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 .
Priority
Receipt is acknowledged of certified copies of papers required by 37 CFR 1.55.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 07/22/2025 and 06/05/2024 is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement is being considered by the examiner.
Claim Objections
Claims 4-5 are objected to under 37 CFR 1.75(c) as being in improper form because a multiple dependent claim. See MPEP § 608.01(n). For the purposes of advancing prosecution, the Examiner will interpret claim 4 and 5 to dependent from claim 1.
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.
The claims in this application are given their broadest reasonable interpretation using the plain meaning of the claim language in light of the specification as it would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art. The broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim element (also commonly referred to as a claim limitation) is limited by the description in the specification when 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is invoked.
As explained in MPEP § 2181, subsection I, claim limitations that meet the following three-prong test will be interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
(A) the claim limitation uses the term “means” or “step” or a term used as a substitute for “means” that is a generic placeholder (also called a nonce term or a non-structural term having no specific structural meaning) for performing the claimed function;
(B) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is modified by functional language, typically, but not always linked by the transition word “for” (e.g., “means for”) or another linking word or phrase, such as “configured to” or “so that”; and
(C) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function.
Use of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim with functional language creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites sufficient structure, material, or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Absence of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is not to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is not interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites function without reciting sufficient structure, material or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Claim limitations in this application that use the word “means” (or “step”) are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action. Conversely, claim limitations in this application that do not use the word “means” (or “step”) are not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action.
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: first and second acquirer, image generator and authenticator in claim 1-5.
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 § 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.
Claim 1 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Richman et al. US PG-Pub(US 20190026449 A1) in view of Won et al. US PG-Pub(US 20230009287 A1).
Regarding Claim 1, Richman an avatar generation apparatus comprising: a first acquirer(the acquirer is being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f)) and the corresponding structure appears to be a processor disclosed in figure 1 and ¶[0061] and in the cited prior art ¶[0005] discloses a processor to perform the tasks of image analysis.) configured to acquire a first image indicating a front face portion of a user(¶[0044], “As shown, in response to an authentication event as discussed further below, the UI prompts the user to input his or her user identification, and then to activate the camera function of the device. The UI can prompt the user to initially look straight ahead with the camera held at arm's length in front of the user's face, to produce a full-face image.”, ¶[0044] discloses a camera capturinga full face image of the user.); a second acquirer (the acquirer is being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f)) and the corresponding structure appears to be a processor disclosed in figure 1 and ¶[0061] and in the cited prior art ¶[0005] discloses a processor to perform the tasks of image analysis.) configured to acquire, in response to a motion of the head of the user, a second image indicating the front face portion and a side face portion of the user ([0045] “FIGS. 5-10 illustrate. In FIG. 5, the user 500 holds the device 200 directly in front of his face, looking straight ahead at the device as indicated by the direction in which the nose 502 is pointed. In FIGS. 6 and 7, the user moves the camera in an arc to the right, at arm's length in some examples or closer than arm's length in other examples, until the device is substantially revolved ninety degrees (90°) to the right relative to the user as shown in FIG. 7, i.e., with the plane of the display 202 of the device being parallel to the direction in which the user's head is pointed. Note that the user preferably keeps looking straight ahead as he or she moves the camera right. Thus, an image of the user taken by the device when in the orientation of FIG. 7 is a right-side profile image. On the other hand, an image of the user taken while the device is in the orientation of FIG. 6 is at an angle α that is between zero degrees (0°) and ninety degrees (90°). The angle α is the angle established between the direction along which the camera's field of view is centered (typically perpendicular to the plane of the display 202) and the direction in which the user's head is pointed.”, ¶[0045] discloses the user is able to capture multiple images of different angles of their face. );an authenticator(the authenticator is being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f)) and the corresponding structure appears to be a processor disclosed in figure 1 and ¶[0061] and in the cited prior art ¶[0005] discloses a processor to perform the tasks of image analysis.) configured to authenticate the user based on the first and second images([0050] “Moving to block 1106, the images, as soon as they are taken, may be compared to the reference images taken at the initial baseline imaging process described above. It will be appreciated that at least two and preferably more than two images of the user are taken and compared to reference images, with one of the images being compared taken from the front of the user looking directly at the user's face, at least one image taken from the right of the user, and at least one image taken from the left of the user.
[0051] Proceeding to decision diamond 1108, it is determined whether, based at least in part on some of the images taken at block 1104, whether one or more images match comparison information, such as the reference images. If so, authentication is returned at block 1110 to unlock at least one function of the mobile device, and otherwise access to the at least one function is not permitted at block 1112, at which “authentication fails” essentially is returned,”, ¶[0050]=¶[0051] discloses comparing reference images with the capture image to authenticate the user.);
Richman does not explicitly teach an image generator onfigured to generate a head image of a three- dimensional avatar of the user, by using the second image.
Won teaches an image generator (the image generator is being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f)) and the corresponding structure appears to be a processor disclosed in figure 1 and ¶[0061] and in the cited prior art ¶[0010] discloses a processor to perform the tasks of image analysis.) configured to generate a head image of a three- dimensional avatar of the user, by using the second image. (¶[0004] “The electronic device may obtain an image of the user (e.g., the user’s face) and generate an avatar corresponding to the user, based on the obtained image. [0080] In an embodiment, the face designation unit 311 may select a representative image (e.g., one representative image) based on a user input from among a plurality of representative images and designate the face included in the selected representative image as a face for providing an avatar.”, ¶[0004] discloses using the images captured to generate an avatar of the user.)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify the claimed invention as taught by Richman with Won in order to create an avatar of a user. One skilled in the art would have been motivated to modify Richman in this manner in order to generate an avatar based on the obtained image. (Won, ¶[0006])
Claims 2-3 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Richman et al. US PG-Pub(US 20190026449 A1) in view of Won et al. US PG-Pub(US 20230009287 A1) in view of Miyake et al. US PG-Pub(US 20220012473 A1).
Regarding Claim 2, while the combination of Richman and Won teach the avatar generation apparatus according to claim 1, they do not explicitly teach wherein the authenticator is configured to authenticate the user by collating the first image with a third image, and the third image is an image that indicates the front face portion of the user and that is generated from the second image.
Miyake teaches wherein the authenticator is configured to authenticate the user by collating the first image with a third image, and the third image is an image that indicates the front face portion of the user and that is generated from the second image. (¶[0045], “the authentication unit 12 acquires face information from the captured face image of the user and performs the face authentication by collating the face information with the determined face information. The “face information” is information on a face image, such as a position of feature points such as eyes, nose, and mouth of the face in the face image, a feature amount such as a distance between feature points, and a feature vector of the face image. The face information is acquired from, for example, a face image.”, discloses collating the acquired image with a face image to perform authentication.)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify the claimed invention as taught by Richman and Won with Miyake in order to authenticate a user by collating images One skilled in the art would have been motivated to modify Richman and Won in this manner in order for performing face authentication by capturing the face of a person. (Miyake, ¶[0003])
Regarding Claim 3, while the combination of Richman and Won teaches the avatar generation apparatus according to claim 1, they do not explicitly teach wherein: the authenticator is configured to authenticate the user by inputting to a trained model that has learned a relationship between first characteristic information and an authentication result, second characteristic information, the first characteristic information indicates characteristics that have been extracted from the first image indicating a front face portion of each of a plurality of persons, the authentication result is a result of each of the plurality of persons, and the second characteristic information indicates characteristics that have been extracted from the second image.
Miyake teaches wherein: the authenticator is configured to authenticate the user by inputting to a trained model that has learned a relationship between first characteristic information and an authentication result(¶[0106], “Next, the acquisition unit 14C acquires (extracts) the face information from the face image in face authentication and face registration. The acquisition unit 14C acquires face information using a learned model obtained by machine learning using a face image. For the learned model, for example, a neural network is used. A face image is input to the neural network. In addition, the neural network outputs face information of the input face image. The input face image may be a face image captured by the terminal devices 20C and 201C to 205C, or a face image obtained by performing various processing such as filtering on the captured face image. Even the face image subjected to various processing corresponds to the face image captured by the terminal devices 20C and 201C to 205C.”), second characteristic information, the first characteristic information indicates characteristics that have been extracted from the first image indicating a front face portion of each of a plurality of persons (¶[0167], “Next, the acquisition unit 14D acquires (extracts) the face information from the face image in face authentication and face registration”, ¶[0167] discloses extracting face information from the first image when performing authentication and registration.), the authentication result is a result of each of the plurality of persons, and the second characteristic information indicates characteristics that have been extracted from the second image (¶[0167] disclose using a learned model to determine if a face image is authentic or not.).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify the claimed invention as taught by Richman and Won with Miyake in order to use a machine learning model to process the acquired images. One skilled in the art would have been motivated to modify Richman in this manner in order for performing face authentication by capturing the face of a person. (Miyake, ¶[0003])
Claim 4 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Richman et al. US PG-Pub(US 20190026449 A1) in view of Won et al. US PG-Pub(US 20230009287 A1) in view of Ganong et al. US PG-Pub(US 20170124385 A1).
Regarding Claim 4, while the combination of Richman and Won teach the avatar generation apparatus according to claim 1, they do not explicitly teach further comprising: a transmitter configured to output instruction information for causing a display apparatus to display instructions to move the head of the user; and a determiner configured to determine whether a value is greater than or equal to a predetermined value, the value indicating a degree of how much the motion of the head of the user matches a motion instructed by the instruction information, wherein the authenticator is configured to further authenticate the user, when a result of determination performed by the determiner is affirmative.
Ganong teaches a transmitter (¶[0094] discloses “ the computer program herein provided may automatically transmit the image to the person's computer for presentation to the person”) to output instruction information for causing a display apparatus to display instructions to move the head of the user(¶[0292], “the system may request a movement of the head in a certain direction (up, down, left, right or combination thereof) to change the pitch and yaw. Indicators may be presented to the user on a display to guide the pitch and yaw movement. If the movement as detected by measured pitch and yaw changes does not match the requested movement based on previously stored vales corresponding to pitch and yaw changes then the system may reject the authentication session.”, discloses prompting user to move their head when trying to authenticate the user.); and a determiner configured to determine whether a value is greater than or equal to a predetermined value, the value indicating a degree of how much the motion of the head of the user matches a motion instructed by the instruction information([0025], “In some embodiments, the method involves, comparing that face signature to the original signature from the registration pose using a difference formula, wherein if the difference is less than a specified threshold (variable parameter) then pass that step, wherein if the user passes all steps then they would pass the authentication session.”, ¶[0025] discloses comparing the face signature of the user to a threshold when authenticating the user.), wherein the authenticator is configured to further authenticate the user, when a result of determination performed by the determiner is affirmative. (¶[0095], “A plurality of individuals may each connect to the Internet 11 through computer terminals operable to access the Internet 11. The Internet 11 connection enables the transmission and reception of digital data from Internet connected devices, each of which may be operable as provided below. The digital data may include biometric data such as images or other data that is used to authenticate a user 13, 17, 19, 21 as part of a security process.”, discloses authenticating a user and transmitting the result.)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify the claimed invention as taught by Richman and Won with Ganong in order to prompt the user to move their head in a certain direction. One skilled in the art would have been motivated to modify Richman and Won in this manner in order to perform face and portrait extraction using face detection, recognition and authentication and application thereof to mitigate spoofing. (Ganong, ¶[0002])
Claim 5 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Richman et al. US PG-Pub(US 20190026449 A1) in view of Won et al. US PG-Pub(US 20230009287 A1) in view of Chen et al. US PG-Pub(US 20170316582 A1).
Regarding Claim 5, while the combination of Richman and Won teach the avatar generation apparatus according to claim 1, they do not explicitly wherein the second acquirer is configured to acquire the three-dimensional image based on a video obtained by imaging the motion of the head of the user.
Chen teaches wherein the second acquirer is configured to acquire the three-dimensional image based on a video obtained by imaging the motion of the head of the user. ([0035] “Depth camera, also known as depth sensing camera may include structured-light, active or passive stereo, or time-of-flight cameras—provides a sequence of distance, or depth, images of objects in the field of view. For purposes of the subject invention it is assumed that the depth camera generates both depth or range information and color information at video frame rates of at least 5 frames per second (fps). If the frame rate is substantially faster or slower than the subject invention will compensate appropriately.”
¶[0036], “Subject or user—a person whose head pose is estimated based on sensor input data from a depth camera. In certain embodiments, the subject moves his/her head in a predefined manner during the capture phase.”, ¶[0035]-¶[0037] discloses using a depth camera to generate a 3d image based on the motion of the user,)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify the claimed invention as taught by Richman and Won with Chen in order to generate a 3d image based on the motion of the head of the user. One skilled in the art would have been motivated to modify Richman and Won in this manner in order to improve tracking accuracy. (Chen, ¶[0091])
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to HAN D HOANG whose telephone number is (571)272-4344. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 8-5.
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, JOHN M VILLECCO can be reached at 571-272-7319. 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.
/HAN HOANG/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2661
Prosecution Insights