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 .
Applicant’s election without traverse of Species III in the reply filed on 9/08/2026 is acknowledged. The application has pending claims 1-20 (withdrawn claims 2-5, 8, 12-15, and 18 are withdrawn from further consideration).
Receipt is acknowledged of certified copies of papers required by 37 CFR 1.55.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101
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, 6-7, 9-11, 16-17, and 19-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to a judicial exception (i.e., an abstract idea) without integration into a practical application or recitation of significantly more.
In the analysis below, the system of independent claim 11 and similarly the method of independent claim 1 are directed to one of the four statutory categories of eligible subject matter; thus, the claim passes Step 1 of the Subject Matter Eligibility Test (See flowchart in MPEP 2106).
Step 2A, prong 1 analysis
The independent claims are directed to “for detecting frames … in response to receipt of the video feed … processes the video feed to obtain a displaying frame, processes the displaying frame to obtain a region of interest (ROI) within the displaying frame, obtains an identification result associated with a content included in the ROI”.
The above limitations of “for detecting frames … in response to receipt of the video feed … processes the video feed to obtain a displaying frame, processes the displaying frame to obtain a region of interest (ROI) within the displaying frame, obtains an identification result associated with a content included in the ROI” as drafted, are processes that, under broadest reasonable interpretation, covers the performance of the limitation in the human mind which falls within the “Mental Processes” grouping of abstract ideas.
Additional elements
The additional elements recited in the independent claims are the elements of “the system being connected to a display apparatus and an external management port, and comprising a video capturing device and a computing device connected to the video capturing device, wherein: the video capturing device obtains a video feed from the display apparatus, and transmits the video feed to the computing device … and transmits the identification result to the management port”.
Step 2A, prong 2 analysis
The above-identified additional elements do not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application.
The step “wherein: the video capturing device obtains a video feed from the display apparatus, and transmits the video feed to the computing device … and transmits the identification result to the management port” merely constitutes activity involving data gathering and outputting. Such extra-solution activity does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application. Please see MPEP §2106.05(g).
The other additional elements “the system being connected to a display apparatus and an external management port, and comprising a video capturing device and a computing device connected to the video capturing device” amounts to merely using a generic computer in conjunction with a generic camera, display, and port as a tool to perform the claimed mental process. Implementing an abstract idea on a computer implementation does not integrate a judicial exception into a practical application (See MPEP 2106.05(f)).
Moreover, the additional elements of the claims do not recite an improvement in the functioning of a computer or other technology or technical field, the claimed steps are not performed using a particular machine, the claimed steps do not effect a transformation, and the claims do not apply the judicial exception in any meaningful way beyond generically linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment (See MPEP 2106.04(d)). Therefore, the analysis under prong two of step 2A of the Subject Matter Eligibility Test does not result in a conclusion of eligibility (See flowchart in MPEP 2106).
Step 2B
Finally, the claims do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception.
As noted above, the step of “wherein: the video capturing device obtains a video feed from the display apparatus, and transmits the video feed to the computing device … and transmits the identification result to the management port” amounts to insignificant extra-solution activity. Such insignificant extra-solution activity does not constitute significantly more than the claimed data gathering and outputting (See MPEP 2106.05(g)).
The other additional elements “the system being connected to a display apparatus and an external management port, and comprising a video capturing device and a computing device connected to the video capturing device” are generic computer features in conjunction with a generic camera, display, and port which perform generic computer functions that are well-understood, routine, and conventional and do not amount to more than implementing the abstract idea with a computerized system. Thus, taken alone, the additional elements do not amount to significantly more than the above-identified judicial exception (the abstract idea).
Looking at the limitations as an ordered combination adds nothing that is not already present when looking at the elements taken individually. There is no indication that the combination of elements improves the functioning of a computer or improves any other technology. Their collective functions merely provide conventional computer implementation, and mere implementation on a generic computer does not add significantly more to the claims. Accordingly, the analysis under step 2B of the Subject Matter Eligibility Test does not result in a conclusion of eligibility (See flowchart in MPEP 2106).
For all of the foregoing reasons, independent claims 1 and 11 do not recite eligible subject matter under 35 USC 101.
Regarding Dependent Claims 6-7, 9-10, 16-17, and 19-20:
Claims 6-7, 9-10, 16-17, and 19-20 are dependent on corresponding independent claims 1 and 11 respectively and therefore include all the limitations of corresponding independent claims 1 and 11. Thus claims 6-7, 9-10, 16-17, and 19-20 recite “Mental Processes”. Further, claims 6-7, 9-10, 16-17, and 19-20 further describe:
Dependent claims 6 and 16 merely describes “transmitting … using … (MQTT) protocol” which are processes that, under broadest reasonable interpretation, merely constitute insignificant extra-solution activity [data outputting] and it does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application or add significantly more.
Dependent claim 7 and 17 merely describes “defining the ROI to contain a fixed area of the displaying frame …” which are processes that, under broadest reasonable interpretation, covers the performance of the limitation in the human mind which falls within the same “Mental Processes” grouping of abstract ideas and it does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application or add significantly more.
Dependent claim 9 and 19 merely describes “obtain the ROI … obtain the identification result for the ROI …” which are processes that, under broadest reasonable interpretation, covers the performance of the limitation in the human mind which falls within the same “Mental Processes” grouping of abstract ideas and it does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application or add significantly more; and further merely describe “the computing device including an image recognition container for enabling an image recognition functionality …” which are processes that due to their broad generality amount to merely using a computer as a tool to implement the abstract idea with a computerized system which neither integrates the abstract idea into a practical application nor adds significantly more.
Dependent claims 10 and 20 merely describes “transmit the identification result to the management port” which are processes that, under broadest reasonable interpretation, merely constitute insignificant extra-solution activity [data outputting] and it does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application or add significantly more; and further merely describe “the computing device including a data transmission container for enabling a data transmission functionality …” which are processes that due to their broad generality amount to merely using a computer as a tool to implement the abstract idea with a computerized system which neither integrates the abstract idea into a practical application nor adds significantly more.
Thus, claims 6-7, 9-10, 16-17, and 19-20 do not recite eligible subject matter under 35 USC 101.
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, 6-7, 9-11, 16-17, and 19-20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sharma et al (US 2023/0206505 A1) in view of Mullins (US 2020/0327315 A1).
Re Claim 1: Sharma discloses a method for detecting frames, the method being implemented using a system that is connected to a display apparatus, the system including a video capturing device and a computing device connected to the video capturing device (see Sharma, Fig. 5B, 9B, and 10, [0005], [0059], [0064]-[0065], [0170]-[0177], [0186]-[0187], the second electronic device [e.g. smart phone] being computer processor implemented and comprising a camera that captures continuous image frames of the video stream that is being displayed on the first electronic device), the method comprising: a) obtaining, by the video capturing device, a video feed from the display apparatus, and transmitting the video feed to the computing device (see Sharma, Fig. 5B, 9B, and 10, [0005], [0059], [0064]-[0065], [0170]-[0177], [0186]-[0187], a camera that captures continuous image frames of the video stream that are being displayed on the first electronic device and sends the continuous image frames for further processing); b) in response to receipt of the video feed, processing, by the computing device, the video feed to obtain a displaying frame (see Sharma, Fig. 5B, 9B, and 10, [0005], [0059], [0064]-[0065], [0170]-[0177], [0186]-[0187], identifying the display area, computer processor implemented); c) processing, by the computing device, the displaying frame to obtain a region of interest (ROI) within the displaying frame (see Sharma, Fig. 5B, 9B, and 10, [0005], [0059], [0064]-[0065], [0139]-[0142], [0170]-[0177], [0186]-[0187], using the ROI detector coordinates of the edge of the display area to detect which are the coordinates of the region of interest to be used as the metadata boundaries, computer processor implemented); d) obtaining, by the computing device, an identification result associated with a content included in the ROI (see Sharma, Fig. 5B, 9B, and 10, [0005], [0059], [0064]-[0065], [0139]-[0142], [0170]-[0177], [0186]-[0187], the metadata boundaries are determined and extract modified pixels based on the modification factor and the metadata, computer processor implemented); and e) transmitting, by the computing device, the identification result (see Sharma, Fig. 5B, 9B, and 10, [0005], [0059], [0064]-[0065], [0139]-[0142], [0170]-[0177], [0186]-[0187], the extracted modified data is displayed on any other selected display device, computer processor implemented).
Although Sharma further discloses that the different blocks are referred to as manager units / modules / hardware (see Sharma, [0059], [0065], [0177], the extracted modified data is displayed on any other selected display device), Sharma however fails to explicitly disclose where Mullins discloses a system that is connected to a display apparatus and an external management port (see Mullins, [0090], [0097]), and e) transmitting, by the computing device, the identification result to the management port (see Mullins, [0090], [0097]).
Therefore it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Sharma’s method / system using Mullins’s teachings by including the MQTT network protocol for the transmission of the image’s area of interest information for presentation processing to Sharma’s display device processing in order to improve the various display device selection options with different network protocol capabilities (see Mullins, [0090], [0097]).
Re Claim 6: Sharma as modified by Mullins further discloses wherein step e) includes transmitting the identification result to the management port using a Message Queuing Telemetry Transport (MQTT) protocol (see Mullins, [0090], [0097]). See claim 1 for obviousness and motivation statements.
Re Claim 7: Sharma further discloses wherein step c) includes defining the ROI to contain a fixed area of the displaying frame (see Sharma, Fig. 5B, 9B, and 10, [0005], [0059], [0064]-[0065], [0139]-[0142], [0170]-[0177], [0186]-[0187], using the ROI detector coordinates of the edge [e.g. fixed in an area where ∆L>R] of the display area to detect which are the coordinates of the region of interest [as depicted in Fig. 5B] to be used as the metadata boundaries, computer processor implemented).
Re Claim 9: Sharma further discloses the computing device including an image recognition container for enabling an image recognition functionality (see Sharma, [0076], [0086], [0170]-[0177], the computer processor implementation including stored instructions for enabling the computer processor to execute), wherein: step c) includes the computing device executing the image recognition container to obtain the ROI (see Sharma, Fig. 5B, 9B, and 10, [0005], [0059], [0064]-[0065], [0076], [0086], [0139]-[0142], [0170]-[0177], [0186]-[0187], using the ROI detector coordinates of the edge [e.g. in an area where ∆L>R] of the display area to detect which are the coordinates of the region of interest [as depicted in Fig. 5B] to be used as the metadata boundaries, computer processor implementation executing the stored instructions); and step d) includes the computing device executing the image recognition container to obtain the identification result for the ROI (see Sharma, Fig. 5B, 9B, and 10, [0005], [0059], [0064]-[0065], [0139]-[0142], [0170]-[0177], [0186]-[0187], the metadata boundaries are determined and extract modified pixels based on the modification factor and the metadata, computer processor implementation executing the stored instructions).
Re Claim 10: Sharma as modified by Mullins further discloses the computing device including a data transmission container for enabling a data transmission functionality (see Sharma, [0076], [0086], [0170]-[0177], the computer processor implementation including stored instructions for enabling the computer processor to execute), wherein: step e) includes the computing device executing the data transmission container to transmit the identification result (see Sharma, Fig. 5B, 9B, and 10, [0005], [0059], [0064]-[0065], [0139]-[0142], [0170]-[0177], [0186]-[0187], the extracted modified data is displayed on any other selected display device, computer processor implementation executing the stored instructions) to the management port (see Mullins, [0090], [0097]). See claim 1 for obviousness and motivation statements.
As to claim 11, the claim is the corresponding system claim to claim 1 respectively. The discussions are addressed with regard to claim 1.
As to claim 16, the discussions are addressed with regard to claim 6 respectively.
As to claim 17, the discussions are addressed with regard to claim 7 respectively.
As to claim 19, the discussions are addressed with regard to claim 9 respectively.
As to claim 20, the discussions are addressed with regard to claim 10 respectively.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Kumar et al ‘354 discloses capturing a set of frames of the display and detecting one or more ROIs in the set of frames.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to BERNARD KRASNIC whose telephone number is (571)270-1357. The examiner can normally be reached Mon. - Thur. and every other Friday from 8am - 4pm.
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, Vincent Rudolph can be reached at (571)272-8243. 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.
/Bernard Krasnic/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2671 September 18, 2026
Prosecution Insights