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 .
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on October 1, 2025 has been entered.
Status of Claims
This office action is in response to arguments and amendments entered on October 1, 2025 for the patent application 16/867,388 originally filed on May 5, 2020. Claims 1, 6, 13, 14, and 33 are amended. Claims 2-5, 8, 16-32, 34, and 35 are canceled. Claims 1, 6, 7, 9-15, and 33 remain pending. The first office action of December 8, 2020, second office action of April 22, 2021, third office action of January 5, 2022, fourth office action of July 5, 2022, the fifth office action of May 12, 2023, and the sixth office action of April 1, 2025 are fully incorporated by reference into this office action.
Response to Amendment
Applicant’s amendments to the claims have been noted by the Examiner.
The Applicant’s amendments to the claims are not sufficient to overcome the 35 USC 101 rejections of record, for reasons set forth below.
Applicant’s amendments are sufficient to overcome the outstanding 35 USC 102 and 35 USC 103 prior art rejections. However, new prior art rejections under 35 USC 103 are applied to the claims in this office action, as set forth below.
Double Patenting
The nonstatutory double patenting rejection is based on a judicially created doctrine grounded in public policy (a policy reflected in the statute) so as to prevent the unjustified or improper timewise extension of the “right to exclude” granted by a patent and to prevent possible harassment by multiple assignees. A nonstatutory double patenting rejection is appropriate where the conflicting claims are not identical, but at least one examined application claim is not patentably distinct from the reference claim(s) because the examined application claim is either anticipated by, or would have been obvious over, the reference claim(s). See, e.g., In re Berg, 140 F.3d 1428, 46 USPQ2d 1226 (Fed. Cir. 1998); In re Goodman, 11 F.3d 1046, 29 USPQ2d 2010 (Fed. Cir. 1993); In re Longi, 759 F.2d 887, 225 USPQ 645 (Fed. Cir. 1985); In re Van Ornum, 686 F.2d 937, 214 USPQ 761 (CCPA 1982); In re Vogel, 422 F.2d 438, 164 USPQ 619 (CCPA 1970); In re Thorington, 418 F.2d 528, 163 USPQ 644 (CCPA 1969).
A timely filed terminal disclaimer in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(c) or 1.321(d) may be used to overcome an actual or provisional rejection based on nonstatutory double patenting provided the reference application or patent either is shown to be commonly owned with the examined application, or claims an invention made as a result of activities undertaken within the scope of a joint research agreement. See MPEP § 717.02 for applications subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA as explained in MPEP § 2159. See MPEP § 2146 et seq. for applications not subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA . A terminal disclaimer must be signed in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(b).
The filing of a terminal disclaimer by itself is not a complete reply to a nonstatutory double patenting (NSDP) rejection. A complete reply requires that the terminal disclaimer be accompanied by a reply requesting reconsideration of the prior Office action. Even where the NSDP rejection is provisional the reply must be complete. See MPEP § 804, subsection I.B.1. For a reply to a non-final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.111(a). For a reply to final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.113(c). A request for reconsideration while not provided for in 37 CFR 1.113(c) may be filed after final for consideration. See MPEP §§ 706.07(e) and 714.13.
The USPTO Internet website contains terminal disclaimer forms which may be used. Please visit www.uspto.gov/patent/patents-forms. The actual filing date of the application in which the form is filed determines what form (e.g., PTO/SB/25, PTO/SB/26, PTO/AIA /25, or PTO/AIA /26) should be used. A web-based eTerminal Disclaimer may be filled out completely online using web-screens. An eTerminal Disclaimer that meets all requirements is auto-processed and approved immediately upon submission. For more information about eTerminal Disclaimers, refer to www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/applying-online/eterminal-disclaimer.
Claims 1, 6, 7, 9-15, and 33 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1, 10 and 11 of U.S. Patent No. 12,282,726. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other, as shown in the comparison chart below:
Instant Application
US Patent 12,282,726
1. A method for creating and displaying an improved image, the method comprising:
electronically transforming an inputted paragraph of linear-formatted text into a plurality of corresponding textual objects, serially converting each character of said linearly-formatted text into a respective textual object;
positioning a plurality of non-linear shaped, curved boundaries on a background portion to form thereon divided locations for respective textual objects to be positioned therebetween, where each of the plurality of non-linear shaped, curved boundaries is separated by a second distance and each aligned about a middle or center part thereof, wherein each said non-linear boundary is a curved line on said surface, each non-linear boundary on said surface being a curved line having the same length, same non-zero slope and parallel;
serially positioning each of said plurality of corresponding textual objects in said background portion within respective divided locations between two given non-linear boundaries and centered along a given curved line therebetween,
wherein a top part of a given textual object is at a first distance from a first of said given non-linear boundaries positioned on said surface and above said given textual object,
wherein a bottom part of said given textual object is at said first distance from a second of said given non-linear boundaries positioned on said surface and below said given textual object,
wherein said first distance is substantially one third of said second distance,
electronically converting all of said inputted paragraph of text into said plurality of corresponding textual objects onto said background portion,
wherein said textual objects serially disposed between said given non-linear boundaries along said given curved line, when greater than a line margin, spill over to another given curved line below said given curved line, said another given curved line receiving further serially disposed textual objects, and
wherein said given curved line and said another given curved line are not visible, and said plurality of non-linear boundaries are not visible, and
displaying, on a display, said plurality of corresponding textual objects formed from said inputted paragraph, showing said textual objects adjacent said non-linear, curved boundaries.
1. A method for converting linear formatted text into a non-linear, dyslexic-friendly readable text image using an electronic device comprising:
electronically reading or receiving linear formatted text;
serially converting characters from the linear formatted text into corresponding textual objects, a plurality of said textual objects positioned onto a non-linear, dyslexic-friendly readable text image using an electronic device, where said non-linear, dyslexic-friendly readable text image comprises,
(i) a surface or background portion;
(ii) a plurality of non-linear boundaries disposed on said surface and each aligned about a middle or center part thereof, wherein each said non-linear boundary is a curved line on said surface, each non-linear boundary on said surface having the same non-zero slope and parallel, and
(iii) said plurality of textual objects, said plurality of said textual objects created from said linear formatted text and serially disposed on said surface are adjacent to given non-linear boundaries of said plurality of non-linear boundaries, and centered along a given curved line between said given non-linear boundaries; and
displaying, on a display, said surface and said plurality of said textual objects disposed on said surface said plurality of said textual objects centered along said given curved line and between said given non-linear boundaries,
wherein a top part of a given textual object of said plurality of said textual objects is at a first distance from a first of said given non-linear boundaries positioned on said surface and above said given textual object,
wherein a bottom part of said given textual object of said plurality of said textual objects is at said first distance from a second of said given non-linear boundaries positioned on said surface and below said given textual object,
wherein said first and second given non-linear boundaries are separated by a second distance, said first distance being substantially one third of said second distance,
wherein said plurality of said textual objects serially disposed between said given non-linear boundaries along said given curved line, when greater than a line margin, spill over to another given curved line below said given curved line, said another given curved line receiving further serially disposed textual objects, and
wherein said given curved line and said another given curved line are not visible to a user on the display, and said plurality of non-linear boundaries may or may not be visible to the user on the display.
10. The method according to claim 1, where each of said textual objects comprises one or more of grammatical letters, words, numbers, and symbols.
10. The method according to claim 1, wherein said plurality of textual objects comprises one or more of grammatical letters, words, numbers, or symbols.
11. The method according to claim 10, wherein the one or more grammatical letters, words or symbols comprise a character in a language.
11. The method according to claim 10, wherein a given grammatical letter, word or symbol comprises a character in a language.
Claims 6 and 7 describe padding distances being relatively the same at the top and bottom of the text lines. This is an obvious design choice. Applicant has not disclosed that enforcing a specific variation or lack of variation in distances between the text and upper and lower boundaries solves any stated problem or is for any particular purpose. Moreover, it appears that setting padding distances on textual objects is generally well known in the art and any variation in distances would perform equally well.
Claim 9 describes generating a geometrically shaped border to surround the text lines. This is also an obvious design choice, and also represents printed matter.
Applicant has not disclosed that providing a border around the text solves any stated problem or is for any particular purpose other than decorative and/or aesthetic purposes. Moreover, it appears that providing a border around textual objects is generally well known in the art and the invention would perform equally well with or without displaying a border around the text.
Furthermore, it has been held that when the claimed printed matter is not functionally related to the substrate it will not distinguish the invention from the prior art in terms of patentability. In re Gulack 217 USPQ 401, (CAFC 1983) and In re Ngai, 367 F.3d 1336, 70 USPQ2d 1862. The content of the printed matter used does not alter or provide a functional relationship with the substrate. Mere support by the substrate for the printed matter is not the kind of functional relationship necessary for patentability. Thus, there is no novel and unobvious functional relationship between the printed matter (e.g., displaying a border around the text objects) and the substrate (e.g., the electronic device display) which is required for patentability.
Claim 12 defines the text as being presented as block letters. This is also an obvious design choice, and also represents printed matter.
Applicant has not disclosed that displaying the text as block text solves any stated problem or is for any particular purpose other than decorative and/or aesthetic purposes. Moreover, it appears that displaying text as block text is generally well known in the art and the invention would perform equally well whether displayed as regular text or as block text.
Furthermore, it has been held that when the claimed printed matter is not functionally related to the substrate it will not distinguish the invention from the prior art in terms of patentability. In re Gulack 217 USPQ 401, (CAFC 1983) and In re Ngai, 367 F.3d 1336, 70 USPQ2d 1862. The content of the printed matter used does not alter or provide a functional relationship with the substrate. Mere support by the substrate for the printed matter is not the kind of functional relationship necessary for patentability. Thus, there is no novel and unobvious functional relationship between the printed matter (e.g., displaying block text) and the substrate (e.g., the electronic device display) which is required for patentability.
Claim 13 describes printing the text on paper, among other possible materials. Allowing printing of text onto paper is a conventional and obvious feature of text-displaying applications. Official Notice is taken that printing text onto paper was well known and conventional at the time the invention was filed.
Claim 14 discloses showing the plurality of non-linear shaped, curved boundaries on an electronic display. However, the plurality of non-linear shaped, curved boundaries is described in the patent claim 1, and displaying the boundaries is described in the last limitation of claim 1 (“said plurality of non-linear boundaries may or may not be visible to the user on the display.”).
Claim 15 requires that each of the plurality of non-linear shaped, curved boundaries comprises at least one undulation. However, by definition, a curved line is an undulation (“a smoothly rising and falling form, outline, or movement,” Oxford Languages dictionary). Patent claim 1 describes that the non-linear shaped lines are curved lines.
Claim 33 discloses various devices onto which the curved text lines might be displayed (“an electronic white board, laptop computer, desktop computer, smartphone, electronic personal digital assistant, electronic mobile communication terminal, electronic media player, electronic book, or electronic notepad.”). However, the patent discloses in each independent claim that the curved text lines are displayed on “an electronic device,” which includes all of the above claimed variations.
For the above reasons, claims 1, 6, 7, 9-15, and 33 are not patentably distinct from claims 1, 10 and 11 of U.S. Patent No. 12,282,726.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. § 112(b):
(B) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
Claim 14 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 112(b), as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
Claim 14 recites the limitation “on an electronic display.” The limitation is originally introduced in independent claim 1. As such, the subsequent limitations are either (1) not following antecedent basis (i.e. “on a[[n]]); or (2) are intended to be new limitations which ambiguously conflict with the previous limitation of claim 1. Therefore, claim 14 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 112(b), as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
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, 6, 7, 9-15, and 33 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 101 because the claimed invention is directed to a judicial exception (i.e., a law of nature, a natural phenomenon, or an abstract idea) without significantly more.
Claim 1 is directed to “a method” (i.e. a process), hence the claims are directed to one of the four statutory categories (i.e. process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter). In other words, Step 1 of the subject-matter eligibility analysis is “Yes.”
However, the claims are drawn to an abstract idea of “arranging textual objects” in the form of “mental processes,” in terms of processes that can be performed in the human mind (including an observation, evaluation, judgement or opinion).
Regardless, the claims are reasonably understood as “mental processes,” which require the following limitations:
“transforming an inputted paragraph of linear-formatted text into a plurality of corresponding textual objects, serially converting each character of said linearly-formatted text into a respective textual object;
positioning a plurality of non-linear shaped, curved boundaries on a background portion to form thereon divided locations for respective textual objects to be positioned therebetween, where each of the plurality of non-linear shaped, curved boundaries is separated by a second distance and each aligned about a middle or center part thereof, wherein each said non-linear boundary is a curved line on said surface, each non-linear boundary on said surface being a curved line having the same length, same non-zero slope and parallel;
serially positioning each of said plurality of corresponding textual objects in said background portion within respective divided locations between two given non-linear boundaries and centered along a given curved line therebetween,
wherein a top part of a given textual object is at a first distance from a first of said given non-linear boundaries positioned on said surface and above said given textual object,
wherein a bottom part of said given textual object is at said first distance from a second of said given non-linear boundaries positioned on said surface and below said given textual object,
wherein said first distance is substantially one third of said second distance,
…converting all of said inputted paragraph of text into said plurality of corresponding textual objects onto said background portion,
wherein said textual objects serially disposed between said given non-linear boundaries along said given curved line, when greater than a line margin, spill over to another given curved line below said given curved line, said another given curved line receiving further serially disposed textual objects, and
wherein said given curved line and said another given curved line are not visible, and said plurality of non-linear boundaries are not visible, and
displaying, on a display, said plurality of corresponding textual objects formed from said inputted paragraph, showing said textual objects adjacent said non-linear, curved boundaries.”
These limitations simply describe a process of data gathering and manipulation, which is partially analogous to “collecting information, analyzing it, and displaying certain results of the collection analysis” (i.e. Electric Power Group, LLC, v. Alstom, 830 F.3d 1350, 119 U.S.P.Q.2d 1739 (Fed. Cir. 2016)). Hence, these limitations are akin to an abstract idea which has been identified among non-limiting examples to be an abstract idea. In other words, Step 2A, Prong 1 of the subject-matter eligibility analysis is “Yes.”
Furthermore, the claims do not include additional elements that either alone or in combination are sufficient to claim a practical application because to the extent that the method is performed “electronically,” this is merely claimed to add insignificant extra-solution activity to the judicial exception (e.g., data gathering) and/or does no more than generally link the use of a judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use. In other words, the claimed “arranging textual objects,” is not providing a practical application, thus Step 2A, Prong 2 of the subject-matter eligibility analysis is “No.”
Likewise, the claims do not include additional elements that either alone or in combination are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because to the extent that the method is performed “electronically,” performing the steps electronically involves only generic, well-known, and conventional computing elements. As evidence that performing the steps electronically involve only generic, well-known, and conventional computing elements, Applicant’s specification discloses them in a manner that indicates that the additional elements are sufficiently well-known that the specification does not need to describe the particulars of such additional elements to satisfy 35 U.S.C. § 112(a), per MPEP § 2106.07(a) III (a), which satisfies the Examiner’s evidentiary burden requirement per the Berkheimer memo.
Specifically, the Applicant describes “electronically stored instructions” as being performed by “a computer device,” which is described in instant specification paragraph [022] as follows: “It should be understood that the inventive device for providing the inventive image(s) may comprises a device selected from the following, non-limiting types of devices: an electronic server, electronic white board, laptop computer, desktop computer, smartphone, electronic personal digital assistant, electronic mobile communication terminal, electronic media player, electronic navigational device, electronic book, or electronic notepad.” Claim 33 also further specifies that the method steps are performed by these types of devices.
These elements are reasonably interpreted as a generic computer which provides no details of anything beyond ubiquitous standard equipment. As such, the claimed electronically performed steps are reasonably understood as not providing anything significantly more. Therefore, Step 2B, of the subject-matter eligibility analysis is “No.”
In addition, dependent claims 6, 7, 9-15 and 33 do not provide a practical application and are insufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. As such, dependent claims 6, 7, 9-15 and 33 are also rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 101, based on their respective dependencies to independent claim 1.
Therefore, claims 1, 6, 7, 9-15, and 33 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 101 as being directed to non-statutory subject matter.
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.
Claims 1, 6, 7, 9-15, and 33 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Meng (US 2015/0082238) in view of “How to curve text within a paragraph” (hereinafter “InDesign Script”; Non-patent Literature, full citation in PTO-892) and accompanying YouTube video clip entitled “CircleText” (hereinafter “InDesign Demo”; Non-patent Literature, full citation in PTO-892), and in further view of Bizziocchi (US 2003/0215775).
Regarding claim 1, Meng discloses a method for creating and displaying an improved image (Meng Abstract, “A system and method is provided to display and interact with a plurality of items with text(s)”), the method comprising:
…
positioning a plurality of non-linear shaped, curved boundaries on a background portion to form thereon divided locations for respective textual objects to be positioned therebetween, where each of the plurality of non-linear shaped, curved boundaries is separated by a second distance and each aligned about a middle or center part thereof, wherein each said non-linear boundary is a curved line on said surface (see Meng Fig. 1, showing several lines of text positioned in a uniformly-spaced and curved manner) …
serially positioning each of said plurality of corresponding textual objects in said background portion within respective divided locations between two given non-linear boundaries and centered along a given curved line therebetween (see Meng Fig. 1 and [0015-0016], the lines of text “share same curvature; in other words, they are parallel… each item 34 of the curve list can be configured to include text(s) and/or image(s) that may be grouped into a few curve lines, each text or image therein can be rendered differently and independently (e.g., text color and alignment, font characteristics, background color, image drawing effect, etc.) along an invisible curve path”),
wherein a top part of a given textual object is at a first distance from a first of said given non-linear boundaries positioned on said surface and above said given textual object (see Meng Fig. 1, showing each upper boundary being a first distance from the top of each of the respective text lines),
wherein a bottom part of said given textual object is at said first distance from a second of said given non-linear boundaries positioned on said surface and below said given textual object (see Meng Fig. 1, showing each lower boundary being a first distance from the bottom of each of the respective text lines),
wherein said first distance is substantially one third of said second distance (Meng does not explicitly teach that said first distance is substantially one third of said second distance. However, the Applicant’s use of line spacing is an obvious design choice. Applicant has not disclosed that the specific line spacing solves any stated problem or is for any particular purpose. Moreover, it appears that any line spacing using the method of Meng or the Applicant would perform equally well. Therefore, it would have been prima facie obvious to modify Meng to obtain the method as specified, because such a modification would have been considered a mere design consideration which fails to patentably distinguish over the prior art of Meng; Furthermore, looking for example at Meng Fig. 6B, the padding between lines appears to be substantially one third of the overall line height),
…
displaying, on a display, said plurality of corresponding textual objects formed from said inputted paragraph, showing said textual objects adjacent said non-linear, curved boundaries (see Meng Fig. 1, showing how the curved text would be displayed on a screen).
Meng does not explicitly teach every limitation of electronically transforming an inputted paragraph of linear-formatted text into a plurality of corresponding textual objects, serially converting each character of said linearly-formatted text into a respective textual object.
Meng does disclose electronically transforming text into a plurality of corresponding textual objects, converting the text into respective textual objects (Meng [0017], “the text and/or image rendering data can be sent from the curve items list controller 16 to the touch screen 20… the curve items list controller 16 can accept data from a variety of data sources to generate the list. For example, the data source can be a physical file, a few database records, some application specific in-memory data, a contacts list in wireless phones, a few email messages, music collections in media players, a files list of a local or cloud storage, friends, followers, and following lists of social networking sites, and so on” the lines of text are input from a data source). It is noted that the default formatting of text on computers is in a linear format. Meng selects certain portions of data to display in a non-linear format, and therefore does not transform each character of inputted text into a respective textual object.
However, the InDesign Script and accompanying InDesign Demo references (hereinafter addressed together as InDesign Script/InDesign Demo) takes inputted linear-formatted text (see InDesign Demo page 1, linear input text shown at bottom of the video screenshot) and converts each word from the inputted text into a respective textual object (see InDesign Demo page 1, converted respective textual objects shown at the top of the video screenshot).
InDesign Script/InDesign Demo is analogous to Meng, as both are drawn to the art of text formatting. It would be obvious to try by one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to have modified the method as taught by Meng, to include taking inputted linear-formatted text and converting each word from the inputted text into a respective textual object, as taught by InDesign Script/InDesign Demo, since it would apply a known technique of inputting and outputting text to improve similar methods in the same way. Doing so is a predictable solution that one of ordinary skill in the art could have pursued with a reasonable expectation of success.
Meng in view of InDesign Script/InDesign Demo does not explicitly teach each non-linear boundary on said surface being a curved line having the same length, same non-zero slope and parallel.
However, Bizziocchi discloses each non-linear boundary on said surface being a curved line having the same length, same non-zero slope and parallel (see Bizziocchi Fig. 7, showing the geometry of curved lines used for formatting text lines, each curved line having the same length, same non-zero slope and parallel; see also Bizziocchi Fig. 8, showing a column of text lines, all of which is displayed formatted as curved lines).
Bizziocchi is analogous to Meng in view of InDesign Script/InDesign Demo, as both are drawn to the art of text formatting. It would be obvious to try by one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to have modified the method as taught by Meng in view of InDesign Script/InDesign Demo, to include each non-linear boundary on said surface being a curved line having the same length, same non-zero slope and parallel, as taught by Bizziocchi, since it uses a known technique of curving lines of text to improve similar methods in the same way. Doing so is a predictable solution that one of ordinary skill in the art could have pursued with a reasonable expectation of success.
Meng in view of InDesign Script/InDesign Demo and Bizziocchi does not explicitly teach every limitation of electronically converting all of said inputted paragraph of text into said plurality of corresponding textual objects onto said background portion; wherein said textual objects serially disposed between said given non-linear boundaries along said given curved line, when greater than a line margin, spill over to another given curved line below said given curved line, said another given curved line receiving further serially disposed textual objects, and wherein said given curved line and said another given curved line are not visible, and said plurality of non-linear boundaries are not visible.
However, the InDesign Script/InDesign Demo discloses electronically converting all of said inputted paragraph of text into said plurality of corresponding textual objects onto said background portion; wherein said textual objects serially disposed between said given non-linear boundaries along said given curved line, when greater than a line margin, spill over to another given curved line below said given curved line, said another given curved line receiving further serially disposed textual objects, and wherein said given curved line and said another given curved line are not visible, and said plurality of non-linear boundaries are not visible (see InDesign Demo page 1, showing the all of the linear formatted text shown at the bottom of the video screenshot converted into curved text shown at the top of the video screenshot. The video screenshot also shows text along a given non-linear boundary line spilling over to the curved line below. The video screenshot also shows that the formatted text does not show visible boundary lines).
It would be obvious to try by one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to have modified the method as taught by Meng in view of InDesign Script/InDesign Demo and Bizziocchi, to include electronically converting all of said inputted paragraph of text into said plurality of corresponding textual objects onto said background portion; wherein said textual objects serially disposed between said given non-linear boundaries along said given curved line, when greater than a line margin, spill over to another given curved line below said given curved line, said another given curved line receiving further serially disposed textual objects, and wherein said given curved line and said another given curved line are not visible, and said plurality of non-linear boundaries are not visible, as further taught by InDesign Script/InDesign Demo, since it would apply a known technique of inputting and outputting text to improve similar methods in the same way. Doing so is a predictable solution that one of ordinary skill in the art could have pursued with a reasonable expectation of success.
Regarding claim 6, Meng in view of InDesign Script/InDesign Demo and Bizziocchi discloses wherein a plurality of non-linear shaped, curved boundaries located below given textual objects is at a third distance from each textual objects, and another one of the plurality of non-linear shaped, curved boundaries is located above given textual objects at a fourth distance, where the third distance and fourth distance vary from a second distance by up to 10% (Meng Fig. 1, showing third distance and fourth distance appearing to be substantially the same as second distance, or less than 10% difference).
Regarding claim 7, Meng in view of InDesign Script/InDesign Demo and Bizziocchi discloses that the third distance and the fourth distance are the same (Meng Fig. 1, showing third distance and fourth distance appearing to be substantially the same as second distance).
Regarding claim 9, Meng in view of InDesign Script/InDesign Demo and Bizziocchi discloses: generating a border that corresponds to a geometric shape to surround the paragraph of said textual objects with said non-linear shaped, curved boundaries thereabout (Meng Fig. 1, showing the textual objects enclosed by a border shaped like a portion of a circle segment).
Regarding claim 10, Meng in view of InDesign Script/InDesign Demo and Bizziocchi discloses that each of said textual objects comprises one or more of grammatical letters, words, numbers, and symbols (Meng Fig. 1, showing textual objects comprising one or more of grammatical letters, words, numbers, and symbols).
Regarding claim 11, Meng in view of InDesign Script/InDesign Demo and Bizziocchi discloses that the one or more grammatical letters, words or symbols comprise a character in a language (Meng Fig. 1, showing one or more grammatical letters, words or symbols comprising characters in the English language).
Regarding claim 12, Meng in view of InDesign Script/InDesign Demo and Bizziocchi discloses wherein each textual object is presented as a block-letter (see Meng Fig. 1, showing each letter separately displayed and not touching other letters. It is noted that the instant disclosure does not specifically define block-lettering. Under broadest reasonable interpretation, a block-letter is a character that is displayed completely separate from other letters).
Regarding claim 13, Meng in view of InDesign Script/InDesign Demo and Bizziocchi discloses converting or printing the display of said plurality of corresponding textual objects formed from said inputted paragraph into a material, said material selected from at least a paper, a wood, a plastic, a vinyl and a metal (Meng [0001], mentioning printers. Also, allowing printing of text onto paper is a conventional and obvious feature of electronic text-displaying applications. Official Notice is taken that printing text onto paper was well known and conventional at the time the invention was filed).
Regarding claim 14, Meng in view of InDesign Script/InDesign Demo and Bizziocchi discloses wherein said display of said plurality of corresponding textual objects formed from said inputted paragraph shows a plurality of non-linear shaped, curved boundaries and pluralities of said textual objects aligned between the plurality of non-linear shaped, curved boundaries on an electronic display (see Meng Fig. 1, showing the textual objects aligned between the plurality of non-linear shaped, curved boundaries on an electronic display).
Regarding claim 15, Meng in view of InDesign Script/InDesign Demo and Bizziocchi discloses that each of the plurality of non-linear shaped, curved boundaries comprises one or more undulations (Meng Fig. 1, showing each non-linear shaped line of text comprising an undulation).
Regarding claim 33, Meng in view of InDesign Script/InDesign Demo and Bizziocchi discloses wherein said displaying of said plurality of corresponding textual objects formed from said inputted paragraph shows a plurality of non-linear shaped, curved boundaries and pluralities of textual objects positioned between respective pluralities of said non-linear shaped, curved boundaries on an electronic white board, laptop computer, desktop computer, smartphone, electronic personal digital assistant, electronic mobile communication terminal, electronic media player, electronic book, or electronic notepad (Meng [0001], “an electronic device with a touch screen may be a wireless phone, a tablet, a laptop or desktop computer, a personal digital assistant, a game console, a vehicle digital dashboard, a copy/printer/scanner digital control panel, an appliance digital control panel, or any combination thereof.”).
Response to Arguments
The Applicant’s arguments filed on October 1, 2025 have been fully considered.
Regarding the prior art rejections under 35 USC 102 and 35 USC 103
Applicant’s arguments with respect to the claims have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument.
Regarding the rejections under 35 USC 101
The Applicant respectfully argues that “the claimed invention, as presently amended, is not "directed to" an abstraction, as so easily alleged. Further, the claimed invention is not something reasonably doable using "mental processes," i.e., the precision of the curved textual objects and boundaries alignment and the requisite spacings require considerable computation and manipulation to so transform linear text into a curved and structured format readable to a distinct segment of society. Applicant respectfully submits that vis-a-vis patentability, the claimed creation of an improved image meets the standard and is not merely abstract or subject to the "mental processes" paradigm.”
The Examiner respectfully disagrees. The Examiner recognizes that there are many examples of computer-implemented inventions that are not mental processes, such as those given by example in MPEP 2106.04(a)(III)(A). However, in the instant case, the invention is directed to the abstract idea of “arranging textual objects,” which is an activity that can be performed by a human manually without the aid of a computing device. The instant invention merely takes the abstract concept of “arranging textual objects,” which can be done manually by a human, and uses a computer as a tool to apply the concept. Therefore, there is prima facie evidence that the claimed invention is directed to mental processes, and must be investigated further for eligibility under 35 USC 101.
The Applicant also respectfully argues that “the instant invention, as presently claimed, describes a technique that specifically explicitly states how the result (providing an improved document or display) is achieved, e.g., via the creation of a plurality of textual objects, and specific placement of the generated textual objects between two calculated boundary lines, at particular placements within them. As such, the invention should not be deemed abstract, under Step 2A, prong 1. Under the paradigm of Alice, Applicant respectfully submits that the instant invention indeed ‘improve[s] an existing technological process.’”
The Examiner respectfully disagrees. The claimed steps for performing the abstract idea of “arranging textual objects” are each conventional computer tasks that are performed by a generic computer. The Examiner can find no improvements to the functioning of the computer itself, as the claimed invention resides on a generic computing device and does nothing to improve the functioning of the device itself.
Furthermore, as described in MPEP 2106.05(a)(I), the claimed invention does not improve computer capabilities, but instead invokes computers merely as a tool to arrange textual objects.
The claims also do not show improvements to any other technology or technical field, as described in MPEP 2106.05(a)(II), which cautions, “it is important to keep in mind that an improvement in the abstract idea itself… is not an improvement in technology.” The present claims only provide improvements to the abstract idea of “arranging textual objects,” which is not an improvement in technology.
The Applicant further respectfully argues, “As in Diamond v. Diehr, discussed hereinbelow, the claims as whole, even though including a formula, were deemed patent eligible. Here, the claims include elements that non-routinely transform regular, standard linear text into discrete character textual objects, and employ other techniques to properly display those textual objects amidst identical length and invisible boundaries, resulting in a display that improves on the technology, for example, making a text more understandable. Also, just as Diehr, the end result is an improved document/display image, a tangible end product of the process.”
The Examiner respectfully disagrees. The facts of Diamond v. Diehr are very different from those of the instant invention. Diamond v. Diehr involves a very specific process using computers to control the process for molding raw, uncured rubber into cured products. This is very different from using a computer to change the orientation of displayed letters, which unlike Diamond v. Diehr does not reach outside the bounds of a generic computer.
The Applicant respectfully argues that “Since many people, such as dyslexics, require regularity in presentation, the textual objects, corresponding to a given paragraph of original text, must be transformed, manipulated and the entire construct created to transmute the unreadable linear word to a readable one using the aforementioned transformations by the creation of an improved display.
Applicant respectfully submits that this complicated transformation is neither managing human behavior, methods of organizing human activity nor mental processes. Further, Applicant respectfully submits that this is not mere data gathering and display "using a computer," although a processor is necessary here since the computations and transformations cannot be done by hand (or within one's head or with pencil and paper despite the Office's view contrary). The transformation of the text, from a linear format, such as ASCII characters, into another format, a visual object of a portion of the text, which is aligned, and presented within calculated visual boundaries, and then the creation of a new and improved document/display transcends mental processes.”
The Examiner respectfully disagrees. The Examiner first notes that complexity is not a factor for determining whether a claim is directed to an abstract idea. For example, MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(III)(A) gives the example of comparing BRCA genetic sequences and determining the existence of alterations as an example of a mental process, even though it is undoubtedly a complex task.
MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(III)(C) states that a claim that requires a computer may still recite a mental process. The MPEP further provides guidance that examiners “should review the specification to determine if the claimed invention is described as a concept that is performed in the human mind and applicant is merely claiming that concept performed 1) on a generic computer, or 2) in a computer environment, or 3) is merely using a computer as a tool to perform the concept. In these situations, the claim is considered to recite a mental process.” In the instant case, the claimed invention describes the abstract concept of arranging textual objects performed on a generic computer or computer environment, and merely using a computer as a tool to perform the concept. Therefore, the claims are directed to mental processes.
On the point of the claimed text transformations not being a method of organizing human activity, the Examiner agrees. Therefore, inclusion of the claimed abstract idea as a form of organizing human behavior is withdrawn. However, the claims are still deemed to be directed to mental processes.
For the above reasons, the outstanding rejections under 35 USC 101 are maintained.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Stephen Alvesteffer whose telephone number is (571)272-8680. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8:00-6:00.
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, Peter Vasat can be reached at 571-270-7625. 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.
/STEPHEN ALVESTEFFER/Examiner, Art Unit 3715
Prosecution Insights