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 .
Potential Shift of Invention
MPEP 821.03 explains that claims that are drawn to an invention other than the one previously claimed may be withdrawn due to impermissible shift. Here, the present claims have been amended to recite that the camera is making adjustments instead of the user. Such an approach differs from the previously claimed invention (and the title of the invention). However, because the primary reference teaches the present claims, it is not a search burden. Nonetheless, amending the claims further in this direction may constitute an impermissible shift.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments and amendment have persuasively overcome the claims objections and the 112 rejections.
As to the 101 rejection, Applicant argues “a user cannot simply detect facial landmarks of a user based on a deep learning model during a video conferencing operation and based on a digital frame in an image signal processor.”
The examiner responds that deep learning models are considered a mental process. See the 2024 abstract idea guidance (cited in the updated 101 rejection) and Recentive Analytics, Inc. v. Fox Corp., 134 F. 4th 1205 (Fed. Cir. 2025). Here, people look at each other and recognize facial landmarks (e.g., the way people identify relatives). Combining people looking at each other (a mental process) with deep learning models (also a mental process) results in a mental process.
Applicant also argues “During the video conference, users tend to center their faces in a certain area so that the camera can capture a reasonable visual image. However, blind or visually impaired users cannot see how their face is shown in a video stream, and so typically rely on sighted users to provide feedback on their appearance. See Specification paras. [0011] - [0012].”
The examiner responds that this shows that the claimed process is merely automating a manual (and mental) process.
As to the prior art, the new limitations are addressed in the updated claim mapping below.
The remaining issues are addressed below.
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 1-19 (all claims) 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.
Claims 1, 8, and 15 recite “deep learning accelerator,” but appear to use this term contrary to its ordinary meaning. MPEP 2173.05(a)(III). A deep learning accelerator is generally understood as computer hardware that is specialized to train a neural network faster (e.g., specification, [0032] “deep learning accelerator 225 may have one or more Tera operations per second”). However, the claim recites using the deep learning accelerator to perform inference and not training.
Claim 4 recites “another audible guidance,” but this lacks sufficient antecedent basis because parent claim 1 no longer recites an audible guidance. MPEP 2173.05(e). Note that claims 11 and 18 are not rejected because they removed the word “another.”
Dependent claims are likewise rejected.
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 therefor, subject to the conditions and requirements of this title.
Claims 1-19 (all claims) are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea (mental process) without significantly more.
Step 1: Claim 1 (and its dependents) recite a method, and processes are eligible subject matter.
Claim 8 (and its dependents) recite a system, and machines are eligible subject matter.
Claim 15 (and its dependents) recite a non-transitory computer readable medium, and manufactures are eligible subject matter.
Step 2A, prong one: All of the elements of claims 1-20 are a mental process because a person can look at someone else and tell them to tilt their head. Further, the various models are also mental processes, see example 47, claim 2, element (d) (from the July 2024 AI subject matter eligibility examples). MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(III)(C) explains that use of a generic computer or in a computer environment is still a mental process. In particular, this section begins by citing Gottschalk v. Benson, 409 US 63 (1972). “The Supreme Court recognized this in Benson, determining that a mathematical algorithm for converting binary coded decimal to pure binary within a computer’s shift register was an abstract idea.” In Benson the Supreme Court did not separately analyze the computer hardware at issue; the specifics of what hardware was claimed is only included in an appendix to the decision.
Because there are no additional elements, no further analysis is required for Step 2A, prong two or Step 2B.
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.
Claims 1-19 (all claims) are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US20220239513A1 (“Swierk”) in view of US20140139655A1 (“Mimar”).
A method comprising:
detecting, by a deep learning accelerator, facial landmarks of a user based on a deep learning model during a video conference operation and on a digital frame in an image signal processor; (Swierk, abstract, “a trained neural network to determine image features for the intelligent face framing management system.” See also, title “… for videoconferencing applications”)
generating a rectangular representation of a face of the user from the digital frame in the image signal processor, wherein the rectangular representation of the face of the user includes points representing eye corners based on the facial landmarks detected using the deep learning model during the video conference operation; (Swierk, abstract, “a trained neural network to determine image features for the intelligent face framing management system.” Swierk’s framing teaches the claimed rectangular representation.)
estimating a head pose of the user based on the facial landmarks that include eye corners, wherein the estimating of the head pose includes drawing a line through the points representing the eye corners; (Swierk, [0121] “For example, one method may include use of an image recognition system to identify the user's eyes and mouth within the captured test videoframes, and to calculate the degree to which the user's head is rotated away from center based on the distances between the corners of the user's eyes and mouth.” Swierk, [0121] explicitly mentions centers of the eyes (rather than corners), but to the extent there is a difference, these are known substitutes. MPEP 2144.06(II).)
determining adjustment information based on the head pose of the user relative to a view zone of the camera, (Swierk, [0121] “Using any of these distance measurements, the firmware for the peripheral cameras may determine gaze and head orientation vectors of a user's image indicating a degree to which the user's head is looking away from the camera capturing that test videoframe of the user.” Swierk’s degree to which is looking away teaches the claimed adjustment information)
performing by the camera, adjustments including zooming and panning based on the adjustment information (Swierk, [0018] “The intelligent monitoring management system in embodiments may then crop or resize, or digitally zoom if necessary, the captured videoframe in order to place the user's face and nose within the center of the captured videoframe.”)
Swierk is not relied on for the below claim limitations.
However, Mimar teaches:
wherein the adjustment information is based on the rectangular representation of the face of the user; and (Mimar, Figs. 32 and 33)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to apply the teachings of Mimar to the teachings of Swierk such that Mimar’s feedback is provided to the user of Swierk to monitor for drowsiness and distraction. Mimar, abstract. Note that Swierk also discloses a desire to minimize distraction, see, e.g., [0133].
Based on the above, this is an example of “combining prior art elements according to known methods to yield predictable results.” MPEP 2143.
2. The method of claim 1, wherein the adjustments include tilting. (Swierk, Fig. 8 and [0131] “This may impart the appearance of shifting the user's image to the right in the videoframe and resizing the image of the user within the videoframe. In such a way, the intelligent face framing management system may remedy distractions caused by the user appearing to other participants to be off-center.” Swierk’s recentering teaches the same technique as specification, [0033]’s “the camera may tilt up to down or down to up to adjust the user's face or upper torso vertically.” If there are differences, they are known substitutes. MPEP 2144.06(II).)
3. The method of claim 1, further comprising estimating an upper body pose of the user based on the eye corners. (Mimar, Fig. 47)
4. The method of claim 3, further comprising if the upper body pose of the user is rotated, then providing another audible guidance to the user. (Mimar, Fig. 32 shown below:
PNG
media_image1.png
137
288
media_image1.png
Greyscale
)
5. The method of claim 1, wherein the adjustment information includes an audible guidance includes to turn a head of the user towards either left or right. (Mimar, Fig. 24. Mimar’s largest box teaches that an incorrect pitch, yaw or roll is detected as drowsy, thus, to fix this, one would move their head to be paying attention (e.g., Fig. 19), and this teaches the claimed guidance to turn.)
6. The method of claim 5, wherein the audible guidance is a beeping sound. (Mimar, [0134] “a driver alert is issued by a beep tone referred to as chime”)
7. The method of claim 6, wherein loudness of the beeping sound is based on an angle of the head pose of the user relative to a vertical axis of the view zone of the camera. (Mimar, [0201] “If the head roll angle exceeds a threshold constant in the left or right direction, a more intrusive drowsiness warning sound is generated. If the head roll angle is with normal limits of daily use, then a lesser level and type of sound alert is issued.”)
Claims 8-14 are rejected as per the corresponding method claims. Mimar, Figs. 2 or 33 teach the claimed processor and memory.
Claims 15-19 are rejected as per the corresponding method claims. Mimar, Figs. 2 or 33 teach the claimed non-transitory computer readable medium.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. US 12170579 B2 – claim 1 “obtaining information about gaze of a first participant in a video conference while the first participant,”
US 12223769 B2 – “Electronic Device And Operating Method Of Electronic Device For Correcting Error During Gaze Direction Recognition”
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to DAVID ORANGE whose telephone number is (571)270-1799. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Fri, 9-5.
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, Gregory Morse can be reached at 571-272-3838. 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 ORANGE/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2663
Prosecution Insights