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 .
The prior 35 USC 101 rejections are withdrawn.
The prior double patenting rejections are still retained.
Claim(s) 21, 22, 27-31, 36, 39 and 40 remain rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ranzinger et al (US Patent: 10783398, issued: Sep. 22, 2020, filed: Oct. 22, 2018), in view of DiVerdi et al (US Application: US 2018/0225812, published: Aug. 9, 2018, filed: Aug. 9, 2018).
Claim(s) 23-26 and 32 remain rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ranzinger et al (US Patent: 10783398, issued: Sep. 22, 2020, filed: Oct. 22, 2018), in view of DiVerdi et al (US Application: US 2018/0225812, published: Aug. 9, 2018, filed: Aug. 9, 2018) in view of Brownlee (“How to Develop a Pix2Pix GAN for Image-to-Image Translation”, publisher: MachinelearningMastery.com, published: Dec. 13, 2019, pages 1-31).
Claim(s) 33 and 34 remain rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ranzinger et al (US Patent: 10783398, issued: Sep. 22, 2020, filed: Oct. 22, 2018), in view of DiVerdi et al (US Application: US 2018/0225812, published: Aug. 9, 2018, filed: Aug. 9, 2018) in view of Thomee et al (US Application: US 2018/0012630, published: Jan . 11, 2018, filed: Jul. 7, 2016)
Claim(s) 35 remains rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ranzinger et al (US Patent: 10783398, issued: Sep. 22, 2020, filed: Oct. 22, 2018), in view of DiVerdi et al (US Application: US 2018/0225812, published: Aug. 9, 2018, filed: Aug. 9, 2018) in view of Mellina et al (US Application: US 2019/0205946, published: Jul. 4, 2019, filed: Dec. 28, 2017).
Claim(s) 37 remain rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ranzinger et al (US Patent: 10783398, issued: Sep. 22, 2020, filed: Oct. 22, 2018), in view of DiVerdi et al (US Application: US 2018/0225812, published: Aug. 9, 2018, filed: Aug. 9, 2018) in view of Bolivar et al (US Application: US 2007/0288454, published: Dec. 13, 2007, filed: Dec. 27, 2006).
Claim(s) 38 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ranzinger et al (US Patent: 10783398, issued: Sep. 22, 2020, filed: Oct. 22, 2018), in view of DiVerdi et al (US Application: US 2018/0225812, published: Aug. 9, 2018, filed: Aug. 9, 2018) in view of Thomee et al (US Application: US 2018/0012630, published: Jan . 11, 2018, filed: Jul. 7, 2016) in view of Adachi (US Application: US 20010053275, published: Dec. 20, 2001, filed: Apr. 6, 2001).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112:
The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor of carrying out his invention.
Claims 21-40 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention.
With regards to claim 21, it recites “user style transfer training performed on one or more user cluster enhanced style transfers …a user cluster style transfer training performed on a given base style transfer”. The limitations as emphasized do not appear to be supported as written in the instant application’s specification. The instant application’s specification recites in paragraph 0045, that “user personalized style transfers maybe be obtained through user style transfer training from one or more style transfers of a user cluster enhanced style transfer”. This means that ‘user style transfer training references from one or more style transfers of a user cluster enhanced style transfer’ , which is entirely different than ‘user style transfer training performed on one or more user cluster enhanced style transfers. In other words, the specification explains that ‘user style transfer training’ results from one or more style transfers of a user cluster enhanced style transfer which is entirely different from applying ‘user style transfer training upon/’performed on’ one or more user cluster enhanced style transfers. Furthermore the examiner respectfully directs applicant’s attention to Fig. 4 of the instant application’s drawings, which also shows that ‘user style transfer training’ is ref 45 and ‘one or more style transfers of a user cluster enhanced style transfer’ is ref 44. Here it is clear from the directional arrows, that ref 44 (the one or more style transfers of a user cluster enhanced style transfer’) is used/referenced by ref 45 (the ‘user style transfer training’). Since both the instant specification in paragraph 0045 and also the drawings of Fig. 4 show that ref 45 is not applied to/’performed on’ ref 44 as the current amended claim language is requiring, the applicant’s newly amended claim language ‘performed on’ does not appear to be supported. The examiner suggests the applicant consider reverting back to prior claim language using ‘from’.
With regards to the other amendment concerning ‘user cluster style transfer training performed on a given base style transfer’, this amendment does not appear to be not supported as the specification in paragraph 0045 specifically recites “user cluster style transfer training 43 from a given base style transfer 42.”. In other words, the training 43 is not applied /performed upon base style transfer 42 as the amended language is requiring, but just the opposite. Likewise in Fig. 4, it shows that ref 42 (the base style transfer) has an arrow directed towards ref 43 (the user cluster style transfer training), and thus 43 is based upon 42 which is opposite of the amended claim language which requires 43 is applied to/’performed on’ 42). The examiner suggests the applicant consider reverting back to prior claim language using ‘from’.
To conclude, the amendment in claim 1 requires the flow to go from right to left in Fig. 4, however For purposes of examination, the examiner will assume the arrows go from left to right and the applicant instead intended to use something similar to: ‘derived from’ instead or even the use of ‘from’ as originally presented prior to the amendment.
With regards to claim 22-30, they do not resolve the issues of claim 21, and thus are rejected under similar rationale as claim 21.
With regards to claim 31, it is rejected under similar rationale as claim 21.
With regards to claim 32-39, they do not resolve the issues of claim 31, and thus are rejected under similar rationale as claim 31.
With regards to claim 40, it is rejected under similar rationale as claim 21.
Double Patenting
The nonstatutory double patenting rejection is based on a judicially created doctrine grounded in public policy (a policy reflected in the statute) so as to prevent the unjustified or improper timewise extension of the “right to exclude” granted by a patent and to prevent possible harassment by multiple assignees. A nonstatutory double patenting rejection is appropriate where the conflicting claims are not identical, but at least one examined application claim is not patentably distinct from the reference claim(s) because the examined application claim is either anticipated by, or would have been obvious over, the reference claim(s). See, e.g., In re Berg, 140 F.3d 1428, 46 USPQ2d 1226 (Fed. Cir. 1998); In re Goodman, 11 F.3d 1046, 29 USPQ2d 2010 (Fed. Cir. 1993); In re Longi, 759 F.2d 887, 225 USPQ 645 (Fed. Cir. 1985); In re Van Ornum, 686 F.2d 937, 214 USPQ 761 (CCPA 1982); In re Vogel, 422 F.2d 438, 164 USPQ 619 (CCPA 1970); In re Thorington, 418 F.2d 528, 163 USPQ 644 (CCPA 1969).
A timely filed terminal disclaimer in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(c) or 1.321(d) may be used to overcome an actual or provisional rejection based on nonstatutory double patenting provided the reference application or patent either is shown to be commonly owned with the examined application, or claims an invention made as a result of activities undertaken within the scope of a joint research agreement. See MPEP § 717.02 for applications subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA as explained in MPEP § 2159. See MPEP § 2146 et seq. for applications not subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA . A terminal disclaimer must be signed in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(b).
The filing of a terminal disclaimer by itself is not a complete reply to a nonstatutory double patenting (NSDP) rejection. A complete reply requires that the terminal disclaimer be accompanied by a reply requesting reconsideration of the prior Office action. Even where the NSDP rejection is provisional the reply must be complete. See MPEP § 804, subsection I.B.1. For a reply to a non-final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.111(a). For a reply to final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.113(c). A request for reconsideration while not provided for in 37 CFR 1.113(c) may be filed after final for consideration. See MPEP §§ 706.07(e) and 714.13.
The USPTO Internet website contains terminal disclaimer forms which may be used. Please visit www.uspto.gov/patent/patents-forms. The actual filing date of the application in which the form is filed determines what form (e.g., PTO/SB/25, PTO/SB/26, PTO/AIA /25, or PTO/AIA /26) should be used. A web-based eTerminal Disclaimer may be filled out completely online using web-screens. An eTerminal Disclaimer that meets all requirements is auto-processed and approved immediately upon submission. For more information about eTerminal Disclaimers, refer to www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/applying-online/eterminal-disclaimer.
Claims 21-35 and 38 - 40 of the instant application (hereinafter ‘745) are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1, 5, 6, 8, 6, 7 and 20 of U.S. Patent No. 12061862 (hereinafter ‘862). Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because:
With regards to claim 21 of ‘745, claim 1 of ‘862 teaches the limitations of claim 21 of ‘745 since claim 21 of ‘745 is broader than claim 1 of ‘862.
With regards to claim 22 of ‘745, claim 1 of ‘862 teaches the limitations of claim 22 of ‘745 since claim 22 of ‘745 is broader than claim 1 of ‘862.
With regards to claim 23 of ‘745, claim 1 of ‘862 teaches the limitations of claim 23 of ‘745 since claim 23 of ‘745 is broader than claim 1 of ‘862.
With regards to claim 24 of ‘745, claim 1 of ‘862 teaches the limitations of claim 24 of ‘745 since claim 24 of ‘745 is broader than claim 1 of ‘862.
With regards to claim 25 of ‘745, claim 1 of ‘862 teaches the limitations of claim 25 of ‘745 since claim 25 of ‘745 is broader than claim 1 of ‘862.
With regards to claim 26 of ‘745, claim 1 of ‘862 teaches the limitations of claim 26 of ‘745 since claim 26 of ‘745 is broader than claim 1 of ‘862.
With regards to claim 27 of ‘745, claim 1 of ‘862 teaches the limitations of claim 27 of ‘745 since claim 27 of ‘745 is broader than claim 1 of ‘862.
With regards to claim 28 of ‘745, claim 1 of ‘862 teaches the limitations of claim 28 of ‘745 since claim 28 of ‘745 is broader than claim 1 of ‘862.
With regards to claim 29 of ‘745, claim 1 of ‘862 teaches the limitations of claim 29 of ‘745 since claim 29 of ‘745 is broader than claim 1 of ‘862.
With regards to claim 30 of ‘745, claim 1 of ‘862 teaches the limitations of claim 30 of ‘745 since claim 30 of ‘745 is broader than claim 1 of ‘862.
With regards to claim 32 of ‘745, claim 1 of ‘862 teaches the limitations of claim 32 of ‘745 since claim 32 of ‘745 is broader than claim 1 of ‘862.
With regards to claim 33 of ‘745, claim 5 of ‘862 teaches the limitations of claim 33 of ‘745 since claim 33 of ‘745 is broader than claim 5 of ‘862.
With regards to claim 34 of ‘745, claim 6 of ‘862 teaches the limitations of claim 34 of ‘745 since claim 34 of ‘745 is broader than claim 6 of ‘862.
With regards to claim 35 of ‘745, claim 8 of ‘862 teaches the limitations of claim 35 of ‘745 since claim 35 of ‘745 is broader than claim 8 of ‘862.
With regards to claim 38 of ‘745, claim 7 of ‘862 teaches the limitations of claim 38 of ‘745 since claim 38 of ‘745 is broader than claim 7 of ‘862.
With regards to claim 39 of ‘745, claim 6 of ‘862 teaches the limitations of claim 39 of ‘745 since claim 39 of ‘745 is broader than claim 6 of ‘862.
With regards to claim 40 of ‘745, claim 1 of ‘862 teaches the limitations of claim 40 of ‘745 since claim 40 of ‘745 is broader than claim 1 of ‘862.
Claim 36 of ‘745 is rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 1 of U.S. Patent No. 12061862 in view of DiVerdi et al (US Application: US 2018/0225812, published: Aug. 9, 2018, filed: Aug. 9, 2018).
With regards to claim 36 of ‘745, claim 1 of ‘862 teaches the limitations of claim 36 of ‘745 except displaying the generated customized content to the user.
Yet DiVerdi et al teaches displaying the generated customized content to the user (Fig 2B, paragraphs 0037, 0038, 0047, 0051, 0053, 0056 and 0057: style transfer/edits/modifications (which can include color attribute/style-preferences) derived from a given base category/type-of-user (interpreted to represent an initial style transfer category) are derived to apply to an image via user latent variables of a cluster index. Modifications to an image are presented/displayed to the user).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing of the invention to have modified the teachings of ‘862 for generating custom content, such that the generated custom content could have further been displayed to the user, as taught by DiVerdi et al. The combination would have presented personalized content to a user (DiVerdi et al, paragraph 0002).
Claim 37 of ‘745 is rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 1 of U.S. Patent No. 12061862 in view of Bolivar et al (US Application: US 2007/0288454, published: Dec. 13, 2007, filed: Dec. 27, 2006).
With regards to claim 37 of ‘745, claim 1 of ‘862 teaches the limitations of claim 37 of ‘745 except the request … is generated upon determining that he user accessed certain content, wherein the certain content is one of a website, a television channel, or a video game.
Yet Bolivar et al teaches the request … is generated upon determining that the user accessed certain content, wherein the certain content is one of a website, a television channel, or a video game (Abstract: user behavior that is collected in order to generate content includes user web site/page access history).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing of the invention to have modified the teachings of ‘862 to generate custom content based on a request such that the generated content would have been based on a request that takes into account user metadata such as user access of a web site, as taught by Bolivar. The combination would have allowed optimized generation of content/advertisement(s) by taking into account context and keyword metadata (Bolivar et al, paragraph 0003).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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) 21, 22, 27-31, 36, 39 and 40 remains rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ranzinger et al (US Patent: 10783398, issued: Sep. 22, 2020, filed: Oct. 22, 2018), in view of DiVerdi et al (US Application: US 2018/0225812, published: Aug. 9, 2018, filed: Aug. 9, 2018).
With regards to claim 21. Ranzinger et al teaches a system (Fig 2: a computer implemented system comprises processor(s) and memor(ies)) for dynamically modifying content based on user preferences, comprising a content generator software application, wherein the content generator software application is configured to:
receive a request for customized content associated with a user (column 10, lines 32-35: “Step 702 includes receiving an image query from a user via a client device”);
retrieve a style transfer from a database (column 10, lines 54-67: “providing the locale information to the generative tool” and “modifying a characteristic of the image according to …”); and
apply the style transfer to a corresponding content template to generate the customized content based on user preference information of the user, wherein the style transfer is a user personalized style transfer associated with the user preference information (column 10, lines 54-67, column 11, lines 40-46: “feature vector with a locale embedding with the user personalized data” is used as style transfer/modification context and an image is selected (as a content template) for which modification is performed upon) and obtained through a user style transfer training performed on one or more user cluster enhanced style transfers (column 10, lines 54-67: “identifying a centroid of a cluster in embedded space (the cluster associated with a locale information from the user personalized data), and modifying a characteristic of the image according to a line joining a point associated with the image in the embedded space with the centroid of the cluster”. More specifically, the recurrent network in Fig. 5 generates an image according to user style/locale and the recurrent network references user specific style from data of the locale embedding (which includes user direct training) and that data is clustered with image(s) that the specific user is likely to be interested in prior to applying the image generation (style transfer) (see column 8, lines 16-67)
However Ranzinger et al does not expressly teach … and each of the one or more user cluster enhanced style transfers is derived via a user cluster style transfer training performed on a given base style transfer.
Yet DiVerdi et al teaches … and each of the one or more user cluster enhanced style transfers is derived via a user cluster style transfer training performed on a given base style transfer (Fig 2B, paragraphs 0037, 0038, 0047, 0051, 0053, 0056 and 0057: style transfer/edits/modifications (which can include color attribute/style-preferences) derived from a given base category/type-of-user (interpreted to represent an initial style transfer category) are derived to apply to an image via user latent variables of a cluster index. Modifications to an image are presented/displayed to the user).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing of the invention to have modified Ranzinger et al’s ability to derive and apply edits based upon user preference data, such that the edits could have been based upon referencing a cluster of user data , given a base type of style/editing associated with a user’s editing level (and user style preferences, such as colors) and presented/displayed to the user, as taught by DiVerdi et al. The combination would have allowed “performed image edits” in a personalized manner that would take into account user preferences (DiVerdi et al, paragraph 0002).
With regards to claim 22. (New) The system of claim 21, Ranzinger et al teaches wherein the content generator software application comprises a plurality of generative adversarial networks (column 6, lines 42-50: “FIG. 3 illustrates an embedded space 350 with image vectors 335-1 and 335-2 (hereinafter, collectively referred to as “image vectors 335”) for creating images in a canvas using generative adversarial networks”).
With regards to claim 27. (New) The system of claim 21, Ranzinger et al teaches further comprising a server computer, wherein upon receipt of the request for customized content associated with the user, the server computer is configured to: query the database for the user preference information associated with the user and the corresponding content template, and request the customized content from the content generator software application based on the user preference information and the corresponding content template (column 10, lines 32-35, column 10, lines 54-67: user request (from client device) to obtain an image references user preference/locale information and the corresponding initial image selection as the claimed ‘content template’ used as initial basis for applying modification(s)).
With regards to claim 28. (New) The system of claim 21, Ranzinger et al teaches further comprising a database containing the user preference information and one or more content templates, as similarly in the rejection of claim 27 (user locale information and selected image are obtained/retrieved), and is rejected under similar rationale.
With regards to claim 29. (New) The system of claim 27, Ranzinger et al teaches further comprising a client device, wherein the request for customized content is received from the client device, as similarly in the rejection of claim 27 (user request comes from client device), and is rejected under similar rationale.
With regards to claim 30. (New) The system of claim 29, Ranzinger et al teaches wherein the server computer is configured to: receive the generated customized content, and transmit the generated customized content to the client device (column 6, lines 23-35, column 10, lines 8-32, Fig 7, Fig. 8: the server computer can receive request from a client and customized/synthetic image is obtained to present/send to a user’s device ).
With regards to claim 31, the combination of Ranzinger et al and DiVerdi et al teaches a method for dynamically modifying content based on user preferences, the method comprising: receiving, by a content generator software application from a server computer, a request for customized content associated with a user; retrieving, by the content generator software application, a style transfer from a database; and applying, by the content generator software application, the style transfer to a corresponding content template to generate the customized content based on user preference information of the user, wherein the style transfer is a user personalized style transfer associated with the user preference information and obtained through a user style transfer training performed on one or more user cluster enhanced style transfers, and each of the one or more user cluster enhanced style transfers is derived via a user cluster style transfer training performed on a given base style transfer, as similarly explained in the rejection of claim 21, and is rejected under similar rationale.
With regards to claim 36. (New) The method of claim 31, the combination of Ranzinger et al and DiVerdi et al teaches further comprising displaying the generated customized content to the user, as similarly explained in the rejection of claim 21, and is rejected under similar rationale.
With regards to claim 39. (New) The method of claim 31, Ranzinger et al teaches wherein the corresponding content template is one of a video or an image ( as similarly explained in the rejection of claim 21, Ranzinger et al’s selected image is considered a starting content template), and is rejected under similar rationale.
With regards to claim 40. (New) the combination of Ranzinger et al and DiVerdi et al teaches a non-transitory computer readable medium having stored thereon computer executable instructions that, when executed by a content generator software application, cause the content generator software application to perform procedures comprising: receiving, from a server computer, a request for customized content associated with a user; retrieving a style transfer from a database; and applying the style transfer to a corresponding content template to generate the customized content based on user preference information of the user, wherein the style transfer is a user personalized style transfer associated with the user preference information and obtained through a user style transfer training performed on one or more user cluster enhanced style transfers, and each of the one or more user cluster enhanced style transfers is derived via a user cluster style transfer training performed on a given base style transfer, as similarly explained in the rejection of claim 21, and is rejected under similar rationale.
Claim(s) 23-26 and 32 remain rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ranzinger et al (US Patent: 10783398, issued: Sep. 22, 2020, filed: Oct. 22, 2018), in view of DiVerdi et al (US Application: US 2018/0225812, published: Aug. 9, 2018, filed: Aug. 9, 2018) in view of Brownlee (“How to Develop a Pix2Pix GAN for Image-to-Image Translation”, publisher: MachinelearningMastery.com, published: Dec. 13, 2019, pages 1-31).
With regards to claim 23. (New) The system of claim 22, the combination of Ranzinger et al and DiVerdi et al teaches wherein each generative adversarial network, as similarly explained in the rejection of claim 22 and is rejected under similar rationale.
However the combination does not expressly teach … wherein each generative adversarial network is associated with a corresponding style transfer.
Yet Brownlee teaches … wherein each generative adversarial network is associated with a corresponding style transfer (pages 2, 5 and 7: each GAN can be for each type of transfer (map to satellite, black/white image to color, sketches to photographs) and the discriminator in the GAN is trained on a pair of real and generated images, where the real images for training include a pair of source and target images. Also, the inputted images map an image of satellite domain to map domain. Lastly, a specific style transfer (such as of photo images to be stylized in a simplified maps style) is trained using a Pix2PIX GAN ).
It would have obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing of the invention to have modified Ranzinger et al and DiVerdi et al ability to generate content (using artificial intelligence networks) by applying edits (styles) to an initial image (template image) to generate a target image, such that a type of network (from a plurality of different networks) employed for the generation could have been a generative adversarial network that would be used for each specific style transfer (to apply a style/edit/change of one domain upon a target domain), as taught by Brownlee. The combination would have allowed You et al and Duke to have implemented effectively generated an image to be a reasonable translation, given a source image (Brownlee, page 19).
With regards to claim 24. (New) The system of claim 22, the combination of Ranzinger et al, DiVerdi et al and Brownlee teaches wherein each generative adversarial network is a generative adversarial network trained on a paired dataset (as similarly explained in the rejection of claim 23, Brownlee was explained to teach the GAN(s) are trained based on a pair of source and target images ), and is rejected under similar rationale.
With regards to claim 25. (New) The system of claim 24, the combination of Ranzinger et al, DiVerdi et al and Brownlee teaches wherein the paired dataset comprises a plurality of inputted images, and each of the plurality of inputted images is mapped to an image in a target domain (as similarly explained in the rejection of claim 23, Brownlee was explained to teach the inputted images map an image of satellite domain to map domain), and is rejected under similar rationale.
With regards to claim 26. (New) The system of claim 25, the combination of Ranzinger et al, DiVerdi et al and Brownlee teaches wherein the style transfer is trained by a corresponding generative adversarial network (as similarly explained in the rejection of claim 23, Brownlee was explained to teach a specific style transfer (such as of photo images to be stylized in a simplified maps style) is trained using a Pix2PIX GAN), and is rejected under similar rationale.
With regards to claim 32. (New) The method of claim 31, the combination of Ranzinger et al, DiVerdi et al and Brownlee teaches wherein the content generator software application comprises a plurality of generative adversarial networks; each generative adversarial network includes a generative network and a discriminator network, and each generative adversarial network is trained on distinct training data (as similarly explained in the rejection of claim 23, Brownlee was explained to teach the GAN(s) are trained based on a pair of source and target images ), and is rejected under similar rationale.
Claim(s) 33 and 34 remain rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ranzinger et al (US Patent: 10783398, issued: Sep. 22, 2020, filed: Oct. 22, 2018), in view of DiVerdi et al (US Application: US 2018/0225812, published: Aug. 9, 2018, filed: Aug. 9, 2018) in view of Thomee et al (US Application: US 2018/0012630, published: Jan . 11, 2018, filed: Jul. 7, 2016)
With regards to claim 33. (New) The method of claim 31, the combination of Ranzinger et al and DiVerdi et al teaches wherein the style transfer … to the corresponding content template … and at least one color modification to the corresponding content template, as similarly explained in the rejection of claim 21 (Ranzinger et al’s selected image (the content template data) could be modified with user preferred edits (which include color)), and is rejected under similar rationale.
However the combination does not expressly teach … wherein the style transfer is one of a live-action modification to the corresponding content template, an animated modification to the corresponding content template.
Yet Thomee et al teaches … wherein the style transfer is one of a live-action modification to the corresponding content template, an animated modification to the corresponding content template(paragraph 0046, 0050 and 0051: style content is added/transferred into each of a sequence of frames (at least two) from a live ‘action’/streaming video).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing of the invention to have modified Ranzinger et al and DiVerdi et al’s ability to transfer/apply a style/edit to an initial target content ( content media template), such that the target content could have included live video frame content, as taught by Thomee et al. The combination would have allowed You et al, Duke and You to have improved matching of content to media objects (Thomee et al, paragraph 0001).
With regards to claim 34. (New) The method of claim 31, the combination of Ranzinger et al, DiVerdi et al and Thomee et al teaches wherein the corresponding content template includes a plurality of video frames, wherein the style transfer is applied to each video frame of the corresponding content template, as similarly explained in the rejection of claim 33, and is rejected under similar rationale.
Claim(s) 35 remains rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ranzinger et al (US Patent: 10783398, issued: Sep. 22, 2020, filed: Oct. 22, 2018), in view of DiVerdi et al (US Application: US 2018/0225812, published: Aug. 9, 2018, filed: Aug. 9, 2018) in view of Mellina et al (US Application: US 2019/0205946, published: Jul. 4, 2019, filed: Dec. 28, 2017).
With regards to claim 35. (New) The method of claim 31, the combination of Ranzinger et al and DiVerdi et al teaches wherein the user preference information ( as similarly explained in the rejection of claim 31, content is generated/modified based upon user preference, which includes locale and prior user edits/changes), and is rejected under similar rationale.
However the combination does not expressly teach … user preference information corresponds to an age range of the user.
Yet Mellina et al teaches … user preference information corresponds to an age range of the user (paragraph 0056: user preference information for generating content takes into account age of user).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing of the invention to have modified Ranzinger et al and DiVerdi et al’s ability to generate content based upon user preference information, such that the type of information would have included user age, as taught by Mellina et al. The combination would have implemented an improved way to customize/personalized information for presentation to a user.
Claim(s) 37 remain rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ranzinger et al (US Patent: 10783398, issued: Sep. 22, 2020, filed: Oct. 22, 2018), in view of DiVerdi et al (US Application: US 2018/0225812, published: Aug. 9, 2018, filed: Aug. 9, 2018) in view of Bolivar et al (US Application: US 2007/0288454, published: Dec. 13, 2007, filed: Dec. 27, 2006).
With regards to claim 37. (New) The method of claim 31, the combination of Ranzinger et al and DiVerdi et al teaches wherein the request for customized content is generated, as similarly explained in the rejection of claim 31, and is rejected under similar rationale.
However the combination does not expressly teach …generated upon determining that the user accessed certain content, wherein the certain content is one of a website, a television channel, or a video game.
Yet Bolivar et al teaches …generated upon determining that the user accessed certain content, wherein the certain content is one of a website, a television channel, or a video game (Abstract: user behavior that is collected in order to generate content includes user web site/page access history).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing of the invention to have modified Ranzinger et al and DiVerdi et al’s ability to process a request for customized content based on user metadata and to generate the content, such that the user metadata would have further included user access of a web site, as taught by Bolivar. The combination would have allowed optimized generation of content/advertisement(s) by taking into account context and keyword metadata (Bolivar et al, paragraph 0003).
Claim(s) 38 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ranzinger et al (US Patent: 10783398, issued: Sep. 22, 2020, filed: Oct. 22, 2018), in view of DiVerdi et al (US Application: US 2018/0225812, published: Aug. 9, 2018, filed: Aug. 9, 2018) in view of Thomee et al (US Application: US 2018/0012630, published: Jan . 11, 2018, filed: Jul. 7, 2016) in view of Adachi (US Application: US 20010053275, published: Dec. 20, 2001, filed: Apr. 6, 2001).
With regards to claim 38. (New) The method of claim 31, the combination of Ranzinger et al, DiVerdi et al and Thomee et al teaches wherein the corresponding content template includes a plurality of video frames, wherein the style transfer is applied to at least two video frames, as similarly explained in the rejection of claim 33, and is rejected under similar rationale.
However the combination does not expressly teach … the style transfer is applied to at least two video frames simultaneously.
Yet Adachi teaches … the style transfer is applied to at least two video frames simultaneously (paragraph 0021: parallel processing is implemented to process a plurality of video frames simultaneously).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing of the invention to have modified Ranzinger et al, DiVerdi et al and Thomee et al’s ability to process video edits (by applying transfer style to at least two frames), such that the processing could have been implemented in parallel fashion to at least two frames simultaneously, as taught by Adachi et al. The combination would have enhanced the ability to perform real time processing without necessarily having to always perform frame-by-frame processing (Adachi et al, paragraph 0019).
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 07/27/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
With regards to the 35 USC 101 rejections, the prior rejections are withdrawn in view of applicant’s amendment including hardware in the system claim.
With regards to claim 21, the applicant argues the newly amended ‘performed on’ language. As explained in the 35 USC 112 rejections above, the new amendments appear to require opposite of what the applicant is arguing. The examiner respectfully notes that ‘performs on’ is an action and the specification explained in paragraph 0045 at best explains a ‘referencing’ action where the higher layer references data from a layer below it (hence the specification using ‘from’), the specification does not get to the point where the lower layer is an entity that performs an action. The examiner suggests the applicant consider reverting back to ‘from’ or using the phrasing of the spec (i.e. derived from / derived via). As explained in the 35 USC 112 rejections above, the examiner makes the assumption that the applicant intended the claim language to reflect the flow and hierarchy of Fig. 4 of the instant application (even when the amendments require a different unsupported and opposite aspect) and this office action has been updated with further updated explanations to show that the prior references still teach the applicant’s intended language.
The applicant argues that Ranzinger’s clusters are clusters of image vectors representing visually similar images in embedded space, and thus, does not teach the claim language. However this argument is not persuasive since the recurrent network in Fig. 5 of Ranzinger generates an image according to user style/locale and the recurrent network references user specific style from data of the locale embedding (which includes user direct training) and that data is clustered with image(s) that the specific user is likely to be interested in prior to applying the image generation (style transfer) (see column 8, lines 16-67). Also the examiner further respectfully directs applicant to an example of a cluster intersection of user embedding and image embedding in Fig. 3 that is referenced by the network that recognizes user embedding cluster and image cluster to make a decision of style application/generation.
The applicant further argues Ranzinger does not teach user cluster style training and given base style transfer to derive a cluster enhanced style transfer. However this argument is not persuasive since as explained above, user data is clustered in embedding space and another image is selected (as a starting image (base)) from its own embedding cluster to yield apply a synthetic change (style transfer). The applicant also argues that Ranzinger does not teach user cluster enhanced style transfers resulting from user style transfer training; however this argument is not persuasive since as explained above user embedding is a result of user direct training and that data is then cross referenced using clustering of user embedding and image embedding to produce a synthesized image (the user personalized style transfer).
With regards to DiVerdi, the applicant argues the specific data of ‘DiVerdi’ that applies ‘categories ‘ are not considered a base style, however the examiner respectfully points out that DiVerdi is maintained to teach a type of ‘style’ and the claim language does not currently require specific aspects of ‘style’. More specifically as explained previously, DiVerdi teaches in Fig 2B, paragraphs 0037, 0038, 0047, 0051, 0053, 0056 and 0057: style transfer/edits/modifications (which can include color attribute/style-preferences) derived from a given base category/type-of-user (interpreted to represent an initial style transfer category) are derived to apply to an image via user latent variables of a cluster index.
With regards to claims 31 and 40, the applicant argues they are allowable for reasons presented for claim 21 above. However this argument is not persuasive since claim 21 was explained to be rejected above.
With regards to claims 22-30 and 32-39, the applicant argues they are allowable by virtue of their dependency upon one of claims 21 and 31. However this argument is not persuasive since claim 21 and 31 have been shown/explained to be rejected above.
NOTE
In the interest of expediting the prosecution of the application, the examiner presents some additional areas the applicant can consider for assessing next step(s)/amendment(s): 1) how styles are trained (the type of input in a training model, the type of output in a training model), 2) structure of the content template (parameters), 3) resolving how a domain relates to each style transfer the request including user personalized style transfer (paragraph 0051).
Conclusion
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. 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 WILSON W TSUI whose telephone number is (571)272-7596. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 9 am -6 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, Adam Queler can be reached at (571) 272-4140. 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.
/WILSON W TSUI/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2172
