DETAILED ACTION
Notice of AIA Status
1. The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Response to Arguments
2. Applicant’s remarks received on 02/11/2026 with respect to the amended independent claims have been acknowledged and are moot in view of a new ground of rejection necessitated by the corresponding amendment. Currently claims 1-12 are rejected.
Response to Amendment
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
3.. 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.
41066.. Claims 1, 3-6, and 9-11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Suzuki et al (EP Pub: 0784294) and in further view of Hossepian (US Patent: 10,185,525) and Doll et al (US Pub: 2013/0024757).
Regarding claim 1 (currently amended), Suzuki et al teaches: An image processing apparatus comprising: a generation unit that generates image data for printing in which a plurality of images included in a plurality of print jobs are arranged in a print area of a sheet [p0035 (Each frame associated with an ID number is a job.)]; and a size adjustment unit that performs size adjustment on an image to be placed in the print area [p0191, figs 34], wherein in a case in which the generation unit generates the image data for printing in which the plurality of images are arranged in order in a specified direction, the size adjustment unit performs the size adjustment on an image to be placed such that the size of the image to be placed is within the size of a blank area located in the specified direction relative to an image placed immediately beforehand [p0192, p0193f, figs. 36].
Suzuki et al arrange multiple frames of a film in a print area of a sheet. In the same field of endeavor, Hossepian teaches: a plurality of images included in a plurality of print jobs are arranged in a print area of a sheet [col 4: lines 20-24]. Therefore, it would have been obvious for an ordinary skilled in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the teaching of the two to arrange images of multiple jobs in a print area of a sheet for flexible layout arrangement.
Suzuki et al in view of Hossepian does not explicitly perform size adjustment based on a predetermined setting. In the same field of endeavor, Doll et al teaches: a setting unit with which, for each of the plurality of images, a size adjustment range relative to an original image size of the image is set and the size adjustment unit performs the size adjustment on an image to be placed, within the size adjustment range set by the setting unit [abstract, p0036, p0037]. Therefore, it would have been obvious for an ordinary skilled in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the teaching of all to individually adjust each image size based on its size constraint in order to fit them in a page without sacrifice image quality.
Regarding claim 3 (original), the rationale applied to the rejection of claim 1 has been incorporate herein. Suzuki et al further teaches: The image processing apparatus according to claim 1, wherein the size adjustment is resizing an image or cutting out part of an image [p0191].
Regarding claim 4 (currently amended), the rationale applied to the rejection of claim 1 has been incorporated herein. Suzuki et al further teaches: The image processing apparatus according to claim 1, wherein the size adjustment unit performs the size adjustment on the plurality of images within the size adjustment ranges [p0191-p0193].
Regarding claim 5 (original), the rationale applied to the rejection of claim 4 has been incorporated herein. Suzuki et al further teaches: The image processing apparatus according to claim 4, wherein the size adjustment range is specified out of standard sheet sizes of the sheet [p0099, p0147].
Regarding claim 6 (currently amended), the rationale applied to the rejection of claim 1 has been incorporated herein. Suzuki et al teaches: The image processing apparatus according to claim 1, wherein the size adjustment unit includes a calculation unit that calculates the size of the blank area in the print area by using the size of the print area and the sizes of the images placed in the print area, and the size adjustment unit performs the size adjustment according to the size of the blank area calculated by the calculation unit [p0191, p0202, p0203].
Claim 9 (currently amended) has been analyzed and rejected with regard to claim 1 and in accordance with Hossepian‘s further teaching: An image forming apparatus comprising: a reception unit that receives a print job; and a print unit that prints images based on the image data for printing onto the sheet [col 7: lines 15-24].
Claim 10 (currently amended) has been analyzed and rejected with regard to claim 1.
Claim 11 (currently amended) has been analyzed and rejected with regard to claim 11 and in accordance with Hossepian’s further teaching on: A non-transitory computer readable storage medium storing a program that causes a computer to execute an image processing method [col 8: lines 50-60].
51066.. Claim 2 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Suzuki et al (EP Pub: 0784294), Hossepian (US Patent: 10,185,525), and Doll et al (US Pub: 2013/0024757); and in further view of Ujike (US Pub: 2016/0231966).
Regarding claim 2 (currently amended), the rationale applied to the rejection of claim 1 has been incorporated herein. Suzuki et al in view of Hossepian and Doll et al does not specify roll paper explicitly. In the same field of endeavor, Ujike teaches: The image processing apparatus according to claim 1, wherein the sheet is roll paper, and wherein the specified direction is perpendicular to a conveyance direction of the sheet [figs.10 and 11]. Therefore, the combined teaching of all would have made horizontal frame/image layout on a roll of sheets conveyed vertically obvious to a skilled in the art.
61066.. Claims 7 and 8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Suzuki et al (EP Pub: 0784294), Hossepian (US Patent: 10,185,525), and Doll et al (US Pub: 2013/0024757); and in further view of Hilt (US Pub: 2014/0307980).
Regarding claim 7 (original), the rationale applied to the rejection of claim 1 has been incorporated herein. Suzuki et al further teaches: The image processing apparatus according to claim 1, wherein in a case in which even if the size adjustment is performed on the image to be placed, the size of the image to be placed subjected to the size adjustment is not within the size of the blank area, the size adjustment unit performs the size adjustment on an image placed in the print area such that the size of the image to be placed is within the size of the blank area [p0218, p0219].
For a redundant teaching in the same field of endeavor, Hilt further teaches size adjustment performed on the image to be placed as well as the image placed to make fit [p0033, p0034]. Therefore, it would have been obvious for an ordinary skilled in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the teaching of all to resize image placed and image to be place for making them fit better.
Regarding claim 8 (currently amended), the rationale applied to the rejection of claim 7 has been incorporated herein. Hilt further teaches: The image processing apparatus according to claim 7, wherein the size adjustment unit performs the size adjustment according to one of: (1) a precedence priority setting in which the size adjustment is performed in order from an image placed later out of the images placed in the print area, (2) an equal width setting in which lengths in the specified direction of the images placed in the print area are set equal to one another, and (3) an equal ratio setting in which resizing ratios in the specified direction of the images placed in the print area are set equal to one another [p0034, figs. 5C and 5D (Length in horizontal direction of image 1 is equal to that of image 4. Images 1 and 4 have equal ratio.)].
71066.. Claim 12 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Suzuki et al (EP Pub: 0784294), Hossepian (US Patent: 10,185,525), and Doll et al (US Pub: 2013/0024757); and in further view of Williams et al (US Pub: 2011/0035702).
Regarding 12 (new), the rationale applied to the rejection of claim 1 has been incorporated herein. Suzuki et al in view of Hossepian and Doll et al does not provide a specific example on adjusting image size from the first percentage to a second percentage. In the same field of endeavor, Williams et al teaches: The image processing apparatus according to claim 1, wherein the size adjustment range relative to an original image size of the image extends from a first percentage relative to the original image size to a second percentage relative to the original image size, the second percentage being greater than the first percentage [fig. 6]. Therefore, it would have been obvious for an ordinary skilled in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the teaching of all to adjust each image size from one percentage to next percentage for desired output effect.
Conclusion
8. There is a new ground of rejection necessitated by the corresponding amendment presented in this Office Action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP 706.07(a).
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 extension fee 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.
Contact
9. Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to FAN ZHANG whose telephone number is (571)270-3751. The examiner can normally be reached on Mon-Fri 9:00-5:00.
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, Benny Tieu can be reached on 571-272-7490. 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 http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. 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.
/Fan Zhang/
Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2682
Prosecution Insights