. Appropriate correction is required to avoid 112(b) antecedent basis issue. Claim 9, “the minimum number of” , in line 10, should be read as “a minimum number of” to follow proper antecedent basis reference, since there is no prior instantiation of such antecedent reference. Appropriate correction is required to avoid 112(b) antecedent basis issue. Claim 9, “the current frame score should exceed” , in line 11, should be read as “the frame score required to exceed” to follow proper antecedent basis and proper claim language and formality, moreover, the term “should” is indefinite, it’s unclear whether the limitation follow takes place or not. Appropriate correction is required to avoid 112(b) antecedent and indefiniteness issues. Claim 9 , all of the instances of “measurements” in lines 4, 5 and 6-7, should be read as “metrics” to follow proper antecedent basis and consistent of term, since claim 9 depends on claim 1, and claim uses the term “metrics”. Appropriate correction is required to avoid 112(b) antecedent basis issue. Claim 9 , the numbering “i.” to “vi.” should be removed to avoid indefiniteness issue, since these numberings have been used in claim 1, and claim 9 depends on claim 1, hence, appear contradicting usage and definition of the same references/symbols. Appropriate correction is required to avoid 112(b) indefiniteness issue. Claim 10, “in which” , in line 1, should be read as “wherein” to follow proper claim language and formality. Appropriate correction is required. Claim 10, “a value provided for the identifying step as the rolling mean” , in lines 1-2, should be read as “a value provided as the rolling mean” to follow proper antecedent basis. Appropriate correction is required to avoid 112(b) antecedent basis issue. Claim 10, “the larger” , in line 2, should be read as “a larger” to follow proper antecedent basis, since there is no prior instantiation of such antecedent reference. Appropriate correction is required to avoid 112(b) antecedent basis issue. Claim 11, “comprising the steps of:” , in line 1, should be read as “comprising of:” to follow proper antecedent basis, since there is no prior instantiation of such antecedent reference. Appropriate correction is required to avoid 112(b) antecedent basis issue. Claim 11, “the frame scores” , in line 2, should be read as “frame scores” to follow proper antecedent basis, since there is no prior instantiation of such antecedent reference. Appropriate correction is required to avoid 112(b) antecedent basis issue. Claim 12, “thereof” instances, in lines 3, 5 and 8, should be read as “for each audio channel” to follow proper claim language and formality. Appropriate correction is required. Claim 12, “the current and immediately preceding frame” , in lines 6-7, should be read as “the current video frame and an immediately preceding frame” to follow proper antecedent basis. Appropriate correction is required to avoid 112(b) antecedent basis issue. Claim 12 , the numbering “i.”, “ii.” and “iii.” should be removed to avoid indefiniteness issue, since these numberings have been used in claim 1, and claim 12 depends on claim 1, hence, appear contradicting usage and definition of the same references/symbols. Appropriate correction is required to avoid 112(b) indefiniteness issue. Claim 13, “comprising the step of:” , in line 1, should be read as “comprising of:” to follow proper antecedent basis. Appropriate correction is required to avoid 112(b) antecedent basis issue. Claim 13, “suspending the steps of generating” , in lines 1-2, should be read as “suspending generating” to follow proper antecedent basis. Appropriate correction is required to avoid 112(b) antecedent basis issue. Claim 14, “in which” , in line 1, should be read as “wherein” to follow proper claim language and formality. Appropriate correction is required. Claim 14, “of the image” , in line 1, should be read as “of an image” to follow proper antecedent basis, since there is no prior instantiation of such antecedent reference. Appropriate correction is required to avoid 112(b) antecedent basis issue. Claim 14, “for the purpose of generating the or each metric” , in line 2, should be read as “for a purpose of generating the two or more metrics” to follow proper antecedent basis. Appropriate correction is required to avoid 112(b) antecedent basis issue. Claim 15, “and immediately preceding frame” , in lines 6-7, should be read as “and an immediately preceding frame” to follow proper claim language and formality, since a frame should be addressed as in singular form using “an” article. Appropriate correction is required. Claim 15, “and immediately preceding frame” , in line 9, should be read as “and an immediately preceding frame” to follow proper claim language and formality, since a frame should be addressed as in singular form using “an” article. Appropriate correction is required. Claim 15, “and immediately preceding frame” , in line 11, should be read as “and an immediately preceding frame” to follow proper claim language and formality, since a frame should be addressed as in singular form using “an” article. Appropriate correction is required. Claim 15, “to the first colour channel” , in line 11, should be read as “to a first colour channel” . There is no antecedent basis for “the first color channel” since claim 15 recites “generating two or more metrics from among:”, in line 5, indicating a selection, therefore, each of the limitations i. to v. is independent from each other, one can be selected and the others are not in some instances, therefore, there is no antecedent basis for “the first colour channel” in iii. if ii. was not selected. Appropriate correction is required to avoid 112(b) antecedent basis issue. Claim 15, “between mean and” , in line 13, should be read as “between a mean and” to follow proper claim language and formality, since a frame should be addressed as in singular form using “a” article. Appropriate correction is required. Claim 15, “between mean and” , in line 16, should be read as “between a mean and” to follow proper claim language and formality, since a frame should be addressed as in singular form using “a” article. Appropriate correction is required. Claim 15, “of the generated metrics” , in line 19, should be read as “of the generated two or more metrics” to follow proper antecedent basis reference to the limitation, of the antecedent initiation, “generating two or more metrics” in line 5. Appropriate correction is required to avoid 112(b) antecedent basis issue. Claim 15, “of the generated metrics” , in line 19, should be read as “of the generated two or more metrics” to follow proper antecedent basis reference to the limitation, of the antecedent initiation, “generating two or more metrics” in line 5. Appropriate correction is required to avoid 112(b) antecedent basis issue. Claim 15, “for the frame” , in line 20, should be read as “for the current video frame” to follow proper antecedent basis reference to the limitation, of the antecedent initiation, “for a current video frame” in line 5. Appropriate correction is required to avoid 112(b) antecedent basis issue. Claim 15, “between the current” , in line 6, should be read as “between the current video frame” to follow proper antecedent basis reference to the limitation, of the antecedent initiation, “for a current video frame” in line 6. Appropriate correction is required to avoid 112(b) antecedent basis issue. Claim 15, “between the current” , in line 9, should be read as “between the current video frame” to follow proper antecedent basis reference to the limitation, of the antecedent initiation, “for a current video frame” in line 5. Appropriate correction is required to avoid 112(b) antecedent basis issue. Claim 15, “between the current” , in line 11, should be read as “between the current video frame” to follow proper antecedent basis reference to the limitation, of the antecedent initiation, “for a current video frame” in line 5. Appropriate correction is required to avoid 112(b) antecedent basis issue. Claim 15, “for the current frame” , in lines 22-23 , should be read as “for the current video frame” to follow proper antecedent basis reference to the limitation, of the antecedent initiation, “for a current video frame” in line 5. Appropriate correction is required to avoid 112(b) antecedent basis issue. Claim 15 , “i. an interframe…” in line 6, “ii. a first interframe…” in line 8, “iii. a second interframe…” in line 10, “iv. for a first colour…” in line 13, and “v. for a second colour…” in line 16 should be read as: “metric i. by an interframe…” in line 6, “metric ii. by a first interframe…” in line 8, “metric iii. by a second interframe…” in line 10, “metric iv. by, for a first colour…” in line 13, and “metric v. by, for a second colour…” in line 16 to follow antecedent basis and proper claim language and formality, since the following dependent claims will mention the references of such metrics i., ii., iii., and the preamble recites “two or metrics from among:”. Appropriate correction is required to avoid 112(b) antecedent basis issue. Claim 16, “i. an interframe…” in line 5, “ii. a first interframe…” in line 7, “iii. a second interframe…” in line 9, “iv. for a first colour…” in line 12, and “v. for a second colour…” in line 15 should be read as: “metric i. by an interframe…” in line 5, “metric ii. by a first interframe…” in line 7, “metric iii. by a second interframe…” in line 9, “metric iv. by, for a first colour… ” in line 12, and “metric v. by, for a second colour…” in line 15 to follow antecedent basis and proper claim language and formality, since the following dependent claims will mention the references of such metrics i., ii., iii., and the preamble recites “two or metrics from among:”. Appropriate correction is required to avoid 112(b) antecedent basis issue. Claim 16 , “and immediately preceding frame” , in lines 6-7, should be read as “and an immediately preceding frame” to follow proper claim language and formality, since a frame should be addressed as in singular form using “an” article. Appropriate correction is required. Claim 16, “and immediately preceding frame” , in line 9, should be read as “and an immediately preceding frame” to follow proper claim language and formality, since a frame should be addressed as in singular form using “an” article. Appropriate correction is required. Claim 16, “and immediately preceding frame” , in line 11, should be read as “and an immediately preceding frame” to follow proper claim language and formality, since a frame should be addressed as in singular form using “an” article. Appropriate correction is required. Claim 16, “to the first colour channel” , in line 11, should be read as “to a first colour channel” . There is no antecedent basis for “the first color channel” since claim 15 recites “generating two or more metrics from among:”, in line 5, indicating a selection, therefore, each of the limitations i. to v. is independent from each other, one can be selected and the others are not in some instances, therefore, there is no antecedent basis for “the first colour channel” in iii. if ii. was not selected. Appropriate correction is required to avoid 112(b) antecedent basis issue. Claim 16, “between mean and” , in line 13, should be read as “between a mean and” to follow proper claim language and formality, since a frame should be addressed as in singular form using “a” article. Appropriate correction is required. Claim 16, “between mean and” , in line 16, should be read as “between a mean and” to follow proper claim language and formality, since a frame should be addressed as in singular form using “a” article. Appropriate correction is required. Claim 16, “of the generated metrics” , in line 19, should be read as “ of the generated two or more metrics ” to follow proper antecedent basis reference to the limitation, of the antecedent initiation, “generating two or more metrics” in line 5. Appropriate correction is required to avoid 112(b) antecedent basis issue. Claim 16, “of the generated metrics” , in line 19, should be read as “of the generated two or more metrics” to follow proper antecedent basis reference to the limitation, of the antecedent initiation, “generating two or more metrics” in line 5. Appropriate correction is required to avoid 112(b) antecedent basis issue. Claim 16, “for the frame” , in line 20, should be read as “for the current video frame” to follow proper antecedent basis reference to the limitation, of the antecedent initiation, “for a current video frame” in line 5. Appropriate correction is required to avoid 112(b) antecedent basis issue. Claim 16, “between the current” , in line 6, should be read as “between the current video frame” to follow proper antecedent basis reference to the limitation, of the antecedent initiation, “for a current video frame” in line 6. Appropriate correction is required to avoid 112(b) antecedent basis issue. Claim 16, “between the current” , in line 9, should be read as “between the current video frame” to follow proper antecedent basis reference to the limitation, of the antecedent initiation, “for a current video frame” in line 5. Appropriate correction is required to avoid 112(b) antecedent basis issue. Claim 16, “between the current” , in line 11, should be read as “between the current video frame” to follow proper antecedent basis reference to the limitation, of the antecedent initiation, “for a current video frame” in line 5. Appropriate correction is required to avoid 112(b) antecedent basis issue. Claim 16, “for the current frame” , in lines 22-223 , should be read as “for the current video frame” to follow proper antecedent basis reference to the limitation, of the antecedent initiation, “for a current video frame” in line 5. Appropriate correction is required to avoid 112(b) antecedent basis issue. Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112 07-30-02 AIA 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. Claim 3 recites the limitation “ the step of summing the z-scores " in line 1. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. Since claim 1 recites “two or more metrics among: i.-v.” which indicates a selection of two or more, in its broadest scope, any two of the selections can be selected, in the instances wherein v. is not selected, then there would not be the first instantiation of a step of “summing the z-scores” to have such antecedent reference in claim 3. Appropriate correction is required. Claim 3 recites the limitation “ the weighting of metrics i.-iii. " in line 2 and “ the weighting of any one of metrics iv.-v. ” in lines 2-3. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. Since there is no first instantiation of “weighting of”, for both cases, priorly to have such antecedent reference in claim 3. Appropriate correction is required. Claim 3 recites the limitation “ any one of metrics i.-iii. " in line 2 and “ any one of metrics iv.-v. ” in line 3. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. Since, claim 3 depends on claim 1, and claim 1 recites “generating two or more metrics from among: i.-v.” therefore, in the instance that only two metrics are selected to be generated in any order, there will not be true for all instances that there are one of metrics i.-iii. nor one of metric i.-v. to be present in claim 3 for the limitation to be true. The claim is indefiniteness and lack of antecedent basis. Appropriate correction is required. Claim 4 recites the limitation “ any one of metrics i.-iii. " in line 2. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. Since, claim 4 depends on claim 1, and claim 1 recites “generating two or more metrics from among: i.-v.” therefore, in the instance where two metric being generated are any two of iv.-v., there would not have metrics of i.-iii. to be present in this limitation hence, lack of antecedent basis. Appropriate correction is required. Claim 5 recites the limitation “ any one of metrics iv-v. " in line 1. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. Since, claim 4 depends on claim 1, and claim 1 recites “generating two or more metrics from among: i.-v.” therefore, in the instance where two metric being generated are any two of i.-iii., there would not have metrics of iv.-v. to be present in this limitation hence, lack of antecedent basis. Appropriate correction is required. Claim 5 , “ the property ”, in line 2, there is no antecedent basis for this limitation, since claim 5 depends on claim 1, and claim 1 recites “generating two or more metrics from among”, hence, in the instances metrics iv. and/or v. was not selected, the scope of the claims would not have “a property” first instantiation for claim 5 to have such antecedent reference. Appropriate correction is required. Claim 5 , “ the mean value of the colour channel ”, in line 3, there is no antecedent basis for this limitation, since claim 5 depends on claim 1, and claim 1 recites “generating two or more metrics from among”, hence, in the instances metrics iv. and/or v. was not selected, the scope of the claims would not have “a mean value of colour channel” first instantiation for claim 5 to have such antecedent reference. Appropriate correction is required. Claim 5 , “ the colour channel ”, in line 4, there is no antecedent basis for this limitation, since claim 5 depends on claim 1, and claim 1 recites “generating two or more metrics from among”, hence, in the instances metrics iv. and/or v. was not selected, the scope of the claims would not have “a colour channel” first instantiation for claim 5 to have such antecedent reference. Appropriate correction is required. Claim 6 recites the limitation “ the or each metric ”, in line 1, should be read as “ each of the generated two or more metrics ”. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim, since there is no first instantiation of “…or each metric” priorly to have such antecedent reference, the claim should be amended as suggested to follow antecedent basis reference to claim 1, “generating two or more metrics..” in line 1. Appropriate correction is required. Suggestion of correction: “the or each metric” should be read as “each of the generated two or more metrics”. Claim 7 recites the limitation “ in which for any one of metrics iv.-v. ”, in line 1. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim, since claim 7 is dependent on claim 1, moreover, claim 1 recites “generating two or more metrics from among: i.-v.” therefore, in the instance that only two metrics are selected to be generated in any order, there will not be true for all instances that there is one of metric iv.-v. to be present in claim 7 for the limitation to be true. Appropriate correction is required. Claim 9 recites the limitation “ measurements i.to iii. ” in line 4. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. Since claim 9 depends on claim 1, and claim 1 recites “generating two or more metrics from among: i.-v.” therefore, in the instance that only two metrics/measurements are selected to be generated in any order, there will not be true for all instances that there are measurements i. to iii. to be present in claim 9 for the limitation to be true. Appropriate correction is required. Claim 9 recites the limitation “ measurements iv.to v. ” in line 5. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. Since claim 9 depends on claim 1, and claim 1 recites “generating two or more metrics from among: i.-v.” therefore, in the instance that only two metrics/measurements are selected to be generated in any order, there will not be true for all instances that there are measurements iv. to v. to be present in claim 9 for the limitation to be true. Appropriate correction is required. Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101 07-04-01 AIA 07-04 35 U.S.C. 101 reads as follows: Whoever invents or discovers any new and useful process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter, or any new and useful improvement thereof, may obtain a patent therefor, subject to the conditions and requirements of this title. Claims 1-16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more nor an integration of the judicial exceptions into a practical application. The limitations, under their broadest reasonable interpretation, cover mental process (concept performed in a human mind, including as observation, evaluation, judgment, opinion) and mathematical operations. The claimed invention simply perform generating metrics and performing some mathematical calculation and generations, performing analysis on video frames. See analysis below for more details. Regarding Independent Claim 1 and its dependent claims 2-14 , Step 1 Analysis: Claim 1 is directed to a process/method , which falls within one of the four statutory categories (process, machine, manufacture or composition of matter). Please see MPEP §2106.04. Step 2A Prong 1 Analysis: Claim 1 recites, in part: PNG media_image1.png 544 654 media_image1.png Greyscale The limitations as drafted, are processes that, under broadest reasonable interpretation, covers the performance of the limitation in the mind which falls within the “Mental Processes/Mathematical Concept” grouping of abstract ideas. Please see MPEP §2106.04. The limitations of: “method of video evaluation”, “identifying the current video frame…predetermined number of preceding frame” are steps a human mind can perform, under BRI, using pen and paper through a process of observation and evaluation such as, the human mind can observe some data/information (images, video, already given or resulted outcome/output of data/information, etc.) and evaluate them to make a determination/identification……, and observing the video frame to make a comparison to identify if the frame score exceeds a certain threshold condition based on some observable data/information and observable condition/criteria already given. “generating two or more metrics from among: i.-v.”, “generating respective z-scores…metrics”, “summing the z-scores…for the frame”, “generating a rolling mean…over a plurality of frames” are steps of mathematical operation using mathematical concept, formulas, calculation, generating mathematical results, summing, etc. Notes: under MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(III), mental process (thinking) “can be performed in the human mind, or by a human using a pen and paper" to be an abstract idea. CyberSource Corp. v. Retail Decisions, Inc., 654 F.3d 1366, 1372, 99 USPQ2d 1690, 1695 (Fed. Cir. 2011): "methods which can be performed mentally, or which are the equivalent of human mental work, are unpatentable abstract ideas the ‘basic tools of scientific and technological work’ that are open to all." (citing Gottschalk v. Benson, 409 U.S. 63, 175 USPQ 673 [1972]). See also Mayo Collaborative Servs. v. Prometheus Labs. Inc., 566 U.S. 66, 71, 101 USPQ2d 1961, 1965 ("mental processes and abstract intellectual concepts are not patentable, as they are the basic tools of scientific and technological work’" (quoting Benson, 409 U.S. at 67, 175 USPQ at 675). The courts do not distinguish between mental processes that are performed entirely in the human mind and mental processes that require a human to use a physical aid ( e.g., pen and paper or a slide rule) to perform the claim limitation. See, e.g., Benson, 409 U.S. at 67, 65, 175 USPQ at 674-75, 674; Synopsys, Inc. v. Mentor Graphics Corp., 839 F.3d 1138, 1139, 120 USPQ2d 1473, 1474 (Fed. Cir. 2016). Nor do the courts distinguish between claims that recite mental processes performed by humans and claims that recite mental processes performed on a computer, generic circuit or device, or the likes. See " Versata Dev. Group v. SAP Am., Inc., 793 F.3d 1306, 1335, 115 USPQ2d 1681, 1702 (Fed. Cir. 2015). See also Intellectual Ventures I LLC v. Symantec Corp., 838 F.3d 1307, 1318, 120 USPQ2d 1353, 1360 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (‘with the exception of generic computer-implemented steps, there is nothing in the claims themselves that foreclose them from being performed by a human, mentally or with pen and paper.’’). Because both product/device and process claims may recite a "mental process", the phrase "mental processes" should be understood as referring to the type of abstract idea, and not to the statutory category of the claim. The courts have identified numerous product claims as reciting mental process-type abstract ideas, for instance the product claims to computer systems and computer-readable media in Versata Dev. Group. v. SAP Am., Inc., 793 F.3d 1306, 115 USPQ2d 1681 (Fed. Cir. 2015). Accordingly, the claim recites an abstract idea. Step 2A Prong 2 Analysis : This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. particular, the claim recites no further/any additional element(s). Step 2B Analysis : there are no additional elements. Please see MPEP §2106.05. The claim is directed to an abstract idea. Please see MPEP §2106.05 For all of the foregoing reasons, claim 1 does not comply with the requirements of 35 USC 101. Accordingly, the dependent claims 2-14 do not provide elements that overcome the deficiencies of the independent claim 1 . Moreover, claim 2 recites, in part, “comprising at least one of metrics i. to iii. and at least one of metrics iv. to v.” Moreover, claim 2, each recites, in part, wherein clause that merely provides unlimiting further specification that provide well-known generality, high level of generality further specification limitation to the limitation each depends on, such as what the method of claim 1 comprises of general selection from the list of metrics. Moreover, claim 3 recites, in part, “in which the step of summing the z-scores comprises generating a weighted sum, the weighting of any one of metrics i.-iii. exceeding the weighting of any one of metrics iv.-v.” Including a series of mathematical concept, operations of summing of data/information and following a mathematical condition/criteria of processing a mathematical relationship. Moreover, claim 4 recites, in part, “in which for any one of metrics i.-iii., the delta sum…of a predetermined number of preceding frames” Including a series of mathematical concept, operations of data/information and following a mathematical condition/criteria of processing a mathematical relationship. Moreover, claim 5 recites, in part, “in which for any one of metrics iv.-v., the property is one or more selected of: i….ii…..channel” Moreover, claim 5, each recites, in part, wherein clause that merely provides unlimiting further specification that provide well-known generality, high level of generality further specification limitation to the limitation each depends on, such as what the method of claim 1 comprises of general selection from the list of unlimiting/merely general data/information of the property. Moreover, claim 6 recites, in part, “in which the or each metric…of the image frame.” Moreover, claim 6, each recites, in part, wherein clause that merely provides unlimiting further specification that provide well-known generality, high level of generality further specification limitation to the limitation each depends on, such as what the metrics is for of merely general/unlimiting data/information. Moreover, claim 7 recites, in part, “in which for any one…start of the video evaluation.” Moreover, claim 6, each recites, in part, wherein clause that merely provides unlimiting further specification that provide well-known generality, high level of generality further specification limitation to the limitation each depends on, such as where the recorded mean values are accessed. Moreover, claim 8 recites, in part, “in which the further processing comprises the steps of: establishing a frame selection window;…thereby generating or identifying a video clip” Which is a mental process activity abstract idea of observation and evaluation, judgement, merely performing establishing a frame selection window , which a human mind can perform using pen and paper and observing the frame and some other related observable information/data already given; selecting frames,….identifying video clip , which a human mind can perform by observing some data/information and following certain observable condition/criteria to make certain determination of selecting frames and identifying clip. Moreover, claim 9 recites, in part, “adjusting the sensitivity of identification…selected from among: i…..iv….exceed the rolling average” Including mathematical operation and relationships using some observable mathematical information/values to adjust certain mathematical term. Moreover, claim 10 recites, in part, “in which a value provided for….mean of the frame score” Including mathematical operation and relationships using some observable mathematical information/values to adjust certain mathematical term. Moreover, claim 11 recites, in part, “evaluating the frame scores of frame…; and ranking these frame…on the evaluation.” Which is a mental process activity abstract idea of observation and evaluation, judgement, merely performing evaluating some scores by observing the frame scores according to some observable data/information according to some observable condition/criteria, and rank the sequences based on the evaluation. Moreover, claim 12 recites, in part, “comprising at least a first metric of audio energy, based upon one or more of: i……iii….a frequency range thereof” including insignificant extra-solution activity of data gathering, gathering data about audio energy, and perform some mathematical operation, concept and processing on them to have some audio sum, sum of absolute differences or delta sum being mathematical operation abstract ideas. Moreover, claim 13 recites, in part, “suspending the steps of generating metrics and z-scores, summing the z-scores, generating a rolling mean….content type is interrupted.” which is a step that a human mind can perform, a human mind can suspend performance of some mathematical operations according to some observable condition/criteria. Moreover, claim 14 recites, in part, “in which, one or more sections…of generating the or each metric” Moreover, claim 14 recites, in part, wherein clause that merely provides unlimiting further specification that provide well-known generality, high level of generality further specification limitation to the limitation each depends on. Accordingly, the dependent claims 2-14 are not patent eligible under 101. Regarding independent claim 15: Claim 15 recites analogous limitations to the independent claim 1, hence, is 101 ineligible for the same reasons under the same analysis approach. Claim 15 further recites generic additional elements of a non-transitory, computer readable storage medium containing a computer program comprising computer executable instructions that when executed by a computer system, cause the computer system to perform a method, including generic well-known computer components recited at high level of generality to perform generic functions respectively. Regarding independent claim 16: Claim 16 recites analogous limitations to the independent claim 1, hence, is 101 ineligible for the same reasons under the same analysis approach. Claim 16 being a device claim which falls under of the statutory categories. Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102 07-07-aia AIA 07-07 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 – 07-08-aia AIA (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. 07-12-aia AIA (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. 07-15 AIA Claim s 1, 3-6, 9, 11-12 and 14-16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102( a)(1 ) as being anticipated by Andreas Schmidt (“US 2025/0124705 A1” hereinafter as “ Schmidt ”) . Regarding claim 1, Schmidt explicitly teaches a method of video evaluation (Abstract discloses processing and identifying of video) , comprising the steps of: for a current video frame, generating two or more metrics from among (“two or more” indicates a selection, only two metrics are needed to be generated from the list following, Par. [0067] discloses “ analysis module can be configured to determine another difference metric…the other difference metric… ”) : an interframe greyscale delta sum of absolute differences between the current and immediately preceding frame (“generating two or more metrics from among the list of i. to v.; therefore, indicating a selection, only two selections are required for the limitation, the examiner selects i. and ii., which is disclosed in Schmidt, wherein Par. [0067] discloses “ analysis module can be configured to determine another difference metric ” indicating at least two metrics being generated, moreover, the difference is obtained according to Par. [0041], which discloses “ calculating the absolute value of each coefficient of the second matrix of DCT coefficients…from the sum of the matrix of absolute values, and dividing the difference by the sum of the matrix of absolute values ”, wherein Par. [0040] discloses the coefficients are based on grayscale frame; wherein, Par. [0032] discloses “ differences between pairs of adjacent frames within the video data ” hence, the difference matrix here is analogous to the difference between two adjacent frames of the sum of absolute differences in grayscale data, which is analogous to the recited “ i. an interframe greyscale delta sum of absolute differences between the current and immediately preceding frame ”) ; a first interframe colour delta sum of absolute differences for at least a first colour channel between the current and immediately preceding frame (“generating two or more metrics from among the list of i. to v.; therefore, indicating a selection, only two selections are required for the limitation, the examiner selects i. and ii., which is disclosed in Schmidt, wherein Par. [0067] discloses “ analysis module can be configured to determine another difference metric ” indicating at least two metrics being generated, moreover, the difference is obtained according to Par. [0041], which discloses “ calculating the absolute value of each coefficient of the second matrix of DCT coefficients…from the sum of the matrix of absolute values, and dividing the difference by the sum of the matrix of absolute values ”, wherein Par. [0040] discloses the coefficients are based on grayscale frame, moreover, Par. [0069] discloses “ rather than using grayscale pixel values to derive the blur delta…analysis module can combine induvial color scores for each of multiple color channels ”; wherein, Par. [0032] discloses “ differences between pairs of adjacent frames within the video data ” hence, the difference matrix here is analogous to the difference between two adjacent frames of the sum of absolute differences in grayscale data, which is analogous to the recited “ ii. a first interframe colour delta sum of absolute differences for at least a first colour channel between the current and immediately preceding frame ”) ; a second interframe colour delta sum of absolute differences for at least a second colour channel different to the first colour channel between the current and immediately preceding frame (“generating two or more metrics from among the list of i. to v.; therefore, indicating a selection, only two selections are required for the limitation, the examiner selects i. and ii., as discussed above, therefore, iii. iv. and v. have no patent weight in this selection instance) ; for a first colour channel of the current video frame, a delta between mean and current measurements of a property of the first colour channel, the mean being derived over a predetermined period of time (“generating two or more metrics from among the list of i. to v.; therefore, indicating a selection, only two selections are required for the limitation, the examiner selects i. and ii., as discussed above, therefore, iii. iv. and v. have no patent weight in this selection instance) ; and for a second colour channel of the current video frame, a delta between mean and current measurements of a property of the second colour channel, the mean being derived over a similar predetermined period of time (“generating two or more metrics from among the list of i. to v.; therefore, indicating a selection, only two selections are required for the limitation, the examiner selects i. and ii., as discussed above, therefore, iii. iv. and v. have no patent weight in this selection instance) , generating respective z-scores of the generated metrics (Par. [0056] discloses “ determine a keyframe score based on weighted combination of the blur delta, contrast delta, and fingerprint distance ”; moreover, as discussed above, the blur delta is represented by a difference metric according to Par. [0032] which discloses “ blur delta that quantifies a difference between a level of blurriness of a first frame…and a second frame ” and according to Par. [0041] as discussed above, similarly for the contrast delta according to Par. [0069] to be represented by a metric, therefore, the keyframe score here being analogous to the z-scores, and there are a plurality of keyframe scores according to Par. [0071]; in another instance, Par. [0069] discloses “ derive blur delta, contrast delta, fingerprint distance ”, in this instance, these delta values are being analogous to the z-scores as claimed, associated with each difference in blur and contrast metrics) ; summing the z-scores to generate a frame score for the frame (Par. [0069] discloses “ rather than using grayscale pixel values to derive blur delta, contrast delta, and fingerprint distance, analysis module can combine individual color scores for each of multiple color channels to determine the keyframe scores ” therefore, the color scores can be used instead of the blur delta, contrast delta, in this instance, the color scores being analogous to the z-scores, since they are being used in association with the blur delta and the contrast delta, in other words, they are being generated still based on the blur and contrast deltas; they are being combined [summed] to generate the keyframe score [a frame score]) ; generating a rolling mean of the frame score over a plurality of frames (Par. [0078] discloses “ analyze the keyframe scores of frames within each segment…the computing system can determine an average keyframe score ” indicating a rolling mean [average keyframe score]) ; and identifying the current video frame for further processing if the frame sore for the current frame exceeds the rolling mean (Par. [0078] discloses “the computing system can then select the segment having the maximum average keyframe score as a representative segment for the video” indicating an identification of the video frame to be a representative segment [for further processing as claimed] if the average keyframe score being a maximum average [exceeds other average keyframe scores or other rolling mean]) for a predetermined number of preceding frames (Par. [0078] discloses “ within each segment ” indicating a predetermined number of preceding frames, since a predetermined segment of video include a predetermined number of preceding frames) . Regarding claim 3, Schmidt explicitly teaches the method of claim 1, in which the step of summing the z-scores (Par. [0069] discloses “ rather than using grayscale pixel values to derive blur delta, contrast delta, and fingerprint distance, analysis module can combine individual color scores for each of multiple color channels to determine the keyframe scores ” therefore, the color scores can be used instead of the blur delta, contrast delta, in this instance, the color scores being analogous to the z-scores, since they are being used in association with the blur delta and the contrast delta, in other words, they are being generated still based on the blur and contrast deltas; they are being combined [summed] to generate the keyframe score [a frame score]) comprises generating a weighted sum (Par. [0056] discloses “ determine a keyframe score based on weighted combination of the deltas ” indicating a weighted sum [weighted combination]) , the weighting of any one of metrics i.-iii. exceeding the weighting of any one of metrics iv.-v (Pars. [0060-0065] indicating the weights corresponding to the already mapped metrics, w1, w2, w3, moreover, Par. [0066] showing w1 to be 50% and w2 to be 25%, indicating that weight of any one of metrics i.-iii. exceeds weight of any one of metrics iv.-v.) . Regarding claim 4, Schmidt explicitly teaches the method of claim 1, in which for any one of metrics i.-iii, the delta sum of absolute differences is between the current frame and a rolling average of a predetermined number of preceding frames (Par. [0041], which discloses “ calculating the absolute value of each coefficient of the second matrix of DCT coefficients…from the sum of the matrix of absolute values, and dividing the difference by the sum of the matrix of absolute values ”, wherein Par. [0040] discloses the coefficients are based on grayscale frame; wherein, Par. [0032] discloses “ differences between pairs of adjacent frames within the video data ” hence, the difference matrix here is analogous to the difference between two adjacent frames of the sum of absolute differences in grayscale data, which is analogous to the recited “ i. an interframe greyscale delta sum of absolute differences between the current and immediately preceding frame ”; moreover, the delta values are being used to determine the keyframe score according to Par. [0069], and the keyframe score of the current frame is being averaged with the frames of the sequence to determine the representative clip according to Par. [0056]; therefore, it can be understood that the deltas are being between the current frame and a number of preceding frames, and the delta is being calculated as the delta sum of absolute differences) . Regarding claim 5, Schmidt explicitly teaches the method of claim 1, in which for any one of metrics iv.-v., the property is one or more selected of (“one or more selected of” indicates a selection, therefore, only one of the options below has patent weight) : the mean value of the colour channel; and (“one or more selected of” indicates a selection, therefore, only one of the options below has patent weight, the examiner selects ii. to be the selection, therefore, “i.” has no patent weight for the selection) the standard deviation of the colour channel (the examiner selects ii. to be the selection, which is disclosed in Schmidt’s Par. [0049], which discloses “ calculating a standard deviation of the histogram resulting…may be used as the contrast score ” since, the histogram relates to grayscale black to white, hence, it indicates a color considering, can be analogous to be the colour channel, Par. [0018] discloses “ video content can include solid color frames that are substantially black ”) . Regarding claim 6, Schmidt explicitly teaches the method of claim 5, in which the or each metric is for two or more subdivisions of the image frame (Par. [0069] discloses “ analysis module can combine a red blur delta, a red contrast delta... ” indicating each color channel being calculated the delta/metric, which are subdivisions of the image frame) . Regarding claim 9, Schmidt explicitly teaches the method of claim 1, comprising the step of: adjusting the sensitivity of identification by adjusting one or more elements selected among (“one or more elements selected among” indicates a selection, therefore, only one of the following options is required to be the instant scope of the claim) : i. the number of preceding frames in measurements i. to iii. (“one or more elements selected among” indicates a selection, therefore, only one of the following options is required to be the instant scope of the claim;, the examiner selects option “ii.” as discussed below, therefore, option “i.” has no patent weight in this selection) ; ii.the length of the predetermined period in measurements iv. and v. (the examiner selects option “ii.” to be the instant scope of the claim, which is disclosed in Schmidt’s Par. [0073], wherein it discloses “ refining transition data….adjusting a predicted transition time that is within a few seconds of the location of a keyframe to align with the location ” indicating an adjustment in measurements of a time period of a few seconds [length of the predetermined period], refining transition data is analogous to adjusting the sensitivity as claimed) ; the number of preceding respective measurements used to compute the z-scores for selected measurements (“one or more elements selected among” indicates a selection, therefore, only one of the following options is the instant scope of the claim, which the examiner selects “ii.” as discussed above, therefore, option iii. has no patent weight in this selection) ; the relative weights used to generate a weighted sum of z scores (“one or more elements selected among” indicates a selection, therefore, only one of the following options is the instant scope of the claim, which the examiner selects “iv.” as discussed above, therefore, option iii. has no patent weight in this selection) ; the number of preceding weighted sum z-scores used to generate a rolling average (“one or more elements selected among” indicates a selection, therefore, only one of the following options is the instant scope of the claim, which the examiner selects “ii.” as discussed above, therefore, option v. has no patent weight in this selection) ; and the minimum number of frames for which the current frame score should exceed the rolling average (“one or more elements selected among” indicates a selection, therefore, only one of the following options is the instant scope of the claim, which the examiner selects “ii.” as discussed above, therefore, option vi. has no patent weight in this selection) . Regarding claim 11, Schmidt explicitly teaches the method of claim 1, comprising the steps of: evaluating the frame scores of frame sequences identified for further processing (Par. [0078] discloses “ the computing system can use keyframe scores for frames of a video to identify a representative segment of a video ” indicating evaluating scores for further processing as claimed) ; and ranking these frame sequences based on the evaluation (Par. [0078] discloses “ the computing system can then select the segment having the maximum average keyframe score as a representative segment for the video ” indicating a ranking process to select the maximum score) . Regarding claim 12, Schmidt explicitly teaches the method of claim 1, further comprising at least a first metric of audio energy, based upon one or more of (“upon one or more of” indicates a selection, therefore, only one of the options below is required to be the instant scope of the claim) : an audio sum for each audio channel or a frequency range thereof (the examiner selects “i.” to be the instant scope of the claim, which Schmidt’s Par. [0076] discloses generating an audio or video fingerprint…to facilitate the matching process, the audio fingerprint here is analogous to the first metric of audio energy, moreover, “or” indicates a selection, therefore, the examiner selects “a frequency range thereof” to be the metric for “i.”, wherein, an audio fingerprint indicate a frequency range) ; a sum of absolute differences between respective audio channel pairs or a frequency range thereof (“upon one or more of” indicates a selection, therefore, only one of the options below is required to be the instant scope of the claim, which is the option “i.” as discussed and mapped above, therefore, option ii. has no patent weight in this selection) ; and an interframe delta sum of absolute differences between audio associated with the current and immediately preceding frame for one or more audio channels or a frequency range thereof (“upon one or more of” indicates a selection, therefore, only one of the options below is required to be the instant scope of the claim, which is the option “i.” as discussed and mapped above, therefore, option iii. has no patent weight in this selection) . Regarding claim 14, Schmidt explicitly teaches the method of claim 1, in which; one or more sections of the image in successive frames is consistently discounted for the purpose of generating the or each metric (Pars. [0058-0066] discloses the calculation of the difference weights for the calculation of the keyframe score, a plurality of frames indicate a plurality of weights, these weights can be understood as the sections of the image in successive frames, since the keyframe needs to be identified for successive sequences in the video as well, furthermore, Par. [0066] discloses the w1, w2, w3 may be 50%, 25%, and 25%, which indicates a consistent deduction in percentage, hence, being analogous to consistently discounted, same weights can be understood to be applied consistently for other sequences in the video) . Regarding claim 15, Schmidt explicitly teaches a non-transitory, computer readable storage medium containing a computer program comprising computer executable instructions that when executed by a computer system, cause the computer system to perform (Par. [0026] discloses a computer-readable storage medium, having stored thereon program instructions to be executed by the computer to perform the method of the invention) a method of video evaluation (Abstract discloses processing and identifying of video) , comprising the steps of: for a current video frame, generating two or more metrics from among (“two or more” indicates a selection, only two metrics are needed to be generated from the list following, Par. [0067] discloses “ analysis module can be configured to determine another difference metric…the other difference metric… ”) : an interframe greyscale delta sum of absolute differences between the current and immediately preceding frame (“generating two or more metrics from among the list of i. to v.; therefore, indicating a selection, only two selections are required for the limitation, the examiner selects i. and ii., which is disclosed in Schmidt, wherein Par. [0067] discloses “ analysis module can be configured to determine another difference metric ” indicating at least two metrics being generated, moreover, the difference is obtained according to Par. [0041], which discloses “ calculating the absolute value of each coefficient of the second matrix of DCT coefficients…from the sum of the matrix of absolute values, and dividing the difference by the sum of the matrix of absolute values ”, wherein Par. [0040] discloses the coefficients are based on grayscale frame; wherein, Par. [0032] discloses “ differences between pairs of adjacent frames within the video data ” hence, the difference matrix here is analogous to the difference between two adjacent frames of the sum of absolute differences in grayscale data, which is analogous to the recited “ i. an interframe greyscale delta sum of absolute differences between the current and immediately preceding frame ”) ; a first interframe colour delta sum of absolute differences for at least a first colour channel between the current and immediately preceding frame (“generating two or more metrics from among the list of i. to v.; therefore, indicating a selection, only two selections are required for the limitation, the examiner selects i. and ii., which is disclosed in Schmidt, wherein Par. [0067] discloses “ analysis module can be configured to determine another difference metric ” indicating at least two metrics being generated, moreover, the difference is obtained according to Par. [0041], which discloses “ calculating the absolute value of each coefficient of the second matrix of DCT coefficients…from the sum of the matrix of absolute values, and dividing the difference by the sum of the matrix of absolute values ”, wherein Par. [0040] discloses the coefficients are based on grayscale frame, moreover, Par. [0069] discloses “ rather than using grayscale pixel values to derive the blur delta…analysis module can combine induvial color scores for each of multiple color channels ”; wherein, Par. [0032] discloses “ differences between pairs of adjacent frames within the video data ” hence, the difference matrix here is analogous to the difference between two adjacent frames of the sum of absolute differences in grayscale data, which is analogous to the recited “ ii. a first interframe colour delta sum of absolute differences for at least a first colour channel between the current and immediately preceding frame ”) ; a second interframe colour delta sum of absolute differences for at least a second colour channel different to the first colour channel between the current and immediately preceding frame (“generating two or more metrics from among the list of i. to v.; therefore, indicating a selection, only two selections are required for the limitation, the examiner selects i. and ii., as discussed above, therefore, iii. iv. and v. have no patent weight in this selection instance) ; for a first colour channel of the current video frame, a delta between mean and current measurements of a property of the first colour channel, the mean being derived over a predetermined period of time (“generating two or more metrics from among the list of i. to v.; therefore, indicating a selection, only two selections are required for the limitation, the examiner selects i. and ii., as discussed above, therefore, iii., iv. and v. have no patent weight in this selection instance) ; and v. for a second colour channel of the current video frame, a delta between mean and current measurements of a property of the second colour channel, the mean being derived over a similar predetermined period of time (“generating two or more metrics from among the list of i. to v.; therefore, indicating a selection, only two selections are required for the limitation, the examiner selects i. and ii., as discussed above, therefore, iii., iv. and v. have no patent weight in this selection instance) , generating respective z-scores of the generated metrics (Par. [0056] discloses “ determine a keyframe score based on weighted combination of the blur delta, contrast delta, and fingerprint distance ”; moreover, as discussed above, the blur delta is represented by a difference metric according to Par. [0032] which discloses “ blur delta that quantifies a difference between a level of blurriness of a first frame…and a second frame ” and according to Par. [0041] as discussed above, similarly for the contrast delta according to Par. [0069] to be represented by a metric, therefore, the keyframe score here being analogous to the z-scores, and there are a plurality of keyframe scores according to Par. [0071]; in another instance, Par. [0069] discloses “ derive blur delta, contrast delta, fingerprint distance ”, in this instance, these delta values are being analogous to the z-scores as claimed, associated with each difference in blur and contrast metrics) ; summing the z-scores to generate a frame score for the frame (Par. [0069] discloses “ rather than using grayscale pixel values to derive blur delta, contrast delta, and fingerprint distance, analysis module can combine individual color scores for each of multiple color channels to determine the keyframe scores ” therefore, the color scores can be used instead of the blur delta, contrast delta, in this instance, the color scores being analogous to the z-scores, since they are being used in association with the blur delta and the contrast delta, in other words, they are being generated still based on the blur and contrast deltas; they are being combined [summed] to generate the keyframe score [a frame score]) ; generating a rolling mean of the frame score over a plurality of frames (Par. [0078] discloses “ analyze the keyframe scores of frames within each segment…the computing system can determine an average keyframe score ” indicating a rolling mean [average keyframe score]) ; and identifying the current video frame for further processing if the frame sore for the current frame exceeds the rolling mean (Par. [0078] discloses “the computing system can then select the segment having the maximum average keyframe score as a representative segment for the video” indicating an identification of the video frame to be a representative segment [for further processing as claimed] if the average keyframe score being a maximum average [exceeds other average keyframe scores or other rolling mean]) for a predetermined number of preceding frames (Par. [0078] discloses “ within each segment ” indicating a predetermined number of preceding frames, since a predetermined segment of video include a predetermined number of preceding frames) . Regarding claim 16, Schmidt explicitly teaches an entertainment device adapted to perform a method of video evaluation, comprising: a video evaluation processor configured to perform the steps of (Par. [0026] discloses a computer-readable storage medium, having stored thereon program instructions to be executed by the computer’s processor to perform the method of the invention) : for a current video frame, generating two or more metrics from among (“two or more” indicates a selection, only two metrics are needed to be generated from the list following, Par. [0067] discloses “ analysis module can be configured to determine another difference metric…the other difference metric… ”) : an interframe greyscale delta sum of absolute differences between the current and immediately preceding frame (“generating two or more metrics from among the list of i. to v.; therefore, indicating a selection, only two selections are required for the limitation, the examiner selects i. and ii., which is disclosed in Schmidt, wherein Par. [0067] discloses “ analysis module can be configured to determine another difference metric ” indicating at least two metrics being generated, moreover, the difference is obtained according to Par. [0041], which discloses “ calculating the absolute value of each coefficient of the second matrix of DCT coefficients…from the sum of the matrix of absolute values, and dividing the difference by the sum of the matrix of absolute values ”, wherein Par. [0040] discloses the coefficients are based on grayscale frame; wherein, Par. [0032] discloses “ differences between pairs of adjacent frames within the video data ” hence, the difference matrix here is analogous to the difference between two adjacent frames of the sum of absolute differences in grayscale data, which is analogous to the recited “ i. an interframe greyscale delta sum of absolute differences between the current and immediately preceding frame ”) ; a first interframe colour delta sum of absolute differences for at least a first colour channel between the current and immediately preceding frame (“generating two or more metrics from among the list of i. to v.; therefore, indicating a selection, only two selections are required for the limitation, the examiner selects i. and ii., which is disclosed in Schmidt, wherein Par. [0067] discloses “ analysis module can be configured to determine another difference metric ” indicating at least two metrics being generated, moreover, the difference is obtained according to Par. [0041], which discloses “ calculating the absolute value of each coefficient of the second matrix of DCT coefficients…from the sum of the matrix of absolute values, and dividing the difference by the sum of the matrix of absolute values ”, wherein Par. [0040] discloses the coefficients are based on grayscale frame, moreover, Par. [0069] discloses “ rather than using grayscale pixel values to derive the blur delta…analysis module can combine induvial color scores for each of multiple color channels ”; wherein, Par. [0032] discloses “ differences between pairs of adjacent frames within the video data ” hence, the difference matrix here is analogous to the difference between two adjacent frames of the sum of absolute differences in grayscale data, which is analogous to the recited “ ii. a first interframe colour delta sum of absolute differences for at least a first colour channel between the current and immediately preceding frame ”) ; a second interframe colour delta sum of absolute differences for at least a second colour channel different to the first colour channel between the current and immediately preceding frame (“generating two or more metrics from among the list of i. to v.; therefore, indicating a selection, only two selections are required for the limitation, the examiner selects i. and ii., as discussed above, therefore, iii. iv. and v. have no patent weight in this selection instance) ; for a first colour channel of the current video frame, a delta between mean and current measurements of a property of the first colour channel, the mean being derived over a predetermined period of time (“generating two or more metrics from among the list of i. to v.; therefore, indicating a selection, only two selections are required for the limitation, the examiner selects i. and ii., as discussed above, therefore, iii., iv. and v. have no patent weight in this selection instance) ; and for a second colour channel of the current video frame, a delta between mean and current measurements of a property of the second colour channel, the mean being derived over a similar predetermined period of time (“generating two or more metrics from among the list of i. to v.; therefore, indicating a selection, only two selections are required for the limitation, the examiner selects i. and ii., as discussed above, therefore, iii., iv. and v. have no patent weight in this selection instance) , generating respective z-scores of the generated metrics (Par. [0056] discloses “ determine a keyframe score based on weighted combination of the blur delta, contrast delta, and fingerprint distance ”; moreover, as discussed above, the blur delta is represented by a difference metric according to Par. [0032] which discloses “ blur delta that quantifies a difference between a level of blurriness of a first frame…and a second frame ” and according to Par. [0041] as discussed above, similarly for the contrast delta according to Par. [0069] to be represented by a metric, therefore, the keyframe score here being analogous to the z-scores, and there are a plurality of keyframe scores according to Par. [0071]; in another instance, Par. [0069] discloses “ derive blur delta, contrast delta, fingerprint distance ”, in this instance, these delta values are being analogous to the z-scores as claimed, associated with each difference in blur and contrast metrics) ; summing the z-scores to generate a frame score for the frame (Par. [0069] discloses “ rather than using grayscale pixel values to derive blur delta, contrast delta, and fingerprint distance, analysis module can combine individual color scores for each of multiple color channels to determine the keyframe scores ” therefore, the color scores can be used instead of the blur delta, contrast delta, in this instance, the color scores being analogous to the z-scores, since they are being used in association with the blur delta and the contrast delta, in other words, they are being generated still based on the blur and contrast deltas; they are being combined [summed] to generate the keyframe score [a frame score]) ; generating a rolling mean of the frame score over a plurality of frames (Par. [0078] discloses “ analyze the keyframe scores of frames within each segment…the computing system can determine an average keyframe score ” indicating a rolling mean [average keyframe score]) ; and identifying the current video frame for further processing if the frame sore for the current frame exceeds the rolling mean (Par. [0078] discloses “the computing system can then select the segment having the maximum average keyframe score as a representative segment for the video” indicating an identification of the video frame to be a representative segment [for further processing as claimed] if the average keyframe score being a maximum average [exceeds other average keyframe scores or other rolling mean]) for a predetermined number of preceding frames (Par. [0078] discloses “ within each segment ” indicating a predetermined number of preceding frames, since a predetermined segment of video include a predetermined number of preceding frames) . Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103 07-20-aia AIA 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. 07-23-aia AIA 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. 07-21-aia AIA Claim 2 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Andreas Schmidt (“US 2025/0124705 A1” hereinafter as “ Schmidt ”) in view of Earl Q. Wong et. al. (“US 2017/0091557 A1” hereinafter as “ Wong ”) . Regarding claim 2, Schmidt explicitly teaches the method of claim 1, comprising at least one of metrics i. to iii. and at least one of metrics iv. to v (“at least one of” indicates a selection, the examiner selects “i.” and “iv.” wherein, i. is mapped above in claim 1, and iv. is being disclosed in Schmidt’s [0069], which discloses “each of multiple color channels to determine the keyframe score…can combine red blur delta, a red contrast delta..” which is analogous to iv. since a delta, according to Par. [0043], which discloses “ delta can quantify a difference between a contrast of a first frame and a contrast a second frame ”; wherein the contrast delta is determined based on Par. [0048], which discloses “ calculating an average…for the frame ” which indicates a mean for the frame of the color channel, a delta being calculated). However, Schmidt does not explicitly teach the mean being derived over a predetermined period of time. In the same field of processing of time-lapse video (Title, Wong), Wong explicitly teaches the mean being derived over a predetermined period of time (the mean is being derived over a predetermined period of time according to Par. [0031], which discloses finding the average of normalized histogram which is analogous to Schmidt’s average of normalized histogram, which is over a time lapse of period of time according to Wong’s Par. [0034]) . Thus, it would have been obvious for a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify Schmidt’s method of generating a metric for a first colour channel of the current video frame, a delta between mean and current measurements of a property of the first colour channel; Wherein Schmidt’s method of generating the metric can be modified to have the mean being derived over a predetermined period of time as taught by Wong as discussed in the mapping above. Such a modification is the result of combing prior art elements according to known methods to yield predictable results. The motivation for the proposed modification would have been to process videos in such manner to have an average of normalized histogram to reduce the amount of potentially jarring exposure changes (Par. [0004], Wong) . 07-21-aia AIA Claim 7 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Andreas Schmidt (“US 2025/0124705 A1” hereinafter as “ Schmidt ”) in view of Yihong Gong et. al. (“US 2006/0280365 A1” hereinafter as “ Gong ”) . Regarding claim 7, Schmidt explicitly teaches the method of claim 1, in which for any one of metrics iv.-v., previously recorded mean values are accessed (Par. [0078] discloses “ analyze the keyframe scores of frames…determine an average keyframe score ” which is for each segment, a plurality of segments would result in a plurality of average keyframe scores [analogous to the previously recorded mean values] which are being assess here in Par. [0078]). However, Schmidt does not explicitly teach previously recorded mean values are accessed at the start of the video evaluation. In the same field of keyframe detection (Abstract, Gong), Gong discloses previously recorded mean values are accessed at the start of the video evaluation (Par. [0072] discloses “ more than one keyframe will be assigned to these types of shots ” moreover, each shot being computed an average feature vector according to Figure 4, which is analogous to the recorded means and the average keyframe score of Schmidt; moreover, the shots can be in transition from one shot to another shot according to table 1, indicating a start of one shot to another, of the video segmentation based on the keyframe according to Par. [0105] which is analogous to the recited at the start of video evaluation [the video segmentation of Gong]) . Thus, it would have been obvious for a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify Schmidt’s method of generating a metric and generating a rolling mean of the frame score over a plurality of frames; Wherein Schmidt’s method of generating the metric can be modified to have the previously recorded mean values are accessed at the start of the video evaluation as taught by Gong as discussed in the mapping above. Such a modification is the result of combing prior art elements according to known methods to yield predictable results. The motivation for the proposed modification would have been to use average attributes of each segment to segment video more effectively (Abstract, Gong) using such technique to automatically create an optimal and nonredundant video summarization (Par. [0035], Gong) . 07-21-aia AIA Claim 8 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Andreas Schmidt (“US 2025/0124705 A1” hereinafter as “ Schmidt ”) in view of Aneesh Vartakavi et. al. (“US 12,273,572 B2” hereinafter as “ Vartakavi ”) . Regarding claim 8, Schmidt explicitly teaches the method of claim 1, in which the further processing comprises the steps of: establishing a frame selection window (Par. [0073] discloses “ refining the transition data can involve filtering out all predicted transition times…within a few seconds of the predicted transition time ” indicating a frame selection window [few seconds of the predicted transition time]) ; and selecting frames, including the current frame (Par. [0073] discloses “ filtering out all predicted transition times that do not include a corresponding keyframe or blackframe” indicating selecting of frame including the current keyframe) . However, Schmidt does not explicitly disclose until the frame score for a further frame non-longer exceeds the rolling mean for a predetermined number of frames, thereby generating or identifying a video clip. In the same field of keyframe detection in a video (Abstract, Vartakavi), Vartakavi discloses until the frame score for a further frame non-longer exceeds the rolling mean for a predetermined number of frames, thereby generating or identifying a video clip (Column 9, “F. Identifying and Aligning Transitions” section, discloses “ aligning the identified transitions to a closest keyframe and/or blackframe ”, which is analogous to the refining step of aligning keyframe and blackframe of Schmidst as discussed above, moreover, Vartakavi, in the same section, discloses “ receive list of keyframes from a keyframe detector….match scores ” indicating the use of match scores to align the transitions, which is further disclosed in Column 8, lines 5-17, wherein it discloses “ determine individual match scores for each respective reference template, and then determine whether the source image has static content or not based on the individual match scores. For instance, the computing system can threshold a mean or maximum of the individual match scores to determine whether the source image has static content ” which is further discloses in Col. 8, lines 45-57, “ the computing system…those match scores satisfy a match score threshold ” therefore, indicating the match scores mean being used to identify the matching of the content for determination of the transition aligning, to meet a certain threshold of the match scores of the respective frames, for each, which is analogous to the claimed limitation) . Thus, it would have been obvious for a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify Schmidt’s method of establishing a frame selection window and selecting frames, including the current frame; Wherein Schmidt’s method can be modified to be until the frame score for a further frame non-longer exceeds the rolling mean for a predetermined number of frames, thereby generating or identifying a video clip as taught by Vartakavi as discussed in the mapping above. Such a modification is the result of combing prior art elements according to known methods to yield predictable results. The motivation for the proposed modification would have been to follow such method of template matching to improve the matching performance of the computing system (Col. 6, lines 57-62, Vartakavi) . 07-21-aia AIA Claim 10 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Andreas Schmidt (“US 2025/0124705 A1” hereinafter as “ Schmidt ”) in view of Amol Jindal et. al. (“US 2021/0103615 A1” hereinafter as “ Jindal ”) . Regarding claim 10, Schmidt explicitly teaches the method of claim 1, in which a value provided for the identifying step as the rolling mean of the frame score Par. [0078] discloses “ analyze the keyframe scores of frames within each segment…the computing system can determine an average keyframe score ” indicating a rolling mean [average keyframe score]). However, Schmidt does not explicitly disclose the rolling mean of the frame score is the larger of a predetermined minimum and the actual rolling mean of the frame score. In the same field of keyframe detection (Abstract, Jindal), Jindal discloses the rolling mean of the frame score is the larger of a predetermined minimum and the actual rolling mean of the frame score (Par. [0084] discloses “ the keyframe detector may use the mean frame score as a minimum threshold value to include a particular frame in a subset of keyframes to send to the keyframe selector ” indicating using a meaning frame score [analogous to the average keyframe score of Schmidt which is used to determine a maximum average keyframe score to be the representative of the video clip], here further indicating that the mean keyframe score is used as a minimum threshold to select further frame in a subset of frames to be toe actual mean of the frame score) . Thus, it would have been obvious for a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify Schmidt’s method of generating a rolling mean of the frame score over a plurality of frames; Wherein Schmidt’s method can be modified to have the rolling mean of the frame score is the larger of a predetermined minimum and the actual rolling mean of the frame score as taught by Jindal as discussed in the mapping above. Such a modification is the result of combing prior art elements according to known methods to yield predictable results. The motivation for the proposed modification would have been to follow such method of image content search query using keyframes themselves to improve computer process for querying (Par. [0022], Jindal) . 07-21-aia AIA Claim 13 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Andreas Schmidt (“US 2025/0124705 A1” hereinafter as “ Schmidt ”) in view of Arun Hampapur et. al. (“US 8,576,342 B2” hereinafter as “ Hampapur ”) . Regarding claim 13, Schmidt explicitly teaches the method of claim 1, comprising the step of: the steps of generating metrics (Par. [0067] discloses “ analysis module can be configured to determine another difference metric…the other difference metric… ”) and z-scores (Par. [0056] discloses “ determine a keyframe score based on weighted combination of the blur delta, contrast delta, and fingerprint distance ”; moreover, as discussed above, the blur delta is represented by a difference metric according to Par. [0032] which discloses “ blur delta that quantifies a difference between a level of blurriness of a first frame…and a second frame ” and according to Par. [0041] as discussed above, similarly for the contrast delta according to Par. [0069] to be represented by a metric, therefore, the keyframe score here being analogous to the z-scores, and there are a plurality of keyframe scores according to Par. [0071]; in another instance, Par. [0069] discloses “ derive blur delta, contrast delta, fingerprint distance ”, in this instance, these delta values are being analogous to the z-scores as claimed, associated with each difference in blur and contrast metrics) , summing the z-scores (Par. [0069] discloses “ rather than using grayscale pixel values to derive blur delta, contrast delta, and fingerprint distance, analysis module can combine individual color scores for each of multiple color channels to determine the keyframe scores ” therefore, the color scores can be used instead of the blur delta, contrast delta, in this instance, the color scores being analogous to the z-scores, since they are being used in association with the blur delta and the contrast delta, in other words, they are being generated still based on the blur and contrast deltas; they are being combined [summed] to generate the keyframe score [a frame score]) , generating a rolling mean of the frame score (Par. [0078] discloses “ analyze the keyframe scores of frames within each segment…the computing system can determine an average keyframe score ” indicating a rolling mean [average keyframe score]) , and identifying video frames (Par. [0078] discloses “the computing system can then select the segment having the maximum average keyframe score as a representative segment for the video” indicating an identification of the video frame to be a representative segment [for further processing as claimed] if the average keyframe score being a maximum average [exceeds other average keyframe scores or other rolling mean]) , whilst a predetermined content type is interrupted. However, Schmidt does not explicitly disclose suspending the steps , whilst a predetermined content type is interrupted. In the same field of keyframe detection (Abstract, Hampapur), Hampapur discloses suspending the steps , whilst a predetermined content type is interrupted (Col. 3, lines 35-50, discloses “ a first difference measure between the reference frame and the current frame…the current frame as a keyframe candidate, otherwise selecting a new current frame and skipping… ” which indicates determining if a difference measure of the reference frame and the current frame meets a threshold, otherwise, skip the steps and find a next frame to be processed to determine the keyframe, therefore, it can be understood if the initial condition is not met that the predetermined content type is not identified or interrupted, then skip the steps of identifying and verifying the keyframe such as the steps of Schmidt as discussed and mapped above) . Thus, it would have been obvious for a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify Schmidt’s method of generating metrics and z-scores, summing the z-scores, generating a rolling mean of the frame score, and identifying video frames; Wherein Schmidt’s method can be modified to be of suspending the steps of generating metrics and z-scores, summing the z-scores, generating a rolling mean of the frame score, and identifying video frames, whilst a predetermined content type is interrupted as taught by Hampapur as discussed in the mapping above. Such a modification is the result of combing prior art elements according to known methods to perform initial keyframe matching before verifying the keyframe so that the first stage can be computationally cheaper and more effectively done (Col. 3, lines 30-34, Hampapur). Pertinent Prior Art(s) 07-96 AIA The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure : Stacey McCarthy (“US 2016/0199742 A1”) discloses automatically generating from a game play recording based on an interest metric by generating video clip based on portions of the recording (Figure 3). Lord, John D. et. al. (“US 2012/0258776 ” ) discloses technologies are useful in enabling a smart phone to respond to a user's environment, e.g., so it can serve as an intuitive hearing and seeing device. Some of the detailed arrangements involve using radio base station SDR equipment (e.g., at a cell tower) to perform image recognition operations for phones. Conclusion Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to PHUONG HAU CAI whose telephone number is (571)272-9424. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8:30 am - 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, 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. /PHUONG HAU CAI/ Examiner, Art Unit 2673 /CHINEYERE WILLS-BURNS/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2673 Application/Control Number: 18/780,657 Page 2 Art Unit: 2673 Application/Control Number: 18/780,657 Page 3 Art Unit: 2673 Application/Control Number: 18/780,657 Page 4 Art Unit: 2673
Prosecution Insights