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 .
Response to Amendment
This is in response to applicant’s amendment/response filed on 02/12/2026, which has been entered and made of record. Claims 1, 10, and 17 have been amended. No Claim has been cancelled. No Claim has been added. Claims 1-20 are pending in the application.
The amended claims 1, 10, and 17 invoke 35 USC §112(b) rejections. See the detailed analysis below.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 02/12/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
The amended claims 1, 10, and 17 invoke 35 USC §112(b) rejections. The meaning of the amended claim limitations are indefinite.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 1-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Where applicant acts as his or her own lexicographer to specifically define a term of a claim contrary to its ordinary meaning, the written description must clearly redefine the claim term and set forth the uncommon definition so as to put one reasonably skilled in the art on notice that the applicant intended to so redefine that claim term. Process Control Corp. v. HydReclaim Corp., 190 F.3d 1350, 1357, 52 USPQ2d 1029, 1033 (Fed. Cir. 1999). The term “the first radius” or “the second radius” in the amended independent claims 1, 10, and 17 is used by the claims to mean plural while the accepted meaning is singular. The term is indefinite because the specification does not clearly redefine the term. Amended independent claims 1, 10, and 17 recite the limitation “causing the first radius and the second radius to include the second distance from the center point.” It is not clear to the examiner how a radius (a singular) includes a distance.
Claims 2-9, 11-16, and 18-20 are rejected as being indefinite for the same reasons cited in the rejection of independent claim 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.
Claim(s) 1-2, 5-6, 10-11, and 17 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Leem (US 20190163353 A1).
Regarding Claim 1, Leem discloses A computer-implemented method (¶1 reciting “resizing of images with respect to a single point of convergence or divergence during zooming operations in a user interface.”) comprising:
detecting a user interaction for modifying a first radius of a first radial-repeat object portrayed within a digital design, wherein the first radial-repeat object comprises a first plurality of object instances positioned along a first circumference at the first radius; (Fig. 3 showing a display of images prior to a zoom in operation. ¶37 reciting “Images of a plurality of objects 302, 304, 306, 308 are displayed at a radial distance of r1 310 from the center 312 of the display screen 104.”, where r1 corresponds to the first radius. FIG. 4 showing a display of images of elements subsequent to a zoom in operation performed on the display of images shown in FIG. 3. ¶40 reciting “In response to the zoom in operation, the graphical user interface controlling application 114 reduces the size of the images of objects 302, 304, 306, 308 and moves them radially inwards towards the center 312”, where a zoom in operation corresponds to a user interaction for modifying the first radius r1.)
extracting a second radius of a second radial-repeat object portrayed within the digital design, wherein the second radial-repeat object comprises a second plurality of object instances positioned along a second circumference at the second radius; (Fig. 3 showing a second radial-repeat object 314, 316, 318, 320. ¶37 reciting “Images of a plurality of objects 314, 316, 318, 320 are displayed at a radial distance of r2 322 from the center 312 of the display screen 104.”, where r2 corresponds to the second radius.) and
modifying the digital design, in response to the user interaction, by modifying the first radial-repeat object to align the first radius of the first radial-repeat object with the second radius of the second radial-repeat object. (Figs. 4 and 6. ¶48 reciting “In response to a zoom in operation, objects are increased in size and moved radially from the concentric circle 606 to the concentric circle 604. Objects in concentric circle 604 are increased in size and moved radially to the concentric circle 602.”)
Regarding Claim 2, Leem discloses The computer-implemented method of claim 1, wherein extracting the second radius of the second radial-repeat object comprises:
logically rotating an object instance of the second radial-repeat object to an upright position directly above a center point of the second radial-repeat object; and
determining the second radius of the second radial-repeat object using a point of the object instance at the upright position above the center point of the second radial-repeat object.
(Fig. 5 showing data structures of an object at an upright position (polar angle = 90 degrees), where the polar radius is between the upright position and the center point as shown in Figs. 3 and 4.)
Regarding Claim 5, Leem discloses The computer-implemented method of claim 1, further comprising selecting the second radial-repeat object from a plurality of radial-repeat objects portrayed in the digital design in addition to the first radial-repeat object based on determining that the second radial-repeat object is concentric with the first radial-repeat object. (¶48 reciting “The images of the objects decrease in size as the distance of the objects from the center 608 increases. In response to a zoom in operation, objects are increased in size and moved radially from the concentric circle 606 to the concentric circle 604. Objects in concentric circle 604 are increased in size and moved radially to the concentric circle 602.”)
Regarding Claim 6, Leem discloses The computer-implemented method of claim 1, further comprising:
generating a list of radial-repeat objects portrayed in the digital design, the list of radial-repeat objects comprising the second radial-repeat object, and one or more additional radial-repeat objects; (Fig. 1 showing data structure 116 having a list of object 138. ¶26 reciting “The data structure 116 may store for each object displayed on the display screen 104, the position and size (as shown via reference numerals 138, 140, 142). In certain embodiments, the position may be stored in a polar coordinate system.” Fig. 6 showing a first radial-repeat object 602, a second radial-repeat object 604, one or more additional radial-repeat objects 606.)and
selecting, from the list of radial-repeat objects, the second radial-repeat object for alignment with the first radial-repeat object based on determining that the second radius is closer in length to the first radius compared to a radius of the one or more additional radial-repeat objects. ( FIGS. 3 and 4 illustrate certain embodiments in which images of objects are increased in size and moved radially inwards towards the center 312, in response to a zoom in operation requested by a user. In addition, ¶40 reciting “The graphical user interface controlling application 114 enlarges the size of the images of objects 314, 316, 318, 320 and moves them radially inwards towards the center 312 from radial distance r2 322 to radial distance r1 310 (as shown via reference numerals 402, 404, 406, 408).” Thus Leem teaches selecting the object with radius r2 as the second radial-repeat object for alignment with the first radial-repeat object.)
Regarding Claim 10, Leem discloses A system (¶5 reciting “a system”) comprising:
one or more memory devices; and one or more processors configured to cause the system to: (¶65 reciting “The computer program product may include a computer readable storage medium (or media) having computer readable program instructions thereon for causing a processor to carry out aspects of the present embodiments.”)
generate a list of radial-repeat objects portrayed within a digital design, wherein each radial-repeat object comprises a plurality of object instances positioned along a corresponding circumference at a radius; (Fig. 1 showing data structure 116 having a list of object 138. ¶26 reciting “The data structure 116 may store for each object displayed on the display screen 104, the position and size (as shown via reference numerals 138, 140, 142). In certain embodiments, the position may be stored in a polar coordinate system.”)
detect a user interaction for modifying a first radius of a first radial-repeat object from the list of radial-repeat objects;
determine an additional radius for one or more additional radial-repeat objects from the list of radial-repeat objects;
select a second radial-repeat object from the one or more additional radial-repeat objects based on a second radius of the second radial-repeat object and the first radius of the first radial-repeat object; and
modify the digital design, in response to the user interaction, by modifying the first radial-repeat object to align the first radius of the first radial-repeat object with the second radius of the second radial-repeat object.
(See Claim 1 rejections for detailed analysis.)
Regarding Claim 11, Leem discloses The system of claim 10, wherein the one or more processors are configured to cause the system to:
generate the list of radial-repeat objects by generating a mapping of each radial-repeat object portrayed within the digital design to a corresponding center point; (Fig. 5 showing data structures of an object of radial-repeat objects), where the polar radius is corresponding to the center point as shown in Figs. 3 and 4.) and
determine the additional radius for the one or more additional radial-repeat objects from the list of radial-repeat objects by determining the additional radius for the one or more additional radial-repeat objects based on determining that the mapping indicates that the one or more additional radial-repeat objects are concentric with the first radial-repeat object. (Fig. 1 showing the data structure 116 for a list of object 138 on concentric circles as shown in Figs. 1 and 6)
Regarding Claim 17, Leem discloses A non-transitory computer-readable medium storing executable instructions which, when executed by a processing device, cause the processing device to perform operations comprising: (¶65 reciting “The computer program product may include a computer readable storage medium (or media) having computer readable program instructions thereon for causing a processor to carry out aspects of the present embodiments.”)
determining, for a first radial-repeat object that is portrayed in a digital design and includes a first plurality of object instances positioned along a first circumference, a first radius corresponding to the first circumference by:
logically rotating an object instance of the first radial-repeat object to an upright position directly above a center point of the first radial-repeat object; and
determining the first radius using the object instance at the upright position and the center point of the first radial-repeat object;
(Fig. 5 showing data structures of an object at an upright position (polar angle = 90 degrees), where the polar radius is between the upright position and the center point as shown in Figs. 3 and 4.)
detecting a user interaction for modifying a second radius of a second radial-repeat object that is portrayed in the digital design and includes a second plurality of object instances positioned along a second circumference at the second radius; (Fig. 3 showing a display of images prior to a zoom in operation. ¶37 reciting “Images of a plurality of objects 302, 304, 306, 308 are displayed at a radial distance of r1 310 from the center 312 of the display screen 104.”, where r1 corresponds to the second radius. FIG. 4 showing a display of images of elements subsequent to a zoom in operation performed on the display of images shown in FIG. 3. ¶40 reciting “In response to the zoom in operation, the graphical user interface controlling application 114 reduces the size of the images of objects 302, 304, 306, 308 and moves them radially inwards towards the center 312”, where a zoom in operation corresponds to a user interaction for modifying the second radius r1.)and
modifying, in response to the user interaction, the digital design by modifying the second radial-repeat object to align the second radius of the second radial-repeat object with the first radius of the first radial-repeat object.
(Figs. 4 and 6. ¶48 reciting “In response to a zoom in operation, objects are increased in size and moved radially from the concentric circle 606 to the concentric circle 604. Objects in concentric circle 604 are increased in size and moved radially to the concentric circle 602.”)
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) 9 and 16 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Leem (US 20190163353 A1), and in view of Andersson et al. (US 20140267072 A1).
Regarding Claim 9, Leem discloses The computer-implemented method of claim 1.
However, Leem does not explicitly disclose further comprising, generating, for display within a graphical user interface of a client device displaying the digital design, a visual guide indicating that the first radius of the first radial-repeat object is aligned with the second radius of the second radial-repeat object.
Andersson teaches a user interface shown in Figs. 5A-C showing concentric circles 510, 515. Further ¶32 recites “the system does not display support lines on the touch-sensitive device and instead displays concentric circles representing the established distances between the anchor point and the baseline and helpline.”
It would have been obvious to one with ordinary skill, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify the device (taught by Leem) to display concentric circles as a visual guide indicating the first radius m and the second radius n are aligned (taught by Andersson). The suggestions/motivations would have been to apply a known technique to a known device (method, or product) ready for improvement to yield predictable results.
Regarding Claim 16, Leem in view of Andersson discloses The system of claim 10, wherein the one or more processors are further configured to cause the system to
generate, for display within a graphical user interface of a client device displaying the digital design, a visual guide that highlights the first radius of the first radial-repeat object and the second radius of the second radial-repeat object to indicate alignment of the first radius with the second radius.
(Andersson teaches a visual guide indicating concentric circles. The features of claim 16 appear to be mere design choices and a question of an obvious and consequently non-inventive selection among a number of known possibilities, depending on the circumstances.)
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 3, 4, 7, 8, 12-15, and 18-20 objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten to overcome the 112(b) rejection and in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matters:
Claim 3 is distinguished from the closest known prior art alone of in reasonable combination, in consideration of the claim and its base claim(s) as a whole, particularly the limits similar to:
“further comprising logically translating the second radial-repeat object from an initial position to an origin of the digital design,
wherein logically rotating the object instance of the second radial-repeat object to the upright position comprises logically rotating the object instance with the second radial-repeat object logically positioned at the origin of the digital design.”
Claim 4 depends from Claim 3 and therefore also contain allowable subject matter.
Claim 7 is distinguished from the closest known prior art alone of in reasonable combination, in consideration of the claim and its base claim(s) as a whole, particularly the limits similar to:
“wherein modifying the first radial-repeat object to align the first radius of the first radial-repeat object with the second radius of the second radial-repeat object comprises:
modifying the first radial-repeat object to align an outer radius of the first radial-repeat object with an outer radius of the second radial-repeat object; modifying the first radial-repeat object to align an inner radius of the first radial-repeat object with an inner radius of the second radial-repeat object; modifying the first radial-repeat object to align the inner radius of the first radial-repeat object with the outer radius of the second radial-repeat object; or modifying the first radial-repeat object to align the outer radius of the first radial-repeat object with the inner radius of the second radial-repeat object.”
Claim 8 is distinguished from the closest known prior art alone of in reasonable combination, in consideration of the claim and its base claim(s) as a whole, particularly the limits similar to:
“modifying the first radial-repeat object to align the first radius of the first radial-repeat object with the second radius of the second radial-repeat object comprises modifying the first radial-repeat object in response to determining that the first radius is within a threshold number of pixels from the second radius.”
Claim 12 is distinguished from the closest known prior art alone of in reasonable combination, in consideration of the claim and its base claim(s) as a whole, particularly the limits similar to:
“The system of claim 10, wherein the one or more processors are configured to cause the system to determine the additional radius for the one or more additional radial-repeat objects from the list of radial-repeat objects by: determining an inner radius for the one or more additional radial-repeat objects; and determining an outer radius for the one or more additional radial-repeat objects.”
Claims 13 depends from claim 12 directly or indirectly, and therefore also contain allowable subject matter.
Claim 14 is distinguished from the closest known prior art alone of in reasonable combination, in consideration of the claim and its base claim(s) as a whole, particularly the limits similar to:
“generate the list of radial-repeat objects portrayed within the digital design by including, within the list of radial-repeat objects, at least one radial-repeat object having a corresponding plurality of object instances positioned at positions other than an upright position directly above a center point of the at least one radial-repeat object; and determine the additional radius for the one or more additional radial-repeat objects by determining at least one additional radius for the at least one radial-repeat object based on logically rotating an object instance from the corresponding plurality of object instances to the upright position directly above the center point of the at least one radial-repeat object.”
Claims 15 depends from claim 14 directly or indirectly, and therefore also contain allowable subject matter.
Claim 18 is distinguished from the closest known prior art alone of in reasonable combination, in consideration of the claim and its base claim(s) as a whole, particularly the limits similar to:
“the operations further comprise determining an angular distance between the object instance at an initial position within the first radial-repeat object and a reference axis; and
logically rotating the object instance to the upright position directly above the center point of the first radial-repeat object comprises logically rotating the object instance based on the angular distance.”
Claim 19 is distinguished from the closest known prior art alone of in reasonable combination, in consideration of the claim and its base claim(s) as a whole, particularly the limits similar to:
“the operations further comprising receiving, from a client device displaying the digital design, user input indicating a threshold number of pixels to use in aligning radial-repeat objects; and modifying the second radial-repeat object to align the second radius of the second radial-repeat object with the first radius of the first radial-repeat object comprises modifying the second radial-repeat object in response to determining that the second radius is within the threshold number of pixels from the first radius.”
Claim 20 is distinguished from the closest known prior art alone of in reasonable combination, in consideration of the claim and its base claim(s) as a whole, particularly the limits similar to:
“determining the first radius using the object instance at the upright position and the center point of the first radial-repeat object comprises at least one of: determining an outer radius for the first radial-repeat object as a first distance between a first point of the object instance at an outer boundary of the first radial-repeat object and the center point of the first radial-repeat object; or determining an inner radius for the first radial-repeat object as a second distance between a second point of the object instance at an inner boundary of the first radial-repeat object and the center point of the first radial-repeat object.”
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 YI WANG whose telephone number is (571)272-6022. The examiner can normally be reached 9am - 5pm.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Jason Chan can be reached at (571)272-3022. 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.
/YI WANG/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2619
Prosecution Insights