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 .
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claim(s) 1-5, 9, 10, and 15-20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Costin et al. (US 2024/0135611 A1).
Regarding claim 1, Costin discloses a method implemented by one or more processors (Paragraph 0089, processor), the method comprising: receiving user input associated with a client device of a user (Paragraph 0030, user device), the user input including visual content (Paragraph 0047, initial description from a user to generate an original image), and the user input including a request to modify the visual content; (Paragraph 0049, user description on an object to be introduced into the original image for generating a scene image) generating a modified version of the visual content that is responsive to the user input, wherein generating the modified version of the visual content comprises: (Figure 3, process for changing the original image) processing, using a generative model (GM), GM input to generate GM output, the GM input including at least the user input and the visual content; (Paragraphs 0057-0058, diffusion models for editing images using text guidance) and determining, based on the GM output, the modified version of the visual content; (Paragraphs 0077-0078, forming a composite image based on generated edits) and causing the modified version of the visual content to be rendered at the client device (Paragraph 0083, presentation of an image that has been revised).
Regarding claim 2, Costin discloses wherein the visual content includes at least image content (Paragraph 0047, original image).
Regarding claim 3, Costin discloses determining that the request to modify the visual content is a request to modify one or more portions of the image content; (Paragraph 0049, user changes to the original image) and in response to determining that the request is a request to modify one or more of the portions of the image content: determining at least one image seed for the image content that preserves one or more additional portions of the image content that the user did not request be modified (Paragraph 0040, seed value for helping retain features of the previously generated image).
Regarding claim 4, Costin discloses wherein the GM input further includes the at least one image seed, and wherein the GM output preserves the one or more additional portions of the image content that the user did not request be modified based on processing the GM input that further includes the at least one image seed (Paragraph 0040, the seed value helps to retain the features of the previously generated image when the image is subsequently regenerated to account for changes in the scene).
Regarding claim 5, Costin discloses wherein the at least one image seed is a corresponding lower-level representation of the image content (Paragraph 0040, the seed is a numerical value used for the random generation of images).
Regarding claim 9, Costin discloses determining that the request to modify the visual content is a request to add textual content that is related to the image content; (Paragraphs 0042 and 0071, user manipulation to add characters into the scene image) and in response to determining that the request is a request to add textual content that is related to the image content: determining at least one image seed for the image content that preserves the image content (Paragraph 0081, storing the seed to retain characteristics of the original image when manipulations are applied to other portions of the image).
Regarding claim 10, Costin discloses wherein the GM input further includes the at least one image seed, and wherein the GM output preserves the image content based on processing the GM input that further includes the at least one image seed (Paragraph 0081, portions of the image can retain its characteristics using the stored seed while other portions are manipulated during regeneration of the image).
Regarding claim 15, Costin discloses prior to processing the GM input to generate the GM output and using the GM: determining at least one seed for a portion of the visual content based on the request included in the user input, wherein the GM input further includes the one or more seeds for the visual content as the visual content for the GM input (Paragraphs 0039-0040, regenerating images using stored seed values).
Regarding claim 16, Costin discloses wherein processing the GM input to generate the GM output and using the GM comprises: updating, in a learned embedding space, the at least one seed based on the request included in the user input; (Paragraph 0079, user manipulation of the seed to change the image that is regenerated) and processing, using image generation capabilities of the GM or video generation capabilities of the GM, and based on updating the at least one seed in the learned embedding space, the modified version of the visual content as the GM output (Paragraph 0079, changes to texture can be performed by manipulating the seed).
Regarding claim 17, Costin discloses prior to processing the GM input to generate the GM output and using the GM: determining visual content editing instructions for the visual content based on the request included in the user input; (Paragraph 0049, user description on the object to be introduced into the original image for generating the scene image) and determining a bounding box associated with a portion of the visual content that is to be modified or a sequence of bounding boxes associated with portions of the visual content that are to be modified, (Paragraph 0077, bounding box for placing the object into the image) wherein the GM input further includes the visual content editing instructions and the bounding box associated with the portion of the visual content that is to be modified or the sequence of bounding boxes associated with portions of the visual content that are to be modified (Paragraph 0077, adding the object into the scene using the bounding box).
Regarding claim 18, Costin discloses wherein processing the GM input to generate the GM output and using the GM comprises: processing, using image generation capabilities of the GM or video generation capabilities of the GM, the visual content editing instructions to generate a modified portion of the visual content, for the portion of the visual content included in the bounding box, or to generate modified portions of the visual content, for the portions of the visual content included in the sequence of bounding boxes, for the modified version of the visual content as the GM output (Paragraphs 0049 and 0077, the object described by the user is added into the scene using the bounding box).
Regarding claims 19 and 20, similar reasoning as discussed in claim 1 is applied. Furthermore, Costin discloses at least one processor; and memory storing instructions executed by the at least one processor (Paragraph 0194, processors executing instructions stored in memory).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
Claim(s) 6 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Costin et al. (US 2024/0135611 A1) in view of Chen et al. (US 2025/0265829 A1).
Regarding claim 6, Costin discloses all limitations as discussed in claim 5. Costin does not clearly disclose wherein the at least one image seed is a corresponding image embedding in a learned embedding space.
Chen discloses encoding a seed into an embedding that can be used to reconstruct a synthetic image from the embedding (Paragraph 0056).
Chen’s technique of encoding a seed into an embedding that can be used to reconstruct a synthetic image from the embedding would have been recognized by one of ordinary skill in the art to be applicable to the seed used for repeated image generation with modifications of Costin and the results would have been predictable in the encoding of a seed used for repeated image generation with modifications into an embedding that can be used to reconstruct an image. Therefore, the claimed subject matter would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claim(s) 7 and 8 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Costin et al. (US 2024/0135611 A1) in view of Edson (US 2024/0273796 A1).
Regarding claim 7, Costin discloses all limitations as discussed in claim 2. Costin further discloses determining the request to modify the visual content; (Paragraph 0049, various types of manipulations can be made to the original image based on the user’s input) and in response to determining the request is a request to modify one or more of the portions of the image content: determining at least one image seed for the image content that preserves one or more additional portions of the image content that the user did not request be animated (Paragraph 0081, storing the seed value to retain characteristics in the image during regeneration with the manipulations). Costin does not clearly disclose the request is a request to animate one or more portions of the image content; and in response to determining that the request is a request to animate one or more of the portions of the image content: determining at least one image seed for the image content that preserves one or more additional portions of the image content that the user did not request be animated. Edson discloses modifying an image by animating portions of the image (Paragraph 0073). Edson’s technique of modifying an image by animating portions of the image would have been recognized by one of ordinary skill in the art to be applicable to the generative model for regenerating an image from an original image using a stored seed with applied manipulations according to user input of Costin and the results would have been predictable in the regeneration of an image from an original using a stored seed with animation of portions of the original image while retaining some characteristics of the original image. Therefore, the claimed subject matter would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Regarding claim 8, Costin discloses wherein the GM input further includes the at least one image seed, and wherein the GM output preserves the one or more additional portions of the image content that the user did not request be animated based on processing the GM input that further includes the at least one image seed (Paragraph 0081, portions of the image can retain its characteristics using the stored seed while other portions are manipulated during regeneration of the image).
Claim(s) 11 and 12 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Costin et al. (US 2024/0135611 A1) in view of Mann et al. (US 2024/0193890 A1).
Regarding claim 11, Costin discloses all limitations as discussed in claim 1. Costin further discloses determining the request to modify the visual content; (Paragraph 0049, various types of manipulations can be made to the original image based on the user’s input) and in response to determining the request is a request to modify one or more of the portions of the image content: determining at least one image seed for the image content that preserves the image content (Paragraph 0081, storing the seed value to retain characteristics in the image during regeneration with the manipulations). Costin does not clearly disclose the request is a request to add video content that is related to the image content; and in response to determining that the request is a request to add video content that is related to the image content: determining at least one image seed for the image content that preserves the image content. Mann discloses blending video frames with image frames (Paragraph 0068). Mann’s technique of blending video frames with image frames would have been recognized by one of ordinary skill in the art to be applicable to the introduction of objects into images of Costin and the results would have been predictable in the introduction and blending of video frames with portions of the original image using a stored seed that can retain some characteristics of the original image. Therefore, the claimed subject matter would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Regarding claim 12, Costin discloses wherein the GM input further includes the at least one image seed, and wherein the GM output preserves the image content based on processing the GM input that further includes the at least one image seed (Paragraph 0081, portions of the image can retain its characteristics using the stored seed while other portions are manipulated during regeneration of the image).
Claim(s) 13 and 14 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Costin et al. (US 2024/0135611 A1) in view of Tsui et al. (US 2025/0278874 A1).
Regarding claim 13, Costin discloses all limitations as discussed in claim 2. Costin further discloses determining the request to modify the visual content; (Paragraph 0049, various types of manipulations can be made to the original image based on the user’s input) and in response to determining the request is a request to modify one or more of the portions of the image content: determining at least one image seed for the image content that preserves the image content (Paragraph 0081, storing the seed value to retain characteristics in the image during regeneration with the manipulations). Costin does not clearly disclose the request is a request to add audible content that is related to the image content. Tsui discloses generation of a combination of image and audio content (Paragraph 0046). Tsui’s technique of generating a combination of image and audio content would have been recognized by one of ordinary skill in the art to be applicable to the regeneration of an image with modifications using a stored seed that can retain some characteristics of the original image of Costin and the results would have been predictable in the regeneration of the image that is combined with audio data using a stored seed that can retain some characteristics of the image. Therefore, the claimed subject matter would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Regarding claim 14, Costin discloses wherein the GM input further includes the at least one image seed, and wherein the GM output preserves the image content based on processing the GM input that further includes the at least one image seed (Paragraph 0081, portions of the image can retain its characteristics using the stored seed while other portions are manipulated during regeneration of the image).
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Rughwani et al. (US 2025/0117976 A1) discloses a generative ML model for transforming still images.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to PHI HOANG whose telephone number is (571)270-3417. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Fri 8:00-5:00.
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, JASON CHAN can be reached at (571)272-3022. 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.
/PHI HOANG/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2619