DETAILED ACTION
Response to Amendment
Applicant’s amendments filed on 20 January 2026 have been entered. Claims 21, 22, 31, 35, 40 and 41 have been amended. Claims 24 and 25 have been canceled. Claim 42 has been added. Claims 21-23 and 26-42 are still pending in this application, with claims 21, 31, and 40 being independent.
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on 20 January 2026 has been entered.
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 .
Double Patenting
The nonstatutory double patenting rejection is based on a judicially created doctrine grounded in public policy (a policy reflected in the statute) so as to prevent the unjustified or improper timewise extension of the “right to exclude” granted by a patent and to prevent possible harassment by multiple assignees. A nonstatutory double patenting rejection is appropriate where the conflicting claims are not identical, but at least one examined application claim is not patentably distinct from the reference claim(s) because the examined application claim is either anticipated by, or would have been obvious over, the reference claim(s). See, e.g., In re Berg, 140 F.3d 1428, 46 USPQ2d 1226 (Fed. Cir. 1998); In re Goodman, 11 F.3d 1046, 29 USPQ2d 2010 (Fed. Cir. 1993); In re Longi, 759 F.2d 887, 225 USPQ 645 (Fed. Cir. 1985); In re Van Ornum, 686 F.2d 937, 214 USPQ 761 (CCPA 1982); In re Vogel, 422 F.2d 438, 164 USPQ 619 (CCPA 1970); In re Thorington, 418 F.2d 528, 163 USPQ 644 (CCPA 1969).
A timely filed terminal disclaimer in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(c) or 1.321(d) may be used to overcome an actual or provisional rejection based on nonstatutory double patenting provided the reference application or patent either is shown to be commonly owned with the examined application, or claims an invention made as a result of activities undertaken within the scope of a joint research agreement. See MPEP § 717.02 for applications subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA as explained in MPEP § 2159. See MPEP § 2146 et seq. for applications not subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA . A terminal disclaimer must be signed in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(b).
The filing of a terminal disclaimer by itself is not a complete reply to a nonstatutory double patenting (NSDP) rejection. A complete reply requires that the terminal disclaimer be accompanied by a reply requesting reconsideration of the prior Office action. Even where the NSDP rejection is provisional the reply must be complete. See MPEP § 804, subsection I.B.1. For a reply to a non-final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.111(a). For a reply to final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.113(c). A request for reconsideration while not provided for in 37 CFR 1.113(c) may be filed after final for consideration. See MPEP §§ 706.07(e) and 714.13.
The USPTO Internet website contains terminal disclaimer forms which may be used. Please visit www.uspto.gov/patent/patents-forms. The actual filing date of the application in which the form is filed determines what form (e.g., PTO/SB/25, PTO/SB/26, PTO/AIA /25, or PTO/AIA /26) should be used. A web-based eTerminal Disclaimer may be filled out completely online using web-screens. An eTerminal Disclaimer that meets all requirements is auto-processed and approved immediately upon submission. For more information about eTerminal Disclaimers, refer to www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/applying-online/eterminal-disclaimer.
Claim(s) 21-23, 26-29 and 31-40 is/are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-20 of U.S. Patent No. US 11854120 B2. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because both the instant application and the above patent claimed techniques for reducing a distractor object in a first image are presented herein. A system can access a mask and the first image. A distractor object in the first image can be inside a region of interest and can have a pixel with an original attribute. Additionally, the system can process, using a machine-learned inpainting model, the first image and the mask to generate an inpainted image. The pixel of the distractor object in the inpainted image can have an inpainted attribute in chromaticity channels. Moreover, the system can determine a palette transform based on a comparison of the first image and the inpainted image. The transform attribute can be different from the inpainted attribute. Furthermore, the system can process the first image to generate a recolorized image. The pixel in the recolorized image can have a recolorized attribute based on the transform attribute of the palette transform.
Conflicting claim pairs:
Instant Application
Reference Application
21
1, 4-7, 9 & 11
22
9
23
2
26
10
27
12
28
3
29
8
31-40
13-20
Comparison of claims in the instant application vs. Reference Application.
Instant Application
Reference Application
21. (New) A computer-implemented method for reducing a distractor object in an image, the method comprising:
1. A computer-implemented method for reducing a distractor object in a first image, the method comprising:
accessing the image and a mask, the image being in a red-green-blue (RGB) color space, wherein the mask indicates a region of interest associated with the image, and wherein a distractor object is inside the region of interest and has a first pixel with a first RGB value;
accessing, by one or more computing devices, a mask and the first image having the distractor object, wherein the mask indicates a region of interest associated with the first image, and wherein the distractor object is inside the region of interest and has one or more pixels with an original attribute;
processing, using a machine-learned inpainting model, the image and the mask to generate an inpainted image, wherein the first pixel of the distractor object has a first inpainted attribute value in one or more chromaticity channels;
processing, using a machine-learned inpainting model, the first image and the mask to generate an inpainted image, wherein the one or more pixels in the inpainted image has an inpainted attribute in one or more chromaticity channels;
determining a palette transform based a comparison of the first image and the inpainted image, wherein the one or more pixels in the palette transform have a transform attribute in the one or more chromaticity channels, the transform attribute being different than the inpainted attribute; and
modifying, using a voting technique, the first pixel of the distractor object to a second inpainted attribute value in the one or more chromaticity channels,
5. The computer-implemented method of claim 1, wherein the palette transform is generated through performance of a voting technique.
processing the first image to generate a recolorized image, wherein the one or more pixels of the distractor object in the recolorized image has a recolorized attribute based on the transform attribute of the determined palette transform.
the second inpainted attribute value being different than the first inpainted attribute value,
4. The computer-implemented method of claim 1, wherein the recolorized attribute is different from the inpainted attribute.
the voting technique being performed on an area of the inpainted image that is inside a dilated mask; and
7. The computer-implemented method of claim 1, wherein the palette transform is further determined based on a dilated mask, the dilated mask having an expanded region of interest associated with the first image, the expanded region of interest of the dilated mask being larger than the region of interest of the mask.
processing the image to generate a final image in the RGB color space, wherein the first pixel of the distractor object has a second RGB value that is different than the first RGB value, the second RGB value being based on the second inpainted attribute value.
9. The computer-implemented method of claim 1, further comprising:
accessing a raw image, the raw image being in a red-green-blue (RGB) color space; and
processing the raw image to generate the first image, wherein the first image is in a hue- saturation (HS) channels, and wherein a value attribute for each pixel in the first image is kept constant when the raw image is processed to generate the first image.
11. The computer-implemented method of claim 9, wherein the recolorized image is in the hue-saturation (HS) channels, the method further comprising: processing the recolorized image to generate a final image, wherein the final image is in a red-green-blue (RGB) color space.
Instant Application
Reference Application
22. (New) The computer-implemented method of claim 21, wherein the image is a raw image, further comprising:
processing the raw image to generate a first image, wherein the first image is a hue and saturation (HS) channel.
9. The computer-implemented method of claim 1, further comprising:
accessing a raw image, the raw image being in a red-green-blue (RGB) color space; and
processing the raw image to generate the first image, wherein the first image is in a hue- saturation (HS) channels, and wherein a value attribute for each pixel in the first image is kept constant when the raw image is processed to generate the first image.
Instant Application
Reference Application
23. (New) The computer-implemented method of claim 22, further comprising:
processing the first image and the mask to generate a masked image; and
wherein the masked image is inputted into the machine-learned inpainting model to generate the inpainted image.
2. The computer-implemented method of claim 1, processing the first image to generate the inpainted image includes:
processing the first image and the mask to generate a masked image; and
wherein the masked image is inputted into the machine-learned inpainting model to generate the inpainted image.
Instant Application
Reference Application
26. (New) The computer-implemented method of claim 22, wherein the raw image is a high-resolution image, and the first image is a low-resolution image.
10. The computer-implemented method of claim 9, wherein the raw image is a high- resolution image, and a version of the first image that is processed by the machine-learned inpainting model is a low-resolution image.
Instant Application
Reference Application
27. (New) The computer-implemented method of claim 21, wherein the final image is a high-resolution image, and the inpainted image is low-resolution image.
12. The computer-implemented method of claim 11, wherein the recolorized image is a high-resolution image, and the inpainted image is low-resolution image.
Instant Application
Reference Application
28. (New) The computer-implemented method of claim 21, wherein the one or more chromaticity channels comprise hue and saturation (HS) channels.
3. The computer-implemented method of claim 1, wherein the one or more chromaticity channels comprise hue and saturation (HS) channels, and wherein a value attribute for each pixel in the original image, the inpainted image, and the recolorized image is kept constant.
Instant Application
Reference Application
29. (New) The computer-implemented method of claim 21, wherein the machine- learned inpainting model is trained using hue and saturation (HS) training data.
8. The computer-implemented method of claim 1, wherein the machine-learned inpainting model is trained using hue and saturation (HS) training data.
Regarding Claim(s) 31-40, the reference application teaches the limitation of claim(s) 13-20 for the same reason as described in above claims.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 21-23 and 26-42 are allowed.
The following is an examiner’s statement of reasons for allowance:
Regarding Claim 21, TANG in view of Kumar, Shechtman and Dorner teaches a computer-implemented method for reducing a distractor object in an image, the method comprising:
accessing the image and a mask, the image being in a red-green-blue (RGB) color space, wherein the mask indicates a region of interest associated with the image, and wherein a distractor object is inside the region of interest and has a first pixel with a first RGB value;
processing, using a machine-learned inpainting model, the image and the mask to generate an inpainted image, wherein the first pixel of the distractor object has a first inpainted attribute value in one or more chromaticity channels;
modifying, using a voting technique, the first pixel of the distractor object to a second inpainted attribute value in the one or more chromaticity channels, the second inpainted attribute value being different than the first inpainted attribute value, the voting technique being performed on an area of the inpainted image that is inside a dilated mask; and
processing the image to generate a final image in the RGB color space, wherein the first pixel of the distractor object has a second RGB value that is different than the first RGB value, the second RGB value being based on the second inpainted attribute value.
When considering claim 21 as a whole, however, the prior art does not teach
" the dilated mask having an expanded region of interest associated with the inpainted image, the expanded region of interest of the dilated mask being larger than the region of interest of the mask." Therefore, in the context of claim 21 as a whole is allowable.
Claims 31 and 40 are allowable for the same reason as above.
The corresponding dependent claims are therefore allowable by virtue of their dependencies.
Any comments considered necessary by applicant must be submitted no later than the payment of the issue fee and, to avoid processing delays, should preferably accompany the issue fee. Such submissions should be clearly labeled “Comments on Statement of Reasons for Allowance.”
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments, see page 7, filed on 20 January 2026, with respect to claims 25 and 35 have been fully considered and are persuasive. The objection of 18 October 2025 has been withdrawn.
Applicant’s arguments, see page 7, filed on 20 January 2026, with respect to claims 21-23 and 26-41 have been fully considered and are persuasive. The 103 rejection of 18 October 2025 has been withdrawn.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Samantha (Yuehan) Wang whose telephone number is (571)270-5011. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday, 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, King Poon can be reached on (571)272-7440. 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.
/Samantha (YUEHAN) WANG/
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 2617