Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application is being examined under the pre-AIA first to invent provisions.
DETAILED ACTION
The application 17/989,326 filed on 11/172022 is a reissue of Patent No. 11,442,619, published 04/02/2019.
Claims 1-20 are pending.
In the amendment filed on 11/17/2022:
Claims 1, 2, 5, 7-15, 17, and 19 were amended and claims 21-85 cancelled.
This is a Non-Final Action.
Oath/Declaration
The reissue oath/declaration filed with this application is defective because the error which is relied upon to support the reissue application is not an error upon which a reissue can be based. See 37 CFR 1.175and MPEP § 1414.
The reissue oath/declaration filed with this application is defective (see 37 CFR 1.175 and MPEP § 1414) because of the following:
The reissue oath/declaration filed with this application is defective because it fails to identify at least one error which is relied upon to support the reissue application. See 37 CFR 1.175 and MPEP § 1414. It is not sufficient for an oath or declaration to merely state "broader claims", but rather the oath or declaration must identify a specific error to be relied upon.
As per MPEP 1414 II B:
For an application filed on or after September 16, 2012 that seeks to enlarge the scope of the claims of the patent, the reissue oath or declaration must also identify a claim that the application seeks to broaden. A general statement, e.g., that all claims are broadened, is not sufficient to satisfy this requirement. In identifying the error, it is sufficient that the reissue oath/declaration identify a single word, phrase, or expression in the specification or in an original claim, and how it renders the original patent wholly or partly inoperative or invalid.
As per MPEP 1414 II C:
It is not sufficient for an oath/declaration to merely state “this application is being filed to correct errors in the patent which may be noted from the changes made in the disclosure.” Rather, the oath/declaration must specifically identify an error. In addition, it is not sufficient to merely reproduce the claims with brackets and underlining and state that such will identify the error. See In re Constant, 827 F.2d 728, 729, 3 USPQ2d 1479 (Fed. Cir.), cert. denied, 484 U.S. 894 (1987). Any error in the claims must be identified by reference to the specific claim(s) and the specific claim language wherein lies the error.
In the declaration, the limitation applicant indicated as the narrowing is subject to recapture. Therefore, the declaration has not identified a proper limitation that can be identified as an error.
Here, applicant specifically cited to broaden of claims 1 and 19 as the error for the reissue, however no specific limitation was stated. A new declaration with specific limitation omitted from claims 1 and 19 is required.
Claims 1-20 are rejected as being based upon a defective reissue Oath/Declaration under 35 U.S.C. 251 as set forth above. See 37 CFR 1.175.
The nature of the defect(s) in the Oath/Declaration is set forth in the discussion above in this Office action.
Reissue
Applicant is reminded of the continuing obligation under 37 CFR 1.178(b), to timely apprise the Office of any prior or concurrent proceeding in which Patent 11,442,619 is or was involved. These proceedings would include interferences, reissues, reexaminations, and litigation.
Applicant is further reminded of the continuing obligation under 37 CFR 1.56, to timely apprise the Office of any information which is material to patentability of the claims under consideration in this reissue application.
These obligations rest with each individual associated with the filing and prosecution of this application for reissue. See also MPEP §§ 1404, 1442.01 and 1442.04.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
he following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(b) the invention was patented or described in a printed publication in this or a foreign country or in public use or on sale in this country, more than one year prior to the date of application for patent in the United States.
Claims 1, 2, 4, 8-15, and 18-20 are rejected under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102(b) as being anticipated by Yoshida et al. US Application Publication 2001/0033281.
17/989,326
Yoshida et al. 2001/0033281
Claim 1
A computing device, comprising:
Yoshida abstract
A memory, for storing vector graphics, the vector graphics comprising connected graphic object,
Yoshida p0072 Fig. 14, p0165;
A display for displaying a representation of the vector graphics;
Yoshida p0068-0076; p0099-p0105;
A surface or pointing device for detecting an indication of a change in the vector graphics; and
Yoshida teaches changing location/ dimension of the object using a mouse p0173, and p0180
One or more processing units;
Yoshida abstract
Wherein in response to detecting the indication, the one or more processing units are configured to automatically change:
Yoshida Fig. 17(a)-(d) p0180 It is noted that Graphic objects C and B are changed.
A geometry of the vector graphics, wherein:
At least one connected graphic object of the vector graphics is proximate at last other connected graphic object of the vector graphics,
Yoshida Fig. 17(a)-(d) p0180 It is noted that Graphic objects A, C and B are connected.
The change comprises a change in at least one dimension of the at last one connected graphic object while connections of the least one connected graphic object are unchanged, and
Yoshida Fig. 17(a)-(d) p0180 It is noted that Graphic objects C and B are changed, and two Surfaces of the object A is unchanged.
At least one dimension and geometry of the at least one other connected graphic object are unchanged; and
Yoshida Fig. 17(a)-(d) p0180 It is noted two Surfaces of the object A are unchanged.
At least a portion of the representation as result of the changed at least one dimension,
Wherein the display is configured display at least a portion of the change representation.
Yoshida Fig. 17(a)-(d) p0180 It is noted that Graphic objects C and B are changed.
Claim 2
The computing device of claim 1, wherein at least a portion of the changed representation of the vector graphics on the display is a two-dimensional or three-dimensional vector image.
Yoshida Fig. 17(a)-(d) p0180 It is noted that Graphic objects C and B are three-dimensional objects.
Claim 4
The computing device of claim 1, wherein the one or more processing unit are further configured to identify a command.
Yoshida Fig. 17(a)-(d) p0180
Claim 8
The computing device of claim 4, wherein the command comprises a command to change at least one of a length or an angle of a line of at least one connected graphic object, and wherein the one or more processing units are configured to automatically change the length or the angle in response to detecting a change in position at or proximate the line as represented on the display.
Yoshida Fig. 17(a)-(d) p0180 It is noted that Graphic objects C and B changed in angle or length.
Claim 9
The computing device of claim 4, wherein the command comprises a command to change an angle between two lines of a least one connected graphic object, and wherein the one or more processing units are configured to automatically change the angle in response to detecting a change in position proximate or within at last one of the two lines as represented on the display.
Yoshida Fig. 17(a)-(d) p0180 It is noted that Graphic objects C changed in angles.
Claim 10
The computing device of claim 4 wherein the command comprises a command to change a line of the at least one connected graphic object to an arc or change a radius of an arc of the at least one connected graphic object, and wherein the one or more processing units are configured, to automatically:
Yoshida Fig. 18 and 19 p0180-p0184.
Change the line to an arc in response to detecting the indication proximate or with the line as represented on the display, or
Yoshida Fig. 18 and 19 p0180-p0184.
Change the radius of an arc in response to detecting a change in position proximate or within the arc an represented on the display.
Yoshida Fig. 18 and 19 p0180-p0184.
Claim 11
The computing device of claim 4, wherein the command comprises a command to one of:
Delete the at least one connected graphic object, or insert a shape or line object in a place one connected graphic object.
Yoshida Fig. 18 and 19 p0180-p0184.
Yoshida teaches connected object can be deleted. P0163.
Clam 13
The computing device of claim 4, wherein the command comprises a command to add a chamfer to a corner of at least one connected graphic object or change at least one of a width, height or angle of chamfer of at least one connected graphic object, and wherein the one or more processing units are configured to automatically:
Yoshida Fig. 18-20 p0180-p0188.
Add the chamfer to the corner in response to detecting the indication proximate or at the corner as represented on the display, or
Change at least one of the width, height or angle in response to detecting a change in position proximate or within the chamfered corner as represented on the display.
Yoshida Fig. 18=20 p0180-p0188.
Claim 14
The computing device of claim 4, wherein the command comprises a command
To trim a portion of at least one connected graphic object,
To make two lines of one or more connected graphic objects parallel,
To snap or unsnap an intersection of two parts of at least one connected graphic object,
To move at last one connected graphic object or
To segment a portion of or make a change in segments of at least one connected graphic object.
Yoshida Fig. 18-20 p0180-p0188.
Claim 15
The computing device of claim 1, wherein the one or more processing units are configured to automatically identify information in the memory about the geometry in response to at least a portion of the indication proximate or within the at least one connected graphic object a represented on the display.
Yoshida p0072 Fig. 14, p0165;
Clam 18
The computing device of claim 1, wherein a geometry of the at least one other graphic object is unchanged.
Yoshida Fig. 17(a)-(d) p0180 It is noted two Surfaces of the object A is unchanged, object A could be completely left alone.
Claim 12 is rejected under the same rationale as claim 10. See rejection above.
Claims 19-20 is rejected under the same rationale as claims 1-2. See rejection above.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(a) which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
(a) A patent may not be obtained though the invention is not identically disclosed or described as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the subject matter sought to be patented and the prior art are such that the subject matter as a whole would have been obvious at the time the invention was made to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which said subject matter pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
Claims 3, 5, 7, and 16-17 are rejected under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(a) as being unpatentable over Yoshida et al. US Application Publication 2001/0033281 in view Smith US Patent 7,079,114.
Claim 3
The computing device of claim 1, wherein the indication comprises one or more gesture.
Yoshida does not teach gesture.
Smith teaches a CAD system with gesture control. (Smith c15, l30-55)
It would have been obvious at the time of the invention for a person ordinary skill in the art (POSITA) to include Smith’s teaching with Yoshida to allow user to have gesture input.
Claim 5
The computing device of claim 1, wherein the one or more processing units are further configured to automatically identify a portion of at least one connect graphic object in the response to detecting a gesture indicating the portion.
Yoshida does not teach gesture.
Smith teaches a CAD system with gesture control. (Smith c15, l30-c16, l25)
It would have been obvious at the time of the invention for a person ordinary skill in the art (POSITA) to include Smith’s teaching with Yoshida to allow user to have gesture input.
Claim 7
The computing device of claim 3, wherein the one or more processing units are configured to automatically change the geometry in response detecting least one of the one or more gestures, wherein the at least on gesture indicates a change in at least one parameter of alt least on graphical object.
Smith teaches a CAD system with gesture control that can control change to object. (Smith c15, l30-c16, l25)
Claims 16 is rejected under the same rationale as claim 3. See rejection above.
Claims 17 is rejected under the same rationale as claims 3 and 15. See rejection above.
Claim 6 is rejected under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(a) as being unpatentable over Yoshida et al. US Application Publication 2001/0033281 in view Smith US Patent 7,079,114 and Land US Patent 7,155,676.
Claim 6
Yoshida et al. US Application Publication 2001/0033281 in view Smith US Patent 7,079,114 and Land US Patent 7,155,676.
The computing device of claim 5, wherein the one or more processing units are further configured to cause the display to zoom in the portion as represented on the display before or while the geometry to being changed and to zoom out the portion as represented on the display after the geometry has been changed.
Yoshida and Smith do not teach Zoom.
Land teaches zooming control. (Land c28 l5-50)
It would have been obvious at the time of the invention for a person ordinary skill in the art (POSITA) to include Land’s teaching with Yoshida to allow user to see the object in detail.
Contact Information
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to PENG KE whose telephone number is (571)272-4062. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 6:30-5:00.
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, Alexander Kosowski can be reached on 5712723744. 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.
PENG . KE
Examiner
Art Unit 3992
/PENG KE/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3992
Conferees:
/William H. Wood/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3992
/ALEXANDER J KOSOWSKI/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3992