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 .
Claim Objections
Claims 1-3, 8-10 and 15-17 are objected to because of the following informalities:
For claim 1, Examiner believes this claim should be amended in the following manner:
A method comprising:
receiving, by an image generation system, a selection of a first portion of a first image by a user;
receiving, by the image generation system, a selection of a second portion of a second image by [[a]] the user;
generating, by the image generation system, a combined image by performing a combination operation on the first portion of the first image and the second portion of the second image;
applying, by the image generation system, a generative image model to the combined image to generate a set of images each representative of the combined image; and
displaying, by the image generation system, the
For claim 2, Examiner believes this claim should be amended in the following manner:
The method of claim 1, wherein the
For claim 3, Examiner believes this claim should be amended in the following manner:
The method of claim 1, wherein the
For claim 8, Examiner believes this claim should be amended in the following manner:
A non-transitory computer-readable storage medium storing executable instructions that, when executed by a hardware processor, cause the hardware processor to perform steps comprising:
receiving, by an image generation system, a selection of a first portion of a first image by a user;
receiving, by the image generation system, a selection of a second portion of a second image by [[a]] the user;
generating, by the image generation system, a combined image by performing a combination operation on the first portion of the first image and the second portion of the second image;
applying, by the image generation system, a generative image model to the combined image to generate a set of images each representative of the combined image; and
displaying, by the image generation system, the
For claim 9, Examiner believes this claim should be amended in the following manner:
The non-transitory computer-readable storage medium of claim 8, wherein the
For claim 10, Examiner believes this claim should be amended in the following manner:
The non-transitory computer-readable storage medium of claim 8, wherein the
For claim 15, Examiner believes this claim should be amended in the following manner:
A system comprising:
a hardware processor; and
a non-transitory computer-readable storage medium storing executable instructions that, when executed by the hardware processor, cause the hardware processor to perform steps comprising:
receiving, by an image generation system, a selection of a first portion of a first image by a user;
receiving, by the image generation system, a selection of a second portion of a second image by [[a]] the user;
generating, by the image generation system, a combined image by performing a combination operation on the first portion of the first image and the second portion of the second image;
applying, by the image generation system, a generative image model to the combined image to generate a set of images each representative of the combined image; and
displaying, by the image generation system, the
For claim 16, Examiner believes this claim should be amended in the following manner:
The system of claim 15, wherein the
For claim 17, Examiner believes this claim should be amended in the following manner:
The system of claim 15, wherein the .
Appropriate correction is required.
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.
Claims 1-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
For independent claim 1, this establishes a first “a user” and a second “a user”. Claim 1 goes on to recite the phrase “the user” and it is unclear and ambiguous to which of the first “user” and second “user” is being referenced by the phrase “the user”. Examiner has suggested amendments in the claim objections discussed above to resolve the ambiguities.
For dependent claims 2-7, these claims inherit the deficiencies of claim 1 and are likewise indefinite.
For independent claim 8, this establishes a first “a user” and a second “a user”. Claim 8 goes on to recite the phrase “the user” and it is unclear and ambiguous to which of the first “user” and second “user” is being referenced by the phrase “the user”. Examiner has suggested amendments in the claim objections discussed above to resolve the ambiguities.
For dependent claims 9-14, these claims inherit the deficiencies of claim 8 and are likewise indefinite.
For independent claim 15, this establishes a first “a user” and a second “a user”. Claim 15 goes on to recite the phrase “the user” and it is unclear and ambiguous to which of the first “user” and second “user” is being referenced by the phrase “the user”. Examiner has suggested amendments in the claim objections discussed above to resolve the ambiguities.
For dependent claims 16-20, these claims inherit the deficiencies of claim 15 and are likewise indefinite.
Appropriate correction is required.
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.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
Claim(s) 1-5, 7-12 and 14-19 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Temple et al. (U.S. Patent Application Publication 2023/0196645 A1, hereinafter “Temple”) in view of Casanova et al., Controllable Image Generation via Collage Representations, arXiv, April 2023 (hereinafter “Casanova”) and Mirowski et al., CLIP-CLOP: CLIP-Guided Collage and Photomontage, arXiv, July 2022 (hereinafter “Mirowski”).
For claim 1, Temple discloses a method (par. 15) comprising: receiving, by an image generation system, a selection of a first portion of a first image by a user (disclosing a computing device as an image generation system for implementing a digital environment for receiving a selection of a first portion of a first image by a user (Figs. 2 and 10; par. 2, 26, 41-42, 83 and 93)); receiving, by the image generation system, a selection of a second portion of a second image by a user (disclosing the computing device receives a selection of a second portion of a second image by the user (Fig. 2; par. 41-42 and 49)); generating, by the image generation system, a combined image by performing a combination operation on the first portion of the first image and the second portion of the second image (disclosing the computing device generates a collage as a combined image by performing a combination operation on the first portion of the first image and the second portion of the second image (Fig. 2; par. 49)).
Temple does not disclose applying a generative image model to a combined image to generate a set of images each representative of the combined image.
However, these limitations are well-known in the art as disclosed in Casanova.
Casanova similarly discloses a method for generating a combined image as a collage (pages 1 and 3/Fig. 2). Casanova explains a generative image model is applied to the collage to generate images where each image is representative of the collage (pages 1 and 3/Fig. 2). It follows Temple may be accordingly modified with the teachings of Casanova to apply a generative image model to its combined image to generate a set of images each representative of its combined image.
A person having ordinary skill in the art (PHOSITA) before the effective filing date of the claimed invention would find it obvious to modify Temple with the teachings of Casanova. Casanova is analogous art in dealing with a method for generating a combined image as a collage (pages 1 and 3/Fig. 2). Casanova discloses its use of a generative image model is advantageous in advancing content creation to yield high quality generated images from input collages (pages 1 and 3/Fig. 2). Consequently, a PHOSITA would incorporate the teachings of Casanova into Temple for advancing content creation to yield high quality generated images from input collages.
Temple as modified by Casanova does not specifically disclose displaying images within a digital canvas.
However, these limitations are well-known in the art as disclosed in Mirowski.
Mirowski similarly discloses a method for image generation to produce collages (page 1). Mirowski explains its method is implemented in a computing environment as a digital environment with a canvas for displaying generated images (pages 2-4/Figs. 3 and 5). It follows Temple and Casanova may be accordingly modified with the teachings of Mirowski to implement a digital canvas for displaying its set of images to its user.
A PHOSITA before the effective filing date of the claimed invention would find it obvious to modify Temple and Casanova with the teachings of Mirowski. Mirowski is analogous art in dealing with a method for image generation to produce collages (page 1). Mirowski discloses its use of a digital canvas is advantageous in appropriately displaying generated images to a user (pages 2-4/Figs. 3 and 5). Consequently, a PHOSITA would incorporate the teachings of Mirowski into Temple and Casanova for appropriately displaying generated images to a user. Therefore, claim 1 is rendered obvious to a PHOSITA before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
For claim 2, depending on claim 1, Temple as modified by Casanova and Mirowski discloses wherein the selected first portion of the first image comprises an object or person within the first image (Temple discloses the selected first portion of the first image comprises an object within the first image (Figs. 1B-C; par. 22 and 41-42)).
For claim 3, depending on claim 1, Temple as modified by Casanova and Mirowski discloses wherein the selected second portion of the second image comprises a background of the second image (Casanova similarly discloses a method for generating a combined image as a collage (pages 1 and 3/Fig. 2); Casanova explains an image used for generating the collage may correspond to a background scene image extracted from an input image (pages 3, 4, 15 and 17/Fig. 2); and it follows Temple may be accordingly modified with the teachings of Casanova to select its second portion of its second image as a background of its second image for appropriately generating its collage).
For claim 4, depending on claim 1, Temple as modified by Casanova and Mirowski discloses wherein performing the combination operation on the first portion of the first image and the second portion of the second image comprises overlaying the first portion of the first image onto all or a portion of the second image (Casanova similarly discloses a method for generating a combined image as a collage (pages 1 and 3/Fig. 2); Casanova explains it is known to generate its collage through an overlay of a first image onto a second image (page 3/Fig. 2); and it follows Temple may be accordingly modified with the teachings of Casanova to overlaying its first portion of its first image onto its second image for appropriately generating its collage).
For claim 5, depending on claim 1, Temple as modified by Casanova and Mirowski discloses wherein performing the combination operation on the first portion of the first image and the second portion of the second image comprises performing one or more pre-processing operations on the first portion or the second portion before the combination operation is performed (Temple explains its method supports changing a size to resize the first portion before the combination operation is performed as a pre-processing operation (par. 26)).
For claim 7, depending on claim 1, Temple as modified by Casanova and Mirowski discloses wherein each image of the set of images includes a different visual style (Mirowski similarly discloses a method for image generation to produce collages (page 1); Mirowski likewise explains its method uses a generative image model to generate a set of images where each image includes a different rendering method as a different visual style, e.g. rendering methods of transparency, masked transparency and opacity are used to generate images in different visual styles on prompt “underwater coral” (page 3/Fig. 3); and it follows Temple and Casanova may be accordingly modified with the teachings of Mirowski to include a different visual style for each image of its set of images to improve stylistic expression (page 1; and page 3/Fig. 3)).
For claim 8, Temple as modified by Casanova and Mirowski discloses a non-transitory computer-readable storage medium storing executable instructions that, when executed by a hardware processor (Temple discloses memory for storing instructions for execution by a hardware processor to perform the functions of a computing device (Fig. 10; par. 83)), cause the hardware processor to perform steps of the method of claim 1 (see above as to claim 1).
For claim 9, depending on claim 8, this claim is a combination of the limitations of claim 8 and claim 2. It follows claim 9 is rejected for the same reasons as to claim 8 and claim 2.
For claim 10, depending on claim 8, this claim is a combination of the limitations of claim 8 and claim 3. It follows claim 10 is rejected for the same reasons as to claim 8 and claim 3.
For claim 11, depending on claim 8, this claim is a combination of the limitations of claim 8 and claim 4. It follows claim 11 is rejected for the same reasons as to claim 8 and claim 4.
For claim 12, depending on claim 8, this claim is a combination of the limitations of claim 8 and claim 5. It follows claim 12 is rejected for the same reasons as to claim 8 and claim 5.
For claim 14, depending on claim 8, this claim is a combination of the limitations of claim 8 and claim 7. It follows claim 14 is rejected for the same reasons as to claim 8 and claim 7.
For claim 15, Temple as modified by Casanova and Mirowski discloses a system comprising: a hardware processor; and a non-transitory computer-readable storage medium storing executable instructions that, when executed by the hardware processor (Temple discloses a computing device as a system including a processor and a memory for storing instructions for execution by the hardware processor to perform the functions of the computing device (Fig. 10; par. 83)), cause the hardware processor to perform steps of the method of claim 1 (see above as to claim 1).
For claim 16, depending on claim 15, this claim is a combination of the limitations of claim 15 and claim 2. It follows claim 16 is rejected for the same reasons as to claim 15 and claim 2.
For claim 17, depending on claim 15, this claim is a combination of the limitations of claim 15 and claim 3. It follows claim 17 is rejected for the same reasons as to claim 15 and claim 3.
For claim 18, depending on claim 15, this claim is a combination of the limitations of claim 15 and claim 4. It follows claim 18 is rejected for the same reasons as to claim 15 and claim 4.
For claim 19, depending on claim 15, this claim is a combination of the limitations of claim 15 and claim 5. It follows claim 19 is rejected for the same reasons as to claim 15 and claim 5.
Claim(s) 6, 13 and 20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Temple in view of Casanova and Mirowski further in view of Kansara (U.S. Patent Application Publication 2018/0096502 A1) and Citrin et al. (U.S. Patent Application Publication 2015/0254807 A1, hereinafter “Citrin”).
For claim 6, depending on claim 5, Temple as modified by Casanova and Mirowski discloses wherein the one or more pre-processing operations includes a resizing operation (Temple explains its method supports changing a size to resize the first portion before the combination operation is performed as a pre-processing operation (par. 26)).
Temple as modified by Casanova and Mirowski does not disclose an edge removal operation.
However, these limitations are well-known in the art as disclosed in Kansara.
Kansara similarly discloses a method for generating a collage (par. 42). Kansara explains its collage may be generated through the application of an edge removal operation (par. 48). It follows Temple, Casanova and Mirowski may be accordingly modified with the teachings of Kansara to implement an edge removal operation.
A PHOSITA before the effective filing date of the claimed invention would find it obvious to modify Temple, Casanova and Mirowski with the teachings of Kansara. Kansara is analogous art in dealing with a method for generating a collage (par. 42). Kansara discloses its use of an edge removal operation is advantageous in improving focus of a digital image (par. 48). Consequently, a PHOSITA would incorporate the teachings of Kansara into Temple, Casanova and Mirowski for improving focus of a digital image.
Temple as modified by Casanova, Mirowski and Kansara does not disclose a color matching operation.
However, these limitations are well-known in the art as disclosed in Citrin.
Citrin similarly discloses a method for generating a collage (par. 15). Citrin explains its collage may be generated through the application of a color matching operation (par. 5-6 and 29-30). It follows Temple, Casanova, Mirowski and Kansara may be accordingly modified with the teachings of Citrin to implement a color matching operation.
A PHOSITA before the effective filing date of the claimed invention would find it obvious to modify Temple, Casanova, Mirowski and Kansara with the teachings of Citrin. Citrin is analogous art in dealing with a method for generating a collage (par. 15). Citrin discloses its use of a color matching operation is advantageous in improving visual similarity of a generated collage (par. 5-6 and 29-30). Consequently, a PHOSITA would incorporate the teachings of Citrin into Temple, Casanova, Mirowski and Kansara for improving visual similarity of a generated collage. Therefore, claim 6 is rendered obvious to a PHOSITA before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
For claim 13, depending on claim 12, this claim is a combination of the limitations of claim 12 and claim 6. It follows claim 13 is rejected for the same reasons as to claim 12 and claim 6.
For claim 20, depending on claim 19, this claim is a combination of the limitations of claim 19 and claim 6. It follows claim 20 is rejected for the same reasons as to claim 19 and claim 6.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to CHARLES TSENG whose telephone number is (571)270-3857. The examiner can normally be reached 8-5.
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.
/CHARLES TSENG/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2613
Prosecution Insights