DETAILED ACTION
Claims 1-22 are pending in this application and have been examined with the priority date of 06/02/2023 in accordance with the applicant’s claim to the parent application.
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 .
Priority
Applicant’s claim for the benefit of a prior-filed application under 35 U.S.C. 119(e) or under 35 U.S.C. 120, 121, 365(c), or 386(c) is acknowledged.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 07/10/2024 is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement is being considered by the examiner.
Claim Interpretation
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(f):
(f) Element in Claim for a Combination. – An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
This application includes one or more claim limitations that do not use the word “means,” but are nonetheless being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, because the claim limitation(s) uses a generic placeholder that is coupled with functional language without reciting sufficient structure to perform the recited function and the generic placeholder is not preceded by a structural modifier. Such claim limitations are:
“Terminal device” in claim 11
“Memory device” in claim 17
Because this/these claim limitation(s) is/are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, it/they is/are being interpreted to cover the corresponding structure described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof.
If applicant does not intend to have this/these limitation(s) interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, applicant may: (1) amend the claim limitation(s) to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph (e.g., by reciting sufficient structure to perform the claimed function); or (2) present a sufficient showing that the claim limitation(s) recite(s) sufficient structure to perform the claimed function so as to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101
35 U.S.C. 101 reads as follows:
Whoever invents or discovers any new and useful process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter, or any new and useful improvement thereof, may obtain a patent therefor, subject to the conditions and requirements of this title.
Claims 1-22 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because they are drawn to an abstract idea, mental process or step of mere data gathering.
Regarding claim 1, the claim recites the following limitations, which are drawn to a mental process or step of mere data gathering as noted below:
A method, comprising: performing face detection on an image (Mental process in which a human could reasonably look at an image, inspect it visually and determine faces in the images),
determining a gaze direction within image content associated with a detected face (Mental process in which a human could reasonably look at an image, inspect it visually and determine which way a person is looking);
defining a cropping window for the image based on the detected face and the determined gaze direction of the detected face (Mental process of determining a face and the gaze direction, and then a step of mere data gathering in which a human could crop an image using a mouse and computer);
and cropping the image according to the cropping window (step of mere data gathering in which a human could crop an image using a mouse and computer).
The limitations above are steps which could practically be performed as a mental process or step of mere data gathering performed by a human under step 2A prong 1 (MPEP 2106). Under step 2A prong 2, the claim recites no additional elements. Under step 2B, the claim does not include elements that translate the claims into practical application or amount to significantly more than an abstract idea. See MPEP section 2106.
Dependent claims 2-5 do not add limitations that do not meaningfully translate the abstract idea into practical application or amount to significantly more.
Regarding claim 2, claim 2 recites the limitations; wherein the cropping window is defined to include the detected face in the cropping window when the gaze direction is estimated to be directed to a camera from which the image was derived. (Mental process of determining the gaze direction, and step of data gathering in which a cropping window is manually defined)
The recited limitations are drawn to steps which can practically be performed as a mental process or steps of mere data gathering.
Regarding claim 3, claim 3 recites the limitations; wherein the cropping window is defined to exclude the detected face from the cropping window when the gaze direction is estimated not to be directed to a camera from which the image was derived. (Mental process of determining the gaze direction, and step of data gathering in which a cropping window is manually defined)
The recited limitations are drawn to steps which can practically be performed as a mental process or steps of mere data gathering.
Regarding claim 4, claim 4 recites the limitations; further comprising: performing object detection in a region of the image corresponding to the direction of gaze, and when an object is detected within the region, the cropping window is defined to include the detected face and the detected object. (Mental process of determining the gaze direction, and step of data gathering in which a cropping window is manually defined)
The recited limitations are drawn to steps which can practically be performed as a mental process or steps of mere data gathering.
Regarding claim 5, claim 5 recites the limitations; further comprising: performing object detection in a region of the image corresponding to the direction of gaze, and when an object is not detected within the region, the cropping window is defined to place the detected face in an off center region of the cropping window with the region placed in a center of the cropping window. (Mental process of determining the gaze direction, and step of data gathering in which a cropping window is manually defined)
The recited limitations are drawn to steps which can practically be performed as a mental process or steps of mere data gathering.
Regarding claim 6, the claim recites the following limitations, which are drawn to a mental process or step of mere data gathering as noted below:
A method, comprising:
identifying face(s) from a stream of video; (Mental process in which a human could reasonably look at an image, inspect it visually and determine faces in the images)
for each identified face: determining a gaze of direction of the respective face; (Mental process in which a human could reasonably look at an image, inspect it visually and determine which way a person is looking)
determining whether the respective face is to be included in a cropping window based on its determined gaze of direction; (Mental process of determining a face and the gaze direction, and then a step of mere data gathering in which a human could crop an image using a mouse and computer)
and cropping frames of the video based on positions of the face(s) determined to be included in the cropping window. (step of mere data gathering in which a human could crop an image using a mouse and computer)
The limitations above are steps which could practically be performed as a mental process or step of mere data gathering performed by a human under step 2A prong 1 (MPEP 2106). Under step 2A prong 2, the claim recites no additional elements. Under step 2B, the claim does not include elements that translate the claims into practical application or amount to significantly more than an abstract idea. See MPEP section 2106.
Dependent claims 7-12 do not add limitations that do not meaningfully translate the abstract idea into practical application or amount to significantly more.
Regarding claim 7, claim 7 recites the limitations; wherein the cropping window circumscribes all faces determined to be included in the cropping window. (Mental process of determining area belonging to the face, and step of data gathering in which a cropping window is manually defined)
The recited limitations are drawn to steps which can practically be performed as a mental process or steps of mere data gathering.
Regarding claim 8, claim 8 recites the limitations; further comprising, identifying face(s) located within a foreground location of the video, wherein the face(s) determined to be in the foreground location are determined to be included in the cropping window regardless of the respective face’s gaze of direction. (Mental process of determining area belonging to the face, and step of data gathering in which a cropping window is manually defined)
The recited limitations are drawn to steps which can practically be performed as a mental process or steps of mere data gathering.
Regarding claim 9, claim 9 recites the limitations; wherein one of the detected face are determined to be included in a cropping window only after its gaze direction looks at a camera that captured the video for a threshold amount of time. (Mental process of determining area belonging to the face, and step of data gathering in which a cropping window is manually defined)
The recited limitations are drawn to steps which can practically be performed as a mental process or steps of mere data gathering.
Regarding claim 10, claim 10 recites the limitations; wherein one of the detected face are determined not to be included in a cropping window after its gaze direction looks away from a camera that captured the video for a threshold amount of time. (Mental process of determining area belonging to the face, and step of data gathering in which a cropping window is manually defined)
The recited limitations are drawn to steps which can practically be performed as a mental process or steps of mere data gathering.
Regarding claim 11, claim 11 recites the limitations; further comprising, following the cropping, transmitting the cropped video to a distant terminal device. (step of data gathering/transmitting)
The recited limitations are drawn to steps which can practically be performed as a mental process or steps of mere data gathering.
Regarding claim 12, claim 12 recites the limitations; further comprising, following the cropping, transmitting the cropped video in a videoconference stream.(step of data gathering/transmitting)
The recited limitations are drawn to steps which can practically be performed as a mental process or steps of mere data gathering.
Regarding claim 13, the claim recites the following limitations, which are drawn to a mental process or step of mere data gathering as noted below:
An image processing method, comprising:
performing face recognition on an image, (Mental process in which a human could reasonably look at an image, inspect it visually and determine faces in the images)
performing object recognition on the image; (Mental process in which a human could reasonably look at an image, inspect it visually and determine objects in the images)
estimating a gaze direction of a detected face, (Mental process in which a human could reasonably look at an image, inspect it visually and determine which way a person is looking)
determining whether a recognized object is present in a region aligned with the gaze direction, if so, defining a cropping window to include the detected face and the recognized object. (Mental process of determining a face and the gaze direction, and then a step of mere data gathering in which a human could crop an image using a mouse and computer)
The limitations above are steps which could practically be performed as a mental process or step of mere data gathering performed by a human under step 2A prong 1 (MPEP 2106). Under step 2A prong 2, the claim recites no additional elements. Under step 2B, the claim does not include elements that translate the claims into practical application or amount to significantly more than an abstract idea. See MPEP section 2106.
Dependent claims 14-16 do not add limitations that do not meaningfully translate the abstract idea into practical application or amount to significantly more.
Regarding claim 14, claim 14 recites the limitations; further comprising, if a recognized object is not present in the region aligned with the gaze direction, defining a cropping window to include the detected face an at least a portion of the region aligned with the gaze direction, the detected face placed off-center within the cropping window and the region aligned with the gaze direction place in a center area of the cropping window. (Comprises a mental process in which a human could reasonably look at an image, determine gaze direction, then place a cropping box as a result)
The recited limitations are drawn to steps which can practically be performed as a mental process or steps of mere data gathering.
Regarding claim 15, claim 15 recites the limitations; wherein the detected face is placed in the cropping window according to a compositional rule. (Comprises a mental process in which a human could reasonably look at an image, then place a cropping box as a result)
The recited limitations are drawn to steps which can practically be performed as a mental process or steps of mere data gathering.
Regarding claim 16, claim 16 recites the limitations; wherein the recognized object is placed in the cropping window according to a compositional rule. (Comprises a mental process in which a human could reasonably look at an image, then place a cropping box as a result)
The recited limitations are drawn to steps which can practically be performed as a mental process or steps of mere data gathering.
Regarding claim 17, the claim recites the following limitations, which are drawn to a mental process or step of mere data gathering as noted below:
A system comprising:
a processing system, including a first processor and a second processor, (Additional elements of a processing system, and processors which are recited with a high level of generality and fail to translate the claims into practical application)
the first processor being a neural network processor trained to estimate gaze direction of face(s) detected from image data (Mental process in which a human could reasonably look at an image, inspect it visually and determine faces in the images and where they are looking),
the second processor to execute program instructions stored in a memory device; (Additional elements of processors and a memory which are recited with a high level of generality and fail to translate the claims into practical application)
the memory device, storing the program instructions that, when executed by the second processor, cause the second processor to: define a cropping window for an image based on a direction of gaze identified by the first processor for a detected face (Mental process of determining a face and the gaze direction, and then a step of mere data gathering in which a human could crop an image using a mouse and computer);
and crop the image according to the cropping window. (Step of mere data gathering in which a human could crop an image)
The limitations above are steps which could practically be performed as a mental process or step of mere data gathering performed by a human under step 2A prong 1 (MPEP 2106). Under step 2A prong 2, the claim recites the additional elements of a processing system, a first and second processor, a neural network and a memory which are recited with a high level of generality and do not meaningfully translate the claims into practical application. Under step 2B, the claim does not include elements that translate the claims into practical application or amount to significantly more than an abstract idea. See MPEP section 2106.
Dependent claims 18-22 do not add limitations that do not meaningfully translate the abstract idea into practical application or amount to significantly more.
Regarding claim 18, claim 18 recites the limitations; further comprising an image signal processor having an output for identification of face(s) in the image data. (Mental process in which a face could be identified in an image visually and a person could send an output of this)
The recited limitations are drawn to steps which can practically be performed as a mental process or steps of mere data gathering.
Regarding claim 19, claim 19 recites the limitations; wherein the program instructions cause the cropping window to be defined to include the detected face in the cropping window when the gaze direction is estimated to be directed to a camera from which the image was derived. (Mental process in which a human could assess a gaze direction of a person and a define a cropping window as a result)
The recited limitations are drawn to steps which can practically be performed as a mental process or steps of mere data gathering.
Regarding claim 20, claim 20 recites the limitations; wherein the program instructions cause the cropping window to be defined to exclude the detected face from the cropping window when the gaze direction is estimated not to be directed to a camera from which the image was derived. (Mental process in which a human could assess a gaze direction of a person and a define a cropping window as a result)
The recited limitations are drawn to steps which can practically be performed as a mental process or steps of mere data gathering.
Regarding claim 21, claim 21 recites the limitations wherein the program instructions cause the second processor to: perform object detection in a region of the image corresponding to the direction of gaze, and when an object is detected within the region, define the cropping window to include the detected face and the detected object. (Mental process in which a human could assess a gaze direction of a person and a define a cropping window as a result)
The recited limitations are drawn to steps which can practically be performed as a mental process or steps of mere data gathering. The additional element of a second processor is recited with a high level of generality and does not meaningfully translate the claim into practical application or significantly more than an abstract idea.
Regarding claim 22, claim 22 recites the limitations; wherein the program instructions cause the second processor to: perform object detection in a region of the image corresponding to the direction of gaze, and when an object is not detected within the region, define the cropping window to place the detected face in an off center region of the cropping window with the region placed in a center of the cropping window. (Mental process in which a human could assess a gaze direction of a person and a define a cropping window as a result)
The recited limitations are drawn to steps which can practically be performed as a mental process or steps of mere data gathering. The additional element of a second processor is recited with a high level of generality and does not meaningfully translate the claim into practical application or significantly more than an abstract idea.
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.
Claims 1, 4-8, 11, 13-18 and 21-22 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Ptucha (US 20130108164 A1).
Regarding claim 1 Ptucha discloses; A method, comprising:
performing face detection on an image (Ptucha, [0050] the system performs face detection),
determining a gaze direction within image content associated with a detected face (Ptucha, [0064] the eye gaze direction is determined for the face detected in the image);
defining a cropping window for the image based on the detected face and the determined gaze direction of the detected face (Ptucha, [0064] padded face boxes (bounding boxes) are determined based on the fitness score of the face detected and other factors including eye gaze direction, and head angles, [0050] cropping is performed based on the determined bounding boxes);
and cropping the image according to the cropping window (Ptucha, [0051] the image is cropped based on the determined crop box/bounding box).
Regarding claim 4 Ptucha discloses; The method of claim 1, further comprising: performing object detection in a region of the image corresponding to the direction of gaze, and when an object is detected within the region, the cropping window is defined to include the detected face and the detected object (Ptucha, [0072] the eye gaze and facial pose vectors are used to perform the generation of a detecting/bounding box to include certain portions of the background or foreground as well as the face, where [0055]-[0056] the regions of background and foreground are evaluated for features/objects).
Regarding claim 5 Ptucha discloses; The method of claim 1, further comprising: performing object detection in a region of the image corresponding to the direction of gaze, and when an object is not detected within the region, the cropping window is defined to place the detected face in an off center region of the cropping window with the region placed in a center of the cropping window (Ptucha, [0072] the eye gaze and facial pose vectors are used to perform the generation of a detecting box to include certain portions of the background or foreground as well as the face, where [0055]-[0056] the regions of background and foreground are evaluated for features/objects, figure 7 shows the placement of the face in a larger box to include more of the background/foreground objects, vs a situation where just the face is included in the center of the bounding box).
PNG
media_image1.png
442
538
media_image1.png
Greyscale
(Ptucha, Figure 7)
Regarding claim 6 Ptucha discloses; A method, comprising:
identifying face(s) from a stream of video (Ptucha, [0050] the system performs face detection);
for each identified face: determining a gaze of direction of the respective face (Ptucha, [0064] the eye gaze direction is determined for the face detected in the image);
determining whether the respective face is to be included in a cropping window based on its determined gaze of direction (Ptucha, [0064] padded face boxes (bounding boxes) are determined based on the fitness score of the face detected and other factors including eye gaze direction, and head angles, [0050] cropping is performed based on the determined bounding boxes);
and cropping frames of the video based on positions of the face(s) determined to be included in the cropping window (Ptucha, [0051] the image is cropped based on the determined crop box/bounding box).
Regarding claim 7 Ptucha discloses; The method of claim 6, wherein the cropping window circumscribes all faces determined to be included in the cropping window (Ptucha, figure 7 and [0072] the bounding boxes are set around faces/limited to the face area).
Regarding claim 8 Ptucha discloses; The method of claim 6, further comprising, identifying face(s) located within a foreground location of the video, wherein the face(s) determined to be in the foreground location are determined to be included in the cropping window regardless of the respective face’s gaze of direction (Ptucha, [0058] the faces are selected and the faces width and determination of where the face is made, where the face size is used to determine whether to include or exclude the face, [0059] this is used to determine the face’s distance in the image(background or foreground determination)).
Regarding claim 11 Ptucha discloses; The method of claim 6, further comprising, following the cropping, transmitting the cropped video to a distant terminal device (Ptucha, [0036] the system used remote user devices where [0043] the image data can be conveyed to remote devices where [0050] remote devices may receive or generate the cropped images).
Regarding claim 13 Ptucha discloses; An image processing method, comprising:
performing face recognition on an image (Ptucha, [0050] the system performs face detection),
performing object recognition on the image (Ptucha, [0055] objects are detected in the foreground and background of the image based on previous knowledge by the algorithm, [0056] the objects are classified);
estimating a gaze direction of a detected face (Ptucha, [0064] the eye gaze direction is determined for the face detected in the image),
determining whether a recognized object is present in a region aligned with the gaze direction, if so, defining a cropping window to include the detected face and the recognized object (Ptucha, [0072] the eye gaze and facial pose vectors are used to perform the generation of a detecting box to include certain portions of the background or foreground as well as the face, where [0055]-[0056] the regions of background and foreground are evaluated for features/objects, figure 7 shows the placement of the face in a larger box to include more of the background/foreground objects, vs a situation where just the face is included in the center of the bounding box).
Regarding claim 14 Ptucha discloses; The method of claim 13, further comprising, if a recognized object is not present in the region aligned with the gaze direction, defining a cropping window to include the detected face an at least a portion of the region aligned with the gaze direction, the detected face placed off-center within the cropping window and the region aligned with the gaze direction place in a center area of the cropping window (Ptucha, [0072] the eye gaze and facial pose vectors are used to perform the generation of a detecting box to include certain portions of the background or foreground as well as the face, where [0055]-[0056] the regions of background and foreground are evaluated for features/objects, figure 7 shows the placement of the face in a larger box to include more of the background/foreground objects, vs a situation where just the face is included in the center of the bounding box).
Regarding claim 15 Ptucha discloses; The method of claim 13, wherein the detected face is placed in the cropping window according to a compositional rule (Ptucha, [0065] ‘rule of thirds’ compositional rule is used to place the subject/face of interest in the bounding box/cropping window).
Regarding claim 16 Ptucha discloses; The method of claim 13, wherein the recognized object is placed in the cropping window according to a compositional rule (Ptucha, [0072] the eye gaze and facial pose vectors are used to perform the generation of a detecting box to include certain portions of the background or foreground as well as the face, where to determine the box, an aspect ratio is determined based on the region inclusion priority (compositional rule)).
Regarding claim 17 Ptucha discloses; A system comprising:
a processing system, including a first processor and a second processor (Ptucha, [0036] the system has a processor system, [0046] where the processor system may include multiple processors/microprocessors),
the first processor being a neural network processor trained to estimate gaze direction of face(s) detected from image data (Ptucha, [0053] the system uses neural networks for face detection and gaze direction determining, where [0036] processors are used to execute the algorithms used, i.e. the neural networks),
the second processor to execute program instructions stored in a memory device (Ptucha, [0036] processors are used to execute the algorithms used which are stored on a memory);
the memory device, storing the program instructions that, when executed by the second processor, cause the second processor to (Ptucha, [0036] processors are used to execute the algorithms used which are stored on a memory):
define a cropping window for an image based on a direction of gaze identified by the first processor for a detected face (Ptucha, [0064] padded face boxes (bounding boxes) are determined based on the fitness score of the face detected and other factors including eye gaze direction, and head angles, [0050] cropping is performed based on the determined bounding boxes);
and crop the image according to the cropping window (Ptucha, [0051] the image is cropped based on the determined crop box/bounding box).
Regarding claim 18 Ptucha discloses; The system of claim 17, further comprising an image signal processor having an output for identification of face(s) in the image data (Ptucha, [0050] the system outputs faces detected using bounding boxes, where [0036] processors perform the image processing).
Regarding claim 21 Ptucha discloses; The system of claim 17, wherein the program instructions cause the second processor to: perform object detection in a region of the image corresponding to the direction of gaze, and when an object is detected within the region, define the cropping window to include the detected face and the detected object (Ptucha, [0072] the eye gaze and facial pose vectors are used to perform the generation of a detecting/bounding box to include certain portions of the background or foreground as well as the face, where [0055]-[0056] the regions of background and foreground are evaluated for features/objects).
Regarding claim 22 Ptucha discloses; The system of claim 17, wherein the program instructions cause the second processor to: perform object detection in a region of the image corresponding to the direction of gaze, and when an object is not detected within the region, define the cropping window to place the detected face in an off center region of the cropping window with the region placed in a center of the cropping window (Ptucha, [0072] the eye gaze and facial pose vectors are used to perform the generation of a detecting box to include certain portions of the background or foreground as well as the face, where [0055]-[0056] the regions of background and foreground are evaluated for features/objects, figure 7 shows the placement of the face in a larger box to include more of the background/foreground objects, vs a situation where just the face is included in the center of the bounding box).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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 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.
3. Claims 2-3, 9-10, 12, and 19-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ptucha (US 20130108164 A1) in view of Li (US 202130342640 A1).
Regarding claim 2 Ptucha does not disclose; The method of claim 1, wherein the cropping window is defined to include the detected face in the cropping window when the gaze direction is estimated to be directed to a camera from which the image was derived.
However, in the same field of facial detection, Li teaches; wherein the cropping window is defined to include the detected face in the cropping window when the gaze direction is estimated to be directed to a camera from which the image was derived (Li, [0059] the ROI used in cropping the image is estimated, where the face orientation of the participant may be used to determine this, for example if the participant’s face is oriented such that it is not looking at the camera the system may exclude that face, and further if there is a substantial change in the face orientation of the participant (i.e. to be looking at the camera) the system may adjust the ROI to include the participant in the image).
The combination of Ptucha and Li would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the presently claimed invention. Ptucha teaches a method of face and gaze detection, and the use of bounding boxes to crop images around detected faces. Li teaches a similar method of face and gaze detection, where the gaze direction is used to determine whether to include the face in the image. The motivation for the combination lies in that using the gaze direction to determine whether to include a face in the image would allow for focus on people on a conference call who are engaged in the meeting or who are actively speaking on a video call. (Li, [0058]-[0060])
Regarding claim 3 the combination of Ptucha and Li teaches; The method of claim 1, wherein the cropping window is defined to exclude the detected face from the cropping window when the gaze direction is estimated not to be directed to a camera from which the image was derived (Li, [0059] the ROI used in cropping the image is estimated, where the face orientation of the participant may be used to determine this, for example if the participant’s face is oriented such that it is not looking at the camera the system may exclude that face, and further if there is a substantial change in the face orientation of the participant (i.e. to be looking at the camera) the system may adjust the ROI to include the participant in the image).
The combination of Ptucha and Li would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the presently claimed invention. Ptucha teaches a method of face and gaze detection, and the use of bounding boxes to crop images around detected faces. Li teaches a similar method of face and gaze detection, where the gaze direction is used to determine whether to include the face in the image. The motivation for the combination lies in that using the gaze direction to determine whether to include a face in the image would allow for focus on people on a conference call who are engaged in the meeting or who are actively speaking on a video call, and removing focus from those who are not active participants to improve video meeting focus. (Li, [0058]-[0060])
Regarding claim 9, the combination of Ptucha and Li teaches; The method of claim 6, wherein one of the detected face are determined to be included in a cropping window only after its gaze direction looks at a camera that captured the video for a threshold amount of time (Li, [0059] the ROI used in cropping the image is estimated, where the face orientation of the participant may be used to determine this, for example if the participant’s face is oriented such that it is not looking at the camera the system may exclude that face, and further if there is a substantial change in the face orientation of the participant (i.e. to be looking at the camera) the system may adjust the ROI to include the participant in the image).
The combination of Ptucha and Li would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the presently claimed invention. Ptucha teaches a method of face and gaze detection, and the use of bounding boxes to crop images around detected faces. Li teaches a similar method of face and gaze detection, where the gaze direction is used to determine whether to include the face in the image. The motivation for the combination lies in that using the gaze direction to determine whether to include a face in the image would allow for focus on people on a conference call who are engaged in the meeting or who are actively speaking on a video call. (Li, [0058]-[0060])
Regarding claim 10 the combination of Ptucha and Li teaches; The method of claim 6, wherein one of the detected face are determined not to be included in a cropping window after its gaze direction looks away from a camera that captured the video for a threshold amount of time (Li, [0059] the ROI used in cropping the image is estimated, where the face orientation of the participant may be used to determine this, for example if the participant’s face is oriented such that it is not looking at the camera the system may exclude that face, and further if there is a substantial change in the face orientation of the participant (i.e. to be looking at the camera) the system may adjust the ROI to include the participant in the image).
The combination of Ptucha and Li would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the presently claimed invention. Ptucha teaches a method of face and gaze detection, and the use of bounding boxes to crop images around detected faces. Li teaches a similar method of face and gaze detection, where the gaze direction is used to determine whether to include the face in the image. The motivation for the combination lies in that using the gaze direction to determine whether to include a face in the image would allow for focus on people on a conference call who are engaged in the meeting or who are actively speaking on a video call, and removing focus from those who are not active participants to improve video meeting focus. (Li, [0058]-[0060])
Regarding claim 12 the combination of Ptucha and Li teaches; The method of claim 6, further comprising, following the cropping, transmitting the cropped video in a videoconference stream (Li, [0050] the system transmits the processed data to the video conference software).
Regarding claim 19 the combination of Ptucha and Li teaches; The system of claim 17, wherein the program instructions cause the cropping window to be defined to include the detected face in the cropping window when the gaze direction is estimated to be directed to a camera from which the image was derived (Li, [0059] the ROI used in cropping the image is estimated, where the face orientation of the participant may be used to determine this, for example if the participant’s face is oriented such that it is not looking at the camera the system may exclude that face, and further if there is a substantial change in the face orientation of the participant (i.e. to be looking at the camera) the system may adjust the ROI to include the participant in the image).
The combination of Ptucha and Li would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the presently claimed invention. Ptucha teaches a method of face and gaze detection, and the use of bounding boxes to crop images around detected faces. Li teaches a similar method of face and gaze detection, where the gaze direction is used to determine whether to include the face in the image. The motivation for the combination lies in that using the gaze direction to determine whether to include a face in the image would allow for focus on people on a conference call who are engaged in the meeting or who are actively speaking on a video call. (Li, [0058]-[0060])
Regarding claim 20 the combination of Ptucha and Li teaches; The system of claim 17, wherein the program instructions cause the cropping window to be defined to exclude the detected face from the cropping window when the gaze direction is estimated not to be directed to a camera from which the image was derived time (Li, [0059] the ROI used in cropping the image is estimated, where the face orientation of the participant may be used to determine this, for example if the participant’s face is oriented such that it is not looking at the camera the system may exclude that face, and further if there is a substantial change in the face orientation of the participant (i.e. to be looking at the camera) the system may adjust the ROI to include the participant in the image).
The combination of Ptucha and Li would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the presently claimed invention. Ptucha teaches a method of face and gaze detection, and the use of bounding boxes to crop images around detected faces. Li teaches a similar method of face and gaze detection, where the gaze direction is used to determine whether to include the face in the image. The motivation for the combination lies in that using the gaze direction to determine whether to include a face in the image would allow for focus on people on a conference call who are engaged in the meeting or who are actively speaking on a video call, and removing focus from those who are not active participants to improve video meeting focus. (Li, [0058]-[0060])
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. For a listing of analogous prior art as cited by the examiner see the attached PTO-892 Notice of References Cited.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JORDAN M ELLIOTT whose telephone number is (703)756-5463. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8AM-5PM ET.
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, Emily Terrell can be reached at (571) 270-3717. 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.
/J.M.E./Examiner, Art Unit 2666
/EMILY C TERRELL/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2666