DETAILED ACTION
Status of the Claims
Claims 1-20 are pending.
Notice of AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after 16 March 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
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 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.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112(b)
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. § 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
Claims 3-4, 6, 9-14, 17, and 19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 112(b) as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
Claim 3 recites the limitation “wherein the prompt is a user prompt that is provided via a design system interface associated with generating artificial-intelligence-based designs.” The phrase “associated with” means “having a connection, link, or relationship with something.” Based on this definition, the use of the phrase renders the claim indefinite. Neither the claims itself nor the specification clearly and specifically delimit the intended scope of the phrase. Accordingly, one of ordinary skill in the art would not be reasonably apprised of the scope of the invention.
Claim 4 recites the limitation “using the font categories that are mapped to the fonts, retrieving each font associated the plurality of top font categories.” The phrase “retrieving each font associated the plurality of top font categories” appears to contain a typographical/grammatical error which renders the meaning of the limitation unclear.
Claim 6 recites the limitation “wherein the font pairing operation is associated with a balance contrast similarity function, font visual embeddings, font stroke width, and font heading candidates to identify corresponding font subheading candidates.” The phrase “associated with” means “having a connection, link, or relationship with something.” Based on this definition, the use of the phrase renders the claim indefinite. Neither the claims itself nor the specification clearly and specifically delimit the intended scope of the phrase. Accordingly, one of ordinary skill in the art would not be reasonably apprised of the scope of the invention.
Claim 9 recites the limitation “wherein the at least one font pairing is communicated to a design system service to cause generation of an artificial intelligence generated image comprising the at least one font heading candidate and the at least one subheading font candidate.” There is insufficient antecedent basis for the phrase “the at least one font pairing.” See MPEP § 2173.05(e).
Claims 10, 11, and 14 are rejected for substantially the same reason indicated above for claims 3, 4, and 6, respectively.
Claims 12-14 are rejected for substantially the same reason indicated above for claim 11, at least due to their dependence on the claim.
Claim 17 recites the limitations “calculating a similarity between the font category embeddings and the prompt embeddings,” “retrieving a plurality of top font categories upon calculating the similarity between the font category embeddings and the prompt embeddings,” and “using the font categories that are mapped to the fonts, retrieving each font associated the plurality of top font categories.” There are insufficient antecedent bases for the phrases “the font category embeddings,” “the prompt embeddings,” “the similarity between the font category embeddings and the prompt embeddings,” and “the font categories that are mapped to the fonts.” See MPEP § 2173.05(e).
Additionally, the phrase “retrieving each font associated the plurality of top font categories” appears to contain a typographical/grammatical error which renders the meaning of the limitation unclear.
Claim 19 is rejected for substantially the same reason indicated above for claim 6.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. § 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 8-10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Sharma et al., US 2023/0161944 A1.
Regarding claim 8, Sharma discloses one or more computer-storage media having computer-executable instructions embodied thereon that, when executed by a computing system having a processor and memory, cause the processor to perform operations, the operations comprising:
Accessing font category embeddings for font category descriptions, the font category descriptions are associated with font categories that are mapped to fonts. Sharma teaches generating candidate font embeddings. Sharma ¶¶ 33, 45 fig. 1 (candidate font embeddings 110). Each candidate font embedding represents a font category description (i.e., “intent”). For example, the font “Shlop” may associated with a mood, such as happy. Id. ¶ 51. Fonts having similar intents will have similar embeddings. Id. ¶ 45, fig. 5 (cluster 502).
Accessing prompt embeddings for a prompt. Sharma teaches extracting a set of intents from input text. Sharma ¶ 40, fig. 3 (set of intents 304). An intent embedding may be generated for the set of intents. Id. ¶ 41, fig. 3 (intent embedding generator 108).
Using the font category embeddings, the prompt embeddings, and the font categories, identifying at least one heading font candidate from the fonts that are mapped to the font categories. Sharma teaches comparing the intent embeddings to a plurality of candidate font embeddings to obtain a recommended font. Sharma ¶¶ 76-77, fig. 10 (acts 1008, 1010). As any font may be used for a heading, the recommended font may be considered a “heading font candidate.”
Communicating the at least on heading font candidate. Sharma teaches displaying a list of recommended fonts via a user interface. Sharma ¶ 65. A recommended font may also be communicated to another computing system “for additional processing.” Id.
Regarding claim 9, which depends on claim 8, Sharma discloses wherein the at least one font pairing is communicated to a design system service. Sharma teaches a recommended font may be communicated to another computing system, such as Adobe Creative Cloud, “for additional processing.” Sharma ¶¶ 65, 68. The phrase “to cause generation of an artificial intelligence generated image comprising the at least one font heading candidate and the at least one subheading font candidate” has been interpreted to recite an intended use or result. Therefore, the phrase has been afforded no limiting effect. Nevertheless, Adobe Creative Cloud inherently allows for the use of artificial intelligence generated images comprising fonts. See Scott Belsky, Bringing the Next Wave of Artificial Intelligence to Creative Cloud, Adobe Blog (Oct. 18, 2022), https://blog.adobe.com/en/publish/2022/10/18/bringing-next-wave-ai-creative-cloud.
Regarding claim 10, which depends on claim 8, Sharma discloses wherein the prompt is a user prompt that is provided via a design system interface associated with generating artificial-intelligence-based designs. Sharma ¶¶ 57, 68.
Claims 15-16 and 19-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Wang et al., US 2019/0108203 A1.
Regarding claim 15, Wang discloses a computer-implemented method, the method comprising:
Identifying at least one heading font candidate. Wang teaches receiving an input font selected by a user. Wang ¶ 175, fig. 12 (act 1210). The input font may be a header font. Id. ¶ 87.
Using a font pairing operation, identifying at least one subheading font candidate for the at least one heading font candidate. Wang teaches determining a font pairing score between the input font and a plurality of other fonts. Wang ¶ 176, fig. 12 (act 1220). The pairing scores can be used to determine one or more candidate fonts to pair with the header font. Id. ¶ 89. The candidate font may be a sub-header font. Id. ¶¶ 63, 112, 164, fig. 10A.
Identifying at least one font pairing based on the at least one font heading candidate and the at least one subheading font candidate, the font pairing comprising a heading font and a subheading font. Wang teaches determining a font that pairs with the input font. Wang ¶ 178 fig. 12 (act 1230). The font pair may be a header/sub-header. Id. ¶¶ 63, 112, 164, fig. 10A.
Communicating the at least one font pairing. Wang teaches presenting the determined font pairs to a user. Wang ¶¶ 91, 178, figs. 5D, 12 (act 1230).
Regarding claim 16, which depends on claim 15, Wang discloses wherein the at least one font pairing is communicated to a design system service to cause generation of an artificial intelligence generated image comprising the at least one font heading candidate and the at least one subheading font candidate. Wang teaches employing the font pairing in a design application, such as Adobe Creative Cloud. Wang ¶¶ 57, 142, 150. The phrase “to cause generation of an artificial intelligence generated image comprising the at least one font heading candidate and the at least one subheading font candidate” has been interpreted to recite an intended use or result. Therefore, the phrase has been afforded no limiting effect. Nevertheless, Adobe Creative Cloud inherently allows for the use of artificial intelligence generated images comprising fonts. See Scott Belsky, Bringing the Next Wave of Artificial Intelligence to Creative Cloud, Adobe Blog (Oct. 18, 2022), https://blog.adobe.com/en/publish/2022/10/18/bringing-next-wave-ai-creative-cloud.
Regarding claim 19, which depends on claim 15, Wang discloses wherein the font pairing operation is associated with a balance contrast similarity function, font visual embeddings, font stroke width, and font heading candidates to identify corresponding font subheading candidates. Wang ¶¶ 47-48, 55, 88-89, 136-138.
Regarding claim 20, which depends on claim 15, Wang discloses wherein identifying the at least one font pairing further comprises: determining similar features of the at least one heading font candidate and the at least one subheading font candidate; determining different features of the at least one heading font candidate and the at least one subheading font candidate; ranking a plurality of font pairs of heading font candidates and subheading font candidates based on a balanced contrast similarity function; and identifying a font pair with a highest ranking from the plurality of font pairs as the at least one font pairing. Wang teaches using a scoring function to rank font pairs base on their compatibility and present the top scoring font pairs. Wang ¶¶ 136-138. Feature vectors are created based on similar and different features of the fonts. Id. ¶¶ 47-48.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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 of this title, 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.
Claims 1-3 and 5-7 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over Sharma et al., US 2023/0161944 A1, in view of Wang et al., US 2019/0108203 A1.
Regarding claim 1, Sharma discloses a computerized system comprising:
One or more computer processors; and computer memory storing computer-useable instructions that, when used by the one or more computer processors, cause the one or more computer processors to perform operations.
Generating font category descriptions for font categories that are mapped to fonts. Sharma teaches generating font category descriptions (i.e., a “set of intents”) representing categories that are mapped to fonts. Sharma ¶ 27.
Generating font category embeddings for the font category descriptions. Sharma teaches generating candidate font embeddings. Sharma ¶¶ 33, 45 fig. 1 (candidate font embeddings 110). Each candidate font embedding represents a font category description (i.e., a “set of intents”). For example, the font “Shlop” may associated with Halloween, fun, scary, and happy. Id. ¶ 51.
Generating prompt embeddings for a prompt. Sharma teaches extracting a set of intents from input text. Sharma ¶ 40, fig. 3 (set of intents 304). An intent embedding may be generated for the set of intents. Id. ¶ 41, fig. 3 (intent embedding generator 108).
Using the font category embeddings, the prompt embeddings, and the font categories, identifying at least one heading font candidate. Sharma teaches comparing the intent embeddings to a plurality of candidate font embeddings to obtain a recommended font. Sharma ¶¶ 76-77, fig. 10 (acts 1008, 1010). As any font may be used for a heading, the recommended font may be considered a “heading font candidate.”
Sharma does not disclose, but Wang discloses:
Using a font pairing operation, identifying at least one subheading font candidate for the at least one heading font candidate. Wang teaches determining a font pairing score between an input font and a plurality of other fonts. Wang ¶ 176, fig. 12 (act 1220). The pairing scores can be used to determine one or more candidate fonts to pair with the header font. Id. ¶ 89. The candidate font may be a sub-header font. Id. ¶¶ 63, 112, 164, fig. 10A.
Identifying at least one font pairing based on the at least one font heading candidate and the at least one subheading font candidate, the font pairing comprising a heading font and a subheading font. Wang teaches determining a font that pairs with the input font. Wang ¶ 178 fig. 12 (act 1230). The font pair may be a header/sub-header. Id. ¶¶ 63, 112, 164, fig. 10A.
Communicating the at least one font pairing. Wang teaches presenting the determined font pairs to a user. Wang ¶¶ 91, 178, figs. 5D, 12 (act 1230).
It would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person with ordinary skill in the art to modify Sharma’s process of recommending a font based on a prompt with Wang’s process of pairing fonts. Such a modification would provide additional utility in designing aesthetically pleasing documents by providing visually aesthetic font pairs. See Sharma ¶¶ 2-8.
Regarding claim 2, which depends on claim 1, the combination of Sharma with Wang renders obvious wherein the at least one font pairing is communicated to a design system service. Sharma teaches a recommended font may be communicated to another computing system, such as Adobe Creative Cloud, “for additional processing.” Sharma ¶¶ 65, 68. Sharma does not explicitly disclose communicating a font pairing. However, Wang teaches employing the font pairing in a design application, such as Adobe Creative Cloud. Wang ¶¶ 57, 142, 150. Adobe Creative Cloud allows for the use of artificial intelligence generated images comprising fonts. The phrase “to cause generation of an artificial intelligence generated image comprising the at least one font heading candidate and the at least one subheading font candidate” has been interpreted to recite an intended use or result. Therefore, the phrase has been afforded no limiting effect. Nevertheless, Adobe Creative Cloud inherently allows for the use of artificial intelligence generated images comprising fonts. See Scott Belsky, Bringing the Next Wave of Artificial Intelligence to Creative Cloud, Adobe Blog (Oct. 18, 2022), https://blog.adobe.com/en/publish/2022/10/18/bringing-next-wave-ai-creative-cloud.
Regarding claim 3, which depends on claim 1, Sharma discloses wherein the prompt is a user prompt that is provided via a design system interface associated with generating artificial-intelligence-based designs. Sharma ¶¶ 57, 68.
Regarding claim 5, which depends on claim 1, Wang discloses wherein identifying the at least one subheading font candidate further comprises generating font visual embeddings, wherein the font visual embeddings are associated with corresponding fonts, the font visual embeddings support matching the heading font candidates to subheading font candidates based on a balance contrast similarity function. Wang teaches the use of a scoring function that computes a font pairing based on the symmetric compatibility space and the asymmetric compatibility space using the feature vector of an input header font and the feature vectors of candidate fonts. Wang ¶¶ 55, 88-89, 136-138.
Regarding claim 6, which depends on claim 1, Wang discloses wherein the font pairing operation is associated with a balance contrast similarity function, font visual embeddings, font stroke width, and font heading candidates to identify corresponding font subheading candidates. Wang ¶¶ 47-48, 55, 88-89, 136-138.
Regarding claim 7, which depends on claim 1, Wang discloses wherein identifying the at least one font pairing further comprises: determining similar features of the at least one heading font candidate and the at least one subheading font candidate; determining different features of the at least one heading font candidate and the at least one subheading font candidate; ranking a plurality of font pairs of heading font candidates and subheading font candidates based on a balanced contrast similarity function; and identifying a font pair with a highest ranking from the plurality of font pairs as the at least one font pairing. Wang teaches using a scoring function to rank font pairs base on their compatibility and present the top scoring font pairs. Wang ¶¶ 136-138. Feature vectors are created based on similar and different features of the fonts. Id. ¶¶ 47-48.
Claim 18 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over Wang et al., US 2019/0108203 A1, in view of Taylor et al., US 2008/0303822 A1.
Regarding claim 18, which depends on claim 15, the combination of Wang with Taylor renders obvious wherein identifying the at least one subheading font candidate further comprises: filtering through subheading font candidates based on stroke width; and removing a plurality of subheading font candidates with stroke width greater than a threshold value. Wang teaches providing filters to determine which font pairs to present. Wang ¶ 138. Wang does not explicitly disclose filtering by a stroke width value. However, Taylor teaches using font metadata (e.g., the thickness of strokes) to filter fonts for the purposes of selecting a font. Taylor ¶ 19.
It would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person with ordinary skill in the art to modify Wang’s process of determining a font pairing using filtering with Wang’s process of filtering a font based on a stroke thickness. Such a modification would provide additional utility in selecting a font that provides optimal readability (e.g., avoiding illegibility caused by thicker strokes obscuring details in smaller sized fonts).
Conclusion
Although particular portions of the prior art may have been cited in support of the rejections, the specified citations are merely representative of the teachings. Other passages and figures in the cited prior art may apply. Accordingly, Applicant should consider the entirety of the cited prior art for potentially teaching all or part of the claims.
The following prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant’s disclosure:
Matteson et al., US 2016/0307347 A1, discloses using machine learning for font pairing.
Song et al., US 2017/0262413 A1, discloses using machine learning for classifying fonts.
Kumar et al., US 2024/0143897 A1, discloses using multi-modal vector for font pairing.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Asher D Kells whose telephone number is (571)270-7729. The examiner can normally be reached Mon. - Fri., 8 a.m. - 4 p.m..
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, Kieu Vu can be reached at 571-272-4057. 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.
Asher D. Kells
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 2171
/Asher D Kells/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2171