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 .
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on 08 December 2025 has been entered.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments, see pages 9-10, filed 08 December 2025, with respect to the rejection(s) of claim(s) 1 and similar claims in substance under 35 U.S.C. 103 have been fully considered and are persuasive. Therefore, the rejection has been withdrawn. However, upon further consideration, a new ground(s) of rejection is made in view of Pathy et al. (US 2017/0024087 A1).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
Claim(s) 1-6, 8-13, and 15-20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Parasnis et al (US 2024/0265274 A1) in view of Jayaraman et al. (US 2024/0193581 A1) and further in view of Pathy et al. (US 2017/0024087 A1).
Regarding claim 1, Parasnis discloses a method comprising: receiving, by at least one processor, at least one image criterion of a target image associated with a user, the image criterion being received as a text field; (Paragraphs 0047 and 0049, user interface to input of descriptive text for generating images) receiving, by at least one processor, a plurality of preliminary images generated by an artificial intelligence engine based on the at least one image criterion; (Paragraphs 0045 and 0050, generative artificial intelligence (GAI) for generating images with variations from the input as results) receiving, by at least one processor, an image selection by the user, the image selection including an image selected from the plurality of preliminary images (Paragraph 0050, user selection of an image from the results). Parasnis does not clearly disclose generating a user-designed image for applying to a payment card, a user associated with a payment card; and displaying, by at least one processor on a user interface, the selected image superimposed on a virtual representation of the payment card; and setting, by at least one processor, at least one dimensional parameter of the selected image to suit a size of the payment card. Jayaraman discloses user customization of a credit or debit card with a displayed view of the card as it is customized with an image (Figure 9 and paragraphs 0087, 0088 and 0094) where the customization can also include orientation settings (Paragraph 0089). Jayaraman’s technique of user customization of a credit or debit card with a displayed view of the card as it is customized with a user selected image with orientation settings would have been recognized by one of ordinary skill in the art to be applicable to the user selection of an image generated by a GAI from text input of Parasnis and the results would have been predictable in the customizing and display of credit or debit cards with a user selected generated image by a GAI using a text description with an orientation selected by the user. Therefore, the claimed subject matter would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention. Parasnis in view of Jayaraman does not clearly disclose displaying, by at least one processor on a user interface, an outline of the selected image superimposed on an outline of a virtual representation of the payment card, wherein the outline of the selected image is larger than the outline of the virtual representation of the payment card. Pathy discloses an interface for panning and zooming of an image to fit an outline having a particular shape amongst different types of shape to perform a crop (Figures 1a and 3 and paragraph 0061). Pathy’s interface for panning and zooming of an image to fit an outline having a particular shape to perform a crop would have been recognized by one of ordinary skill in the art to be applicable to the displayable interface for customizing a credit or debit card with an image of Parasnis in view of Jayaraman and the results would have been predictable in a displayable interface for panning and zooming of an image to fit an outline of a credit or debit card shape for customizing the credit or debit card. Therefore, the claimed subject matter would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Regarding claim 2, Parasnis discloses wherein the at least one image criterion comprises at least one of: subject matter of the target image; color scheme of the target image; artistic style of the target image; or a content guideline of the image (Figures 14, 19, and 20 and paragraphs 0155-0160, textual description can include information on what should appear, a color theme, image style, etc.).
Regarding claim 3, Jayaraman discloses wherein the at least one dimensional parameter comprises at least one of: a resolution of the selected image; a size of the selected image; or an orientation of the target image (Paragraph 0089, orientation setting).
Regarding claim 4, Parasnis discloses receiving, by at least one processor, user feedback as a received text field, the feedback including a prompt with a request to generate images with refined subject matter, color scheme, or artistic style relative to the set of preliminary images; (Figure 16 and paragraphs 0177-0178, text editing commands where the text can include information on what should appear, a color theme, image style, etc., paragraphs 0155-0160) and receiving, by at least one processor, a replacement image for at least one of the plurality of preliminary images based on the user feedback (Paragraph 0177, replacement based on the editing).
Regarding claim 5, Parasnis in view of Jayaraman discloses adjusting, by the at least one processor, at least one layout parameter of the selected image in response to user feedback, the user feedback being entered by modifying a text field received by the at least one processor, (Parasnis, figure 16 and paragraphs 0177-0178, editing of generated content using text commands) wherein the at least one layout parameter comprises at least one of: a position of the target image relative to the payment card; (Jayaraman, paragraph 0094, selection of a location on the card for the image) or a zoom level of the target image.
Regarding claim 6, Parasnis discloses wherein each of the plurality of preliminary images is uniquely generated by the artificial intelligence engine (Paragraph 0045, GAI for generating images).
Regarding claims 8 and 15, similar reasoning as discussed in claim 1 is applied. Furthermore, Parasnis discloses at least one memory having processor-readable instructions stored therein; and at least one processor configured to access the memory and execute the processor-readable instructions, which when executed by the processor configure the processor to perform a plurality of functions (Paragraph 0270, storage with instructions executable by a processor).
Regarding claims 9 and 16, similar reasoning as discussed in claim 2 is applied.
Regarding claims 10 and 17, similar reasoning as discussed in claim 3 is applied.
Regarding claims 11 and 18, similar reasoning as discussed in claim 4 is applied.
Regarding claims 12 and 19, similar reasoning as discussed in claim 5 is applied.
Regarding claims 13 and 20, similar reasoning as discussed in claim 6 is applied.
Claim(s) 7 and 14 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Parasnis et al (US 2024/0265274 A1) in view of Jayaraman et al. (US 2024/0193581 A1) in view of Pathy et al. (US 2017/0024087 A1) and further in view of Elgar et al. (US 2008/0313205 A1).
Regarding claim 7, Parasnis in view of Jayaraman and further in view of Pathy discloses all limitations as discussed in claim 1. Parasnis in view of Jayaraman and further in view of Pathy does not clearly disclose generating, by at least one processor prior to receiving the at least one image criterion, a user profile associated with the payment card. Elgar discloses registering an account with a user name and password before accessing features of application service provider for designing a card (Paragraph 0044).
Elgar’s technique of registering an account with a user name and password before accessing features of application service provider for designing a card would have been recognized by one of ordinary skill in the art to be applicable to the personalization of a payment device, such as a credit card of Parasnis in view of Jayaraman and further in view of Pathy and the results would have been predictable in the registration of an account with a user name and password before accessing a system for personalization of a payment device, such as a credit card. Therefore, the claimed subject matter would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Regarding claim 14, similar reasoning as discussed in claim 7 is applied.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Kulewski et al. (US 10,101,891 B1) discloses using crop windows to fit portions of in image within its boundaries.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to PHI HOANG whose telephone number is (571)270-3417. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Fri 8:00-5:00.
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, JASON CHAN can be reached at (571)272-3022. 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.
/PHI HOANG/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2619