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 papers submitted under 35 U.S.C. 119(a)-(d), which papers have been placed of record in the file.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statements (IDSs) submitted on June 21, 2024 and March 25, 2025 comply with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement is being considered by the examiner.
35 USC § 101 Statutory Analysis
The claims do not recite any of the judicial exceptions enumerated in the 2019 Revised Patent Subject Matter Eligibility Guidance. Further, the claims do not recite any method of organizing human activity, such as a fundamental economic concept or managing interactions between people. Finally, the claims do not recite a mathematical relationship, formula, or calculation. Thus, the claims are eligible because they do not recite a judicial exception.
Claim rejections - 35 U.S.C. §112(b)
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.
Claims 1-10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
Claim 1, line 13 recites the limitation “videoin”. The term is vague and indefinite. It should read “video in”, correction is required.
Claim 1, line 13 recites the limitation “theRGB”. The term is vague and indefinite. It should read “the RGB”, correction is required.
Claim 3, line 9 recites the limitation “still region”. The term is vague and indefinite. It should read “still region”, correction is required.
Claim 4, line 1 recites the limitation “thedetecting”. The term is vague and indefinite. It should read “the detecting”, correction is required.
Claim 9, line 16 recites the limitation “theRGB”. The term is vague and indefinite. It should read “the RGB”, correction is required.
Claim 10, line 3 recites the limitation “fordetecting”. The term is vague and indefinite. It should read “for detecting”, correction is required.
Claim 10, line 15 recites the limitation “theRGB”. The term is vague and indefinite. It should read “the RGB”, correction is required.
Claims 2 and 5-8 variously depend from an indefinite base 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 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.
Claims 1, 2, 9 and 10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. §102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Kim et al. (KR 20230070660 A (translation)) (hereafter referred to as “Kim”).
With regard to claim 1, Kim describes performing a frame-splitting process on the face video to be detected to obtain a plurality of frame images (refer for example to paragraphs [0012] and [0017]); performing face recognition on each frame image to obtain a recognized face and a face region (refer for example to paragraph [0012], to paragraphs [0019] through [0022], and to paragraph [0030]); extracting a region covered by an edge of the face region in successive frame images within a time period in which the recognized face appears (refer for example to paragraphs [0065] through [0075]); detecting a still region in the region covered by the edge of the face region (refer for example to paragraphs [0065] through [0075]); extracting feature blocks in the still region and tracking changes in RGB value of each pixel of the feature blocks within the time period(refer for example to paragraph [0059], and to paragraphs [0078] through [0081]); determining whether the RGB value of each pixel has changed (refer for example to paragraph [0059], and to paragraphs [0078] through [0081]); determining that the video to be detected is a real face video in response that the RGB value of each pixel is determined have not changed (refer for example to paragraphs [0002], to paragraphs [0013] through [0014], to paragraph [0018], to paragraph [0043], and to paragraphs [0083] through [0091]); and determining that the video to be detected is a fake face video in response that the RGB value of each pixel is determined to have changed (refer for example to paragraphs [0002], to paragraphs [0013] through [0014], to paragraph [0018], to paragraph [0043], and to paragraphs [0083] through [0091]).
As to claim 2, Kim describes wherein the extracting a region covered by an edge of the face region in successive frame images within a time period in which a recognized face appears further comprises extracting left and right sides of the recognized face below an eye feature point as the edge of the face region (refer for example to paragraphs [0071] through [0075]).
In regard to claim 9, Kim describes a memory storing processor-executable instructions and at least one processor coupled to the memory to receive the processor-executable instructions, wherein, upon execution of the processor executable instructions, the at least one processor (see Figure 1 and refer for example to paragraphs [0009] through [0011]) performing a frame-splitting process on the face video to be detected to obtain a plurality of frame images (refer for example to paragraphs [0012] and [0017]); performing face recognition on each frame image to obtain a face region (refer for example to paragraph [0012], to paragraphs [0019] through [0022], and to paragraph [0030]); extracting a region covered by an edge of the face region in successive frame images within a time period in which a recognized face appears (refer for example to paragraphs [0065] through [0075]); detecting a still region in the region covered by the edge of the face region (refer for example to paragraphs [0065] through [0075]); extracting feature blocks in the still region and tracking changes in RGB values of each pixel of the feature blocks within the time period (refer for example to paragraph [0059], and to paragraphs [0078] through [0081]); determining whether the RGB value of each pixel has not changed (refer for example to paragraph [0059], and to paragraphs [0078] through [0081]); determining that the video to be detected is a real face video when it is determined that the RGB value of each pixel does not change (refer for example to paragraphs [0002], to paragraphs [0013] through [0014], to paragraph [0018], to paragraph [0043], and to paragraphs [0083] through [0091]); and determining that the video to be detected is a fake face video when it is determined that the RGB value of each pixel changes (refer for example to paragraphs [0002], to paragraphs [0013] through [0014], to paragraph [0018], to paragraph [0043], and to paragraphs [0083] through [0091]).
With regard to claim 10, Kim describes a non-transitory computer readable storage medium storing processor-executable instructions which, when executed by at least one processor, cause the at least one processor (see Figure 1 and refer for example to paragraphs [0009] through [0011]) to perform a method for detecting deepfake of face video, the method comprising performing a frame-splitting process on the face video to be detected to obtain a plurality of frame images (refer for example to paragraphs [0012] and [0017]); performing face recognition on each frame image to obtain a face region (refer for example to paragraph [0012], to paragraphs [0019] through [0022], and to paragraph [0030]); extracting a region covered by an edge of the face region in successive frame images within a time period in which a recognized face appears (refer for example to paragraphs [0065] through [0075]); detecting a still region in the region covered by the edge of the face region (refer for example to paragraphs [0065] through [0075]); extracting feature blocks in the still region and tracking changes in RGB values of each pixel of the feature blocks within the time period (refer for example to paragraph [0059], and to paragraphs [0078] through [0081]); determining whether the RGB value of each pixel has not changed (refer for example to paragraph [0059], and to paragraphs [0078] through [0081]); determining that the video to be detected is a real face video when it is determined that the RGB value of each pixel does not change (refer for example to paragraphs [0002], to paragraphs [0013] through [0014], to paragraph [0018], to paragraph [0043], and to paragraphs [0083] through [0091]); and determining that the video to be detected is a fake face video when it is determined that the RGB value of each pixel changes (refer for example to paragraphs [0002], to paragraphs [0013] through [0014], to paragraph [0018], to paragraph [0043], and to paragraphs [0083] through [0091]).
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 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(a) 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 set forth in Graham v. John Deere Co., 383 U.S. 1, 148 USPQ 459 (1966), that are applied 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 7 and 8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. §103(a) as being unpatentable over Kim et al. (KR 20230070660 A (translation)) in view of Fu et al. (U.S. Patent Application Publication No. US 2019/0014884 A1) (hereafter referred to as “Fu”).
The arguments advanced in section 9 above, as to the applicability of Kim, are incorporated herein.
With regard to claims 7 and 8, although Kim does not expressly describe the wherein the performing a frame-splitting process on the face video to be detected to obtain a plurality of frame images comprises using an OpenCV library to perform the frame-splitting processing and wherein the performing face recognition on each frame image to obtain a recognized face and a face region comprises using a pre-trained dlib library to perform the face recognition, such a technique is well known and widely utilized in the prior art.
Fu discloses a facial recognition system which describes locating facial landmarks from the facial image of the user in one or more regions (refer for example to the abstract]) which provides for performing a frame-splitting process on the face video to be detected to obtain a plurality of frame images comprises using an OpenCV library to perform the frame-splitting processing and wherein the performing face recognition on each frame image to obtain a recognized face and a face region comprises using a pre-trained dlib library to perform the face recognition (refer to paragraph [0115]).
Given the teachings of the two references and the same environment of operation, namely that of systems for facial recognition, it would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the system to provide for an OpenCV library to perform the frame-splitting processing and wherein the performing face recognition on each frame image to obtain a recognized face and a face region comprises using a pre-trained dlib library to perform the face recognition in the manner described by Fu in order to according to known methods to yield predictable results and would have been motivated to do so with a reasonable expectation of success in order to provide for increased processing efficiency and higher accuracy as suggested by (refer for example to paragraph [0009]), which fails to patentably distinguish over the prior art absent some novel and unexpected result.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 3-6 would be allowable if rewritten to overcome the rejection(s) under 35 U.S.C. 112(b), set forth in this Office action and to include all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
Relevant Prior Art
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Astarabadi and Lee both disclose systems similar to applicant’s claimed invention.
Contact Information
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Jose L. Couso whose telephone number is (571) 272-7388. The examiner can normally be reached on Monday through Friday from 5:30am to 1:30pm.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Matthew Bella, can be reached on 571-272-7778. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is (571) 273-8300.
Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from the Patent Center information webpage on the USPTO website. For more information about the Patent Center, see https://www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/patent-center. Should you have questions about access to the Patent Center, contact the Patent Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 571-272-4100 or via email at: ebc@uspto.gov .
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.
/JOSE L COUSO/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2667
January 30, 2026