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 .
Claims 1-20 are pending regarding this application.
Claim Objections
Claim 17 and 18 are objected to because of the following informalities:
Please add a new line in between claim 17 and claim 18.
Appropriate correction is required.
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.
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 limitations are listed below in claims 1, 8, and 15.
In claim 1: “extracting, via a codec module…”, “object detection portion that…”, “subnet portion that…”, “generating, by the plurality of task specific modules, a plurality of outputs …”
Similar analysis can be applied to corresponding claims 8 and 15.
After a careful analysis, as disclosed above, and a careful review of the specification, the above limitations in claims 1, 8, and 15 are interpreted as computer-implemented 112(f). Below is the corresponding structure and algorithm which are being read into the above limitations:
“codec module” (In the specification, para. [0024] states that “each of pre-processing agent 116, codec module 120, and task specific modules 122 may be comprised of one or more software modules. The one or more software modules may be collections of code or instructions stored on a media (e.g., memory of organization computing system 104) that represent a series of machine instructions (e.g., program code) that implements one or more algorithmic steps. Such machine instructions may be the actual computer code the processor of organization computing system 104 interprets to implement the instructions or, alternatively, may be a higher level of coding of the instructions that is interpreted to obtain the actual computer code.” (emphasis added). Therefore, the corresponding structure for the codec module 120 is a processor and the corresponding algorithm which can be found in para. [0027]-[0029] and [0032]-[0044]. See also FIG. 1, #120).
“object detection portion” (In the specification, para. [0024] states that “each of pre-processing agent 116, codec module 120, and task specific modules 122 may be comprised of one or more software modules. The one or more software modules may be collections of code or instructions stored on a media (e.g., memory of organization computing system 104) that represent a series of machine instructions (e.g., program code) that implements one or more algorithmic steps. Such machine instructions may be the actual computer code the processor of organization computing system 104 interprets to implement the instructions or, alternatively, may be a higher level of coding of the instructions that is interpreted to obtain the actual computer code.” (emphasis added). See also that the object detection portion 302 is included in the machine learning architecture 300 implemented by the codec module 120 (see para. [0033]-[0034] and FIG. 3). Therefore, the corresponding structure for the object detection portion 302 is a processor and the corresponding algorithm which can be found in para. [0033]-[0044] and FIG. 3).
“subnet portion” (In the specification, para. [0024] states that “each of pre-processing agent 116, codec module 120, and task specific modules 122 may be comprised of one or more software modules. The one or more software modules may be collections of code or instructions stored on a media (e.g., memory of organization computing system 104) that represent a series of machine instructions (e.g., program code) that implements one or more algorithmic steps. Such machine instructions may be the actual computer code the processor of organization computing system 104 interprets to implement the instructions or, alternatively, may be a higher level of coding of the instructions that is interpreted to obtain the actual computer code.” (emphasis added). See also that the subnet portion 304 is included in the machine learning architecture 300 implemented by the codec module 120 (see para. [0033]-[0034] and FIG. 3). Therefore, the corresponding structure for the subnet portion 304 is a processor and the corresponding algorithm which can be found in para. [0037]-[0040]).
“plurality of task specific modules” (In the specification, para. [0024] states that “each of pre-processing agent 116, codec module 120, and task specific modules 122 may be comprised of one or more software modules. The one or more software modules may be collections of code or instructions stored on a media (e.g., memory of organization computing system 104) that represent a series of machine instructions (e.g., program code) that implements one or more algorithmic steps. Such machine instructions may be the actual computer code the processor of organization computing system 104 interprets to implement the instructions or, alternatively, may be a higher level of coding of the instructions that is interpreted to obtain the actual computer code.” (emphasis added). Therefore, the corresponding structure for the task specific modules 122 is a processor and the corresponding algorithm which can be found in para. [0027]-[0029], [0032], and [0044]. See also FIG. 1 #122).
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.
Double Patenting
The nonstatutory double patenting rejection is based on a judicially created doctrine grounded in public policy (a policy reflected in the statute) so as to prevent the unjustified or improper timewise extension of the “right to exclude” granted by a patent and to prevent possible harassment by multiple assignees. A nonstatutory double patenting rejection is appropriate where the conflicting claims are not identical, but at least one examined application claim is not patentably distinct from the reference claim(s) because the examined application claim is either anticipated by, or would have been obvious over, the reference claim(s). See, e.g., In re Berg, 140 F.3d 1428, 46 USPQ2d 1226 (Fed. Cir. 1998); In re Goodman, 11 F.3d 1046, 29 USPQ2d 2010 (Fed. Cir. 1993); In re Longi, 759 F.2d 887, 225 USPQ 645 (Fed. Cir. 1985); In re Van Ornum, 686 F.2d 937, 214 USPQ 761 (CCPA 1982); In re Vogel, 422 F.2d 438, 164 USPQ 619 (CCPA 1970); In re Thorington, 418 F.2d 528, 163 USPQ 644 (CCPA 1969).
A timely filed terminal disclaimer in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(c) or 1.321(d) may be used to overcome an actual or provisional rejection based on nonstatutory double patenting provided the reference application or patent either is shown to be commonly owned with the examined application, or claims an invention made as a result of activities undertaken within the scope of a joint research agreement. See MPEP § 717.02 for applications subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA as explained in MPEP § 2159. See MPEP § 2146 et seq. for applications not subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA . A terminal disclaimer must be signed in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(b).
The USPTO Internet website contains terminal disclaimer forms which may be used. Please visit www.uspto.gov/patent/patents-forms. The filing date of the application in which the form is filed determines what form (e.g., PTO/SB/25, PTO/SB/26, PTO/AIA /25, or PTO/AIA /26) should be used. A web-based eTerminal Disclaimer may be filled out completely online using web-screens. An eTerminal Disclaimer that meets all requirements is auto-processed and approved immediately upon submission. For more information about eTerminal Disclaimers, refer to www.uspto.gov/patents/process/file/efs/guidance/eTD-info-I.jsp.
Claims 1-20 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-20 of U.S. Patent Application No. 18/050,331, herein after referred to as the ‘331 application. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because the claims 1-20 of the current application are identical to claims 1-20 in application ‘331, as indicated below.
Regarding claim 1, claim 1 compares to claim 1 of the ‘331 application as indicated below:
Current Application
‘331 Application
Notes
A method comprising:
Claim 1: A method comprising:
Verbatim the same
Claim 1: receiving, by a computing system, a broadcast video stream of a game;
Current application is more broad.
extracting, via a codec module of a computing system, image level features from a broadcast video stream, the codec module comprising an object detection portion that detects objects in the broadcast video stream and a subnet portion attached to and downstream of the object detection portion, wherein the subnet portion identifies foreground information of the detected objects;
Claim 1: extracting, via a codec module of the computing system, image level features from the broadcast video stream, the codec module comprising an object detection portion that detects players in the broadcast video stream and a subnet portion attached to and downstream of the object detection portion, wherein the subnet portion identifies foreground information of the detected players;
Verbatim the same besides highlighted additional language in the ‘331 application. The only difference here is that the current application detects objects, while the ‘331 application detects players, which is a narrower recitation of “objects”
providing, by the codec module, the image level features to a plurality of task specific modules for analysis; and
Claim 1: providing, by the codec module, the image level features to a plurality of task specific modules for analysis; and
Verbatim the same
generating, by the plurality of task specific modules, a plurality of outputs based on the image level features
Claim 1: generating, by the plurality of task specific modules, a plurality of outputs based on the image level features
Verbatim the same
Thus, as can be seen above, claim 1 of the ‘331 application, anticipates every limitation of claim 1 of the current claim – particularly since claim 1 is more broad. Therefore, any patent granted on the current application would result in the unjustifiable timewise extension of the monopoly granted on claim 1 of U.S. Application No. 18/050,331.
As for claim 2, claim 2 is substantively equivalent to claim 2 of the ‘331 application, wherein the recitation of the “players” in the ‘331 application is a narrower recitation of the “objects” recited in claim 2 of the current application. Thus, claim 2 of the ‘331 application anticipates claim 2 of the current application.
As for claim 3, claim 3 is substantively equivalent to claim 3 of the ‘331 application, wherein the recitation of the “players” in the ‘331 application is a narrower recitation of the “objects” recited in claim 3 of the current application. Thus, claim 3 of the ‘331 application anticipates claim 3 of the current application.
As for claim 4, claim 4 is substantively equivalent to claim 4 of the ‘331 application, wherein the recitation of the “players” in the ‘331 application is a narrower recitation of the “objects” recited in claim 4 of the current application. Thus, claim 4 of the ‘331 application anticipates claim 4 of the current application.
Regarding claim 5, claim 5 is substantively equivalent to claims 1 and 5 of the ‘331 application, wherein claim 1 of the ‘331 application recites “receiving, by the computing system, the broadcast video stream of a game” which is equivalent to the language recited in claim 5 of the current application. Thus, claim 5 of the ‘331 application anticipates claim 5 of the current application.
As for claim 6, claim 6 is substantively equivalent to claim 6 of the ‘331 application, wherein the recitation of the “players” in the ‘331 application is a narrower recitation of the “objects” recited in claim 6 of the current application. Thus, claim 6 of the ‘331 application anticipates claim 6 of the current application.
As for claim 7, claim 7 is substantively equivalent to claim 7 of the ‘331 application. Thus, claim 7 of the ‘331 application anticipates claim 7 of the current application.
Regarding claim 8, claim 8 compares to claim 8 of the ‘331 application as indicated below:
Current Application
‘331 Application
Notes
A non-transitory computer readable medium comprising one or more sequences of instructions, which, when executed by a processor, causes a computing system to perform operations comprising:
Claim 8: A non-transitory computer readable medium comprising one or more sequences of instructions, which, when executed by a processor, causes a computing system to perform operations comprising:
Verbatim the same
Claim 8: receiving a broadcast video stream of a game;
Current application is more broad.
extracting, via a codec module of the computing system, image level features from a broadcast video stream, the codec module comprising an object detection portion that detects objects in the broadcast video stream and a subnet portion attached to and downstream of the object detection portion, wherein the subnet portion identifies foreground information of the detected objects;
Claim 8: extracting, via a codec module of the computing system, image level features from the broadcast video stream, the codec module comprising an object detection portion that detects players in the broadcast video stream and a subnet portion attached to and downstream of the object detection portion, wherein the subnet portion identifies foreground information of the detected players;
Verbatim the same besides highlighted additional language in the ‘331 application. The only difference here is that the current application detects objects, while the ‘331 application detects players, which is a narrower recitation of “objects”
providing, by the codec module, the image level features to a plurality of task specific modules for analysis; and
Claim 8: providing, by the codec module, the image level features to a plurality of task specific modules for analysis; and
Verbatim the same
generating, by the plurality of task specific modules, a plurality of outputs based on the image level features
Claim 8: generating, by the plurality of task specific modules, a plurality of outputs based on the image level features
Verbatim the same
Thus, as can be seen above, claim 8 of the ‘331 application, anticipates every limitation of claim 8 of the current claim – particularly since claim 8 of is more broad. Therefore, any patent granted on the current application would result in the unjustifiable timewise extension of the monopoly granted on claim 8 of U.S. Application No. 18/050,331.
As for claim 9, claim 9 is substantively equivalent to claim 9 of the ‘331 application, wherein the recitation of the “players” in the ‘331 application is a narrower recitation of the “objects” recited in claim 9 of the current application. Thus, claim 9 of the ‘331 application anticipates claim 9 of the current application.
As for claim 10, claim 10 is substantively equivalent to claim 10 of the ‘331 application, wherein the recitation of the “players” in the ‘331 application is a narrower recitation of the “objects” recited in claim 10 of the current application. Thus, claim 10 of the ‘331 application anticipates claim 10 of the current application.
As for claim 11, claim 11 is substantively equivalent to claim 11 of the ‘331 application, wherein the recitation of the “players” in the ‘331 application is a narrower recitation of the “objects” recited in claim 11 of the current application. Thus, claim 11 of the ‘331 application anticipates claim 11 of the current application.
Regarding claim 12, claim 12 is substantively equivalent to claims 8 and 12 of the ‘331 application, wherein claim 8 of the ‘331 application recites “receiving, by the computing system, the broadcast video stream of a game” which is equivalent to the language recited in claim 12 of the current application. Thus, claim 12 of the ‘331 application anticipates claim 12 of the current application.
As for claim 13, claim 13 is substantively equivalent to claim 13 of the ‘331 application, wherein the recitation of the “players” in the ‘331 application is a narrower recitation of the “objects” recited in claim 13 of the current application. Thus, claim 13 of the ‘331 application anticipates claim 13 of the current application.
As for claim 14, claim 14 is substantively equivalent to claim 14 of the ‘331 application. Thus, claim 14 of the ‘331 application anticipates claim 14 of the current application.
Regarding claim 15, claim 15 compares to claim 15 of the ‘331 application as indicated below:
Current Application
‘331 Application
Notes
A system comprising: a processor; and a memory having programming instructions stored thereon, which, when executed by the processor, cause the system to perform operations comprising:
Claim 15: A system comprising: a processor; and a memory having programming instructions stored thereon, which, when executed by the processor, cause the system to perform operations comprising:
Verbatim the same
Claim 15: receiving a broadcast video stream of a game;
Current application is more broad.
extracting, via a codec module of the computing system, image level features from a broadcast video stream, the codec module comprising an object detection portion that detects objects in the broadcast video stream and a subnet portion attached to and downstream of the object detection portion, wherein the subnet portion identifies foreground information of the detected objects;
Claim 15: extracting, via a codec module of the computing system, image level features from the broadcast video stream, the codec module comprising an object detection portion that detects players in the broadcast video stream and a subnet portion attached to and downstream of the object detection portion, wherein the subnet portion identifies foreground information of the detected players;
Verbatim the same besides highlighted additional language in the ‘331 application. The only difference here is that the current application detects objects, while the ‘331 application detects players, which is a narrower recitation of “objects”
providing, by the codec module, the image level features to a plurality of task specific modules for analysis; and
Claim 15: providing, by the codec module, the image level features to a plurality of task specific modules for analysis; and
Verbatim the same
generating, by the plurality of task specific modules, a plurality of outputs based on the image level features
Claim 15: generating, by the plurality of task specific modules, a plurality of outputs based on the image level features
Verbatim the same
Thus, as can be seen above, claim 15 of the ‘331 application, anticipates every limitation of claim 15 of the current claim – particularly since claim 15 of is more broad. Therefore, any patent granted on the current application would result in the unjustifiable timewise extension of the monopoly granted on claim 15 of U.S. Application No. 18/050,331.
As for claim 16, claim 16 is substantively equivalent to claim 16 of the ‘331 application, wherein the recitation of the “players” in the ‘331 application is a narrower recitation of the “objects” recited in claim 16 of the current application. Thus, claim 16 of the ‘331 application anticipates claim 16 of the current application.
As for claim 17, claim 17 is substantively equivalent to claim 17 of the ‘331 application, wherein the recitation of the “players” in the ‘331 application is a narrower recitation of the “objects” recited in claim 17 of the current application. Thus, claim 17 of the ‘331 application anticipates claim 17 of the current application.
As for claim 18, claim 18 is substantively equivalent to claim 18 of the ‘331 application, wherein the recitation of the “players” in the ‘331 application is a narrower recitation of the “objects” recited in claim 18 of the current application. Thus, claim 18 of the ‘331 application anticipates claim 18 of the current application.
As for claim 19, claim 19 is substantively equivalent to claim 19 of the ‘331 application, wherein the recitation of the “players” in the ‘331 application is a narrower recitation of the “objects” recited in claim 19 of the current application. Thus, claim 19 of the ‘331 application anticipates claim 19 of the current application.
As for claim 20, claim 20 is substantively equivalent to claim 14 of the ‘331 application. Thus, claim 20 of the ‘331 application anticipates claim 20 of the current application.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 1-20 would be allowable if the double patenting rejection set forth in this Office Action is overcome.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter.
The best prior art of record is Dassa et al. (U.S. Publication No. 2019/0221001 A1), hereinafter Dassa, Li et al. (CN 112115914 A, see English translation), hereinafter Li, and Lee et al. (U.S. Publication No. 2020/0234051 A1), hereinafter Lee. Prior art applied alone or in combination with fails to anticipate or render obvious claims 1-20.
Claim 1
Regarding claim 1, Dassa teaches a method comprising:
extracting, via a codec module of a computing system, image level features from a broadcast video stream, the codec module comprising an object detection portion that detects objects in the broadcast video stream and
providing, by the codec module, the image level features to a plurality of task specific modules for analysis; and
generating, by the plurality of task specific modules, a plurality of outputs based on the image level features.
Li further teaches a portion downstream of the object detection portion.
Lee further teaches a subnet portion and the subnet portion attached to the object detection portion.
However, neither Dassa, nor Li, nor Lee, nor the combination, teaches the specific information in the specification regarding the algorithm associated with the “codec module”, “object detection portion”, “subnet portion”, and “plurality of task specific modules” in para. [0033]-[0044] of applicant’s specification and FIG.3, in combination with the other elements of the claim.
Similar analysis is applicable to claims 8 and 15.
Claims 2-7, 9-14, and 16-20 include allowable subject matter by virtue of being dependent upon claims 1, 8, and 15 respectively.
***Please note that the “codec module”, “object detection portion”, “subnet portion”, and “plurality of task specific modules” are being interpreted under 112(f) as a computer-implemented means-plus-function limitation, wherein the structure and the corresponding algorithm of the “codec module”, “object detection portion”, “subnet portion”, and “plurality of task specific modules” are being read into the relevant limitations in claims 1, 8, and 15. In the specification, para. [0024] states that “each of pre-processing agent 116, codec module 120, and task specific modules 122 may be comprised of one or more software modules. The one or more software modules may be collections of code or instructions stored on a media (e.g., memory of organization computing system 104) that represent a series of machine instructions (e.g., program code) that implements one or more algorithmic steps. Such machine instructions may be the actual computer code the processor of organization computing system 104 interprets to implement the instructions or, alternatively, may be a higher level of coding of the instructions that is interpreted to obtain the actual computer code.” (emphasis added). See also that the object detection portion 302 and subnet portion 304 are included in the machine learning architecture 300 implemented by the codec module 120 (see para. [0033]-[0034] and FIG. 3). Therefore, the corresponding structure for the “codec module”, “object detection portion”, “subnet portion”, and “plurality of task specific modules” is a processor and the corresponding algorithm. Claiming a means for performing a specific computer-implemented function and disclosing only a general-purpose computer as its structure amounts to pure functional claiming. Aristocrat, 521 F.3d 1328 at 1333, 86 USPQ2d at 1239. In this instance, the structure corresponding to a 35 U.S.C. 112(f) claim limitation for a computer-implemented function must include the algorithm needed to transform the general purpose computer or microprocessor disclosed in the specification. See MPEP 2181(II)(B). The specific information in the specification regarding the algorithm associated with the “codec module”, “object detection portion”, “subnet portion”, and “plurality of task specific modules” that makes this limitation allowable when analyzed in conjunction with the rest of the claim elements includes, but is not limited to para. [0033]-[0044] of applicant’s specification and FIG. 3.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner
should be directed to KYLA G ALLEN whose telephone number is (703)756-5315. The examiner can
normally be reached M-F 7:30am - 4:30pm EST.
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,
John Villecco can be reached on (571) 272-7319. 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.
/Kyla Guan-Ping Tiao Allen/
Examiner, Art Unit 2661
/JOHN VILLECCO/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2661
Prosecution Insights