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 .
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
A request for continued examination (“RCE”) under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on May 26, 2026 has been entered.
Acknowledgements
Claims 1-6 and 12-16 are pending in the application.
Claims 1-5 remain withdrawn from consideration.
Claims 6 and 12-16 are examined below.
Examiner Request
Applicant is requested to indicate where in the specification there is support for amendments to claims should applicant amend. The purpose of this is to reduce potential 35 USC 112(a) or 35 USC 112, 1st paragraph issues that can arise when claims are amended without support in the specification. Examiner thanks applicant in advance. See also relevant portions of MPEP 2163.II.A:
With respect to newly added or amended claims, applicant should show support in the original disclosure for the new or amended claims. See, e.g., Hyatt v. Dudas, 492 F.3d 1365, 1370, n.4 (Fed. Cir. 2007) (citing MPEP § 2163.04 which provides that a "simple statement such as ‘applicant has not pointed out where the new (or amended) claim is supported, nor does there appear to be a written description of the claim limitation ‘___’ in the application as filed’ may be sufficient where the claim is a new or amended claim, the support for the limitation is not apparent, and applicant has not pointed out where the limitation is supported."); see also MPEP § 714.02 and § 2163.06 ("Applicant should ... specifically point out the support for any amendments made to the disclosure."); and MPEP § 2163.04 ("If applicant amends the claims and points out where and/or how the originally filed disclosure supports the amendment(s), and the examiner finds that the disclosure does not reasonably convey that the inventor had possession of the subject matter of the amendment at the time of the filing of the application, the examiner has the initial burden of presenting evidence or reasoning to explain why persons skilled in the art would not recognize in the disclosure a description of the invention defined by the claims.").
Claim Rejections - 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112, 1st Paragraph
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112:
The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor of carrying out his invention.
Claims 6 and 12-16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claims contain subject matter that was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for pre-AIA the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention.
Regarding claim 6, applicant points to [0025] as supporting the added language “in response to the selection, placing the character in an activation state in which the digital character is ready to be driven to perform an action.” However, there does not appear to be written description in this portion of the specification or elsewhere to support equating the “activation state” with the digital character being ready to be driven to perform an action.
Claim Rejections - 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), 2nd Paragraph
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 6 and 12-16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for pre-AIA the applicant regards as the invention.
Regarding claim 6, applicant’s recitation “activation state” would have been unclear to a person having ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention. First, the examiner has carefully reviewed the specification and was unable to locate a lexicographic definition for this term. Although applicant provides some information regarding “activation state” such as that it is the result of “wak[ing] up the digital character” ([0025]), this fails to provide the clarity, deliberateness, and precision required for a lexicographic definition. Second, the examiner has again reviewed all documents of record in accordance with MPEP § 2141.03 and was unable to locate a definition for this term. Based upon the reviews of the specification and the documents of record, it is the examiner’s position that the term “activation state” (as used in the context of these particular claims) is not known to those of ordinary skill in this art.
Further regarding claim 6, the recitation "the digital character is ready to be driven to perform an action" is subjective, which renders the claim indefinite. The term "ready" is not defined by the claim, and the specification does not provide a standard for ascertaining what degree of readiness is required. Therefore, one of ordinary skill in the art would not be reasonably apprised of the scope of the invention, because what degrees of readiness are intended to be included or excluded are not clear.
Regarding claim 12, applicant’s recitation “wherein the first sub-network has been trained by: extracting … inputting … inputting … training …” would have been unclear to a person having ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention. It is unclear whether “extracting … inputting … inputting … training …” are required steps in the method or merely provide a history as to how the sub-network was created (and therefore failing to further limit the claim). For the purpose of comparison with the prior art and determination of patent eligibility, the examiner is adopting the latter interpretation, consistent with the broadest interpretation of the claims.
Claims 13 and 14 contain language similar to the recitation in claim 12 discussed in the immediately preceding paragraph, and claims 13 and 14 are rejected for reasons similar to those discussed above.
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 statute.
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 of this title, 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 following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103(a) (pre-AIA ) which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this office action:
(a) A patent may not be obtained though the invention is not identically disclosed or described as set forth in section 102 of this title, if the differences between the subject matter sought to be patented and the prior art are such that the subject matter as a whole would have been obvious at the time the invention was made to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which said subject matter pertains. Patentability shall not be negatived by the manner in which the invention was made.
Claims 6 and 12-14, as understood by the examiner, are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Zhang (US 2024/0412440 A1) in view of "One-Shot Free-View Neural Talking-Head Synthesis for Video Conferencing," Wang et al, 2021 (reference U on the attached PTO form 892, hereafter “One-Shot”).
Zhang discloses as follows:
Claim
Limitation
Zhang
6
providing the photo frame
display(s) 714
6
receiving an uploaded digital portrait and displaying the digital portrait on the electronic display screen, wherein the digital portrait includes a digital character
"one or more animated or digital persons, characters, avatars, actors, objects, and/or the like" [0022]
6
after the digital portrait is displayed on the electronic display screen, receiving a selection of the digital character by a user via the electronic display screen, and in response to the selection, placing the digital character in an activation state in which the digital character is ready to be driven to perform an action
6
picking up voice information of the user
"As described herein, an input device 718 may include, but is not limited to, a button, a controller, a keyboard, a mouse, a microphone, a touch-sensitive display, and/or any other type of input device. In some examples, based on receiving an input, the user device(s) 712 may generate input data 720 representing the input and/or the factor." [0069]
6
processing the voice information to determine dialogue response information corresponding to the voice information
"a digital assistant" [0022]"generate input data 720" [0069]
6
processing the digital character based on the dialogue response information to drive a mouth of the digital character for a voice response, and to drive a head of the digital character to move, wherein processing the digital character to drive the mouth of the digital character for the voice response, and to drive the head of the digital character to move includes: inputting an audio corresponding to the dialogue response information and the digital character into a trained model, the trained model including a first sub-network for generating a head pose and a second sub-network for generating a mouth shape, wherein output results of the first sub-network and the second sub-network generate a plurality of image frames; and displaying the plurality of image frames on the electronic display screen so that the digital character interacts with the user
In some examples, the input data 720 may then be used to control the facial animations associated with the animated character. For example, and referring back to the example of FIG. 1, the input data 720 may be used to generate emotions data 110 representing the manipulated vector. As such, the third neural network(s) 112 may generate the animation data 114 using the output data 106 and the emotions data 110 representing the manipulated vector. This way, the character 116, which may be animated using the display(s) 714 [0070]"the third neural network(s), etc.) may be trained in order to animate the lower facial expressions of an animated character" [0025]. This would include the mouth shape."a second portion of the neural network(s) (e.g., a fourth neural network(s), such as an encoder that may not be used at runtime of the neural network(s)) may be trained in order to animate the upper facial expression of the animated character." [0027]. This may also include the entirety of the face, which would be equivalent to the claimed head pose. See [0057].
Zhang fails to explicitly disclose selecting one of multiple characters. However, Zhang discloses multiple characters within a digital assistant system, and one of the limited number of ways to select a character in a digital assistant system is to select the image of that character.
Zhang fails to explicitly disclose but One-Shot teaches wherein the plurality of image frames are generated based on an image translation model (see section 2 on page 2, see also applicant’s admitted prior art of “face-vid2vid” in [0046], which appears to be code based on the One-Shot paper). It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to modify Zhang to include the generation of image frames based on an image translation model of One-Shot in order to achieve the predictable result of improved realism in the generated image frames.
Regarding claims 12-14, the recitations in these dependent claims are reasonably interpreted as failing to further limit the claimed invention (see the above 112(b) rejections). Therefore, these limitations fail to distinguish the invention from Zhang/One-Shot.
Claims 15 and 16, as understood by the examiner, are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Zhang/One-Shot in view of examiner’s official notice.
Regarding claim 15, Zhang/One-Shot discloses as discussed above, but Zhang/One-Shot fails to explicitly disclose performing semantic understanding on the voice information, and calling an intelligent model based on a semantic understanding result to generate the dialogue response information.
However, the examiner takes official notice that it is old and well known in the art to perform semantic understanding on voice information, and calling an intelligent model based on a semantic understanding result to generate dialogue response information in because such actions are common when implementing digital assistant systems.
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to modify Zhang/One-Shot to include the semantic understanding of examiner’s official notice because all the claimed elements/steps were known in the prior art and one skilled in the art could have combined the elements/steps as claimed by known methods with no change in their respective functions, and the combination would have yielded predictable results, such as improved usabillity, to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention.
Regarding claim 16, Zhang/One-Shot discloses as discussed above, but Zhang/One-Shot fails to explicitly disclose receiving an uploaded video and displaying the video on the electronic display screen.
However, the examiner takes official notice that it is old and well known in the art to upload and display video on an electronic screen in order to provide entertainment.
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to modify Zhang/One-Shot to include the upload and display of video of examiner’s official notice because all the claimed elements/steps were known in the prior art and one skilled in the art could have combined the elements/steps as claimed by known methods with no change in their respective functions, and the combination would have yielded predictable results, such as increased entertainment, to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention.
Citation of Relevant Prior Art
All references listed on form PTO-892 are cited in their entirety. The following prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure:
Vats (WO 2017137947 A1) discloses as follows:
picking up voice information of a viewer after the photo frame is started
"receiving a message to be enacted by the caller, wherein the message comprises at least the text or the emotional and movement command" page 4 (alternately, there is inherently audio to be picked up from the other caller)
processing a character in a currently displayed portrait based on the voice information to make the character in the portrait interact with the viewer
"- processing the message to extract or receive an audio data related to voice of the person, and a facial movement data related to expression to be carried on face of the person,- processing the image, the audio data, and the facial movement data" page 4
displaying the portrait in an interaction process
"generating an animation of the caller enacting the message" page 4
Li (US 2020/0051303 A1) discloses a system for generating real-time avatars from a single neutral image.
Zhou (US 2021/0217219 A1) discloses a system for real-time portrait animation based on a single image.
Guitarte Perez (US 2006/0221083 A1) discloses a video calling system that conserves bandwidth by animating a facial image of the caller according to received audio.
Savchenkov (US 2020/0234690 A1) discloses a system for generating real-time video based on input text and a target image (see Fig. 3).
Sinha (US 2023/0351662 A1) discloses a system for rendering a face animation "from a single image of any arbitrary target face."
Du (9,898,849 B2) discloses a system for generating facial expressions to animate a character according to a script or audio. However, there is no mention of interaction with the viewer.
Chiang (TW M652806 U) discloses an interactive portrait system that can generate an interactive avatar from a single photo.
Wang (EP 4604064 A1) discloses an image processing method that animates a static image in response to audio content (songs). However, Wang fails to disclose applicant's claimed interactive features.
Response to Amendments and Arguments
The examiner expresses his appreciation for applicant’s specific citations to the specification indicating where applicant believes support for the claim amendments can be found. The examiner's search for support for the claim amendments was not limited to these citations.
The objection to claims 15 and 16 are withdrawn in response to applicant’s amendment.
The 112(b) rejections of claims 6, 15, and 16 are withdrawn in response to applicant’s amendment. The rejections of claims 12-14 are modified in response to applicant’s amendment. Note, also, the new rejections above.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JAMIE KUCAB whose telephone number is (571)270-3025. The examiner can normally be reached Monday through Friday, 9 a.m. to 4:30 p.m. ET. The examiner’s email address is Jamie.Kucab@USPTO.gov. See MPEP 502.03 regarding email communications. Following is the sample authorization for electronic communication provided in MPEP 502.03.II: “Recognizing that Internet communications are not secure, I hereby authorize the USPTO to communicate with the undersigned and practitioners in accordance with 37 CFR 1.33 and 37 CFR 1.34 concerning any subject matter of this application by video conferencing, instant messaging, or electronic mail. I understand that a copy of these communications will be made of record in the application file.” Without such an authorization in place, an examiner is unable to respond via email.
If attempts to reach the examiner are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Neha Patel, can be reached at telephone number (571) 270-1492. 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 Patent Center. Status information for published applications may be obtained from Patent Center. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Patent Center for authorized users only. Should you have questions about access to Patent Center, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free).
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.
/JAMIE R KUCAB/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3699
Prosecution Insights