DETAILED ACTION
Preliminary Remarks
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
The preliminary amendment of 07/5/2024 is noted where claim 8 was cancelled and new claims 9-19 added.
Priority
This application is a 371 of PCT/JP2022/047439 filed 12/22/2022.
Acknowledgment is made of applicant's claim for foreign priority under 35 U.S.C. 119(a)-(d). The certified copy has been filed in the pending application.
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 § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 1-7 and 9-19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
In reference to claims 1, 7 and 14, these claims comprise the limitation of certain “data” as “prepared in advance,” (for example see lines 3-4 of claim 1, lines 8-9 of claim 7 and lines 9-10 of claim 14) of which the Examiner deems as indefinite as the term “in advance” is a relative term which renders the claim indefinite. The term “in advance” is not defined by the claim, the specification does not provide a standard for ascertaining the requisite degree, and one of ordinary skill in the art would not be reasonably apprised of the scope of the invention. The claims fail to define any sort of “timing” or range, value, etc. that one of ordinary skill in the art would be able to reasonably equate to “in advance.” For example, would “1 hour prior” be considered “in advance” or would “10 millisecond” be equal thereto? These questions cannot be properly answered thus, the claims are deemed indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim that which Applicant regards as the invention. Note, the Examiner will do his best to apply the broadest yet still most reasonable interpretation of the limitation(s) in question as per prior art rejection purposes however, a revision/review of the language is required. Lastly note, claims 2-6, 9-13 and 15-19 depend upon claims 1, 7 and 14 respectively and are therefore at least inherently included in this rejection.
In reference to claims 7 and 14, these claims recite the limitation of “the body” in the “reconstructing a 3D shape” step of claims (see for example line 7 of claim 7). There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. Note, claims 9-13 and 15-19 depend upon claims 7 and 14 respectively and are therefore at least inherently included in this rejection.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 1, 7 and 14 would be allowable if rewritten or amended to overcome the rejection(s) under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), 2nd paragraph, set forth in this Office action.
The Examiner makes note of a term/concept which, in combination and integration with the other limitations of the claims, is seen as the major novel aspect of the invention and which was not found in the prior art of record. The Examiner makes note of the term/concept reconstructing a 3D shape of a body corresponding to an estimated pose sed on a 3D shape data, which itself is reconstructed from 2D video f a person captured by a camera prepared in advance, generating based on the 3D shape of the body, texture information reconstructed by the captured camera image blended with an image of a reconstructed texture of a face, a 3D model of the person captured by the camera of claims 1, 7 and 14 respectively. In other words, it is the explicitly reconstruction of 3D data based upon 2D data in the specific ordering of steps and reliance of data for such specific steps that the Examiner interprets as the novel aspect of the invention.
References Cited
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure:
Li et al. (WO2021063271) (see machine translation)
Li et al. discloses a human body model reconstruction method, system and storage medium that can accurately reconstruct a 3D model of a human body and all texture information of a human body maybe restored ensuring accuracy of the model reconstruction.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Antonio Caschera whose telephone number is (571) 272-7781. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday between 6:30 AM and 3:00 PM EST.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner's supervisor, Ke Xiao, can be reached at (571) 272-7776.
Any response to this action should be mailed to:
Mail Stop ____________
Commissioner for Patents
P.O. Box 1450
Alexandria, VA 22313-1450
or faxed to:
571-273-8300 (Central Fax)
See the listing of “Mail Stops” at http://www.uspto.gov/patents/mail.jsp and include the appropriate designation in the address above.
Any inquiry of a general nature or relating to the status of this application or proceeding should be directed to the Technology Center 2600 Customer Service Office whose telephone number is (571) 272-2600.
/Antonio A Caschera/
Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2612
7/10/26
Prosecution Insights