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 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 (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 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.
Claim(s) 1 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Valentin et al. (US 11,429,835 B1, “Valentin”).
As to claim 1, Valentin discloses a method comprising:
during a setup period (Fig. 6):
accessing a target image depicting a face of a first user (step 604, obtaining image data of a user captured by a camera from multiple perspectives of the user relative to the camera; col. 19, lines 15-25);
generating a first face model based on a target set of facial features detected in the target image (steps 606, 608, 610, generating a holodouble of the user based on sparse data, which may include facial landmarks, deconstructed from the captured image data; col. 10, lines 35-40; col. 19, lines 26-63); and
linking the first face model to a target set of facial biometric values of the first user (steps 614, 616, the generated holodouble is saved for subsequent use after approval from the user; col. 20, lines 23-40); and
during an operating period succeeding the setup period (Fig. 7, visual communication session; col. 20, lines 45-55):
accessing a first video feed (step 704, image data of the user captured by the camera during the visual communication session; col. 20, line 56 – col. 21, line 2); and
selecting a first frame, recorded at a first time, from the first video feed (step 706, obtaining image data of the user; col. 21, lines 16-20);
deriving characteristics of a first set of facial features detected in the first frame (step 706, obtaining sparse data based on the image frame data; col. 15, lines 18-28; col. 21, lines 16-20);
extracting a first set of facial biometric values from the first frame (sparse data is processed to obtain facial landmarks and holodouble parameters, col. 15, lines 29-45); and
in response to alignment between the target set of facial biometric values and the first set of facial biometric values (triggering condition that a holodouble should be used may be based on user attributes detected within image data associated with the captured user, col. 13, lines 47-63; a particular holodouble may be automatically selected based on context, determined user state, etc., col. 14, lines 2-16) , at the first device, generating a first synthetic face image based on characteristics of the first set of facial features, the first face model, and a synthetic face generator (step 708, rendering the holodouble to simulate the user, col. 21, lines 44-63); and
transmitting the first synthetic face image to a device at approximately the first time (step 710, providing instructions for rendering the holodouble to simulate the user to the remote second computing system, col. 21, line 64 – col. 22, line 14).
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.
Claim 1 rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 1 of U.S. Patent No. 11,356,640. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because claim 1 of the present application is anticipated by claim 1 of the patent.
Claim 1 (present application)
Claim 1 (US 11,356,640)
A method comprising:
A method comprising:
during a setup period:
during a setup period:
accessing a target image depicting a face of a first user;
generating a first face model based on a target set of facial features detected in the target image; and
generating a first face model based on a target set of facial features detected in the target image; and
generating a first face model based on a target set of facial features detected in the target image; and
linking the first face model to a target set of facial biometric values of the first user; and
linking the first face model to a target set of facial biometric values of the first user; and
during an operating period succeeding the setup period:
during an operating period succeeding the setup period:
accessing a first video feed; and
accessing a first frame, at a first device, comprising: accessing a first video feed captured by a camera coupled to the first device, during a video call between the first device and a second device; and
selecting a first frame, recorded at a first time, from the first video feed;
selecting the first frame, recorded at a first time, from the first video feed;
deriving characteristics of a first set of facial features detected in the first frame;
deriving characteristics of a first set of facial features detected in the first frame;
extracting a first set of facial biometric values from the first frame; and
extracting a first set of facial biometric values from the first frame; and
in response to alignment between the target set of facial biometric values and the first set of facial biometric values, at the first device, generating a first synthetic face image based on characteristics of the first set of facial features the first face model, and a synthetic face generator; and
in response to alignment between the target set of facial biometric values and the first set of facial biometric values, at the first device, generating a first synthetic face image based on characteristics of the first set of facial features, the first face model, and a synthetic face generator; and
transmitting the first synthetic face image to a device at approximately the first time.
at the first device, transmitting the first synthetic face image to the second device at approximately the first time; and at the second device, rendering the first synthetic face image at approximately the first time.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Kolagunda et al. (US 2019/0266388 A1) teach using facial recognition and face liveness detection to prevent spoofing.
Rivard et al. (2019/0222807 A1) teach transmitting a face model based on face data points.
Nelson et al. (US 2014/0016696 A1) teach searching a database of previously stored video frames to find the best matching video frame to morph during a low-bandwidth video communication.
Alberth et al. (US 2012/0236105 A1) teach the use of a morphing template based on the context of the video call.
Cohen et al. (US 2004/0218827 A1) teach synthesizing a sender’s image using a matching reference frame.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Stella L Woo whose telephone number is (571)272-7512. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday, 8 a.m. to 5 p.m.
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, Ahmad Matar can be reached at 571-272-7488. 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. Visit 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.
STELLA L. WOO
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 2693
/Stella L. Woo/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2693
Prosecution Insights