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 .
Response to Amendment
This communication is responsive to the applicant’s amendments dated 8/6/2026. The applicant amended claims 1, 11, and 16.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments with respect to 35 U.S.C. 101 (See Remarks, pg. 12, line 11 – pg. 16, line 13) filed 8/6/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
While the applicant has provided greater detail of which variables are used to calculate the loss function, the examiner views this as a mental activity that can be done in the mind or with a pen and paper. Additionally, the examiner views calculating a loss function as a mathematical calculation. The applicant argues that there is a practical application through various citations from the specification, but the examiner fails to see how that is directly tied to the loss function. The applicant is encouraged to incorporate detail of how the model is trained specifically to show a practical application and an improvement to a technology. The specification discusses a diffusion model that uses paired text description and images to determine loss and for training (see paragraph [0059-0060]). The applicant is encouraged to incorporate the supporting language into the independent claim.
Applicant’s arguments with respect to 35 U.S.C. 103, see Remarks (pg. 16, line 14 – pg. 21, line 21), filed 8/6/2026, with respect to claims 1-20 have been fully considered and are persuasive. The 35 U.S.C. 103 rejection of claims 1-20 has been withdrawn.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101
35 U.S.C. 101 reads as follows:
Whoever invents or discovers any new and useful process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter, or any new and useful improvement thereof, may obtain a patent therefor, subject to the conditions and requirements of this title.
Claims 1-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to and abstract idea without significantly more.
Independent claim 1 recites, “identifying, for a user account of a content management system, one or more content items for fine-tuning parameters of a content generation model trained utilizing training content items to generate new content items, wherein the training content items are different from the one or more content items”, “generating one or more synthetic content items utilizing the content generation model”, “determining a loss value between content attributes of the one or more synthetic content items and content attributes of the one or more content items”, “modifying, based on the loss value between the content attributes of the one or more synthetic content items, the parameters of the content generation model via backpropagation to generate a custom content generation model corresponding to the user account of the content management system to generate the new content items having at least one attribute associated with the one or more content items wherein the at least one attribute comprises a visual characteristic of the one or more content items associated with the user account”, “receiving, from a client device associated with the user account, a request to generate a new content item”, and “in response to the request to generate the new content item, generating a custom content item utilizing the custom content generation model having the modified parameters to synthesize the at least one attribute associated with the one or more content items associated with the user account within the custom content item.”
The limitation of identifying content for adjustment, as drafted, is a process, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind. Nothing in the claim precludes the step from practically being performed in the mind. For example, “identifying” in the context of this claim encompasses selecting text, which a human can do both in the mind or with a pen and paper. Next, the limitation of generating synthetic content items, as drafted, is a process, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind. Nothing in the claim precludes the step from practically being performed in the mind. For example, “generating” in the context of this claim encompasses producing content which a human can do in the mind or with a pen and paper. Next, the limitation of determining loss, as drafted, is a process, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind. Nothing in the claim precludes the step from practically being performed in the mind. For example, “determining” in the context of this claim encompasses performing a calculation, which a human can do in the mind or with a pen and paper. Next, the limitation of modifying parameters of a model, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind. Nothing in the claim precludes the step from practically being performed in the mind. For example, “modifying” in the context of this claim encompasses adjusting rules, which a human can do both in the mind or with a pen and paper. Next, the limitation of receiving a request, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind but for the recitation of generic computer components. That is, other than reciting “a client device”, nothing in the claim precludes the step from practically being performed in the mind. For example, “receiving” in the context of this claim encompasses receiving a command, which a human can do both in the mind or with a pen and paper. Lastly, the limitation of generating a custom content item, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind but for the recitation of generic computer components. That is, other than reciting “model”, nothing in the claim precludes the step from practically being performed in the mind. For example, “generating” in the context of this claim could encompass editing text, which a human can do both in the mind or with a pen and paper.
The judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. In particular, the claim only recites the additional elements, using a “a client device” and a “model”, to modify content. These elements in these steps are recited at a high-level of generality such that is amounts no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using generic computer component. Accordingly, this additional element does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because it does not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. The claim is directed to an abstract idea.
The claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. As discussed above with respect to the integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, the additional elements of using a client device and a model to perform content modification amounts to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using generic computer components. Mere instructions to apply an exception using generic computer components cannot provide an inventive concept. The claim is not patent eligible.
Dependent claims 2-10 are also rejected for the same reasons provided in independent claim 1 above. The dependent claim, including the further recited limitation, does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application and the additional elements, taken individually and in combination do not contribute to an inventive concept. In other words, the dependent claim is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
Independent claim 11 recites, “identify, for a user account of a content management system, one or more content items associated with the user account”, “receive, from a client device associated with the user account, a request to generate a new content item based on a content description corresponding to the request”, and “in response to the request to generate the new content item, generate a custom content item by utilizing a custom content generation model corresponding to the user account of the content management system trained utilizing training content items different from the one or more content items to synthesize content that depicts the content description from the request with at least one attribute from the one or more content items associated with the user account within the custom content item in accordance with parameters of the custom content generation model that are based on a loss value between content attributes of one or more synthetic content items and content attributes of the one or more content items, wherein the at least one attribute comprises a visual characteristic of the one or more content items associated with the user account and wherein the custom content generation model is trained by modifying the parameters to generate new content items comprising the new content item that have the at least one attribute associated with the one or more content items”.
The limitation of identifying content for adjustment, as drafted, is a process, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind but for the recitation of generic computer components. That is, other than reciting “non-transitory computer-readable medium” and “a processor”, nothing in the claim precludes the step from practically being performed in the mind. For example, “identify” in the context of this claim encompasses selecting text, which a human can do both in the mind or with a pen and paper. Next, the limitation of receiving a request, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind but for the recitation of generic computer components. That is, other than reciting “a client device”, nothing in the claim precludes the step from practically being performed in the mind. For example, “receive” in the context of this claim encompasses receiving a command, which a human can do both in the mind or with a pen and paper. Lastly, the limitation of generating a custom content item, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind but for the recitation of generic computer components. That is, other than reciting “model”, nothing in the claim precludes the step from practically being performed in the mind. For example, “generate” in the context of this claim could encompass editing text, which a human can do both in the mind or with a pen and paper.
The judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. In particular, the claim only recites the additional elements, using a “a client device”, “model”, “non-transitory computer-readable medium” and “processor” to modify content. These elements in these steps are recited at a high-level of generality such that is amounts no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using generic computer component. Accordingly, this additional element does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because it does not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. The claim is directed to an abstract idea.
The claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. As discussed above with respect to the integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, the additional elements of using a client device, a model, a non-transitory computer-readable medium, and processor to perform content modification amounts to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using generic computer components. Mere instructions to apply an exception using generic computer components cannot provide an inventive concept. The claim is not patent eligible.
Dependent claims 12-15 are also rejected for the same reasons provided in independent claim 11 above. The dependent claim, including the further recited limitation, does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application and the additional elements, taken individually and in combination do not contribute to an inventive concept. In other words, the dependent claim is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
Independent claim 16 recites, “identify, for a user account of a content management system, a set of content items for fine-tuning parameters of a content generation model trained utilizing training content items to generate new content items, wherein the training content items are different from the set of content items”, “generate one or more synthetic content items utilizing the content generation model”, “determine a loss value between content attributes of the one or more synthetic content items and content attributes of the one or more content items”, “modify, based on the loss value between the content attributes of the one or more synthetic content items and the content attributes of the one or more content items, the parameters of the content generation model via iterative backpropagation to generate a custom content generation model corresponding to the user account of the content management system to generate the new content items having at least one attribute associated with the one or more content items, wherein the at least one attribute comprises a visual characteristic of the set of content items associated with the user account”, “receive, from a client device associated with the user account, a request to generate a new content item based on a user selection of a subset of content items from the set of content items”, and “in response to the request to generate the new content item and the user selection of the subset of content items, generate a custom content item utilizing the custom content generation model having the modified parameters to synthesize at least one attribute associated with the subset of content items associated with the user account within the custom content item”.
The limitation of identifying a set of content for adjustment, as drafted, is a process, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind but for the recitation of generic computer components. That is, other than reciting, “non-transitory computer-readable medium” and “processor”, nothing in the claim precludes the step from practically being performed in the mind. For example, “identify” in the context of this claim encompasses selecting a set of text, which a human can do both in the mind or with a pen and paper. Next, the limitation of generating synthetic content items, as drafted, is a process, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind. Nothing in the claim precludes the step from practically being performed in the mind. For example, “generating” in the context of this claim encompasses producing content which a human can do in the mind or with a pen and paper. Next, the limitation of determining loss, as drafted, is a process, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind. Nothing in the claim precludes the step from practically being performed in the mind. For example, “determining” in the context of this claim encompasses performing a calculation, which a human can do in the mind or with a pen and paper. Next, the limitation of modifying parameters of a model, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind but for the recitation of generic computer components. That is, other than reciting, “non-transitory computer-readable medium” and “processor”, nothing in the claim precludes the step from practically being performed in the mind. For example, “modify” in the context of this claim encompasses adjusting rules, which a human can do both in the mind or with a pen and paper. Next, the limitation of receiving a request, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind but for the recitation of generic computer components. That is, other than reciting “a client device”, nothing in the claim precludes the step from practically being performed in the mind. For example, “receive” in the context of this claim encompasses receiving a command, which a human can do both in the mind or with a pen and paper. Lastly, the limitation of generating a custom content item, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind but for the recitation of generic computer components. That is, other than reciting “model”, “non-transitory computer-readable medium” and “processor”, nothing in the claim precludes the step from practically being performed in the mind. For example, “generate” in the context of this claim could encompass editing text, which a human can do both in the mind or with a pen and paper.
The judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. In particular, the claim only recites the additional elements, using “a client device”, a “model”, “non-transitory computer-readable medium” and “processor” to modify content. These elements in these steps are recited at a high-level of generality such that is amounts no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using generic computer component. Accordingly, this additional element does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because it does not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. The claim is directed to an abstract idea.
The claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. As discussed above with respect to the integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, the additional elements of using a client device, a model, a non-transitory computer-readable medium, and processor to perform content modification amounts to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using generic computer components. Mere instructions to apply an exception using generic computer components cannot provide an inventive concept. The claim is not patent eligible.
Dependent claims 17-20 are also rejected for the same reasons provided in independent claim 16 above. The dependent claim, including the further recited limitation, does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application and the additional elements, taken individually and in combination do not contribute to an inventive concept. In other words, the dependent claim is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 1-20 would be allowable if rewritten or amended to overcome the rejection under 35 U.S.C. 101, set forth in this office action. There are no pending prior art rejections.
Claims 1-20 are allowed in terms of the prior art only. There is still a pending 35 U.S.C. 101 rejection.
The following is an examiner’s statement of reasons for allowance in terms of the prior art:
The closest piece of prior the examiner found was Green (US 9558428 B1) which teaches features such as “a content generation model trained utilizing training content items to generate new content items, wherein the training content items are different from the one or more content items” and “modifying the parameters of the content generation model to generate a custom content generation model corresponding to the user account of the content management system”, however upon further search and consideration the examiner deems the prior art of record whether taken alone or in combination fails to teach “determining a loss value between content attributes of the one or more synthetic content items and content attributes of the one or more content items; modifying, based on the loss value between the content attributes of the one or more synthetic content items and the content attributes of the one or more content items” in combination with the other claim features, therefore the claims as a whole are allowable in terms of the prior art. To be completely allowable, the applicant must get past the pending 35 U.S.C. 101 rejection.
Any comments considered necessary by applicant must be submitted no later than the payment of the issue fee and, to avoid processing delays, should preferably accompany the issue fee. Such submissions should be clearly labeled “Comments on Statement of Reasons for Allowance.”
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ZEESHAN SHAIKH whose telephone number is (703)756-1730. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 7:30AM-5:00PM.
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, Richemond Dorvil can be reached at (571) 272-7602. 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.
/ZEESHAN MAHMOOD SHAIKH/Examiner, Art Unit 2658
/RICHEMOND DORVIL/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2658
Prosecution Insights