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 .
Claim Interpretation
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(f):
(f) Element in Claim for a Combination. – An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The claims in this application are given their broadest reasonable interpretation using the plain meaning of the claim language in light of the specification as it would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art. The broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim element (also commonly referred to as a claim limitation) is limited by the description in the specification when 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is invoked.
As explained in MPEP § 2181, subsection I, claim limitations that meet the following three-prong test will be interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
(A) the claim limitation uses the term “means” or “step” or a term used as a substitute for “means” that is a generic placeholder (also called a nonce term or a non-structural term having no specific structural meaning) for performing the claimed function;
(B) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is modified by functional language, typically, but not always linked by the transition word “for” (e.g., “means for”) or another linking word or phrase, such as “configured to” or “so that”; and
(C) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function.
Use of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim with functional language creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites sufficient structure, material, or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Absence of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is not to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is not interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites function without reciting sufficient structure, material or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Claim limitations in this application that use the word “means” (or “step”) are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action. Conversely, claim limitations in this application that do not use the word “means” (or “step”) are not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action.
This application includes one or more claim limitations that do not use the word “means,” but are nonetheless being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, because the claim limitation(s) uses a generic placeholder that is coupled with functional language without reciting sufficient structure to perform the recited function and the generic placeholder is not preceded by a structural modifier. Such claim limitation(s) is/are: “a first deformation execution unit” and “a second deformation execution unit” as initialized in claim 1, “a contour position detection unit” as initialized in claim 2, “an alignment execution unit” as initialized in claim 3, and “a third deformation execution unit” as initialized in claim 7.
Because this/these claim limitation(s) is/are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, it/they is/are being interpreted to cover the corresponding structure described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof. In this case, paragraph [0113] states that “in a case where the computer 1000 functions as the information processing apparatus 10 according to the embodiment, the CPU 1100 of the computer 1000 implements the functions of the above-described units by executing the information processing program loaded on the RAM 1200.”
If applicant does not intend to have this/these limitation(s) interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, applicant may: (1) amend the claim limitation(s) to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph (e.g., by reciting sufficient structure to perform the claimed function); or (2) present a sufficient showing that the claim limitation(s) recite(s) sufficient structure to perform the claimed function so as to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph.
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 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.
(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) 1-2, 4-7, 10-11 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1)/(a)(2) as being anticipated by Bhat et al. (US 2016/0328628 A1).
In regards to claim 1, Bhat teaches an information processing apparatus comprising:
a first deformation execution unit (e.g. [0083]: process 1100 may be performed by a computing system, such as … the computer system 1200 shown in Fig.12; Fig.12: processor 1210) that deforms a face model of an actor on a basis of positions of a plurality of markers in a face image of the actor to which the plurality of markers are attached, and generates a first deformed face model (e.g. [0084],Fig.11: at 1102, the process 1100 includes obtaining input data corresponding to a pose performed by the subject, the input data including position information defining positions on a face of the subject; for example, as previously described, an image capture setup may be implemented to capture images in which a relatively sparse set of features associated with the subject's face is used for attaining position information; [0085]: in some embodiments, the positions on the face are determined from markers applied to the face at a sparse set of positions; [0087]: at 1106, the process 1100 includes matching one or more of the positions on the face with one or more corresponding positions on the animation model); and
a second deformation execution unit (e.g. as above, Fig.12: processor 1210) that deforms a shape of a low reproduction portion of the first deformed face model on a basis of the face image of the actor so that a position of a contour of the low reproduction portion having relatively low reproducibility in the first deformed face model matches a position of a contour of the low reproduction portion in the face image of the actor, and generates a second deformed face model (e.g. [0044]: in some instances, the sparse set of markers may be unable to provide sufficient detail to allow the computing system 102 to reconstruct the small nuances expressed by the subject, such as when the subject performs a pose or expression with a subtle emotion; for example, areas around the eyelids and the mouth are often found to be problematic in animation due to frequent self-occlusions seen from the camera; the animation system 100 is able to capture such nuances by also using contour information; [0090]: in some embodiments, the input data obtained in step 1102 may include contour information defining one or more contours of the face; in such embodiments, the process 100 may further include minimizing a distance between at least one of the one or more contours of the face and data representing one or more corresponding contours of the animation model).
In regards to method claim 10 and medium claim 11, claim(s) 10-11 recite(s) limitations that is/are similar in scope to the limitations recited in claim 1. Therefore, claim(s) 10-11 is/are subject to rejections under the same rationale as applied hereinabove for claim 1.
In regards to claim 2, Bhat teaches an apparatus, further comprising a contour position detection unit (e.g. as above, Fig.12: processor 1210) that specifies the position of the contour of the low reproduction portion in the face image of the actor on a basis of positions of one or more landmarks extracted from the face image of the actor (e.g. as above, [0084]: obtaining input data corresponding to a pose performed by the subject, the input data including position information defining positions on a face of the subject; an image capture setup may be implemented to capture images in which a relatively sparse set of features associated with the subject's face is used for attaining position information; [0090]: input data obtained in step 1102 may include contour information defining one or more contours of the face; further in [0090]: contour information defining the one or more contours of the face may include two-dimensional data that is determined in screen space; the one or more contours of the face may include an inner eye contour of the subject, an inner mouth contour of the subject, or other contours on the subject's face).
In regards to claim 4, Bhat teaches an apparatus, wherein the second deformation execution unit sets a region in the vicinity of the low reproduction portion where no marker is arranged in the face image of the actor as a deformation target region, and selectively deforms the shape of the first deformed face model in the deformation target region (e.g. as above, [0090]: input data obtained in step 1102 may include contour information defining one or more contours of the face; in such embodiments, the process 100 may further include minimizing a distance between at least one of the one or more contours of the face and data representing one or more corresponding contours of the animation model; contour information defining the one or more contours of the face may include two-dimensional data that is determined in screen space; the one or more contours of the face may include an inner eye contour of the subject, an inner mouth contour of the subject, or other contours on the subject's face).
In regards to claim 5, Bhat teaches an apparatus, wherein the low reproduction portion is an eyelid (e.g. as above, [0044]: in some instances, the sparse set of markers may be unable to provide sufficient detail to allow the computing system 102 to reconstruct the small nuances expressed by the subject, such as when the subject performs a pose or expression with a subtle emotion; for example, areas around the eyelids … are often found to be problematic in animation due to frequent self-occlusions seen from the camera; the animation system 100 is able to capture such nuances by also using contour information).
In regards to claim 6, Bhat teaches an apparatus, wherein the second deformation execution unit deforms a shape of the eyelid of the first deformed face model so as to be matched with a position of an eyeball set in advance in the face model of the actor (e.g. [0066]: for some facial features, other information may be used for assisting with defining silhouette contours and their relation to mesh curves; for example, since eyelids slide over the surface of the cornea, the geometry of the eye may be used for projecting the eyelid curves onto the cornea to attain three-dimensional contour curve information).
In regards to claim 7, Bhat teaches an apparatus, further comprising a third deformation execution unit that performs deformation processing reflecting individuality of the actor on the second deformed face model and generates a third deformed face model (e.g. [0046]: animation model 108 may also include adjustable controls that control the animation model 108; for example, the adjustable controls can define the geometries of the shapes of the animation model 108; [0076]: in some embodiments, an animation guide 408 (or “recipe”) may be generated and used to guide the solver 306 in determining which adjustable controls to use, which values to use for the adjustable controls, or the like; the animation guide 408 can be generated based on the performance of the subject, and can further reduce the degrees of freedom that the solver must consider when solving for the adjustable control values; in one example, a subject (for a given scene or for an entire production) may typically perform a limited number of poses or expressions; an animation guide for that subject can be created and used to limit the adjustable controls of that subject's animation model to those controls that cause the computer-generated representation of the subject or fictional character to perform the limited number of expressions or to not perform certain expressions).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claim(s) 3, 8-9 is/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.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JED-JUSTIN IMPERIAL whose telephone number is (571)270-5807. The examiner can normally be reached Monday to Friday, 9am - 6pm.
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, Daniel Hajnik can be reached at (571) 272-7642. 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.
/JED-JUSTIN IMPERIAL/Examiner, Art Unit 2616
/DANIEL F HAJNIK/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2616
Prosecution Insights