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 .
Priority
Acknowledgement is made of Applicant’s claim of priority and benefit of Korean Application No. KR10-2023-0166915, filed on November 27, 2023.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (“IDS”) filed on June 18, 2025, was reviewed and the listed references were noted.
Drawings
The 28-page drawings have been considered and placed on record in the file.
Specification
The specification is objected to, because the title of the invention is not descriptive. A new title is required that is clearly indicative of the invention to which the claims are directed.
Status of Claims
Claims 1-16 are pending.
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.
Use of the word “means” (or “step for”) in a claim with functional language creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim element is to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) (pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph). The presumption that 35 U.S.C. 112(f) (pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph) is invoked is rebutted when the function is recited with sufficient structure, material, or acts within the claim itself to entirely perform the recited function.
Absence of the word “means” (or “step for”) in a claim creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim element is not to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) (pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph). The presumption that 35 U.S.C. 112(f) (pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph) is not invoked is rebutted when the claim element recites function but fails to recite sufficiently definite structure, material or acts to perform that function.
Claim elements in this application that use the word “means” (or “step for”) are presumed to invoke 35 U.S.C. 112(f) except as otherwise indicated in an Office action. Similarly, claim elements that do not use the word “means” (or “step for”) are presumed not to invoke 35 U.S.C. 112(f) except as otherwise indicated in an Office action.
The claims in this application are given their broadest reasonable interpretation using the plain meaning of the claim language in light of the specification as it would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art. The broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim element (also commonly referred to as a claim limitation) is limited by the description in the specification when 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is invoked.
As explained in MPEP § 2181, subsection I, claim limitations that meet the following three-prong test will be interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
(A) the claim limitation uses the term “means” or “step” or a term used as a substitute for “means” that is a generic placeholder (also called a nonce term or a non-structural term having no specific structural meaning) for performing the claimed function;
(B) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is modified by functional language, typically, but not always linked by the transition word “for” (e.g., “means for”) or another linking word or phrase, such as “configured to” or “so that”; and
(C) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function.
Use of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim with functional language creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites sufficient structure, material, or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Absence of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is not to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is not interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites function without reciting sufficient structure, material or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Claim limitations in this application that use the word “means” (or “step”) are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action. Conversely, claim limitations in this application that do not use the word “means” (or “step”) are not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action.
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 limitations are: “an image conversion unit configured to …” , “a correction unit configured to …”, “an image providing unit configured to …”, “a data providing unit configured to …”, “a lip region detection unit configured to …”, “a window calculating unit configured to …”, “a determining unit configured to …”, “a shift unit configured to …”, “a data output unit configured to …”, and “an information unit configured to …” in Claims 1-14.
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.
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.
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 1-16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more. The claims recite a method and an image processing device directed to extracting feature data corresponding to lip shapes in a plurality of images by dividing images into a patch size and correct the feature data. With respect to analysis of independent method Claim 15:
Step 1:
With regard to Step 1, the instant claim is directed to a method; and therefore, the claim is directed to one of the statutory categories of invention.
Step 2A, Prong One:
With regard to 2A, Prong One, the limitation “grouping, by an image conversion unit, each of a plurality of input images into bundles of a certain size and then provide feature data corresponding to lip shapes included in the plurality of input images based on a patch image obtained by dividing each of the plurality of input images into a patch size corresponding to the certain size” and “providing, by a correction unit, correction data by correcting the feature data” as drafted, recite an abstract idea, such as a process that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitations by a person viewing video images of a person with its lips moving and dividing the images of the lip of the person into groups and analyze the group to result in correct lip shapes, a concept performed by a human through observation, evaluation, judgement, opinion. This is the concept that falls under the grouping of abstract ideas mental processes for monitoring and determination (evaluation, judgement, and/or opinion of a security guard).
Step 2A, Prong Two:
The 2019 PEG defines the phrase “evaluate whether the claim recites additional elements that integrate the exception into a practical application of the exception”. Therefore, additional elements, or a combination of additional elements in the claim, are required to apply, rely on, or use the judicial exception. In the instant case, there exist no additional limitations to apply, rely on, or use the judicial exception as an indication of integration of the judicial exception into a practical application. Accordingly, the claim recites an abstract idea.
Step 2B:
Because the claim fails under Step 2A, the claim is further evaluated under Step 2B. The claim herein does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception, because as discussed above with respect to integration of the abstract idea into practical application, no additional elements are recited in the claim to amount to significantly more than the abstract idea. Therefore, Claim 15 is not patent eligible. Independent Claim 1, 14, and 16 are analyzed in the same manner, and found not to be patent eligible under this section of the rules.
In addition, with regard to dependent claims 2-13 viewed individually, these additional elements, under their broadest reasonable interpretation, cover performance of the limitations as an abstract idea (mental processes or mathematical calculations), and do not provide meaningful limitations to transform the abstract idea into a patent eligible application of the abstract idea such that the claims amount to significantly more than the abstract idea itself.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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.
The factual inquiries set forth in Graham v. John Deere Co., 383 U.S. 1, 148 USPQ 459 (1966), that are applied for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
a. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
b. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
c. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
d. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claims 1-3 and 15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Gou et al. CN 111611827, a machine translation of this document is attached to the office action to map the claim limitations to its relevant pages/paragraphs) in view of Takeshi Sato (US 2016/0071236).
Consider Claim 1 (and similarly method Claim 15), Gou discloses “An image processing device” (Gou, Abstract) “comprising: an image conversion unit configured to provide feature data corresponding to lip shapes included in a plurality of input images” (Gou, last paragraph of page 2 and first paragraph of page 3, wherein characteristic data of the image of the multiple lip areas are extracted – “characteristic data” is interpreted to be the recited “feature data”) “based on a patch image obtained by dividing each of the plurality of input images into a patch size corresponding to a certain size” (Gou, pages 3 and 5 disclose how the grouping of space-time characteristic data in imaging sequence is divided into N groups); (Sato, Fig. 2 and Paragraph [0038]).
Accordingly, before the effective date of the instant application, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to combine Gou with the teachings of Sato to provide correction data of the lip and jaw area. One of ordinary skill in the art could have combined these elements in order to ensure that the area of interest for further analysis is free of artifacts and error. Therefore, it would have been obvious to combine Gou and Sato to obtain the invention in Claim 1.
Consider Claim 2, the combination of Gou and Sato discloses “The image processing device of claim 1, wherein the image conversion unit includes an image providing unit configured to group the plurality of input images as a group size, and then divide each of group images into the patch size to provide the patch image; and a data providing unit configured to provide the feature data corresponding to the lip shapes based on the patch image” (Gou, Page 3, where the grouping based on space-time sequence imaging is disclosed).
Consider Claim 3, the combination of Gou and Sato discloses “The image processing device of claim 2, wherein the plurality of input image are grouped into bundles of the group size” (Gou, Page 3, the N groups).
Claims 14 and 16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Gou et al. CN 111611827, a machine translation of this document is attached to the office action to map the claim limitations to its relevant pages/paragraphs) in view of Benhaim et al. (US 2014/0343944).
Consider Claim 14 (and similarly method Claim 16), Gou discloses “An image processing system” (Gou, Abstract) “comprising: an image conversion unit configured to group each of a plurality of input images into bundles of a certain size and then provide feature data corresponding to lip shapes included in the plurality of input images” (Gou, last paragraph of page 2 and first paragraph of page 3, wherein characteristic data of the image of the multiple lip areas are extracted – “characteristic data” is interpreted to be the recited “feature data”) “based on a patch image obtained by dividing each of the plurality of input images into a patch size corresponding to the certain size” (Gou, pages 3 and 5 disclose how the grouping of space-time characteristic data in imaging sequence is divided into N groups); recognizing the visual language”, (emphasis added, interpreted as “meaning information corresponding to a meaning corresponding to the feature data) (Benhaim, Fig. 7 and Paragraphs [0119]-[0123]).
Accordingly, before the effective date of the instant application, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to combine Gou with the teachings of Benhaim to provide meaning information corresponding to the feature data of the lip and jaw area. One of ordinary skill in the art could have combined these elements in order to perform visual language analysis (Benhaim, Fig. 7:38). Therefore, it would have been obvious to combine Gou and Benhaim to obtain the invention in Claim 14.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 4-13 are objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if: (a) rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims; (b) the above-described rejection of claims under 35 U.S.C. 101, based on abstract idea is overcome. The following is the examiner reasons for indication of allowable subject matter: Consider Claims 4 and 7, none of the cited prior art, alone or in combination, provides a motivation to teach the limitations recited within these claims. Dependent Claims 5-6 and 8-13 depend on Claims 4 and 9, respectively, therefore, not rejected over prior art.
Conclusion and Contact Information
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to Applicant’s disclosure: Robert L. Beadles (US 4,757,541): Abstract.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Siamak HARANDI whose telephone number is (571)270-1832. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 9:30 - 6:00 ET.
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, Amandeep Saini can be reached on (571)272-3382. 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.
/Siamak Harandi/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2662
Prosecution Insights