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 . Claims 1-17 are pending.
Claim Objections
Claims 1-17 are objected to because of the following informalities.
According to MPEP 608.01(m), “Claims should preferably be arranged in order of scope so that the first claim presented is the least restrictive. All dependent claims should be grouped together with the claim or claims to which they refer to the extent practicable. Where separate species are claimed, the claims of like species should be grouped together where possible. Similarly, product and process claims should be separately grouped. Such arrangements are for the purpose of facilitating classification and examination.”
The appropriate groupings are:
Group 1: Claims 1-3, 10, and 12;
Group 2: Claims 4-9, 11, and 13;
Group 3: Claim 14;
Group 4: Claim 15;
Group 5: Claim 16; and
Group 6: Claim 17.
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Interpretation
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(f):
(f) Element in Claim for a Combination. – An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The claims in this application are given their broadest reasonable interpretation using the plain meaning of the claim language in light of the specification as it would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art. The broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim element (also commonly referred to as a claim limitation) is limited by the description in the specification when 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is invoked.
As explained in MPEP § 2181, subsection I, claim limitations that meet the following three-prong test will be interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
(A) the claim limitation uses the term “means” or “step” or a term used as a substitute for “means” that is a generic placeholder (also called a nonce term or a non-structural term having no specific structural meaning) for performing the claimed function;
(B) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is modified by functional language, typically, but not always linked by the transition word “for” (e.g., “means for”) or another linking word or phrase, such as “configured to” or “so that”; and
(C) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function.
Use of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim with functional language creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites sufficient structure, material, or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Absence of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is not to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is not interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites function without reciting sufficient structure, material or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Claim limitations in this application that use the word “means” (or “step”) are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action. Conversely, claim limitations in this application that do not use the word “means” (or “step”) are not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action.
This application includes one or more claim limitations that do not use the word “means,” but are nonetheless being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, because the claim limitation(s) uses a generic placeholder that is coupled with functional language without reciting sufficient structure to perform the recited function and the generic placeholder is not preceded by a structural modifier. Such claim limitation(s) is/are:
Claim 16: a determining unit that determines whether or not an image included in accepted post information is an image generated by a generative AI.
Claim 16: a restricting unit that, in a case of being determined that the image included in the accepted post information is an image generated by the generative AT, restricts posting of the accepted post information.
Claim 17: a determining unit that determines whether or not an image included in accepted post information is an image generated by a generative AI.
Claim 17: a processing unit that, in a case of being determined that the image included in the accepted post information is an image generated by the generative AI, performs a modification processing for preventing misidentification of viewers on the accepted post information.
Support is found in [0030]-[0033] of applicant’s specification as filed, for example.
Because this/these claim limitation(s) is/are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, it/they is/are being interpreted to cover the corresponding structure described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof.
If applicant does not intend to have this/these limitation(s) interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, applicant may: (1) amend the claim limitation(s) to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph (e.g., by reciting sufficient structure to perform the claimed function); or (2) present a sufficient showing that the claim limitation(s) recite(s) sufficient structure to perform the claimed function so as to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112(b)
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.
Claims 1-13 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.
In claims 1 and 4, applicant recites: “A non-transitory computer-readable storage medium storing an application program for using a service that publishes post information for causing an information processing apparatus comprising the application program to execute.” It’s unclear what applicant is attempting to claim here, whether a non-transitory computer-readable medium, an information processing apparatus, or the associated process, which makes the metes and bounds indeterminate. Accordingly, the claims are rejected for indefiniteness.
Examiner suggests: “A non-transitory computer-readable storage medium storing a program for managing content publication, the program causing an information processing apparatus to execute…”
The dependent claims are rejected by virtue of their dependency. Appropriate correction is required.
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 1-17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to a judicial exception without significantly more.
Step 1 (The Statutory Categories): Is the claim to a process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter? MPEP 2106.03.
Per Step 1, claims 1 and 4 are to a non-transitory computer-readable storage medium (i.e., an article), claims 14 and 15 are to a method (i.e., a process), and claims 16 and 17 are to an apparatus (i.e., a machine). Thus, the claims are directed to statutory categories of invention. However, the claims are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because they are directed to an abstract idea, a judicial exception, without reciting additional elements that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application.
The analysis proceeds to Step 2A Prong One.
(Examiner notes that claims 1 and 4, while being rejected under 35 USC § 112(b), are assumed to fall into at least one of the statutory categories and therefore pass Step 1, per MPEP 2106.03, subsection I.)
Step 2A Prong One: Does the claim recite an abstract idea, law of nature, or natural phenomenon? MPEP 2106.04.
The abstract idea of claims 1, 14, and 16 is (claim 1 being representative):
a determining step of determining whether or not an image included in accepted post information is an image generated by a generative AI; and
a restricting step of, in a case of being determined that the image included in the accepted post information is an image generated by the generative AI, restricting posting of the accepted post information.
The abstract idea of claims 4, 15, and 17 is (claim 4 being representative):
a determining step of determining whether or not an image included in accepted post information is an image generated by a generative AI; and
a step of, in a case of being determined that the image included in the accepted post information is an image generated by the generative AI, performing a modification processing for preventing misidentification of viewers on the accepted post information.
The abstract idea steps italicized above are those which could be performed mentally, including with pen and paper. The steps describe, at a high level, 1) evaluating whether an image is AI-generated; 2) restricting or modifying the associated posting. While applicant uses seemingly technical terms (e.g., “generative AI”), the claims are broadly written and recite an abstract process that could be performed mentally and/or with pen and paper. For example, an administrator could examine an image to determine whether or not it contains a watermark indicative of generative AI. If a claim limitation, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind, including observations, evaluations, judgements, and/or opinions, then it falls within the Mental Processes – Concepts Performed in the Human Mind grouping of abstract ideas. Accordingly, the claim recites an abstract idea.
Additionally and alternatively, the abstract idea steps italicized above describe the rules or instructions pertaining to sharing social media content, which constitutes a process that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers managing personal behavior relationships, interactions between people. This is further supported by [0001]-[0002] of applicant’s specification as filed. If a claim limitation, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers managing personal behavior relationships, interactions between people, including social activities, teaching, and/or following rules or instructions, then it falls within the Certain Methods of Organizing Human Activity – Managing Personal Behavior Relationships, Interactions Between People grouping of abstract ideas. Accordingly, the claim recites an abstract idea.
Step 2A Prong Two: Does the claim recite additional elements that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application? MPEP 2106.04.
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application because the additional elements are merely instructions to apply the abstract idea to a computer, as described in MPEP 2106.05(f).
The independent claims recite the following additional elements:
Claim 1: non-transitory computer-readable storage medium storing an application program for using a service that publishes post information; an information processing apparatus comprising the application program.
Claims 4: non-transitory computer-readable storage medium storing an application program for using a service that publishes post information; an information processing apparatus comprising the application program.
Claim 14: an information processing apparatus comprising an application program for using a service that publishes post information.
Claim 15: an information processing apparatus comprising an application program for using a service that publishes post information.
Claim 16: an information processing apparatus comprising an application program for using a service that publishes post information; at least one processor; a memory coupled to the processor storing instructions; a determining unit; a restricting unit.
Claim 17: an information processing apparatus comprising an application program for using a service that publishes post information; at least one processor; a memory coupled to the processor storing instructions; a determining unit; a processing unit.
These elements are merely instructions to apply the abstract idea to a computer, per MPEP 2106.05(f). Applicant has only described generic computing elements in their specification, as seen in [0030]-[0033] of applicant’s specification as filed, for example.
Further, the combination of these elements is nothing more than a generic computing system applied to the tasks of the abstract idea. Because the additional elements are merely instructions to apply the abstract idea to a generic computing system, they do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application, when viewed in combination. See MPEP 2106.05(f).
Therefore, per Step 2A Prong Two, the additional elements, alone and in combination, do not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application. The claim is directed to an abstract idea.
Step 2B (The Inventive Concept): Does the claim recite additional elements that amount to significantly more than the judicial exception? MPEP 2106.05.
Step 2B involves evaluating the additional elements to determine whether they amount to significantly more than the judicial exception itself.
The examination process involves carrying over identification of the additional element(s) in the claim from Step 2A Prong Two and carrying over conclusions from Step 2A Prong Two pertaining to MPEP 2106.05(f).
The additional elements and their analysis are therefore carried over: applicant has merely recited elements that facilitate the tasks of the abstract idea, as described in MPEP 2106.05(f).
Further, the combination of these elements is nothing more than a generic computing system applied to the tasks of the abstract idea. When the claim elements above are considered, alone and in combination, they do not amount to significantly more.
Therefore, per Step 2B, the additional elements, alone and in combination, are not significantly more. The claims are not patent eligible.
The analysis takes into consideration all dependent claims as well:
Dependent claims 2-3 and 5-13 further narrow the abstract idea(s) above with additional abstract steps and/or information and would fall into the same groupings highlighted previously at Step 2A Prong One. This narrowing of the abstract idea doesn’t integrate it into practical application and/or add significantly more. Some of the dependent claims recite further additional elements:
Claim 2: screen for allowing a poster of the accepted post information to select whether or not to post the accepted post information is displayed on a display unit of the information processing apparatus.
Claim 3: a screen for allowing a poster of the accepted post information to instruct cancellation of posting of the accepted post information is displayed on a display unit of the information processing apparatus.
Similar to above, these are generic computing elements, used in their ordinary capacity, to facilitate the tasks of the abstract idea. Whether viewed alone or in combination, this does not integrate the abstract idea into practical application and/or add significantly more. See MPEP 2106.05(f).
Accordingly, claims 1-17 are rejected under 35 USC § 101 as being directed to non-statutory subject matter.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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, 7-9, and 12-17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Karpman (US 12321831).
Claims 1, 14, and 16
Regarding claim 1, Karpman discloses:
A non-transitory computer-readable storage medium storing an application program for using a service that publishes post information for causing an information processing apparatus comprising the application program to execute {non-transitory computer-readable storage medium, storing an application program, causing an information processing apparatus comprising the application program to execute described in col. 17, lines 31-44; col. 17, line 62 to col. 19, line 14; and col. 18, lines 29-32; service that publishes post information described in col. 5, lines 32-45, as evidenced by social media service/platform.}:
Regarding claim 14, Karpman discloses:
A control method for an information processing apparatus comprising an application program for using a service that publishes post information, the control method comprising {method for an information processing apparatus comprising an application program described in col. 12, lines 23-47; service that publishes post information described in col. 5, lines 32-45, as evidenced by social media service/platform.}:
Regarding claim 16, Karpman discloses:
An information processing apparatus comprising an application program for using a service that publishes post information, the information processing apparatus comprising: at least one processor; and a memory coupled to the processor storing instructions that, when executed by the processor, cause the processor to function as {information processing apparatus comprising an application program, at least one processor, and memory described in col. 22, lines 22-59. service that publishes post information described in col. 5, lines 32-45, as evidenced by social media service/platform.}:
Regarding claims 1, 14, and 16, Karpman discloses:
[a determining unit] a determining step of determining whether or not an image included in accepted post information is an image generated by a generative AI {a determining step of determining whether or not an image included in accepted post information is an image generated by a generative AI described in col. 5, lines 10-22: A content type selection system 124 can route query content indicated by classification requests as inputs to the corresponding AI-generated content classifier based on a selected content type, such as an indicated or detected content type. For example, content type selection system 124 may detect text data in the query content and route the text data to AI-generated text classifier 114, detect image data and route image data to AI-generated image classifier 116, etc. Then, the corresponding AI-generated content classifier may analyze the query content to generate one or more confidence scores for the query content. An output processor 126 may analyze the outputs from the content classifiers and generate classification results. determining unit represented by output processor 126, as described in col. 5, lines 10-22.}; and
[a restricting unit] a restricting step of, in a case of being determined that the image included in the accepted post information is an image generated by the generative AI, restricting posting of the accepted post information {a restricting step of, in a case of being determined that the image included in the accepted post information is an image generated by the generative AI, restricting posting of the accepted post information described in col. 5, lines 32-45: For example, a social media or content platform can configure its backend infrastructure to automatically submit classification requests on newly posted content to computing system 100 (e.g., by programmatically sending an API call to communication interface 112). Then, based on confidence scores returned (e.g., via an API response from communication interface 112) by the set of AI-generated content classifiers 104—such as in response to one or more these confidence scores exceeding a threshold probability that the query content is AI-generated—the platform can automatically remove the corresponding post, ban the posting user, or flag the post for moderator review in accordance with its content policies. restricting unit represented by social media platforms and/or server system 102 and/or classifiers 104, as described in col. 12, line 57 to col. 13, line 8.}.
Claims 4, 15, and 17
Regarding claim 4, Karpman discloses:
A non-transitory computer-readable storage medium storing an application program of an application for using a service that publishes post information for causing an information processing apparatus comprising the application program to execute {non-transitory computer-readable storage medium, storing an application program, causing an information processing apparatus comprising the application program to execute described in col. 17, lines 31-44; col. 17, line 62 to col. 19, line 14; and col. 18, lines 29-32; service that publishes post information described in col. 5, lines 32-45, as evidenced by social media service/platform.}:
Regarding claim 15, Karpman discloses:
A control method for an information processing apparatus comprising an application program for using a service that publishes post information, the control method comprising {method for an information processing apparatus comprising an application program described in col. 12, lines 23-47; service that publishes post information described in col. 5, lines 32-45, as evidenced by social media service/platform.}:
Regarding claim 17, Karpman discloses:
An information processing apparatus comprising an application program for using a service that publishes post information, the information processing apparatus comprising: at least one processor; and a memory coupled to the processor storing instructions that, when executed by the processor, cause the processor to function as {information processing apparatus comprising an application program, at least one processor, and memory described in col. 22, lines 22-59. service that publishes post information described in col. 5, lines 32-45, as evidenced by social media service/platform.}:
Regarding claims 4, 15, and 17, Karpman discloses:
[a determining unit] a determining step of determining whether or not an image included in accepted post information is an image generated by a generative AI {a determining step of determining whether or not an image included in accepted post information is an image generated by a generative AI described in col. 5, lines 10-22: A content type selection system 124 can route query content indicated by classification requests as inputs to the corresponding AI-generated content classifier based on a selected content type, such as an indicated or detected content type. For example, content type selection system 124 may detect text data in the query content and route the text data to AI-generated text classifier 114, detect image data and route image data to AI-generated image classifier 116, etc. Then, the corresponding AI-generated content classifier may analyze the query content to generate one or more confidence scores for the query content. An output processor 126 may analyze the outputs from the content classifiers and generate classification results. determining unit represented by output processor 126, as seen in col. 5, lines 10-22.}; and
[a processing unit] a step of, in a case of being determined that the image included in the accepted post information is an image generated by the generative AI, performing a modification processing for preventing misidentification of viewers on the accepted post information {in a case of being determined that the image included in the accepted post information is an image generated by the generative AI, performing a modification processing for preventing misidentification of viewers on the accepted post information described in col. 5, lines 32-45: For example, a social media or content platform can configure its backend infrastructure to automatically submit classification requests on newly posted content to computing system 100 (e.g., by programmatically sending an API call to communication interface 112). Then, based on confidence scores returned (e.g., via an API response from communication interface 112) by the set of AI-generated content classifiers 104—such as in response to one or more these confidence scores exceeding a threshold probability that the query content is AI-generated—the platform can automatically remove the corresponding post, ban the posting user, or flag the post for moderator review in accordance with its content policies. processing unit represented by social media platforms and/or server system 102 and/or classifiers 104, as seen in col. 12, line 57 to col. 13, line 8.}.
Claims 7 and 8
Karpman further discloses: wherein in the modification processing, a message indicating that an image generated by the generative AI is included is added to the accepted post information; wherein in the modification processing, an image generated by the generative AI is excluded from the accepted post information {as understood from col. 5, lines 32-45, which describe including or excluding based on confidence score. See citation above.}.
Claim 9
Karpman further discloses: wherein the information processing apparatus comprising the application program is caused to, in a case of being determined that the image included in the accepted post information is an image generated by the generative AI using an input image as input, not execute the step of performing the modification processing, and in a case of being determined that the image included in the accepted post information is an image generated by the generative AI using information other than the input image as input, execute the step of performing the modification processing {as understood from col. 5, lines 32-45, which describe performing or not performing based on confidence score. See citation above.}.
Claims 12 and 13
Karpman further discloses: wherein the determining step is performed by using an AI that inputs the image included in the accepted post information and outputs a determination result indicating whether or not to have been generated by the generative AI {See previous citation to col. 5, lines 32-45.}.
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.
The factual inquiries 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.
Claims 2-3 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Karpman in view of Scott-Green (US 20230306463).
Claim 2
Karpman, while teaching the features above, doesn’t explicitly disclose, however, Scott-Green, in a similar field of endeavor directed to media compliance determinations, teaches: in the restricting step, a screen for allowing a poster of the accepted post information to select whether or not to post the accepted post information is displayed on a display unit of the information processing apparatus {restricting step with claimed features described in [0086]: In yet another example, in some embodiments, process 100 can provide one or more edit recommendations to a content creator in response to the compliance indicator indicating that the branded content item is not compliant with one or more disclosure requirements. In a more particular example, process 100 can transmit a notification to a content creator of the branded content item to indicate that the branded content item is not compliant with one or more disclosure requirements. In continuing this example, the notification can indicate one or more edits to the disclosure statements contained in the branded content item, such as the spoken sponsorship disclosure does not have the correct format, the spoken sponsorship disclosure is not provided within the first thirty seconds of the branded content item, the written sponsorship disclosure does not appear in the content description without expanding the content description on a content page, etc. In another more particular example, process 100 can generate a user interface that indicates the branded content item has not been accepted by the media content platform for publishing and indicates that the content creator is required to edit the branded content item prior to re-submitting the branded content item for approval.}.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify Karpman to include the features of Scott-Green. Given that Karpman is directed to social media content management, one of ordinary skill would have been motivated to look to Scot-Green, in order to facilitate automating content compliance determinations {[0002] of Scott-Green}.
Claim 3
Karpman, while teaching the features above, doesn’t explicitly disclose, however, Scott-Green, in a similar field of endeavor directed to media compliance determinations, teaches: wherein in the restricting step, a screen for allowing a poster of the accepted post information to instruct cancellation of posting of the accepted post information is displayed on a display unit of the information processing apparatus {restricting step with claimed features described in [0086]: In yet another example, in some embodiments, process 100 can provide one or more edit recommendations to a content creator in response to the compliance indicator indicating that the branded content item is not compliant with one or more disclosure requirements. In a more particular example, process 100 can transmit a notification to a content creator of the branded content item to indicate that the branded content item is not compliant with one or more disclosure requirements. In continuing this example, the notification can indicate one or more edits to the disclosure statements contained in the branded content item, such as the spoken sponsorship disclosure does not have the correct format, the spoken sponsorship disclosure is not provided within the first thirty seconds of the branded content item, the written sponsorship disclosure does not appear in the content description without expanding the content description on a content page, etc. In another more particular example, process 100 can generate a user interface that indicates the branded content item has not been accepted by the media content platform for publishing and indicates that the content creator is required to edit the branded content item prior to re-submitting the branded content item for approval.}.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify Karpman to include the features of Scott-Green. Given that Karpman is directed to social media content management, one of ordinary skill would have been motivated to look to Scot-Green, in order to facilitate automating content compliance determinations {[0002] of Scott-Green}.
Claims 5-6 and 10-11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Karpman in view of Cheruvu (US 20230079112).
Claims 5 and 6
Karpman, while teaching the features above, doesn’t explicitly disclose, however, Cheruvu, in a similar field of endeavor directed to verifying AI-generated content, teaches: wherein in the modification processing, additional information indicating that the image included in the accepted post information is an image generated by the generative AI is composited with [added as property information of] the image included in the accepted post information {composited with [additional information added as property information of] the image and other claimed features described in [0032]: In implementations of the disclosure, the content generation platform utilizes a global unique identifier (GUID) to authenticate and validate the output of the ML model 116 by content generator 112. The GUID authenticates an identity of the ML model 116. Implementations of the disclosure include the GUID as part of a digital signature that is sent with the content to the content consumer platform 130. The content consumer platform 130 can utilize the GUID, as extracted from the received digital signature, in order to verify authenticity of the received content and, in particular, verify authenticity of the author (e.g., ML model 116, etc.) of the content. In some implementations, the digital signature includes a fusion of the generated content with model identification (including the GUID).}.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify Karpman to include the features of Cheruvu. Given that Karpman is directed to social media content management, one of ordinary skill would have been motivated to look to Cheruvu in order to facilitate immutable watermarking for authenticating and verifying AI-generated output {[0002] of Cheruvu}.
(Examiner notes that claim 6 substantially duplicates claim 5. They have been consolidated here for purposes of brevity.)
Claims 10 and 11
Karpman, while teaching the features above, doesn’t explicitly disclose, however, Cheruvu, in a similar field of endeavor directed to verifying AI-generated content, teaches: wherein identification information indicating having been generated by the generative AI is added to an image generated by the generative AI, and the determining step is performed based on whether or not the identification information has been added to the image included in the accepted post information {identification information added to an image generated by AI, determining step, and other claimed features described in [0032]: In implementations of the disclosure, the content generation platform utilizes a global unique identifier (GUID) to authenticate and validate the output of the ML model 116 by content generator 112. The GUID authenticates an identity of the ML model 116. Implementations of the disclosure include the GUID as part of a digital signature that is sent with the content to the content consumer platform 130. The content consumer platform 130 can utilize the GUID, as extracted from the received digital signature, in order to verify authenticity of the received content and, in particular, verify authenticity of the author (e.g., ML model 116, etc.) of the content. In some implementations, the digital signature includes a fusion of the generated content with model identification (including the GUID).}.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify Karpman to include the features of Cheruvu. Given that Karpman is directed to social media content management, one of ordinary skill would have been motivated to look to Cheruvu in order to facilitate immutable watermarking for authenticating and verifying AI-generated output {[0002] of Cheruvu}.
(Examiner notes that claim 11 substantially duplicates claim 10. They have been consolidated here for purposes of brevity.)
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure:
“Online Detection of AI-Generated Images” (NPL attached), which teaches: With advancements in AI-generated images coming on a continuous basis, it is increasingly difficult to distinguish traditionally-sourced images (e.g., photos, artwork) from AI-generated ones. Previous detection methods study the generalization from a single generator to another in isolation. However, in reality, new generators are released on a streaming basis. We study generalization in this setting, training on N models and testing on the next (N + k), following the historical release dates of well-known generation methods. Furthermore, images increasingly consist of both real and generated components, for example through image inpainting. Thus, we extend this approach to pixel prediction, demonstrating strong performance using automatically-generated inpainted data. In addition, for settings where commercial models are not publicly available for automatic data generation, we evaluate if pixel detectors can be trained solely on whole synthetic images.
US 20230401824, which teaches: A method, apparatus, and system for detecting DeepFake videos, includes an input device for inputting a potential DeepFake video, the input device inputs a sequence of video frames of the video, and processing circuitry. The processing circuitry detects faces frame by frame in the video to obtain consecutive face images, creates UV texture maps from the face images, inputs both face images and corresponding UV texture maps, and computes, by a video transformer model, a classification of the video as being Real or Fake.
US 20250069121, which teaches: Ways to associate source information with a media item are described. Source information may be validated. A media sourcing engine may receive a selected media item, collect source information associated with the selected media item, and associate the source information with the selected media item. The media source engine may be associated with, or otherwise utilized by, various publication platforms, such as social media sites, content hosting sites, etc. Source information may be associated with a media item by generating augmented media content that may be added to, embedded into, and/or otherwise associated with content associated with a received media item.
US 20250078446, which teaches: A system and a method for detecting computer-generated images. The system includes an image processing engine arranged to analyze an input digital image embedded with image traces created during generation and/or post-generation processing operation of the input digital image, and to determine whether the input digital image is a computer-generated image or a natural photographic image based on the analysis of the image traces.
US 20250111565, which teaches: A method, apparatus, and non-transitory computer readable medium for obtaining an input image comprising a plurality of pixels. A machine learning model generates annotation information indicating whether each of the plurality of pixels is synthetically generated. A combined image is generated based on the annotation information. In some cases, the combined image shows a synthetically generated region of the input image.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JOHN SAMUEL WASAFF whose telephone number is (571)270-5091. The examiner can normally be reached Monday through Friday 8:00 am to 6:00 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, SARAH MONFELDT can be reached at (571) 270-1833. 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.
JOHN SAMUEL WASAFF
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 3629
/JOHN S. WASAFF/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3629
Prosecution Insights