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 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)(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.
Claims 1, 5-6, 9-10, 14, 17-18 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Wang et al. (US011233920Bl, hereinafter “Wang”).
Regarding claim 1, Wang teaches receiving an input specifying an update to a dimension of the digital image (read in Column 4, Line 15-29).
PNG
media_image1.png
318
493
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Wang further teaches segmenting, by the processing device using a machine learning model, a foreground object from a background in the digital image (read in Figure 4 below).
PNG
media_image2.png
809
523
media_image2.png
Greyscale
See also (Column 10, Line 58-67) for using a machine learning model to accomplish this segmentation.
PNG
media_image3.png
212
492
media_image3.png
Greyscale
Wang further teaches generating a re-dimensioned background by changing the background based on the update to the dimension specified by the input (read in Figure 5).
PNG
media_image4.png
610
794
media_image4.png
Greyscale
Wang further teaches generating a re-dimensioned digital image by positioning the foreground object over the re-dimensioned background (read in Column 22, Line 36-44).
PNG
media_image5.png
234
500
media_image5.png
Greyscale
Wang further teaches displaying, by the processing device, the re-dimensioned digital image in a user interface (met by displaying the document with the modified document layout). This is read in (Column 8, Line 45).
PNG
media_image6.png
379
420
media_image6.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 5, Wang further teaches tagging and assigning a bounding box to the foreground object using the machine learning model (met by the layout-modification application generates a bounding region surrounding the document element). This is read in (Column 9, Lines 25-27).
PNG
media_image7.png
344
421
media_image7.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 6, Wang further teaches re-sizing the foreground object based on dimensions of the re-dimensioned background (met by transformation rules include resizing or repositioning operations that are applied to transform the document element). This is read in (Column 4, Line 62-67).
PNG
media_image8.png
113
425
media_image8.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 9, Wang further teaches wherein the foreground object is a logo or text depicted in the digital image (met by foreground element that depicts a brand logo). This is read in (Column 4, Line 4-6).
PNG
media_image9.png
273
419
media_image9.png
Greyscale
Regarding independent claim 10, the claim is substantially identical to claim 1 except for different statutory category, the analysis of which is incorporated herein.
Regarding claim 14, the claim is substantially identical to claim 6 except for different statutory category, the analysis of which is incorporated herein.
Regarding claim 17, the claim is substantially identical to claim 1 except for different statutory category, the analysis of which is incorporated herein.
Regarding claim 18, the claim is substantially identical to claim 6 except for different statutory category , the analysis of which is incorporated herein.
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.
Claims 2, 11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wang in view of Feng et al. (US20240311960A1, hereinafter “Feng”).
Regarding claim 2, Wang fails to teach filling in an extended portion of the re-dimensioned background in the re-dimensioned digital image using the machine learning model. However, Feng amends this deficiency.
Feng teaches a machine learning based method of re-dimensioning an image by generating image data to extend the aspect ratio of the image. See (Figure 9).
PNG
media_image10.png
602
865
media_image10.png
Greyscale
Therefore, it would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Wang to incorporate the teachings of Feng in order to provide adjustment an aspect ratio of an image to match the aspect ratio of a display area for presenting the image (Abstract).
Regarding claim 11, the claim is substantially identical to claim 2 except for different statutory category, the analysis of which is incorporated herein.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 3-4, 7-8, 12-13, 15-16, 19-20 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.
Contact
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MATTHEW JAMES BODNARK whose telephone number is (703)756-5378. The examiner can normally be reached 8a-5p.
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.
/MATTHEW JAMES BODNARK/ Examiner, Art Unit 2668
/VU LE/ Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2668