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 .
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (lDS) submitted on April 7, 2024, and the three IDSs submitted on March 25, 2024, are in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97 and are being considered by the Examiner.
Specification
The title of the invention is not descriptive. A new title is required that is clearly indicative of the invention to which the claims are directed.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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 1-4, 7, 14 and 17-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by U.S. Patent Publication No. 2016/0086018 to Lemoff.
Regarding claim 1, Lemoff teaches a method comprising capturing, by an image-capture device (e.g., figs. 1 and 2), a video segment (e.g., [0049], video), comparing one or more first image characteristics of a first image associated with the video segment to one or more second image characteristics of a second image associated with the video segment (e.g., [0049], [0053], selection of the best facial image requires a comparison), selecting the first image based on the comparison of the one or more first image characteristics of the first image to the one or more second image characteristics of the second image (e.g., [0049], [0053], selection of the best facial image requires a metric of comparison from the images) and adjusting the selected first image (e.g., fused scores and ranks) for presentation (e.g., [0053], [0056], intended use, presentation to a facial recognition results).
Regarding claim 2, Lemoff teaches all the limitations of claim 2 (see the 35 U.S.C. 102 rejection to claim 1, supra) including teaching wherein the first image and the second image are captured simultaneously with the video segment (e.g., [0049]).
Regarding claim 3, Lemoff teaches all the limitations of claim 3 (see the 35 U.S.C. 102 rejection to claim 1, supra) including teaching wherein adjusting the selected first image is for presentation by the image-capture device (e.g., [0056]).
Regarding claim 4, Lemoff teaches all the limitations of claim 4 (see the 35 U.S.C. 102 rejection to claim 1, supra) including teaching wherein comparing the one or more first image characteristics of the first image associated with the video segment to the one or more second image characteristics of the second image associated with the video segment comprises determining the one or more first image characteristics of the first image and the one or more second image characteristics of the second image (e.g., [0053], selection of the best facial image requires a metric of comparison from the images based on at least one determined characteristic).
Regarding claim 7, Lemoff teaches all the limitations of claim 7 (see the 35 U.S.C. 102 rejection to claim 4, supra) including teaching wherein determining the one or more first image characteristics and the one or more second image characteristics comprises applying a facial-recognition algorithm (e.g., [0049], system checks for high quality face for recognition, which constitutes an algorithm).
Regarding claim 14, Lemoff teaches all the limitations of claim 14 (see the 35 U.S.C. 102 rejection to claim 1, supra) including teaching wherein the first image and the second image correspond to frames of the video segment (e.g., [0049]).
Regarding claim 17, Lemoff teaches all the limitations of claim 17 (see the 35 U.S.C. 102 rejection to claim 1, supra) including teaching wherein capturing the video segment is in temporal proximity to a capture command received by the image-capture device ([0049], image capture if a sufficiently high quality image can be obtained; also any video segment captured can be considered in temporal proximity to a capture command, which could, absent clarity of recited claim language, even powering on of a device).
Regarding claim 18, Lemoff teaches a computing device comprising
at least one processor (e.g., figs. 1 and 2, element 150; [0029], [0050]), and
one or more non-transitory computer-readable storage medium (e.g., [0029], [0050], software must be stored to run), that, when executed by the at least one processor, cause the computing device to perform operations comprising capturing, by an image-capture device (e.g., figs. 1 and 2), a video segment (e.g., [0049], video), comparing one or more first image characteristics of a first image associated with the video segment to one or more second image characteristics of a second image associated with the video segment (e.g., [0049], [0053], selection of the best facial image requires a comparison), selecting the first image based on the comparison of the one or more first image characteristics of the first image to the one or more second image characteristics of the second image (e.g., [0049], [0053], selection of the best facial image requires a metric of comparison from the images) and adjusting the selected first image (e.g., fused scores and ranks) for presentation (e.g., [0053], [0056], intended use, presentation to a facial recognition results).
Regarding claim 19, Lemoff teaches all the limitations of claim 19 (see the 35 U.S.C. 102 rejection to claim 18, supra) including teaching wherein the computing device is a mobile device (e.g., fig. 1).
Regarding claim 20, Lemoff teaches a non-transitory computer-readable storage media storing instruction (e.g., [0029], [0050], software must be stored to run) that, when executed by at least one processor (e.g., figs. 1 and 2, element 150; [0029], [0050]), cause the at least one processor to perform operations comprising capturing, by an image-capture device (e.g., figs. 1 and 2), a video segment (e.g., [0049], video), comparing one or more first image characteristics of a first image associated with the video segment to one or more second image characteristics of a second image associated with the video segment (e.g., [0049], [0053], selection of the best facial image requires a comparison), selecting the first image based on the comparison of the one or more first image characteristics of the first image to the one or more second image characteristics of the second image (e.g., [0049], [0053], selection of the best facial image requires a metric of comparison from the images) and adjusting the selected first image (e.g., fused scores and ranks) for presentation (e.g., [0053], [0056], intended use, presentation to a facial recognition results).
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 9 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lemoff in view of U.S. Patent Publication No. 2013/0142418 to van Zwol et al. (hereinafter “van Zwol”).
Regarding claim 15, Lemoff teaches all the limitations of claim 15 (see the 35 U.S.C. 102 rejection to claim 1, supra) except for being found by the Examiner to expressly disclose wherein the one or more first image characteristics includes an exposure value or a sharpness value and wherein the one or more second image characteristics includes an exposure value or a sharpness value.
Nevertheless, van Zwol teaches a method of ranking and selecting images of a video that includes employing a sharpness value characteristic (e.g., [0039], [0057], [0066]). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective date of the claimed invention to have incorporated the teachings of von Zwol with the method as taught by Lemoff in order to select a higher quality image of the person.
Claim 15 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lemoff in view of Examiner’s Official Notice.
Regarding claim 15, Lemoff teaches all the limitations of claim 15 (see the 35 U.S.C. 102 rejection to claim 1, supra) except for being found by the Examiner to expressly disclose wherein adjusting the first image for presentation comprises rotating the first image.
Official Notice is taken regarding the programming functionality of rotating an image on a display; a concept that is well-known and accepted in the art. In light of the above, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective date of the claimed invention to have incorporated rotating the first image via well-known programming functionality with the method as taught by Lemoff in order to view the image in a portrait format or a landscape format, or to view the image from a different perspective.
Claim 16 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lemoff in view of U.S. Patent Publication No. 2014/0085495 to Almalki et al. (hereinafter “Almalki”).
Regarding claim 16, Lemoff teaches all the limitations of claim 16 (see the 35 U.S.C. 102 rejection to claim 1, supra) except for being found by the Examiner to expressly disclose wherein adjusting the first image for presentation comprises cropping and upscaling the first image.
Nevertheless, the concept of cropping and upscaling an image is well-known and accepted in the camera arts. For example, Almalki teaches a similar method that includes a digital zoom feature (e.g., [0051], crop and interpolate). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective date of the claimed invention to have incorporated the teachings of Almalki with the method as taught by Lemoff in order to better fit a face to the proportions of a display window for viewing.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 5, 6, 8 and 10-13 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.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
U.S. Patent No. 7,982,770 to Kahn et al. teaches a similar method and program that selects a best image, among a plurality of images, based on image characteristics.
U.S. Patent Publication No. 2013/0101220 to Bosworth et al. teaches a similar method and program that compares and selects an image for adjustment.
U.S. Patent No. 7,298,930 to Erol et al. teaches a method to obtain a best still image of a person from a video
U.S. Patent Publication No. to Sentinelli et al. teaches image selection based on a sharpness value.
U.S. Patent No. 6,324,695 to Lee et al. teaches selecting an image from a video.
Contact
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to GARY C VIEAUX whose telephone number is (571)272-7318. The examiner can normally be reached Increased Flex.
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, Lin Ye can be reached at 571-272-7372. 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.
/GARY C VIEAUX/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2638