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 .
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on 3/2/2026 has been entered.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 3/2/2026 and 3/27/2026 are being considered by the examiner.
Response to Amendment
The amendment filed on 3/2/2026 has been entered and made of record. Claims 1-8 and 13 are amended. Claims 1-15 are pending.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to the rejections of independent claims 1, 17
and 13 have been fully considered but they are moot because the arguments do not apply to the references being used in the current rejection.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(d):
(d) REFERENCE IN DEPENDENT FORMS.—Subject to subsection (e), a claim in dependent form shall contain a reference to a claim previously set forth and then specify a further limitation of the subject matter claimed. A claim in dependent form shall be construed to incorporate by reference all the limitations of the claim to which it refers.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, fourth paragraph:
Subject to the following paragraph [i.e., the fifth paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112], a claim in dependent form shall contain a reference to a claim previously set forth and then specify a further limitation of the subject matter claimed. A claim in dependent form shall be construed to incorporate by reference all the limitations of the claim to which it refers.
Claims 14-15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(d) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, 4th paragraph, as being of improper dependent form for failing to further limit the subject matter of the claim upon which it depends, or for failing to include all the limitations of the claim upon which it depends. The claims 14-15 recite the same subject matter as the claim from which it depends (Claim 1 & 7) and does not add any additional, limiting features. Applicant can cancel the claim(s),amend the claim(s) to place the claim(s) in proper dependent form, rewrite the claim(s) in independent form, or present a sufficient showing that the dependent claim(s) complies with the statutory requirements.
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 obviousness-type 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); and 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 a nonstatutory double patenting ground provided the conflicting application or patent either is shown to be commonly owned with this application, or claims an invention made as a result of activities undertaken within the scope of a joint research agreement.
Effective January 1, 1994, a registered attorney or agent of record may sign a terminal disclaimer. A terminal disclaimer signed by the assignee must fully comply with 37 CFR 3.73(b).
Claims 1, 7 and 13 are provisionally rejected on the ground of non-statutory obviousness-type double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1, 6 and 9 of US Patent 12,412,327 in view of Furuya (US 2018/0268586 A1). Although the conflicting claims are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because the present claims have the same scope of US Patent.
This is a obviousness-type double patenting rejection because the conflicting claims have not in fact been patented.
Table 1 illustrates the conflicting claims.
Present Application 18/342,421
1
7
13
US Patent 12,412,327
1, 6, 9
1, 6, 9
1, 6, 9
Table 2 provides a comparative mapping of the limitations of independent claims 1 of the present application when compared against the limitations of claims 1 & 6 of US Patent 12,412,327.
Present Application 18/342,421
US Patent 12,412,327
1. An information processing apparatus comprising: at least one processor; and
a memory that stores a program which, when executed by the at least one processor, causes the at least one processor to:
acquire layout information corresponding to a skeleton from among a plurality of skeletons;
select an image by a user from among a plurality of images displayed on a dialog, wherein the image is not included in the acquired layout information;
determine a main color included in the image selected, wherein the main color is a color that is included in the selected image and appears frequently in the selected image;
accept a target impression from the user;
select a color scheme pattern whose color differences from the determined main color are within a threshold, wherein each of the color scheme patterns is comprised of a plurality of colors and select, based on
the accepted target impression and impression information corresponding to
each of the selected color scheme patterns, a color scheme pattern from among
the selected color scheme patterns; and
create a poster image based on the image acquired layout information and the color scheme pattern selected, wherein, in the poster image, the selected image and an
object specified based on the acquired layout information and filled with a color included in the color scheme pattern selected are included.
1.An information processing apparatus, comprising: at least one processor; and a memory that stores a program which, when executed by the at least one processor, causes the at least one processor to function as:
an acceptance unit configured to accept from a user a target impression of a poster image to be created; and
a creation unit configured to create the poster image based on the target impression, wherein information indicating a difference between an impression that the poster image created by the creation unit has and the specified target impression is less than a predetermined threshold value.
6. The information processing apparatus according to Claim 1, wherein the poster image is created by changing a color scheme of the poster image to match a wide variety of the target impressions.
9. The information processing apparatus according to claim 1, wherein the poster image is created based on a skeleton which is information indicating arrangements of a character, an
image, and a graphic on the poster image, and the poster image is created by changing the skeleton to match a wide variety of the target impressions.
As Table 2 illustrates, all the limitations of claim 1 of the present application are included in claims 1, 6 & 9 of US Patent 12,412,327 except for the limitation of user interface for selecting content via dialog and matching by comparing a difference with a threshold, which is taught by Furuya in [0004, 0064, 0087]. Thus, claims 1, 7 and 13 of the present application would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention, as anticipation of all limitations is tantamount to obviousness.
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 of this title, 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 1-15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Noguchi (US 2019/0371027 A1) in view of Kodimer (US 2010/0073727 A1) and Furuya (US 2018/0268586 A1).
As to Claim 1, Noguchi teaches An information processing apparatus comprising: at least one processor; and a memory that stores a program which, when executed by the at least one processor, causes the at least one processor to (Noguchi, Fig 1):
acquire layout information corresponding to a skeleton from among a plurality of skeletons (Noguchi discloses a postcard design based on a layout image as shown in Fig 22-23; design parameter for setting disposition of the composite target image in [0018]; “It is determined that the layout image 130 has the "warm" impression through the questionnaire survey or the like. With respect to a different impression, the layout image 130 of a layout corresponding to the impression is determined in advance. Layout images other than the layout image 130 are also stored in the hard disk 12 in advance” in [0115]);
select an image by a user from among a plurality of images displayed on a dialog, wherein the image is not included in the acquired layout information (Noguchi discloses “In the layout image 130, image disposition areas 131 to 136 are defined. Certain images among the images I1 to I5 are disposed in certain areas among the image disposition areas 131 to 136” in [0115], see also user interface in Fig 22);
determine a main color included in the image selected, wherein the main color is a color that is included in the selected image and appears frequently in the selected image (Noguchi discloses “for example, a representative color is determined from a color distribution of the respective images of the composite target images” in [0053]);
accept a target impression from a user (Noguchi discloses “The user moves a slider 67 on the second desired impression value designating slider axis 66 using the mouse 9 (second desired impression value designating unit) to a desired position to thereby designate the second desired impression value (step 85)” in [0089]; see also Fig 8-9).
Noguchi is silent on color scheme pattern. The combination of Kodimer and Furuya further teaches following limitations:
select a color scheme pattern whose color differences from the determined main color are within a threshold, wherein each of the color scheme patterns is comprised of a plurality of colors and select, based on the accepted target impression and impression information corresponding to each of the selected color scheme patterns, a color scheme pattern from among the selected color scheme patterns (Noguchi discloses “Further, in a case where a target image is pasted to a template image to generate a composite image, in order to match a completed impression with a user's preference… determining a template image close to the impression and a target image” in [0003]; “Since the impression of the composite target image 50 and the impression of the first mount image 51 are the same, it is considered that the first composite image Syl that is close to a user's preference is obtained” in [0069]; “For each color, an impression value corresponding to "warm" and "cool", and an impression value corresponding to "soft" and "hard" are determined in advance” in [0053]. Kodimer further discloses “The subject application is directed to a system and method for greeting card template matching. In particular, the subject application is directed to a system and method for generation of customized greeting cards inclusive of user-supplied images, such as photographs, into a greeting card template with a color scheme visually compatible with properties of the supplied image” in [0023]. Here, it is well-known that a color matching can be performed by comparing the difference with a predetermined threshold. For example, Furuya discloses “The term "small difference" means that a value of the difference is equal to or smaller than a threshold value” in [0064]; “synthesis candidate images and background images, having a small difference between an impression value of one synthesis candidate image among the plurality of synthesis candidate images and an impression value of one background image among the plurality of background images, is equal to or greater than a threshold value may be determined by the CPU” in [0087]); and
create a poster image based on the acquired layout information and the color scheme pattern selected, wherein, in the poster image, the selected image and an object specified based on the acquired layout information and filled with a color included in the color scheme pattern selected are included (Noguchi discloses “a composite image generating program for obtaining a composite image having a user's desired impression … A user moves a slider 63 of a first desired impression value designating slider axis 62 corresponding to the first impression axis to designate an unspecified desired impression value. A second mount image having the designated desired impression value is determined, the second mount image, instead of the first mount image 51, and the composite target image 50 are combined to obtain a second composite image having the user's desired impression” in Abstract; “The first mount image determining unit may include design parameter determining unit that determines a design parameter for setting disposition of the composite target image in the first mount image on the basis of the impression values along the first impression axis with respect to the composite target image input through the composite target image input unit, and background image determining unit that determines a background image on the basis of the impression values along on the first impression axis with respect to the composite target image input through the composite target image input unit” in [0018], see also Fig 17, 20 and 22. Kodimer further discloses “The subject application is directed to a system and method for greeting card template matching. In particular, the subject application is directed to a system and method for generation of customized greeting cards inclusive of user-supplied images, such as photographs, into a greeting card template with a color scheme visually compatible with properties of the supplied image” in [0023].)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the invention of Noguchi with the teaching of Kodimer so as to add user-supplied image into a greeting card template with a color scheme visually compatible (Kodimer, [0023]). The motivation of combining the teaching of Furuya is to explain the matching process by comparing the comparison result with a predetermined threshold.
As to Claim 2, Noguchi in view of Kodimer and Furuya teaches The information processing apparatus according to Claim 1, wherein a main color included in the acquired image is identified, and selects a color scheme patterns based on the identified main color (Noguchi discloses “for example, a representative color is determined from a color distribution of the respective images of the composite target images, and an impression value corresponding to "warm" and "cool" and an impression value corresponding to "soft" and "hard" are determined with respect to the determined representative color. For each color, an impression value corresponding to "warm" and "cool", and an impression value corresponding to "soft" and "hard" are determined in advance. The representative color may be determined by the most frequent color in the images, an average color of a main subject in the images, or the like. Further, plural representative colors such as a first representative color or a second representative color may be determined to calculate impression values by a combination of the representative colors… In this case, such a discriminator extracts feature values from the colors, the textures, the imaging locations, and the subjects in the images, and performs learning for associating the feature values extracted from the images with the impression values” in [0053]. Kodimer further discloses “The skilled artisan will appreciate that such identification enables the controller 108 or other suitable component associated with the document rendering device 104 to ascertain the most common color or colors contained in the selected still image 1202” in [0068].)
As to Claim 3, Noguchi in view of Kodimer and Furuya teaches The information processing apparatus according to Claim 1, further comprising a display configured to display a screen for accepting the target impression, wherein the target impression is accepted via the screen (Noguchi, Fig 8-9, 12, 17, 20.)
As to Claim 4, Noguchi in view of Kodimer and Furuya teaches The information processing apparatus according to Claim 1, wherein the poster image is created such that a difference between an impression of the poster image and a target impression is smaller than or equal to a predetermined threshold value (Noguchi discloses “correcting the target image to be close to the designated impression is disclosed” in [0003]; “An object of the invention is to provide a technique capable of obtaining a composite image having a user's desired impression” in [0005]; “Since the impression of the composite target image 50 and the impression of the first mount image 51 are the same, it is considered that the first composite image Sy1 that is close to a user's preference is obtained” in [0069]. Furuya further discloses “synthesis candidate images and background images, having a small difference between an impression value of one synthesis candidate image among the plurality of synthesis candidate images and an impression value of one background image among the plurality of background images, is equal to or greater than a threshold value may be determined by the CPU” in [0087].)
As to Claim 5, Noguchi in view of Kodimer and Furuya teaches The information processing apparatus according to Claim 1, wherein when the memory is executed by the at least one processor, further causes the at least one processor to acquire a character, wherein the poster image is created based on the image, the character, and the target impression (Noguchi discloses background image with text in Fig 24-25, see also [0018, 0116].)
As to Claim 6, Noguchi in view of Kodimer and Furuya teaches The information processing apparatus according to Claim 1, wherein the poster image is created by changing a position of one or more of the image, a character, and a graphic included in the poster based on the target impression (Noguchi discloses “In this case, such a discriminator extracts feature values from the colors, the textures, the imaging locations, and the subjects in the images, and performs learning for associating the feature values extracted from the images with the impression values” in [0053].)
Claim 7 recites similar limitations as claim 1 but in a method form. Therefore, the same rationale used for claim 1 is applied.
Claim 8 is rejected based upon similar rationale as Claim 2.
Claim 9 is rejected based upon similar rationale as Claim 3.
Claim 10 is rejected based upon similar rationale as Claim 4.
Claim 11 is rejected based upon similar rationale as Claim 5.
Claim 12 is rejected based upon similar rationale as Claim 6.
Claim 13 recites similar limitations as claim 1 but in a computer readable storage medium form. Therefore, the same rationale used for claim 1 is applied.
Claim 14 is rejected based upon similar rationale as Claim 1.
Claim 15 is rejected based upon similar rationale as Claim 1.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to WEIMING HE whose telephone number is (571)270-1221. The examiner can normally be reached on Monday-Friday, 8:30am-5:00pm.
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, Tammy Goddard can be reached on 571-272-7773. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see https://ppair-my.uspto.gov/pair/PrivatePair. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/WEIMING HE/
Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2611
Prosecution Insights