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
Claims 1-20 filed on 07/30/2024 are pending.
Double Patenting
The nonstatutory double patenting rejection is based on a judicially created doctrine grounded in public policy (a policy reflected in the statute) so as to prevent the unjustified or improper timewise extension of the “right to exclude” granted by a patent and to prevent possible harassment by multiple assignees. A nonstatutory obviousness-type double patenting rejection is appropriate where the conflicting claims are not identical, but at least one examined application claim is not patentably distinct from the reference claim(s) because the examined application claim is either anticipated by, or would have been obvious over, the reference claim(s). See, e.g., In re Berg, 140 F.3d 1428, 46 USPQ2d 1226 (Fed. Cir. 1998); In re Goodman, 11 F.3d 1046, 29 USPQ2d 2010 (Fed. Cir. 1993); In re Longi, 759 F.2d 887, 225 USPQ 645 (Fed. Cir. 1985); In re Van Ornum, 686 F.2d 937, 214 USPQ 761 (CCPA 1982); In re Vogel, 422 F.2d 438, 164 USPQ 619 (CCPA 1970); and In re Thorington, 418 F.2d 528, 163 USPQ 644 (CCPA 1969).
A timely filed terminal disclaimer in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(c) or 1.321(d) may be used to overcome an actual or provisional rejection based on a nonstatutory double patenting ground provided the conflicting application or patent either is shown to be commonly owned with this application, or claims an invention made as a result of activities undertaken within the scope of a joint research agreement.
Effective January 1, 1994, a registered attorney or agent of record may sign a terminal disclaimer. A terminal disclaimer signed by the assignee must fully comply with 37 CFR 3.73(b).
Claims 1 and 17 is rejected on the ground of nonstatutory obviousness-type double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1 of U.S Patent No. 11,145,101 (U.S Patent Application No. 16/535797) Although the conflicting claims are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because the instant claims are similar to the claims in the U.S patent to meet the limitations claimed in the U.S patent. Table 1 shows comparison between the instant claims and the U.S patent claims.
This is a non-provisionally obviousness-type double patenting rejection because the conflicting claims have in fact been patented.
Table 1: Comparison of claims in instant Application No. 18/789003 vs. Patent No. 11,145,101 (Application No. 16/535797)
Appl. 18/789003
Claims: Application 16/535797 (US Pat. 11,145,101)
1. An electronic device, comprising:
a camera; a display; a sensor; one or more processor; and memory storing instructions which, when collectively or individually executed by the one or more processors, cause the electronic device to:
display an avatar corresponding to an external object included in one or more images acquired using the camera through the display,
identify a change in a position of the external object relative to the electronic device through at least one of the camera and the sensor,
determine a viewpoint related to the displayed avatar based on the change in the position, and display the avatar based on the determined viewpoint, through the display.
1. An electronic device, comprising:
a camera; a display; a sensor; a memory; and a processor,
wherein the processor is configured to
display an avatar corresponding to an external object included in one or more images acquired using the camera through the display,
identify a change in a position of the external object relative to the electronic device through at least one of the camera and the sensor,
determine a viewpoint related to the displayed avatar based on the change in the position, and display the avatar based on the determined viewpoint, through the display,
wherein the processor is further configured to determine attributes of a background of the avatar based on a positional relationship between the external object and the electronic device and provide the background and the avatar together through the display according to the attributes, wherein the attributes of the background include a blur effect of the background and a size of the background, wherein the processor is further configured to decrease the blur effect of the background and the size of the background if a distance between the external object and the electronic device increases, and increase the blur effect of the background and the size of the background if the distance between the external object and the electronic device decreases, and wherein the processor is further configured to determine a rotational angle of the electronic device in a first mode of the electronic device, determine whether the rotational angle in the first mode is within a first threshold rotation range, reversely rotate at least a portion of an action or a position of the avatar by the rotational angle in the first mode if the rotational angle in the first mode is within the first threshold rotation range, reversely rotate at least the portion of the action or the position of the avatar by an upper limit in the first mode if the rotational angle in the first mode is greater than or equal to the upper limit of the first threshold rotation range, and reversely rotate at least the portion of the action or the position of the avatar by a lower limit in the first mode if the rotational angle in the first mode is less than or equal to the lower limit of the first threshold rotation range, and the first mode is one of a portrait mode and a landscape mode.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 1 and 4 rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Li et al. (“Li”) [U.S Patent Application Pub. 2015/0325029 A1 cited in the parent application 16/535797 which is now U.S Patent No. 11,145,101]
Regarding claim 1, Li meets the claim limitations as follows:
An electronic device, comprising:
a camera [Fig. 2A: ‘225’];
a display [Fig. 2A:’230’];
a sensor [Fig. 2A; para. 0021, 0024: ‘an image sensor’];
one or more processor [Fig. 1: ‘104’]; and memory storing instructions [Fig. 1: ‘102/] which, when collectively or individually executed by the one or more processors, cause the electronic device to:
display an avatar [Fig. 2B; para. 0037: ‘an avatar 287A-287C’] corresponding to an external object (i.e. ‘283A-283C holds the image of the user’s face’) [Fig. 2B; para. 0037 ] included in one or more images acquired using the camera through the display,
identify a change in a position of the external object relative to the electronic device [Fig. 2B, 2C, 3; para. 0040: ‘At block 310, … , such as the user’s face, is detected and tracked while its position with respect to the computing device’] through at least one of the camera and the sensor,
determine a viewpoint related to the displayed avatar based on the change in the position [Fig. 2B: ‘285C’; ‘287C’; Fig. 2C: ‘295A’; ‘297B’; para. 0022-0023, 0038-0040], and
display the avatar based on the determined viewpoint, through the display [Fig. 2B: ‘285C’; ‘287C’; Fig. 2C: ‘295A’; ‘297B’; para. 0022-0023].
Regarding claim 4, Li meets the claim limitations as follows:
The electronic device of claim 1, wherein the instructions further cause the electronic device to:
extract feature information (i.e. ‘facial expression and feature measurement sensors’) related to a face of a user of the electronic device identified in the one or more images [Fig. 2B, 2C; para. 0019, 0025, 0026, 0076: ‘deforming the avatar based on the user's gestures …, wherein the user image includes an image of the user's face, and the plurality of points include a plurality of facial points on the user's face], and
generate the avatar (e.g. ‘deforming the avatar’) reflecting characteristics of the face of the user based on the feature information and an avatar generation model (i.e. ‘a virtual 3D model’ or ‘3D coordinates of each marker in each frame’) [Fig. 2B, 2C; para. 0019, 0022, 0025, 0026, 0028m 0076: ‘deforming the avatar based on the user's gestures …, wherein the user image includes an image of the user's face, and the plurality of points include a plurality of facial points on the user's face].
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 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.
Claims 2, 7 and 9 rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Li in view of Pfursich et al. (“Pfursich”) [U.S Patent Application Pub. 2016/0335483 A1 cited in the parent application 16/535797 which is now U.S Patent No. 11,145,101]
Regarding claim 2, Li meets the claim limitations set forth in claim 1.
Li does not disclose explicitly the following claim limitations:
The electronic device of claim 1, wherein the instructions further cause the electronic device to: determine attributes of a background of the avatar based on a positional relationship between the background of the avatar and the avatar, and provide the background and the avatar together through the display according to the attributes.
However in the same field of endeavor Pfursich discloses the deficient claim as follows:
wherein the instructions further cause the electronic device to: determine attributes of a background of the avatar based on a positional relationship between the background of the avatar and the avatar [Fig. 11: sequence of background image ‘1115’ with different background attributes; para. 0081-0083 disclose displaying an avatar against background features], and provide the background and the avatar together through the display according to the attributes [Fig. 11; para. 0081-0083 disclose displaying an avatar against background features].
Li and Pfursich are combinable because they are from the same field of avatar display system.
It would have been obvious to one with ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to combine teachings of Li and Pfursich as motivation to display an avatar against background based on positional relationship for providing user perspective [Li: Fig. 2B, 2C] and/or authentication purposes [Pfursich: para. 0003].
Regarding claim 7, Li meets the claim limitations set forth in claim 2.
Li does not disclose explicitly the following claim limitations:
The electronic device of claim 2, wherein the instructions further cause the electronic device to: determine a view area in the background of the avatar based on the position, and provide the view area in the background together with the avatar through the display.
However in the same field of endeavor Pfursich discloses the deficient claim as follows:
wherein the instructions further cause the electronic device to: determine a view area in the background of the avatar based on the position [Fig. 11: sequence of background image ‘1115’ with different background attributes; para. 0081-0083 disclose displaying an avatar against background features], and provide the view area in the background together with the avatar through the display [Fig. 11; para. 0081-0083 disclose displaying an avatar against background features].
Li and Pfursich are combinable because they are from the same field of avatar display system.
It would have been obvious to one with ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to combine teachings of Li and Pfursich as motivation to display an avatar against background based on positional relationship for providing user perspective [Li: Fig. 2B, 2C] and/or authentication purposes [Pfursich: para. 0003].
Regarding claim 9, Li meets the claim limitations set forth in claim 1.
Li does not disclose explicitly the following claim limitations:
The electronic device of claim 1, wherein the instructions further cause the electronic device to: determine a view area in the avatar based on the position, and provide the view area in the avatar through the display.
However in the same field of endeavor Pfursich discloses the deficient claim as follows:
wherein the instructions further cause the electronic device to: determine a view area (i.e. a background area) in the avatar based on the position [Fig. 11: sequence of background image ‘1115’ with different background attributes; para. 0081-0083 disclose displaying an avatar against background features], and provide the view area in the avatar through the display [Fig. 11; para. 0081-0083 disclose displaying an avatar against background features].
Li and Pfursich are combinable because they are from the same field of avatar display system.
It would have been obvious to one with ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to combine teachings of Li and Pfursich as motivation to display an avatar against background based on positional relationship for providing user perspective [Li: Fig. 2B, 2C] and/or authentication purposes [Pfursich: para. 0003].
Claim 3 rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Li in view of Pfursich in further view of Hyndman et al (“Hyndman”) [US 2010/0164956 A1 cited in the parent application 16/535797 which is now U.S Patent No. 11,145,101]
Regarding claim 3, Li in view of Pfursich meets the claim limitations set forth in claim 2.
Li does not disclose explicitly the following claim limitations:
The electronic device of claim 2, wherein the attributes of the background include a blur effect of the background, and wherein the instructions further cause the electronic device to: decrease the blur effect of the background if a distance between the external object and the electronic device increases, and increase the blur effect of the background if the distance between the external object and the electronic device decreases.
However in the same field of endeavor Hyndman discloses the deficient claim as follows:
wherein the attributes of the background include a blur effect of the background [Fig. 12, 13; para. 0054-0058: disclosing ‘distance flog or depth of field blur’], and wherein the instructions further cause the electronic device to: decrease the blur effect of the background if a distance between the external object and the electronic device increases, and increase the blur effect of the background if the distance between the external object and the electronic device decreases [Fig. 12, 13; para. 0054-0058: ‘The sharpness of the probability density function may be decreased with distance’].
Li, Pfursich and Hyndman are combinable because they are from the same field of avatar display system.
It would have been obvious to one with ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to combine teachings of Li, Pfursich and Hyndman as motivation to display an avatar against background based on positional relationship for providing user perspective [Li: Fig. 2B, 2C] and/or authentication purposes [Pfursich: para. 0003] and/or increasing the accuracy with which the user’s attention may be tracked [Hyndman: para. 0058].
Claim 5 rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Li in view of Borke et al (“Borke”) [US 2016/0267699 A1 cited in the parent application 16/535797 which is now U.S Patent No. 11,145,101]
Regarding claim 5, Li meets the claim limitations set forth in claim 1.
Li does not disclose explicitly the following claim limitations:
The electronic device of claim 1, wherein the instructions further cause the electronic device to: determine whether a distance between the external object and the electronic device is within a threshold distance range, determine that the viewpoint is a position in a virtual space corresponding to the distance between the external object and the electronic device if the distance between the external object and the electronic device is within the threshold distance range, determine that the viewpoint is a position in a virtual space corresponding to an upper limit of the threshold distance range if the distance between the external object and the electronic device is greater than or equal to the upper limit of the threshold distance range, and determine that the viewpoint is a position in the virtual space corresponding to a lower limit of the threshold distance range if the distance between the external object and the electronic device is less than or equal to the lower limit of the threshold distance range.
However in the same field of endeavor Borke discloses the deficient claim as follows:
determine whether a distance between the external object and the electronic device is within a threshold distance range [Fig. 18C: ‘depth range 1830’; ‘far threshold 1832’; ‘near threshold 1834’; para. 0102-0110, 0112], determine that the viewpoint is a position in a virtual space corresponding to the distance between the external object and the electronic device if the distance between the external object and the electronic device is within the threshold distance range [Fig. 18C, 18D, 19: ‘depth range 1830’; para. 0102-0110, 0112], determine that the viewpoint is a position in a virtual space corresponding to an upper limit of the threshold distance range if the distance between the external object and the electronic device is greater than or equal to the upper limit of the threshold distance range [Fig. 18C, 18D, 19: ‘depth range 1830’; para. 0102-0110, 0112], and determine that the viewpoint is a position in the virtual space corresponding to a lower limit of the threshold distance range if the distance between the external object and the electronic device is less than or equal to the lower limit of the threshold distance range [Fig. 18C, 18D, 19: ‘depth range 1830’; para. 0102-0110, 0112].
Li and Borke are combinable because they are from the same field of avatar display system.
It would have been obvious to one with ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to combine teachings of Li and Borke as motivation include depth range to display/control holographic avatars [Borke: para. 0012-0013].
Claims 8 and 10 rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Li in view of Pfursich in further view of Horii et al. (“Horii”) [U.S Patent Application Pub. 2009/0237403 A1]
Regarding claim 8, Li in view of Pfursich meets the claim limitations set forth in claim 7.
Li does not disclose explicitly the following claim limitations:
The electronic device of claim 7, wherein the instructions further cause the electronic device to: determine an angle at which the electronic device moves with respect to the external object and a direction of the angle, and move the view area in the background by the angle in a direction opposite to the direction of the angle.
However in the same field of endeavor Horii discloses the deficient claim as follows:
wherein the instructions further cause the electronic device to: determine an angle (i.e. ‘a viewpoint in the vicinity of the avatar’) [Fig. 4, 5; para. 0069: ‘When the own avatar 02 moves beyond’ (i.e. the view point is changed ), ‘a background image has to be newly created’] at which the electronic device moves with respect to the external object and a direction of the angle [Fig. 4, 5, 7, 11: show various viewpoint], and move the view area in the background by the angle in a direction opposite to the direction of the angle [Fig. 7, 4, 5; para. 0069: ‘When the own avatar 02 moves beyond’ (i.e. the view point is changed ), ‘a background image has to be newly created’; Fig. 7, 13, 14. As an example, when viewpoint 01 at the building 05 is changed to ‘04’ in counter-clockwise direction [Fig. 7], the background 34 corresponding to ‘04’ should be moved in a direction opposite to the direction of the viewpoint (i.e. clockwise direction for shorter path)].
Li, Pfursich and Horii are combinable because they are from the same field of avatar display system.
It would have been obvious to one with ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to combine teachings of Li, Pfursich and Horii as motivation to display an avatar against background based on positional relationship for providing user perspective [Li: Fig. 2B, 2C] and/or authentication purposes [Pfursich: para. 0003] and/or three-dimensional virtual world [Horii: para. 0003-0005].
Regarding claim 10, Li in view of Pfursich meets the claim limitations set forth in claim 9.
Li does not disclose explicitly the following claim limitations:
The electronic device of claim 9, wherein the instructions further cause the electronic device to: determine an angle at which the electronic device moves with respect to the external object and a direction of the angle, and move the view area in the avatar by the angle in the direction.
However in the same field of endeavor Horii discloses the deficient claim as follows:
wherein the instructions further cause the electronic device to: determine an angle (i.e. ‘a viewpoint in the vicinity of the avatar’) [Fig. 4, 5; para. 0069: ‘When the own avatar 02 moves beyond’ (i.e. the view point is changed ), ‘a background image has to be newly created’] at which the electronic device moves with respect to the external object and a direction of the angle [Fig. 4, 5, 7, 11: show various viewpoint], and move the view area in the avatar by the angle in the direction [Fig. 7, 4, 5; para. 0069: ‘When the own avatar 02 moves beyond’ (i.e. the view point is changed ), ‘a background image has to be newly created’; Fig. 7, 13, 14. As an example, when viewpoint 01 at the building 05 is changed to ‘04’ in counter-clockwise direction [Fig. 14], the background 34 corresponding to ‘04’ should be moved in counter-clockwise direction (for shorter path)].
Li, Pfursich and Horii are combinable because they are from the same field of avatar display system.
It would have been obvious to one with ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to combine teachings of Li, Pfursich and Horii as motivation to display an avatar against background based on positional relationship for providing user perspective [Li: Fig. 2B, 2C] and/or authentication purposes [Pfursich: para. 0003] and/or three-dimensional virtual world [Horii: para. 0003-0005].
Claims 11-13 rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Li in view of Du et al (“Du”) [US 2014/0218371 A1 cited in the parent application 16/535797 which is now U.S Patent No. 11,145,101]
Regarding claim 11, Li meets the claim limitations as follows:
The electronic device of claim 1, wherein the instructions further cause the electronic device to: identify a plurality of components of the avatar [Fig. 2B: smiling ‘285A’; tilting ‘285C’], apply different animation schemes to at least two components of the plurality of components [Fig. 2B: smiling ‘285A’; tilting ‘285C’], and display the avatar having the at least two components [Fig. 2B: smiling ‘285A’; tilting ‘285C’], to which the different animation schemes are applied, through the display.
Li does not disclose explicitly the following claim limitations (emphasis added):
wherein the instructions further cause the electronic device to: identify a plurality of components of the avatar, apply different animation schemes to at least two components of the plurality of components, and display the avatar having the at least two components, to which the different animation schemes are applied, through the display.
However in the same field of endeavor Du discloses the deficient claim as follows:
identify a plurality of components of the avatar (e.g. ‘the avatar’s eyebrows, left and right eyes and mouth independently’) [Fig. 6; para. 0037], apply different animation schemes (i.e. ‘Determined facial feature parameters’) to at least two components of the plurality of components, and display the avatar having the at least two components, to which the different animation schemes (i.e. ‘predetermined avatar images’) are applied, through the display [Fig. 1, 2, 6: ‘610’, ‘620’; Abtract, para. 0016-0017: ‘Determined facial feature parameters are used to select predetermined avatar images’].
Li and Duare combinable because they are from the same field of avatar display system.
It would have been obvious to one with ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to combine teachings of Li and Du as motivation include predetermined avatar images so as to allow avatars to be animated in real time based on a user’s facial or head movements [para. 0011].
Regarding claim 12, Li meets the claim limitations as follows:
The electronic device of claim 11, wherein the different animation schemes include a motion-based animation scheme [Fig. 2B: smiling ‘285A’; tilting ‘285C’] applied to a first component among the plurality of components, and wherein the instructions further cause the electronic device to: identify a gesture corresponding to a gesture of the external object among a plurality of gestures [Fig. 2B: smiling ‘285A’; tilting ‘285C’] configured in the electronic device according to the motion-based animation scheme, and display the first component, moving according to the identified gesture, through the display.
Li does not disclose explicitly the following claim limitations:
wherein the different animation schemes include a motion-based animation scheme applied to a first component among the plurality of components, and wherein the instructions further cause the electronic device to: identify a gesture corresponding to a gesture of the external object among a plurality of gestures configured in the electronic device according to the motion-based animation scheme, and display the first component, moving according to the identified gesture, through the display.
However in the same field of endeavor Du discloses the deficient claim as follows:
wherein the different animation schemes include a motion-based animation scheme applied to a first component among the plurality of components, and wherein the instructions further cause the electronic device to: identify a gesture corresponding to a gesture of the external object among a plurality of gestures configured in the electronic device according to the motion-based animation scheme, and display the first component, moving according to the identified gesture, through the display [Fig. 1, 2, 6: ‘610’, ‘620’; Abtract, para. 0016-0017, 0037: ‘The avatar tracks the user’s facial movements’].
Li and Duare combinable because they are from the same field of avatar display system.
It would have been obvious to one with ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to combine teachings of Li and Du as motivation include predetermined avatar images so as to allow avatars to be animated in real time based on a user’s facial or head movements [para. 0011].
Regarding claim 13, Li meets the claim limitations as follows:
The electronic device of claim 11, wherein the different animation schemes include a tracking-based animation scheme [Li: para. 0012: ‘a new and robust detecting/tracking algorithm … for calculating and extracting facial gestures’] applied to a second component among the plurality of components, and wherein the instructions further cause the electronic device to: track a change [Fig. 2B: smiling ‘285A’; tilting ‘285C’] in feature points extracted from the area of the external object corresponding to the second component according to the tracking-based animation scheme, and display the second component [Fig. 2B: smiling ‘285A’; tilting ‘285C’] adaptively moving according to the change in the feature points through the display
Li does not disclose explicitly the following claim limitations:
wherein the different animation schemes include a tracking-based animation scheme applied to a second component among the plurality of components, and wherein the instructions further cause the electronic device to: track a change in feature points extracted from the area of the external object corresponding to the second component according to the tracking-based animation scheme, and display the second component adaptively moving according to the change in the feature points through the display.
However in the same field of endeavor Du discloses the deficient claim as follows:
wherein the different animation schemes include a tracking-based animation scheme applied to a second component among the plurality of components, and wherein the instructions further cause the electronic device to: track a change in feature points extracted from the area of the external object corresponding to the second component according to the tracking-based animation scheme, and display the second component adaptively moving according to the change in the feature points through the display [Fig. 1, 2, 6: ‘610’, ‘620’; Abtract, para. 0016-0017, 0037: ‘The avatar tracks the user’s facial movements’].
Li and Du are combinable because they are from the same field of avatar display system.
It would have been obvious to one with ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to combine teachings of Li and Du as motivation include predetermined avatar images so as to allow avatars to be animated in real time based on a user’s facial or head movements [para. 0011].
Claim 14 rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Li in view of Du in further view of Wenlong et al (“Wenlong”) [US 2014/0218459 A1]
Regarding claim 14, Li in view of Du meets the claim limitations as follows:
The electronic device of claim 11, wherein the different animation schemes include a preloaded animation scheme (i.e. ‘a baseline or default avatar’) [Fig. 3: ‘320’para. 0026, 0030: ‘the extraction of the facial points by 3D mesh’] applied to a third component (i.e. ‘This default face size’) [Fig. 2C: smaller face size ‘297A’; para. 0026, 0030: ‘the extraction of the facial points by 3D mesh’] among the plurality of components, and wherein the instructions further cause the electronic device to [Fig. 2C: smaller face size ‘297A’; para. 0030-0031: disclosing the computation of w*h for user face size]: display the third component regardless of a gesture of the external object, according to the preloaded animation scheme through the display [Fig. 2C].
Li does not disclose explicitly the following claim limitations (emphasis added):
wherein the instructions further cause the electronic device to: display the third component regardless of a gesture of the external object, according to the preloaded animation scheme through the display.
However in the same field of endeavor Wenlong discloses the deficient claim as follows:
wherein the instructions further cause the electronic device to: display the third component regardless of a gesture of the external object [para. 0022: ‘whereas 3-D avatar animation may be done with free form deformation (FFD) …’], according to the preloaded animation scheme through the display.
Li, Du and Wenlong are combinable because they are from the same field of avatar display system.
It would have been obvious to one with ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to combine teachings of Li, Du and Wenlong as motivation include ‘free form deformation (FFD)’ so as to reduce computation time (by avoiding extensive computation of ‘image warping or image morphing’ [Wenlong: para. 0022].
Claims 17 and 18 rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Li et al. (“Li”) [U.S Patent Application Pub. 2015/0325029 A1]in view of Pfursich et al. (“Pfursich”) [U.S Patent Application Pub. 2016/0335483 A1] in further view of K et al. (“K”) [US 2012/0158515 A1]
Regarding claim 17, Li meets the claim limitations as follows:
An electronic device, comprising:
a camera [Fig. 2A: ‘225’];
a display [Fig. 2A:’230’];
a sensor [Fig. 2A; para. 0021, 0024: ‘an image sensor’];
one or more processor [Fig. 1: ‘104’]; and memory storing instructions [Fig. 1: ‘102’] which, when collectively or individually executed by the one or more processors, cause the electronic device to:
display an avatar [Fig. 2B; para. 0037: ‘an avatar 287A-287C’] corresponding to an external object (i.e. ‘283A-283C holds the image of the user’s face’) [Fig. 2B, 2C; para. 0022, 0037: ‘to capture a user’s head gestures’] included in one or more images acquired using the camera, and a background of the avatar through the display,
determine at least one characteristic of the avatar (e.g., ‘a smile, frown, laugh, .., and the like’) based on avatar information stored in the memory (i.e. ‘database’) [para. 0018, 0026: ‘database 240 may be used to record, store and maintain data relating to various human facial expressions, such a smile, frown, laugh, .., and the like’; ‘a baseline or default avatar’],
determine at least one characteristic of the background based on background information stored in the memory, and
control at least one of the avatar [Fig. 2B, 2C] and the background displayed through the display based on at least one configuration value of configuration information (e.g., ‘a smile, frown, laugh, .., and the like’ or ‘a baseline or default avatar’) stored in the memory.
Li does not disclose explicitly the following claim limitations (emphasis added):
display an avatar corresponding to an external object included in one or more images acquired using the camera, and a background of the avatar through the display,
determine at least one characteristic of the avatar …;
determine at least one characteristic of the background based on background information stored in the memory.
control at least one of the avatar and the background displayed through the display based on at least one configuration value of configuration information stored in the memory.
However in the same field of endeavor Pfursich discloses the deficient claim as follows:
display an avatar corresponding to an external object included in one or more images acquired using the camera, and a background of the avatar through the display [Fig. 11: sequence of background image ‘1115’ with different background attributes; para. 0081-0083 disclose displaying an avatar against background features],
determine at least one characteristic of the avatar ….,
determine at least one characteristic of the background based on background information stored in the memory, and
control at least one of the avatar and the background displayed through the display based on at least one configuration value of configuration information stored in the memory.
Li and Pfursich are combinable because they are from the same field of avatar display system.
It would have been obvious to one with ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to combine teachings of Li and Pfursich as motivation to display an avatar against background based on positional relationship for providing user perspective [Li: Fig. 2B, 2C] and/or authentication purposes [Pfursich: para. 0003].
Pfursich does not disclose explicitly the following claim limitations (emphasis added):
determine at least one characteristic of the background based on background information stored in the memory, and
control at least one of the avatar and the background displayed through the display based on at least one configuration value of configuration information stored in the memory.
However in the same field of endeavor K discloses the deficient claim as follows:
determine at least one characteristic of the background [para. 0029, 0034, 0049, 0052, 0054, 0071: ‘to identify physical attributes … and of a background’] based on background information stored in the memory (i.e. ‘A special database’) [Fig. 4: ‘Background 430’; para. 0079-0071: ‘A special database can be provided for matching characteristics …’], and
control at least one of the avatar and the background displayed [Fig. 4: background of ‘401’; para. 0051: ‘Background 430’] through the display based on at least one configuration value of configuration information stored in the memory.
Li, Pfursich and K are combinable because they are from the same field of avatar display system.
It would have been obvious to one with ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to combine teachings of Li, Pfursich and K as motivation to display an avatar against background based on positional relationship for providing user perspective [Li: Fig. 2B, 2C] and/or authentication purposes [Pfursich: para. 0003] and/or providing digital advertisements based on characteristics of an avatar [K: para. 0004-0007].
Regarding claim 18, Li in view of Pfursich and K meets the claim limitations as follows:.
The electronic device of claim 17, further comprising an input device [Fig. 1, 4: ‘input/output 108’; para. 0044: ‘User input device 460’; para. 0026: ‘this reference value may be provided by a system user’ in view of Pfursich: para. 0134: ‘input device 2012’; para. 0026: ‘merely asking for more user input’ in further view of K: Fig. 4: input ‘420’ or ‘430’], wherein the instructions further cause the electronic device to: determine at least one of the at least one characteristic of the avatar [See rejection of claim 17 limitations “determine at least one characteristic of the avatar …”], the at least one characteristic of the background [See rejection of claim 17 limitations “determine at least one characteristic of the background …”], and the at least one configuration value [See rejection of claim 17 limitations “control at least one of the avatar and the background …”] based on an input received through the input device.
Li, Pfursich and K are combinable because they are from the same field of avatar display system.
It would have been obvious to one with ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to combine teachings of Li, Pfursich and K as motivation to include user interface.
Allowable Subject Matter
Regarding claim 6, it is objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
Regarding claim 15, it is objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
Regarding claim 16, it is objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
Regarding claim 19, it is objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
Regarding claim 20, it is objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. See form 892.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to PETER D LE whose telephone number is (571)270-5382. The examiner can normally be reached on Monday - Alternate Friday: 10AM-6:30PM.
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, SATH PERUNGAVOOR can be reached on 571-272-7455. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/PETER D LE/
Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2488