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 .
Double Patenting
The nonstatutory double patenting rejection is based on a judicially created doctrine grounded in public policy (a policy reflected in the statute) so as to prevent the unjustified or improper timewise extension of the “right to exclude” granted by a patent and to prevent possible harassment by multiple assignees. A nonstatutory double patenting rejection is appropriate where the conflicting claims are not identical, but at least one examined application claim is not patentably distinct from the reference claim(s) because the examined application claim is either anticipated by, or would have been obvious over, the reference claim(s). See, e.g., In re Berg, 140 F.3d 1428, 46 USPQ2d 1226 (Fed. Cir. 1998); In re Goodman, 11 F.3d 1046, 29 USPQ2d 2010 (Fed. Cir. 1993); In re Longi, 759 F.2d 887, 225 USPQ 645 (Fed. Cir. 1985); In re Van Ornum, 686 F.2d 937, 214 USPQ 761 (CCPA 1982); In re Vogel, 422 F.2d 438, 164 USPQ 619 (CCPA 1970); In re Thorington, 418 F.2d 528, 163 USPQ 644 (CCPA 1969).
A timely filed terminal disclaimer in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(c) or 1.321(d) may be used to overcome an actual or provisional rejection based on nonstatutory double patenting provided the reference application or patent either is shown to be commonly owned with the examined application, or claims an invention made as a result of activities undertaken within the scope of a joint research agreement. See MPEP § 717.02 for applications subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA as explained in MPEP § 2159. See MPEP § 2146 et seq. for applications not subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA . A terminal disclaimer must be signed in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(b).
The filing of a terminal disclaimer by itself is not a complete reply to a nonstatutory double patenting (NSDP) rejection. A complete reply requires that the terminal disclaimer be accompanied by a reply requesting reconsideration of the prior Office action. Even where the NSDP rejection is provisional the reply must be complete. See MPEP § 804, subsection I.B.1. For a reply to a non-final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.111(a). For a reply to final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.113(c). A request for reconsideration while not provided for in 37 CFR 1.113(c) may be filed after final for consideration. See MPEP §§ 706.07(e) and 714.13.
The USPTO Internet website contains terminal disclaimer forms which may be used. Please visit www.uspto.gov/patent/patents-forms. The actual filing date of the application in which the form is filed determines what form (e.g., PTO/SB/25, PTO/SB/26, PTO/AIA /25, or PTO/AIA /26) should be used. A web-based eTerminal Disclaimer may be filled out completely online using web-screens. An eTerminal Disclaimer that meets all requirements is auto-processed and approved immediately upon submission. For more information about eTerminal Disclaimers, refer to www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/applying-online/eterminal-disclaimer.
Claim 1-20 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1, 2, 4, 5, 6, 9, 10, 12, 13, 15-17, 19, and 20 of U.S. Patent No. 11,948,238. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because the claims of the current application are broader than the claims of the conflicting patent. See the following correspondence table:
Current application 18/591,702
Conflicting patent 11,948,238
1
1
2
2
3
2
4
2
5
4
6
5
7
6
8
9
9
10
10
9
11
9
12
12
13
9
14
13
15
16
16
17
17
15
18
20
19
18
20
19
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 1-20 would be allowable if rewritten or amended to overcome the double patenting rejections set forth in this Office action.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter: the prior art of record, individually or in combination, does not disclose or suggest in claims 1, 8, and 15: “in response to capturing the first sensor data, refine a predefined user-specific model based on the first sensor data to obtain a refined user-specific model; and upon receiving additional sensor data of the user, generate a graphical representation of the user using the additional sensor data and the refined user-specific model.”
The closest prior art of record is noted as follows:
Weiss et al. (Realtime performance-based facial animation, 2011, ACM Transactions on Graphics, Vol. 30, no. 4, Pages 1-11) discloses generating a user-specific expression model as part of a tracking algorithm as seen in Fig. 1. However, Weiss does not clearly disclose refinement of that user-specific model.
Chen et al. (Animating Lip-Sync Characters With Dominated Animeme Models, September 2012, IEEE Transactions on Circuits and Systems for Video Technology, Vol. 22, No. 9, Pages 1344-1353) discloses (in claim 1):
A non-transitory computer readable medium comprising computer readable code executable by one or more processors to (See the Abstract.):
capture, by a local device, first sensor data (See page 1344, right column: “In the synthesis phase, given a novel speech sequence…”.);
in response to capturing the first sensor data, refine a predefined user-specific model based on the first sensor data to obtain a refined user-specific model (See the “character face model” on the left (training side) in Fig. 1 and the paragraph bridging pages 1346-1347: “If we choose the lip-tracking result from a speech video or 3-D lip motions captured by a mocap facility, the data in the vertex domain will be first cross-mapped to the control signal domain (discussed in the Appendix).” This character face model, generated from video or mocap of an individual, meets the claimed “predefined user-specific model”. Then see page 1350, left column: “Of course, artists can also use another model’s trained DAMs to make a prototype of a novel model, and then refine the model for training its own DAMs.”); and
upon receiving additional sensor data of the user, generate a graphical representation of the user using the additional sensor data and the refined user-specific model (See the “character face model with controls” on the right (synthesis side) in Fig. 1.).
However, the “novel speech sequence” of Chen does not meet the claimed “first sensor data comprising a face of a user”.
Contact
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JONATHAN S LEE whose telephone number is (571)272-1981. The examiner can normally be reached 11:30 AM - 7:30 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, Andrew Bee can be reached at (571)270-5183. 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.
/Jonathan S Lee/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2677