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 Interpretation
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(f):
(f) Element in Claim for a Combination. – An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The claims in this application are given their broadest reasonable interpretation using the plain meaning of the claim language in light of the specification as it would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art. The broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim element (also commonly referred to as a claim limitation) is limited by the description in the specification when 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is invoked.
As explained in MPEP § 2181, subsection I, claim limitations that meet the following three-prong test will be interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
(A) the claim limitation uses the term “means” or “step” or a term used as a substitute for “means” that is a generic placeholder (also called a nonce term or a non-structural term having no specific structural meaning) for performing the claimed function;
(B) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is modified by functional language, typically, but not always linked by the transition word “for” (e.g., “means for”) or another linking word or phrase, such as “configured to” or “so that”; and
(C) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function.
Use of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim with functional language creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites sufficient structure, material, or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Absence of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is not to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is not interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites function without reciting sufficient structure, material or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Claim limitations in this application that use the word “means” (or “step”) are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action. Conversely, claim limitations in this application that do not use the word “means” (or “step”) are not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action.
This application includes one or more claim limitations that do not use the word “means,” but are nonetheless being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, because the claim limitation(s) uses a generic placeholder that is coupled with functional language without reciting sufficient structure to perform the recited function and the generic placeholder is not preceded by a structural modifier. Such claim limitation is: “a storage unit” in claim 23.
Because this claim limitation is being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, it is being interpreted to cover the corresponding structure described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof. Examiner has identified the storage unit 406 (see para. 0125) .
If applicant does not intend to have this limitation interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, applicant may: (1) amend the claim limitation to avoid it being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph (e.g., by reciting sufficient structure to perform the claimed function); or (2) present a sufficient showing that the claim limitation recite sufficient structure to perform the claimed function so as to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 1-11 and 23-31 are allowed.
The following is an examiner' s statement of reasons for allowance:
The closest prior art of record, namely, Aberman et al. (US 20240037822 A1) discloses editing a source image, where the source image is one generated based on processing a source natural language (NL) prompt using a Large-scale language-image (LLI) model. Those implementations edit the source image based on user interface input that indicates an edit to the source NL prompt, and optionally independent of any user interface input that specifies a mask in the source image and/or independent of any other user interface input. Some implementations of the present disclosure are additionally or alternatively directed to applying prompt-to-prompt editing techniques to editing a source image that is one generated based on a real image, and that approximates the real image.
Zhou et al. (US 20240037822 A1) discloses systems and methods for image editing. An image editing apparatus configured to fill a masked portion of an input image using a reference image. The image editing apparatus may obtain an input image, a reference image, and a text prompt, and the image editing apparatus may generate a composite image based on the input image, the reference image, and the text prompt. In particular, the image editing apparatus may edit a masked portion of the input image based on the reference image and the text prompt. In some examples, the masked portion of the input image may be edited to include an object from the reference image or to depict a style or texture from the reference image.
Merier et al. (US 20210117736 A1) discloses images aligned with the original input concept are produced, while matching the desired style or visual language. The cloud computing allows the user to access virtual computing resources in the cloud, without regard for the underlying physical systems used to provide the computing resources. The convenient, on-demand network access is enabled to shared pool of configurable computing resources that can be rapidly provisioned and released with minimal management effort or service provider interaction. The user can access any of the resources that reside in the cloud at any time, and from anywhere across the Internet.
However, the closest prior art of record, does not disclose “training the second sample generation model to be trained based on training samples of a second style type to obtain a second target sample generation model; and determining a target style data generation model based on model parameters to be fitted of the first target sample generation model and model parameters to be fitted of the second target sample generation model to generate, based on the target style data generation model, a stylized image in which the first style type is fused with the second style type." (in combination with the other claimed limitations and/or features), as claimed in independent claim 1.
Dependent claims 2-11 are allowable as they depend from an allowable base independent claim 1.
Independent claims 23 and 24 are citing the same or similar subject matter and are also allowed.
Dependent claims 25-31 are allowable as they depend from an allowable base independent claim 24.
Any comments considered necessary by applicant must be submitted no later than the payment of the issue fee and, to avoid processing delays, should preferably accompany the issue fee. Such submissions should be clearly labeled “Comments on Statement of Reasons for Allowance.”
/THOMAS J LETT/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2611