DETAILED ACTION
This action is in response to the filing of 1-21-2026. Claims 1-20 are pending and have been considered below:
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
Claims 1-6, 8, 10-15, 17 and 19-20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wan et al. (“Wan” 20180059919 A1) in view of Tang (20140208203 A1).
Claim 1: Wan discloses a network computer system comprising: a memory sub-system to store a set of instructions; one or more processors that operate to communicate the set of instructions to a plurality of user devices, wherein the set of instructions include instructions that when executed by at least a first user device of the plurality of user devices (Paragraphs 214-215; processor), causes the first user device to:
make a collection of layout logics available in connection with a design interface under edit that is rendered on a user device of the plurality of user devices (Paragraphs 41-42; pinning controls (layout logic)),
wherein each layout logic of the collection is executable with rendering of a select object grouping of the design interface under edit to (i) identify each of a target object set and an associated object set of the select object grouping,
(Figures 14-16 and Paragraphs 123-125; pinning control/layout logic such as maintain distance),
and (ii) apply a predefined layout configuration to the identified target object set;
detect user input to select a layout logic of the collection for a rendered object grouping of the design interface under edit (Paragraphs 123-125; selection of pinning control for design under edit);
link the selected layout logic with the select object grouping of the design interface under edit (Paragraphs 123-125; pinning provided to selected block (i.e. block 1412));
and detect input to at least one object of the rendered object grouping that is included in the associated object set of the selected layout logic (Figures 14-16 and Paragraphs 123-125; reposition input applied to grouping);
in response to detecting the input, automatically implement a predefined layout configuration to the target object set of the selected layout logic (Figures 14-16 and Paragraphs 123-125; block maintains position according to pining during input).
Wan provides functionality where rules/logic automatically adjust elements within the presentation (Paragraphs 194 and 198-199). However to more explicitly capture, in response to one or more defined triggering events with respect to one or more objects of the associated object set, and wherein the layout logic defines one or more attributes of objects in the associated object set that triggers application of the layout configuration to the target object set; further detect triggering input; Tang is incorporated.
Tang discloses a layout arrangement (Paragraphs 63 and 69) with parent/child relationships (Paragraphs 106-107 claim 8). Further the system determines/detects trigger events (Paragraphs 61 (clickable labels), 98 and 110 (arrow movement)). The system provides layout logic which is applied to the attributes of elements within the display, in response to triggering.
(Figures 3-4:32, 17-18, 22-23 and Paragraphs 92-94, 101-102 and 105);
Therefore it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to use a known technique to improve a similar device in the same way and provide the trigger methods to apply layout logic across the presentation of Wan. One would have been motivated to provide the functionality as a way to expand the editing operability for a more efficient and manageable interface.
Claim 2: Wan and Tang disclose a network computing system of claim 1, wherein for the selected layout logic, the target object set includes one or more child objects of a parent/child object grouping, and the associated object set includes a parent object of the parent/child grouping (Wan: Figures 14-16 and Paragraphs 123-125; pinning control/layout logic provided to a window(parent) and elements (child) linked within the window); wherein the first user device detects input to resize or reposition the parent object; and wherein the predefined layout configuration of the selected logic layout is automatically implemented to resize or reposition one or more child objects of the parent object (Wan: Paragraphs 123-125; pinning control automatically controls objects during modification).
Claim 3: Wan and Tang disclose a network computing system of claim 2, wherein the predefined layout configuration of the selected logic layout is automatically implemented to resize or reposition the one or more child objects of the parent object so as to maintain a predetermined spatial relationship between at least a boundary of the parent object and a boundary of the one or more child objects (Wan: Figures 14-16 and Paragraph 123, maintain boundary distance based on selected pinning).
Claim 4: Wan and Tang disclose a network computing system of claim 2, wherein the instructions cause the first device to selectively apply, in response to user input, the selected layout logic to one or more objects of the parent/child object grouping, but not all of the objects of the parent/child grouping (Wan: Figures 14-16 and Paragraphs 123-124 , maintain boundary applied to one object Fig. 14:1412 but not all).
Claim 5: Wan and Tang disclose a network computing system of claim 1, wherein the predefined layout configuration of the selected layout logic includes maintaining an interior spacing between each adjacent pair of child objects of the parent/child object grouping to be equal to one another (Wan: Figures 9-12 and Paragraph 115, position/spacing maintained between objects).
Claim 6: Wan and Tang disclose a network computing system of claim 5, wherein the predefined layout configuration includes maintaining a boundary spacing between at least a first border of the parent object and a border of an adjacent child of the parent/children object grouping (Wan: Figure 15-16, Paragraphs 125 and 128; border spacing maintained).
Claim 8: Wan and Tang disclose a network computing system of claim 1, wherein the instructions cause the first device to select a horizontal or a vertical direction for application of the selected layout logic.
Tang provides a layout arrangement (Paragraphs 63 and 69). Further the system provides capability to implement a vertical or horizontal layout (Figures 5-8 (34/35/38), Paragraph 68).
Claims 10 and 20 are similar in scope to claim 1 and therefore rejected under the same rationale.
Regarding the non-transitory computer readable medium (Wan: Paragraph 216)
Claim 11 is similar in scope to claim 2 and therefore rejected under the same rationale.
Claim 12 is similar in scope to claim 3 and therefore rejected under the same rationale.
Claim 13 is similar in scope to claim 4 and therefore rejected under the same rationale.
Claim 14 is similar in scope to claim 5 and therefore rejected under the same rationale.
Claim 15 is similar in scope to claim 6 and therefore rejected under the same rationale.
Claim 17 is similar in scope to claim 8 and therefore rejected under the same rationale.
Claim 19: Wan and Tang disclose a method of claim 10, wherein the method is implemented by transmitting computer-readable instructions for performing the method to another computing device (Tang: Paragraphs 225-226 and 230; interconnected devices with remote implementation of operations).
Claims 7, 9, 16 and 18 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wan et al. (“Wan” 20180059919 A1) and Tang (20140208203 A1) in further view of Geva et al. (“Geva” 20170046317 A1).
Claim 7: Wan and Tang disclose a network computing system of claim 1, but may not explicitly disclose wherein for the selected layout logic, the target object set includes a parent object of a parent/child object grouping, and the associated object set includes one or more child objects of the parent/child grouping; wherein the first user device detects input to resize or reposition the one or more child objects; and wherein the predefined layout configuration of the select logic layout is automatically implemented to resize or reposition the parent object.
Geva is disclosed because it provides a layout arrangement system with layout rules/logic(abstract). Further the system provides capability to add or edit elements within a section/page and automatically change sections as items are added (Paragraph 130). Those capabilities include expanding the dimensions of the section (parent) while making accommodations for edited objects (Figure 20 and Paragraph 144). Therefore it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to use a known technique to improve a similar in the same way and provide (parent)section manipulation in response to element edits, in the layout system of Wan. One would have been motivated to provide the functionality as a way to expand the operability of the editor allowing for enhanced customization during interactions.
Claim 9: Wan and Tang disclose a network computing system of claim 1, but may not explicitly disclose wherein the network computing system implements a collaborative environment in which a first user provides selection input for selecting the layout logic from the collection of layout logics, and a second user provides input to resize or reposition at least one object of the rendered object grouping that is included in the associated object set of the selected layout logic.
Geva is disclosed because it provides a layout arrangement system with layout rules/logic(abstract). Further the system provides capability to implement layout events between remote users (Paragraph 105). The selection and interaction of layouts found in Wan could be conducted between two remote users. Therefore it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to use a known technique to improve a similar in the same way and provide remote collaborative operations within the layout system of Wan. One would have been motivated to provide the functionality as a way to expand the operability of the editor allowing for enhanced interactions across systems.
Claim 16 is similar in scope to claim 7 and therefore rejected under the same rationale.
Claim 18 is similar in scope to claim 9 and therefore rejected under the same rationale.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. Tang discloses a layout arrangement (Paragraphs 63 and 69) with parent/child relationships (Paragraphs 106-107 claim 8).
Applicant argues that Tang does not perform events in respect to a target object set or associated object set. Examiner respectfully disagrees. Applicant argues that the window is a not a target object or associated object. However, these terms have no definitive meaning regarding which objects will be considered target or associated. Tang provides a user interface (Figures 17/18: 23), window (Figures 17/18: 31)and additional elements (Figures 17/18: 40/46). The window can be modified Figure 17:42 and also objects can be modified (Figure 18:51). Therefore the different objects in Tang can be interchangeable, object 51 can be an associated object that triggers reaction to target objects such as elements 40/46. Without a clear definition of “associated” objects the broadest reasonable interpretation of Tang provides configurations which would read on the claims.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Ishiguro (10936188 B2) 11a-b
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any extension fee pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the date of this final action.
In the interests of compact prosecution, Applicant is invited to contact the examiner via electronic media pursuant to USPTO policy outlined MPEP § 502.03. All electronic communication must be authorized in writing. Applicant may wish to file an Internet Communications Authorization Form PTO/SB/439. Applicant may wish to request an interview using the Interview Practice website: http://www.uspto.gov/patent/laws-and-regulations/interview-practice.
Applicant is reminded Internet e-mail may not be used for communication for matters under 35 U.S.C. § 132 or which otherwise require a signature. A reply to an Office action may NOT be communicated by Applicant to the USPTO via Internet e-mail. If such a reply is submitted by Applicant via Internet e-mail, a paper copy will be placed in the appropriate patent application file with an indication that the reply is NOT ENTERED. See MPEP § 502.03(II).
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to SHERROD KEATON whose telephone number is 571-270-1697. The examiner can normally be reached 9:30am to 5:00pm.
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 MICHELLE BECHTOLD can be reached at 571-431-0762. 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.
/SHERROD L KEATON/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2148
3-4-2026