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 .
CLAIM INTERPRETATION
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(f):
(f) Element in Claim for a Combination. – An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
This application includes one or more claim limitations that do not use the word “means,” but are nonetheless being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, because the claim limitation(s) uses a generic placeholder that is coupled with functional language without reciting sufficient structure to perform the recited function and the generic placeholder is not preceded by a structural modifier. Such claim limitation(s) is/are: “at least one imaging device” in claim 16, “at least one processing device” in claim 16, “a display device” in claim 16.
Because this/these claim limitation(s) is/are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, it/they is/are being interpreted to cover the corresponding structure described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof.
“at least one imaging device” in claim 16 is read as the item 1102 shown in Fig.1 (paragraph 79), “at least one processing device” in claim 16 is read as the computing device 1106 shown in Fig.11 (paragraph 79), “a display device” in claim 16 is read as the item 1108 shown in Fig.11 (paragraph 79). If applicant does not intend to have this/these limitation(s) interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, applicant may: (1) amend the claim limitation(s) to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph (e.g., by reciting sufficient structure to perform the claimed function); or (2) present a sufficient showing that the claim limitation(s) recite(s) sufficient structure to perform the claimed function so as to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph.
Double Patenting
Nonstatutory Double Patenting
The nonstatutory double patenting rejection is based on a judicially created doctrinegrounded 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 1-13 and 16-17 are provisionally rejected on the ground of nonstatutory obviousness-type double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 1-6, 8-10, 12, 23, 22 and 23 of the US Patent 12,322,133 and further in view of Mueller’022 (US 2016/0353022). Although the conflicting claims are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because:
The limitations of the instant claim 1 are substantially identically to claim 1 of the US Patent 12,322,133. Although the claim 1 of the US Patent 12,322,133 has extra limitation and fails to disclose providing an indication that the human head is in the desired position.
Mueller’022 teaches providing an indication that the human head is in the desired position [The meters (Fig.55, item 518) can be colored so that when the person is out of the tolerance zone the meters are red or yellow and when the person is in the tolerance zone the meters are green].
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify claim 1 of the US Patent 12,322,133 according to the teaching of Mueller’022 to include a meter to provide color indicators to indicate if the human head is in the desired position because this will allow the human head to be positioned in a desired position more effectively.
Therefore claim 1 is rejected under Non-Statutory Obviousness-Type Double Patenting: Anticipation Analysis.
With respect to claim 2, which further limits claim 1, the limitations of instant claim 2 are identically claim 2 of the US Patent 12,322,133.
With respect to claim 3, which further limits claim 1, the limitations of instant claim 3 are identically claim 1 of the US Patent 12,322,133 except claim 1 of the US Patent 12,322,133 has extra limitation.
With respect to claim 4, which further limits claim 3, the limitations of instant claim 4 are identically claim 1 of the US Patent 12,322,133 except claim 1 of the US Patent 12,322,133 has extra limitation.
With respect to claim 5, which further limits claim 4, the limitations of instant claim 5 are identically claim 8 of the US Patent 12,322,133.
With respect to claim 6, which further limits claim 5, the limitations of instant claim 6 are identically claim 9 of the US Patent 12,322,133.
With respect to claim 7, which further limits claim 4, the limitations of instant claim 7 are identically claim 12 of the US Patent 12,322,133.
With respect to claim 8, which further limits claim 6, the limitations of instant claim 8 are identically claim 10 of the US Patent 12,322,133.
With respect to claim 9, which further limits claim 2, the limitations of instant claim 9 are identically claim 3 of the US Patent 12,322,133.
With respect to claim 10, which further limits claim 9, the limitations of instant claim 10 are identically claim 4 of the US Patent 12,322,133.
With respect to claim 11, which further limits claim 2, the limitations of instant claim 11 are identically claim 5 of the US Patent 12,322,133.
With respect to claim 12, which further limits claim 11, the limitations of instant claim 12 are identically claim 6 of the US Patent 12,322,133.
With respect to claim 13, which further limits claim 1, the limitations of instant claim 13 are identically claim 13 of the US Patent 12,322,133.
With respect to claim 15, which further limits claim 1, claim 1 of the US Patent 12,322,133 does not teach wherein the human head is aligned such that a pitch of the human head is at a zero angle relative to the at least one imaging device, further comprising repositioning the human head to the desired position while maintaining the pitch at the zero angle, and providing an indication that the human head is in the desired position and the pitch is at the zero angle.
Mueller’022 teaches wherein the human head is aligned such that a pitch of the human head is at a zero angle relative to the at least one imaging device (Fig. 55), further comprising repositioning the human head to the desired position while maintaining the pitch at the zero angle (Fig.54 and Fig.55), and
providing an indication that the human head is in the desired position and the pitch is at the zero angle [The meters (Fig.55, item 518) can be colored so that when the person is out of the tolerance zone the meters are red or yellow and when the person is in the tolerance zone the meters are green].
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify claim 1 of the US Patent 12,322,133 according to the teaching of Mueller’022 to include a meter to provide color indicators to indicate if the human head is in the desired position because this will allow the human head to be positioned in a desired position more effectively.
With respect to claim 16, the limitations of instant claim 16 are identically claim 22 of the US Patent 12,322,133 except claim 22 of the US Patent 12,322,133 has extra limitation.
With respect to claim 17, which further limits claim 16, the limitations of instant claim 17 are identically claim 23 of the US Patent 12,322,133.
The limitations of the instant claim 18 are substantially identically to claim 22 of the US Patent 12,322,133. Although the claim 22 of the US Patent 12,322,133 has extra limitation and fails to disclose wherein the at least one processing device generates an indication that the human head is in the desired position..
Mueller’022 teaches wherein the at least one processing device generates an indication that the human head is in the desired position [The meters (Fig.55, item 518) can be colored so that when the person is out of the tolerance zone the meters are red or yellow and when the person is in the tolerance zone the meters are green].
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify claim 22 of the US Patent 12,322,133 according to the teaching of Mueller’022 to include a meter to provide color indicators to indicate if the human head is in the desired position because this will allow the human head to be positioned in a desired position more effectively.
With respect to claim 20, which further limits claim 18, claim 22 of the US Patent 12,322,133 does not teach wherein the human head is aligned such that a pitch of the human head is at a zero angle relative to the at least one imaging device, further comprising repositioning the human head to the desired position while maintaining the pitch at the zero angle, and providing an indication that the human head is in the desired position and the pitch is at the zero angle.
Mueller’022 teaches wherein the human head is aligned such that a pitch of the human head is at a zero angle relative to the at least one imaging device (Fig. 55), further comprising repositioning the human head to the desired position while maintaining the pitch at the zero angle (Fig.54 and Fig.55), and
providing an indication that the human head is in the desired position and the pitch is at the zero angle [The meters (Fig.55, item 518) can be colored so that when the person is out of the tolerance zone the meters are red or yellow and when the person is in the tolerance zone the meters are green].
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify claim 18 of the US Patent 12,322,133 according to the teaching of Mueller’022 to include a meter to provide color indicators to indicate if the human head is in the desired position because this will allow the human head to be positioned in a desired position more effectively.
Claims 14 and 19 are provisionally rejected on the ground of nonstatutory obviousness-type double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 1 of the US Patent 12,322,133, Mueller’022 (US 2016/0353022) and further in view of Wu’336 (US 2019/0251336). Although the conflicting claims are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because:
With respect to claim 14, which further limits claim 1, the combination of claim 1 of the US Patent 12,322,133 and Mueller’022 does not teach wherein the repositioning of the human head includes rotating the human head about an axis of rotation, where the axis of rotation is about at least one of the center of the mouth of the human head and the tip of the nose of the human head.
Wu’336 teaches teach wherein the repositioning of the human head includes rotating the human head about an axis of rotation, where the axis of rotation is about at least one of the center of the mouth of the human head and the tip of the nose of the human head (Fig.7A-Fig.7C).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the combination of claim 1 of the US Patent 12,322,133 and Mueller’022 according to the teaching of Wu’336 to rotate the face image to a desired angle according the center of the mouth of the human head and/or the tip of the nose of the human head. because this will allow the face image to repositioned to a desired position.
With respect to claim 19, which further limits claim 18, the combination of claim 22 of the US Patent 12,322,133 and Mueller’022 does not teach wherein the repositioning of the human head includes rotating the human head about an axis of rotation, where the axis of rotation is about at least one of the center of the mouth of the human head and the tip of the nose of the human head.
Wu’336 teaches teach wherein the repositioning of the human head includes rotating the human head about an axis of rotation, where the axis of rotation is about at least one of the center of the mouth of the human head and the tip of the nose of the human head (Fig.7A-Fig.7C).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the combination of claim 22 of the US Patent 12,322,133 and Mueller’022 according to the teaching of Wu’336 to rotate the face image to a desired angle according the center of the mouth of the human head and/or the tip of the nose of the human head. because this will allow the face image to repositioned to a desired position.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101
35 U.S.C. 101 reads as follows:
Whoever invents or discovers any new and useful process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter, or any new and useful improvement thereof, may obtain a patent therefor, subject to the conditions and requirements of this title.
Claims 1-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to a Judicial Exception in the form of an Abstract Idea, without significantly more:
Beginning with independent claim 1, a process claim, which recites:
A method comprising: imaging a face of a human head with at least one imaging device; generating at least one vertical facial line and at least two horizontal facial lines to be disposed on the image of the face, the at least one vertical facial line and the at least two horizontal facial lines based on facial markings of the face; aligning the human head such that the at least one vertical facial line is aligned with a generated vertical screen line and each of the at least two horizontal facial lines are aligned with a generated horizontal screen line; storing the alignment as a baseline; repositioning the human head to a desired position; and providing an indication that the human head is in the desired position.
The claim recites abstract ideas:
A process that encompass a human performing the steps mentally with or without a physical aid in the form of the “providing” step, with the “imaging” step, “generating” step, “aligning” step, “storing” step and “repositioning” step being pre-solution acts of processing information which could be performed visually and/or mentally; and
A method of organizing human behavior in the form of a social activity of following rules or instructions informing a person to perform the “imaging” step, “generating” step, “aligning” step, “storing” step, “repositioning” step, and “providing” step.
These two abstract ideas will be considered together for analysis as a single abstract idea per MPEP 2106:
PNG
media_image1.png
468
1527
media_image1.png
Greyscale
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application because there are no recited additional elements that amount to a practical application, such as but no limited to the following as noted in MPEP 2106:
PNG
media_image2.png
453
1451
media_image2.png
Greyscale
The claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception for the same reason: There are not additional elements other than the abstract idea.
Independent claim 16, a system claim, which recites:
A system comprising: at least one imaging device that images a face of a human head; at least one processing device that generates at least one vertical facial line and at least two horizontal facial lines to be disposed on the image of the face via a display device, the at least one vertical facial line and the at least two horizontal facial lines based on facial markings of the face; the display device that enables alignment of the human head such that the at least one vertical facial line is aligned with a generated vertical screen line and each of the at least two horizontal facial lines are aligned with a generated horizontal screen line; and at least one memory that stores the alignment as a baseline, wherein upon repositioning the human head to a desired position, the at least one processing device continuously updates the at least one vertical facial line and the at least two horizontal facial lines based on facial markings of the face.
The claim recites abstract ideas:
Using one image device to image a face of a human head is merely performs conventional image data collection.
Using one processing device to generate the vertical facial lines and the horizontal facial lines is the generic image processing which any general-purpose computer can perform.
In addition, using a display device to align the head with the vertical facial lines and the horizontal facial lines is the routine and conventional use of a display.
Furthermore, using a memory to store the alignment as baseline is the routine and conventional use of memory.
These two abstract ideas will be considered together for analysis as a single abstract idea per MPEP 2106:
PNG
media_image1.png
468
1527
media_image1.png
Greyscale
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application because there are no recited additional elements that amount to a practical application, such as but no limited to the following as noted in MPEP 2106:
PNG
media_image2.png
453
1451
media_image2.png
Greyscale
The claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception for the same reason: There are not additional elements other than the abstract idea.
Independent claims 1 and 16 are merely a generic computer implementation of the abstract ideas and likewise do not amount to significantly more. See MPEP 2106:
PNG
media_image3.png
249
1434
media_image3.png
Greyscale
Likewise, the following dependent claims have been analyzed and do not recite elements that recite a practical application or significantly more and remain rejected under 35 USC 101: Claims 2-15 and 17-20.
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 (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) 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, 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 1-11, 13 and 15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yoyoshi’339 (JP 2003-067339), and further in view of Arnett’533 (US 2012/0010533) and Mueller’022 (US 2016/0353022).
With respect to claim 1, Yoyoshi’339 teaches a method comprising:
imaging a face of a human head with at least one imaging device [as shown in Fig.1, a photographing means (Fig.1, item 20) photograph the user’s face image including his/her head];
generating at least one vertical facial line and at least two horizontal facial lines to be disposed on the image of the face, the at least one vertical facial line and the at least two horizontal facial lines based on facial markings of the face (Fig.2, Fig.4 and Fig.6);
storing the alignment as a baseline [as shown in Fig.2, the two-dimensional face image is being processed with the alignment processing. Therefore, an alignment is considered being stored as a baseline in order to perform the alignment processing shown in Fig.2]; and
repositioning the human head to a desired position (Fig.2).
Yoyoshi’339 does not teach aligning the human head such that the at least one vertical facial line is aligned with a generated vertical screen line and each of the at least two horizontal facial lines are aligned with a generated horizontal screen line; providing an indication that the human head is in the desired position.
Arnett’533 teaches aligning the human head such that the at least one vertical facial line is aligned with a generated vertical screen line and each of the at least two horizontal facial lines are aligned with a generated horizontal screen line [as shown in Fig.1-Fig.8, at least one vertical facial line is aligned with a generated vertical screen line and each of the at two horizontal facial lines are aligned a generated horizontal screen line (paragraph 38)].
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the invention of Yoyoshi’339 according to the teaching of Arnett’533 to generate both of the horizontal screen lines and vertical facial screen lines to align the generated two-dimensional face image because this will allow the generated two-dimensional face image to be repositioned the human head to a desired position more effectively.
The combination of Yoyoshi’339 and Arnett’533 does not teach providing an indication that the human head is in the desired position.
Mueller’022 teaches providing an indication that the human head is in the desired position [The meters (Fig.55, item 518) can be colored so that when the person is out of the tolerance zone the meters are red or yellow and when the person is in the tolerance zone the meters are green].
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the combination of Yoyoshi’339 and Arnett’533 according to the teaching of Mueller’022 to include a meter to provide color indicators to indicate if the human head is in the desired position because this will allow the human head to be positioned in a desired position more effectively.
With respect to claim 2, which further limits claim 1, Yoyoshi’339 does not teach wherein the generating at least one vertical facial line and at least two horizontal facial lines includes identifying the facial markings on the human head using at least one facial recognition application as key points, and connecting the key points to draw the at least one vertical facial line and at least two horizontal facial lines.
Arnett’533 teaches wherein the generating at least one vertical facial line and at least two horizontal facial lines includes identifying the facial markings on the human head using at least one facial recognition application as key points (Fig.3-Fig.8), and connecting the key points to draw the at least one vertical facial line and at least two horizontal facial lines (Fig.3-Fig.8).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the combination of Yoyoshi’339 and Mueller’022 according to the teaching of Arnett’533 to generate both of the horizontal screen lines and vertical facial screen lines to align the generated two-dimensional face image because this will allow the generated two-dimensional face image to be repositioned the human head to a desired position more effectively.
With respect to claim 3, which further limits claim 1, Yoyoshi’339 does not teach wherein the generated vertical and horizontal screen lines represent a 90 degrees face to imaging device location.
Arnett’533 teaches wherein the generated vertical and horizontal screen lines represent a 90 degrees face to imaging device location (Fig.3-Fig.8).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the combination of Yoyoshi’339 and Mueller’022 according to the teaching of Arnett’533 to generate both of the horizontal screen lines and vertical facial screen lines to align the generated two-dimensional face image because this will allow the generated two-dimensional face image to be repositioned the human head to a desired position more effectively.
With respect to claim 4, which further limits claim 3, the combination of Yoyoshi’339, Mueller’022 and Arnett’533 does not teach wherein a lower line of the aligned at least two horizontal facial lines and generated horizontal screen lines is stored as a default pitch line.
Since Yoyoshi’339 teaches that the position of the face image is being adjusted to another position where the x-axis and the y-axis of the face image are aligned with the horizontal axis and the vertical axis respectively and Arnett’533 teaches that at least one vertical facial line is aligned with a generated vertical screen line and each of the at two horizontal facial lines are aligned a generated horizontal screen line (Fig.1-Fig.8 and paragraph 38), therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to save lines including the lower line and top line of the aligned at least two horizontal facial lines and generated horizontal screen lines is stored as default pitch lines (a lower line of the aligned at least two horizontal facial lines and generated horizontal screen lines is stored as a default pitch line) because this will allow the position of the face image to be repositioned a desired direction more effectively.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the combination of Yoyoshi’339, Mueller’022 and Arnett’533 to save lines including the lower line and top line of the aligned at least two horizontal facial lines and generated horizontal screen lines is stored as default pitch lines (a lower line of the aligned at least two horizontal facial lines and generated horizontal screen lines is stored as a default pitch line) because this will allow the position of the face image to be repositioned a desired direction more effectively.
With respect to claim 5, which further limits claim 4, Yoyoshi’339 teaches wherein the default pitch line is broken into two segments at the at least one vertical facial line [as shown in Fig.2, the x-axis is being segmented into two segments by the y-axis].
With respect to claim 6, which further limits claim 5, Yoyoshi’339 does not teach wherein the aligning the human head includes aligning the two segments of the default pitch line to be parallel to an upper line of the two horizontal facial lines.
Arnett’533 teaches wherein the aligning the human head includes aligning the two segments of the default pitch line to be parallel to an upper line of the two horizontal facial lines (Fig.4).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the combination of Yoyoshi’339 and Mueller’022 according to the teaching of Arnett’533 to align the face image to a desired position according to the pitch lines and the horizontal facial lines because this will allow the face image to be adjusted to a desired direction more effectively.
With respect to claim 7, which further limits claim 4, Yoyoshi’339 does not teach wherein the default pitch line is normalized to compensate for differences of facial architecture of the human head.
Arnett’533 teaches that wherein the default pitch line is normalized to compensate for differences of facial architecture of the human head [as shown in Fig.3, a diagrammatic frontal facial view with the sagittal plane SP and the anatomical sagittal plane ASP, midline measurement structures, outline structures, and right and left structures. Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to recognize to include a default pitch line to normalize to compensate for differences of facial architecture of human face since the facial architecture of each person is more or less different from other each]
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the combination of Yoyoshi’339 and Mueller’022 according to the teaching of Arnett’533 to align the face image to a desired position according to the pitch lines and the horizontal facial lines because this will allow the face image to be adjusted to a desired direction more effectively.
With respect to claim 8, which further limits claim 6, Yoyoshi’339 does not teach does not teach wherein each segment of the two segments of the default pitch line is drawn connecting identified facial markings disposed at a tip of a nose of the face and at least one point on a perimeter of the face.
Arnett’533 teaches wherein each segment of the two segments of the default pitch line is drawn connecting identified facial markings disposed at a tip of a nose of the face and at least one point on a perimeter of the face (Fig.4).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the combination of Yoyoshi’339 and Mueller’022 according to the teaching of Arnett’533 to align the face image to a desired position according to the pitch lines and the horizontal facial lines because this will allow the face image to be adjusted to a desired direction more effectively.
With respect to claim 9, which further limits claim 2, Yoyoshi’339 teaches wherein the at least one vertical facial line is drawn connecting identified facial markings disposed vertically along a center of a nose of the face (Fig.2 and Fig.6).
With respect to claim 10, which further limits claim 10, Yoyoshi’339 does not teach wherein a yaw angle of the human head is determined from the at least one vertical facial line and the generated vertical screen line.
Arnett’533 teaches wherein a yaw angle of the human head is determined from the at least one vertical facial line and the generated vertical screen line [regarding to the yaw angle of the human head is determined from the at least one vertical facial line (TVL shown in Fig.2) and the generated vertical screen line (14A shown in Fig.2)].
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the combination of Yoyoshi’339 and Mueller’022 according to the teaching of Arnett’533 to align the face image to a desired position according to the pitch lines and the horizontal facial lines because this will allow the face image to be adjusted to a desired direction more effectively.
With respect to claim 11, which further limits claim 2, Yoyoshi’339 does not teach wherein an upper of the at least two horizontal facial lines is drawn connecting identified facial markings disposed at opposite ends of a brow line of the face.
Arnett’533 teaches wherein an upper of the at least two horizontal facial lines is drawn connecting identified facial markings disposed at opposite ends of a brow line of the face [regarding to the ATP-Na’ shown in Fig.4 and Fig.5]
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the combination of Yoyoshi’339 and Mueller’022 according to the teaching of Arnett’533 to align the face image to a desired position according to the pitch lines and the horizontal facial lines because this will allow the face image to be adjusted to a desired direction more effectively.
With respect to claim 13, which further limits claim 1, Yoyoshi’339 teaches comprising storing coordinates associated to the alignment of the repositioned human head at a first point in time and repositioning the human head according to the stored coordinates at a second point in time (Fig.7).
With respect to claim 15, which further limits claim 1, the combination of Yoyoshi’339 and Arnett’533 does not teach wherein the human head is aligned such that a pitch of the human head is at a zero angle relative to the at least one imaging device, further comprising repositioning the human head to the desired position while maintaining the pitch at the zero angle, and providing an indication that the human head is in the desired position and the pitch is at the zero angle.
Mueller’022 teaches wherein the human head is aligned such that a pitch of the human head is at a zero angle relative to the at least one imaging device (Fig. 55), further comprising repositioning the human head to the desired position while maintaining the pitch at the zero angle (Fig.54 and Fig.55), and
providing an indication that the human head is in the desired position and the pitch is at the zero angle [The meters (Fig.55, item 518) can be colored so that when the person is out of the tolerance zone the meters are red or yellow and when the person is in the tolerance zone the meters are green].
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the combination of Yoyoshi’339 and Arnett’533 according to the teaching of Mueller’022 to include a meter to provide color indicators to indicate if the human head is in the desired position because this will allow the human head to be positioned in a desired position more effectively.
Claims 12 and 14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yoyoshi’339 (JP 2003-067339), Arnett’533 (US 2012/0010533), Mueller’022 (US 2016/0353022) and further in view of Wu’336 (US 2019/0251336).
With respect to claim 12, which further limits claim 11, the combination of Yoyoshi’339, Arnett’533 and Mueller’022 does not teach wherein a roll angle of the human head is determined from the upper of the at least two horizontal facial lines and the generated horizontal screen line.
Wu’336 teaches wherein a roll angle of the human head is determined from the upper of horizontal facial line and the horizontal line HL of the reference plane RS (Fig.7A-Fig.7C).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the combination of Yoyoshi’339, Arnett’533 and Mueller’022 according to the teaching of Wu’336 to roll the face image to a desired angle according to the upper of the at least two horizontal facial lines and the generated horizontal screen line (wherein a roll angle of the human head is determined from the upper of the at least two horizontal facial lines and the generated horizontal screen line) because this will allow the face image to repositioned to a desired position.
With respect to claim 14, which further limits claim 1, the combination of Yoyoshi’339, Arnett’533 and Mueller’022 does not teach wherein the repositioning of the human head includes rotating the human head about an axis of rotation, where the axis of rotation is about at least one of the center of the mouth of the human head and the tip of the nose of the human head.
Wu’336 teaches teach wherein the repositioning of the human head includes rotating the human head about an axis of rotation, where the axis of rotation is about at least one of the center of the mouth of the human head and the tip of the nose of the human head (Fig.7A-Fig.7C).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the combination of Yoyoshi’339, Arnett’533 and Mueller’022 according to the teaching of Wu’336 to rotate the face image to a desired angle according the center of the mouth of the human head and/or the tip of the nose of the human head. because this will allow the face image to repositioned to a desired position.
Claims 16 and 17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yoyoshi’339 (JP 2003-067339), and further in view of Arnett’533 (US 2012/0010533).
With respect to claim 16, Yoyoshi’339 teaches a system (Fig.1) comprising:
at least one imaging device that images a face of a human head [as shown in Fig.1, a photographing means (Fig.1, item 20) photograph the user’s face image including his/her head];
at least one memory that stores the alignment as a baseline [as shown in Fig.2, the two-dimensional face image is being processed with the alignment processing. Therefore, an alignment is considered being stored as a baseline in a memory in order to perform the alignment processing shown in Fig.2],
wherein upon repositioning the human head to a desired position (Fig.2).
Yoyoshi’339 does not teach at least one processing device that generates at least one vertical facial line and at least two horizontal facial lines to be disposed on the image of the face via a display device, the at least one vertical facial line and the at least two horizontal facial lines based on facial markings of the face; the display device that enables alignment of the human head such that the at least one vertical facial line is aligned with a generated vertical screen line and each of the at least two horizontal facial lines are aligned with a generated horizontal screen line; and the at least one processing device continuously updates the at least one vertical facial line and the at least two horizontal facial lines based on facial markings of the face.
Arnett’533 teaches one processing device [regarding to a frame grid tool shown in Fig.2] that generates at least one vertical facial line and at least two horizontal facial lines to be disposed on the image of the face via a display device (Fig.2), the at least one vertical facial line and the at least two horizontal facial lines based on facial markings of the face (Fig.2);
the display device that enables alignment of the human head such that the at least one vertical facial line is aligned with a generated vertical screen line and each of the at least two horizontal facial lines are aligned with a generated horizontal screen line [as shown in Fig.1-Fig.8, at least one vertical facial line is aligned with a generated vertical screen line and each of the at two horizontal facial lines are aligned a generated horizontal screen line (paragraph 38)]; and
the at least one processing device continuously updates the at least one vertical facial line and the at least two horizontal facial lines based on facial markings of the face [as shown in Fig.1-Fig.8, at least one vertical facial line is aligned with a generated vertical screen line and each of the at two horizontal facial lines are aligned a generated horizontal screen line (paragraph 38). Therefore, the at least one vertical facial line and the at least two horizontal facial lines based on facial markings of the face is considered continuously updates when a new practitioner is being evaluated].
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the invention of Yoyoshi’339 according to the teaching of Arnett’533 to generate both of the horizontal screen lines and vertical facial screen lines to align the generated two-dimensional face image because this will allow the generated two-dimensional face image to be repositioned the human head to a desired position more effectively.
With respect to claim 17, which further limits claim 16, Yoyoshi’339 does not teach wherein the generating at least one vertical facial line and at least two horizontal facial lines includes identifying the facial markings on the human head using at least one facial recognition application as key points, and connecting the key points to draw the at least one vertical facial line and at least two horizontal facial lines.
Arnett’533 teaches wherein the generating at least one vertical facial line and at least two horizontal facial lines includes identifying the facial markings on the human head using at least one facial recognition application as key points (Fig.3-Fig.8), and connecting the key points to draw the at least one vertical facial line and at least two horizontal facial lines (Fig.3-Fig.8).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the invention of Yoyoshi’339 according to the teaching of Arnett’533 to generate both of the horizontal screen lines and vertical facial screen lines to align the generated two-dimensional face image because this will allow the generated two-dimensional face image to be repositioned the human head to a desired position more effectively.
Claims 18 and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yoyoshi’339 (JP 2003-067339), Arnett’533 (US 2012/0010533) and further in view of Mueller’022 (US 2016/0353022).
With respect to claim 18, which further limits claim 16, the combination of Yoyoshi’339 and Arnett’533 does not teach wherein the at least one processing device generates an indication that the human head is in the desired position.
Mueller’022 teaches wherein the at least one processing device generates an indication that the human head is in the desired position [The meters (Fig.55, item 518) can be colored so that when the person is out of the tolerance zone the meters are red or yellow and when the person is in the tolerance zone the meters are green].
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the combination of Yoyoshi’339 and Arnett’533 according to the teaching of Mueller’022 to include a meter to provide color indicators to indicate if the human head is in the desired position because this will allow the human head to be positioned in a desired position more effectively.
With respect to claim 20, which further limits claim 18, the combination of Yoyoshi’339 and Arnett’533 does not teach wherein the human head is aligned such that a pitch of the human head is at a zero angle relative to the at least one imaging device, further comprising repositioning the human head to the desired position while maintaining the pitch at the zero angle, and providing an indication that the human head is in the desired position and the pitch is at the zero angle.
Mueller’022 teaches wherein the human head is aligned such that a pitch of the human head is at a zero angle relative to the at least one imaging device (Fig. 55), further comprising repositioning the human head to the desired position while maintaining the pitch at the zero angle (Fig.54 and Fig.55), and
providing an indication that the human head is in the desired position and the pitch is at the zero angle [The meters (Fig.55, item 518) can be colored so that when the person is out of the tolerance zone the meters are red or yellow and when the person is in the tolerance zone the meters are green].
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the combination of Yoyoshi’339 and Arnett’533 according to the teaching of Mueller’022 to include a meter to provide color indicators to indicate if the human head is in the desired position because this will allow the human head to be positioned in a desired position more effectively.
Claim 19 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yoyoshi’339 (JP 2003-067339), Arnett’533 (US 2012/0010533), Mueller’022 (US 2016/0353022) and further in view of Wu’336 (US 2019/0251336).
With respect to claim 19, which further limits claim 18, the combination of Yoyoshi’339, Arnett’533 and Mueller’022 does not teach wherein the repositioning of the human head includes rotating the human head about an axis of rotation, where the axis of rotation is about at least one of the center of the mouth of the human head and the tip of the nose of the human head.
Wu’336 teaches teach wherein the repositioning of the human head includes rotating the human head about an axis of rotation, where the axis of rotation is about at least one of the center of the mouth of the human head and the tip of the nose of the human head (Fig.7A-Fig.7C).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the combination of Yoyoshi’339, Arnett’533 and Mueller’022 according to the teaching of Wu’336 to rotate the face image to a desired angle according the center of the mouth of the human head and/or the tip of the nose of the human head. because this will allow the face image to repositioned to a desired position.
Contact
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to HUO LONG CHEN whose telephone number is (571)270-3759. The examiner can normally be reached on M-F 9am - 5pm. If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Tieu, Benny can be reached on (571) 272-7490. 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.
/HUO LONG CHEN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2682
Prosecution Insights