DETAILED ACTION
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.
Claims 1-7, 15-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Bérard et al (US 20160143524 A1), and further in view of Lam et al (WY Lam, Michael, and Gladimir VG Baranoski. "A predictive light transport model for the human iris." Computer Graphics Forum. Vol. 25. No. 3. Oxford, UK and Boston, USA: Blackwell Publishing, Inc, 2006., applicant cited).
RE claim 1, Bérard teaches A computer-implemented method (Fig 5, abstract), comprising:
obtaining refraction data ([0081]);
obtaining mesh data (Fig 5, [0094], [0018]);
generating aligned model data by aligning the refraction data and the mesh data (Fig 5, [0081], [0094], [0111]-[0112]);
calculating refraction points in the aligned model data (Fig 11, [0020], [0081], [0113]); and
and calculating an approximated iris color based on the refraction points and the aligned model data (Figs 2, 5, 11-12, 19, abstract, [0102], [0109]-[0112], [0117], [0135], [0158]).
Bérard is silent RE: calculating melanin information for the aligned model data based on the refraction points for iris pixels in the aligned model data. However Lam teaches in abstract, Figs 1-4, page 362 cols 1-2, page 364 col 2, to simulate ray tracing in in eye layers integrating actual measured iridal data, wherein the melanin provides the most significant qualitative and quantitative contributions to the variations in the iridal chromatic attributes among the iridal pigments.
Thus, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to include in Bérard a system and method of calculating melanin information for the aligned model data based on the refraction points for iris pixels in the aligned model data; as suggested by Lam, in order to integrate the melanin data in the simulation realistic rendering of human eye, and thereby increasing system effectiveness and user experience.
RE claim 2, Bérard as modified by Lam teaches further comprising calculating the approximated iris color based on a melanin absorption coefficient, an iris stroma scattering coefficient, and an anisotropy of a scattering phase function (Lam Fig 4, page 362 Col 2-page 363 col 1).
RE claim 3, Bérard as modified by Lam teaches further comprising calculating the refraction points based on multiple lighting conditions (Bérard [0085], [0166], [0168]).
RE claim 4, Bérard as modified by Lam teaches further comprising: calculating a melanin concentration based on the refraction points and the aligned model data; and calculating the approximated iris color based on the melanin concentration (Lam abstract, Figs 1-4, page 362 cols 1-2, page 364 col 2).
RE claim 5, Bérard as modified by Lam teaches further comprising calculating the melanin concentration based on at least one predetermined variable (Lam abstract, Figs 1-4, page 362 cols 1-2, page 364 col 2, Table 1 wherein melanin concentration varies based on the refractive indices and molar absorptions).
RE claim 6, Bérard as modified by Lam teaches further comprising calculating the refraction points based on a Monte Carlo simulation of a plurality of light rays (Bérard [0020], [0101], Lam page 360 col 2).
RE claim 7, Bérard as modified by Lam teaches wherein the refraction points comprise a boundary layer between layers in an iris (Bérard [0020], [0140]-[0141], Lam Figs 2-3).
Claims 15-20 recite limitations similar in scope with limitations of claims 1-4, 6-7 and therefore rejected under the same rationale. In addition Bérard teaches An apparatus, comprising: a processor; and a memory storing instructions (Fig 32, [0138]).
Claims 8-10, 14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Bérard et al, and further in view of François et al (François, Guillaume, Pascal Gautron, Gaspard Breton, and Kadi Bouatouch. "Anatomically accurate modeling and rendering of the human eye." (2007).d).
RE claim 8, Bérard teaches A computer-implemented method (Fig 5, abstract), comprising:
obtaining refraction data ([0081]);
obtaining mesh data (Fig 5, [0094], [0018]);
generating aligned model data by aligning the refraction data and the mesh data (Fig 5, [0081], [0094], [0111]-[0112]);
calculating refraction points in the aligned model data (Fig 11, [0020], [0081], [0113]); and
and calculating an approximated iris color based on the refraction points and the aligned model data (Figs 2, 5, 11-12, 19, abstract, [0102], [0109]-[0112], [0117], [0135], [0158]).
Bérard is silent RE: by calculating a Mie scattering. However François teaches in abstract, page 5 3rd paragraph, page 13 5th paragraph, integrating known Mie scattering in the ray tracing simulation for accurate real-time rendering of the eye.
Thus, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to include in Bérard a system and method of calculating a Mie scattering; as suggested by François, for accurate real-time rendering of the eye, and thereby increasing system effectiveness and user experience.
RE claim 9, Bérard as modified by François teaches further comprising calculating the approximated iris color based on a melanin absorption coefficient, an iris stroma scattering coefficient, and an anisotropy of a scattering phase function (François abstract, page 13 paragraphs 1-5).
RE claim 10, Bérard as modified by François teaches further comprising calculating the refraction points based on multiple lighting conditions (Bérard [0085], [0166], [0168]).
RE claim 14, Bérard as modified by François teaches wherein the refraction points comprise a boundary layer between layers in an iris (Bérard [0020], [0140]-[0141], François Figs 1-3).
Claims 11-13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Bérard as modified by François, and further in view of Lam et al.
RE claim 11, Bérard as modified by François is silent RE further comprising: calculating a melanin concentration based on the refraction points and the aligned model data; and calculating the approximated iris color based on the melanin concentration.
However Lam teaches in abstract, Figs 1-4, page 362 cols 1-2, page 364 col 2, to simulate ray tracing in in eye layers integrating actual measured iridal data, wherein the melanin provides the most significant qualitative and quantitative contributions to the variations in the iridal chromatic attributes among the iridal pigments.
Thus, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to include in Bérard a system and method of calculating a melanin concentration based on the refraction points and the aligned model data; and calculating the approximated iris color based on the melanin concentration; as suggested by Lam, in order to integrate the melanin concentration data in the simulation realistic rendering of human eye, and thereby increasing system effectiveness and user experience.
RE claim 12, Bérard as modified by François and Lam teaches further comprising calculating the melanin concentration based on at least one predetermined variable (Lam abstract, Figs 1-4, page 362 cols 1-2, page 364 col 2, Table 1 wherein melanin concentration varies based on the refractive indices and molar absorptions).
RE claim 13, Bérard as modified by François teaches further comprising calculating the refraction points based on a plurality of light rays (Bérard [0020], [0101]).
Bérard as modified by François is silent RE a Monte Carlo simulation.
However Lam teaches in abstract, Figs 1-4, page 360 col 2 to integrate actual measured iridal data in the simulation.
Thus, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to include in Bérard a system and method of a Monte Carlo simulation as suggested by Lam, in order to effectively light path tracing simulation for realistic rendering of human eye utilizing known Monte Carlo simulation integrate actual measured iridal data, and thereby increasing system effectiveness and user experience.
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.
Claims 1-20 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory obviousness-type double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-17 of US Patent # US 12033274 B2.
Table 1 illustrates the conflicting claim pairs:
Present Application
1-7
8-14
15-20
US Patent # 12033274
1-6
7-12
13-17
Table 2 illustrates the conflicting claim pair with mapping, with the differences shown in bold form.
Claim 1 of present App.
Claim 1 of US 12033274 B2
A computer-implemented method
A computer-implemented method
obtaining refraction data;
obtaining refraction data;
obtaining mesh data;
obtaining mesh data;
generating aligned model data by aligning the refraction data and the mesh data;
generating aligned model data by aligning the refraction data and the mesh data;
calculating refraction points in the aligned model data;
calculating refraction points in the aligned model data;
calculating melanin information for the aligned model data based on the refraction points for iris pixels in the aligned model data; and
calculating melanin information for the aligned model data based on the refraction points for iris pixels in the aligned model data; and
calculating an approximated iris color based on the refraction points and the aligned model data.
calculating an approximated iris color based on the refraction points and the aligned model data, a melanin absorption coefficient, an iris stroma scattering coefficient, an anisotropy of a scattering phase function, and the aligned model data.
As seen from the table all elements of claim 1 of application are anticipated by Claim 1 of US Patent # 12033274 as a boarder version excluding some limitation. In addition elements of claim 2-7 are anticipated by Claims 1-6 of US Patent # 12033274
Claims 8-14 recite limitations similar in scope with limitations in claim 1-7 and therefore rejected under same rationale. Additionally claim 7 of Patent #12033274 teaches calculating a Mie scattering.
Claims 15-20 recite limitations similar in scope with limitations in claim 1-4, 6-7 and therefore rejected under same rationale. Additionally claim 13 of Patent #12033274 teaches An apparatus, comprising: a processor; and a memory storing instruction.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure (see attached 892).
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to SULTANA MARCIA ZALALEE whose telephone number is (571)270-1411. The examiner can normally be reached Monday- Friday 8:00am-4:30pm.
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, Kent Chang can be reached at (571)272-7667. 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.
/Sultana M Zalalee/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2614