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 .
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claims 1-16 filed on 01/30/2026 have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument.
Applicant did not file the terminal disclaimer and requests the examiner to hold the filing of the terminal disclaimer in abeyance. In order for the continuity of the record examiner maintains the double patenting rejection made in the last office action as the amendments are still rejected under the nonstatutory double patenting rejection.
Claim Objections
Claim 18 is objected to because of the following informalities: “the transformed the target image” in line 4 should read “the transformed target image”. Appropriate correction is required.
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, 8, 9 and 16 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1, 4, 7, 9, 12 and 15 of U.S. Patent No. 12056616. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because the instant application claims 1, 8, 9 and 16 are broader and obvious in scope than the allowed claims 1, 4, 7, 9, 12 and 15.
Appl # 18737604 US12056616
Claim 1
Claims 1+ 4+7
Claim 8
Claims 1+4+7
Claim 9
Claims 9+12+15
Claim 16
Claims 9+12+15
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.
Claims 1-4, 7-12 and 15-16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Abreu et al. (US20160196665) hereafter Abreu in view of LI, JIAN-YI (CN108596827A) hereafter LI.
1. Regarding claim 1, Abreu discloses a method of processing images (figs 1, 4, 8-9, 10a, 12a-12d, 15, 17, 18a-18d and paras 0060-0062, 0079-0084, 0090-0103 and 0129 shows and discloses a method of processing images), the method comprising:
obtaining a plurality of training image sets respectively corresponding to a plurality of types of target objects (fig 3, fig 8 S8-1, para 0079 shows and discloses obtaining a plurality of training image sets 23 respectively corresponding to a plurality of types of target objects (i.e different types of objects disclosed in para 0079) meeting the claim limitations);
determining a standard structure corresponding to (fig 4 elements 21, 27, fig 8 S8-3 and paras 0079, 0089-0095 shows and discloses determining a standard structure commonly (i.e a global (common) shape model 27) corresponding to the plurality of types of the target objects, based on labeled feature points in training images in the plurality of training image sets (disclosed in para 0079-0081) meeting the claim limitations);
extracting a face of a first target object from a target image, based on the standard structure (figs 8 S8-18, S8-11, figs 12a and para 0096 shows and discloses detecting a face in an image 23 identified by the bounding box 51 (i.e extracting a face of a first target object from a target image as seen in fig 12a) based on the standard structure (i.e global shape model in fig 8 S8-3) meeting the above claim limitations, examiner notes that the specifics of extracting and a target image are not required by the current claim); and (fig 8 S8-1 and paras 0079, 0090 wherein the labeled feature points correspond to predetermined body parts (i.e eyes, nose features) of the target objects included in the training images 23 of the respective different types of objects meeting the above claim limitations). As seen above Abreu shows and discloses extracting/detecting a face of a first target object from a target image as seen in fig 12a. Abreu is however silent and fails to disclose determining a standard structure corresponding to facial features commonly present in the plurality of the objects and verifying the extracted face of the first target object.
LI disclose determining a standard structure corresponding to facial features commonly present in the plurality of the objects and verifying the extracted face of the first target object (Page 6 para 0006 discloses “different face have substantially the same (common) characteristic, the standard three-dimensional model by statistical modeling of the human face data (i.e standard structure corresponding to facial features data), and extracting the same features of a human face, reflects the geometric structure of the common face (commonly present in the plurality of the objects (i.e different face objects). In the embodiment of the invention, the pre-determined multiple characteristic points in the standard three-dimensional model, the characteristic point can reflect face each organ (such as eyes, nose, mouth, forehead, face shape, etc.) of the geometrical structure (i.e standard structure corresponding to facial features data) and texture information, such as feature points can be marked at the horizontal boundary of the eye, corner of the eyebrow and so on, each organ can be composed of a plurality of feature point by the feature point to identify a unique human face object (i.e verifying the extracted face of the first target object, page 4 para 0002 also discloses identifying (verifying) the human face meeting the above claim limitations)”, examiner notes that the specifics of “verifying” are not required by the current claim). Before the effective filing date of the invention was made, LI and Abreu are combinable because they are form the same filed of endeavor and are analogous art of face image processing. The suggestion/motivation would be an improved and efficient face data processing method/system on page 4 lines 22-47. Therefore, it would be obvious and within one of ordinary skill in the art to have recognized the advantages of LI in the method of Abreu to obtain the invention as specified in claim 1.
2. Regarding claim 2, Abreu and LI disclose the method of claim 1. Abreu discloses further wherein determining the standard structure comprises: performing a spatial transformation on the training images (fig 12b and para 0102-0103 shows and discloses performing random shape initializations 53 (i.e performing the spatial transformation on the training image(s) 23); and determining the standard structure based on the labeled feature points in the spatially transformed training images (figs 12b, 12c-12d and paras 0095, 0103-0104 shows and discloses random shape initializations 53 displayed over the initial global shape model (i.e the standard structure) and also discloses determining a reference shape 55/27 determined from the shape initializations (i.e spatial transformations) meeting the above claim limitations).
3. Regarding claim 3, Abreu and LI disclose the method of claim 1. Abreu disclose further wherein extracting the face of the first target object comprises: transforming the target image based on the standard structure (fig 12b and para 0102-0103 shows and discloses performing random shape initializations 53 (i.e performing the spatial transformation on the training (target) image(s) 23 and figs 12b-12d also shows transforming the target image 23 based on the standard structure 53/27 meeting the claim limitations); and extracting the face of the first target object from the transformed target image (paras 0102-0103 discloses detecting (i.e extracting the face) the face from the transformed (i.e shape initialized images) target image meeting the above claim limitations).
4. Regarding claim 4, Abreu and LI disclose the method of claim 3. Abreu disclose further wherein transforming the target image comprises: transforming the target image such that feature points in the target image form the standard structure by performing a spatial transformation on the target image (fig 12b and para 0102-0103 shows and discloses performing random shape initializations 53 (i.e performing the spatial transformation on the training (target) image 23 and figs 12b-12d also shows transforming the target image 23 such that features points in the target image 23 form the standard structure 53/27 meeting the claim limitations).
5. Regarding claim 7, Abreu and LI disclose the method of claim 1. Abreu disclose further wherein extracting the face of the first target object comprises: performing few-shot adaptation using a number of target images equal to or fewer than a predetermined number, based on the standard structure (figs 4, 8 and paras 0079-0081 shows and discloses determining standard structure (i.e global shape model 27) using plurality of few number of the training images (i.e performing few-shot adaptation) meeting the claim limitations, examiner notes that the specifics of “few-shot adaptation” are not required by the current claim).
6. Regarding claim 8, Abreu and LI disclose the method of claim 1. Abreu disclose further wherein the predetermined body parts comprise both eyes and a nose of the target objects (figs 9, 10a-10c, 12a-12b and paras 0081, 0090, 0093 disclose further wherein the predetermined body parts comprise both eyes and a nose of the target objects).
7. Regarding claim 9, An electronic apparatus (figs 1, 4, 8-9, 10a, 12a-12d, 15, 17, 18a-18d and 24 and paras 0060-0062, 0079-0084, 0090-0103, 0129 and 0176-0183 shows and discloses an apparatus for processing images) for processing images, the electronic apparatus comprising:
a communicator (fig 24 element 1006 is a communicator, examiner notes that the specifics of communicator are not required by the current claim);
a memory storing one or more instructions (fig 24 memory 1008, paras 0176-0183); and
at least one processor, wherein the at least one processor executes the one or more instructions stored in the memory to cause the electronic apparatus (fig 24 element 1004, paras 0176-0183) to:
obtain a plurality of training image sets respectively corresponding to a plurality of types of target objects (fig 3, fig 8 S8-1, para 0079 shows and discloses obtaining a plurality of training image sets 23 respectively corresponding to a plurality of types of target objects (i.e different types of objects disclosed in para 0079) meeting the claim limitations);
determine a standard structure corresponding to (fig 4 elements 21, 27, fig 8 S8-3 and paras 0079, 0089-0095 shows and discloses determining a standard structure commonly (i.e a global (common) shape model 27) corresponding to the plurality of types of the target objects, based on labeled feature points in training images in the plurality of training image sets (disclosed in para 0079-0081) meeting the claim limitations);
extract a face of a first target object from a target image, based on the standard structure (figs 8 S8-18, S8-11, figs 12a and para 0096 shows and discloses detecting a face in an image 23 identified by the bounding box 51 (i.e extracting a face of a first target object from a target image as seen in fig 12a) based on the standard structure (i.e global shape model in fig 8 S8-3) meeting the above claim limitations, examiner notes that the specifics of extracting and a target image are not required by the current claim); and (fig 8 S8-1 and paras 0079, 0090 wherein the labeled feature points correspond to predetermined body parts (i.e eyes, nose features) of the target objects included in the training images 23 of the respective different types of objects meeting the above claim limitations). As seen above Abreu shows and discloses extracting/detecting a face of a first target object from a target image as seen in fig 12a. Abreu is however silent and fails to disclose determine a standard structure corresponding to facial features commonly present in the plurality of the objects and verify the extracted face of the first target object.
LI disclose determine a standard structure corresponding to facial features commonly present in the plurality of the objects and verify the extracted face of the first target object (Page 6 para 0006 discloses “different face have substantially the same (common) characteristic, the standard three-dimensional model by statistical modeling of the human face data (i.e standard structure corresponding to facial features data), and extracting the same features of a human face, reflects the geometric structure of the common face (commonly present in the plurality of the objects (i.e different face objects). In the embodiment of the invention, the pre-determined multiple characteristic points in the standard three-dimensional model, the characteristic point can reflect face each organ (such as eyes, nose, mouth, forehead, face shape, etc.) of the geometrical structure (i.e standard structure corresponding to facial features data) and texture information, such as feature points can be marked at the horizontal boundary of the eye, corner of the eyebrow and so on, each organ can be composed of a plurality of feature point by the feature point to identify a unique human face object (i.e verifying the extracted face of the first target object, page 4 para 0002 also discloses identifying (verifying) the human face meeting the above claim limitations)”, examiner notes that the specifics of “verifying” are not required by the current claim). Before the effective filing date of the invention was made, LI and Abreu are combinable because they are form the same filed of endeavor and are analogous art of face image processing. The suggestion/motivation would be an improved and efficient face data processing method/system on page 4 lines 22-47. Therefore, it would be obvious and within one of ordinary skill in the art to have recognized the advantages of LI in the method of Abreu to obtain the invention as specified in claim 9.
8. Claim 10 is a corresponding apparatus claim of claim 2. See the corresponding explanation of claim 2.
9. Claim 11 is a corresponding apparatus claim of claim 3. See the corresponding explanation of claim 3.
10. Claim 12 is a corresponding apparatus claim of claim 4. See the corresponding explanation of claim 4.
11. Claim 15 is a corresponding apparatus claim of claim 7. See the corresponding explanation of claim 7.
12. Claim 16 is a corresponding apparatus claim of claim 8. See the corresponding explanation of claim 8.
Examiner's Note: Examiner has cited figures, and paragraphs in the references as applied to the claims above for the convenience of the applicant. Although the specified citations are representative of the teachings in the art and are applied to the specific limitations within the individual claim, other passages and figures may apply as well. It is respectfully requested for the applicant, in preparing the responses, to fully consider the references in entirety as potentially teaching all or part of the claimed invention, as well as the context of the passage as taught by the prior art or disclosed by the examiner. Examiner has also cited references in PTO892 but not relied on, which are relevant and pertinent to the applicant’s disclosure, and may also be reading (anticipatory/obvious) on the claims and claimed limitations. Applicant is advised to consider the references in preparing the response/amendments in-order to expedite the prosecution.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 5-6,13-14 and 17-20 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
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JAYESH PATEL whose telephone number is (571)270-1227. The examiner can normally be reached IFW Mon-FRI.
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, Andrew Bee can be reached at 571-270-5183. 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.
/JAYESH A PATEL/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2677
JAYESH PATEL
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 2677