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
Acknowledgment is made of applicant's claim for foreign priority under 35 U.S.C. 119(a)-(d). The certified copy has been filed in the pending application.
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, “Disclosed is…” (see line 1) which can be implied and therefore should be omitted.
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.
Claim 12 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to non-statutory subject matter. The claim(s) does/do not fall within at least one of the four categories of patent eligible subject matter because analysis of claim language of claim 12 as per 35 U.S.C. 101 questions the claimed terminology of a "computer-readable recording medium.” The specification of the instant application does clearly suggest to one of ordinary skill in the art that, by an explicit definition of the term, such a “computer-readable recording medium” could be one of signals, or other forms of propagation and transmission media (see at least paragraph 40 of Applicant’s specification which recites a long non-limiting list of example media of which does not preclude the interpretation of transitory type media, thereof) which fail to be an appropriate manufacture under 35 U.S.C. 101 in the context of computer-related inventions and therefore requires this rejection.
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 5-7 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.
In reference to claims 5-7, these claims depend upon claim 4 which recites a defining "list" of "image characteristics" concatenated with language of "at least one of…" however, claims 5-7 proceed to recite limitations that rely and require “all” of the “image characteristics” which creates indefiniteness within the claims. For example, claim 5 recites, “deriving the normal map…and “deriving the lighting condition…and generating the albedo map…and acquiring the information on the roughness…” of which again, claim 4 solely requires “at least one of a normal map, an albedo map, information on roughness, information on reflectivity…” In other words, when taking the interpretation of claim 4 to solely require “a normal map” then claim 5’s recitation of at least “generating the albedo map” lacks antecedent basis thus creating indefiniteness within the claim. Claims 6-7 recite suffer from similar issues and are therefore also included in this rejection.
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.
Claim(s) 1-3, 11 and 12 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by LeGendre et al. (U.S. Publication 2024/0212106).
In reference to claim 1, LeGendre et al. discloses a method of generating a relighted image based on an object image performed by one or more processors of a computing device (see paragraphs 5, 48, 177-178, 182-184 and Figures 2, 4, 20, 22 wherein LeGendre et al. discloses a method of relighting, via a neural network, a foreground of an image to maintain a consistent lighting of the foreground with a target illumination. LeGendre et al. discloses the method performed via a computing device that comprises one or more processors, a data storage in the form of a computer readable storage media that stores computer readable instructions for execution.), the method comprising:
acquiring a source original image (see paragraphs 49-50, 201, Figures 2, 4 and #2210 of Figure 22 wherein LeGendre et al. discloses the relighting method beginning with the input of an image comprising a subject.);
acquiring image characteristic information based on the source original image (see paragraphs 49-50, Figures 2, 4 and #2210 of Figure 22 wherein LeGendre et al. discloses using the input image by the neural network such as a geometry net, to generate a surface normal representation indicative of a surface geometry of the input foreground image. Note as per that which is described by "image characteristic information" from within the specification (see Applicant's specification pg. 31, for example) and further from what is claimed in dependent claim 4, the Examiner interprets such a "surface normal representation" of LeGendre et al. functionally equivalent to Applicant's "image characteristic information."); and
generating the relighted image based on the source original image, the image characteristic information, and target lighting information (see paragraphs 49-50, #205, 210, 215, 230, 265 of Figure 2 and #2230 of Figure 22 wherein LeGendre et al. discloses the method finally generating a relit foreground image using the input image, the surface normal representation and a target HDR lighting environment.).
In reference to claim 2, LeGendre et al. discloses all of the claim limitations as applied to claim 1 above. LeGendre et al. discloses the method finally generating a relit foreground image using the input image, the surface normal representation and a target HDR lighting environment using an input HDR map (see paragraphs 49-50, #205, 210, 215, 230, 265 of Figure 2 and #2230 of Figure 22).
In reference to claim 3, LeGendre et al. discloses all of the claim limitations as applied to claim 2 above. LeGendre et al. explicitly discloses the image content comprising a human face (see at least paragraph 36 and Figure 2). LeGendre et al. discloses the relighting of the image and human face content to include specular highlights which involves the light reflections off of facial surfaces as well as diffuse properties (texture/color) (see paragraphs 40 and 53). LeGendre et al. further discloses the relighting to recover self-shadowing (see paragraph 60).
In reference to claim 11, LeGendre et al. discloses all of the claim limitations as applied to claim 1 above. LeGendre et al. discloses a method of relighting, via a neural network, a foreground of an image to maintain a consistent lighting of the foreground with a target illumination (see paragraphs 5 and 48). LeGendre et al. discloses the method performed via a computing device that comprises one or more processors, a data storage in the form of a computer readable storage media that stores computer readable instructions for execution (see paragraphs 182-184 and Figure 20).
In reference to claim 12, claim 12 is similar in scope to claim 1 and is therefore rejected under like rationale. In addition to the rationale applied in the rejection of claim 1 above, claim 12 further recites, “A computer-readable recording medium having recorded thereon a program for executing a method of generating a relighted image based on an object image in conjunction with a computing device…” LeGendre et al. discloses the method performed via a computing device that comprises one or more processors, a data storage in the form of a computer readable storage media that stores computer readable instructions for execution (see paragraphs 182-184 and Figure 20).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 4 and 8-10 are objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
Claims 5-7 would be allowable if rewritten to overcome the rejection(s) under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), 2nd paragraph, set forth in this Office action and to include all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
References Cited
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure:
Sun et al. (U.S. Publication 2022/0284640)
Sun et al. discloses techniques for relighting an image by automatically segmenting a human object in an image.
Conclusion
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
7/8/26
Prosecution Insights