CTNF 18/721,962 CTNF 94259 DETAILED ACTION Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status 07-03-01-aia AIA 07-03-01-r-aia The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA. This action is made non-final . Claims 1-8 are pending in the case. Claims 1, 7, and 8 are independent claims. Priority The instant application is a 371 of PCT/JP2021/048078 filed 12/24/2021. Specification 06-11 AIA The title of the invention is not descriptive. A new title is required that is clearly indicative of the invention to which the claims are directed. Claim Objections 07-29-01 AIA Claim s 1, 7, and 8 are objected to because of the following informalities: Claim 1 recites “each of a plurality of articles” but this is grammatically incorrect for Applicant’s likely intended meaning and should instead be recited as “each article of a plurality of articles”. Claims 7 and 8 are objected to for the same reason . Appropriate correction is required. Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101 07-04-01 AIA 07-04 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 1-8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more. Step 1 : Claim 1 is an apparatus claim. Claim 7 is a method claim. Claim 8 is non-transitory storage medium claim. Therefore, claims 1-8 are directed to a process, machine, manufacture or composition of matter. Regarding claim 1, Step 2A, Prong 1 : The following limitation(s) is/are directed to the abstract idea of mental processes [see MPEP 2106.04(a)(2) III. B.]. In particular, the claim recites mental processes that are concepts performed in the human mind or with pen and paper (including an observation, evaluation, judgement, or opinion). “an area determination process of determining an assignment area for each of a plurality of articles in an object area in which the articles are placed” “an element layout determination process of determining a layout of constituent elements of the article in the assignment area” As drafted, under their broadest reasonable interpretation (BRI), in view of the specification, the above limitation(s) cover concepts that can practically be performed in the human mind, with or without the use of a physical aid such as pen and paper [see, e.g., Synopsys, 839 F.3d at 1139, 120 USPQ2d at 1474]. Step 2A, Prong 2 : There are no additional elements in this claim that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application. The following additional elements are adding the words “apply it” (or an equivalent) with the judicial exception, or mere instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer, or merely uses a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea [see MPEP 2106.05(f)] and therefore fails to integrate the judicial exception into a practical application. “at least one processor, the at least one processor carrying out” Step 2B : There are no additional elements in this claim that amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. The following additional elements are adding the words “apply it” (or an equivalent) with the judicial exception, or mere instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer, or merely uses a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea [see MPEP 2106.05(f)] and therefore fails to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. “at least one processor, the at least one processor carrying out” Regarding claim 2, Step 2A, Prong 1 : The following limitation(s) is/are directed to the abstract idea of mental processes [see MPEP 2106.04(a)(2) III. B.]. In particular, the claim recites mental processes that are concepts performed in the human mind or with pen and paper (including an observation, evaluation, judgement, or opinion). “determines the layout of the constituent elements by using a layout prediction model generated by performing machine learning based on a relationship between (i) a shape and a size of an assignment area, and (ii) a layout of constituent elements of an article placed in the assignment area of the shape and the size” As drafted, under their broadest reasonable interpretation (BRI), in view of the specification, the above limitation(s) cover concepts performed in the human mind (observation, evaluation, judgement, or opinion). Step 2A, Prong 2 : There are no additional elements in this claim that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application. The following additional elements are adding the words “apply it” (or an equivalent) with the judicial exception, or mere instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer, or merely uses a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea [see MPEP 2106.05(f)] and therefore fails to integrate the judicial exception into a practical application. “by performing machine learning” Step 2B : There are no additional elements in this claim that amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. The following additional elements are adding the words “apply it” (or an equivalent) with the judicial exception, or mere instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer, or merely uses a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea [see MPEP 2106.05(f)] and therefore fails to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. “by performing machine learning” Regarding claim 3, Step 2A, Prong 1 : The following limitation(s) is/are directed to the abstract idea of mental processes [see MPEP 2106.04(a)(2) III. B.]. In particular, the claim recites mental processes that are concepts performed in the human mind or with pen and paper (including an observation, evaluation, judgement, or opinion). “wherein, in the element layout determination process, the at least one processor determines the layout of the constituent elements by using a layout prediction model generated by performing machine learning based on a relationship between (i) a position, a shape, and a size of an assignment area in the object area, and (ii) a layout of constituent elements of an article placed in the assignment area of the position, the shape, and the size” As drafted, under their broadest reasonable interpretation (BRI), in view of the specification, the above limitation(s) cover concepts performed in the human mind (observation, evaluation, judgement, or opinion). Step 2A, Prong 2 : There are no additional elements in this claim that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application. The following additional elements are adding the words “apply it” (or an equivalent) with the judicial exception, or mere instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer, or merely uses a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea [see MPEP 2106.05(f)] and therefore fails to integrate the judicial exception into a practical application. “by performing machine learning” Step 2B : There are no additional elements in this claim that amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. The following additional elements are adding the words “apply it” (or an equivalent) with the judicial exception, or mere instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer, or merely uses a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea [see MPEP 2106.05(f)] and therefore fails to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. “by performing machine learning” Regarding claim 4, Step 2A, Prong 1 : The following limitation(s) is/are directed to the abstract idea of mental processes [see MPEP 2106.04(a)(2) III. B.]. In particular, the claim recites mental processes that are concepts performed in the human mind or with pen and paper (including an observation, evaluation, judgement, or opinion). “wherein, in the element layout determination process, the at least one processor generates a plurality of candidates of the layout of the constituent elements for each of the assignment areas, and determines one candidate from among the candidates as the layout of the constituent elements of the assignment area, based on an input operation of a user of the information processing apparatus” As drafted, under their broadest reasonable interpretation (BRI), in view of the specification, the above limitation(s) cover concepts performed in the human mind (observation, evaluation, judgement, or opinion). Step 2A, Prong 2 : There are no additional elements in this claim that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application. The following additional elements are adding the words “apply it” (or an equivalent) with the judicial exception, or mere instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer, or merely uses a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea [see MPEP 2106.05(f)] and therefore fails to integrate the judicial exception into a practical application. “the at least one processor” Step 2B : There are no additional elements in this claim that amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. The following additional elements are adding the words “apply it” (or an equivalent) with the judicial exception, or mere instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer, or merely uses a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea [see MPEP 2106.05(f)] and therefore fails to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. “the at least one processor” Regarding claim 5, Step 2A, Prong 1 : The following limitation(s) is/are directed to the abstract idea of mental processes [see MPEP 2106.04(a)(2) III. B.]. In particular, the claim recites mental processes that are concepts performed in the human mind or with pen and paper (including an observation, evaluation, judgement, or opinion). “wherein, in the element layout determination process, the at least one processor determines the layout of the constituent elements in accordance with a position of the assignment area in the object area” As drafted, under their broadest reasonable interpretation (BRI), in view of the specification, the above limitation(s) cover concepts performed in the human mind (observation, evaluation, judgement, or opinion). Step 2A, Prong 2 : There are no additional elements in this claim that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application. The following additional elements are adding the words “apply it” (or an equivalent) with the judicial exception, or mere instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer, or merely uses a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea [see MPEP 2106.05(f)] and therefore fails to integrate the judicial exception into a practical application. “the at least one processor” Step 2B : There are no additional elements in this claim that amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. The following additional elements are adding the words “apply it” (or an equivalent) with the judicial exception, or mere instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer, or merely uses a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea [see MPEP 2106.05(f)] and therefore fails to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. “the at least one processor” Regarding claim 6, Step 2A, Prong 1 : The following limitation(s) is/are directed to the abstract idea of mental processes [see MPEP 2106.04(a)(2) III. B.]. In particular, the claim recites mental processes that are concepts performed in the human mind or with pen and paper (including an observation, evaluation, judgement, or opinion). “wherein the at least one processor further carries out an adjustment process of resizing or deleting at least one of the constituent elements of the article placed in the assignment area so that the article conforms in size to the assignment area” As drafted, under their broadest reasonable interpretation (BRI), in view of the specification, the above limitation(s) cover concepts performed in the human mind (observation, evaluation, judgement, or opinion). Step 2A, Prong 2 : There are no additional elements in this claim that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application. The following additional elements are adding the words “apply it” (or an equivalent) with the judicial exception, or mere instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer, or merely uses a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea [see MPEP 2106.05(f)] and therefore fails to integrate the judicial exception into a practical application. “the at least one processor” Step 2B : There are no additional elements in this claim that amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. The following additional elements are adding the words “apply it” (or an equivalent) with the judicial exception, or mere instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer, or merely uses a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea [see MPEP 2106.05(f)] and therefore fails to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. “the at least one processor” Regarding claim 7, Step 2A, Prong 1 : The following limitation(s) is/are directed to the abstract idea of mental processes [see MPEP 2106.04(a)(2) III. B.]. In particular, the claim recites mental processes that are concepts performed in the human mind or with pen and paper (including an observation, evaluation, judgement, or opinion). “determining an assignment area for each of a plurality of articles in an object area in which the articles are placed” “determining a layout of constituent elements of the article in the assignment area” As drafted, under their broadest reasonable interpretation (BRI), in view of the specification, the above limitation(s) cover concepts that can practically be performed in the human mind, with or without the use of a physical aid such as pen and paper [see, e.g., Synopsys, 839 F.3d at 1139, 120 USPQ2d at 1474]. Step 2A, Prong 2 : There are no additional elements in this claim that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application. The following additional elements are adding the words “apply it” (or an equivalent) with the judicial exception, or mere instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer, or merely uses a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea [see MPEP 2106.05(f)] and therefore fails to integrate the judicial exception into a practical application. “at least one processor” Step 2B : There are no additional elements in this claim that amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. The following additional elements are adding the words “apply it” (or an equivalent) with the judicial exception, or mere instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer, or merely uses a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea [see MPEP 2106.05(f)] and therefore fails to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. “at least one processor” Regarding claim 8, Step 2A, Prong 1 : The following limitation(s) is/are directed to the abstract idea of mental processes [see MPEP 2106.04(a)(2) III. B.]. In particular, the claim recites mental processes that are concepts performed in the human mind or with pen and paper (including an observation, evaluation, judgement, or opinion). “an area determination process of determining an assignment area for each of a plurality of articles in an object area in which the articles are placed” “an element layout determination process of determining a layout of constituent elements of the article in the assignment area” As drafted, under their broadest reasonable interpretation (BRI), in view of the specification, the above limitation(s) cover concepts that can practically be performed in the human mind, with or without the use of a physical aid such as pen and paper [see, e.g., Synopsys, 839 F.3d at 1139, 120 USPQ2d at 1474]. Step 2A, Prong 2 : There are no additional elements in this claim that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application. The following additional elements are adding the words “apply it” (or an equivalent) with the judicial exception, or mere instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer, or merely uses a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea [see MPEP 2106.05(f)] and therefore fails to integrate the judicial exception into a practical application. “causing a computer to carry out” Step 2B : There are no additional elements in this claim that amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. The following additional elements are adding the words “apply it” (or an equivalent) with the judicial exception, or mere instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer, or merely uses a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea [see MPEP 2106.05(f)] and therefore fails to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. “causing a computer to carry out” Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102 07-06 AIA 15-10-15 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. 07-07-aia AIA 07-07 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 – 07-08-aia AIA (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. 07-12-aia AIA (a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention. 07-15-aia AIA Claim(s) 1-8 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102 (a)(1) as being anticipated by Luu (US 2013/0332523 A1) . Regarding claim 1 , Luu teaches an information processing apparatus comprising at least one processor ([0086-0088]) , the at least one processor carrying out: an area determination process of determining an assignment area for each of a plurality of articles in an object area in which the articles are placed (story layout presentation module 302 of FIG. 3 and [0052-0053]: story layout presentation module 302 determines an assignment area for each article in an object area; steps 406-408 of FIG. 4 and [0063-0066]; FIG. 5A and [0068-0073]: see how various articles/news feed stories have their assignment areas in an object area of news feed display 500. For example, news feed story 502 includes statement 504, image 508, and social context information 510 within an assignment area) ; and an element layout determination process of determining a layout of constituent elements of the article in the assignment area (story layout presentation module 302 of FIG. 3 and [0052-0053]: story layout presentation module 302 determines a layout for elements of the article. As determined by the story layout presentation module 302, text color, font, text size, background color, or so on help define a layout for constituent elements; steps 406-408 of FIG. 4 and [0063-0066]; FIG. 5A and [0068-0073]: each article has constituent elements that are displayed in a determined layout. For example, news feed story 502 includes statement 504, image 508, and social context information 510 that are displayed in a certain layout in the assignment area) . Regarding claim 2 , ---Luu further teaches an information processing apparatus according to claim 1, wherein, in the element layout determination process, the at least one processor determines the layout of the constituent elements by using a layout prediction model generated by performing machine learning based on a relationship between (i) a shape and a size of an assignment area, and (ii) a layout of constituent elements of an article placed in the assignment area of the shape and the size (machine learning module 310 of FIG. 3, [0048], [0052-0053], and [0059-0060]: layout of the elements is determined by using a model generated by machine learning in conjunction with the story layout presentation module 302, which defines the relationship between a shape and size of an assignment area and a layout of elements within their respective assignment area. As stated in [0060], “ The machine learning module 310 may be used to determine, in conjunction with the story layout presentation module 302 , whether such stories should evolve to show the most recent interactions, be presented to the viewing user again, and how should the story be provided in the multiple-column display .”; FIGS. 5A-C and [0068-0079]: see how the shapes and sizes of assignment areas, along with their layout of constituent elements, are displayed and may change) . Regarding claim 3 , ---Luu further teaches the information processing apparatus according to claim 1, wherein, in the element layout determination process, the at least one processor determines the layout of the constituent elements by using a layout prediction model generated by performing machine learning based on a relationship between (i) a position, a shape, and a size of an assignment area in the object area, and (ii) a layout of constituent elements of an article placed in the assignment area of the position, the shape, and the size (machine learning module 310 of FIG. 3, [0048], [0052-0053], and [0059-0060]: layout of the elements is determined by using a model generated by machine learning in conjunction with the story layout presentation module 302, which defines the relationship between a shape and size of an assignment area and a layout of elements within their respective assignment area. As stated in [0060], “ The machine learning module 310 may be used to determine, in conjunction with the story layout presentation module 302 , whether such stories should evolve to show the most recent interactions, be presented to the viewing user again, and how should the story be provided in the multiple-column display .”; FIGS. 5A-C and [0068-0079]: see how the positions, shapes, and sizes of assignment areas, along with their layout of constituent elements, are displayed and may change) . Regarding claim 4 , ---Luu further teaches the information processing apparatus according to claim 1, wherein, in the element layout determination process, the at least one processor generates a plurality of candidates of the layout of the constituent elements for each of the assignment areas, and determines one candidate from among the candidates as the layout of the constituent elements of the assignment area, based on an input operation of a user of the information processing apparatus (claim 32: “ determining a plurality of layouts for the plurality of news stories based on the determined plurality of sizes for each news story and based on the ranking of the plurality of new news stories ; and providing the determined layouts to the user device, where the user device is further configured to select a layout of the determined layouts based on display format information of the user device”. Note that each news story has a plurality of plurality of sizes, which means a plurality of layouts correspond to a plurality of candidates of the layout of the constituent elements.) . Regarding claim 5 , ---Luu further teaches the information processing apparatus according to claim 1, wherein, in the element layout determination process, the at least one processor determines the layout of the constituent elements in accordance with a position of the assignment area in the object area (story layout presentation module 302 of FIG. 3 and [0052-0053]: story layout presentation module 302 determines a layout for elements of the article in accordance with a position of the assignment area in the object area. As determined by the story layout presentation module 302, text color, font, text size, background color, or so on help define a layout for constituent elements; steps 406-408 of FIG. 4 and [0063-0066]; FIG. 5A and [0068-0073]: each article has constituent elements that are displayed in a determined layout. For example, news feed story 502 includes statement 504, image 508, and social context information 510 that are displayed in a certain layout in accordance with the position of the assignment area in the object area) . Regarding claim 6 , ---Luu further teaches the information processing apparatus according to claim 1, further comprising wherein the at least one processor further carries out an adjustment process of resizing or deleting at least one of the constituent elements of the article placed in the assignment area so that the article conforms in size to the assignment area (story layout presentation module 302 of FIG. 3 and [0052-0053]: story layout presentation module 302 determines an assignment area for each article in an object area; steps 406-408 of FIG. 4 and [0063-0066]: as supported in at least [0064], constituent elements are resized to conform in size to the assignment area; FIGS. 5A-C and [0068-0079]: see how the positions, shapes, and sizes of assignment areas, along with their layout of constituent elements, are displayed and may change. Specifically, see how constituent elements of news story 502 seen in FIG. 5A become smaller in FIG. 5C given the now smaller assignment area for news story 502) . Claim 7 recites a layout assistance method comprising steps corresponding to the information processing apparatus of claim 1 and is therefore rejected on the same premise. Claim 8 recites a non-transitory storage medium storing a layout assistance program ([0086-0088]) causing a computer to carry out operations corresponding to the information processing apparatus of claim 1 and is therefore rejected on the same premise . Conclusion 07-96 AIA The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure, including: US 2015/0242374 A1: generating automatic layouts with various story templates US 2014/0181646 A1: dynamic layout of content presentation for cohesive text, image, and other content integration Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to KENNY NGUYEN whose telephone number is (571)272-4980. The examiner can normally be reached M-Th 7AM to 5PM. 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, KIEU D VU can be reached on (571)272-4057. 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. /KENNY NGUYEN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2171 Application/Control Number: 18/721,962 Page 2 Art Unit: 2171 Application/Control Number: 18/721,962 Page 3 Art Unit: 2171 Application/Control Number: 18/721,962 Page 4 Art Unit: 2171 Application/Control Number: 18/721,962 Page 5 Art Unit: 2171 Application/Control Number: 18/721,962 Page 6 Art Unit: 2171 Application/Control Number: 18/721,962 Page 7 Art Unit: 2171 Application/Control Number: 18/721,962 Page 8 Art Unit: 2171 Application/Control Number: 18/721,962 Page 9 Art Unit: 2171 Application/Control Number: 18/721,962 Page 10 Art Unit: 2171 Application/Control Number: 18/721,962 Page 11 Art Unit: 2171 Application/Control Number: 18/721,962 Page 12 Art Unit: 2171 Application/Control Number: 18/721,962 Page 13 Art Unit: 2171 Application/Control Number: 18/721,962 Page 14 Art Unit: 2171 Application/Control Number: 18/721,962 Page 15 Art Unit: 2171 Application/Control Number: 18/721,962 Page 16 Art Unit: 2171 Application/Control Number: 18/721,962 Page 17 Art Unit: 2171 Application/Control Number: 18/721,962 Page 18 Art Unit: 2171 Application/Control Number: 18/721,962 Page 19 Art Unit: 2171 Application/Control Number: 18/721,962 Page 20 Art Unit: 2171 Application/Control Number: 18/721,962 Page 21 Art Unit: 2171
Prosecution Insights