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 .
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on 11/27/2025 has been entered.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to new claims 7-10 have been fully considered but are moot because the arguments do not directly apply to the new combination of references being used in the current rejection.
Claim Interpretation
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(f):
(f) Element in Claim for a Combination. – An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The claims in this application are given their broadest reasonable interpretation using the plain meaning of the claim language in light of the specification as it would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art. The broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim element (also commonly referred to as a claim limitation) is limited by the description in the specification when 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is invoked.
As explained in MPEP § 2181, subsection I, claim limitations that meet the following three-prong test will be interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
(A) the claim limitation uses the term “means” or “step” or a term used as a substitute for “means” that is a generic placeholder (also called a nonce term or a non-structural term having no specific structural meaning) for performing the claimed function;
(B) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is modified by functional language, typically, but not always linked by the transition word “for” (e.g., “means for”) or another linking word or phrase, such as “configured to” or “so that”; and
(C) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function.
Use of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim with functional language creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites sufficient structure, material, or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Absence of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is not to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is not interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites function without reciting sufficient structure, material or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Claim limitations in this application that use the word “means” (or “step”) are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action. Conversely, claim limitations in this application that do not use the word “means” (or “step”) are not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action.
This application includes one or more claim limitations that do not use the word “means,” but are nonetheless being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, because the claim limitation(s) uses a generic placeholder that is coupled with functional language without reciting sufficient structure to perform the recited function and the generic placeholder is not preceded by a structural modifier. Such claim limitation(s) is/are: inquiry receiver, obtainer and generator in claims 7-10.
Because this/these claim limitation(s) is/are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, it/they is/are being interpreted to cover the corresponding structure described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof.
If applicant does not intend to have this/these limitation(s) interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, applicant may: (1) amend the claim limitation(s) to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph (e.g., by reciting sufficient structure to perform the claimed function); or (2) present a sufficient showing that the claim limitation(s) recite(s) sufficient structure to perform the claimed function so as to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph.
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 (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 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 7-8 and 10 rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US 20160071541 A1 to Miner in view of US 20210383124 A1 to Imes.
Consider claim 7, Miner discloses an information processing device comprising:
a receiver configured to receive a plurality of images from each of one or more mobile terminals installed on a plurality of performers (par. [0006]: “Sensors and video cameras … can be worn by participants, can be movable within the venue”; par. [0066] and fig. 11: “Cameras 1100 can be connected to the server storage 1104 over any communication medium that allows for the transmission of the video data 1102”);
an inquiry receiver configured to receive an inquiry including a performer condition for identifying [a performer]
Although Miner discloses inputting/receiving information identifying a user, Miner fails to explicitly disclose inputting/receiving identifying information regarding a plurality of users.
In analogous art, Imes discloses inputting/receiving identifying information regarding a plurality of users ([Abstract]: a system for monitoring athletic activity; par. [0346]-[0348]: generating a combined video using segments of a single player or multiple players; par. [0205], [0232]: receiving a selection of a particular player(s) such as by manual input from a mobile app).
It would have been obvious to one with ordinary skill, in the art before the effective filing date of the invention, to modify the teachings of Miner in view of the above teachings of Imes to allow identifying multiple players to be identified for inclusion into a composite video, such as a group of golfers.
Miner in view of Imes further discloses:
an obtainer configured to obtain the plurality of images corresponding to the plurality of performers satisfying the performer condition (Miner: par. [0034] and [0044] as discussed above. Miner obtains the images for a single performer and Imes: par. [0348]: teaches obtaining images for a plurality of performers);
a generator configured to generate one image using the plurality of images obtained by the obtainer (Miner: par. [0014]: “The high resolution files also can be used to generate still images and/or composite images on demand”; par. [0052]: “the clips then can be combined in time order, for example according to time stamps from the sensor data or tag data.” Miner does not teach generating the composite image including a plurality of performers, but Imes: par. [0348]-[0349]: teaches compositing the images from the plurality of performers either in series or in split-screen); and
a transmitter configured to transmit the one image generated by the generator to the user terminal (Miner: par. [0044] and fig. 1: “The compilation system 100 then can provide a list of clips 130, compiled video 106 or other output based on the retrieved video clips 128”; par. [0012]: “For example, an individual may receive a link to a data file stored on a computer, such as a uniform resource locator (URL) for accessing a data file accessible through a server computer on a computer network”).
Consider claim 8, modified Miner discloses the information processing device according to claim 7, wherein the generator is configured to generate the one image by combining the plurality of images in a time series manner or by merging the plurality of images in a spatial manner (Miner: par. [0014]: “The high resolution files also can be used to generate still images and/or composite images on demand”; par. [0052]: “the clips then can be combined in time order, for example according to time stamps from the sensor data or tag data.” Miner does not teach generating the composite image including a plurality of performers, but Imes: par. [0348]-[0349]: teaches compositing the images from the plurality of performers either in series or in split-screen).
The motivation to combine references is the same as regarding claim 7.
Consider claim 10, the method is rejected based on the same rationale as the device of claim 7.
Claim 9 rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Miner in view of Imes, further in view of US 9454993 B1 to Lawson et al., hereinafter “Lawson”.
Consider claim 9, modified Miner discloses the information processing device according to claim 7, further comprising:
a position receiver configured to receive a positional information from each of the one or more mobile terminals (Miner: par. [0034]: “For each participant in an activity being recorded by the system, time-stamped location information can be logged (via RFID, GPS, BlueTooth, WiFi, or any other means of identifying individuals at a specific location);
an object generator configured to generate an operation object including the one or more positional information received by the position receiver for selecting each of the plurality of performers corresponding each of the one or more positional information (Miner: par. [0034]: logging the location for each participant. Miner does not teach selecting more than one participant at the same time, but Imes: par. [0348]: selecting more than on participant at the same time. Imes also teaches: par. [0013]-[0016]: detecting the position of the participants and capturing images of participants within a specified area).
Modified Miner fails to explicitly disclose: an object transmitter configured to transmit the operation object to the user terminal, wherein the inquiry receiver is configured to receive the inquiry based on a selection of the plurality of performers with respect to the operation object, and the obtainer is configured to obtain the image corresponding to the plurality of performers satisfying the inquiry.
In analogous art, modified Miner further in view of Lawson discloses an object transmitter configured to transmit the operation object to the user terminal, wherein the inquiry receiver is configured to receive the inquiry based on a selection of the plurality of performers with respect to the operation object, and the obtainer is configured to obtain the image corresponding to the plurality of performers satisfying the inquiry (Lawson: Col. 3 Ln. 22-37: “a server system, in communication with … user devices each running a mobile application, that receives indications of game actions of players presently engaged, or previously engaged, in a sports game, and associates an indicated game action with a portion of a received video of the sports game”; Col. 7 Ln. 42-64: “The representation includes indications of game actions that one or more players (e.g., players 1-3) have performed during the selected game 14. Each indication of a game action includes a starting location of the player … the user interface 10 may include various game action filters that are selectable to only view certain types of game actions (e.g., shots only, shots resulting in goals only, and so on), or game actions by a particular player or category of players”; Col. 17 Ln. 40-55: “The user device can then present a portion of the video associated with the selected game action”. Note, therefore Lawson discloses selecting a category of player and obtaining associated video clips. Note, Imes is relied on for generating the combined video using segments of a single player or multiple players as discussed regarding claim 7).
It would have been obvious to one with ordinary skill, in the art before the effective filing date of the invention, to modify the teachings of modified Miner further in view of the above teachings of Lawson so that a user of the indexed video can view portions of video associated with selected game actions of interest to the user (Lawson: Col. 1 Ln. 55-62).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to STEPHEN R SMITH whose telephone number is (571)270-1318. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 9-5.
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, Thai Q Tran can be reached at (571) 272-7382. 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 R. SMITH
Examiner
Art Unit 2484
/THAI Q TRAN/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2484