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 .
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 1-20 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-20 of U.S. Patent No. 12,260,530. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because Claim 1 of the instant application and Claim 1 of U.S. Patent No. 12,260,530 are similar, because both Claim 1 of the instant application and Claim 1 of U.S. Patent No. 12,260,530 are claiming same claim subject matters.
19/073,426 U.S. Patent No. 12,260,53
Claim 1. A computer-implemented method comprising:
Claim 1. A computer-implemented method comprising:
identifying, from a digital image portraying a human, a sub-portion of the human to
complete via inpainting;
determining, from a digital image, a depiction of a human and a region of the human to inpaint;
generating, utilizing one or more encoders, a first vector representation from a structure
guidance map of the human;
generating, utilizing an encoder, a structural encoding from a structure guidance map of the
human;
generating, utilizing the one or more encoders, a second vector representation from the
human portrayed in the digital image;
and
generating, utilizing the encoder, a visual appearance encoding from the human portrayed in the digital image; generating, utilizing a parameter neural network, local appearance feature tensor from the visual appearance encoding; and
completing the sub-portion of the human by generating, utilizing a generative machine
learning model, a modified digital image comprising modified pixels completing the sub-portion of the human from the first vector representation and the second vector representation.
generating, utilizing a human inpainting generative adversarial neural network, a modified digital image comprising modified pixels of the region from the structural encoding and the visual appearance encoding of the human.
Claims 2-20 of the instant application are rejected for same reasons as Claims 2-20 of U.S. Patent No. 12,260,530, because both Claims 2-20 of the instant application and Claims 2-20 of U.S. Patent No. 12,260,530 are claiming same claim subject matters.
Double Patenting
5. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because the claimed features of claims 1-20 are similar to the patented features of parent case.
The instant Application claim is broader in every aspect than the patent claim and is therefore an obvious variant thereof. Although the conflicting claims are not identical, they are not patentability distinct from each other because the instant Application claim is generic to all that is recited in the above patent claim. The more specific anticipates the broader (see In re Goodman - 29 USPQ2d 2010), also see Eli Lilly and Co. v. Barr Laboratories Inc., 58 USPQ2d, 1869 and Miller v. Eagle Mfg. Co., 151 U.S. 186 1894). Therefore, the instant claim is anticipated by the above patent claim.
6. Claims 1-20 are rejected on the ground of non-statutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-20 of U.S. Patent No. 8619029. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because the patent claims include all of the limitations of the instant application claims, respectively. The patent claims also include additional limitations. Hence, the instant application claims are generic to the species of invention covered by the respective patent claims. As such, the instant application claims are anticipated by the patent claims and are therefore not patentably distinct therefrom. (See Eli Lilly and Co. v. Barr Laboratories Inc., 58 USPQ2D 1869, "a later genus claim limitation is anticipated by, and therefore not patentably distinct from, an earlier species claim", In re Goodman, 29 USPQ2d 2010, "Thus, the generic invention is ‘anticipated’ by the species of the patented invention" and the instant “application claims are generic to species of invention covered by the patent claim, and since without terminal disclaimer, extant species claims preclude issuance of generic application claims”).
Conclusion
7. The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Zhang et al (US 20230377225 A1) teaches a region of interest needing to be edited in the original image is determined, and image content in the region of interest is used as the sample of the content of interest. The region of interest in the original image is covered by a mask so that the background image sample is formed, and the masked background image sample can be recognized by the image editing model since the covered region of the background image sample is significantly different from the non-covered region of the background image sample. A feature extraction module exists in the image editing model and is configured to perform feature extraction on the background image sample and the sample of the content of interest which are input into the image editing model so that the background image feature of the background image sample and the feature of the region of interest of the sample of the content of interest are obtained (Paragraph 0053-0056).
Sono et al (US 20250272969 A1) teaches a segmentation module 202, structure identification module 204, element identification module 206, and/or association determination module 208 produce data that aids in identifying objects within a digital image 114. Combinations of this data are therefore usable by the object identification module 110 as part of increasing accuracy in the identification of objects 116 within the digital image 114. The instance segmentation module 202, as described above, is shown to produce segmentation masks 210 of objects within a digital image that are usable to help identify and classify objects. The structure identification module 206 is shown to produce structure masks 212 of objects within a digital image that are usable as a basis to determine boundaries and shapes of objects within a digital image as well as determine boundaries and shapes of object within other objects. The element identification module 206 is shown to produce structure element data 214 to define elements of objects within a digital image 114, e.g., line segments, gradients, and the like. The association determination module 206 is illustrated as producing data describing an object association 216 of objects within a digital image to assist in identification and association of objects that “belong” together for forming a group, e.g., a text and graph objects that are identified as belonging together because the text describes the graph. (Paragraph 0037-0039).
8. Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to VIJAY SHANKAR whose telephone number is (571)272-7682. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 9 am- 6 pm.
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, Matthew Eason can be reached at 571-270-7230. 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.
/VIJAY SHANKAR/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2624
Prosecution Insights