DETAILED ACTION
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 3/30/2026 has been entered. Claims 1-20 remain pending in the application.
Priority
Receipt is acknowledged of certified copies of papers submitted under 35 U.S.C. 119(a)-(d), which papers have been placed of record in the file.
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 double patenting rejection is appropriate where the claims at issue 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 reference 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. A terminal disclaimer must be signed in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(b).
The USPTO internet Web site contains terminal disclaimer forms which may be used. Please visit http://www.uspto.gov/forms/. The filing date of the application will determine what form should be used. A web-based eTerminal Disclaimer may be filled out completely online using web-screens. An eTerminal Disclaimer that meets all requirements is auto-processed and approved immediately upon submission. For more information about eTerminal Disclaimers, refer to http://www.uspto.gov/patents/process/file/efs/guidance/eTD-info-I.jsp.
Claim 1-20 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 1-8 of U.S. Patent No. 12008684. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because claim 1 in U.S. Patent No. 12008684 defines an image cropping method, comprising: adjusting a size of an image in a cropping area of a cropping block in response to determining that a border of the cropping block reaches a first target position of an image display area and a same dragging event for the cropping block continues, wherein the image in the cropping area of the cropping block is a part of a target image, and wherein the adjusting a size of an image in a cropping area of a cropping block in response to determining that a border of the cropping block reaches a first target position of an image display area and a same dragging event for the cropping block continues further comprises: increasing or reducing the size of the image in the cropping area of the cropping block based on determining whether the border of the cropping block coincides with a boundary of the target image or not when the same dragging event for the cropping block starts; displaying, on a second target position of the image display area, an image in a current cropping area of the same cropping block according to a current size ratio of the image in the current cropping area of the same cropping block in response to determining that the same dragging event for the same cropping block ends; and wherein the adjusting a size of an image in a cropping area of a cropping block further comprises: determining an image size adjustment speed based on a parameter of the same dragging event for the cropping block, and adjusting the size of the image in the cropping area of the cropping block based on the image size adjustment speed; or wherein the method further comprises adjusting, when the same dragging event for the cropping block continues, a display position of a target image to make a center of the target image always coincide with a center of the cropping area of the cropping block or make the center of the target image approach the center of the cropping area of the cropping block according to a specified path. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to notice claim 1, 8 and 15 in current application and claim 1 in U.S. Patent No. 12008684 are almost identical, and claims in current application are much broader. All the claims are essentially the same structure and perform essentially the same function, therefore unpatentable for obvious-type double patenting. Dependent claim 3-6, 10-13 and 17-20 are rejected because it’s almost identical to claim 4 and 8 of U.S. Patent No. 12008684.
Claim in Application 18662656
Claim in Patent 12008684
1. A method of cropping an image, comprising:
determining a position of a border of a control box in a display area of a display screen, wherein the control box is configured to crop the image, and wherein the control box encloses an area of the image;
1. An image cropping method, comprising:
adjusting a size of the area of the image enclosed within the border of the control box and maintaining a size of the control box in response to determining that the border of the control box reaches a first position of the display area while dragging the border of the control box;
+ (claim 3. The method of claim 1, wherein adjusting the size of the area of the image enclosed within the border of the control box in response to determining that the border of the control box reaches the first position while dragging the border of the control box further comprises: adjusting the size of the area of the image enclosed within the border of the control box based on whether the border of the control box coincides with a boundary of the image.)
adjusting a size of an image in a cropping area of a cropping block in response to determining that a border of the cropping block reaches a first target position of an image display area and a same dragging event for the cropping block continues, wherein the image in the cropping area of the cropping block is a part of a target image, and wherein the adjusting a size of an image in a cropping area of a cropping block in response to determining that a border of the cropping block reaches a first target position of an image display area and a same dragging event for the cropping block continues further comprises: increasing or reducing the size of the image in the cropping area of the cropping block based on determining whether the border of the cropping block coincides with a boundary of the target image or not when the same dragging event for the cropping block starts;
adjusting a display position of the image to make a center of the image coincide with a center of the cropping area or make the center of the image approach the center of the cropping area along a specified path; and
displaying the area of the image enclosed within the border of the control box at a second position of the display area when the dragging ends.
+ (claim 5. The method of claim 1, wherein the adjusting the size of the area of the image enclosed within the border of the control box comprises: determining an adjustment speed based on a parameter of the dragging; and adjusting the size of the area of the image enclosed within the border of the control box based on the adjustment speed.)
displaying, on a second target position of the image display area, an image in a current cropping area of the same cropping block according to a current size ratio of the image in the current cropping area of the same cropping block in response to determining that the same dragging event for the same cropping block ends; and
wherein the adjusting a size of an image in a cropping area of a cropping block further comprises: determining an image size adjustment speed based on a parameter of the same dragging event for the cropping block, and adjusting the size of the image in the cropping area of the cropping block based on the image size adjustment speed; or wherein the method further comprises adjusting, when the same dragging event for the cropping block continues, a display position of a target image to make a center of the target image always coincide with a center of the cropping area of the cropping block or make the center of the target image approach the center of the cropping area of the cropping block according to a specified path.
Conflicting claims numbers:
18662656
Claim 1+3+5, 8+10+12, 15+17+19
4,11,18
6,13,20
12008684
Claim 1
4
8
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.
Claim 1-5, 7-12 and 14-19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kulewski U.S. Patent 10101891 in view of Nurse U.S. Patent Application 20130198679, and further in view of Azami U.S. Patent Application 20130342720 .
Regarding claim 8, Kulewski discloses a device of cropping an image, comprising:
at least one processor (processors 1402); and
at least one memory (memory 1404) storing computer-readable instructions that upon execution by the at least one processor cause the at least one processor to perform operations (col. 3 line 14-16: a computer readable medium has stored thereon software instructions that, when executed by a processor, cause the processor to perform operations) comprising:
determining a position of a border of a control box in a display area of a display screen, wherein the control box is configured to crop the image, and wherein the control box encloses an area of the image (col. 2 line 29-31: causing a display of a crop window of a first size in an image editing interface, where the crop window is displayed within boundaries of an image);
adjusting a size of the area of the image enclosed within the border of the control box and maintaining a size of the control box in response to determining that the border of the control box reaches a first position of the display area while dragging the border of the control box (col. 5 line 33-42: the system can change a crop window to fit the image boundaries (first position) while maintaining the crop window close to the modifications that the user desired in position and size. The user can thus be allowed to freely modify a crop window within an editing interface as he or she desires, such as by translating, rotating, and/or resizing the crop window and/or image; col. 21 line 62-66: If not all output vertices are within the image boundaries as checked in block 810, then in block 812 the output crop window is reverted to a previous crop window positioned within the boundaries, e.g., reverts to the source crop window);
displaying the area of the image enclosed within the border of the control box at the display area when the dragging ends (col. 27 line 53-57: receive user input to manipulate one or more cropping windows, modify pixels of images (e.g., by applying edit operations to an input image using a cropping window), and provide output data causing display of original and modified images on a display device of the device 1400; col. 22 line 25-26: Once the user finishes the dragging (or other resizing) operation; col. 18 line 52-55: the method can check for crop window portions outside image boundaries in block 610 and change the crop window in block 612, followed by resizing the crop window in block 608; col. 17 line 23-26: method 600 can include features providing resizing of a crop window to a predetermined aspect ratio and/or changing of a crop window to be positioned within boundaries of an image).
Kulewski discloses all the features with respect to claim 8 as outlined above. However, Kulewski fails to disclose adjusting a display position of the image to make a center of the image coincide with a center of the control box or make the center of the image approach the center of the control box along a specified path; and displaying the area of the image enclosed within the border of the control box at a second position of the display area explicitly.
Nurse discloses displaying the area of the image enclosed within the border of the control box at a second position of the display area (paragraph [0215]: the system adjusts the X and Y position of the image element accordingly to ensure that the zoom in or out is from the center of the image; paragraph [0139]: a proportionally sized representation 1210'' of the resized cat image, previously displayed in FIG. 12B, is displayed in the second content container 1205b... the manipulation to the first representation of the content item was a resizing but could include a zoom, crop, or other manipulation, as desired by the user).
Therefore, it would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine Kulewski’s to display resized cropped image as taught by Nurse, to display desired image.
Kulewski as modified by Nurse discloses all the features with respect to claim 8 as outlined above. However, Kulewski as modified by Nurse fails to disclose adjusting a display position of the image to make a center of the image coincide with a center of the control box or make the center of the image approach the center of the control box along a specified path explicitly.
Azami discloses adjusting a display position of the image to make a center of the image coincide with a center of the control box or make the center of the image approach the center of the control box along a specified path (paragraph [0073]: the image cropping unit 401 sets the position of an area of an image to be cropped to ensure the center of the captured image data coincides with the center of the image data to be cropped; paragraph [0076]: determines whether or not the center coordinates of the captured image data coincides with the center coordinates of the image data of the crop area).
Therefore, it would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine Kulewski and Nurse’s to ensure image center coincides with cropping area center as taught by Azami, to improve the speed of change in the angle of view of a display image.
Regarding claim 9, Kulewski as modified by Nurse and Azami discloses the device of claim 8, wherein the first position comprises a boundary of the display area, or wherein the first position comprises a position of the border of the control box in the display area when the border of the control box reaches a minimum size (Nurse’s paragraph [0211]: The image size within the crop container does not change. There can be a minimum width and height beyond which a user is unable to further crop the image).
Therefore, it would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine Kulewski’s to display resized cropped image as taught by Nurse, to display desired image; and combine Kulewski and Nurse’s to ensure image center coincides with cropping area center as taught by Azami, to improve the speed of change in the angle of view of a display image.
Regarding claim 10, Kulewski as modified by Nurse and Azami discloses the device of claim 8, wherein adjusting the size of the area of the image enclosed within the border of the control box in response to determining that the border of the control box reaches the first position while dragging the border of the control box further comprises: adjusting the size of the area of the image enclosed within the border of the control box based on whether the border of the control box coincides with a boundary of the image (Kulewski’s col. 5 line 33-42: the system can change a crop window to fit the image boundaries (first target position) while maintaining the crop window close to the modifications that the user desired in position and size. The user can thus be allowed to freely modify a crop window within an editing interface as he or she desires, such as by translating, rotating, and/or resizing the crop window and/or image; col. 21 line 62-66: If not all output vertices are within the image boundaries as checked in block 810, then in block 812 the output crop window is reverted to a previous crop window positioned within the boundaries, e.g., reverts to the source crop window).
Therefore, it would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine Kulewski’s to display resized cropped image as taught by Nurse, to display desired image; and combine Kulewski and Nurse’s to ensure image center coincides with cropping area center as taught by Azami, to improve the speed of change in the angle of view of a display image.
Regarding claim 11, Kulewski as modified by Nurse and Azami discloses the device of claim 8, wherein the adjusting the size of the area of the image enclosed within the border of the control box comprises reducing the size of the area of the image enclosed within the border of the control box (Azami’s paragraph [0106]: the image cropping unit 401 reduces the image size of the crop area R12 in the image capture area R11 in accordance with changes in angle of view of the image capture area R11. In other words, the image cropping unit 401 reduces the number of pixels of the crop area R12; Kulewski’s col. 21 line 62-66: If not all output vertices are within the image boundaries as checked in block 810, then in block 812 the output crop window is reverted to a previous crop window positioned within the boundaries, e.g., reverts to the source crop window).
Therefore, it would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine Kulewski’s to display resized cropped image as taught by Nurse, to display desired image; and combine Kulewski and Nurse’s to ensure image center coincides with cropping area center as taught by Azami, to improve the speed of change in the angle of view of a display image.
Regarding claim 12, Kulewski as modified by Nurse and Azami discloses the device of claim 8, wherein the adjusting the size of the area of the image enclosed within the border of the control box comprises: determining an adjustment speed based on a parameter of the dragging; and adjusting the size of the area of the image enclosed within the border of the control box based on the adjustment speed (Kulewski’s col. 15 line 25-28: resizing the crop window to a third size can be performed in response to a speed of the crop window modification going below a threshold speed (i.e., slowing down) based on the user input).
Therefore, it would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine Kulewski’s to display resized cropped image as taught by Nurse, to display desired image; and combine Kulewski and Nurse’s to ensure image center coincides with cropping area center as taught by Azami, to improve the speed of change in the angle of view of a display image.
Regarding claim 14, Kulewski as modified by Nurse and Azami discloses the device of claim 8, wherein the control box is superimposed on the image (Kulewski’s col. 7 line 60-62: a cropping tool can cause a display of a crop window over or on top of an image to be edited (e.g., as an overlay)).
Therefore, it would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine Kulewski’s to display resized cropped image as taught by Nurse, to display desired image; and combine Kulewski and Nurse’s to ensure image center coincides with cropping area center as taught by Azami, to improve the speed of change in the angle of view of a display image.
Claim 1 recites the functions of the apparatus recited in claim 8 as method steps. Accordingly, the mapping of the prior art to the corresponding functions of the apparatus in claim 8 applies to the method steps of claim 1.
Claim 2 recites the functions of the apparatus recited in claim 9 as method steps. Accordingly, the mapping of the prior art to the corresponding functions of the apparatus in claim 9 applies to the method steps of claim 2.
Claim 3 recites the functions of the apparatus recited in claim 10 as method steps. Accordingly, the mapping of the prior art to the corresponding functions of the apparatus in claim 10 applies to the method steps of claim 3.
Claim 4 recites the functions of the apparatus recited in claim 11 as method steps. Accordingly, the mapping of the prior art to the corresponding functions of the apparatus in claim 11 applies to the method steps of claim 4.
Claim 5 recites the functions of the apparatus recited in claim 12 as method steps. Accordingly, the mapping of the prior art to the corresponding functions of the apparatus in claim 12 applies to the method steps of claim 5.
Claim 7 recites the functions of the apparatus recited in claim 14 as method steps. Accordingly, the mapping of the prior art to the corresponding functions of the apparatus in claim 14 applies to the method steps of claim 7.
Claim 15 recites the functions of the apparatus recited in claim 8 as medium steps. Accordingly, the mapping of the prior art to the corresponding functions of the apparatus in claim 8 applies to the medium steps of claim 15.
Claim 16 recites the functions of the apparatus recited in claim 9 as medium steps. Accordingly, the mapping of the prior art to the corresponding functions of the apparatus in claim 9 applies to the medium steps of claim 16.
Claim 17 recites the functions of the apparatus recited in claim 10 as medium steps. Accordingly, the mapping of the prior art to the corresponding functions of the apparatus in claim 10 applies to the medium steps of claim 17.
Claim 18 recites the functions of the apparatus recited in claim 11 as medium steps. Accordingly, the mapping of the prior art to the corresponding functions of the apparatus in claim 11 applies to the medium steps of claim 18.
Claim 19 recites the functions of the apparatus recited in claim 12 as medium steps. Accordingly, the mapping of the prior art to the corresponding functions of the apparatus in claim 12 applies to the medium steps of claim 19.
Claim 6, 13 and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kulewski U.S. Patent 10101891 in view of Nurse U.S. Patent Application 20130198679, in view of Azami U.S. Patent Application 20130342720 , and further in view of Sogo U.S. Patent Application 20120139950.
Regarding claim 13, Kulewski as modified by Nurse and Azami discloses all the features with respect to claim 12 as outlined above. However, Kulewski as modified by Nurse and Azami fails to disclose the parameter of the dragging comprises a dragging distance, and wherein a greater dragging distance indicates a greater adjustment speed.
Sogo discloses the parameter of the dragging comprises a dragging distance, and wherein a greater dragging distance indicates a greater adjustment speed (paragraph [0060]: when the control unit 18 determines that the dragging operation of the operator has reached a predetermined operation distance, the control unit 18 gradually increases the speed at which the object expands in accordance with the operation distance of the dragging operation of the operator at and following this reached distance, performs an expansion process on the object, and displays the object on the display unit 6).
Therefore, it would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine Kulewski, Nurse and Azami’s to consider dragging distance as taught by Sogo, to display image with the optimal position appropriate for the subject of the display image being the center when changing the display magnification ratio.
Claim 6 recites the functions of the apparatus recited in claim 13 as method steps. Accordingly, the mapping of the prior art to the corresponding functions of the apparatus in claim 13 applies to the method steps of claim 6.
Claim 20 recites the functions of the apparatus recited in claim 13 as medium steps. Accordingly, the mapping of the prior art to the corresponding functions of the apparatus in claim 13 applies to the medium steps of claim 20.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 3/30/2026, page 7 - 9, with respect to the rejection(s) of claim(s) 1 under 103, have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. (FP 7.37)
Applicant argues on page 7 about the double patenting and terminal disclaimer.
The terminal disclaimer is not accepted by the office according to the “terminal disclaimer review decision” dated 4/9/2026
for the following reasons:
1. Wrong form used: Please use PTO/AIA /26.
2. The prior patent is cited incorrectly. It should read 12,008,684.
Please make corrections as suggested above and also resubmit the TD. (No new fee required).
Applicant argues on page 7-9 that Kulewski's adjustment of the crop window is merely an adjustment of the size of the crop window itself-not an adjustment of the size of the portion of the image contained within the crop window. And because Kulewski's adjustment of the crop window is an adjustment of the size of the crop window itself, Kulewski cannot possibly disclose adjusting a size of the area of the image enclosed within the border of the control box and maintaining a size of the control box in response to determining that the border of the control box reaches a first position of the display area while dragging the border of the control box, as required by claim 1.
In reply, Kulewski's col. 5 line 33-42: the system can change a crop window to fit the image boundaries while maintaining the crop window close to the modifications that the user desired in position and size. The user can thus be allowed to freely modify a crop window within an editing interface as he or she desires, such as by translating, rotating, and/or resizing the crop window and/or image (adjust portion of the image in the crop window).
Applicant argues on page 9 that Azami does not disclose a control box. Because Azami does not disclose a control box, Azami necessarily does not disclose setting a position of an area of an image to be cropped during the dragging of the border of the control box, let alone doing so to make a center of the image coincide with a center of the control box or make the center of the image approach the center of the control box along a specified path. Accordingly, Azami does not meet what is claimed.
In reply, the rejection is based on Kulewski, Nurse and Azami combined. Kulewski discloses control box (crop window). Azami’s paragraph [0073]: the image cropping unit 401 sets the position of an area of an image to be cropped to ensure the center of the captured image data coincides with the center of the image data to be cropped; paragraph [0076]: determines whether or not the center coordinates of the captured image data coincides with the center coordinates of the image data of the crop area (crop window); see fig. 6-9 crop area R12.
Conclusion
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 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 date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Yi Yang whose telephone number is (571)272-9589. The examiner can normally be reached on Monday-Friday 9:00 AM-6:00 PM EST.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Daniel Hajnik can be reached on 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 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).
/YI YANG/
Examiner, Art Unit 2616
Prosecution Insights