DETAILED ACTION
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on 04/23/2026 has been entered.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(a) which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
(a) A patent may not be obtained though the invention is not identically disclosed or described as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the subject matter sought to be patented and the prior art are such that the subject matter as a whole would have been obvious at the time the invention was made to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which said subject matter pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
Claim 1, 2, 7, 8, 9, 14, 15, 16, 20 is/are rejected under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(a) as being unpatentable over Smolyanskiy et al. (US 20130121526) in view of Du et al. (US 20140035934).
Regarding claim 1, Smolyanskiy discloses A method comprising: capturing, by one or more sensors of an electronic device, first sensor data of a plurality of expressions of a face of a user; determining a representation of the face of the user based on the first sensor data; generating a user-specific expression model based on the representation of the face of the user (Smolyanskiy, “claim 16, A method for generating a face model of a user's face, comprising: capturing a series of frames containing the user's face in a variety of head poses and facial expressions; fitting two-dimensional feature points to the user's face in each frame in a batch of frames using a two-dimensional face alignment technique; determining a desired batch size that dictates how many images from the series of images to include in the batch of frames; selecting frames to include in the batch of frames using the desired batch size; constructing an energy function over the batch of frames; solving the energy function for three-dimensional head shape parameter updates that are valid for the batch of frames and each frame contained therein; generating a face model of the user's face from the three-dimensional head shape parameter update”).
On the other hand, Smolyanskiy fails to explicitly disclose but Du discloses driving, by the electronic device an avatar, comprising: capturing, by the electronic device, second sensor data of the face of the user, wherein the second sensor data is captured after the first sensor data, and determine, by the electronic device, expression parameters from the second sensor data, wherein the expression parameters and the user-specific expression model are used to animate the avatar (Du, fig.4, “[0018] Although such figures presented herein may include a particular logic flow, it can be appreciated that the logic flow merely provides an example of how the general functionality described herein can be implemented. Further, the given logic flow does not necessarily have to be executed in the order presented unless otherwise indicated. [0052] these gestures and expressions may be expressed as animation parameters. Such animation parameters are transferred to a graphics rendering engine. In this way, the avatar system will be able to reproduce the original user's facial expression on a virtual 3D model. [0055] As shown in FIG. 4, a video frame is read at a block 402. In embodiments, this video frame may be read from a camera placed in front of a user. From this, the face tracking module analyzes the face area, and calculates the animation parameters according to the facial image. As shown in FIG. 4, this may involve the performance of blocks 404-412. [0057] FIG. 4 shows that, at a block 414, the animation parameters are sent to a rendering engine. In turn, the rendering engine drives an avatar 3D model based on the animation parameters at a block 416. [0060] In these blocks, a head model is projected onto a face area detected within the video frame that was read at block 402. More particularly, embodiments may employ a parameterized 3D head model to help the facial action tracking. The shape (e.g., the wireframe) of the 3D model is fully controlled by a set of parameters. In projecting the 3D model onto the face area of the input image, its parameters are adjusted so that the wireframe changes its shape and matches the user head position and facial expression. [0063] Thus, the control parameters of the 3D head model may be repeatedly updated until a satisfactory convergence with the current face occurs”. Therefore, the 3D head model with a satisfactory convergence corresponds to the user-specific expression model).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have combined Smolyanskiy and Du, to include all limitations of claim 1. That is, applying the driving avatar steps of Du after the method of Smolyanskiy is performed. Du particularly points out that the given logic flow does not necessarily have to be executed in the order presented. Namely, the second sensor data can be captured after the first sensor data. The motivation/ suggestion would have been a practical, real time (or super real time), online and low communication bandwidth avatar system may be implemented (Du, [0014]).
Regarding claim 2, Smolyanskiy in view of Du discloses The method of claim 1.
Smolyanskiy further discloses wherein the first sensor data is captured from a plurality of angles with respect to the user (Smolyanskiy, “claim 2, capturing a plurality of frames of the user's face over time in different head poses and facial expressions such that the batch of frames contains head pose diversity and facial expression diversity”. Therefore, different head poses indicate a plurality of angle with respect to the user).
Regarding claim 7, Smolyanskiy in view of Du discloses The method of claim 1.
On the other hand, Smolyanskiy fails to explicitly disclose but Du discloses wherein the expression parameters and the user-specific expression model are used to animate the avatar by causing the avatar to mimic an expression in the second sensor data (Du, “[0052] Such animation parameters are transferred to a graphics rendering engine. In this way, the avatar system will be able to reproduce the original user's facial expression on a virtual 3D model. [0061] For instance, FIG. 4 shows that, at block 404, the head model is projected onto the detected face (also referred to as the current face). As indicated by a block 412, blocks 404-410 may be repeated if the 3D head model and the current face have not converged within a predetermined amount. Otherwise, operation may proceed to a block 414. [0063] Thus, the control parameters of the 3D head model may be repeatedly updated until a satisfactory convergence with the current face occurs”). The same motivation of claim 1 applies here.
Regarding claim(s) 8, 9, 14, Du further discloses “[0090] Some embodiments may be implemented, for example, using a storage medium or article which is machine readable. The storage medium may store an instruction or a set of instructions that, if executed by a machine, may cause the machine to perform a method and/or operations in accordance with the embodiments. Such a machine may include, for example, any suitable processing platform, computing platform, computing device, processing device, computing system, processing system, computer, processor, or the like, and may be implemented using any suitable combination of hardware and/or software”. Therefore, they are interpreted and rejected for the same reasons set forth in claim(s) 1, 2, 7, respectively.
Regarding claim(s) 15, 16, 20, Du further discloses “[0090] Some embodiments may be implemented, for example, using a storage medium or article which is machine readable. The storage medium may store an instruction or a set of instructions that, if executed by a machine, may cause the machine to perform a method and/or operations in accordance with the embodiments. Such a machine may include, for example, any suitable processing platform, computing platform, computing device, processing device, computing system, processing system, computer, processor, or the like, and may be implemented using any suitable combination of hardware and/or software”. Therefore, they are interpreted and rejected for the same reasons set forth in claim(s) 1, 2, 7, respectively.
Claim(s) 4, 11, 17 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Smolyanskiy et al. (US 20130121526) in view of Du et al. (US 20140035934), and further in view of Deering (US 6525725).
Regarding claim 4, Smolyanskiy in view of Du discloses The method of claim 1.
On the other hand, Smolyanskiy in view of Du fails to explicitly disclose but Deering discloses wherein the representation of the face of the user comprises a polygonal mesh for each expression of the plurality of expressions (Deering, “Deering, “(58) For example, in one embodiment graphics system 112 may be configured to store a plurality of polygons into memory 162, wherein the polygons correspond to an object (e.g., a human face) in a different state (e.g., with a happy expression, with a sad expression, with a confused expression, etc.). Graphics process or 160 may then be configured to morph different combinations of the stored object states in response to receiving particular instructions. Such a configuration would allow the graphics system to render a face with a wide variety of expressions based on a few predefined expressions stored in memory 162”).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have combined Deering into the combination of Smolyanskiy and Du, to include all limitations of claim 4. That is, applying the predefined expressions of Deering to the facial expressions of Smolyanskiy and Du. The motivation/ suggestion would have been The weighting functions used may use all or merely a subset of the stored object states to generate the desired intermediate expression (Deering, (58)).
Regarding claim(s) 11, 17, they are interpreted and rejected for the same reasons set forth in claim(s) 4.
Claim(s) 5, 12, 18 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Smolyanskiy et al. (US 20130121526) in view of Du et al. (US 20140035934), and further in view of Farrer et al. (US 20120176379).
Regarding claim 5, Smolyanskiy in view of Du discloses The method of claim 1.
On the other hand, Smolyanskiy in view of Du fails to explicitly disclose but Farrer discloses wherein the first sensor data comprises image data and depth data (Farrer, “[0043] As is described above, the output of the 3-D camera 104 comprises a series of frames (indexed by n=1, 2, . . . , N), for example, at 24 or 30 frames per second. The resulting frames can include a sequence of 2-D intensity images q.sup.n(x, y) 108 (e.g., a gray scale intensity image) and a sequence of depth maps z.sup.n(x, y) 106 that provide 3-D information”).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have combined Farrer into the combination of Du and Smolyanskiy. That is, applying the 2D image and depth image of Farrer to generate the image data of Smolyanskiy in view of Du. The motivation/ suggestion would have been A two-dimensional mesh animation is determined based on motion tracking in the acquired images. The two-dimensional mesh animation is then combined with the depth maps for form three-dimensional mesh animation suitable for rendering (Farrer, abstract).
Regarding claim(s) 12, 18, they are interpreted and rejected for the same reasons set forth in claim(s) 5.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claim(s) 6, 13, 19 is/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 following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter:
Regarding claim 6, it recites, wherein the expression parameters and the user-specific expression model are used to animate the avatar by performing an optimization of the expression parameters and animation priors for the avatar. None of the prior arts on the record or any of the prior arts searched, alone or in combination, renders obvious the combination of elements recited in the claim(s) as a whole.
Regarding claims 13, 19, they are interpreted and allowed for the same reasons set forth in claim 6.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed on 04/23/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
The applicant submitted: However, Du is silent regarding using any user-specific expression model. Rather, in Du, as described with respect to FIG. 4, facial tracking is performed for a particular video frame to generate frame-specific parameters (414). Those parameters are used to drive an avatar (416). Accordingly, at best, the output parameters (414) that the Examiner contends discloses the claimed expression parameters are used to drive the avatar at (416), but the convergence arising from the projection at (404) is not used to drive the avatar (remarks, page 7).
The examiner respectfully disagrees. Du discloses “[0060] The shape (e.g., the wireframe) of the 3D model is fully controlled by a set of parameters. In projecting the 3D model onto the face area of the input image, its parameters are adjusted so that the wireframe changes its shape and matches the user head position and facial expression. [0063] Thus, the control parameters of the 3D head model may be repeatedly updated until a satisfactory convergence with the current face occurs”. Therefore, the face of the input image corresponds to a specific user’s face, which is user-specific expressions, and the 3D head model with a satisfactory convergence corresponds to the user-specific expression model.
Du further discloses “[0052] these gestures and expressions may be expressed as animation parameters. Such animation parameters are transferred to a graphics rendering engine. In this way, the avatar system will be able to reproduce the original user's facial expression on a virtual 3D model. [0057] FIG. 4 shows that, at a block 414, the animation parameters are sent to a rendering engine. In turn, the rendering engine drives an avatar 3D model based on the animation parameters at a block 416”. Thus, the 3D head model with a satisfactory convergence, and animation parameters with regard to expressions are used to drive an avatar. In fig.4, arrows flow from 404 to 406, and when it is converged, eventually flow to 414, 416. This flow indicates the convergence arising from the projection at (404) is used to drive the avatar (416).
The applicant submitted: The distinction is further made clear when considering that the representation of the face of the user is determined based on first sensor data. That representation is used to "generating a user-specific expression model." However, the expression parameters are determined from second sensor data, which is captured after the first sensor data. By contrasts, the video frame 402 is used for both the convergence the Examiner contends discloses the user-specific expression model and the parameters the output parameters the Examiner contends discloses the claimed expression parameters (remarks, page 7).
The examiner respectfully disagrees. It is the combination of Smolyanskiy and Du to teach all limitations of claim 1. First of all, they are analogous prior arts, both of which are related to animating a user’s face using models, facial expression and animation parameters. The combination is applying the driving avatar steps of Du after the method of Smolyanskiy is performed. Du teaches “[0018] Although such figures presented herein may include a particular logic flow, it can be appreciated that the logic flow merely provides an example of how the general functionality described herein can be implemented. Further, the given logic flow does not necessarily have to be executed in the order presented unless otherwise indicated”. Du particularly points out that the given logic flow does not necessarily have to be executed in the order presented. Namely, the second sensor data of Du can be captured after the first sensor data of Smolyanskiy.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to GRACE Q LI whose telephone number is (571)270-0497. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday, 8:00 am-5:00 pm.
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, DEVONA FAULK can be reached at 571-272-7515. 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.
/GRACE Q LI/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2618 6/12/2026
Prosecution Insights