CTNF 18/893,871 CTNF 79760 DETAILED ACTION Preliminary Remarks 07-03-aia AIA 15-10-aia The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA. Priority 02-27 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 06-16 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. It is important that the abstract not exceed 150 words in length since the space provided for the abstract on the computer tape used by the printer is limited. The form and legal phraseology often used in patent claims, such as "means" and "said," should be avoided. 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. The abstract comprises the phrase, “Provided are…” (line 1) which can be implied and therefore should be omitted. The abstract is comprised of two paragraphs which should be revised into a single paragraph formation. Drawings 06-22-07 AIA The drawings are objected to as failing to comply with 37 CFR 1.84(p)(5) because they include the following reference character(s) not mentioned in the description: All reference numbers of Figure 8 none of which, can be found within the specification . Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d), or amendment to the specification to add the reference character(s) in the description in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(b) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance. Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101 07-04-01 AIA 07-04 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. Claims 17-19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more. The claim(s) recite(s) “An image processing method of processing an input image by a processor…” with further “steps” of “acquiring…” “specifying…” and “deciding…” of which the Examiner deems as simply methods performed in a human mind since the steps solely yield a “decision” or judgement. Further, Examiner acknowledges the “processor” limitation of the preamble however this element solely occurs in the preamble and thus is not further considered. (When reading the preamble in the context of the entire claim, the recitation “processor” is not limiting because the body of the claim describes a complete invention and the language recited solely in the preamble does not provide any distinct definition of any of the claimed invention’s limitations. Thus, the preamble of the claim(s) is not considered a limitation and is of no significance to claim construction. See Pitney Bowes, Inc. v. Hewlett-Packard Co. , 182 F.3d 1298, 1305, 51 USPQ2d 1161, 1165 (Fed. Cir. 1999). See MPEP § 2111.02). This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application because the claims do not perform any “output” based upon the “steps” of the claim and thus allow for sole interpretation of the steps to be performed as solely in one’s mind. The lack of any sort of “output” e.g. creation of an image with the “disposed text” overlaid thereupon, would conversely place the method steps in a practical application. Further, the claim(s) does/do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because the claims do not comprise any sort of computing elements, sans the elements solely found in the preamble, that amount to significantly more than any abstract mentally performed process. Claim 20 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to non-statutory subject matter. The claim(s) does/do not fall within at least one of the four categories of patent eligible subject matter because the claimed terminology of a "computer-readable recording medium" recited in claim 20, is not appropriate subject matter deemed patentable under this title. The specification of the instant application does clearly suggest to one of ordinary skill in the art that, by lack of any explicit definition of the term, such a “computer-readable recording medium” could be one of signals, or other forms of propagation and transmission media which fail to be an appropriate manufacture under 35 U.S.C. 101 in the context of computer-related inventions and therefore requires this rejection. Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112 07-30-02 AIA 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. 07-34-01 Claims 12 and 19 are 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. Claims 12 and 19 recite the limitation "the dispositions for(to) a plurality of regions" in line 3 of claim 12 for example. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102 07-06 AIA 15-10-15 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. 07-07-aia AIA 07-07 The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action: A person shall be entitled to a patent unless – 07-08-aia AIA (a)(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. 07-15-aia AIA Claim(s) 1-11, 13, 15, 17, 18 and 20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102 (a)(1) as being anticipated by 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.). 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 3, 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). In reference to claims 4 and 18, Fujinawa discloses all of the claim limitations as applied to claims 1 and 17 respectively. 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 (see paragraphs 40-42 and Figures 1-2). Fujinawa discloses various the comments being created based upon the analysis one of which for example being, “Wow! Smiling (^__^)” (see paragraph 50). 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 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.” In reference to claim 17, claim 17 is similar in scope to claim 1 and is therefore rejected under like rationale. Claim 17 recites a “method” of the invention of which the Examiner deems has at least inherently been disclosed by the teachings of Fujinawa in the rejection of claim 1 above. In reference to claim 20, claim 20 is similar in scope to claim 17 and is therefore rejected under like rationale. In addition to the rationale applied in the rejection of claim 17 above, claim 20 further recites, “A computer-readable recording medium on which a program for causing a computer to execute each of the steps included in the image processing method according to claim 17 is recorded.” 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 (see paragraphs 24-25, 31, 38 and Figure 1) . Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103 07-06 AIA 15-10-15 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. 07-20-aia AIA 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. 07-21-aia AIA Claim (s) 14 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Fujinawa (U.S. Publication 2015/0249792) . 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 . Allowable Subject Matter 12-151-08 AIA 07-43 12-51-08 Claim 16 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. 07-43-02 AIA Claim s 12 and 19 would be allowable if rewritten to overcome the rejection(s) under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA), 2nd paragraph, set forth in this Office action and to include all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims. References Cited 07-96 AIA The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure : Sinclair Jr. (GB 2578988) Sinclair Jr. discloses an invention that determines an appropriate location to overlay text in an image of a social media platform message. Kansal et al. (U.S. Publication 2008/023796) Kansal et al. discloses an image text enhancement invention that converts graphically represented text in an original image to process capable text. Vetterli et al. (U.S. Publication 2002/0075282) Vetterli et al. discloses an automated annotation of a view that is used to annotate objects which are visible form a view position. Conclusion 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 3/18/26 Application/Control Number: 18/893,871 Page 2 Art Unit: 2612 Application/Control Number: 18/893,871 Page 3 Art Unit: 2612 Application/Control Number: 18/893,871 Page 4 Art Unit: 2612 Application/Control Number: 18/893,871 Page 5 Art Unit: 2612 Application/Control Number: 18/893,871 Page 6 Art Unit: 2612 Application/Control Number: 18/893,871 Page 7 Art Unit: 2612 Application/Control Number: 18/893,871 Page 8 Art Unit: 2612 Application/Control Number: 18/893,871 Page 9 Art Unit: 2612 Application/Control Number: 18/893,871 Page 10 Art Unit: 2612 Application/Control Number: 18/893,871 Page 11 Art Unit: 2612 Application/Control Number: 18/893,871 Page 12 Art Unit: 2612 Application/Control Number: 18/893,871 Page 13 Art Unit: 2612 Application/Control Number: 18/893,871 Page 14 Art Unit: 2612
Prosecution Insights