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 .
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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114.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 June 23, 2026 has been entered.
Response to Amendment
Claims 2, 7 and 12 have been canceled and as such all rejections to the claims have been withdrawn as moot.
Claims 1, 3-6, 8-11, 13-16 and 19-20 have been amended to correct for the written description rejection under 35 U.S.C. 112(a), and as such the rejection has been withdrawn.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 5/26/2026 regarding invoking interpretation under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) and the rejection made under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) have been fully considered but they are not persuasive, in part. Regarding claim 1, the claim as amended still recites “poster generation unit” with a corresponding function, but without including sufficient structure within the claim itself that would eliminate interpretation under 35 U.S.C. 112(f). As such, the interpretation is maintained for the use of the term in claims 1, 3-6, 8-11, 13-16 and 19-20 (Examiner notes that claim 13 also explicitly recites “poster generation unit” as well as incorporating by reference). Furthermore, applicant merely argues that the claims are definite due to the amendments, but as the claim still invokes interpretation under 35 U.S.C. 112(f), the rejection based on indefiniteness due to use of the term “poster generation unit” is still indefinite based on Applicant’s specification. Accordingly, applicant’s arguments are not persuasive, in part, and the interpretation and rejection are maintained for claims 1, 3-6, 8-11, 13-16 and 19-20.
Applicant’s arguments, see applicant’s correspondence, filed 5/26/2026, with respect to the rejection of the claims under 35 U.S.C. 103 have been fully considered and are persuasive. The rejection of the claims under 35 U.S.C. 103 has been withdrawn.
Claim Interpretation
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(f):
(f) Element in Claim for a Combination. – An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The claims in this application are given their broadest reasonable interpretation using the plain meaning of the claim language in light of the specification as it would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art. The broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim element (also commonly referred to as a claim limitation) is limited by the description in the specification when 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is invoked.
As explained in MPEP § 2181, subsection I, claim limitations that meet the following three-prong test will be interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
(A) the claim limitation uses the term “means” or “step” or a term used as a substitute for “means” that is a generic placeholder (also called a nonce term or a non-structural term having no specific structural meaning) for performing the claimed function;
(B) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is modified by functional language, typically, but not always linked by the transition word “for” (e.g., “means for”) or another linking word or phrase, such as “configured to” or “so that”; and
(C) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function.
Use of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim with functional language creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites sufficient structure, material, or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Absence of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is not to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is not interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites function without reciting sufficient structure, material or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Claim limitations in this application that use the word “means” (or “step”) are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action. Conversely, claim limitations in this application that do not use the word “means” (or “step”) are not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action.
This application includes one or more claim limitations that do not use the word “means,” but are nonetheless being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, because the claim limitation(s) uses a generic placeholder that is coupled with functional language without reciting sufficient structure to perform the recited function and the generic placeholder is not preceded by a structural modifier.
Such claim limitation(s) is/are:
“poster generation unit” recited in claims 1 and 13 and incorporated by reference in dependent claims 3-6, 8-11, 14-16 and 19-20.
Because this/these claim limitation(s) is/are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, it/they is/are being interpreted to cover the corresponding structure described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof.
If applicant does not intend to have this/these limitation(s) interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, applicant may: (1) amend the claim limitation(s) to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph (e.g., by reciting sufficient structure to perform the claimed function); or (2) present a sufficient showing that the claim limitation(s) recite(s) sufficient structure to perform the claimed function so as to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 1, 3-6, 8-11, and 13-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Rejection based on invocation of 112(f):
Regarding claim 1, the claim recites “a poster generation unit configured to generate a poster based on the image, the character, and the target impression” in lines 6-7 of the claim. As the claim is currently drafted, the claim invokes interpretation under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) for the corresponding structure of the “poster generation unit.” According to applicant’s specification, however, the corresponding structures incorporated into the claim by reference from applicant’s specification, the “poster generation unit” can be either of two versions, where Spec. ¶52 discloses the unit as corresponding to the structure of Figure 2, and Spec. ¶176 discloses the unit as corresponding to the structure of Figure 17. As such, the claim is required to include one or the other structures, or equivalents thereof. The two alternatives, however, have overlapping elements. One of those overlapping structures is the algorithm for the “layout unit”, which is in both alternatives as element 217. Applicant’s specification discloses the “The layout unit 217 then applies the coloration pattern(s) acquired from the coloration pattern selection unit 215, and applies the font pattern(s) acquired from the font selection unit 216.” Spec. [0069]. This, however, results in the claim being indefinite, as the claim requires a “layout unit” in both alternatives (i.e. Fig. 2 and Fig. 17), but does not requires the coloration pattern selection unit nor the font selection unit in the second alternative (i.e. Fig. 17). As a result, the claim is rendered indefinite as to what is intended to comprise the structure of the “layout unit” when the second alternative is used, and further fails to disclose any corresponding structure for the layout unit 217 for the structure provided in Fig. 17. As such, one of ordinary skill in the art would not be reasonably apprised of the scope of the claimed invention and therefore the claim is indefinite.
Claims 3-6, 8-11, 13-16 and 19-20 depend from claim 1 and therefore incorporate the same indefinite language.
Rejection based on indefiniteness other than 112(f)
Regarding claim 1, the claim recites “wherein the target impression value is accepted via a ring shaped operation user interface(UI), in which a plurality of impression terms that are associated with vectors representing impressions are arranged in a ring that a sum distance between the vectors of adjacent impression terms is minimized” in lines 13-16 (emphasis added). As the claim is currently drafted, it is unclear as to how the impression terms are arranged in a ring based on the sum distance as claimed. First, it is unclear as to what is “adjacent impression terms” means. Is this an adjacency along the circumference of the ring or merely across from each other on a user interface? (Examiner suggests clarifying language such as, “wherein the adjacent impression terms are impression terms which are arranged adjacently around a circumference displayed as visually forming the ring-shaped UI”.)
In addition, the claim is indefinite as to what “a sum distance between the vectors of adjacent impression terms is minimized” means. There is no clarification of what the vectors are referring to. Instead, the claim merely recites vectors to which impression terms are associated. This could be visual on the user interface as the figures of the specification seem to imply, machine learning vectors (as the specification discusses use of machine learning which typically uses latent space and vectors, although this would potentially open new issues of support), or some other type of vector based on values of impressions themselves in some sort of spatial arrangement, as the specification also supports (Examiner suggests amending the claim to include clarifying language from e.g. ¶¶146-149 which discusses impression values determined to have a coordinate space and arranging the terms according to the calculations as provided in the equations and distance calculations as in ¶149 in place of the vague term “vectors”, for which the calculation of distance between vectors as claimed is not clearly explained in the specification).
As such the claim is rendered indefinite as one of ordinary skill in the art would not be reasonably apprised as to the scope of the claim.
Claims 3-6, 8-11, 13-16 and 19-20 depend from claim 1 and therefore incorporate the same indefinite language, while also failing to further clarify the claim. As such, the claims are indefinite for the same reasons as claim 1 set forth above.
Claims 17 and 18 recite substantially the same language as claim 1 and are therefore indefinite for the same reasons as claim 1 set forth above.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Zhang et al (CN 112905286 A1) is related art directed to “a visual poster generation method and device, and the method comprises the steps of displaying at least one preset personalized poster template when a personalized poster generation request sent by a user is received; in response to personalized poster template selection operation of the user, determining a target personalized poster template selected by the user; generating and displaying a picture selection pop-up box, wherein the picture selection pop-up box at least comprises one selectable picture; in response to a picture selection operation of the user, determining a target selectable picture selected by the user; processing the target selectable picture and the target personalized poster template, and outputting a visual effect picture; and when a poster generation request sent by a user is received, generating a personalized poster based on the current visual effect picture. Based on the invention, the experience feeling of a user during poster making is improved.” – See Abstract.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to WILLIAM A BEUTEL whose telephone number is (571)272-3132. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 9:00 AM - 5:00 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, DANIEL HAJNIK can be reached at 571-272-7642. 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.
/WILLIAM A BEUTEL/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2616
Prosecution Insights