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 .
Priority
Application claims priority to foreign application with application number CN202211343605.1 dated 10/31/2022. Copies of certified papers required by 37 CFR 1.55 have been received. Priority is acknowledged under 35 USC 119(e) and 37 CFR 1.78.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statements dated 05/29/2026 and 03/09/2026 have been considered and placed in the application file.
Claim Objections
Claims 7-18 objected to because of the following informalities: In each of these claims, the word "programming" is misspelled as "programing". Appropriate correction is required.
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.
The USPTO recognizes that applicants may have claims directed to computer readable media that cover signals per se, which the USPTO must reject under 35 U.S.C. § 101 as covering both non-statutory subject matter and statutory subject matter. In an effort to assist the patent community in overcoming a rejection or potential rejection under 35 U.S.C. § 101 in this situation, the USPTO suggests the following approach.
A claim drawn to such a computer readable medium that covers both transitory and non-transitory embodiments may be amended to narrow the claim to cover only statutory embodiments to avoid a rejection under 35 U.S.C. § 101 by adding the limitation "non-transitory" to the claim. Cf. Animals - Patentability, 1077 Off. Gaz. Pat. Office 24 (April 21, 1987) (suggesting that applicants add the limitation "non-human" to a claim covering a multi-cellular organism to avoid a rejection under 35 U.S.C. § 101). Such an amendment would typically not raise the issue of new matter, even when the specification is silent because the broadest reasonable interpretation relies on the ordinary and customary meaning that includes signals per se. The limited situations in which such an amendment could raise issues of new matter occur, for example, when the specification does not support a non-transitory embodiment because a signal per se is the only viable embodiment such that the amended claim is impermissibly broadened beyond the supporting disclosure. See, e.g., Gentry Gallery, Inc. v. Berkline Corp., 134 F.3d 1473(Fed. Cir. 1998).
Claim(s) 13-18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to non-statutory subject matter as follows. Claim 13 defines a “computer-readable storage medium” embodying functional descriptive material. However, the claim does not define a non-transitory computer-readable medium or memory and is thus non-statutory for that reason (i.e., “examination the pending claims must be interpreted as broadly as their terms reasonably allow). The broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim drawn to a computer readable medium (also called machine readable medium and other such variations) typically covers forms of non-transitory tangible media and transitory propagating signals per se in view of the ordinary and customary meaning of computer readable media, particularly when the specification is silent. See MPEP 2111.01.
Dependent claims 14-18 are also rejected as depending on claim 13, also reciting a “computer-readable storage medium” embodying functional descriptive material.
When the broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim covers a signal per se, the claim must be rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 101 as covering non-statutory subject matter. See In see Official Gazette Notice 1351 OG212, February 23, 2010). That is, the scope of the presently claimed “computer program product” typically covers forms of non-transitory tangible media and transitory propagating signals per se. The examiner suggests amending the claim to add the limitation “non-transitory” to the claim or equivalent in order to make the claim statutory. Any amendment to the claim should be commensurate with its corresponding disclosure.
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, 4, 5, 7, 10, 11, 13, 16, and 17 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) and (a)(2) as being anticipated by Vieira et al. ("Simulation of genetic inheritance in the generation of virtual characters". 2010 IEEE Virtual Reality Conference (VR), 20-24 Mar 2010. https://ieeexplore.ieee.org/abstract/document/5444803; hereinafter "Vieira").
Regarding claim 1, Vieira discloses: A method for facial synthesis, comprising:
obtaining first facial information of a first model and second facial information of a second model (pg. 122 section 5.1 “General considerations on face modeling”: “In the first simulation, the faces of the parent models were generated using Poser 6.0… The meshes associated with the parents’ models can be constructed by manual fine-tuning or they can be selected from a database of previously generated meshes.”), wherein each facial information of the first facial information and the second facial information comprises category information of a trait of each facial feature of a face of a respective one of the first model or the second model (pg. 120 section 3 "Anthropometry" shows facial landmarks;
pg. 121 section 4.1 "Identification of genetic traits": "The first step of our method is to choose the traits that will be used in the construction of a virtual character. Each of those traits – length of members, measures of the head, eyes, nose, mouth, ears, chin, and so on – can be seen as information that constructs part of the model and are represented as genes of diploid beings.";
pg. 122 section 5.1 “The characteristics associated with genes and distributed among the chromosomes were the measures taken from the face landmarks defined by Anthropometry and shown in Figure 8.”, where each characteristic associated with a gene may be considered “category information”); and
synthesizing third facial information based on the first facial information and the second facial information according to a trait inheritance rule (pg. 123 section 5.4 "Generation of the offspring": “The generation process consists of constructing a chromosome structure of a descendant by fertilization of a female gamete by a male gamete.”, where the facial information for each parent was represented using simulated chromosomes; the remainder of the section provides further detail), wherein the third facial information corresponds to a third model (fig. 17 and 18; pg. 123 section 5.4 “Generation of the offspring”: “The descendant’s chromosomic structure is used to generate its mesh (Figure 18)…”), and the trait inheritance rule indicates a synthesis coefficient corresponding to category information of a trait of a facial feature (pg. 124 section 5.4 "Generation of the offspring": “However, in the second simulation, incomplete dominance between alleles was adopted. Thus, weights are attributed to each gene, so that a trait in the descendant models is defined as a weighted average of the corresponding genes of the parents.”; the weight for each simulated gene corresponds to the claimed “synthesis coefficient”).
Regarding claim 4, Vieira discloses: The method according to claim 1, wherein the synthesizing third facial information based on the first facial information and the second facial information according to a trait inheritance rule, wherein the third facial information corresponds to a third model, comprises:
determining category information of traits of a plurality of first facial features extracted from the first facial information (pg. 123 section 5.1 “General considerations on face modeling”: “After defining the traits, they were distributed in fictitious chromosomes (Fig. 12), which were used in the simulation of the reproductive process.”);
determining category information of traits of a plurality of second facial features extracted from the second facial information (pg. 123 section 5.1 “General considerations on face modeling”: “After defining the traits, they were distributed in fictitious chromosomes (Fig. 12), which were used in the simulation of the reproductive process.”); and
performing feature synthesis on the plurality of first facial features and the plurality of second facial features based on the category information of the traits of the plurality of first facial features and the category information of the traits of the plurality of second facial features according to the trait inheritance rule, to obtain the third facial information (figs. 14 to 16 demonstrate simulated gene inheritance to perform feature synthesis of three categories: skin color, eye color, and sex).
Regarding claim 5, Vieira discloses: The method according to claim 4, wherein the performing feature synthesis on the plurality of first facial features and the plurality of second facial features based on the category information of the traits of the plurality of first facial features and the category information of the traits of the plurality of second facial features according to the trait inheritance rule, to obtain the third facial information comprises:
performing linear synthesis on the plurality of first facial features and the plurality of second facial features based on the category information of the traits of the plurality of first facial features and the category information of the traits of the plurality of second facial features according to the trait inheritance rule (Vieira pg. 124 section 5.4 "Generation of the offspring": “However, in the second simulation, incomplete dominance between alleles was adopted. Thus, weights are attributed to each gene, so that a trait in the descendant models is defined as a weighted average of the corresponding genes of the parents.”); and
performing facial synthesis on a plurality of facial features obtained through the linear synthesis to obtain the third facial information (fig. 18 shows third facial model generated based on simulated gene inheritance according to the previously discussed procedure).
Regarding claims 7, 10, and 11, they are rejected as being anticipated by Vieira with the same rationale as claims 1, 4, and 5 respectively, with the additional limitation of: A facial synthesis apparatus, wherein the facial synthesis apparatus comprising a processor and a memory, and the memory is configured to store an instruction, and the processor is configured to execute the instruction in the memory (section 1 “Introduction” states that the invention is applicable towards “virtual reality and computer games”, citing examples such as The Sims and Second Life, which run as computer programs executed and stored using standard computational hardware).
Regarding claims 13, 16, and 17, they are rejected as being anticipated by Vieira with the same rationale as claims 1, 4, and 5 respectively, with the additional limitation of: A computer-readable storage medium, comprising computer program instructions, wherein when the computer program instructions are executed by a computing device cluster, the computing device cluster is enabled to… (section 1 “Introduction” states that the invention is applicable towards “virtual reality and computer games”, citing examples such as The Sims and Second Life, which run as computer programs stored on and stored using standard computational hardware).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
Claim(s) 2, 8, and 14 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Vieira ("Simulation of genetic inheritance in the generation of virtual characters") in view of Tian (CN 109359626 A).
Regarding claim 2, Vieira teaches: The method according to claim 1, but does not explicitly teach: wherein the method further comprises:
obtaining the trait inheritance rule selected by a user from a plurality of candidate trait inheritance rules.
Tian teaches: obtaining the trait inheritance rule selected by a user from a plurality of candidate trait inheritance rules (Tian teaches determining traits of parents’ facial images and selecting images of a child which match a genetically based combination of these traits, and it allows a user to select the gender of the output images, which may be considered selecting a trait inheritance rule since gender is heritable from sex chromosomes: [0069] “It should be noted that the folder named "101" contains photos of male and female infants in equal proportions, which users can view by selecting the gender option on the touchscreen.”).
Vieira and Tian are both analogous to the claimed invention because they are in the same field of determining a composite of two facial images based on heritable traits. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the invention of Vieira with the teachings of Tian to allow a user to select particular outcomes, such as gender, when generating a composite facial image. The motivation would have been to provide a user with more control over the process.
Regarding claims 8 and 14, they are rejected with the same references, rationale, and motivation to combine as claim 2 because their limitations substantially correspond to the limitations of claim 2.
Claim(s) 3, 9, and 15 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Vieira ("Simulation of genetic inheritance in the generation of virtual characters") in view of Matusik et al. (US 20070229498 A1; hereinafter "Matusik").
Regarding claim 3, Vieira teaches: The method according to claim 1,
the synthesizing third facial information based on the first facial information and the second facial information according to a trait inheritance rule comprises: synthesizing the third facial information based on the first facial information and the second facial information according to a trait inheritance rule (pg. 123 section 5.4 "Generation of the offspring": “The generation process consists of constructing a chromosome structure of a descendant by fertilization of a female gamete by a male gamete.”, where the facial information for each parent was represented using simulated chromosomes; the remainder of the section provides further detail).
Vieira does not explicitly teach: wherein:
the method further comprises: adjusting the trait inheritance rule according to a configuration instruction of a user; and
the synthesizing third facial information based on the first facial information and the second facial information according to a trait inheritance rule comprises: synthesizing the third facial information based on the first facial information and the second facial information according to an adjusted trait inheritance rule.
Matusik teaches: adjusting the trait inheritance rule according to a configuration instruction of a user ([0065] “There are a number applications in which it may be useful to interpolate between faces. A user interface for synthesizing new faces, for example, may present the user with faces from a data set, define a set of weights…”; where the user’s adjustment of the weights, which are based on facial characteristics, may be considered configuring a trait inheritance rule); and
the synthesizing third facial information based on the first facial information and the second facial information according to a trait inheritance rule comprises: synthesizing the third facial information based on the first facial information and the second facial information according to an adjusted trait inheritance rule ([0065] “…and return a face interpolated from the input faces with the given weights.” – continued from the previous citation).
Vieira and Matusik are both analogous to the claimed invention because they are in the same field of determining a composite of two facial images based on visual characteristics. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the invention of Vieira with the teachings of Matusik to allow a user to adjust the weights for the input characteristics when generating a composite facial image. The motivation would have been to provide a user with more control over the process.
Regarding claims 9 and 15, they are rejected with the same references, rationale, and motivation to combine as claim 3 because their limitations substantially correspond to the limitations of claim 3.
Claim(s) 6, 12, and 18 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Vieira ("Simulation of genetic inheritance in the generation of virtual characters") in view of Hoskens et al. ("Spatially Dense 3D Facial Heritability and Modules of Co-heritability in a Father-Offspring Design." Frontiers in Genetics vol. 9 article 554 (18 Nov 2018). https://doi.org/10.3389/fgene.2018.00554; hereinafter "Hoskens").
Regarding claim 6, Vieira teaches: The method according to claim 1, wherein the method further comprises:
extracting a plurality of facial features of each model of a plurality of models (pg. 120 section 3 “Anthropometry” describes the determination of landmarks for a facial model;
pg. 121 section 4.1 "Identification of genetic traits": "The first step of our method is to choose the traits that will be used in the construction of a virtual character. Each of those traits – length of members, measures of the head, eyes, nose, mouth, ears, chin, and so on – can be seen as information that constructs part of the model and are represented as genes of diploid beings."); and
Vieira does not explicitly teach: performing cluster analysis on a same type of facial feature, to obtain category information of a trait of the facial feature; and
marking each model based on category information of traits of the plurality of facial features in each model to obtain respective facial information of the plurality of models.
Hoskens teaches: performing cluster analysis on a same type of facial feature, to obtain category information of a trait of the facial feature (pg. 2 “Introduction” section: “In this work, we present a global-to-local analysis of heritability and co-heritability of multivariate facial modules in a father-offspring design. First, we establish spatially dense quasi-landmarks representing complete facial shape and compute 3D landmark heritability as well as 3D pairwise landmark co-heritability. Subsequently, we apply hierarchical spectral clustering to these values and define 63 modules (multiple 3D landmarks grouped together) of co-inheritance…); and
marking each model based on category information of traits of the plurality of facial features in each model to obtain respective facial information of the plurality of models (pg. 2 “Introduction” section”: “…which when analyzed as groups, provide a multivariate estimation of heritability for various facial segments, ranging from the full face (global) to smaller facial regions (local).”;
pg. 10 “Facial Segmentation and Modules of Co-inheritance” section further discusses analysis of the modules, or groups of facial landmarks).
Hoskens is analogous to the claimed invention because it is in the same field of modeling inheritance of facial features. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the invention of Vieira with the teachings of Hoskens to determine heritable facial features for simulated genes by performing clustering on a larger dataset. The motivation would have been to generate more accurate, realistic output models.
Regarding claims 12 and 18, they are rejected with the same references, rationale, and motivation to combine as claim 6 because their limitations substantially correspond to the limitations of claim 6.
References Cited
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Girshick et al. (US 20220164935 A1) teaches generating composite facial images based on genetic information.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to BENJAMIN STATZ whose telephone number is (571)272-6654. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Fri 8am-5pm.
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, Tammy Goddard can be reached at (571)272-7773. 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.
/BENJAMIN TOM STATZ/Examiner, Art Unit 2611
/TAMMY GODDARD/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2611
Prosecution Insights