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 .
DETAILED ACTION
Response to Amendment
Claims 1-3 and 5-22 are pending in this application [12/19/2025].
Title and Claims 1, 3, 5-18, 20 and 21 have been amended [12/19/2025].
Claim 4 has been cancelled [12/19/2025].
Claim 22 has been added [12/19/2025].
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 2/3/2026 is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement is being considered by the examiner.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 12/19/2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. On page 12 of Applicant’s Arguments, Applicant states ‘Independent claim 1 has been amended to incorporate dependent claim 4’ and argues none of the cited references appear to disclose calculating a value for each skeleton from the different skeletons, wherein the value indicates how close an estimated impression is to a target impression of a user; which is recited in new dependent claim 22.
Applicant's arguments fail to comply with 37 CFR 1.111(b) because they amount to a general allegation that the claims define a patentable invention without specifically pointing out how the language of the claims patentably distinguishes them from the references, based on independent claims 1, 20 and 21. In addition, Applicant's arguments do not comply with 37 CFR 1.111(c) because they do not clearly point out the patentable novelty which he or she thinks the claims present in view of the state of the art disclosed by the references cited or the objections made. Further, they do not show how the amendments avoid such references or objections, based on independent claims 1, 20 and 21.
With regards to newly added dependent claim 22, newly added/cited reference, Minegishi et al. (US-2025/0329134) is relied upon.
Claim Objections
Claim 6 is objected to because of the following informalities: Lines 3-4 recite ‘the user’ having lack of antecedent basis. Examiner treats as ‘a user’. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim 12 is objected to because of the following informalities: Line 4 recites ‘the user’ having lack of antecedent basis. Examiner treats as ‘a user’. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim 15 is objected to because of the following informalities: Line 3 recites ‘the user’ having lack of antecedent basis. Examiner treats as ‘a user’. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
Claim(s) 1-3, 5-16 and 18-21 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ishida (US-2018/0217743) in view of Batra et al. (US-2019/0213238).
As to Claim 1, Ishida teaches a UI configuration screen where a user can select a template designation icon (i.e., second display) that displays illustration images according to the tastes of the templates, where the template has image placement frames (slots) for placing image data and the image data is buried in the slots of the template to complete one layout image [Fig 3 (306), par 0071]. Ishida further teaches a mode designation unit (i.e., first display) corresponding to the mode of an album targeted to be created giving a high priority to images including predetermined objects and laying out the images in a template, where an image including at least one of a plurality of objects corresponding to the selected mode is preferentially laid out in a template [par 0072]. Ishida teaches an OK button (i.e., accepting) for accepting the completion of the settings from the user [par 0074] and an area representing a rendering of an album represented by layout information generated on the basis of input settings [par 0080]. Ishida further teaches a design selection screen including a design selection area displaying three options for a user to select and a color selection area having three options [Fig 12 (1201), par 0081-0085].
While Batra teaches a client device presenting an initial layout of digital objects from a digital design document and in response to detecting a selection of a layout-suggestion option, presenting modified layouts of the digital objects [par 0122-0123] and updates a graphical user interface to include digital design thumbnails (i.e., plurality of poster images) having modified layouts of digital objects, where the modified layouts represent candidate layouts (i.e., first and second display) having the highest four design scores from among multiple candidate layouts and include modifications of the digital objects in an arrangement that differs from the initial layout [Fig 3B, par 0124]. Batra further teaches presenting variations of the modified layouts or different candidate layouts based on a layout option selected [par 0126] and generating digital design documents having the modified layouts enable the client device to further adjust each of the digital objects (i.e. differently arranged objects) in each respective modified layout [par 0127].
Ishida in view of Batra teaches ‘An information processing apparatus, comprising: one or more memories storing programs; and one or more processors that execute the stored programs, which causes the one or more processors to: display configured to display a plurality of poster images having different impressions on a first display; accept specifying a poster image from the plurality of poster images having different impressions displayed on the first display; display a plurality of poster images having differently arranged one or more objects on a second display; accept specifying a poster image from the plurality of poster images having differently arranged objects displayed on the second display, set a skeleton, which is information indicating an arrangement of one or more objects in each of the plurality of poster images displayed on the second display, and create the plurality of poster images with different skeletons based on the skeletons set, wherein the first display displays the plurality of poster images from the plurality of poster images having differently arranged objects, or the second display displays the plurality of poster images from the plurality of poster images having different impressions [Ishida: Figs 3, 12, par 0071-0072, 0074, 0080-0085; Batra: Fig 3B, par 0122-0127]’.
Ishida and Batra are analogous art because they are from the same field of endeavor, namely image data processing data systems for laying out objects. Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to include presenting a plurality of modified candidate layouts with different arranged objects for selection, as taught by Batra. The motivation for doing so would have been to efficiently evaluating candidate layouts based on concurrently generating design scores to identify visually appealing layouts of digital objects when exploring design variations of generated improved layouts. Therefore, it would have been obvious to combine Batra with Ishida to obtain the invention as specified in claim 1.
Further, in regards to claim 20, the information processing apparatus of claim 1 performs the control method of claim 20.
Further, in regards to claim 21, the control method of claim 21 is fully embodied on the non-transitory computer-readable storage medium of claim 21.
As to Claim 2, Batra teaches ‘wherein the one or more objects are at least one of an image, a character, and a figure [par 0026 – digital graphics, images, icons, text and/or characters as digital objects]’.
Ishida and Batra are analogous art because they are from the same field of endeavor, namely image data processing data systems for laying out objects. Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to include presenting a plurality of modified candidate layouts with different arranged objects for selection, as taught by Batra. The motivation for doing so would have been to efficiently evaluating candidate layouts based on concurrently generating design scores to identify visually appealing layouts of digital objects when exploring design variations of generated improved layouts. Therefore, it would have been obvious to combine Batra with Ishida to obtain the invention as specified in claim 2.
As to Claim 3, Batra teaches ‘wherein the one or more processors that execute the stored programs further cause the one or more processors to: set the impressions held by the plurality of poster images displayed on the first display, and create the plurality of poster images having different impressions based on the impressions set [par 0025 – using an initial layout of digital objects for an initial iteration for generating candidate layouts of the digital objects]’.
Ishida and Batra are analogous art because they are from the same field of endeavor, namely image data processing data systems for laying out objects. Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to include presenting a plurality of modified candidate layouts with different arranged objects for selection, as taught by Batra. The motivation for doing so would have been to efficiently evaluating candidate layouts based on concurrently generating design scores to identify visually appealing layouts of digital objects when exploring design variations of generated improved layouts. Therefore, it would have been obvious to combine Batra with Ishida to obtain the invention as specified in claim 3.
As to Claim 5, Ishida in view of Batra teaches ‘wherein the first display displays the plurality of poster images with the different impressions, accepts specifying a poster image with the impression from the plurality of poster images with the different impressions displayed on the first display, the second display displays the plurality of poster images with different skeletons, each of which is information indicating an arrangement of one or more objects in the corresponding poster image, based on the impression held by the poster image accepted, and accepts specifying a specific poster image from the plurality of poster images with different skeletons displayed on the second display [Ishida: Figs 3, 12, par 0071-0072, 0074, 0080-0085 – UI configuration screen where a user can select a template designation icon that displays illustration images according to the tastes of the templates, where the template has image placement frames (slots) for placing image data and the image data is buried in the slots of the template to complete one layout image. Ishida further teaches a mode designation unit corresponding to the mode of an album targeted to be created giving a high priority to images including predetermined objects and laying out the images in a template, where an image including at least one of a plurality of objects corresponding to the selected mode is preferentially laid out in a template. Ishida teaches an OK button for accepting the completion of the settings from the user and an area representing a rendering of an album represented by layout information generated on the basis of input settings. Ishida further teaches a design selection screen including a design selection area displaying three options for a user to select and a color selection area having three options; Batra: Fig 3B, par 0122-0127 – client device presenting an initial layout of digital objects from a digital design document and in response to detecting a selection of a layout-suggestion option, presenting modified layouts of the digital objects and updates a graphical user interface to include digital design thumbnails having modified layouts of digital objects, where the modified layouts represent candidate layouts having the highest four design scores from among multiple candidate layouts and include modifications of the digital objects in an arrangement that differs from the initial layout. Batra further teaches presenting variations of the modified layouts or different candidate layouts based on a layout option selected and generating digital design documents having the modified layouts enable the client device to further adjust each of the digital objects in each respective modified layout]’.
Ishida and Batra are analogous art because they are from the same field of endeavor, namely image data processing data systems for laying out objects. Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to include presenting a plurality of modified candidate layouts with different arranged objects for selection, as taught by Batra. The motivation for doing so would have been to efficiently evaluating candidate layouts based on concurrently generating design scores to identify visually appealing layouts of digital objects when exploring design variations of generated improved layouts. Therefore, it would have been obvious to combine Batra with Ishida to obtain the invention as specified in claim 5.
As to Claim 6, Batra teaches ‘wherein the impression held by each poster image displayed on the second display is the impression held by the poster image specified by a user [Figs 3A-3B – initial layout of digital objects from a digital design document is input to receiving modified candidate layouts of the digital objects from the initial layout]’.
Ishida and Batra are analogous art because they are from the same field of endeavor, namely image data processing data systems for laying out objects. Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to include presenting a plurality of modified candidate layouts with different arranged objects for selection, as taught by Batra. The motivation for doing so would have been to efficiently evaluating candidate layouts based on concurrently generating design scores to identify visually appealing layouts of digital objects when exploring design variations of generated improved layouts. Therefore, it would have been obvious to combine Batra with Ishida to obtain the invention as specified in claim 6.
As to Claim 7, Batra teaches ‘wherein information indicating the impression held by each of the plurality of poster images is displayed on the first display in association with corresponding one of the poster images [Figs 3A-3B – initial layout of digital objects from a digital design document is input to receiving and presenting modified candidate layouts of the digital objects from the initial layout in addition to the various option layouts]’.
Ishida and Batra are analogous art because they are from the same field of endeavor, namely image data processing data systems for laying out objects. Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to include presenting a plurality of modified candidate layouts with different arranged objects for selection, as taught by Batra. The motivation for doing so would have been to efficiently evaluating candidate layouts based on concurrently generating design scores to identify visually appealing layouts of digital objects when exploring design variations of generated improved layouts. Therefore, it would have been obvious to combine Batra with Ishida to obtain the invention as specified in claim 7.
As to Claim 8, Ishida in view of Batra teaches ‘wherein the first display displays an object for recreating the plurality of poster images with different impressions, and the plurality of poster images with the different impressions are recreated in response to an operation on the object [par 0075 – a reset button for resetting each piece of the setting information on the UI configuration screen]’.
As to Claim 9, Batra teaches ‘wherein the second display displays the impression held by the poster image specified [Figs 3A-3B – initial layout of digital objects from a digital design document is input to receiving modified candidate layouts of the digital objects from the initial layout]’.
Ishida and Batra are analogous art because they are from the same field of endeavor, namely image data processing data systems for laying out objects. Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to include presenting a plurality of modified candidate layouts with different arranged objects for selection, as taught by Batra. The motivation for doing so would have been to efficiently evaluating candidate layouts based on concurrently generating design scores to identify visually appealing layouts of digital objects when exploring design variations of generated improved layouts. Therefore, it would have been obvious to combine Batra with Ishida to obtain the invention as specified in claim 9.
As to Claim 10, Ishida teaches ‘wherein an instruction to print the specified poster image is accepted [par 0041-0042, 0170 – executing an image forming process (print process) that forms an image on a recording medium based on the album layout selected]’.
As to Claim 11, Ishida in view of Batra teaches ‘wherein the second display displays the plurality of poster images with different skeletons, accepts specifying a poster image with a specific skeleton among skeletons, each of which is information indicating an arrangement of one or more objects in the corresponding poster image, from the plurality of poster images with different skeletons displayed on the second display, the first display displays the plurality of poster images with the different impressions based on the specific skeleton of the poster image accepted, and accepts specifying a poster image with the impression from the plurality of poster images with the different impressions displayed on the first display [Ishida: Figs 3, 12, par 0071-0072, 0074, 0080-0085 – UI configuration screen where a user can select a template designation icon that displays illustration images according to the tastes of the templates, where the template has image placement frames (slots) for placing image data and the image data is buried in the slots of the template to complete one layout image. Ishida further teaches a mode designation unit corresponding to the mode of an album targeted to be created giving a high priority to images including predetermined objects and laying out the images in a template, where an image including at least one of a plurality of objects corresponding to the selected mode is preferentially laid out in a template. Ishida teaches an OK button for accepting the completion of the settings from the user and an area representing a rendering of an album represented by layout information generated on the basis of input settings. Ishida further teaches a design selection screen including a design selection area displaying three options for a user to select and a color selection area having three options; Batra: Fig 3B, par 0122-0127 – client device presenting an initial layout of digital objects from a digital design document and in response to detecting a selection of a layout-suggestion option, presenting modified layouts of the digital objects and updates a graphical user interface to include digital design thumbnails having modified layouts of digital objects, where the modified layouts represent candidate layouts having the highest four design scores from among multiple candidate layouts and include modifications of the digital objects in an arrangement that differs from the initial layout. Batra further teaches presenting variations of the modified layouts or different candidate layouts based on a layout option selected and generating digital design documents having the modified layouts enable the client device to further adjust each of the digital objects in each respective modified layout]’.
Ishida and Batra are analogous art because they are from the same field of endeavor, namely image data processing data systems for laying out objects. Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to include presenting a plurality of modified candidate layouts with different arranged objects for selection, as taught by Batra. The motivation for doing so would have been to efficiently evaluating candidate layouts based on concurrently generating design scores to identify visually appealing layouts of digital objects when exploring design variations of generated improved layouts. Therefore, it would have been obvious to combine Batra with Ishida to obtain the invention as specified in claim 11.
As to Claim 12, Ishida teaches ‘wherein a skeleton, which is information indicating the arrangement of the one or more objects in the poster image displayed on the first display, is a specific skeleton of the poster image specified by a user [Figs 3 (306), 12 (1201), par 0071, 0083 – setting a template having image placement frames (slots) for placing image data to complete one layout image and a design selection area]’.
As to Claim 13, Ishida in the proposed combination teaches ‘wherein the second display displays an object for recreating the plurality of poster images with different skeletons, and the plurality of poster images with the different skeletons are recreated in response to an operation on the object [par 0075 – a reset button for resetting each piece of the setting information on the UI configuration screen]’.
As to Claim 14, Ishida teaches ‘wherein an instruction to print the specified poster image is accepted [par 0041-0042, 0170 – executing an image forming process (print process) that forms an image on a recording medium based on the album layout selected]’.
As to Claim 15, Batra teaches ‘wherein the impression held by the poster image is set to be created based on the impression specified by a user [Figs 3A-3B – initial layout of digital objects from a digital design document is input to receiving modified candidate layouts of the digital objects from the initial layout]’.
Ishida and Batra are analogous art because they are from the same field of endeavor, namely image data processing data systems for laying out objects. Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to include presenting a plurality of modified candidate layouts with different arranged objects for selection, as taught by Batra. The motivation for doing so would have been to efficiently evaluating candidate layouts based on concurrently generating design scores to identify visually appealing layouts of digital objects when exploring design variations of generated improved layouts. Therefore, it would have been obvious to combine Batra with Ishida to obtain the invention as specified in claim 15.
As to Claim 16, Ishida teaches ‘wherein the impression held by the poster image is set to be created, based on the impression specified by the user operating a slider, which is an object for specifying the impression [Fig 14, par 0189-0191 – slider for adjusting the frequency of occurrence of images including objects of “animals” and “people”]’.
As to Claim 18, Batra teaches ‘wherein information indicating a difference between the impression held by the poster image created and the impression set is smaller than a predetermined threshold value [par 0085, 0143, 0154-0155 – if a selected candidate layout falls below the threshold layout’s design score, rejecting the selected candidate layout as an input]’.
Ishida and Batra are analogous art because they are from the same field of endeavor, namely image data processing data systems for laying out objects. Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to include presenting a plurality of modified candidate layouts with different arranged objects for selection, as taught by Batra. The motivation for doing so would have been to efficiently evaluating candidate layouts based on concurrently generating design scores to identify visually appealing layouts of digital objects when exploring design variations of generated improved layouts. Therefore, it would have been obvious to combine Batra with Ishida to obtain the invention as specified in claim 18.
As to Claim 19, Batra teaches ‘wherein the impression is determined by a combination of factors indicating the impression [Fig 3A (310a-310h), par 0123 – user selects digital objects for a layout suggestion]’.
Ishida and Batra are analogous art because they are from the same field of endeavor, namely image data processing data systems for laying out objects. Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to include presenting a plurality of modified candidate layouts with different arranged objects for selection, as taught by Batra. The motivation for doing so would have been to efficiently evaluating candidate layouts based on concurrently generating design scores to identify visually appealing layouts of digital objects when exploring design variations of generated improved layouts. Therefore, it would have been obvious to combine Batra with Ishida to obtain the invention as specified in claim 19.
Claim(s) 17 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ishida (US-2018/0217743) in view of Batra et al. (US-2019/0213238) in view of Saito (JP-2010183477).
As to Claim 17, Ishida in view of Batra teaches all of the claimed elements/features as recited in dependent claims 15, 3 and independent claim 1. Ishida in view of Batra does not disclose expressly ‘wherein the impression held by the poster image is set to be created, based on the impression specified by the user operating a radar chart, which is an object for specifying the impression’.
Saito in the proposed combination of Ishida teaches ‘wherein the impression held by the poster image is set to be created, based on the impression specified by the user operating a radar chart, which is an object for specifying the impression [par 0088-0090 – a radar chart for increasing or decreasing setting values of editing items]’.
Ishida in view of Batra are analogous art with Saito because they are from the same field of endeavor, namely image data processing data systems. Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to include a radar chart, as taught by Saito. The motivation for doing so would have been to shaping a graph displayed that is changed based on change of setting value by touch-panel apparatus such that the setting items are changed on the same screen and operation to change the setting item is simplified. Therefore, it would have been obvious to combine Saito with Ishida in view of Batra to obtain the invention as specified in claim 17.
Claim(s) 22 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ishida (US-2018/0217743) in view of Batra et al. (US-2019/0213238) in view of Minegishi et al. (US-2025/0329134).
As to Claim 22, Ishida in view of Batra teaches all of the claimed elements/features as recited in dependent claims 15, 3 and independent claim 1. Ishida in view of Batra does not disclose expressly ‘
Minegishi teaches ‘calculate a value for each skeleton from the different skeletons, wherein the value indicates how close an estimation impression is to a target impression of a user [Fig 10 (S29), par 0150-0155 – comparing dominant color of the selected image (image feature value extracted) with each coloring patten of the impression correspondence table and calculates the similarity between the dominant color of selected image with color combination of each color arrangement pattern]’.
Ishida in view of Batra are analogous art with Minegishi because they are from the same field of endeavor, namely image data processing data systems. Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to include calculating a similarity, as taught by Minegishi. The motivation for doing so would have been to supporting editing work when a user selects an image from among many images to create a design image. Therefore, it would have been obvious to combine Minegishi with Ishida in view of Batra to obtain the invention as specified in claim 22.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record
a. US Publication No. 2025/0329134
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MIYA J CATO whose telephone number is (571)270-3954. The examiner can normally be reached M-F, 830-530.
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, Akwasi Sarpong can be reached at 571.270.3438. 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.
/MIYA J CATO/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2681