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 .
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 text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office 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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114.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 June 17, 2026 has been entered.
Response to Amendment
The amendment filed on June 17, 2026 has been entered.
The amendment of claims 1, 6, 8, 10, 13, and 14 has been acknowledged.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments filed on June 17, 2026, with respect to the pending claims, have been fully considered but are moot because the arguments rely on newly added and/or amended claim limitations. The examiner has revised the rejections to match the new claim limitations.
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.
Claim 6 is 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.
The term “specific” in claim 6 is a relative and/or subjective term which renders the claim indefinite. The term “specific” is not defined by the claim, the specification does not provide a standard for ascertaining the requisite degree, and one of ordinary skill in the art would not be reasonably apprised of the scope of the invention.
A claim that requires the exercise of subjective judgment without restriction renders the claim indefinite. In re Musgrave, 431 F.2d 882, 893, 167 USPQ 280, 289 (CCPA 1970). Claim scope cannot depend solely on the unrestrained, subjective opinion of a particular individual purported to be practicing the invention. Datamize LLC v. Plumtree Software, Inc., 417 F.3d 1342, 1350, 75 USPQ2d 1801, 1807 (Fed. Cir. 2005)); see also Interval Licensing LLC v. AOL, Inc., 766 F.3d 1364, 1373, 112 USPQ2d 1188 (Fed. Cir. 2014).
For the purpose of further examination, the limitation has been interpreted as a specified, designated, or predetermined feature point.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
Claim(s) 1-10 and 13-14 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Chou et al. (“Simulation of face/hairstyle swapping in photographs with skin texture synthesis,” Multimed Tools Appl (2013) 63:729–756, DOI 10.1007/s11042-011-0891-1), in view of Sasaki et al. (US 2006/0188144 A1), hereinafter referred to as Chou and Sasaki, respectively.
Regarding claim 1, Chou teaches an information processing apparatus (Chou pg. 745: “Our experiments are conducted on a machine with a Intel Core 2 1.86GHz CPU and 3GByte memory, running on MS Windows XP”), comprising:
a central processing unit (CPU) (Chou pg. 745 discussed above) configured to:
detect based on a front face image of a user, hairline information, wherein the hairline information is regarding a hairline of the user (Chou pg. 735: “a human face could be divided vertically into three distinct thirds, which are the hairline to the eyebrows, the eyebrows to the base of nose and the base of nose to the bottom of the chin, respectively. We refer J as the hairline of a human face”; Chou Fig. 3(b)); and
estimate based on the hairline information of the user and a model relating to a head, an outline of the head of the user (Chou Fig. 2: “extracted hairstyle” & “face model”; Chou pg. 736: “we can then derive J’s vertical position … J’s horizontal position is determined as the midpoint between O and P”; Chou Fig. 5: “The entire facial contour detected by our system”; Chou Fig. 15 & pg. 745: “derive a bread head model, and the automatic hairstyle adjusting scheme”).
However, Chou does not appear to explicitly teach using a template relating to a head.
Pertaining to the same field of endeavor, Sasaki teaches using a template relating to a head, an outline of the head of the user, wherein the outline is hidden by a hair region of the user (Sasaki ¶¶0030: “an image processing apparatus includes a first fitting unit which fits a position and a size of a template of a predetermined region of a face to a face displayed in an image; and a second fitting unit for fitting a shape of the template to the face displayed in the image and for determining a feature point of the predetermined region of the face from the template having the position and the size fitted to the face displayed in the image by changing the shape of the template within a range of shapes of the predetermined region, with a plurality of parameters defining the shape of the template being based on at least one parameter of a number smaller than the number of the plurality of parameters”; Sasaki Figs. 41-42 & ¶¶0420: “the hair model, having a 3D shape, covers the upper front portion of the face from the heat top down to the forehead, and to the lateral portions of the face”).
Chou and Sasaki are considered to be analogous art because they are directed to image processing for detecting facial features. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the face/hairstyle swapping simulation in photographs with skin texture synthesis (as taught by Chou) to use a template and outline hidden by the hair region (as taught by Sasaki) because the combination can synthesize the hair model according to the face model (Sasaki ¶¶0423).
Regarding claim 2, Chou, in view of Sasaki, teaches the information processing apparatus according to claim 1, wherein
the template includes a template of the outline of the head (Sasaki Figs. 41-42 & ¶¶0420 discussed above), and
the CPU is further configured to adjust the template based on a shape of the hairline of the user (Sasaki Figs. 41-42 & ¶¶0420 discussed above; further see Sasaki ¶¶0419-¶¶0427: “The mapping unit 271 maps the hair model to the normalized face image … supplies the mapped hair model to the Z value modifier 273 of FIG. 25 … detects non-dark areas and flesh colored areas, as a non-hair portion, from the normalized face image … The Z value modifier 273 recognizes the non-hair portion in the normalized face image from the information supplied from the non-hair portion detector 272, and modifies the Z value in the hair model from the mapping unit 271 mapped to the non-hair portion … modifies the Z value of the hair model so that the portion of the hair model mapped to the non-hair portion is positioned frontward than the face model when the hair model is synthesized with the face model obtained by the face model processor 252 of FIG. 25 … The hair model of FIGS. 41A and 41B becomes a hair model as shown in FIGS. 42A and 42B”).
Regarding claim 3, Chou, in view of Sasaki, teaches the information processing apparatus according to claim 2, wherein
the front face image includes a face of the user (Chou Figs. 1-7), and
the CPU is further configured to detect based on feature information relating to the face of the user, an area of skin of the user (Chou Abstract: “After hair removal, the facial skin of the revealed forehead needs to be recovered … Our proposed method yields a more desired facial skin patch by first interpolating a base skin patch, and followed by a non-stationary texture synthesis”; Chou Figs. 7-8).
Regarding claim 4, Chou, in view of Sasaki, teaches the information processing apparatus according to claim 3, wherein the CPU is further configured to detect the hairline information based on an outline of the area of skin (Chou Figs. 5 & 7).
Regarding claim 5, Chou, in view of Sasaki, teaches the information processing apparatus according to claim 3, wherein the CPU is further configured to select the template based on the feature information (Chou Fig. 4(b) & pg. 739: “we define the polygon to represent the facial shape by using the set of points from the 0th to the 14th derived from ASM”; Sasaki ¶¶0431: “the face model fitter 261 in the face model processor 252 of FIG. 25 in the face model generator 136 fits the standard face model stored in the standard 3D model memory 251 to the face displayed in the normalized face image stored in the normalized face image memory 133, based on the detailed feature points supplied from the detailed feature point extractor 135”).
Regarding claim 6, Chou, in view of Sasaki, teaches the information processing apparatus according to claim 5, wherein
the feature information includes information regarding a feature point of one of the face of the user or parts of the face of the user (Chou Fig. 4(b) & pg. 739 and Sasaki ¶¶0431 discussed above), and
the CPU is further configured to select the template, based on the feature point and a specific feature point in the template (Chou Fig. 4(b), pg. 739 & Sasaki ¶¶0431 discussed above; also see Sasaki ¶¶0128: “the normalized face image stored in the normalized face image memory 133 and extracts feature points of particular regions of the normalized face image” & Sasaki ¶¶0400: “the Z value converting function preferably converts the Z value, if small, to a Z value of the same value as the input Z value, and if large, to a Z value larger than the input Z value … a frontward point in the face model remains unchanged in position, and a deep point in the face model is moved to a deeper position”; Sasaki Figs. 21-24).
Regarding claim 7, Chou, in view of Sasaki, teaches the information processing apparatus according to claim 2, wherein the CPU is further configured to determine whether the detected hairline information is correct (Chou Fig. 5: “Refined upper facial contour” – refining requires correcting an incorrect result; also see Chou pg. 751: “we can hardly neglect the uncorrected hair pixels after wearing on the new hairstyle”; Sasaki ¶¶0419-¶¶0427 discussed above teaches adjusting the hair outline).
Regarding claim 8, Chou, in view of Sasaki, teaches the information processing apparatus according to claim 7, wherein the CPU is further configured to:
adjust a degree of change in the template (Sasaki ¶¶0419-¶¶0427 discussed above); and
determine, based on the adjusted degree of change in the template that is within a threshold value, that the detected hairline information is correct (Chou pg. 731: “we adopt the existing active shape model or ASM for short, to extract the facial contour from a given input photo. However, as ASM is not readily applicable for detecting the upper facial contour, we further extend its capability by fitting the mixing facial contour portion with curves in concord with ASM’s extracted part” – refer to [7] cited by Chou, which describes ASM in more detail. The ASM algorithm reiterates the contour fitting based on a predetermined threshold criterion; Chou pg. 735: “according to the ASM algorithm, normally these two pixels are vertically between the eyes and eyebrow. We next determine O and P … Note that the horizontal positions of I and K are the same as O and P, respectively. The vertical positions of I and J are set to be above the right eyebrow and the left eyebrow, through the help of ASM”; Sasaki ¶¶0419-¶¶0427 discussed above).
Regarding claim 9, Chou, in view of Sasaki, teaches the information processing apparatus according to claim 8, wherein the CPU is further configured to estimate a hair part of the user, based on the determination that the detected hairline information is correct (Chou Fig. 5 & pg. 751 discussed above; Chou Fig. 1(b); Chou Fig. 2: “Extracted Hairstyle”; Chou Fig. 9(d)).
Regarding claim 10, Chou, in view of Sasaki, teaches the information processing apparatus according to claim 9, wherein the CPU is further configured to estimate, based on the detected hairline information that is not correct, one of the hairline of the user or a root of hair of the user (Chou pg. 735 discussed above).
Regarding claim 13, Chou, in view of Sasaki, teaches an information processing method comprising the steps described in claim 1. Therefore, claim 13 is rejected using the same rationale as applied to claim 1 discussed above.
Regarding claim 14, Chou, in view of Sasaki, teaches a non-transitory computer-readable medium having stored thereon, computer-executable instructions which, when executed by a computer, cause the computer to execute the steps described in claim 1 (Chou pg. 745: “Our experiments are conducted on a machine with a Intel Core 2 1.86GHz CPU and 3GByte memory, running on MS Windows XP. The involved programming language is Visual C++, and the Poison equation is solved by MATLBA 7.0”). Therefore, claim 14 is rejected using the same rationale as applied to claim 1 discussed above.
Claim(s) 11-12 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Chou et al. (“Simulation of face/hairstyle swapping in photographs with skin texture synthesis,” Multimed Tools Appl (2013) 63:729–756, DOI 10.1007/s11042-011-0891-1), Sasaki et al. (US 2006/0188144 A1), and further in view of Taoka et al. (US 2020/0167549 A1), hereinafter referred to as Chou, Sasaki, and Taoka, respectively.
Regarding claim 11, Chou, in view of Sasaki, teaches the information processing apparatus according to claim 1, wherein the CPU is further configured to present a user interface (UI) (Sasaki ¶¶0106: “The CPU 102 receives an instruction via the input and output interface 110 when a user operates an input unit 107, composed of a keyboard, a mouse, a microphone, etc.”).
However, Chou, in view of Sasaki, does not appear to explicitly teach presenting a UI to take the front face image satisfying an imaging condition to the user.
Pertaining to the same field of endeavor, Taoka teaches presenting a UI to take the front face image satisfying an imaging condition to the user (Taoka Figs. 1, 4, 7-9 & ¶¶0058: “the photography guide UI 300 will be described with reference to FIGS. 7, 8, and 9. FIG. 7 is a view illustrating one example of the photography guide UI 300 when an image of the front-view face is captured. FIG. 8 is a view illustrating one example of the photography guide UI 300 when an image of the right-side-view face is captured. FIG. 9 is a view illustrating one example of the photography guide UI 300 when an image of the left-side-view face is captured”).
Chou, in view of Sasaki, and Taoka are considered to be analogous art because they are directed to image processing for detecting facial features. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the face/hairstyle swapping simulation in photographs with skin texture synthesis (as taught by Chou, in view of Sasaki) to present a UI for taking pictures (as taught by Taoka) because the combination provides feedback to the user and guides the user to position correctly (Taoka ¶¶0058).
Regarding claim 12, Chou, in view of Sasaki and Taoka, teaches the information processing apparatus according to claim 11, wherein the imaging condition includes a condition to allow the detection of the hairline information regarding the hairline of the user (Taoka Figs. 7-9 & ¶¶0056 discussed above – the UI displays the contour of the skin to the user so that the hairline can be detected).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to SOO J SHIN whose telephone number is (571)272-9753. The examiner can normally be reached M-F; 10-6.
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, Matthew Bella can be reached at (571)272-7778. 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.
/Soo Shin/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2667 571-272-9753
soo.shin@uspto.gov
Prosecution Insights