DETAILED ACTION
Response to Arguments
Applicant has amended the claims in response to the grounds of rejection set forth in the prior Office action. However, after further consideration, new grounds of rejection are provided herein below. Applicant’s arguments have been considered but are moot because the new grounds of rejection herein below do not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejections of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument.
Claim Interpretation
Claim 15 recites “. . . wherein the processor is comprised in at least one of . . .” followed by various systems claimed in the alternative. Those alternatives that recite “a system for . . .” are recited as an intended use instead of additional structure. Therefore, those limitations do not carry patentable weight. See MPEP 2114.
Claim 20 recites “. . . wherein the system comprises at least one of . . .” followed by various systems claimed in the alternative. Those alternatives that recite “a system for . . .” are recited as an intended use instead of additional structure. Therefore, those limitations do not carry patentable weight. See MPEP 2114.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(d):
(d) REFERENCE IN DEPENDENT FORMS.—Subject to subsection (e), a claim in dependent form shall
contain a reference to a claim previously set forth and then specify a further limitation of the subject matter claimed. A claim in dependent form shall be construed to incorporate by reference all the limitations of the claim to which it refers.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, fourth paragraph:
Subject to the following paragraph [i.e., the fifth paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112], a claim in dependent form shall contain a reference to a claim previously set forth and then specify a further limitation of the subject matter claimed. A claim in dependent form shall be construed to incorporate by reference all the limitations of the claim to which it refers.
Claim(s) 15 and 20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(d) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, 4th paragraph, as being of improper dependent form for failing to further limit the subject matter of the claim upon which it depends, or for failing to include all the limitations of the claim upon which it depends. Since some alternatives identified in the Claim Interpretation section herein above do not carry patentable weight, then claims 15 and 20 fail to further limit claims 8 and 16 upon which they depend, respectively, for at least those alternatives. Applicant may cancel the claim(s), amend the claim(s) to place the claim(s) in proper dependent form, rewrite the claim(s) in independent form, or present a sufficient showing that the dependent claim(s) complies with the statutory requirements.
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.
Claim 4, 11, and 19 is/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.
The term “proximate” in the claims is a relative term which renders the claim indefinite. The term “proximate” is not defined by the claim, the specification does not provide a standard for ascertaining the requisite degree, and one of ordinary skill in the art would not be reasonably apprised of the scope of the invention. Those of ordinary skill in the art would disagree as to which pixel locations would be proximate and which would not be proximate. It is unclear exactly how close the pixel location would have to be for one of ordinary skill in the art to clearly understand a given pixel location is proximate or not proximate without an objective standard.
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.
Claim(s) 1, 3-8, 10-16, and 18-20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to the abstract idea of mathematical calculations without significantly more.
Regarding claim 1, the claim(s) recite(s) receiving, as output of the generative diffusion model, a second image of the object including one or more defects to the object are mathematical calculations. This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application because the removing, providing, and blending steps are insignificant extra-solution activities and/or are well-understood, routine, and conventional. Official Notice is taken of the version of Adobe Photoshop before the effective filing date. The broadest reasonable interpretation of the removing step is a standard feature of Adobe Photoshop using various paint and/or copying tools. The providing step is mere data gathering of inputting the image into the model. The broadest reasonable interpretation of the blending step is a standard feature of Adobe Photoshop where the object/texture is a background layer, followed by the text/semantics in the next layer, and then the defects on the foremost layer. The claimed computer amounts to a generic computer component for implementing the judicial exception. The claim(s) does/do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception for the same reasons, and this combination of steps is not unconventional.
Claims 8 and 16 are rejected under the same analysis as claim 1 above. Their claim scope is broader than claim 1 except for the claim limitations involving the system, processors, and circuits that amount to generic computer components for implementing the judicial exception.
Claim 3 recites features that are insignificant extra-solution activities amounting to data gathering for the mathematical calculations.
Claim 10 and 18 are rejected under the same analysis as claim 3 above.
Claim 4 recites features that are insignificant extra-solution activities and/or are well-understood, routine, and conventional. Official Notice is taken of Adobe Acrobat before the effective filing date. The broadest reasonable interpretation of the identifying step is a standard feature in Adobe Acrobat to OCR images to extract text. The broadest reasonable interpretation of the removing step is a standard feature of Adobe Photoshop using various paint and/or copying tools.
Claims 11 and 19 is rejected under the same analysis as claim 4 above.
Claim 5 recites features that are insignificant extra-solution activities and/or are well-understood, routine, and conventional. The broadest reasonable interpretation of the blending step is a standard feature of Adobe Photoshop where the object/texture is a background layer, followed by the text/semantics in the next layer, and then the defects on the foremost layer. If the same exact text/semantics are added back into the images, then the semantic meaning is unchanged.
Claim 12 is rejected under the same analysis as claim 5 above.
Claim 6 recites features that are insignificant extra-solution activities and/or are well-understood, routine, and conventional. The broadest reasonable interpretation of the blending step is a standard feature of Adobe Photoshop where the object/texture is a background layer, followed by the text/semantics in the next layer, and then the defects on the foremost layer where Adobe Photoshop provides blending weights for the layers to achieve a weighted average.
Claim 13 is rejected under the same analysis as claim 6 above.
Claim 7 recites features that are insignificant extra-solution activities and/or are well-understood, routine, and conventional. The broadest reasonable interpretation of the blending step is a standard feature of Adobe Photoshop where the object/texture is a background layer, followed by the text/semantics in the next layer, and then the defects on the foremost layer where Adobe Photoshop provides blending weights for the layers to achieve a weighted average.
Claim 14 is rejected under the same analysis as claim 7 above.
Claims 15 and 20 recite features that are insignificant extra-solution activities and/or amount to generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technology or field of use.
Conclusion
Pertinent prior art:
Sharma et al., US 2021/0201474 A1, discloses combining synthetically-generated images of defects with the one or more images (see Sharma Abstract), but does not disclose using a diffusion model.
WO-2024242633-A1 discloses generating a text image using a diffusion generative model and noise data (see Abstract), but does not disclose the removal, defects, and blending.
Zhu Y, Li Z, Wang T, He M, Yao C. Conditional Text Image Generation with Diffusion Models. arXiv preprint arXiv:2306.10804. 2023 Jun 19, discloses text image generation and augmentation using diffusion models (see Abstract and Figures 3 and 4), but does not disclose the removal, defects, and blending.
Liu W, Liu C, Liu Q, Yu D. Assigned MURA Defect Generation Based on Diffusion Model. In2023 IEEE/CVF Conference on Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition Workshops (CVPRW) 2023 Jun 17 (pp. 4395-4402). IEEE, discloses using a generative diffusion model to generate display defects in images (see Liu Abstract), but would not be obvious to combine with the current and previously cited prior art as the defects are very specific to a type of display defect.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ANDREW M MOYER whose telephone number is (571)272-9523. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 9-5 EST.
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, Matthew Sked can be reached at (571) 272-7627. 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.
/ANDREW M. MOYER/
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 6221
/ANDREW M MOYER/ Primary Examiner
Prosecution Insights