DETAILED ACTION
Claim(s) 1,2,3,5,8,11,12,16,18 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by RUSSELL (WO 2018/191784 A1):
Claim(s) 4 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over RUSSELL (WO 2018/191784 A1) as applied in claims 1,2,3,5,8,11,12,16,18 further in view of SPIEGEL et al. (US 2013/0063487 A1):
Claim(s) 6,7 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over RUSSELL (WO 2018/191784 A1) as applied in claims 1,2,3,5,8,11,12,16,18 further in view of TACK et al. (KR 2017-0135758 A) with SEARCH machine translation:
Claim(s) 9,10 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over RUSSELL (WO 2018/191784 A1) as applied in claims 1,2,3,5,8,11,12,16,18 further in view of ANDOCHE et al. (US 2024/0069366 A1) with Foreign Application Priority Data Jan 28, 2021 (EP)….21305107.1):
Claim(s) 13 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over RUSSELL (WO 2018/191784 A1) as applied in claims 1,2,3,5,8,11,12,16,18 further in view of Li et al. (CN 103258425 A) with SEARCH machine translation:
Claim(s) 14,15 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over RUSSELL (WO 2018/191784 A1) as applied in claims 1,2,3,5,8,11,12,16,18 further in view of Li et al. (CN 103258425 A) with SEARCH machine translation as applied in claim 13 further in view of Kerzner et al. (US 2021/0110137 A1):
Claim(s) 17 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over RUSSELL (WO 2018/191784 A1) as applied in claims 1,2,3,5,8,11,12,16,18 further in view of Katz et al. (US 2020/0207358 A1):
Claim(s) 19 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over RUSSELL (WO 2018/191784 A1) as applied in claims 1,2,3,5,8,11,12,16,18 further in view of Foley (US 6,535,223 B1):
Claim(s) 20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over RUSSELL (WO 2018/191784 A1) as applied in claims 1,2,3,5,8,11,12,16,18 further in view of LUO et al. (CN 111899293 B) with machine translation:
Response to Amendment
The amendment was received 7/29/2026. Claims pending 1-20:
PNG
media_image1.png
722
154
media_image1.png
Greyscale
35 USC § 101- Positive Statement
Streamlined analysis: The claims 1-20 reflect1 an improvement under 35 USC 101 in view of applicant’s disclosure2.
.
Response to Arguments
Double Patenting Rejection
Applicant’s arguments, see remarks, page 8:
Claims 1-20 were rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-20 of U.S. Patent No. 12,067,804.
Applicant does not admit that the claims are obvious in view of U.S. Patent No. 12,067,8043. However, a Terminal Disclaimer in compliance with 37 C.F.R. § 1.321 is enclosed herewith to obviate these rejections.
, filed 7/29/2026, with respect to double patenting have been fully considered and are persuasive. The double patenting of claims 1-20 has been withdrawn.
The Rejection of Claims Under§ 102
Argument
Applicant's arguments filed 7/29/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive:
Applicants state in page 9, 2nd para:
Applicants respectfully submit that the Russell does not establish a prima facie case of anticipation, because Russell fails to disclose each and every claimed element, as arranged in the claims, and in as complete detail as in the claims. 5 In fact, Russell teaches away from the present application.
In response, claims 1,2,3,5,8,11,12,16,18 are rejected by RUSSELL (WO 2018/191784 A1) under 35 USC 102(a)(1) while the remaining claims, such independent claims 19 and 20, are rejected under 35 USC 103:
Claim(s) 1,2,3,5,8,11,12,16,18 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by RUSSELL (WO 2018/191784 A1):
Claim(s) 4 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over RUSSELL (WO 2018/191784 A1) as applied in claims 1,2,3,5,8,11,12,16,18 further in view of SPIEGEL et al. (US 2013/0063487 A1):
Claim(s) 6,7 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over RUSSELL (WO 2018/191784 A1) as applied in claims 1,2,3,5,8,11,12,16,18 further in view of TACK et al. (KR 2017-0135758 A) with SEARCH machine translation:
Claim(s) 9,10 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over RUSSELL (WO 2018/191784 A1) as applied in claims 1,2,3,5,8,11,12,16,18 further in view of ANDOCHE et al. (US 2024/0069366 A1) with Foreign Application Priority Data Jan 28, 2021 (EP)….21305107.1):
Claim(s) 13 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over RUSSELL (WO 2018/191784 A1) as applied in claims 1,2,3,5,8,11,12,16,18 further in view of Li et al. (CN 103258425 A) with SEARCH machine translation:
Claim(s) 14,15 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over RUSSELL (WO 2018/191784 A1) as applied in claims 1,2,3,5,8,11,12,16,18 further in view of Li et al. (CN 103258425 A) with SEARCH machine translation as applied in claim 13 further in view of Kerzner et al. (US 2021/0110137 A1):
Claim(s) 17 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over RUSSELL (WO 2018/191784 A1) as applied in claims 1,2,3,5,8,11,12,16,18 further in view of Katz et al. (US 2020/0207358 A1):
Claim(s) 19 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over RUSSELL (WO 2018/191784 A1) as applied in claims 1,2,3,5,8,11,12,16,18 further in view of Foley (US 6,535,223 B1):
Claim(s) 20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over RUSSELL (WO 2018/191784 A1) as applied in claims 1,2,3,5,8,11,12,16,18 further in view of LUO et al. (CN 111899293 B) with machine translation:
The Rejection of Claims Under§ 103
Argument
Applicant's arguments filed 7/29/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive:
Applicants state on page 12:
As discussed above, Russell fails to disclose and actually teaches away from at least claim elements:
"generating a plurality of landmarks of the face based on the image; obtaining a
depth map for the face of the user; computing a real-world scale of the face based on the depth map and the plurality of landmarks" recited in the amended claim l;
"computing a real-world scale of the face without referencing an image of a
reference object having known physical dimensions" recited in the amended claim 19; and
"obtaining a depth map for the face of the user; obtaining a face-segmentation mask for the face; applying momentum smoothing to the depth map based on the face segmentation mask to generate a smoothed depth map; computing a real-world scale of the face based on the smoothed depth map" recited in the amended claim 20.
Applicant respectfully submits that the other cited references fail to cure the deficiency in Russell because the other cited references, individually or in any combination, fail to disclose or teach at least the above claim elements.
In response:
Claim(s) 1,2,3,5,8,11,12,16,18 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by RUSSELL (WO 2018/191784 A1), wherein RUSSELL teaches a depth camera mapping pupil distance adjustment value via:
“[00325] The value adjustment may be calculated by the DMM if the screen to face
distance is known, as may be the case with devices that employ technologies including but not limited to depth sensing cameras, proximity sensors, or triangulation using multiple video capture images in real time, or the like which can supply such distance information. If this distance is known, and the overall pupillary distance is known, then through mathematics of triangles and eyes centre of rotation information, the true NPD at 40 cm (or any other distance) may be calculated with accuracy.”;
Claim(s) 19 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over RUSSELL (WO 2018/191784 A1) as applied in claims 1,2,3,5,8,11,12,16,18 further in view of Foley (US 6,535,223 B1), wherein Foley teaches not requiring a reference object, c.2,ll.50-55:
“After the image is transmitted, the image can then be resized and used to try-on different frames as is known in the prior art. Alternatively, a second image without a reference object can be used for trying on frames.”;
Claim(s) 20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over RUSSELL (WO 2018/191784 A1) as applied in claims 1,2,3,5,8,11,12,16,18 further in view of LUO et al. (CN 111899293 B) with machine translation, wherein LUO teaches obtaining a segmented smoothed depth map body mask showing a face in fig. 5(c):
PNG
media_image2.png
393
865
media_image2.png
Greyscale
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.
Claim(s) 1,2,3,5,8,11,12,16,18 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by RUSSELL (WO 2018/191784 A1):
PNG
media_image3.png
722
373
media_image3.png
Greyscale
Re 1. (Currently Amended), RUSSELL discloses A method (likewise) comprising4:
receiving, by one or more processors of a user device, an image that includes a depiction of a face of a user (or likewise “The face image 50 of the user is obtained” [00155]);
generating a plurality of landmarks of the face based on the image (or likewise drawing landmarks using an image via “maps5 to” “landmark”-“points” via [00314] [00449] and fig. 2: “CAPTURING USER’s IMAGE”:
[00314] After having completed the sequence of scaling, and produced the Purkinje images, and since the live video feed was capturing continuously, the DMM module now, through iris and or pupil recognition, finds the bright spot within the dark pupil zone, i.e. the system locates and maps to the 1 st Purkinje image. Furthermore, since the wearer had imposed at that capture moment a correctly fitted and scaled Simulated Look Image containing the chosen Glasses, the DMM system now automatically counts pixels in various locations:
[00449] The pupil center or first Purkinje image reference points can be automatically and accurately found with the DMM dispensing system, as the DMM technology can locate to the accuracy of a pixel dimension the central location of these landmarks.);
obtaining a depth map for the face of the user (or likewise capturing an adjustment via a “depth sensing camera”, “face distance”, “value6 adjustment”):
“[00325] The value adjustment may be calculated by the DMM if the screen to face
distance is known, as may be the case with devices that employ technologies
including but not limited to depth sensing cameras, proximity sensors, or
triangulation using multiple video capture images in real time, or the like which can
supply such distance information. If this distance is known, and the overall pupillary
distance is known, then through mathematics of triangles and eyes centre of rotation
information, the true NPD at 40 cm (or any other distance) may be calculated with
accuracy.”);
computing a real-world scale of the face based on 7 the plurality of landmarks (or likewise a depth camera hardware system offering scaled eyeglasses-try-on:
“[00456] The VOS system offers true live, scaled, real time video simulation of
frame try on; does not need an optical dispenser at any point, and as such, the
optical dispenser is obsoleted; the user may complete the process by using a
smartphone or such portable device and can do so at their convenience at any time;
offers accurate measurement capability, including BVD and Pantascopic tilt; and has
fully integrated final dispense and e-commerce solutions.”);
obtaining an augmented reality eyewear (or likewise “the selected frame 12, such as a virtual image of the selected frame 12, defines an augmented reality”, pg. 30: [00170]: fig. 4: augmented glasses 12 as obtained/selected); and
changing a size of the augmented reality eyewear based on [[a]] the computed real-world scale of the face as a function of a distance between the face of the user and the user device (or likewise “alter the sizing of the rendered glasses (also referred as to 30 representation of the selected spectacle frame)in real time so as to give a truly 'real'
mirror image, and is termed herein 'gross planar compensation', and accounts for
altered distance between the subject and the 99 System”, pg. 49 [00299]), the size of the augmented reality eyewear being adjusted to be a first value8 in response to determining that the distance (“distance…closer” pg. 49 [00299]: fig. 13: close-up) between the face of the user and the user device is a first amount (or likewise adjusting the sizing along with accounting for distance via said “If the user brings the camera closer…alter the sizing of the rendered glasses (also referred as to 30 representation of the selected spectacle frame)in real time so as to give a truly 'real' mirror image, and is termed herein 'gross planar compensation', and accounts for altered distance between the subject and the 99 System”, pg. 49 [00299]), the size of the augmented reality eyewear being decreased to a second value (or likewise “if the user brings the camera…further away in order to obtain a more complete overall image appreciation, the VOS system will alter the sizing of the rendered glasses…to give a truly ‘real’ mirror image” pg. 49 [00299]: fig. 12: zoom-out) that is smaller than the first value in response to determining that the distance between the face of the user and the user device has increased (via said “further away”: fig. 12: zoom-out) to a second amount greater than the first amount (figures 12,13, reproduced below:
PNG
media_image4.png
1059
1301
media_image4.png
Greyscale
Re 2. (Original), RUSSELL discloses The method of claim 1, further comprising:
retrieving physical size information of the augmented reality eyewear (or likewise glasses prescription retrieval via “Rx retrieval” [00128]);
computing an adjustment factor (or likewise said “alter the sizing of the rendered glasses) associated with the physical size information based on the computed real-world scale of the face; and
modifying a size (or likewise said “alter the sizing of the rendered glasses) of the augmented reality eyewear based on the adjustment factor.
Re 3. (Original), RUSSELL discloses The method of claim 1, further comprising:
obtaining rigid material properties (or likewise “obtaining lens9 fitting height measurements”10, pg. 56 [00340]) associated with the augmented reality eyewear; and
displaying (fig. 4: “Measure Parameters”: display of measured-lens glasses), based on the rigid material properties, the augmented reality eyewear in the image.
Re 5. (Original), RUSSELL discloses The method of claim 1, further comprising:
computing a first instance (or points: fig. 10: “1st. Purkinje Images”) of the real-world scale of the face of the user based on a first set of landmarks (or likewise “The pupil center or first Purkinje image reference points can be automatically and accurately found…as…landmarks”, pg. 69: [00449]) of the face of the user at a first point in time during a first portion of a video (or “a video sequence”, pg. 21 [00127]) captured by the user device; and
computing a second instance (fig. 12: triangle-landmarks) of the real-world scale of the face of the user based on a second set of landmarks (or likewise said “The pupil center or first Purkinje image reference points can be automatically and accurately found…as…landmarks”, pg. 69: [00449]) of the face of the user at a second point in time during a second portion of a video (or “a video sequence”, pg. 21 [00127]) captured by the user device, the second set of landmarks used to compute the second instance of the real-world scale of the face of the user being11 different from the first set of landmarks used to compute the first instance of the real-world scale of the face of the user.
Re 8. (Original), RUSSELL discloses The method of claim 1, further comprising:
identifying a plurality of physical glasses (or likewise “select glasses”: pg. 34 [00200]);
retrieving (“retrieval systems”, pg. 65 [00408]) a plurality of physical measurements (or likewise “Front surface curvature…Back surface curvature” [00414][00415]) of the plurality of physical glasses; and
computing a fit factor12 (or likewise “Pupil Fitting Height, Bifocal Fitting Height, Trifocal Fitting Height, Near Pupil fitting height”, pg. 47 [00285]) for each of the physical glasses based on the physical measurements and the computed real-world scale (or likewise “Obtain reference scale”, pg. 47: [00283]) of the face of the user.
Re 11. (Original), RUSSELL discloses The method of claim 8, further comprising computing a given fit factor for a given one of the plurality of physical glasses by:
determining a first distance (or likewise “adjusting the temple13 angle(s)”14, pg. 6: [0022] 2nd S: figs. 15,16: curved distance “θ” that is connected to a nose pad and temple as indicated in fig. 5) between1516 a nose bridge portion of the given one of the plurality of physical glasses and a temples portion (or likewise the side temple angles have an adjustment connection to a nose pad positions and noise pad angles via “by17 adjusting the noise pad positions and angles…by18 adjusting the temple angle(s)”, pg. 6: [0022] 2nd S) of the given one of the plurality of physical glasses;
computing a second distance (fig. 16:distance-”b”) in the computed real-world scale of the face of the user between a nose bridge and 19 temple (or likewise the side temple angles have an adjustment connection to a nose pad positions and noise pad angles via “by20 adjusting the noise pad positions and angles…by21 adjusting the temple angle(s)”, pg. 6: [0022] 2nd S so the glasses are adjusted to be horizontal as shown in fig. 4) of the face of the user; and
computing the fit factor (or likewise “the Panrascopic angle (PA) is given by the trigonometric formula Tan(PA)=b/h”, pg. 59, 1st text blk ) as a function of the first distance and the second distance.
Re 12. (Original), RUSSELL discloses The method of claim 8, further comprising computing a given fit factor (or likewise “the Panrascopic angle (PA) is given by the trigonometric formula Tan(PA)=b/h”, pg. 59, 1st text blk ) for a given one of the plurality of physical glasses by:
determining lens dimensions (via said base “b” and height “h”) of the given one of the plurality of physical glasses; and
computing (via said trigonometric formula) the fit factor as a function of the lens dimensions.
Re 16. (Currently Amended), RUSSELL discloses The method of claim 1, further comprising:
selecting a subset of landmarks from the plurality of landmarks (or likewise “select a subset of Glasses Templates”, fig. 2: “SELECTING DIGITAL REPRESENTATION OF GLASSES”, after the capturing of the depth camera producing said landmark mapping via:
“[00240] The user is given control over the Glasses simulation system by being allowed to set various parameters through Input Device. These parameters control the set of glasses chosen, i.e. the Glasses templates that will be applied to the simulated look, allowing the subject to construct different glasses styles to view and compare. In the Select Glasses Templates module 303, the User Input is used to select a subset of Glasses Templates combined to create the Look Profile.”),
wherein the computing the real-world scale of the face comprises:
computing the real-world scale (likewise “automatically scale any subsequently selected Glasesses templates”, pg. 48 [00298]) of the face of the user based on [[a]] selected subset (or likewise “select a subset of Glasses Templates”, pg. 41 [00240]) of landmarks of the face of the user
Re 18. (Original), RUSSELL discloses The method of claim 1, further comprising:
displaying a warning message in response to determining that a fit factor for each of a plurality of physical glasses fails to be satisfied (or likewise a “prompted”22-“user”, pg. 59: [00362], based on an unsuitable tilt angle).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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) 4 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over RUSSELL (WO 2018/191784 A1) as applied in claims 1,2,3,5,8,11,12,16,18 further in view of SPIEGEL et al. (US 2013/0063487 A1):
PNG
media_image5.png
722
514
media_image5.png
Greyscale
Re 4. (Original), RUSSELL discloses The method of claim 3, further comprising:
deforming a first portion (or likewise “eyeglasses”23 [00124]: lenses) of the augmented reality eyewear in response to determining that the rigid material properties correspond to a first rigidity amount; 2425
26.
RUSSELL does not teach, under the broadest reasonable interpretation of claim 4, the difference of claim 4 of:
deforming (a first portion of the augmented reality eyewear)27…28in response to…correspond to a first rigidity amount.
SPIEGEL teach, under the broadest reasonable interpretation of claim 4, the difference of claim 4 of:
deforming29 (a first portion of the augmented reality eyewear)30…31in response to…correspond to a first rigidity amount (or likewise “adjusting…according to32…the dynamic behavior…using a rigid transformation (scaling, rotation, shift, perspective)…by sections, such as in …glasses—front and arms” [0009]).
Since RUSSELL teaches glasses with the problem (i.e., the reason for combining references) of driving to the doctor’s office for eye measurements, prompting a better way to obtain eye measurements than traveling to the eye-doctor, RUSSELL:
[0018] However, these systems for ordering online frames of eyeglasses do not necessarily include the option of measuring the specific parameters required for adjusting eyeglasses to the user's face. Thus, after the user has selected the frame; to ensure that the lenses will be properly issued, the user still needs to travel to the premises of an optometrist service for measuring of the specific parameters.
one of skill in the art of glasses can make RUSSELL’s (fig. 1:16,30, “USER OF GLASSES”) be as SPIEGEL’s (fig. 1C:120,122,126) seeing in the change “a method and system for automated assignment of augmented objects that are relevant for the image or video they are intended to be augmented on by analyzing the user's attributes at the target environment picture and automatically suggesting him objects to augment-on that the system think that are best-fit” SPIEGEL [0017] 1st S:
PNG
media_image6.png
1922
1108
media_image6.png
Greyscale
Claim(s) 6,7 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over RUSSELL (WO 2018/191784 A1) as applied in claims 1,2,3,5,8,11,12,16,18 further in view of TACK et al. (KR 2017-0135758 A) with SEARCH machine translation:
PNG
media_image7.png
722
514
media_image7.png
Greyscale
Re 6. (Original) , RUSSELL teaches The method of claim 1, further comprising:
determining a topology (or “lenses…topology”, pg. 9: [0036] last S) of the face of the user based on a selected subset of landmarks (or likewise “The pupil center or first Purkinje image reference points can be automatically and accurately found…as…landmarks”, pg. 69: [00449]); and
positioning the augmented reality eyewear within the image on the face of the user based on the topology.
RUSSEL does not teach the difference of claim 6 of:
determining (a topology)…based on a selected subset (of landmarks)…
(positioning)…based on (the topology).
TACK teach the difference of claim 6 of:
determining33 (a topology) (or likewise “designs34 the face topology tree as shown in FIG. 6 using this positional relationship”, pg. 9, penult txt blk)…based35 on a selected subset (“selected threshold”-“sub-sets” “At each node”, pg. 11, penult txt blk, in fig. 6) (of landmarks)…
(positioning)…based on (the topology) (or likewise “based on the landmark p .sup.l.sub.t (x .sup.l .sub.t , y .sup.l .sub.t ) (partial landmark) of the detected t frame image” “in the topology node”, pg. 12, penult text blk).
Since RUSSEL teaches a challenging tracking problem (i.e., the reason for combining references), page 36:
[00207] Facial Data
[00208] The invention is designed to operate in an unconstrained wearer simulation environment. Achieving reliable facial data in such a scenario is a challenging task. Facial tracking and expression measurement approaches are available in the prior-art, for example, Active Appearance Models (AAMs) as taught in Coates, et al., "Active appearance models" , Proc. European Cont. on Computer Vision, vol. 2, pp. 484-98, (Springer, 1998) , however the authors are not aware of a system capable of performing with the accuracy and precision required without some form of constraint on image capture such as controlled lighting, constrained head pose or constrained subject expression.
one of skill in the art of tracking can make RUSSELL’s be as TACK’s seeing the change “more robust tracking performance”, TACK, pg. 13, 7th txt blk.
Re 7. (Original), TACK of the combination of RUSSELL,TACK teaches The method of claim 6, further comprising positioning a nose bridge portion of the augmented reality eyewear a predetermined distance above a nose bridge landmark (“nose”-“landmarks”, TACK, pg. 13, 2nd txt blk: fig. 8,9: dots on a nose) within the topology.
Claim(s) 9,10 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over RUSSELL (WO 2018/191784 A1) as applied in claims 1,2,3,5,8,11,12,16,18 further in view of ANDOCHE et al. (US 2024/0069366 A1) with Foreign Application Priority Data Jan 28, 2021 (EP)….21305107.1):
PNG
media_image8.png
722
576
media_image8.png
Greyscale
Re 9. (Original), RUSSELL teaches The method of claim 8, further comprising:
ranking the physical glasses based on a respective fit factor36 (or likewise “Pupil Fitting Height, Bifocal Fitting Height, Trifocal Fitting Height, Near Pupil fitting height”, pg. 47 [00285]) of each of the physical glasses; and
generating, based on the ranking, a recommendation37 (or likewise a “prompted”38-“user”, pg. 59: [00362], based on an unsuitable tilt angle) of an eyewear augmented reality element for one or more physical glasses associated with one or more top ranks.
RUSSELL does not teach the difference of claim 9 of:
ranking (the physical glasses) based on (a respective fit factor)…
the ranking…
one or more top ranks.
ANDOCHE teach (via Application number: 21305107) the difference of claim 9 of:
ranking (the physical glasses) based on (“ranking…based on”, page 25: [0188]) (a respective fit factor)…
the ranking…
one or more top39 ranks (or likewise “perfect”-“ranking”, pg. 19, ll. 10-15).
Since RUSSELL teaches glasses with the problem (i.e., the reason for combining references) of driving to the doctor’s office for eye-fitting measurements, prompting a better way to obtain eye-fitting measurements than traveling to the eye-doctor, RUSSELL:
[0018] However, these systems for ordering online frames of eyeglasses do not necessarily include the option of measuring the specific parameters required for adjusting eyeglasses to the user's face. Thus, after the user has selected the frame; to ensure that the lenses will be properly issued, the user still needs to travel to the premises of an optometrist service for measuring of the specific parameters.
one of skill in the art of glasses can make RUSSELL’s be as ANDOCHE’s seeing in the change “comfort preferences in a user profile or during a real-time interaction with a service that offers personalized eyeglass recommendations.”, ANDOCHE, pg. 17 [0138], last S.
Re 10. (Original), RUSSELL of the combination of RUSSELL,ANDOCHE teaches The method of claim 9, further comprising positioning the eyewear augmented reality element within the image on the face of the user in response to a received input (“input” of “input devices”, RUSSELL, pg. 23 [00140]).
Claim(s) 13 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over RUSSELL (WO 2018/191784 A1) as applied in claims 1,2,3,5,8,11,12,16,18 further in view of Li et al. (CN 103258425 A) with SEARCH machine translation:
PNG
media_image9.png
722
576
media_image9.png
Greyscale
Re 13. (Original), RUSSELL teaches The method of claim 1, further comprising:
computing 4041 stability parameters (or “reference facial features parameter…as…Glasses Template”, pg. 38 [00220]) for each of a subset (or “Glasses Templates”-“subset” pg. 41 [00240]) of landmarks (or “these landmarks”, pg. 69 [00449]) of the face of the user, 4243 the stability parameter indicating how much each of the subset of landmarks of the face of the user moves (or “moves further away”, pg. 49 [00299] 1st S) over a threshold number of frames (via said “each frame”) of a video.
RUSSELL does not teach, under the broadest reasonable interpretation of claim 13, the difference of claim 13 of:
stability (parameter)…
the stability (parameter)…over a threshold number.
Li teach, under the broadest reasonable interpretation of claim 13, the difference of claim 13 of:
stability (parameter) (“stability parameter”, pg. 4, 8th txt blk)…
the stability (parameter)…over a threshold number (or “step S313. when P1/S is larger than the vehicle detection threshold and P2/S greater than the motion detection threshold”, pg. 4, last txt blk).
Since RUSSELL teaches image detection and a static image and problems (i.e., the reason to combine references) of a static image, pages 29 and 2,3,:
“[00165] After the user's images have been delivered to the Eyeglass Ordering Platform 18 as described before, the computing means of the Eyeglass Ordering Platform 18 proceeds to process the images by detecting the user's face images 50 from the images supplied by the user and post the face images 50 onto the screen area 48 as is shown in figure 4 and figure 5.”
“[0007] Previous methods that have been developed for simulating glasses looks, often
called Virtual Try On systems, or VTO, have often been limited to single image
systems. The dependence on a single static image severely limits the subject's
ability to visualise the appearance of the physical glasses appearance in a natural
way by removing their ability to experiment with expression and pose. Furthermore, the systems do not alter, in real time, dynamic differences occurring in shadow detail, lighting induced highlights, and reflections, further removing the ability to achieve a true 'in mirror' view. For example, US20150235428A 1 Systems and methods for generating a 3d model of a user for a virtual try-on product”
one of skill in the art of static images can make RUSSELL’s be a Li’s seeing the change “through…detection to…improve the obtaining accuracy of static…information”, Li, pg. 5, 6th txt blk.
Claim(s) 14,15 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over RUSSELL (WO 2018/191784 A1) as applied in claims 1,2,3,5,8,11,12,16,18 further in view of Li et al. (CN 103258425 A) with SEARCH machine translation as applied in claim 13 further in view of Kerzner et al. (US 2021/0110137 A1):
PNG
media_image10.png
722
586
media_image10.png
Greyscale
Re 14. (Original), RUSSELL of the combination of RUSSELL,Li teaches The method of claim 13, further comprising:
selecting a set (or “select a subset”, pg. 41 [00240] last S) of top landmarks (or “these landmarks”, RUSSELL, pg. 69 [00449]) that is each associated with a score greater than respective scores of a remaining set of landmarks (or “these landmarks”, RUSSELL, pg. 69 [00449]).
RUSSELL of the combination of RUSSELL,Li does not teach the difference of claim 14 of:
top (landmarks)…
(stability) score greater than respective…(stability) scores of a remaining set of (landmarks).
Kerzner teach the difference of claim 14 of:
top (landmarks) (or likewise “highest”-“landmarks” [0119] 1st S)…
(stability) score greater than respective…(stability) scores of a remaining set of (landmarks) (or likewise “highest reliability score”-“landmarks” [0119] 1st S).
Since RUSSELL of the combination of RUSSELL,Li teaches said landmark (i.e., pupil centers) and problems (i.e., the reason to combine references) thereof via RUSSELL, page 3:
[001 0] Many systems have been described, for example, US6508553B2 describes, as typical for such prior art methods, a method for obtaining the values required. The system requires a specific routine to be performed by the wearer of the glasses, requires an operator for the system, does not offer a real time live viewing
experience, and measures crudely the dimensions from determining the pupil centre
as the measurement reference point. Gross limitations exist with such methods,
particularly where the pupil centre may not be coincident with the eye's visual axis
due to various reasons, such as anatomical variation or previous iris injury causing
an irregular shape and or located pupil.
one of skill in the art of landmarks can make RUSSELL’s of the combination of RUSSELL,Li be as Kerzner’s seeing in the change “improvements in identifying stable/reliable landmarks”, Kerzner [0236] penult S.
Re 15. (Original), RUSSELL of the combination of RUSSELL,Li,Kerzner teaches The method of claim 14, further comprising:
determining a type (or likewise “chosen spectacle lens type”, RUSSELL [00367]) associated with the augmented reality eyewear;
obtaining a threshold quantity of landmarks (or likewise “highest reliability score”-“landmarks”, Kerzner [0119] 1st S, “having a reliability score that does…exceed the threshold landmark score of 50%”, Kerzner [0113] 3rd S) associated (via the combination of RUSSELL,Li,Kerzner) with the type of the augmented reality eyewear; and
using the threshold quantity of landmarks to limit (or likewise said “threshold44 landmark score”) a quantity (via limits) of landmarks that are included in the set of top landmarks.
Claim(s) 17 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over RUSSELL (WO 2018/191784 A1) as applied in claims 1,2,3,5,8,11,12,16,18 further in view of Katz et al. (US 2020/0207358 A1):
PNG
media_image11.png
722
586
media_image11.png
Greyscale
Re 17. (Original), RUSSELL teaches The method of claim 1, further comprising:
detecting (“detecting”, pg. 29 [00165]) a finger45 of the user in a video captured by the user device;
determining that the finger overlaps a nose portion of the augmented reality eyewear (or likewise “Superposition of the digital representations 46 of the frames 12 on the face image”, pg. 24 [00144], and “the Glasses overlays the target facial features in the image frame”, pg. 38 [00222]);
in response to determining that the finger overlaps the nose portion of the augmented reality eyewear, determining a direction of movement of the finger relative to eyebrows of the user (or likewise “directing the user to hold46 the 99 system in front47 of the face”48, pg. 50 [00306]); and
moving the augmented reality eyewear relative to the nose portion by a specified amount based on an amount and direction of movement (or likewise “the user…moves further away49…the rendered glasses (also referred as to 3D representation of the selected spectacle frame)…for altered distance50 between51 the subject52 and the 99 System”, pg. 49 [00299]) of the finger (or likewise said “subject”) relative to eyebrows of the user (or likewise “directing the user to hold the 99 system in front of the face, pg. 50 [00306])”).
RUSSELL does not teach the difference of claim 17 of:
a finger53…
the finger…
in response to determining that the finger54 (overlaps the nose portion… determining a direction of movement)
Katz teach the difference of claim 17 of:
a finger55 (or likewise “detect…including…occluding…fingers” [0129]: fig. 1: fingers)…56
the finger (or likewise said “detect…including…occluding…finger…objects held by the user” [0129]: fig. 1:122: phone)…
in response to determining that the finger57 (overlaps the nose portion… determining a direction of movement)58 (or likewise “detect facial attributes… including… occluding the face59 with… fingers”, [0129], “detecting and tracking60 people and objects, and acts according to their … facial features” [0130] 1st S: fig. 1: 111 person covering face as tracked with finger/hands holding phone).
Since RUSSELL teaches known-in-the art tracking and problems (i.e., a reason to combine references as a solution to a problem) thereof:
page 36:
[00207] Facial Data
[00208] The invention is designed to operate in an unconstrained wearer
simulation environment. Achieving reliable facial data in such a scenario is a
challenging task. Facial tracking and expression measurement approaches are
available in the prior-art, for example, Active Appearance Models (AAMs) as taught
in Coates, et al., "Active appearance models" , Proc. European Cont. on Computer
Vision, vol. 2, pp. 484-98, (Springer, 1998) , however the authors are not aware of a
system capable of performing with the accuracy and precision required without some
form of constraint on image capture such as controlled lighting, constrained head
pose or constrained subject expression.
page 54:
[00328] In another embodiment of the DMM capture sequence, the user shall be
instructed via voice command, and or via text on the screen, to briefly look up just
over the top of the device at something far away. Eye tracking technology in-built,
and widely described in prior art, shall recognise when the user has shifted gaze
upwards and over the screen, and the Purkinje images can now be captured whilst
the eyes are truly in a DPD posture. Since the capture camera of smartphones are
universally high up in the screen area, viewing over the top represents a small
vertical misalignment which may be desirable to avoid for Fitting Heights
measurement, and this small misalignment shall be compensated for by the DMM
algorithms.
one of skill in the art of tracking can make RUSSELL’s (fig. 7:207: “Adaptive expression extractor) be as Katz’s (fig. 2: face-modules) seeing in the change “the described technologies are directed to and address specific technical challenges and longstanding deficiencies in multiple technical areas, including but not limited to image processing, eye tracking”, Katz [0016] 1st S:
PNG
media_image12.png
1887
1025
media_image12.png
Greyscale
Claim(s) 19 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over RUSSELL (WO 2018/191784 A1) as applied in claims 1,2,3,5,8,11,12,16,18 further in view of Foley (US 6,535,223 B1):
PNG
media_image13.png
722
586
media_image13.png
Greyscale
Claim 19 is rejected like claim 1:
Re 19. (Currently Amended) , RUSSELL discloses A system comprising:
at least one processor (“computer processors” [00139]); and
a memory component (“memory (data storage)”, pg. 34, 1st txt blk) having instructions stored thereon, when executed by the at least one processor, causing the at least one processor to perform operations comprising:
receiving, by a user device, an image that includes a depiction of a face of a user;
computing a real-world scale of the face without referencing an image of a reference object having known physical dimensions (or likewise “[0067] Preferably, the method further comprises the step of obtaining the reference scale using a reference object of standard size for location in a capture plane for recordal of the image and processing.”);
obtaining an augmented reality eyewear; and
changing a size of the augmented reality eyewear based on a computed real-world scale of the face as a function of a distance between the face of the user and the user device, the size of the augmented reality eyewear being adjusted to be a first value in response to determining that the distance between the face of the user and the user device is a first amount, the size of the augmented reality eyewear being decreased to a second value that is smaller than the first value in response to determining that the distance between the face of the user and the user device has increased to a second amount greater than the first amount.
RUSSELL does not teach the difference of claim 19 of:
without referencing (an image of a reference object having known physical dimensions)61.
Foley teach the difference of claim 19 of:
without referencing (an image of a reference object having known physical dimensions)62 (or likewise c,7.l. 60 to c.8,l.5:
In a fourth embodiment of the present invention, a reference object 190 does not need to be included in the submitted image 180. Instead of the reference object 190 of a known width, the image is scaled in process 220 by using one of the irises 106 in the eye 104 of the facial image 180. It is well known that the iris 106 of an adult human is of a relatively fixed size from individual to individual. Specifically, as shown in FIG. 1, the iris 106 has a diameter 107 that is approximately 12 mm. The use of the iris 106 as the reference object is less precise, since the size of the iris 106 has some variability, but it has the advantage of not requiring the user 150 to include an additional object in the submitted facial image 180.).
Since RUSSELL suggests that a reference object , such as a credit card, is optional by preference or by choice and suggests looking to other art for a reference size:
[0067] Preferably, the method further comprises the step of obtaining the reference scale using a reference object of standard size for location in a capture plane for recordal of the image and processing.
[00291] Obtain reference scale to be applied during VOS
[00292] To accurately measure a parameter in the virtual, or augmented reality
space, we must first have at least one reference of known size in order to scale
against that known reference size.
[00293] The scaling is performed in a fashion by using a ratio against the known
size, and has been described in prior art, for example US6535223B1 P5 (15-67), P6
(1-44). For our invention, we advise use of a credit card, or store loyalty type plastic
card, as they may be turned to show the rear side (so as not to enable a potential
security breach by viewing the front side), as these cards are universal in size and
readily available.
one of skill in art could or would have done is refer to the art for the reference size making RUSSELL’s be as Foley’s seeing in the change goodness: Foley c,7.l. 60 to c.8,l.5:
In a fourth embodiment of the present invention, a reference object 190 does not need to be included in the submitted image 180. Instead of the reference object 190 of a known width, the image is scaled in process 220 by using one of the irises 106 in the eye 104 of the facial image 180. It is well known that the iris 106 of an adult human is of a relatively fixed size from individual to individual. Specifically, as shown in FIG. 1, the iris 106 has a diameter 107 that is approximately 12 mm. The use of the iris 106 as the reference object is less precise, since the size of the iris 106 has some variability, but it has the advantage of not requiring the user 150 to include an additional object in the submitted facial image 180.).
via creative, explicit, routing, inferential Supreme Court steps, A,B,C:
A) create a Scaling Program based on RUSSELL’s fig. 8:
A1) create code calling/returning from Another Scaling Program:
PNG
media_image14.png
968
690
media_image14.png
Greyscale
B) create the Another Scaling Program based on Foley’s fig. 7:
PNG
media_image15.png
1211
312
media_image15.png
Greyscale
C) run Scaling Program calling the Another Scaling Program;
D) see what happens (I foresee goodness: A Look Profile with the advantage of not requiring a reference object:
In a fourth embodiment of the present invention, a reference object 190 does not need to be included in the submitted image 180. Instead of the reference object 190 of a known width, the image is scaled in process 220 by using one of the irises 106 in the eye 104 of the facial image 180. It is well known that the iris 106 of an adult human is of a relatively fixed size from individual to individual. Specifically, as shown in FIG. 1, the iris 106 has a diameter 107 that is approximately 12 mm. The use of the iris 106 as the reference object is less precise, since the size of the iris 106 has some variability, but it has the advantage of not requiring the user 150 to include an additional object in the submitted facial image 180.).
Claim(s) 20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over RUSSELL (WO 2018/191784 A1) as applied in claims 1,2,3,5,8,11,12,16,18 further in view of LUO et al. (CN 111899293 B) with machine translation:
PNG
media_image16.png
730
586
media_image16.png
Greyscale
Claim 20 is rejected like claims 1 and 19:
Re 20. (Currently Amended) , RUSSELL discloses A non-transitory computer-readable medium636465 having stored thereon, instructions that when executed by at least one processor, cause the at least one processor to perform operations comprising:
receiving, by a user device, an image that includes a depiction of a face of a user;
obtaining a depth map for the face of the user;
obtaining a face-segmentation mask for the face:
applying momentum6667 smoothing to the depth map based on the face-segmentation mask to generate a smoothed depth map (or likewise outputting smooth facial boundary values of smooth facial boundaries via said depth camera:
“[00225] For this reason, the set of adaptive features is enhanced using knowledge of anatomical facial structure data before defining the mapping. In one example, extra features which refine the mapping of smooth facial boundaries, such as lip and jaw edges, can be added to the adaptive feature set by fitting spline curves to the members of the original sparse set belonging to these features. Another example is to use knowledge of the circularity of the iris and its occlusion by the eyelids to refine the mapping in the eye region by imposing these constraints. Other prior knowledge about the geometry of the face can be represented in this way and is included within the scope of the invention.”);
computing68 (as in the ultimate result of computing) a real-world scale of the face based on the smoothed depth map;
obtaining an augmented reality eyewear; and
changing a size of the augmented reality eyewear based on [[a]] the computed real-world scale of the face as a function of a distance between the face of the user and the user device, the size of the augmented reality eyewear being adjusted to be a first value in response to determining that the distance between the face of the user and the user device is a first amount, the size of the augmented reality eyewear being decreased to a second value that is smaller than the first value in response to determining that the distance between the face of the user and the user device has increased to a second amount greater than the first amount.
RUSSELL does not teach the difference of claim 20 of:
obtaining a face-segmentation mask (for the face:)69…70
(applying momentum smoothing to the depth map based on) the face-segmentation mask (to generate a) smoothed (depth map)…
(computing a real-world scale of the face based on the) smoothed (depth map).
LUO teach the difference of claim 20 of:
obtaining a face-segmentation mask (for the face:)71 (or likewise “obtain the human body depth map…image mask” “as shown in FIG. 3”, pg. 15, last txt blk:
PNG
media_image17.png
426
984
media_image17.png
Greyscale
) …72
(applying momentum smoothing to the depth map based on) the face-segmentation mask (to generate a) smoothed (depth map) (or likewise:
“shown in FIG. 5…2) the depth map of the human body generally contains noise,need to smooth filtering the depth map, common filtering method, such as median filtering, Gaussian filter and so on can be used for processing the module;” pg. 19, 4th txt blk and page 20, 2nd txt blk:
PNG
media_image2.png
393
865
media_image2.png
Greyscale
)…
(computing a real-world scale of the face based on the) smoothed (depth map).
Since RUSSELL suggests the possibility of selecting a depth camera without restriction:
[00325] The value adjustment may be calculated by the DMM if the screen to face distance is known, as may be the case with devices that employ technologies including but not limited to depth sensing cameras, proximity sensors, or triangulation using multiple video capture images in real time, or the like which can supply such distance information. If this distance is known, and the overall pupillary distance is known, then through mathematics of triangles and eyes centre of rotation information, the true NPD at 40 cm (or any other distance) may be calculated with accuracy.
one of skill in the art could or would have done is browse other depth cameras making RUSSELL’s be as LUO’s seeing in the change goodness via LUO, page 19, 4th txt blk:
based on the starting of the image classification network, similar to FCN, the invention designs and improves the human body analysis prediction network corresponding to the technical solution, the difference is that the invention does not need RGB information, only performing human body region prediction in the depth image. at the same time, because the depth learning algorithm is dependent on the data, the invention uses the specific property of the application, constructing the corresponding data for model training, finally obtaining the prediction result completely meets the data requirement of AR shielding application intermediate process, providing relatively accurate input data for the subsequent module; The human body analysis result is shown in FIG. 5.
PNG
media_image2.png
393
865
media_image2.png
Greyscale
via explicit, creative, routine, inferential Supreme Court steps, A,B,C:
A) Create a Distance Measuring Program based on RUSSEL’s fig. 8:
A1) at 302 create code calling/returning from a Depth-Map Masking Program:
PNG
media_image18.png
968
735
media_image18.png
Greyscale
A1.1) at 302 create code to measure/adjust pupil distance based on the depth-map mask generated from the Depth-Map Masking Program:
PNG
media_image19.png
916
555
media_image19.png
Greyscale
B) Create the Depth-Map Masking Program based on LUO’s fig. 6:
PNG
media_image20.png
972
1124
media_image20.png
Greyscale
C) Run the Distance Measuring Program calling the Depth-Map Masking Program;
D) see what happens (I foresee goodness: a “Look profile” meeting the requirement of AR providing accurate input data for RUSSEL’s fig. 7:206: “Create look” and 212: “Simulated look images”:
based on the starting of the image classification network, similar to FCN, the invention designs and improves the human body analysis prediction network corresponding to the technical solution, the difference is that the invention does not need RGB information, only performing human body region prediction in the depth image. at the same time, because the depth learning algorithm is dependent on the data, the invention uses the specific property of the application, constructing the corresponding data for model training, finally obtaining the prediction result completely meets the data requirement of AR shielding application intermediate process, providing relatively accurate input data for the subsequent module; The human body analysis result is shown in FIG. 5.).
Conclusion
The prior art “nearest to the subject matter defined in the claims” (MPEP 707.05) made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
The following table lists several references that are relevant to the subject matter claimed and disclosed in this Application. The references are not relied on by the Examiner, but are provided to assist the Applicant in responding to this Office action.
Citation
Relevance
IGNATOV ARTEM et al. (KR 10-2011-0014067 A) with SEARCH machine translation
ARTEM teaches a mask serves as a guide for “smoothing…in the depth map”, via page 6, last txt blk and figs.10c (binary bit-pattern mask),13a (smoothed depth map)
PNG
media_image21.png
1168
928
media_image21.png
Greyscale
The provided method uses a number of technical definitions as to whether the current pixel is non-ideal (unreliable) or not. Unreliable pixels are marked by some value of a mask for their exception from the filtering process. Various techniques can be used to evaluate the reliability of the pixel. In the proposed method a cross-check of the depth value can be applied to the left or the right. In other words, if the difference in depth values at the left and right at the corresponding point is less than the threshold, the depth value is considered to be reliable. Otherwise, they are marked non-ideal and deleted during the smoothing process. However, in the case of object occlusion or noise in the depth map, a filter with a large kernel is required for successful processing of non-ideal pixels. The method provided is based on a recursive implementation for reducing the kernel's size of the filter. In a recursive implementation, the result of the filtering is stored in the initial buffer. This can lead to faster convergence of algorithms with fewer iterations.
as the closest to the claimed “applying momentum smoothing to the depth map based on the face-segmentation mask to generate a smoothed depth map” of claim 20.
Tolstaya et al. (Signals and Communication Technology:
Smart Algorithms for Multimedia and Imaging:
Chapter 3: Depth Estimation and Control)
Tolstaya teaches “depth maps smoothed” in the description of fig. 3.19 (corresponds to IGNATOV ARTEM above):
PNG
media_image22.png
1562
934
media_image22.png
Greyscale
as the closest to the claimed “applying momentum smoothing to the depth map based on the face-segmentation mask to generate a smoothed depth map” of claim 20.
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. 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 DENNIS ROSARIO whose telephone number is (571)272-7397. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday, 9AM-5PM 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, Henok Shiferaw can be reached at 571-272-4637. 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.
/DENNIS ROSARIO/Examiner, Art Unit 2676
/Henok Shiferaw/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2676
1 MPEP 2106.04(d)(1) Evaluating Improvements in the Functioning of a Computer, or an Improvement to Any Other Technology or Technical Field in Step 2A Prong Two [R-10.2019], 2nd para, last two sentences :
“Second, if the specification sets forth an improvement in technology, the claim must be evaluated to ensure that the claim itself reflects the disclosed improvement. That is, the claim includes the components or steps of the invention that provide the improvement described in the specification. The claim itself does not need to explicitly recite the improvement described in the specification (e.g., "thereby increasing the bandwidth of the channel").”
2 Applicant’s disclosure:
[0016]The disclosed techniques improve the efficiency of using an electronic device which implements or otherwise accesses an AR/VR system by computing a true or real-world scale of a user’s face by combining a select set of facial landmarks with a depth map of the user’s face. Specifically, the disclosed techniques receive an image that includes a depiction of a face of a user and generate a plurality of facial landmarks based on the received image. Facial landmarks (or landmarks on the face) can correspond to a predefined region of a person's face such as a nose, mouth, eyes, etc. The disclosed techniques remove a set of interfering facial landmarks from the plurality of facial landmarks resulting in a remaining set of landmarks of the plurality of landmarks. The disclosed techniques obtain a depth map for the face of the user and compute a real-world scale of the face of the user based on the depth map and the remaining set of landmarks. The real-world scale of the face is then used to adjust a size of an augmented reality element, such as augmented reality glasses (e.g., eyewear) or an augmented reality hat. The real-world scale together with a facial topology is also used to identify the appropriate position over which to add or display the augmented reality element on the user’s face. As the user moves the face around in a video, the positioning of the augmented reality element continues to be changed to remain fixed to the identified position of the face. The real-world scale of the face continues to be updated as new images of a video depicting the user’s face are received and processed in a similar manner.
[0017]In this way, the disclosed techniques can apply one or more visual effects to the user’s face in the current image without performing any calibration operations or pre-capture operations. This improves the overall experience of the user in using the electronic device and reduces the overall amount of system resources needed to accomplish a task.
3 Application No, 17/208,208 (US 2022/0300728 A1)
4 BROAD CLAIM LANGUAGE: -ing (of “comprising”): a suffix of nouns formed from verbs, expressing the action of the verb (comprise) or its result, product, material, etc. (the art of building; a new building; cotton wadding ), wherein etc is defined: and others; and so forth; and so on (used to indicate that more of the same sort or class might have been mentioned, but for brevity have been omitted), wherein so is defined: likewise or correspondingly; also; too. (Dictionay.com)
5 maps: to represent or delineate on or as if on a map. (Dictionary.com)
6 value: a point in the range of a function; a point in the range corresponding to a given point in the domain of a function, wherein function is defined: Mathematics. Also called correspondence, map, mapping, transformation. a relation between two sets in which one element of the second set is assigned to each element of the first set, as the expression y = x 2 ; operator. (Dictionary.com)
7 The
MPEP 2143.03 All Claim Limitations Must Be Considered [R-01.2024]
"All words in a claim must be considered in judging the patentability of that claim against the prior art." In re Wilson, 424 F.2d 1382, 1385, 165 USPQ 494, 496 (CCPA 1970).
Examiners must consider all claim limitations when determining patentability of an invention over the prior art. In re Gulack, 703 F.2d 1381, 1385, 217 USPQ 401, 403-04 (Fed. Cir. 1983). The subject matter of a properly construed claim is defined by the terms that limit the scope of the claim when given their broadest reasonable interpretation. In Axonics, Inc. v. Medtronic, Inc., 73 F.4th 950, 958-59, 2023 USPQ2d 795 (Fed. Cir. 2023), the court found the claims were improperly narrowed based on a preferred embodiment to sacral anatomy or sacral neuromodulation, whereas the patent claims made no reference to sacral anatomy or sacral neuromodulation. Thus, the relevant prior art was improperly limited to a narrow subset of claim scope. See also MPEP § 2111 et seq. It is the subject matter of the properly construed claim that must be examined. The determination of whether particular language is a limitation in a claim depends on the specific facts of the case. See, e.g., Griffin v. Bertina, 285 F.3d 1029, 1034, 62 USPQ2d 1431 (Fed. Cir. 2002).
As a general matter, the grammar and ordinary meaning of terms as understood by one having ordinary skill in the art used in a claim will dictate whether, and to what extent, the language limits the claim scope. Language that suggests or makes a feature or step optional but does not require that feature or step does not limit the scope of a claim under the broadest reasonable claim interpretation. In addition, when a claim requires selection of an element from a list of alternatives (“the depth map and the plurality of landmarks”), the prior art teaches the element if one of the alternatives is taught by the prior art. See, e.g., Fresenius USA, Inc. v. Baxter Int’l, Inc., 582 F.3d 1288, 1298, 92 USPQ2d 1163, 1171 (Fed. Cir. 2009).
8 MEANING AND PURPOSE of claim 1 is {AR eyewear size) “to be a first value”
9 lens: a piece of transparent substance, usually glass, having two opposite surfaces either both curved or one curved and one plane, used in an optical device in changing the convergence of light rays, as for magnification, or in correcting defects of vision, wherein substance is defined: substantial or solid character or quality, wherein quality is defined: an essential or distinctive characteristic, property, or attribute. (Dictionary.com)
10 measurement: a measured dimension, wherein dimension is defined: Mathematics. a property of space; extension in a given direction. (Dictionary.com)
11 “be” essentially means look at a figure (figs. 10,12,13: different pupil-center landmarks) (Dictionary.com)
12 factor: one of the elements contributing to a particular result or situation. (Dictionary.com)
13 temple: Anatomy. the flattened region on either side of the forehead in human beings. (Dictionary.com)
14 angle: the amount of rotation needed to bring one line or plane into coincidence with another, generally measured in radians or in degrees, minutes, and seconds, as in 12° 10prime; 30″, which is read as 12 degrees, 10 minutes, and 30 seconds, wherein radians is defined: Mathematics. the measure of a central angle subtending an arc equal in length to the radius: equal to 57.2958°. rad, wherein arc is defined: Geometry. any unbroken part of the circumference of a circle or other curved line, wherein line is defined: Mathematics. a continuous extent of length, straight or curved, without breadth or thickness; the trace of a moving point, wherein length is defined: a distance determined by the extent of something specified. (Dictionary.com)
15 Re “between” via applicant’s disclosure:
--[0152]Changes and modifications may be made to the disclosed examples without departing from the scope of the present disclosure. These and other changes or modifications are intended to be included within the scope of the present disclosure, as expressed in the following claims.—wherein scope is defined: Linguistics, Logic. the range of words or elements of an expression over which a modifier (e.g. a patent examiner) or operator (e.g., me) has control. (Dictionary.com)
16 between: among, wherein among is defined: in the number, class, or group of; of or out of, wherein of is defined: (used to indicate possession, connection, or association). (Dictionary.com)
17 by: in consequence, as a result, or on the basis of, wherein of is defined: (used to indicate possession, connection, or association). (Dictionary.com)
18 by: in consequence, as a result, or on the basis of, wherein of is defined: (used to indicate possession, connection, or association). (Dictionary.com)
19 The struck-out text “does not limit the scope of a claim under the broadest reasonable claim interpretation” in view of MPEP 2143.03 All Claim Limitations Must Be Considered [R-01.2024], 3rd para, 2nd & 3rd Ss.
20 by: in consequence, as a result, or on the basis of, wherein of is defined: (used to indicate possession, connection, or association). (Dictionary.com)
21 by: in consequence, as a result, or on the basis of, wherein of is defined: (used to indicate possession, connection, or association). (Dictionary.com)
22 prompt: Computers. (of a computer system) to send a message or symbol to (a user) requesting information or instructions, usually by displaying the message or symbol on a screen, wherein message is defined: Computers. a warning, permission, etc., communicated by the system or software to the user. (Dictionary.com)
23 glass: Also called eyeglasses. glasses, a device to compensate for impaired vision or to protect the eyes from light, dust, and the like, consisting usually of two glass or plastic lenses set in a frame that includes a nosepiece for resting on the bridge of the nose and two sidepieces extending over or around the ears (usually used with pair of ). (Dictionary.com)
24 and: (used to connect alternatives). (Dictionary.com)
25 MPEP 2143.03 All Claim Limitations Must Be Considered [R-01.2024], 3rd para, 2nd & 3rd Ss: --Language (“and” is based on the context of selected/taken examples in applicant’s disclosure [0104]: “For example”) that suggests or makes a feature or step (“deforming a plurality of portions of the augmented reality eyewear in response to determining that the rigid material properties correspond to a second rigidity amount“) optional (“and” is used to indicate alternatives) but does not require that feature or step (“deforming a plurality of portions of the augmented reality eyewear in response to determining that the rigid material properties correspond to a second rigidity amount“) does not limit the scope of a claim under the broadest reasonable claim interpretation. In addition, when a claim requires selection of an element from a list of alternatives (“deforming a first portion of the augmented reality eyewear in response to determining that the rigid material properties correspond to a first rigidity amount; and
deforming a plurality of portions of the augmented reality eyewear in response to determining that the rigid material properties correspond to a second rigidity amount “), the prior art teaches the element if one of the alternatives is taught by the prior art.—wherein example is defined: one of a number of things, or a part of something, taken [Markush alternative language] to show the character of the whole, wherein whole is defined: the whole assemblage of parts or elements belonging to a thing; the entire quantity, account, extent, or number, wherein assemblage is defined: a group [Markush alternative language] of persons or things gathered or collected; an assembly; collection; aggregate. (Dictionary.com).
26 The struck-out text “does not limit the scope of a claim under the broadest reasonable claim interpretation” in view of MPEP 2143.03 All Claim Limitations Must Be Considered [R-01.2024], 3rd para, 2nd & 3rd Ss.
27 italics represent claim limitation already taught
28 ellipses (…) represent claim limitations already taught
29 deform: to change the form of; transform. (Dictionary.com)
30 italics represent claim limitation already taught
31 ellipses (…) represent claim limitations already taught
32 according to: consistent with; in conformity with, wherein conformity is defined: correspondence in form, nature, or character; agreement, congruity, or accordance. (Dictionary.com)
33 BROAD CLAIM LANGUAGE: “-ing” (of determining): a suffix of nouns formed from verbs (determine), expressing the action of the verb (determine) or its result, product, material, etc. (the art of building; a new building; cotton wadding ). (Dictionary.com)
34 design: to intend for a definite purpose, wherein definite is defined: clearly defined or determined; not vague or general; fixed; precise; exact. (Dictionary.com)
35 based: the simple past tense and past participle of base , wherein past participle is defined: a participial form of verbs (base) used to modify a noun (topology) that is logically the object of a verb (determining), also used in certain compound tenses and passive forms of the verb in English and other languages, wherein base is defined: to have a basis; be based (usually followed by on or upon ), wherein based is defined: to place or establish on a base or basis; ground; found (usually followed by on or upon ), wherein basis is defined: a basic fact, amount, standard, etc., used in making computations, reaching conclusions, or the like. (Dictionary.com).
36 factor: one of the elements contributing to a particular result or situation. (Dictionary.com)
37 recommendation: wherein recommend is defined: to advise, as an alternative; suggest (a choice, course of action, etc.) as appropriate, beneficial, or the like. (Dictionary.com)
38 prompt: (tr) to give rise to by suggestion (Dictionary.com)
39 BROAD CLAIM LANGUAGE: the highest or leading place, position, rank, etc., wherein etc is defined: and others; and so forth; and so on (used to indicate that more of the same sort or class might have been mentioned, but for brevity have been omitted), wherein so is defined: likewise or correspondingly; also; too.(Dictionary.com)
40 and: (used to connect alternatives) (Dictionary.com)
41 MPEP 2143.03 All Claim Limitations Must Be Considered [R-01.2024], 3rd para, 2nd & 3rd Ss:--Language (“visibility and stability parameters”) that suggests or makes a feature or step optional (“and” suggests alternatives as indicated in applicant’s disclosure [0051]) but does not require that feature or step does not limit the scope of a claim under the broadest reasonable claim interpretation. In addition, when a claim requires selection of an element from a list of alternatives (“visibility and stability parameters”), the prior art teaches the element if one of the alternatives is taught by the prior art.--
42 shape: something used to give form, as a mold or a pattern, wherein pattern is defined: a distinctive style, model, or form (Dictionary.com)
43 The struck-out text “does not limit the scope of a claim under the broadest reasonable claim interpretation” in view of MPEP 2143.03 All Claim Limitations Must Be Considered [R-01.2024], 3rd para, 2nd & 3rd Ss.
44 threshold: a level or point at which something would happen, would cease to happen, or would take effect, become true, etc, wherein level is defined: an extent, measure, or degree of intensity, achievement, etc.., wherein extent is defined: the space or degree to which a thing extends; length, area, volume, or scope, wherein scope is defined: extent or range of view, outlook, application, operation, effectiveness, etc., wherein range is defined: the extent to which or the limits between which variation is possible. (Dictioanry.com)
45 “a finger” being the object of “detecting”
46 hold: to bear, sustain, or support, as with the hands or arms, or by any other means, wherein hand is defined: the terminal, prehensile part of the upper limb in humans and other primates, consisting of the wrist, metacarpal area, fingers, and thumb. (Dictionary.com)
47 front: the foremost part or surface of anything, wherein fore is defined: situated at or toward the front, as compared with something else, wherein toward is defined: with respect to; as regards, wherein to is defined: (used for expressing a relative position). (Dictionary.com)
48 face: the front part of the head, from the forehead to the chin, wherein forehead is defined: the part of the face above the eyebrows; brow. (Dictionary.com)
49 away: aside; to another place; in another direction. (Dictionary.com)
50 distance: the extent or amount of space between two things, points, lines, etc. (Dictionary.com)
51 between: in the space separating (two points, objects, etc.), wherein separate is defined: to keep apart or divide, as by an intervening barrier or space, where apart is defined: to or at one side, with respect to place, purpose, or function, wherein to is defined: (used for expressing a relative position). (Dictionary.com)
52 subject: a person or thing that undergoes or may undergo some action, wherein person is defined: a human being, whether an adult or child, wherein human being is defined: any individual of the genus Homo, especially a member of the species Homo sapiens, wherein Homo sapiens is defined: the species of bipedal primates to which modern humans (Homo sapiens sapiens ) belong, characterized by a large brain, a nearly vertical forehead, a skeletal build lighter and teeth smaller than earlier humans, and dependence upon language and the creation and utilization of complex tools: the species has existed for about 200,000 years, wherein primates is defined: Anthropology, Zoology. any of various worldwide omnivorous mammals of the order Primates, comprising, by modern classification, two suborders, the strepsirrhines (lemurs, lorises, and their allies) and the haplorhines (tarsiers, New World monkeys, Old World monkeys, and apes, including humans), especially distinguished by the use of hands, varied locomotion, and complex behavior involving a high level of social interaction and cultural adaptability: many primates are strictly arboreal, but even among the numerous terrestrial species, some arboreal behavior is common, wherein hands is defined: the terminal, prehensile part of the upper limb in humans and other primates, consisting of the wrist, metacarpal area, fingers, and thumb, wherein forehead is defined: the part of the face above the eyebrows; brow, wherein face is defined: the front part of the head, from the forehead to the chin, wherein head is defined: the upper part of the body in humans, joined to the torso by the neck and containing the brain, eyes, ears, nose, and mouth. (Dictionary.com)
53 “a finger” being the object of “detecting”
54 “the finger” being the object of “determining”.
55 “a finger” being the object of “detecting”
56 ellipses (…) represent claim limitations already taught
57 “the finger” being the object of “determining”.
58 (italics) represent claim limitations already taught
59 face is defined: the front part of the head, from the forehead to the chin, wherein head is defined: the upper part of the body in humans, joined to the torso by the neck and containing the brain, eyes, ears, nose, and mouth. (Dictionary.com)
60 track: (of a camera or camera operator) to follow (a moving object) in any direction while operating (Dictioanry.com)
61 (italics) represent claim limitations already taught
62 (italics) represent claim limitations already taught
63 Applicant’s disclosure:
“[0150] ‘Non-transitory computer-readable storage medium’ refers to a tangible medium that is capable of storing, encoding, or carrying the instructions for execution by a machine.”
64 Claim 20’s:
“non-transitory computer-readable medium” is not the same, due to the word “storage”, as said [0150]’s:
--Non-transitory computer-readable storage medium—and thus does not mean/is not defined as the disclosed [0150]’s --Non-transitory computer-readable storage medium’ refers to a tangible medium that is capable of storing, encoding, or carrying the instructions. Thus claim 20 is not rejected under 35 USC 101.
65 Claim 20’s “A non-transitory computer-readable medium” is interpreted, as one of ordinary skill in the art would in view of applicant’s disclosure, in plain meaning to mean exactly what is says: A non-transitory computer-readable medium.
66 Regarding “momentum” in applicant’s disclosure:[0152] Changes and modifications may be made to the disclosed examples without departing from the scope of the present disclosure. These and other changes or modifications are intended to be included within the scope of the present disclosure, as expressed in the following claims.
67 momentum: Philosophy. moment, wherein moment is defined: Philosophy. an aspect of a thing, wherein aspect is defined: facial expression; countenance, wherein countenance is defined: the face; visage. (Dictionary.com)
68 BROAD CLAIM LANGUAGE: -ing (of “computing”): a suffix of nouns formed from verbs, expressing the action of the verb (compute) or its (compute’s) result, product, material, etc. (the art of building; a new building; cotton wadding ), wherein etc. is defined: and others; and so forth; and so on (used to indicate that more of the same sort or class might have been mentioned, but for brevity have been omitted), wherein so is defined: likewise or correspondingly; also; too. (Dictionary.com)
69 (italics) represent claim limitations already taught
70ellipses (….) represent claim limitations already taught
71 (italics) represent claim limitations already taught
72ellipses (….) represent claim limitations already taught
Prosecution Insights