DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Response to Amendment
The amendment filed on January 7, 2026 cancelled claim 3. Claims 1-2 and 4-12 were amended and new claims 13-17 were added. Thus, the currently pending claims addressed below are claims 1-2 and 4-17.
Claim Interpretation
The following terms have been interpreted in light of the applicant’s specification:
a second reception unit: a software component for receiving brand information (Based on Figure 5 and paragraphs 79, 87-91, 93 and 113).
Claim Objections
Claim 4 is objected to because of the following informalities: Claim 4 recites “wherein the design similarity degree…”. However, claim 1, from which claim 4 depends does note recite a design similarity degree. As such, the claimed “the similarity degree” lacks proper antecedent basis to the similarity. For the purpose of prosecuting the claim the examiner is going to interpret claim 4 as if it recited “wherein the similarity is a design similarity degree…”. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim 5 is objected to because of the following informalities: Claim 5 recites “set, as a target impression, an estimated impression value of an image selected from among a plurality of images with different target impression that are displayed”. However, claim 1, from which claim 5 depends, already recites set a target impression value of an image. As such, the claimed a target impression value of an image lacks proper antecedent basis to the previously claimed set a target impression of an image. Furthermore, the setting of the target impression occurs before the generating of the first images and second images. As such, the claimed a plurality of different images cannot be referring to the first images or second images. The previously claimed an image was a single image and not displayed. As such, the previously claimed image is not “of a plurality of images with different target impression that are displayed”. Therefore, both the claimed “set, as a target impression” and the claimed “an image selected from among a plurality of images with different target impression that are displayed” both lack proper antecedent basis For the purpose of prosecuting the claim the examiner is going to interpret claim 5 as if it recited “set, as the target impression of the image, an estimated impression value”. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim 7 is objected to because of the following informalities: Claim 7 recites “wherein a design similarity degree…”. However, claims 1, from which claim 7 depends, already recites calculating a similarity. As such, the claimed a similarity degree lacks proper antecedent basis to the previously claimed similarity. For the purpose of prosecuting the claim the examiner is going to interpret claim 7 as if it recited “wherein the similarity is a design similarity degree…”. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim 8 is objected to because of the following informalities: Claim 8 recites “wherein at least one of a logo, coloration, a font, and a pattern is identical as the design element included in the first image and a design element included in the second image”. However, claims 1 and 5-7, from which claim 8 depends, do not recite “a design element included in the first image”, nor does it recite a first image or a second image. Instead, it recites “first images”, “second images, “one of the first images”, and “one of the second images”, and “a design element included in the first images”. As such, the claimed “the design element in the first image”, as well as the claimed “”the first image” and the claimed “the second image” all lacks proper antecedent basis.. For the purpose of prosecuting the claim the examiner is going to interpret claim 8 as if it recited “wherein the design element included in the first images is identical to a second design element included in the second images, wherein the design element and the second design element is at least one of a logo, coloration, a font, and a pattern. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim 10 is objected to because of the following informalities: Claim 10 recites “a value of the threshold value of design similarity degree”. However, claim 7, from which claim 10 depends, already recites a predetermined threshold value. As such, the claimed a value of the threshold value lacks proper antecedent basis to the previously claimed a predetermined threshold value. For the purpose of prosecuting the claim the examiner is going to interpret claim 10 as if it recited “change the predetermined threshold value based on the reflection degree”. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim 13 is objected to because of the following informalities: Claim 13, depends from claim 1, and recites “that are determined to be displayed”. However, claim 1, never previously recited determining to display. Instead, claim 1 recites “cause a display of the information processing apparatus to display the one of the first images and the one of the second images”. As such, “that are determined to be displayed” lacks proper antecedent basis. For the purpose of prosecuting the claim the examiner is going to interpret claim 13 as if it recited “wherein the instructions further cause the information processing apparatus to receive a print instruction to print the one of the first image and the one of the second image that are displayed”. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim 15 is objected to because of the following informalities: Claim 15, depends from claim 1, and recites “display a slider bar for setting the target impression by the user”. However, claim 1 has already indicated that the target impression is set by the apparatus. As such, “display a slider bar for setting the target impression by the user” lacks proper antecedent basis. For the purpose of prosecuting the claim the examiner is going to interpret claim 15 as if it recited “wherein the setting of the target impression is performed by receiving user input specifying the target impression, wherein the user specifies the target impression by manipulating a slider bar displayed on the display”. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim 16 is objected to because of the following informalities: Claim 16, depends from claim 1, and recites “wherein the one of the first images is generated based on the set coloration pattern”. However, claim 1 generates all of the first images, including the one of the first images based on the set target impression. As such, “the one of the first images is generated based on the set coloration pattern” lacks proper antecedent basis. For the purpose of prosecuting the claim the examiner is going to interpret claim 16 as if it recited “wherein the generating of the first images is further based on the set coloration pattern”. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim 17 is objected to because of the following informalities: Claim 17, depends from claim 1, and recites “wherein the target impression is set based on the setting values of the plurality of setting items”. However, claim 1 already recites “set a targeted impression of an image”. As such, ““wherein the target impression is set based on the setting values of the plurality of setting items”” lacks proper antecedent basis. For the purpose of prosecuting the claim the examiner is going to interpret claim 17 as if it recited ““wherein the setting of the target impression is based on the setting values of the plurality of setting items””. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101
35 U.S.C. 101 reads as follows:
Whoever invents or discovers any new and useful process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter, or any new and useful improvement thereof, may obtain a patent therefor, subject to the conditions and requirements of this title.
Claims 1-2 and 4-17 are directed to an apparatus, a method and a computer program product which would be classified under one of the listed statutory classifications (i.e., 2019 Revised Patent Subject Matter Eligibility Guidance (hereinafter “PEG”) “PEG” Step 1=Yes).
However, claims 1-2 and 4-17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more. The claim(s) 1, 11, and 12 recite(s) the following abstract idea:
set a target impression of an image;
generate, based on the set target impression, first images;
generate, based on the set target impression, second images, wherein a type of the second images is different from a type of the first images;
calculate a similarity between one of the first mages and one of the second images;
receive an estimated impression of the one of the first images;
receive an estimated impression of the one of the second images;
calculated a difference between the estimated impression of the one of the first images and the set target impression;
calculated a difference between the estimated impression of the one of the second images and the set target impression, and
display the one of the first images and the one of the second images based on the difference between an estimated impression of the one of the first images and the set target impression, difference between an estimated impression of the one of the second images and the set target impression, and the calculated similarity.
The limitations as detailed above, as drafted, falls within the “Certain Method of Organizing Human Activity” grouping of abstract ideas namely commercial or legal interactions because they recite advertising, marketing and sales activities or behaviors. Accordingly, the claim recites an abstract idea (i.e. “PEG” Revised Step 2A Prong One=Yes).
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application because the claim only recites the additional elements of a computer with one or more processors, one or more memories and a display executing software (e.g., a second reception unit) which is a general-purpose computer which is merely being used as a tool to apply the abstract idea.
The following limitations, if removed from the abstract idea and considered additional elements, merely perform generic computer function of processing, storing, communicating (e.g., transmitting and receiving), and displaying data and, as such, are insignificant extra-solution activities (see MPEP 2016.05(d)(II) and MPEP 2106.05(g)):
receive an estimated impression of the one of the first images (receiving data);
receive an estimated impression of the one of the second images (receiving data); and
display the one of the first images and the one of the second images based on the difference between an estimated impression of the one of the first images and the set target impression, difference between an estimated impression of the one of the second images and the set target impression, and the calculated similarity (displaying data).
The additional technical elements above are recited at a high-level of generality (i.e., as a generic processor and generic computer components performing a generic computers function of processing, communicating and displaying) such that it amounts to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using one or more general-purpose computers and generic computer components. The claim(s) does/do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because the additional technical elements above do not integrate the abstract idea/judicial exception into a practical application because it does not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. More specifically, the additional elements fail to include (1) improvements to the functioning of a computer or to any other technology or technical field (see MPEP 2106.05(a)), (2) applying or using a judicial exception to effect a particular treatment or prophylaxis for a disease or medical condition (see Vanda memo), (3) applying the judicial exception with, or by use of, a particular machine (see MPEP 2106.05(b)), (4) effecting a transformation or reduction of a particular article to a different state or thing (see MPEP 2106.05(c)), or (5) applying or using the judicial exception in some other meaningful way beyond generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment, such that the claim as a whole is more than a drafting effort designed to monopolize the exception (see MPEP 2106.05(e) and Vanda memo).
Rather, the limitations merely add the words “apply it” (or an equivalent) with the judicial exception, or mere instructions to implement an abstract idea on one or more computers, or merely uses computers as a tool to perform an abstract idea (see MPEP 2106.05(f)), or generally link the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use (see MPEP 2106.05(h)).
Thus, the claim is “directed to” an abstract idea (i.e. “PEG” Revised Step 2A Prong Two=Yes)
When considering Step 2B of the Alice/Mayo test, the claim(s) does/do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because the claims do not amount to significantly more than the abstract idea.
More specifically, as discussed above with respect to integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, the additional elements of using a computer with a display executing software (e.g., a first reception unit, a generation unit, a second reception unit) with graphical user interfaces (e.g., first display unit and second display unit) to perform the claimed functions amounts to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using one or more general-purpose computers and one or more generic computer component.
“Generic computer implementation” is insufficient to transform a patent-ineligible abstract idea into a patent-eligible invention (See Affinity Labs, _F.3d_, 120 U.S.P.Q.2d 1201 (Fed. Cir. 2016), citing Alice, 134 S. Ct. at 2352, 2357) and more generally, “simply appending conventional steps specified at a high level of generality” to an abstract idea does not make that idea patentable (See Affinity Labs, _F.3d_, 120 U.S.P.Q.2d 1201 (Fed. Cir. 2016), citing Mayo, 132 S. Ct. at 1300). Moreover, “the use of generic computer elements like a microprocessor or user interface do not alone transform an otherwise abstract idea into patent-eligible subject matter (See FairWarning, 120 U.S.P.Q.2d. 1293, citing DDR Holdings, LLC v. Hotels.com, L.P., 773 F.3d 1245, 1256 (Fed. Cir. 2014)). As such, the additional elements of the claim do not add a meaningful limitation to the abstract idea because they would be generic computer functions in any computer implementation. Thus, taken alone, the additional elements do not amount to significantly more than the above-identified judicial exception (the abstract idea). 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 the computer or improves any other technology. Their collective functions merely provide generic computer implementation.
The Examiner notes simply implementing an abstract concept on one or more computers, without meaningful limitations to that concept, does not transform a patent-ineligible claim into a patent-eligible one (See Accenture, 728 F.3d 1336, 108 U.S.P.Q.2d 1173 (Fed. Cir. 2013), citing Bancorp, 687 F.3d at 1280), limiting the application of an abstract idea to one field of use does not necessarily guard against preempting all uses of the abstract idea (See Accenture, 728 F.3d 1336, 108 U.S.P.Q.2d 1173 (Fed. Cir. 2013), citing Bilski, 130 S. Ct. at 3231), and further the prohibition against patenting an abstract principle “cannot be circumvented by attempting to limit the use of the [principle] to a particular technological environment” (See Accenture, 728 F.3d 1336, 108 U.S.P.Q.2d 1173 (Fed. Cir. 2013), citing Flook, 437 U.S. at 584), and finally merely limiting the field of use of the abstract idea to a particular existing technological environment does not render the claims any less abstract (See Affinity Labs, _F.3d_, 120 U.S.P.Q.2d 1201 (Fed. Cir. 2016), citing Alice, 134 S. Ct. at 2358; Mayo, 132 S. Ct. at 1294; Bilski v. Kappos, 561 U.S. 593, 612 (2010); Content Extraction & Transmission LLC v. Wells Fargo Bank, Nat’l Ass’n, 776 F.3d 1343, 1348 (Fed. Cir. 2014); buySAFE, Inc. v. Google, Inc., 765 F.3d 1350, 1355 (Fed. Cir. 2014).
Applicant herein only requires one or more general-purpose computer and generic computer components (as evidenced from paragraphs 40-41, 52-54, 79, 95, 139, 193, 213 and 215; as well as figures 1-2, 5-6, 12 and 17 of the applicant’s specification, as well as Usability.gov, User Interface Elements, July 8, 2013, https://web.archive.org/web/20130708215553/http://www.usability.gov:80/how-to-and-tools/methods/user-interface-elements.html, pages 1-6 which discloses that slider bars are generic user interface elements that were well-understood, routine, and conventional by at least 2013); therefore, there does not appear to be any alteration or modification to the generic activities indicated, and they are also therefore recognized as insignificant activity with respect to eligibility. Finally, the following limitations, if removed from the abstract idea and considered additional elements, would be considered insignificant extra solution activity as they are directed to merely receiving, displaying, storing, and/or transmitting data (see MPEP 2016.05(d)(II) and MPEP 2106.05(g)):
receive an estimated impression of the one of the first images (receiving data);
receive an estimated impression of the one of the second images (receiving data); and
display the one of the first images and the one of the second images based on the difference between an estimated impression of the one of the first images and the set target impression, difference between an estimated impression of the one of the second images and the set target impression, and the calculated similarity (displaying data).
Thus, taken individually and in combination, the additional elements do not amount to significantly more than the above-identified judicial exception (the abstract idea) (i.e., “PEG” Step 2B=No).
The dependent claims 2, 4-10 and 13-17 appear to merely further limit the abstract idea by adding an additional step of receiving designation of a design element which is considered part of the abstract idea (Claim 2); further limits the similarity which is considered part of the abstract idea (Claim 4); further limits the setting of the target impression which is considered part of the abstract idea (Claim 5); further limiting the second images which is considered part of the abstract idea (Claim 6); further limiting the similarity which is considered part of the abstract idea (Claim 7); further limiting the one of the first images and the one of the second images which is considered part of the abstract idea (Claim 8); adding the additional steps of receiving a reflection degree and generating a promotional material based on the reflection degree which are both considered part of the abstract idea, and adding an “additional element” of a second reception unit which is merely software that has already been addressed in the above rejection (Claim 9); adding an additional step of changing the threshold value which is considered part of the abstract idea (Claim 10), adding an additional step of receiving a printed instruction which is considered part of the abstract idea (Claim 13); adding the additional steps of quantifying the estimated impression and the target impression and calculating a distance which are all considered part of the abstract idea (Claim 14), adding an additional element of a slider bar which is a generic user interface element, and displaying the slider bar which is considered part of the abstract idea (Claim 15); adds an additional step of setting a coloration pattern which is considered part of the abstract idea (Claim 16); and adding an additional step of receiving an input of setting values, and further limiting the setting of the target impression which are both considered part of the abstract idea (Claim 17) , and therefore only further limit the abstract idea (i.e. “PEG” Revised Step 2A Prong One=Yes), does/do not include any new additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception, and as such are “directed to” said abstract idea (i.e. “PEG” Step 2A Prong Two=Yes); and do not add significantly more than the idea (i.e. “PEG” Step 2B=No)..
Thus, based on the detailed analysis above, claims 1-2 and 4-17 are not patent eligible.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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 the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claim(s) 1-2, 4-6, 11-12, 14 and 16-17 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Marthon et. al. (US Patent: 10,957,086).
Claims 1, 11, and 12. Marthon discloses an information processing apparatus, a control method, and a non-transitory computer-readable storage medium storing computer-executable instructions that, when executed by a computer, cause the computer to perform a control method, comprising:
one or more processors; and one or more memories storing instructions that, when executed by the one or more processors (Column 23, line 62 through Column 24, line 28), cause the information processing apparatus to:
set a target impression of an image (Column 4, lines 45-59: the data segmenter receives a content record from a user, the content record may include brand guidelines (target impression), to facilitate the delivery of a consistent brand message and experience, that specify a set of regulations to apply to any communication and visuals sent forward by an enterprise such as a tone of voice in digital text, a font size, and the like; the content record may also include design elements for visual and digital content creation corresponding to a brand guideline; Column 4, lines 45-59: the data segmenter receives content creation requirements (target impression) from a user, wherein the content creation requirements, wherein the content creation requirements may be related to an automated assessment of various factors such as visual saliency features, media content creation rules, domain knowledge from a skilled expert, brand identity augmenting features, digital text curation requirements and the like for facilitating the creation of design mocks ups for experimenting, and selecting advertising design concepts that may effectively and efficiently adhere to brand identity regulations and attract a wider client base; Column 5, line 13 through Column 6, line 24: the data segmenter identifies a plurality of content creation attributes based on the content creation requirements and classifies the content record into a plurality of exhibits where each of the exhibits comprise one or more of a display trait from the content record, a set of regulations for visual and content creation corresponding to brand guidelines, which logo to use and allowed variations for each type of communication and context, different space alignments between the design elements, authorized colors for background, texts, images, and the like, authorized elements in images, images color balance, and rules around sensitive content, conditions for various fonts that may be used for different communications and contexts, and a distinguishing characteristic such as a display trait that may impact the morphology of the digital and visual content created therefrom; Column 6, lines 25-51: the data analyzer identifies a plurality of rules from the rule record, wherein the rules are associated with processing the content creation requirements, wherein the rules may include directions for color selection, color combinations, positioning, and alignment of various design elements for visual and digital content creation. Additionally, the rules may define margins, optimize readability, define which elements may be appropriately used together in conjunction);
generate, based on the set target impression, first images (Column 4, lines 45-59: the content creation requirements are used for facilitating the creation of design mocks ups for experimenting, and selecting advertising design concepts that may effectively and efficiently adhere to brand identity regulations and attract a wider client base; Column 5, line 13 through Column 6, line 24: the data segmenter classifies the content record into a plurality of exhibits where each of the exhibits comprise one or more of a display trait from the content record, a set of regulations for visual and content creation corresponding to brand guidelines, which logo to use and allowed variations for each type of communication and context, different space alignments between the design elements, authorized colors for background, texts, images, and the like, authorized elements in images, images color balance, and rules around sensitive content, conditions for various fonts that may be used for different communications and contexts, and a distinguishing characteristic such as a display trait that may impact the morphology of the digital and visual content created therefrom; Column 6, line 48 through Column 8, line 46 : the modeler creates a plurality of content models, wherein each of the content models is evaluated for congruence with the plurality of rules and the content creation attributes by determining an evaluation score (design similarity degree) for each of the content models; the modeler than selects multiple content models having respective evaluation scores above a threshold evaluation score; and initiates a content creation action based on the selected content models; the modeler assembles various design elements such as logos, text and digital content in different combinations such as with different font styles, different color combinations, different text alignments; the modeler then evaluates each of the content models for congruence with the plurality of rules and the content creation attributes to determine the evaluation score (the similarity score));
generate, based on the set target impression, second images, wherein a type of the second images is different from a type of the first images (Column 4, lines 45-59: the content creation requirements are used for facilitating the creation of design mocks ups for experimenting, and selecting advertising design concepts that may effectively and efficiently adhere to brand identity regulations and attract a wider client base; Column 5, line 13 through Column 6, line 24: the data segmenter classifies the content record into a plurality of exhibits where each of the exhibits comprise one or more of a display trait from the content record, a set of regulations for visual and content creation corresponding to brand guidelines, which logo to use and allowed variations for each type of communication and context, different space alignments between the design elements, authorized colors for background, texts, images, and the like, authorized elements in images, images color balance, and rules around sensitive content, conditions for various fonts that may be used for different communications and contexts, and a distinguishing characteristic such as a display trait that may impact the morphology of the digital and visual content created therefrom; Column 6, line 48 through Column 8, line 46 : the modeler creates a plurality of content models, wherein each of the content models is evaluated for congruence with the plurality of rules and the content creation attributes by determining an evaluation score (design similarity degree) for each of the content models; the modeler than selects multiple content models having respective evaluation scores above a threshold evaluation score; and initiates a content creation action based on the selected content models; the modeler assembles various design elements such as logos, text and digital content in different combinations such as with different font styles, different color combinations, different text alignments; the modeler then evaluates each of the content models for congruence with the plurality of rules and the content creation attributes to determine the evaluation score (the similarity score));
calculate a similarity between one of the first images and one of the second images (Column 6, line 48 through Column 8, line 46 : each of the content models is evaluated for congruence with the plurality of rules and the content creation attributes by determining an evaluation score (design similarity degree) for each of the content models; the modeler than selects multiple content models having respective evaluation scores above a threshold evaluation score; and initiates a content creation action based on the selected content models); and
cause a display of the information processing apparatus to display the one of the first images and the one of the second images based on: a difference between an estimated impression of the one of the first images and the set target impression, a difference between an estimated impression of the one of the second images and the set target impression, and the calculated similarity (Column 6, line 48 through Column 8, line 46 : the modeler than selects multiple content models having respective evaluation scores above a threshold evaluation score; and initiates a content creation action based on the selected content models; (Column 15, lines 54-65; Column 19, lines 40-48; and Column 20 lines 12-30: the user component includes a results component which displays the output from the design selection component to a user through a user interface; Column 15, lines 9-28: the user may input the threshold evaluation score (estimated impression value) or input evaluation parameters (estimated impression values) indicative of visual saliency and the modeler can determine the threshold evaluation score based on the evaluation parameters).
Claim 2: Marthon discloses the information processing apparatus according to claim 1, wherein the instructions further cause the information processing apparatus to: receive, by a second reception unit and from a user, designation of a design element to be included in the first images and the second images. (Column 4, lines 45-59: the data segmenter may obtain a content record from a plurality of sources, the content record may include design elements for content creation corresponding to a brand guideline; Column 15, line 54 through Column 16, line 19; Column 16, line 53 through Column 17, line 53: a user component may include an interface for interaction with the system, wherein the user component may include an input component and a priority parameter component that are provided as input to the system; an organization component may include an interface for feeding a brand guideline set such as the content record and the rule record to the system)
Claim 4: Marthon discloses the information processing apparatus according to claim 1, wherein the design similarity degree is determined based on at least one of a logo, coloration, a font, and a pattern included in the one of the first images and the one of the second images. (Column 6, line 65 through Column 8, line 12: the modeler assembles various design elements such as logos, text and digital content in different combinations such as with different font styles, different color combinations, different text alignments; the modeler then evaluates each of the content models for congruence with the plurality of rules and the content creation attributes to determine the evaluation score (the similarity score))
Claim 5: Marthon discloses the information processing apparatus according to claim 1, wherein the instruction further cause the information processing apparatus to: set, as the target impression, an estimated impression value of the image selected from among a plurality of images with different target impressions that are displayed. (Column 15, lines 54-65; Column 19, lines 40-48; and Column 20 lines 12-30: the user component includes a results component which displays the output from the design selection component to a user through a user interface; Column 15, lines 9-28: the user may input the threshold evaluation score (estimated impression value) or input evaluation parameters (estimated impression values) indicative of visual saliency and the modeler can determine the threshold evaluation score based on the evaluation parameters)
Claim 6: Marthon discloses the information processing apparatus according to claim 5, wherein the second images are generated based on a design element included in the first images. (Column 7, lines 16-23: the modeler may gather design elements of an initial design and adjust various positional elements, dimensions, colors, effects and the like to generate variations of a design or layout
Claim 14: Marthon discloses the information processing apparatus according to claim 1, wherein the instructions further cause the information processing apparatus to: quantify the estimated impression of the one of the first images and the target impression into numerical values, and, based on the numerical values of the estimated impression, calculate a distance between the estimated impression of the one of the first images and the target impression. (Column 6, line 48 through Column 8, line 46 : the modeler creates a plurality of content models, wherein each of the content models is evaluated for congruence with the plurality of rules and the content creation attributes by determining an evaluation score (design similarity degree) for each of the content models; the modeler than selects multiple content models having respective evaluation scores above a threshold evaluation score; and initiates a content creation action based on the selected content models; the modeler assembles various design elements such as logos, text and digital content in different combinations such as with different font styles, different color combinations, different text alignments; the modeler then evaluates each of the content models for congruence with the plurality of rules and the content creation attributes to determine the evaluation score (the similarity score); Column 19, lines 18-23: the design selection component may select a content model having the evaluation score above the threshold evaluation score; the design selection component may select from all the generated designs the one with the best visual impact and with the closest value (e.g., a distance) to the ones provided by the rules Column 25, line 33-42: each of the plurality of content models may be evaluated for congruence with the plurality of rules and the content creation attributes, based on the evaluation, the evaluation score may be determined for each of the plurality of content models, content model may be selected from amongst the plurality of content models having a respective evaluation score above a threshold evaluation score)
Claim 16: Marthon discloses the information processing apparatus according to claim 1, wherein the instructions further cause the information processing apparatus to: based on the set target impression, set a coloration pattern, wherein the one of the first images is generated based on the set coloration pattern. (Column 10, lines 15 through Column 11, line 49: The text parsing algorithm may parse the text document to extract guidelines such as a set of fonts to use, a set of logos to use in various situations, a set of colors representing a brand, a space alignment with respect to various design elements; extracted information includes font colors, content creation attributes stipulate types of images and image background colors; the rules may indicate preferred design elements such as an alignment between elements, a space alignment between elements, restriction on a minimum and maximal font size, constraints pertaining to composition of element combinations, color combinations, and the like; rules may, for example, provide a set of appropriate color combinations for each of the logo variations present in the exhibits; the rules are used to create the content models);
Claim 17: Marthon discloses the information processing apparatus according to claim 1, wherein the instructions further cause the information processing apparatus to: receive an input of setting values of a plurality of setting items, wherein the target impression is set based on the setting values of the plurality of setting items. (Column 6, lines 25-51: the data analyzer identifies a plurality of rules from the rule record, the rule record may include design inputs provided by a user; wherein the rules are associated with processing the content creation requirements, wherein the rules may include directions for color selection, color combinations, positioning, and alignment of various design elements for visual and digital content creation; additionally, the rules may define margins, optimize readability, define which elements may be appropriately used together in conjunction; Column 16, line 53 through Column 17, line 34: the priority parameter component provides an interface whether the user may select various priority parameters used in the creation and evaluation of the content models include the setting of values)
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) 7-10 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Marthon et. al. (US Patent: 10,957,086) in view of Vergnaud et al. (PGPUB: 2019/0370282).
Claim 7. The information processing apparatus according to claim 6, wherein a design similarity degree between the one of the first images and the one of the second images is smaller than a predetermined threshold value.
Marthon as cited above discloses the information processing apparatus according to claim 6, wherein a design similarity degree between the one of the first images and the one of the second images is smaller is greater than a predetermined threshold value. This indicates that one of the first images has a higher than a threshold similarity to the one of the second images. The same determination can be made based on differences between the two images being less than a threshold similarity value.
However, Marthon does not specifically state using the differences in this manner and, as such, Marthon does not disclose wherein a design similarity degree between the one of the first images and the one of the second images is smaller than a predetermined threshold value.
The analogous art of Vergnaud discloses that it is known to quantify a degree of similarity between two digital assets based on a distance value between the assets being less than a threshold value in at least paragraph 66 and 146.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the invention, to modify the invention of Marthon to use a similarity score based on the distance between the promotional material, wherein a design similarity degree between the one of the first images and the one of the second images is smaller than a predetermined threshold value as disclosed by Vergnaud.
The rationale for doing so is that it would be obvious to try as there are a limited number of ways to quantify the similarity degree based on a threshold. One such predictable way is to quantify that the similarities are greater than a threshold amount and another such predictable way is to quantify that the differences between them are less than a threshold amount.
Claim 8. Marthon and Vergnaud disclose the information processing apparatus according to claim 7, wherein at least one of a logo, coloration, a font, and a pattern is identical as the design element included in the first promotional material and a design element included in the second promotional material. (Marthon - Column 21, lines 12-31; Column 11, lines 24-46 and Figure 11: the user can use the user interface to designate various design elements such as a logo that is required to be present in the content models)
Claim 9. Marthon and Vergnaud disclose the information processing apparatus according to claim 7, wherein a second reception unit further receives a reflection degree, and wherein the generation unit generates a promotional material based on the reflection degree. (Marthon - Column 17, lines 1-24: the user may select various priority parameters (reflection degree) to be included in the creation and evaluation of content models; Column 12, lines 32-45: the modeler may evaluate the content models by providing a score to each content model based on content creation attributes, wherein the content creation attributes include the priority parameters (reflection degree) that may be given precedence for creating the media content
Claim 10. Marthon and Vergnaud disclose the information processing apparatus according to claim 9, wherein the generation unit change changes a value of the threshold value of design similarity degree based on the reflection degree.( Marthon - Column 8, lines 23-34: the modeler may modify the threshold evaluation score based on at least one of an updated content creation attribute and an updated rule; Column 12, lines 32-45: the modeler may evaluate the content models by providing a score to each content model based on content creation attributes, wherein the content creation attributes include the priority parameters (reflection degree) that may be given precedence for creating the media content)
Claim(s) 13 and 15 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Marthon et. al. (US Patent: 10,957,086) in view of Tao (PGPUB: 2019/0325626).
Claims 13 and 15: The information processing apparatus according to claim 1, wherein the instructions further cause the information processing apparatus to receive a print instruction to print the one of the first image and the one of the second image that are determined to be displayed, wherein the instructions further cause the information processing apparatus to: cause a display of the information processing apparatus to display a slider bar for setting the target impression by the user.
Marthon discloses the processing apparatus according to claim 1, wherein the instructions further cause the information processing apparatus to receive a export instruction to export the one of the first image and the one of the second image that are determined to be displayed in at least Column 15, lines 54-65; Column 19, lines 40-48; and Column 20 lines 12-30 (the user component may include the results component; the results component may display the output from the design selection component to a user through a user interface where users may export the model layout (such as an image, a document, and the like) of the selected content model)
Marthon does not specifically state that the export instructions include print instructions to print the one of the first image and the one of the second image that are determined to be displayed, or that a slider bar is displayed for setting the target impression by the user.
However, the analogous art of Tao discloses that it is known to print one of the first image and the one of the second image that are determined to be displayed in at least paragraphs 51, 114, and 146, an that it is known to include one or more slider bars for setting the target impression in at least paragraphs 162-169.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the invention, to modify the invention of Marthon to include print instructions to print the one of the first image and the one of the second image that are determined to be displayed, and a slider bar is displayed for setting the target impression by the user as disclosed by Tao.
The rationale for doing so is that it would be obvious to try as it merely requires choosing from a finite number of known methods of exporting displayed images and a finite number of generic user interface elements for obtaining user input each of which given their generic nature, one of ordinary skill in the art could have pursued with a reasonable expectation of success.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed January 7, 2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
The applicant argues with respect to the 35 USC 101 rejection that the claims do not recite an abstract idea under Step 2a, Prong 1 because the claims recite no formulas, calculations, or mathematical relationships and as such do not recite a Mathematical Concept. This argument is moot as the examiner has not indicated that the claims recited a Mathematical Concept. Instead, the examiner has indicated that the claims recite “Certain Method of Organizing Human Activity” grouping of abstract ideas namely commercial or legal interactions because they recite advertising, marketing and sales activities or behaviors. Thus, the rejections have been maintained.
The applicant argues with respect to the 35 USC 101 rejection that the claims do not recite an abstract idea under Step 2a, Prong 1 because the claims recite steps that cannot be performed in the human mind. This argument is moot as the examiner has not indicated that the claims recited a Mental Process. Instead, the examiner has indicated that the claims recite “Certain Method of Organizing Human Activity” grouping of abstract ideas namely commercial or legal interactions because they recite advertising, marketing and sales activities or behaviors. Thus, the rejections have been maintained.
The applicant argues with respect to the 35 USC 101 rejection that the claims do not recite an abstract idea under Step 2a, Prong 1 because the claims recite no commercial, social, legal, or behavioral interactions and as such do not recite a “Certain Method of Organizing Human Activity”. The examiner disagrees. First, 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 does not recite “Certain Method of Organizing Human Activity” grouping of abstract ideas namely commercial or legal interactions because they recite advertising, marketing and sales activities or behaviors as identified by the examiner. Second, the claims clearly recite at least an advertising activity. The Merriam-Webster Online Dictionary defines advertising as “the action of calling something to the attention of the public especially by paid announcements”. Thus, the claims need only be generating images intended to call to the attention of the public to said images in order to be considered performing an advertising activity. The claims clearly perform the steps of setting a target impression of an image, generate images based on the target impression, and cause a display of the images. As made clear in at least paragraph 6 of the applicant’s specification, “The present disclosure is directed to appropriately generating a design representing an impression of a brand that is uniform and intended by the user, for a plurality of promotional material. Thus, the claims are clearly reciting an advertising activity. Attempting to broaden the claims to remove the term “promotional materials” and instead recite “images”, merely means that the claimed “images” is to interpreted broadly enough to encompass “promotional material”. As such, the applicant’s arguments are not convincing and the rejections have been maintained.
The applicant argues with respect to the 35 USC 101 rejection that the claims are integrated into a practical application under Step 2a, Prong 2 because the 2025 guidance emphasis analyzing how all limitation interact, how components work together, and whether the combination provides a specific technological improvement which the claim clearly do. The examiner disagrees. It appears the applicant is misconstruing both the 2025 Guidance and MPEP 2106 with regards to requirements under Step 2a, Prong 2 and Step 2b. According the MPEP 2106 and the 2025 Guidance, the examiner is to considered how the “additional elements”, both individually and as a whole, interact, the manner in which the additional elements work together, and whether the combination of “additional elements” provide a specific technological improvement. “Additional elements” are defined as those limitation or parts thereof that are outside of the abstract idea itself. In the instant case, the only “additional elements” in the claims are a computer with one or more processors, one or more memories and a display executing software (e.g., a second reception unit). Whether considered individually or as a whole amount to no more than a general-purpose computer upon which the abstract idea is merely being apply which is insufficient to transform an abstract idea into a practical application Under Step 2a, Prong 2. Thus, the rejections have been maintained.
The applicant argues with respect to the 35 USC 101 rejection that the claims are integrated into a practical application under Step 2a, Prong 2 because the 2025 guidance emphasis analyzing how all limitation interact, how components work together, and whether the combination provides a specific technological improvement which the claim clearly do. The examiner disagrees. It appears the applicant is misconstruing both the 2025 Guidance and MPEP 2106 with regards to requirements under Step 2a, Prong 2 and Step 2b. According the MPEP 2106 and the 2025 Guidance, the examiner is to considered how the “additional elements”, both individually and as a whole, interact, the manner in which the additional elements work together, and whether the combination of “additional elements” provide a specific technological improvement. “Additional elements” are defined as those limitation or parts thereof that are outside of the abstract idea itself. In the instant case, the only “additional elements” in the claims are a computer with one or more processors, one or more memories and a display executing software (e.g., a second reception unit). Whether considered individually or as a whole amount to no more than a general-purpose computer upon which the abstract idea is merely being apply which is insufficient to transform an abstract idea into a practical application Under Step 2a, Prong 2. Contrary to the applicant’s arguments, the claim do not change the computer comprising the processor and memory in any way. The computer, it’s processor, and it’s memory still perform in the manner in which they were intended, that is they are merely executing software instructions in the same way they were designed and, as such, the claim do not recited an improvement to the computer, the processor, or the memory. Any purported technological improvement is obtained by practicing the abstract idea itself which is merely being applied using the general-purpose computer. Improvements of this nature are improvement in ineligible subject matter (see SAP v. Investpic decision: Page 2, line 22 through Page 3, line 13 - Even assuming that the algorithms claimed are groundbreaking, innovative or even brilliant, the claims are ineligible because their innovation is an innovation in ineligible subject matter because they are nothing but a series of mathematical algorithms based on selected information and the presentation of the results of those algorithms. Thus, the advance lies entirely in the realm of abstract ideas, with no plausible alleged innovation in the non-abstract application realm. An advance of this nature is ineligible for patenting; and Page 10, lines 18-24 - Even if a process of collecting and analyzing information is limited to particular content, or a particular source, that limitations does not make the collection and analysis other than abstract.). Nothing in the 2025 Memo changed the way in which MPEP 2106 requires examiners to analyze claims under 35 USC 101. The 2025 Memo is merely a reminder of the processes outlined in MPEP 2106. The 2025 Memo reminds examiner to be sure not to identify “additional elements” of the claimed invention as part of the abstract idea itself. Instead, such “additional elements” need to be considered under Step 2a, Prong 2 and Step 2b. The 2025 Memo reminds examiners that “additional elements” are not to be oversimplified as merely telling a computer to apply an idea because the arrangement of such devices each performing different significant steps can result in a technological improvement (e.g., the claims of the BASCOM decision). There is no suggestion in the 2025 Memo that the abstract idea itself should be considered under Step 2a, Prong 2 and/or Step 2b. In fact, the meaning of the phrase “additional elements” precludes the inclusion of the abstract idea itself precludes the consideration of the argued limitation under Step 2a, Prong 2 and/or Step 2b because the argued limitations are merely the abstract idea itself being implemented (e.g., applied) using a general-purpose computer. Thus, any purported improvement obtained by practicing the claimed invention is an improvement rooted solely in the abstract idea itself which is merely applied using the general-purpose computer. Improvements of this nature are improvement to an abstract idea which is an improvement in ineligible subject matter. Thus, the rejections have been maintained.
The applicant argues with respect to the 35 USC 101 rejection that the claims recite “significantly more” than the abstract idea under Step 2b because the limitations that are part of the abstract idea itself are not well-understood, routine or conventional. The examiner strongly disagrees. As indicated in the response to argument above, it is the “additional elements” of a claim that must be considered “significantly more” than the abstract idea. “Additional elements” are defined as those limitation or parts thereof that are outside of the abstract idea itself. As such, it is immaterial under Step 2b, whether the limitations of the abstract idea are well-understood, routine or conventional. Under Step 2b, the examiner is to considered whether the “additional elements” of the claim are well-understood, routine or conventional. In the instant case the “additional elements” of the claim are merely a general-purpose computer with generic computer components which is insufficient to be considered significantly more under Step 2b. Thus, the applicant’s arguments are not convincing and the rejections have been maintained.
The applicant argues that the August 5, 2025 Memorandum instructs examiners that if it is a close call, a 101 rejection should not be made unless it is more likely than not that the claim is ineligible. The examiner notes that in the instant case, the claims clearly recite an abstract idea under Step 2a, Prong 1 and merely require applying said abstract idea using a general-purpose computer under Step 2a, Prong 2 and Step 2b. As such, the instant claims are more likely than not, if not clearly, ineligible. As made clear in MPEP 2106, merely applying an abstract idea using a general-purpose computer with generic computer component is insufficient to transform an abstract idea into a practical application under Step 2a, Prong 2 and insufficient to be considered “significantly more” under Step 2b. As such, nothing in the August 5, 2025 memorandum could lead one to believe such claims are patent eligible and the rejections have been maintained.
The applicant argues, with respect to the 35 USC 102 rejection, that Marthon does not disclose the claims as currently amended but provide no specific argument with regards to which limitations are not disclosed by Marthon, or provide a specific argument why the prior art of Marthon does not disclose such limitations. As such, the 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 overcome the prior art of record. Additionally, as clearly cited in the rejection above, each of the newly added limitations in the independent claims is taught by the prior art of Marthon. Thus, the rejections have been maintained.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure:
Sheth et al. (PGPUB 2020/0387937) which discloses a content compliance system that receives selected specific brand criteria displayed on a user interface; compares the selected brand criteria with content generated; and uses machine learning algorithms to generate a compliance score that provides a real-time objective indication of the compliance of the creative content with the selected brand criteria; receives modifications to the creative content; and provides a real-time updated compliance score.
Montero (PGPUB: 2017/0316449) which discloses generating a promotion by: Receiving set of possible offers, each including a set of variables, with each variable having a set of possible values. These form a combination of variable values for each offer. A heuristic is applied to all possible offers to reduce the number of offers being considered. The combination of variable values for these reduced number offers is converted into a vector value, which is then scored, ranked and the top ranked offers are selected for inclusion in a promotional campaign. The remaining offers are then analyzed to select additional offers to include into the promotional campaign which maximizing a determinant for the selected offers using their vectors. All selected offers are administered in a promotional test campaign across many consumer segments. Feedback from the campaign may be collected to generate a “general” offer.
Stohlman (PGPUB: 2020/0410552) which discloses an advertisement generation and distribution system that uses a variety of dynamic templates to produce a variety of textual and visual differences across the advertisements and/or advertisement campaigns; creates many different advertisements and/or advertisement campaigns for the same products, each with different text and imagery and creates new templates (configurations for arranging the text and visual content) easily and add these templates to the system itself. The system also utilizes a brand compliance feature to ensure that the generated advertisements are compliant with branding rules and licensing requirements.
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection 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 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 JOHN W VAN BRAMER whose telephone number is (571)272-8198. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Thursday 5:30 am - 4 pm EST.
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, Spar Ilana can be reached at 571-270-7537. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of published or unpublished applications may be obtained from Patent Center. Unpublished application information in Patent Center is available to registered users. To file and manage patent submissions in Patent Center, visit: https://patentcenter.uspto.gov. Visit https://www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/patent-center for more information about Patent Center and https://www.uspto.gov/patents/docx for information about filing in DOCX format. For additional questions, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/John Van Bramer/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3622