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 .
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.
Claim Interpretation
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(f):
(f) Element in Claim for a Combination. – An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The claims in this application are given their broadest reasonable interpretation using the plain meaning of the claim language in light of the specification as it would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art. The broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim element (also commonly referred to as a claim limitation) is limited by the description in the specification when 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is invoked.
As explained in MPEP § 2181, subsection I, claim limitations that meet the following three-prong test will be interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
(A) the claim limitation uses the term “means” or “step” or a term used as a substitute for “means” that is a generic placeholder (also called a nonce term or a non-structural term having no specific structural meaning) for performing the claimed function;
(B) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is modified by functional language, typically, but not always linked by the transition word “for” (e.g., “means for”) or another linking word or phrase, such as “configured to” or “so that”; and
(C) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function.
Use of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim with functional language creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites sufficient structure, material, or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Absence of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is not to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is not interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites function without reciting sufficient structure, material or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Claim limitations in this application that use the word “means” (or “step”) are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action. Conversely, claim limitations in this application that do not use the word “means” (or “step”) are not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action.
This application includes one or more claim limitations that do not use the word “means,” but are nonetheless being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, because the claim limitation(s) uses a generic placeholder that is coupled with functional language without reciting sufficient structure to perform the recited function and the generic placeholder is not preceded by a structural modifier. Such claim limitation(s) is/are: setting unit, accepting unit, applying unit, obtaining unit and display control unit in claims 1-14.
The closest support available in the specification: Applicant indicates the generic placeholder are implemented in webserver 102 which has a CPU 201. “[0038] FIG. 2 is a diagram illustrating an example of the hardware configuration of the information processing apparatus utilized as the terminal device 101 and the Web server 102 of the present embodiment. The information processing apparatus includes the CPU 201 [0047] FIG. 3 is a diagram illustrating an example of the software configuration of the Web server 102. In the present embodiment, an explanation is given of the example in which the poster creation application 303 is implemented as the Web application 301. Note that the usage purposes of printed materials that are created with the poster creation application are not limited to posters, but include flyers, menus, calendars, photo collages, invitation cards, and various other printed materials. In the following explanation, these printed materials are also referred to as poster contents”.
Because this/these claim limitation(s) is/are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, it/they is/are being interpreted to cover the corresponding structure described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof.
If applicant does not intend to have this/these limitation(s) interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, applicant may: (1) amend the claim limitation(s) to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph (e.g., by reciting sufficient structure to perform the claimed function); or (2) present a sufficient showing that the claim limitation(s) recite(s) sufficient structure to perform the claimed function so as to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph.
Claim Objections
Claims 3 is objected to because of the following informalities:
Claim 3 recites “match the size of the target area”. There is a lack of antecedent basis for the phrase. 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, 9-10 and 13-16 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 machine.
Step 2A, Prong One: Does the claim recite an abstract idea, law of nature, or nature phenomenon?
Yes
The claim recites, set a plurality of areas to be formed on a printed material in original document data of the printed material; accept a selection of a target area from among the plurality of areas set in the original document data and a selection of a template to be applied to the target area and apply the selected template to the selected target area—these operations are directed to abstract idea corresponding to human activity because a human can perform these activities given a printed material.
Step 2A, Prong Two: Does the claim recite additional elements that integrate the judicial Exception into a practical application?
No
The limitation does recite additional elements- a setting unit, an accepting unit and an applying unit that performs the above abstract idea. These are programming codes to automate the abstract idea. These additional element doesn’t apply or use the judicial exception in some other meaningful way beyond generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment, such that the claim as a whole is more than a drafting effort designed to monopolize the exception. These additional elements amount are more than generally linking the use of a judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use.
Step 2B: Eligibility Step 2B: Whether a Claim Amounts to Significantly more
NO
The claim(s) does/do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because the claim doesn’t provide any additional element after the abstract idea corresponding to human activity that amounts to Significantly more.
Claim 2 is directed to abstract idea because the claim recites additional elements, the accepting unit further accepts from a user a selection of a type of folding, and wherein the setting unit sets the plurality of areas in the original document data according to the selected type of folding, are not sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because accepts from a user a selection of a type of folding, and setting the plurality of areas in the original document data according to the selected type of folding are simple human activity or mental activity.
Claim 3 is directed to abstract idea because the claim recites additional element, wherein the applying unit resizes the template to match the size of the target area., are not sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because resizing the template to match the size of the target area is a common and simple activity.
Claim 4 is directed to abstract idea without significant more as the claim recites, the applying unit resizes the template so that a positional relationship among a plurality of objects included in the template before resizing is maintained even after resizing, which itself is a mental activity because a person can mentally decide to resize templates with a common criteria.
There is no additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception.
Claim 5 is directed to abstract idea without significant more as the claim recites, wherein, in a case when a user performs a second operation, which is different from a first operation that is an operation of selecting one area as the target area, the accepting unit accepts a selection of at least two areas from among the plurality of areas set in the original document data as one connected area, which itself is a mental activity because a person can mentally decide about area selection.
There is no additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception
Claim 9 is directed to abstract idea without significant more as the claim recites, a display control unit configured to display a line indicating a boundary of the plurality of areas set in the original document data so that the line is superimposed on the original document data and this additional element of displaying a line indicating a boundary of the plurality of areas set in the original document data is a common display operation and are not sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception.
Claim 10 is directed to abstract idea without significant more as the claim recites, wherein the display control unit displays the line indicating the boundary in a display form that differs depending on the shape of folding to be formed in the printed material folded along the line indicating the boundary and the limitation is a common and well known display operation to differentiate between different type of folding. This additional element is not sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception
Claim 13 is directed to abstract idea without significant more as the claim recites,, wherein the type of folding includes at least any of folding into two areas, folding into three areas, and folding into four areas- these are directed to abstract idea of classifying folders corresponding to human activity.
There is no additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception
Claim 14 is directed to abstract idea without significant more as the claim recites, wherein the plurality of areas set in the original document data includes areas divided in a portrait direction, landscape direction, or both of the portrait and landscape directions—these are human activity of organizing plurality of areas or pages into different orientation.
There is no additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception
Regarding claim 15,
Step 1: Is the claim to a process, machine, manufacture or composition of matter?
Yes. It recites a process.
Step 2A, Prong One: Does the claim recite an abstract idea, law of nature, or nature phenomenon?
Yes
The claim recites, set a plurality of areas to be formed on a printed material in original document data of the printed material; accept a selection of a target area from among the plurality of areas set in the original document data and a selection of a template to be applied to the target area and apply the selected template to the selected target area—these operations are directed to abstract idea corresponding to human activity because a human can perform these activities given a printed material.
Step 2A, Prong Two: Does the claim recite additional elements that integrate the judicial Exception into a practical application?
No
The limitation does recite additional elements- an information processing apparatus that performs the above abstract idea. These additional element doesn’t apply or use the judicial exception in some other meaningful way beyond generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment, such that the claim as a whole is more than a drafting effort designed to monopolize the exception. These additional elements amount are more than generally linking the use of a judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use.
Step 2B: Whether a Claim Amounts to Significantly more
NO
The claim(s) does/do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because the claim doesn’t provide any additional element after the abstract idea corresponding to human activity that amounts to Significantly more.
Regarding claim 16,
Step 1: Is the claim to a process, machine, manufacture or composition of matter?
Yes.
Step 2A, Prong One: Does the claim recite an abstract idea, law of nature, or nature phenomenon?
Yes
The claim recites, set a plurality of areas to be formed on a printed material in original document data of the printed material; accept a selection of a target area from among the plurality of areas set in the original document data and a selection of a template to be applied to the target area and apply the selected template to the selected target area—these operations are directed to abstract idea corresponding to human activity because a human can perform these activities given a printed material.
Step 2A, Prong Two: Does the claim recite additional elements that integrate the judicial Exception into a practical application?
No
The limitation does recite additional elements- A non-transitory computer readable storage medium storing a program which causes a computer to execute an information processing method- that performs the above abstract idea. These additional element doesn’t apply or use the judicial exception in some other meaningful way beyond generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment, such that the claim as a whole is more than a drafting effort designed to monopolize the exception. These additional elements amount are more than generally linking the use of a judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use.
Step 2B: Whether a Claim Amounts to Significantly more
NO
The claim(s) does/do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because the claim doesn’t provide any additional element after the abstract idea corresponding to human activity that amounts to Significantly more.
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) 1-2, 5, 9, 13 and 15-16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Witkowski et al. (US Pat. Pub. No. 20100165407 “Witkowski”) in view of Wang et al. (US Pat. Pub. No. 20020035579 “Wang”).
Regarding claim 1 Witkowski teaches An information processing apparatus (Fig. 3) comprising: a setting unit (integral part of element 302) configured to set a plurality of areas to be formed on a printed material in original document data of the printed material (Fig. 19 shows multiple areas in each fold type “[0029]…..such as folding style, number of folds, page orientation, paper size, paper weight, target printing apparatus, and the like”);
Even though Witkowski teaches an accepting unit (integral part of element 302) configured to accept plurality of areas but is silent about accept a selection of a target area from among the plurality of areas set in the original document data;
Wang teaches accepting a selection of a target area from among the plurality of areas set in the original document data (“[0062]…… A site map is presented, and the user can select a page (506) from this site map”);
Wang and Witkowski are analogous art as both of them are related to document processing.
Therefore it would have been obvious for an ordinary skilled person in the art before the effective filing date of claimed invention to have modified Witkowski by accepting a selection of a target area from among the plurality of areas set in the original document data as taught by Wang.
The motivation for the above is to provide user more controllability in choosing area for modification.
Witkowski modified by Wang teaches a selection of a template to be applied to the target area (Witkowski “[0228] The last phase in the process is to choose a template format. There are four options--to enter custom measurements, to create a template that fits a specific standard cut sheet size, to create a template that is sized to a specific enclosure size for an envelope, or to choose from a library of saved templates”); and
an applying unit (Witkowski integral part of element 302) configured to obtain and apply the selected template to the selected target area (Witkowski “[0029] In an example, a template generator is used to prepare a page template with appropriate margins, gutters, and page markings to allow designers to design, create, and manage content on a print layout for an intended folding style”.
Wang” [0070] The button "Apply Template" 1106 will bring up windows pertaining to the next step of selecting and applying a template. If the user has not selected a page or batch of pages, then the button 1106 will be disabled. If the user has selected a page or batch of pages, then the "Apply Template" window of FIG. 13 will appear. The button 1108 labeled "Select Device" allows a user to proceed back to Step 2 and select a device type”).
Claim 15 is directed to a method and its steps are similar in scope and functions performed by the elements of apparatus claim 1 and therefore claim 15 is also rejected with the same rationale as specified in the rejection of claim 1.
Claim 16 is directed to “A non-transitory computer readable storage medium”(“ Witkowski [0091] The disk drive unit 316 includes a machine-readable medium 322 on which is stored one or more sets of instructions (e.g., software 324) embodying any one or more of the methodologies or functions described herein. The software 324 can also reside, completely or at least partially, within the main memory 304 and/or within the processor 302 during execution thereof by the computer system 300, the main memory 304 and the processor 302 also constituting machine-readable media”) and its elements are similar in scope and functions performed by the elements of apparatus claim 1 and therefore claim 16 is also rejected with the same rationale as specified in the rejection of claim 1.
Regarding claim 2 Witkowski modified by Wang teaches wherein the accepting unit further accepts from a user a selection of a type of folding, and wherein the setting unit sets the plurality of areas in the original document data according to the selected type of folding (Witkowski “[0217] The first phase is to choose a folding style, unless the user plans to choose from an existing library of folding templates--a process that will be explained in phase three. Small images of the base set of folding styles are accessible using a slider menu that travels horizontally across the top. The user can roll over the folding styles or click on their choice, which will cause the image in the large window to change, reflecting an enlarged version of the small image that has been selected. The name of the folding style will also appear in the large window directly underneath the image of the folding style”).
Regarding claim 5 Witkowski modified by Wang teaches wherein, in a case when a user performs a second operation, which is different from a first operation that is an operation of selecting one area as the target area, the accepting unit accepts a selection of at least two areas from among the plurality of areas set in the original document data as one connected area (Witkowski applies the template to all the areas.
Wang selects a page and selects a template for the page. “[0062] FIG. 5 shows an expansion of the client side page customization tool 402, wherein a five step architecture is described. These architecture steps include: (1) Input domain name 502; (2) Select device type 504; (3) Select page in site map 506; (4) Select Template 508; and (5) Customize page 510”).
Regarding claim 9 Witkowski modified by Wang teaches a display control unit configured to display (Witkowski Fig. 3 element 310) a line indicating a boundary of the plurality of areas set in the original document data so that the line is superimposed on the original document data (Witkowski “[0111] FOLDRite.TM. solution: With reference to FIG. 11, Proper file setup is in printer spreads. Panel cues in slug area give designer the ability to better visualize folded piece as flat layout”. Fig. 11 shows superimposed lines between pages).
Regarding claim 13 Witkowski modified by Wang teaches wherein the type of folding includes at least any of folding into two areas, folding into three areas, and folding into four areas (Witkowski Fig. 19).
Claim(s) 3-4 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Witkowski modified by Wang as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Anderson et al. (US Pat. No. 6912311 “Anderson”).
Regarding claim 3 Witkowski modified by Wang is silent about wherein the applying unit resizes the template to match the size of the target area.
Anderson teaches resizing template to match size of target area (Col 7 lines 60-62 “ If they are the same, then the template is resized to fill the print area, via step 1717. If they are different, then the template is resized according to the Page Information Sizing Option tags, via step 1716”);
Anderson and Witkowski modified by Wang are analogous art as both of them are related to document processing.
Therefore it would have been obvious for an ordinary skilled person in the art before the effective filing date of claimed invention to have modified Witkowski modified by Wang by resizing template to match size of target area as taught by Anderson.
The motivation for the above is to better fit the template by removing empty area from the page.
Regarding claim 4 Witkowski modified by Wang and Anderson teaches wherein the applying unit resizes the template so that a positional relationship among a plurality of objects included in the template before resizing is maintained even after resizing (Anderson Col 7 lines 50-60 “FIG. 17B is a flow chart illustrating in more detail the resizing of the template and layout in step 1702 of FIG. 17A. In the resizing, first the aspect ratio of the print area is calculated, via step 1710. Next, the aspect ratio of the template is calculated based on the Page Rectangle (default target rectangle into which the template is designed to fit), Preferred Page Format, and Margins in the Page Information, via step 1712. The Page Rectangle, Preferred Page Format, and the Margins together define the print area for which the template was designed. These two aspect ratios are compared, via step 1714. If they are the same, then the template is resized to fill the print area, via step 1717. If they are different, then the template is resized according to the Page Information Sizing Option tags, via step 1716”. As template is resized based on aspect ratio, so objects inside the template will have same relationship before and after resizing.).
Claim(s) 6-8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Witkowski modified by Wang as applied to claim 5 above, and further in view of Gupta et al. (US Pat. Pub. No. 20220254078 “Gupta”).
Regarding claim 6 Witkowski modified by Wang is silent about wherein the second operation is an operation of the user designating a given position within a range enclosing a predetermined distance from a boundary position of the plurality of areas set in the original document data.
Gupta teaches, second operation is an operation of the user designating a given position within a range enclosing a predetermined distance from a boundary position of plurality of areas set in original image (Fig. 3 “[0137] In some instances, the edge transformation system 106 determines the adjacent influenced region from the digital image displayed on the computing device by: receiving, from the computing device, one or more user interactions with the digital image, the one or more user interactions defining the adjacent influenced region; selecting a set of pixels that are within a threshold distance from the edge; or selecting pixels bounded by the edge and a second edge that is nearest to the edge”);
Gupta and Witkowski modified by Wang are analogous art as both of them are related to document processing.
Therefore it would have been obvious for an ordinary skilled person in the art before the effective filing date of claimed invention to have modified Witkowski modified by Wang by having second operation that is an operation of the user designating a given position within a range enclosing a predetermined distance from a boundary position of the plurality of areas set in the original document data similar to having second operation that is an operation of the user designating a given position within a range enclosing a predetermined distance from a boundary position of plurality of areas set in original image as taught by Gupta.
The motivation for the above is to select two neighboring pages with a simple user click.
Regarding claim 7 Witkowski modified by Wang and Gupta teaches an obtaining unit configured to obtain information regarding a connection of the plurality of areas, wherein, based on the obtained information regarding a connection of the plurality of areas and the position designated by the user in the second operation, the accepting unit determines a second area, which is connected to a first area that includes the position designated by the user, and accepts the selection of the target area on the premise that the area formed by connecting the first area and the second area is one area (Gupta “[0064] As shown in FIG. 3, the edge transformation system 106 provides a digital image 302 within a graphical user interface 304 displayed on a computing device 306. Further, the edge transformation system 106 determines the edge 308 and the adjacent influenced regions 310a-310b. In particular, the adjacent influenced regions 310a includes a portion of the digital image 302 on one side of the edge 308, and the adjacent influenced region 310b includes a portion of the digital image 302 on another side of the edge 308. [0137] In some instances, the edge transformation system 106 determines the adjacent influenced region from the digital image displayed on the computing device by: receiving, from the computing device, one or more user interactions with the digital image, the one or more user interactions defining the adjacent influenced region; selecting a set of pixels that are within a threshold distance from the edge; or selecting pixels bounded by the edge and a second edge that is nearest to the edge”).
Regarding claim 8 Witkowski modified by Wang and Gupta teaches wherein the information regarding a connection of the plurality of areas is determined based on a positional relationship of the plurality of areas of the printed material in a folded state (Gupta “[0137] In some instances, the edge transformation system 106 determines the adjacent influenced region from the digital image displayed on the computing device by: receiving, from the computing device, one or more user interactions with the digital image, the one or more user interactions defining the adjacent influenced region; selecting a set of pixels that are within a threshold distance from the edge; or selecting pixels bounded by the edge and a second edge that is nearest to the edge”.
Witkowski Fig. 19 shows connection among plurality of areas in folded state).
Claim(s) 10 and 14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Witkowski modified by Wang as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Masaki (US Pat. Pub. No. 20030227652 “Masaki”).
Regarding claim 10 Witkowski modified by Wang is silent about wherein the display control unit displays the line indicating the boundary in a display form that differs depending on the shape of folding to be formed in the printed material folded along the line indicating the boundary.
Masaki teaches display control unit displays line indicating the boundary in a display form that differs depending on the shape of folding to be formed in the printed material folded along the line indicating the boundary (Fig. 3A “[0064] Hitherto, even in the case of using the Z-folding function, the layout adjustment of a plurality of logic pages which are allocated to each physical page has been made without considering that after the sheet is print-outputted, it is Z-folded. For example, if the printing is performed in the landscape mode, the right side of the sheet is folded, and 2-in-1 in which two logic pages are allocated to one physical page is designated, as shown in FIG. 5, two logic pages of the page (n) and the page (n+1) are allocated to one physical page and the logic pages are arranged to the left and right with respect to the center portion on the physical page. It is now assumed that the output sheet is valley-folded in its center portion by the Z-folding process and, further, mountain-folded in the center position of the right half of the output sheet. In the embodiment, the side which is Z-folded with respect to the center of the sheet is referred to as a folding side. Although the folding side is shown by .circleincircle. on the diagram, this mark is not actually printed”);
Masaki and Witkowski modified by Wang are analogous art as both of them are related to document processing.
Therefore it would have been obvious for an ordinary skilled person in the art before the effective filing date of claimed invention to have modified Witkowski modified by Wang by displaying line indicating the boundary in a display form that differs depending on the shape of folding to be formed in the printed material folded along the line indicating the boundary as taught by Masaki.
The motivation for the above is to provide understandability of different types of foldings.
Regarding claim 14 Witkowski modified by Wang implicitly teaches wherein the plurality of areas set in the original document data includes areas divided in a landscape direction (Fig. 11 of Witkowski)
But to show explicitly teaching, examiner is including Masaki.
Masaki teaches plurality of areas set in the original document data includes areas divided in a portrait direction, landscape direction, or both of the portrait and landscape directions (“[0052] In the case of Z-folding the sheet printed in what is called a landscape mode such that the direction of the printing to the sheet is set to A.fwdarw.B.fwdarw.C.fwdarw.D as shown in FIG. 3A, the sheet is folded in a form as shown in FIG. 3A. In the example, the case of folding the right side toward the print surface of the sheet is shown. When the sheet size is equal to the A3 size, the sheet is folded in the A4 size.
[0053] In the case of Z-folding the sheet printed in what is called a portrait mode such that the direction of the printing to the sheet is set to A.fwdarw.B.fwdarw.C.fwdarw.D as shown in FIG. 3”);
Masaki and Witkowski modified by Wang are analogous art as both of them are related to document processing.
Therefore it would have been obvious for an ordinary skilled person in the art before the effective filing date of claimed invention to have modified Witkowski modified by Wang by having plurality of areas set in the original document data includes areas divided in a portrait direction, landscape direction, or both of the portrait and landscape directions as taught by Masaki.
The motivation for the above is to enhance Witkowski by organizing pages in different directions.
Claim(s) 11-12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Witkowski modified by Wang as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Chaudhry et al. (Us Pat. Pub. No. 20170220530 “Chaudhury”).
Regarding claim 11 Witkowski modified by Wang teaches wherein the accepting unit further accepts an operation between a first mode, in which the template is applied to the entire original document data, and a second mode, in which the template is applied to the target area selected from among the plurality of areas set in the original document data (Witkowski applies template to the entire document and Wang applies template to a selected page) but is silent about switching between mode;
Chaudhry teaches accepting an operation of switching between a first mode, in which template is applied to entire original document data, and a second mode, in which the template is applied to target area selected from among the plurality of areas set in the original document data (“[0069] Templating menu 726 may enable using the template, created for the current page, for other pages in the document. A user may select option 728, to apply the template to the entire document. A user may select option 730 to apply the template to a selected set of other pages in the document”);
Chaudhry and Witkowski modified by Wang are analogous art as both of them are related to document processing.
Therefore it would have been obvious for an ordinary skilled person in the art before the effective filing date of claimed invention to have modified Witkowski modified by Wang by accepting an operation of switching between a first mode, in which template is applied to entire original document data, and a second mode, in which the template is applied to target area selected from among the plurality of areas set in the original document data as taught by Chaudhury.
The motivation for the above is to provide additional capability to control choice of page selection.
Witkowski modified by Wang and Chaudhury teaches wherein, in a case where the operation of switching to the second mode is performed, the applying unit applies the selected template to the selected target area (Wang” [0070] The button "Apply Template" 1106 will bring up windows pertaining to the next step of selecting and applying a template. If the user has not selected a page or batch of pages, then the button 1106 will be disabled. If the user has selected a page or batch of pages, then the "Apply Template" window of FIG. 13 will appear. The button 1108 labeled "Select Device" allows a user to proceed back to Step 2 and select a device type”).
Regarding claim 12 Witkowski modified by Wang teaches wherein the accepting unit further accepts an operation between a first mode, in which the template is applied to the entire original document data, and a second mode, in which the template is applied to the target area selected from among the plurality of areas set in the original document data, (Witkowski applies template to the entire document and Wang applies template to a selected page) but is silent about switching between mode;
Chaudhry teaches accepting an operation of switching between a first mode, in which template is applied to entire original document data, and a second mode, in which the template is applied to target area selected from among the plurality of areas set in the original document data (“[0069] Templating menu 726 may enable using the template, created for the current page, for other pages in the document. A user may select option 728, to apply the template to the entire document. A user may select option 730 to apply the template to a selected set of other pages in the document”);
Chaudhry and Witkowski modified by Wang are analogous art as both of them are related to document processing.
Therefore it would have been obvious for an ordinary skilled person in the art before the effective filing date of claimed invention to have modified Witkowski modified by Wang by accepting an operation of switching between a first mode, in which template is applied to entire original document data, and a second mode, in which the template is applied to target area selected from among the plurality of areas set in the original document data as taught by Chaudhury.
The motivation for the above is to provide additional capability to control choice of page selection.
Witkowski modified by Wang and Chaudhury teaches wherein, in a case where the operation of switching to the first mode is performed, the applying unit applies the selected template to the entire original document data (Witkowski “[0029] In an example, a template generator is used to prepare a page template with appropriate margins, gutters, and page markings to allow designers to design, create, and manage content on a print layout for an intended folding style”).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to SAPTARSHI MAZUMDER whose telephone number is (571)270-3454. The examiner can normally be reached 8 am-4 pm PST.
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, Said Broome can be reached at (571)272-2931. 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.
/SAPTARSHI MAZUMDER/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2612
Prosecution Insights