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 .
DETAILED ACTION
This action is responsive to the amendment filed on 10/9/2025.
Claims 1-15 and 20-33 are pending in the case. Claims 1-15 have been amended. Claims 1, 20, and 30 are independent claims.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101
35 U.S.C. 101 reads as follows:
Whoever invents or discovers any new and useful process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter, or any new and useful improvement thereof, may obtain a patent therefor, subject to the conditions and requirements of this title.
Claims 1-15 and 20-33 rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
As to Independent claims 1, 20 and 30:
Step 1 Analysis: Is the claim to a process, machine, manufacture or composition of matter? See MPEP § 2106.03.
For claim 1, Yes, the claim is an article of manufacture.
For claim 20, Yes, the claim is a process.
For claim 30, Yes, the claim is a machine.
Step 2A Prong One Analysis: Do the claims recite an abstract idea, law of nature, or natural phenomenon? See MPEP § 2106.04(II)(A)(1).
Yes, the limitation “using a fixed font size, a zoom level, and a uniformity level to adjust text size of text in displayable content; and initiating display of the displayable content” recited in independent claims 1, 20, and 30 is the abstract idea of a mathematical relationship. See MPEP § 2106.04(a)(2)(I)(A).
Step 2A Prong Two Analysis: Does the claim recite additional elements that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application? See MPEP § 2106.04(d).
No, the limitations “non-transitory computer-readable medium storing instructions that when executed by at least one processor cause the at least one processor to execute operations, the operations comprising” recited in independent claim 1 and “a computing device comprising: at least a processor; a display; and a memory storing instructions” recited in claim 30 are an additional elements that amounts to adding the words “apply it” (or an equivalent) with the judicial exception, or merely uses a computer in its ordinary capacity as a tool to perform an existing process. See MPEP §§ 2106.04(d), 2106.05(f)(2).
Step 2B Analysis: Does the claim recite additional elements that amount to significantly more than the judicial exception? See MPEP § 2106.05.
No, the limitations “non-transitory computer-readable medium storing instructions that when executed by at least one processor cause the at least one processor to execute operations, the operations comprising” recited in independent claim 1 and “a computing device comprising: at least a processor; a display; and a memory storing instructions” recited in claim 30 are additional elements that amounts to adding the words “apply it” (or an equivalent) with the judicial exception, or merely uses a computer in its ordinary capacity as a tool to perform an existing process. See MPEP § 2106.05(f)(2).
As to claims 2, 21, and 31:
Step 1 Analysis: Is the claim to a process, machine, manufacture or composition of matter? See MPEP § 2106.03.
For claim 2, Yes, the claim is an article of manufacture.
For claim 21, Yes, the claim is a process.
For claim 31, Yes, the claim is a machine.
Step 2A Prong One Analysis: Do the claims recite an abstract idea, law of nature, or natural phenomenon? See MPEP § 2106.04(II)(A)(1).
Yes, the limitation “wherein the uniformity level causes non- linear scaling of the text relative to the fixed font size” is a continuation of the “using a fixed font size, a zoom level, and a uniformity level to adjust text size of text in displayable content; and initiating display of the displayable content” limitation identified as an abstract idea in the parent claims.
Step 2A Prong Two Analysis: Do the claims recite additional elements that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application? See MPEP § 2106.04(d).
No, all elements are part of the abstract idea as shown above.
Step 2B Analysis: Do the claims recite additional elements that amount to significantly more than the judicial exception? See MPEP § 2106.05.
No, all elements are part of the abstract idea as shown above.
As to claim 3:
Step 1 Analysis: Is the claim to a process, machine, manufacture or composition of matter? See MPEP § 2106.03.
Yes, the claim is an article of manufacture.
Step 2A Prong One Analysis: Does the claim recite an abstract idea, law of nature, or natural phenomenon? See MPEP § 2106.04(II)(A)(1).
Yes, the limitation “the uniformity level represents a smooth exponential decay that controls how quickly text with fonts larger than and smaller than the fixed font size scale in relation to the fixed font size” is a continuation of the “using a fixed font size, a zoom level, and a uniformity level to adjust text size of text in displayable content; and initiating display of the displayable content” limitation identified as an abstract idea in the parent claims.
Step 2A Prong Two Analysis: Does the claim recite additional elements that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application? See MPEP § 2106.04(d).
No, all elements are part of the abstract idea as shown above.
Step 2B Analysis: Does the claim recite additional elements that amount to significantly more than the judicial exception? See MPEP § 2106.05.
No, all elements are part of the abstract idea as shown above.
As to claim 4:
Step 1 Analysis: Is the claim to a process, machine, manufacture or composition of matter? See MPEP § 2106.03.
Yes, the claim is an article of manufacture.
Step 2A Prong One Analysis: Does the claim recite an abstract idea, law of nature, or natural phenomenon? See MPEP § 2106.04(II)(A)(1).
Yes, the limitation “providing a user interface element for receiving the uniformity level, wherein the user interface element is configured to set the uniformity level to a value between a range start value and a range end value, the range start value being dependent on the fixed font size or on a zoom scalar calculated from the zoom level” is a continuation of the “using a fixed font size, a zoom level, and a uniformity level to adjust text size of text in displayable content; and initiating display of the displayable content” limitation identified as an abstract idea in the parent claims.
Step 2A Prong Two Analysis: Does the claim recite additional elements that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application? See MPEP § 2106.04(d).
No, the limitation “providing a user interface element for receiving the uniformity level” is an additional element that amounts to adding the words “apply it” (or an equivalent) with the judicial exception, or mere instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer. See MPEP §§ 2106.04(d), 2106.05(f)(1).
Step 2B Analysis: Does the claim recite additional elements that amount to significantly more than the judicial exception? See MPEP § 2106.05.
No, the limitation “providing a user interface element for receiving the uniformity level” is an additional element that amounts to adding the words “apply it” (or an equivalent) with the judicial exception, or mere instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer. See MPEP § 2106.05(f)(1).
As to claim 5:
Step 1 Analysis: Is the claim to a process, machine, manufacture or composition of matter? See MPEP § 2106.03.
Yes, the claim is an article of manufacture.
Step 2A Prong One Analysis: Does the claim recite an abstract idea, law of nature, or natural phenomenon? See MPEP § 2106.04(II)(A)(1).
Yes, the limitation “storing a data structure that maps fixed font sizes to range start values” is a continuation of the “using a fixed font size, a zoom level, and a uniformity level to adjust text size of text in displayable content; and initiating display of the displayable content” limitation identified as an abstract idea in the parent claims.
Step 2A Prong Two Analysis: Does the claim recite additional elements that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application? See MPEP § 2106.04(d).
No, the limitation “storing a data structure that maps fixed font sizes to range start values” is an additional element that amounts to adding the words “apply it” (or an equivalent) with the judicial exception, or mere instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer. See MPEP §§ 2106.04(d), 2106.05(f)(1).
Step 2B Analysis: Does the claim recite additional elements that amount to significantly more than the judicial exception? See MPEP § 2106.05.
No, the limitation “storing a data structure that maps fixed font sizes to range start values” is an additional element that amounts to adding the words “apply it” (or an equivalent) with the judicial exception, or mere instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer. See MPEP § 2106.05(f)(1).
As to claim 6:
Step 1 Analysis: Is the claim to a process, machine, manufacture or composition of matter? See MPEP § 2106.03.
Yes, the claim is an article of manufacture.
Step 2A Prong One Analysis: Does the claim recite an abstract idea, law of nature, or natural phenomenon? See MPEP § 2106.04(II)(A)(1).
Yes, the limitation “storing a data structure that maps zoom levels to range start values, wherein the range start value is determined using the zoom level” is a continuation of the “using a fixed font size, a zoom level, and a uniformity level to adjust text size of text in displayable content; and initiating display of the displayable content” limitation identified as an abstract idea in the parent claims.
Step 2A Prong Two Analysis: Does the claim recite additional elements that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application? See MPEP § 2106.04(d).
No, the limitation “storing a data structure that maps zoom levels to range start values, wherein the range start value is determined using the zoom level” is an additional element that amounts to adding the words “apply it” (or an equivalent) with the judicial exception, or mere instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer. See MPEP §§ 2106.04(d), 2106.05(f)(1).
Step 2B Analysis: Does the claim recite additional elements that amount to significantly more than the judicial exception? See MPEP § 2106.05.
No, the limitation “storing a data structure that maps zoom levels to range start values, wherein the range start value is determined using the zoom level” is an additional element that amounts to adding the words “apply it” (or an equivalent) with the judicial exception, or mere instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer. See MPEP § 2106.05(f)(1).
As to claim 7:
Step 1 Analysis: Is the claim to a process, machine, manufacture or composition of matter? See MPEP § 2106.03.
Yes, the claim is an article of manufacture.
Step 2A Prong One Analysis: Does the claim recite an abstract idea, law of nature, or natural phenomenon? See MPEP § 2106.04(II)(A)(1).
Yes, the limitation “the user interface element is a first user interface element provided in a user interface, the user interface including a second user interface element for receiving the zoom level” is a continuation of the “using a fixed font size, a zoom level, and a uniformity level to adjust text size of text in displayable content; and initiating display of the displayable content” limitation identified as an abstract idea in the parent claims.
Step 2A Prong Two Analysis: Does the claim recite additional elements that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application? See MPEP § 2106.04(d).
No, the limitation “the user interface element is a first user interface element provided in a user interface, the user interface including a second user interface element for receiving the zoom level” is an additional element that amounts to adding the words “apply it” (or an equivalent) with the judicial exception, or mere instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer. See MPEP §§ 2106.04(d), 2106.05(f)(1).
Step 2B Analysis: Do the claims recite additional elements that amount to significantly more than the judicial exception? See MPEP § 2106.05.
No, the limitation “the user interface element is a first user interface element provided in a user interface, the user interface including a second user interface element for receiving the zoom level” is an additional element that amounts to adding the words “apply it” (or an equivalent) with the judicial exception, or mere instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer. See MPEP § 2106.05(f)(1).
As to claim 8 and 23:
Step 1 Analysis: Is the claim to a process, machine, manufacture or composition of matter? See MPEP § 2106.03.
For claim 8, Yes, the claim is an article of manufacture.
For claim 23, Yes, the claim is a process.
Step 2A Prong One Analysis: Do the claims recite an abstract idea, law of nature, or natural phenomenon? See MPEP § 2106.04(II)(A)(1).
Yes, the limitation “the user interface includes a reset control and the operations further include: receiving selection of the reset control; and responsive to receiving the selection, setting the uniformity level to the range start value and setting the zoom level to a default zoom level” is a continuation of the “using a fixed font size, a zoom level, and a uniformity level to adjust text size of text in displayable content; and initiating display of the displayable content” limitation identified as an abstract idea in the parent claims.
Step 2A Prong Two Analysis: Do the claims recite additional elements that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application? See MPEP § 2106.04(d).
No, the limitation “the user interface includes a reset control and the operations further include: receiving selection of the reset control; and responsive to receiving the selection, setting the uniformity level to the range start value and setting the zoom level to a default zoom level” is an additional element that amounts to adding the words “apply it” (or an equivalent) with the judicial exception, or mere instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer. See MPEP §§ 2106.04(d), 2106.05(f)(1).
Step 2B Analysis: Do the claims recite additional elements that amount to significantly more than the judicial exception? See MPEP § 2106.05.
No, the limitation “the user interface includes a reset control and the operations further include: receiving selection of the reset control; and responsive to receiving the selection, setting the uniformity level to the range start value and setting the zoom level to a default zoom level” is an additional element that amounts to adding the words “apply it” (or an equivalent) with the judicial exception, or mere instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer. See MPEP § 2106.05(f)(1).
As to claims 9, 24, and 32:
Step 1 Analysis: Is the claim to a process, machine, manufacture or composition of matter? See MPEP § 2106.03.
For claim 9, Yes, the claim is an article of manufacture.
For claim 24, Yes, the claim is a process.
For claim 32, Yes, the claim is a machine.
Step 2A Prong One Analysis: Do the claims recite an abstract idea, law of nature, or natural phenomenon? See MPEP § 2106.04(II)(A)(1).
Yes, the limitation “wherein adjusting the text size of the text in the displayable content further includes: determining that a portion of text of the text in the displayable content meets bolding criteria; and in response to the determining, adding a visual difference to the portion of text as part of adjusting the text size of text in the displayable content” is a continuation of the “using a fixed font size, a zoom level, and a uniformity level to adjust text size of text in displayable content; and initiating display of the displayable content” limitation identified as an abstract idea in the parent claims.
Step 2A Prong Two Analysis: Do the claims recite additional elements that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application? See MPEP § 2106.04(d).
No, all elements are part of the abstract idea as shown above.
Step 2B Analysis: Do the claims recite additional elements that amount to significantly more than the judicial exception? See MPEP § 2106.05.
No, all elements are part of the abstract idea as shown above.
As to claim 10:
Step 1 Analysis: Is the claim to a process, machine, manufacture or composition of matter? See MPEP § 2106.03.
Yes, the claim is an article of manufacture.
Step 2A Prong One Analysis: Does the claim recite an abstract idea, law of nature, or natural phenomenon? See MPEP § 2106.04(II)(A)(1).
Yes, the limitation “wherein the bolding criteria identifies text attributes assigned in markup language” is a continuation of the “using a fixed font size, a zoom level, and a uniformity level to adjust text size of text in displayable content; and initiating display of the displayable content” limitation identified as an abstract idea in the parent claims.
Step 2A Prong Two Analysis: Does the claim recite additional elements that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application? See MPEP § 2106.04(d).
No, all elements are part of the abstract idea as shown above.
Step 2B Analysis: Does the claim recite additional elements that amount to significantly more than the judicial exception? See MPEP § 2106.05.
No, all elements are part of the abstract idea as shown above.
As to claim 11:
Step 1 Analysis: Is the claim to a process, machine, manufacture or composition of matter? See MPEP § 2106.03.
Yes, the claim is an article of manufacture.
Step 2A Prong One Analysis: Does the claim recite an abstract idea, law of nature, or natural phenomenon? See MPEP § 2106.04(II)(A)(1).
Yes, the limitation “wherein the bolding criteria includes a ratio between a first value and a second value meeting a bold threshold, the first value representing a difference between an initial size of the portion of text and the fixed font size and the second value representing a difference between a current size of the portion of text and the fixed font size” is a continuation of the “using a fixed font size, a zoom level, and a uniformity level to adjust text size of text in displayable content; and initiating display of the displayable content” limitation identified as an abstract idea in the parent claims.
Step 2A Prong Two Analysis: Does the claim recite additional elements that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application? See MPEP § 2106.04(d).
No, all elements are part of the abstract idea as shown above.
Step 2B Analysis: Does the claim recite additional elements that amount to significantly more than the judicial exception? See MPEP § 2106.05.
No, all elements are part of the abstract idea as shown above.
As to claims 12 and 33:
Step 1 Analysis: Is the claim to a process, machine, manufacture or composition of matter? See MPEP § 2106.03.
For claim 12, Yes, the claim is an article of manufacture.
For claim 33, Yes, the claim is a machine.
Step 2A Prong One Analysis: Do the claims recite an abstract idea, law of nature, or natural phenomenon? See MPEP § 2106.04(II)(A)(1).
Yes, the limitation “wherein using the zoom level and the uniformity level to adjust the text size includes converting the zoom level to a zoom factor and using the zoom factor to determine a zoom scalar, the zoom scalar representing a difference between the zoom factor and a default zoom factor” is a continuation of the “using a fixed font size, a zoom level, and a uniformity level to adjust text size of text in displayable content; and initiating display of the displayable content” limitation identified as an abstract idea in the parent claims.
Step 2A Prong Two Analysis: Does the claim recite additional elements that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application? See MPEP § 2106.04(d).
No, all elements are part of the abstract idea as shown above.
Step 2B Analysis: Does the claim recite additional elements that amount to significantly more than the judicial exception? See MPEP § 2106.05.
No, all elements are part of the abstract idea as shown above.
As to claim 13:
Step 1 Analysis: Is the claim to a process, machine, manufacture or composition of matter? See MPEP § 2106.03.
For claim 13, Yes, the claim is an article of manufacture.
Step 2A Prong One Analysis: Do the claims recite an abstract idea, law of nature, or natural phenomenon? See MPEP § 2106.04(II)(A)(1).
Yes, the limitation “wherein the fixed font size is one of a selected font size, a normal font size represented in the displayable content, and a static font size” is a continuation of the “using a fixed font size, a zoom level, and a uniformity level to adjust text size of text in displayable content; and initiating display of the displayable content” limitation identified as an abstract idea in the parent claims.
Step 2A Prong Two Analysis: Does the claim recite additional elements that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application? See MPEP § 2106.04(d).
No, all elements are part of the abstract idea as shown above.
Step 2B Analysis: Does the claim recite additional elements that amount to significantly more than the judicial exception? See MPEP § 2106.05.
No, all elements are part of the abstract idea as shown above.
As to claims 14 and 25:
Step 1 Analysis: Is the claim to a process, machine, manufacture or composition of matter? See MPEP § 2106.03.
For claim 14, Yes, the claim is an article of manufacture.
For claim 23, Yes, the claim is a process.
Step 2A Prong One Analysis: Do the claims recite an abstract idea, law of nature, or natural phenomenon? See MPEP § 2106.04(II)(A)(1).
Yes, the limitation “wherein the zoom level is a page zoom level or an application zoom level, and the uniformity level is a page uniformity level or an application uniformity level” is a continuation of the “using a fixed font size, a zoom level, and a uniformity level to adjust text size of text in displayable content; and initiating display of the displayable content” limitation identified as an abstract idea in the parent claims.
Step 2A Prong Two Analysis: Does the claim recite additional elements that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application? See MPEP § 2106.04(d).
No, all elements are part of the abstract idea as shown above.
Step 2B Analysis: Does the claim recite additional elements that amount to significantly more than the judicial exception? See MPEP § 2106.05.
No, all elements are part of the abstract idea as shown above.
As to claim 15:
Step 1 Analysis: Is the claim to a process, machine, manufacture or composition of matter? See MPEP § 2106.03.
For claim 15, Yes, the claim is an article of manufacture.
Step 2A Prong One Analysis: Do the claims recite an abstract idea, law of nature, or natural phenomenon? See MPEP § 2106.04(II)(A)(1).
Yes, the limitation “wherein using the zoom level and the uniformity level to adjust the text size of text in the displayable content includes: ensuring that a size of first text in the displayable content, which is initially larger than second text in the displayable content, is larger than the size of the second text; and ensuring that a size of text at a first zoom level is not smaller than a size of the text at a second zoom level when the second zoom level is larger than the first zoom level” is a continuation of the “using a fixed font size, a zoom level, and a uniformity level to adjust text size of text in displayable content; and initiating display of the displayable content” limitation identified as an abstract idea in the parent claims.
Step 2A Prong Two Analysis: Does the claim recite additional elements that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application? See MPEP § 2106.04(d).
No, all elements are part of the abstract idea as shown above.
Step 2B Analysis: Does the claim recite additional elements that amount to significantly more than the judicial exception? See MPEP § 2106.05.
No, all elements are part of the abstract idea as shown above.
As to claim 22:
Step 1 Analysis: Is the claim to a process, machine, manufacture or composition of matter? See MPEP § 2106.03.
Yes, the claim is a process.
Step 2A Prong One Analysis: Do the claims recite an abstract idea, law of nature, or natural phenomenon? See MPEP § 2106.04(II)(A)(1).
Yes, the limitation “receiving, from a first user interface element, the uniformity level; and receiving, from a second user interface element, the zoom level, wherein the first user interface element is configured to set the uniformity level to a value between a range start value and a range end value, the range start value being dependent on the fixed font size or on a zoom scalar calculated from the zoom level” is a continuation of the “using a fixed font size, a zoom level, and a uniformity level to adjust text size of text in displayable content; and initiating display of the displayable content” limitation identified as an abstract idea in the parent claims.
Step 2A Prong Two Analysis: Does the claim recite additional elements that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application? See MPEP § 2106.04(d).
No, all elements are part of the abstract idea as shown above.
Step 2B Analysis: Does the claim recite additional elements that amount to significantly more than the judicial exception? See MPEP § 2106.05.
No, all elements are part of the abstract idea as shown above.
As to claim 26:
Step 1 Analysis: Is the claim to a process, machine, manufacture or composition of matter? See MPEP § 2106.03.
Yes, the claim is a process.
Step 2A Prong One Analysis: Do the claims recite an abstract idea, law of nature, or natural phenomenon? See MPEP § 2106.04(II)(A)(1).
Yes, the limitation “wherein the zoom level is a first zoom level and the uniformity level is a first uniformity level, the method further comprising:
initiating display of a scaling user interface that includes: a zoom level control for obtaining the zoom level, and a uniformity level control for obtaining the uniformity level, wherein the displayable content includes a preview area, the preview area including text of a first font size and text of a second font size” is a continuation of the “using a fixed font size, a zoom level, and a uniformity level to adjust text size of text in displayable content; and initiating display of the displayable content” limitation identified as an abstract idea in the parent claims.
Step 2A Prong Two Analysis: Does the claim recite additional elements that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application? See MPEP § 2106.04(d).
No, all elements are part of the abstract idea as shown above.
Step 2B Analysis: Does the claim recite additional elements that amount to significantly more than the judicial exception? See MPEP § 2106.05.
No, all elements are part of the abstract idea as shown above.
As to claim 27:
Step 1 Analysis: Is the claim to a process, machine, manufacture or composition of matter? See MPEP § 2106.03.
Yes, the claim is a process.
Step 2A Prong One Analysis: Do the claims recite an abstract idea, law of nature, or natural phenomenon? See MPEP § 2106.04(II)(A)(1).
Yes, the limitation “wherein the scaling user interface includes a reset control, the method further comprising: receiving selection of the reset control; and in response to receiving the selection, setting the zoom level to 100% and setting the uniformity level to a range start value” is a continuation of the “using a fixed font size, a zoom level, and a uniformity level to adjust text size of text in displayable content; and initiating display of the displayable content” limitation identified as an abstract idea in the parent claims.
Step 2A Prong Two Analysis: Do the claims recite additional elements that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application? See MPEP § 2106.04(d).
No, the limitation “the scaling user interface includes a reset control” is an additional element that amounts to adding the words “apply it” (or an equivalent) with the judicial exception, or mere instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer. See MPEP §§ 2106.04(d), 2106.05(f)(1).
Step 2B Analysis: Do the claims recite additional elements that amount to significantly more than the judicial exception? See MPEP § 2106.05.
No, the limitation “the scaling user interface includes a reset control” is an additional element that amounts to adding the words “apply it” (or an equivalent) with the judicial exception, or mere instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer. See MPEP § 2106.05(f)(1).
As to claim 28:
Step 1 Analysis: Is the claim to a process, machine, manufacture or composition of matter? See MPEP § 2106.03.
Yes, the claim is a process.
Step 2A Prong One Analysis: Do the claims recite an abstract idea, law of nature, or natural phenomenon? See MPEP § 2106.04(II)(A)(1).
Yes, the limitation “wherein the scaling user interface includes a bold control, the method further comprising: receiving selection of the bold control to turn on use of bolding criteria, wherein initiating display of the displayable content includes: determining whether the text of the second font size meets the bolding criteria, and in response to determining that the text of the second font size meets the bolding criteria, adding a visual difference to the text of the second font size” is a continuation of the “using a fixed font size, a zoom level, and a uniformity level to adjust text size of text in displayable content; and initiating display of the displayable content” limitation identified as an abstract idea in the parent claims.
Step 2A Prong Two Analysis: Do the claims recite additional elements that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application? See MPEP § 2106.04(d).
No, the limitation “wherein the scaling user interface includes a bold control” is an additional element that amounts to adding the words “apply it” (or an equivalent) with the judicial exception, or mere instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer. See MPEP §§ 2106.04(d), 2106.05(f)(1).
Step 2B Analysis: Do the claims recite additional elements that amount to significantly more than the judicial exception? See MPEP § 2106.05.
No, the limitation “wherein the scaling user interface includes a bold control” is an additional element that amounts to adding the words “apply it” (or an equivalent) with the judicial exception, or mere instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer. See MPEP § 2106.05(f)(1).
As to claim 29:
Step 1 Analysis: Is the claim to a process, machine, manufacture or composition of matter? See MPEP § 2106.03.
Yes, the claim is a process.
Step 2A Prong One Analysis: Do the claims recite an abstract idea, law of nature, or natural phenomenon? See MPEP § 2106.04(II)(A)(1).
Yes, the limitation “wherein the scaling user interface includes a spacing control, the method further comprising: receiving selection of the spacing control to turn on use of spacing criteria, wherein initiating display of the displayable content includes: determining whether the text of the second font size meets the spacing criteria, and in response to determining that the text of the second font size meets the spacing criteria, changing spacing of the text of the second font size” is a continuation of the “using a fixed font size, a zoom level, and a uniformity level to adjust text size of text in displayable content; and initiating display of the displayable content” limitation identified as an abstract idea in the parent claims.
Step 2A Prong Two Analysis: Do the claims recite additional elements that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application? See MPEP § 2106.04(d).
No, the limitation “wherein the scaling user interface includes a spacing control” is an additional element that amounts to adding the words “apply it” (or an equivalent) with the judicial exception, or mere instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer. See MPEP §§ 2106.04(d), 2106.05(f)(1).
Step 2B Analysis: Do the claims recite additional elements that amount to significantly more than the judicial exception? See MPEP § 2106.05.
No, the limitation wherein the scaling user interface includes a spacing control” is an additional element that amounts to adding the words “apply it” (or an equivalent) with the judicial exception, or mere instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer. See MPEP § 2106.05(f)(1).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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 (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) 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 the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 1-7, 12-15, 20-22, 25-26, 30-31, and 33 are rejected under AIA 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Khanahmadi, U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 20150143287 filed on 11/19/2013 (hereinafter Khanahmadi).
As for independent claim 1, Khanahmadi discloses method and a non-transitory computer-readable medium storing instructions that when executed by at least one processor cause the at least one processor to execute operations, the operations comprising:
(Khanahmadi paragraph [0039]-[0045] discloses computer readable memory storing instructions)
using a fixed font size, a zoom level, and a uniformity level to adjust text size of text in displayable content; and initiating display of the displayable content
(Khanahmadi paragraph [0002]-[0004], [0045]-[0049], [0058]-[0060] discloses content resizing component adjusting size of text, enlarging text, based on scaling factor where the text size of smaller text increases at a faster rate than the text size of larger text without the text with smaller original font size becoming larger than the text with larger original font size as shown in figs. 3A-3B).
As for claim 2, limitations of parent claim 1 have been discussed above. Khanahmadi discloses method, device, and a non-transitory computer-readable medium storing instructions that when executed by at least one processor cause the at least one processor to execute operations wherein
the uniformity level causes non- linear scaling of the text relative to the fixed font size
(Khanahmadi paragraph [0002]-[0004], [0045]-[0049], [0058]-[0060] discloses non-linear scaling factor causes the text size of smaller text increases at a faster rate than the text size of larger text without the text with smaller original font size becoming larger than the text with larger original font size as shown in figs. 3A-3B).
As for claim 3, limitations of parent claim 1 have been discussed above. Khanahmadi discloses method, device, and a computer-readable medium storing instructions that when executed by at least one processor cause the at least one processor to execute operations wherein
the uniformity level represents a smooth exponential decay that controls how quickly text with fonts larger than and smaller than the fixed font size scale in relation to the fixed font size
(Khanahmadi paragraph [0048], [0055]-[0057], [0080] discloses uniformity level, scaling factor, represents exponential decay, changing rate of enlarging and reducing text size proportional to its original size based on scaling factor as shown in graph 200 in fig. 2).
As for claim 4, limitations of parent claim 1 have been discussed above. Khanahmadi discloses method, device, and a non-transitory computer-readable medium storing instructions that when executed by at least one processor cause the at least one processor to execute operations comprising
providing a user interface element for receiving the uniformity level, wherein the user interface element is configured to set the uniformity level to a value between a range start value and a range end value, the range start value being dependent on the fixed font size or on a zoom scalar calculated from the zoom level
(Khanahmadi paragraph [0002]-[0004], [0045]-[0049], [0058]-[0060], [0071] scaling factor component 118 shown as bar 604 in fig. 6 can receive user input to adjust scaling factor start with value 1 being text at original font size).
As for claim 5, limitations of parent claim 4 have been discussed above. Khanahmadi discloses method, device, and a non-transitory computer-readable medium storing instructions that when executed by at least one processor cause the at least one processor to execute operations comprising
storing a data structure that maps fixed font sizes to range start values
(Khanahmadi paragraph [0008], [0054]-[0057], [0069] discloses data structure, memory and API that includes function, to receive and store original size of content including text with fixed font size such as 10 or 40 that is mapped to scale factor value of 1).
As for claim 6, limitations of parent claim 4 have been discussed above. Khanahmadi discloses method, device, and a non-transitory computer-readable medium storing instructions that when executed by at least one processor cause the at least one processor to execute operations comprising
storing a data structure that maps zoom levels to range start values, wherein the range start value is determined using the zoom level
(Khanahmadi paragraph [0008], [0045], [0047], [0054]-[0057], [0069] discloses data structure, memory and API that includes function, to receive and store original size of content including text with fixed font size such as 10 or 40 that is mapped to zoom level 1 start value before texts are resized).
As for claim 7, limitations of parent claim 1 have been discussed above. Khanahmadi discloses method, device, and a non-transitory computer-readable medium storing instructions that when executed by at least one processor cause the at least one processor to execute operations wherein
the user interface element is a first user interface element provided in a user interface, the user interface including a second user interface element for receiving the zoom level
(Khanahmadi paragraph [0004], [0045], [0047], [0071] discloses first user interface element, scaling factor component 118 and a second user interface element, resizing component 114).
As for claim 12, limitations of parent claim 9 have been discussed above. Khanahmadi discloses method, device, and a non-transitory computer-readable medium storing instructions that when executed by at least one processor cause the at least one processor to execute operations comprising
using the zoom level and the uniformity level to adjust the text size
(Khanahmadi paragraph [0002]-[0004], [0045]-[0049], [0058]-[0060] discloses content resizing component adjusting size of text, enlarging text, based on scaling factor where the text size of smaller text increases at a faster rate than the text size of larger text without the text with smaller original font size becoming larger than the text with larger original font size as shown in figs. 3A-3B)
converting the zoom level to a zoom factor and using the zoom factor to determine a zoom scalar, the zoom scalar representing a difference between the zoom factor and a default zoom factor
(Khanahmadi paragraph [0011]-[0012], [0050]-[0060], [0073] discloses enlarging content based on scale factor and zoom factor, user can input zooming amount to change size of content from original size to a second size; Khanahmadi paragraph [0004], [0045], [0047], [0071] discloses first user interface element, scaling factor component 118 and a second user interface element, resizing component 114 for enlarging or reducing size of content).
As for claim 13, limitations of parent claim 1 have been discussed above. Khanahmadi discloses method, device, and a non-transitory computer-readable medium storing instructions that when executed by at least one processor cause the at least one processor to execute operations wherein
the fixed font size is one of a selected font size, a normal font size represented in the displayable content, and a static font size
(Khanahmadi paragraph [0049], [0054], [0055], [0057], [0067] discloses fixed font size is normal font size originally received such as font size 12 without size adjustment).
As for claim 14, limitations of parent claim 1 have been discussed above. Khanahmadi discloses method, device, and a non-transitory computer-readable medium storing instructions that when executed by at least one processor cause the at least one processor to execute operations wherein
the zoom level is a page zoom level or an application zoom level, and the uniformity level is a page uniformity level or an application uniformity level
(Khanahmadi paragraph [0004], [0045], [0047], [0071] discloses first user interface element, scaling factor component 118 and a second user interface element, resizing component 114 for enlarging or reducing size of content; Khanahmadi paragraph [0062]-[0064] discloses applying zoom and resizing is application zoom level, Figs. 4A-4C shows zoom applied to contact application and figs. 5A-5C shows zoom applied to e-mail application).
As for claim 15, limitations of parent claim 1 have been discussed above. Khanahmadi discloses method, device, and a non-transitory computer-readable medium storing instructions that when executed by at least one processor cause the at least one processor to execute operations wherein
using the zoom level and the uniformity level to adjust the text size of text in the displayable content includes: ensuring that a size of first text in the displayable content, which is initially larger than second text in the displayable content, is larger than the size of the second text; and ensuring that a size of text at a first zoom level is not smaller than a size of the text at a second zoom level when the second zoom level is larger than the first zoom level
(Khanahmadi paragraph [0002]-[0004], [0045]-[0049], [0058]-[0060] discloses when texts are enlarged, the enlarged text size of text that was originally smaller will always be smaller than the size of the text that was originally larger, an original font size of 12 will always be smaller than a text item having an original font size of 13, 14, 15 or greater, regardless of the amount of enlargement that is applied to each).
As for claim 20, claim 20 reflects the method comprising computer executable instructions for implementing the article of manufacture comprising computer executable instructions as claimed in claim 1, and is rejected along the same rationale.
As for claim 21, limitations of parent claim 20 have been discussed above. Claim 21 reflects the method comprising computer executable instructions for implementing the article of manufacture as claimed in claim 2, and is rejected along the same rationale.
As for claim 22, limitations of parent claim 20 have been discussed above. Claim 22 reflects the method comprising computer executable instructions for implementing the article of manufacture as claimed in claims 4 and 7, and is rejected along the same rationale.
As for claim 25, limitations of parent claim 20 have been discussed above. Claim 25 reflects the method comprising computer executable instructions for implementing the article of manufacture as claimed in claim 14, and is rejected along the same rationale.
As for claim 26, limitations of parent claim 20 have been discussed above. Khanahmadi discloses device and method wherein the zoom level is a first zoom level and the uniformity level is a first uniformity level, the method further comprising:
(Khanahmadi paragraph [0004], [0045], [0047], [0058]-[0060], [0071] discloses first user interface element, scaling factor component 118 and a second user interface element, zoom level control, resizing component 114, that can start at a start level with no zoom as shown in 3A)
initiating display of a scaling user interface that includes: a zoom level control for obtaining the zoom level, and a uniformity level control for obtaining the uniformity level,
(Khanahmadi paragraph [0004], [0045], [0047], [0071] discloses first user interface element, scaling factor component 118 and a second user interface element, zoom level control, resizing component 114, that can be rendered to be displayed)
wherein the displayable content includes a preview area, the preview area including text of a first font size and text of a second font size
(Khanahmadi paragraph [0004], [0045], [0047], [0071] discloses preview window 606 as shown in fig. 6 that displays different text sizes with different scaling factors).
As for claim 30, claim 30 reflects article of manufacture comprising computer executable instructions for implementing reflects article of manufacture comprising computer executable instructions in claim 1 and is rejected along the same rationale.
As for claim 31, limitations of parent claim 30 have been discussed above. Claim 31 reflects article of manufacture comprising computer executable instructions for implementing reflects article of manufacture comprising computer executable instructions in claim 2 and is rejected along the same rationale.
As for claim 33, limitations of parent claim 30 have been discussed above. Claim 33 reflects article of manufacture comprising computer executable instructions for implementing reflects article of manufacture comprising computer executable instructions in claim 2 and is rejected along the same rationale.
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 (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) 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 8, 23 and 27 are rejected under AIA 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Khanahmadi, U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 20150143287 filed on 11/19/2013 (hereinafter Khanahmadi) in view of Teeple, U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 20160308898, filed on 4/20/2016 (hereinafter Teeple).
As for claim 8, limitations of parent claim 7 have been discussed above. Khanahmadi discloses method, device, and a non-transitory computer-readable medium storing instructions that when executed by at least one processor cause the at least one processor to execute operations comprising
receiving selection of controls; and responsive to receiving the selections setting the uniformity level to the range start value and setting the zoom level to a default zoom level
(Khanahmadi paragraph [0004], [0045], [0047], [0071] discloses first user interface element, scaling factor component 118 and a second user interface element, resizing component 114 for enlarging or reducing size of content, user can use the components to set the zoom level to default and to reset the uniformity level to the start value).
Khanahmadi does not appear to explicitly disclose method, device, and a non-transitory computer-readable medium storing instructions that when executed by at least one processor cause the at least one processor to execute operations wherein the user interface includes a reset control and the operations further include: receiving selection of the reset control; and responsive to receiving the selection, setting the uniformity level to the range start value and setting the zoom level to a default zoom level.
However, Teeple discloses method and device wherein
the user interface includes a reset control and the operations further include: receiving selection of the reset control; and responsive to receiving the selection, setting the values to default values
(Teeple paragraph [0090] discloses selecting reset button in fig. 7A clears any zoom function performed).
Accordingly, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to combine Teeple’s device and method wherein
the user interface includes a reset control and the operations further include: receiving selection of the reset control; and responsive to receiving the selection, setting the values to default values with Khanahmadi’s device and the method comprising receiving selection of controls; and responsive to receiving the selections setting the uniformity level to the range start value and setting the zoom level to a default zoom level for a device and method wherein the user interface includes a reset control and the operations further include: receiving selection of the reset control; and responsive to receiving the selection, setting the uniformity level to the range start value and setting the zoom level to a default zoom level.
One would have been motivated to make such a combination for the benefit of having a easy and simple way to revert back to original interface setting by using a single input.
As for claim 23, limitations of parent claim 22 have been discussed above. Claim 23 reflects the method comprising computer executable instructions for implementing the article of manufacture as claimed in claim 8, and is rejected along the same rationale.
As for claim 27, limitations of parent claim 26 have been discussed above. Khanahmadi discloses device and method comprising
receiving selection of the controls; and in response to receiving the selection, setting the zoom level to 100% and setting the uniformity level to a range start value
(Khanahmadi paragraph [0004], [0045], [0047], [0071] discloses first user interface element, scaling factor component 118 and a second user interface element, resizing component 114 for enlarging or reducing size of content, user can use the components to set the zoom level to 100% and to reset the uniformity level to the start value).
Khanahmadi does not appear to explicitly disclose device and method wherein the scaling user interface includes a reset control, the method further comprising: receiving selection of the reset control; and in response to receiving the selection, setting the zoom level to 100% and setting the uniformity level to a range start value. However, Teeple discloses device and method wherein
the user interface includes a reset control and the operations further include: receiving selection of the reset control; and responsive to receiving the selection, setting the values to default values
(Teeple paragraph [0090] discloses selecting reset button in fig. 7A clears any zoom function performed).
Accordingly, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to combine Teeple’s device and method wherein the user interface includes a reset control and the operations further include: receiving selection of the reset control; and responsive to receiving the selection, setting the values to default values with Khanahmadi’s device and method comprising receiving selection of the controls; and in response to receiving the selection, setting the zoom level to 100% and setting the uniformity level to a range start value for a device and method wherein the user interface includes a reset control and the operations further include: receiving selection of the reset control; and responsive to receiving the selection, setting the uniformity level to the range start value and setting the zoom level to a default zoom level.
One would have been motivated to make such a combination for the benefit of having an easy and simple way to revert back to original interface setting by using a single input.
Claims 9, 24, and 32 are rejected under AIA 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Khanahmadi, U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 20150143287 filed on 11/19/2013 (hereinafter Khanahmadi) in view of Paul et al., U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 20220337741, filed on 9/24/2021 (hereinafter Paul).
As for claim 9, limitations of parent claim 1 have been discussed above. Paul discloses method, device, and a non-transitory computer-readable medium storing instructions that when executed by at least one processor cause the at least one processor to execute operations wherein
adjusting the text size of the text in the displayable content further includes: determining that a portion of text of the text in the displayable content meets bolding criteria; and in response to the determining, adding a visual difference to the portion of text as part of adjusting the text size of text in the displayable content
(Paul paragraph [0239]-[0240], [0243] discloses adjusting texts size from size shown in fig. 6B to text size shown in fig. 6C and bolding texts when set of prominence criteria is satisfied).
Accordingly, it would have been obvious to person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine Paul with Khananhmadi for the benefit of being able to emphasize display of text such that it is easier for a user to view the text.
As for claim 24, limitations of parent claim 20 have been discussed above. Claim 24 reflects the method comprising computer executable instructions for implementing the article of manufacture as claimed in claim 9, and is rejected along the same rationale.
As for claim 32, limitations of parent claim 30 have been discussed above. Claim 32 reflects article of manufacture comprising computer executable instructions for implementing reflects article of manufacture comprising computer executable instructions in claim 9 and is rejected along the same rationale.
Claim 10 is rejected under AIA 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Khanahmadi in view of Paul in view of Gollamudi et al., U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 20240419886, effectively filed on 6/13/2023 (hereinafter Gollamudi).
As for claim 10, limitations of parent claim 9 have been discussed above. Paul discloses method, device, and a non-transitory computer-readable medium storing instructions that when executed by at least one processor cause the at least one processor to execute operations comprising
the bolding criteria
(Paul paragraph [0239]-[0240], [0243] discloses bolding criteria, prominence criteria where text is enhance when bolding criteria is met).
Accordingly, it would have been obvious to person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine Paul with Khananhmadi for the benefit of being able to emphasize display of text such that it is easier for a user to view the text.
Khanahmadi does not appear to explicitly disclose method, device, and a non-transitory computer-readable medium storing instructions that when executed by at least one processor cause the at least one processor to execute operations comprising identifying text attributes assigned in markup language. However, Gollamudi discloses method, device, and a non-transitory computer-readable medium storing instructions that when executed by at least one processor cause the at least one processor to execute operations comprising
identifying text attributes assigned in markup language
(Gollamudi paragraph [0037]-[0043] discloses text attribute such as header classification indicator 114 in markup language).
Accordingly, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to combine Gollamudi’s device and method comprising identifying text attributes assigned in markup language with Paul’s device and method comprising the bolding criteria for a device and method comprising the bolding criteria identifies text attributes assigned in markup language. One would have been motivated to make such a combination for the benefit of being able to use different criteria to enhance visual attributes of text for easier recognition by users.
Claim 11 is rejected under AIA 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Khanahmadi in view of Paul in view of Sala et al., U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 20140361971, effectively filed on 6/13/2023 (hereinafter Sala).
As for claim 11, limitations of parent claim 9 have been discussed above. Khanahmadi discloses method, device, and a non-transitory computer-readable medium storing instructions that when executed by at least one processor cause the at least one processor to execute operations wherein a ratio between a first value and a second value, the first value representing a difference between an initial size of the portion of text and the fixed font size and the second value representing a difference between a current size of the portion of text and the fixed font size
(Khanahmadi paragraph [0002]-[0004], [0045]-[0049], [0058]-[0060] discloses content resizing component adjusting size of text from an initial size to current size as shown in figs. 3A-3B, the difference between first and second text size have a ratio).
Khanahmadi does not appear to explicitly disclose method, device, and a non-transitory computer-readable medium storing instructions that when executed by at least one processor cause the at least one processor to execute operations comprising bolding criteria. Howerver, Paul discloses method, device, and a non-transitory computer-readable medium storing instructions that when executed by at least one processor cause the at least one processor to execute operations comprising
bolding criteria
(Paul paragraph [0239]-[0240], [0243] discloses bolding criteria, prominence criteria where text is enhance when bolding criteria is met).
Accordingly, it would have been obvious to person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine Paul with Khananhmadi for the benefit of being able to emphasize display of text such that it is easier for a user to view the text.
Khanahmadi does not appear to explicitly disclose method, device, and a non-transitory computer-readable medium storing instructions that when executed by at least one processor cause the at least one processor to execute operations wherein
the bolding criteria includes a ratio between a first value and a second value meeting a bold threshold. However, Sala discloses method, device, and a non-transitory computer-readable medium storing instructions that when executed by at least one processor cause the at least one processor to execute operations comprising
the bolding criteria being a text size value threshold
(Sala paragraph [0023]-[0025] disclose text enhancement criteria includes when font size that is smaller than a threshold).
Accordingly, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to combine Sala’s device and method comprising the bolding criteria being a text size value threshold with Paul’s device and method comprising bolding criteria and Khanamadi’s device and method wherein a ratio between a first value and a second value, the first value representing a difference between an initial size of the portion of text and the fixed font size and the second value representing a difference between a current size of the portion of text and the fixed font size for a device and method wherein the bolding criteria includes a ratio between a first value and a second value meeting a bold threshold, the first value representing a difference between an initial size of the portion of text and the fixed font size and the second value representing a difference between a current size of the portion of text and the fixed font size.
One would have been motivated to make such a combination for the benefit of having a system that enables “increase perceptibility with respect to the original form of the words”, (Sala [0025]).
Claim 28 is rejected under AIA 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Khanahmadi in view of Gollamudi in view of Sala et al., U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 20140361971, effectively filed on 6/13/2023 (hereinafter Sala).
As for claim 28, limitations of parent claim 26 have been discussed above. Khanahmadi discloses device and method comprising
the text of the second font size
(Khanahmadi paragraph [0002]-[0004], [0045]-[0049], [0058]-[0060] discloses content resizing component adjusting size of text from an initial size to current size as shown in figs. 3A-3B, such that texts have second font size).
Khanahmadi does not appear to explicitly disclose device and method wherein the scaling user interface includes a bold control, the method further comprising: receiving selection of the bold control to turn on use of bolding. However, Gollamudi discloses device and method wherein
the scaling user interface includes a bold control, the method further comprising: receiving selection of the bold control to turn on use of bolding
(Gollamudi paragraph [0112] discloses interface including bold control 314a that can be used to bold texts).
Accordingly, it would have been obvious to person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine Gollamudi with Khananhmadi for the benefit of being able to emphasize display of text such that it is easier for a user to view the text.
Khanahmadi does not appear to explicitly disclose device and method comprising in response to determining that the text of the second font size meets the bolding criteria, adding a visual difference to the text of the second font size. However, Sala discloses device and method comprising
in response to determining that the text of the font size meets the bolding criteria, adding a visual difference to the text of the font size
(Sala paragraph [0023]-[0025] disclose text enhancement criteria includes when font size that is smaller than a threshold).
Accordingly, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to combine Sala’s device and method comprising in response to determining that the text of the font size meets the bolding criteria, adding a visual difference to the text of the font size with Gollamudi’s device and method wherein the scaling user interface includes a bold control, the method further comprising: receiving selection of the bold control to turn on use of bolding with Khanahmadi’s device and method comprising the text of the second font size for a device and method wherein the scaling user interface includes a bold control, the method further comprising: receiving selection of the bold control to turn on use of bolding criteria, wherein initiating display of the displayable content includes: determining whether the text of the second font size meets the bolding criteria, and in response to determining that the text of the second font size meets the bolding criteria, adding a visual difference to the text of the second font size.
One would have been motivated to make such a combination for the benefit of having a system that enables “increase perceptibility with respect to the original form of the words”, (Sala [0025]).
Claim 29 is rejected under AIA 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Khanahmadi in view of Gollamudi in view of Pereira et al., U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 20140361971, effectively filed on 6/13/2023 (hereinafter Pereira).
As for claim 29, limitations of parent claim 26 have been discussed above. Khanahmadi discloses device and method wherein the scaling user interface includes a control
(Khanahmadi paragraph [0004], [0045], [0047], [0071] discloses first user interface element, scaling factor component 118 and a second user interface element, zoom level control, resizing component 114, that can be rendered to be displayed) and
text having a second font size
(Khanahmadi paragraph [0002]-[0004], [0045]-[0049], [0058]-[0060] discloses content resizing component adjusting size of text from an initial size to current size as shown in figs. 3A-3B, such that texts have second font size).
Gollamudi discloses device and method wherein the user interface includes a control, the method further comprising: receiving selection of the control to turn on use of a criteria, wherein initiating display of the displayable content includes:
(Gollamudi paragraph [0112] discloses interface including controls 312 that can be used to turn on various attributes).
Khanahmadi does not appear to explicitly discloses device and method comprising determining whether the text of the second font size meets the spacing criteria, and in response to determining that the text of the second font size meets the spacing criteria, changing spacing of the text of the second font size. However, Pereira discloses device and method comprising
determining whether the text of the font size meets the spacing criteria, and in response to determining that the text of the second font size meets the spacing criteria, changing spacing of the text of the font size
(Pereira paragraph [0025] discloses changing font size changes spacing based on character attribute).
Accordingly, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to combine Pereira’s device and method comprising determining whether the text of the font size meets the spacing criteria, and in response to determining that the text of the second font size meets the spacing criteria, changing spacing of the text of the font size with Gollamudi’s device and method wherein the user interface includes a control, the method further comprising: receiving selection of the control to turn on use of a criteria, wherein initiating display of the displayable content with Khanahmadi’s device and method wherein the scaling user interface includes a control and text having a second font size for a device and method wherein the scaling user interface includes a spacing control, the method further comprising: receiving selection of the spacing control to turn on use of spacing criteria, wherein initiating display of the displayable content includes: determining whether the text of the second font size meets the spacing criteria, and in response to determining that the text of the second font size meets the spacing criteria, changing spacing of the text of the second font size.
One would have been motivated to make such a combination for the benefit of having a system that changes how texts are displayed to enhance visibility of the content so that it is easier for user to see.
Response to Arguments
The 35 USC 101 rejection of claims 1-15 as being directed to signals per se is withdrawn in view of applicant’s amendments.
Applicant's arguments filed 10/9/2025 with respect to the 101 abstract idea rejection of the claims have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant argues at p.9 of applicant’s remarks that the recited claim features are not directed to a mathematical relationship and are therefore not directed to an abstract idea.
The examiner respectfully disagrees. The claims recite “using a fixed font size, a zoom level, and a uniformity level to adjust text size of text in displayable content; and initiating display of the displayable content.” These steps involve mathematical relationships and calculations. Adjusting text size using variables (i.e. fixed font size, zoom level, uniformity level) requires calculating and determining text size based on specified parameters. The claims are therefore fundamentally mathematical and are directed to an abstract idea.
The examiner notes that the instant claims differ from Example 37 of the 2019 Guidance as claim 2 of the example was found not to recite any judicial exception, whereas the instant claims do indeed recite a judicial exception, as explained above.
In response to applicant’s argument referencing the 2025 Memorandum, the examiner asserts that the instant claims do indeed include mathematical relationships, even if not explicitly written as formulas or equations. As explained above, using a fixed font size, zoom level, and uniformity level to adjust text size describes a mathematical relationship, as it requires determining the output (adjusted text size) from inputs (font size, zoom level, uniformity level). Please see MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(I).
In response to applicant’s argument that claim 1 integrates the alleged abstract idea into a practical application, the examiner respectfully disagrees and asserts that the claims themselves do not reflect a specific technological improvement or a particular solution rooted in computer technology. Rather, they broadly recite adjusting text size using various parameters and displaying the result.
The examiner notes that Applicant’s reliance on Example 23 of the 2016 Guidance is not persuasive because the instant claims do not reflect a specific technological solution or ordered combination that improves computer functionality. The present claims broadly recite that text size is adjusted using certain parameters, but do not provide any specificity as to how the text size adjustment is performed or how the display is improved.
Applicant's arguments filed 10/9/2025 with respect to the prior art rejections of the claims have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant argues at p.12 of applicant’s remarks that in Khanahmadi does not teach or suggest the use of a zoom level and a uniformity level to adjust the text size and that it is improper to rely on the scale factor as teaching both the claimed zoom level and the claimed uniformity level.
The examiner respectfully disagrees. The courts have held that a single structure or parameter in the prior art can satisfy multiple claim limitations if it performs all the recited functions (Intel Corp. v. U.S. Int’l Trade Comm’n, 946 F.2d 821, 832 (Fed. Cir. 1991); In re Kelley, 305 F.2d 909, 916 (C.C.P.A. 1962)). In this case, Khanahmadi’s scale factor performs the functions of both a zoom level and a uniformity level as claimed. Khanahmadi describes a scale factor that affects zoom and also achieves uniformity and therefore discloses both claim elements. The broadest reasonable interpretation of the claim language does not preclude this interpretation.
With respect to claim 4, the examiner respectfully disagrees with applicant’s argument for the same reasons explained above.
Conclusion
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. 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 Kavita Stanley whose telephone number is (571)272-8352. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 9:30am-6pm.
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, Cordelia (Dede) Zecher can be reached at 571-272-7771. 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.
/KAVITA STANLEY/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2153