DETAILED ACTION
This office action is in response to the application filed on 05/09/2025. Claims 1-20 are pending and are examined.
EXAMINER’S NOTE: After careful review and consideration of the parent and/or co-pending application(s), the remaining parent and/or co-pending application(s) are not given an obviousness type double patenting rejection because the instant application is narrower/differing in scope and/or includes non-obvious elements.
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 Objections
Claims 1-2, 10, 14, and 20 are objected to because of the following informalities:
In Claim 1, line 6 recites, “reconstructing a reconstructed video”. This language is repetitive and unclear. For purposes of examination, the limitation will be reasonably interpreted as - - generating a reconstructed video - - .
In Claim 2, line 4 recites, “reconstructing the reconstructed video”. This language is repetitive and unclear. For purposes of examination, the limitation will be reasonably interpreted as - - generating the reconstructed video - - .
In Claim 10, line 2 recites, “reconstructing the reconstructed video”. This language is repetitive and unclear. For purposes of examination, the limitation will be reasonably interpreted as - - generating the reconstructed video - - .
In Claim 14, line 5 recites, “reconstructing a reconstructed video”. This language is repetitive and unclear. For purposes of examination, the limitation will be reasonably interpreted as - - generating a reconstructed video - - .
In Claim 20, line 7, “reconstruct a reconstructed video”. This language is repetitive and unclear. For purposes of examination, the limitation will be reasonably interpreted as - - generate a reconstructed video - - .
Examiner respectfully requests from Applicant verification and requires appropriate correction regarding these matters.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112(a)
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112:
The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor of carrying out his invention.
Claims 11-13 and 19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention.
Specifically regarding Claims 11 and 19, after carefully considering and reviewing the specification, the provisional application, and the parent application, examiner notes that the specification does not provide support for a “second threshold”, nor does there appear to be a written description of the claim limitation “second threshold” in the application as filed. The specification, at most, appears to discuss a single threshold determination, rather than a first threshold and then a dependent second threshold.
Dependent Claims 12-13 are also rejected because of the deficiencies of the parent claim(s).
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)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 1, 14, and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Liu et al., US Patent Application Publication No.: 2023/0230228 A1, hereby Liu.
Regarding Claims 1, 14, and 20, Liu discloses a method of detecting, by an encoder device, an anomaly in an input video, a method of detecting, by an encoder device, an anomaly in an input video, and a non-transitory computer readable storage medium (Figs. 1-3 and 7), comprising:
“receiving the input video (Fig. 2, element 202, and [0025]-[0037]; see also Fig. 3, and [0038]-[0039]; see also Figs. 1 and 7);
extracting a latent feature from the input video (Fig. 2, element 202, and [0025]-[0037], disclosing latent features from input images; see also Fig. 3, and [0038]-[0039]; see also Figs. 1 and 7);
selecting, based on the latent feature, a code from a codebook (Fig. 2, and [0025]-[0037], specifically [0033]; see also Fig. 3, and [0038]-[0039]; see also Figs. 1 and 7);
reconstructing a reconstructed video based on the selected code (Fig. 2, element 212, and [0025]-[0075], specifically [0033]; see also Fig. 3, and [0038]-[0039]; see also Figs. 1 and 7);
calculating a difference between the input video and the reconstructed video (Fig. 2, elements 202, 212, 214, and 216, and [0025]-[0037], specifically [0030]-[0031]; see also Fig. 3, and [0038]-[0039]; see also Figs. 1 and 7);
comparing the difference to a threshold (Fig. 2, elements 202, 212, 214, 216, and 218, and [0025]-[0037], specifically [0030]-[0031]; see also Fig. 3, and [0038]-[0039]; see also Figs. 1 and 7); and
detecting, based on the comparison, an anomaly in the input video (Fig. 2, elements 202, 212, 214, 216, and 218, and [0025]-[0037], specifically [0030]-[0031]; see also Fig. 3, and [0038]-[0039]; see also Figs. 1 and 7).”
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 2-10 and 15-18 are objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
Examiner notes that Claims 11-13 and 19 contain allowable subject matter, but the claims are currently rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 112(a), as noted above. If applicant overcomes the 35 U.S.C. § 112(a) rejection, then Claims 11-13 and 19 would be deemed allowable if further put into independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure:
Examiner notes that multiple references cited disclose image data compression utilizing codebooks. For example, the following references show similar features in the claims, although not relied upon: Cooper (US 2025/0167801 A1), Fig. 20.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to KATHLEEN M WALSH whose telephone number is (571)270-0423. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8:00 AM - 5:00 PM.
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, Chris Kelley can be reached at (571) 272-7331. 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.
/KATHLEEN M WALSH/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2482
Prosecution Insights