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 .
DETAILED ACTION
1. This is in response to application filed on 10/02/2024 in which claims 1-20 are presented for examination.
Status of Claims
2. Claims 1-20 are pending, of which claim 1, 10 and 19 are in independent form.
Allowable Subject Matter
3. Claims 3-7 and 12-16 objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten a) in independent form and b) to overcome the rejection(s) under 35 U.S.C. 112, set forth in this Office action and to include all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
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.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claim 1-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor, or for pre-AIA the applicant regards as the invention. Appropriate correction is required.
4. Claim 1, 10 and 19, the sentences recites “providing, by the artificial intelligence system, the image generation prompt to an image generation model trained to generate images based on input image generation prompts” seems to be ambiguous in definition. It is not clear from specification or in figures as to how “, the image generation prompt to an image generation model trained to generate images based on input image generation prompts”. Appropriate correction is requested.
For the prosecution on merits, examiner assumes as “the image generation prompt trained to generate images based on input”.
5. Claim 1, 10 and 19, the sentences also recite “generating, by the artificial intelligence system, an updated digital component using the output image” seems to be ambiguous in definition. It is not clear from specification or in figures as to who is generating the update for the component. Appropriate correction is requested.
For the prosecution on merits, examiner assumes as “updating the digital component”.
If the language of a claim, considered as a whole in light of the specification and given its broadest reasonable interpretation, is such that a person of ordinary skill in the relevant art would read it with more than one reasonable interpretation, then a rejection of the claims under 35 U.S.C. 112, second paragraph, is appropriate. See MPEP 2173.05(a), MPEP 2143.03(I), and MPEP 2173.06.
In light of the aforementioned rejections of the claim(s) under 35 U.S.C. 112, any subsequent rejections under 35 U.S.C. 102 and/or 103 are based on prior art that reads on the interpretation of the claim language of the instant application as best understood by the examiner.
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.
6. Claims 1-2, 10-11 and 19-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C 103 as being unpatentable over Benedetto (US PG Pub 2024/0193351) published on published on June 13, 2024 in view of Levy (US 12,651,128) filed on June 20, 2023.
As per claim 1, 10 and 19, Benedetto teaches A method, comprising: obtaining, by an artificial intelligence system and from one or more data sources(Para[0026] AI use image and text data set, as taught by Benedetto), information related to one or more digital components for an item comprising text presented by at least one of the one or more digital components(Para[0006] the query prompts are received as text provided by the user, as taught by Benedetto);
generating, by the artificial intelligence system(Para[0023] generating an image using an image generation artificial intelligence (IGAI) process, as taught by Benedetto), an image generation prompt based on the obtained information(Para[0024] e.g. image generation prompt, as taught by Benedetto), the image generation prompt comprising image generation instructions for generating an image based on the extracted information(Para[0024-0036] image is generated based on analysis of the text input. The ML engine 320 performs an IGAI process which engages a text-to-image AI model (or simply referred to henceforth as “AI model”) 320a to use the content (i.e., keywords, keyword sequence, and context determined from the user prompt, as well as the style preferred by the user) of the user prompt to identify relevant image features (i.e., outputs), as taught by Benedetto);
providing, by the artificial intelligence system, the image generation prompt to an image generation model trained to generate images based on input image generation prompts(Para[0024-0035] Image generated based on text input, as taught by Benedetto);
receiving, as an output of the image generation machine learning model, an output image for the item(Para[0038] the initial user prompt is used to generate an image with image features matching the content of the user prompt, as taught by Benedetto); and
Benedetto does not teach generating, by the artificial intelligence system, an updated digital component using the output image.
Levy teaches generating, by the artificial intelligence system, an updated digital component using the output image(Col 8 Ln 25-50 discloses generative AI module 204 may be a generative AI model (e.g., LLM) that is trained on a corpus of text, images, and multimedia comprising a specific domain (e.g., products or services of a retail website), as taught by Levy).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the filing date of the
invention to modify Benedetto invention with the teaching of Levy because doing so would
result in increased efficiency by allowing the generative AI module 204 the ability to generate responses
to prompts.
As per claim 2, 11 and 20, the combination of Benedetto and Levy teachers wherein generating the image generation prompt comprises populating an image generation prompt template based on the extracted information(Para[0024], as taught by Benedetto), wherein the image generation prompt template comprises at least a portion of the image generation instructions(Para[0078], as taught by Benedetto).
7. Claims 8-9 and 17-18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C 103 as being unpatentable over Benedetto (US PG Pub 2024/0193351) published on published on June 13, 2024 in view of Levy (US 12,651,128) filed on June 20, 2023 in further view of Pov et al. (US PG Pub 2025/0111655) filed on April 03, 2025.
As per claim 8 and 17, the combination of Benedetto and Levy does not teach wherein the image generation prompt comprises the identifier for the item and the text presented by the one or more digital components.
On the other hand, Pov teaches wherein the image generation prompt comprises the identifier for the item and the text presented by the one or more digital components(Para[0025] image generator may inference a first generative system (e.g., an LM) to determine natural language prompts having textual instructions to generate images (e.g., create an image of a cyclist riding a red bicycle), as taught by Pov).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the filing date of the
invention to modify Benedetto and Levy invention with the teaching of Pov because doing so would
result in increased visibility by exposing generative systems to the visual characteristics included in a
specific set of training images and teaches the generative systems natural language expressions that
represent the visual characteristics of the training images.
As per claim 9 and 18, the combination of Benedetto, Pov and Levy teachers wherein the obtained information comprises an identifier for the item(Para[0049], as taught by Pov).
Conclusion
8. The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
XU(US PG Pub 2025/0077765) discloses Text-to-image models, for instance, are a type of neural network that generates images based on a textual input, e.g., a prompt, such as a sentence or a paragraph describing the requested image.
9. The examiner requests, in response to this Office action, support be shown for language added to any original claims on amendment and any new claims. That is, indicate support for newly added claim language by specifically pointing to page(s) and line no(s) in the specification and/or drawing figure(s). This will assist the examiner in prosecuting the application.
10. When responding to this office action, Applicant is advised to clearly point out the patentable novelty which he or she thinks the claims present, in view of the state of the art disclosed by the references cited or the objections made. He or she must also show how the amendments avoid such references or objections See 37 CFR 1.111(c).
Point of Contact
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to RAYEEZ R CHOWDHURY whose telephone number is (571)270-3069. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 9AM-6:30PM EST.
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, William L Bashore can be reached at 571-272-4088. 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.
/RAYEEZ R CHOWDHURY/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2174 Monday, August 31, 2026
Prosecution Insights