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 .
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (“IDS”) filed on 1/12/2024 was reviewed and the listed references were noted.
Drawings
The 26-page drawings have been considered and placed on record in the file.
Status of Claims
Claims 1-11 are pending.
Claim Interpretation
5. The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(f):
(f) Element in Claim for a Combination. – An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
Use of the word "means" (or "step for") in a claim with functional language
creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim element is to be treated in accordance
with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) (pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph). The presumption that
35 U.S.C. 112(f) (pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph) is invoked is rebutted when
the function is recited with sufficient structure, material, or acts within the claim itself to entirely perform the recited function.
Absence of the word "means" (or "step for") in a claim creates a rebuttable
presumption that the claim element is not to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C.
112(f) (pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph). The presumption that 35 U.S.C. 112(f)
(pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph) is not invoked is rebutted when the claim
element recites function but fails to recite sufficiently definite structure, material or acts
to perform that function.
Claim elements in this application that use the word "means" (or "step for") are
presumed to invoke 35 U.S.C. 112(f) except as otherwise indicated in an Office action.
Similarly, claim elements that do not use the word "means" (or "step for") are presumed
not to invoke 35 U.S.C. 112(f) except as otherwise indicated in an Office action.
The claims in this application are given their broadest reasonable interpretation using the plain meaning of the claim language in light of the specification as it would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art. The broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim element (also commonly referred to as a claim limitation) is limited by the description in the specification when 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is invoked.
As explained in MPEP § 2181, subsection I, claim limitations that meet the following three-prong test will be interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
(A) the claim limitation uses the term “means” or “step” or a term used as a substitute for “means” that is a generic placeholder (also called a nonce term or a non-structural term having no specific structural meaning) for performing the claimed function;
(B) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is modified by functional language, typically, but not always linked by the transition word “for” (e.g., “means for”) or another linking word or phrase, such as “configured to” or “so that”; and
(C) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function.
Use of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim with functional language creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites sufficient structure, material, or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Absence of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is not to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is not interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites function without reciting sufficient structure, material or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Claim limitations in this application that use the word “means” (or “step”) are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action. Conversely, claim limitations in this application that do not use the word “means” (or “step”) are not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action.
This application includes one or more claim limitations that do not use the word “means,” but are nonetheless being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, because the claim limitation(s) uses a generic placeholder that is coupled with functional language without reciting sufficient structure to perform the recited function and the generic placeholder is not preceded by a structural modifier. Such claim limitation(s) is/are: “an input unit configured to receive…” and “a resizing unit configured to change…” in claim 10.
Because this/these claim limitation(s) is/are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, it/they is/are being interpreted to cover the corresponding structure described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof.
If applicant does not intend to have this/these limitation(s) interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, applicant may: (1) amend the claim limitation(s) to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph (e.g., by reciting sufficient structure to perform the claimed function); or (2) present a sufficient showing that the claim limitation(s) recite(s) sufficient structure to perform the claimed function so as to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
Claims 1-6, 8-10, and 11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Allyn (US 2005/0108620 A1), in view of Power UP! Computer Training (YouTube: “Resizing and Rescaling Objects in PowerPoint” https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=61_oP807kNE )
Regarding claim 1, Allyn teaches, “A non-transitory computer readable storage medium on which a computer program is recorded, the computer program, when executed, causing a computer to perform an object resizing method” (Allyn, Pg. 15, Claim 18 discloses; “A computer-readable medium having computer-executable instructions for selecting and manipulating multiple objects, comprising”), “comprising: receiving an input for simultaneously changing sizes of a plurality of objects linked to one another” (Allyn, Pg. 8, Para. 85 discloses; “As noted with respect to the horizontal resize operation illustrated in FIG. 6B, the multiple selected objects 601, 602 remain in the same relative positions to each other after the vertical resize operation illustrated in FIG. 6D since the multiple selected objects 601, 602 can be manipulated as if they were a single combined object in accordance with exemplary embodiments of the present invention”), (Allyn, Pg. 1, Para. 7 discloses; “These new approaches need to also provide the capability to manipulate multiple objects, for example by rotating or flipping them, with respect to an axis or reference point that can be adjusted to other positions besides the approximate center of the group of objects”). Allyn does not explicitly teach “in an edit region on a screen” and “provided to the respective objects”. Since Allyn does not explicitly disclose these limitations, Examiner relies on the teachings of Power UP! Computer Training, in an analogous field of endeavor. Specifically, Power UP! Computer Training discloses, “in an edit region on a screen” (Power UP! Computer Training, “Resizing and Rescaling Objects in PowerPoint” at timestamp 6:31, shows an edit region on a screen with formatting controls and options around the edit region on the screen), and “provided to the respective objects” (Power UP! Computer Training, “Resizing and Rescaling Objects in PowerPoint” at timestamp 7:31, shows multiple objects/images with multiple different points for each of the respective objects/images).
Allyn and Power UP! Computer Training are considered to be analogous to the claimed invention because they are in the same field of endeavor of manipulating and resizing objects on a screen using a computer program. Therefore, it would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Allyn to incorporate the teachings of Power UP! Computer Training in order to include a clear edit region in a computer program for editing and resizing objects, and add a reference point for the individual objects. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to combine the previously described storage medium of Allyn with the teachings of Power UP! Computer Training to provide a user with a clearly labeled edit region with options and controls in a separate region, and to control the objects/images with a reference point for each. Accordingly, it would have been obvious to combine Allyn and Power UP! Computer Training to obtain the above specified limitations.
Regarding claim 2, the combination of Allyn in view of Power UP! Computer Training teaches, “The non-transitory computer readable storage medium according to claim 1, wherein the plurality of objects are linked to one another by grouping of the plurality of objects” (Allyn, Pg. 1, Para. 4 discloses; “Some existing approaches provide the capability for a user to select multiple objects, in a document and then transform the multiple objects into a single object representation that can be manipulated (sometimes referred to as "grouping")).
Regarding claim 3, the combination of Allyn in view of Power UP! Computer Training teaches, “The non-transitory computer readable storage medium according to claim 1, wherein the reference points are center points of the respective objects” (Power UP! Computer Training, “Resizing and Rescaling Objects in PowerPoint” at timestamp 4:26 - 5:01 shows a computer program capable of resizing objects with respect to the center point of the object) (Allyn, Pg. 1, Para. 7 discloses; “These new approaches need to also provide the capability to manipulate multiple objects, for example by rotating or flipping them, with respect to an axis or reference point that can be adjusted to other positions besides the approximate center of the group of objects” Allyn teaches multiple objects with a reference point, and Power UP! Computer Training teaches using the center point of the objects). The proposed combination as well as the motivation for combining the Allyn and Power UP! Computer Training references in the rejection of claim 1, apply to claim 3 and are incorporated herein by reference. Thus, the storage medium recited in claim 3 is met by Allyn and Power UP! Computer Training.
Regarding claim 4, the combination of Allyn in view of Power UP! Computer Training teaches, “The non-transitory computer readable storage medium according to claim 1, wherein the plurality of objects are linked to one another by positional alignment of the plurality of objects” (Power UP! Computer Training, “Resizing and Rescaling Objects in PowerPoint” at timestamp 8:14 – 9:29 shows a computer program capable of aligning a plurality objects/pictures being linked to each other by the position of their center points). The proposed combination as well as the motivation for combining the Allyn and Power UP! Computer Training references in the rejection of claim 1, apply to claim 4 and are incorporated herein by reference. Thus, the storage medium recited in claim 4 is met by Allyn and Power UP! Computer Training.
Regarding claim 5, the combination of Allyn in view of Power UP! Computer Training teaches, “The non-transitory computer readable storage medium according to claim 4, wherein the reference points are each a point belonging to a corresponding one of the objects, the point being adjusted in position along with the corresponding object so as to belong to an array reference line for positional alignment of the plurality of objects as well” (Power UP! Computer Training, “Resizing and Rescaling Objects in PowerPoint” at timestamp 8:14 – 9:29 shows multiple reference points corresponding to the object/image, specifically at timestamp 8:22. Examiner interprets these points to be geometrically used to positionally align the objects and create a reference line through the middle of the objects, as shown later in the 8:14 – 9:29 time period.) The proposed combination as well as the motivation for combining the Allyn and Power UP! Computer Training references in the rejection of claim 1, apply to claim 5 and are incorporated herein by reference. Thus, the storage medium recited in claim 5 is met by Allyn and Power UP! Computer Training.
Regarding claim 6, the combination of Allyn in view of Power UP! Computer Training teaches, “The non-transitory computer readable storage medium according to claim 1, wherein in the changing the sizes, the plurality of objects are scaled up or down simultaneously” (Power UP! Computer Training, “Resizing and Rescaling Objects in PowerPoint” at timestamp 7:00 – 8:11 shows a computer program capable of changing the sizes of a plurality of objects/images simultaneously). The proposed combination as well as the motivation for combining the Allyn and Power UP! Computer Training references in the rejection of claim 1, apply to claim 6 and are incorporated herein by reference. Thus, the storage medium recited in claim 6 is met by Allyn and Power UP! Computer Training.
Regarding claim 8, the combination of Allyn in view of Power UP! Computer Training teaches, “The non-transitory computer readable storage medium according to claim 1, wherein the object resizing method further comprises, in a case where a frame line of a certain one of the objects overlaps with a frame line of a prescribed region during continuation of the changing the sizes of the plurality of objects, changing the reference point of the certain object to a perpendicular point, the perpendicular point belonging to the frame line of the prescribed region with which the frame line of the object overlaps, and the perpendicular point corresponding to the reference point” (Power UP! Computer Training, “Resizing and Rescaling Objects in PowerPoint” at timestamp 7:48 – 7:58 shows a computer program with an object/image with reference points on all edges of the object/image. It also shows the ability resize an object/image while keeping a vertical side in the same horizontal position. Timestamp 7:00 – 7:09 shows the ability to translate the object/image to anywhere within the edit region.) It would have been obvious to use the translation feature of this program to move an object/image to overlap with the frame line of the edit region and resize the object/image while changing the reference point to one on the overlapping side. The proposed combination as well as the motivation for combining the Allyn and Power UP! Computer Training references in the rejection of claim 1, apply to claim 8 and are incorporated herein by reference. Thus, the storage medium recited in claim 8 is met by Allyn and Power UP! Computer Training.
Regarding claim 9, the combination of Allyn in view of Power UP! Computer Training teaches, “The non-transitory computer readable storage medium according to claim 8, wherein the object resizing method further comprises, in a case where a certain one of the objects the reference point of which has been changed in the changing the reference point is resized back to the size that the certain object had when the changing the reference point was executed, changing the reference point of the certain object back to the reference point before the changing of the reference point” (Power UP! Computer Training, “Resizing and Rescaling Objects in PowerPoint” at timestamp 7:00 – 8:11 shows a computer program with the ability to resize and then be returned to its original size. It also shows multiple reference points for each of the objects.) It would have been obvious to choose a different or same reference point for each of the steps of resizing and returning to an original size. It would be obvious for a user to select these reference points by implementing a certain design choice. This program from Power UP! Computer Training is capable of performing the limitations of claim 9. The proposed combination as well as the motivation for combining the Allyn and Power UP! Computer Training references in the rejection of claim 1, apply to claim 9 and are incorporated herein by reference. Thus, the storage medium recited in claim 9 is met by Allyn and Power UP! Computer Training.
Regarding claim 10, claim 10 recites an apparatus with elements corresponding to the storage medium instructions recited in claim 1. Therefore, the recited elements of this claim are mapped to the proposed combination in the same manner as the corresponding steps in its corresponding storage medium instructions claim. Additionally, the rationale and motivation to combine the Allyn and Power UP! Computer Training references, presented in rejection of claim 1, apply to this claim. Finally, the combination of Allyn and Power UP! Computer Training references discloses “an input module” (Allyn, Pg. 3, Para. 39 discloses “A user may enter commands and information into computing device 120 through input devices, such as a keyboard 140 and a pointing device 142”) and “a resizing unit” (Allyn, Pg. 4, Para. 42 discloses; “Moreover, those skilled in the art will appreciate that the present invention may be implemented in other computer system configurations, including hand-held devices, multiprocessor systems, microprocessor based or programmable consumer electronics, network person computers, minicomputers, mainframe computers, and the like”).
Regarding claim 11, claim 11 recites a method with steps corresponding to the elements of the storage medium instructions recited in claim 1. Therefore, the recited steps of this claim are mapped to the proposed combination in the same manner as the corresponding elements in its corresponding storage medium claim. Additionally, the rationale and motivation to combine the Allyn and Power UP! Computer Training references, presented in rejection of claim 1, apply to this claim.
Claim 7 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Allyn, in view of Power UP! Computer Training, in further view of QA (YouTube: “Aligning Images in PowerPoint” https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9z9e_hZlFk8 )
Regarding claim 7, the combination of Allyn in view of Power UP! Computer Training teaches, “The non-transitory computer readable storage medium according to claim 1, wherein in the changing the sizes, in scaling up of a first object included in the plurality of objects, (Power UP! Computer Training, “Resizing and Rescaling Objects in PowerPoint” at timestamp 7:40 – 8:00 shows a computer program with the ability to simultaneously scaling one object up and scaling another object down.) The combination of Allyn and Power UP! Computer Training does not teach “a certain length of empty space is maintained between the first object and a second object adjacent to the first object”. Since the combination of Allyn and Power UP! Computer Training does not explicitly disclose these limitations, Examiner relies on the teachings of QA, in an analogous field of endeavor. Specifically, QA discloses, “a certain length of empty space is maintained between the first object and a second object adjacent to the first object” (QA, “Aligning Images in PowerPoint” at timestamp 1:00 – 2:17 shows a computer program with the ability to maintain a certain distance between multiple objects even while manipulating and translating the objects.)
Allyn, Power UP! Computer Training, and QA are considered to be analogous to the claimed invention because they are in the same field of endeavor of manipulating and resizing objects on a screen using a computer program. Therefore, it would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the combination of Allyn and of Power UP! Computer Training to incorporate the teachings of QA in order to maintain a distance between multiple objects while manipulating the objects. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to combine the previously described storage medium of Allyn and Power UP! Computer Training with the teachings of QA to provide a user with the option to maintain a certain distance between objects while they manipulate the objects. Accordingly, it would have been obvious to combine Allyn and Power UP! Computer Training with QA to obtain the above specified limitations.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JUSTIN M. OAKES whose telephone number is (571)272-9379. The examiner can normally be reached 7:30am-5pm.
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, Amandeep Saini can be reached at (571) 272-3382. 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.
/JUSTIN M OAKES/Examiner, Art Unit 2662
/Siamak Harandi/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2662