DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status.
1. The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
2. Claims 1-20 filed on 10/02/2024 are pending and being examined. Claims 1, 11, and 20 are independent form.
Priority
3. This application is a CON of 18/199,989 filed on 05/22/2023, now PAT 12141933.
Non-statutory Double Patenting
4. The non-statutory 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 non-statutory 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 non-statutory 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 §§ 706.02(l)(1) - 706.02(l)(3) 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 USPTO Internet website contains terminal disclaimer forms which may be used. Please visit www.uspto.gov/patent/patents-forms. The 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/process/file/efs/guidance/eTD-info-I.jsp.
5. Claim 1-20 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-20 of U.S. Patent No.12,141,933. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because the respective claims between the instant application and U.S. Patent No.12,141,933 describe the same invention. The examiner has explained in detail how claim 1 of the instance application is unpatentable over claim 1 of U.S. Patent No.12,141,933 in the following table. The examiner shall not detail the minor difference and the mapping between each of the instant application claims and its corresponding patented claims in U.S. Patent No.12,141,933. However, should applicant request such a detailed breakdown, the examiner will be happy to oblige in subsequent Office Action.
Instant application 18/904,104
U.S. Patent No.12,141,933 (933’)
The examiner’s explanation
1. A method comprising:
[1] receiving, by a computing device: a sequence of frame images;
[2] face area parameters corresponding to positions of a face area in a frame image of the sequence of frame images; and
[3] facial landmark parameters corresponding to the frame image of the sequence of frame images, the facial landmark parameters being absent from the frame images;
[4] receiving, by the computing device, an image of a source face;
[5] modifying, by the computing device, based on the facial landmark parameters corresponding to the frame image, the image of the source face to obtain a further face image featuring the source face adopting a facial expression associated with the facial landmark parameters; and
[6] inserting, by the computing device, the further face image into the frame image at a position determined by the face area parameters associated with the frame image, thereby generating an output frame of an output video.
1. A method comprising:
[a] receiving, by a computing device: a sequence of frame images;
[b] face area parameters corresponding to positions of a face area in a frame image of the sequence of frame images; and
[c] facial landmark parameters corresponding to the frame image of the sequence of frame images, the facial landmark parameters being generated based on a further frame image, the further frame image including a face of a first person absent from the frame image;
[d] receiving, by the computing device, an image of a source face of a second person, the second person being different from the first person;
[e] modifying, by the computing device and based on the facial landmark parameters corresponding to the frame image, the image of the source face to obtain a further face image featuring the source face adopting a facial expression corresponding to the facial landmark parameters; and
[f] inserting, by the computing device, the further face image into the frame image at a position determined by the face area parameters corresponding to the frame image, thereby generating an output frame of an output video.
[1] is interpreted as a 102 limitation taught by [a] of 933’.
[2] is interpreted as a 102 limitation taught by [b] of 933’.
[3] is interpreted as a 102 limitation taught by [c] of 933’.
[4] is interpreted as a 102 limitation taught by [d] of 933’.
[5] is interpreted as a
102 limitation disclosed by [e] of 993’.
[6] is interpreted as a 102 limitation disclosed by [f] of 993’.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
6. 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.
7. 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.
8. Claims 1-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Garrido et al (“Automatic Face Reenactment”, IEEE, 2014, hereinafter “Garrido”)
Regarding claim 1, Garrido discloses a method (the face replacement (facial reenactment) method/system; see abstract), comprising:
receiving, by a computing device: a sequence of frame images (receiving the celebrity target video and the user source video; see “Target” sequence (the left col.) and “Source” sequence (the right col.) of fig.1; see section 3); face area parameters corresponding to positions of a face area in a frame image of the sequence of frame images (wherein a facial area including a set of pixels is extracted from each of the 4 frame images; see the third row of fig.1); and facial landmark parameters corresponding to the frame image of the sequence of frame images (“n=66 consistent landmark locations on the mouth, eyes, nose, and face outline” are determined from the each of the consecutive three actor (i.e., target, Obama) frame images; see the left of the third row of fig.1 and sec. 4, para.1, lines 1-5), the facial landmark parameters being absent from the frame images (in addition, “n=66 consistent landmark locations on the mouth, eyes, nose, and face outline” also are determined from the user frame image which is corresponding to three actor/target frame images; see the right of the third row of fig.1 and sec. 4, para.1, lines 1-5; wherein the 66 landmarks extracted from the user frame image are absent from the three actor frame images);
receiving, by the computing device, a source sequence video (see “Source” sequence (the right col.) of fig.1; see section 3);
modifying, by the computing device, based on the facial landmark parameters corresponding to the frame image, the image of the source face to obtain a further face image featuring the source face adopting a facial expression associated with the facial landmark parameters (see Sec.6, para.1: “we transfer the face of the user to the corresponding target frames and create the final composite.” Also, see the middle image in the 4-th row of fig.1; wherein the final composite face image adopts “a facial expression corresponding to the facial landmark parameters” of Obama as shown in the bottom row of the left side of fig.6); and
inserting, by the computing device, the further face image into the frame image at a position determined by the face area parameters associated with the frame image, thereby generating an output frame of an output video (see Sec.3, para.1: “We can produce reenactments for different target videos from only a single source video”. Also see “Reenactment” video shown in the bottom row of fig.1; wherein the final composite reenactment video “blend[s] the source face into the target sequence using seamless cloning” as taught by Garrido in Sec.3, step 3 on the left col. on pg.4323).
As explained above, the mere difference between Garrido and the claimed invention is that, Garrido receives a source face sequence video as shown in fig.1, instead of “an image of a source face” recited in the claim. However, the difference is obvious and straightforward. Indeed, Garrido teaches a technique by selecting a source frame image from the source sequence video. See the third row of fig.1 and Sec.3, step 3, on the left col. on pg.4323. Therefore, it would have been obvious at the time before the effective filling date of the claimed invention was made to replace the source sequence video taught by Garrido with an image of a source face as recited in the claim. One of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention was made would have found it obvious to replace the source sequence video taught by Garrido with an image of a source face as recited in the claim since doing this would amount to a simple substitution of one known element (a source frame selected from the inputted source video) for another (a directly inputted source image) to obtain predictable results. Therefore, Garrido suggests or teaches every limitation recited in claim 1, and the claim is unpatentable over Garrido.
Regarding claim 2, 12, Garrido discloses, wherein the facial landmark parameters are generated based on a video featuring a person (see fig.1).
Regarding claim 3, 13, Garrido discloses, wherein the facial landmark parameters are generated based on a user input (see fig.1).
Regarding claim 4, 14, Garrido discloses, wherein the facial landmark parameters are generated based on an animation video (see Sec.2, par.1, lines 5-6: “Such methods are used to animate digital avatars in games, movies and video conferences.”).
Regarding claim 5, 15, Garrido discloses, wherein the facial landmark parameters are generated based on an audio file (Obama’s speech video, a live action video shown in fig.1 and the left side of fig.6).
Regarding claim 6, 16, Garrido discloses, wherein the facial landmark parameters are generated based on a text (Obama’s speech video, a live action video shown in fig.1 and the left side of fig.6).
Regarding claim 7, 17, Garrido discloses, further comprising: receiving, by the computing device, head parameters associated with a size of the face area in the frame image of the sequence of frame images; and modifying, by the computing device, based on the head parameters, the image of the source face to fit the size of the face area (see fig.1 and “Face Reenactment System” in Sec.3).
Regarding claim 8, 18, Garrido discloses, further comprising: receiving, by the computing device, head parameters associated with a rotation of a head to be inserted in the frame image of the sequence of frame images; and modifying, by the computing device, based on the head parameters, the image of the source face to adopt the rotation of the head (see Sec.3, step 3: “The target head pose is transferred to the selected source frames by warping the facial landmarks.”; see Sec.5, para.1: “A central part of our reenactment system is matching the source and target faces under differences in head pose.”).
Regarding claim 9, 19, Garrido discloses, wherein the frame image includes an animal (this feature is obvious for one skilled in the art based on the teaching of Garrido, see Sec.2, par.1, lines 5-6: “Such methods are used to animate digital avatars in games, movies and video conferences.”).
Regarding claim 10, Garrido discloses the method of claim 1, wherein the frame image includes a drawn picture (this feature is obvious for one skilled in the art based on the teaching of Garrido, see Sec.2, par.1, lines 5-6: “Such methods are used to animate digital avatars in games, movies and video conferences.”).
Regarding claim 11, 20, each of which is an inherent variation of claim 1, thus it is interpreted and rejected for the reasons set forth above in the rejection of claim 1.
Conclusion
9. The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Lee, US 20100141679, discloses a system for composing pictorial/video image contents where the Face Image which the User designates (FIU) is reflected is disclosed. The system provides a series of pictorial/video image composing pipe line for changing the face of a specific source character that appears in pictorial/video image contents to a FIU pattern and guides a video related company (for example, a producer, a distributor, a sales agency (provider), etc.) to establish a base infra for producing/manufacturing/marketing a video on demand (VOD) content that reflects individual desire of a user so that it can satisfy user needs in changing the face image of a specific character appearing in pictorial/video image contents into the face image of a favorite person (or the user designates, for example, his/her own face image, the face image of his/her acquaintance, the face image of a specific celebrity, the face image of a specific politician, and so on).
10. Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to RUIPING LI whose telephone number is (571)270-3376. The examiner can normally be reached 8:30am--5:30pm.
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, HENOK SHIFERAW can be reached on (571)272-4637. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of published or unpublished applications may be obtained from Patent Center. Unpublished application information in Patent Center is available to registered users. To file and manage patent submissions in Patent Center, visit https://patentcenter.uspto.gov; https://www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/patent-center for more information about Patent Center, and https://www.uspto.gov/patents/docx for information about filing in DOCX format. For additional questions, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/RUIPING LI/Primary Examiner, Ph.D., Art Unit 2676
Prosecution Insights