Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Response to amendments
Submission dated 09/14/2026 amends claims 1, 3, 4, 9, 11, and 12, cancels claims 2, 7 and 8 and adds claims 13-14. As such, claims 1, 3-6 and 9-14 are pending.
In view of the amendments, the previously set forth 112 and 101 rejections have been withdrawn.
Response to arguments
Applicant's arguments filed with the submission dated 09/14/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
On pages 7-9 of the submission, the applicant argues that the cited references fails to describe the limitation that a search step is not executed when the similarity between frames exceeds a predetermined level.
The examiner disagrees because Sentinelli as applied teaches the limitation. For example, Sentinelli as applied teaches determining a similarity between frames by comparing their semantic descriptions, and in case where the degree of the similarity exceeds a predetermined degree of similarity, removing one of the frames from the buffer as being a duplicate/redundant frame, which in turn prevents/restricts the subsequent searching of the removed frame (see, e.g., pars. 34-53 and 218-220 of Sentinelli).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
Claim(s) 1, 3 and 10-12 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Us patent application publication no. 2017/0040040 to Ikeda et al. (hereinafter Ikeda) in view of us patent application publication no. 2013/0336590 to Sentinelli et al. (hereinafter Sentinelli).
For claims 1 and 11-12, Ikeda as applied teaches a recording method of recording accessory information in a frame of moving image data including a plurality of frames (see, e.g., FIGS. 3, 6 and 9-11), the recording method comprising:
a recognition step of recognizing a subject in the frame for each of the frames (see, e.g., pars. 33-35, 49-50 and 54 and FIGS. 1, 3 and 10-11, which teach recognizing one or more target persons in all frames and generating the recognition frame data);
a search step of searching for the accessory information that is able to be recorded for the recognized subject among pieces of the accessory information (see, e.g., pars. 38-40 and FIGS. 5-7, which teach, for the frames having a value of 1 for the recognition flag, searching for the time differences that are smaller than a threshold and correcting the recognition frame data; the examiner interprets the time difference information, which indicates the continued presence of the target object, as the claimed accessory information); and
a recording step of recording the accessory information in the frame based on a result of the search step (see, e.g., par. 45 and FIG. 3, which teach generating the recognition time band data based on the corrected recognition frame data), wherein, in a case where the number of the frames included in the moving image data is set as a first number and the number of the frames in which the search step is executed is set as a second number, the second number is smaller than the first number (see, e.g., pars. 38-40 and FIGS. 5-7, which show that the number of frames being searched, e.g., frames having a value of 1 for the recognition flag, are less than the number of all frames).
While Ikeda as applied does not explicitly teach, Sentinelli in the analogous art teaches “wherein the recording method further comprise a first determination step of determining a similarity between a result of the recognition step executed for a first frame among the plurality of frames and a result of the recognition step executed for a second frame different from the first frame among the plurality of frames” (see, e.g., pars. 34-53 and 218-220 of Sentinelli, which teach determining a similarity between frames by comparing their semantic descriptions ), “wherein, in a case where the similarity determined in the first determination step exceeds a predetermined level, the execution of the search step for the first frame is restricted” (see, e.g., pars. 35-53 and 218-220 of Sentinelli, which teach in case where the degree of the similarity exceeds a predetermined degree of similarity, removing one of the frames from the buffer as being a duplicate/redundant frame, which in turn prevents/restricts the subsequent searching of the removed frame).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Ikeda to filter out duplicate images as taught by Sentinelli because doing so would yield predictable results of removing frames from subsequent processes and improving the accuracy of the results (MPEP 2143(I)(D)).
For claim 3, Ikeda in view of Sentinelli teaches that, in a case where a plurality of subjects are recognized in the recognition step for the first frame and the second frame, in the first determination step, priorities are set for the plurality of subjects, and the similarity is determined based on the priorities of the plurality of subjects (see, e.g., pars. 49-52 and FIGS. 1 and 10-11 of Ikeda, which teach that where there are multiple target persons, the priorities are set for certain target persons, e.g., performers).
For claim 10, Ikeda in view of Sentinelli teaches that the accessory information is stored in a data file different from the moving image data (see, e.g., par. 27 and FIG. 2 of Ikeda, which show that the video data, the recognition frame data and the recognition time band data are stored in separate files).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 4-6, 9 and 13-14 are allowed.
In regard to claim 4, when considered as a whole, prior art of record fails to disclose or render obvious, alone or in combination:
“…
the recording method comprising:
…
a search step of searching for the accessory information that is able to be recorded for the recognized subject among pieces of the accessory information; and
a recording step of recording the accessory information in the frame based on a result of the search step,
wherein, in a case where a number of the frames included in the moving image data is set as a first number and a number of the frames in which the search step is executed is set as a second number, the second number is smaller than the first number, and
in a case where the number of frames in which the accessory information is recorded in the recording step is set as a third number, the third number is smaller than the second number.”
In regard to claims 5-6 and 13, each of these claims depends on the allowed claim 4. Therefore, by virtue of their dependency, claims 5, 6 and 13 are also allowed.
In regard to claim 9, when considered as a whole, prior art of record fails to disclose or render obvious, alone or in combination:
“…
the recording method comprising:
…
a search step of searching for the accessory information that is able to be recorded for the recognized subject among pieces of the accessory information;
a receiving step of receiving an input of a user that is related to a recording instruction of the accessory information; and
a recording step of recording the accessory information in the frame based on a result of the search step,
wherein, in a case where a number of the frames included in the moving image data is set as a first number and a number of the frames in which the search step is executed is set as a second number, the second number is smaller than the first number,
the recording step is executed to record the accessory information in an input frame corresponding to the input of the user, among the plurality of frames,
information related to the recording instruction is recorded as the accessory information in the recording step for the input frame, and
the recording step is executed to record the accessory information in the input frame and a complementation frame before or after the input frame, among the plurality of frames.”
In regard to claim 14, it depends on the allowed claim 9. Therefore, by virtue of its dependency, claim 14 is also allowed.
Conclusion
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to WOO RHIM whose telephone number is (571)272-6560. The examiner can normally be reached Mon - Fri 9:30 am - 6:00 pm et.
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, Henok Shiferaw can be reached at 571-272-4637. 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.
/WOO C RHIM/Examiner, Art Unit 2676
