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 .
Election/Restrictions
Applicant’s election without traverse of invention I claims 1-11 and 17-25 in the reply filed on 06/02/26 is acknowledged.
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 1-11, and 17-25 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to a judicial exception (i.e., an abstract idea) without integration into a practical application or recitation of significantly more.
In the analysis below, the method of independent claim 1 is considered representative of independent claims 1, 17 and 21 since all of the independent claims recite identical steps despite being directed to different statutory matter. Furthermore, each of independent claims 1, 17, and 21 are directed to one of the four statutory categories of eligible subject matter; thus, the claims pass Step 1 of the Subject Matter Eligibility Test (See flowchart in MPEP 2106).
Step 2A, prong 1: Yes
The independent claims are directed to
a) obtaining an input prompt and a layout mask, wherein the input prompt describes a first element, and the layout mask includes a second element; b) generating, using a mask generation model, an image mask based on the input prompt and the layout mask, wherein the image mask includes a first region corresponding to the first element and a second region corresponding to the second element; c) and providing the image mask to an image generation model for generating a synthetic image, wherein the synthetic image depicts the first element in the first region and the second element in the second region
When viewed under the broadest most reasonable interpretation, the instant claims are directed to Judicial Exception – an abstract idea belong to the group of mental process. Particularly, steps a, b, and c can be performed mentally. For example, a person can obtain an image [layout mask] and a prompt [place a person in this scene], then layout an image of a person on the input image in order to create a synthetic image.
Additional elements
The additional elements recited in independent claim 17 are a processor and a memory.
Step 2A, prong 2: No
The above-identified additional elements do not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application.
Each of the other additional elements (processor and memory) amounts to merely using a generic computer as a tool to perform the claimed mental process. Implementing an abstract idea on a computer does not integrate a judicial exception into a practical application (See MPEP 2106.05(f)).
Moreover, the additional elements of the claims do not recite an improvement in the functioning of a computer or other technology or technical field, the claimed steps are not performed using a particular machine, the claimed steps do not effect a transformation, and the claims do not apply the judicial exception in any meaningful way beyond generically linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment (See MPEP 2106.04(d)). Therefore, the analysis under prong two of step 2A of the Subject Matter Eligibility Test does not result in a conclusion of eligibility (See flowchart in MPEP 2106).
Step 2B: No
The pending claims do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. As explained above in Prong Two, the additional elements in the claim amount to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer. Each of the additional elements are generic computer features which perform generic computer functions that are well-understood, routine, and conventional and do not amount to more than implementing the abstract idea with a computerized system.
Looking at the limitations as an ordered combination adds nothing that is not already present when looking at the elements taken individually. There is no indication that the combination of elements improves the functioning of a computer or improves any other technology. Their collective functions merely provide conventional computer implementation, and mere implementation on a generic computer does not add significantly more to the claims. Accordingly, the analysis under step 2B of the Subject Matter Eligibility Test does not result in a conclusion of eligibility (See flowchart in MPEP 2106).
The dependent claims 2-11, 18-20, and 22-25 are similarly analyzed as mental steps.
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)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 1, 3-6, 8-9, 17-21 and 23-24 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Aberman et al. US2025/0349040 (hereinafter “Aberman”).
Regarding claim 1, Aberman discloses a method comprising: obtaining an input prompt and a layout mask, wherein the input prompt describes a first element, and the layout mask includes a second element (see paragraph 0023 an image based generation process that generates a synthetic output image based on both a text prompt [input prompt] and an input image [layout mask])
PNG
media_image1.png
201
346
media_image1.png
Greyscale
; generating, using a mask generation model, an image mask based on the input prompt and the layout mask, wherein the image mask includes a first region corresponding to the first element and a second region corresponding to the second element (see above paragraph 0023 and paragraph 0027 and 0031 where the input image and input prompt are encoded [generating mask data] and submitted to the image generation unit, the input prompt describes a first region [the beach] and the layout mask describes a second region [the face of a subject])
PNG
media_image2.png
142
344
media_image2.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image3.png
198
350
media_image3.png
Greyscale
; and providing the image mask to an image generation model for generating a synthetic image, wherein the synthetic image depicts the first element in the first region and the second element in the second region (see paragraph 0023 above, the automated image generation system processes the inputs and generates an output image depicting an AI-generated person resembling the user and relaxing on a beach).
Regarding claim 3, Aberman discloses wherein obtaining the layout mask comprises: obtaining a reference image; and segmenting the reference image to obtain the layout mask (see above paragraph 0027 the images of the subject from multiple images are combined to create the identity representation).
Regarding claim 4, Aberman discloses creating a training set for training a machine learning model, wherein the training set includes the image mask (see paragraph 0026).
PNG
media_image4.png
130
352
media_image4.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 5, Aberman discloses obtaining a noise map; and denoising the noise map based on the input prompt (see paragraph 0150).
PNG
media_image5.png
136
356
media_image5.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 6, Aberman discloses wherein: the input prompt describes a relation between the first element and the second element (see paragraph 0023, the user on the beach).
Regarding claim 8 the image mask includes a first layer indicating the first region and a second layer indicating the second region (see paragraph 0023 which shows the generated person resembling the user relaxing on a beach, first and second layers).
Regarding claim 9, although not explicitly stated it would be inherent that the region indicating the user would be one color [skin color] and the region indicating the beach would be a different color [blue ocean]).
Claim 17 is similarly analyzed to claim 1.
Claim 18 is similarly analyzed to claim 3.
Claim 19 is similarly analyzed to claim 1.
Regarding claim 20, the mask generation model comprises a diffusion model (see paragraph 0030).
PNG
media_image6.png
136
346
media_image6.png
Greyscale
Claims 21 is similarly analyzed to claim 1.
Claims 23-24 are similarly analyzed to claims 3-4.
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, 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 2, 10, and 22 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Aberman.
Regarding claim 2, as discussed above Aberman discloses the limitations of claim 1.
Aberman discloses that the input prompt [text input] is for a background element [the beach] and the second element from the layout mask is a foreground object [face of user], but does not explicitly disclose that the first element is a foreground and the second element is a background. However it would be an obvious design choice to specify the foreground with the text and the background with the image and one of ordinary skill in the art would find it obvious to switch the specified roles of Aberman in order to teach the claimed limitation. The motivation would be to allow the user more freedom in generating synthetic images.
Regarding claim 10, Aberman does not explicitly disclose generating, using the mask generation model, a subsequent image mask based on the image mask, wherein the subsequent image mask indicates a location of a third element, however Aberman discloses that the generation include training elements (see paragraph 0042)
PNG
media_image7.png
288
348
media_image7.png
Greyscale
and it would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to incorporate the training to generate further elements in the images [for example in response to further user input] to which the Examiner declares official notice. The motivation would be to make the system adaptable to further user input.
Claim 22 is similarly analyzed to claim 2.
Claims 7 and 25 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Aberman in view of Takatsuka et al. US 2021/0256286 (hereinafter “Takatsuka”).
Regarding claim 7, as discussed above Aberman discloses the limitations of claim 1.
Aberman does not explicitly disclose obtaining a bounding mask indicating a target region for the first element, wherein the image mask is generated based on the bounding mask and the region of the first element corresponds to the target region.
However it is well known to select a target region based on a bounding mask as disclosed by Takatsuka.
Takatsuka discloses an object detection device for detecting objects in captured images (see paragraph 0005). Specifically Takatsuka discloses calculating a bounding box surrounding an object region corresponding to a target class (see paragraph 0627).
Aberman and Takatsuka are analogous art because they are from the same field of endeavor of image processing.
Before the effective filing date of the invention it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to use the routine bounding box which specifies a target region as taught by Takatsuka with Aberman. The motivation would be to allow for specifying the user in the captured images with a typical bounding box.
Claim 25 is similarly analyzed to claim 7.
Claim 11 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Aberman in view of Chen et al. US 2026/0134543 (hereinafter “Chen”).
Regarding claim 11, as discussed above Aberman discloses the method of claim 1.
While Aberman discloses using a training set that includes an input layout mask [input images] to construct new images (see paragraph 0038), he does not explicitly disclose using a ground truth image mask to do so.
However it is well known to use a ground truth images for training a generation model as shown by Chen.
Chen discloses panoptic segmentation of images where a training input image is used with a ground truth mask to generate a predicted panoptic segmentation mask as an output of the diffusion model (see paragraph 0011).
Aberman and Chen are analogous art because they are from the same field of endeavor of segmenting images.
Before the effective filing date of the invention it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to use ground truth image mask as taught by Chen with the construction of new images and training inputs of Aberman. The motivation would be to more accurately find the facial parts in the input images.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Please see the 892 notice of references cited attached.
Contact Information
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JOHN B STREGE whose telephone number is (571)272-7457. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 9-5 (PST).
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, Chan Park can be reached at (571)272-7409. 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.
/JOHN B STREGE/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2669
Prosecution Insights