DETAILED ACTION
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 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); 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 nonstatutory double patenting provided the reference application or patent either is shown to be commonly owned with the examined application, or claims an invention made as a result of activities undertaken within the scope of a joint research agreement. See MPEP § 717.02 for applications subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA as explained in MPEP § 2159. See MPEP § 2146 et seq. for applications not subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA . A terminal disclaimer must be signed in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(b).
The filing of a terminal disclaimer by itself is not a complete reply to a nonstatutory double patenting (NSDP) rejection. A complete reply requires that the terminal disclaimer be accompanied by a reply requesting reconsideration of the prior Office action. Even where the NSDP rejection is provisional the reply must be complete. See MPEP § 804, subsection I.B.1. For a reply to a non-final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.111(a). For a reply to final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.113(c). A request for reconsideration while not provided for in 37 CFR 1.113(c) may be filed after final for consideration. See MPEP §§ 706.07(e) and 714.13.
The USPTO Internet website contains terminal disclaimer forms which may be used. Please visit www.uspto.gov/patent/patents-forms. The actual filing date of the application in which the form is filed determines what form (e.g., PTO/SB/25, PTO/SB/26, PTO/AIA /25, or PTO/AIA /26) should be used. A web-based eTerminal Disclaimer may be filled out completely online using web-screens. An eTerminal Disclaimer that meets all requirements is auto-processed and approved immediately upon submission. For more information about eTerminal Disclaimers, refer to www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/applying-online/eterminal-disclaimer.
Claims 1, 6-9, 11-12 and 17-19 are provisionally rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-20 of copending Application No. 19/392,786 (reference application). Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because the present application has substantially identical claim scope as in the ‘786 application.
In independent claims 1 and 11-12, the present application does not expressly require “in a scene corresponding to the interests of the user”. However, the limitation of profile information and assets used in digital illustration in present application can be considered as including the same scope of “a scene to the interests of the user”.
Dependent claims 6-9 and 17-19 are substantially identical to claims 2-6, 11-12 and 16-18 in the ‘786 application.
Independent claims 1 and 11-12 merely claims a broader scope from dependent claims 2-9, 11-14 and 16-20 in the ‘786 application.
This is a provisional nonstatutory double patenting rejection because the patentably indistinct claims have not in fact been patented.
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)(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 1-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Buzzelli (US 2024/0,112,389).
Referring to claims 1 and 11-12, Buzzelli discloses a method for generating a digital illustration (fig. 6, modified emotional state 604, graphical representation 606), the method comprising:
receiving, by a processor, assets (fig. 6, emotional state of the user and magnitude of the detected emotional state 602) associated with an entity or product (fig. 6, user 602);
accessing, by the processor, profile information (fig. 6, facial animation rules 605);
generating, by the processor based on the asset and the profile information, the digital illustration (fig. 6, modified emotional state 604) depicting the entity or product; and
generating, by the processor executing an artificial intelligence model (para.0021, artificial intelligence deep learning model), an illustrative depiction (fig. 6, graphical representation of the user 606; para.0021, rendered modified emotional states of user) of a person (fig. 9, user 900) in the digital illustration based on the profile information (fig. 6, select rule to render 605).
As to claims 2 and 13, Buzzelli discloses the method of claim 1, wherein the person is a user (fig. 1, user 101A) visualizing the digital illustration.
As to claims 3 and 14, Buzzelli discloses the method of claim 1, wherein the person is someone (fig. 1, user 122A) associated with a user (fig. 1, user 101A) visualizing the digital illustration.
As to claims 4 and 15, Buzzelli discloses the method of claim 1, wherein the digital illustration comprises a template (fig. 6, score of emotional state 603) generated at a first time, and the depiction of the person is inserted (fig. 6, determine modified emotional state 604) into the template at a second time later than the first time.
As to claims 5 and 16, Buzzelli discloses the method of claim 4, wherein the depiction of the person is dynamically generated (fig. 1, user 101A during meeting 100) when the digital illustration will be displayed to a user (fig. 1, user 101A).
As to claims 6 and 17, Buzzelli discloses the method of claim 1, comprising modifying (fig. 3, control area 319 modifying emotions 1/2/3/4) the depiction of the person in the digital illustration to match a facial expression (fig. 3, emotions 1/2/3/4) of the person with aspects of the digital image.
As to claims 7 and 18, Buzzelli discloses the method of claim 6, wherein the aspects of the digital image comprise mood, tone or setting (fig. 4, control areas for laughing, joy, frowning, sadness 419).
As to claims 8 and 19, Buzzelli discloses the method of claim 1, wherein the asset includes text, logos, images, audio or videos (fig. 2, representations 222A/222B of a user).
As to claims 9 and 20, Buzzelli discloses the method of claim 1, wherein the artificial intelligence model is trained (para. 0033, machine learning training data sets of facial images) using various images of persons, various images of scenes, and various artistic styles of comics to influence an output (fig. 9, magnitude of detected emotional state of user 900; fig. 3, emotional state of user 319) accurately depicting the person in the digital illustration.
As to claim 10, Buzzelli discloses the method of claim 1, wherein generating the illustrative depiction of the person comprises:
identifying distinguishing features (fig. 9, magnitude of detected emotional state of user 900) of the person from a photo or descriptor; and
interpolating the distinguishing features into a comic representation (para. 0020, avatar, animation) of the person.
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 .
Contact Information
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to examiner Cheng-Yuan Tseng whose telephone number is (571)272-9772, and fax number is (571)273-9772. The examiner can normally be reached on Monday through Friday from 09:00 to 17:30 Eastern Time. If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Alicia Harrington can be reached on (571)272-2330. 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. 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.
/CHENG YUAN TSENG/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2615
Prosecution Insights