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 .
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 13 February 2025 and 2 March 2026 is being considered by the examiner.
Claim Objections
Applicant is advised that should claims 1-7 be found allowable, claims 8-14 will be objected to under 37 CFR 1.75 as being substantial duplicates thereof. When two claims in an application are duplicates or else are so close in content that they both cover the same thing, despite a slight difference in wording, it is proper after allowing one claim to object to the other as being a substantial duplicate of the allowed claim. See MPEP § 608.01(m).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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 (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) 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 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 1-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Ito et al. (JP 2020-10154 A).
Regarding claim 1, Ito et al. disclose a video processing system (Figure 1) comprising:
a memory configured to store instructions (Figure 1 and paragraph [0113].), and
a processor (Figure 1 and paragraph [0113].) configured to execute the instructions to;
detect an object included in an input video (Paragraphs [0032]-[0033].); and
control a video quality of a region including the object in the video according to a situation related to the detected object (Paragraphs [0059]-[0065] and Figure 6-7, where the reproduction speed is N times in only the portion having no risk, and the reproduction speed is not changed for the area with no risk, and thus the video quality of the region including the object in the video according to a situation related to the detected object is controlled.).
Regarding claim 2, Ito et al. disclose the video processing system according to claim 1, wherein
the situation related to the object includes a positional relationship between a first object and a second object that are the detected objects (Paragraphs [0039]-[0043]. See also Figure 4, step 402-404, for example.), and
the processor is further configured to execute the instructions to control the video quality of the region including the first object and the second object according to the positional relationship (Paragraphs [0059]-[0065] and Figure 6-7.).
Regarding claim 3, Ito et al. disclose the video processing system according to claim 2, wherein the positional relationship includes a distance between the first object and the second object (Paragraphs [0039]-[0043]. See also Figure 4, step 402-404.).
Regarding claim 4, Ito et al. disclose the video processing system according to claim 2, wherein the positional relationship includes an overlap between a region related to detection of the first object and a region related to detection of the second object (Paragraphs [0039]-[0043]. See also Figure 4, step 402-404.).
Regarding claim 5, Ito et al. disclose the video processing system according to claim 2, wherein the processor is further configured to execute the instructions to control the video quality of the region including the first object and the second object according to a change in the positional relationship (Paragraphs [0059]-[0065] and Figure 6-7.).
Regarding claim 6, Ito et al. disclose the video processing system according to claim 1, wherein
the situation related to the object includes a situation of work performed using a work object (Figure 2 and paragraphs [0032]-[0034].), and
the processor is further configured to execute the instructions to control the video quality of the region including the detected object according to whether or not the detected object is the work object corresponding to the situation of the work (Paragraphs [0059]-[0065] and Figure 6-7.).
Regarding claim 7, Ito et al. disclose the video processing system according to claim 1, wherein the processor is further configured to execute the instructions to control the video quality of the region including the object based on an importance corresponding to the situation related to the object (Paragraphs [0059]-[0065] and Figure 6-7, risk or no risk is the “importance.”).
Regarding claim 8, this claim is rejected under the same rationale as claim 1.
Regarding claim 9, this claim is rejected under the same rationale as claim 2.
Regarding claim 10, this claim is rejected under the same rationale as claim 3.
Regarding claim 11, this claim is rejected under the same rationale as claim 4.
Regarding claim 12, this claim is rejected under the same rationale as claim 5.
Regarding claim 13, this claim is rejected under the same rationale as claim 6.
Regarding claim 14, this claim is rejected under the same rationale as claim 7.
Regarding claim 15, this claim is rejected under the same rationale as claim 1.
Regarding claim 16, this claim is rejected under the same rationale as claim 2.
Regarding claim 17, this claim is rejected under the same rationale as claim 3.
Regarding claim 18, this claim is rejected under the same rationale as claim 4.
Regarding claim 19, this claim is rejected under the same rationale as claim 5.
Regarding claim 20, this claim is rejected under the same rationale as claim 6.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Amini et al. (US 2021/0281476) disclose of a video processing system comprising a memory configured to store instructions, and a processor (Paragraphs [0055]-[0056] and [0150].) configured to execute the instructions to: detect an object included in an input video (Paragraph [0104]), and control a video quality of a region including the object in the video according to a situation related to the detected object (Paragraph [0104], where the “situation” is that the individual is unknown.).
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to STEPHEN G SHERMAN whose telephone number is (571)272-2941. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday, 8:00am - 4pm 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, AMR AWAD can be reached at (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 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.
/STEPHEN G SHERMAN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2621
3 September 2026
Prosecution Insights