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, 9-16 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 (Paragraph 216; memory); one or more processors that operate to communicate the set of instructions to a plurality of user devices (Paragraphs 214-215; processor), wherein the set of instructions include instructions that when executed by at least a first user device of the plurality of user devices, causes the first user device to perform operations (Paragraph 215) that include: associating a layout logic with a plurality of object that are rendered on a canvas of the first user device, the plurality of objects including a parent object and multiple child objects contained within the parent object (Figures 14-16 and Paragraphs 123-125; pinning control/layout logic provided to a window(parent) and elements (child) linked within the window),
the multiple child objects being arranged collectively to have a first collective span in a first axial direction and a second collective span in a second axial direction (Figures 10-11; elements/child objects have first and second axial directions, see Figure 11: 112/114 and Paragraphs 41 and 114);
in response to a first input, automatically implementing the layout logic by (i) changing a dimension of the parent object in each of the first axial direction (Figures 10-11 and 14-16; parent window width adjusted), and (ii) rearranging the multiple child objects within the parent object to change the first collective span and the second collective span (Figures 10-12, Paragraphs 41 and 114; multiple elements (child) are rearranged in width and height).
Wan may not explicitly disclose a parent object changing a second axial direction, nor disclose, the first collective span being based on an overall dimension of the multiple child objects in the first axial direction and the second collective span being based on an overall dimension of the multiple child objects in the second axial direction; Wan discloses changing a first axial direction (Paragraph 115).
Tang is provided because it provides a layout arrangement (Paragraphs 63 and 69) with parent/child relationships (Paragraphs 106-107 claim 8). Further the system provides capability to modify a first and second direction of an element (parent) during resizing (Figures 19 and 21, Paragraph 98).
Tang also discloses the capability of modifying a collective span and dimension of multiple children within the presentation (Figures 17-18, 22-23 (elements A/B) 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 capability to manipulate first and second directions/dimensions of elements collectively in Wan. One would have been motivated to provide the functionality as a way to expand the editing operability for a more customizable layout.
Additionally, Tang provides wherein the rearranging includes moving at least one of the multiple child objects to a different row or column within the parent object (Figures 19-23 and Paragraphs 95, 105). Objects within the presentation are modified and displayed in different row/column positions of the presentation.
One would have been motivated to provide the functionality as a way to efficiently manage screen real estate.
Claim 2: Wan and Tang disclose a network computer system of claim 1, wherein the multiple child objects are rearranged without changing a dimension of any of the multiple child objects (Wan: Figure 9 and Paragraph 109-110; dimensions are not changed as the page is resized).
Claim 3: Wan and Tang disclose a network computer system of claim 1, wherein the multiple child objects are rearranged without changing a spacing characteristic of adjacent child objects(Wan: Figure 9 and Paragraph 109-110; spacing is not changed as the page is resized).
Claim 4: Wan and Tang disclose a network computer system of claim 1, wherein the multiple child objects are rearranged without changing a spacing characteristic as between individual child nodes and a proximate border of the parent object (Wan: Figures 9 and 11, Paragraph 109-110; spacing on the edge containing objects is not changed as resizing done).
Claim 5: Wan and Tang disclose a network computer system of claim 1, wherein the first input corresponds to user input to increase a dimension of the parent object along the first axial direction, and wherein implementing the layout logic includes (i) decreasing a dimension of the parent object along the second axial direction, and (ii) rearranging the multiple child objects within the parent object to increase the first collective span and decrease the second collective span (Wan: Figure 11, Paragraphs 114-116 (multiple objects adjusted, along with height and width responses) and Tang: Figures 19 and 21, increasing one dimension of the window decreases the other dimension and child elements also adjust accordingly).
Claim 6: Wan and Tang disclose a network computer system of claim 1, wherein the first input corresponds to user input to decrease a dimension of the parent object along the first axial direction, and wherein implementing the layout logic includes (i) increasing a dimension of the parent object along the second axial direction, and (ii) rearranging the multiple child objects within the parent object to increase the second collective span and decrease the first collective span (Wan: Figure 11, Paragraphs 114-116 (multiple objects adjusted, along with height and width responses) and Tang: Figures 19 and 21, decreasing one dimension of the window increases the other dimension and child elements also adjust accordingly).
Claim 9: Wan and Tang disclose a network computer system of claim 1, wherein the operations further comprise: associating the plurality of objects with an alignment setting, the alignment setting specifying an alignment of the multiple child objects, and wherein implementing the layout logic includes automatically maintaining the specified alignment when the multiple child objects are rearranged (Wan: Figures 9 and 11, Paragraph 109; elements stay aligned during rearrangement of window and each other).
Claim 10: Wan and Tang disclose a network computer system of claim 1, wherein the operations further comprise: associating the plurality of objects with one or more spacing characteristics, and wherein implementing the layout logic includes maintaining the one or more spacing characteristics when the multiple child objects are rearranged (Wan: Figures 9-11, Paragraph 114; elements maintain spacing between each other during interaction).
Claims 11 and 20 are similar in scope to claim 1 and therefore rejected under the same rationale.
Regarding non-transitory computer-readable medium (Wan: Paragraph 216)
Claim 12 is similar in scope to claim 2 and therefore rejected under the same rationale.
Claim 13 is similar in scope to claim 3 and therefore rejected under the same rationale.
Claim 14 is similar in scope to claim 4 and therefore rejected under the same rationale.
Claim 15 is similar in scope to claim 5 and therefore rejected under the same rationale.
Claim 16 is similar in scope to claim 6 and therefore rejected under the same rationale.
Claim 19 is similar in scope to claim 9 and therefore rejected under the same rationale.
Claims 7-8 and 17-18 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 computer system of claim 1, but may not explicitly disclose wherein the first input corresponds to user input to insert an additional child object within the parent object, and wherein automatically implementing the layout logic includes changing the dimension of the parent object in each of the first axial direction and second axial direction based at least in part on a position and/or dimension of the additional child object.
Geva is provided because it provides a layout arrangement system with layout rules/logic(abstract). Further the system provides capability to add elements within a section/page and automatically change sections as items are added (Paragraph 130). Those capabilities include expanding the dimensions of the section 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 device in the same way and provide element additions and section manipulation 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 8: Wan, Tang and Geva disclose a network computer system of claim 7, wherein automatically implementing the layout logic includes rearranging the multiple child objects within the parent object based at least in part on the position and/or dimension of the additional child object
(Geva: Figure 20; provides elements within the window that adjust position according to each other).
Claim 17 is similar in scope to claim 7 and therefore rejected under the same rationale.
Claim 18 is similar in scope to claim 8 and therefore rejected under the same rationale.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments have been considered but are not persuasive.
Regarding Tang and the objects, Tang provides multiple objects (children) which are presented, and during a rearrangement/movement the first and second axial direction can be collectively modified. See Figures 17-18, 22-23 and Paragraphs 92-94, 101-102 and 105.
Further these objects clearly provide a collective span consideration because they are presented to fit to the desired presentation (Figures 22-23:31). The claim language states that the collective span is based on the overall dimensions in each direction. This is believed to be achieved in that objects when first established, present with a collective span in each direction. While the objects may be modified by a keyframe, the collective span as established is considered in order to prevent the objects from overlapping while providing the adjustment.
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