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 Amendment
This is in response to the amendments filed on 6/18/26. Claims 1 and 17 – 19 have been amended, claims 6 and 9 have been cancelled, and claims 3, 8, and 20 were previously cancelled. Claims 1, 2, 4, 5, 7, 9 – 19, and 21 are now pending in the current application.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101
35 U.S.C. 101 reads as follows:
Whoever invents or discovers any new and useful process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter, or any new and useful improvement thereof, may obtain a patent therefore, subject to the conditions and requirements of this title.
Claims 1, 2, 4, 5, 7, 10 – 19, and 21 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to non-statutory subject matter.
Step 1: It must be determined whether the invention falls into one of the four statutory categories of invention. Claims 1, 2, 4, 5, 7, and 10 - 17 are directed towards a method, (process) and claims 18, 19, and 21 are directed towards an apparatus and a medium, (machine), which are statutory categories of invention.
Step 2a:
Prong 1: It must be determined whether the invention is directed to judicially recognized exception. Claim 1 is analyzed below with limitations indicating recitations of an abstract idea.
1. An operation control method performed by a terminal device comprising a front camera, a screen, at least one processor, and at least one memory storing instructions executable by the at least one processor, the method comprising: obtaining, by the front camera of the terminal device, a face image of a target user, and displaying the face image on the screen of the terminal device; detecting, by the at least one processor, position information of a target part in the face image; based on the detected position information, displaying, on the screen of the terminal device, a target virtual prop, in an initial display form, at a relative position corresponding to the detected position information on the face image; adjusting, by the at least one processor, a display form of the target virtual prop based on detected state information of the target part; and after adjusting the display form of the target virtual prop to meet a preset condition, displaying, on the screen of the terminal device, a target animation effect corresponding to the target virtual prop, wherein the adjusting a display form of the target virtual prop based on detected state information of the target part comprises: adjusting the display form of the target virtual prop in a case that it is detected that a state attribute of the target part meets a preset state attribute condition and it is detected, based on sound data of the target user, that a sound attribute meets a preset sound attribute condition wherein in a case that the target part is a mouth and the target virtual prop is a virtual balloon, the state attribute of the target part meeting the preset state attribute condition comprises that the target part is in a mouth-pouting state, and wherein, in a case that the target part is the mouth and the target virtual prop is the virtual balloon, displaying the target animation effect corresponding to the target virtual prop comprises displaying a target animation effect in which the virtual balloon is blown up or blown away.
The abstract idea is defined by the underlined portions exemplary claim 1, with substantially similar features found in claims 17 and 18. Dependent claims 2, 4, 5, 7, 10 – 16, 19, and 21 further define the abstract idea or relate to the implementation of the abstract idea. The abstract idea is defined in at least the following grouping below:
Certain methods of organizing human activity (managing personal behavior)
Mental processes (observation, evaluation, judgment)
The claims are directed towards an abstract idea of managing personal behavior which falls into the category of organizing human activity, (See MPEP 2106/04(a)(2)(II)(C)). More specifically, the claimed invention recites a device that comprises a camera that is configured to capture the face image of a user, wherein the face image is then displayed on a screen of the device, wherein the device further comprises displaying a virtual prop which corresponds to a detected position of the face image, wherein the virtual prop is a virtual balloon, and the detected position of the face image is a mouth, wherein the device further displays an animation affect in which the virtual balloon is blown up or blown away. Controlling a device that captures and displays the face of a user and then displaying a virtual prop that corresponds to the face image of the user represents managing personal behavior. (Intellectual Ventures I LLC v. Capital One Bank (USA), 792 F.3d 1363, 115 USPQ2d 1636 (Fed. Cir. 2015).
The claims are also directed towards a series of steps which can practically be performed by one or more humans, which fall into the category of mental processes, (See MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(III)). More specifically, the claimed invention recites device comprising a camera that is configured to capture the face image of a user, wherein the face image is then displayed on a screen of the device, wherein the device further comprises displaying a virtual prop which corresponds to a detected position of the face image. The claims further recite adjusting a display form of the virtual prop, (a balloon), wherein after adjusting the virtual prop, the device outputs sound and displays an animation effect which shows the balloon being blown up or blown away by the captured face image. The claims recite instructions with these features. Here, a human can observe the capturing of the face image, the addition of a virtual balloon being positioned near the mouth of the face image, the sound that corresponds to the face image and the balloon, and the animation effect of face image and the balloon, wherein a user can make the determination of whether the balloon is being blown up or blown away. For example, in the event that a person is at a birthday party and is watching a person with a balloon, a human can observe a person interacting with a balloon, wherein a human can make the determination whether is being blown up or blown away based on the state of the balloon. Therefore, since the claimed invention can practically be performed in the human mind, it represents an ineligible abstract mental process. (Intellectual Ventures I LLC v. Symantec Corp., 838 F. 3d 1307).
Prong 2: Does the Claim recite additional elements that integrate the exception into a practical application of the exception?
The claims recite a generic processor, camera, and memory along with instructions that captures and displays a face image of a user, and also adds a virtual prop to the face image, which is viewed as no more than instructions to implement a judicial exception.
These additional limitations do not represent an improvement to the functioning of a computer, or to any other technology or technical field, (MPEP 2106.05(a)). Nor do they apply the exception using a particular machine, (MPEP 2106.05(b)). Furthermore, they do not affect a transformation. (MPEP 2106.05(c)). Rather, these additional limitations amount to an instruction to “apply” the judicial exception using a computer as a tool to perform the abstract idea.
Step 2b: It must be determined whether the claimed invention recites additional elements that amount to significantly more than the judicial exception.
The claim language does recite a processor, memory, and a face image that is associated with a user, however, viewed as a whole, these additional elements are indistinguishable from conventional computing elements known in the art, (See Stamper et al. par. 0007 regarding image capture and manipulation as being well-known in the art). The claims further recite an animation effect of a virtual balloon being blown up or blown away. Nothing in the claims provide details about the balloon animation representing a technical improvement. (See Chen et al. U.S. 2019/0362554 par. 0003 regarding augmented reality comprising graphic animations as being conventional). The recitation that a virtual balloon is blown up or blown away is not tethered to a specific, claims technical mechanism. 2106.05(g) (insignificant extra-solution activity). Therefore, the additional elements fail to supply additional elements that yield significantly more than the underlying abstract idea. Viewing the limitations as an ordered combination adds nothing that is not already present when looking at the elements taken individually. There is no indication that the combination of elements improves the functioning of a computer or improves any other technology.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments, with respect to the 102 rejection of claims 1, 2, 4, 5, 7, 10 – 19, and 21 have been fully considered and are persuasive. The 102 rejection of claims 1, 2, 4, 5, 7, 10 – 19, and 21 has been withdrawn.
Applicant's arguments filed with respect to the 101 rejection of claims 1, 2, 4, 5, 7, 10 – 19, and 21 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. Regarding claims 1, 2, 4, 5, 7, 10 – 19, and 21, Applicants argue that “amended claim 1 is directed to a specific terminal-device-based operation-control process and is patent eligible”. More specifically it is argued that “amended claim 1 is not directed merely to an abstract idea such as managing personal behavior or relationships or interactions between people. Rather, amended claim 1 recites a specific operation-control method performed by a particular terminal device having a front camera, a screen, a processor, and a memory. The claimed process uses the front camera to obtain a face image, uses the processor to detect position information and evaluate state and sound conditions, uses the screen to display a virtual balloon at a position corresponding to the detected position information on the face image, and uses the processor and screen together to adjust and display the virtual balloon and its target animation effect” The Examiner respectfully disagrees. The amended claim language merely reciting that image capture, image display, image manipulation, and audio being done by a processor, memory, and a camera is viewed as computer components performing routine and ordinary functions. The courts have determined that claims that are directed to data collection and recognition are abstract ideas and is a well-known practice, (See Content Extraction and Transmission LLC v. Wells Fargo Bank (776 F.3d 1343).
Applicants further argue that “nor is amended claim 1 a mental process”. More specifically, it is argued that “a person cannot practically perform, in the human mind, the claimed steps of obtaining a face image by a front camera of a terminal device, displaying the face image on a screen of the terminal device, detecting by a processor position information of a target part in the face image, detecting based on sound data that a sound attribute meets a preset sound attribute condition, displaying a virtual balloon at a corresponding position on the screen, adjusting the display form of the virtual balloon by a processor, and displaying a balloon-specific blown-up or blown-away animation effect on the screen”. While the Examiner agrees that the processing and image capturing steps cannot be performed in a human mind, however, it is the observation and determination of these steps that the Examiner considers as a mental process. As stated above, the claims recite instructions that capture the face image of a user, displays a virtual prop which corresponds to the face image and then determines whether a virtual balloon is being blown up or blown away. These actions related to the terminal device capturing and manipulating said images can be observed and determined in the human mind. For example, nothing precludes a human from observing the capturing and displaying of a face image, adding a virtual balloon to said image, and observing the animation of the face image and the virtual balloon interacting, and nothing precludes a human from determining whether the virtual balloon is being blown up or blown away. This process can literally be performed in the human mind, which represents an ineligible abstract mental process. (Intellectual Ventures I LLC v. Symantec Corp., 838 F. 3d 1307).
Applicants further argue that “amended claim 1 does not merely append a generic computer to an abstract idea”. More specifically, it is argued that “claim 1 recites an abstract idea, the claim as amended integrates any alleged judicial exception into a practical application. The claim does not merely state a desired result of displaying an animation. Instead, claim 1 recites a concrete sequence of operations tied to terminal-device components: the front camera obtains the user's face image; the screen displays the face image; the processor detects position information of a target part in the face image; the screen displays a virtual balloon at a relative position corresponding to that detected position information; the processor adjusts the display form of the virtual balloon when the mouth-pouting state condition and the sound-attribute condition are met; and the screen displays a target animation effect corresponding to the adjusted virtual balloon”, and that “these limitations are not merely extra-solution activity”. The Examiner respectfully disagrees. The current claim language does not recite steps that represent an improvement to the functioning of a computer, or to any other technology or technical field nor do the claims amount to significantly more than the abstract idea of processing data, because the additional elements, processor, memory, and camera, are recited generically. Merely disclosing that image capture and manipulation is performed by a processor, memory, and camera, does not, as claimed, improve the functioning of computers. Their collective functions provide conventional computer implementation of an abstract process.
Applicants further argue that “amended claim 1 also recites significantly more than any alleged judicial exception. The claimed combination is not a mere recitation of conventional data collection and result display.” More specifically, it is argued that “the face-image capture by a front camera, display on a terminal screen, processor-based detection of a target part, display of a mouth-associated virtual balloon, processor-based adjustment triggered by a mouth-pouting state and a sound attribute detected based on sound data, and display of a balloon-specific animation effect. This ordered combination imposes meaningful limits on the claim and is not simply an instruction to implement an abstract idea on generic computing devices.” The Examiner respectfully disagrees. The Examiner views these examples as image capture and manipulation rules rather than technical improvements. Merely disclosing that an electronic device and computing hardware and software performing image capture and manipulation rules does not, as claimed, improve the functioning of computers. With respect to the Berkheimer decision, reference is made for example, (Stamper et al. 2002/0082082), which shows a system that discloses image capture and manipulation as being known in the art, (see par. 007 of Stamper). For these reasons, the Examiner maintains that the claims are not patent-eligible under 35 USC 101.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ERIC M THOMAS whose telephone number is (571)272-1699. The examiner can normally be reached 9:00am - 5:00pm.
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, Dmitry Suhol can be reached at 571-272-4430. 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.
/E.M.T/ Examiner, Art Unit 3715
/JUSTIN L MYHR/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3715
Prosecution Insights