DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Election/Restrictions
Applicant’s election without traverse of claims 1-14 in the reply filed on 5/18/2026 is acknowledged.
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.
Claim(s) 1, 4, 5, 8, 21, 24 and 25 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable in view of the Applicant’s admitted prior art in view of Fuchs et al. (“Progressive imagery with scalable vector graphics”, URL: https://www.researchgate.net/publication/228568310_Progressive_imagery_with_scalable_vector_graphics).
Regarding claim 21, the Applicant’s disclosed conventional art teaches systems that download and render large digital vector files by incrementally downloading large files component by component (Applicant’s Specification: 0021-0023).
However, the conventional art does not expressly teach but Fuchs teaches a non-transitory computer readable medium storing executable instructions which, when executed by a processing device, cause the processing device to perform operations comprising:
Determining, in connection with accessing a digital vector file, one or more artboards corresponding to one or more portions of a canvas area within the digital vector file (the user interactively defining RoIs for prioritized image communication of vector graphics (Fuchs: Abstract));
Determining, for a selected artboard of the one or more artboards according to a download priority, a layer list comprising one or more components associated with the selected artboard (“the server dynamically traverses the SVG DOM to generate a sorted transmission queue of graphical primitives” (Fuchs: 3.3 Element-wise progression, para 4). “The determination of the progression order in which fragments of one type should be transmitted” (Fuchs: 3.2 Progression using linked files, para 6));
And retrieving, for display, the selected artboard with the one or more components indicated in the layer list by accessing the one or more components associated with the selected artboard according to the download priority (“Streaming of lower-prioritized fragments is either suspended until all higher-priority fragments have been completely transmitted” (Fuchs: 4. Implementation and Initial Results, para 10)).
Therefore, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to one of an ordinary skill in the art to modify the conventional art such as to transmit vector data in the manner taught by Fuchs, because this enables efficient transmission of data.
Regarding claim 24, the combined teachings teach the non-transitory computer readable medium of claim 21, wherein the operations further comprise determining the download priority by:
Selecting an initial artboard of the one or more artboards based on at least one of a capability of a client device corresponding to a digital image application, a network bandwidth, or cursor movements within the digital image application (Defining the RoI is accomplishes by a click-and-drag mouse gesture to specify a particular area (Fuchs: 4.Implementation and Initial Results, para 5));
Determining an artboard identification of the initial artboard; and assigning, utilizing the artboard identification, a high priority indicator to the initial artboard (the required step of assigning higher priority to the user selected area).
Regarding claim 25, the combined teachings teach the non-transitory computer readable medium of claim 21, wherein determining the layer list comprises extracting the layer list from a manifest corresponding to the digital vector file (prioritizes fragment requests in the order mandated by the meta-data manifest (Fuchs: 4.Implementation and Initial Results, para 10)).
Claim(s) 1, 4 and 5 are corresponding method claim(s) of claim(s) 21, 24 and 25 The limitations of claim(s) 1, 4 and 5are substantially similar to the limitations of claim(s) 21, 24 and 25. Therefore, it has been analyzed and rejected substantially similar to claim(s) 1, 4 and 5.
Regarding claim 8, the combined teachings teach the computer-implemented method of claim 1, further comprising:
Determining a cursor movement within the canvas area relative to an additional artboard within the digital vector file (As stated in the rejection claim 24, Fuchs teaches prioritizing a mouse gesture selecting an area to prioritized. The Examiner submits that the user may be able to select an area of any artboard);
Determining, in response to the cursor movement, an additional layer list comprising one or more additional components associated with the additional artboard (the required step of assigning higher priority to the user selected area).
and retrieving, for display within a digital image application, the additional artboard with the one or more additional components indicated in the additional layer list (the resulting transmission of the prioritized area).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 2, 3, 6, 7, 22, 23 and 26 are objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to David H Chu whose telephone number is (571)272-8079. The examiner can normally be reached M-F: 9:30 - 1:30pm, 3:30-8:30pm.
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, Daniel F Hajnik can be reached at (571) 272-7642. 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.
/DAVID H CHU/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2616
Prosecution Insights