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 Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 02/24/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. Examiner disagrees with the applicant’s analysis and maintains the prior art found of record does effectively disclose the features and limitations of all the claims.
Applicant argues that Zhao fails to detect changes in the user’s face, but rather evaluates a single static image of a user and compares that image with a database. Additionally, applicant argues that the second requirement of evaluating the user’s head, neck, and shoulders is missing from Zhao’s teachings. However, examiner identifies that Zhao does explicitly teaches evaluating the user’s facial expression including the lips, face and head (which encompasses the claim language of “a change in a position of at least two of a user’s face, head, neck, and shoulders…” The face and head include muscles that require both (this satisfies the at least two limitation of the claim language) to be captured for the entirety of the facial expression images and lip motion differences. This is done through the electric device with a facial expression analyzing unit, which receives an image of the facial expression from the image capturing unit. The differences between these images indicates a change, which initiates further actions.
Finally, applicant argues that Zhao does not generate a “user-selected symbolic value based on the position-generated value”. Examiner identifies that Zhao discloses that the user can use the electronic device and the input method to input these images or audio message/signal to select the input of text information into an electronic information device. The text selected by the user in Zhao does qualify as a “user-selected symbolic value” based on the broadest reasonable interpretation of the claim language. Should the applicant wish to incorporate the creation of any expression (music, mathematical expression, game control, etc.), this should be placed in the independent claim language as further detail to a “user-selected symbolic value”. Thus, the rejection of the claims based on the prior art of record is still maintained on these grounds of rejection.
The applicant filed terminal disclaimer does resolve the non-statutory double patenting rejection found in the previous non-final rejection.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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 the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 208 and 209 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Zhao (US Patent 2012/0200492 A1).
Regarding claim 208, Zhao discloses a system (electronic device 1 in Figure 1, for
example) for converting facial distortions (Ex. Lip motions; S11, S12 in Figure 4) to control
signals (Ex. Control the device to display text based on lip motion; S14 in Figure 4), comprising a sensor (Ex. Image capturing unit 11 in Figure 1) configured to detect a change in a position of at least two of a user's face, head, neck, and shoulders (camera captures images of lip motion and facial expressions, paragraph [0035], which reflect changes in the geometry of a user's face), and assign the change in position a value (Ex. Processing module 12 in Figure 1, which includes a lip motion code database 121, a lip-reading analyzing unit 122, a facial expression code database 123, and facial expression analyzing unit 124, paragraph [0034], which are used to generate text, ex. Symbols, based upon the captured data of the change in geometry, as
described in Figures 4 and 5 and paragraphs [0048] and [0052]);
a conversion processor configured to receive the value and generate a user-selected
symbolic value in response thereto (Ex. Processing module 12 in Figure 1); and an alteration processor receiving the user-selected symbolic value, wherein, based on the user-selected symbolic value, the system carries out a computer performed instruction (specifically, the generated text is displayed, which is an alteration of at least the display of a
computing device; S14 in Figure 4, S19 in Figure 5, paragraph [0062]).
Regarding claim 209, Zhao further discloses that the conversion processor and the
alteration processor is the same processor (Ex. Processing module 12 in Figure 1).
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.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or
nonobviousness.
Claim 210 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Zhao in view of Shoemaker et. al. (US Patent 2014/0161421 A1).
Regarding claim 210, Zhao teaches the system for converting facial distortions to
computer control signals of claim 208. However, Zhao fails to teach wherein the computer
performed instruction is a command in a video game. Shoemaker et. al. teaches wherein the
computer performed instruction is a command in a video game (Shoemaker et. al. Fig. 1,
[0060]).
The video game feature of Shoemaker et. al. is implemented via a cloud-based service that when combined with the system of Zhao would allow modeling of a human character based on facial distortions. Thus, it would have obvious to one skilled in the art prior to the effective filing
date of the claimed invention to combine the teachings of Zhao with the teachings of
Shoemaker et. al. to have a command in a video game incorporated in a cloud-based gaming
service.
Claim 211 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Zhao in view of Brooks et. al. (US Patent 8,825,585 B1).
Regarding claim 211, Zhao teaches the system for converting facial distortions to
computer control signals of claim 208. However, Zhao fails to teach wherein the computer
performed instruction is a word processing command. Brooks et. al. teaches wherein the
computer performed instruction is a word processing command (Brooks et. al. Abstract, col 1,
lines 62-67).
The word processing command of Brooks et. al. is an essential feature to allow written
documentation of the computer performed instructions that serves a communication means
between the human-computer interface. Thus, it would have been obvious to one skilled in the
art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the teachings of Zhao
and Brooks et. al. to include the word processing communication instruction of Brooks et. al.
with the system taught by Zhao.
Claim 212 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Zhao in view of Li et. al. (US Patent 2014/0267544 A1).
Regarding claim 212, Zhao teaches the system for converting facial distortions to
computer control signals of claim 208. However, Zhao fails to teach wherein the user-selected
symbolic value corresponds to a facial configuration of a computer-generated image. Li et. al. teaches wherein the user-selected symbolic value corresponds to a facial configuration of a
computer-generated image (Li et. al., Abstract, Fig.7, animation model 210, where the user-
selected symbolic value the corresponds to a computer-generated image is construed as the
creation of an avatar). The creation of the avatar image is important so that the facial
expression and parameters are accurately represented based on video or photographic data of
the human user. Thus, it would have been obvious to one skilled in the art prior to the effective
filing date of the claimed invention to combine the teachings of Zhao and Li et. al. by adding to
the system of Zhao the avatar creation of Li et. al.
Conclusion
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. 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 JESSICA YIFANG LIN whose telephone number is (571)272-6435. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 7:00am-6:15pm, with optional day off.
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.
/JESSICA YIFANG LIN/Examiner, Art Unit 2668 March 19, 2026
/VU LE/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2668