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
Received 05/19/2026
Claim(s) 1, 3-17, and 19-20 are pending.
Claim(s) 1, 17, and 20 have been amended.
Claim(s) 2 and 18 have been cancelled.
The 35 U.S.C § 103 rejection to claim(s) 1, 3-17, and 19-20 have been withdrawn in view of the amendments received on 05/19/2026.
Response to Arguments
Received 05/19/2026
Regarding independent claim(s) 1, 17, and 20:
Applicant’s arguments (Remarks; Page 7: ¶ 3-4), filed 05/19/2026, with respect to the rejection(s) of claim(s) 1, 17, and 20 under 35 U.S.C § 103 have been fully considered and are persuasive. Therefore, the rejection has been withdrawn, necessitated by Applicant's amendments.
Regarding dependent claims 3-5, 6-9, 10-16, and 19:
Applicant’s arguments (Remarks, Page 8: ¶ 1), filed 05/19/2026, with respect to the rejection(s) of claim(s) 3-5, 6-9, 10-16, and 19 under 35 U.S.C § 103 have been fully considered and are persuasive due the dependency upon claims 1, 17, and 20 respectively. Wherein, the amendment overcomes the applied prior art. Therefore, the rejection has been withdrawn, necessitated by Applicant's amendments.
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, 3-17, 19, and 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.
Claims 1, 17, and 20 recites the limitation "the specified style intensity level" in line 19. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
The Examiner suggests amending the subject matter of receiving an input specifying a prompt that includes (i) a descriptor, and (ii) [[an]]a style intensity level.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 1, 3-17, and 19-20 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.
Wherein:
Tomioka et al. (US PGPUB No. 20190130216 A1) teaches learning models being trained with images. However, Tomioka et al. fails to disclose for each respective image cluster: generating a respective set of instances of the generative machine-learning model based on the training images in the image cluster, the generating comprising: for each of a set of intensity levels, generating a respective instance of the generative machine-learning model by conditioning the generative machine-learning model based on (i) the image cluster and (ii) a respective embedding size determined from the respective intensity level; and generating an output image using the generated instances of the generative machine-learning model, the generating comprising: receiving an input specifying a prompt that includes (i) a descriptor, and (ii) an style intensity level; selecting one of the instances of the generative machine-learning model based on the specified descriptor and the specified style intensity level; and using the selected instance of the generative machine-learning model to generate the output image.
Denney et al. (US PGPUB No. 20220335631 A1) teaches using training images within a model. Even further, Denney et al. teaches predictive model that predict intensity values within images. However, Denney et al. fails to disclose for each respective image cluster: generating a respective set of instances of the generative machine-learning model based on the training images in the image cluster, the generating comprising: for each of a set of intensity levels, generating a respective instance of the generative machine-learning model by conditioning the generative machine-learning model based on (i) the image cluster and (ii) a respective embedding size determined from the respective intensity level; and generating an output image using the generated instances of the generative machine-learning model, the generating comprising: receiving an input specifying a prompt that includes (i) a descriptor, and (ii) an style intensity level; selecting one of the instances of the generative machine-learning model based on the specified descriptor and the specified style intensity level; and using the selected instance of the generative machine-learning model to generate the output image.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure: (regarding diffusion models, image based training, and prompts)
Diesendruck et al. (US PGPUB No. 20240193911 A1); and
Maschmeyer et al. (US PGPUB No. 20240161258 A1).
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Refer to PTO-892, Notice of Reference Cited for a listing of analogous art.
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.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Charles Lloyd Beard whose telephone number is (571)272-5735. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday, 8:00 AM - 5: 00 PM, alternate Fridays 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, Tammy Goddard can be reached at (571) 272-7773. 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.
CHARLES LLOYD. BEARD
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 2611
/CHARLES L BEARD/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2611
Prosecution Insights