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 .
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 25 October 2025 was received and the information disclosure statement has been considered by the examiner.
Examiner’s Note
The examiner examined claims 1-20 for eligible subject matter under 35 U.S.C. 101. While claims 1, 15, and 20 recite abstract ideas of isolating the item, identifying an item category, identifying additional information, generating a prompt, and triggering an artificial intelligence model, the examiner found that the abstract ideas were integrated into a practical application by at least the generation of a guidance image. The applicant's specification in paragraph [0015] recites "The guidance image provides a starting point from which the generative AI model or system can deviate in generating different versions of the image. The prompt along with the guidance image are then used to trigger the artificial intelligence (Al) model or system to generate a first set of one or more images having a natural background and an appropriate shadow of the item." This is understood as an improvement to the field and to integrate the abstract idea into a practical application.
Further, the examiner considered whether the "machine-storage medium" of claim 20 may include in its broadest reasonable interpretation a transitory medium or otherwise claim nonstatutory matter. Upon reviewing the specification, the examiner found in paragraph [0104] that "machine-storage medium" expressly exclude transitory media and is a non-transitory storage medium.
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.
Claims 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 applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Regarding claim 1, line 3 recites "a background" that is removed and line 9 recites "a natural background". It is unclear if these are the same item or different items. When an image of an item is accessed, it is assumed that the background of the image is natural, as in not artificially generated. Further, the applicant's specification [0015] states "The natural background comprises a background that appears natural to the item as if the generated image was a photograph of the item in an environment that contains the background." This description of a "natural background" applies to the original background of the source image because the original image is "a photograph of the item in an environment that contains that background". Therefore, it is unclear if the original "a background" and the "a natural background" are the same item or are different. Further, it is unclear how the natural background may be based on a suggested background as recited in line 14 if the natural background may be the original background. For the purpose of examination, the examiner interprets them as separate backgrounds and the natural background to be a background by desired the user and the suggested background to be a representation of the desired background. Claims 2-14 depend on claim 1 and are likewise rejected for failing to remedy the ambiguity of claim 1.
Regarding claim 5, claim 5 recites the limitation "the plurality of generated images" in line 2. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. Therefore, it is unclear what images are being referred to. For the purpose of examination, the examiner interprets the images as the "one or more generated images" as introduced in claim 1.
Further regarding claim 5, claim 5 recites the limitation "the device" in line 4. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. Therefore, it is unclear what device is being referred to. For the purpose of examination, the examiner interprets the device as the client device introduced in claim 1. Claim 6 is dependent on claim 5 and is rejected for failing to remedy the ambiguity of claim 5.
Regarding claim 9, claim 9 recites the limitation "the plurality of generated images" in line 2. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. Therefore, it is unclear what images are being referred to. For the purpose of examination, the examiner interprets the images as the "one or more generated images" as introduced in claim 1.
Regarding claim 14, claim 14 recites the limitation "the plurality of generated images" in line 2. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. Therefore, it is unclear what images are being referred to. For the purpose of examination, the examiner interprets the images as the "one or more generated images" as introduced in claim 1.
Regarding claim 15, line 6 recites "a background" that is removed and line 12 recites "a natural background". It is unclear if these are the same item or different items. When an image of an item is accessed, it is assumed that the background of the image is natural, as in not artificially generated. Further, the applicant's specification [0015] states "The natural background comprises a background that appears natural to the item as if the generated image was a photograph of the item in an environment that contains the background." This description of a "natural background" applies to the original background of the source image because the original image is "a photograph of the item in an environment that contains that background". Therefore, it is unclear if the original "a background" and the "a natural background" are the same item or are different. Further, it is unclear how the natural background may be based on a suggested background as recited in line 17 if the natural background may be the original background. For the purpose of examination, the examiner interprets them as separate backgrounds and the natural background to be a background by desired the user and the suggested background to be a representation of the desired background. Claims 16-19 depend on claim 15 and are likewise rejected for failing to remedy the ambiguity of claim 15.
Regarding claim 17, claim 17 recites the limitation "the plurality of generated images" in line 2. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. Therefore, it is unclear what images are being referred to. For the purpose of examination, the examiner interprets the images as the "one or more generated images" as introduced in claim 15.
Further regarding claim 17, claim 17 recites the limitation "the device" in line 4. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. Therefore, it is unclear what device is being referred to. For the purpose of examination, the examiner interprets the device as the client device introduced in claim 15.
Regarding claim 18, claim 18 recites the limitation "the plurality of generated images" in line 2. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. Therefore, it is unclear what images are being referred to. For the purpose of examination, the examiner interprets the images as the "one or more generated images" as introduced in claim 15.
Regarding claim 20, line 4 recites "a background" that is removed and line 10 recites "a natural background". It is unclear if these are the same item or different items. When an image of an item is accessed, it is assumed that the background of the image is natural, as in not artificially generated. Further, the applicant's specification [0015] states "The natural background comprises a background that appears natural to the item as if the generated image was a photograph of the item in an environment that contains the background." This description of a "natural background" applies to the original background of the source image because the original image is "a photograph of the item in an environment that contains that background". Therefore, it is unclear if the original "a background" and the "a natural background" are the same item or are different. Further, it is unclear how the natural background may be based on a suggested background as recited in line 15 if the natural background may be the original background. For the purpose of examination, the examiner interprets them as separate backgrounds and the natural background to be a background by desired the user and the suggested background to be a representation of the desired background.
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 (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) 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, 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, 10, 15 and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Cohen-Tidhar et al. (US 20260141592 A1; hereafter, Cohen) in view of Daha et al. (US 20240386661 A1; hereafter, Daha).
Regarding claim 1, Cohen discloses:
A method comprising: accessing a source image of an item ([0025] and Fig. 2, block 110 receive an image of an object);
isolating, by an image processing component, the item by removing a background from the source image ([0025] and Fig. 2, block 120 perform preprocessing including background removal);
identifying, by an image classification model ([0041]-[0042] and Fig. 9, the step of block 130 is performed by a Vision and Language Model (VLM) which is understood as a classification model), an item category of the item ([0025] and Fig. 2, block 130 perform image analysis including determining an item category);
based on the item category, identifying additional information regarding the item ([0025] and Fig. 2, measures, relative dimension, etc. are determined which is understood as additional information), the additional information including a typical orientation of the item ([0026] a "correct size and slanting/orientation" is included in the information of the item);
generating a prompt that includes at least some of the additional information ([0026] and Fig. 2, block 140 generate a textual prompt including object attributes which are understood as additional information) and instructions to generate images having a natural background ([0023] an example prompt shows a prompt with instructions for generating a natural background);
using the prompt and the guidance image, triggering an artificial intelligence (AI) model to generate one or more images of the item ([0026] and Fig. 2, block 150 an image is generated based on the prompt and an input image which may be understood as a guidance image) having the natural background ([0023] the generated image is of the item with an AI-generated background or scenery. The example shows a natural background as the background of choice), the natural background being generated based on the suggested background ([0023] the generated background is the "requested background" which may be understood as the suggested background) and comprising a shadow of the item ([0026] and Fig. 2, block 160 performs a correction or modification which generates a shadow);
and causing presentation of the one or more generated images on a display of a client device ([0026] and Fig. 2, block 170 the generated image is output).
Cohen does not disclose expressly to generate a guidance image that is a combination of the source image with the background removed and a suggested background.
Daha discloses:
generating a guidance image that is a combination of the source image with the background removed and a suggested background (by the broadest reasonable interpretation, a suggested background may be any suggestion of a background, including a text suggestion or an image suggestion. Further, by the broadest interpretation of a combination of the source image and a suggested background, a combination may be any grouping of the source image and the suggested background including a grouping as an input into a model or as an overlay of the item onto a suggested background image. Daha, [0039] and Fig. 1, a background 105, which is understood as a suggested background, and a segmented image of an item, i.e. the source image with the background removed, are being combined as input to an AI model);
Cohen and Daha are combinable because they are from the same field of endeavor of generating an image of an item on a background (Cohen, [0004]; Daha, [0016]).
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the guidance image of Daha with the invention of Cohen.
The motivation for doing so would have been to "structure a query to the 3D image generating AI model 107 to produce the desired 3D image 108" (Daha, [0045]). In other words, the combination of the suggested background and the item image guides the AI model to generate a desired outcome.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to combine Daha with Cohen to obtain the invention as specified in claim 1.
Regarding claim 10, Cohen in view of Daha discloses the subject matter of claim 1.
Cohen further discloses:
The method of claim 1, wherein the additional information further comprises one or more of an angle of view, a lighting effect, an environment, a deviation parameter, a relative size, or one or more suggested backgrounds ([0025] and Fig. 2, block 130 the additional information includes at least a relative dimensions which is understood as a relative size).
Regarding claim 15, claim 15 recites a system with elements corresponding to the steps recited in claim 1. Therefore, the recited elements of this claim are mapped to the proposed combination in the same manner as the corresponding steps in its corresponding method claim, claim 1. Additionally, the rationale and motivation to combine Cohen in view of Daha, presented in rejection of claim 1, apply to this claim. Finally, Cohen discloses:
A system comprising: one or more processors ([0145] A processor which may perform instructions);
and a memory storing instructions that, when executed by the one or more processors, cause the one or more processors to perform operations ([0150] a memory storing instructions)
Regarding claim 20, claim 20 recites a system with elements corresponding to the steps recited in claim 1. Therefore, the recited elements of this claim are mapped to the proposed combination in the same manner as the corresponding steps in its corresponding method claim, claim 1. Additionally, the rationale and motivation to combine Cohen in view of Daha, presented in rejection of claim 1, apply to this claim. Further, Cohen discloses:
A machine-storage medium comprising instructions ([0150] a non-transitory machine readable medium which is understood as a machine storage medium storing instructions)
which, when executed by one or more processors of a machine, cause the machine to perform operations ([0145] a processor which performs stored instructions)
Claims 2-4 and 16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Cohen-Tidhar et al. (US 20260141592 A1; hereafter, Cohen) in view of Daha et al. (US 20240386661 A1; hereafter, Daha) in further view of Han et al. (US 12579703 B1; hereafter, Han).
Regarding claim 2, Cohen in view of Daha discloses the subject matter of claim 1.
Cohen in view of Daha does not disclose expressly to determine a plurality of suggested backgrounds, cause the suggested backgrounds to be present on a client device, and receiving a selection of the suggested background.
Han discloses:
The method of claim 1, further comprising: determining a plurality of suggested backgrounds applicable to the item category (col. 20 line 21-24 and Fig. 7, a plurality of potential backgrounds are determined. the "first candidate image 142(1), which depicts the item 122 (e.g., a shoe) immersed in an AI-generated background that includes a cliff (because the user 102 selected the descriptor, “Cliff”)" emphasis added. A person of ordinary skill in the art would understand from this that the suggested backgrounds are relevant to the category, such as "cliff");
causing presentation of the plurality of suggested backgrounds on the display of the client device (col. 20 line 7-10 and Fig. 7, the suggested backgrounds are displayed to the user);
and receiving a selection of the suggested background from the plurality of suggested backgrounds (col. 20 line 21-24 and Fig. 7, the user makes a selection of the background).
Han is combinable with Cohen in view of Daha because it is from the same field of endeavor of generating backgrounds for object images (Han, col. 2 line 24-26).
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the user selection of Han with the invention of Cohen in view of Daha.
The motivation for doing so would have been "the item 122 (e.g., shoe) is depicted as resting on a cliff with lighting and shadows applied to and/or around the item 122 in such a way that the candidate image 142(1) looks realistic to the viewing user" (Han, col. 20 line 23-27). In other words, the user may select the most realistic background.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to combine Han with Cohen in view of Daha to obtain the invention as specified in claim 2.
Regarding claim 3, Cohen in view of Daha in further view of Han discloses the subject matter of claim 2.
Cohen does not disclose expressly that the plurality of backgrounds comprises of plurality of suggested background categories.
Daha discloses:
The method of claim 2, wherein the plurality of suggested background comprises a plurality of suggested background categories ([0054] "image generating AI models will generate the appearance of an object or a background based on all the images in that class from its training data". Therefore, the background are organized as classes which are understood as categories).
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the categories of Daha with the invention of Cohen.
The motivation for doing so would have been that it would have been obvious to try to organize backgrounds into categories. Daha establishes a market pressure to solve a problem in [0024], "Another important benefit of viewing 3D images of products before buying them is the ability to see them in different environments and against diverse backgrounds. This can be helpful in many ways. For example, it can help a user better understand how a product will look in their own home or office, or in a specific room or space they have in mind." Therefore, the need to present an image of a product in a background was known. Further, in storing backgrounds for generating an image there are a finite number of predictable potential solutions, namely storing them all in some list or by organizing them by background categories. A person of ordinary skill in the art would have found it obvious to try to organize backgrounds into categories with a reasonable expectation of success in improving the ability to meet client needs in generating images of items in a background.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to combine Daha with Cohen to obtain the invention as specified in claim 3.
Regarding claim 4, Cohen in view of Daha in further view of Han discloses the subject matter of claim 2.
Cohen in view of Daha does not disclose expressly that the plurality of suggested background comprises an actual background for the item category.
Han discloses:
The method of claim 2, wherein the plurality of suggested backgrounds comprises an actual background for the item category (col. 20 line 21-24 and Fig. 7,the "first candidate image 142(1), which depicts the item 122 (e.g., a shoe) immersed in an AI-generated background that includes a cliff (because the user 102 selected the descriptor, “Cliff”)." A cliff is understood as an actual background).
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the backgrounds of Han with the invention of Cohen in view of Daha.
The motivation for doing so would have been "the item 122 (e.g., shoe) is depicted as resting on a cliff with lighting and shadows applied to and/or around the item 122 in such a way that the candidate image 142(1) looks realistic to the viewing user" (Han, col. 20 line 23-27). In other words, the user may select the most realistic background including the category.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to combine Han with Cohen in view of Daha to obtain the invention as specified in claim 4.
Regarding claim 16, claim 16 recites a system with elements corresponding to the steps recited in claim 2. Therefore, the recited elements of this claim are mapped to the proposed combination in the same manner as the corresponding steps in its corresponding method claim, claim 2. Additionally, the rationale and motivation to combine Cohen in view of Daha in further view of Han, presented in rejection of claim 2, apply to this claim.
Claims 5-6 and 17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Cohen-Tidhar et al. (US 20260141592 A1; hereafter, Cohen) in view of Daha et al. (US 20240386661 A1; hereafter, Daha) in further view of Ban et al. (KR 102618644 B1; hereafter, Ban).
Regarding claim 5, Cohen in view of Daha discloses the subject matter of claim 1.
Cohen in view of Daha does not disclose expressly to receive an indication to edit the generated images, to display to a user options for editing, to receive a selection of options, and triggering the AI model to generate additional image based on the selected option.
Ban discloses:
The method of claim 1, further comprising: receiving an indication to edit the plurality of generated images (pg. 5 para. 3, the user can make a selection to change images which is understood as an indication to edit);
in response to receiving the indication, causing a user interface to be displayed on the device that provides a plurality of edit options (pg. 5 para. 3, "a composite image may be an image in which a target object viewed from a viewing position is synthesized with various backgrounds generated based on information about the background of the composite image. The user can select and use one of the various composite images displayed in the composite image output area 130," therefore, a plurality of options are displayed on the device);
receiving a selection of an edit option of the plurality of edit options (pg. 5 para. 3, the user can make a selection of the options);
and triggering the AI model to generate additional images based on the selected edit option (pg. 5 para. 3, the user can select to "create additional composite image under the same conditions, or create additional composite image by changing the composite image creation conditions." As the additional images are created under the same or changed conditions, they are understood to be generated by an AI model, see pg. 6 para. 2).
Ban is combinable with Cohen in view of Daha because it is from the same field of endeavor of generating backgrounds for object images (Ban, pg. 1 para. 1).
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the user interaction of Ban with the invention of Cohen in view of Daha.
The motivation for doing so would have been "to easily create and modify images of products to be sold" (Ban, pg. 2 para. 3).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to combine Ban with Cohen in view of Daha to obtain the invention as specified in claim 5.
Regarding claim 6, Cohen in view of Daha in further view of Ban discloses the subject matter of claim 5.
Cohen in view of Daha does not disclose expressly the options that the edit options comprise.
Ban discloses:
The method of claim 5, wherein the edit options comprise changing a material, changing a shadow, changing a surrounding, changing a mood, or changing a background color (pg. 5 para. 3, additional images may be generated under different conditions. Pg. 5 para. 4, conditions include lighting which may be understood at least as a changing shadow, changing mood, or a changing color).
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the user interaction of Ban with the invention of Cohen in view of Daha.
The motivation for doing so would have been "to easily create and modify images of products to be sold" (Ban, pg. 2 para. 3).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to combine Ban with Cohen in view of Daha to obtain the invention as specified in claim 6.
Regarding claim 17, claim 17 recites a system with elements corresponding to the steps recited in claim 5. Therefore, the recited elements of this claim are mapped to the proposed combination in the same manner as the corresponding steps in its corresponding method claim, claim 5. Additionally, the rationale and motivation to combine Cohen in view of Daha in further view of Han, presented in rejection of claim 5, apply to this claim.
Claim 7 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Cohen-Tidhar et al. (US 20260141592 A1; hereafter, Cohen) in view of Daha et al. (US 20240386661 A1; hereafter, Daha) in further view of Yu et al. ("Sequential Attention GAN for Interactive Image Editing", full reference on PTO-892; hereafter, Yu).
Regarding claim 7, Cohen in view of Daha discloses the subject matter of claim 1.
Cohen in view of Daha does not disclose expressly to receive an indication to generate additional generated images and in response to trigger the AI model to generate additional images using a previously generated image as a new guidance image.
Yu discloses:
The method of claim 1, further comprising: receiving an indication to generate additional generated images (pg. 5 col. 1 para. 2 and Fig. 3, a user provides textual input which is understood as an indication to generate additional images);
and in response to receiving the indication, triggering the AI model to generate the additional generated images using a previously generated image as a new guidance image (pg. 2 col. 1 para. 3 and Fig. 3, "In each turn, the generator generates a new image by taking into account both the history of previous textual descriptions and previously generated images." Therefore, it is understood that the previous image is used as input into the next iteration, as shown in Fig. 3, to generate new images based on user indications).
Yu is combinable with Cohen in view of Daha because it is from the related field of endeavor of interactive image generation (Yu, pg. 2 col. 2 para. 6).
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the generation of additional images of Yu with the invention of Cohen in view of Daha.
The motivation for doing so would have been "by incorporating context history, SeqAttnGAN is able to generate high-quality images, beating all baseline models on metrics over contextual relevance and consistency" (Yu, pg. 2 col. 1 para. 5).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to combine Yu with Cohen in view of Daha to obtain the invention as specified in claim 7.
Claims 8, 11, 14, and 19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Cohen-Tidhar et al. (US 20260141592 A1; hereafter, Cohen) in view of Daha et al. (US 20240386661 A1; hereafter, Daha) in further view of Paliarush et al. (US 20250078323 A1; hereafter, Paliarush).
Regarding claim 8, Cohen in view of Daha discloses the subject matter of claim 1.
Cohen in view of Daha does not disclose expressly determining the one or more suggested background by a trained model, the trained model being trained on feedback one the use of previously selected backgrounds.
Paliarush discloses:
The method of claim 1, wherein the determining the one or more suggested backgrounds is performed by a trained model ([0048]-[0049] backgrounds are generated by an image generation module. The backgrounds are understood as suggested backgrounds because they are used as backgrounds to objects in images 110),
the trained model being trained on previously selected suggested backgrounds for the item category and feedback on use of the previously selected suggested backgrounds ([0048] the module is trained based on what image were selected previously by the operator and on user behavioral data).
Paliarush is combinable with Cohen in view of Daha because it is from the same field of endeavor of background generation for object images (Paliarush, [0001]).
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the trained model of Paliarush with the invention of Cohen in view of Daha.
The motivation for doing so would have been so that preferred characteristic based on user behavior can be given "heavier weights can have greater influence on the output" (Paliarush, [0048]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to combine Paliarush with Cohen in view of Daha to obtain the invention as specified in claim 8.
Regarding claim 11, Cohen in view of Daha discloses the subject matter of claim 1.
Cohen in view of Daha does not disclose expressly that identifying additional information comprises accessing a mapping database.
Paliarush discloses:
The method of claim 1, wherein identifying the additional information comprises accessing a mapping database comprising mappings of item categories to the additional information ([0046] information concerning a geographic region is accessed from a database and [0047] associated with the prompt as context data. Context data is understood as additional information because it provides more information relevant to the prompt generation).
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the mapping database of additional information of Paliarush with the invention of Cohen in view of Daha.
The motivation for doing so would have been "Customers 318 from the geographic market can then view the synthetic images with geolocation-based backgrounds generated specific for the geographic market" (Paliarush, [0062]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to combine Paliarush with Cohen to obtain the invention as specified in claim 11.
Regarding claim 14, Cohen in view of Daha discloses the subject matter of claim 1.
Cohen in view of Daha does not disclose expressly receiving feedback for the generated images and fin-tuning a deviation parameter of the AI model.
Paliarush discloses:
The method of claim 1, further comprising: receiving feedback associated with the plurality of generated images ([0065] customer behavioral data associated with the generated images is received which is understood as feedback);
and based on the feedback, fine-tuning a deviation parameter associated with the AI model ([0065] weighting is applied to context data based on the usefulness in generating successful text prompt. A weight is understood as a deviation parameter because it changes how the AI model works with the context data in generating prompts).
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the feedback and fine-tuning of Paliarush with the invention of Cohen in view of Daha.
The motivation for doing so would have been "to generate optimal prompts for the image generative AI model" (Paliarush, [0065]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to combine Paliarush with Cohen in view of Daha to obtain the invention as specified in claim 14.
Regarding claim 19, claim 19 recites a system with elements corresponding to the steps recited in claim 11. Therefore, the recited elements of this claim are mapped to the proposed combination in the same manner as the corresponding steps in its corresponding method claim, claim 11. Additionally, the rationale and motivation to combine Cohen in view of Daha in further view of Paliarush, presented in rejection of claim 11, apply to this claim.
Claims 12-13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Cohen-Tidhar et al. (US 20260141592 A1; hereafter, Cohen) in view of Daha et al. (US 20240386661 A1; hereafter, Daha) in further view of Malpani et al. (US 20250095224 A1; hereafter, Malpani).
Regarding claim 12, Cohen in view of Daha discloses the subject matter of claim 1.
Cohen in view of Daha does not disclose expressly to generate a second prompt and using the second prompt to generate additional information from an LLM.
Malpani discloses:
The method of claim 1, wherein identifying the additional information comprises: generating a second prompt based on the item category ([0019] and Fig. 2, another prompt is generated based on the initial prompt);
and using the second prompt, triggering an LLM to generate the additional information ([0020] and Fig. 2, the additional prompt includes additional information and therefore, additional information is generated. [0023] an LLM is used to generate the prompt).
Malpani is combinable with Cohen in view of Daha because it is from the same field of endeavor of generating virtual backgrounds for an image (Malpani, [0001]).
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the second prompt of Malpani with the invention of Cohen in view of Daha.
The motivation for doing so would have been "The prompt 116, generated by the text-to-text language model 118, may include a more detailed description about the underlying user prompt 106" (Malpani, [0022]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to combine Malpani with Cohen in view of Daha to obtain the invention as specified in claim 12.
Regarding claim 13, Cohen in view of Daha in further view of Malpani discloses the subject matter of claim 12.
Cohen in view of Daha does not disclose expressly that the second prompt includes a title associated with the item.
Malpani discloses:
The method of claim 12, wherein the second prompt includes a title associated with the item ([0020] and Fig. 3, the second prompt may include a title, such as "a midcentury modern office").
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the second prompt of Malpani with the invention of Cohen in view of Daha.
The motivation for doing so would have been "The prompt 116, generated by the text-to-text language model 118, may include a more detailed description about the underlying user prompt 106" (Malpani, [0022]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to combine Malpani with Cohen in view of Daha to obtain the invention as specified in claim 13.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 9 and 18 would be allowable if rewritten to overcome the rejection(s) under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), 2nd paragraph, set forth in this Office action and to include all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter:
Regarding claim 9, the closest prior art, Kim et al. (US 20240169631 A1) discloses a system which receives an image and isolates a shadow. Wyman (US 20220327770 A1) discloses reusing shadow rays in computer graphics image generation. However, it would not be obvious to combine Kim et al. and Wyman because Wyman is in a different field of endeavor and is not answering a related question. Further, Wyman lacks a motivation to combine with Kim et al. in a way that renders the combination obvious. Therefore, the prior art does not disclose or reasonably suggest to reusing the isolated shadow for future images without triggering the AI model to generate future images.
The claim as a whole is found non-obvious over the prior art including:
and reusing the shadow for future images without having to trigger the AI model to generate the future images.
Regarding claim 18, claim 18 is a system claim which performs steps corresponding to the steps performed in claim 9. Therefore, the reasons for allowance of claim 9 apply to claim 18. The claim as a whole is found non-obvious over the prior art including:
reusing the shadow for future images without having to trigger the AI model to generate the future images.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Kim et al. (US 20240169631 A1) discloses a system to isolate and remove a shadow from an object in an image
Wyman (US 20220327770 A1) discloses a system in computer graphics for generating shadows around an object in an image in response to rendered lights
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JOSHUA B CROCKETT whose telephone number is (571)270-7989. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Thursday 8am-5pm.
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, John M Villecco can be reached at (571) 272-7319. 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.
/JOSHUA B. CROCKETT/Examiner, Art Unit 2661
/AARON W CARTER/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2661
Prosecution Insights