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 Final Office action is responsive to the communication filed under 37 C.F.R. § 1.111 on November 7, 2025 (hereafter “Response”). The amendments to the claims are acknowledged and have been entered.
Claims 1, 4, 6, and 12 are now amended.
Claims 1–14 are pending in the application.
Response to Arguments
Objections
The objection to claim 4 is hereby withdrawn in response to the Applicant’s amendment correcting the informality.
Rejections under 35 U.S.C. § 101
Claims 1–14 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 101 for reciting a judicial exception thereof without significantly more. The Applicant’s arguments have been considered, but are not persuasive.
Applicant argues that amended claim 1 is not directed to an abstract idea because it recites a specific machine (controller, server, network) and that the steps of receiving images, extracting features, and generating text via an AI model cannot be performed in the human mind. (Response 7). Applicant relies on McRO, Inc. v. Bandai Namco Games America Inc. to support the position that the claim is a practical application. The Examiner respectfully disagrees.
First, the mere recitation of generic computer hardware such as a “controller,” “server,” “network,” and “electronic device” does not render an abstract idea eligible. The Supreme Court in Alice clarified that simply implementing an abstract idea on a generic computer does not transform the idea into patent-eligible subject matter.
Regarding the argument that the steps cannot be performed in the human mind: The judicial exception of “mental processes” encompasses concepts that can be performed in the human mind or by a human using pen and paper, or even with other conventional matter. The claim steps of acquiring images, identifying features (looking at what is in the image), identifying trends (noting what is popular), and organizing a page (layout and design) are fundamental concepts long performed by human graphic designers, merchandisers, and editors. The fact that the claim automates this process using a “controller” and “AI model” to perform the task faster or on a larger scale does not change the nature of the underlying concept, and at best, merely adds a second judicial exception to the claim (a mathematical concept, which is a form of abstract ideas, which is a judicial exception to 35 U.S.C. § 101).
Furthermore, Applicant’s reliance on McRO is misplaced. In McRO, the claims were found eligible because they recited a specific set of rules that improved the technical process of lip-synchronization, changing how the computer achieved the result. In contrast, the instant claims do not recite specific rules or a specific technical implementation of the AI model. Instead, they recite the result of using AI (e.g., “extract features,” “generate the page”) without defining the specific computational steps or algorithm used to achieve that result. The claim essentially says “apply AI to do what a human designer does,” which remains directed to the abstract idea of organizing and displaying information.
Applicant next argues that the claimed AI controller provides a specific improvement to computer functionality by automatically analyzing large volumes of data and synthesizing trend information in real time. Applicant cites Enfish, LLC v. Microsoft Corp. to support the existence of a technological improvement.
Applicant's arguments are unpersuasive. To demonstrate an improvement to computer functionality under Enfish, the claim must be directed to a specific improvement in the capabilities of the computing system itself (e.g., a specific data structure that improves memory speed), rather than an improvement in the user experience or the content generated by the computer.
Here, the alleged improvements—analyzing images, synthesizing trends, and outputting optimized pages—are improvements to the process of web page design and marketing, not improvements to the functioning of the computer. The computer itself is not operating faster, with greater security, or with more efficient memory usage; it is simply being used as a tool to perform the abstract task of data analysis and content generation.
The Federal Circuit has distinguished between improvements to computer functionality and improvements to abstract processes that merely use computers. See Electric Power Group, LLC v. Alstom S.A., 830 F.3d 1350 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (claims directed to collecting, analyzing, and displaying information were held ineligible, even though they provided “real-time” analysis, because they did not improve the computer's own functioning). The use of an “AI model” as a black box component does not inherently provide a technical improvement to the computer; rather, it is a functional tool used to execute the abstract idea of organizing information.
Applicant also argues that the claim does not preempt the general idea of “displaying information” because it is limited to a specific implementation involving a server, AI model, and specific trend data sources (memes, GIFs). (Response 8)
Applicant's arguments are unpersuasive. While preemption is a primary policy concern driving § 101 jurisprudence, the absence of complete preemption does not demonstrate patent eligibility. A claim may still be rejected as directed to an abstract idea even if it does not preempt every application of that idea.
Furthermore, the limitations cited by Applicant (server, AI model, specific data types like GIFs/memes) amount to field-of-use restrictions and the addition of generic computer components. Limiting the abstract idea of “organizing and displaying information based on trends” to the specific technological environment of a “networked server” or “e-commerce page generation” does not significantly restrict the claim scope in a meaningful way sufficient to transform the abstract idea into a patent-eligible application. The claim still broadly covers the concept of using a computer to look at images and trends to make a layout, which preempts the use of that fundamental concept in the context of automated web design.
For these reasons, the claims remain directed to an abstract idea (mental processes and organizing/displaying information) and fail to recite an inventive concept sufficient to transform the abstract idea into a patent-eligible application under 35 U.S.C. § 101. The rejection under 35 U.S.C. § 101 is maintained.
Form of Claims under 35 U.S.C. § 112(d)
The rejection of claim 6 under 35 U.S.C. § 112(d) is hereby withdrawn in response to the Applicant’s amendment narrowing the scope of that claim.
Anticipation by Yamaji
The rejection of claims 1–11 under 35 U.S.C. § 102 as anticipated by Yamaji is hereby withdrawn, responsive to the Applicant narrowing the scope of claims 1–11 to require an exchange between a server and a separate electronic device. A new ground of rejection under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over Yamaji in view of U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2012/0249571 A1 (“Houjou”) is raised in its place.
In this new ground of rejection, the Examiner continues to rely on Yamaji for the so-called “AI controller” and “trend information.” The Applicant’s remarks on those two elements will therefore be addressed.
The Applicant contends that Yamaji performs “simple rule-based analysis to detect subjects and determine a theme category” using “pre-defined algorithms.” (Response 11). The Applicant says that this is not “artificial intelligence,” but fails to explain why. As such, this argument does not comply with 37 C.F.R § 1.111, which requires the Applicant to provide an explanation about the difference between the claim and the prior art. If the Applicant believes there is a difference between its AI models and Yamaji’s algorithm, it needs to explain that difference, or amend the claims to recite a specific feature of the AI models not disclosed by Yamaji.
Regarding the trend information, the Applicant argues that Yamaji’s theme information is not the same as trend information, because the trend information is obtained from “multimodal data sources.” The Examiner respectfully disagrees. Neither claim 1, claim 4, nor the specification says that the trend information needs to be obtained from more than one source. To the contrary, claim 4 (which is within the scope of claim 1) says the trend information only needs to be “at least one of a sentence describing a product, a word, an adjective, a sentence included in an image, utterance contents of video content, a graphics interchange format (GIF), and a meme.” Yamaji discloses that the theme information includes “a keyword representing the atmosphere or the impression of an image that a user receives upon viewing the image.” Yamaji ¶ 46. So Yamaji does, in fact, disclose “at least one” of the things that the claims says fall within the scope of “trend information.”
Accordingly, the new 35 U.S.C. § 103 rejection will continue to rely upon Yamaji for both of these features
Anticipation by Bingell
Claims 12–14 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2013/0073945 (“Bingell”). The Applicant’s traversal of the rejection has been considered in light of the amendment, but is not persuasive.
The Applicant first argues that Bingell is deficient because it merely discloses “predefined threshold rules,” when the claim requires “AI based page generation,” rather than heuristic rules. The Examiner respectfully disagrees for two reasons.
First, Bingell does not need to disclose the “AI” claim language to reach a finding of anticipation (even though Bingell does disclose this) because “[c]laim scope is not limited by claim language that suggests or makes optional but does not require steps to be performed.” MPEP § 2111.04. Specifically, in this case, claim 12 is a method claim, whereas the above claim language merely says what the controller is configured to do, not what it actually does. In other words, there is no step recited in claim 12 of “using an artificial intelligence model to generate the page.” There is also no step in the claim of actually training the model. Instead, the claim merely provides a description of something that happened to the model prior to the events of the method.
Second, Bingell’s heuristics, are, in fact, “artificial intelligence” within the extremely broad meaning of that term in claim 12. “Artificial intelligence” can include many different types of models that existed prior to the widespread adoption of neural networks, such as expert systems, knowledge representation, decision trees, support vector machines, and nearest neighbors. Notably, the claim language does not specify the type of artificial intelligence involved. Accordingly, without any further argument and evidence as to why the scope of “artificial intelligence” is narrower than what Bingell discloses, the Examiner is not persuaded of error.
The Applicant next argues that Bingell fails to disclose “receiving and integrating three distinct data categories” recited in the claim to generate the page, because “Bingell only considers usage data . . . and time statistics as input parameters.” (Response 14). The Examiner respectfully disagrees.
Claim 12 actually requires four categories of information to generate the page, and Bingell anticipates all four of them:
generating, by the controller, the page based on [i] the user request, [ii] the user information, [iii] the environmental information, and [iv] the existing page information of a user
i. The user request. Every page that server 16 transmits to every user, including the modified page, is transmitted responsive to a request submitted by the users 28 operating their browser apps 14 on computers 12. Bingell ¶ 26.
ii. The user information. Bingell explicitly modifies the existing web application 26 based on “the statistics compiled by the analytics software 32,” Bingell ¶ 25, wherein those “statistics” include “a set of accesses from user computers 12 to the page elements 30,” Bingell ¶ 23, which are made “over a network such as the Internet,” with the users 28 of respective computers 12 remotely accessing the server 16 via network 18. Bingell ¶ 16. Bingell even explicitly discloses that the statistics used to modify the web application 26 may include “trends in usage patterns for . . . an individual user 28 of the web application 26.” Bingell ¶ 24 (emphasis added).
iii. The environmental information. On page 14 of the Response, the Applicant admits that the claimed “environmental information” includes “time” and “day of week,” yet, two paragraphs later, argues that Bingell’s use of “time data” does not disclose the claimed environmental information. Respectfully, this argument does not make sense. If the Applicant agrees that environmental information includes time and day of week, and if the Applicant also agrees that Bingell uses this data to generate web application 26, the Applicant cannot possibly argue that Bingell is missing this disclosure.
Setting this contradiction aside, we know that “environmental information” does indeed include at least one of season, time of the year, time, and day of the week because both the Specification and dependent claim 13 say it does, and we also know that Bingell explicitly modifies the existing web application 26 based on “the statistics compiled by the analytics software 32,” Bingell ¶ 25, wherein those “statistics” include time-segmented statistics about the web application’s hits, views, and unique users, with the time segments being “hourly, daily, weekly, monthly, and so on.” Bingell ¶ 24.
iv. The existing page information of a user. The newly generated web application 26 is not created from scratch; it is a modified version of an existing, prior version of the web application 26. For example, as shown in FIG. 1, this may involve “moving a position of at least one of the page elements 30' towards a top of the information resource as the usage of the at least one page element increases; and moving the position of the at least one of the page elements towards a bottom of the information resource as the usage of the at least one of the page elements decreases. The broadest reasonable interpretation of “existing page information of a user” explicitly includes “design” information, because that is what dependent claim 13 says it includes,1 and the positions and sizes of elements on a page are clearly part of its “design.”
Accordingly, since Bingell discloses modifying web application 26 using all four pieces of information, the Applicant’s second argument is not persuasive.
The Applicant’s third argument is a rehash of the first argument, regarding whether or not Bingell’s server uses “AI” to generate a page. Bingell’s heuristics, are, in fact, “artificial intelligence” within the extremely broad meaning of that term in claim 12. “Artificial intelligence” can include many different types of models that existed prior to the widespread adoption of neural networks, such as expert systems, knowledge representation, decision trees, support vector machines, and nearest neighbors. Notably, the claim language does not specify the type of artificial intelligence involved. Accordingly, without any further argument and evidence as to why the scope of “artificial intelligence” is narrower than what Bingell discloses, the Examiner is not persuaded of error.
Accordingly, claims 12–14 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 102 as anticipated by Bingell.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on August 6, 2025 was filed after the mailing date of the Non-Final Office Action on May 7, 2025. The submission is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement is being considered by the examiner.
Claim Objections
Claim 12 lacks antecedent basis for “the environment information” (recited twice in the claim). On line 5, the claim introduces this term as “environmental information.” Referring back to the environmental information as “environment information” is confusing and unclear.
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections – 35 U.S.C. § 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 1–14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 101 because the claimed invention is directed to a judicial exception without significantly more.
Claim 1
Claim 1 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
The claim recites steps including extracting features of a plurality of images, generating text based on the features, and generating a page based on the features. These limitations, under their broadest reasonable interpretation, cover concepts performed in the human mind, such as observation, evaluation, and judgment involved in analyzing image features and creating related text and page layouts. Such concepts fall within the “Mental Processes” grouping of abstract ideas identified in MPEP 2106.04(a)(2), subsection III. Accordingly, the claim recites an abstract idea.
Claim 1 also recites an artificial intelligence model configured to perform one or more of the steps. An artificial intelligence model, however, is merely a set of mathematical calculations and relationships. Such mathematical concepts are, themselves, abstract ideas. See MPEP § 2106.04(a). A claim to a combination of more than one judicial exception (two abstract ideas) does not make it any less directed to a judicial exception. Therefore, Step 2A Prong One resolves as Yes.
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application (Step 2A Prong Two: NO). The claim frames the method in terms of a server/client arrangement, in which two computers communicate with one another. Mere transmission of information does not transform the abstract idea into an eligible invention. The step of acquiring images amounts to mere data gathering, which is insignificant extra-solution activity necessary to perform the analysis. The other steps (extracting features, generating text, generating page) are recited at a high level of generality. They amount to mere instructions to apply the abstract mental processes of analysis and organization using generic computer functions on a generic computer system. The claim fails to specify how these steps provide a technical improvement or otherwise meaningfully limit the abstract idea. Accordingly, the claim as a whole does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application. 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 (Step 2B: NO). As discussed above with respect to integration into a practical application, the additional elements amount to data gathering (insignificant extra-solution activity) and generic computer implementation (mere instructions to apply the exception). These additional elements, whether considered individually or as an ordered combination, do not provide an inventive concept. Mere instructions to apply an exception using a generic computer component cannot provide an inventive concept (MPEP 2106.05(f)).
Claim 1 is not patent eligible.
Claim 2
Claim 2 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
Claim 2 depends from claim 1 and further specifies that the extracting of features includes extracting common features. Claim 1 recites the abstract idea of extracting features, generating text, and generating a page based on features, which falls within the “Mental Processes” grouping (MPEP 2106.04(a)(2), subsection III). Identifying “common features” among images is a type of analysis and evaluation that can be performed mentally. Adding this specific type of feature extraction refines the mental process recited in claim 1 but does not change its abstract nature. Accordingly, claim 2 recites an abstract idea (Step 2A Prong One: YES).
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application (Step 2A Prong Two: NO). Claim 2 incorporates the additional elements of claim 1 (acquiring images, implicit computer execution, generic feature extraction, text/page generation), which, as explained in the rejection of claim 1, do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application. The further limitation of extracting “common” features merely details the type of mental analysis being performed and does not add a practical application. It remains a generic instruction to apply the abstract idea of analyzing images (specifically for commonalities) and organizing information based thereon using a generic computer system. The claim as a whole does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application.
The claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception (Step 2B: NO). As discussed for claim 1, the additional elements incorporated from claim 1 amount to data gathering (insignificant extra-solution activity) and generic computer implementation (mere instructions to apply the exception). The further limitation in claim 2 of extracting “common” features specifies the abstract analysis but does not add an inventive concept beyond the abstract idea itself. It does not transform the claim into significantly more than the abstract mental process performed on a generic computer. Mere instructions to apply an exception using a generic computer component cannot provide an inventive concept (MPEP 2106.05(f)).
Claim 2 is not patent eligible.
Claim 3
Claim 3 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
Claim 3 depends from claim 2 and further specifies that generating the page includes editing the plurality of images based on the common features. Claim 2 recites the abstract idea of extracting common features, generating text, and generating a page based on features, which falls within the “Mental Processes” grouping (MPEP 2106.04(a)(2), subsection III). The step of editing images based on identified common features is an application of the results of the abstract analysis. Accordingly, claim 3 recites an abstract idea (Step 2A Prong One: YES).
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application (Step 2A Prong Two: NO). Claim 3 incorporates the additional elements of claim 2, which, as explained above, do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application. The further limitation of “editing the plurality of images based on the common features” represents the application of the abstract analysis result (common features) to manipulate data (the images). Without specifics on how the editing occurs or how it improves a technology in a non-generic way, this limitation amounts to a generic instruction to apply the results of the abstract idea or constitutes insignificant post-solution activity. It does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application. The claim is directed to an abstract idea (Step 2A: YES).
The claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception (Step 2B: NO). As discussed for claim 2, the underlying additional elements amount to data gathering and generic computer implementation. The further limitation in claim 3 of editing images based on common features represents mere application of the abstract idea's results or insignificant extra-solution activity (MPEP 2106.05(g)). It does not add specific, unconventional steps or confer a technical improvement beyond the abstract concept itself. Therefore, the claim as a whole does not amount to significantly more than the abstract idea (Step 2B: NO).
Claim 3 is not patent eligible.
Claim 4
Claim 4 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
Claim 4 depends from claim 1 and adds limitations related to generating text, specifically: acquiring trend information from various sources (product descriptions, words, adjectives, image sentences, video utterances, GIFs, memes) and generating the text based on both trend information and image features. Claim 1 recites the abstract idea of extracting features, generating text, and generating a page based on features (a “Mental Process” per MPEP 2106.04(a)(2), subsection III). Incorporating trend information from diverse sources into the text generation involves further data gathering and analysis – concepts performable mentally. Accordingly, claim 4 recites an abstract idea (Step 2A Prong One: YES).
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application (Step 2A Prong Two: NO). Claim 4 incorporates the additional elements of claim 1 (acquiring images, implicit computer execution, generic feature extraction, text/page generation), which do not integrate the abstract idea. The further limitations of acquiring trend information from specific (though broad) source types and using it in text generation represent additional data gathering and refinement of the abstract analysis/generation process. These steps do not impose meaningful limits beyond the gathering and processing of information according to abstract rules. The claim remains directed to the abstract idea (Step 2A: YES).
The claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception (Step 2B: NO). As discussed for claim 1, the underlying additional elements amount to data gathering and generic computer implementation. The further limitations in claim 4 regarding acquiring and using trend information represent more data gathering steps (insignificant extra-solution activity per MPEP 2106.05(g)) and refinements to the abstract analysis. They do not add an inventive concept beyond the abstract idea itself performed using generic computer functions. Therefore, the claim as a whole does not amount to significantly more than the abstract idea (Step 2B: NO).
Claim 4 is not patent eligible.
Claim 5
Claim 5 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
Claim 5 depends from claim 1 and specifies that generating the page includes generating a design (including form, layout, and color) based on the features. Claim 1 recites the abstract idea of extracting features, generating text, and generating a page based on features (a “Mental Process” per MPEP 2106.04(a)(2), subsection III). Generating a design based on features is part of the abstract mental process of organizing or presenting information. Specifying design elements like form, layout, and color provides details about the organization but does not change its abstract nature. Accordingly, claim 5 recites an abstract idea (Step 2A Prong One: YES).
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application (Step 2A Prong Two: NO). Claim 5 incorporates the additional elements of claim 1, which do not integrate the abstract idea. The further limitation of generating a design (with specific element types mentioned) based on features details the abstract page generation step but does not add a practical application. It's still applying the results of the abstract feature analysis to organize information, performed via generic computer functions. The claim is directed to the abstract idea (Step 2A: YES).
The claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception (Step 2B: NO). As discussed for claim 1, the underlying additional elements amount to data gathering and generic computer implementation. The further limitation in claim 5 of generating a specific type of output (a design with form, layout, color) based on the features is merely a refinement of the abstract generation step. It does not add an inventive concept beyond performing the abstract mental process on a generic computer. Therefore, the claim as a whole does not amount to significantly more than the abstract idea (Step 2B: NO).
Claim 5 is not patent eligible.
Claim 6
Claim 6 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
Claim 6 depends from claim 1 and specifies that generating the page includes generating text associated with the images based on the features. Claim 1 recites the abstract idea of extracting features, generating text based on features, and generating a page based on features (a “Mental Process” per MPEP 2106.04(a)(2), subsection III). This limitation appears to reiterate or clarify the text generation step already present in claim 1, stating it occurs within the page generation context. It does not alter the abstract nature of analyzing features and generating corresponding text. Accordingly, claim 6 recites an abstract idea (Step 2A Prong One: YES).
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application (Step 2A Prong Two: NO). Claim 6 incorporates the additional elements of claim 1, which do not integrate the abstract idea. The further limitation clarifies that text generation (an abstract step) is part of the page generation (another abstract step). This does not add a practical application beyond the abstract concept itself, implemented generically. The claim is directed to the abstract idea (Step 2A: YES).
The claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception (Step 2B: NO). The further limitation in claim 6 merely clarifies the relationship between the abstract text generation and page generation steps. It does not add an inventive concept. Therefore, the claim as a whole does not amount to significantly more than the abstract idea (Step 2B: NO).
Claim 6 is not patent eligible.
Claim 7
Claim 7 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
Claim 7 depends from claim 1 and specifies that generating the page includes editing at least one image based on the features. Claim 1 recites the abstract idea of extracting features, generating text, and generating a page based on features (a “Mental Process” per MPEP 2106.04(a)(2), subsection III). The step of editing images based on identified features is an application of the results of the abstract analysis. Accordingly, claim 7 recites an abstract idea (Step 2A Prong One: YES).
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application (Step 2A Prong Two: NO). Claim 7 incorporates the additional elements of claim 1, which do not integrate the abstract idea. The further limitation of “editing at least one of the plurality of images based on the features” is, at most, an extra solution activity that is tangential to the invention. As in claim 3, without specifics on how the editing occurs, this limitation amounts to a generic instruction to apply the results of the abstract idea or insignificant post-solution activity. It does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application. (Step 2A: YES).
The claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception (Step 2B: NO). The further limitation in claim 7 of editing images based on features represents mere tangential and nominal use of the abstract idea’s results, and is therefore insignificant extra-solution activity. MPEP 2106.05(g). It does not add specific, unconventional steps or confer a technical improvement beyond the abstract concept itself. Therefore, the claim as a whole does not amount to significantly more than the abstract idea (Step 2B: NO).
Claim 7 is not patent eligible.
Claim 8
Claim 8 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
Claim 8 depends from claim 1 and specifies that generating the page includes arranging the images based on the features. Claim 1 recites the abstract idea of extracting features, generating text, and generating a page based on features (a “Mental Process” per MPEP 2106.04(a)(2), subsection III). Arranging items based on identified characteristics is a form of organizing information, which is a fundamental concept falling under mental processes or methods of organizing human activity. This limitation details the page generation step but does not change its abstract nature. Accordingly, claim 8 recites an abstract idea (Step 2A Prong One: YES).
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application (Step 2A Prong Two: NO). Claim 8 incorporates the additional elements of claim 1, which do not integrate the abstract idea. The further limitation of arranging images based on features details the abstract page generation step but does not add a practical application. The claim is directed to the abstract idea (Step 2A: YES).
The claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception (Step 2B: NO). As discussed for claim 1, the underlying additional elements amount to data gathering and generic computer implementation. The further limitation in claim 8 of arranging images based on features merely specifies the abstract organization step. It does not add an inventive concept beyond performing the abstract mental process on a generic computer. Therefore, the claim as a whole does not amount to significantly more than the abstract idea (Step 2B: NO).
Claim 8 is not patent eligible.
Claim 9
Claim 9 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
Claim 9 depends from claim 8 and specifies that the arranging is based on a proportion of a subject in the images. Claim 8 recites the abstract idea of analyzing image features and arranging the images based on those features (a “Mental Process”). Determining the proportion of a subject in images involves analysis (potentially mathematical or observational), and arranging based on that proportion is a specific rule for the organization. These are concepts performable mentally. Accordingly, claim 9 recites an abstract idea (Step 2A Prong One: YES).
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application (Step 2A Prong Two: NO). Claim 9 incorporates the additional elements of claim 8, which do not integrate the abstract idea. The further limitation specifying arrangement based on subject proportion adds a specific criterion to the abstract arrangement/organization step but does not confer a practical application beyond the abstract concept itself, implemented generically. The claim is directed to the abstract idea (Step 2A: YES).
The claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception (Step 2B: NO). As discussed for claim 8, the underlying additional elements do not provide an inventive concept. The further limitation in claim 9 specifies a particular rule (subject proportion) for the abstract arrangement step. This refinement of the abstract idea does not add significantly more. Therefore, the claim as a whole does not amount to significantly more than the abstract idea (Step 2B: NO).
Claim 9 is not patent eligible.
Claim 10
Claim 10 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
Claim 10 depends from claim 8 and specifies that the arranging is based on a viewing angle in the images. Claim 8 recites the abstract idea of analyzing image features and arranging the images based on those features (a “Mental Process”). Determining viewing angles in images involves analysis (potentially mathematical or observational), and arranging based on viewing angle is a specific rule for the organization. These are concepts performable mentally. Accordingly, claim 10 recites an abstract idea (Step 2A Prong One: YES).
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application (Step 2A Prong Two: NO). Claim 10 incorporates the additional elements of claim 8, which do not integrate the abstract idea. The further limitation specifying arrangement based on viewing angle adds a specific criterion to the abstract arrangement/organization step but does not confer a practical application beyond the abstract concept itself, implemented generically. The claim is directed to the abstract idea (Step 2A: YES).
The claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception (Step 2B: NO). As discussed for claim 8, the underlying additional elements do not provide an inventive concept. The further limitation in claim 10 specifies a particular rule (viewing angle) for the abstract arrangement step. This refinement of the abstract idea does not add significantly more. Therefore, the claim as a whole does not amount to significantly more than the abstract idea (Step 2B: NO).
Claim 10 is not patent eligible.
Claim 11
Claim 11 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
Claim 11 depends from claim 8 and specifies that the arranging is based on image types. Claim 8 recites the abstract idea of analyzing image features and arranging the images based on those features (a “Mental Process”). Determining image types involves analysis (classification), and arranging based on type is a specific rule for the organization. These concepts are performable in the mind. Accordingly, claim 11 recites an abstract idea (Step 2A Prong One: YES).
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application (Step 2A Prong Two: NO). Claim 11 incorporates the additional elements of claim 8, which do not integrate the abstract idea. The further limitation specifying arrangement based on image type adds a specific criterion to the abstract arrangement/organization step but does not confer a practical application beyond the abstract concept itself, implemented generically. The claim is directed to the abstract idea (Step 2A: YES).
The claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception (Step 2B: NO). As discussed for claim 8, the underlying additional elements do not provide an inventive concept. The further limitation in claim 11 specifies a particular rule (image type) for the abstract arrangement step. This refinement of the abstract idea does not add significantly more. Therefore, the claim as a whole does not amount to significantly more than the abstract idea (Step 2B: NO).
Claim 11 is not patent eligible.
Claim 12
Claim 12 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
The claim recites steps including acquiring user information, environmental information, existing page information, and a user request, and then generating a page based on this collected information. In other words, the claimed invention simply collects various types of information, and outputs a page based on that information. Claim 12 therefore falls within the “Mental Processes” grouping of abstract ideas (MPEP 2106.04(a)(2), subsection III), as it involves the mental steps of collecting data, analyzing it (implicitly, to decide how the inputs affect page generation), and organizing/presenting information. Accordingly, the claim recites an abstract idea.
Claim 1 also recites an artificial intelligence model configured to perform one or more of the steps. An artificial intelligence model, however, is merely a set of mathematical calculations and relationships. Such mathematical concepts are, themselves, abstract ideas. See MPEP § 2106.04(a). A claim to a combination of more than one judicial exception (two abstract ideas) does not make it any less directed to a judicial exception. Therefore, Step 2A Prong One resolves as Yes.
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application (Step 2A Prong Two: NO). The claim frames the method in terms of a server/client arrangement, in which two computers communicate with one another. Mere transmission of information does not transform the abstract idea into an eligible invention. The claim only implicitly involves computer execution for displaying a page, which amount to mere instructions to apply the abstract mental process of generating a customized output using generic computer functions on a generic computer system. The claim fails to specify how this generation step provides a technical improvement or otherwise meaningfully limits 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, for the same reason as given above for Step 2A Prong Two. (Step 2B: NO). These additional elements, whether considered individually or as an ordered combination, do not provide an inventive concept.
Claim 12 is not patent eligible.
Claim 13
Claim 13 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
Claim 13 depends from claim 12 and further specifies particular types of user information (personal info, history, country, language, device), environmental information (season, time, day), and existing page information (design, atmosphere, color). Claim 12 recites the abstract idea of collecting information and generating a customized page based on it (a “Mental Process” per MPEP 2106.04(a)(2), subsection III). Limitations on the content of information in an otherwise abstract idea do not transform the judicial exception into an eligible invention. See Elec. Power Grp., LLC v. Alstom S.A., 830 F.3d 1350, 1353 (Fed. Cir. 2016). Accordingly, claim 13 recites an abstract idea (Step 2A Prong One: YES).
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application (Step 2A Prong Two: NO). Claim 13 incorporates the additional elements of claim 12 (various data acquisition steps, page generation, implicit computer execution), which do not integrate the abstract idea. The further limitations in claim 13 specifying the types of data gathered are not “additional elements” for purposes of this step, for the reasons given above. They do not add meaningful limits or transform the claim into a practical application beyond the abstract concept itself, implemented generically. The claim is directed to the abstract idea (Step 2A: YES).
The claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception (Step 2B: NO). As discussed for claim 12, the underlying additional elements amount to data gathering and generic computer implementation. The further limitations in claim 13 specifying the types of data gathered are not “additional elements” for purposes of this step, for the reasons given above. Therefore, the claim as a whole does not amount to significantly more than the abstract idea (Step 2B: NO).
Claim 13 is not patent eligible.
Claim 14
Claim 14 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
Claim 14 depends from claim 12 and specifies that generating the page includes acquiring text and images according to the user request and arranging them based on user and environment information. Claim 12 recites the abstract idea of collecting information, and generating a customized page based on the information (a “Mental Process” per MPEP 2106.04(a)(2), subsection III). Acquiring text/images per request is data gathering, and arranging content based on user/environment information is part of the abstract mental process of organizing information. Accordingly, claim 14 recites an abstract idea (Step 2A Prong One: YES).
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application (Step 2A Prong Two: NO). Claim 14 incorporates the additional elements of claim 12, which do not integrate the abstract idea. The further limitations add another data acquisition step (acquiring text/image) and specify the abstract generation step as “arranging” based on certain inputs. The data acquisition and arranging steps are part of the abstract organization concept itself, and are recited generically. These limitations do not add a practical application beyond implementing the abstract idea. The claim is directed to the abstract idea (Step 2A: YES).
Claim 14 does not recite “significantly more” than the judicial exception, (Step 2A Prong Two: NO), because the data acquisition and arranging steps are part of the abstract organization concept itself, and are recited generically. These limitations do not add a practical application beyond implementing the abstract idea. The claim is directed to the abstract idea (Step 2A: YES).
The claim is directed to the abstract idea (Step 2A: YES).
Claim 14 is not patent eligible.
Claim Rejections – 35 U.S.C. § 112(a)
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.
I. First Ground of Rejection — Lack of Enablement for Claims 1–14
Claims 1–14 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 enablement requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to enable one skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and/or use the invention.
Claim 1
Claim 1 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 112(a) as failing to comply with the enablement requirement. The claim is rejected because the specification, while enabling the retrieval of images and user inputs, does not contain sufficient disclosure to enable a person of ordinary skill in the art to make and use an “artificial intelligence model trained to extract the features of the plurality of images and to generate the page based on the features and the trend information” without undue experimentation.
In determining whether a disclosure is enabling, the factors set forth in In re Wands, 858 F.2d 731 (Fed. Cir. 1988) must be considered. An analysis of these factors demonstrates that the experimentation required to practice the claimed invention would be undue.
(A) The Breadth of the Claims. The scope of the amended claim is exceptionally broad, defined purely by the function of the AI model rather than its structure. The claim recites an AI model trained to “extract features” and “generate the page,” but places no limitation on how these functions are achieved. This means the claim attempts to cover every possible AI architecture (e.g., CNNs, GANs, Transformers, Diffusion models) and every possible training method that achieves the result of generating a web page from images and trends.
Because the claim covers all means of solving the problem, but the specification fails to disclose even a single specific embodiment of such an AI model (as will be discussed further below), the scope of protection sought is vastly disproportionate to the meager disclosure provided. A specification that discloses a “black box” cannot enable a claim covering the entire field of solutions that might fit inside that box.
(B) The Nature of the Invention. The invention involves complex Generative AI capable of “generating text,” “generating a design” (Para [0011]), and “editing images” (Para [0009]) autonomously. This is a highly sophisticated field where slight variations in architecture or training data can result in model failure (e.g., hallucinations or non-convergence). The complexity of the invention weighs heavily against enablement when the disclosure is merely functional.
(C) The State of the Prior Art. While AI and neural networks exist in the prior art, the specific application of using an AI to automatically generate a webpage layout, write text, and edit photos simultaneously based on “trend information” is a non-trivial, unpredictable application of such mathematical methods, at least warranting further discussion about how this specific type of model works.
(D) The Level of One of Ordinary Skill. A Person Having Ordinary Skill in the Art in this field would likely possess a degree in Computer Science with a focus on Machine Learning or Artificial Intelligence, or industry experience in generative AI and web develop