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 .
Status of Claims
Claims 1-20 are pending in this application.
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 1-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more. The claims recite determining a plurality of prompt alternatives based on an input then processing those prompt alternatives which is a mental process that a human with pencil and paper could perform. This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application because the only additional elements in the claims are generic computing components performing generic computing tasks. The claims do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because the only additional elements in the claims are generic computing components performing generic computing tasks.
As per claim 1, the following limitations are disclosed:
A - receiving, by a processing device, a single input specifying one or more characteristics of digital content to be generated using generative artificial intelligence (AI) as implemented using one or more machine-learning models;
B - detecting, by the processing device, that the single input specifies a plurality of alternatives to be used in the generation of the digital content;
C - forming, by the processing device, a plurality of prompt alternatives, each said prompt alternative corresponding to a respective alternative of the plurality of alternatives;
D - receiving, by the processing device, a plurality of digital content generated by the one or more machine-learning models using the generative artificial intelligence responsive to processing of the plurality of prompt alternatives; and
E - presenting, by the processing device, the plurality of digital content for display in a user interface.
Limitations A, D & E are extra-solutional data gathering or output, while limitations B & C are directed to a mental process. The Subject Matter Eligibility analysis is as follows:
Step 1: Is the claim to a process, machine, manufacture or composition of matter? YES
Step 2A, prong 1: Does the claim recite an abstract idea, law of nature or natural phenomenon?
YES
Step 2A, prong 2: Does the claim recite additional elements that integrate the Judicial Exception
into a practical application? NO
Step 2B: Does the claim recite additional elements that amount to significantly more than the
judicial exception? NO
Therefore the claim is not subject matter eligible.
As per claim 10, the following limitations are disclosed:
F - a processing device; and
G - a computer-readable storage medium storing instructions that, responsive to execution by the processing device, causes the processing device to perform operations including:
H - receiving a first input specifying one or more digital content characteristics;
I - generating a first prompt configured to cause one or more machine-learning models to generate a first set of digital content based on the first input using generative artificial intelligence (AI);
J - receiving a second input specifying an edit to the first prompt, the second input received prior to receipt of a first set of digital content generated using generative artificial intelligence (AI) responsive to the first prompt;
K - generating a second prompt configured to cause the one or more machine-learning models to generate a second set of digital content based on the second input; and
L - presenting the first set of digital content and the second set of digital content for display in a user interface.
Limitations F & G are directed to generic computing components performing generic computing tasks, limitations H, J & L are extra-solutional data gathering or output, while limitations I & K are directed to a mental process. The Subject Matter Eligibility analysis is as follows:
Step 1: Is the claim to a process, machine, manufacture or composition of matter? YES
Step 2A, prong 1: Does the claim recite an abstract idea, law of nature or natural phenomenon?
YES
Step 2A, prong 2: Does the claim recite additional elements that integrate the Judicial Exception
into a practical application? NO
Step 2B: Does the claim recite additional elements that amount to significantly more than the
judicial exception? NO
Therefore the claim is not subject matter eligible.
As per claim 18, the following limitations are disclosed:
M - One or more computer-readable storage media storing instructions that, responsive to execution by a processing device, causes the processing device to perform operations comprising:
N - detecting a single input as specifying a plurality of alternatives to be used in digital content generation;
O - forming a plurality of prompt alternatives, each said prompt alternative corresponding to a respective alternative of the plurality of alternatives;
P - communicating the plurality of prompt alternatives for processing by one or more machine-learning models using generative artificial intelligence; and
Q - receiving a plurality of digital content generated responsive to processing of the plurality of prompt alternatives, respectively, by the one or more machine-learning models.
Limitation M is directed to generic computing components performing generic computing tasks, limitations P & Q are extra-solutional data gathering or output, while limitations N & O are directed to a mental process. The Subject Matter Eligibility analysis is as follows:
Step 1: Is the claim to a process, machine, manufacture or composition of matter? YES
Step 2A, prong 1: Does the claim recite an abstract idea, law of nature or natural phenomenon?
YES
Step 2A, prong 2: Does the claim recite additional elements that integrate the Judicial Exception
into a practical application? NO
Step 2B: Does the claim recite additional elements that amount to significantly more than the
judicial exception? NO
Therefore the claim is not subject matter eligible.
As per claim 2, the following additional limitations are disclosed:
R - the detecting is performed by detecting text in the single input as indicating the plurality of alternatives.
Limitation R is directed to a mental process. The Subject matter eligibility analysis remains unchanged.
As per claim 3, the following additional limitations are disclosed:
S - the detecting is performed using natural language understanding implemented by the one or more machine-learning models.
Limitation S is directed to a mental process. The Subject matter eligibility analysis remains unchanged.
As per claim 4, the following additional limitations are disclosed:
T - a first said prompt alternative includes a first said alternative and a second said prompt alternative includes a second said alternative, the first said prompt alternative being independent of inclusion of the second said alternative and the second said prompt alternative being independent of inclusion of the first said prompt alternative.
Limitation T is directed to a mental process. The Subject matter eligibility analysis remains unchanged.
As per claim 5, the following additional limitations are disclosed:
U - the presenting includes presenting the plurality of prompt alternatives for display in the user interface as associated with respective items of the plurality of digital content generated for respective said prompt alternatives.
Limitation U is directed to extra-solutional data output. The Subject matter eligibility analysis remains unchanged.
As per claim 6, the following additional limitations are disclosed:
V - the presenting includes initially presenting the plurality of prompt alternatives for display in the user interface along with respective placeholders and then replacing the respective placeholders with the respective items of the plurality of digital content.
Limitation V is directed to extra-solutional data output. The Subject matter eligibility analysis remains unchanged.
As per claim 7, the following additional limitations are disclosed:
W - identifying a respective said machine-learning model from a plurality of said machine-learning models to receive a respective said prompt alternative and communicating the respective said prompt alternative to the respective said machine-learning model.
Limitation W is directed to a mental process. The Subject matter eligibility analysis remains unchanged.
As per claim 8, the following additional limitations are disclosed:
X - a first said prompt alternative is communicated to a first said machine-learning model and a second said prompt alternative is communicated to a second said machine-learning model that is different than the first said machine-learning model.
Limitation X is directed to extra-solutional data output. The Subject matter eligibility analysis remains unchanged.
As per claim 9, the following additional limitations are disclosed:
Y - the receiving includes receiving a first said digital content from the first said machine-learning model having a digital content type that is different from a second said digital content that is received from the second said machine-learning model.
Limitation Y is directed to extra-solutional data gathering. The Subject matter eligibility analysis remains unchanged.
As per claim 11, the following additional limitations are disclosed:
Z - the second input is received during processing of the first prompt by the one or more machine-learning models.
Limitation Z is directed to extra-solutional data gathering. The Subject matter eligibility analysis remains unchanged.
As per claim 12, the following additional limitations are disclosed:
A1 - presenting the first prompt for display in the user interface responsive to the generating of the first prompt.
Limitation A1 is directed to extra-solutional data output. The Subject matter eligibility analysis remains unchanged.
As per claim 13, the following additional limitations are disclosed:
B1 - the receiving of the edit to the first input is performed via the user interface by editing text of the first prompt.
Limitation B1 is directed to extra-solutional data gathering. The Subject matter eligibility analysis remains unchanged.
As per claim 14, the following additional limitations are disclosed:
C1 - presenting the second prompt for display in the user interface along with the first prompt responsive to the generating of the second prompt responsive to the receiving of the edit.
Limitation C1 is directed to extra-solutional data output. The Subject matter eligibility analysis remains unchanged.
As per claim 15, the following additional limitations are disclosed:
D1 - presenting the first prompt in conjunction with the first set of digital content and the second prompt in conjunction with the second set of digital content.
Limitation D1 is directed to extra-solutional data output. The Subject matter eligibility analysis remains unchanged.
As per claim 16, the following additional limitations are disclosed:
E1 - presenting includes initially presenting the first prompt for display in the user interface along with one or more respective placeholders and then replacing the one or more respective placeholders with the first set of digital content.
Limitation E1 is directed to extra-solutional data output. The Subject matter eligibility analysis remains unchanged.
As per claim 17, the following additional limitations are disclosed:
F1 - the initially presenting is performed during the receiving of the second input.
Limitation F1 is directed to extra-solutional data output. The Subject matter eligibility analysis remains unchanged.
As per claim 19, the following additional limitations are disclosed:
G1 - identifying a respective said machine-learning model from a plurality of said machine-learning models to receive a respective said prompt alternative
H1- communicating the respective said prompt alternative to the respective said machine-learning model.
Limitation G1 is directed to a mental process and limitation H1 is directed to extra-solutional data output. The Subject matter eligibility analysis remains unchanged.
As per claim 20, the following additional limitations are disclosed:
I1 - the detecting is performed by detecting text in the single input indicating the plurality of alternatives using natural language understanding implemented by the one or more machine-learning models.
Limitation I1 is directed to a mental process. The Subject matter eligibility analysis remains unchanged.
Examiner Notes
The Examiner cites particular columns and line numbers in the references as applied to the claims above for the convenience of the Applicant. Although the specified citations are representative of the teachings in the art and are applied to the specific limitations within the individual claim, other passages and figures may apply as well. It is respectfully requested that, in preparing responses, the Applicant fully considers the references in its entirety as potentially teaching all or part of the claimed invention, as well as the context of the passage as taught by the prior art or as disclosed by the Examiner.
Communications via Internet e-mail are at the discretion of the applicant and require written authorization. Should the Applicant wish to communicate via e-mail, including the following paragraph in their response will allow the Examiner to do so:
“Recognizing that Internet communications are not secure, I hereby authorize the USPTO to communicate with me concerning any subject matter of this application by electronic mail. I understand that a copy of these communications will be made of record in the application file.”
Should e-mail communication be desired, the Examiner can be reached at Edwin.Leland@USPTO.gov
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to EDWIN S LELAND III whose telephone number is (571)270-5678. The examiner can normally be reached 8:00 - 5:00 M-F.
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, Hai Phan can be reached at 571-272-6338. 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.
/EDWIN S LELAND III/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2654
Prosecution Insights