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 .
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 2 March 2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. Applicant’s arguments with respect to the prior art have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument.
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.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claims 1-3, 5, 6, 8, 10-12, 14-18, and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Bogan (U.S. Patent 10,671,838) in view of Goldenberg (U.S. Publication 2013/0132835), Ye (U.S. Publication 2013/0100140), and Lee (U.S. Publication 2014/0211037).
As to claim 1, Bogan discloses a method comprising:
receiving a recording of a first performance of a performer in a physical environment (col. 14, line 50-col. 15, line 10; a first performance recording such as an actor in a movie, video game, music video, etc. is received in a destination video);
generating a video based on a first take object, the first take object comprising at least a first motion capture element from the first performance (col. 7, lines 43-61; col. 9, lines 17-30; col. 14, line 50-55; a video, reading on a take, is generated based on captured facial motions, such as lip/eye/eyelid/eyebrow motions, which are captured and analyzed for preservation);
generating an animation based on the video including modifying the first take object by adding, to the first take object, a second motion capture element from a second performance second take object or by replacing the first motion capture element with the second motion capture element (col. 9, lines 3-16; col. 11, lines 24-35; col. 19, line 56-col. 20, line 32; col. 22, lines 4-8; a user selects a source face, which can be a motion capture element from another performance, and the video with the destination/first object is used to generate an output based on the source/second object; the output can be an animated person).
The destination video in Bogan could conceivably be used as an animatic, but Bogan does not describe the video in this manner, since there is no storyboard or timeline explicitly associated with the video in the reference. Further, Bogan does not disclose configuring at least one aspect of a first take object using a take object region of a user interface, wherein the recording is received responsive to a selection via the user interface of a graphic element, and responsive to the selection of the graphic element, the user interface transitions and capturing of sensor data is initiated of the performer for inclusion in the first take object, and wherein the recording includes the captured sensor data, and displaying an indication of the first take object on a timeline. Goldenberg, however, discloses generating a timeline of animation and dialogue (p. 2, sections 0019-0021), which would read on an animatic, based on a first object and then modifying the first take object to generate an animation (p. 5, section 0062; existing animations in the timeline can be modified and further animations can be generated). Further, Goldenberg discloses configuring at least one aspect of a first take object using a take object region of a user interface wherein configuring the at least one aspect of the first take object using the take object region of the user interface includes selecting via the take object region sensor data (p. 4, section 0040; p. 4, section 0045; a user can add take identifiers or script lines for a take in an area of the GUI; a user clicks a button in an interface to initiate audio sensor capture of sound to include in a take), wherein the recording is received responsive to a selection via the user interface of a graphic element responsive to the selection of the graphic element, the user interface transitions and capturing of sensor data is initiated for inclusion in the first take object (p. 4, section 0040; a user clicks a button in an interface to initiate audio sensor capture of sound to include in a take), and wherein the recording includes the captured sensor data, and displaying an indication of the first take object on a timeline (p. 2, section 0020; p. 4, section 0044; p. 5, section 0050; indications of each take object are marked with lines on a script/timeline interface). The motivation for the use of the interface in this manner is to allow a user to see direct relationships between 3D animation and dialog lines (p. 3, section 0034). It would have been obvious to one skilled in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Bogan to use an animatic, configure at least one aspect of a first take object using a take object region of a user interface, wherein the recording is received responsive to a selection via the user interface of a graphic element to initiate capturing of sensor data for inclusion in the first take object, wherein the recording includes the sensor data, and display an indication of the first take object on a timeline in order to allow a user to see direct relationships between 3D animation and dialog lines as taught by Goldenberg.
Bogan does not disclose, but Ye discloses wherein the sensor data is at least two sensor data types of a plurality of sensor data types to be captured with a first sensor having a performer facial movement capture data type of the at least two sensor data types and a second sensor having a performer body movement capture data type of the at least two sensor data types for inclusion in the first take object (p. 1, sections 0002-0004; p. 2, sections 0024-0026; p. 2, sections 0042-0043; p. 3, section 0053; in a system to drive an animation sequence, reading on a take object, a user GUI and command process controls tracking movement of a user/performer for the animation /take object using two sensors, one of a type for capture of a face region and another of a type for capture of a body region) and synchronizing the captured sensor data from the first sensor with the captured data from the second sensor to generate synchronized data, wherein the first motion capture element includes the synchronized data (p. 2, section 0046; the data capture/motion tracking is combined to be a simultaneous combined tracking from both sensors, reading on a synchronization). The motivation for this is to allow the system to capture both body and face animation data at an extended distance between the user/performer and the camera. It would have been obvious to one skilled in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Bogan and Goldberg to have the sensor data be at least two sensor data types of a plurality of sensor data types to be captured with a first sensor having a performer facial movement capture data type of the at least two sensor data types and a second sensor having a performer body movement capture data type of the at least two sensor data types for inclusion in the first take object and synchronize the captured sensor data from the first sensor with the captured data from the second sensor to generate synchronized data, wherein the first motion capture element includes the synchronized data in order to allow the system to capture both body and face animation data at an extended distance between the user/performer and the camera as taught by Ye.
Bogan does not disclose, but Lee discloses responsive to the selection of the graphic element, the user interface transitions to an armed state locking one or more attributes used for recording (p. 3, section 0039; p. 5, section 0065; for a shutter release button displayed on a touch screen, selecting the shutter release locks the recording setting attributes such as autofocus, autoexposure, and white balance; this would read on an armed state since the settings are locked and the device is ready to capture/record). The motivation for this is to quickly take multiple shots (p. 3, section 0045). It would have been obvious to one skilled in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Bogan, Goldberg, and Ye to, responsive to the selection of the graphic element, transition the user interface to an armed state locking one or more attributes used for recording in order to quickly take multiple shots as taught by Lee.
As to claim 2, Bogan discloses a method wherein the first take object further comprises a third motion capture element from the first performance, and modifying the first take object comprises replacing the third motion capture element with the second motion capture element from the second take object (col. 9, lines 3-16; col. 14, lines 50-65; col. 20, lines 33-55; the overall face from the source/second take object replaces the overall motion captured face from the destination/first take object, and this overall motion captured face from the destination/first take object can read on the third motion capture element).
As to claim 3, Bogan discloses a method further comprising upon receiving a request to modify the first take object: identifying a plurality of alternative take objects that can be used to modify the first take object, wherein the plurality of alternative take objects include the second take object; and upon receiving a selection of the second take object from the plurality of alternative take objects, presenting at least the second motion capture elements of the second take object (col. 19, line 56-col. 20, line 2; a user can search and choose from alternatives to be the source/second object modifying the destination/first object; when a user selects the object, via search for example, they are presented with the result, which would read on motion capture elements, including second motion capture elements, via display).
As to claim 5, Bogan discloses wherein data includes body data, the second motion capture element includes facial data, and wherein modifying the first take object comprises combining the body data with the facial data (fig. 9; col. 20, lines 33-55; the figure shows an original body and face where the original face is replaced with the source/second face but the original/destination/first body is still displayed). Ye discloses that the data is synchronized data, as discussed in the rejection to claim 1, with motivation for the combination also given in the rejection to claim 1.
As to claim 6, Bogan discloses wherein generating the animation further includes rendering the body data from the first motion capture element of the first take object and the facial data from the second motion capture element of the second take object on a single character (fig. 9; col. 20, lines 33-55; the combined face and body data is rendered on a single person/character in the figure) in a three-dimensional scene (col. 10, lines 5-21; the space/scene can be a 3D space/scene).
As to claim 8, Bogan discloses a method further comprising recording audio from the physical environment during the first performance, wherein the recording of the audio is included in the first take object (col. 9, lines 17-30; col. 14, line 50-col. 15, line 10; the character in the performance in the first/destination video take object is speaking and the audio is recorded and saved to the video).
As to claim 10, see the rejection to claim 1. Further, Bogan discloses a non-transitory computer-readable storage medium containing computer program code that, when executed by operation of one or more computer processors, performs the operations (col. 27, lines 3-63).
As to claim 11, see the rejection to claim 2.
As to claim 12, see the rejection to claim 3.
As to claim 14, see the rejections to claims 5 and 6.
As to claim 15, see the rejection to claim 8.
As to claim 16, see the rejection to claim 1. Further, Bogan discloses a system comprising: one or more computer processors; and a memory containing a program which when executed by the one or more computer processors performs the operations (col. 27, lines 3-63).
As to claim 17, see the rejection to claim 2.
As to claim 18, see the rejection to claim 3.
As to claim 20, see the rejection to claim 8.
Claims 4, 13, and 19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Bogan, Goldenberg, Ye, and Lee and further in view of De la Torre (U.S. Publication 2019/0206101).
As to claim 4, Bogan does not disclose, but De la Torre does disclose wherein the first performance corresponds to a first character of a plurality of characters, and identifying the plurality of alternative take objects comprises selecting take objects, from a stored list of take objects, that correspond to the first character (p. 2, section 0026; p. 3, section 0031-0034; alternative take objects that correspond to a first character/user are selected based on facial recognition; the objects can be used to swap out components and create a composite video or image). The motivation for this is to allow a user to combine portions from different photos/videos of a character if some portions are shown in better conditions in a particular photo/video (p. 2, section 0024; p. 2, section 0026). It would have been obvious to one skilled in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Bogan, Goldenberg, Ye, and Lee to select take objects, from a stored list of take objects, that correspond to the first character in order to combine portions from different photos/videos of a character if some portions are shown in better conditions in a particular photo/video as taught by De la Torre.
As to claim 13, see the rejection to claim 4.
As to claim 19, see the rejection to claim 4.
Claim 9 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Bogan, Goldenberg, Ye, and Lee in view of Nakao (U.S. Publication 2020/0126279).
As to claim 9, Bogan does not disclose, but Nakao does disclose a method further comprising receiving user feedback relating to the first motion capture element and tagging the first take object using the user feedback (p. 4, section 0046; p. 4-5, section 0055; p. 5, section 0057-0058; a take object with an element, such as a user’s face, to be composited with a motion capture, such as a running person, is tagged with emotional descriptors by a user based on user feedback to the element). The motivation for this is so that an image compositing unit can read out and composite information based on the tag, for example, applying an image with a cheerful tag while a person is climbing lower floors of a building and applying an image with a suffering tag while a person is climbing higher floors of a building. It would have been obvious to one skilled in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Bogan, Goldenberg, Ye, and Lee to receive user feedback relating to the first motion capture element and tag the first take object using the user feedback in order to enable an image compositing unit to read out and composite information based on the tag as taught by Nakao.
Claim 22 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Bogan, Goldenberg, Ye, and Lee in view of Schriber (U.S. Publication 2019/0107927).
As to claim 22, Bogan does not disclose, but Schriber does disclose wherein the animatic and the animation are generated using a same rendering engine (p. 4, sections 0049-0052; p. 5, section 0058; the visualization engine creates a timeline/2D representation of a script, which would read on an animatic, and renders 2D or 3D visualization of movement of the elements in the timeline, which would read on an animation). The motivation for this is to show different aspects of a script in real-time. It would have been obvious to one skilled in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Bogan, Goldenberg, Ye, and Lee to have animatic and animation generated using a same rendering engine in order to show different aspects of a script in real-time as taught by Schriber.
Claim 24 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Bogan, Goldenberg, Ye, and Lee in view of Leiberman (U.S. Publication 2016/0336039).
As to claim 24, Bogan does not disclose, but Leiberman does disclose wherein the recording of the first performance in the physical environment includes recorded audio in the physical environment, and wherein the recorded audio is output into the physical environment during the second performance (p. 1, section 0010; p. 2, section 0013; a device captures audio and video in a series of takes; the previously recorded audio can be played in the environment of the take, and, while playing, a video performance can be captured). The motivation for this is to create a professional style music video by combining multiple video takes and allowing for synchronized audio (p. 1, section 0008). It would have been obvious to one skilled in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Bogan, Goldenberg, Ye, and Lee to have the recording of the first performance in the physical environment include recorded audio in the physical environment, and wherein the recorded audio is output into the physical environment during the second performance in order to create a professional style music video by combining multiple video takes and allowing for synchronized audio as taught by Leiberman.
Conclusion
The following prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure:
U.S. Publication 2011/0007081 to Gordon is pertinent to capture and synchronization of different types of content, such as facial, body, and audio content captured with different sensors.
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to AARON M RICHER whose telephone number is (571)272-7790. The examiner can normally be reached 9AM-5PM.
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, King Poon can be reached at (571)272-7440. 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.
/AARON M RICHER/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2617