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 .
Response to Amendment
Applicant previously filed claims 1-3. Claim 1 has been cancelled, and new claim 4 has been added. Claims 2 has been amended. Accordingly, claims 2-4 are pending in the current application.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 04/02/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant argues that the specific “generative face video information” is taught in current application paragraph 48, and therefore overcomes the 112 rejection. However, examiner respectfully disagrees. The paragraph in question teaches a generative face video SEI message which indicates a number of parameters and generator neural network, however, merely recites a generative face video information message. In response to applicant's argument that the references fail to show certain features of the invention, it is noted that the features upon which applicant relies (i.e., generative face video SEI message) are not recited in the rejected claim(s). Although the claims are interpreted in light of the specification, limitations from the specification are not read into the claims. See In re Van Geuns, 988 F.2d 1181, 26 USPQ2d 1057 (Fed. Cir. 1993). Furthermore, it is still unclear what generative face video means and how the specific recitation of “generative face” connects to the video information, outside of the parameters signaled alongside it in the associated message. For these reasons the claim rejection is maintained.
Applicant argues that Chen et al. fails to teach “conditionally parse a first syntax element in the generative face video information message in only cases where the third flag is equal to 0, wherein the first syntax element provides information to derive the number of matrices of the matrix type; conditionally derive a z-axis coordinate of a keypoint in a case where the second flag is equal to”. However, examiner respectfully disagrees. In Paragraph 184, Chen et al. teaches “matrix_num[j] specifies the number of facial matrix when coordinate_present_flag or matrix_num_equal_to_coordinate_point_flag[j] do not exist. Otherwise, if these two flags both exist, the number of facial matrices is equal to coordinate_point_num.” Further, in Paragraph 218, Chen et al. teaches “coordinate_z_present_flag equals 1 indicates that z-axis coordinate information of the keypoints is present. coordinate_z_present_flag equals 0 indicates that the z-axis coordinate information of the keypoints is not present. When coordinate_z_present_flag is not present, it is inferred to be 0.” The above teachings and others recited in the rejection below are interpreted to teach the claim limitations as filed.
Applicant is again reminded that although the claims are interpreted in light of the specification, limitations from the specification are not read into the claims. See In re Van Geuns, 988 F.2d 1181, 26 USPQ2d 1057 (Fed. Cir. 1993).
In light of the above remarks, the claims are rejected using the same art as previously.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 2-4 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
The phrase “generative face video information” in claims 1 and 2 is renders the claim indefinite. The term “generative” is not defined by the claim, the specification does not provide a standard for ascertaining the what structural specifics the word “generative” applies onto “face video information”, and one of ordinary skill in the art would not be reasonably apprised of the scope of the invention. For the purposes of examination “generative face” video information is interpreted to be merely a design choice of an intended content of video information and is not given patentable weight. Applicant is required to correct.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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)(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) 2-4 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Chen et al. (US 20240340456 A1).
Regarding claim 2, Chen et al. teaches a device comprising one or more processors (Paragraphs 29-33) configured to:
receive a generative face video information message (Paragraph 5-6; Paragraph 30; Paragraph 98);
parse a first flag in the generative face video information message, wherein the first flag indicateswhether coordinate information of keypoints is present in the generative face video information message (Paragraphs 165-168; Paragraphs 171-173);
conditionally parse a second flag in the generative face video information message based on the value of the first flag, wherein the second flag equal to 1 specifies that z-axis coordinate information of keypoints is present in the generative face video information message (Paragraphs 165-168; Paragraphs 178-187; Paragraph 218);
parse a third flag in the generative face video information message, wherein the third flag equel to 0 indicates a number of matrices for a matrix type is not equal to an indicated number of keypoints (Paragraphs 165-168; Paragraphs 178-187; in Paragraph 184 teaches “matrix_num[j] specifies the number of facial matrix when coordinate_present_flag or matrix_num_equal_to_coordinate_point_flag[j] do not exist. Otherwise, if these two flags both exist, the number of facial matrices is equal to coordinate_point_num.”);
conditionally parse a first syntax element in the generative face video information message in only cases where the third flag is equal to 0, wherein the first syntax element provides information to derive the number of matrices of the matrix type (Paragraphs 165-168; Paragraphs 178-187; in Paragraph 184 teaches “matrix_num[j] specifies the number of facial matrix when coordinate_present_flag or matrix_num_equal_to_coordinate_point_flag[j] do not exist. Otherwise, if these two flags both exist, the number of facial matrices is equal to coordinate_point_num.”); and
conditionally derive a z-axis coordinate of a keypoint in a case where the second flag is equal to 1 (Paragraphs 165-168; Paragraphs 178-187; Paragraph 218-227).
Regarding claim 3, Chen et al. teaches the device of claim 2, wherein the device includes a video decoder (Paragraphs 29-33; Paragraphs 64-72; Paragraphs 85-88; Paragraph 95).
Claim 4, is drawn to the non-transitory computer-readable medium corresponding to apparatus claimed in claims 2-3 and is rejected for the same reasons as above. Chen et al. further teaches a non-transitory computer-readable storage medium comprising instructions stored thereon that, when executed, cause one or more processors of a device to perform the same steps as claim 2 (Paragraph 452).
Conclusion
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. 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 FARHAN MAHMUD whose telephone number is (571)272-7712. The examiner can normally be reached 10-7.
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, Joseph Ustaris can be reached at 5712727383. 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.
/FARHAN MAHMUD/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2483
Prosecution Insights