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 .
Response to Amendment
This Office Action is in response to Applicant’s amendment filed 07/23/2026 which has
been entered and made of record. Claims 1- 4, 13-15, and 18-20 have been amended.
Claim 12 has been cancelled. No claim has been newly added. Claims 1-11 and 13-20 are pending in the application. Previous 35 U.S.C. 112(f) interpretation for claims 1-2, 6-13, 15 and 18, and 35 U.S.C. 112(b) rejection for claims 2-3, 11 and 16-17 (in the non-final office action mailed on April 3rd, 2026) have been withdrawn due to applicant’s amendments to the claims.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claim(s) 1-11 and 13-20 have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument (due to applicant’s arguments directed to newly amend limitation(s) which is addressed by new prior art presented in this Office Action).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 1-11 and 13-20 rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Claim 1 recites the limitation "to obtain a seamless texture that is an image object in a predetermined size unit; (2) an adjustment unit configured to adjust the size of the seamless texture, wherein in a case where a plurality of the seamless textures are arranged side by side" in lines 4-7 of claim 1. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. This is because it is unclear what “plurality of the seamless textures” is being referred to since only a singular instance of “a seamless texture” is introduced prior to the reference to multiple seamless textures. Claims 19 and 20 recite similar limitations to claim 1 and are rejected for the same reason.
Claim 2 recites the limitation "a first end part of the disposition region…the first end part" in lines 4-5. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. This is because it’s unclear if “a first end part of the disposition region” in claim 2 is the same as “a first end part of a disposition region” from claim 1 and what the subsequent “the first end part” is referring to.
Claims 2-11 and 13-18 rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) since they depend on a claim that is rejected under rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b).
Note. Most likely these claims depend on some dependent claim or are missing elements.
In order to fix this issue, dependency should be reviewed and any first instance of an element
should be made clear that it’s a first instance and should be referred to as “a” or “an” instead of
“the”, and if multiple instances exist, further instances should be further distinguished for example by saying “first”, “second”, and/or “third” etc.
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) 1-5, 11 and 16-20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Liu et al. (U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 20190080484), hereinafter referenced as Liu in view IMG online (Make seamless texture online), hereinafter referenced as IMG, Layer (How to Turn a Photo into a Seamless, Tileable Texture in Photoshop) [https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WjDxwh2y8yY], hereinafter referenced as NL, and Turner (U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2019/0266758), hereinafter referenced as Turner.
Regarding claim 1, Liu teaches an information processing apparatus comprising: (fig. 25 reference 2502 teaches a computer); (a) one or more processors that execute instructions stored in a storage medium and/or (b) circuitry, configured to function as a plurality of units comprising: (paragraph 102 teaches “in a cloud-based computing system, resources (e.g., storage, processors, applications, memory, infrastructure, etc.) in clients 2602 and server computers 2606 may be shared by clients 2602, server computers 2606, and users across one or more networks”); this shows processors and storage for instructions stored to be executed by processor and since these resources are shared, they would function as plurality of units; (1) an obtainment unit configured to obtain (paragraph 104 teaches "database 2616 may be part of, or connected directly to, client 2602 instead of communicating/obtaining the information from database 2616 across network 2604" and paragraph 105 teaches "Generally, these components 2600-2616 all comprise logic and/or data that is embodied in/or retrievable from device"); since database 2616 is configured to obtain it is considered obtainment unit; (2) an adjustment unit configured to adjust (paragraph 63 teaches "Adjusting the content of the generated texture 208 is possible by two approaches. First, when the shuffling is performed, the horizontal and vertical cuts don't have to go through the center of the sample unit"); since sample unit works in adjusting it is considered the adjustment unit; and (3) a disposition unit configured to dispose (paragraph 91 teaches "the texture unit may then be used to generate a tiled image by repeatedly utilizing the texture unit as a tile."); texture unit performs tiling thus acts as disposition unit which is consistent with the applicant's disclosure paragraph 52 which states "The tiling unit (the disposition unit)213 tiles(dispose) the seamless texture".
However, Liu fails to explicitly teach obtain a seamless texture that is an image object in a predetermined size unit; dispose the seamless textures adjusted by the adjustment unit side by side in the disposition region.
However, IMG explicitly teaches obtain a seamless texture that is an image object in a predetermined size unit (IMG, bottom of page 2 (step 1) teaches selecting an image and top of page 3 (step 2) teaches creating a seamless texture); creating seamless texture means it would be obtained, this is based on input image thus image object, and predetermined size unit would be the pixel size of the image; dispose the seamless texture adjusted by the adjustment unit side by side in the disposition region (IMG, page 2 teaches "You will get processed texture and tile to check it seamlessness." and page 3, step 2 teaches "Tile format for checking the seamlessness: 2x2"); this shows to dispose/tile the seamless texture that was adjusted above by the adjustment unit side by side in tiled/disposition region. IMG is considered to be analogous art because it is reasonably pertinent to the problem faced by the inventor of seamless texturing with various configurations and settings. 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 modify Liu’s invention with the adjustment, tiling and seamless texture techniques of IMG to compute the optimized cut line (Liu, paragraph 59) to further optimize the quality of the resultant texture unit (Liu, paragraph 36). This would also be done by the improved view caused by the seamless texture techniques in IMG.
However, the combination of Liu and IMG fails to explicitly teach adjust the size of the seamless texture, wherein in a case where a plurality of the seamless textures are arranged side by side in a predetermined disposition region of image data as a printing target, the adjustment unit adjusts the size of each seamless texture so that the seamless textures are continuous between a first end part of the disposition region and a second end part of an adjacent region that is adjacent to the first end part,
However, NL explicitly teaches adjust the size of the seamless texture, wherein in a case where a plurality of the seamless textures are arranged side by side in a predetermined disposition region of image data as a printing target, (NL, 4:25-4:45 [see fig. 1 of this action] teaches creating new image of twice a size as the original image and pasting seamless textures side by side in tiled/disposition region of image date); one of ordinary skill in the art would understand images (image data) are used for printing target especially in software displayed such as photoshop and creating twice the size image would adjust size of seamless texture; the adjustment unit adjusts the size of each seamless texture so that the seamless textures are continuous between a first end part of the disposition region and a second end part of an adjacent region that is adjacent to the first end part, (NL, 5:01-5:30 [see fig. 2 of this action] teaches creating pattern using aforementioned textures and then applying the pattern overlay which can be moved around and resized without seeing any seams in the document and texture); this shows adjusting size/scaling of each seamless texture (since each of the aforementioned seamless textures created this pattern overlay), and it is so that seamless textures are continuous between a first end part of tiled/disposition region (first quadrant) and second end part of adjacent region that is adjacent to the first end part (second quadrant).
PNG
media_image1.png
889
1165
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Figure 1
PNG
media_image2.png
883
1164
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Figure 2
NL is considered to be analogous art because it is reasonably pertinent to the problem faced by the inventor of multiple seamless textures and adjusting sizes of such. 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 modify the combination of Liu and IMG with the size-adjustment of seamless textures techniques of NL to convert an image that doesn't repeat well into a seamlessly tileable pattern in just a few minutes so you're no longer limited to using textures "as-is" (NL, video description). This would increase user satisfaction rate due to the amount of time to convert into seamlessly tileable pattern and would increase versatility since textures wouldn’t need to be used “as-is”.
However, the combination of Liu, IMG and NL fails to explicitly teach and wherein the adjustment unit adjusts the size of the seamless texture so that a size scaled to an integral multiple of 2 or more of the size of the seamless texture matches the size of the disposition region;
However, Turner explicitly teaches and wherein the adjustment unit adjusts the size of the seamless texture so that a size scaled to an integral multiple of 2 or more of the size of the seamless texture matches the size of the disposition region (Turner, paragraph 58 teaches “In Photoshop, for example, Perlin noise (clouds) generation cycles at 128-pixel intervals, and thus if a seamless pattern is desired, each side must be an integer multiple of 128; rounding up to fit the nearest possible value, then resizing the finished pattern, is acceptable.”, paragraph 41 teaches “Fourier data should be sampled from images with the same or greater resolution than the pattern being generated” and paragraph 44 teaches “Both the Fourier frequency data and the target geometry should have the same geometrical size”; Photoshop seamless pattern (seamless texture pattern from above such as in NL Photoshop tutorial) scaled to integer multiple of 128 shows the adjustment unit from the above combination would adjust size of seamless texture so that a size scaled to an integral multiple of 2 or more of the seamless texture/pattern matches the size of the disposition region (since the same size/resolution mentioned as a constraint would ensure the seamless texture matches size of disposition region). Turner is considered to be analogous art because it is reasonably pertinent to the problem faced by the inventor of scaling pattern/textures by integral multiples. 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 modify the combination of Liu, IMG and NL invention with the integral multiple of 2 or more scaling techniques of Turner to ensure elements larger and smaller than a macropattern to be fitted… without loss of larger shapes or disruptive effectiveness (Turner, paragraph 7). This shows preservation of shapes in texture/pattern leading to more visually appealing outcome for a user.
Regarding claim 2, the combination of Liu, IMG, NL, and Turner teaches wherein in a case where the seamless texture is a pattern with a period, the adjustment unit adjusts the size of the seamless texture so that the period of the pattern is maintained between a first end part of the disposition region and the adjacent region that is adjacent to the end part in a case where the seamless textures are arranged side by side in the disposition region (IMG, page 2, top and bottom image shows seamless texture as design pattern with a period/interval and undergoing adjustment of size of seamless texture); this shows period of pattern maintained between first end part of disposition/tiled region and adjacent region in a side by side case. The same motivations used in claim 1 apply here in claim 2.
Regarding claim 3, the combination of Liu, IMG, NL, and Turner teaches wherein the first end part is an end part in an arrangement direction in a case where a printed material on which the image data is printed is posted (IMG, page 1, top image and page 2 top image show end part of images arranged as top-bottom and side-side indicative of an arrangement direction); this shows printed material (the design) on the image printed and posted on the display (thus in a case where such exists). The same motivations used in claim 1 apply here in claim 3.
Regarding claim 4, the combination of Liu, IMG, NL, and Turner teaches wherein the disposition region is a region including the entirety from one end to the other end of a printed material in a case where the image data is printed (IMG, page 2, top image shows the image disposed/tiled into top-bottom regions); each of these regions extend from one end of printed material (the design) to the other end of where the image data is printed onto the display. The same motivations used in claim 1 apply here in claim 4.
Regarding claim 5, the combination of Liu, IMG, NL, and Turner teaches wherein the disposition region is a partial region of a printed material on which the image data is printed (IMG. page 2, top image shows the image disposed/tiled into four regions); this shows disposition region is a partial region (quadrant) of printed material (the design) of where the image data is printed onto the display. The same motivations used in claim 1 apply here in claim 5.
Regarding claim 11, the combination of Liu, IMG, NL, and Turner teaches further comprising a second reception unit configured to receive selection of the arrangement direction (Liu, abstract teaches "shuffled sample unit is generated by moving each of the multiple parts to a center-symmetric position based on the horizontal cut and/or the vertical cut" and claim 16 teaches "utilizing the shuffled sample unit as a second input"); shuffled sample unit acts as second reception unit and since based on arrangement direction, it must receive the selection of the arrangement direction.
Regarding claim 16, the combination of Liu, IMG, NL, and Turner teaches wherein the arrangement direction is a horizontal direction or a vertical direction (Liu, abstract teaches "sample unit is split into multiple parts using a horizontal cut and/or a vertical cut"); this shows arrangement would be horizontal or vertical.
Regarding claim 17, the combination of Liu, IMG, NL, and Turner teaches wherein the arrangement direction is both a horizontal direction and a vertical direction (Liu, abstract teaches "sample unit is split into multiple parts using a horizontal cut and/or a vertical cut"); this shows arrangement would be horizontal and vertical.
Regarding claim 18, the combination of Liu, IMG, NL, and Turner teaches wherein the plurality of units further comprises a display unit configured to effect display of the image data with the seamless texture arranged in the disposition region by the disposition unit, (Liu, figure 25, reference 2522 teaches a display implemented with a GUI and IMG, page 2, bottom image shows image with seamless texture); this is displayed and has seamless texture arranged in disposition/tiled region; wherein each time the seamless texture disposed in the disposition region is changed by a user, (1) the obtainment of the seamless texture by the obtainment unit, the adjustment of the size of the seamless texture by the adjustment unit, and the disposition by the disposition unit are executed (IMG, page 3, teaches a "OK" step after reconfigurations (inclusive of changing seamless texture disposed in disposition region) and filling fields in steps above); this leads to the execution of claim 1 above which includes obtainment of seamless texture, adjustment of it's size and disposition as previously explained; and (2) the display of the image data by the display unit is changed (Liu, paragraph 94 teaches "Output/results may be presented on the display 2522 or provided to another device for presentation or further processing or action"); this shows results presented meaning display of image data is changed. The same motivations used in claim 1 apply here in claim 18.
Regarding claim 19, the method claim 19 recites similar limitations as apparatus claim 1, and thus is rejected under similar rationale.
Regarding claim 20, the non-transitory computer readable storage medium claim 20 recites similar limitations as apparatus claim 1, and thus is rejected under similar rationale. In addition, Liu, paragraph 99 teaches "instructions implementing the operating system 2508, the computer program 2510, and the compiler 2512 are tangibly embodied in a non-transitory computer-readable medium".
Claim(s) 6-8 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over the combination of Liu, IMG, NL, and Turner as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Qutub (U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2015/0071541), hereinafter referenced as Qutub.
Regarding claim 6, the combination of Liu, IMG, NL, and Turner fails to teach further comprising a switching unit configured to switch whether to perform the adjustment by the adjustment unit.
However, Qutub teaches further comprising a switching unit configured to switch whether to perform the adjustment by the adjustment unit (Qutub, paragraph 59 teaches "ratio value (between the baseline representation and the generated masks) that can serve as a threshold for designating acceptable segmentations. While a single ratio value will typically be suitable for all images of a particular type or set, this value can also be adjusted by the user when switching to different image set types" and paragraph 148 teaches "processing unit 1510 executes computer-executable instructions"); unit 1510 acts as switching unit when configured to execute the specific instructions and this shows to switch whether to adjust (from adjustment unit of above when viewed in combination) based on the image set type. Qutub is considered to be analogous art because it is reasonably pertinent to the problem faced by the inventor of segmentation/tiling of an image and adjustments thereof according to switch. 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 modify the combination of Liu, IMG, NL, and Turner with the switching to perform adjustment techniques of Qutub to improve the potential for accurate segmentation (Qutub, paragraph 38). This would be done by the user switching to different type or not leading to adjustment for specific image types.
Regarding claim 7, the combination of Liu, IMG, NL, Turner and Qutub teaches wherein the switching unit switches whether to perform the adjustment by the adjustment unit in accordance with an operation by a user (Qutub, paragraph 59 teaches "ratio value (between the baseline representation and the generated masks) that can serve as a threshold for designating acceptable segmentations. While a single ratio value will typically be suitable for all images of a particular type or set, this value can also be adjusted by the user when switching to different image set types"); adjusted by the user when switching means the switch whether to perform the adjustment is in accordance with an operation by the user. The same motivations used in claim 6 apply here in claim 7.
Regarding claim 8, the combination of Liu, IMG, NL, Turner and Qutub teaches wherein the switching unit switches whether to perform the adjustment by the adjustment unit in accordance with the kind of the image data (Qutub, paragraph 59 teaches "ratio value (between the baseline representation and the generated masks) that can serve as a threshold for designating acceptable segmentations. While a single ratio value will typically be suitable for all images of a particular type or set, this value can also be adjusted by the user when switching to different image set types"); switching to different image set types indicates the switch whether to perform the adjustment is in accordance with the kind of image data / image set types. The same motivations used in claim 6 apply here in claim 8.
Claim(s) 9-10 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over the combination of Liu, IMG, NL, and Turner as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Shibuhisa et al. (U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2015/0206354), hereinafter referenced as Shibuhisa.
Regarding claim 9, the combination of Liu, IMG, NL, and Turner teaches receive the size of a printed material or selection of a template (IMG, page 3, step 2 teaches "Method for creating a seamless texture:"); this method is from a dropdown thus acts as receiving a selection of a template.
However, the combination of Liu, IMG, NL, and Turner ails to teach further comprising a first reception unit configured to receive
However, Shibuhisa teaches further comprising a first reception unit configured to receive (Shibuhisa, paragraph 33 teaches "transceiving unit 106 is a communication unit of a mobile phone, a cable, or the like, and transmits and receives image data,"); transceiving unit 106 receives thus acts as first receiving unit. Shibuhisa is considered to be analogous art because it is reasonably pertinent to the problem faced by the inventor of receiving image data and stereoscopic shape template. 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 modify the combination of Liu, IMG, NL, and Turner with the receiving and stereoscopic techniques of Shibuhisa to ensure since image processing is performed using face stereoscopic shape template information which is suitable for a user, it is possible to improve generated image quality, (Shibuhisa, paragraph 62). This means better user experience due to improved quality.
Regarding claim 10, the combination of Liu, IMG, NL, Turner and Shibuhisa teaches wherein the adjustment by the adjustment unit is performed in a case where a stereoscopic shaping template is selected by the first reception unit (Shibuhisa, paragraph 33 teaches "transceiving unit 106 is a communication unit of a mobile phone, a cable, or the like, and transmits and receives image data, data which is necessary when generating an image, the face stereoscopic shape template information, or the like"); this shows a case where stereoscopic shape template is selected by the transreceiving/first unit and is for generating an image which would be the adjusted image from above when viewed in combination. The same motivations used in claim 9 apply here in claim 10.
Claim(s) 13-15 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over the combination of Liu, IMG, NL, and Turner as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Keszler (US 20180034765), hereinafter referenced as Keszler.
Regarding claim 13, the combination of Liu, IMG, NL, and Turner teaches wherein the obtainment unit obtains a first pattern as the seamless texture, (IMG, bottom of page 2 (step 1) teaches selecting an image and top of page 3 (step 2) teaches creating a seamless texture); database 2616 is the obtainment unit and creating seamless texture means it would be obtained (as first pattern from selected image); wherein in a case where the first pattern is arranged side by side in the disposition region, the adjustment unit adjusts the size of the first pattern so that the seamless textures are continuous between the first end part and the second end part (IMG, page 3, step 3 shows "Pre-crop image in pixels" and page 2, shows top image with texture arranged side by side (end parts of tiled/disposition region and adjacent region) turned into bottom image seamless texture side by side in disposition/tiled region); sample unit from Liu acts as adjustment unit, cropping would adjust size of seamless texture, and this is shown in the image to be continuous, also, Liu paragraph 87 mentions "the continuous pixels of each of the multiple parts move to borders of the shuffled sample unit."; wherein the disposition unit arranges the adjusted first pattern side by side in the disposition region, (IMG, page 2 teaches "You will get processed texture and tile to check it seamlessness." and page 3, step 2 teaches "Tile format for checking the seamlessness: 2x2"); tiling unit from Liu acts as disposition unit and this shows to dispose/tile the seamless texture that was adjusted above by the adjustment unit side by side in tiled/disposition region; and wherein the plurality of units further comprises: (1) a second obtainment unit configured to obtain, (Liu, fig. 25 and paragraph 92 teach "including input/output (I/O) devices such as a keyboard 2514"); this keyboard 2514 acts as second obtainment unit since it’s an input device used for obtaining; (2) a second adjustment unit configured to adjust (Liu, fig. 25 and paragraph 96 teach "special purpose processor 2504B may be a hybrid processor, which includes dedicated circuitry for performing a subset of functions, and other circuits for performing more general functions such as responding to computer program 2510 instructions"); special purpose processor 2504B acts as second adjustment unit when configured with the function/instructions of adjusting below.
However, the combination of Liu and IMG fails to teach obtain a second pattern that is an image object of a predetermined size; adjust the size of the second pattern obtained by the second obtainment unit to the size of the disposition region, and (3) a superimposition unit configured to superimpose the second pattern adjusted by the second adjustment unit onto the disposition region in which the adjusted first pattern is arranged side by side.
However, Keszler teaches obtain a second pattern that is an image object of a predetermined size (Keszler, paragraph 27 teaches "Each tile in the grid can be of any shape, but typically is a rectangle or square (which is simply a rectangle have 4 sides of equal length). Then another image is overlaid over them, but the overlaid image is generally partially transparent. Thus, the underlying pattern of images can be seen, to a greater or lesser extent depending on the degree of transparency, through the overlaid image"); underlying pattern of images shows an image object as a pattern (second pattern here when viewed in combination), it must have a predetermined size as images do and must be obtained first for it to be seen; adjust the size of the second pattern obtained by the second obtainment unit to the size of the disposition region, (Keszler, paragraph 43 teaches "dividing the overlay image into a grid of tiles, corresponding to, and matching in size, the pattern or shape that the grid images are, or will be, arranged in"); matching in size tile to the pattern (second pattern here when viewed in combination) means that adjustment of size occurs to match the tile/disposition region size; and (3) a superimposition unit configured to superimpose the second pattern adjusted by the second adjustment unit onto the disposition region in which the adjusted first pattern is arranged side by side (Keszler, paragraph 27 teaches "layered collage created with a computer or similar device...Then another image is overlaid over them, but the overlaid image is generally partially transparent. Thus, the underlying pattern of images can be seen, to a greater or lesser extent depending on the degree of transparency, through the overlaid image"); the computer referred to is the superimposition unit, overlaying here shows superimposing second pattern which is adjusted (by second adjustment unit above) to be correct size onto disposition/tiled region in which, from the combination of references, adjusted first pattern is arranged side by side. Keszler is considered to be analogous art because it is reasonably pertinent to the problem faced by the inventor of superimposing and second patterns. 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 modify the combination of Liu, IMG, NL, and Turner’s invention with the superimposing techniques of Keszler to better view it in detail (Keszler, paragraph 83). This would be done by the superimposing leading to more details.
Regarding claim 14, the combination of Liu, IMG, NL, Turner and Keszler teaches wherein the first pattern is an convexo-concave pattern that represents surface convexo- concave, (Liu, fig. 8A, reference 810 shows first pattern as convexo-concave); this is displayed to be the same as applicant's fig, 7a, reference 701, and applicant's disclosure paragraph 131 mentions "The convexo-concave pattern 701 is a seamless texture that expresses convexo-concave texture on the surface"; and wherein the second pattern is an illumination pattern as an image that represents gloss (Liu, paragraph 85 teaches "optional step 2406, the sample unit is pre-processed. Such pre-processing may include extracting a luminance channel from the sample unit, computing a light gradient image of the sample unit based on the luminance channel, and computing a new value of each of the multiple pixels in the sample unit based on the light gradient image" and paragraph 67 teaches "FIG. 12B illustrates a visual indicator that reflects the area 1202 the user has marked with the heal brush. The marked area 1202 is treated as an unknown area and nearby pixels are used to fill that area"); luminance values with gradient show illumination pattern and the reflected area with brush represents gloss.
Regarding claim 15, the combination of Liu, IMG, NL, Turner and Keszler teaches wherein the plurality of units further comprises a generation unit configured to generate the illumination pattern so that the gloss is continuous in an arrangement direction in a case where a printed material on which the image data is printed is posted (Liu, paragraph 67 teaches "FIG. 12B illustrates a visual indicator that reflects the area 1202 the user has marked with the heal brush. The marked area 1202 is treated as an unknown area and nearby pixels are used to fill that area"); general purpose processor 2504A in fig. 25 acts as generation unit since this is part of a post-processing step, and visual indicator reflecting the area 1202 shows when illumination pattern being generated, gloss/reflection is continuous in an arrangement direction in a case where printed material (the design) on which image data is printed is posted on the screen.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Garces et al. (U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2024/0144549) paragraph 75 teaches “naively tiling the input texture does not produce seamless transitions at the boundaries while tiling the synthesized textures provides seamless results” and paragraph 65 teaches “A seamlessly tileable texture stack custom-character is obtained by cropping the central region (for example with an area of 50%”; this shows seamless texture tiles generated and size of such being adjusted by cropping.
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 NAUMAN U AHMAD whose telephone number is (703)756-5306. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 9:00am - 5:00pm.
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, Kee Tung can be reached at (571) 272-7794. 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.
/N.U.A./Examiner, Art Unit 2611
/KEE M TUNG/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2611
Prosecution Insights