DETAILED ACTION
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Oath/Declaration
Oath/Declaration as filed on November 8, 2024 is noted by the Examiner.
Claim Objections
Claim 5 is objected to because of the following informalities:
In particular, limitation terms “a first training video frame” recited in second thru third lines of the claim, and “a second training 506video frame” recited in fourth thru fifth lines of the claim renders the claim indefinite because the meaning of the coined terms “a first training video frame” and “a second training 506 video frame” are not apparent in light of the specification. See MPEP § 2173.05(a). Examiner recommends applicant amend the claim, without adding new matter, to positively recite in definite terms more clearly what “a first training video frame” and “a second training 506video frame” actually are.
Claim 8 is objected to because of the following informalities:
In particular, limitation term “a set of anchor video frames” recited in second line of the claim renders the claim indefinite because the meaning of the coined terms “a set of anchor video frames” is not apparent in light of the specification. See MPEP § 2173.05(a). Examiner recommends applicant amend the claim, without adding new matter, to positively recite in definite terms more clearly what “a set of anchor video frames” actually is. In addition, the claim recites limitation “an anchor video frame” in third line of the claim, but the limitation is indefinite, because it is unclear as to whether the limitation is referring to an anchor video frame among the set of anchor video frames recited in the second line of the claim, or to a different anchor video frame. Therefore, Examiner suggests the limitation should be amended, without adding new matter, in a manner that resolves the indefiniteness issue.
Claim 13 is objected to because of the following informalities:
In particular, limitation term “a first training video frame” recited in third thru fourth lines of the claim renders the claim indefinite because the meaning of the coined terms “a first training video frame” is not apparent in light of the specification. See MPEP § 2173.05(a). Examiner recommends applicant amend the claim, without adding new matter, to positively recite in definite terms more clearly what “a first training video frame” actually is.
Claim 16 is objected to because of the following informalities:
In particular, limitation term “a set of anchor video frames” recited in third line of the claim renders the claim indefinite because the meaning of the coined terms “a set of anchor video frames” is not apparent in light of the specification. See MPEP § 2173.05(a). Examiner recommends applicant amend the claim, without adding new matter, to positively recite in definite terms more clearly what “a set of anchor video frames” actually is. In addition, the claim recites limitation “an anchor video frame” in fourth line of the claim, but the limitation is indefinite, because it is unclear as to whether the limitation is referring to an anchor video frame among the set of anchor video frames recited in the third line of the claim, or to a different anchor video frame. Therefore, Examiner suggests the limitation should be amended, without adding new matter, in a manner that resolves the indefiniteness issue.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claim 5 is 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 pre-AIA the applicant regards as the invention. In particular, claim 5 recites limitation term “the second training video frame” in seventh line of the claim but the limitation term is unclear at least because there is insufficient antecedent basis for the above limitation term in the claim given that the claim uses the limitation term for a first time without previously reciting the limitation term in the claim or in a claim from which the claim 5 depends, which even further creates lack of clarity in regard to exactly what the limitation term is referring to. Therefore, Examiner suggests the limitation should be amended, without adding new matter, in a manner that resolves the antecedent basis issues.
Potentially Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 1, 9, and 17 are allowable, because the prior art references of record do not teach the combination of all element limitations as presently claimed. For example, in regard to claims 1 and 9, the prior art of record at least does not expressly teach concept of generating, by the lightweight visual encoder, the first residual visual features for the first residual video frame, wherein the first residual video frame is based on the first video frame of the video sequence and a second video frame of the video sequence subsequent to the first video frame; and generating second visual features for the second video frame of the video sequence by aggregating the first visual features and the first residual visual features. Still for example, in regard to claim 17, the prior art of record at least does not expressly teach concept of generating, by the lightweight visual encoder, the training residual visual features for the first training residual video frame, wherein the first training residual video frame is based on the first training video frame and the second training video frame subsequent to the first training video frame; generating third training visual features for the second training video frame of the training video sequence by aggregating the first training visual features and the training residual visual features; calculating a loss between the second training visual features and the third training visual features; and training the visual encoder using the calculated loss. In addition, claims 2-8, 10-16, and 18-20 would be allowable if rewritten to overcome applicable rejection(s) under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ) 2nd paragraph and objection(s), if any, indicated above because for each of claims 2-8, 10-16, and 18-20, at least in light of their dependency on their respective independent claim, the prior art references of record do not teach the combination of all element limitations as presently claimed.
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant’s disclosure and include the following:
Lim et al., U.S. Patent Application Publication 2025/0046082 A1 (hereinafter Lim) teaches a video data processing technology of protecting privacy and reducing data throughput when transmitting video data captured by a surveillance camera, such as a closed-circuit television (CCTV).
Jiang et al., U.S. Patent Application Publication 2025/0384680 A1 (hereinafter Jiang) teaches a device and method for converting multiple image blocks divided from visual data into multiple embedded representations, where the visual data includes an image or a video.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ABDUL-SAMAD A ADEDIRAN whose telephone number is (571)272-3128. The examiner can normally be reached on Monday through Thursday, 8:00 am to 5:00 pm.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Amr Awad can be reached on 571-272-7764. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see https://ppair-my.uspto.gov/pair/PrivatePair. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/ABDUL-SAMAD A ADEDIRAN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2621
Prosecution Insights