DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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 –
(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.
Claims 1-3 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Makrinich et al (US Pub 2021/0313052 -previously cited).
Re claim 1: Makrinich discloses a system comprising: one or more processors, coupled with memory [0134; see the processor and memory with instructions], to:
receive input text prompt from a user [0054; see the language processing algorithm; 0145; see the input text of events and times which are prompts];
generate, using a generative model, based on the input text prompt, and based at least in part on a set of real-world medical procedure videos, a synthetic video, wherein the input text prompt corresponds to a requested medical procedure type and one or more requested segments, each real-world medical procedure video in the database is associated with respective metadata, wherein the synthetic video is different from the real-world videos [0145, 0179; see the generative model 813 that uses input of the text prompts and video footage V1-Vn and then outputs synthetic video clips; 0147, 0161, 0214, 0220, 0222; see the examples of output video such as an extrapolated plane, expected future video of similar patients and/or events, and the composite video output, wherein this output video is different from the intraoperative input video]; and
provide the synthetic video for display [0179; see the predicted video output that is displayed].
Re claim 2: The one or more processors: display a plurality of prompts and a text field corresponding to each of the plurality of prompts in a user interface [0135, 0213, figure 8B; see the displayed text prompts and see the user interface for user input to display the information]; and receive a part of the input text prompt in the text field corresponding to each of one or more prompts of the plurality of prompts [0145; wherein the text prompts are received as they are used as input into the model].
Re claim 3: The model comprises a language model encoder and at least one video diffusion model [0054, 0145; see the language processing algorithm and see model 813 that is a diffusion model as it generates high quality video output]; the language model encoder encodes the input text prompt into embeddings and provides the embeddings to the at least one video diffusion model to generate the synthetic video [0054, 0145; see the mathematical embedding algorithms and see model 813 that generates the synthetic video].
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.
Claims 4-6 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Makrinich et al, as applied to claim 1, in view of Kreis et al (US Pub 2024/0171788 -previously cited).
Re claims 4-6: Makrinich discloses the generative model comprises: a base video diffusion model to output an initial synthetic video based on the input text prompt, wherein the generated model is based on embeddings generated by a language model based on the input text prompt encoder [0054, 0145; see the mathematical embedding algorithms and see model 813 that generates the synthetic video; 0145, 0179; see the model 813 with input text and video clips to generate a synthetic video], but does not disclose a plurality of cascaded super resolution models that each upsamples in at least one of a spatial domain or a time domain to generate the synthetic video, wherein the cascaded models are two or more of a temporal super resolution model, a spatial super resolution model, or a spatial-temporal super resolution model. However, Kreis teaches a plurality of cascaded super resolution models that each upsamples in at least one of a spatial domain or a time domain to generate the synthetic video where the models are two or more of a temporal super resolution model, a spatial super resolution model, or a spatial-temporal super resolution model [0075; see the up-sampler neural network model wherein the video diffusion model 110 and the diffusion-based video super-resolution model 130 can form cascaded diffusion models, wherein the models are spatial resolution models]. It would have been obvious to the skilled artisan to modify Makrinich, to use cascaded models that upsample as taught by Kreis, in order to improve the resolution quality of the output video.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 8/3/26 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. Applicant has amended claim 1 to recite that the synthetic video is different from the real-world videos and argues that Makrinich’s output videos are not synthetic but are segments of previously captured real-world videos that correspond to future events. Respectfully, the Examiner disagrees. Makrinich discloses various examples of output video such as an extrapolated plane, expected future video of similar patients and/or events, and the composite video output, wherein this output video is different from the intraoperative input video [0147, 0161, 0214, 0220, 0222]. These output videos are different from the intraoperative input videos. In regard to a “synthetic video”, the instant specification describes such as a fabricated video that is not real (see instant published 0061, 0065). Makrinich meets this because his output video is processed and fabricated. For example, the output video of multiple patients or multiple procedures as a composite/combined video must be synthesized and processed, which contrasts with the actual and real intraoperative footage. It follows that the composite video could not be captured in real time as the intraoperative footage is. While the instant specification suggests the synthetic video includes no identifying features (i.e. facial features), such is not read into the claim language. Given the broadest reasonable interpretation, the limitation is met.
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 MICHAEL T ROZANSKI whose telephone number is (571)272-1648. The examiner can normally be reached Mon - Fri 8:00-4:00.
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, Christopher Koharski can be reached at 571-272-7230. 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.
/MICHAEL T ROZANSKI/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3797
Prosecution Insights