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 .
Claim Objections
Claim 5 is objected to because of the following informalities:
Claim 5 depends on itself, for purposes of examination, claim 5 has been interpreted as depending on claim 3.
Appropriate correction is required.
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 factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
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.
Claim(s) 1, 6, 8, 11 and 15 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over LYSENKOV (US2020/0380780A1) in view of HAVALDAR (US2010/0045680A1) in view of TSANG (US2013/0113795A1).
Regarding claim 1, LYSENKOV teaches:
1. A method, comprising:
obtaining, using a set of processors, an actual, frontal two-dimensional (2D) image of an object (LYSENKOV: par. 10 d));
generating, using the set of processors, a pair of synthetic 2D images of the object based on the actual, frontal 2D image of the object (LYSENKOV: par. 10 e));
producing, using the set of processors, a three-dimensional (3D) model of the object based on at least the pair of synthetic 2D images (LYSENKOV: par. 10 f));
LYSENKOV doesn’t teach however the analogous prior art HAVALDAR teaches:
wherein the 3D model conserves an asymmetry of the object (HAVALDAR: pars. 39, 47, 48, 61 and 71); and
providing, using the set of processors, an output using the 3D model of the object that conserves the asymmetry (HAVALDAR: pars. 39, 47, 48, 61 and 71).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine wherein the 3D model conserves an asymmetry of the object; and providing, using the set of processors, an output using the 3D model of the object that conserves the asymmetry as shown in HAVALDAR with LYSENKOV for the benefit of addressing a shortcoming in the prior art in that modeling a face, its motion, and rendering it in a manner that appears realistic is a difficult problem, though progress to achieve realistic looking faces has been made from a modeling perspective as well as a rendering perspective. A greater problem is animating a digital face in a realistic and believable manner that will bear close scrutiny, where slight flaws in the animated performance are often unacceptable. While adequate facial animation (stylized and realistic) can be attempted via traditional keyframe techniques by skilled animators, it is a complicated task that becomes especially time-consuming as the desired results approach realistic imagery [5].
The previous combination of LYSENKOV and HAVALDAR remains as above but doesn’t teach however the analogous prior art TSANG teaches:
the 2D images are multiview images (TSANG: par. 9).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the 2D images are multiview images as shown in TSANG with the previous combination for the benefit of fulfilling a need in the prior art for a simpler way to produce multi-view images without the need for a camera array [6].
Regarding claim 6, LYSENKOV teaches:
6. The method of claim 1, wherein the generating comprises using an artificial neural network to generate the pair of synthetic 2D images of the object (LYSENKOV: par. 10 e));
the artificial neural network having been trained using corresponding actual or synthetic 2D images of representative objects (LYSENKOV: par. 8).
LYSENKOV doesn’t teach however the analogous prior art TSANG (with the same motivation of claim 1) teaches:
the 2D images are multiview images (TSANG: par. 9).
Regarding claim 8, LYSENKOV teaches:
8. The method of claim 1, wherein the actual, frontal 2D image is an image of a face (LYSENKOV: par. 9 c)).
Claim 11 is analogous to claim 1 and is therefore rejected using the same rationale.
Claim 11 further requires a different preamble and additional limitations, also taught by LYSENKOV:
11. A device, comprising
(LYSENKOV: par. 8 POSITA would recognize that a system that allows the generation of a 3D model from one or several images includes a device.):
a set of one or more processors (LYSENKOV: par. 8 POSITA would recognize that a system that allows the generation of a 3D model from one or several images includes a set of one or more processors); and
a set of one or more memory devices operatively coupled to the set of one or more processors and storing code executable by the set of one or more processors to (LYSENKOV: par. 8 POSITA would recognize that a system that allows the generation of a 3D model from one or several images includes a set of one or more memory devices operatively coupled to the set of one or more processors and storing code executable by the set of one or more processors):
Claim 15 is analogous to claim 1 and is therefore rejected using the same rationale.
Claim 15 further requires a different preamble and additional limitations also taught by LYSENKOV:
15. A computer program product, comprising (LYSENKOV: par. 8 POSITA would recognize that a system that allows the generation of a 3D model from one or several images includes a computer program product):
a non-transitory storage medium comprising computer executable code, the computer executable code comprising (LYSENKOV: par. 8 POSITA would recognize that a system that allows the generation of a 3D model from one or several images includes a non-transitory storage medium comprising computer executable code):
Claim(s) 2 and 12 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over LYSENKOV in view of HAVALDAR in view of TSANG in view of LIM (US2013/0266208A1).
Regarding claim 2, the previous combination of LYSENKOV in view of HAVALDAR in view of TSANG don’t teach however the analogous prior art LIM teaches:
2. The method of claim 1, wherein the pair of synthetic 2D multiview images comprise a stereo pair of 2D synthetic images (LIM: par. 64).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine wherein the pair of synthetic 2D multiview images comprise a stereo pair of 2D synthetic images as shown in LIM with the previous combination for the benefit of addressing a shortcoming in the prior art related to: in a conventional art, due to accuracy that is degraded while performing color inpainting of an occlusion region in which color information is absent in a warped color image, the quality of a view transformation has been degraded [8].
Claim 12 is analogous to claim 2 and is therefore rejected using the same rationale.
Claim(s) 3 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over LYSENKOV in view of HAVALDAR in view of TSANG in view of LIM in view of DELAMONT (US2020/0368616A1).
Regarding claim 3, the previous combination of LYSENKOV in view of HAVALDAR in view of TSANG in view of LIM don’t teach however the analogous prior art DELAMONT teaches:
3. The method of claim 2, wherein the stereo pair of 2D synthetic images comprise a stereo pair having a predetermined angular offset (DELAMONT: claim 15 lines 1-12).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine wherein the stereo pair of 2D synthetic images comprise a stereo pair having a predetermined angular offset as shown in DELAMONT with the previous combination for the benefit of addressing a shortcoming in the prior art related to 3D gaming systems in that one major drawback therefore still with these systems is that nothing is tangible leaving the sense of sight and sound as the only means to interact in a game [2].
Claim(s) 4 and 13-14 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over LYSENKOV in view of HAVALDAR in view of TSANG in view of LIM in view of DELAMONT in view of ROBINSON (US2012/0098933A1).
Regarding claim 4, the previous combination of LYSENKOV in view of HAVALDAR in view of TSANG in view of LIM in view of DELAMONT don’t teach however the analogous prior art ROBINSON teaches:
4. The method of claim 3, wherein the predetermined angular offset is selectable (ROBINSON: par. 117).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine wherein the predetermined angular offset is selectable as shown in ROBINSON with the previous combination for the benefit of fulfilling a need in the prior art related to an imaging platform is desired which can correct frame-to-frame image changes caused by relative motion between the imaging platform and the scene. Further, an imaging platform is desired which can enhance the quality of captured images in applications which are particularly susceptible to inter-frame changes, e.g., imaging platforms having a wide field of view and/or high angular rates of movement with respect to the ground, especially for three-dimensional features in the scene [5].
Regarding claim 13, the previous combination of LYSENKOV in view of HAVALDAR in view of TSANG in view of LIM don’t teach however the analogous prior art DELAMONT teaches:
13. The device of claim 12, wherein the stereo pair of 2D synthetic images comprise a stereo pair having a predetermined angular offset (DELAMONT: claim 15 lines 1-12).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine wherein the stereo pair of 2D synthetic images comprise a stereo pair having a predetermined angular offset as shown in DELAMONT with the previous combination for the benefit of addressing a shortcoming in the prior art related to, 3D gaming systems in that one major drawback therefore still with these systems is that nothing is tangible leaving the sense of sight and sound as the only means to interact in a game [2].
The previous combination of LYSENKOV in view of HAVALDAR in view of TSANG in view of LIM in view of DELAMONT remains as above but doesn’t teach however the analogous prior art ROBINSON teaches: the predetermined angular offset is selectable (ROBINSON: par. 117).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the predetermined angular offset is selectable as shown in ROBINSON with the previous combination for the benefit of fulfilling a need in the prior art related to an imaging platform is desired which can correct frame-to-frame image changes caused by relative motion between the imaging platform and the scene. Further, an imaging platform is desired which can enhance the quality of captured images in applications which are particularly susceptible to inter-frame changes, e.g., imaging platforms having a wide field of view and/or high angular rates of movement with respect to the ground, especially for three-dimensional features in the scene [5].
Regarding claim 14, LYSENKOV in view of HAVALDAR in view of TSANG in view of LIM in view of DELAMONT as modified by DELAMONT (with the same motivation from claim 13) further teaches:
14. The device of claim 13, comprising a camera configured to obtain the actual, frontal 2D image (DELAMONT: par. 133).
Claim(s) 5 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over LYSENKOV in view of HAVALDAR in view of TSANG in view of LIM in view of DELAMONT in view of HARRIS (US2023/0094903A1).
Regarding claim 5, the previous combination of LYSENKOV in view of HAVALDAR in view of TSANG in view of LIM in view of DELAMONT don’t teach however the analogous prior art HARRIS teaches:
5. The method of claim 5, comprising selecting a training stereo pair of actual images of an object having the predetermined angular offset (HARRIS: par. 83).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine selecting a training stereo pair of actual images of an object having the predetermined angular offset as shown in HARRIS with the previous combination for the benefit of fulfilling a need in the prior art for augment preoperative and intraoperative imaging technologies to accurately model the operative joint anatomy and artificial endoprosthetic implant when planning and executing hip arthroplasties [13].
Claim(s) 9 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over LYSENKOV in view of HAVALDAR in view of TSANG in view of CUTA (US2014/0104568A1).
Regarding claim 9, the previous combination of LYSENKOV in view of HAVALDAR in view of TSANG don’t teach however the analogous prior art CUTA teaches:
9. The method of claim 8, wherein the output comprises one of an access decision and a fit recommendation (CUTA: pars. 49 and 55).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine wherein the output comprises one of an access decision and a fit recommendation as shown in CUTA with the previous combination for the benefit of addressing a shortcoming in the prior art related to: although eyewear may be designed to provide a specified level of coverage on a head form representative of a subset of a population, for example, an eyewear article may fit slightly different when positioned for use on a wearer having features different than the head form [56].
Claim(s) 10 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over LYSENKOV in view of HAVALDAR in view of TSANG in view of CUTA in view of SODHI (US2022/0023567A1).
Regarding claim 10, the previous combination of LYSENKOV in view of HAVALDAR in view of TSANG in view of CUTA don’t teach however the analogous prior art SODHI teaches:
10. The method of claim 9, wherein the fit recommendation is a fit recommendation for a sleep therapy mask (SODHI: pars. 42, 44 and 46).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine wherein the fit recommendation is a fit recommendation for a sleep therapy mask as shown in SODHI with the previous combination for the benefit of fulfilling a need in the prior art for a system that allows for more efficient and active setup of a sleep apnea device. There is also a need to use a mobile computing device with an augmented reality interface to assist a user to setup of a sleep apnea device. There is also a need for a patient assistance device that may evaluate the operation of a sleep apnea device [9].
Allowable Subject Matter
Claim 7 is 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.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter:
Regarding claim 7, the prior art doesn’t teach:
7. The method of claim 6, wherein the artificial neural network comprises a set of auto encoders;
the method comprising comparing an output of one or more decoders to an original input frontal 2D image to generate an error metric for training the artificial neural network.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
ZHOU (US2011/0228982A1) discloses an information processing device includes a learning image input unit configured to input a learning image, in which a tracked object is captured on different shooting conditions, together with the shooting conditions, a feature response calculation unit configured to calculate a response of one or more integrated features, with respect to the learning image while changing a parameter in accordance with the shooting conditions, a feature learning unit configured to recognize spatial distribution of the one or more integrated features in the learning image based on a calculation result of the response and evaluate a relationship between the shooting conditions and the parameter and a spatial relationship among the integrated features so as to learn a feature of the tracked object, and a feature storage unit configured to store a learning result of the feature; USHIO (US2012/0194905A1) discloses an image display apparatus for displaying plural sets of a pair of right-eye image and left-eye image to their corresponding viewing points is provided, which includes: a multi-view image generating unit which receives a right image and left image corresponding to predetermined two viewing points, and generates right-eye images and left-eye images corresponding to a plurality of viewing points by shifting the entireties of the received right image and left image; and a display unit which displays the right-eye images and left-eye images generated by the multi-view image generating unit to their corresponding viewing points; NAGANO (US2022/0138455A1) discloses a system, method, and apparatus for generating a normalization of a single two-dimensional image of an unconstrained human face. The system receives the single two-dimensional image of the unconstrained human face, generates an undistorted face based on the unconstrained human face by removing perspective distortion from the unconstrained human face via a perspective undistortion network, generates an evenly lit face based on the undistorted face by normalizing lighting of the undistorted face via a lighting translation network, and generates a frontalized and neutralized expression face based on the evenly lit face via an expression neutralization network; KUO (US2023/0401733A1) discloses a method for training an autoencoder implemented in an electronic device includes obtaining a stereoscopic image as the vehicle is in motion, the stereoscopic image includes a left image and a right image; generating a stereo disparity map according to the left image; generating a predicted right image according to the left image and the stereo disparity map; and calculating a first mean square error between the predicted right image and the right image; CHUMBLEY (US2018/0067340A1) discloses features are disclosed relating to an article such as eyewear customized to individual wearer parameters (e.g., measurements, preferences, etc.), and to systems and methods for customizing eyewear to individual wearer parameters. The system includes an input for receiving data representative of a three dimensional configuration of a portion of a wearer's face and an input for receiving data representative of a desired position where the wearer would like an eyewear frame to reside on the wearer's face. One system also includes a processor for determining a change in configuration of an eyewear component blank to allow the eyewear frame to reside in the desired position, and an eyewear component modifier for modifying the eyewear component blank so that the frame will reside in the desired position.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MAURICE L MCDOWELL, JR whose telephone number is (571)270-3707. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Fri: 2pm-10pm.
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, Said A. Broome can be reached at 571-272-2931. 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.
/MAURICE L. MCDOWELL, JR/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2612