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 . 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 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.
Applicant’s submission filed on 06/22/2026 has been entered. Claims 1 and 3-6 were amended. Claims 7-9 were added. Claims 1-9 are pending in the application.
Claim Objections
Claim 9 is objected to because of the following informalities: Claim 9 recites “up to an outer periphery of an adjusted assignment area” instead of “up to an outer periphery of the adjusted assignment area.” Appropriate correction is required.
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.
Claim(s) 1-3 and 5-8 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ying et al. (US 2015/0019957) in view of Edmunds et al. (US 2019/0354247).
Regarding claim 1, Ying teaches/suggests: An information processing apparatus comprising at least one processor (Ying [0079] “a software module is implemented with a computer program product comprising a computer-readable medium containing computer program code, which can be executed by a computer processor”), the at least one processor carrying out:
a layout decision process of deciding, for each of elements to be arranged in an object area of a layout, a position and an assignment area of the element in the object area (Ying [0058] “The generated section includes content regions presenting one or more content items having locations relative to each other specified by the display regions ... the digital magazine server 140, or a digital magazine application executing on the client device 130, dynamically arranges and sizes one or more content regions including one or more content items relative to each other”); and
an adjustment process of making an adjustment to the assignment area (Ying [0059] “the content region is increased to a size where a border of the content region is within the threshold distance of the display area boundary”).
Ying does not teach/suggest:
such that an outer periphery of the assignment area is brought into coincidence with a delimitation position defined within the object area by a predetermined layout condition set to the object area, the delimitation position being other than a boundary of the object area.
Edmunds, however, teaches/suggests a delimitation position defined within the object area, the delimitation position being other than a boundary of the object area (Edmunds [0021] “A pixel-aligned layout grid provides a layout grid that appears sharp and crisp when rendered … an element snapped to or aligned with a column in the layout grid also appears clear when rendered”). The column meets the delimitation position. Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the layout of Ying to include the layout grid of Edmunds to appear sharp and crisp. As such, Ying as modified by Edmunds teaches/suggests:
such that an outer periphery of the assignment area is brought into coincidence with a delimitation position defined within the object area by a predetermined layout condition set to the object area (Ying [0059] “the content region is increased to a size where a border of the content region is within the threshold distance of the display area boundary” Edmunds [0021] “an element snapped to or aligned with a column in the layout grid also appears clear when rendered”).
Regarding claim 2, Ying as modified by Edmunds teaches/suggests: The information processing apparatus according to claim 1, wherein in the layout decision process, the at least one processor decides the position and the assignment area of the element by using a layout decision model generated based on a relationship between explanatory variables and objective variables, the explanatory variables being various kinds of information associated with an arrangement of the element, the objective variables being the position and the assignment area in which the element is to be arranged (Ying [0058] “The generated section includes content regions presenting one or more content items having locations relative to each other specified by the display regions … the sizes of various content regions are determined from the sizes of display regions in the selected page template from which a corresponding content region is generated”). The sizes of content/display regions meet the explanatory variables; the locations of the content items and the assigned content/display regions of the content items meet the objective variables.
Ying as modified by Edmunds does not teach/suggest by performing machine learning. However, official notice is taken that the concept and advantages of machine learning are well known and expected in the art. It would have been obvious for the layout of Ying as modified by Edmunds to be performed by machine learning for artificial intelligence.
Regarding claim 3, Ying as modified by Edmunds teaches/suggests: The information processing apparatus according to claim 1, wherein in the adjustment process, the at least one processor makes the adjustment by expanding the assignment area until the outer periphery of the assignment area reaches the delimitation position (Ying [0059] “the content region is increased to a size where a border of the content region is within the threshold distance of the display area boundary” Edmunds [0021] “an element snapped to or aligned with a column in the layout grid also appears clear when rendered”). The same rationale to combine as set forth in the rejection of claim 1 is incorporated herein.
Claim 5 recites limitation(s) similar in scope to those of claim 1, and is rejected for the same reason(s).
Claim 6 recites limitation(s) similar in scope to those of claim 1, and is rejected for the same reason(s). Ying as modified by Edmunds further teaches/suggests a non-transitory storage medium storing a layout assistance program (Ying [0079] “a software module is implemented with a computer program product comprising a computer-readable medium containing computer program code, which can be executed by a computer processor”).
Regarding claim 7, Ying as modified by Edmunds teaches/suggests: The information processing apparatus according to claim 1, wherein the delimitation position comprises at least one of row edge and a text line edge in the object area (Edmunds [0021] “an element snapped to or aligned with a column in the layout grid also appears clear when rendered”). The same rationale to combine as set forth in the rejection of claim 1 is incorporated herein.
Claim 8 recites limitation(s) similar in scope to those of claim 3, and is rejected for the same reason(s).
Claim(s) 4 and 9 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ying et al. (US 2015/0019957) in view of Edmunds et al. (US 2019/0354247) as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Kong et al. (US 2015/0242374).
Regarding claim 4, Ying and Edmunds are silent regarding: The information processing apparatus according to claim 1, wherein in the adjustment process, the at least one processor adjusts an assignment area of one of two adjacent elements out of the elements, and then expands an assignment area of the other up to an outer periphery of the adjusted assignment area of the one element. Kong, however, teaches/suggests adjusts an assignment area of one of two adjacent elements out of the elements (Kong [0044]-[0045] “A page layout may be configured such that story containers of different characteristics (e.g., shape, size, font, etc.) are arranged to use the space of a display screen in a most efficient way … such that there is no space, or only a predetermined gap, between any two adjacent story containers”). Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the layout of Ying as modified by Edmunds such that there’s only a predetermined gap between any two adjacent content regions (the adjusting) as taught/suggested by Kong for efficiency.
As such, Ying as modified by Edmunds and Kong teaches/suggests expands an assignment area of the other up to an outer periphery of the adjusted assignment area of the one element (Ying [0059] “the content region is increased to a size where a border of the content region is within the threshold distance of the display area boundary” Kong [0045] “such that there is no space, or only a predetermined gap, between any two adjacent story containers”).
Claim 9 recites limitation(s) similar in scope to those of claim 4, and is rejected for the same reason(s).
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed on 06/22/2026 have been fully considered but they are moot in view of the new ground(s) of rejection set forth in this Office action.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure:
US 2016/0092091 – grid layout
US 2019/0073091 – snap in line with grid
US 2019/0114308 – dynamically update content
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 nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) 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 mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ANH-TUAN V NGUYEN whose telephone number is 571-270-7513. The examiner can normally be reached on M-F 9AM-5PM ET. 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 on 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 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). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/ANH-TUAN V NGUYEN/
Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2619
Prosecution Insights