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 .
Status of the Claims
Claims 1-20 are currently pending in the present application, with claims 1, 13, and 17 being independent.
Specification
The title of the invention is not descriptive. A new title is required that is clearly indicative of the invention to which the claims are directed.
The specification is objected to as failing to provide proper antecedent basis for the claimed subject matter. See 37 CFR 1.75(d)(1) and MPEP § 608.01(o). Correction of the following is required: Claims 1, 13, and 17 set forth “obtaining first text content and an image prompt, wherein the first text content is configured to describe content information of an image to be generated, and the image prompt is configured to describe a generation requirement of the image to be generated”. The corresponding specification appears to exclusive use the configured to language with respect to modules and not the content. For instance, paragraph 128, which is the closest supporting paragraph, sets forth “an information module 610, configured to obtain first text content and an image prompt, wherein the first text content is used to describe content information of an image to be generated, and the image prompt is used to describe a generation requirement of the image to be generated”. However, using the first text content and image prompt to describe something is fundamentally different than having them be configured to do something. The examiner respectfully requests the applicant clarify the scope of the claimed limitation with respect to the originally filed disclosure.
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 1-20 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.
Claim 1 (and similarly claims 13 and 17) recites “obtaining first text content and image prompt, wherein the first text content is configured to describe content information of an image to be generated, and the image prompt is configured to describe a generation requirement of the image to be generated; performing semantic analysis on the first text content and the image prompt based on a generative model to obtain a description keyword of the image to be generated corresponding to the first text content; and generating a target image corresponding to the first text content based on the description keyword of the image to be generated”. These limitations correspond to computer-implemented functional claim limitations as discussed in MPEP 2161.01. Applicant’s disclosure regarding these functions does not appear to describe the methodology by which the claimed functions are performed.
With respect to obtaining first text content and image prompt, wherein the first text content is configured to describe content information of an image to be generated, and the image prompt is configured to describe a generation requirement of the image to be generated, outside of the claim language, the originally filed disclosure does not appear to set forth how the first text content and image prompt are configured to describe something. The disclosure does not appear to provide an explanation, algorithm, description of how first text content and image prompt are configured to describe something.
As explained in MPEP 2161.01 I, paragraphs 6-8, “original claims may lack written description when the claims define the invention in functional language specifying a desired result but the specification does not sufficiently describe how the function is performed or the result is achieved. For software, this can occur when the algorithm or steps/procedure for performing the computer function are not explained at all or are not explained in sufficient detail (simply restating the function recited in the claim is not necessarily sufficient). In other words, the algorithm or steps/procedure taken to perform the function must be described with sufficient detail so that one of ordinary skill in the art would understand how the inventor intended the function to be performed. … An algorithm is defined, for example, as "a finite sequence of steps for solving a logical or mathematical problem or performing a task." Microsoft Computer Dictionary (5th ed., 2002). Applicant may "express that algorithm in any understandable terms including as a mathematical formula, in prose, or as a flow chart, or in any other manner that provides sufficient structure." Finisar Corp. v. DirecTV Grp., Inc., 523 F.3d 1323, 1340, 86 USPQ2d 1609, 1623 (Fed. Cir. 2008) (internal citation omitted). It is not enough that one skilled in the art could write a program to achieve the claimed function because the specification must explain how the inventor intends to achieve the claimed function to satisfy the written description requirement.” With respect to the claimed computer functional limitations of “obtaining first text content and image prompt, wherein the first text content is configured to describe content information of an image to be generated, and the image prompt is configured to describe a generation requirement of the image to be generated”, although the disclosure provides examples of desired outcomes with respect to the functional limitations, there is no description of an algorithm, steps, or procedure showing how the inventor(s) intended the functions to be performed. Therefore the functions recited in claims 1, 13, and 17 correspond to 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
Claims depending thereon do not cure the noted deficiencies and are also rejected using substantially similar rationale as to that set forth with respect to the claims from which they depend.
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.
With respect to claim 1, given the plain and ordinary meaning of the words themselves when interpreted in light of the corresponding disclosure, the scope of the claimed limitation is unclear. For instance, it is not immediately clear as to:
How the first text content and image prompt are configured to describe something. The corresponding specification appears to exclusive use the configured to language with respect to modules and not the content. For instance, paragraph 128, which is the closest supporting paragraph, sets forth “an information module 610, configured to obtain first text content and an image prompt, wherein the first text content is used to describe content information of an image to be generated, and the image prompt is used to describe a generation requirement of the image to be generated”. However, taking into account the language in the disclosure the scope of the claimed limitation is unclear. How is are the content and prompt configured to perform the action? If it is used to describe the information, then in what context is it being used?
The difference in scope between the first text content and image prompt. The claim calls for the first text content to describe content information of an image to be generated and for the image prompt to describe a generation requirement of the image to be generated. While the claim appears to set forth these are two distinct items, it is unclear as to if there is a difference in scope. For instance, as claimed the content and requirement are most likely the same value and cover the same the same scope.
What exactly is being obtained with the image prompt and first text content. Is the user being served up two prompts?
What constitutes a generation requirement of the image. Is it a trigger condition to generate the image? Is it required content for the image? is it properties? As currently drafted, it is unclear as to what constitutes the description of a generation requirement.
How performing semantic analysis on the first text content and image prompt based on a generative model yields a description keyword...corresponding to the first text content? How does performing semantic analysis on A + B yield only something that corresponds to A?
If both the image prompt and first text content are configured to describe a generation requirement and content information of an image to be generated, how does the generated target image only correspond to the first text content based on the keyword of the image to be generated. Does generating the target image require the text to image model described in paragraph 61? How does the description keyword, as currently drafted, generate the target image?
The examiner respectfully requests the applicant clarify the scope of the claimed limitation.
Claims 13 and 17 recite similar subject matter as to that of claim 1 and are accordingly also rejected using substantially similar rationale as to that set forth with respect to claim 1.
Claims depending thereon do not cure all of the noted deficiencies and are accordingly also rejected using substantially similar rationale as to that set forth for the claims from which they depend.
With respect to claim 2, given the plain and ordinary meaning of the words themselves when interpreted in light of the corresponding disclosure, the scope of the claimed limitation is unclear. For instance, it is not immediately clear as to what constitutes a shot prompt and how that shot prompt is configured to indicate a requirement for segmenting the second text content in a shot segment manner. What is a shot segment manner?
Claims 14 and 18 recite similar subject matter as to that of claim 2 and are accordingly also rejected using substantially similar rationale as to that set forth with respect to claim 2.
Claims depending thereon do not cure the noted deficiency and are accordingly also rejected using substantially similar rationale as to that set forth for the claims from which they depend.
With respect to claim 5, given the plain and ordinary meaning of the words themselves when interpreted in light of the corresponding disclosure, the scope of the claimed limitation is unclear. For instance, it is not immediately clear as to what how the image prompt, which is configured to describe a generation requirement of the image to be generated, at least comprises an image description reference sample, wherein the image description reference sample comprises reference text content and a description keyword of a reference image to be generated corresponding to the reference text content. What is the image description reference sample and how does it comprise reference text content and a description keyword of a reference image to be generated? The examiner respectfully requests the applicant clarify the scope of the claimed limitation.
Claims depending thereon do not cure the noted deficiency and are accordingly also rejected using substantially similar rationale as to that set forth for the claims from which they depend.
With respect to claim 7, given the plain and ordinary meaning of the words themselves when interpreted in light of the corresponding disclosure, the scope of the claimed limitation is unclear. For instance, it is not immediately clear as to what constitutes “rewriting” information of a user and rewritten description keyword. Furthermore, it does not appear that “rewritten description keyword” has antecedent basis in the claim. The examiner respectfully requests the applicant clarify the scope of the claimed limitation.
With respect to claim 12, given the plain and ordinary meaning of the words themselves when interpreted in light of the corresponding disclosure, the scope of the claimed limitation is unclear. For instance, it is not immediately clear as to how adding a target link...to obtain consumption data of the user for the target link during playback of the video, updates the image prompt for the topic type of the target video. How does obtaining consumption information or adding a link update the topic type? The topic type does not appear to have antecedent basis in the claim. The examiner respectfully requests the applicant clarify the scope of the claimed limitation.
Allowable Subject Matter
Based upon the current scope of the claimed limitations, claims 1-20 would be allowable if rewritten or amended to overcome the rejection(s), set forth in this Office action.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
US PG Publication 2025/0315472 to Kuo teaches obtaining text information and description information in generating a target image, see for instance, fig. 7.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MICHAEL J COBB whose telephone number is (571)270-3875. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday, 11am - 7pm 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, Alicia Harrington can be reached at 571-272-2330. 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.
/MICHAEL J COBB/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2615
Prosecution Insights