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 .
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 01/29/2025 is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement is being considered by the examiner.
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 03/06/2025 is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement is being considered by the examiner.
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 03/24/2025 is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement is being considered by the examiner.
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 1-3 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 a 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) 1-3 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 indicating whether 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 indicates whether a number of matrices for a matrix type is equal to an indicated number of keypoints (Paragraphs 165-168; Paragraphs 178-187); and
infer the number of matrices for the matrix type to not be equal to the indicated number of keypoints in a case when the second flag is not present in the generative face video information message (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.”).
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).
Method claim 1, is drawn to the method of using the corresponding apparatus claimed in claims 2-3 and is rejected for the same reasons as above.
Conclusion
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