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 5/5/2026 has been entered and made of record.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments with respect to claims 1, 21, 22 have been considered but are moot in view of the new grounds of rejection.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) filed on 5/29/2026 was considered and placed on the file of record by the examiner.
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, 21, 22 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 2-8, 10-19 are rejected based on their dependency that do not overcome the indefiniteness.
The following claim 1 (and claims 21, 22) highlighted elements are vague and indefinite because it is not clear how “the source domain content representations and the target domain style representations” are updated. The term “objective” is not clear. It is not clear how does an objective designed to make new style representations different apply to updating existing content and style representations. In addition, updating is very board and does not specify the process or mechanism;
“generating multiple new style representations with an objective that the multiple new style representations are different from each other, are different from both source domain style representations of the source domain images and the target domain style representations, and that images generated by combining the multiple new style representations and the source domain content representations are semantically consistent with the source domain images and updating the source domain content representations and the target domain style representations with the same objective.”
The following claim 1 (and claims 21, 22) are vague and indefinite because the phrase “semantically consistent with the source domain images” is highly functional and subjective. It is not clear how semantic consistency is measured in the context of the claims. The claim terms are result-oriented claim terms that describe the outcome/effect rather than the means or structure by which it is achieved. The claims are not sufficiently clear to define the scope of the claims.
The term “different” in claims 1, 21, 22 is a relative term which renders the claim indefinite. The term “different” 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. The following claim limitation is vague and indefinite “generating multiple new style representations with an objective that the multiple new style representations are different from each other, are different from both source domain style representations of the source domain images and the target domain style representations, and that images generated by combining the multiple new style representations and the source domain content representations are semantically consistent with the source domain images and updating the source domain content representations and the target domain style representations with the same objective.”
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