The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
DETAILED ACTION
This communication is responsive to the application filed on 10/01/2024.
Claims 1-20 are pending in this application. This action is made non-final.
Claim Objections
Claim 2 is objected because there should be a “; and” at the end of the second paragraph “…prompt-guiding interface”.
Claims 4 and 12-13, 16 are objected because there should be a “and” at the end of the paragraph that is before the last paragraph.
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 13-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to a judicial exception (i.e., a law of nature, a natural phenomenon, or an abstract idea) without significantly more.
Claims 1, 13, 16:
Step 1 — Statutory Category
The claim satisfies Step 1 of the §101 analysis because it is expressly directed to a method, which is a statutory category of invention under 35 U.S.C. §101.
Step 2A, Prong One — Judicial Exception
Yes. The claim is directed to the abstract idea of collecting, organizing, and communicating information to generate visual-media content.
The claimed steps essentially involve:
presenting suggested prompt concepts;
receiving the user's selection;
assembling the selected concepts into a prompt;
transmitting the prompt to a media-generation service; and
receiving a preview of the resulting content.
These are fundamentally information-processing and communication activities.
Step 2A, Prong Two — Practical Application
The claim does not appear to integrate the abstract idea into a practical application.
The "prompt-guiding interface," "visual-media generation application," and "media-generation service" are used as generic computing components to perform the information-processing steps.
The claim does not recite a particular improvement to computer technology, image-generation technology, or the operation of the interface itself.
Step 2B — Inventive Concept
The additional elements—displaying information, receiving a selection, constructing and transmitting a prompt, and receiving a preview—appear to perform conventional computer functions.
The claim does not identify an unconventional technical mechanism that, individually or in combination, amounts to significantly more than the abstract idea.
Conclusion
The claim is vulnerable to a §101 rejection. Its focus is primarily on selecting prompt information and communicating it to a visual-media generation service, rather than on a specific technological improvement to the computer, interface, or media-generation technology.
Claims 2-4:
Step 1
Yes. It is a method, so it falls within a statutory category.
Step 2A, Prong One
Yes, it is abstract idea.
The additional limitations involve:
requesting suggested prompt concepts from a service;
obtaining prompt concepts and detailed prompt segments;
displaying them in a GUI; and
allowing the user to select them to construct a prompt.
These are primarily collecting, organizing, presenting, and transmitting information to assist a user in creating a prompt.
Step 2A, Prong Two
The added "suggested prompt concept service" and graphical user interface do not, by themselves, appear to provide a technological improvement. They merely use computer/network components to obtain and display information for the user's selection.
Step 2B
Likely no inventive concept.
The additional functions—requesting information from a service, receiving information, displaying it, and allowing selection—appear to be conventional computer/network operations.
Conclusion
Yes, the §101 rejection is maintained for this dependent claim.
The added limitation makes the workflow more specific, but it still essentially amounts to:
request prompt suggestions → receive prompt information → display it → let the user select it to create a prompt.
Claims 5-7:
Step 1: Statutory process → YES
Step 2A(1): Translating a suggested concept into a detailed prompt is generating/transforming information → YES, abstract
Step 2A(2): No specific technological improvement; it merely transforms prompt information for submission to the media-generation service → NO
Step 2B: Translation/prompt generation using conventional computing does not add an inventive concept → NO
Conclusion: §101 rejection → YES.
Claim 8:
Step 1: Statutory process → YES
Step 2A(1): Receiving a selected thumbnail and processing it into a higher-resolution image involves receiving, manipulating, and presenting information/images → YES, abstract
Step 2A(2): The specific upsampling of a generated thumbnail into a higher-resolution/larger-format image provides some technical character, but as written it does not clearly recite a specific technological improvement → NO
Step 2B: If conventional image upsampling is used, it likely does not provide an inventive concept → NO
Conclusion: §101 rejection → YES
Claim 9:
Step 1: Statutory process → YES
Step 2A(1): Generating a video from thumbnail images and increasing its resolution/format involves processing and presenting image/video information → YES, abstract
Step 2A(2): No specific technological improvement in the video-generation or upscaling technique is recited → NO
Step 2B: Merely using conventional video/image processing to create a higher-resolution video likely does not provide an inventive concept → NO
Conclusion: §101 rejection → YES.
Claim 10:
Step 1: Statutory process → YES
Step 2A(1): Presenting a selected prompt concept as a bubble in an interface is presenting/displaying information → YES, abstract
Step 2A(2): No specific technological improvement to the interface or computer operation → NO
Step 2B: A conventional UI bubble for displaying selected information does not provide an inventive concept → NO
Conclusion: §101 rejection → YES
Claim 11:
Step 1: Statutory process → YES
Step 2A(1): Selecting and displaying prompt concepts as UI bubbles representing portions of information → YES, abstract
Step 2A(2): No specific technological improvement to the interface or computer functionality → NO
Step 2B: Multiple selections and UI bubbles are conventional interface functionality and add no inventive concept → NO
Conclusion: §101 rejection → YES.
Claim 14:
Step 1: Yes. It is a method implemented by a computing system.
Step 2A, Prong One: The claim involves translating, expanding, and mapping information from a suggested concept into a detailed text prompt—an information-processing activity.
Step 2A, Prong Two: No. The claim does not recite a specific technological improvement to the translation, mapping, computer, or media-generation process.
Step 2B: No. Translating a concept into detailed text and mapping it to a text string can be characterized as conventional information processing.
Conclusion: Likely §101 abstract. The added mapping/detail limitations specify what information is generated, rather than a particular technical mechanism for generating it
Claim 15:
Step 1: Yes. Statutory process implemented by a computing system.
Step 2A, Prong One: Receiving a photo and using additional prompt information to specify a modification is essentially processing and communicating information to generate desired visual content.
Step 2A, Prong Two: No. The claim does not recite a specific technical improvement to image processing or the media-generation technology. A photo of a person/animal and instructions to modify it describe the content of the request.
Step 2B: Likely no. Receiving an image and instructions for modifying the image are conventional functions of image-generation/editing systems.
Conclusion: §101 abstract.
Claim 17-18:
Step 1: Claim is directed to a statutory process/system → Yes.
Step 2A(1): The limitation involves requesting and communicating/presenting information (suggested prompt concepts and a link to an interface) → Abstract idea.
Step 2A(2): No additional element appears to integrate the abstract idea into a practical technological application; the interface/link are recited functionally → Not integrated.
Step 2B: The interface and link, individually and in combination, appear to use conventional computer functionality and do not provide an inventive concept → No inventive concept.
Conclusion: §101 ineligible.
Claim 19:
Step 1: Statutory process/system → Yes.
Step 2A(1): Recites images/information associated with entities in a photo library → Abstract idea (information collection/presentation).
Step 2A(2): No technological improvement; merely specifies the source/content of the suggested images → Not integrated into a practical application.
Step 2B: Using a conventional photo library and displaying/recommending its images does not provide an inventive concept → No.
Conclusion: Likely §101 ineligible
Claim 20:
Step 1: Statutory process → YES
Step 2A(1): Requesting images from a photo library and sending selected images as suggested concepts is collecting/selecting and presenting information → YES, abstract
Step 2A(2): No specific technological improvement; it merely specifies where the images come from and how they are provided → NO
Step 2B: Conventional requesting and transmitting images does not add an inventive concept → NO
Conclusion: §101 rejection → YES.
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 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 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, 5, 13, and 16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Parasnis et al. (US Patent 11,809,688; Hereinafter Parasnis) in view of Liu et al. (US 2023/0326488; Hereinafter Liu).
Re claims 1, 13, and 16, Parasnis teaches a method comprising:
presenting, in a prompt-guiding interface, a graphical representation of at least one suggested prompt concept, the at least one suggested prompt concept is for inclusion in a prompt to generate visual media content (col. 11, lines 28-67, menu with options for selection to generate output. The user is able to enter a text description for question like “What is on the scene?”);
receiving, by the prompt-guiding interface of a visual-media generation application, a selection of the at least one suggested prompt concept to yield a selected prompt concept (col. 11, lines 28-67, the user may select one question from a presented list such as “Which product asset to use?” or “What is on the scene?”;
providing, by the visual-media generation application, the prompt to generate the visual media content to a media-generation service, the prompt is made of up one or more of the selected prompt concepts (fig. 21, col. 15, lines 37-62, content created by a Generative Artificial Intelligence (GAI) such as the image for a coffee Coca-Cola can);
receiving, by the visual-media generation application, at least one preview of the visual media content that was generated by the media-generation service based on the prompt to generate the visual media content (fig. 21, col. 15, lines 37-62, content created by a Generative Artificial Intelligence (GAI) such as the image for a coffee Coca-Cola can. Also see fig. 1, col. 3, lines 52-65, the prompt panel has a prompt tool for entering descriptive text for the desired results …after an input is entered in the prompt tool, the content result is generated with certain characteristic).
As it can be seen, Parasnis teaches an interactive prompt tool, menus with image-generation options, user selection, textual descriptions being submitted to a GAI tool, and presentation of generated images/variations. If one argues that Parasnis does not explicitly teach the limitation “suggested prompt concept” then a secondary reference is introduced. Reference of Liu can bee seen teaching this limitation ([0040], generating content based on a style selection. The style selection may indicate a color, a text, an artistic style associated with the video).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to add the teaching as seen in Liu’s content into Parasnis’s invention because it would provide a predictable improvement in the user interface by facilitating selection of desired image characteristics and reducing the amount of prompt text that a user must formulate.
Re claim 5, the rejection of claim 1 is incorporated. Parasnis teaches further comprising: the detailed prompt segment is sent to the media-generation service as the prompt to generate the visual media content (fig. 21, col. 15, lines 37-62, the textual description is provided to the GAI tool) but Parasis does not clearly teach translating, by the visual-media generation application, the at least one suggested prompt concept into a detailed prompt segment. However, it is taught by Liu ([0044]-[0046], the selected style is converted into additional text corresponding to the selected style. That additional text is appended to the user’s text). Liu also teach the detailed prompt segment is sent to the media-generation service as the prompt to generate the visual media content ([0044], the resulting complete text including the additional text corresponding to the selected style is provided to the image-generation model).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to add the teaching as seen in Liu’s content into Parasnis’s invention because it would provide a convenient mechanism for transforming a user’s high-level selection into textual information usable by the generative AI system. It would reduce the need for the user to manually formulate detailed prompt language.
Claim 10 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Parasnis in view of Liu and further in view of Kulkarni et al. (US 2024/0311652; Hereinafter Kulkarni).
Re claim 10, the rejection of claim 1 is incorporated. Parasnis does not teach further comprising: presenting the at least one suggested prompt concept as a bubble in the prompt-guiding interface after receiving the selection of the at least one suggested prompt concept. However, it is taught by Kulkarni ([0044], selectable user interface elements can include inline text and/or may be provided via a drop-down menu, a bubble, and/or a pop-up).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to add the teaching as seen in Kulkarni’s content into the combination of Liu and Parasnis’s invention because it would facilitate prompt construction and editing by allowing a user to readily identify and manage the selected prompt concepts without having to manually inspect or edit the complete textual prompt.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 2-4, 6-9, 11-12, 14-15, 17-20 are objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims because the additional limitations integrate the abstract idea into a practical application and therefore overcome the rejection under 35 USC § 101.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record on form PTO-892 and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Applicant is required under 37 C.F.R. § 1.111 ( c ) to consider these references fully when responding to this action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to TOAN H VU whose telephone number is (571)270-3482. The examiner can normally be reached on PHP 9-5:30 PM.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Stephen Hong can be reached on 571-274124. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/TOAN H VU/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2178
