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 Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 2-4, 18-19, 26-28, and 30-32 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Claim 2 recites the limitation "a circularity" in line 7.
Claim 18 recites the limitations “preset face-mask reference values”, “a first face site”, and “a second face site”.
Claim 26 recites the limitations “preset face-mask reference values”, “a first face site”, and “a second face site”.
Claim 30 recites the limitations “preset face-mask reference values”, “a first face site”, and “a second face site”.
These limitations have insufficient antecedent basis. Additionally, the examiner recommends that “first face site” and “second face site” in claims 18, 26, and 30, be “first human-face site” and “second human-face site”, respectively.
Claims 3-4, 19, 27-28, and 31-32 are similarly rejected for their dependency to claims 2, 18, 30, and 36.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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) 1-2, 5, 17-19, 23-26, 29-30, and 33 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Fu et al. (US-20180117272-A1), and further in view of Fonte et al. (US-20180299704-A1).
Regarding claim 1, Fu teaches:
a method for determining a human-face size, wherein the method comprises:
collecting a first to-be-measured human-face image of a to-be-measured target (“Step 810 reads the next captured image. Step 820 detects facial features (eyes and mouth) in the captured image,” Para [0182]),
wherein the first to-be-measured human-face image comprises a first to-be-measured human face of the to-be- measured target (“Step 820 detects facial features (eyes and mouth) in the captured image,” Para [0182]) and a circular reference object (“Step 830 detects the reference feature (the coin) in the captured image,” Para [0182]);
acquiring a first pixel value of the first to-be-measured human face (“Once the pixel coordinates for these facial features are identified, the application controls processor 310 to measure the pixel distance between certain of the identified features. For example, the distance may generally be determined by the number of pixels for each feature,” Para [0166]), and a second pixel value of the circular reference object (“processor 310 similarly determines the reference feature's dimensions, which can include pixel width and/or pixel height (x and y) measurements (e.g., pixel counts) of the entire reference feature,” Para [0168]);
in response to a circularity of the circular reference object (“ellipse”) being greater than a preset circularity threshold (“Step 1250 therefore checks whether the measured height of the ellipse from step 1160 is less than the measured width, also from step 1160. If so (“Y”), the measured face height from step 1240 may be corrected for horizontal rotation,” Para [0192]),
and according to the first pixel value (“measured face height”), the second pixel value (“measured height of the ellipse”),
Fu fails to teach the following limitations as further claimed. Fonte, however, further teaches:
acquiring an angle of inclination of the circular reference object (“With prior knowledge of the reference object, the angle of the object relative to the camera is determined. The angle and the measured distance on the image plane is used to determine to the true reference dimension of the object,” Para [0167]).
Fonte is considered to be analogous to the claimed invention because they are both in the field of finding true facial measurements from an image of a face using a reference object, such as a coin. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have incorporated the teachings of Fonte into Fu for the benefit of more accurate facial measurements.
Regarding claim 2, the rejection of claim 1 is incorporated herein. Fu in view of Fonte teaches the method of claim 1, and Fu further teaches:
in response to a circularity being less than or equal to the preset circularity threshold (“In the ellipse 1320, the width is less than the height, so there is no need for correction of the measured face height for horizontal rotation,” Para [0192]), according to the first pixel value, the second pixel value and the actual size, determining the first size (“Otherwise (“N”), step 1170 sets the measured diameter of the coin to the height of the ellipse (as a pixel count). Finally, step 1175 calculates the scaling factor as the true diameter of the coin (a known quantity, e.g. in millimetres) divided by the measured diameter of the coin from step 1170 or step 1165,” Para [0189], where the scaling factor can be used to find true face measurements).
Regarding claim 5, the rejection of claim 1 is incorporated herein. Fu in view of Fonte teaches the method of claim 1, and Fu further teaches:
wherein the circular reference object comprises an iris in the first to-be-measured human-face image (“In a further implementation, the reference feature may be a feature of the eye(s) such as the iris or cornea of the user,” Para [0198]).
Regarding claim 17, the rejection of claim 1 is incorporated herein. Fu in view of Fonte teach the method of claim 1, and Fu further teaches:
A method for determining a face-mask model, wherein the method comprises:
by using the method for determining the human-face size according to claim 1,
obtaining a target human-face size (“measure an aspect of the one or more facial features detected in the image based on the predetermined reference feature,” Para [0060]); and
according to a plurality of groups of preset face-mask reference values and the target human- face size, determining a face-mask model of the to-be-measured target (“select a patient interface size from a group of standard patient interface sizes based on a comparison between the measured aspect of the one or more facial features and a data record relating sizing information of the group of standard patient interface sizes and the measured aspect of the one or more facial features,” Para [0060]),
wherein the plurality of groups of preset face-mask reference values correspond to a plurality of face-mask models (“data record relating sizing information of the group of standard patient interface sizes,” Para [0164]).
Regarding claim 18, the rejection of claim 18 is incorporated herein. Fu in view of Fonte teaches the method of claim 17, and Fu further teaches:
wherein each of the plurality of groups of preset face-mask reference values comprises a first reference value corresponding to a first human-face site (for example: “measurements between the left and right alares,” Para [0166]) and a second reference value (for example: “pixel distance between each eye,” Para [0166]) corresponding to a second human-face site (“the final facial feature measurements that reflect the distances between the patient's actual facial features are compared by processor 310 to patient interface size data such as in a data record,” Para [0176]),
and the target human-face size comprises a plurality of site sizes corresponding to a first face site and a second face site (“Once the pixel coordinates for these facial features are identified, the application controls processor 310 to measure the pixel distance between certain of the identified features,” Para [0166]); and
the step of, according to the plurality of groups of preset face-mask reference values and the target human-face size, determining the face-mask model of the to-be-measured target comprises:
in response to the site size corresponding to the first face site matching with the first reference value, determining the face-mask model corresponding to the first reference value (“Processor 310 compares the user's measurements to determine an appropriate size or “best fit,” such as by identifying one or more ranges within which the measurements fall and then selecting the interface size, such as from a group of standard sizes (e.g., small, medium, or large, etc.),” Para [0177]).
Regarding claim 19, the rejection of claim 18 is incorporated herein. Fu in view of Fonte teaches the method of claim 18, and Fu further teaches finding a “best-fit” mask based on similarities between a user’s facial measurements and predetermined ranges for those measurements for standard mask sizes stored in a look-up table, as shown in paragraphs [0176-0177]. It would have been obvious to find a “best-fit” mask for a user for increased comfort and efficacy of the mask.
Claims 23-25 correspond to claim 1. The rejection of claim 1 is thus applied to claims 23-25.
Claims 26 and 30 correspond to claim 2. The rejection of claim 2 is thus applied to claims 26 and 30.
Claims 29 and 33 correspond to claim 5. The rejection of claim 5 is thus applied to claims 29 and 33.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 3-4, 27-28, and 31-32 are 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 claims are potentially allowable on account of the prior art failing to anticipate or render obvious the limitations of the allowable subject matter. The primary reason for allowance for claim 3 is the implementation of “in response to the circularity of the circular reference object being greater than the preset circularity threshold, acquiring the angle of inclination of the circular reference object comprises: acquiring a standard major axis of the circular reference object, wherein the standard major axis refers to, in response to the circularity being greater than the preset circularity threshold, a longest diameter in the circular reference object; acquiring a first major axis in a first direction and a second major axis in a second direction in the circular reference object, wherein the first direction refers to a straight line where a connecting line between centers of two eyes in the first to-be-measured human-face image is located, and the second direction refers to a straight line where a connecting line between an eyebrow center and a nasal tip in the first to-be-measured human-face image is located; according to the standard major axis and the first major axis, determining a horizontal angle of inclination of the circular reference object; and according to the standard major axis and the second major axis, determining a vertical angle of inclination of the circular reference object”. Although prior art that uses a reference object in order to “cancel” angles caused by non-parallel cameras does implement methods to correct those angles, currently none on the record render claim 3 novel or obvious. Claim 4 is allowable by nature of its dependency on claim 3. Claims 27-28 and 31-32 are substantially similar to claims 3-4, making them also allowable.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Neal et al. (US-20210361897-A1) describes a method for finding a CPAP mask that fits a user correctly.
Ravindra (US-20170278272-A1) describes a method for determining if a body will fit an article of clothing based on imported body measurements.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to RACHEL A OMETZ whose telephone number is (571)272-2535. The examiner can normally be reached 6:45am-4:00pm ET Monday-Thursday, 6:45am-1:00pm ET every other Friday.
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, Vu Le can be reached at 571-272-7332. 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.
/Rachel Anne Ometz/Examiner, Art Unit 2668 2/24/26
/VU LE/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2668