CTNF 18/823,126 CTNF 97268 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. Information Disclosure Statement The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 12/02/2024 is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement is being considered by the examiner. Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 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. 07-34-01 Claims 1-12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention. Claim 1 recites the limitations "the number of the frames included in the moving image data" in line 8 and "the number of the frames in which the search step is executed" in line 9. There is insufficient antecedent basis for each of these limitations in the claim. For the prior art purposes, the limitations have been interpreted as "a number of the frames included in the moving image data" and "a number of the frames in which the search step is executed", respectively. Claims 2-10 and 12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) for their dependencies to claim 1. Claim 11 recites the limitations "the number of the frames included in the moving image data" in line 11 and "the number of the frames in which the search processing is executed" in lines 12-13. There is insufficient antecedent basis for each of these limitations in the claim. For the prior art purposes, the limitations have been interpreted as "a number of the frames included in the moving image data" and "a number of the frames in which the search processing is executed", respectively. 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. Claim12 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to non-statutory subject matter. The claim(s) does/do not fall within at least one of the four categories of patent eligible subject matter because Claim 12 recites, inter alia, "A program causing a computer to execute each of the recognition step …" After close inspection of the specification, the Examiner interprets the “program” to potentially be stored as a transitory propagating signal and therefore the claims must be rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 101 as covering non-statutory subject matter. However, the Examiner respectfully submits a claims drawn to such a computer readable medium that covers both transitory and non-transitory embodiments may be amended to narrow the claim to cover only statutory embodiments to avoid a rejection under 35 U.S.C. § 101 by adding the limitation "non- transitory" to the claim. Such an amendment would typically not raise the issue of new matter, even when the specification is silent because the broadest reasonable interpretation relies on the ordinary and customary meaning that includes signals per se. For additional information, please see the Patents' Official Gazette notice published February 23, 2010 (1351 OG 212). A suggested preamble might include “a non-transitory computer readable storage medium storing a program, executable by a computer”. 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 AIA Claim(s) 11 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102 (a)(1) as being anticipated by Us patent application publication no. 2017/0040040 to Ikeda et al. (hereinafter Ikeda) . For claim 11, Ikeda as applied discloses a recording device that records accessory information in a frame of moving image data including a plurality of frames (see, e.g., FIG. 2) , the recording device comprising: a processor (see, e.g., FIG. 2) , wherein the processor is configured to execute: recognition processing 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) ; search processing 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 recording processing of recording the accessory information in the frame based on a result of the search processing (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 processing 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) . 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. 07-21-aia AIA Claim (s) 1-3, 10 and 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 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). Ikeda as applied does not explicitly teach that the search step is not executed for the frame in which a shake of a subject or an angle of view is detected. Sentinelli in the analogous art teaches preliminarily removing low quality images, such as blurred frames (see, e.g., pars. 57 and 73 of Sentinelli) . 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 blurry 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 2, Ikeda in view of Sentinelli teaches: 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. 36-40 and FIGS. 5-7 of Ikeda, which teach detecting frames that have the recognition flag value of 1 and determining whether their times are similar/close ) , wherein, in a case where the similarity determined in the first determination step satisfies a first restriction condition related to an execution of the search step, the execution of the search step for the first frame is restricted (see, e.g., pars. 36-40 and FIGS. 5-7 of Ikeda, which teach not correcting the recognition time data when the time differences between the similarly flagged frames is longer than the second threshold). 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) . 07-21-aia AIA Claim (s) 7-8 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ikeda in view of Sentinelli and further in view of us patent application publication no. 2004/0213553 to Nagahashi . For claim 7, while Ikeda in view of Sentinelli does not explicitly teach, Nagahashi in the analogous art teaches: a receiving step of receiving an input of a user that is related to a recording instruction of the accessory information (see, e.g., pars. 123-131 and FIG. 9 of Nagahashi, which teach receiving a retrieving condition from a user) , wherein 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 (see, e.g., pars. 118-119 and 123-131 and FIGS. 8 and 9 of Nagahashi, which teach retrieving images corresponding to the retrieving condition and registering the keywords to the images) . 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 in view of Sentinelli to retrieve an image for recording as taught by Nagahashi because doing so would yield predictable results of providing a simpler/direct way to retrieve images for processing (MPEP 2143(I)(D)). For claim 8, while Ikeda in view of Sentinelli does not explicitly teach, Nagahashi in the analogous art teaches that, in the recording step for the input frame, information related to the recording instruction is recorded as the accessory information (see, e.g., pars. 80-81 of Nagahashi, which teach that retrieving conditions are keywords) . Allowable Subject Matter 07-43-02 AIA Claim s 4-6 and 9 would be allowable if rewritten to overcome the rejection(s) under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA), 2nd paragraph, set forth in this Office action and to include all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims. In regard to claim 4, when considered as a whole, prior art of record fails to disclose or render obvious, alone or in combination: “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, claims 5 and 6 each depends on objected claim 4. Therefore, by virtue of their dependency, claims 5 and 6 are also indicated as objected subject matter. 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 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.” Additional Citations The following table lists several references that are relevant to the subject matter claimed and disclosed in this Application. The references are not relied on by the Examiner, but are provided to assist the Applicant in responding to this Office action. Citation Relevance Jo (us pat. pub. 2020/0125600) Describes approaches enabling automatic creation of metadata for contents of a video. More specifically, a video and a script corresponding to the video are obtained. A location corresponding to an object in at least one shot of the video is extracted. This at least one shot includes a series of adjacent frames. The extracted location is saved as an annotation area in an annotation knowledge base. An element of a plot of the video is extracted from the script. This element of the plot is derived from content of the video in combination with content of the script. The extracted element of the plot is saved in a narrative knowledge base. Kim et al. (us pat. pub. 2023/0177083) Describes method and apparatus for simultaneous video retrieval and alignment. According to an embodiment of the present disclosure, there is provided a method for retrieving a video. The method comprising: detecting a section of interest in a query video that is a retrieval request video; producing one or more frame-level descriptor and a video-level descriptors for the query video by using key frames within the detected section of interest; and retrieving a reference video corresponding to the query video based on the frame-level descriptor and the video-level descriptor for the query video and one or more frame-level descriptor and a video-level descriptor for each of reference videos stored in a database. Lee et al. (us pat. pub. 2003/0061612) Describes a video summary system for summarizing a video such that the video can be searched for the purpose of multimedia search and browsing. In one embodiment, the system provides the video summary function based upon effective key frames using the process that is capable of being implemented easily, thereby obtaining an intelligent function at a low cost. Table 1 Conclusion 07-96 AIA The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. See Table 1 and Form 892 . 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 Application/Control Number: 18/823,126 Page 2 Art Unit: 2676 Application/Control Number: 18/823,126 Page 3 Art Unit: 2676 Application/Control Number: 18/823,126 Page 4 Art Unit: 2676 Application/Control Number: 18/823,126 Page 5 Art Unit: 2676 Application/Control Number: 18/823,126 Page 6 Art Unit: 2676 Application/Control Number: 18/823,126 Page 7 Art Unit: 2676 Application/Control Number: 18/823,126 Page 9 Art Unit: 2676 Application/Control Number: 18/823,126 Page 10 Art Unit: 2676
Prosecution Insights