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
Receipt is acknowledged of certified copies of papers required by 37 CFR 1.55.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statements (IDS) submitted on 13 January 2025, 20 June 2025, and 5 June 2026 are being considered by the examiner.
Specification
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.
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)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 1-6, 8-9, 11-15, 17-18 and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Safdarnejad et al. (US 2020/0151860).
Regarding claim 1, Safdarnejad et al. disclose a method comprising:
obtaining a plurality of images each comprising an image of a plurality of persons (Figure 1A-1B, 108 and 110 and paragraph [0051]: burst.);
identifying one image among the plurality of images as a base image (Paragraphs [0051] and [0053], the reference image 108 is the base image.);
identifying a source image among the plurality of images based on a completion level of each of the plurality of images other than the base image and a swap compatibility of each of the plurality of images other than the base image (Paragraphs [0051] and [0053], the target image 110 is the source image.);
extracting a face region of a person among the plurality of persons from the source image (Figure 1B, 106b is extracted from source image 110.); and
generating a correction image by compositing the extracted face region on the base image (Figure 1C, 112 is a correction image. See paragraph [0060].),
wherein, for each respective image of the plurality of images, the completion level comprises a completion level of shooting a face region of the image of the person in the respective image, and the swap compatibility comprises a swap compatibility between a face region of the image of the person in the base image and the face region of the image of the person in the respective image (Paragraphs [0053]-[0059]: where the ”completion level” of shooting the face region is whether the eyes are open or closed, for example, which indicates the completion level of the aesthetics, i.e. the face region is not “complete” if the eyes are closed, etc. The “swap compatibility” is whether the images contain the same person.).
Regarding claim 2, Safdarnejad et al. disclose the method of claim 1, wherein the plurality of images comprise images continuously captured over a set period of time (Paragraph [0051]: burst mode comprises a plurality of images comprise images continuously captured over a set period of time).
Regarding claim 3, Safdarnejad et al. disclose the method of claim 1, wherein the identifying one image among the plurality of images as the base image comprises:
obtaining, with respect to each of the plurality of images, a first aesthetic score by numerically quantifying the completion level (Figures 3A-3B and paragraph [0013]: aesthetic score.);
obtaining, with respect to an image pair comprising two images of the plurality of images, a first compatibility score by numerically quantifying a swap compatibility between a face region of the image of the person in each image of the image pair (Figure 1A and paragraphs [0054] and [0056], and Figure 1B, and paragraph [0058].); and
identifying one image among the plurality of images as the base image based on the first aesthetic score and the first compatibility score (Figure 1A is identified as the base image.).
Regarding claim 4, Safdarnejad et al. disclose the method of claim 1, wherein the identifying the source image comprises:
obtaining, with respect to each of the plurality of images, a second aesthetic score by numerically quantifying the completion level (Figures 3A-3B and paragraph [0013]: aesthetic score.);
obtaining, with respect to each of the plurality of images, a second compatibility score by numerically quantifying the swap compatibility (Figure 1B, and paragraph [0058].); and
identifying the source image based on the second aesthetic score and the second compatibility score (Figure 1B is identified as the source image.).
Regarding claim 5, Safdarnejad et al. disclose the method of claim 4, wherein the obtaining the second aesthetic score comprises:
obtaining a plurality of first person images each comprising an image of the person (Paragraph [0058].);
extracting a preference for the person from the plurality of first person images (Paragraph [0058].); and
determining the second aesthetic score based on the preference for the person (Paragraph [0058].).
Regarding claim 6, Safdarnejad et al. disclose the method of claim 5, wherein the preference for the person is determined based on at least one of a facial expression of the person, clothing worn by the person, a hairstyle of the person, an eye blink of the person, a head pose of the person, a hand pose of the person, or an occlusion of the person (Paragraph [0058], eyes open/closed are an eye blink of the person.).
Regarding claim 8, Safdarnejad et al. disclose the method of claim 1, wherein the correction image comprises an image in which the face region of the image of the person in the base image is replaced with the extracted face region (Figures 1A-1C).
Regarding claim 9, Safdarnejad et al. disclose the method of claim 1, further comprising:
obtaining a degree of blurriness of each of the plurality of images (Paragraphs [0040] and [0053].); and
selecting, from among the plurality of images, at least one image of which the degree of blurriness does not exceed a threshold (Paragraph [0040]: least blurry image, and paragraph [0053].),
wherein the identifying one image among the plurality of images as the base image comprises identifying the base image from among the selected at least one image (Paragraph [0053].), and
wherein the identifying the source image comprises identifying the source image from among the selected at least one image (There is only one “selected at least one image” and thus clearly it is identified as the source image.).
Regarding claim 11, please refer to the rejection of claim 1, Safdarnejad et al. also disclose an electronic device (Figure 12) comprising:
an input/output interface configured to receive a user input requesting processing of an image and to output an image processed according to the user input (Figure 12, 1208 and paragraph [0215].);
at least one memory storing one or more instructions (Figure 12, 1204 and paragraph [0213].); and
at least one processor configured to execute the one or more instructions (Figure 12, 1202 and paragraph [0212].).
Regarding claim 12, this claim is rejected under the same rationale as claim 2.
Regarding claim 13, this claim is rejected under the same rationale as claim 3.
Regarding claim 14, this claim is rejected under the same rationale as claim 4.
Regarding claim 15, this claim is rejected under the same rationale as claim 5.
Regarding claim 17, this claim is rejected under the same rationale as claim 8.
Regarding claim 18, this claim is rejected under the same rationale as claim 9.
Regarding claim 20, please refer to the rejection of claim 11, where the memory of claim 11 is a non-transitory computer readable medium.
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.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
Claims 7 and 16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Safdarnejad et al. (US 2020/0151860) in view of Nguyen et al. (KR 20240017665 A).
Regarding claim 7, Safdarnejad et al. disclose the method of claim 4.
Safdarnejad et al. fail to teach wherein the obtaining, with respect to each of the plurality of images, the second compatibility score comprises:
extracting from the base image a base feature point related to a position of a body of the person;
extracting from each of the plurality of images other than the base image a target feature point related to the position of the body of the person; and
determining the second compatibility score for each of the plurality of images other than the base image by comparing the base feature point with each extracted target feature point.
Nguyen et al. disclose wherein obtaining, with respect to each of a plurality of images, a second compatibility score comprises:
extracting from the base image a base feature point related to a position of a body of the person (Paragraph [0054]: landmark is a base feature point.);
extracting from each of the plurality of images other than the base image a target feature point related to the position of the body of the person (Paragraph [0054]: the landmark [based feature point] is extracted for each image.); and
determining the second compatibility score for each of the plurality of images other than the base image by comparing the base feature point with each extracted target feature point (Paragraphs [0053]-[0054]: the difference values are added up to obtain a score, where the smallest face score is the best face image.).
Hence the prior art includes each element claimed although not necessarily in a single prior art reference, with the only difference between the claimed invention and the prior art being the lack of the actual combination of the elements in a single prior art reference. In combination Safdarnejad et al. performs the same function as it does separately of compatibility scores for a plurality of images, and Nguyen et al. performs the same function as it does separately of using feature point(s) to determine the best compatibility.
Therefore, one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention could have combined the elements as claimed by known methods, and that in combination, each element merely performed the same function as it does separately. The results of the combination would have been predictable and resulted in determining the second compatibility score using feature point(s) to determine the best compatibility.
Therefore, the claimed subject matter would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Regarding claim 16, this claim is rejected under the same rationale as claim 7.
Claims 10 and 19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Safdarnejad et al. (US 2020/0151860) in view of Zhou (US 2022/0027602).
Regarding claim 10, Safdarnejad et al. disclose the method of claim 1, wherein the generating the correction image further comprises:
correcting the extracted face region (Figure 1B, 106b); and
generating the correction image by compositing the corrected face region on the base image (Figure 1C).
Safdarnejad et al. fail to teach of generating a three-dimensional (3D) face model of the person based on a plurality of first person images each comprising an image of the person.
Zhou discloses of generating a three-dimensional (3D) face model of a person based on a plurality of first person images each comprising an image of the person (Figure 1 and paragraph [0016].).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to “one of ordinary skill” in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use the three-dimensional (3D) face model teachings of Zhou in the method taught by Safdarnejad et al. such that the correcting the extracted face region would be based on a 3D face model. The motivation to combine would have been in order to improve the facial analysis to enhance the accuracy of the facial determinations (See the last sentence of paragraph [0016] of Zhou.).
Regarding claim 19, this claim is rejected under the same rationale as claim 10.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Zheng (US 2021/0192190) discloses a comparison method and apparatus based on a plurality of face image frames.
Kenny et al. (US 2024/0420393) disclose real-time augmentation of a target face.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to STEPHEN G SHERMAN whose telephone number is (571)272-2941. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday, 8:00am - 4pm 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, AMR AWAD can be reached at (571)272-7764. 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.
/STEPHEN G SHERMAN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2621
11 September 2026
Prosecution Insights