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 .
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 10/16/2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant argues that “Li at least fails to discloses ‘the pre-trained styled-image generation model is obtained by training with a plurality of original face sample images and a plurality of target styled face sample images, the plurality of target styled face sample images are generated by a pre-trained image generation model, and the image generation model is obtained by training with a plurality of pre-obtained standard styled face sample images” as recited in claim 1 of the present application.”
In response, Li discloses “the plurality of target styled face sample images are generated by a pre-trained image generation model” in paragraphs 0088, 0089 and Fig. 6. The “adapted images 604” correspond to “the plurality of target styled face sample images” and “the machine learning model 112 uses an adapted generator G′ 610 for an adapted generative model to generate the set of adapted images 604 in the target style” corresponds to “a pre-trained image generation model”.
Li discloses “the image generation model is obtained by training with a plurality of pre-obtained standard styled face sample images” in paragraph 0094. In particular, Li discloses, in paragraph 0094, that “FIG. 8 depicts other examples 800 of images that are used in the processes for training a machine learning model to transform source images using few-shot image generation via self-adaptation, according to certain aspects of this disclosure. In particular, FIG. 8 depicts an example 800 of a diagram of training a machine learning model for transforming a large source domain into a target style of a target domain (e.g., a style associated with few-shot images 802). One or more operations described with respect to FIG. 8 transform source images using an image processing system (e.g., image processing system 108). The image processing system 108 trains a machine learning model (e.g., machine learning model 112) to generate adapted images (e.g., adapted images 804) with a target style according to certain aspects discussed herein.” The “few-shot images 802” corresponds to “a plurality of pre-obtained standard styled face sample images”.
Li discloses ‘the pre-trained styled-image generation model is obtained by training with a plurality of original face sample images and a plurality of target styled face sample images” in paragraph 0088, 0089. The “source images” and “target images” correspond to “a plurality of original face sample images” and “a plurality of target styled face sample images”, respectively.
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)(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, 11, 21, 24 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Li (US 2022/0076374).
As to claim 1, Li discloses a styled-image generation method, comprising:
obtaining an original face image (para. 0058, 0064); and
obtaining a target styled face image corresponding to the original face image, by using a pre-trained styled-image generation model (para. 0025, 0034, 0041, 0059, 0060);
wherein the pre-trained styled-image generation model is obtained by training with a plurality of original face sample images and a plurality of target styled face sample images, the plurality of target styled face sample images are generated by a pre-trained image generation model, and the pre-trained image generation model is obtained by training with a plurality of pre-obtained standard styled face sample images (para. 0025, 0037-0039, 0041, 0044, 0064, 0088, 0089, 0094; Figs. 6, 7, 8).
As to claim 11, Li discloses the method according to claim 1, wherein the styled-image generation model comprises a Conditional Generative Adversarial Network model (para. 0026).
As to claims 21, 24, these claims recite features similar to those discussed above. Therefore, they are rejected for reasons similar to those discussed above.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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 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.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claim(s) 2, 25 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over in view of Chakrabarty (US 2022/0101577).
As to claim 2, Li discloses wherein the obtaining a target styled face image corresponding to the original face image, by using a pre-trained styled-image generation model, comprising: obtaining the target styled face image based on the first face image, by using the styled-image generation model (para. 0025, 0034, 0041, 0059, 0060).
Li is silent regarding recognizing a face area in the original face image); and adjusting a position of the face area in the original face image according to actual position information and preset position information of the face area in the original face image, to obtain a first face image.
Chakrabarty teaches recognizing a face area in the original face image (para. 0038, 0039, 0052); and adjusting a position of the face area in the original face image according to actual position information and preset position information of the face area in the original face image, to obtain a first face image (para. 0053, 0055).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to incorporate Chakrabarty’s teachings into Li in order to simplify style transfer processing of the input face image into the target styled face image.
As to claim 25, the claim recites features similar to those discussed above. Therefore, claim 25 is rejected for reasons similar to those discussed above.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 3-10, 12-15, 22, 26 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.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter: None of the prior art discloses the combination of features required by each of dependent claims 3, 7, 12, 22, 26.
Conclusion
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to PHUOC TRAN whose telephone number is (571)272-7399. The examiner can normally be reached 9am-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, Vu Le can be reached at 571-272-7332. 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.
/PHUOC TRAN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2668
Prosecution Insights