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 .
Response to Amendment
The Amendment filed March 2nd 2026 has been entered. Claims 1-2, 4-5, 7-19, and 21 are pending in the application. Applicant’s amendments to the Claims 1, 7, and 11 have overcome the rejections previously set forth in the Non-Final Office Action mailed December 1st 2025. Previously cited reference Ciechanowski: (NPL: Alpha Compositing) has been used for the newly amended claim limitations.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claims 1, 7, and 11 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 to claims 1, 7, or 11 for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument.
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.
Claims 1, 7, 10, 11, 16, 17, and 21 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Blodgett (US 20220254098 A1) in view of craftedge.com (NPL: Weld and Union overlapping shapes and text; hereinafter Craftedge), Chauvin (US 20120194503 A1) and Ciechanowski: (NPL: Alpha Compositing).
Regarding claim 1:
Blodgett teaches:
A network computer system (Blodgett: A computing system may be distributed over a network environment [0055]) comprising:
a memory sub-system to store a set of instructions (Blodgett: tangible memory capable of having thereon computer-executable instructions [0055]);
one or more processors that operate to communicate the set of instructions to one or more user devices (Blodgett: Computing system 1000 may also contain communication channels 1008 that allow the computing system 1000 to communicate with other computing systems [0060]), wherein the set of instructions include instructions that when executed by each of the one or more user devices (Blodgett: multiple constituent computing systems [0055]), cause the user device (Blodgett: the computing system 1000 includes a user interface system 1012 for use in interfacing with a user [0061]) to perform operations that include:
implementing a rendering engine (Blodgett: rendering engine 130 [0029]) that is operable in at least a default mode (Blodgett: full 3D mode [0048]) and in an outline mode (Blodgett: silhouette mode [0048]), wherein in the default mode, the rendering engine renders a design interface (Blodgett: The computing system is also configured to render a 3D view of the 3D space in a graphical user interface (GUI) [0006]) that includes multiple objects that partially intersect one another in position to form a combined shape (Blodgett: When multiple silhouettes having different opacities are placed in the same 3D space, two or more of the silhouettes may overlap in certain views [0043]; when the silhouette mode is not selected, the character in the 3D space is displayed as a regular 3D object [0047]); and
wherein in the outline mode, the rendering engine is operable to render an outline of each of the multiple objects and the combined shape (Blodgett: multiple animated characters are rendered as semi-transparent silhouettes [0021]; Blodgett: A silhouette described herein is an image of a 3D object […] which may or may not have an outline that has a different color than the interior of the shape [0005]; When the user selects the silhouette mode, the object is rendered as a silhouette in the 3D space [0039]; Blodgett: Fig. 7, see Note 1B).
Note 1B: Figure 7 in Blodgett showcases overlapping silhouettes 210b and 210c which are individually outlined (i.e., not occluding one another). Due to the alpha compositing, an outline defining a combination of their shapes is also visible.
Blodgett fails to explicitly teach:
wherein in the default mode, the rendering engine renders a design interface that includes multiple objects, and to apply occlusive to (i) occlude at least a portion of an object that intersects another object, and (ii) preclude user manipulation of the portion of the object that is occluded by the other object;
wherein, in the default mode, a line stroke for the combined shape has a first visual appearance and line strokes of outlines of the multiple objects internal to the combined shape are occluded, wherein, in the outline mode, the line strokes of the outlines of the multiple objects are simultaneously visible in the combined shape with the line stroke of the combined shape and have one or more visual appearances different from the first visual appearance,
and wherein the occlusive logic includes clip logic that hides portions of the object that extend beyond a boundary of a container object.
Craftedge teaches:
in the default mode (see Note 1A), a line stroke for the combined shape has a first visual appearance (Craftedge: Below is an example of using the Weld option on 2 circles, Pg. 1, par. 1: Note that the outline of the circles is black) and line strokes of outlines of the multiple objects internal to the combined shape are occluded (Craftedge: Below is an example of using the Weld option on 2 circles, Pg. 1, par. 1: Note that the right circle occludes the left), wherein, in the outline mode (Craftedge: Preview, Pg. 1, par. 2; see Note 1A), the line strokes of the outlines of the multiple objects are simultaneously visible in the combined shape (Craftedge: Now if we do a Preview, […] you can see the parts that are ignored in gray, Pg. 1, par. 2: Note that in preview mode, all internal lines are visible and are colored gray) with the line stroke of the combined shape (Craftedge: Now if we do a Preview, you should see what is going to get cut in Red, Pg. 1, par. 2: Note that the line stroke of the combined shape is red) and have one or more visual appearances different from the first visual appearance (Craftedge: Pg. 1, top figure and bottom figure; The grey and red outlines in the bottom figure differ from the black outline of the top figure).
Note 1A: Prior to enabling the preview, Craftedge shows that two shapes may occlude each other. When “preview” is analogous to the outline mode (due to enabling view of all outlines of each shape), it would be reasonable to conclude that disabling the preview is analogous to the default mode.
Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art to combine the teachings of Craftedge with Blodgett. Applying multiple types of occlusive logic to occlude at least the portion of one or more of the multiple objects, as in Craftedge, would benefit the Blodgett teachings by enabling a user to easily differentiate between outlines within an overlapping area and outlines that encapsulate the combined shape.
Blodgett in view of Craftedge fails to explicitly teach:
wherein in the default mode, the rendering engine renders a design interface that includes multiple objects that partially intersect one another in position to form a combined shape and applies occlusive logic to (i) occlude at least a portion of an object that intersects another object, and (ii) preclude user manipulation of the portion of the object that is occluded by the other object;
and wherein the occlusive logic includes clip logic that hides portions of the object that extend beyond a boundary of a container object.
Chauvin teaches:
wherein in the default mode (see Note 1C), the rendering engine renders a design interface that includes multiple objects that partially intersect one another in position to form a combined shape (Chauvin: the method includes determining any obscured regions being obscured by an element appearing in front of other elements within a three-dimensional graphical environment [0039]) and applies occlusive logic to (i) occlude at least a portion of an object that intersects another object (Chauvin: a three-dimensional effect is generated in that the first window 102, including the selectable item 108, appears in front of the second window 104 [0031]; Chauvin: Fig. 1), and (ii) preclude user manipulation of the portion of the object that is occluded by the other object (Chauvin: A selection functionality of the selector is disabled based on the selector being located in one of the obscured regions. Disabling the selection functionality prevents the selector from initiating selection of any selectable items.” [0039]);
Note 1C: Chauvin teaches preventing selection of obscured objects as part of normal operation of the second embodiment. Therefore, one of ordinary skill in the art would conclude that Chauvin teaches this functionality as part of a “default mode”.
Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art to combine the teachings of Chauvin with Blodgett in view of Craftedge. Applying occlusive logic to occlude at least a portion of an object that intersects another object and preclude user manipulation of the portion of the object that is occluded by the other object, as in Chauvin, would benefit the Blodgett in view of Craftedge teachings by ensuring that objects that are occluded and never intended to be selected by the user remain unselected.
Blodgett in view of Craftedge and Chauvin still fails to teach:
and wherein the occlusive logic includes clip logic that hides portions of the object that extend beyond a boundary of a container object.
Ciechanowski teaches:
wherein the occlusive logic includes clip logic that hides portions of the object that extend beyond a boundary of a container object (Ciechanowski: The source-atop and destination-atop allow overlaying of new contents on top of existing one, while simultaneously masking it to the destination, Pg. 33, Atop; see Note 1D).
Note 1D: The specification of the present application teaches: “In FIG. 3G, the occlusive logic applied by rendering engine 120 includes clip logic, where a portion 346 of an object 345 that extends outside of the boundary 341 of another object 342 is hidden or invisible, while the portion 344 that is within the boundary of object 345 is visible.” [0082]. Ciechanowski teaches similar logic as part of the “Atop” compositing method. On Pg. 33, Ciechanowski shows that the Atop method enables hiding portions of the heart object that extend beyond a boundary of the club object. Fig. 3G of the present application is also provided for reference.
PNG
media_image1.png
564
721
media_image1.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image2.png
350
352
media_image2.png
Greyscale
“Atop” method from Pg. 33 of Ciechanowski alongside Fig. 3G of the present application.
As discussed by Applicant, Blodgett teaches “color blending … in an overlapping area”. One of ordinary skill in the art would understand that Alpha Compositing, as taught by Ciechanowski, is analogous to color blending (i.e., alpha compositing is color blending performed based on the transparency or “alpha” channel of an image). Therefore, the Examiner understands that one of ordinary skill in the art would find the methods taught by Ciechanowski to be obvious to combine with the teachings of Blodgett.
Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art to combine the teachings of Ciechanowski with Blodgett in view of Craftedge and Chauvin. Including clip logic that hides portions of the object that extend beyond a boundary of a container object, as in Ciechanowski, would benefit the Blodgett teachings by enabling the use of standard clipping and compositing based effects: “Almost every graphic design application released in the last two decades has supported the creation of semi-transparent content. The novelty of these concepts is long gone.” (Ciechanowski, Pg. 1, par. 1)
Regarding claim 7:
Blodgett teaches:
A non-transitory computer-readable medium that stores instructions (Blodgett: Embodiments described herein also include physical and other computer-readable media for carrying or storing computer-executable instructions [0062]), which when executed by a computer system, cause the computer system to perform operations (Blodgett: Computer-executable instructions comprise, for example, instructions and data which, when executed at a processor, cause a general-purpose computing system, special purpose computing system, or special purpose processing device to perform a certain function or group of functions [0066]) that include:
implementing a rendering engine (Blodgett: rendering engine 130 [0029]) that is operable in at least a default mode (Blodgett: full 3D mode [0048]) and in an outline mode (Blodgett: silhouette mode [0048]),
wherein in the default mode, the rendering engine is operable to render a design interface that includes multiple objects (Blodgett: multiple animated characters are rendered as semi-transparent silhouettes [0021]), and to apply occlusive logic to (i) occlude at least a portion of an object that intersects another object (Blodgett: When multiple silhouettes having different opacities are placed in the same 3D space, two or more of the silhouettes may overlap in certain views [0043]),
wherein in the outline mode, the rendering engine is operable to render an outline of each of the multiple objects without occlusion (Blodgett: multiple animated characters are rendered as semi-transparent silhouettes [0021]; Blodgett: A silhouette described herein is an image of a 3D object […] which may or may not have an outline that has a different color than the interior of the shape [0005]; When the user selects the silhouette mode, the object is rendered as a silhouette in the 3D space [0039]; Blodgett: Fig. 7, see Note 1B),
Blodgett fails to explicitly teach:
wherein in the default mode, the rendering engine renders a design interface that includes multiple objects, and to apply occlusive to (i) occlude at least a portion of an object that intersects another object, and (ii) preclude user manipulation of the portion of the object that is occluded by the other object;
wherein, in the default mode, a line stroke for the combined shape has a first visual appearance and line strokes of outlines of the multiple objects internal to the combined shape are occluded, wherein, in the outline mode, the line strokes of the outlines of the multiple objects are simultaneously visible in the combined shape with the line stroke of the combined shape and have one or more visual appearances different from the first visual appearance,
and wherein the occlusive logic includes clip logic that hides portions of the object that extend beyond a boundary of a container object.
Craftedge teaches:
in the default mode (see Note 1A), a line stroke for the combined shape has a first visual appearance (Craftedge: Below is an example of using the Weld option on 2 circles, Pg. 1, par. 1: Note that the outline of the circles is black) and line strokes of outlines of the multiple objects internal to the combined shape are occluded (Craftedge: Below is an example of using the Weld option on 2 circles, Pg. 1, par. 1: Note that the right circle occludes the left), wherein, in the outline mode (Craftedge: Preview, Pg. 1, par. 2; see Note 1A), the line strokes of the outlines of the multiple objects are simultaneously visible in the combined shape (Craftedge: Now if we do a Preview, […] you can see the parts that are ignored in gray, Pg. 1, par. 2: Note that in preview mode, all internal lines are visible and are colored gray) with the line stroke of the combined shape (Craftedge: Now if we do a Preview, you should see what is going to get cut in Red, Pg. 1, par. 2: Note that the line stroke of the combined shape is red) and have one or more visual appearances different from the first visual appearance (Craftedge: Pg. 1, top figure and bottom figure; The grey and red outlines in the bottom figure differ from the black outline of the top figure).
Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art to combine the teachings of Craftedge with Blodgett. Applying multiple types of occlusive logic to occlude at least the portion of one or more of the multiple objects, as in Craftedge, would benefit the Blodgett teachings by enabling a user to easily differentiate between outlines within an overlapping area and outlines that encapsulate the combined shape.
Blodgett in view of Craftedge fails to explicitly teach:
wherein in the default mode, the rendering engine renders a design interface that includes multiple objects that partially intersect one another in position to form a combined shape and applies occlusive logic to (i) occlude at least a portion of an object that intersects another object, and (ii) preclude user manipulation of the portion of the object that is occluded by the other object;
Chauvin teaches:
wherein in the default mode (see Note 1C above), the rendering engine renders a design interface that includes multiple objects that partially intersect one another in position to form a combined shape (Chauvin: the method includes determining any obscured regions being obscured by an element appearing in front of other elements within a three-dimensional graphical environment [0039]) and applies occlusive logic to (i) occlude at least a portion of an object that intersects another object (Chauvin: a three-dimensional effect is generated in that the first window 102, including the selectable item 108, appears in front of the second window 104 [0031]; Chauvin: Fig. 1), and (ii) preclude user manipulation of the portion of the object that is occluded by the other object (Chauvin: A selection functionality of the selector is disabled based on the selector being located in one of the obscured regions. Disabling the selection functionality prevents the selector from initiating selection of any selectable items.” [0039]);
Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art to combine the teachings of Chauvin with Blodgett in view of Craftedge. Applying occlusive logic to occlude at least a portion of an object that intersects another object and preclude user manipulation of the portion of the object that is occluded by the other object, as in Chauvin, would benefit the Blodgett in view of Craftedge teachings by ensuring that objects that are occluded and never intended to be selected by the user remain unselected.
Blodgett in view of Craftedge and Chauvin still fails to teach:
and wherein the occlusive logic includes clip logic that hides portions of the object that extend beyond a boundary of a container object.
Ciechanowski teaches:
wherein the occlusive logic includes clip logic that hides portions of the object that extend beyond a boundary of a container object (Ciechanowski: The source-atop and destination-atop allow overlaying of new contents on top of existing one, while simultaneously masking it to the destination, Pg. 33, Atop; see Note 1D).
Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art to combine the teachings of Ciechanowski with Blodgett in view of Craftedge and Chauvin. Including clip logic that hides portions of the object that extend beyond a boundary of a container object, as in Ciechanowski, would benefit the Blodgett teachings by enabling the use of standard clipping and compositing based effects: “Almost every graphic design application released in the last two decades has supported the creation of semi-transparent content. The novelty of these concepts is long gone.” (Ciechanowski, Pg. 1, par. 1)
Regarding claim 10:
Blodgett in view of Craftedge, Chauvin, and Ciechanowski teaches:
The non-transitory computer-readable medium of claim 7 (as shown above), wherein the instructions are received from a network computer system (Blodgett: Transmissions media can include a network and/or data links which can be used to carry desired program code means in the form of computer-executable instructions [0064]).
Regarding claim 11:
Blodgett teaches:
A computer-implemented method comprising: rendering a design interface (Blodgett: The computing system is also configured to render a 3D view of the 3D space in a graphical user interface (GUI) [0006]) in a default mode (Blodgett: full 3D mode [0048]), the design interface including multiple objects that at least partially intersect one another (Blodgett: When multiple silhouettes having different opacities are placed in the same 3D space, two or more of the silhouettes may overlap in certain views [0043]), and wherein rendering the design interface in the default mode includes occluding at least a portion of one or more of the multiple objects in accordance with at least a first occlusive logic (Blodgett: when the silhouette mode is not selected, the character in the 3D space is displayed as a regular 3D object [0047]; see Note 11A); responsive to user input, rendering the design interface in an outline mode (Blodgett: a user can select one of the objects in the 3D space and select a silhouette mode [0039]) by rendering at least a portion of each of the multiple objects without occlusion (Blodgett: multiple animated characters are rendered as semi-transparent silhouettes [0021]; Blodgett: A silhouette described herein is an image of a 3D object […] which may or may not have an outline that has a different color than the interior of the shape [0005]; When the user selects the silhouette mode, the object is rendered as a silhouette in the 3D space [0039]; Blodgett: Fig. 7, see Note 1B above).
Note 11A: Paragraph 44 and Fig. 2 of Blodgett show a 3D view of environment 200. In environment 200, the refrigerator is displayed as obstructing a part of the plant to the right of the refrigerator.
Blodgett fails to explicitly teach:
wherein in the default mode, the rendering engine renders a design interface that includes multiple objects, and to apply occlusive to (i) occlude at least a portion of an object that intersects another object, and (ii) preclude user manipulation of the portion of the object that is occluded by the other object;
wherein, in the default mode, a line stroke for the combined shape has a first visual appearance and line strokes of outlines of the multiple objects internal to the combined shape are occluded, wherein, in the outline mode, the line strokes of the outlines of the multiple objects are simultaneously visible in the combined shape with the line stroke of the combined shape and have one or more visual appearances different from the first visual appearance;
and wherein the occlusive logic includes clip logic that hides portions of the object that extend beyond a boundary of a container object.
Craftedge teaches:
in the default mode (see Note 1A), a line stroke for the combined shape has a first visual appearance (Craftedge: Below is an example of using the Weld option on 2 circles, Pg. 1, par. 1: Note that the outline of the circles is black) and line strokes of outlines of the multiple objects internal to the combined shape are occluded (Craftedge: Below is an example of using the Weld option on 2 circles, Pg. 1, par. 1: Note that the right circle occludes the left), wherein, in the outline mode (Craftedge: Preview, Pg. 1, par. 2; see Note 1A), the line strokes of the outlines of the multiple objects are simultaneously visible in the combined shape (Craftedge: Now if we do a Preview, […] you can see the parts that are ignored in gray, Pg. 1, par. 2: Note that in preview mode, all internal lines are visible and are colored gray) with the line stroke of the combined shape (Craftedge: Now if we do a Preview, you should see what is going to get cut in Red, Pg. 1, par. 2: Note that the line stroke of the combined shape is red) and have one or more visual appearances different from the first visual appearance (Craftedge: Pg. 1, top figure and bottom figure; The grey and red outlines in the bottom figure differ from the black outline of the top figure).
Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art to combine the teachings of Craftedge with Blodgett. Applying multiple types of occlusive logic to occlude at least the portion of one or more of the multiple objects, as in Craftedge, would benefit the Blodgett teachings by enabling a user to easily differentiate between outlines within an overlapping area and outlines that encapsulate the combined shape.
Blodgett in view of Craftedge fails to explicitly teach:
wherein in the default mode, the rendering engine renders a design interface that includes multiple objects that partially intersect one another in position to form a combined shape and applies occlusive logic to (i) occlude at least a portion of an object that intersects another object, and (ii) preclude user manipulation of the portion of the object that is occluded by the other object;
and wherein the occlusive logic includes clip logic that hides portions of the object that extend beyond a boundary of a container object.
Chauvin teaches:
wherein in the default mode (see Note 1C above), the rendering engine renders a design interface that includes multiple objects that partially intersect one another in position to form a combined shape (Chauvin: the method includes determining any obscured regions being obscured by an element appearing in front of other elements within a three-dimensional graphical environment [0039]) and applies occlusive logic to (i) occlude at least a portion of an object that intersects another object (Chauvin: a three-dimensional effect is generated in that the first window 102, including the selectable item 108, appears in front of the second window 104 [0031]; Chauvin: Fig. 1), and (ii) preclude user manipulation of the portion of the object that is occluded by the other object (Chauvin: A selection functionality of the selector is disabled based on the selector being located in one of the obscured regions. Disabling the selection functionality prevents the selector from initiating selection of any selectable items.” [0039]);
Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art to combine the teachings of Chauvin with Blodgett in view of Craftedge. Applying occlusive logic to occlude at least a portion of an object that intersects another object and preclude user manipulation of the portion of the object that is occluded by the other object, as in Chauvin, would benefit the Blodgett in view of Craftedge teachings by ensuring that objects that are occluded and never intended to be selected by the user remain unselected.
Blodgett in view of Craftedge and Chauvin still fails to teach:
and wherein the occlusive logic includes clip logic that hides portions of the object that extend beyond a boundary of a container object.
Ciechanowski teaches:
wherein the occlusive logic includes clip logic that hides portions of the object that extend beyond a boundary of a container object (Ciechanowski: The source-atop and destination-atop allow overlaying of new contents on top of existing one, while simultaneously masking it to the destination, Pg. 33, Atop; see Note 1D).
Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art to combine the teachings of Ciechanowski with Blodgett in view of Craftedge and Chauvin. Including clip logic that hides portions of the object that extend beyond a boundary of a container object, as in Ciechanowski, would benefit the Blodgett teachings by enabling the use of standard clipping and compositing based effects: “Almost every graphic design application released in the last two decades has supported the creation of semi-transparent content. The novelty of these concepts is long gone.” (Ciechanowski, Pg. 1, par. 1)
Regarding claim 16:
Blodgett in view of Craftedge, Chauvin, and Ciechanowski teaches:
The computer-implemented method of claim 11 (as shown above), wherein applying the first occlusive logic includes applying object combination logic (Ciechanowski: This blending operation is known as source-over, sover, or just normal, Pg. 30, par. 3), wherein the object combination logic forms a combined shape from two or more objects by at least partially occluding at least one of the two or more objects (Ciechanowski: see Image on pg. 32).
Regarding claim 17:
Blodgett in view of Craftedge, Chauvin, and Ciechanowski teaches:
The computer-implemented method of claim 16 (as shown above), wherein the occlusive logic includes logic in which one object overlays another object (Ciechanowski: This blending operation is known as source-over, sover, or just normal, Pg. 30, par. 3, Ciechanowski: Pg. 32, see Image on pg. 32).
Regarding claim 21:
Blodgett in view of Craftedge, Chauvin, and Ciechanowski teaches:
The network computer system of claim 1 (as shown above), wherein the first visual appearance and the one or more visual appearances comprise a line thickness (Blodgett: Fig. 3 and Fig. 4; see Note 21A).
Note 21A: Blodgett showcases in Fig. 3 and 4 a character standing in front of a plant in the silhouette mode. Note that in Fig. 4, the thickness of the outline of the character is larger than in Fig. 3. Blodgett teaches that in Fig. 4, a “sketch mode” is enabled as opposed to Fig. 3 ([0017-0018]).
PNG
media_image3.png
385
106
media_image3.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image4.png
377
149
media_image4.png
Greyscale
Character 210a as shown in Fig. 3 (left) and in Fig. 4 (right).
Claim 11 of the present application recites: “in the default mode, a line stroke for the combined shape has a first visual appearance” and “in the outline mode, the line strokes of the outlines of the multiple objects […] have one or more visual appearances”. That is, the first visual appearance corresponds to the default mode, and the one or more visual appearances correspond to the outline mode. Similarly, Blodgett teaches that the outline thickness or “visual appearance” of the outlines may change between the sketch mode being enabled or disabled.
It would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to combine the line thickness properties of the sketch mode with the silhouette mode (previously shown to be analogous to the outline mode of the present application) as Blodgett shows that they can be enabled simultaneously in Fig. 4. Therefore, it is reasonable to conclude that the “first visual appearance and one or more visual appearances” of the character comprises a line thickness.
Claims 2, 4, 5, 15, 18, and 19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Blodgett (US 20220254098 A1) in view of Craftedge (NPL: Weld and Union overlapping shapes and text), Chauvin (US 20120194503 A1), Ciechanowski: (NPL: Alpha Compositing), and Curtis (US 20100083156 A1).
Regarding claim 2:
Blodgett in view of Craftedge, Chauvin, and Ciechanowski teaches:
The network computer system of claim 1 (as shown above),
Blodgett in view of Craftedge, Chauvin, and Ciechanowski fails to teach:
wherein the operations include: enabling a user to select a logic type from multiple possible logic types to form the combined shape, the combined shape being based at least in part on the selected logic type; wherein in the outline mode, the outline of the combined shape is based at least in part on the selected logic type.
Curtis teaches:
The network computer system of claim 1, wherein the operations include: enabling a user to select a logic type (Curtis: receiving user input altering the relationship, displaying the altered relationship, and storing the relationship as a blending mode [0008]) from multiple possible logic types (Curtis: Other pre-defined blending modes include: "Color Burn," "Color Dodge," "Darken," etc. [0004]) to form the combined shape (Curtis: blending mode defines what the output will be for each potential combination of inputs [0005]), the combined shape being based at least in part on the selected logic type (see Note 2A); and wherein in the outline mode (see Note 2A), the outline of the combined shape is based at least in part on the selected logic type (see Note 2A).
Note 2A: Blodgett teaches that “rendering the 3D object as the silhouette having the particular opacity includes performing color blending (such as, but not limited to, alpha blending) to combine a color of the silhouette with colors of an area of the 3D view of the 3D space”. Blodgett also teaches that “When the user selects the silhouette mode, the object is rendered as a silhouette” [0039]. Therefore, it would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to apply the alpha blending techniques taught by Curtis in the outline mode to the shapes to form a combined shape. It follows that, as the outline is drawn as part of the object during the outline mode, it would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to apply the alpha blending technique to the outline.
Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art to combine the teachings of Curtis with Blodgett in view of Craftedge, Ciechanowski, and Chauvin. Enabling a user to select a logic type from multiple possible logic types to form the combined shape, the combined shape being based at least in part on the selected logic type; wherein in the outline mode, the outline of the combined shape is based at least in part on the selected logic type, as in Curtis, would benefit the Blodgett in view of Craftedge, Ciechanowski, and Chauvin teachings by enabling the user to choose how they visualize the objects, allowing increased flexibility.
Regarding claim 4:
Blodgett in view of Craftedge, Chauvin, Ciechanowski, and Curtis teaches:
The network computer system of claim 2 (as shown above),
Blodgett in view of Craftedge, Chauvin, and Curtis fails to teach:
wherein the multiple possible logic types include Boolean type combination logic.
Ciechanowski teaches:
wherein the multiple possible logic types include Boolean type combination logic (Ciechanowski: Xor, Pg. 35, par. 1; Ciechanowski: they also presented an entire family of alpha compositing operations, […] The introduced functions are also known as operators, since, similarly to addition or multiplication, they operate on input values to create an output value, Pg. 31, par. 3).
Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art to combine the teachings of Ciechanowski with Blodgett in view of Craftedge, Chauvin and Curtis. Including Boolean type combination logic, as in Ciechanowski, would benefit the Blodgett in view of Craftedge, Chauvin, and Curtis teachings by enabling the use of standard clipping and compositing based effects: “Almost every graphic design application released in the last two decades has supported the creation of semi-transparent content. The novelty of these concepts is long gone.” (Ciechanowski, Pg. 1, par. 1)
Regarding claim 5:
Blodgett in view of Craftedge, Chauvin, Ciechanowski, and Curtis teaches:
The network computer system of claim 4 (as shown above), wherein the Boolean type combination logic includes union combination (Ciechanowski: This blending operation is known as source-over, sover, or just normal, Pg. 30, par. 3, Ciechanowski: Pg. 32, see Image on pg. 32), intersection combination (Ciechanowski: The source-atop and destination-atop allow overlaying of new contents on top of existing one, while simultaneously masking it to the destination, Pg. 34, par. 2, see Image on Pg. 34), subtraction combination (Ciechanowski: The source-out and destination-out operators are great for punching holes in the source and destination respectively, Pg. 32, par. 2, see Image on Pg. 33), or exclude combination type logic (Ciechanowski: The exclusive-or operator or just xor keeps either the source or the destination, their overlap disappears, Pg. 35, par. 1, see Image on Pg. 35).
Regarding claim 15:
Blodgett in view of Craftedge, Chauvin, and Ciechanowski teaches:
The computer-implemented method of claim 11 (as shown above),
Blodgett in view of Craftedge, Chauvin, and Ciechanowski fails to teach:
wherein in the default mode, the method further comprises: applying multiple types of occlusive logic to occlude at least the portion of one or more of the multiple objects.
Curtis teaches:
wherein in the default mode, the method further comprises: applying multiple types of occlusive logic (Curtis: Other pre-defined blending modes include: "Color Burn," "Color Dodge," "Darken," etc. [0004]) to occlude at least the portion of one or more of the multiple objects (Curtis: blending mode defines what the output will be for each potential combination of inputs [0005]).
Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art to combine the teachings of Curtis with Blodgett in view of Craftedge, Chauvin, and Ciechanowski. Applying multiple types of occlusive logic to occlude at least the portion of one or more of the multiple objects, as in Curtis, would benefit the Blodgett in view of Craftedge, Chauvin, and Ciechanowski teachings by enabling the user to choose how they visualize the objects, allowing increased flexibility.
Regarding claim 18:
Blodgett in view of Craftedge, Chauvin and Ciechanowski teaches:
The computer-implemented method of claim 11 (as shown above),
Blodgett in view of Craftedge, Chauvin, and Ciechanowski fails to teach:
wherein the method further comprises: enabling a user to select a logic type from multiple possible logic types to form the combined shape, the combined shape being based at least in part on the selected logic type; and wherein in the outline mode, the outline of the combined shape is based at least in part on the selected logic type.
Curtis teaches:
wherein the method further comprises: enabling a user to select a logic type from multiple possible logic types (Curtis: receiving user input altering the relationship, displaying the altered relationship, and storing the relationship as a blending mode [0008]) to form the combined shape (Curtis: blending mode defines what the output will be for each potential combination of inputs [0005]), the combined shape being based at least in part on the selected logic type (see Note 2A above); and wherein in the outline mode (see Note 2A above), the outline of the combined shape is based at least in part on the selected logic type (see Note 2A above).
Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art to combine the teachings of Curtis with Blodgett in view of Craftedge, Chauvin, and Ciechanowski. Enabling a user to select a logic type from multiple possible logic types to form the combined shape, the combined shape being based at least in part on the selected logic type; and wherein in the outline mode, the outline of the combined shape is based at least in part on the selected logic type, as in Curtis, would benefit the Blodgett in view of Craftedge, Chauvin, and Ciechanowski teachings by enabling the user to choose how they visualize the objects, allowing increased flexibility.
Regarding claim 19:
Blodgett in view of Craftedge, Chauvin, Ciechanowski, and Curtis teaches:
The computer-implemented method of claim 18 (as shown above),
Blodgett in view of Craftedge, Chauvin, and Curtis fails to teach:
wherein the multiple possible logic types include Boolean type combination logic, including one or more of union combination logic, intersection combination logic, subtraction combination logic, or exclude combination type logic.
Ciechanowski teaches:
wherein the multiple possible logic types include Boolean type combination logic (Ciechanowski: Xor, Pg. 35, par. 1; Ciechanowski: they also presented an entire family of alpha compositing operations, […] The introduced functions are also known as operators, since, similarly to addition or multiplication, they operate on input values to create an output value, Pg. 31, par. 3), including one or more of union combination logic (Ciechanowski: This blending operation is known as source-over, sover, or just normal, Pg. 30, par. 3, Ciechanowski: Pg. 32, see Image on pg. 32), intersection combination logic (Ciechanowski: The source-atop and destination-atop allow overlaying of new contents on top of existing one, while simultaneously masking it to the destination, Pg. 34, par. 2, see Image on Pg. 34), subtraction combination logic (Ciechanowski: The source-out and destination-out operators are great for punching holes in the source and destination respectively, Pg. 32, par. 2, see Image on Pg. 33), or exclude combination type logic (Ciechanowski: The exclusive-or operator or just xor keeps either the source or the destination, their overlap disappears, Pg. 35, par. 1, see Image on Pg. 35).
Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art to combine the teachings of Ciechanowski with Blodgett in view of Craftedge and Chauvin and Curtis. Having the multiple possible logic types include Boolean type combination logic, including one or more of union combination logic, intersection combination logic, subtraction combination logic, or exclude combination type logic, as in Ciechanowski, would benefit the Blodgett in view of Craftedge and Chauvin and Curtis teachings by enabling the user to overlay objects in ways that provide more control over the design of a final composited image.
Claims 8 and 9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Blodgett (US 20220254098 A1) in view of Craftedge (NPL: Weld and Union overlapping shapes and text), Chauvin (US 20120194503 A1), Ciechanowski: (NPL: Alpha Compositing), and Dhanuka (US 20180218523 A1).
Regarding claim 8:
Blodgett in view of Craftedge, Chauvin, and Ciechanowski teaches:
The non-transitory computer-readable medium of claim 7 (as shown above), wherein in the outline mode (Blodgett: silhouette mode [0048]), the rendering engine (Blodgett: rendering engine 130 [0029]) is operable to render objects.
Blodgett in view of Craftedge, Chauvin, and Ciechanowski fails to teach:
the rendering engine is operable to render a bounding box for objects that are occluded by an occlusion logic.
Dhanuka teaches:
the rendering engine is operable to render a bounding box for objects (Dhanuka: As shown at stage 302, for instance, bounding boxes are identified for each glyph in the words “Adobe InDesign.” [0036]; Dhanuka: “Bounding box” refers to a parallelogram, visible or invisible in a user interface [0022]) that are occluded by an occlusion logic (see Note 8A).
Note 8A: Dhanuka showcases in Fig. 3 that the glyphs are rendered such that one glyph may intersect another, which is visualized by the bounding boxes. It is well known in the art that font graphics for glyphs are typically stored independently so that any combination of characters can be rendered. In order to render a glyph without causing previously drawn graphics to be overwritten, the glyphs must be composited or added together. Therefore, it is implicit that there is an alpha blending algorithm or occlusion logic that allows Dhanuka to render text such that the graphics of one glyph may intersect the bounds of another.
Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art to combine the teachings of Dhanuka with Blodgett in view of Craftedge, Chauvin, and Ciechanowski. Rendering a bounding box for objects that are occluded by an occlusion logic, as in Dhanuka, would benefit the Blodgett in view of Craftedge, Chauvin, and Ciechanowski teachings by enabling a user to easily discern the locations and orientations of shapes when they are overlapping one another.
Regarding claim 9:
Blodgett in view of Craftedge, Chauvin, Ciechanowski, and Dhanuka teaches:
The non-transitory computer-readable medium of claim 8 (as shown above), wherein in the outline mode, the rendering engine is operable to enable a user to interact with the bounding box of an object of the multiple objects that is occluded by the occlusion logic (Dhanuka: If the user drags the edge (e.g., moves or resizes) within a threshold distance of a snapping line that is parallel to the edge, the digital object is repositioned [0020], see Note 9A).
Note 9A: When interacting with the edge moves or resizes the digital object, the bounding box of the digital object would be modified as well. Thus, an interaction with the edge as taught by Dhanuka is analogous to an interaction with the bounding box of the digital object.
Claims 12 and 13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Blodgett (US 20220254098 A1) in view of Craftedge (NPL: Weld and Union overlapping shapes and text), Chauvin (US 20120194503 A1), Ciechanowski: (NPL: Alpha Compositing), and Blender (NPL: Viewport Shading).
Regarding claim 12:
Blodgett in view of Craftedge, Chauvin, and Ciechanowski teaches:
The computer-implemented method of claim 11 (as shown above),
Blodgett in view of Craftedge, Chauvin, and Ciechanowski fails to teach:
wherein rendering the design interface in the outline mode includes rendering a wireframe of the multiple objects.
Blender teaches:
wherein rendering the design interface in the outline mode includes rendering a wireframe of the multiple objects (Blender: Shows the full scene by only displaying the edges of the objects (wireframes), Pg. 1, par. 1; see Note 9A)
Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art to combine the teachings of Blender with Blodgett in view of Craftedge, Chauvin, and Ciechanowski. Rendering a wireframe of the multiple objects, as in Blender, would benefit the Blodgett in view of Craftedge, Chauvin, and Ciechanowski teachings by enabling the user to clearly view the objects behind geometry that would otherwise obstruct the view of the environment.
Regarding claim 13:
Blodgett in view of Craftedge, Chauvin, Ciechanowski and Blender teaches:
The computer-implemented method of claim 12 (as shown above), wherein rendering at least a portion of the wireframe of each of the multiple objects without rendering any fill characteristic of any of the multiple objects (Blender: only displaying the edges of the objects (wireframes), Pg. 1, par. 1).
Claim 14 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Blodgett (US 20220254098 A1) in view of Craftedge (NPL: Weld and Union overlapping shapes and text), Chauvin (US 20120194503 A1), Ciechanowski: (NPL: Alpha Compositing), and Apassemard: NPL: Seeing through an object with Wireframe and x-ray).
Blodgett in view of Craftedge, Chauvin, and Ciechanowski teaches:
The computer-implemented method of claim 11 (as shown above),
Blodgett in view of Craftedge, Chauvin, and Ciechanowski fails to teach:
wherein in the default mode, the method further comprises precluding a type of user interaction with the portion of the one or more objects that are occluded; and wherein in the outline mode, the method further comprises enabling the type of user interaction with the portion of the one or more objects that is occluded in the default mode.
Apassemard teaches:
wherein in the default mode, the method further comprises precluding a type of user interaction with the portion of the one or more objects that are occluded (Apassemard; Selecting the wireframe mode will remove all the faces from view so you can only see the edges. But it’s possible that the wireframe does not display the back edges, basically not seeing you see through the object, Pg. 2, par. 1; Apassemard: If you need to select all vertices, edges or faces of an object through a single selection you will need to “see” all of them, Pg. 1, par. 1); and wherein in the outline mode, the method further comprises enabling the type of user interaction with the portion of the one or more objects that is occluded in the default mode (Apassemard; Changing the value of X-ray will show more or less the hidden lines, Image on Pg. 3, Apassemard: If you need to select all vertices, edges or faces of an object through a single selection you will need to “see” all of them, Pg. 1, par. 1).
Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art to combine the teachings of Apassemard with Blodgett in view of Craftedge, Chauvin, and Ciechanowski. Precluding a type of user interaction with the portion of the one or more objects that are occluded; and wherein in the outline mode, the method further comprises enabling the type of user interaction with the portion of the one or more objects that is occluded in the default mode, as in Apassemard, would benefit the Blodgett in view of Craftedge, Chauvin, and Ciechanowski teachings by enabling the user to easily modify objects that are occluded by other objects.
Conclusion
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 nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) 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 mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to VINCENT ALEXANDER PROVIDENCE whose telephone number is (571)270-5765. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Thursday 8:30-5:00.
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, King Poon can be reached on (571)270-0728. 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.
/VINCENT ALEXANDER PROVIDENCE/Examiner, Art Unit 2617
/KING Y POON/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2617
Prosecution Insights