DETAILED ACTION
Preliminary Remarks
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Priority
This application is a continuation of 18/058,263 filed 11/22/2022 now U.S. Patent 12,169,891.
Specification
Applicant is reminded of the proper language and format for an abstract of the disclosure.
The abstract should be in narrative form and generally limited to a single paragraph on a separate sheet within the range of 50 to 150 words. It is important that the abstract not exceed 150 words in length since the space provided for the abstract on the computer tape used by the printer is limited. The form and legal phraseology often used in patent claims, such as "means" and "said," should be avoided. The abstract should describe the disclosure sufficiently to assist readers in deciding whether there is a need for consulting the full patent text for details.
The language should be clear and concise and should not repeat information given in the title. It should avoid using phrases which can be implied, such as, "The disclosure concerns," "The disclosure defined by this invention," "The disclosure describes," etc.
The abstract comprises the phrase, “…is provided…” (line 1) which can be implied and therefore should be omitted. The Examiner suggests the following merging of first and second sentences of the abstract in order to satisfy the proper language and format requirements of the abstract: “A method for computing a stylized, animatable representation of a subject from a family of stylized animatable representations comprising accessing a realistic representation…”
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments, see page 7 of Applicant’s Remarks, filed 08/10/26, with respect to the objection of the drawings have been fully considered and are persuasive. The objection of the drawings has been withdrawn since amendments remedy the previous issues.
Applicant’s arguments, see page 7 of Applicant’s Remarks, filed 08/10/26, with respect to the 35 USC 112 rejection of claims 1-20 have been fully considered and are persuasive. The 35 USC 112 rejection of claims 1-20 has been withdrawn since amendments remedy the previous issues.
Applicant’s arguments, see page 8 of Applicant’s Remarks, filed 08/10/26, with respect to the 35 USC 102 rejection of claims 1, 2, 4-6, 8, 9, 11-13, 15, 16, 18 and 20 have been fully considered and are persuasive. The 35 USC 102 rejection of these claims has been withdrawn since amendments overcome the prior art of record. Note, such amendments have however brought about double patenting issues with regards to parent/related U.S. Patent No. 12,169,891 as seen below.
Applicant's arguments filed 08/10/26 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
In reference to the objection of the abstract, Applicant has amended the abstract to purportedly overcome the previous issues of implied language however, the amended abstract introduces newly implied language thus the objection is maintained. Note, an indication for suggestive language to remedy the issues as been offered above.
Double Patenting
The nonstatutory double patenting rejection is based on a judicially created doctrine grounded in public policy (a policy reflected in the statute) so as to prevent the unjustified or improper timewise extension of the “right to exclude” granted by a patent and to prevent possible harassment by multiple assignees. A nonstatutory double patenting rejection is appropriate where the conflicting claims are not identical, but at least one examined application claim is not patentably distinct from the reference claim(s) because the examined application claim is either anticipated by, or would have been obvious over, the reference claim(s). See, e.g., In re Berg, 140 F.3d 1428, 46 USPQ2d 1226 (Fed. Cir. 1998); In re Goodman, 11 F.3d 1046, 29 USPQ2d 2010 (Fed. Cir. 1993); In re Longi, 759 F.2d 887, 225 USPQ 645 (Fed. Cir. 1985); In re Van Ornum, 686 F.2d 937, 214 USPQ 761 (CCPA 1982); In re Vogel, 422 F.2d 438, 164 USPQ 619 (CCPA 1970); In re Thorington, 418 F.2d 528, 163 USPQ 644 (CCPA 1969).
A timely filed terminal disclaimer in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(c) or 1.321(d) may be used to overcome an actual or provisional rejection based on nonstatutory double patenting provided the reference application or patent either is shown to be commonly owned with the examined application, or claims an invention made as a result of activities undertaken within the scope of a joint research agreement. See MPEP § 717.02 for applications subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA as explained in MPEP § 2159. See MPEP § 2146 et seq. for applications not subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA . A terminal disclaimer must be signed in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(b).
The filing of a terminal disclaimer by itself is not a complete reply to a nonstatutory double patenting (NSDP) rejection. A complete reply requires that the terminal disclaimer be accompanied by a reply requesting reconsideration of the prior Office action. Even where the NSDP rejection is provisional the reply must be complete. See MPEP § 804, subsection I.B.1. For a reply to a non-final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.111(a). For a reply to final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.113(c). A request for reconsideration while not provided for in 37 CFR 1.113(c) may be filed after final for consideration. See MPEP §§ 706.07(e) and 714.13.
The USPTO Internet website contains terminal disclaimer forms which may be used. Please visit www.uspto.gov/patent/patents-forms. The actual filing date of the application in which the form is filed determines what form (e.g., PTO/SB/25, PTO/SB/26, PTO/AIA /25, or PTO/AIA /26) should be used. A web-based eTerminal Disclaimer may be filled out completely online using web-screens. An eTerminal Disclaimer that meets all requirements is auto-processed and approved immediately upon submission. For more information about eTerminal Disclaimers, refer to www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/applying-online/eterminal-disclaimer.
Claims 1 and 4-6 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1 and 5-7 of U.S. Patent No. 12,169,891. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because the limitations of claims 1 and 4-6, which are not explicitly recited in the combination of Patent claims 1 and 5-7, would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art and/or would have been interpreted equivalent to those limitations recited in the Patent as seen to one of ordinary skill in the art.
With reference to claim 1, claim 1 of the instant application defines an obvious variation of the invention claimed in U.S. Patent 12,169,891 via claims 1 and 7. Patent claims 1 and 7 teach all of the limitations of the broader instant application claim 1 in particular, Patent claim 1, lines 1-9, 15-18 teach the majority of the limitations of instant application claim 1 with Patent claim 7, which depends directly from Patent claim 1, teaches the newly amended limitations of the “computing separate transformations for the training examples selected as nearest neighbors of the realistic representation.” In other words, although the conflicting claims are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because claim 1 is generic to all that is recited in the combination of Patent claims 1 and 7. That is claim 1 is anticipated by the combination of Patent claims 1 and 7 and is therefore seen as unpatentable under this obviousness-type non-statutory double patenting rejection.
With reference to claim 4, claim 4 of the instant application can be found within Patent claim 7, lines 1-4.
With reference to claim 5, claim 4 of the instant application can be found basically word-for-word in Patent claim 5.
With reference to claim 6, claim 6 of the instant application can be found basically word-for-word in Patent claim 6.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 2-3 and 7 are objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim.
Claims 8-20 are allowed.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter:
In reference to claims 8 and 15, the Examiner makes note of a term/concept which, in combination and integration with the other limitations of the claims, is seen as the major novel aspect of the invention and which was not found in the prior art of record. The Examiner makes note of the term/concept, computing a stylized, animatable representation of a subject from a family of stylized animatable representations computing a mesh mapping using a machine learning model and training examples selected as nearest neighbors of a realistic representation of other subjects, the mesh mapping computing separate transformations for the training examples to eventually select a stylized animatable representation from the family.
In reference to claims 9-14 and 16-20, these claims depend upon allowable claims 8 and 15 respectively and are therefore also deemed allowable.
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Antonio Caschera whose telephone number is (571) 272-7781. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday between 6:30 AM and 2:30 PM EST.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner's supervisor, Said Broome, can be reached at (571) 272-2931.
Any response to this action should be mailed to:
Mail Stop ____________
Commissioner for Patents
P.O. Box 1450
Alexandria, VA 22313-1450
or faxed to:
571-273-8300 (Central Fax)
See the listing of “Mail Stops” at http://www.uspto.gov/patents/mail.jsp and include the appropriate designation in the address above.
Any inquiry of a general nature or relating to the status of this application or proceeding should be directed to the Technology Center 2600 Customer Service Office whose telephone number is (571) 272-2600.
/Antonio A Caschera/
Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2612
9/22/26
Prosecution Insights