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 .
Response to Amendment
Applicant's response to the last Office Action, filed on 5/15/2025 has been entered and made of record.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments with respect to claims 1, 8, 14 have been considered but are moot in view of the new grounds of rejection.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112:
The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor of carrying out his invention.
Claims 1, 8, and 14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention.
Dependent claims 2-5, 9-13, and 15-20 are rejected based on their dependency.
The following claim 1 elements were not described in the specification, and therefore new matter;
“performing an inverse wavelet transform on the reduced image features based on the cross-attention operation”
The following claim 8 elements were not described in the specification, and therefore new matter;
“performing an inverse wavelet transform on the reduced image features based on the cross-attention operation”
The following claim 8 elements were not described in the specification, and therefore new matter;
“identifying a training image and a training text prompt describing a texture;…
training the diffusion model to generate images with textures described by text prompts based on the noisy image and the noise prediction.”
The following claim 14 elements were not described in the specification, and therefore new matter;
“an upsampling layer configured to perform an inverse wavelet transform on the reduced image features based on the cross-attention operation”
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 1, 8, 14 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.
Dependent claims 2-5, 9-13, and 15-20 are rejected based on their dependency.
Claim 1 recites the limitation "the noise.” There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 1 highlighted elements are vague and indefinite because a cross-attention does not specify what is being cross-attended with the text encoding. Cross-attention inherently operates across two features sets, therefore the cross-attention operation is ambiguous and vague.
In addition, the phrase “performing an inverse wavelet transform on the reduced image features based on the cross-attention operation” is vague. An inverse wavelet transform reconstructs spatial domain features from decomposed sub-bands. It is unclear whether the transform is applied directly to the output features of the cross-attention operation or if the cross-attention modifies transform parameters/coefficients.
Also, it is unclear how a text prompt supplies high-frequency wavelet sub-bands from an inverse wavelet transform. The claim language conflates wavelet reconstruction with text representation.
The Examiner suggests the Applicant clarify the claim language by separating/distinguishing each operation and its elements;
“performing a cross-attention operation based on the text encoding, and performing an inverse wavelet transform on the reduced image features based on the cross-attention operation to obtain processed image features including the high frequency information representing the texture from the text prompt, wherein the noise prediction is based on the processed image features;”
The following claim 1 elements are vague and indefinite because the claim language combines steps without clearly delineating the sequence or connections between the sub-band noise reduction, attention output, and final predicted noise. The Examiner suggests the Applicant clarify the claim language by separating/distinguishing each operation, and their connectivity;
“generating, using a diffusion model, a noise prediction based on the image features by reducing a resolution of the image features at an intermediate stage of the diffusion model using a wavelet transform to obtain reduced image features at a reduced resolution, performing a cross-attention operation based on the text encoding, and performing an inverse wavelet transform on the reduced image features based on the cross-attention operation to obtain processed image features including the high frequency information representing the texture from the text prompt, wherein the noise prediction is based on the processed image features;
Claim 8 highlighted elements are vague and indefinite because a cross-attention does not specify what is being cross-attended with the text encoding. Cross-attention inherently operates across two features sets, therefore the cross-attention operation is ambiguous and vague.
In addition, the phrase “performing an inverse wavelet transform on the reduced image features based on the cross-attention operation” is vague. An inverse wavelet transform reconstructs spatial domain features from decomposed sub-bands. It is unclear whether the transform is applied directly to the output features of the cross-attention operation or if the cross-attention modifies transform parameters/coefficients.
Also, it is unclear how a text prompt supplies high-frequency wavelet sub-bands from an inverse wavelet transform. The claim language conflates wavelet reconstruction with text representation.
The Examiner suggests the Applicant clarify the claim language by separating/distinguishing each operation and its elements;
“performing a cross-attention operation based on the text encoding, and performing an inverse wavelet transform on the reduced image features based on the cross-attention operation to obtain processed image features including the high frequency information representing the texture from the training text prompt, wherein the noise prediction is based on the processed image features;”
The following claim 8 highlighted elements are vague and indefinite because the claim language is inconsistent, the claim initially discloses a singular “a training text prompt” and “texture”, then a plural “textures described by text prompts’”;
“identifying a training image and a training text prompt describing a texture;…
training the diffusion model to generate images with textures described by text prompts based on the noisy image and the noise prediction.”
The following claim 8 elements are vague and indefinite because the claim language combines steps without clearly delineating the sequence or connections between the sub-band noise reduction, attention output, and final predicted noise. The Examiner suggests the Applicant clarify the claim language by separating/distinguishing each operation, and their connectivity;
“generating, using a diffusion model, a noise prediction based on the image features by reducing a resolution of the image features at an intermediate stage of the diffusion model using a wavelet transform to obtain reduced image features at a reduced resolution, performing a cross-attention operation based on the text encoding, and performing an inverse wavelet transform on the reduced image features based on the cross-attention operation to obtain processed image features including the high frequency information representing the texture from the training text prompt, wherein the noise prediction is based on the processed image features;
Claim 14 highlighted elements are vague and indefinite because a cross-attention does not specify what is being cross-attended with the text encoding. Cross-attention inherently operates across two features sets, therefore the cross-attention operation is ambiguous and vague;
“a denoising network configured to generate a noise prediction by performing a cross-attention operation based on the text encoding, and comprising a resolution reduction layer configured to reduce a resolution of the image features at an intermediate stage of the diffusion model using a wavelet transform to obtain reduced image features at a reduced resolution.”
Claim 14 highlighted elements are vague and indefinite because it is unclear how an inverse wavelet transform is related to the cross-attention operation;
“and further comprising an upsampling layer configured to perform an inverse wavelet transform on the reduced image features based on the cross-attention operation to obtain processed image features including the high frequency information representing the texture from the text prompt;
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). 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.
Contact Information
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to KENNY A CESE whose telephone number is (571) 270-1896. The examiner can normally be reached on Monday – Friday, 9am – 4pm.
If attempts to reach the primary examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Gregory Morse can be reached on (571) 272-3838. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is (571) 273-8300.
Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/Kenny A Cese/
Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2663
Prosecution Insights