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 .
Priority
Receipt is acknowledged of certified copies of papers required by 37 CFR 1.55.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statements (IDS) submitted on January 13, March 26, and June 25 of 2025 were filed after the mailing date of the application on January 13, 2025. The submission is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statements are being considered by the examiner.
Specification
The title of the invention is not descriptive. A new title is required that is clearly indicative of the invention to which the claims are directed.
The disclosure is objected to because of the following informalities: According to MPEP 608.01(m), the present Office practice is to insist that each claim must be the object of a sentence starting with “I (or we) claim,” “The invention claimed is” (or the equivalent). Thus, the heading simply stating “CLAIMS” is not sufficient.
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101
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 1-5, 8, and 9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to abstract idea without significantly more.
MPEP 2106 III provides a flowchart for the subject matter eligibility test for product and processes. The claim analysis following the flowchart is as follows:
Regarding claim 1:
Step 1: Is the claim to a process, machine, manufacture or composition of matter?
Yes. It recites a non-transitory computer readable recording medium storing a program that causes a computer to execute, which is a machine.
Step 2A, Prong One: Does the claim recite an abstract idea, law of nature, or nature phenomenon?
Yes.
Claim 1 recites:
A non-transitory computer readable recording medium storing a program that causes a computer to execute:
receiving an input of design characteristic information on a design of an input image;
receiving an input of a purpose for the input image;
analyzing a feature value of the input image;
determining, based on the design characteristic information, an analysis result in the analyzing, and the purpose, presentation information for bringing the design of the input image closer to a design meeting the purpose while maintaining the design characteristic information; and
outputting the presentation information.
Receiving an input of design characteristic information, receiving an input of a purpose for the input image, analyzing a feature value, determining presentation information, and outputting the presentation information can all be done mentally because a person could see design characteristic information on a piece of paper, see a purpose for the image on a piece of paper, look at a feature value of the image on a piece of paper and mentally analyze the feature value, mentally determine presentation information based on mentally considering the design characteristic information, an analysis result, and the purpose, and draw the presentation information on a piece of paper.
Step 2A, Prong Two: Does the claim recite additional elements that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application?
No.
Claim 1 recites a non-transitory computer readable recording medium and a computer, which are generically recited computer elements that do not add a meaningful limitation to the abstract idea because they amount to simply implementing the abstract idea on a computer.
Step 2B: Does the claim recite additional elements that amount to significantly more than the judicial exception?
No.
The additional limitations only store a program in a non-transitory computer readable recording medium and executing the program by a computer, and these are well-understood, routine, conventional computer functions.
Therefore, claim 1 is not eligible subject matter under 35 U.S.C. 101.
Regarding claim 2, it depends from claim 1 with additional limitation “wherein the presentation information includes a suggested correction by a sentence or a corrected design draft.” This can be done mentally because a person could mentally determine a suggested correction by a sentence. Therefore, claim 2 recites abstract idea without additional elements. No additional elements are recited to integrate the abstract idea into a practical application or amount to significantly more than the abstract idea.
Therefore, claim 2 is not eligible subject matter under 35 U.S.C. 101.
Regarding claim 3, it depends from claim 1 with the additional limitation “wherein the receiving the input of the purpose includes receiving an input of a desired impression indicating an impression that is desired to be expressed in the design of the input image, and the determining includes determining the presentation information based on the design characteristic information, the analysis result, and the desired impression.” This can be done mentally because a person could see a desired impression on a piece of paper and mentally determine the presentation information based on mentally considering the design characteristic information, the analysis result, and the desired impression. Therefore, claim 3 recites abstract idea without additional elements. No additional elements are recited to integrate the abstract idea into a practical application or amount to significantly more than the abstract idea.
Therefore, claim 3 is not eligible subject matter under 35 U.S.C. 101.
Regarding claim 4, it depends from claim 3 with the additional limitation “wherein the analyzing includes outputting an estimated impression obtained by estimating an impression given by the input image from the feature value of the input image as the analysis result based on correspondence information in which an impression given by an image is associated with a feature value of the image.” This can be done mentally because a person could look at the image on a piece of paper and mentally estimate an impression given by the image from the feature value of the image as the analysis result based on correspondence information in which an impression given by an image is associated with a feature value of the image. Therefore, claim 4 recites abstract idea without additional elements. No additional elements are recited to integrate the abstract idea into a practical application or amount to significantly more than the abstract idea.
Therefore, claim 4 is not eligible subject matter under 35 U.S.C. 101.
Regarding claim 5, it depends from claim 4 with the additional limitation “wherein the determining includes determining the estimated impression or a matching degree between the estimated impression and the desired impression, and a feature value causing a difference between the estimated impression and the desired impression as the presentation information.” This can be done mentally because a person could look at the image on a piece of paper and mentally determine the estimated impression, and a feature value causing a difference between the estimated impression and the desired impression as the presentation information. Therefore, claim 5 recites abstract idea without additional elements. No additional elements are recited to integrate the abstract idea into a practical application or amount to significantly more than the abstract idea.
Therefore, claim 5 is not eligible subject matter under 35 U.S.C. 101.
Regarding claim 6, the Examiner makes note that it recites that the analyzing includes performing saliency mapping processing, and the determining includes determining the presentation information based on a result of the saliency mapping processing. These additional elements amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because it is well-known in the art that a saliency map highlights the most relevant regions for machine learning models, and thus a machine learning model must be used for this. Therefore, claim 6 is eligible subject matter.
Claims 8 and 9 recite similar limitations discussed above with respect to claim 1, and thus are also directed to abstract idea without significantly more for similar reasons.
Therefore, claims 1-5, 8, and 9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to abstract idea without significantly more.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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 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 –
(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.
Claim(s) 1, 3, 8, and 9 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Tao (US 20190325626A1).
As per Claim 1, Tao teaches a non-transitory computer readable recording medium storing a program that causes a computer to execute (program instructions 205 that configures the processing hardware 202 to perform operations described herein, program instructions 205 may be resident in the memory device 204 and may be executed by the processing hardware 202, [0079]): receiving an input of design characteristic information on a design of an input image (brand profile can be a data structure having a set of brand attributes, brand attributes could include permissible visual features for displaying the input graphic (e.g., color schemes to be used, restrictions on overlaying certain colors over the input graphic, etc.), and other elements to be displayed with the input graphic (e.g., constraints or permissions with respect to a logo graphic), [0038], design engine 108 can retrieve various brand attributes, [0048]); receiving an input of a purpose for the input image (user-specified purpose of the design content, [0179]); analyzing a feature value of the input image; determining, based on the design characteristic information, an analysis result in the analyzing, and the purpose, presentation information for bringing the design of the input image closer to a design meeting the purpose while maintaining the design characteristic information (if the targeting parameter is a convey information purpose, the design engine could group together, as a first content group, the header text element, the subheader text element, and the text-based logo variant, with the input graphic and the image-based logo variant being assigned to second and third content groups, respectively, the design engine can select positions within a layout for different content groups based on the intended purpose, [0181], assessing the requested design modification can include comparing the requested design modification to the constraints and permissions indicated by brand attributes, if the comparison indicates that the requested design modification is found to be restricted in some way, the design engine can reject the edit, [0138]); and outputting the presentation information (design engine can retrieve various brand attributes, the design engine can use the retrieved data, in combination with input received via content-creation interfaces, to guide the creation of the output branded design content 130, [0048]).
As per Claim 3, Tao teaches wherein the receiving the input of the purpose includes receiving an input [0179] of a desired impression indicating an impression that is desired to be expressed in the design of the input image [0181], and the determining includes determining the presentation information based on the design characteristic information, the analysis result, and the desired impression [0181, 0138].
As per Claims 8-9, these claims are each similar in scope to Claim 1, and therefore are rejected under the same rationale.
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.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
Claim(s) 2 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Tao (US 20190325626A1) in view of Finsterwald (US 20160041957A1).
Tao is relied upon for the teachings as discussed above relative to Claim 1.
However, Tao does not teach wherein the presentation information includes a suggested correction by a sentence or a corrected design draft. However, Finsterwald teaches wherein the presentation information includes a suggested correction by a sentence or a corrected design draft (suggestion providers analyze the design, measuring the design against sets of design criteria and design parameter(s), the criteria and parameter(s) against which the design is analyzed will typically be a validation against universally-accepted good visual design principles, as part of the analysis, the suggestion provider determines possible design improvements relative to the respective criteria and parameter(s) against which the design is analyzed, and generates corresponding design suggestions 121, the design suggestion may be in the form of a text description of the recommended action, or may be in the form of an altered version of the input design 101 having the recommended action implemented (and which may be displayed to the user), [0029]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Tao so that the presentation information includes a suggested correction by a sentence or a corrected design draft because Finsterwald suggests that this way, the design can easily be corrected so that it adheres more to universally-accepted good visual design principles [0029].
24. Claim(s) 4 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Tao (US 20190325626A1) in view of Yamamoto (US 20220245523A1).
Tao is relied upon for the teachings as discussed above relative to Claim 3.
However, Tao does not teach wherein the analyzing includes outputting an estimated impression obtained by estimating an impression given by the input image from the feature value of the input image as the analysis result based on correspondence information in which an impression given by an image is associated with a feature value of the image. However, Yamamoto teaches wherein the analyzing includes outputting an estimated impression obtained by estimating an impression given by the input image from the feature value of the input image as the analysis result based on correspondence information in which an impression given by an image is associated with a feature value of the image (model capable of estimating the impression of an image with high accuracy may be learned by using a feature vector for an image and feature vector for an object, [0039]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Tao so that the analyzing includes outputting an estimated impression obtained by estimating an impression given by the input image from the feature value of the input image as the analysis result based on correspondence information in which an impression given by an image is associated with a feature value of the image because Yamamoto suggests that this is useful for estimating what kind of impression a person will have when seeing an image created as an advertisement, to improve an appeal effect of the advertisement [0003-0004].
25. Claim(s) 5 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Tao (US 20190325626A1) and Yamamoto (US 20220245523A1) in view of Sanders (US 20230033245A1).
Tao and Yamamoto are relied upon for the teachings as discussed above relative to Claim 4.
However, Tao and Yamamoto do not teach wherein the determining includes determining the estimated impression or a matching degree between the estimated impression and the desired impression, and a feature value causing a difference between the estimated impression and the desired impression as the presentation information. However, Sanders teaches a reinforcement learning approach is adopted. The training process comprises an agent being provided with an initial image. The agent is then able to apply changes to the initial image with the goal of increasing the display quality of the image. The success of the agent is measured by the similarity between the image modified by the agent and a known image that represents a version of the initial image having an improved display quality. The reward supplied to the agent can be selected in dependence upon a similarity between these images; this similarity is determined in dependence upon an overall impression to a viewer (as estimated using an image comparison process). The image generated by the reinforcement learning agent is displayed on a display device [0062]. Thus, the learning model determines, as the presentation information, which feature value to change so as to bring the estimated impression of the input image closer to the desired impression. Thus, Sanders teaches wherein the determining includes determining the estimated impression or a matching degree between the estimated impression and the desired impression, and a feature value causing a difference between the estimated impression and the desired impression as the presentation information [0062].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Tao and Yamamoto so that the determining includes determining the estimated impression or a matching degree between the estimated impression and the desired impression, and a feature value causing a difference between the estimated impression and the desired impression as the presentation information because Sanders suggests that this way, the input image is modified to bring it closer to the desired impression [0062].
26. Claim(s) 6 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Tao (US 20190325626A1) in view of Jain (US 20210357644A1).
Tao is relied upon for the teachings as discussed above relative to Claim 1. Tao teaches the determining includes determining the presentation information based on the design characteristics information, as discussed in the rejection for Claim 1.
However, Tao does not teach wherein the receiving the input of the purpose includes receiving an input of an important region indicating a position of a portion that is desired to be highlighted in the design of the input image, the analyzing includes performing saliency mapping processing of quantifying a degree of saliency for each pixel of the input image, and the determining includes determining the presentation information based on a result of the saliency mapping processing, and the important region. However, Jain teaches wherein the receiving the input of the purpose includes receiving an input of an important region indicating a position of a portion that is desired to be highlighted in the design of the input image, the analyzing includes performing saliency mapping processing of quantifying a degree of saliency for each pixel of the input image, and the determining includes determining the presentation information based on a result of the saliency mapping processing, and the important region (given a digital image, generate a saliency map that visually highlights the regions important for the model, the saliency map represents an explanation for what pixels would have been important, [0060]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Tao so that the receiving the input of the purpose includes receiving an input of an important region indicating a position of a portion that is desired to be highlighted in the design of the input image, the analyzing includes performing saliency mapping processing of quantifying a degree of saliency for each pixel of the input image, and the determining includes determining the presentation information based on a result of the saliency mapping processing, and the important region as suggested by Jain. It is well-known in the art that this allows developers to see exactly which raw inputs drive a machine learning model’s predictions.
27. Claim(s) 7 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Tao (US 20190325626A1) and Jain (US 20210357644A1) in view of Kindeberg (US 20080282153A1).
Tao and Jain are relied upon for the teachings as discussed above relative to Claim 6.
However, Tao and Jain do not teach wherein the analyzing includes, when the important region is a character string constituting a word or a sentence, calculating a ratio of a size of the character string to a size of a character string outside the important region, and the determining includes, when the calculated ratio is equal to or less than a predetermined value, determining the presentation information that is enlarging the character string in the important region or reducing the character string outside the important region. However, Kindeberg teaches wherein the analyzing includes, when the important region is a character string constituting a word or a sentence, calculating a ratio of a size of the character string to a size of a character string outside the important region, and the determining includes, when the calculated ratio is equal to or less than a predetermined value, determining the presentation information that is enlarging the character string in the important region or reducing the character string outside the important region (font size of the words may be adjusted accordingly (increase font size for important words and decrease font size for unimportant words), [0057]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Tao and Jain so that the analyzing includes, when the important region is a character string constituting a word or a sentence, calculating a ratio of a size of the character string to a size of a character string outside the important region, and the determining includes, when the calculated ratio is equal to or less than a predetermined value, determining the presentation information that is enlarging the character string in the important region or reducing the character string outside the important region because Kindeberg suggests that this way, unimportant words are reduced in font size to make them less conspicuous to the user and more text is displayed since vertical space is saved, and important words are increased in font size to be made more visually conspicuous to make sure that the user sees the important words [0033-0034].
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JONI HSU whose telephone number is (571)272-7785. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 10am-6:30pm.
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.
JH
/JONI HSU/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2611
Prosecution Insights