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 .
Priority
Receipt is acknowledged of certified copies of papers required by 37 CFR 1.55.
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) 1, 14-16 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kitabatake et al. (US 20210042066).
Regarding claim 1, Kitabatake discloses An information processing apparatus, comprising at least one memory and at least one processor and/or at least one circuit (Kitabatake, “[0036] The ROM 102 stores a program and an operating system (OS) to be executed by the CPU 101. The RAM 103 provides memory for temporarily storing various types of information when the CPU 101 executes the program”) which function as:
an editing unit configured to edit layout data including at least one image slot in which an image is arranged (Kitabatake, “[0056] The image list 504 lists thumbnail images of image data corresponding to the path specified in the path box 302 (image data selected by the user). The image data corresponding to a thumbnail image selected from the image list 504 is laid out on the spread displayed on the spread display section 503. In other words, the user can specify the image data to be laid out on the spread displayed on the spread display section 503 by clicking on one of the thumbnail images included in the image list 504 with the mouse 107”);
a reception unit configured to receive an operation of selecting a template including at least one image slot in which an image is arranged, during editing of the layout data (Kitabatake, “[0080] Examples of the templates generated by the template generation processing include a type of template where a slot laid out across both the right and left pages can be laid out, and a type of template where a slot laid out across both the right and left pages is not laid out. [0139] In step S411, the CPU 101 selects one or a plurality of templates from the templates generated in step S409 based on the evaluations (template scores) given in step S410.”);
a determination unit configured to determine an image to be arranged in the image slot included in the selected template, from the image arranged in the currently-edited layout data, based on predetermined information relating to the currently-edited layout data and the template (Kitabatake, fig.16, “[0141] In step S412, the CPU 101 generates a layout image by allocating the piece(s) of image data assigned to the spread specified in step S408 to the slot(s) in the template selected in step S411 (layout image generation processing). [0142] FIG. 16C illustrates a table showing information about the pieces of image data corresponding to FIG. 16A and a table showing information about the slots included in the template corresponding to FIG. 16B. Information about each piece of image data includes, for example, an image number assigned to the piece of image data and the aspect ratio, score (image score), and imaging time of the piece of image data. Information about each slot includes, for example, a slot number assigned to the slot and the aspect ratio, score (slot score), and position of the slot. FIG. 16D illustrates an example of the resulting tables. The CPU 101 then allocates the pieces of image data to the slots corresponding to the same order of rows in the tables”. Therefore, the CPU is configured to determine fig.16E to be arranged in image slot included in the template fig.16B, from the piece(s) of image data assigned to the spread fig. 16A, based on the information in fig.16D).
On the other hand, the above embodiment of Kitabatake fails to explicitly disclose but another embodiment of Kitabatake discloses an obtaining unit configured to obtain template information of the selected template (Kitabatake, fig.8, “[0092] In step S801, the CPU 101 generates a slot area by laying out a slot or slots having the aspect ratio(s) included in an nth one-dimensional array in the two-dimensional array specified in step S703 in order from above”. Therefore, the information of the template slot area is obtained).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have combined the two embodiments above of Kitabatake, to include all limitations of claim 1. That is, adding the template information of the second embodiment to provide the predetermined information (e.g., aspect ratio) relating to the template information of Kitabatake. The motivation/ suggestion would have been to provide information (e.g., aspect ratio) of the slots in a template from a plurality of templates having respective different numbers of slot columns and a plurality of templates having respective different numbers of slot rows.
Regarding claim 15, it recites similar limitations as claim 1, except that it further recites “A non-transitory computer readable storage medium storing a program which functions in an information processing apparatus and causes the information processing apparatus to function…”
Kitabatake further discloses in claim 19, “A non-transitory computer-readable storage medium storing a program configured to cause a computer to perform a control method of an image processing apparatus”.
Regarding claim 16, it is interpreted and rejected under similar rationale set forth in claim 1.
Regarding claim 14, Kitabatake discloses The information processing apparatus according to claim 1.
Kitabatake further discloses wherein the template information is information on the image arranged by default or a shape of the image slot in the template (Kitabatake, “[0041] The template to be automatically specified has conventionally been a template stored in the album generation application in advance and having predetermined slot shapes, sizes, and positions”).
Claim(s) 2, 4, 6, 10 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kitabatake et al. (US 20210042066) in view of Obayashi et al. (US 20170186201).
Regarding claim 2, Kitabatake discloses The information processing apparatus according to claim 1.
On the other hand, Kitabatake fails to explicitly disclose but Obayashi discloses wherein the determination unit determines an evaluation value that is the predetermined information, based on the currently-edited layout data and the selected template information, and determines the image to be arranged in the image slot included in the selected template from the image arranged in the currently-edited layout data, based on the evaluation value (Obayashi, “[0034] An image selecting unit 210 selects image data pieces for a number of slots in an image layout region, which are input by the album generation condition designating unit 201, from a part of the image data pieces allocated to a double-page spread by the double-page spread allocating unit 209 on basis of the score given by the image scoring unit 207. [0096] The CPU 101 selects an image data piece (1) at a position with the highest score for the main slot given in S410 as an image data piece for the main slot from the image data corresponding to the divided capturing period illustrated in FIG. 9B. [0126] For example, a correlation between an aspect ratio of a slot and an aspect ratio of an image data piece associated with the slot may also be included in elements of the layout scoring. In this case, for example, as the difference between an aspect ratio of a slot and an aspect ratio of an image data piece associated with the slot decreases, the score to be given increases”).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have combined Kitabatake and Obayashi, to include all limitations of claim 2. That is, applying the score indicating correlation and difference between the image data piece and the template slot of Obayashi to the predetermined information of Kitabatake. The motivation/ suggestion would have been to provide an image processing apparatus which lays out target image data pieces in a template suitable for the layout target image data pieces (Obayashi, [0005]).
Regarding claim 4, Kitabatake in view of Obayashi discloses The information processing apparatus according to claim 2.
On the other hand, Kitabatake fails to explicitly disclose but Obayashi discloses wherein the evaluation value is determined from aspect ratios of the image arranged in the currently-edited layout data and a shape of the image slot included in the selected template (Obayashi, “[0126] For example, a correlation between an aspect ratio of a slot and an aspect ratio of an image data piece associated with the slot may also be included in elements of the layout scoring. In this case, for example, as the difference between an aspect ratio of a slot and an aspect ratio of an image data piece associated with the slot decreases, the score to be given increases. [0130] the templates may include various types (categories) of template such as templates including slots having various shapes such as a round slot and a diamond-shaped slot in addition to a rectangular slots and templates in which slots are overlapped with each other”). The same motivation of claim 2 applies here.
Regarding claim 6, Kitabatake in view of Obayashi discloses The information processing apparatus according to claim 2.
On the other hand, Kitabatake fails to explicitly disclose but Obayashi discloses wherein the determination unit determines the evaluation value for each of image arrangement patterns, and determines the image to be arranged in the template based on the image arrangement pattern with the smallest evaluation value (Obayashi, “[0096] The CPU 101 selects an image data piece (1) at a position with the highest score for the main slot given in S410 as an image data piece for the main slot from the image data corresponding to the divided capturing period illustrated in FIG. 9B. [0126] For example, a correlation between an aspect ratio of a slot and an aspect ratio of an image data piece associated with the slot may also be included in elements of the layout scoring. In this case, for example, as the difference between an aspect ratio of a slot and an aspect ratio of an image data piece associated with the slot decreases, the score to be given increases”. Therefore, the difference between an aspect ratio of a slot and an aspect ratio of an image data piece, corresponds to the evaluation value. The image data piece is selected based on the highest score, namely, smallest difference). The same motivation of claim 2 applies here.
Regarding claim 10, Kitabatake in view of Obayashi discloses The information processing apparatus according to claim 6.
Kitabatake further discloses in the case where the user additionally arranges an image in the currently-edited layout data in addition to the image arranged by default in the currently-edited layout data, the determination unit adds the image arrangement pattern including the added image as a candidate of the image arrangement pattern for which the evaluation value is to be determined (Kitabatake, “[0150] Specifically, for example, the user can perform editing operations to add one or a plurality of pieces of image data to the layout image laid out on the spread selected from the spread list 502 or change one or a plurality of pieces of image data already laid out in the layout image. In the present exemplary embodiment, the automatic layout processing can be performed not only in the processing illustrated in FIG. 4 but also in a case where image data to be laid out on the spread is added by editing operations”).
Claim(s) 3 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kitabatake et al. (US 20210042066) in view of Obayashi et al. (US 20170186201), and further in view of AOKI et al. (US 20090052783).
Regarding claim 3, Kitabatake in view of Obayashi discloses The information processing apparatus according to claim 2, wherein evaluation value is determined from the image slot included in the currently-edited layout data and the image slot included in the selected template, has been disclosed.
On the other hand, Kitabatake in view of Obayashi fails to explicitly disclose but AOKI discloses wherein the evaluation value is determined from a hue histogram between two images (AOKI, “[0006] Such a program recording apparatus identifies two shots taken from the same camera angle (that is, detects similar shots), and inspects the similarity between these shots by comparing feature values thereof, such as hue histograms, that are independent from subjects in the shots… an image feature value (e.g., hue histogram), which is small in data size, is obtained from an entire screen, and similarity between the entire screens is inspected based on the obtained image feature values.”).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have combined AOKI into the combination of Kitabatake and Obayashi, to include all limitations of claim 3. That is, applying the hue histogram evaluation of AOKI to determine the evaluation value of Obayashi and Kitabatake. The motivation/ suggestion would have been to provide an approach to evaluate the similarity between images, and save computer resources (AOKI, “[0006] an image feature value (e.g., hue histogram), which is small in data size”).
Claim(s) 5 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kitabatake et al. (US 20210042066) in view of Obayashi et al. (US 20170186201), and further in view of DUGA et al. (US 20110249903).
Regarding claim 5, Kitabatake in view of Obayashi discloses The information processing apparatus according to claim 2, wherein evaluation value is determined from the image slot included in the currently-edited layout data and the image slot included in the selected template, has been disclosed.
On the other hand, Kitabatake in view of Obayashi fails to explicitly disclose but DUGA discloses wherein the evaluation is determined from a shape of the image slot included in the currently-edited layout data and a shape of the image slot included in the selected template (DUGA, “[0038] FIG. 3A illustrates an example diagram of an image shape template with electronic content according to an embodiment of the invention. As illustrated in FIG. 3A, the content layout system 102 may identify or select a circle image shape template 302 that has a shape that is similar to the shape of a non-rectangular image (e.g., a star image 304).”).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have combined DUGA into the combination of Kitabatake and Obayashi, to include all limitations of claim 5. That is, applying the shape evaluation of DUGA to determine the evaluation value of Obayashi and Kitabatake. The motivation/ suggestion would have been to provide a system for and method of displaying non-rectangular images in electronic content on a reader device (DUGA, [0001]).
Claim(s) 8 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kitabatake et al. (US 20210042066) in view of Obayashi et al. (US 20170186201), and further in view of Hayakawa (US 20190104221).
Regarding claim 8, Kitabatake in view of Obayashi discloses The information processing apparatus according to claim 6.
On the other hand, Kitabatake in view of Obayashi fails to explicitly disclose but Hayakawa discloses in the case where the number of images arranged by default in the selected template is larger than the number of images arranged in the currently-edited layout data, the determination unit selects the image slots in which the images are to be arranged in the selected template such that the number of the selected image slots is equal to the number of images arranged in the currently-edited layout data (Hayakawa, “[0054] It should be noted that description has been given of the case where the number of images (6) included in the target group is greater than the number of slots (4) prepared in the template, but there may also be a case where the number of images included in a target group is less than the number of slots being prepared. In such a case, the layout on the template may be switched from 4-image display to 3-image display or fewer, and the above-described processing may be performed in the same manner”).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have combined Hayakawa into the combination of Kitabatake and Obayashi, to include all limitations of claim 8. That is, applying the method of Hayakawa the system of Obayashi and Kitabatake. The motivation/ suggestion would have been to create a layout result in which images having a high priority for a user are laid out according to the order of photographing date and time, without putting a load on the user (Hayakawa, [0007]).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claim(s) 7, 9, 11-13 is/are objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter:
Regarding claim 7, it recites, in the case where the number of images arranged by default in the selected template is smaller than the number of images arranged in the currently-edited layout data, the determination unit uses the images that achieve the image arrangement pattern with the smallest evaluation value from among the images arranged in the currently-edited layout data, as the images to be arranged in the selected template. None of the prior arts on the record or any of the prior arts searched, alone or in combination, renders obvious the combination of elements recited in the claim(s) as a whole.
Regarding claim 9, it recites, wherein the image slots selected by the determination unit are the image slots in the case where the image arrangement pattern with the smallest evaluation value is achieved. None of the prior arts on the record or any of the prior arts searched, alone or in combination, renders obvious the combination of elements recited in the claim(s) as a whole.
Regarding claim 11, it recites, wherein the determination unit displays a predetermined number of image arrangement patterns on a display unit included in the information processing apparatus, and determines an image to be newly arranged in the template based on the image arrangement pattern selected by the user. None of the prior arts on the record or any of the prior arts searched, alone or in combination, renders obvious the combination of elements recited in the claim(s) as a whole.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to GRACE Q LI whose telephone number is (571)270-0497. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday, 8:00 am-5:00 pm.
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, DEVONA FAULK can be reached at 571-272-7515. 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.
/GRACE Q LI/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2618 5/1/2026
Prosecution Insights