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 application no. 18/149,007 now U.S. Patent 12,277,639 filed 12/30/2022.
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 multiple usages of the phrase, “The subject technology…” which can be implied and therefore should be omitted.
Drawings
The drawings are objected to as failing to comply with 37 CFR 1.84(p)(5) because they include the following reference character(s) not mentioned in the description: #602 of Figure 6. Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d), or amendment to the specification to add the reference character(s) in the description in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(b) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance.
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 1-20 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-18 and 20 of U.S. Patent No. 12,277,639. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because the limitations of claims 1-20, which are not explicitly recited in the combination of claims 1-18 and 20, 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 is anticipated by Patent claim 1 in that claim 1 of the Patent contains all the limitations of claim 1 of the instant application. Claim 1 of the instant application therefore is not patentably distinct from the earlier Patent claim and as such is unpatentable for obvious-type double patenting.
With reference to claim 2, claim 2 is recited in lines 2-4 and 16-19 of Patent claim 1 and is therefore deemed unpatentable.
With reference to claim 3, claim 3 is recited basically word-for-word in Patent claim 2 and is therefore deemed unpatentable.
With reference to claim 4, claim 4 is recited basically word-for-word in Patent claim 3 and is therefore deemed unpatentable.
With reference to claim 5, claim 5 is recited basically word-for-word in Patent claim 4 and is therefore deemed unpatentable.
With reference to claim 6, claim 6 is recited basically word-for-word in Patent claim 5 and is therefore deemed unpatentable.
With reference to claim 7, claim 7 is recited basically word-for-word in Patent claim 6 and is therefore deemed unpatentable.
With reference to claim 8, claim 8 is recited basically word-for-word in Patent claim 7 and is therefore deemed unpatentable.
With reference to claim 9, claim 9 is recited basically word-for-word in Patent claim 8 and is therefore deemed unpatentable.
With reference to claim 10, claim 10 is recited basically word-for-word in Patent claims 9 and 10 and is therefore deemed unpatentable.
With reference to claim 11, claim 11 of the instant application is anticipated by Patent claim 11 in that claim 11 of the Patent contains all the limitations of claim 11 of the instant application. Claim 11 of the instant application therefore is not patentably distinct from the earlier Patent claim and as such is unpatentable for obvious-type double patenting.
With reference to claim 12, claim 12 is recited in lines 6-7 and 17-19 of Patent claim 11 and is therefore deemed unpatentable.
With reference to claim 13, claim 13 is recited basically word-for-word in Patent claim 12 and is therefore deemed unpatentable.
With reference to claim 14, claim 14 is recited basically word-for-word in Patent claim 13 and is therefore deemed unpatentable.
With reference to claim 15, claim 15 is recited basically word-for-word in Patent claim 14 and is therefore deemed unpatentable.
With reference to claim 16, claim 16 is recited basically word-for-word in Patent claim 15 and is therefore deemed unpatentable.
With reference to claim 17, claim 17 is recited basically word-for-word in Patent claim 16 and is therefore deemed unpatentable.
With reference to claim 18, claim 18 is recited basically word-for-word in Patent claim 17 and is therefore deemed unpatentable.
With reference to claim 19, claim 19 is recited basically word-for-word in Patent claim 18 and is therefore deemed unpatentable.
With reference to claim 20, claim 20 of the instant application is anticipated by Patent claim 20 in that claim 20 of the Patent contains all the limitations of claim 20 of the instant application. Claim 20 of the instant application therefore is not patentably distinct from the earlier Patent claim and as such is unpatentable for obvious-type double patenting.
References Cited
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure:
Duarte et al. (U.S. Publication 2023/0154088)
Duarte et al. discloses systems and methods for image processing including encoding features of a source face image to obtain a source appearance encoding of the face disentangling latent representations for image reenactment in generation of modified target images.
Bondich et al. (U. .Patent 11,995,781)
Bondich et al. discloses neural network hair rendering for images in a user messaging system.
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
8/18/26
Prosecution Insights