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
The objections to specifications based on improper label configurations and missing labeling across multiple figures have been withdrawn in view of Applicant's amendments filed 04/23/2026
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.
Claim 20 recites the limitation "the second set of options" and was not introduced prior nor has it been introduced in the dependent claim. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 6 recites the limitation "The computer apparatus of claim 6" and cannot reference itself. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
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) 1-3, 9-10, and 16-17 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Singh et al. (U.S. Pub. No. 2024/0135511).
Regarding claim 1, Singh discloses a computing apparatus (Fig. 82, 8200; also, paragraph 837, line(s) 4-5 "FIG. 82 shows the scene-based image editing system 106 implemented by a computing device 8200") comprising: one or more computer readable storage media; one or more processors operatively coupled with the one or more computer readable storage media (Fig. 82, also, paragraph 843, line(s) 3-5 "the components 8202-8216 include one or more instructions stored on a computer-readable storage medium and executable by processors"); and program instructions stored on the one or more computer readable storage media that, when executed by the one or more processors (Fig. 82, also, paragraph 843, line(s) 3-5 "the components 8202-8216 include one or more instructions stored on a computer-readable storage medium and executable by processors"), direct the computing apparatus to at least: receive an image generated by a generative artificial intelligence (AI) model in response to a prompt (paragraph 3, line(s) 3-10 "non-transitory computer-readable media that implement artificial intelligence models to facilitate flexible and efficient scene-based image editing. To illustrate, in one or more embodiments, a system utilizes one or more machine learning models to learn/identify characteristics of a digital image, anticipate potential edits to the digital image, and/or generate supplementary components that are usable in various edits"; also, paragraph 3, line(s) 24-26 "system utilizes various generative models and various instances of artificial intelligence to generate modified digital images or animations"; also, paragraph 393, line(s) "the scene-based image editing system 106 provides a prompt for entry of textual user input.") wherein the prompt includes a natural language request from a user (paragraph 393, line(s) 11-12 "the scene-based image editing system 106 provides a prompt for entry of textual user input"; also, paragraph 583, line(s) 7-9 "106 provides an option to the user of the client device to query a portion to be selected (via a selection or a natural language input)."; also, paragraph 584, line(s) 5-7 "the scene-based image editing system 106 can utilize the segmentation machine learning model 4404 to analyze user inputs (e.g., clicks, drawings, outlines, or natural language)"); display the image on an image canvas, wherein of the image comprises multiple segments identified by a segmentation model (Fig. 3, 318-324, 326; also, paragraph 8, line(s) 1 "FIG. 3 illustrates a segmentation neural network utilized by the scene-based image editing system to generate object masks for objects in accordance with one or more embodiments"; also, paragraph 159, line(s) 8-9 "To illustrate, FIG. 3 shows a label 318 for woman, a label 320 for bird, and a label 322 for man"); display a context menu of having options for editing the image based on a selection of a segment of the image by the user (Fig. 8B, 814; also, paragraph 246, line(s) 1-12 "As further illustrated, based on detecting the user interaction for selecting the object 808d, the scene-based image editing system 106 provides an option menu 814 for display via the graphical user interface 802. The option menu 814 shown in FIG. 8B provides a plurality of options, though the option menu includes various numbers of options in various embodiments. For instance, in some implementations, the option menu 814 includes one or more curated options, such as options determined to be popular or used with the most frequency. For example, as shown in FIG. 8B, the option menu 814 includes an option 816 to delete the object 808d"); and configure the options based on selections of the segments by the user (paragraph 397, line(s) 1-12, “FIGS. 20A-20C illustrate another graphical user interface implemented by the scene-based image editing system 106 to facilitate modifying object attributes of objects portrayed in a digital image in accordance with one or more embodiments. As shown in FIG. 20A, the scene-based image editing system 106 provides a digital image 2006 portraying an object 2008 for display within a graphical user interface 2002 of a client device 2004. Further, upon detecting a user interaction with the object 2008, the scene-based image editing system 106 provides an attribute menu 2010 having attribute object indicators 2012a-2012c listing object attributes of the object 2008.”; also, paragraph 401, line(s) 1-12, “FIGS. 21A-21C illustrate another graphical user interface implemented by the scene-based image editing system 106 to facilitate modifying object attributes of objects portrayed in a digital image in accordance with one or more embodiments. As shown in FIG. 21A, the scene-based image editing system 106 provides a digital image 2106 portraying an object 2108 for display within a graphical user interface 2102 of a client device 2104. Further, upon detecting a user interaction with the object 2108, the scene-based image editing system 106 provides an attribute menu 2110 having attribute object indicators 2112a-2012c listing object attributes of the object 2108”).
Regarding claim 2, Singh discloses a computing apparatus of claim 1, wherein to configure the options based on the selections of the segments by the user, the program instructions direct the computing apparatus to include a first set of options when no segments are selected, and to include a second set of options when one segment is selected, wherein the first set of options differs from the second set of options (paragraph 236, line(s) 7-11, “it should be understood that the graphical user interface 802 displays at least some menus, options, or other visual elements in various embodiments—at least when the digital image 806 is initially displayed.”; also, paragraph 246, line(s) 1-4, “As further illustrated, based on detecting the user interaction for selecting the object 808d, the scene-based image editing system 106 provides an option menu 814 for display via the graphical user interface 802.”; also, paragraph 397, line(s) 9-12, “the scene-based image editing system 106 provides an attribute menu 2010 having attribute object indicators 2012a-2012c listing object attributes of the object 2008.”; also, paragraph 401, line(s) 9-12, “the scene-based image editing system 106 provides an attribute menu 2110 having attribute object indicators 2112a-2012c listing object attributes of the object 2108”).
Regarding claim 3, Singh discloses a computing apparatus of claim 2, wherein the first set of options comprises options for editing the image as a whole, and wherein the second set of options comprises options for editing just the one segment (paragraph 531, line(s) 1-10, “the scene-based image editing system 106 provides options to generate the modified digital image 4012 within a user interface. For instance, the scene-based image editing system 106 provides client devices with more flexibility and controllability during editing. The user interface has various options to indicate the type of modification (e.g., expanding the digital image or removing an object) and the scene-based image editing system 106 further provides customizable options for modifying the digital image 4002.”; also, paragraph 246, line(s) 11-12, “the option menu 814 includes an option 816 to delete the object 808d”; also, paragraph 397, line(s) 9-12, “the scene-based image editing system 106 provides an attribute menu 2010 having attribute object indicators 2012a-2012c listing object attributes of the object 2008”).
Regarding claim 9, Singh discloses the method of method of operating a computing device (Fig. 1; also, Fig. 2, 200; also, paragraph 133, line(s) "the scene-based image editing system 106 operates on a computing device 200")comprising: receiving an image generated by a generative artificial intelligence (AI) model in response to a prompt (paragraph 3, line(s) 24-26 "system utilizes various generative models and various instances of artificial intelligence to generate modified digital images or animations"; also, paragraph 393, line(s) 11-12 "the scene-based image editing system 106 provides a prompt for entry of textual user input."), wherein the prompt includes a natural language request from a user (paragraph 393, line(s) 11-12 "the scene-based image editing system 106 provides a prompt for entry of textual user input"; also, paragraph 583, line(s) 7-9 "106 provides an option to the user of the client device to query a portion to be selected (via a selection or a natural language input)."); displaying the image on an image canvas, wherein of the image comprises multiple segments identified by a segmentation model (Fig. 3, 318-324, 326; also, paragraph 8, line(s) 1 "FIG. 3 illustrates a segmentation neural network utilized by the scene-based image editing system to generate object masks for objects in accordance with one or more embodiments"; also, paragraph 159, line(s) 8-9 "To illustrate, FIG. 3 shows a label 318 for woman, a label 320 for bird, and a label 322 for man"); displaying a context menu having options for editing the image (paragraph 246, line(s) 1-5, “As further illustrated, based on detecting the user interaction for selecting the object 808d, the scene-based image editing system 106 provides an option menu 814 for display via the graphical user interface 802. The option menu 814 shown in FIG. 8B provides a plurality of options”); and configuring the options based on selections of the segments by the user (paragraph 397, line(s) 1-12, “FIGS. 20A-20C illustrate another graphical user interface implemented by the scene-based image editing system 106 to facilitate modifying object attributes of objects portrayed in a digital image in accordance with one or more embodiments. As shown in FIG. 20A, the scene-based image editing system 106 provides a digital image 2006 portraying an object 2008 for display within a graphical user interface 2002 of a client device 2004. Further, upon detecting a user interaction with the object 2008, the scene-based image editing system 106 provides an attribute menu 2010 having attribute object indicators 2012a-2012c listing object attributes of the object 2008.”; also, paragraph 401, line(s) 1-12, “FIGS. 21A-21C illustrate another graphical user interface implemented by the scene-based image editing system 106 to facilitate modifying object attributes of objects portrayed in a digital image in accordance with one or more embodiments. As shown in FIG. 21A, the scene-based image editing system 106 provides a digital image 2106 portraying an object 2108 for display within a graphical user interface 2102 of a client device 2104. Further, upon detecting a user interaction with the object 2108, the scene-based image editing system 106 provides an attribute menu 2110 having attribute object indicators 2112a-2012c listing object attributes of the object 2108”).
Regarding claim 10, Singh discloses a method of claim 9, wherein configuring the options based on the selections of the segments by the user comprises: including a first set of options when no segments are selected; and including a second set of options when one segment is selected; wherein the first set of options comprises options for editing the image as a whole, and wherein the second set of options comprises options for editing just the one segment (paragraph 236, line(s) 7-11, “it should be understood that the graphical user interface 802 displays at least some menus, options, or other visual elements in various embodiments—at least when the digital image 806 is initially displayed.”; also, paragraph 246, line(s) 11-12, “the option menu 814 includes an option 816 to delete the object 808d”; also, paragraph 531, line(s) 1-10, “the scene-based image editing system 106 provides options to generate the modified digital image 4012 within a user interface. For instance, the scene-based image editing system 106 provides client devices with more flexibility and controllability during editing. The user interface has various options to indicate the type of modification (e.g., expanding the digital image or removing an object) and the scene-based image editing system 106 further provides customizable options for modifying the digital image 4002.”; also, paragraph 397, line(s) 9-12, “the scene-based image editing system 106 provides an attribute menu 2010 having attribute object indicators 2012a-2012c listing object attributes of the object 2008.”).
Regarding claim 16, Singh discloses one or more computer readable storage media having program instructions stored thereon that, when executed by one or more processors, direct a computing apparatus (Fig. 82, also, paragraph 843, line(s) 3-5 "the components 8202-8216 include one or more instructions stored on a computer-readable storage medium and executable by processors") to at least: receive an image generated by a generative artificial intelligence (AI) model in response to a prompt (paragraph 3, line(s) 3-10 "non-transitory computer-readable media that implement artificial intelligence models to facilitate flexible and efficient scene-based image editing. To illustrate, in one or more embodiments, a system utilizes one or more machine learning models to learn/identify characteristics of a digital image, anticipate potential edits to the digital image, and/or generate supplementary components that are usable in various edits"; also, paragraph 3, line(s) 24-26 "system utilizes various generative models and various instances of artificial intelligence to generate modified digital images or animations"; also, paragraph 393, line(s) 11-12 "the scene-based image editing system 106 provides a prompt for entry of textual user input."), wherein the prompt includes a natural language request from a user (paragraph 393, line(s) 11-12 "the scene-based image editing system 106 provides a prompt for entry of textual user input"; also, paragraph 583, line(s) 7-9 "106 provides an option to the user of the client device to query a portion to be selected (via a selection or a natural language input)."; also, paragraph 584, line(s) 5-7 "the scene-based image editing system 106 can utilize the segmentation machine learning model 4404 to analyze user inputs (e.g., clicks, drawings, outlines, or natural language)"); display the image on an image canvas, wherein of the image comprises multiple segments identified by a segmentation model (Fig. 3, 318-324, 326; also, paragraph 8, line(s) 1 "FIG. 3 illustrates a segmentation neural network utilized by the scene-based image editing system to generate object masks for objects in accordance with one or more embodiments"; also, paragraph 159, line(s) 8-9 "To illustrate, FIG. 3 shows a label 318 for woman, a label 320 for bird, and a label 322 for man"); display a context menu having options for editing the image (paragraph 246, line(s) 1-12, “As further illustrated, based on detecting the user interaction for selecting the object 808d, the scene-based image editing system 106 provides an option menu 814 for display via the graphical user interface 802. The option menu 814 shown in FIG. 8B provides a plurality of options, though the option menu includes various numbers of options in various embodiments. For instance, in some implementations, the option menu 814 includes one or more curated options, such as options determined to be popular or used with the most frequency. For example, as shown in FIG. 8B, the option menu 814 includes an option 816 to delete the object 808d”); and configure the options based on selections of the segment by the user (paragraph 397, line(s) 8-12, “upon detecting a user interaction with the object 2008, the scene-based image editing system 106 provides an attribute menu 2010 having attribute object indicators 2012a-2012c listing object attributes of the object 2008.”; also, paragraph 401, line(s) 8-12, “upon detecting a user interaction with the object 2108, the scene-based image editing system 106 provides an attribute menu 2110 having attribute object indicators 2112a-2012c listing object attributes of the object 2108.”).
Regarding claim 17, Singh discloses one or more computer readable storage media of claim 16, wherein to configure the options based on the selections of the segments by the user, the program instructions direct the computing apparatus to include a first set of options when no segments are selected, and to include a second set of options when one segment is selected; wherein the first set of options differs from the second set of options, wherein the first set of options comprises options for editing the image as a whole, and wherein the second set of options comprises options for editing just the one segment (paragraph 236, line(s) 7-11, “it should be understood that the graphical user interface 802 displays at least some menus, options, or other visual elements in various embodiments—at least when the digital image 806 is initially displayed.”; also, paragraph 246, line(s) 11-12, “the option menu 814 includes an option 816 to delete the object 808d”; also, paragraph 531, line(s) 1-10, “the scene-based image editing system 106 provides options to generate the modified digital image 4012 within a user interface. For instance, the scene-based image editing system 106 provides client devices with more flexibility and controllability during editing. The user interface has various options to indicate the type of modification (e.g., expanding the digital image or removing an object) and the scene-based image editing system 106 further provides customizable options for modifying the digital image 4002.”; also, paragraph 397, line(s) 9-12, “the scene-based image editing system 106 provides an attribute menu 2010 having attribute object indicators 2012a-2012c listing object attributes of the object 2008.”).
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) 4-8, and 11-15, and 18-20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Singh et al. (U.S. Pub. No. 20240135511) in view of Ubillos et al. (U.S. Pub. No. 20130235069).
Regarding claim 4, Singh discloses a computing apparatus of claim 3, wherein second set of options comprises options for performing different functions with respect to the one segment (paragraph 246, “the option menu 814 includes an option 816 to delete the object 808d”; also, paragraph 397, “the scene-based image editing system 106 provides an attribute menu 2010 having attribute object indicators 2012a-2012c listing object attributes of the object 2008.”). Singh does not disclose the first set of options comprises options for changing a style of the image as a whole to different styles.
However, in a similar field of endeavor, Ubillos discloses the first set of options comprises options for changing a style of the image as a whole to different styles (paragraph 9, “the application provides an image editing tool that allows a user to select a location on an image and displays different UI controls that are associated with different image editing operations for applying to the image when different types of contents are detected at the selected location on the image.”; also, paragraph 73, “Based on the detected type of content, the color-editing tool determines a set of image editing operations and displays a set of UI controls that are associated with the determined image editing operations.”).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Singh's invention of providing a per-segment attribute menu with attribute object indicators based on segment selection with the features of Ubillos's invention of providing different sets of UI controls that vary based on detected content at the selected location. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this combination for the following reasons. First, Ubillos teaches that the displayed UI controls "are associated with different image editing operations for applying to the image when different types of contents are detected at the selected location on the image," which addresses Singh's design space of surfacing different operation sets to the user. Second, Singh teaches that "the scene-based image editing system 106 can receive a variety of user inputs, such as user input of a mask identifying an object or region to replace, selection of an object to remove, an area or region to expand, or a style/color patch to expand within an input region," confirming that style-level inputs and per-segment functional inputs are both already within Singh's design space, so surfacing a whole-image style set vs. a per-segment function set is a predictable design choice. Third, providing finer-grained control over which operations are presented based on whether the user is editing at the whole-image or per-segment level produces the expected and predictable benefit of reducing visual clutter and shortening the path from intent to action.
Regarding claim 5, Singh as modified by Ubillos discloses a computing apparatus of claim 4, wherein the program instructions further direct the computing apparatus to prompt the generative AI model to regenerate the image based on a selection by the user of an option in the context menu (Singh: paragraph 546, “the scene-based image editing system 106 provides options to generate the modified digital image 4012 within a user interface.”; also, paragraph 531, “by including a style input within a region of digital image 4002, the scene-based image editing system 106 can utilize a machine learning model to expand/apply the style to the entire semantic region in generating the modified digital image 4012.”), different styles comprise an original style, a watercolor style, and an art deco style.
However, in a similar field of endeavor, Ubillos discloses and wherein the different styles comprise an original style, a watercolor style, and an art deco style (paragraph 20, “FIG. 1 illustrates an example of providing different overlaid UI controls based on different location selected on an image.”; also, paragraph 73, “Based on the detected type of content, the color-editing tool determines a set of image editing operations and displays a set of UI controls that are associated with the determined image editing operations.”).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Singh's invention of style-guided regeneration via style guides applied to a semantic region with the features of Ubillos's invention of surfacing multiple distinct named option categories in the UI, by populating the available style options with named artistic styles including an original style, a watercolor style, and an art deco style. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this combination for the following reasons. First, Singh teaches that "the scene-based image editing system 106 can utilize a machine learning model to expand/apply the style to the entire semantic region in generating the modified digital image," which leaves the specific named styles to design choice. Second, providing named, user-selectable artistic style presets is a predictable and conventional way to surface that style-transfer functionality through the UI without requiring the user to supply a style reference image. Third, named-style transfer presets including watercolor and art deco were notoriously well-known features of commercial image-editing user interfaces before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, so adding them as the user-selectable values of Singh's style guide is a routine population of a known design parameter.
Regarding claim 6, Singh as modified by Ubillos discloses a computing apparatus of claim 6, wherein the different functions comprise a generative erase function (Singh: paragraph 112, “the scene-based image editing system utilizes generative machine learning models to generate infill modifications for the digital image”; also, paragraph 246, “the option menu 814 includes an option 816 to delete the object 808d”; also, paragraph 101, “Accordingly, in one or more embodiments, the scene-based image editing system pre-processes the digital image in preparation for an object-aware modification, such as a move operation or a delete operation, by pre-generating object masks and/or content fills before receiving user input for such a modification”), and a color pop function and a background blurring function.
However, in a similar field of endeavor, Ubillos discloses a color pop function and a background blurring function (paragraph 73, “Based on the detected type of content, the color-editing tool determines a set of image editing operations and displays a set of UI controls that are associated with the determined image editing operations”)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Singh's invention of an option menu that includes per-segment editing functions including object deletion with content fill with the features of Ubillos's invention of providing different per-content-type UI controls, by populating the per-segment function set of the combined system with a color pop function and a background blurring function. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this combination for the following reasons. First, Ubillos teaches that the UI controls displayed depend on detected content type at the selected location, which provides the design framework for surfacing different per-segment functions when a segment is selected. Second, Singh's segmentation neural network already produces the per-segment context required to perform selective edits such as color pop and background blurring, so pairing these named selective functions with Singh's segmentation output leverages capability Singh already provides. Third, color pop and background blurring were both notoriously well-known selective-edit features of commercial image-editing user interfaces before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, so adding them to the per-segment function set is a routine population of known design parameters..
Regarding claim 7, Singh as modified by Ubillos discloses a computing apparatus of claim 6, wherein to include the second set of options when one segment is selected, the program instructions further direct the computing apparatus . Singh does not disclose to include a supplemental option, in addition to the second set of options, when the user also hovers over a background while keeping the one segment selected
However, in a similar field of endeavor, Ubillos discloses to include a supplemental option, in addition to the second set of options, when the user also hovers over a background while keeping the one segment selected (paragraph 9, “the application provides an image editing tool that allows a user to select a location on an image and displays different UI controls that are associated with different image editing operations for applying to the image when different types of contents are detected at the selected location on the image”; also, paragraph 20, “FIG. 1 illustrates an example of providing different overlaid UI controls based on different location selected on an image.”).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Singh's invention of providing context-suggestive supplemental UI elements when additional user interactions are detected with respect to image regions outside an initial selection, with the features of Ubillos's invention of surfacing different UI controls based on the location of additional user input, so that the user could hover the pointer over a background region of the image to invoke a supplemental option without losing the active selection of the one segment. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this combination for the following reasons. First, Ubillos teaches "providing different overlaid UI controls based on different location selected on an image," which establishes the design pattern of surfacing different controls in response to additional cursor-location input. Second, pointer-hover input directed to a region distinct from the actively selected segment is a routine UI affordance that distinguishes a momentary peek interaction from a definitive selection change, allowing the user to access background-related options without dismissing the segment-level selection. Third, allowing the supplemental option to surface on hover preserves the visible state of the active selection, which avoids the loss of context the user would otherwise experience when navigating between foreground and background edits.
Regarding claim 8, Singh as modified by Ubillos discloses a computing apparatus of claim 7, wherein supplemental option comprises a background muting function.
However, in a similar field of endeavor, Ubillos discloses supplemental option comprises a background muting function (paragraph 73, “Based on the detected type of content, the color-editing tool determines a set of image editing operations and displays a set of UI controls that are associated with the determined image editing operations.”).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Singh's invention of region-level modification options with the features of Ubillos's invention of per-content-type UI controls by populating the supplemental option of the combined system with a background muting function. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this combination for the following reasons. First, in the combined system, a hover-over-background gesture detected while a foreground segment remains actively selected most naturally surfaces an option that affects the background while preserving the visual prominence of the actively selected segment. Second, background muting (selective de-emphasis of background content by fading, desaturation, or reduction of luminance) accomplishes that result without committing the user to a destructive edit. Third, background muting was notoriously well-known as a commercial UI affordance in image editors before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, so adding it to the supplemental option is a routine population of a known design parameter.
Regarding claim 11, Singh as modified by Ubillos discloses a method of claim 10, wherein second set of options comprises options for performing different functions with respect to the one segment (Singh: paragraph 246, “the option menu 814 includes an option 816 to delete the object 808d”; also, paragraph 397, “the scene-based image editing system 106 provides an attribute menu 2010 having attribute object indicators 2012a-2012c listing object attributes of the object 2008”). Singh does not disclose the first set of options comprises options for changing a style of the image as a whole to different styles.
However, in a similar field of endeavor, Ubillos discloses the first set of options comprises options for changing a style of the image as a whole to different styles (paragraph 9, “the application provides an image editing tool that allows a user to select a location on an image and displays different UI controls that are associated with different image editing operations for applying to the image when different types of contents are detected at the selected location on the image.”; also, paragraph 9, “Based on the detected type of content, the color-editing tool determines a set of image editing operations and displays a set of UI controls that are associated with the determined image editing operations.”).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Singh's invention of providing a per-segment attribute menu with attribute object indicators based on segment selection with the features of Ubillos's invention of providing different sets of UI controls that vary based on detected content at the selected location, by surfacing a first set of options comprising options for changing a style of the image as a whole to different styles. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this combination for the following reasons. First, Ubillos teaches that the displayed UI controls "are associated with different image editing operations for applying to the image when different types of contents are detected at the selected location on the image," which directly addresses Singh's design space of surfacing different operation sets to the user. Second, Singh teaches that "the scene-based image editing system 106 can receive a variety of user inputs, such as user input of a mask identifying an object or region to replace, selection of an object to remove, an area or region to expand, or a style/color patch to expand within an input region," confirming that style-level inputs and per-segment functional inputs are both already within Singh's design space, so surfacing a whole-image style set when no segment is selected and a per-segment function set when one segment is selected is a predictable design choice. Third, providing finer-grained control over which operations are presented based on whether the user is editing at the whole-image or per-segment level produces the expected and predictable benefit of reducing visual clutter and shortening the path from user intent to action.
Regarding claim 12, Singh as modified by Ubillos discloses a method of claim 11, different styles comprise an original style, a watercolor style, and art deco style.
However, in a similar field of endeavor, Ubillos discloses wherein the different styles comprise an original style, a watercolor style, and art deco style (paragraph 20, “FIG. 1 illustrates an example of providing different overlaid UI controls based on different location selected on an image”; also, paragraph 73, “Based on the detected type of content, the color-editing tool determines a set of image editing operations and displays a set of UI controls that are associated with the determined image editing operations.”).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Singh's invention of style-guided regeneration via style guides applied to a semantic region with the features of Ubillos's invention of surfacing multiple distinct named option categories in the UI, by populating the available style options with named artistic styles including an original style, a watercolor style, and an art deco style. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this combination for the following reasons. First, Singh teaches that "the scene-based image editing system 106 can utilize a machine learning model to expand/apply the style to the entire semantic region in generating the modified digital image," which leaves the specific named styles to design choice. Second, providing named, user-selectable artistic style presets is a predictable and conventional way to surface that style-transfer functionality through the UI without requiring the user to supply a style reference image. Third, named-style transfer presets including watercolor and art deco were notoriously well-known features of commercial image-editing user interfaces before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, so adding them as the user-selectable values of Singh's style guide is a routine population of a known design parameter.
Regarding claim 13, Singh discloses a method of claim 12, wherein the generative erase function, and a (Singh: paragraph 246, “the option menu 814 includes an option 816 to delete the object 808d”; also, paragraph 101, “Accordingly, in one or more embodiments, the scene-based image editing system pre-processes the digital image in preparation for an object-aware modification, such as a move operation or a delete operation, by pre-generating object masks and/or content fills before receiving user input for such a modification”). Singh does not disclose the different functions comprise a color pop function and a background blurring function.
However, in a similar field of endeavor, Ubillos discloses the different functions comprise a color pop function and a background blurring function (paragraph 9, “Based on the detected type of content, the color-editing tool determines a set of image editing operations and displays a set of UI controls that are associated with the determined image editing operations.”).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Singh's invention of an option menu that includes per-segment editing functions including object deletion with content fill with the features of Ubillos's invention of providing different per-content-type UI controls, by populating the per-segment function set with a color pop function and a background blurring function. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this combination for the following reasons. First, Ubillos teaches that the UI controls displayed depend on detected content type at the selected location, which provides the design framework for surfacing different per-segment functions when a segment is selected. Second, Singh's segmentation neural network already produces the per-segment context required to perform selective edits such as color pop and background blurring, so pairing these named selective functions with Singh's segmentation output leverages capability Singh already provides. Third, color pop and background blurring were both notoriously well-known selective-edit features of commercial image-editing user interfaces before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, so adding them to the per-segment function set is a routine population of known design parameters.
Regarding claim 14, Singh as modified by Ubillos discloses a method of claim 13, further comprising including a Singh does not disclose supplemental option, in addition to the second set of options, when the user also hovers over a background segment while keeping the one segment selected.
However in a similar field of endeavor, Ubillos discloses supplemental option, in addition to the second set of options, when the user also hovers over a background segment while keeping the one segment selected (paragraph 9, “the application provides an image editing tool that allows a user to select a location on an image and displays different UI controls that are associated with different image editing operations for applying to the image when different types of contents are detected at the selected location on the image.”; also, paragraph 20, “FIG. 1 illustrates an example of providing different overlaid UI controls based on different location selected on an image.”).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Singh's invention of providing context-suggestive supplemental UI elements when additional user interactions are detected outside the initial selection with the features of Ubillos's invention of surfacing different UI controls based on the location of additional user input, so that the user could hover the pointer over a background segment to invoke a supplemental option while keeping the one segment selected. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this combination for the following reasons. First, Ubillos teaches "providing different overlaid UI controls based on different location selected on an image," which establishes the design pattern of surfacing different controls in response to additional cursor-location input. Second, pointer-hover input directed to a region distinct from the actively selected segment is a routine UI affordance that distinguishes a momentary peek interaction from a definitive selection change, allowing the user to access background-related options without dismissing the segment-level selection. Third, allowing the supplemental option to surface on hover preserves the visible state of the active selection, which avoids the loss of context the user would otherwise experience when navigating between foreground and background edits.
Regarding claim 15, Singh as modified by Ubillos discloses a method of claim 14, wherein supplemental option comprises a background muting function.
However, in a similar field of endeavor, Ubillos discloses the supplemental option comprises a background muting function (paragraph 73, “Based on the detected type of content, the color-editing tool determines a set of image editing operations and displays a set of UI controls that are associated with the determined image editing operations.”).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Singh's invention of region-level modification options with the features of Ubillos's invention of per-content-type UI controls by populating the supplemental option with a background muting function. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this combination for the following reasons. First, in the combined system, a hover-over-background gesture detected while a foreground segment remains actively selected most naturally surfaces an option that affects the background while preserving the visual prominence of the actively selected segment. Second, background muting, a selective de-emphasis of background content by fading, desaturation, or reduction of luminance, accomplishes that result without committing the user to a destructive edit. Third, background muting was notoriously well-known as a commercial UI affordance in image editors before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, so adding it to the supplemental option is a routine population of a known design parameter.
Regarding claim 18, Singh as modified by Ubillos discloses one or more computer readable storage media of claim 17, wherein the second set of options comprises options for performing different functions with respect to the one segment (Singh: paragraph 246, “the option menu 814 includes an option 816 to delete the object 808d”; also, paragraph 397, “the scene-based image editing system 106 provides an attribute menu 2010 having attribute object indicators 2012a-2012c listing object attributes of the object 2008.”). Singh does not disclose first set of options comprises different options for changing a style of the image as a whole to different styles.
However, in a similar field of endeavor, Ubillos discloses first set of options comprises different options for changing a style of the image as a whole to different styles (paragraph 9, “the application provides an image editing tool that allows a user to select a location on an image and displays different UI controls that are associated with different image editing operations for applying to the image when different types of contents are detected at the selected location on the image.”; also, paragraph 73, “Based on the detected type of content, the color-editing tool determines a set of image editing operations and displays a set of UI controls that are associated with the determined image editing operations.”).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Singh's invention of per-segment attribute editing options with the features of Ubillos's invention of per-content-type UI controls by surfacing a first set of options comprising different options for changing a style of the image as a whole to different styles when no segment is selected. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this combination for the following reasons. First, Ubillos teaches that the displayed UI controls "are associated with different image editing operations for applying to the image when different types of contents are detected at the selected location on the image," which directly addresses Singh's design space of surfacing different operation sets to the user. Second, Singh teaches that "the scene-based image editing system 106 can receive a variety of user inputs, such as user input of a mask identifying an object or region to replace, selection of an object to remove, an area or region to expand, or a style/color patch to expand within an input region," confirming that style-level inputs and per-segment functional inputs are both already within Singh's design space, so surfacing a whole-image style set when no segment is selected and a per-segment function set when one segment is selected is a predictable design choice. Third, providing finer-grained control over which operations are presented based on whether the user is editing at the whole-image or per-segment level produces the expected and predictable benefit of reducing visual clutter and shortening the path from user intent to action.
Regarding claim 19, Singh as modified by Ubillos discloses one or more computer readable storage media of claim 18, wherein different functions comprise generative erase function, (Singh: paragraph 246, “the option menu 814 includes an option 816 to delete the object 808d”; also, paragraph 101, “Accordingly, in one or more embodiments, the scene-based image editing system pre-processes the digital image in preparation for an object-aware modification, such as a move operation or a delete operation, by pre-generating object masks and/or content fills before receiving user input for such a modification”). Singh does not disclose the different styles comprise an original style, a watercolor style, an art deco style, a color pop function, and a background blurring function.
However, in a similar field of endeavor, Ubillos discloses the different styles comprise an original style, a watercolor style, an art deco style, a color pop function, and a background blurring function (paragraph 20, “FIG. 1 illustrates an example of providing different overlaid UI controls based on different location selected on an image.”; also, paragraph 73, “Based on the detected type of content, the color-editing tool determines a set of image editing operations and displays a set of UI controls that are associated with the determined image editing operations.”; also, paragraph 9, “Based on the detected type of content, the color-editing tool determines a set of image editing operations and displays a set of UI controls that are associated with the determined image editing operations.”).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Singh's invention of style-guided regeneration and per-segment delete-with-content-fill options with the features of Ubillos's invention of per-content-type UI controls by populating the first set of options with an original style, a watercolor style, and an art deco style, and populating the second set of options with a color pop function, a generative erase function, and a background blurring function. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this combination for the following reasons. First, Singh teaches that "the scene-based image editing system 106 can utilize a machine learning model to expand/apply the style to the entire semantic region in generating the modified digital image," and Ubillos teaches that the UI controls displayed depend on the detected content type at the selected location, which together leave the specific named styles and the specific named functions to design choice. Second, providing named, user-selectable artistic style presets (such as watercolor and art deco) is a predictable and conventional way to surface Singh's style-transfer functionality without requiring the user to supply a style reference image of their own, and pairing per-segment selective edits (such as color pop and background blurring) with Singh's segmentation output leverages capability Singh already provides. Third, the named style transfers and the named per-segment functions recited by the claim were all notoriously well-known features of commercial image-editing user interfaces before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, so populating Singh's style guide and per-segment function set with these specific named values is a routine population of known design parameters.
Regarding claim 20, Singh as modified by Ubillos discloses one or more computer readable storage media of claim 16, wherein second set of options when one segment is selected, the program instructions further direct the computing apparatus to include a supplemental option, in addition to the second set of options, when the user also hovers over a background segment while keeping the one segment selected, wherein the supplemental option comprises a background muting function.
However, in a similar field of endeavor, Ubillos discloses to include the second set of options when one segment is selected, the program instructions further direct the computing apparatus to include a supplemental option, in addition to the second set of options, when the user also hovers over a background segment while keeping the one segment selected (paragraph 9, “the application provides an image editing tool that allows a user to select a location on an image and displays different UI controls that are associated with different image editing operations for applying to the image when different types of contents are detected at the selected location on the image.”; also, paragraph 20, “FIG. 1 illustrates an example of providing different overlaid UI controls based on different location selected on an image.”), wherein the supplemental option comprises a background muting function (paragraph 73, “Based on the detected type of content, the color-editing tool determines a set of image editing operations and displays a set of UI controls that are associated with the determined image editing operations.”).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Singh's invention of providing supplemental UI elements based on additional user interactions outside the active selection with the features of Ubillos's invention of surfacing different UI controls based on the location of additional user input, so that hover input over a background segment, while the foreground segment remains actively selected, invokes a supplemental option populated with a background muting function. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this combination for the following reasons. First, Ubillos teaches "providing different overlaid UI controls based on different location selected on an image," which establishes the design pattern of surfacing different controls in response to additional cursor-location input, and pointer-hover input directed to a region distinct from the actively selected segment is a routine UI affordance that distinguishes a momentary peek interaction from a definitive selection change. Second, in the combined system, a hover-over-background gesture detected while a foreground segment remains actively selected most naturally surfaces an option that affects the background while preserving the visual prominence of the actively selected segment, and background muting, a selective de-emphasis of background content by fading, desaturation, or reduction of luminance, accomplishes that result without committing the user to a destructive edit. Third, both hover-while-selected supplemental option surfacing and background muting were notoriously well-known features of commercial image-editing user interfaces before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, so combining them in the manner recited by the claim is a routine population of known design parameters.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Singh's invention of providing supplemental UI elements based on additional user interactions outside the active selection with the features of Ubillos's invention of surfacing different UI controls based on the location of additional user input, so that hover input over a background segment, while the foreground segment remains actively selected, invokes a supplemental option populated with a background muting function. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this combination for the following reasons. First, Ubillos teaches "providing different overlaid UI controls based on different location selected on an image," which establishes the design pattern of surfacing different controls in response to additional cursor-location input, and pointer-hover input directed to a region distinct from the actively selected segment is a routine UI affordance that distinguishes a momentary peek interaction from a definitive selection change. Second, in the combined system, a hover-over-background gesture detected while a foreground segment remains actively selected most naturally surfaces an option that affects the background while preserving the visual prominence of the actively selected segment, and background muting, a selective de-emphasis of background content by fading, desaturation, or reduction of luminance, accomplishes that result without committing the user to a destructive edit. Third, both hover-while-selected supplemental option surfacing and background muting were notoriously well-known features of commercial image-editing user interfaces before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, so combining them in the manner recited by the claim is a routine population of known design parameters.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 04/23/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
The remarks on page 1, Singh "does not disclose configuring a context menu of editing options based on different segment selections, as recited in claim 1," and that "In Singh, editing options are presented in a manner that is not dependent on whether or which segments are selected." Applicant further argues that "Singh's disclosure focuses on enabling object-aware edits once an object is selected, without describing distinct modes of operation in which the options of the context menu itself are conditioned on segment selection."
The Examiner respectfully disagrees. Singh expressly teaches that the displayed option set varies based on which segment the user has selected. Singh paragraph 397, describing FIGS. 20A-20C, states that "upon detecting a user interaction with the object 2008, the scene-based image editing system 106 provides an attribute menu 2010 having attribute object indicators 2012a-2012c listing object attributes of the object 2008." Singh paragraph 401, describing FIGS. 21A-21C, states that "upon detecting a user interaction with the object 2108, the scene-based image editing system 106 provides an attribute menu 2110 having attribute object indicators 2112a-2112c listing object attributes of the object 2108." The two attribute menus (2010 versus 2110) and their enumerated indicators (2012a-2012c versus 2112a-2112c) are configured by Singh's system based on which segment the user selects, which is precisely the "configure the options based on selections of the segments by the user" limitation Applicant points to as the alleged point of novelty. Singh paragraph 236 supplies the baseline pre-selection UI state, and Singh paragraph 246 supplies the post-selection option menu 814 with options including option 816 to delete the selected object 808d. Singh therefore discloses the full set of behaviors required by amended claim 1, claim 9, and claim 16, and the §102(a)(2) rejection of those independent claims is MAINTAINED as the same ground of rejection applied to the amended claim language.
Applicant further argues (Remarks, page 1) that "Dependent claims 2 - 8, 10 - 15, and 17 - 20 are allowable at least by virtue of depending from allowable base claims 1, 9, and 16." This argument falls with the independent-claim argument above. Claims 2, 3, 10, 11, and 17 are likewise anticipated by Singh as set forth in the §102(a)(2) rejection above. The remaining dependent claims (4-8, 12-15, 18-20) recite named-feature limitations introduced by the present amendment, including the named styles (original, watercolor, art deco), the named functions (color pop, generative erase, background blurring), the hover-over-background interaction, and the background muting function. None of these specific named features was present in the claims as originally filed, and each is now addressed under §103 over Singh in view of Ubillos in the rejections set forth above. Each such new ground is necessitated by Applicant's own amendment.
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.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Jai Li whose telephone number is (571)272-1170. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Thu between 06:00-16:00 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, Xiao Wu can be reached at (571)272-7761. 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.
/JAI W LI/Junior Examiner, Art Unit 2613
/XIAO M WU/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2613
Prosecution Insights