DETAILED ACTION
Status of the Claims
This office action is submitted in response to the application filed on 8/29/25.
Examiner notes that this application is a continuation of 18/623514, which is now US Patent No. 12423732.
Examiner further notes that 18/623514 claims priority from provisional application 63455677.
Examiner further notes Applicant’s priority date of 3/30/23, which stems from the aforementioned parent applications.
Claims 1-20 are currently pending and have been examined.
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 .
Claim Objections
Claims 5, 6, 7, and 12 are objected to because of the following informalities:
Claim 5 recites settings relating to priority of the first input and the second input during image generation. There is no prior recitation of an image or of image generation in claims 1 through 4, from which claim 5 depends.
Claim 6 recites the first image and the second image. Claim 1, from which claim 6 depends, does not recite a first image or a second image. Claim 7 depends from claim 6 and likewise recites the first image and the second image.
Claim 12 recites the second client is configured to receive the stored input and deliver the stored input to the server, whereas claim 8 recites a content manager comprising a stored input, such that the stored input is recited as already residing in the content manager of the server.
The metes and bounds of the claims are reasonably ascertainable in light of the claims as a whole and the disclosure; accordingly, these informalities are treated as objections rather than rejections. Appropriate correction is required.
Double Patenting
The nonstatutory double patenting rejection is based on a judicially created doctrine grounded in public policy (a policy reflected in the statute) so as to prevent the unjustified or improper timewise extension of the “right to exclude” granted by a patent and to prevent possible harassment by multiple assignees. A nonstatutory double patenting rejection is appropriate where the conflicting claims are not identical, but at least one examined application claim is not patentably distinct from the reference claim(s) because the examined application claim is either anticipated by, or would have been obvious over, the reference claim(s). See, e.g., In re Berg, 140 F.3d 1428, 46 USPQ2d 1226 (Fed. Cir. 1998); In re Goodman, 11 F.3d 1046, 29 USPQ2d 2010 (Fed. Cir. 1993); In re Longi, 759 F.2d 887, 225 USPQ 645 (Fed. Cir. 1985); In re Van Ornum, 686 F.2d 937, 214 USPQ 761 (CCPA 1982); In re Vogel, 422 F.2d 438, 164 USPQ 619 (CCPA 1970); In re Thorington, 418 F.2d 528, 163 USPQ 644 (CCPA 1969).
A timely filed terminal disclaimer in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(c) or 1.321(d) may be used to overcome an actual or provisional rejection based on nonstatutory double patenting provided the reference application or patent either is shown to be commonly owned with the examined application, or claims an invention made as a result of activities undertaken within the scope of a joint research agreement. See MPEP § 717.02 for applications subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA as explained in MPEP § 2159. See MPEP § 2146 et seq. for applications not subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA . A terminal disclaimer must be signed in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(b).
The filing of a terminal disclaimer by itself is not a complete reply to a nonstatutory double patenting (NSDP) rejection. A complete reply requires that the terminal disclaimer be accompanied by a reply requesting reconsideration of the prior Office action. Even where the NSDP rejection is provisional the reply must be complete. See MPEP § 804, subsection I.B.1. For a reply to a non-final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.111(a). For a reply to final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.113(c). A request for reconsideration while not provided for in 37 CFR 1.113(c) may be filed after final for consideration. See MPEP §§ 706.07(e) and 714.13.
The USPTO Internet website contains terminal disclaimer forms which may be used. Please visit www.uspto.gov/patent/patents-forms. The actual filing date of the application in which the form is filed determines what form (e.g., PTO/SB/25, PTO/SB/26, PTO/AIA /25, or PTO/AIA /26) should be used. A web-based eTerminal Disclaimer may be filled out completely online using web-screens. An eTerminal Disclaimer that meets all requirements is auto-processed and approved immediately upon submission. For more information about eTerminal Disclaimers, refer to www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/applying-online/eterminal-disclaimer.
Claims 1-6, 14, and 16 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-5 of U.S. Patent No. 12,423,732 in view of Kuniavsky et al. (US 2021/0286921 A1, hereinafter "Kuniavsky").
Regarding claim 1, claim 1 of the '732 patent recites an artificial intelligence system configured to generate content comprising a first client, a second client, a server, and a network, wherein each of the first client and the second client is operatively connected to the server via the network, wherein the server comprises a content application comprising a content manager configured to receive a first input from the first client and a second input from the second client and form generation instructions based on the first input and the second input, and a content generator configured to receive the generation instructions from the content manager and generate output based on the generation instructions. Claim 1 of the '732 patent further recites that the content generator comprises a diffusion model comprising a U-Net and a variational autoencoder performing specified image generation operations. Instant claim 1 omits the diffusion model limitations and is therefore a broadening of patented claim 1; the subject matter of patented claim 1 falls entirely within the scope of instant claim 1, and a claim that is broader than, and fully encompasses, a patented claim is not patentably distinct from it. Patented claim 1 does not recite that the first client comprises a first processor and the second client comprises a second processor. Kuniavsky teaches client computing devices, in the form of personal computers or mobile devices, comprising processors (Paragraph 0031: each client computing device includes a client-side application presenting user interfaces; Paragraph 0121: a computer comprising a processor 610). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the invention to provide the first client and the second client recited in the patented claims as computing devices comprising respective processors, as taught by Kuniavsky. One would have been motivated to do this in order to allow each party to interact with the server-side content generation system from a conventional personal computing device.
Regarding claims 2-5, instant claims 2-5 are identical in scope to claims 2-5 of the '732 patent, respectively, and are therefore not patentably distinct from the patented claims.
Regarding claim 6, as best understood in view of the objection above, claim 1 of the '732 patent recites generating a first image and a second image and concatenating the second image to combine a feature map of the first image with a feature map of the second image, such that the generated output presents the first image and the second image together, and claims 2 and 3 of the '732 patent recite the first and second output modules that display the output. The simultaneous display of the first image and the second image of the combined output via the recited output modules renders the instant claim an obvious variant of the patented claims.
Regarding claim 14, instant claim 14 recites the system of instant claim 1 with the first client further comprising a first input module, a first output module, and a first GUI, which is the combination of the subject matter of claims 1 and 2 of the '732 patent with the diffusion model limitations omitted, and is not patentably distinct for the reasons set forth for claim 1 above. Claim 14 is rejected under the same rationale and motivation to combine as set forth for claim 1 above.
Regarding claim 16, claim 1 of the '732 patent recites generating the first image and the second image, such that the output comprises at least one of an image and a video.
Claims 15 and 17-20 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-5 of U.S. Patent No. 12,423,732 in view of Kuniavsky as applied to claim 14 above, and further in view of Tao (US 2019/0325626 A1).
Regarding claims 15 and 17-20, the patented claims do not recite that the output or the first and second inputs comprise text, or that the first and second inputs comprise at least one of an image and a video. Tao teaches a content generation system wherein the generated output comprises text (Paragraph 0105: the generated content layout includes the input text), the first input comprises text and images (Paragraphs 0094-0096: input text elements typed into a text field and input graphics uploaded from the user device), and the second input comprises text and at least one of an image and a video (Paragraph 0097: candidate text elements selected and stored via the profile-development interface; Paragraph 0118: manual brand input including uploaded logos, photographs, and other images, audio, and video). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the invention to configure the system of the patented claims to receive textual, image, and video inputs and to generate textual output in addition to the recited image output, as taught by Tao. One would have been motivated to do this in order to accommodate the content formats commonly required for generated design content distributed across different communication channels (Tao, Paragraph 0046).
Claim 7 is rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-5 of U.S. Patent No. 12,423,732 in view of Kuniavsky as applied to claim 6 above, and further in view of Bar Lev et al. (US 10,878,046 B2, hereinafter "Bar Lev").
Regarding claim 7, as best understood in view of the objection above, the patented claims recite the combined presentation of the first image and the second image but do not recite wherein the first image is displayed more prominently than the second image. Bar Lev teaches displaying a first image of generated content more prominently than a second image (col. 11-12: the content items are arranged with increased or decreased heights and widths at various positions; FIGS. 6A-6B: a first content item rendered substantially larger than a second content item while every item remains visible). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the invention to display the first image of the patented claims' combined output more prominently than the second image, as taught by Bar Lev. One would have been motivated to do this in order to emphasize a featured image of the generated content to the viewer while keeping every displayed image simultaneously visible.
Claims 8-13 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-5 of U.S. Patent No. 12,423,732 in view of Kuniavsky and Bar Lev.
Regarding claim 8, claim 1 of the '732 patent recites a server comprising a content application comprising a content manager configured to receive inputs and form generation instructions and a content generator configured to receive the generation instructions from the content manager and generate output based on the generation instructions. The patented claims do not recite that the content manager comprises a stored input combined with a received user input, an appeal score module, or the threshold-conditioned display and regeneration. Kuniavsky teaches a content manager comprising a stored input combined with a received user input to form the generation parameters (Paragraph 0040: a style grammar database storing the stylistic parameters; Paragraph 0061: the platform receives the design parameters selected by the user; Paragraphs 0072-0073: the stored constraints and stylistic parameters are combined with the user selections to control generation of the candidate designs) and an appeal score module assigning a score to the generated output based on a set of predetermined characteristics (Paragraph 0074: a style score representing a measure of how well the candidate design conforms to the aesthetic characteristics of each style grammar; Paragraphs 0054-0056). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the invention to store the second input of the patented claims' system for combination with received user inputs and to evaluate each generated output against predetermined aesthetic characteristics with a score, as taught by Kuniavsky. One would have been motivated to do this in order to reuse the stored stylistic input across generation requests while objectively measuring the conformance of each generated output to the desired aesthetic characteristics (Kuniavsky, Paragraph 0009).
Neither the patented claims nor Kuniavsky recites conditioning display of the generated output on the score reaching a predetermined threshold and generating new output when the threshold is not reached. Bar Lev teaches presenting generated content to the user in accordance with a determination that its score satisfies a score threshold, discarding the content and generating new content when the score does not satisfy the threshold (col. 17-18: the criterion is a score threshold, the content being presented when the score satisfies the threshold and discarded otherwise; FIG. 4B, items 426-430; col. 20-21: new content generated and evaluated against the threshold; FIG. 4D, items 470-480). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the invention to display the generated output of the patented claims' system to the user when its score satisfies a predetermined threshold and, when it does not, to withhold the output and generate new output, as taught by Bar Lev. One would have been motivated to do this in order to concentrate the user-facing results on generated outputs satisfying the desired aesthetic level, thereby increasing the quality and the appeal of the content presented to the user (Bar Lev, col. 20).
Regarding claim 9, Bar Lev teaches updating the score threshold and the generation controls when the generated content, or several iterations of generated content, does not satisfy the criterion, and generating and evaluating additional new content based on the updated parameters (col. 20: the updated score threshold decreased when generated content across iterations does not satisfy the criterion; col. 20-21: new content generated based on the metadata and the updated user-specific data and scored against the updated threshold; FIG. 4D, items 466-480). Claim 9 is rejected under the same rationale and motivation to combine as set forth for claim 8 above.
Regarding claim 10, claims 2 and 3 of the '732 patent recite the first client comprising a first GUI and the second client comprising a second GUI, and Kuniavsky teaches the client computing devices comprising processors (Paragraph 0031; Paragraph 0121), for the reasons and motivation set forth for claim 1 of the first double patenting rejection heading above.
Regarding claim 11, claim 1 of the '732 patent recites the content manager receiving the first input from the first client, such that the first client is configured to receive the user input and deliver the user input to the server.
Regarding claim 12, as best understood in view of the objection above, claim 1 of the '732 patent recites the content manager receiving the second input from the second client, which, in combination with Kuniavsky's storage of the received stylistic input (Paragraph 0040), renders obvious wherein the second client is configured to receive the stored input and deliver the stored input to the server. Claim 12 is rejected under the same rationale and motivation to combine as set forth for claim 8 above.
Regarding claim 13, Kuniavsky teaches forming draft generation parameters, identifying areas where generation would produce content not conforming to the defined aesthetic characteristics, and creating obstacle bodies altering the generation parameters to exclude that content (Paragraphs 0047-0048; Paragraph 0073). Claim 13 is rejected under the same rationale and motivation to combine as set forth for claim 8 above.
Claim Interpretation Under 35 USC 112(f)
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 following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
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.
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 limitations are: a content manager configured to receive a first input from the first client and a second input from the second client and form generation instructions based on the first input and the second input (claims 1 and 14); a content manager comprising a stored input, the content manager being configured to receive a user input from a user and combine the user input with the stored input to form a combined input, the content manager being further configured to form generation instructions based on the combined input (claim 8); a content generator configured to receive the generation instructions from the content manager and generate output based on the generation instructions (claims 1, 8, and 14); and an appeal score module configured to assign an appeal score to the generated output based on a set of predetermined characteristics (claim 8). Since a "manager," a "generator," and a "module" can each be a generic substitute means for performing the recited functions, and none of these terms connotes any particular structure to one of ordinary skill in the art, prong one of the three-prong test is satisfied.
Each placeholder is coupled to its recited function by the transition "configured to," satisfying prong two. The modifiers "content" and "appeal score" describe the data operated upon or the function performed rather than imparting structure, and neither the limitations themselves nor the surrounding claim language recites sufficient structure, material, or acts to entirely perform the recited functions, satisfying prong three. Thus, Applicant appears to have effectively invoked 112(f).
Because these claim limitations are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, the specification must be consulted to determine the structure, material, or acts corresponding to each claimed function. Atmel Corp. v. Information Storage Devices, Inc., 198 F.3d 1374 (Fed. Cir. 1999).
The corresponding structure for the content manager of claims 1, 8, and 14 is the content manager 38, disclosed as a software component of the content application 36 installed on the server 28 (Paragraph 0057).
The corresponding structure for the content generator of claims 1, 8, and 14 is the content generator 42, disclosed as a software component of the content application 36 implementing the diffusion model comprising the U-Net and the variational autoencoder (Paragraph 0057; Paragraphs 0059-0066).
For the appeal score module of claim 8, the only pertinent disclosure is that generated advertisements are evaluated through additional functionality of the AI system to determine an appeal score, with advertisements scoring below a certain threshold regenerated or not shown to users (Paragraph 0069).
For a computer-implemented limitation interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f), the corresponding structure is not merely a general-purpose computer but the computer or processor programmed to perform the disclosed algorithm, where an algorithm is a step-by-step procedure, expressible in any understandable terms, for accomplishing the claimed specialized function. Net MoneyIN, Inc. v. VeriSign, Inc., 545 F.3d 1359 (Fed. Cir. 2008); In re Aoyama, 656 F.3d 1293 (Fed. Cir. 2011). No algorithm is required for functions that can be performed by any general-purpose computer without special programming, such as the mere receipt or storage of data. In re Katz Interactive Call Processing Patent Litig., 639 F.3d 1303 (Fed. Cir. 2011).
Here, the receipt of the first input, the second input, and the user input, and the storage of the stored input, are generic computer functions requiring no disclosed algorithm under Katz. For the content manager's forming of generation instructions and combining of inputs, the specification discloses the algorithm of receiving and processing the input from both clients and forwarding instructions for content generation based on such input (Paragraph 0057), applying multiple strings of input to condition the denoising such that the generated image has aspects determined by each source of input (Paragraph 0067), and identifying key areas of importance in an image and patching those areas in secondary latent space (Paragraph 0074). For the content generator's generating of output, the specification discloses the algorithm of generating gaussian noise, denoising it using the U-Net to obtain a latent representation incorporating the input, and converting the latent representation into pixel space using the variational autoencoder, including concatenation of feature maps (Paragraphs 0059-0066). For the appeal score module's assigning of the appeal score, however, the specification discloses no algorithm: the cited passage states the function and the threshold consequence but sets forth no series of steps by which the generated output is evaluated to produce the appeal score, nor does it identify the set of predetermined characteristics against which the output is measured (Paragraph 0069).
Therefore, because these claim limitations are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, they are being interpreted to cover the corresponding structure described in the specification as achieving the claimed function, and equivalents thereof.
If applicant does not intend to have the claim limitation(s) treated under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, applicant may amend the claim(s) so that it/they will clearly not invoke 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, or present a sufficient showing that the claim recites/recite sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function to preclude application of 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112:
The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor of carrying out his invention.
Claims 8-13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention.
Claim 8 recites an appeal score module configured to assign an appeal score to the generated output based on a set of predetermined characteristics, a computer-implemented functional limitation interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) as set forth above. For a computer-implemented functional claim limitation, the specification must disclose the algorithm, that is, the series of steps or the process, for performing the claimed specialized function in sufficient detail to demonstrate that the inventor possessed the claimed invention, and it is not enough to merely restate the function itself. See MPEP § 2161.01, subsection I. The specification discloses only that generated advertisements are evaluated through additional functionality of the AI system to determine an appeal score, and that advertisements with an appeal score below a certain threshold are regenerated or are not shown to users (Paragraph 0069). This passage restates the claimed function and its threshold consequence; it does not identify the set of predetermined characteristics, nor any step by which the generated output is evaluated against those characteristics to produce the appeal score. Accordingly, the specification fails to demonstrate possession of the claimed appeal score assignment. Claims 9-13 depend from claim 8, incorporate this limitation, and are rejected on the same basis; claim 9 additionally recites threshold-triggered formation of new generation instructions predicated on the same undisclosed scoring.
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 8-13 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.
Claim limitation “an appeal score module configured to assign an appeal score to the generated output based on a set of predetermined characteristics” invokes 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. As noted above, the written description fails to disclose the corresponding structure, material, or acts for performing the entire claimed function and to clearly link the structure, material, or acts to the function. Therefore, the claim is indefinite and is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, second paragraph.
Claims 9-13 are likewise rejected due to their dependency on claim 8.
Applicant may:
(a) Amend the claim so that the claim limitation will no longer be interpreted as a limitation under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph;
(b) Amend the written description of the specification such that it expressly recites what structure, material, or acts perform the entire claimed function, without introducing any new matter (35 U.S.C. 132(a)); or
(c) Amend the written description of the specification such that it clearly links the structure, material, or acts disclosed therein to the function recited in the claim, without introducing any new matter (35 U.S.C. 132(a)).
If applicant is of the opinion that the written description of the specification already implicitly or inherently discloses the corresponding structure, material, or acts and clearly links them to the function so that one of ordinary skill in the art would recognize what structure, material, or acts perform the claimed function, applicant should clarify the record by either:
(a) Amending the written description of the specification such that it expressly recites the corresponding structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function and clearly links or associates the structure, material, or acts to the claimed function, without introducing any new matter (35 U.S.C. 132(a)); or
(b) Stating on the record what the corresponding structure, material, or acts, which are implicitly or inherently set forth in the written description of the specification, perform the claimed function. For more information, see 37 CFR 1.75(d) and MPEP §§ 608.01(o) and 2181.
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 a judicial exception (i.e., a law of nature, a natural phenomenon, or an abstract idea) without significantly more.
Step 1: Claims 1-20 are directed to patent-eligible subject matter categories under 35 U.S.C. § 101. See MPEP § 2106.03. Specifically, independent claims 1, 8, and 14 each recite an artificial intelligence system comprising, inter alia, a server, and thus fall within the "machine" category. Claims 2-7, 9-13, and 15-20 depend from claims 1, 8, and 14, respectively, and thus likewise fall within the "machine" category. Accordingly, the claims satisfy Step 1.
Step 2A, Prong One: Independent claims 1 and 14, in part, describe an invention comprising: receiving a first input from a first client and a second input from a second client; forming generation instructions based on the first input and the second input; and generating output based on the generation instructions. As such, claims 1 and 14 are directed to the abstract idea of collecting input from a user and an advertiser, analyzing and combining the inputs to form content generation instructions, and generating content based on both inputs, which, pursuant to MPEP § 2106.04(a)(2), is aptly categorized as a method of organizing human activity (advertising, marketing or sales activities, and managing commercial interactions between users and advertisers).
Independent claim 8, in part, describes an invention comprising: receiving a user input from a user; combining the user input with a stored input to form a combined input; forming generation instructions based on the combined input; generating output based on the generation instructions; assigning an appeal score to the generated output based on a set of predetermined characteristics; and, if the appeal score does not reach a predetermined threshold, generating new output based on the generation instructions. As such, claim 8 is directed to the abstract idea of combining user-provided and stored advertiser-provided content requirements to form content generation instructions and evaluating the appeal of the resulting content against predetermined characteristics to determine whether the content is presented to the user, which likewise is aptly categorized, pursuant to MPEP § 2106.04(a)(2), as a method of organizing human activity (advertising, marketing or sales activities, and managing commercial interactions between users and advertisers). Therefore, under Step 2A, Prong One, the claims recite a judicial exception.
Next, the aforementioned claims recite additional elements that are associated with the judicial exception, including: displaying the generated output to the user (claim 8); displaying the first image and the second image simultaneously via a first output module and a second output module (claims 6 and 7); and delivering the user input and the stored input to the server (claims 11 and 12). The Examiner understands these limitations to be insignificant extra-solution activity. See Accenture Global Servs., GmbH v. Guidewire Software, Inc., 728 F.3d 1336, 108 U.S.P.Q.2d 1173 (Fed. Cir. 2013), citing Cf. Diamond v. Diehr, 450 U.S. 175, 191-192 (1981) ("[I]nsignificant post-solution activity will not transform an unpatentable principle into a patentable process.").
The aforementioned claims also recite additional elements including: a "first client" comprising a "first processor"; a "second client" comprising a "second processor"; a "server"; a "network"; a "content application"; a "content manager"; an "appeal score module"; "input modules," "output modules," and "GUIs" for interacting with the system; and "expanded input functionality" including priority "settings." These limitations are recited at a high level of generality and appear to be nothing more than generic computer components, and generic software components operating on generic hardware, used to apply the abstract idea. Claims that amount to nothing more than an instruction to apply the abstract idea using a generic computer do not render an abstract idea eligible. Alice Corp. Pty. Ltd. v. CLS Bank Int'l, 573 U.S. 208, 223 (2014), 110 USPQ2d 1977, 1983 (2014).
The aforementioned claims further recite a "content generator" configured to receive the generation instructions from the content manager and generate output based on the generation instructions, i.e., a generative artificial intelligence model. The use of an artificial intelligence model to receive generation instructions as input, process those instructions, and output generated content amounts to mere instructions to implement the abstract idea on a computer, i.e., it is an "apply it" limitation. The artificial intelligence model is simply used as a tool to carry out the abstract idea and does not add anything beyond the abstract idea itself. See MPEP § 2106.05(f); Alice Corp., 573 U.S. at 223, 110 USPQ2d at 1983.
Step 2A, Prong Two: Looking at the elements individually and in combination, the claims as a whole do not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application because they fail to: improve the functioning of a computer or a technical field; apply the judicial exception in the treatment or prophylaxis of a disease; apply the judicial exception with a particular machine; effect a transformation or reduction of a particular article to a different state or thing; or apply the judicial exception beyond generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment. Rather, the claims merely use a computer as a tool to perform the abstract idea, and/or add insignificant extra-solution activity to the judicial exception, and/or generally link the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment (e.g., generic clients, servers, and networks). Accordingly, the claims do not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application, and the analysis proceeds to Step 2B.
Step 2B: The claims do not include additional elements sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. The additional elements, when considered individually and as an ordered combination, do not amount to significantly more than the abstract idea itself. Furthermore, looking at the limitations as an ordered combination adds nothing that is not already present when looking at the elements taken individually. There is no indication that the combination of elements improves the functioning of a computer or any other technology, and their collective functions are merely facilitated by generic computer implementation.
Additionally, pursuant to the requirement under Berkheimer v. HP Inc., 881 F.3d 1360, 125 USPQ2d 1649 (Fed. Cir. 2018), the following citations are provided to demonstrate that the additional elements, identified above, are well-understood, routine, and conventional. See MPEP § 2106.05(d).
Displaying content to a user. Ultramercial, Inc. v. Hulu, LLC, 772 F.3d 709, 715-16, 112 USPQ2d 1750, 1755 (Fed. Cir. 2014).
Receiving or transmitting data over a network. Intellectual Ventures I LLC v. Symantec Corp., 838 F.3d 1307, 1321 (Fed. Cir. 2016); OIP Techs., Inc. v. Amazon.com, Inc., 788 F.3d 1359, 1363 (Fed. Cir. 2015).
Thus, taken alone and in combination, the additional elements do not amount to significantly more than the above-identified judicial exception, and claims 1-20 are ineligible under 35 U.S.C. § 101.
Next, claims 2-7, 9-13, and 15-20 depend from claims 1, 8, and 14, respectively, and include all limitations contained therein. These claims do not recite any additional elements sufficient to transform the abstract idea into patent-eligible subject matter. Specifically:
Claims 2, 3, and 10 further recite a first input module, a first output module, and a first GUI (claim 2), a second input module, a second output module, and a second GUI (claim 3), and a first client comprising a first processor and a first GUI, and a second client comprising a second processor and a second GUI (claim 10). These limitations recite generic computer components at a high level of generality and amount to no more than implementing the abstract idea with generic hardware and software.
Claims 4 and 5 further recite expanded input functionality that the first input module lacks (claim 4) and settings relating to priority of the first input and the second input during image generation (claim 5). These limitations recite well-known, generic software functionality for receiving input and do not recite any improvement to computer functionality or any other technical advance beyond the abstract idea.
Claims 6 and 7 further recite a first output module and a second output module, wherein the first output module is configured to display the first image, while the second output module is configured to simultaneously display the second image (claim 6), and wherein the first image is displayed more prominently than the second image (claim 7). Displaying content is well-known, insignificant extra-solution activity, as addressed above, and displaying content simultaneously or with differing prominence via generic output modules does not add significantly more than the abstract idea.
Claim 9 further recites wherein if the new output does not meet the predetermined threshold for the appeal score, the server is configured to instruct the content manager to form new generation instructions based on the combined input, and to instruct the content generator to generate additional new output based on the new generation instructions. This limitation recites a further iteration of the abstract analysis and content generation process and merely further defines the contours of the abstract idea.
Claims 11 and 12 further recite wherein the first client is configured to receive the user input and deliver the user input to the server (claim 11) and wherein the second client is configured to receive the stored input and deliver the stored input to the server (claim 12). Receiving and transmitting data over a network is well-known, insignificant extra-solution activity, as addressed in the Berkheimer analysis above.
Claim 13 further recites wherein the content manager is further configured to form draft generation instructions, identify undesirable content that might be generated as a result of the draft generation instructions, and alter the draft generation instructions to exclude the undesirable content, thereby forming the generation instructions. This limitation further elaborates on the analysis of the collected inputs to form generation instructions and merely further defines the abstract idea without adding significantly more.
Claims 15-20 further recite that the output, the first input, or the second input comprises text (claims 15, 17, and 19) or comprises at least one of an image and a video (claims 16, 18, and 20). These limitations further define the nature of the data being collected and generated and amount to additional non-structural details that do not confer patent eligibility.
Therefore, claims 1-20 are not drawn to eligible subject matter, as they are directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
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.
Claims 1-6 and 14-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Tao (US 2019/0325626 A1) in view of Kuniavsky et al. (US 2021/0286921 A1, hereinafter "Kuniavsky").
Claim 1: Tao discloses an artificial intelligence system configured to generate content (Paragraph 0059: the design engine applies a classifier, such as a machine learning algorithm, in the content-creation process; Paragraph 0130: machine learning systems create dynamic templates used to generate the design content), the artificial intelligence system comprising:
a first client comprising a first processor (Paragraph 0049: a user device 126 may be a computer, laptop, mobile, tablet, or other computing device executing a client application 128 that accesses the content-creation interface 110; Paragraph 0075: each such device includes processing hardware 202 executing program instructions);
a second client comprising a second processor (Paragraph 0049: a further user device 126 accesses the profile-development interface 106 via a client application; Paragraph 0117: a design is produced by an employee of a business using the system and shared with a graphic designer who receives and views it using an interface of the system; Paragraph 0124: any user associated with the business may access the brand profile; Paragraph 0075: each user device is implemented with processing hardware 202);
a server (Paragraph 0045: the digital graphic design computing system 100 includes one or more computing devices such as a dedicated server, a set of servers in a distributed configuration, or a physical, virtual, or cloud server); and a network (Paragraph 0044: one or more data networks 134),
wherein each of the first client and the second client is operatively connected to the server via the network (Paragraph 0044: the computing system 100 is communicatively coupled to one or more user devices 126 via the data networks 134; FIG. 1),
wherein the server comprises a content application comprising (Paragraph 0046: the computing system executes a digital design application 102 including a brand engine 104 and a design engine 108; the input-handling, constraint-identification, and template-selection functionality of these engines constitutes the content manager, and the placement and rendering functionality of the design engine constitutes the content generator, as detailed below):
a content manager configured to receive a first input from the first client (Paragraphs 0094-0096: the content-creation interface 110 receives input text and input graphics uploaded or transmitted from the user device 126 to the computing system) and a second input from the second client (Paragraphs 0085-0086: the profile-development interface 106 receives inputs identifying brand attribute values from a user device; Paragraph 0118: manual brand input received from the user device includes text entries, selections, color palette selections, and uploaded logos, photographs, images, audio, and video) and form generation instructions based on the first input and the second input (Paragraphs 0099-0104: the design engine identifies permissible text features for the input text, permissible visual features for the input graphic, and additional elements from the brand profile built from the second input; Paragraphs 0129-0131: templates are selected and the canvas is partitioned, the templates and identified constraints controlling the generation); and
a content generator configured to receive the generation instructions from the content manager and generate output based on the generation instructions (Paragraph 0105: output branded design content 130 is generated based on the combination of the permissible text features, permissible visual features, and identified additional elements, arranged in a layout; Paragraph 0131: the design engine partitions the canvas space based upon the particular template and places images, text, and color to produce the provisional graphic, programmatically generating image data).
Tao discloses the respective profile-development and content-creation interfaces, but does not explicitly disclose that the profile-development interface and the content-creation interface are respectively provided at distinct first and second client computing devices.
Kuniavsky, however, teaches plural client computing devices connected via a network to a server-side generative design platform (Paragraph 0030: the network 120 connects client computing devices 110 to the generative design platform 150; Paragraph 0031: each client computing device, in the form of a personal computer or mobile device, includes a client-side application 112 presenting user interfaces 114; Paragraph 0121: a processor 610), the platform employing artificial intelligence engines to generate the design content (Paragraph 0035)).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the invention to provide the profile-development interface and the content-creation interface of Tao at respective first and second client computing devices connected to the server, as taught by Kuniavsky. One would have been motivated to do this in order to allow the party controlling the brand identity and the party requesting content to interact with the platform from their own devices while generating design content that retains the core visual characteristics of the brand with fewer iterations and reduced computational burden (Kuniavsky, Paragraphs 0007-0008).
Claim 2: Tao discloses wherein the first client comprises a first input module (Paragraph 0094: the content-creation interface includes a graphic-selection control element and a text input element, including upload tools and fields), a first output module (Paragraph 0108: a preview section of the content-creation interface displays a preview of the branded design content; Paragraph 0132: the produced provisional graphic designs are displayed via the instance of the content-creation interface presented on the user device), and a first GUI (Paragraph 0094: the content-creation interface 110 is displayed on the user device).
Claim 3: Tao discloses wherein the second client comprises a second input module (Paragraph 0085: the profile-development interface includes control elements for selecting, verifying, or otherwise identifying attribute values; Paragraph 0118: input boxes, menu selections, color palette selections, and upload elements), a second output module (Paragraph 0150: the interface displays the color palette section and role-selection section; Paragraph 0057: the interface displays previews of automatically generated options), and a second GUI (Paragraph 0085: the profile-development interface 106 displayed on the user device).
Claim 4: Tao discloses wherein the second input module comprises expanded input functionality that the first input module lacks (Paragraphs 0052-0061: the profile-development interface provides configuration of constraints, prohibitions, priorities, logo attributes, cropping rules, background permissions, and personality attributes; Paragraphs 0085-0089: control elements for selecting, verifying, excluding, and adding attribute values, functionality not provided by the content-creation interface's text and graphic input elements of Paragraph 0094).
Claim 5: As best understood in view of the objection above, Tao discloses wherein the expanded input functionality includes settings relating to priority of the first input and the second input during image generation (Paragraph 0053: font attributes configured via the profile-development interface include a priority for the font, with primary and secondary designations; Paragraph 0054: a color attribute indicates a priority for a color, controlling the proportions used in the generated content; Paragraph 0114: the created brand profiles define restrictions that may not be overridden even when manually selected by a user, such that the second input takes priority over the first input during generation; Paragraphs 0137-0138: user-input changes that conflict with the brand profile are rejected).
Claim 6: As best understood in view of the objection above, Tao discloses a content-creation interface that displays a set of provisional graphic designs simultaneously for browsing and selection (Paragraphs 0132-0133: the plural produced provisional graphic designs are displayed together via the content-creation interface presented on the user device, and the user browses the displayed designs and submits selections from among them), which reads on the first output module displaying the first image while the second output module simultaneously displays the second image under the broadest reasonable interpretation of the structurally inconsistent claim language.
Claim 14: Tao discloses an artificial intelligence system configured to generate content comprising a first client comprising a first processor, a first input module, a first output module, and a first GUI; a second client comprising a second processor; a server; and a network, with the interconnection, content application, content manager, and content generator limitations recited therein (see the citations set forth for claims 1 and 2 above, which apply equally to the identically worded limitations of claim 14).
Claim 14 is rejected under the same rationale and motivation to combine as set forth for claim 1 above.
Claim 15: Tao discloses wherein the output comprises text (Paragraph 0105: the generated content layout includes the input text; Paragraph 0046: the design content includes text).
Claim 16: Tao discloses wherein the output comprises at least one of an image and a video (Paragraph 0131: the design engine programmatically generates image data, such as a JPG, BMP, or other image format; Paragraph 0046: the design content includes images or other graphics and videos).
Claim 17: Tao discloses wherein the first input comprises text (Paragraph 0094: the content-creation interface includes a text field in which typing input specifying text could be typed and upload elements for input text files).
Claim 18: Tao discloses wherein the first input comprises at least one of an image and a video (Paragraphs 0094-0096: input graphics, including digital images uploaded from the user device or retrieved from an online image source).
Claim 19: Tao discloses wherein the second input comprises text (Paragraph 0118: manual brand input includes data submitted based upon text entered into input boxes; Paragraph 0097: text elements are selected via the profile-development interface and stored in the brand profile as candidate text elements).
Claim 20: Tao discloses wherein the second input comprises at least one of an image and a video (Paragraph 0118: manual brand input received via the profile-development interface includes uploaded logos, photographs, and other images, audio, and video).
Claim 7 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Tao in view of Kuniavsky as applied to claim 6 above, and further in view of Bar Lev et al. (US 10,878,046 B2, hereinafter "Bar Lev").
As best understood in view of the objection above, Tao in view of Kuniavsky teaches the system of claim 6, including the simultaneous display of plural images of the generated content, but does not explicitly teach wherein the first image is displayed more prominently than the second image.
Bar Lev, however, teaches generating content comprising a plurality of simultaneously visible images and displaying a first image more prominently than a second image (col. 11-12: in generating the content 600, the client device arranges the set of content items in a first arrangement, increasing or decreasing heights and widths of the content items and positioning the content items at various positions; FIGS. 6A-6B: within the generated content, a first content item is rendered substantially larger than a second content item while every item remains visible; col. 21-22, claim 1: the content items are arranged such that each content item of the set of content items is visible).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the invention to arrange the simultaneously displayed images of the Tao/Kuniavsky combination with varied heights, widths, and positions such that a first image is displayed larger than, and thereby more prominently than, a second image, as taught by Bar Lev. One would have been motivated to do this in order to emphasize featured items of the generated content to the viewer while keeping every displayed item simultaneously visible for review.
Claims 8-9 and 13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kuniavsky in view of Bar Lev.
Claim 8: Kuniavsky discloses an artificial intelligence system configured to generate content (Paragraph 0035: the engines employ artificial intelligence and machine learning techniques to generate candidate product designs), the artificial intelligence system comprising:
a server comprising a content application comprising (Paragraph 0035: the generative design platform 150, in the form of one or more computers, includes a generative design engine 152, a design evaluation engine 154, and a style grammar generation engine 156; the input-receiving and parameter-forming functionality constitutes the content manager, the generative design engine 152 constitutes the content generator, and the design evaluation engine 154 constitutes the appeal score module, as detailed below):
a content manager comprising a stored input (Paragraph 0037: the platform maintains a design template database 162; Paragraph 0040: the platform maintains a style grammar database 164 storing style grammars encoding the aesthetic characteristics of a brand; Paragraph 0050: physical constraints stored in a constraints database 166), the content manager being configured to receive a user input from a user and combine the user input with the stored input to form a combined input (Paragraph 0061: the platform receives data identifying a set of design parameters selected by a user using the client-side application 112, including a selection of a product template, a selection of one or more style grammars, and user-customizable inputs; Paragraph 0069: receiving data identifying the set of design parameters comprising the product template and style grammars; Paragraph 0072: the platform obtains the stored physical constraints for the product), the content manager being further configured to form generation instructions based on the combined input (Paragraph 0073: the candidate product designs are generated by varying a set of characteristics of the product template in accordance with the stylistic constraints, physical constraints, and any obstacle bodies defined by or generated based on the style grammars and physical constraints, these combined parameters constituting the generation instructions);
a content generator configured to receive the generation instructions from the content manager and generate output based on the generation instructions (Paragraph 0036: the generative design engine 152 generates multiple candidate product designs based on the inputs received from the user and the additional characteristics and constraints; Paragraph 0073: generating the set of candidate product designs per those parameters); and
an appeal score module configured to assign an appeal score to the generated output based on a set of predetermined characteristics (Paragraph 0074: the platform generates a set of scores for each candidate product design including a style score that represents a measure of how well the candidate product design conforms to the aesthetic characteristics of each style grammar, comparing the visual characteristics of the candidate design to each predetermined parameter of the style grammar; Paragraphs 0054-0056: the design evaluation engine 154 compares each candidate to each stylistic parameter and combines the individual scores into the style score).
Kuniavsky further discloses selecting candidate designs based on the overall scores and providing information about the selected candidate designs to a client computing device for presentation to the user (Paragraph 0060; Paragraph 0079: providing data that causes the client computing device to present a visual representation of each selected candidate product design), and performing successive generation-and-evaluation iterations until the platform converges on a set of candidate designs for which information is presented to the user (Paragraph 0077), but does not explicitly disclose conditioning the presentation of the generated output on the score reaching a predetermined threshold, nor withholding output and generating new output when the threshold is not reached, as recited by wherein the server is configured to display the generated output to the user if the appeal score reaches a predetermined threshold, but if the appeal score does not reach the predetermined threshold, the server is configured to instruct the content generator to generate new output based on the generation instructions.
Bar Lev, however, teaches scoring generated content and gating its presentation on a predetermined score threshold (col. 7: classification models 224 for evaluating generated content include one or more score thresholds 230 set by the server system; col. 17: in accordance with a determination that the generated content does not satisfy the criterion, the generated content is discarded, and in accordance with a determination that the generated content satisfies the criterion, the content is presented to the user; col. 18: the criterion is a score threshold, and the content is presented to the user in accordance with a determination that the score satisfies the score threshold of the classification model; FIG. 4B, items 426-430), with new content thereafter generated and evaluated against the threshold (col. 20-21: new content is generated and a score determined for the new set of content items, the new content being discarded if the score does not satisfy the updated score threshold and presented to the user if it does; FIG. 4D, items 470-480). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the invention to configure the platform of Kuniavsky to display a generated candidate design to the user when its style score satisfies a predetermined score threshold and, when the score does not satisfy the threshold, to withhold the candidate from display and generate new output for evaluation, as taught by Bar Lev. One would have been motivated to do this in order to concentrate the user-facing results on generated outputs satisfying the desired aesthetic level, thereby increasing the quality and the appeal of the content presented to the user (Bar Lev, col. 20).
Claim 9: Kuniavsky discloses updating the parameters of the generative design process and performing further iterations of generation and evaluation (Paragraphs 0081-0084: the platform updates the parameters, including adjusting weights and adjusting the scoring process, and then performs the generation and evaluation steps for another iteration). Bar Lev teaches wherein if the new output does not meet the predetermined threshold for the appeal score, the server is configured to instruct the content manager to form new generation instructions based on the combined input, and to instruct the content generator to generate additional new output based on the new generation instructions (col. 20: the updated score threshold may be decreased when the generated content for the user, or several iterations of generated content, does not satisfy the criterion of the classification model, the server providing an updated classification model including the updated score threshold and updated thresholds; col. 20-21: new content is thereafter generated based at least in part on the metadata and the updated user-specific data and scored against the updated score threshold; FIG. 4C, item 466; FIG. 4D, items 468-480). As set forth for claim 8, the combination applies Bar Lev's threshold-based evaluation and revision controls to Kuniavsky's platform-side generation and evaluation parameters, such that a failed-quality determination feeds updated generation and evaluation parameters into the next iteration of the generative design process.
Claim 9 is rejected under the same rationale and motivation to combine as set forth for claim 8 above.
Claim 13: Kuniavsky discloses wherein the content manager is further configured to form draft generation instructions, identify undesirable content that might be generated as a result of the draft generation instructions, and alter the draft generation instructions to exclude the undesirable content, thereby forming the generation instructions (Paragraph 0047: a stylistic obstacle body, generated based on a style grammar, prevents the generative design engine from adding material to areas where it would change the aesthetics of the product such that the aesthetics do not conform to the style defined by the style grammar; Paragraph 0048: the generative design engine determines, based on the parameters of the style grammars, areas of the product where, if additional material were added, it would result in a product design that does not conform to the aesthetic characteristics for the product, and creates one or more obstacle bodies that prevent the generative design algorithm from applying material at those areas, thereby altering the generation parameters to exclude the identified non-conforming content before generation; Paragraph 0073: the candidate designs are generated in accordance with the constraints and the obstacle bodies).
Claim 13 is rejected under the same rationale and motivation to combine as set forth for claim 8 above.
Claims 10-12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kuniavsky in view of Bar Lev, and further in view of Tao.
Claim 10: Kuniavsky discloses further comprising a first client comprising a first processor and a first GUI (Paragraph 0031: the client computing device 110, in the form of a personal computer or mobile device, includes a client-side application 112 that generates and presents user interfaces 114; Paragraph 0121: a processor 610).
Kuniavsky does not explicitly disclose a second client comprising a second processor and a second GUI.
Tao, however, teaches a content generation server serving a first client presenting a content-side graphical user interface and a second client presenting a brand-side graphical user interface (Paragraph 0049: user devices 126 with processing hardware executing client applications accessing the content-creation interface 110 and the profile-development interface 106 respectively; Paragraph 0075: processing hardware 202; Paragraphs 0085, 0094: the respective interfaces displayed on the user devices).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the invention to provide the platform of the Kuniavsky/Bar Lev combination with a first client computing device presenting a user-facing interface and a second client computing device presenting a profile-side interface through which the stored stylistic input is supplied to the server, as taught by Tao. One would have been motivated to do this in order to allow the party controlling the stylistic identity to define and update the stored constraints from a dedicated interface independently of the users requesting generated content from their own devices.
Claim 11: Kuniavsky discloses wherein the first client is configured to receive the user input and deliver the user input to the server (Paragraph 0032: the user interfaces 114 enable the user to select or otherwise provide inputs to the generative design process; Paragraph 0061: the client-side application 112 provides data identifying the user's selections to the generative design platform).
Claim 11 is rejected under the same rationale and motivation to combine as set forth for claim 10 above.
Claim 12: As best understood in view of the objection above, Tao teaches wherein the second client is configured to receive the stored input and deliver the stored input to the server (Paragraphs 0085-0086: the profile-development interface displayed on the user device receives inputs identifying the brand attribute values; Paragraphs 0090-0091: the brand profile is updated to include the identified values and the brand profile repository 112 stored at the computing system is modified to include the brand profile, such that the second client delivers to the server the brand-side input that is stored as the stored input used in generation).
Claim 12 is rejected under the same rationale and motivation to combine as set forth for claim 10 above.
Other Relevant Prior Art
Though not relied upon in the aforementioned rejections, the following references are nevertheless deemed to be relevant to Applicant’s disclosures:
Shin et al. (KR 20250141001), directed to a method for providing optimized advertising using generative AI.
Kim et al. (KR 102713995), directed to an AI-based user-tailored advertising system.
Holtan et al. (10672035), directed to a method for optimizing advertising spending using a user influenced advertisement policy.
Saharia et al. (20230103638), directed to a method for image-to-image mapping by iterative de-noising.
Zheng et al. (20240169500), directed to a method for image and object inpainting with diffusion models.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to CHRISTOPHER BUSCH whose telephone number is (571)270-7953. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 10-7.
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, Waseem Ashraf can be reached at 571-270-3948. 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.
/CHRISTOPHER C BUSCH/Examiner, Art Unit 3621
Prosecution Insights