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
Applicant’s amendments and arguments filed on 2/27/2026 have been considered. Claim 1-18 are pending in the application. Applicant’s amendments to the specifications and claims have overcome each and every objection and 35 U.S.C. 101 rejection previously set forth in the Non-Final Office Action mailed on 12/03/2025.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments filed on 2/27/2026 with respect to the rejection(s) of claim 1, 11, and 15 under Karasawa (US 20250225720 A1) in view of Gandman et al (US 20220405930 A1) and Lake et al (US 20050184997 A1) have been fully considered and are persuasive. Therefore, the rejection has been withdrawn. However, upon further consideration, a new ground(s) of rejection is made. Please see 35 U.S.C Rejection 103 below.
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.
Claim(s) 1, 15, 17 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Karasawa (US 20250225720 A1) in view of George et al (US 20210275026 A1) and Mory et al (US 20230070102 A1), hereinafter Karasawa, George, and Mory respectively.
Regarding claim 1, Karasawa teaches a method of identifying a surface property of an object (paragraph 40, ray tracing is a method by which the path of the light of interest is traced backward in order to obtain an apparent color on the surface of the object 108 and convert what is obtained into a pixel value note: color of the surface and pixel values are surface property), the method comprising: acquiring surface data of the object (pixel values, paragraph 40) by activating illumination element (paragraph 0039, light sources 116a, 116b, 116c) and capturing at least one image by detecting light reflected by the surface of the object (paragraph 37 photographed (actually measured) object, NOTE: inherently/obviously photo of an image are captured by detecting light reflected from the surface of the object) providing a 3D model of the surface of the 3D object by processing the surface data of the object (hand-made or photographed 3D object as disclosed in Par 39, NOTE: the reflection from the object of paragraph 0039 obviously/inherently come from the surface of the object), providing a virtual space (virtual space 110 as disclosed in Par 39), providing the 3D model in the virtual space (object 108 inside the virtual space 110 as disclosed in Par 39, Lines 2-4 and Fig.2), providing a virtual light source in the virtual space to virtually illuminate the 3D model with illumination light (“First, it is assumed here that an object 108 and light sources 116a, 116b, and 116c are arranged in a virtual space 110 for the display target. When a point of view 100 from which to view the virtual space is determined, a view screen 102 is established in a position and a posture corresponding to the position of the point of view and the direction of the line of sight.” - Par 39, Lines 2-8).
Karasawa does not teach a method for identifying a surface property of the skin of a person, the method comprising: acquiring surface data of the skin of the person by activating illumination elements for illuminating the skin of the person with measuring light and capturing at least one image by detecting measuring light reflected by the skin of the person by means of a camera. However, George teaches a method for identifying a surface property of the skin of a person (“ A non-limiting example computer-implemented method includes using, by a computer system, structured lights to acquire skin information of the skin, the skin information being associated with at least one affected area of the skin” – Abstract. NOTE: skin information refers to affected areas of the skin which is a surface property), the method comprising: acquiring surface data of the skin of the person by activating illumination elements for illuminating the skin of the person with measuring light (“3D skin images are generated using structured light in a structured lighting process. Structured light is light having a known pattern, including, for example, lines, grids, bars, and the like. Structured light is used in structured lighting processes to create three-dimensional (3D) objects and measure distances in an observed scene.” – Par 34. NOTE: structured light comes from device 1204, see par 83) and capturing at least one image by detecting measuring light reflected by the skin of the person by means of a camera (“The structured light will deform when striking surfaces, which allows a vision system (e.g., a camera) to capture the deformed structured light and calculate therefrom depth and surface information of any 3D topology that is present on the skin and struck by the structured light.” – Par 34. NOTE: Also see Par 86, Lines 17-22 for measuring light reflected off the skin ). After the combination, the 3D model of a person’s skin obtained through the illumination of a surface taught by George can be further analyzed by using the virtual light in the virtual environment as taught by Karasawa. Since a person’s skin can be considered as a 3D object, it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing data of the present application to modify Karasawa to incorporate George to include illuminating elements that illuminate the skin of a person when activated. This structure provides a method for acquiring the data from the image in order to recreate the skin as a 3D model to be put into the virtual space for further analysis. The illumination elements will help highlight the details of the person skin for an accurate depiction of one’s skin such as any deformities, damaging, and wrinkles.
Karasawa in view of George still does not teach wherein illumination parameters of the virtual light source are variable, and virtually illuminating the 3D model by applying a set of illumination parameters. However, Mory teaches wherein illumination parameters of the virtual light source are variable, and virtually illuminating the 3D model by applying a set of illumination parameters. (“In some examples, a position of the light source relative to the 3D objects and the plane may be adjusted and/or selected by a user via the user interface 324 (e.g., entering a distance value on a keyboard, dragging a light icon on a display closer or farther from a previously rendered 3D scene or icons representing the 2D image and/or 3D objects)” – Par 42 Lines 3-8. NOTE: Par 128 of applicant’s specifications define the relative position of the virtual light source to the 3D object as an example of illumination parameters. Mory teaches adjustment of such illumination parameters). It would have been obvious for ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing data of the present application to modify Karasawa in view of George to incorporate the teachings of Mory to have apply a set of illumination parameters to the virtual light. It is common in the art to have variable parameters that can be adjusted for the detailed control of the light illuminating the 3D object. This is useful for examining the generated 3D model of the skin for examining under different light sources, intensities, angles, or other characteristics.
Regarding claim 17, the claim describes a non-transitory computer readable medium (CRM) for performing the method of claim 1. Therefore, non-transitory CRM claim 17 corresponds to the method disclosed in claim 1 and is rejected for the same reasons of obviousness as used above.
Regarding claim 15, Karasawa in view of George and Mory teach the method of claim 1. Karasawa does not teach wherein the illumination parameters comprise at least one of: a relative position of the 3D model and the virtual light source, a wavelength of the illumination light, a property of the illumination light, in particular regarding diffused or collimated light, a polarisation state of the illumination light. However, Mory further teaches wherein the illumination parameters comprise at least one of: a relative position of the 3D model and the virtual light source (“a position of the light source relative to the 3D objects and the plane may be adjusted and/or selected by a user via the user interface 324” – Par 42, Lines 3-5), a wavelength of the illumination light (“other properties of the light source may also be selected by a user such as a size of the light source 600 and/or a color (e.g., wavelength range) of the light source 600” – Par 60, Lines 18-20), a property of the illumination light, in particular regarding diffused or collimated light, a polarisation state of the illumination light. NOTE: Mory teaches an adjustable position of the light source relative to the 3D object and selecting a wavelength which are understood as illumination parameters. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the present application to modify Karasawa by incorporating the teachings of Mory to at allow for at least one varying illumination parameters such as the position of the virtual light source relative to the 3D object or selection of wavelength. Providing ways to change the position of the light source relative to the object is one way to give user control over how the model of the skin will be illuminated. These preferences can be set in order to observe specific characteristics of the 3D model surface.
Claim 11 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Karasawa in view of George, Mory, and Norris (US 20250131673 A1), hereinafter Norris.
Regarding claim 11, Karasawa in view of George and Mory teach claim 1. However, Karasawa does not teach wherein the virtual light source is provided by at least one of a point light source an elongated light source, wherein the extension direction of which is parallel to the predominant direction, micro-illumination, wherein for each pixel an incidence angle is calculated based on an extension of the wrinkle or based on the illumination angle or a normal vector for the pixel. However, Norris teaches wherein the virtual light source is provided by at least one of a point light source (point light source as disclosed in Par 45) an elongated light source, wherein the extension direction of which is parallel to the predominant direction, micro-illumination, wherein for each pixel an incidence angle is calculated based on an extension of the wrinkle or based on the illumination angle or a normal vector for the pixel (“For example, the surrounding conditions may be selected to simulate a diffuse light booth, to simulate a point light source, to simulate a mixture of lighting conditions or light sources, to simulate reflective effects of a surrounding environment, or the like. In like manner, a light source may be positioned behind a viewpoint or observer position, on an opposite side of the object relative to the viewpoint position, etc., to further simulate possible lighting conditions.”- Par 45 Lines 17-25 [NOTE: Norris shows the simulation of a point light source directed to the opposite side of the object in virtual space.]). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing data of the present application to modify Karasawa to incorporate Norris to provide a virtual light source in the form of a point light. The point light source provides an effective tool for revealing the geometric details of the 3D model of the skin. The point light source also highlights various surface features such as wrinkles or pores by providing clarity to the 3D model’s shape and depth.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 2-10, 12-14, 16, and 18 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.
Regarding claim 2, Karasawa in view of George and Mory teach the method of claim 1. Karasawa does not teach wherein the 3D model is provided by: deriving a point cloud based on the surface data, generating a 3D mesh based on the point cloud, in particular a textured 3D mesh, identifying a set of landmarks in the 3D mesh, providing a base template of the skin of the person to be modelled, providing the 3D model by fusing the 3D mesh and the base template utilising the landmarks. However, Comploi et al (US 20200312002 A1), hereinafter Comploi, teaches wherein the 3D model is provided by: deriving a point cloud based on the surface data, generating a 3D mesh based on the point cloud, in particular a textured 3D mesh, identifying a set of landmarks in the 3D mesh, providing a base template of the skin of the person to be modelled (“After operation 232, operation 216 proceeds to step 234 and a user 3D mesh is generated. For example, the processor 120 uses the landmark information and depth information detected in the user 3D information to generate a user mesh, e.g., a 3D geometric representation or point cloud corresponding to the user's features. FIGS. 8B and 8C illustrate examples of the initial user 3D mesh 464, 466.” – Par 54 Lines 1-7. Karasawa in view of George, Mory, and Comploi still do not teach providing the 3D model by fusing the 3D mesh and the base template utilising the landmarks, wherein the number of meshes of the 3D mesh is maintained, applying texturing of the 3D model with at least micro-normal texturing data related to the skin of the person, wherein the micro-normal texturing data is derived based on a specular map or based on data derived with a measuring system. None of the prior art searched, alone or in combination, renders obvious to the limitations of claim 2.
Claim 3 is dependent on claim 2, and is therefore allowable for the same reasons listed above.
Regarding claim 4, Karasawa in view of George and Mory teach the method of claim 1. Karasawa does not teach wherein the method provides virtually illuminating the 3D model by illuminating of wrinkles by selecting or defining a wrinkle region in the 3D model which comprises at least one wrinkle, defining a predominant direction which represents a predominant extension of the at least one wrinkle, computing a region normal which represents a normal direction related to the wrinkle region, wherein the region normal corresponds to a normal vector in the centre of the wrinkle region, orienting an illumination axis perpendicular to the predominant direction and enclosing an illumination angle (β) with the region normal, in particular wherein the illumination axis intersects the region normal, and providing the virtual light source on the illumination axis. However, Patwardhan et al (US 20110206254 A1), hereinafter Patwardhan, teaches wherein the method provides virtually illuminating the 3D model by illuminating of wrinkles by selecting or defining a wrinkle region in the 3D model which comprises at least one wrinkle (“The surface reflection image is useful for showing the distribution of light (from the one or more illumination sources) on the imaged skin area, and highlighting superficial features such as wrinkles, fine lines, folds, pores, texture, and visible spots” Par 63 Lines 10-13.). Karasawa in view of George, Mory, and Patwardhan still does not teach defining a predominant direction which represents a predominant extension of the at least one wrinkle, computing a region normal which represents a normal direction related to the wrinkle region, wherein the region normal corresponds to a normal vector in the centre of the wrinkle region, orienting an illumination axis perpendicular to the predominant direction and enclosing an illumination angle (3) with the region normal, in particular wherein the illumination axis intersects the region normal, and providing the virtual light source on the illumination axis. None of the prior art searched, alone or in combination, renders obvious to the limitations of claim 4.
Claim 5-7, 9-10, and 12-13 are dependent on claim 4, and is therefore allowable for the same reasons listed above.
Claim 8 is dependent on claim 7, which is dependent on claim 4, and is therefore allowable for the same reasons listed above.
Claim 14 is dependent on claim 13, which is dependent on claim 4, and is therefore allowable for the same reasons listed above.
Claim 16 is dependent on claim 14, which is dependent on claim 13, which is dependent on claim 4, and is therefore allowable for the same reasons listed above.
Claim 18 which is dependent on claim 16, which is dependent on claim 14, which is dependent on claim 13, which is dependent on claim 4, and is therefore allowable for the same reasons listed above.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to DAVID V. NGUYEN whose telephone number is (571)272-6111. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 9:00-5:00.
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 Y Poon can be reached at 571-270-0728. 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.
/DAVID VAN NGUYEN/Examiner, Art Unit 2617
/KING Y POON/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2617
Prosecution Insights