DETAILED ACTION
This Office action is in response to the Application filed on May 9, 2024, which claims the foreign priority to Korean Patent Application No. 10-2023-0125532, filed on September 20, 2023. An action on the merits follows. Claims 1-20 are pending on the application.
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 .
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 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.
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 1-19 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.
Claim 1 recites the limitation “generating noise images while repeatedly performing noising based on a guide image of a guide domain including the target object” in lines 3-4 of the claim. However, the claimed “guide image” and “guide domain” terms recited in lines 3-4 are not defined by the claims.
Par. [0060-70] of the specification of this application indicate “a guide image x0 and the type of the target object. For example, when the guide image x0 has the property of being a simulation image… the guide image x0 is a simulation image… There may be multiple guide domains (subject domains that guide the denoising of a diffusion model) that may each have their own respective guide images of objects in the respective domains. The guide image x0 may be an image in a guide domain that includes the target object… a guide domain may be a virtual image domain, such as a simulation image. The guide image x0 may be a color image (e.g., an RGB image). As generally described above, noising may be repeatedly performed using the guide image x0 as an original image… guide domain corresponding to a simulation image… the guide image x0 may be a road simulation image.
However, it is not clear if the claimed “guide image” recited in line 4 of the claim encompass embodiments corresponding to “a simulation image”, or if the claimed “guide image” recited in line 4 of the claim encompass embodiments corresponding to “an image in a guide domain that includes the target object”, or if the claimed “guide image” recited in line 4 of the claim encompass embodiments corresponding to “a color image”, or if the claimed “guide image” recited in line 4 of the claim encompass embodiments corresponding to “an original image”, or if the claimed “guide image” recited in line 4 of the claim encompass embodiments corresponding to “a road simulation image” for example. Additionally, it is not clear if the claimed “guide domain” recited in line 4 of the claim encompass embodiments corresponding to “subject domains that guide the denoising of a diffusion model”, or if the claimed “guide domain” recited in line 4 of the claim encompass embodiments corresponding to “a virtual image domain, such as a simulation image”, or if the claimed “guide domain” recited in line 4 of the claim encompass embodiments corresponding to “a simulation image”, for example.
Therefore, based on above, the metes and bounds of the claim are not clearly set forth and the examiner cannot clearly determine which elements are encompassed by the claim language, which renders the claim indefinite.
Claims 2-11 are rejected by virtue of being dependent upon rejected base claim 1.
Claim 12 recites the limitation “generating noise images while repeatedly performing noising based on a guide image of a guide domain including the target object” in lines 5-6 of the claim. However, the claimed “guide image” and “guide domain” terms recited in lines 5-6 are not defined by the claims.
Par. [0060-70] of the specification of this application indicate “a guide image x0 and the type of the target object. For example, when the guide image x0 has the property of being a simulation image… the guide image x0 is a simulation image… There may be multiple guide domains (subject domains that guide the denoising of a diffusion model) that may each have their own respective guide images of objects in the respective domains. The guide image x0 may be an image in a guide domain that includes the target object… a guide domain may be a virtual image domain, such as a simulation image. The guide image x0 may be a color image (e.g., an RGB image). As generally described above, noising may be repeatedly performed using the guide image x0 as an original image… guide domain corresponding to a simulation image… the guide image x0 may be a road simulation image.
However, it is not clear if the claimed “guide image” recited in line 6 of the claim encompass embodiments corresponding to “a simulation image”, or if the claimed “guide image” recited in line 6 of the claim encompass embodiments corresponding to “an image in a guide domain that includes the target object”, or if the claimed “guide image” recited in line 6 of the claim encompass embodiments corresponding to “a color image”, or if the claimed “guide image” recited in line 6 of the claim encompass embodiments corresponding to “an original image”, or if the claimed “guide image” recited in line 6 of the claim encompass embodiments corresponding to “a road simulation image” for example. Additionally, it is not clear if the claimed “guide domain” recited in line 6 of the claim encompass embodiments corresponding to “subject domains that guide the denoising of a diffusion model”, or if the claimed “guide domain” recited in line 6 of the claim encompass embodiments corresponding to “a virtual image domain, such as a simulation image”, or if the claimed “guide domain” recited in line 6 of the claim encompass embodiments corresponding to “a simulation image”, for example.
Therefore, based on above, the metes and bounds of the claim are not clearly set forth and the examiner cannot clearly determine which elements are encompassed by the claim language, which renders the claim indefinite.
Claims 13-19 are rejected by virtue of being dependent upon rejected base claim 12.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 1 and 12 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.
Claim 20 is allowed. The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter: The prior art of record fails to anticipate or render obvious the following limitations as claimed:
In view of claim 20 in its entirety, the further limitations of “… providing a semantically segmented guide image having an area of a target object, the target object having a randomness level associated therewith;
performing noising based on the segmented guide image to generate a final noised image, the noising comprising generating an intermediate noised image corresponding to the randomness level, wherein the final noised image is generated by adding noise to the intermediate noised image;
extracting and saving a region of the intermediate noised image that corresponds to the area of the target object;
inputting the final noised image to a diffusion model which generates, based on the final noised image, a predicted final denoised image, wherein the predicted final denoised image is generated by:
generating, by the diffusion model, an intermediate denoised image corresponding to the randomness level by replacing a region of the intermediate denoised image with the saved region of the intermediate noised image; and
generating, by the diffusion model, the final denoised image based on the intermediate denoised image which includes the saved region of the intermediate noised image” as recited in claim 20.
Contact Information
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to GUILLERMO M RIVERA-MARTINEZ whose telephone number is (571) 272-4979. The examiner can normally be reached on 9 am to 5 pm.
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, Andrew Bee can be reached on 571-270-5183. 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 https://ppair-my.uspto.gov/pair/PrivatePair. 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.
/GUILLERMO M RIVERA-MARTINEZ/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2677