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 .
Applicant's Response
In Applicant's Response dated 12/1/2025, Applicant amended the Claims and argued against all objections and rejections set forth in the previous Office Action.
All objections and rejections not reproduced below are withdrawn.
The rejection of the Claims under 35 U.S.C. 101 previously set forth are withdrawn.
The prior art rejections of the Claims under 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 previously set forth are withdrawn.
The examiner appreciates the applicant noting where the support for the amendments are described in the specification.
The Application was filed on 09/13/2023.
Claim(s) 1-20 are pending for examination. Claim(s) 1, 8, 15 is/are independent claim(s).
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.
Claim(s) 1, 7 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hamedi; Mahiar et al. US Pub. No. 2010/0283787 (Hamedi) in view of Zhu; Yibing et al. US Pub. No. 2019/0163339 (Zhu).
Claim 1:
Hamedi teaches:
A computer-implemented method comprising:
receiving a change to a vector design element of a plurality of vector design elements of a design, … [¶ 0092, 108-112] (access the objects in the DAG and modify them by removing the nodes or changing the leaf nodes) [¶ 0053-60, 73, 77-82, 87-88, 92] (Directed Acyclic Graphs (DAGs)) [¶ 0008, 10, 20, 32, 44, 62, 66, 94] (Fig. 1, 2D, vector graphic objects) [¶ 0080, 92, 108-112] (DAG and modify them by removing the nodes or changing the leaf nodes);
Hamedi does not appear to explicitly disclose “change related to a type of design relation”.
However, the disclosure of Zhu teaches:
… the change related to a type of design relation [¶ 0020-23] (action/actions, such as a drag and drop, is received through a user interface, actions can be drag and drop actions, copy and paste actions, selection actions, voice command operations, handwritten input operations, these actions could be a “change”) [¶ 0024, 26, 30-31] (data object and relationship);
determining, from a knowledge graph, a corresponding type of design relation between the {vector} design element and a different {vector}design element of the plurality of {vector} design elements based on the type of design relation related to the change [¶ 0034] (Relationships between data objects may be utilized to identify an intent for an action) [¶ 0026] (mapping of relationships for entity data, among other types of information (e.g. data models or knowledge graph); and
automatically applying a corresponding change to the different {vector} design element based on the corresponding type of design relation between the {vector} design element and the different {vector} design element [¶ 0042-43] (update) [¶ 0016, 26, 37, 40-43, 46] (alters presentation of the data object to fit a context of the content portion).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the method of rendering multimedia data in Hamedi and the method of transforming data objects based on context in Zhu, with a reasonable expectation of success.
The motivation for doing so would have been the use of known technique to improve similar devices (methods, or products) in the same way; (See KSR Int’l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 US 398, 82 USPQ2d 1385, 1396 (U.S. 2007) and MPEP § 2143(D)).
The know technique of using a knowledge graph and formatting objects in Zhu could be combined with the vector graphics in directed acyclic graphs in Hamedi. Hamedi and Zhu are similar devices because each pertain to knowledge graphs. One of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that applying the known technique would improve the similar devices and resulted in an improved system, with a reasonable expectation of success, for “improved user interaction and productivity” [Zhu: ¶ 0018].
Claim 7:
The combination of Hamedi and Zhu discloses the limitations recited in the parent claim(s) for the reasons discussed above. In addition, the present claim would be further obvious using the same reason, rationale and/or motivation as used above, over the disclosure of Zhu, which teaches:
The computer-implemented method of claim 1, wherein the change is at least one of movement of the vector design element, changing appearance of the vector design element, changing size of the vector design element, changing stroke-width of the vector design element, changing stroke-alignment of the vector design element, changing a style of an end point of the vector design element, changing a style of how the vector design element changes direction and changing a point of alignment of the vector design element; and wherein the type of design relation at least one of an align, a distribute, color, font size, font effects, font style, underline, linear measurement and angular measurement [¶ 0039] (modification of the font) [¶ 0003-04, 14-16, 26, 39-41] (formatting and layout of the specific content may be selected based on the determined context).
Claim(s) 2, 3, 8 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hamedi; Mahiar et al. US Pub. No. 2010/0283787 (Hamedi) in view of Zhu; Yibing et al. US Pub. No. 2019/0163339 (Zhu) in view of Abhyankar; Saurabh et al. US Pub. No. 2020/0250217 (Abhyankar).
Claim 2:
Zhu and Hamedi teach all the elements of the claim as shown above.
Hamedi discloses nodes and edges [¶ 0013] (hierarchical data structure can be stored in one or more directed acyclic graphs 208, 209 where each node 203, 205 in the graph represents and stores a unique data object that either comprise the base objects i.e the leaf nodes of the graph 205, 206 or the hierarchically combined objects i.e the inner nodes 201, 202, 203, 210 of the graph, and where each directed edge 207 also contains information about the transformation performed on each of the lower order nodes that the edge is pointing to)
Zhu teaches:
The computer-implemented method of claim 1, further comprising:
receiving an initial set of changes with respect to a number of vector design elements of the plurality of vector design elements of the design [¶ 0020-23] (action/actions, such as a drag and drop, is received through a user interface, actions can be drag and drop actions, copy and paste actions, selection actions, voice command operations, handwritten input operations, these actions could be a “change”) [¶ 0024, 26, 30-31] (data object and relationship);
inferring the initial set of changes as a corresponding set of types of design relations between the number of vector design vector design elements of the plurality of vector design vector design elements of the design [¶ 0034] (Relationships between data objects may be utilized to identify an intent for an action) [¶ 0026] (mapping of relationships for entity data, among other types of information (e.g. data models or knowledge graph); and
Zhu discloses a knowledge graph, but does not give any details about the knowledge graph.
However, the disclosure of Abhyankar teaches:
storing, in the knowledge graph, the number of vector design vector design elements as corresponding nodes in the knowledge graph and the corresponding set of types of design relations as corresponding edges between the corresponding nodes in the knowledge graph, each corresponding edge classified according to the corresponding type of design relation [¶ 0046, 56-57, 82, 87] (Fig. 2, semantic graph data can also indicate the edges or connections between the objects in the graph) [¶ 0054, 91, 96, 101, 103] (use the semantic graph connections to determine the content and formatting of the information card) [¶ 0033, 36, 70-71, 89] (labels and classification).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the method of rendering multimedia data in Hamedi and the method of transforming data objects based on context in Zhu and the method of formatting information cards in Abhyankar, with a reasonable expectation of success.
The motivation for doing so would have been the use of known technique to improve similar devices (methods, or products) in the same way; (See KSR Int’l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 US 398, 82 USPQ2d 1385, 1396 (U.S. 2007) and MPEP § 2143(D)).
The know technique of knowledge graph edge details in Abhyankar could be applied to the knowledge graph and formatting objects in Zhu and the vector graphics in directed acyclic graphs in Hamedi. Abhyankar, Hamedi and Zhu are similar devices because each pertain to knowledge graphs. One of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that applying the known technique would improve the similar devices and resulted in an improved system, with a reasonable expectation of success, for “personalizing an interface for document authoring, for system performance tuning, for recommending documents” and “improved performance” (Abhyankar: 0039, 81).
Claim 3:
Zhu teaches:
The computer-implemented method of claim 2, wherein the change is related to a number of types of design relations, the method further comprising:
identifying each corresponding type of design relation from the corresponding set of types of design relations related to the change [¶ 0034] (Relationships between data objects may be utilized to identify an intent for an action) [¶ 0026] (mapping of relationships for entity data, among other types of information (e.g. data models or knowledge graph) [¶ 0020-23] (action/actions, such as a drag and drop, is received through a user interface, actions can be drag and drop actions, copy and paste actions, selection actions, voice command operations, handwritten input operations, these actions could be a “change”) [¶ 0024, 26, 30-31] (data object and relationship);
…; and
automatically applying a set of corresponding changes to the set of vector design vector design elements based on the change to the vector design element [¶ 0042-43] (update) [¶ 0016, 26, 37, 40-43, 46] (alters presentation of the data object to fit a context of the content portion).
Hamedi and Zhu does not appear to explicitly disclose “set of types of design relations related to the change”.
However, the disclosure of Abhyankar teaches:
determining, from the knowledge graph, a set of vector design vector design elements from a set of corresponding nodes, each corresponding node of the set of corresponding nodes connected by each edge corresponding to each corresponding type of design relation from the corresponding set of types of design relations related to the change [¶ 0046, 56-57, 82, 87] (Fig. 2, semantic graph data can also indicate the edges or connections between the objects in the graph) [¶ 0054, 91, 96, 101, 103] (use the semantic graph connections to determine the content and formatting of the information card) [¶ 0033, 36, 70-71, 89] (labels and classification);
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the method of rendering multimedia data in Hamedi and the method of transforming data objects based on context in Zhu and the method of formatting information cards in Abhyankar, with a reasonable expectation of success.
The motivation for doing so would have been the use of known technique to improve similar devices (methods, or products) in the same way; (See KSR Int’l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 US 398, 82 USPQ2d 1385, 1396 (U.S. 2007) and MPEP § 2143(D)).
The know technique of knowledge graph edge details in Abhyankar could be applied to the knowledge graph and formatting objects in Zhu and the vector graphics in directed acyclic graphs in Hamedi. Abhyankar, Hamedi and Zhu are similar devices because each pertain to knowledge graphs. One of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that applying the known technique would improve the similar devices and resulted in an improved system, with a reasonable expectation of success, for “personalizing an interface for document authoring, for system performance tuning, for recommending documents” and “improved performance” (Abhyankar: 0039, 81).
Claims 8:
Claim(s) 8 is/are substantially similar to claims 1 and 2, and is/are rejected using the same art and the same rationale. Claim 8 contains the limitations of claim 1, Claim 8 also has elements relating to “inferring”, similar to part of claim 2. Claim 8 also has elements relating to “subsequent change” which is taught in Zhu. Claims 1, 2 and 6 are “method” claims and claim 8 is a “media” claim, but the steps or elements of each claim are essentially the same.
Zhu teaches inferring, see [¶ 0034] (Relationships between data objects may be utilized to identify an intent for an action) [¶ 0026] (mapping of relationships for entity data, among other types of information (e.g. data models or knowledge graph)
Zhu teaches also teaches subsequent, see [¶ 0042-43, 48] (subsequent action).
Claim(s) 4-5 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hamedi; Mahiar et al. US Pub. No. 2010/0283787 (Hamedi) in view of in view of Zhu; Yibing et al. US Pub. No. 2019/0163339 (Zhu) in view of Abhyankar; Saurabh et al. US Pub. No. 2020/0250217 (Abhyankar) in view of Merrells; John US Pub. No. 2014/0280509 (Merrells).
Claim 4:
Hamedi, Zhu and Abhyankar teach all the elements of the claims as shown above.
Hamedi, Zhu and Abhyankar do not appear to explicitly disclose “breadth first traversal algorithm”.
However, the disclosure of Merrells teaches:
The computer-implemented method of claim 3, wherein the set of corresponding changes are automatically applied to the set of vector design vector design elements using a breadth first traversal algorithm [¶ 0061] (breadth-first manner, Cycles in the graph can be detected by keeping track of which nodes have already been visited during the traversal).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the method of rendering multimedia data in Hamedi and the method of transforming data objects based on context in Zhu and the method of formatting information cards in Abhyankar and the method of server processing in Merrells, with a reasonable expectation of success.
The motivation for doing so would have been the use of known technique to improve similar devices (methods, or products) in the same way; (See KSR Int’l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 US 398, 82 USPQ2d 1385, 1396 (U.S. 2007) and MPEP § 2143(D)).
The know technique of breadth-first traversal of knowledge graphs could be applied to the knowledge graph edge details in Abhyankar and the knowledge graph and formatting objects in Zhu and the vector graphics in directed acyclic graphs in Hamedi. Merrells, Abhyankar, Hamedi and Zhu are similar devices because each pertain to knowledge graphs. One of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that applying the known technique would improve the similar devices and resulted in an improved system, with a reasonable expectation of success, for “improve execution performance” (Merrells: ¶ 0060).
Claim 5:
The combination of Hamedi, Zhu, Abhyankar, Merrells discloses the limitations recited in the parent claim(s) for the reasons discussed above. In addition, the present claim would be further obvious using the same reason, rationale and/or motivation as used above, over the disclosure of Merrells, which teaches:
The computer-implemented method of claim 4, wherein the breadth first traversal algorithm is ended upon re-encountering the vector design element during the breadth first traversal algorithm [¶ 0061] (breadth-first manner, Cycles in the graph can be detected by keeping track of which nodes have already been visited during the traversal, this could be “re-encountering”).
Claim(s) 6 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hamedi; Mahiar et al. US Pub. No. 2010/0283787 (Hamedi) in view of in view of Zhu; Yibing et al. US Pub. No. 2019/0163339 (Zhu) in view of Ben-Aharon; Roni et al. US Pub. No. 2022/0083523 (Ben-Aharon).
Claim 6:
Zhu teaches [¶ 0042-43, 48] (subsequent action).
Zhu discloses a knowledge graph, but does not give any details about the knowledge graph.
Zhu and Hamedi do not appear to explicitly disclose a “modifier key”.
However, the disclosure of Ben-Aharon teaches:
The computer-implemented method of claim 1, further comprising:
responsive to receiving a subsequent change to the vector design element while simultaneously receiving selection of a modifier key, automatically deleting the corresponding type of design relation between the vector design element and the different vector design element in the knowledge graph [¶ 0354] (using attribute relational graphs and by using similar signature searching with added/removed components) [¶ 0152, 162, 296, 301, 322-323] (remove containers, add them or join them together. Container handler 143 may create a modified version of the page which may include change or removal of components (and of containers in particular), as well as the re-rooting of components, e.g. re-assigning a component belonging to a container X so that it belongs to the parent page or to a different container Y).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the method of rendering multimedia data in Hamedi and the method of transforming data objects based on context in Zhu and the method of data transformation in Ben-Aharon, with a reasonable expectation of success.
The motivation for doing so would have been the use of known technique to improve similar devices (methods, or products) in the same way; (See KSR Int’l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 US 398, 82 USPQ2d 1385, 1396 (U.S. 2007) and MPEP § 2143(D)).
The know technique of knowledge graph manipulation in Ben-Aharon could be applied to the knowledge graph and formatting objects in Zhu and the vector graphics in directed acyclic graphs in Hamedi. Ben-Aharon, Hamedi and Zhu are similar devices because each pertain to knowledge graphs and formatting. One of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that applying the known technique would improve the similar devices and resulted in an improved system, with a reasonable expectation of success, for “improve accuracy with limited effect on the coverage” (Ben-Aharon: 0117).
Claims 9-19:
Claim(s) 15 is/are substantially similar to claims 1 and 4, and is/are rejected using the same art and the same rationale. Claim 15 contains the limitations of claim 1, Claim 15 also has elements relating to “breadth first traversal algorithm”, similar to claim 4. Claims 1 and 4 are “method” claims and claim 15 is a “system” claim, but the steps or elements of each claim are essentially the same.
Claim(s) 9, 16 is/are substantially similar to claim 2 and is/are rejected using the same art and the same rationale.
Claim(s) 10, 16 is/are substantially similar to claim 3 and is/are rejected using the same art and the same rationale.
Claim(s) 11 is/are substantially similar to claim 4 and is/are rejected using the same art and the same rationale.
Claim(s) 12, 18 is/are substantially similar to claim 5 and is/are rejected using the same art and the same rationale.
Claim(s) 13, 19 is/are substantially similar to claim 6 and is/are rejected using the same art and the same rationale.
Claim(s) 14 is/are substantially similar to claim 7 and is/are rejected using the same art and the same rationale.
Claim(s) 20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Zhu; Yibing et al. US Pub. No. 2019/0163339 (Zhu) in view of Abhyankar; Saurabh et al. US Pub. No. 2020/0250217 (Abhyankar) in view of Merrells; John US Pub. No. 2014/0280509 (Merrells) in view of Ben-Aharon; Roni et al. US Pub. No. 2022/0083523 (Ben-Aharon).
Claim 20:
Ben-Aharon teaches:
The system of claim 15, wherein the instructions that when executed by the processor, cause the processor to perform operations further including:
for each corresponding change to each related vector design element that conflicts with a different corresponding change, applying each corresponding change of a corresponding type of design relation with a higher priority [¶ 0108, 136, 392, 407, 498, 506] (display priority, conflicting sizes).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the method of transforming data objects based on context in Zhu and the method of data transformation in Ben-Aharon, with a reasonable expectation of success.
The motivation for doing so would have been the use of known technique to improve similar devices (methods, or products) in the same way; (See KSR Int’l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 US 398, 82 USPQ2d 1385, 1396 (U.S. 2007) and MPEP § 2143(D)).
The know technique of knowledge graph manipulation in Ben-Aharon could be applied to the knowledge graph and formatting objects in Zhu. Ben-Aharon and Zhu are similar devices because each pertain to knowledge graphs and formatting. One of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that applying the known technique would improve the similar devices and resulted in an improved system, with a reasonable expectation of success, for “improve accuracy with limited effect on the coverage” (Ben-Aharon: 0117).
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claim(s) 1-20 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 for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument.
Prior Art
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Please See PTO-892: Notice of References Cited.
Zyskowski; Jamie et al. US 10067950 Directed Acyclic Graph (DAG), vector graphics, editing nodes, deleting nodes, viewing inheritance, testing relationships.
Citations to Prior Art
A reference to specific paragraphs, columns, pages, or figures in a cited prior art reference is not limited to preferred embodiments or any specific examples. It is well settled that a prior art reference, in its entirety, must be considered for all that it expressly teaches and fairly suggests to one having ordinary skill in the art. Stated differently, a prior art disclosure reading on a limitation of Applicant's claim cannot be ignored on the ground that other embodiments disclosed were instead cited. Therefore, the Examiner's citation to a specific portion of a single prior art reference is not intended to exclusively dictate, but rather, to demonstrate an exemplary disclosure commensurate with the specific limitations being addressed. In re Heck, 699 F.2d 1331, 1332-33,216 USPQ 1038, 1039 (Fed. Cir. 1983) (quoting In re Lemelson, 397 F.2d 1006, 1009, 158 USPQ 275, 277 (CCPA 1968". In re: Upsher-Smith Labs. v. Pamlab, LLC, 412 F.3d 1319, 1323,75 USPQ2d 1213,1215 (Fed. Cir. 2005); In re Fritch, 972 F.2d 1260, 1264,23 USPQ2d 1780, 1782 (Fed. Cir. 1992); Merck & Co. v. Biocraft Labs., Inc., 874 F.2d 804, 807,10 USPQ2d 1843, 1846 (Fed. Cir. 1989); In re Fracalossi, 681 F.2d 792,794 n.1, 215 USPQ 569, 570 n.1 (CCPA 1982); In re Lamberti, 545 F.2d 747, 750, 192 USPQ 278, 280 (CCPA 1976); In re Bozek, 416 F.2d 1385,1390,163 USPQ 545, 549 (CCPA 1969).
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 BENJAMIN J SMITH whose telephone number is (571)270-3825. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 11:00 - 7:30 EST.
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, ADAM QUELER can be reached on (571) 272-4140. 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.
/Benjamin Smith/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2172 Direct Phone: 571-270-3825
Direct Fax: 571-270-4825
Email: benjamin.smith@uspto.gov