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 .
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.
Claim 9 is 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.
Claim 9 recites “the target effect tool” in line 1. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
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.
Claim(s) 1, 14, and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Schonfeld et al. (U.S. Patent Application 20140205195).
In regards to claim 1, Schonfeld teaches a method for effect generation [Fig. 4; e.g. method to augment a photo, 0040], comprising:
obtaining, in response to a trigger operation of a current target object for an effect [Fig. 3, 4; e.g. in response to taking a photo of a character for landmark triggered image augmentation, 0038-0039], at least one feature data corresponding to the current target object based on the trigger operation [Fig. 4; e.g. determining whether a predefined landmark is present in the image of the character based on the photo taken, 0041];
determining a target feature data of the current target object based on the at least one feature data [Fig. 4; e.g. determines whether a predefined product is identified in the image of the character based on the predefined landmark, 0041];
determining a target effect corresponding to the target feature data based on a matching relationship between the target feature data and effects [e.g. retrieve an augmentation image corresponding to the predefined product based on an association between the predefined product and a plurality of items related to the predefined product, 0042-0043]; and
attaching the target effect on a preset part of the target object according to a preset manner [e.g. augmenting the augmentation image on the character by overlaying the sword onto the hand of the character, where the augmentation image is predefined, 0031, 0035, 0043].
In regards to claim 14, the claim recites similar limitations as claim 1, but in the form of a computer device comprising: a memory and a processor, wherein the memory and the processor are in mutual communication connection, the memory stores computer instructions, and the processor executes the computer instructions to perform the method of claim 1. Furthermore, Schonfeld teaches a computer device [Fig. 2; e.g. computer, 0032-0033] comprising: a memory [Fig. 2; e.g. memory, 0033] and a processor [Fig. 2; e.g. processor, 0033], wherein the memory and the processor are in mutual communication connection [e.g. the processor connected via a bus to the memory, 0033], the memory stores computer instructions [e.g. computer program instructions, 0022], and the processor executes the computer instructions to perform the method of claim 1. Therefore, the same rationale as claim 1 is applied.
In regards to claim 20, the claim recites similar limitations as claim 1, but in the form of a non-transitory computer-readable storage medium, wherein the computer-readable storage medium stores computer instructions, and the computer instructions are configured to enable a computer to perform the method of claim 1. Furthermore, Schonfeld teaches a non-transitory computer-readable storage medium [Fig. 2; e.g. memory, 0033], wherein the computer-readable storage medium stores computer instructions [e.g. computer program instructions, 0022], and the computer instructions are configured to enable a computer [Fig. 2; e.g. computer, 0032-0033] to perform the method of claim 1. Therefore, the same rationale as claim 1 is applied.
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(s) 2, and 15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Schonfeld et al. (U.S. Patent Application 20140205195) as applied to claims 1, 14 above, and further in view of Reyes Martinez et al. (U.S. Patent Application 20190197134).
In regards to claim 2, Schonfeld does not explicitly teach the method according to claim 1, wherein determining the target feature data of the current target object based on the at least one feature data comprises:
obtaining a weight corresponding to each of the feature data; and
determining the target feature data by performing a weighting process on the feature data based on the weight.
However, Reyes Martinez teaches the method according to claim 1, wherein determining the target feature data of the current target object based on the at least one feature data [see rejection of claim 1 above] comprises:
obtaining a weight [e.g. weight value, 0053-0055] corresponding to each of the feature data [e.g. corresponding to each of the extracted and known features, 0053-0055]; and
determining the target feature data by performing a weighting process on the feature data based on the weight [e.g. determining a match between a known feature and an extracted feature by performing minimum cost matching between the known feature and the extracted feature having a weight value below a weight threshold, such as a smallest weight value indicative of high similarity, 0055].
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to have modified Schonfeld’s method with the features of
obtaining a weight corresponding to each of the feature data; and
determining the target feature data by performing a weighting process on the feature data based on the weight
in the same conventional manner as taught by Reyes Martinez because Reyes Martinez provides a method for using data matching techniques to reduce or eliminate additional input of data from users [0021].
In regards to claim 15, the claim recites similar limitations as claim 2. Therefore, the same rationale as claim 2 is applied.
Claim(s) 9, and 10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Schonfeld et al. (U.S. Patent Application 20140205195) as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Tokuchi (U.S. Patent Application 20190180479).
In regards to claim 9, Schonfeld does not explicitly teach the method according to claim 1, wherein after attaching the target effect tool on the preset part of the target object according to a preset dynamic manner, the method further comprises:
switching, in response to a switching operation instruction for the target effect, the target effect based on the switching operation instruction.
However, Tokuchi teaches the method according to claim 1, wherein after attaching the target effect tool on the preset part of the target object according to a preset dynamic manner [Fig. 5, 6; e.g. after combining the original image and the target-object image in a specific location in the target-object image according to predetermined attributes, 0060-0061], the method further comprises:
switching, in response to a switching operation instruction for the target effect [e.g. in response to the user selecting a different texture for the target object, 0051], the target effect based on the switching operation instruction [e.g. changing the texture of the target object based on the user selection, 0051].
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to have modified Schonfeld’s method with the features of wherein after attaching the target effect tool on the preset part of the target object according to a preset dynamic manner, the method further comprises:
switching, in response to a switching operation instruction for the target effect, the target effect based on the switching operation instruction
in the same conventional manner as taught by Tokuchi because switching the target effect is well known and commonly used in the art of image processing systems.
In regards to claim 10, Schonfeld does not explicitly teach the method according to claim 1, wherein after attaching the target effect on the preset part of the target object according to the preset manner, the method further comprises:
obtaining a movement posture of the target object; and
adjusting a display form of the target effect based on the movement posture.
However, Tokuchi teaches the method according to claim 1, wherein after attaching the target effect on the preset part of the target object according to the preset manner [see rejection of claim 1 above], the method further comprises:
obtaining a movement posture of the target object [e.g. movement of the object, 0067]; and
adjusting a display form of the target effect based on the movement posture [e.g. changing the texture and feel simulated on the screen in accordance with the movement of the object, 0067].
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to have modified Schonfeld’s method with the features of wherein after attaching the target effect on the preset part of the target object according to the preset manner, the method further comprises:
obtaining a movement posture of the target object; and
adjusting a display form of the target effect based on the movement posture
in the same conventional manner as taught by Tokuchi because Tokuchi provides a method for controlling the attributes of the composite image in a user-friendly manner [0065].
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 3-8, 11-13, and 16-19 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.
In regards to claim 3, Schonfeld as modified by Reyes Martinez fails to teach or suggest the method according to claim 2, wherein in response to the feature data including a plurality of feature data, determining the target effect corresponding to the target feature data based on the matching relationship between the target feature data and effects comprises:
obtaining each of preset weight parameters corresponding to the effects;
determining a target weight parameter that matches a target weight corresponding to the target feature data by comparing the target weight with each of the preset weight parameters; and
determining the target effect corresponding to the target weight parameter.
In regards to claim 4, the claim depends on at least claim 3. Therefore, claim 4 is allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
In regards to claim 5, Schonfeld as modified by Reyes Martinez fails to teach or suggest the method according to claim 2, wherein in response to the feature data including one feature data, determining the target effect corresponding to the target feature data based on the matching relationship between the target feature data and effects comprises:
obtaining trigger times for the effect in response to the target feature data being the same; and
generating different target effects based on different trigger times; or
determining the target effect corresponding to each of target feature data based on the different target feature data in response to the target feature data being different.
In regards to claims 6-8, the claims depend on at least claim 5. Therefore, the claims 6-8 are allowable for at least the same reason as claim 5 if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
In regards to claim 11, Schonfeld fails to teach or suggest the method according to claim 1, wherein each of the effects is stored in an effect set, and a generation method of the effect set comprises:
displaying a creation page for a model patch, wherein the creation page comprises a plurality of model parameters;
obtaining a model parameter combination set in response to an adjustment operation on one or more of the model parameters;
obtaining an effect model set by performing programmable generation based on the model parameter combination set; and
generating the effect set of an augmented virtual reality based on the effect model set.
In regards to claims 12-13, the claims depend on at least claim 11. Therefore, the claims 12-13 are allowable for at least the same reason as claim 11 if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
In regards to claim 16, the claim recites similar limitations as claim 3. Therefore, claim 16 is allowable for at least the same reason as claim 3 if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
In regards to claim 17, the claim depends on at least claim 16. Therefore, the claim 17 is allowable for at least the same reason as claim 16 if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
In regards to claim 18, the claim recites similar limitations as claim 5. Therefore, claim 18 is allowable for at least the same reason as claim 5 if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
In regards to claim 19, the claim recites similar limitations as claim 6. Therefore, claim 19 is allowable for at least the same reason as claim 6 if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ANDREW SHIN whose telephone number is (571)270-5764. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday from 11:00AM to 7:00PM EST.
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, Said Broome can be reached at 571-272-2931. 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.
/ANDREW SHIN/Examiner, Art Unit 2612
/Said Broome/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2612