DETAILED ACTION
Preliminary Remarks
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Priority
Acknowledgment is made of applicant's claim for foreign priority under 35 U.S.C. 119(a)-(d). The certified copy has been filed in the pending application.
Election/Restriction
Applicant’s election without traverse of Group I, claims 1-11 and 13-20 in the reply filed on 04/20/26 is acknowledged.
Claim 12 is withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b) as being drawn to a nonelected Group II. Election was made without traverse in the reply filed on 04/20/26. The cancellation of claim 12 is noted.
Specification
Applicant is reminded of the proper language and format for an abstract of the disclosure.
The abstract should be in narrative form and generally limited to a single paragraph on a separate sheet within the range of 50 to 150 words. It is important that the abstract not exceed 150 words in length since the space provided for the abstract on the computer tape used by the printer is limited. The form and legal phraseology often used in patent claims, such as "means" and "said," should be avoided. The abstract should describe the disclosure sufficiently to assist readers in deciding whether there is a need for consulting the full patent text for details.
The language should be clear and concise and should not repeat information given in the title. It should avoid using phrases which can be implied, such as, "The disclosure concerns," "The disclosure defined by this invention," "The disclosure describes," etc.
The abstract comprises the phrase, “A method and server…are provided” (see lines 1-2) which can be implied and therefore should be omitted.
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 1-11 and 13-20 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.
In reference to claims 1 and 13, these claims comprise the phrase, “…fine-tuning a generative machine-learning model (GMLM)…to generate more visually appealing images of the objects…feeding…the plurality of training digital objects to the GMLM, thereby fine-tuning the GMLM to generate the more visually appealing images of the objects,” (see for example the preamble and last 2 lines of claim 1). These limitations lead to indefiniteness in the claims since it is unclear as to whether any actual “generation of images” is performed or whether the actual recited elements of the claim are solely setup to “train” the “model” without positively performing image generation. Such uncertainty creates a failure to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention. Further, this issue could lead to potential 35 USC 101 subject matter eligibility concerns pending Applicant’s response this Office Action. Lastly note, claims 2-11 and 14-20 depend upon affected claims 1 and 13 respectively and are therefore also, at least inherently, included in the rejection.
In reference to claims 1 and 13, these claims comprise the phrase, “…generate(ing) a set of image candidates of the object…” (see for example lines 14-15 of claim 1) however, the claims refer back to multiple “objects” e.g. in the preamble to “generate images of objects” and “a testing object” in the “receive(ing)…” element of the claims, respectively. In order to maintain proper antecedent basis, the claims should clarify which “object” “the object” is referring thereto. Currently it is undiscernible to one of ordinary skill in the art as to what exactly Applicant is trying to recite therefore creating indefiniteness in the claim and creating insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the respective claims. Note, claims 2-11 and 14-20 depend upon affected claims 1 and 13 respectively and are therefore also, at least inherently, included in the rejection.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 1 and 13 would be allowable if rewritten or amended to overcome the rejection(s) under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), 2nd paragraph, set forth in this Office action. The Examiner makes note of a term/concept which, in combination and integration with the other limitations of the claims, is seen as the major novel aspect of the invention and which was not found in the prior art of record. The Examiner makes note of the term/concept generating, by a server, a training set of data, the training set of data including a plurality of training digital objects, a given training digital object of which includes: (i) a given textual description of the testing object; (ii) a given image candidate determined by pairwise comparisons via human assessors; and (iii) a respective degree of visual appeal associated therewith; and feeding, by the server, the plurality of training digital objects to the GMLM, thereby fine-tuning the GMLM to generate the more visually appealing images of the objects.
References Cited
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure:
Pavlichenko et al. (U.S. Publication 2022/0374770)
Pavlichenko et al. discloses a method and system for generating a training dataset. Note, the Examiner acknowledges this application is by the same inventive entity as the application at hand.
Karpman et al. (U.S. 11,995,803)
Karpman et al. discloses a method of training and deployment of image generation models.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Antonio Caschera whose telephone number is (571) 272-7781. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday between 6:30 AM and 2:30 PM EST.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner's supervisor, Said Broome, can be reached at (571) 272-2931.
Any response to this action should be mailed to:
Mail Stop ____________
Commissioner for Patents
P.O. Box 1450
Alexandria, VA 22313-1450
or faxed to:
571-273-8300 (Central Fax)
See the listing of “Mail Stops” at http://www.uspto.gov/patents/mail.jsp and include the appropriate designation in the address above.
Any inquiry of a general nature or relating to the status of this application or proceeding should be directed to the Technology Center 2600 Customer Service Office whose telephone number is (571) 272-2600.
/Antonio A Caschera/
Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2612
5/13/26
Prosecution Insights