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 .
Procedural Summary
This is responsive to the claims filed 12/11/2024.
Claims 1-20 are pending.
Signed copies of the IDS’ are attached.
The Drawings filed 12/11/2024 are noted.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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 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 1-4, 8-15 & 18-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Tinklenberg et al. (U.S. Pub. No.: 2025/0238985 A1).
Regarding Claims 1, 11 & 20: Tinklenberg discloses a computing system, (¶¶ 7, 8), for generating a game application, (Abstract), the computing system comprising: processing circuitry and memory, (¶ 8), storing a game maker model (¶ 6) that, when executed, cause the processing circuitry to: receive a user input, (¶ 6); generate a plurality of game asset prompts and a background image prompt based on the user input, (Figs. 1A, 2A and related descriptions), the plurality of game asset prompts and the background image prompt including a common style description, (¶ 32); input the plurality of game asset prompts and the background image prompt into a diffusion model, (e.g., ¶¶ 40-44), to generate a plurality of game asset images and a background image, (e.g., ¶¶ 27, 40-44) respectively; and generate the game application using the plurality of game asset images and the background image, (Figs. 2/3 and related descriptions).
Regarding Claims 2 & 12: Tinklenberg discloses wherein a layout prompt is generated based on the user input; and the layout prompt is inputted into a language model to generate a layout, (Fig. 2A, related descriptions).
Regarding Claims 3 & 13: Tinklenberg discloses wherein the layout is inputted into a control network to generate features; and the features are inputted into the diffusion model to generate the background image, (Figs. 1B, 2, 3 and related descriptions).
Regarding Claims 4 & 14: Tinklenberg discloses wherein the background image prompt and the layout are inputted into the control network to generate the features, (e.g., ¶¶ 71, 72, 80).
Regarding Claims 8 & 18: Tinklenberg discloses wherein the common style description defines at least a stroke weight, a color palette, lighting, or artistic rendering style for the plurality of game asset images and the background image, (e.g., ¶¶ 32, 36-38).
Regarding Claim 9: Tinklenberg discloses wherein the plurality of game asset images include images of main entities, secondary entities, and environmental assets, (e.g., ¶¶ 32, 36-38).
Regarding Claims 10 & 19: Tinklenberg discloses wherein the processing circuitry is configured to further generate a natural language response inviting a subsequent user input to modify the game application, (e.g., ¶¶ 23, 31-33).
Regarding Claim 15: Tinklenberg discloses wherein the layout is inputted into an encoder of the control network, (Fig. 2C, ¶ 15).
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, 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.
The factual inquiries set forth in Graham v. John Deere Co., 383 U.S. 1, 148 USPQ 459 (1966), that are applied for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claims 6 & 16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Tinklenberg et al. (U.S. Pub. No.: 2025/0238985 A1) in view of Walker et al. (U.S. Pub. No.: 2019/0240581 A1)
Tinklenberg discloses the invention substantially but does not make explicit the layout image defining coordinates for structural elements in the game application. However, in a related game design system, Walker shows representing structural game elements using a coordinate system, (Walker, ¶ 29.)
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have used Walker’s coordinate system in Tinklenberg’s invention for the purpose of effectively defining structural elements and their relative position and orientation with each other.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 5, 7 & 17 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.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter: The closest prior art, of record herein, fails to disclose, suggest or render obvious, in combination with the other claimed limitations:
Per Claim 5: an encoder configured to be a trainable copy of an encoder of the diffusion model, zero-initialized convolutional layers placed at an output of the encoder of the control network, and a middle block configured to be a trainable copy of a middle block of the diffusion model.
Per Claims 7 & 17: wherein a seed value of the diffusion model when the game asset prompt is inputted into the diffusion model is the same as a seed value of the diffusion model when the background image prompt is inputted into the diffusion model.
Conclusion
Additional Relevant References: See 892
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to OMKAR A DEODHAR whose telephone number is (571)272-1647. The examiner can normally be reached M-F, generally 9am-5:30 pm.
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, Xuan Thai can be reached on 571-272-7147. 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.
/OMKAR A DEODHAR/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3715
Prosecution Insights