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 Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 12/30/2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
The Applicant argues that the cited references do not disclose the new added limitations. The Examiner respectfully disagrees.
Blohowiak discloses generating for output, based on the generated content structures and features, a single frame depiction of content that comprise multiple frames. For example, Blohowiak discloses generating respective portion comprising preferred entity and display the generated portion; see at least paragraphs 0045, 0096, 0100, 0107, 0117 and 0131. Furthermore, the system stitches together images of the media content based on user preference, such as images of the user’s preferred actors; see at least Figs. 4 and 6 and paragraphs 0101-0104, 0126 and 0130-0131.
Truong discloses a discriminator that compares content with known content to generate trained and fine-tuned content, and a generator is trained and fine-tuned in parallel with the discriminator designed to evaluate the quality of an image. For example, Truong discloses a generator in a GAN model, can generate new data instances, while discriminator may decide whether each instance of data belongs to the actual training dataset or not. Meanwhile, generator may create new, synthetic images that passed to discriminator in the hopes that these new synthetic images will be deemed authentic; see at least col. 5, line 42-col. 6, line 17 and col. 15, line 63-col. 16, line 8. Furthermore, the GAN model may be tuned to generate synthetic images based on feedback from human users; see at least col. 10, lines 37-42 and col. 15, lines 15-23.
For at least the above reasons, the present claimed invention is not patentable over the cited reference(s).
Claims 1 and 11 have been amended and the double patenting rejection is maintained, as suggested by the applicant, until an indication of allowable subject matter is made.
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 §§ 706.02(l)(1) - 706.02(l)(3) 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 USPTO Internet website contains terminal disclaimer forms which may be used. Please visit www.uspto.gov/patent/patents-forms. The 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/process/file/efs/guidance/eTD-info-I.jsp.
Claims 1-20 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being anticipated over claims 1-20 of U.S. Patent No. 12,108,100.
Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because at least one examined application claim is not patentable distinct from the reference claims(s) because the examined application claim is either anticipated by, or would have been obvious over, the reference claim(s).
Claims 1-20 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being anticipated over claims 1-20 of U.S. Patent No. 11,750,866.
Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because at least one examined application claim is not patentable distinct from the reference claims(s) because the examined application claim is either anticipated by, or would have been obvious over, the reference claim(s).
Claims 1-20 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being anticipated over claims 1-22 of U.S. Patent No. 11,330,315.
Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because at least one examined application claim is not patentable distinct from the reference claims(s) because the examined application claim is either anticipated by, or would have been obvious over, the reference claim(s).
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.
Claims 1-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Blohowiak (US 2016/0381420) in view of Truong (US 10,614,207).
Regarding claim 1, Blohowiak discloses a method comprising:
receiving as input content structures and features (accessing user profile; see at least paragraphs 0043-0044, 0060, 0098-0099 and 0114);
processing the received content structures and features (accessing it and cross reference it with identities in media assets; see at least paragraphs 0041-0044, 0060, 0098-0099 and 0112-0114);
generating, with a generator, based at least in part on the received and processed content structures and features, intermediate content structures and features (generating respective portion comprising preferred entity; see at least paragraphs 0045, 0100, 0117 and 0131); and
generating for output, based on the generated content structures and features, a single frame depiction of content that comprise multiple frames (display the generated portion; see at least paragraphs 0045, 0096, 0100, 0107, 0117 and 0131. Furthermore, the system stitches together images of the media content based on user preference, such as images of the user’s preferred actors; see at least Figs. 4 and 6 and paragraphs 0101-0104, 0126 and 0130-0131),
wherein:
the generator generates single frame depictions of content based on content structures and features (the generated portion; see at least paragraphs 0045, 0096, 0100, 0107, 0117 and 0131).
Blohowiak discloses the single frame depictions of content that comprise multiple frames; as above, but is not clear about a discriminator that compares content with known content to generate trained and fine-tuned content, and a generator is trained and fine-tuned in parallel with the discriminator designed to evaluate the quality of an image.
Truong discloses the above missing limitation; a generator in a GAN model, can generate new data instances, while discriminator may decide whether each instance of data belongs to the actual training dataset or not. Meanwhile, generator may create new, synthetic images that passed to discriminator in the hopes that these new synthetic images will be deemed authentic; see at least col. 5, line 42-col. 6, line 17 and col. 15, line 63-col. 16, line 8. Furthermore, the GAN model may be tuned to generate synthetic images based on feedback from human users; see at least col. 10, lines 37-42 and col. 15, lines 15-23.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to modify Blohowiak by the teachings of Truong by having the above limitations so to be able to generate Captcha images using variations of the same object; see at least the Abstract.
Regarding claim 2, Blohowiak in view of Truong disclose the method of claim 1, wherein the content structures and features include at least one of a user account profile, content browsing history, prior content consumption, a social media pattern, content metadata of a content item, a user preference, an image, an image attribute, a vector graphic command, an attribute of an object depicted in the content item, a background, a type of content, or a theme,
wherein the intermediate content structures and features include at least one of a stock single frame depiction of content, a content structure, an image, a background, an action sequence, an animated character, or a scene, and
wherein the single frame depiction of content includes at least one of an animated scene, an action scene, a scene from the content item including characters engaged in action, or a modified background (the combination of Blohowiak and Truong; see at least the rejection of claim 1 and Truong; col. 8, line 11-31, col. 10, line 15-43 and col. 13, line 42-56).
Regarding claim 3, Blohowiak in view of Truong disclose the method of claim 1, wherein the processing of the received content structures and features includes an object data structure (Blohowiak; see at least paragraphs 0041-0044, 0060, 0098-0099 and 0112-0114).
Regarding claim 4, Blohowiak in view of Truong disclose the method of claim 3, wherein the object data structure includes a descriptive structure, and an action structure (Blohowiak; see at least paragraphs 0041-0044, 0060, 0098-0099 and 0112-0114).
Regarding claim 5, Blohowiak in view of Truong disclose the method of claim 4, wherein the descriptive structure includes at least one of an object name, an object type, a feature, or a state, and wherein the action structure includes at least one of an action, an absolute location, a relative location, an absolute motion, or a relative motion (Blohowiak; see at least paragraphs 0041-0044, 0060, 0098-0099 and 0112-0114).
Regarding claim 6, Blohowiak in view of Truong disclose the method of claim 1, the method further comprising transmitting of the single frame depiction of content to a user for collection of feedback (Truong; col. 15, line 63-col. 16, line 8).
Regarding claim 7, Blohowiak in view of Truong disclose the method of claim 6, the method further comprising modifying the single frame depiction of content based on the feedback (Truong; col. 15, line 63-col. 16, line 8).
Regarding claim 8, Blohowiak in view of Truong disclose the method of claim 1 further comprising determining at least one of an authenticity of the single frame depiction of content, an approval of the single frame depiction of content, or whether at least one of an image, a content structure, an actor, an object, or a background sufficiently resemble a model depiction (Truong; see at least the rejection of claim 1).
Regarding claim 9, Blohowiak in view of Truong disclose the method of claim 8, wherein the determining includes processing at least one of the image, the content structure, the actor, the object, or the background with at least one of facial recognition, object recognition, or pattern matching (Truong; see at least the rejection of claim 1).
Claim 10 is rejected on the same grounds as claims 2-9.
Claim 11 is rejected on the same grounds as claim 1.
Claim 12 is rejected on the same grounds as claim 2.
Claim 13 is rejected on the same grounds as claim 3.
Claim 14 is rejected on the same grounds as claim 4.
Claim 15 is rejected on the same grounds as claim 5.
Claim 16 is rejected on the same grounds as claim 6.
Claim 17 is rejected on the same grounds as claim 7.
Claim 18 is rejected on the same grounds as claim 8.
Claim 19 is rejected on the same grounds as claim 9.
Claim 20 is rejected on the same grounds as claim 10.
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 YASSIN ALATA whose telephone number is (571)270-5683. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Fri 7-4 ET.
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, Nasser Goodarzi can be reached at 571-272-4195. 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.
/YASSIN ALATA/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2426