DETAILED ACTION
This is in response to applicant’s amendment/response filed on 01/20/2026, which has been entered and made of record. Claims 1-20 are pending in the application.
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 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sheikh et al. (US 10636193) in view of LEE et al. (US 20200279420).
Regarding claim 1, Sheikh discloses One or more computer-readable storage media storing instructions that, responsive to execution by a processing device, causes a processing device to perform operations (Sheikh, “(81) Embodiments may also relate to an apparatus for performing the operations herein. This apparatus may be specially constructed for the required purposes, and/or it may comprise a general-purpose computing device selectively activated or reconfigured by a computer program stored in the computer. Such a computer program may be stored in a non-transitory, tangible computer readable storage medium, or any type of media suitable for storing electronic instructions, which may be coupled to a computer system bus”) including:
generating input feature positions of the subject based at least partially on the detecting of the face of the subject; retargeting control points of a digital object based on the input feature positions (Sheikh, “(21) Based on images received from the image capture devices and from the additional image capture devices, the controller generates a trained model that maps positions of points identified within images captured by the image capture devices and by the additional image capture devices to a set of animation parameters that map the positions of the identified points to a three dimensional model of a face presented via a virtual reality environment of the HMD 105, as further described below in conjunction with FIG. 5. (22) The imaging devices are coupled to the controller of the facial tracking system, which generates a trained model that maps positions of points identified within images captured by the imaging devices to a set of body animation parameters based on images received from the imaging devices. The body animation parameters map positions of points of the user's body identified from the images to a three dimensional model of a body presented via a virtual reality environment of the HMD 105, as further described below in conjunction with FIG. 7”. Therefore, positions of the identified points correspond to input feature positions, and the mapping process corresponds to retargeting control points); and
generating a frame of an animation that includes the digital object generated using the retargeted control points (Sheikh, “(36) the console 110 generates a graphical representation of the user's face that renders movement of the portions of the user's face on a three-dimensional model based on the set of animation parameters and positions of points identified within captured images of portions of the user's face; this allows the graphical representation of the user's face to replicate expressions and movement of portions of the user's face captured by one or more of the image capture devices 210 or by one or more of the additional image capture devices 210”).
On the other hand, Sheikh fails to explicitly disclose but LEE discloses detecting initial feature positions of a subject using body tracking, the initial feature positions including a feature position of a face of the subject and a feature position of at least one other body feature of the subject independent of the face; initializing a face tracker to detect a face of the subject using the detected initial feature positions of the face of the subject and the at least one other body feature of the subject from the body tracking (LEE, “[0055] the processor 120 may determine whether an object (e.g., face) is recognized according to the guide. [0057] the processor 120 may identify at least one feature point included in the object and detect the designated region based on the at least one feature point. The feature points may include, for example, at least one of an eye, a nose, a mouth, an ear, a face shape, a neck, a hand, a torso, a shoulder, a foot, a finger, etc. In an embodiment, the processor 120 may identify at least one feature point among an eye, a nose, a mouth, an ear, and a face shape and detect a designated region (e.g., face region). [0070] the processor 120 may select a feature point related to the content, and determine the relative position of the content with respect to the feature point as position information. [0101] For example, in an image 735, the processor 120 may identify the coordinates (x, y) of the eyes, which are feature points closest to the content. [0121] The processor 120 may track the feature point based on the movement of the object”).
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 LEE and Sheikh, to include all limitations of claim 1. That is, adding the face detecting of LEE to the system of Sheikh. The motivation/ suggestion would have been to reduce the workload compared to a case of searching for a feature point continuously over the entire region of the image (LEE, [0121]).
Regarding claim 2, Sheikh in view of LEE discloses The one or more computer-readable media as described in claim 1.
Sheikh further discloses wherein at least two said input feature positions are part of the face or shoulders of the subject (Sheikh, “(62) In the example of FIG. 6, the controller 220 identifies points 605 corresponding to corners of the user's mouth and various points 605 along the user's lips, such as points along a boundary of the user's lips in images 600A, 600B; the controller 220 identifies points 605 corresponding to corners of the user's left eye and right eye, as well as points 605 along boundaries of the user's left eye and right eye from each image 602A, 602B”).
Claim(s) 3 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sheikh et al. (US 10636193) in view of LEE et al. (US 20200279420), and further in view of Wang et al. (US 20220292772 A1).
Regarding claim 3, Sheikh in view of LEE discloses The one or more computer-readable media as described in claim 1.
On the other hand, Sheikh in view of LEE fails to explicitly disclose but Wang discloses wherein the retargeting includes normalizing the input feature positions by computing a global scale factor based on input feature positions of the face of the subject (Wang, “[0236] the standard face model in the game based on the prediction of the keypoints of the real face needs to be adjusted. The process needs to ensure that the keypoints of the standard face model in the game and the real face are aligned in terms of scale, position, and direction. Therefore, normalization 2906 of the predicted keypoints and the keypoints on the game face model, includes the following parts: normalization of scale, normalization of translation, and normalization of angle. [0266] In some embodiments, normalizing the set of real-life keypoints into a canonical space includes: scaling the set of real-life keypoints into the canonical space”).
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 Wang into the combination of LEE and Sheikh, to include all limitations of claim 3. That is, adding the normalization of scale of Wang to the mapping process of Sheikh. The motivation/ suggestion would have been generating the 3D ground-truth face model which preserves the detailed facial features of an input image (Wang, [0012]).
Claim(s) 4, 7, 8, 10, 14, 15, 17 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sheikh et al. (US 10636193) in view of LEE et al. (US 20200279420), and further in view of Glover et al. (US 9443352).
Regarding claim 4, Sheikh in view of LEE discloses The one or more computer-readable media as described in claim 1.
On the other hand, Sheikh in view of LEE fails to explicitly disclose but Glover discloses wherein the retargeting sets vertical offsets of the input feature positions corresponding to a base of the subject (Glover, “(76) the final elevation of the participant's avatar may be set based on collision point of the left foot, the collision point of the right foot, or an average of the collision point values of both feet of the participant's avatar. (77) Upon receiving the elevation and/or the orientation offsets, the modification module 510 can modify a transformation or mapping of the participant 106 from the capture volume 102 to the virtual environment 118 to compensate for the elevation and/or orientation offsets. In an example embodiment, the elevation offset may be an offset along a y-axis and the orientation offset may be an offset along an axes of rotation. Accordingly, a position of the participant's avatar 116 may be adjusted along a y-axis to compensate for the elevation offset and the orientation of the participant's avatar may be adjusted along an axis of rotation to compensate for the orientation offset.”).
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 Glover into the combination of LEE and Sheikh, to include all limitations of claim 4. That is, applying the elevation offsets of Glover to the input feature positions of Sheikh and LEE. The motivation/ suggestion would have been to prevent that the position of the participant's avatar may be offset in his/her elevation which may cause him to appear floating above the ground in the virtual environment, buried under the ground (Glover, (23)).
Regarding claim 7, it recites similar limitations as claim 1, except that it further recites receiving calibration data defining positional offsets between calibration feature positions of a subject and control points of a digital object.
On the other hand, Sheikh in view of LEE fails to explicitly disclose but Glover discloses receiving calibration data defining positional offsets between calibration feature positions of a subject and control points of a digital object (Glover, “(76) the final elevation of the participant's avatar may be set based on collision point of the left foot, the collision point of the right foot, or an average of the collision point values of both feet of the participant's avatar. (77) Upon receiving the elevation and/or the orientation offsets, the modification module 510 can modify a transformation or mapping of the participant 106 from the capture volume 102 to the virtual environment 118 to compensate for the elevation and/or orientation offsets. In an example embodiment, the elevation offset may be an offset along a y-axis and the orientation offset may be an offset along an axes of rotation. (98) In operation 918, the simulation engine 402 computes a difference between the collision points of the rays from the left and right foot with the alternate geometric mesh that defines the terrain of the virtual environment 118”). The same motivation of claim 4 applies here.
Regarding claim(s) 8, 10, they are interpreted and rejected for the same reasons set forth in claim(s) 2, 4, respectively.
Regarding claim(s) 14, 15, 17, they are interpreted and rejected for the same reasons set forth in claim(s) 7, 8, 10, respectively.
Claim(s) 9, 16 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sheikh et al. (US 10636193) in view of LEE et al. (US 20200279420), and further in view of Glover et al. (US 9443352) and Wang et al. (US 20220292772 A1).
Regarding claim 9, Sheikh in view of LEE and Glover discloses the computing device as described in claim 7.
On the other hand, Sheikh in view of LEE and Glover fails to explicitly disclose but Wang discloses wherein the retargeting includes normalizing the input feature positions by computing a global scale factor based on input feature positions of the face of the subject (Wang, “[0236] the standard face model in the game based on the prediction of the keypoints of the real face needs to be adjusted. The process needs to ensure that the keypoints of the standard face model in the game and the real face are aligned in terms of scale, position, and direction. Therefore, normalization 2906 of the predicted keypoints and the keypoints on the game face model, includes the following parts: normalization of scale, normalization of translation, and normalization of angle. [0266] In some embodiments, normalizing the set of real-life keypoints into a canonical space includes: scaling the set of real-life keypoints into the canonical space”). The same motivation of claim 3 applies here.
Regarding claim(s) 16, it is interpreted and rejected for the same reasons set forth in claim(s) 9.
Claim(s) 13, 20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sheikh et al. (US 10636193) in view of LEE et al. (US 20200279420), and further in view of Glover et al. (US 9443352) and Kroitor (US 5854634).
Regarding claim 13, Sheikh in view of LEE and Glover discloses the computing device as described in claim 7.
On the other hand, Sheikh in view of LEE and Glover fails to explicitly disclose but Kroitor discloses wherein the control points are warp handles of the digital object (Kroitor, “(36) A second aspect of the present invention is referred to as "segment warping" and is also directed to further modifying constructed poses to provide for greater control over the form and action of animated images. Segment warps are described as follows. A point within the drawing space, referred to herein as a warp displacement reference point or "warp handle, " is chosen, which will typically be on a line segment of a source pose, but need not be so located. In addition, a graph, referred to herein as a "warp profile graph," is drawn which defines the degree to which the successive points on the line segment or segments are displaced by the warp path”).
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 Kroitor into the combination of LEE and Sheikh, Glover, to include all limitations of claim 13. That is, applying the warp profile graph of Kroitor to define the control points of Glover, Sheikh and LEE. The motivation/ suggestion would have been for creating two and three-dimensional computer-assisted animation, and a simple and intuitive user interface for generating a series of animation images from a relatively few source drawings (Kroitor, (2)).
Regarding claim(s) 20, it is interpreted and rejected for the same reasons set forth in claim(s) 13.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claim(s) 5, 6, 11, 12, 18, 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 5, it recites, wherein the retargeting sets horizontal positions of the input feature positions corresponding to a base of the subject above a level defined by feature positions corresponding to the base of the subject. 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 claim(s) 11, 18, they are interpreted and allowed under similar rationale as claim 5 set forth above.
Regarding claim 6, it recites, wherein the retargeting employs a friction term limiting movement of the input feature positions corresponding to a base of the subject. 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 claim(s) 12, 19, they are interpreted and allowed under similar rationale as claim 6 set forth above.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claim(s) 1-20 have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument.
Conclusion
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 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 4/9/2026
Prosecution Insights