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
Claim 40 is objected to because of the following informalities:
Claim 40 does not end with a period.
Appropriate correction is required.
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 – 23 and 29 – 40 rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1 – 8, 10, 11, 19, and 20 of U.S. Patent No. 12, 277,635. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because claims 1 – 8, 10, 11, 19, and 20 of U.S. Patent No. 12, 277,635 anticipated claims 21 – 23 and 29 - 40.
AN: 19/071,593
US 12,277,635
a computer-implemented method, the method comprising:
A computer-implemented method, the method comprising:
receiving, by a computing system comprising one or more processors, image data from a user device;
receiving, by a computing system comprising one or more processors, image data from a user device;
receiving, by the computing system, a prompt query associated with the image data;
determining, using a computer vision model, a first object from the image data that is associated with a prompt query;
determining, using a computer vision model, a first object from the image data that is associated with the prompt query;
receiving, by the computing system from the user device, a user indication that the first object is incorrectly labeled;
receiving, by the computing system from the user device, a user indication that the first object is incorrectly labeled;
reclassifying the first object based on the user indication; and
reclassifying, by the computing system, the first object based on the user indication; and
generating a response using a large language model based on the reclassification of the first object.
in response to receiving the user indication, generating a response using a large language model based on the reclassification of the first object.
AN: 19/071,593
21
39
40
22
23
24-28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
US 12,277,635
1
19
20
1
6
11
13
2
3
4
5
7
7
8
10
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
Claims 22 and 23 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.
Claim 22 recites “a prompt query”. It is unclear if this instance of “a prompt query” is the same or different from the instance of “a prompt query” recited in claim 21.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 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.
Claim(s) 40 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Chang et al. (US 2021/0263962).
Regarding independent claim 40, Chang teaches one or more non-transitory computer-readable media that collectively store instructions that, when executed by one or more computing devices, cause the one or more computing devices to perform operations (paragraph 220 and Claim 1), the operations comprising:
receiving image data (paragraph 64: the image editing system 104 provides a variety of tools related to image creation and editing) from a user device (paragraph 63: The client device 102 can include an image editing system 104 and an object selection system 106);
determining, using a computer vision model (paragraph 66: The object selection system 106, in many implementations, utilizes natural language processing tools and an object selection pipeline to determine which object detection neural networks to utilize based on the query object as well as which additional neural networks and/or models to utilize to select the particular requested query object), a first object from the image data that is associated with a prompt query (paragraph 65: For example, the image editing system 104 receives a natural language object selection query (or query string) that inputs, "make the red dress yellow," "blur the background and make it gray," or "increase the contrast on the water." As part of fulfilling the request, the image editing system 104 utilizes the object selection system 106 to automatically select the corresponding query object identified in the query string);
receiving, by the computing system from the user device, a user indication that the first object is incorrectly labeled (paragraph 150: For example, if the object selection system 106 is unable to identify and tag the detected instances of "furniture," the object selection system 106 provides all three objects selected to the user within the image 704. In this manner, the image editing application can allow a user to manually deselect objects that are not the query object).
reclassifying the first object based on the user indication (paragraph 150: In this manner, the image editing application can allow a user to manually deselect objects that are not the query object; Examiner notes the selected objects were classified as the query objects and after user deselection, the unselected objects are not considered to be the query objects); and
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JEFFREY J CHOW whose telephone number is (571)272-8078. The examiner can normally be reached 11AM-7PM.
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, Devona Faulk can be reached at 571-272-7515. 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.
/JEFFREY J CHOW/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2618
Prosecution Insights