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 .
Information Disclosure Statement
IDS filed 6/27/24 and 12/12/24 are acknowledged, the references therein relating to the general background of applicant’s invention with the exception of CN201910650519 by Zhang et al. which has particular relevance as detailed below.
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 9 and 19 recite the limitation "the face envelope box" in the 4th line. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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.
1) Claim 20 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by U.S. patent application publication 2005/0063566 by Beek et al.
Beek teaches a processor-implemented (figure 3, item 49; a processor) method with image processing, the method comprising: detecting keypoints from an input image (paragraph 93; particular pixels are determined [i.e. keypoints], paragraph 65 also detects eyes); determining an area of the input image and a feature area of the input image based on the keypoints (paragraph 55; face [a feature area] is determined within an input image); and determining whether the input image is an invalid image based on either one or both of: a height-to-width ratio of the feature area (paragraph 64; area can be determined “not face” [i.e. invalid] dependent upon the height-width ratio of the face); and a ratio between a distance between a height-directional central axis of the area of the input image and the height-directional central axis of the feature area and the width of the area of the input image.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 1-8 and 10-18 are allowed.
The following is an examiner’s statement of reasons for allowance:
Regarding claims 1 and 12, the prior art does not contain a valid combination of references that disclose a method for image processing comprising detecting facial keypoints from an input face image, determining a face area of the input face image and a facial feature area of the input face image based on the facial keypoints and determining the input face image to be an invalid face image in response to the facial feature area satisfying a first preset condition, wherein the first preset condition comprises either one or both of a shape condition regarding a shape of the facial feature area, and a position condition regarding a relationship between a position of the facial feature area and a position of the face area. Similar prior art such as U.S. patent application publication 2005/0063566 by Beek et al. and CN201910650519 by Zhang et al. disclose detecting a face and comparing the face to a other information to determine an invalid image but fails to specifically disclose both a face area and a different facial feature area wherein the image is invalid if the feature area is compared to a shape or the feature area is compared to the face area.
Claims 2-8, 10, 11 and 13-18 are allowed because they depend upon allowed claims.
Any comments considered necessary by applicant must be submitted no later than the payment of the issue fee and, to avoid processing delays, should preferably accompany the issue fee. Such submissions should be clearly labeled “Comments on Statement of Reasons for Allowance.”
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to BENJAMIN O DULANEY whose telephone number is (571)272-2874. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Fri 10-6.
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, Abderrahim Merouan can be reached at (571)270-5254. 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.
BENJAMIN O. DULANEY
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 2676
/BENJAMIN O DULANEY/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2683
Prosecution Insights