DETAILED ACTION
Preliminary Remarks
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Priority
Acknowledgment is made of applicant's claim for foreign priority under 35 U.S.C. 119(a)-(d). The certified copy has been filed in the pending application.
Specification
Applicant is reminded of the proper language and format for an abstract of the disclosure.
The abstract should be in narrative form and generally limited to a single paragraph on a separate sheet within the range of 50 to 150 words in length. The abstract should describe the disclosure sufficiently to assist readers in deciding whether there is a need for consulting the full patent text for details.
The language should be clear and concise and should not repeat information given in the title. It should avoid using phrases which can be implied, such as, “The disclosure concerns,” “The disclosure defined by this invention,” “The disclosure describes,” etc. In addition, the form and legal phraseology often used in patent claims, such as “means” and “said,” should be avoided.
The abstract comprises the phrase, “…are provided” (line 3) which can be implied and therefore should be omitted.35
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, 2, 5-11 and 13-15 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Fujinawa (U.S. Publication 2015/0249792).
In reference to claim 1, Fujinawa discloses an image processing apparatus that processes an input image (see paragraphs 6, 24 and Figure 1 wherein Fujinawa discloses an image processing device, imaging device and a program that can improve a matching when an image and a comment based on a captured image are displayed at the same time. ), the image processing apparatus comprising:
a processor, wherein the processor is configured to execute (see paragraphs 24-25, 31, 38 and Figure 1 wherein Fujinawa discloses the an imaging device in the form of a digital camera that comprises a CPU, storage unit and image processing unit, the storage unit storing various programs such as control programs used by the CPU for controlling the camera and performing the techniques of the invention.):
processing of acquiring a text related to the input image (see paragraphs 40-42 and Figures 1-2 wherein Fujinawa discloses the camera comprising an image processing unit that further comprises a comment creation unit that creates a comment (text) for an input image via an image analysis of the input image.);
processing of specifying a first subject corresponding to the text from a subject included in the input image (see paragraphs 41-42 and Figures 1-2 wherein Fujinawa discloses the image processing unit further comprising a person determination unit that determines whether the input image contains a person image or not based on the image analysis.); and
processing of deciding a disposition of the text in an output image based on the input image according to the input image and the first subject (see paragraphs 43-44 and Figures 1-2 and 4 wherein Fujinawa discloses the image processing unit comprising an image editing unit that creates a display image from the input image based on the person determination unit and passes the image to an image output unit that outputs an output image composed of a combination of the comment from the comment creation unit and the display image from the image editing unit. Fujinawa discloses the image output unit adding the comment according to a text composite area which specifies where the comment is added in the output image. Note, it is clear that such “text composite area” is seen as functionally equivalent to the “deciding a disposition of text” element of the claim as it “decides” where in the image to place the text in Fujinawa.), and
the processor is further configured to analyze a region of interest selected by a user in the input image and generate the text based on an analysis result of the region of interest.
Although Fujinawa explicitly discloses allowing a user to set the text composite area by operating a touch panel button of the camera device (see at least paragraph 44), the camera comprising an image processing unit that further comprises a comment creation unit that creates a comment (text) for an input image via an image analysis of the input image (see paragraphs 40-42 and Figures 1-2) and the comments being created based upon the analysis one of which for example being, “Wow! Smiling (^__^)” (see paragraph 50), Fujinawa does not explicitly discloses analyzing a region of interest selected by a user and generating the text based on the analysis. The Examiner contends however, that Fujinawa already discloses each of these elements and processing flows separately. Since Fujinawa already discloses analyzing where important areas of the image are (e.g. faces) (see paragraphs 44, 48), therefore where to and not to place text composite areas, and further discloses allowing a user to select the text composite area where text is to be placed within the image, the Examiner contends that it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to arrive at the invention of the instant application. Clearly, Fujinawa discloses performing an analyzation of sorts to determine at least faces in the image and not allowing for text to be placed thereupon is crucial to the functionality and ultimately aesthetic output produced by the invention. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing of the invention to modify the already present claimed functionality in Fujinawa to extend to specific analysis of the selected text composite area by the user not just the entire image in order to perform detailed image processing/analysis vs. global image processing which 1) ensures conservation of processing resources as global image processing is more computationally expensive than focusing on only part of the image and 2) the analysis of only the text composite area as chosen by the user in Fujinawa would allow for resultant output to be far more relevant, precise and useful to the user as it focuses on that which is desired by the user (e.g. the actual specific location of text) thereby creating a more visually pleasing and desirable output.
In reference to claim 2, Fujinawa discloses all of the claim limitations as applied to claim 1 above in addition, Fujinawa also explicitly discloses allowing the comment (text) to be added to the input image to be set via a user from among a plurality of comment candidates via a touch panel button of the camera device (see at least paragraph 42).
In reference to claim 5, Fujinawa discloses all of the claim limitations as applied to claim 1 above in addition, Fujinawa also explicitly discloses obtaining image data from header information imparted to the input image in the form of imaging date and time, imaging location, etc. and uses this data for the image analysis which is further output to the comment creation unit (see paragraph 40).
In reference to claims 6-7, Fujinawa discloses all of the claim limitations as applied to claim 1 above in addition, Fujinawa also explicitly discloses allowing a user to set the text composite area by operating a touch panel button of the camera device (see at least paragraph 44). Fujinawa explicitly discloses the text composite area being set to indicate a non-important area vs. where a person’s face is determined in the input image as being set as an important area so as not to include the comment/text (see paragraph 44). Note, it is clear that the setting of the comment text composite area as being a non-important area of the input image at least inherently signifies a “non-overlap” with a person’s face (e.g. important area).
In reference to claim 8, Fujinawa discloses all of the claim limitations as applied to claim 1 above in addition, Fujinawa also explicitly discloses allowing a user to set the text composite area by operating a touch panel button of the camera device (see at least paragraph 44). Fujinawa explicitly discloses the text composite area being set to indicate a non-important area vs. where a person’s face is determined in the input image as being set as an important area so as not to include the comment/text (see paragraph 44). Fujinawa also explicitly discloses the image analysis and person determining units identifying multiple persons in the image and associatively passing such information on to the comment creation unit to create comments (text) to output for combination with an output image (see paragraphs 69-72 and Figures 6a-b), as indicated above. Fujinawa explicitly discloses a second person being in the “periphery” of the first person (see Figure 6a-b).
In reference to claims 9 and 13, Fujinawa discloses all of the claim limitations as applied to claim 1 above in addition, Fujinawa also explicitly discloses the image analysis and person determining units identifying multiple persons in the image and associatively passing such information on to the comment creation unit to create comments (text) to output for combination with an output image (see paragraphs 69-72 and Figures 6a-b), as indicated above. Fujinawa explicitly discloses the text composite area being set to indicate a non-important area vs. where a person’s face is determined in the input image as being set as an important area so as not to include the comment/text (see paragraph 44). Fujinawa discloses in this scenario that explicit comment produced to be output in the combined output image to have multiple words (see paragraph 72, comment “Everyone good expression!” and Figure 6b) or a “plurality of texts” of which are at least inherently not overlapping any determine persons in the input image (see Figure 6b).
In reference to claim 10, Fujinawa discloses all of the claim limitations as applied to claim 1 above. Fujinawa discloses the image processing unit comprising an image editing unit that creates a display image from the input image based on the person determination unit and passes the image to an image output unit that outputs an output image composed of a combination of the comment from the comment creation unit and the display image from the image editing unit (see paragraphs 43-44 and Figures 1-2 and 4). Fujinawa discloses the image output unit adding the comment according to a text composite area which specifies where the comment is added in the output image (see paragraphs 43-44 and Figures 1-2 and 4). The Examiner notes the specific language of claim 10 in that it requires “at least one image region” to be taught by the prior art wherein the Examiner interprets Fujinawa to disclose the “image region” element.
In reference to claim 11, Fujinawa discloses all of the claim limitations as applied to claim 1 above. Since Fujinawa discloses adding the comment/text in the very upper region of the output image in at least the example output of Figure 6b (see paragraph 73-74), the Examiner interprets such a region functionally equivalent to Applicant’s “margin region.”
In reference to claim 14, Fujinawa discloses all of the claim limitations as applied to claim 1 above. Although Fujinawa discloses the comment seemingly being a sentence or phrase made up of multiple words or textual content that is “separated” (see for example, Figure 6b), Fujinawa does not explicitly disclose the process of actually dividing the text/comment into a plurality of words and deciding the positioning based thereupon. At the time the invention was filed, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to separate the comment for inclusion in the output image into individual words instead of a single text/sentence. Applicant has not disclosed that explicitly processing the comment/text as a single sentence vs. individual words vs. individual characters provides an advantage, is used for a particular purpose, or solves a stated problem. One of ordinary skill in the art, furthermore, would have expected Applicant’s invention to perform equally well with the teachings of Fujinawa because the exact manner in which textual content is processed in this scenario is a matter of engineering design choice as preferred by the inventor and/or to which best suits the application at hand. Further support for such rationale can be found in the fact that the functionality of the invention in Fujinawa is equivalent to that of what is claimed and the end results are further exactly equivalent. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in this art to modify Fujinawa to obtain the invention as specified in claim 14.
In reference to claim 15, Fujinawa discloses all of the claim limitations as applied to claim 1 above. Since Fujinawa discloses the input image being input via still images through the camera device and processing comments for the input images (see paragraphs 38-39 and 42-44), the Examiner interprets that a “plurality of input images” are at least inherently “taken” by the camera of Fujinawa and a comment created therefore for “at least one of the plurality of input images.”
Response to Arguments
The cancellation of claims 3, 4 and 19 is noted.
Applicant’s arguments, see page 10 of Applicant’s Remarks, filed 06/22/2026, with respect to the objection of the drawings have been fully considered and are persuasive. The objection of the drawings has been withdrawn since amendments remedy the previous issues.
Applicant’s arguments, see page 10 of Applicant’s Remarks, filed 06/22/2026, with respect to the 35 USC 101 rejection of claims 17-18 have been fully considered and are persuasive. The 35 USC 101 rejection of claims 17-18 has been withdrawn since amendments remedy the previous issues. In particular, the amendments now at least tie the processing of the method-type claims to an actual processor device thus ruling out any abstractly perform method and satisfying the 35 USC 101 requirements for statutory subject matter.
Applicant’s arguments, see page 10 of Applicant’s Remarks, filed 06/22/2026, with respect to the 35 USC 101 rejection of claim 20 have been fully considered and are persuasive. The 35 USC 101 rejection of claim 20 has been withdrawn since amendments remedy the previous issues. In particular, the amendments now recite a proper computer-readable medium type claim by explicitly reciting the medium as “non-transitory” thus creating statutory subject matter eligible under 35 USC 101.
Applicant’s arguments, see page 11 of Applicant’s Remarks, filed 06/22/2026, with respect to the 35 USC 112 rejection of claim 12 have been fully considered and are persuasive. The 35 USC 112 rejection of claim 12 has been withdrawn since amendments remedy the previous issues.
Applicant’s arguments, see pages 11-12 of Applicant’s Remarks, filed 06/22/2026, with respect to the rejection(s) of claim(s) 1, 2, 5-11, 13 and 15 under 35 USC 102 in view of Fujinawa have been fully considered and are persuasive. Therefore, the rejection has been withdrawn. However, upon further consideration, a new ground(s) of rejection is made in view of Fujinawa under 35 USC 103.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 12, 16-18 and 20 are allowed.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter:
In reference to claim 12, the Examiner makes note of a term/concept which, in combination and integration with the other limitations of the claim, is seen as the major novel aspect of the invention and which was not found in the prior art of record. The Examiner makes note of the term/concept of acquiring an evaluation value related to the disposition of text for each of a plurality of regions in an input image based on the input image; and deciding the disposition based on the evaluation value of each of the plurality of regions in combination with the further limitations of the claim.
In reference to claim 16, the Examiner makes note of a term/concept which, in combination and integration with the other limitations of the claim, is seen as the major novel aspect of the invention and which was not found in the prior art of record. The Examiner makes note of the term/concept of in a case where the output image including the input image having an image region and a margin region and the text is output, the processor is configured to: determine whether or not the disposition is capable of being decided in the margin region in the input image based on the text; change a layout of the image region in the input image in a case where the disposition is determined to be incapable of being decided in the margin region in the input image; and decide the disposition in the margin region in the output image including the input image whose layout is changed, in combination with the further limitations of the claim.
In reference to claim 17, the Examiner makes note of a term/concept which, in combination and integration with the other limitations of the claim, is seen as the major novel aspect of the invention and which was not found in the prior art of record. The Examiner makes note of the term/concept of a step of assigning evaluation values related to the disposition of text to each of a plurality of regions in the input image by the processor, wherein, in the step of deciding the disposition, the disposition is decided based on the evaluation value of each of the plurality of regions by the processor.
In reference to claims 18 and 20, these claims depend upon allowable claim 17 and are therefore also deemed allowable.
Conclusion
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 Antonio Caschera whose telephone number is (571) 272-7781. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday between 6:30 AM and 2:30 PM EST.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner's supervisor, Said Broome, can be reached at (571) 272-2931.
Any response to this action should be mailed to:
Mail Stop ____________
Commissioner for Patents
P.O. Box 1450
Alexandria, VA 22313-1450
or faxed to:
571-273-8300 (Central Fax)
See the listing of “Mail Stops” at http://www.uspto.gov/patents/mail.jsp and include the appropriate designation in the address above.
Any inquiry of a general nature or relating to the status of this application or proceeding should be directed to the Technology Center 2600 Customer Service Office whose telephone number is (571) 272-2600.
/Antonio A Caschera/
Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2612
8/10/26
Prosecution Insights