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 .
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 09 September 2024 and 12 February 2025. The submission is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement is being considered by the examiner.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101
35 U.S.C. 101 reads as follows:
Whoever invents or discovers any new and useful process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter, or any new and useful improvement thereof, may obtain a patent therefor, subject to the conditions and requirements of this title.
Claim 17 recites a computer-readable recording medium. The broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim drawn to a computer readable medium (also called machine readable medium and other such variations) typically covers forms of non-transitory tangible media and transitory propagating signals per se in view of the ordinary and customary meaning of computer readable media, particularly when the specification is silent. See MPEP 2111.01. When the broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim covers a signal per se, the claim must be rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 as covering non-statutory subject matter. The USPTO recognizes that applicants may have claims directed to computer readable media that cover signals per se, which the USPTO must reject under 35 U.S.C. 101 as covering both non-statutory subject matter and statutory subject matter. A claim drawn to such a computer readable medium that covers both transitory and non-transitory embodiments may be amended to narrow the claim to cover only statutory embodiments to avoid a rejection under 35 U.S.C. $ I01 by adding the limitation "non-transitory" to the claim. Such an amendment would typically not raise the issue of new matter, even when the specification is silent because the broadest reasonable interpretation re lies on the ordinary and customary meaning that includes signals per se.
Applicant’s specification in paragraph [0050] recites the term "computer-readable recording medium" without specifying that is it not transitory.
As an additional note, a non-transitory computer readable medium having executable programming instructions stored thereon is considered statutory as non-transitory computer readable media excludes transitory data signals.
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, 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.
Claims 1-14 and 16-17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kumazaki (US 20150379748) in view of Yamada (US 20210289081).
Regarding claim 1, Kumazaki teaches An image processing apparatus that displays two or more display images, in a display aspect including an aspect in which the number of display images in a screen changes (Figure 2, <COLLAGE IMAGE>), the image processing apparatus comprising:
Acquire at least one piece of information on an acquisition condition of an image or a feature of the image for a plurality of images (Paragraph 68, For the “number/size/position of detected faces”, the score is determined according to tastes of the user and the image evaluating unit 53 determines the score based on the number of faces detected from an image, a ratio of the faces to the overall image, and/or importance of positions of the faces in the image);
Select a plurality of candidate images from among the plurality of images based on the at least one piece of information acquired for the plurality of images (Paragraph 69, The image selecting unit 54 performs selection of images to be used for image synthesis based on whether or not to use an image set by the image setting unit 52 and the evaluation by the image evaluating unit 53 in accordance with the number of images to be displayed from the image information stored in the image information storage unit 72);
Set a display method of the two or more display images with two or more candidate images satisfying a predetermined condition among the plurality of candidate images as the two or more display images (Paragraph 71, Based on the arrangement of the selected images in one composite image from the image information stored in the image information storage unit 72, the image generating unit 55 disposes each image of the plurality of images selected by the image selecting unit 54 at a predetermined position in the composite image and synthesizes the plurality of images to generate a collage image as one piece of composite image).
While Kumazaki fails to disclose the following, Yamada teaches:
A processor, wherein the processor is configured (Paragraph 103, The computer may comprise one or more processors (e.g., central processing unit (CPU), micro processing unit (MPU)) and may include a network of separate computers or separate processors to read out and execute the computer executable instructions);
Yamada and Kumazaki are both considered to be analogous to the claimed invention because they are in the same field of image processing and displays. Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Kumazaki by using Yamada to use a processor to perform the image display steps. Doing so would allow for using a known way to analyze, select, and set display images.
Method claim 16 and CRM claim 17 correspond to apparatus claim 1. Therefore, claims 16 and 17 are rejected for the same reasons as used above.
Regarding claim 2, the combination of Kumazaki and Yamada teaches the image processing apparatus according to claim 1, wherein the plurality of images include a captured image (Kumazaki, Paragraph 34, The data of the captured image is supplied to the CPU).
Regarding claim 3, the combination of Kumazaki and Yamada teaches the image processing apparatus according to claim 2, wherein the acquisition condition of the image includes an imaging condition of the captured image (Kumazaki, Paragraph 60, the image evaluating unit 53 evaluates an image in terms of whether or not the image is proper for display by using the shooting information of the image such as the image size, the aspect ratio, the exposure time, the AF (Auto Focus), the AE (Automatic Exposure), the scene determination result, the shooting mode, the number/size/position of detected faces, or the like).
Regarding claim 4, the combination of Kumazaki and Yamada teaches the image processing apparatus according to claim 3, wherein the imaging condition is a condition set based on at least one of an imaging date and time, an imaging interval, an imaging event, an imaging mode, an imaging device type, or an imaging person (Kumazaki, Paragraph 60, the image evaluating unit 53 evaluates an image in terms of whether or not the image is proper for display by using the shooting information of the image such as the image size, the aspect ratio, the exposure time, the AF (Auto Focus), the AE (Automatic Exposure), the scene determination result, the shooting mode, the number/size/position of detected faces, or the like).
Regarding claim 5, the combination of Kumazaki and Yamada teaches the image processing apparatus according to claim 1, wherein the processor is configured to select the plurality of candidate images from among the plurality of images based on features of the images obtained by analyzing the plurality of images (Kumazaki, Paragraph 69, The image selecting unit 54 performs selection of images to be used for image synthesis based on whether or not to use an image set by the image setting unit 52 and the evaluation by the image evaluating unit 53 in accordance with the number of images to be displayed from the image information stored in the image information storage unit 72).
Regarding claim 6, the combination of Kumazaki and Yamada teaches the image processing apparatus according to claim 1, wherein the processor is configured to select the two or more candidate images from among the plurality of candidate images based on features of the images obtained by analyzing the plurality of candidate images (Kumazaki, Paragraph 60, the image evaluating unit 53 evaluates an image in terms of whether or not the image is proper for display by using the shooting information of the image such as the image size, the aspect ratio, the exposure time, the AF (Auto Focus), the AE (Automatic Exposure), the scene determination result, the shooting mode, the number/size/position of detected faces, or the like).
Regarding claim 7, the combination of Kumazaki and Yamada teaches the image processing apparatus according to claim 1, wherein the processor is configured to calculate scores based on features of the image for the two or more display images to set the display method of the two or more display images in accordance with the scores (Kumazaki, Paragraph 75, the image evaluating unit 53 scores the images based on the shooting information of the images. More specifically, the image evaluating unit 53 evaluates images using the shooting information such as an image size, an aspect ratio, an exposure time, AF (Auto Focus), AE (Automatic Exposure), a scene determination result, a shooting mode, the number/size/position of detected faces, or the like; See also Paragraphs 60-68).
Regarding claim 8, the combination of Kumazaki and Yamada teaches the image processing apparatus according to claim 1, wherein the display method is at least one of a display position of the display image in a display region, a display angle of the display image with respect to the display region, or a display time during which an entire region of the display image is displayed (Kumazaki, Paragraph 45, An area in which an image is to be disposed and a size of the image may be determined beforehand or set according to criteria for selection of the image every time).
Regarding claim 9, the combination of Kumazaki and Yamada teaches the image processing apparatus according to claim 1, wherein the processor is configured to set, as the display image, at least one of a composite image obtained by combining, with an image region including a subject, a first region different from the image region or a composite image obtained by combining two or more images (Kumazaki, Paragraph 45, the composite image is an image generated by assembling the plurality of images by casually cutting and pasting them, which is a so-called collage image).
Regarding claim 10, the combination of Kumazaki and Yamada teaches the image processing apparatus according to claim 9. While the combination as previously presented fails to disclose the following, Yamada further teaches:
Wherein the processor is configured to set, as the display image, an image with frame region obtained by combining a frame region as the first region outside the image region (Paragraph 51, A difference region 806 illustrates an example of highlighting display made by decorating the frame of the slot determined to be a difference region. For example, the slot is highlighted by coloring the frame of the slot in red or yellow and enclosing the slot in a thicker frame than other slot display portions).
Yamada and Kumazaki are both considered to be analogous to the claimed invention because they are in the same field of image processing and displays. Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Kumazaki by using Yamada to use an image frame region. Doing so would allow for emphasizing the image inside the frame image.
Regarding claim 11, the combination of Kumazaki and Yamada teaches the image processing apparatus according to claim 10. While the combination as previously presented fails to disclose the following, Yamada further teaches:
Wherein the processor is configured to select a type of the frame region based on at least one or a preset selection criterion or input information from a user (Paragraph 27, The album generation conditions may be set by the user selecting a condition from among preset options registered in the application).
Yamada and Kumazaki are both considered to be analogous to the claimed invention because they are in the same field of image processing and displays. Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Kumazaki by using Yamada to select a type of the frame region based on present selection criterion or input information from a user. Doing so would allow for customizing the images displayed.
Regarding claim 12, the combination of Kumazaki and Yamada teaches the image processing apparatus according to claim 10. While the combination as previously presented fails to disclose the following, Yamada further teaches:
Wherein the processor is configured to set the display method of two or more images with frame regions according to a type of the frame region (Paragraph 27, The album generation conditions may be set by the user selecting a condition from among preset options registered in the application. The image group may be set, for example, by using accompanying information and attribute information for individual image data including the image capturing date and time).
Yamada and Kumazaki are both considered to be analogous to the claimed invention because they are in the same field of image processing and displays. Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Kumazaki by using Yamada to set the display method according to the type of the frame region. Doing so would allow for customizing the images displayed.
Regarding claim 13, the combination of Kumazaki and Yamada teaches the image processing apparatus according to claim 10. While the combination as previously presented fails to disclose the following, Yamada further teaches:
Wherein the processor is configured to set, as compared with a display position of the image with frame region having the frame region of a first outer shape size, a display position of the image with frame region having a second outer shape size smaller than the first outer shape size at a position away from a reference position in a display region (Figure 8A, Section 803; Paragraph 51, FIG. 8B illustrates examples of double-page spreads highlighted in the double-page spread display area 803 by the difference region highlighting unit 212. A difference region 806 illustrates an example of highlighting display made by decorating the frame of the slot determined to be a difference region).
Yamada and Kumazaki are both considered to be analogous to the claimed invention because they are in the same field of image processing and displays. Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Kumazaki by using Yamada to set, as compared with a display position of the image with frame region having the frame region of a first outer shape size, a display position of the image with frame region having a second outer shape size smaller than the first outer shape size at a position away from a reference position in a display region. Doing so would allow for customizing the images displayed.
Regarding claim 14, the combination of Kumazaki and Yamada teaches the image processing apparatus according to claim 10. While the combination as previously presented fails to disclose the following, Yamada further teaches:
Wherein the processor is configured to set a display order of two or more images with frame regions according to a type of the frame region (Paragraph 27, The album generation conditions may be set by the user selecting a condition from among preset options registered in the application. The image group may be set, for example, by using accompanying information and attribute information for individual image data including the image capturing date and time).
Yamada and Kumazaki are both considered to be analogous to the claimed invention because they are in the same field of image processing and displays. Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Kumazaki by using Yamada to set a display order of two or more images with frame regions according to a type of the frame region. Doing so would allow for customizing the images displayed.
Claim 15 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kumazaki in view of Yamada as applied to claims 1-14 and 16-17 and further in view of van Zee (US 20110099523).
Regarding claim 15, the combination of Kumazaki and Yamada teaches the image processing apparatus according to claim 1. While the combination fails to disclose the following, van Zee further teaches:
Wherein the processor is configured to set the number of the two or more display images according to the number of images capable of being disposed on the same print surface during printing (Paragraph 20, the user has selected product control 40d for a 12.times.18 Collage Poster. Instead of containing separate individual thumbnails 38 as in FIG. 6, user interface 34' includes, within frame 36', selected ones or all of thumbnails 38 are grouped in a product preview format for a 12.times.18 collage poster. Here, the product preview format has a 12.times.18 aspect ratio and includes a collage of individual thumbnails. In this example, that collage includes thumbnails, 38b 38c, 38f, 38g, 38h, and 38j each modified to a product preview format for a given image as it will appear in the multi-image product).
Van Zee and the combination of Kumazaki and Yamada are both considered to be analogous to the claimed invention because they are in the same field of image processing and displays. Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the combination of Kumazaki and Yamada by using van Zee to determine the number of images capable of being disposed on the same print surface. Doing so would allow for customizing the images displayed.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to SNIGDHA SINHA whose telephone number is (571)272-6618. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Fri. 12pm-8pm.
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, Jason Chan can be reached at 571-272-3022. 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.
/SNIGDHA SINHA/Examiner, Art Unit 2619
/JASON CHAN/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2619
Prosecution Insights