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 § 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.
Claim 1 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention in claim 1 is directed to a process without significantly more.
The independent claim 1 recite(s) determining, obtaining, identifying, selecting a keyframe from a subset of frames and providing that keyframe. This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application because the limitations, as drafted, is a process that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind. The limitations are simply mathematical steps without any practical application recited in the claim. This limitation is a mental process. The claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because the claim as drafted fails to include or recite any practical application.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
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 1 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Borras (US 10,997,423) in view of Lin et al (US 2006/0257048).
With respect to claim 1, Borras discloses A method, comprising:
determining a trigger event; obtaining frames of a video feed based on the trigger event; identifying a termination event from a subset of the frames, (see Abstract ….. upon determining a predefined or triggering event has occurred…. video camera record; also see col. 6, line s4-10, content is stored until either the end of a predetermined period or after the event no longer detectable) as claimed.
However, Borras fail to explicitly disclose selecting at least one keyframe as an optimal representation of an activity or a motion within the subset of the frames based on a calculated measure; and providing the at least one keyframe as the optimal representation of the activity or the motion for the subset of the frames, as claimed.
Lin teaches disclose selecting at least one keyframe as an optimal representation of an activity or a motion within the subset of the frames based on a calculated measure; and providing the at least one keyframe as the optimal representation of the activity or the motion for the subset of the frames, (see paragraph 0118, …..frame selector select key frame having highest importance “representation of an activity”) as claimed.
It would have been obvious to one ordinary skilled in the art at the effective date of invention to combine the two references as they are analogous because they are solving similar problem of detecting object in the image with importance’s using image analysis. The teachings of Lin selecting key frames per the optimal representation can be incorporated into the Borras video processing unit (see figure 1, 102) for suggestion and modification of Borras yields a system that automatically extracts a key frames (see paragraph 0006 of Lin) for motivation.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to VIKKRAM BALI whose telephone number is (571)272-7415. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 7:00AM-3:00PM.
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, Gregory Morse can be reached at 571-272-3838. 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.
/VIKKRAM BALI/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2663
Prosecution Insights