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 .
This office action is in response to the Request for Continued Examination filed on 23 April 2026.
This office action is made Non Final.
Claims 1-3, 5-6, 8, 10, 12-14, 16-17, 19-21 have been amended.
Claims 4, 15, and 22 have been cancelled.
Claims 23-25 have been added.
The objection to the specification and all art rejections from the previous office action have been withdrawn as neccessited by the amendment.
Claims 1-3, 5-8, 10, 12-14, 16-21, and 23-25 are pending. Claims 1, 10, and 12 are independent claims.
Specification
The amendment to the abstract filed on 4/23/26 has been entered and accepted.
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, 10, 12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being incomplete for omitting essential steps, such omission amounting to a gap between the steps. See MPEP § 2172.01. The omitted steps are:
determining the plurality of content units from the content to be typeset based on a content unit indication field in the content to be typeset; and for the each content unit of the plurality of content units, in a case that a content form of the each content unit is text, determining the respective text elements in the each content unit and the element types of the respective text elements. Amended claim 1 discloses determining a horizontal placeholder size and vertical placeholder size of the respective text elements for each content unit in a plurality of content units during the typesetting the content and the style setting information; however, failed to disclose the subject matter of determining the plurality of content units from the content to be typeset based on a content unit indication field in the content to be typeset and for each content unit of the plurality of content units, determining the respective text elements in the each content unit and the element types of the respective text elements in a case that a content form of the each content unit is text. In other words, claim 1 fails to claim the necessary steps of the content to be typeset having a plurality of units and determining the respective text elements for each content unit of the plurality units prior to determining a horizontal placeholder size and vertical placeholder size of the respective text elements for each content unit in a plurality of content units. In other words, amended claim 1 needs to include the subject matter of identify the plurality of content units from the content and the respective elements of in each content unit BEFORE the horizontal placeholder size and vertical placeholder size of the respective text elements for each content unit in a plurality of content units are determined.
for each content unit, determining the rendering size information of the respective text elements in the each content unit based on a rendering size information corresponding to a preset element type in the each content unit indicated in the typesetting style setting information. Amended claim 1 discloses determining a horizontal placeholder size of the respective text elements in the each content unit based on the determined rendering size information of the respective text elements in the each content unit; however, failed to disclose the subject matter of determining the rendering size information of the respective text elements in the each content unit based on a rendering size information for each content unit. In other words, claim 1 fails to claim the necessary steps of the determining the rendering size information of the respective text elements BEFORE the horizontal placeholder size of the respective text elements for each content unit in a plurality of content units is determined since the horizontal placeholder size is based on the determined rendering size information.
Claims 2-3, 5-8, 13-14, 16-21, and 23-25 are also rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph for being dependent claims of the rejected independent claims 1, 10, and 12. Any claim not specifically addressed, above, is being rejected as its failure to overcome the incorporated deficiencies of a claim upon which is depends on.
Claims 1, 10, 12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being incomplete for omitting essential structural cooperative relationships of elements, such omission amounting to a gap between the necessary structural connections. See MPEP § 2172.01. The omitted structural cooperative relationships are: the claims are discloses determining a horizontal placeholder size and vertical placeholder size based on already existing respective text elements in already existing content units based on already determined rendering size information without providing any previous limitations/details of how/when: 1) the determining a plurality of content units from the content to be typeset occurred, 2) determining the respective text elements for each content unit occurred, and 3) determining the rendering size information of the respective text elements for each content unit occurred.
Claims 2-3, 5-8, 13-14, 16-21, and 23-25 are also rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph for being dependent claims of the rejected independent claims 1, 10, and 12. Any claim not specifically addressed, above, is being rejected as its failure to overcome the incorporated deficiencies of a claim upon which is depends on.
Claims 1-3, 5-8, 10, 12-14, 16-21 remain and 23-25 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.
Claim 1 recites the limitation(s) “for each content of a plurality of content units”, "the respective text elements in the each content unit", and “the determined rendering size information of the respective text elements in the each content unit” in the “for each content unit of a plurality of content units…” limitation. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. For examining purposes, the Examiner view Claim 1 as “determining a plurality of content units from the content to be typeset based on a content unit indication field in the content to be typeset; for each content unit of the plurality of content units, in a case that a content form of the each content unit is text, determining the respective text elements in the each content unit and the element types of the respective text element; for the each content unit, determining the rendering size information of the respective text elements in the each content unit wherein the typesetting the content to be typeset based on the rendering size information and typesetting the style setting information of the respective text elements comprises: for each content unit of a plurality of content units, determining a horizontal placeholder size of the respective text elements in the each content unit based on the determined rendering size information of the respective text elements in the each content unit,…”
Claims 10 and 12 recite similar issues as in Claim 1 and are rejected under similar rationale as explained above.
Claim 1 recites the limitation “…arranged in each line…” within the limitation “determining the respective text elements in the each content unit”. It is unclear what “each line” is referring to since an element appears to be missing. In other words, each line of what? It is unclear if the limitation is referring to arranging the text elements in each line of each content unit or in the content to be typeset. Therefore, the claim is vague and indefinite. For examining purposes, the Examiner will view the limitation of Claim 1 as “determining the respective text elements in the each content unit arranged in each line of the each content unit”
Claims 10 and 12 recite similar issues as in Claim 1 and are rejected under similar rationale as explained above.
Claim 1 recites the limitation(s) “…based on the horizontal placeholder size of the respective text elements and the horizontal placeholder size of the respective text elements” of the last determining limitation. However, Claim 1 introduced “respective text elements” in the obtaining limitation and “respective text elements in the each content unit” in the determining a horizontal placeholder size limitation. Therefore, it is unclear, if “the respective text elements” of the last determining limitation should on the “respective text elements” in the obtaining limitation, “respective text elements in the each content unit” in the determining a horizontal placeholder size limitation or viewed as a new element. Therefore, the claim is vague and indefinite. For examining purposes, the Examiner will view the limitation of Claim 1 as “based on the horizontal placeholder size of the respective text elements in the each content unit and the horizontal placeholder size of the respective text elements in the each content unit…”
Claims 10 and 12 recite similar issues as in Claim 1 and are rejected under similar rationale as explained above.
Claim 1 recites the limitation(s) “typesetting the each content unit on at least one typeset page…” However, Claim 1 already introduced the element “a typeset page” in the previous limitation. Therefore, it is unclear, if “at least one typeset page” should depend on “a typeset page” of the previous limitation or viewed as a new element. Therefore, the claim is vague and indefinite. For examining purposes, the Examiner will view the limitation of Claim 1 as “typesetting the each content unit on the typeset page…”
Claims 10 and 12 recite similar issues as in Claim 1 and are rejected under similar rationale as explained above.
Claim 1 recites the limitation “the determined respective text elements arranged in each line of the each content unit”. However, Claim 1 already introduced “each line “(of the each content unit) in the previous limitation. Therefore, it is unclear, if “each line” should on the “each line “(of the each content unit) in the previous limitation or viewed as a new element. Therefore, the claim is vague and indefinite. For examining purposes, the Examiner will view the limitation of Claim 1 as " the determined respective text elements arranged in the each line of the each content unit”
Claims 10 and 12 recite similar issues as in Claim 1 and are rejected under similar rationale as explained above.
Claim 1 recites the limitation(s) “…the vertical placeholder size of the respective text elements” of the last determining limitation. However, Claim 1 introduced “respective text elements” in the obtaining limitation and “respective text elements in the each content unit” in the determining a vertical placeholder size limitation. Therefore, it is unclear, if “the respective text elements” of the last determining limitation should on the “respective text elements” in the obtaining limitation, “respective text elements in the each content unit” in the determining a vertical placeholder size limitation or viewed as a new element. Therefore, the claim is vague and indefinite. For examining purposes, the Examiner will view the limitation of Claim 1 as “the vertical placeholder size of the respective text elements in the each content unit…”
Claims 10 and 12 recite similar issues as in Claim 1 and are rejected under similar rationale as explained above.
Claim 8 recites the limitation(s) “…determining a rendering size information of a respective text elements to be typeset” in the last limitation. However, Claim 1 introduced “respective text elements…in the content to be typeset” in the obtaining limitation and “respective text elements in the each content unit” in the determining a horizontal placeholder size limitation. Therefore, it is unclear, if “the respective text elements” of the last limitation of claim should on the “respective text elements…in the content to be typeset” in the obtaining limitation, “respective text elements in the each content unit” in the determining a horizontal placeholder size limitation or viewed as a new element. Therefore, the claim is vague and indefinite. For examining purposes, the Examiner will view the limitation of Claim 8 as “determining a rendering size information of each of the respective text elements in the content to be typeset …”
Claim 19 recites similar issues as in Claim 8 and are rejected under similar rationale as explained above.
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 1-3, 5-8, 10, 12-14, 16-21 remain and 23-25 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more
Claim 1
Step 2A, Prong 1
The limitation of “determining rendering size information of the respective text elements based on the element types of the respective text elements and a rendering size relationship between the element types of the respective text elements indicated by a preset movable type template” is a process that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind and/or performed by a human with a pen/pencil and paper but for generic computer components but for the recitation of generic computer components. That is nothing in the claim element precludes the step “determining” from practically being performed in the mind. For example, “determining” in the context of this claim encompasses the user manually identifying how big or small the text is and see if any texts are similar in size.
Similarly, the limitation of “typesetting the content to be typeset based on the rendering size information and typesetting style selling information of the respective text elements”, is a process that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind and/or performed by a human with a pen/pencil and paper but for generic computer components but for the recitation of generic computer components. That is nothing in the claim element precludes the step “typesetting” from practically being performed in the mind. For example, “typesetting” in the context of this claim encompasses the user organizing/group similar text based on their size with the aid of pen/pencil and paper.
Similarly the limitation of “for each content unit of a plurality of content units, determining a horizontal placeholder size of the respective text elements in the each content unit based on the determined rendering size information of the respective text elements in the each content unit,” is a process that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind and/or performed by a human with a pen/pencil and paper but for generic computer components but for the recitation of generic computer components. That is, “determining” in the context of this claim encompasses the user manually identifying how wide the text is.
Similarly, the limitation of “for each content unit of a plurality of content units, …determining a vertical placeholder size of the respective text elements in the each content unit based on a line height indicated in the typesetting style setting information” is a process that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind and/or performed by a human with a pen/pencil and paper but for generic computer components but for the recitation of generic computer components. That is, “determining” in the context of this claim encompasses the user manually identifying how tall the text is.
Similarly, the limitation of “determining the respective text elements in the each content unit arranged in each line based on the horizontal placeholder size of the respective text elements and the horizontal placeholder size of the respective text elements of a whole line in a typeset page” is a process that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind and/or performed by a human with a pen/pencil and paper but for generic computer components but for the recitation of generic computer components. That is, “determining” in the context of this claim encompasses the user manually identifying what text is in the content.
Similarly, the limitation of “typesetting the each content unit on at least one typeset page according to the determined respective text elements arranged in each line of the each content unit, the vertical placeholder size of the respective text elements, and typesetting type, paragraph spacing and line spacing indicated in the typesetting style setting information”, is a process that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind and/or performed by a human with a pen/pencil and paper but for generic computer components but for the recitation of generic computer components. That is, “typesetting” in the context of this claim encompasses the user organizing/group similar content based on assigned rules with the aid of pen/pencil and paper.
If a claim limitation, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind but for the recitation of generic computer components, then it falls within the “Mental Processes” grouping of abstract ideas. Accordingly, the claim recites an abstract idea.
Step 2A, Prong 2:
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. In particular, the claim recites these additional elements:
obtaining respective text elements and element types of the respective text elements in a content to be typeset
The “obtaining” limitation(s) are mere data gathering recited at a high level of generality, and thus are insignificant extra-solution activity. See MPEP 2106.05(g) (“whether the limitation is significant”). In addition, all uses of the recited judicial exceptions require such data gathering and/or transmitting data, as such, these limitations do not impose any meaningful limits on the claim. These limitations amount to necessary data gathering or transmitting data. See MPEP 2106.05. The processing unit in the limitations is claimed at a high level of generality such that the processing unit is used as tool to perform the generic computer function of gathering or transmitting data. See MPEP 2106.05(f).
In addition, the claim recites these other additional elements: view interface and client terminal to perform the obtaining, multiple determining, and/or multiple typesetting steps. The view interface and client terminal in the steps are recited at a high-level of generality (i.e., as a generic view interface and client terminal performing a generic computer function of obtaining, multiple determining, and/or multiple typesetting functionality) such that it amounts no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic component. Accordingly, these additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because it does not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. The claim is directed to an abstract idea.
Step 2B:
The claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception.
The “obtaining” limitations are recited at a high level of generality. These elements amount to receiving or transmitting data over a network and are well-understood, routine, conventional activity(e.g. buySAFE, Inc. v. Google, Inc., 765 F.3d 1350, 1355, 112 USPQ2d 1093, 1096 (Fed. Cir. 2014)). See MPEP 2106.05(d), subsection II. The obtaining step amounts to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component. Even when considered in combination, these additional elements represent mere instructions to implement an abstract idea or other exception on a processing and insignificant extra-solution activity, which do not provide an inventive concept.
In addition, the “typesetting the each content unit” limitation lacks a combination of rendering by populating into the areas sized according to the placeholder sizing and the other typeset settings.
In addition, as discussed above with respect to integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, the additional elements of using view interface and client terminal to perform the obtaining, determining, multiple determining, and/or multiple typesetting steps amounts to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component. Mere instructions to apply an exception using a generic computer component cannot provide an inventive concept. The claim is not patent eligible.
Claim 10
Claim 10 recites the corresponding computer device of the method of claim 1 wherein the computer device of Claim 10 contains similar subject matter/limitations and (additional) elements of the method of Claim 1. Therefore, the corresponding computer device of Claim 10 is rejected under similar rationale found in the rejection of the method of Claim 1.
Furthermore, Claim 10 has the following additional elements: processor, memory, and bus. In regards to the processor, memory, and bus:
Step 2A, Prong 2:
In addition, the claim recites these other additional elements: view interface, client terminal, processor, memory, and bus to perform the obtaining, multiple determining, and/or multiple typesetting steps. The view interface, client terminal, processor, memory, and bus in the steps are recited at a high-level of generality (i.e., as a generic view interface, client terminal, memory, bus, and processor performing a generic computer function of obtaining, multiple determining, and/or multiple typesetting functionality) such that it amounts no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic component. Accordingly, these additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because it does not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. The claim is directed to an abstract idea.
Step 2B:
In addition, as discussed above with respect to integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, the additional elements of using the view interface, client terminal, processor, memory, and bus to perform the obtaining, multiple determining, and/or multiple typesetting steps amounts to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component. Mere instructions to apply an exception using a generic computer component cannot provide an inventive concept. In addition, the “typesetting the each content unit” limitation lacks a combination of rendering by populating into the areas sized according to the placeholder sizing and the other typeset settings. The claim is not patent eligible.
Claim 12
Claim 12 recites the corresponding product of the method of claim 1 wherein the product of Claim 12 contains similar subject matter/limitations of the method of Claim 1. Therefore, the corresponding product of Claim 12 is rejected under similar rationale found in the rejection of the method of Claim 1.
Dependent Claims 2-3, 5-8, 13-14, 16-19, 20-21, 23-25
As per dependent claim 2, the limitation of “…determining a plurality of content units from the content to be typeset..…” is a process that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind and/or performed by a human with a pen/pencil and paper but for generic computer components but for the recitation of generic computer components. That is, “determining” in the context of this claim encompasses the user manually identifying the content provided.
Similarly, the limitation of “…determining the respective text elements in the content unit…” is a process that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind and/or performed by a human with a pen/pencil and paper but for generic computer components but for the recitation of generic computer components. That is, “determining” in the context of this claim encompasses the user manually identifying the words in the content provided.
If a claim limitation, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind and/or performed by a human with a pen/pencil and paper but for the recitation of generic computer components, then it falls within the “Mental Processes” grouping of abstract ideas. Accordingly, the claim recites an abstract idea.
As per dependent claim 3, the limitation of “…determining the rendering size information..…” is a process that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind and/or performed by a human with a pen/pencil and paper but for generic computer components but for the recitation of generic computer components. That is, “determining” in the context of this claim encompasses the user manually identifying how big or small the text is.
If a claim limitation, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind and/or performed by a human with a pen/pencil and paper but for the recitation of generic computer components, then it falls within the “Mental Processes” grouping of abstract ideas. Accordingly, the claim recites an abstract idea.
Furthermore, the additional limitations in the claims do not appear to add additional elements beyond those described in claim 1. The claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. Mere instructions to apply an exception using a generic computer component cannot provide an inventive concept. The claim is not patent eligible.
As per dependent claim 5, the limitation of “…obtaining the original size information…” encompasses insignificant extra-solution activity. Accordingly, these additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because they do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. The claim is directed to an abstract idea.
The claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. As noted above, storing information has been found by the courts to be well understood, routine, and conventional functionality (See buySAFE, Inc. v. Google, Inc.). Mere instructions to apply an exception using a generic computer component cannot provide an inventive concept. The claim is not patent eligible.
In addition, the limitation of “…configuring a horizontal placeholder size…” encompasses insignificant extra-solution activity. Accordingly, these additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because they do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. The claim is directed to an abstract idea.
The claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. As noted above, storing information (configuring the horizontal placeholder size) has been found by the courts to be well understood, routine, and conventional functionality (See buySAFE, Inc. v. Google, Inc.). Mere instructions to apply an exception using a generic computer component cannot provide an inventive concept. The claim is not patent eligible
The limitation of “typesetting the non-text content unit…”, is a process that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind and/or performed by a human with a pen/pencil and paper but for generic computer components but for the recitation of generic computer components. That is, “typesetting” in the context of this claim encompasses the user organizing/group similar content with the aid of pen/pencil and paper.
If a claim limitation, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind and/or performed by a human with a pen/pencil and paper but for the recitation of generic computer components, then it falls within the “Mental Processes” grouping of abstract ideas. Accordingly, the claim recites an abstract idea.
As per dependent claim 6, the limitation of “…taking a rendering size information…” encompasses insignificant extra-solution activity. Accordingly, these additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because they do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. The claim is directed to an abstract idea.
The claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. As noted above, storing information (configuring the horizontal placeholder size) has been found by the courts to be well understood, routine, and conventional functionality (See buySAFE, Inc. v. Google, Inc.). Mere instructions to apply an exception using a generic computer component cannot provide an inventive concept. The claim is not patent eligible.
As per dependent claim 7, the limitation of “…determining a size relationship…” is a process that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind and/or performed by a human with a pen/pencil and paper but for generic computer components but for the recitation of generic computer components. That is, “determining” in the context of this claim encompasses the user manually identifying which elements are similar.
Similarly, the limitation of “…updating a rendering size relationship…” is a process that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind and/or performed by a human with a pen/pencil and paper but for generic computer components but for the recitation of generic computer components. That is, “updating” in the context of this claim encompasses the user manually change the size relationship information with the aid of a pencil and paper.
If a claim limitation, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind and/or performed by a human with a pen/pencil and paper but for the recitation of generic computer components, then it falls within the “Mental Processes” grouping of abstract ideas. Accordingly, the claim recites an abstract idea.
As per dependent claim 8, the limitation of “…determining a rendering size information..…” is a process that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind and/or performed by a human with a pen/pencil and paper but for generic computer components but for the recitation of generic computer components. That is, “determining” in the context of this claim encompasses the user manually identifying how big or small the text is.
If a claim limitation, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind and/or performed by a human with a pen/pencil and paper but for the recitation of generic computer components, then it falls within the “Mental Processes” grouping of abstract ideas. Accordingly, the claim recites an abstract idea.
In addition, the limitations of “displays the present movable type template…” encompasses insignificant extra-solution activity. Accordingly, these additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because they do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. The claim is directed to an abstract idea. The claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. As noted above, display(ing) information has been found by the courts to be well understood, routine, and conventional functionality (See OIP Techs., 788 F.3d at 1362-63, 115 USPQ2d at 1092-93.). Mere instructions to apply an exception using a generic computer component cannot provide an inventive concept. The claim is not patent eligible.
In addition, the limitation of “…obtaining an updated movable type template…” encompasses insignificant extra-solution activity. Accordingly, these additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because they do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. The claim is directed to an abstract idea.
The claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. As noted above, storing information has been found by the courts to be well understood, routine, and conventional functionality (See buySAFE, Inc. v. Google, Inc.). Mere instructions to apply an exception using a generic computer component cannot provide an inventive concept. The claim is not patent eligible.
As per dependent claims 13-19, Claims 13-19 recite the corresponding computing device form of the method form of claims 2-3, 5-9 wherein the computing device of Claims 13-19 contains similar subject matter/limitations and (additional) elements of the method of claims 2-3, 5-9. Therefore, Claims 13-19 of the corresponding computing device are rejected under similar rationale found in the rejection of the method of claims 2-3, 5-9.
As per dependent claims 20-25, Claims 20-25 recite the corresponding computer program product form of the method form of claims 2-3, 5-9 wherein the computer program product of Claims 20-25 contains similar subject matter/limitations and (additional) elements of the method of claims 2-3, 5-9. Therefore, Claims 20-22 of the corresponding computer program product are rejected under similar rationale found in the rejection of the method of claims 2-3, 5-9.
Claims 12 and 20-22 remain and 23-25 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to non-statutory subject matter.
Claim 12 discloses a "computer program product"; however, however the claims and specification fail to disclose if this "computer program product " indicates being limited only to hardware or statutory subject matter. 00148 of Applicant’s specification indicates that the product can be embodied as a software product. Thus, the recited " computer program product" is computer software per se and is not a "process," a "machine," a "manufacture" or a "composition of matter," as defined in 35 U.S.C. 101. Therefore, the claims are claiming "software systems" i.e. systems without hardware indication or non-transitory subject matter, which is a computer program per se; therefore, appearing non-statutory.
Any claim not specifically addressed, above, is being rejected as its failure to overcome the incorporated deficiencies of a claim upon which is depends on.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 1-3, 5-8, 10, 12-14, 16-21, and 23-25 would be allowable if rewritten or amended to overcome the rejection(s) under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), 2nd paragraph, and 35 U.S.C 101 set forth in this Office action.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 4/23/26 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
On page 14, in regards to the 35 USC 112 rejection(s), Applicant’s amendment has overcome the pending issues in Claim 1-8, 10, 12-22 that were disclosed in the previous office action. However, the amendments made to the claims comprises new issues within the claims that were not previously presented. The Examiner respectfully points to the Applicant to the “Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112” section of the office action above regarding the matter. Therefore, the 112 rejection(s) to the claims remain.
On pages 14-15, in regards to Claims 1, 10, and 12, Applicant argues as the claims amended, recite statutory subject matter. (not directed to an abstract idea without significantly more) Applicant states: For example, claim 1 specifies "obtaining respective text elements and element types of the respective text elements in a content to be typeset," "determining rendering size information of the respective text elements based on the element types of the respective text elements and a rendering size relationship between the element types of the respective text elements indicated by a preset movable type template," and "typesetting the content to be typeset based on the rendering size information and typesetting style setting information of the respective text elements." Furthermore, Applicant argues that for example, in paragraph [0050] of the specification as originally filed in the present application, "when the preset movable type template and typesetting style setting information are adopted for typesetting in this disclosure, the rendering size information of the respective text elements can be determined according to the element type, thus avoiding a process of measuring the rendering size of each content element to be typeset each time separately, thus improving calculation efficiency of the rendering size and further improving typesetting efficiency." Applicant states that the present application avoids the process of measuring during each typesetting operation by adopting preset movable type templates and typesetting style setting information, thereby improving the calculation efficiency of rendering dimensions and further enhancing typesetting efficiency. That is, the present application reduces processing time at the client side and improves the processing efficiency of the client. Therefore, the Applicant argues that the independent claims provides an inventive concept and recites statutory subject matter. However, the Examiner disagrees.
The Examiner respectfully states that the Applicant’s claim 1 does not result in integrating the claimed abstract into a practical application being performed, as explained in Step 2A, Prong One and Two. In regards to Step 2A, Prong One. As explained above, the claims fall into one of the three groupings of subject matter, mathematical concepts, organizing human activity, or mental process. In regards to explicitly argued subject matter on page 14, the Examiner explained that the limitation “determining rendering size information of the respective text elements based on the element types of the respective text elements and a rendering size relationship between the element types of the respective text elements indicated by a preset movable type template” is a process that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind and/or performed by a human with a pen/pencil and paper but for generic computer components but for the recitation of generic computer components. That is nothing in the claim element precludes the step “determining” from practically being performed in the mind. For example, “determining” in the context of this claim encompasses the user manually identifying how big or small the text is and see if any texts are similar in size. In addition, the examiner explained the limitation ““typesetting the content to be typeset based on the rendering size information and typesetting style selling information of the respective text elements”, is a process that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind and/or performed by a human with a pen/pencil and paper but for generic computer components but for the recitation of generic computer components. That is nothing in the claim element precludes the step “typesetting” from practically being performed in the mind. For example, “typesetting” in the context of this claim encompasses the user organizing/group similar text based on their size with the aid of pen/pencil and paper.”
If a claim limitation, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind but for the recitation of generic computer components, then it falls within the “Mental Processes” grouping of abstract ideas. Accordingly, the claim recites an abstract idea.
Furthermore, in regards to Step 2A, Prong Two, the Examiner states that the claim recites judicial exception wherein the subject matter limitations on page 14 (obtaining respective text elements and element types of the respective text elements in a content to be typeset) recite additional elements that do not integrate claimed abstract into a practical application. The “obtaining” limitation(s) are mere data gathering recited at a high level of generality, and thus are insignificant extra-solution activity. See MPEP 2106.05(g) (“whether the limitation is significant”). In addition, all uses of the recited judicial exceptions require such data gathering and/or transmitting data, as such, these limitations do not impose any meaningful limits on the claim. These limitations amount to necessary data gathering or transmitting data. See MPEP 2106.05. The processing unit in the limitations is claimed at a high level of generality such that the processing unit is used as tool to perform the generic computer function of gathering or transmitting data. See MPEP 2106.05(f). In addition, the claim recites these other additional elements: view interface and client terminal to perform the obtaining, multiple determining, and/or multiple typesetting steps. The view interface and client terminal in the steps are recited at a high-level of generality (i.e., as a generic view interface and client terminal performing a generic computer function of obtaining, multiple determining, and/or multiple typesetting functionality) such that it amounts no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic component. Accordingly, these additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because it does not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. The claim is directed to an abstract idea.
In response, in regards to improvement of a technological field, the Examiner respectfully states MPEP 2106.05(a) states “An important consideration in determining whether a claim improves technology is the extent to which the claim covers a particular solution to a problem or a particular way to achieve a desired outcome, as opposed to merely claiming the idea of a solution or outcome”. McRO, 837 F.3d at 1314-15, 120 USPQ2d at 1102-03; DDR Holdings, 773 F.3d at 1259, 113 USPQ2d at 1107. In addition, MPEP 2106.05(a)(II) states “To show that the involvement of a computer assists in improving the technology, the claims must recite the details regarding how a computer aids the method, the extent to which the computer aids the method, or the significance of a computer to the performance of the method. Merely adding generic computer components to perform the method is not sufficient. Thus, the claim must include more than mere instructions to perform the method on a generic component or machinery to qualify as an improvement to an existing technology”.
The Examiner respectfully states the applicant fails to identify that the claims and the limitations themselves at issue are directed toward overcoming a problem within the technology. In addition, the Examiner respectfully states the claims themselves provide no evidence of an improvement in computer- related technology beyond the abstract idea, and the computer hardware cited/claimed (i.e. view interface and client terminal) is merely used as a tool to implement the abstract idea as opposed to claiming the process specifically designed to achieve an improved technological result. Thus, the claims are merely claiming the idea of a solution or outcome. Furthermore, while the Applicant states that the present invention provides the effect of “improving the calculation efficiency of rendering dimensions and further enhancing typesetting efficiency. That is, the present application reduces processing time at the client side and improves the processing efficiency of the client”; the Examiner states these statement(s) are merely conclusionary statements that provide no evidence/reasoning to counter the Examiner’s reasoning/rationale on how the claims or elements within the claims provide significantly more than the judicial exception. see MPEP 2106.04(d)(1) states, “Conversely, if the specification explicitly sets forth an improvement but in a conclusory manner (i.e., a bare assertion of an improvement without the detail necessary to be apparent to a person of ordinary skill in the art), the examiner should not determine the claim improves technology.”
As explained, the claim limitations of “obtaining” do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. As discussed above with respect to integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, the additional elements of a using view interface and client terminal to perform the obtaining, multiple determining, and/or multiple typesetting steps amounts to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component. Mere instructions to apply an exception using a generic computer component cannot provide an inventive concept. The MPEP 2105.06(a) states “However, it is important to keep in mind that an improvement in the abstract idea itself (e.g. a recited fundamental economic concept) is not an improvement in technology. For example, in Trading Technologies Int’l v. IBG, 921 F.3d 1084, 1093-94, 2019 USPQ2d 138290 (Fed. Cir. 2019), the court determined that the claimed user interface simply provided a trader with more information to facilitate market trades, which improved the business process of market trading but did not improve computers or technology.”
Thus, the additional elements of Applicant’s claims are merely improving the abstract idea and not an improvement in technology.
Thus, the 101 rejection of the claims still remains and the claim is not patent eligible.
Furthermore, Claim 12 also remains rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is also directed to non-statutory subject matter. (separate from being directed to an abstract idea without significantly more) The Examiner refers the Applicant to the “35 USC 101” section of the office action above for the reasoning of the rejection.
Conclusion
If the Applicant chooses to amend the claims in future filings, the Examiner kindly states any new limitation(s) added to the claims must be described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art in order to meet the written description requirement of 35 USC 112, first paragraph. To help expedite prosecution, promote compact prosecution and prevent a possible 112(a)/first paragraph rejection, the Examiner respectfully requests for each new limitation added to the claims in a future filing by the Applicant that the Applicant would cite the location within the specification showing support for that new limitation within the remarks. In addition, MPEP 2163.04(I)(B) states that a prima facie under 112(a)/first paragraph may be established if a claim has been added or amended, the support for the added limitation is not apparent, and applicant has not pointed out where added the limitation is supported.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to DAVID FABER whose telephone number is (571)272-2751. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Thursday.
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 supervisor signing this action, William Bashore can be reached at 571-272-4088. 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.
/D.F/ Examiner, Art Unit 2172
/WILLIAM L BASHORE/ Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2174
Prosecution Insights