DETAILED ACTION
Status of the Claims
Claims 1-21 are pending.
Specification
The title of the invention is not sufficiently descriptive. A new title is required that is clearly indicative of the invention to which the claims are directed. See MPEP § 606.01.
Claim Rejections - 35 U.S.C. § 112(b)
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.
Claims 13-14, 18, and 20-21 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 112(b) as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
Claim 13 recites the limitation “output the generated two or more pieces of text information based on the evaluation score of the text style.” There is insufficient antecedent basis for the phrase “the generated two or more pieces of text information.” See MPEP § 2173.05(e).
Claim 14 recites the limitation “output, in a case where a request for generating the text information again is received, the text style different from the text style having the highest evaluation score.” There is insufficient antecedent basis for the phrase “the text style different from the text style having the highest evaluation score.”
Claim 18 recites the limitation “acquire a plurality of the images” There is insufficient antecedent basis for the phrase “the images.”
Additionally, the claim recites the limitation “generate the text information common to each of the plurality of images based on the plurality of images and the common text style.” There is insufficient antecedent basis for the phrase “the text information common to each of the plurality of images.”
Claim 20 recites the limitations “processing of deciding a text style based on an image” and “processing of generating text information corresponding to the image based on the image and the text style.” The phrases “processing of deciding” and “processing of generating” appear to contain typographical/grammatical errors which render the meaning of the corresponding limitations unclear.
Claim 21 is rejected for substantially the same reason indicated above for claim 20, at least due to its dependence on the claim.
Claim Rejections - 35 U.S.C. § 112(d)
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. § 112(d):
(d) REFERENCE IN DEPENDENT FORMS.—Subject to subsection (e), a claim in dependent form shall contain a reference to a claim previously set forth and then specify a further limitation of the subject matter claimed. A claim in dependent form shall be construed to incorporate by reference all the limitations of the claim to which it refers.
Claims 2-3 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 112(d) as being of improper dependent form. Applicant may cancel the claim(s), amend the claim(s) to place the claim(s) in proper dependent form, rewrite the claim(s) in independent form, or present a sufficient showing that the dependent claim(s) complies with the statutory requirements.
Claim 2, which depends on claim 1, fails to include all the limitations of the claim upon which it depends. The claim contradicts the parent claim’s element “decide a text style based on an image.” See MPEP § 608.01(n)(III).
Claims 3 is rejected for substantially the same reason indicated above for claim 2, at least due to its dependence on the claim.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101
35 U.S.C. § 101 reads as follows:
Whoever invents or discovers any new and useful process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter, or any new and useful improvement thereof, may obtain a patent therefor, subject to the conditions and requirements of this title.
Claims 1-21 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
Claim 1 may be characterized as an apparatus for generating text information corresponding to an image. This claim has been evaluated under the Alice/Mayo subject matter eligibility test as provided in MPEP § 2106.
I. Step 2A Prong 1: The claim recites an abstract idea.
Courts have defined a mental process to include both concepts that may be performed entirely in the human mind and concepts that require a human to employ a physical aid (e.g., a pen and paper or slide rule). MPEP § 2106.04(a)(2)(III). Examples of mental processes include observations, evaluations, judgments, and opinions. Id.
The following limitations encompass mental processes:
“decide [sic] a text style based on an image;” and
“generate text information corresponding to the image based on the image and the text style.”
The above limitations are drawn to generating text information (i.e., character information indicating a content) based on an image a text style. This activity may be performed by a human.
II. Step 2A Prong 2: The claim does not recite an additional element that integrates the abstract idea into a practical application.
Integration into a practical application should be determined by: “(1) identifying whether there are any additional elements recited in the claim beyond the judicial exception(s); and (2) evaluating those additional elements individually and in combination to determine whether they integrate the exception into a practical application, using one or more of the [listed] considerations.” MPEP § 2106.04(d)(II) (emphasis added).
The claim recites the following additional element:
“a processor.”
A. The invention does not improve the functioning of a computer or any other technology.
Neither the claim nor the specification asserts that the invention improves upon the conventional functioning of a computer, conventional technology, or technological processes. Rather, the claim merely invokes a computer as a tool.
B. An apparatus comprising a processor is not a particular machine.
A general-purpose computer that applies an abstract idea by use of conventional computer functions does not qualify as a particular machine. MPEP § 2106.05(b)(I). The claim recites the additional element of performing the claimed process using a processor. A processor is generic computer technology. Accordingly, the recited abstract idea is not applied with, or by use of, a particular machine.
C. The relevant considerations indicate that the additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application.
When evaluated as a whole, the above-identified considerations indicate that the recited additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because they do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea.
III. Step 2B: The claim does not recite an additional element that amounts to significantly more than the abstract idea.
Whether a claim recites significantly more than an abstract idea should be determined by: (1) identifying any additional elements recited in the claim beyond the judicial exception; and (2) evaluating those additional elements, individually and in combination, with respect to the relevant considerations. MPEP § 2106.05(II).
First, as discussed above, the recited invention does not improve the functioning of a computer. Second, as discussed above, the recited processor is a generic computer technology. Thus, individually, the recited additional elements do not amount to significantly more than the abstract idea itself.
Finally, the combined additional elements do not result in a non-conventional or non-generic arrangement. Rather, the combined additional elements merely embody conventional data processing and data output functions performed by a generic computer.
Accordingly, when evaluated individually and in combination, the above-identified considerations indicate that the recited additional elements do not amount to significantly more than the recited abstract idea.
IV. Conclusion: Ineligible
The claim has been found to be directed to an abstract idea without reciting additional elements that amount to significantly more than the abstract idea. Therefore, the claim does not qualify as patent eligible subject matter under 35 U.S.C. § 101.
Claim 2, which depends on claim 1, is directed to selecting a text style based on an image or input information. This limitation encompasses a mental process. Therefore, the claim is not patent eligible.
Claim 3, which depends on claim 2, is directed to selecting a text style based on input information. This limitation encompasses a mental process. Therefore, the claim is not patent eligible.
Claim 4, which depends on claim 1, is directed to selecting a text style based on input information. This limitation encompasses a mental process. Therefore, the claim is not patent eligible.
Claim 5, which depends on claim 1, is directed to selecting a text style based on a region of an image. This limitation encompasses a mental process. Therefore, the claim is not patent eligible.
Claim 6, which depends on claim 1, is directed to generating text information based on multiple text styles. This limitation encompasses a mental process. Therefore, the claim is not patent eligible.
Claim 7, which depends on claim 1, is directed to generating text information based on a combination of text styles having different themes. This limitation encompasses a mental process. Therefore, the claim is not patent eligible.
Claim 8, which depends on claim 1, is directed to using a trained model to output text information. Limitations that merely generally link the use of an abstract idea to a field of use or technological environment cannot integrate an abstract idea into a practical application. MPEP § 2106.05(h). Specifically, applying generic machine learning techniques to a new environment does not create patent eligibility. Recentive Analytics, Inc. v. Fox Corp., No. 2023-2437, slip op. at 18 (Fed. Cir. Apr. 18, 2025). The claim does not delineate steps through which the machine learning technology achieves an improvement in the field of machine learning. Accordingly, the limitation directed to use of a trained model does not make the claim patent eligible.
Claim 9, which depends on claim 1, is directed to specifying text information with reference to a table containing correspondence information. This limitation encompasses a mental process. Therefore, the claim is not patent eligible.
Claim 10, which depends on claim 1, is directed to using a trained model to output a text style. Limitations that merely generally link the use of an abstract idea to a field of use or technological environment cannot integrate an abstract idea into a practical application. MPEP § 2106.05(h). Specifically, applying generic machine learning techniques to a new environment does not create patent eligibility. Recentive Analytics, Inc. v. Fox Corp., No. 2023-2437, slip op. at 18 (Fed. Cir. Apr. 18, 2025). The claim does not delineate steps through which the machine learning technology achieves an improvement in the field of machine learning. Accordingly, the limitation directed to use of a trained model does not make the claim patent eligible.
Claim 11, which depends on claim 1, is directed to specifying a text style with reference to a table containing correspondence information. This limitation encompasses a mental process. Therefore, the claim is not patent eligible.
Claim 12, which depends on claim 1, is directed to generating multiple candidates for text information and selecting between the candidates. This limitation encompasses a mental process. Therefore, the claim is not patent eligible.
Claim 13, which depends on claim 1, is directed to generating text information based on multiple text styles. This limitation encompasses a mental process. Therefore, the claim is not patent eligible.
Claim 14, which depends on claim 1, is directed to generating text information based on text style with a highest evaluation score. This limitation encompasses a mental process. Therefore, the claim is not patent eligible.
Claim 15, which depends on claim 1, is directed to correction text information based on input information. This limitation encompasses a mental process. Therefore, the claim is not patent eligible.
Claim 16, which depends on claim 15, is directed to reconstructing a trained model. Reconstructing a trained model does not represent a technological improvement. Training a machine learning model is incident to the very nature of machine learning. Recentive Analytics, Inc. v. Fox Corp., No. 2023-2437, slip op. at 12 (Fed. Cir. Apr. 18, 2025).
Claim 17, which depends on claim 15, is directed to correcting a table containing correspondence information using corrected text information. This limitation encompasses a mental process. Therefore, the claim is not patent eligible.
Claim 18, which depends on claim 1, is directed to generating text information based a plurality of images a common text style. This limitation encompasses a mental process. Therefore, the claim is not patent eligible.
Claim 19, which depends on claim 1, is directed to storing text information as corresponding accessory information of an image. This limitation encompasses a mental process. Therefore, the claim is not patent eligible.
Claim 20 is directed to a method for performing the functions of the apparatus recited in claim 1. The method claim is no different than the corresponding apparatus claim in substance. Accordingly, this claim is subject matter ineligible for substantially the same reasons indicated above. See Alice Corp. Pty. Ltd. v. CLS Bank Intern., 573 U.S. 208, 226-27 (2014).
Claim 21 is directed to instructions stored in a medium that implement the method recited in claim 20. The medium claim is no different than the corresponding method claim in substance. Accordingly, this claim is subject matter ineligible for substantially the same reasons indicated above. See Alice Corp. Pty. Ltd. v. CLS Bank Intern., 573 U.S. 208, 226-27 (2014).
Claim Rejections - 35 U.S.C. § 102
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)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 1-6, 8, 12, 15-16, and 19-21 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Zhang et al., US 2019/0200050 A1.
Regarding claim 1, Zhang discloses an image processing apparatus comprising a processor, wherein the processor is configured to:
Decide [sic] a text style based on an image. Zhang teaches analyzing visual media (e.g., an image) to determine a context. Zhang ¶¶ 103-104. The context may be used to select one or more narrative styles. Id. ¶ 111.
Generate text information corresponding to the image based on the image and the text style. Zhang teaches generating a caption for the visual media using a selected narrative style. Zhang ¶ 113.
Regarding claim 2, which depends on claim 1, Zhang discloses wherein the processor is configured to: set a first decision mode in which the text style is decided based on the image or a second decision mode in which the text style is decided based on first input information; and decide the text style based on the set first decision mode or second decision mode. Zhang teaches using context to select one or more narrative styles. Zhang ¶ 111. The context may be determined based on a number of factors (e.g., input). Id. ¶ 103.
Regarding claim 3, which depends on claim 2, Zhang discloses wherein the processor is configured to: decide, in a case where the second decision mode is set, the text style based on the first input information from a user related to the text style. Zhang teaches using context to select one or more narrative styles. Zhang ¶ 111. The context may be determined based on a number of factors (e.g., input associated with a user). Id. ¶ 103.
Regarding claim 4, which depends on claim 1, Zhang discloses wherein the processor is configured to:
Output the decided text style. Zhang teaches displaying the caption. Zhang ¶ 125.
Decide the text style again based on second input information related to the text style; and generate the text information based on the image and the text style decided again. Zhang teaches generating a new caption based on previous captions and a determined context. Zhang ¶¶ 116-120.
Regarding claim 5, which depends on claim 2, Zhang discloses wherein the processor is configured to: decide the text style based on a specific subject region extracted by analyzing the image. Zhang ¶ 21.
Regarding claim 6, which depends on claim 1, Zhang discloses wherein the processor is configured to: decide two or more text styles based on the image; and generate the text information based on the two or more text styles. Zhang teaches using the context to select multiple narrative styles. Zhang ¶ 111.
Regarding claim 8, which depends on claim 1, Zhang discloses wherein the processor is configured to: use a first trained model trained to output the text information by inputting the image and the text style to generate the text information. Zhang teaches using a personalized language model to output the caption. Zhang ¶ 113. The personalized language model is a trained model. Id. ¶¶ 83-84.
Regarding claim 12, which depends on claim 1, Zhang discloses wherein the processor is configured to: generate two or more candidates for the text information based on the image and the text style; output the generated two or more candidates for the text information; and decide the text information from the two or more candidates for the text information based on selection information by a user. Zhang ¶ 122.
Regarding claim 15, which depends on claim 1, Zhang discloses wherein the processor is configured to: output the generated text information; and correct, in a case where third input information related to correction of the text information is received, the text information based on the third input information. Zhang teaches receiving user edits to a caption. Zhang ¶ 123.
Regarding claim 16, which depends on claim 15, Zhang discloses wherein the processor is configured to: reconstruct a first trained model constructed by performing machine learning using learning data including an image, a text style, and text information, using the learning data including the corrected text information. Zhang teaches training (i.e., reconstructing) a personalized language model using learning data. Zhang ¶¶ 83-84.
Regarding claim 19, which depends on claim 15, Zhang discloses wherein the processor is configured to: store at least one of the decided text style or the generated text information as corresponding accessory information of the image. Zhang fig. 4 (step 476), ¶ 124.
Claim 20 is drawn to a method for performing the functions of the apparatus recited in claim 1. Accordingly, this claim is rejected for substantially the same reasons as indicated in the above rejection of the corresponding claim.
Claim 21 is drawn to instructions stored in a medium that implement the method recited in claim 20. Accordingly, this claim is rejected for substantially the same reasons as indicated in the above rejection of the corresponding claim.
Conclusion
Although particular portions of the prior art may have been cited in support of the rejections, the specified citations are merely representative of the teachings. Other passages and figures in the cited prior art may apply. Accordingly, Applicant should consider the entirety of the cited prior art for potentially teaching all or part of the claims.
The following prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant’s disclosure:
Baker et al., US 2016/0189414 A1, discloses generating a caption for images.
Valliani et al., US 2017/0132821 A1, discloses generating a caption for visual media.
Dey et al., US 9,940,576 B1, discloses generating a caption for images based on contextual data.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Asher D Kells whose telephone number is (571)270-7729. The examiner can normally be reached Mon. - Fri., 8 a.m. - 4 p.m..
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, Kieu Vu can be reached at 571-272-4057. 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.
Asher D. Kells
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 2171
/Asher D Kells/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2171
Prosecution Insights