DETAILED ACTION
[1] Remarks
I. The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
II. Claims 1-14 are pending and have been examined, where claims 1-3 and 10-14 is/are rejected and claim 4-9 is/are objected. Explanations will be provided below.
III. Inventor and/or assignee search were performed and determined no double patenting rejection(s) is/are necessary.
IV. Patent eligibility (updated in 2019) shown by the following: Claims 1-14 pass patent eligibility test because there is/are no limitation or a combination of limitations amounting to an abstract idea. Also, the following limitation or the combinations of the limitations: “wherein the classifier sets, as a first image set, images classified as belonging to a cluster including a predetermined ratio or more of the plurality of images with respect to a total number of the plurality of images by classification based on the image feature value, wherein the provider causes the display to display the images belonging to the first image set and other images distinguishably” effects a transformation or a reduction of a particular article to a different state or thing / adds a specific limitation(s) other than what is well-understood, routine and conventional in the field, or adding unconventional steps that confine the claim to a particular useful application and providing improvements to the technical field of image retrieval, which recite additional elements that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application and amounting significant more.
[2] Claim Interpretation
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(f):
(f) Element in Claim for a Combination. – An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
Use of the word “means” (or “step for”) in a claim with functional language creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim element is to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) (pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph). The presumption that 35 U.S.C. 112(f) (pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph) is invoked is rebutted when the function is recited with sufficient structure, material, or acts within the claim itself to entirely perform the recited function. Absence of the word “means” (or “step for”) in a claim creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim element is not to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) (pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph). The presumption that 35 U.S.C. 112(f) (pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph) is not invoked is rebutted when the claim element recites function but fails to recite sufficiently definite structure, material or acts to perform that function.
Claim elements in this application that use the word “means” (or “step for”) are presumed to invoke 35 U.S.C. 112(f) except as otherwise indicated in an Office action. Similarly, claim elements that do not use the word “means” (or “step for”) are presumed not to invoke 35 U.S.C. 112(f) except as otherwise indicated in an Office action.
Claim(s) 1-12 are interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA U.S.C. 112 6th paragraph because of the following reason(s): the claim limitations uses the term “means” or a term used as a substitute for “means” that is a generic placeholder; the term “means” or the generic placeholder is modified by functional language, typically linked by the transition word “for” or another linking word or phrase, such as “configured to” or “so that”; the term “means” or the generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structure or material for performing the claimed function.
Claim(s) 13-14 do not require 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA U.S.C. 112 6th paragraph interpretation because they are method claims and / or they are CRM claims.
Upon examination of the specification and claims, the examiner has determined, under the best understanding of the scope of the claim(s), rejection(s) under 35 U.S.C. 112(a)/(b) is not necessitated because of the following reasons: sufficient support are provided in the written description / drawings of the invention.
[3] Grounds of Rejection
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
U.S.C. 102 Conditions for patentability; novelty.
[Editor Note: Applicable to any patent application subject to the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA (see 35 U.S.C. 100 (note) ). See 35 U.S.C. 102 (pre-AIA ) for the law otherwise applicable.]
(a) NOVELTY; PRIOR ART.—A person shall be entitled to a patent unless—
(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; or
(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.
(b) EXCEPTIONS.—
(1) DISCLOSURES MADE 1 YEAR OR LESS BEFORE THE EFFECTIVE FILING DATE OF THE CLAIMED INVENTION.—A disclosure made 1 year or less before the effective filing date of a claimed invention shall not be prior art to the claimed invention under subsection (a)(1) if—
(A) the disclosure was made by the inventor or joint inventor or by another who obtained the subject matter disclosed directly or indirectly from the inventor or a joint inventor; or
(B) the subject matter disclosed had, before such disclosure, been publicly disclosed by the inventor or a joint inventor or another who obtained the subject matter disclosed directly or indirectly from the inventor or a joint inventor.
(2) DISCLOSURES APPEARING IN APPLICATIONS AND PATENTS.—A disclosure shall not be prior art to a claimed invention under subsection (a)(2) if—
(A) the subject matter disclosed was obtained directly or indirectly from the inventor or a joint inventor;
(B) the subject matter disclosed had, before such subject matter was effectively filed under subsection (a)(2), been publicly disclosed by the inventor or a joint inventor or another who obtained the subject matter disclosed directly or indirectly from the inventor or a joint inventor; or
(C) the subject matter disclosed and the claimed invention, not later than the effective filing date of the claimed invention, were owned by the same person or subject to an obligation of assignment to the same person.
Claims 1-3 and 10-14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(1) as being anticipated by Mukherjea (US 6415282).
Regarding claim 1, Mukherjea discloses an image editing device comprising:
an extractor that extracts an image feature value from a plurality of images obtained by search (see figure 8, image 1 to image 4 are images obtained by a search using a query);
PNG
media_image1.png
300
670
media_image1.png
Greyscale
a classifier that classifies the plurality of images based on the extracted image feature value (see column 7, lines 28-34, to classify the images based on the composition of the objects, two steps are required. First, the objects must be extracted from the images, where edges are detected from the image, this edge image is used to extract the objects from the image using color, location and visual features); and
a provider that provides editing support information by causing a display to display a classification result by the classifier (see figure 9a, the classes of objects are displayed),
wherein the classifier sets, as a first image set, images classified as belonging to a cluster including a predetermined ratio or more of the plurality of images with respect to a total number of the plurality of images by classification based on the image feature value (see column 7, lines 61-65, typical primary shapes like ellipses, rectangles and triangles of different sizes and aspect ratios are defined as templates and are used as clustering seeds to make a classification, FIG. 9(a), where the aspect ratio is read as predetermined ratio, and the classes of objects belong in each class such as “Circle,” “Triangle,” “Rectangle”, etc.),
PNG
media_image2.png
321
744
media_image2.png
Greyscale
wherein the provider causes the display to display the images belonging to the first image set and other images distinguishably (see figure 9a, the “Circle,” “Triangle,” “Rectangle” are distinguishable from one another).
Regarding claim 2, Mukherjea discloses the image editing device according to wherein the image feature value is an element forming a design, wherein the image feature value includes at least one or more pieces of information among a direction of a line segment, a thickness of a line segment, a line type of a line segment, a color, a ratio of colors, a shape of an object, a material appearance, a texture, a margin percentage, a three-dimensionality, a font shape of a character, a layout, presence or absence of a specific motif, and an occupied area percentage of the specific motif (see figure 8, in image 4 shows direction of a line segment, a thickness of a line segment, a line type of a line segment):
PNG
media_image3.png
124
436
media_image3.png
Greyscale
.
Regarding claim 3, Mukherjea discloses the image editing device according to claim 1, wherein the classifier uses a cluster analysis method in classification based on the image feature value (see column 2, lines 7-13, using the classification results produced by clustering, users can roughly grasp the contents of the entire image database and use this information for their interaction with the image retrieval system, image clustering can be based on various image features such as colors, textures, shapes).
Regarding claim 10, Mukherjea discloses the image editing device according to claim 1, wherein the provider causes the display to display a plurality of patterns of layouts of images to be displayed on the display, thereby providing the plurality of patterns of layouts as a part of the editing support information (see figure 1, the query can be edited, where the plurality of layouts of images are displayed as the retrieved images):
PNG
media_image4.png
375
651
media_image4.png
Greyscale
.
Regarding claim 11, Mukherjea discloses the image editing device according to claim 1, wherein when a user selects one of the images displayed on the display, the provider infers an impression of the image from the image feature value of the one of the images and provides the inferred impression as a part of the editing support information (see figure 4a and figure 4b, show search results grouped according to URL and an image from a selected URL in accordance with an embodiment of the present invention, show the hierarchical structure of a web site and images from a selected section of the web site, where the user selects URL to select an image, where the image features are the edges extracted shown in figure 8, image 1 to 4, the middle images are edge image which are the image feature value).
Regarding claim 12, Mukherjea discloses the image editing device according to The image editing device according to wherein when a user selects an impression for one image set among the first image set, the second image set, and the third image set (see figure 8, “Circle,” “Triangle,” and “Rectangle” are read as the first, second and third set, column 4, lines 60-63, The QRVE presents to the user the cluster information for the retrieved images, where the results are clustered or grouped in accordance with the grouping method selected by the user), the provider extracts an image with an image feature value similar to the image feature value associated with the selected impression from the images in the one image set to be processed and provides the extracted image as a part of the editing support information (see figure 9b illustration below):
PNG
media_image5.png
477
633
media_image5.png
Greyscale
.
Regarding claims 13 and 14 see the rationale and rejection for claim 1.
[4] Claim Objections
Claim(s) 4-9 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.
With regards to claim 4, the examiner cannot find any applicable prior art providing teachings for the following limitation(s): sets as a second image set, images classified as belonging to a cluster including a second predetermined ratio smaller than the predetermined ratio or more of the plurality of images with respect to the total number of the plurality of images; and sets, as a third image set, images classified as belonging to a cluster including a third predetermined ratio smaller than the second predetermined ratio or more of the plurality of images with respect to the total number of the plurality of images, wherein the provider causes the display to distinguishably display the images belonging to the first image set, the images belonging to the second image set, and the images belonging to the third image set; in combination with the rest of the limitations of claim 4.
Regarding claim 4, Mukherjea discloses the image editing device according to claim 1, wherein, by classification based on the image feature value, the classifier:
sets as a second image set, images classified as belonging to a cluster including a second predetermined ratio
sets, as a third image set, images classified as belonging to a cluster including a third predetermined ratio
wherein the provider causes the display to distinguishably display the images belonging to the first image set, the images belonging to the second image set, and the images belonging to the third image set (see figure 9a, the “Circle,” “Triangle,” “Rectangle” are distinguishable from one another are displayed).
Claim(s) 5-9 is/are objected as well because it is dependent on a claim with allowable subject matter.
CONTACT INFORMATION
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ALEX LIEW (duty station is located in New York City) whose telephone number is (571)272-8623 (FAX 571-273-8623), cell (917)763-1192 or email alexa.liew@uspto.gov. Please note the examiner cannot reply through email unless an internet communication authorization is provided by the applicant. The examiner can be reached anytime.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, MISTRY ONEAL R, can be reached on (313)446-4912. 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.
/ALEX KOK S LIEW/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2674 Telephone: 571-272-8623
Date: 10/7/26
Prosecution Insights