DETAILED ACTION
Status of Claims
The following is a non-final office action in response to the applicant’s amendment filed September 20, 2021. Claims 1-21 are currently pending and have been examined.
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
Non-Statutory 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 obviousness-type 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); and 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 a nonstatutory double patenting ground provided the conflicting application or patent either is shown to be commonly owned with this application, or claims an invention made as a result of activities undertaken within the scope of a joint research agreement.
Effective January 1, 1994, a registered attorney or agent of record may sign a terminal disclaimer. A terminal disclaimer signed by the assignee must fully comply with 37 CFR 3.73(b).
Claims 1-20 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-21 of US Patent No.12,340,406 (application No. 17/875,484). Although the conflicting claims are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because the claims 1-20 currently under examination would be anticipated by claims 1-20 of US Patent No. 12,340,406. See, e.g., In re Berg, 140 F.3d 1428, 46 USPQ2d 1226 (Fed. Cir. 1998). Moreover, the scope of the above noted claims in the instant application, if patented, would extend the grant/monopoly and are thereby properly rejected.
Allowable Subject Matter
Regarding claims 1-20,
Upon review of the evidence at hand, it is hereby concluded that the evidence obtained and made of record, alone or in combination, neither anticipates, reasonably teaches, nor renders obvious the below noted features of applicant’s invention as the noted features amount to more than a predictable use of elements in the prior art. The allowable features are as follows:
“…combining, using a vector combination module, (i) the first set of vectors of the input image of the first object and (ii) the second set of vectors of the input text of the modification to the first object to create a vector output;
Lundgaard discloses generating an output vector based upon a combination of the first set of vectors, the second set of vectors (paragraph [0019]: “...the server may form vectors from at least one of the keywords and key images, and may concatenate the separate vectors together to form final vectors for the products.”; Fig. 1, “130”). PTO 892 Reference U discloses Composing Text and Image for Image Retrieval - An Empirical Odyssey. Neither Lundgaard, PTO 892 Reference U, nor any of the other cited references teach, suggest, or otherwise render obvious combining, using a vector combination module, (i) the first set of vectors of the input image of the first object and (ii) the second set of vectors of the input text of the modification to the first object to create a vector output;
using the vector output to determine a modified object indicative of the first object in the input image being modified by the input text.
None of the evidence at hand teaches or suggests the combination of features claimed, nor does there exist an appropriate rationale for further modification of the evidence at hand. It is hereby asserted by the Examiner that, in light of the above and in further deliberation over all the evidence at hand, that the claims are allowable as the evidence at hand does not anticipate the claims and does not render obvious any further modification of the references to a person of ordinary skill in the art.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
US 11,620,448 B2, Suhara et al discloses Systems and methods for enhanced review comprehension using domain-specific knowledgebases.
US 11,200,740 B1, Samuel discloses Systems for generating image-based user interfaces.
US 2020/0201915 A1, Pathak et al discloses RANKING IMAGE SEARCH RESULTS USING MACHINE LEARNING MODELS.
US 9,152,624 B1, Krallman et al discloses Systems and methods for visual presentation and navigation of content using data-based image analysis.
US 9,082,148 B1, Oczkowski et al discloses Grouping products by size and weight.
US 6,954,721 B2, Webber discloses Signal processing technique.
US 6,553,357 B2, Mathias et al discloses Method for improving neural network architectures using evolutionary algorithms.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to KATHLEEN G PALAVECINO whose telephone number is (571)270-1355. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 9-4.
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, Marissa Thein can be reached at (571) 272-6764. 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.
KATHLEEN GAGE PALAVECINO
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 3688
/KATHLEEN PALAVECINO/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3688
Prosecution Insights