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 amendment filed on 3 November 2025.
This office action is made Final.
Claims 1-8, 10, and 12 were amended.
Claims 13-22 have been added.
The art rejections from the previous office action have been withdrawn as neccessited by the amendment.
Claims 1-8, 10, and 12-22 are pending. Claims 1, 10, and 12 are independent claims.
Specification
The amendment to the specification filed on 11/13/25 has been accepted and entered.
The abstract of the disclosure, filed 11/13/25, is objected to because the abstract involves language that is not particularly in narrative form since it repeats the language/wording/phrasing(s) of the independent claims. The abstract should be a summary of the claim invention that allows the Office and the public to quickly determine, from a cursory inspection, the nature and gist of the technical disclosure. The abstract should be a summary of the claim invention; not a repeat of the exact/similar wording that is written/used in the independent claims. Correction is required. See MPEP § 608.01(b).
Applicant is reminded of the proper language and format for an abstract of the disclosure.
The abstract should be in narrative form and generally limited to a single paragraph on a separate sheet within the range of 50 to 150 words in length. The abstract should describe the disclosure sufficiently to assist readers in deciding whether there is a need for consulting the full patent text for details.
The language should be clear and concise and should not repeat information given in the title. It should avoid using phrases which can be implied, such as, “The disclosure concerns,” “The disclosure defined by this invention,” “The disclosure describes,” etc. In addition, the form and legal phraseology often used in patent claims, such as “means” and “said,” should be avoided.
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 1-8, 10, 12 remain and 13-22 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 "a typeset content” in the display limitation. However, claim 1 already introduced “typesetting the content” element in the typesetting limitation. Therefore, it is unclear if “typeset content” element of claim 1 should depend on the “typesetting the content” element of claim 1 or should be viewed as new element. Therefore, the claim is vague and indefinite. For examining purposes, the Examiner will view the limitation of Claim 1 as “displaying the typeset content…”.
Claim 3 recites the limitation "for each content" in the second limitation. However, claim 2 already introduced the “for each content unit of the plurality of content units” element in the determining limitation. Therefore, it is unclear if “for each content” element of claim 3 should depend on the “for each content unit of the plurality of content units” element of claim 2 or should be viewed as new element. Therefore, the claim is vague and indefinite. For examining purposes, the Examiner will view the limitation of Claim 3 as “for each content of the plurality of content units”. Claim 4, and recite the same element multiple times as in Claim 3 and are rejected under similar rationale and view the element similarly as in claim 3 also.
Claim 6 recites the limitation "…element types existing in the preset movable type template …" in the fourth and fifth lines. However, claim 1 already introduced a “element types…” element in the determining limitation. Therefore, it is unclear if “element types…” element of claim 6 should depend on the “element types…” element of claim 1 or should be viewed as new element. Therefore, the claim is vague and indefinite. For examining purposes, the Examiner will view the limitation of Claim 6 as “…among element types of the respective text elements existing in the preset movable type template”.
Claim 8 recites the limitation "…a rendering size relationship between the element types …" in the third and fourth lines. However, claim 1 already introduced a “…rendering size relationship between the element types …” element in the determining limitation. Therefore, it is unclear if “rendering size relationship between the element types ” element of claim 8 should depend on the “rendering size relationship between the element types…” element of claim 1 or should be viewed as new element. Therefore, the claim is vague and indefinite. For examining purposes, the Examiner will view the limitation of Claim 8 as " the rendering size relationship between the element types …”.
Claim 8 recites the limitation "…element types …indicated by a preset movable type template …" in the third and fourth lines. However, claim 1 already introduced a “…a preset movable type template …” element in the determining limitation. Therefore, it is unclear if “preset movable type template …” element of claim 8 should depend on the “preset movable type template” element of claim 1 or should be viewed as new element. Therefore, the claim is vague and indefinite.. For examining purposes, the Examiner will view the limitation of Claim 8 as "…element types …indicated by the preset movable type template …”.
Claim 8 recites the limitation "…a rendering size relationship between the element types …" in the 12th and 13th lines. However, claim 1 already introduced a “…rendering size relationship between the element types …” element in the determining limitation. Therefore, it is unclear if “rendering size relationship between the element types ” element of claim 8 should depend on the “rendering size relationship between the element types…” element of claim 1 or should be viewed as new element. Therefore, the claim is vague and indefinite. For examining purposes, the Examiner will view the limitation of Claim 8 as " the rendering size relationship between the element types …”.
Claim 8 recites the limitation "…element types …indicated by a preset movable type template …" in the 13th line. However, claim 1 already introduced a “…a preset movable type template …” element in the determining limitation. Therefore, it is unclear if “preset movable type template …” element of claim 8 should depend on the “preset movable type template” element of claim 1 or should be viewed as new element. Therefore, the claim is vague and indefinite. For examining purposes, the Examiner will view the limitation of Claim 8 as "…element types …indicated by the preset movable type template …”.
Claim 8 recites the limitation "…between an element types indicated by the updated movable type template." in the last two lines. However, claim 8 already introduced a “…other element types” element in the obtaining limitation. Therefore, it is unclear if “element types…” element of claim 8 should depend on the “other element types” element of claim 8 in the obtaining step or should be viewed as new element. Therefore, the claim is vague and indefinite. For examining purposes, the Examiner will view the limitation of Claim 8 as “between other element types indicated by the updated movable type template”.
Claim 10 recites the limitation "a typeset content” in the display limitation. However, claim 10 already introduced “typesetting the content” element in the typesetting limitation. Therefore, it is unclear if “typeset content” element of claim 10 should depend on the “typesetting the content” element of claim 10 or should be viewed as new element. Therefore, the claim is vague and indefinite. For examining purposes, the Examiner will view the limitation of Claim 10 as “displaying the typeset content…”.
Claim 12 recites the limitation "a typeset content” in the display limitation. However, claim 12 already introduced “typesetting the content” element in the typesetting limitation. Therefore, it is unclear if “typeset content” element of claim 12 should depend on the “typesetting the content” element of claim 12 or should be viewed as new element. Therefore, the claim is vague and indefinite. For examining purposes, the Examiner will view the limitation of Claim 12 as “displaying the typeset content…”.
Claim 14 recites the limitation "for each content" in the second limitation. However, claim 13 already introduced the “for each content unit of the plurality of content units” element in the determining limitation. Therefore, it is unclear if “for each content” element of claim 14 should depend on the “for each content unit of the plurality of content units” element of claim 13 or should be viewed as new element. Therefore, the claim is vague and indefinite. For examining purposes, the Examiner will view the limitation of Claim 14 as “for each content of the plurality of content units”. Claim 15, and recite the same element multiple times as in Claim 14 and are rejected under similar rationale and view the element similarly as in claim 14 also.
Claim 17 recites the limitation "…element types existing in the preset movable type template …" in the fifth and sixth lines. However, claim 10 already introduced a “element types…” element in the determining limitation. Therefore, it is unclear if “element types…” element of claim 17 should depend on the “element types…” element of claim 10 or should be viewed as new element. Therefore, the claim is vague and indefinite. For examining purposes, the Examiner will view the limitation of Claim 17 as “…among element types of the respective text elements existing in the preset movable type template”.
Claim 19 recites the limitation "…a rendering size relationship between the element types …" in the third and fourth lines. However, claim 10 already introduced a “…rendering size relationship between the element types …” element in the determining limitation. Therefore, it is unclear if “rendering size relationship between the element types ” element of claim 19 should depend on the “rendering size relationship between the element types…” element of claim 10 or should be viewed as new element. Therefore, the claim is vague and indefinite. For examining purposes, the Examiner will view the limitation of Claim 19 as " the rendering size relationship between the element types …”.
Claim 19 recites the limitation "…element types …indicated by a preset movable type template …" in the third and fourth lines. However, claim 10 already introduced a “…a preset movable type template …” element in the determining limitation. Therefore, it is unclear if “preset movable type template …” element of claim 19 should depend on the “preset movable type template” element of claim 10 or should be viewed as new element. Therefore, the claim is vague and indefinite. For examining purposes, the Examiner will view the limitation of Claim 19 as "…element types …indicated by the preset movable type template …”.
Claim 19 recites the limitation "…a rendering size relationship between the element types …" in the 12th and 13th lines. However, claim 10 already introduced a “…rendering size relationship between the element types …” element in the determining limitation. Therefore, it is unclear if “rendering size relationship between the element types ” element of claim 19 should depend on the “rendering size relationship between the element types…” element of claim 10 or should be viewed as new element. Therefore, the claim is vague and indefinite. For examining purposes, the Examiner will view the limitation of Claim 19 as " the rendering size relationship between the element types …”.
Claim 19 recites the limitation "…element types …indicated by a preset movable type template …" in the 13th line. However, claim 10 already introduced a “…a preset movable type template …” element in the determining limitation. Therefore, it is unclear if “preset movable type template …” element of claim 19 should depend on the “preset movable type template” element of claim 10 or should be viewed as new element. Therefore, the claim is vague and indefinite. For examining purposes, the Examiner will view the limitation of Claim 19 as "…element types …indicated by the preset movable type template …”.
Claim 19 recites the limitation "…between an element types indicated by the updated movable type template." in the last two lines. However, claim 19 already introduced a “…other element types” element in the obtaining limitation. Therefore, it is unclear if “element types…” element of claim 19 should depend on the “other element types” element of claim 19 in the obtaining step or should be viewed as new element. Therefore, the claim is vague and indefinite. For examining purposes, the Examiner will view the limitation of Claim 19 as “between other element types indicated by the updated movable type template”.
Claim 22 recites the limitation "for each content" in the second limitation. However, claim 21 already introduced the “for each content unit of the plurality of content units” element in the determining limitation. Therefore, it is unclear if “for each content” element of claim 22 should depend on the “for each content unit of the plurality of content units” element of claim 21 or should be viewed as new element. Therefore, the claim is vague and indefinite. For examining purposes, the Examiner will view the limitation of Claim 22 as “for each content of the plurality of content units”.
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.
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 1-8, 10, 12-22 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.
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, wherein the respective text elements refer to a smallest content in a content in a text form, and respective text elements with a same horizontal size have a same element type
displaying a typeset content on a view interface of a client terminal.
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).
The “displays” limitation is a mere nominal or tangential addition to the claim recited at a high level of generality, and thus are insignificant extra-solution activity. See MPEP 2106.05(g) (“whether the limitation is significant”) The view interface and client terminal in the displays limitation is claimed at a high level of generality such that the view interface and client terminal are used as a tool to perform the generic computer function of displaying data. See MPEP 2106.05(f).
In addition, the claim recites these other additional elements: view interface and client terminal to perform the obtaining, determining, displaying and/or 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, determining, displaying and/or 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.
The displaying limitation is recited at a high level of generality. These elements amount to presenting offers and gathering statistics, are well-understood, routine, conventional activity (OIP Techs., 788 F.3d at 1362-63, 115 USPQ2d at 1092-93). See MPEP 2106.05(d), subsection II.
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, displaying and/or 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, determining, displaying and/or 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, determining, displaying, and/or 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, determining, displaying, and/or 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 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 2-8
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 4, the limitation of “…determining a horizontal placeholder size…” 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 “…determining a vertical placeholder size…” 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…” 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 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 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 2-9 wherein the computing device
of Claims 13-19 contains similar subject matter/limitations and (additional) elements of
the method of claims 2-9. Therefore, Claims 13-19 of the corresponding computing
device are rejected under similar rationale found in the rejection of the method of claims 2-9.
As per dependent claims 20-22, Claims 20-22 recite the corresponding computer program product form of the method form of claims 2-4 wherein the computer program product of Claims 20-22 contains similar subject matter/limitations and (additional) elements of the method of claims 2-4. Therefore, Claims 20-22 of the corresponding computer program product are rejected under similar rationale found in the rejection of the method of claims 2-4.
Claim 12 remains 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.
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) 1-3, 10, 12-14, 20-21 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Jovanovic et al (US20210200942, 7/1/2021) in further view of Fu (US20130227444)
As per independent claim 1, Jovanovic et al discloses a method comprising:
obtaining respective text elements and element types of the respective text elements in a content to be typeset; (Note: The claim language and Applicant’s specification fail to define the term “typeset”. Therefore, the broadest reasonable interpretation is applied. (0008-0009; 0038: Content elements, such as text, are identified and distinguished from other content elements such as title elements. These content elements are identified in order to determine if they are movable within the layout (0014))
determining rendering size information of the respective text elements based on the element types of the respective text elements (0009, 0038, 0044:size of each content/text element is determined such as the text size for a title, sub-title, body) and a rendering size relationship between the element types of the respective text elements indicated by a preset movable type template; (0013, 0036, 0040, 0045-0046, 0051: discloses a template/layout comprising different element types having semantic relationship between each other. For example, text size of titles and sub-titles are larger than the text size used in bodies, captions, and headers/footers. Furthermore, these elements are movable to form different layouts; thus, the layout(s) used/generated is a form of a preset movable type template (0014))
typesetting the content to be typeset based on the rendering size information and typesetting style selling information of the respective text elements. (Note: The claim language and Applicant’s specification fail to define the language “and typesetting the content to be typeset”. Therefore, the broadest reasonable interpretation is applied. Thus, 0007, 0020, 0033, 0046, 0103: based on the type of elements, these elements are sized and styled accordingly within the new layout of the slide. )
displaying a typeset content on a view interface of a client terminal (abstract, 0033. 0062,0082 expands upon 0033 indicating a user to view the alternative layouts and select one for use. One of a skilled artisan would have realized that a display may distinguish between the recommended alternative layouts and other alternative layouts involves a form of a view interface in order to display the layouts. In addition, FIG 5, 0070 discloses displaying via content editing application (view interface) )
Furthermore, Jovanovic discloses identifying content elements which includes, but not limited to, a title element, a sub-title element, a body text element, a header or a footer element, a numbering element, an image element, a caption element, or so forth. In addition, Jovanovic discloses identifying the size of the element and the number of words. Thus, Jovanovic discloses the content element could be any type of element and any size. However, Jovanovic does not disclose wherein the respective text elements refer to a smallest content in a content in a text form, and respective text elements with a same horizontal size have a same element type. (Note: the claim language does not specifically define element/term “smallest content in a content in a text form”. In addition, applicant’s specification, while provides example(s) of a “smallest content in a content in a text form” does not provide a limited definition of the element/term. Therefore, the BRI of element/term is applied. Therefore, Fu discloses identifying a set of characters as having a common font width and segmenting the characters having a common font width. Fu discloses segmenting character strings according to a font of characters from a first character of the character string. This continues until a character with a different font is read, then a new segment is formed. Thus, all characters in each segment match their respective font of the first character. (0030; Claim 1) In addition, Fu discloses calculating the character width of each segment according to the font of the characters of each segment (0033, 0034). It is noted that Fu discloses includes identifying the font of a segment as also being monospaced: referring to the font of which the width of each character in the character string is the same) (0003, 0032)Thus, one of a skilled artisan would have realized that Fu overall discloses that a segment of characters, having the same monospace font, have the same horizontal size/width and have the same element type (same font). Thus, Fu discloses identifying segments of characters having the same width and type (font).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of Applicant’s invention to have modified the cited art with the cited feature(s) of Fu since it would have provided the benefit of reducing the resource overhead caused thereby and improve the efficiency of calculating the character width. (Abstract)
As per dependent claim 2, Jovanovic et al discloses 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; wherein the plurality of content units include at least one title unit and at least one paragraph unit; (Note: The claim language and Applicant’s specification fail to define the term “paragraph unit”. Therefore, the broadest reasonable interpretation is applied. Thus, FIG 2; 0009, 0043-0044: title and body text (form of a paragraph unit)
and for each content unit of the plurality of content units, in a case that a content form of the content unit is text, determining the respective text elements in the content unit and the element types of the respective text elements. (0008-0009; 0038: Content elements, such as text, are identified and distinguished from other content elements such as title elements)
As per dependent claim 3, Jovanovic et al discloses 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, the element types of the respective text elements in the each content unit, and the rendering size relationship between the element types of the respective text elements indicated by the preset movable type template; (0013, 0018, 0046: Different content types have different preset sizes and have rules/limitations on their sizes. In addition, the relationship between different elements is also maintained. (0040, 0045-0046, 0049, 0053)
wherein the typesetting style setting information comprises rendering size information corresponding to a preset element type in the title unit and rendering size information corresponding to a preset element type in the paragraph unit. (0007, 0020, 0033, 0046, 0103: style and size information for each element type)
As per independent claims 10 and 12, Claims 10 and 12 recite similar limitations as in Claim 1 and are rejected under similar rationale. Furthermore, Jovanovic et al discloses a computer and a product (FIG 5, 0076)
As per dependent claims 13-14 and 20-21, Claims 13-14 and 20-21 recite similar limitations as in Claims 2-3 and are rejected under similar rationale.
Claim(s) 6 and 17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Jovanovic et al in further view of Fu in further view of Makino (US20060203294)
As per dependent claim 6, Jovanovic et al fails to specifically disclose for any text element, if an element type of the any text element does not exist in the preset movable type template, taking a rendering size information of a corresponding element type with a largest rendering size among an element types existing in the preset movable type template as a rendering size information of the any text element. However, Makino discloses the maximum container size (width and height) can be set (0115) Furthermore, Makino discloses inserting text into the template/layout such that the reference size for calculation is determined on the basis of the font size and the variable/fixed properties and maximum values of the horizontal and vertical sizes and the like set for the container to insert the data (0239)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of Applicant’s invention to have modified the cited art with the cited feature(s) of Makino since it would have provided the benefit of implementing layout processing which can flexibly reflect user's intention by enabling any layout adjustment algorithm to be set for each area. (0016)
As per dependent claim 17, Claim 17 recites similar limitations as in Claim 6 and is rejected under similar rationale.
Claim(s) 7 and 18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Jovanovic et al in further view of Fu in further view of Templeman (US5845303)
As per dependent claim 7, Jovanovic et al discloses determining a size relationship between the any text element and other text elements under an element type existing in the preset movable type template based on an obtained original size information of the respective text elements to be typeset (0013, 0036, 0040, 0045-0046, 0051: discloses a different element types having semantic relationship between each other. For example, text size of titles and sub-titles are larger than the text size used in bodies, captions, and headers/footers. Furthermore, these elements are movable to form different layouts; thus, the layout(s) used/generated is a form of a preset movable type template (0014). However, the cited art fails to specifically disclose for any text element, if an element type of the any text element does not exist in the preset movable type template, determining a size relationship between the any text element and other text elements under an element type existing in the preset movable type template based on an obtained original size information of a respective text elements to be typeset; and based on the size relationship between the any text element and other text elements, updating a rendering size relationship between a special element type corresponding to the any text element and other element types in the preset movable type template. However, Templeman discloses That is, if the size (position) of title frame 86 changes, the position of body column frame 90 must also change. Likewise, if the position of body column frame 90 changes, the position of title frame 86 may also be affected.(col 9, lines 26-30) In addition, Templeman discloses If the header frame 84 expands to accommodate additional data, for example, the title frame 86 may need to be repositioned in the Y-direction. Such relationships, in this particular example, are indicated by links 132a-d. Still other constraints may be classified as grow constraints. Examples are indicated by links 134a-h. In frame 90, e.g., when additional data is flowed into the first column of the newsletter, the body column frame 90 must expand to accommodate the additional data. Thus, a constraint system is employed in the present invention to dynamically size and position frames as data is flowed into them. (Col 8, ll 65 – Col 9, ll. 8) Therefore, Templeman discloses maintaining consistent relationships between frames as the frames change size and/or location. (col 8, lines 45-48) Thus, Templelman discloses adding types of text elements to a layout/template that did not exist (weren’t present) prior to adding, determine the relationships between the different text elements that are added and update the relationships between the texts based on the text added to the template that results in changing the positioning and sizes of containers of the template.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of Applicant’s invention to have modified the cited art with the cited feature(s) of Templeman since it would have provided the benefit of receives input information from a variety of sources and which displays the file in the manner originally intended by the creator of the document quickly and efficiently. (col 3, ll. 3-5)
As per dependent claim 18, Claim 18 recites similar limitations as in Claim 7 and is rejected under similar rationale.
Claim(s) 8 and 19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Jovanovic et al in further view of Fu in further view of Makino in further view of Templeman
As per dependent claim 8, Claim 8 recites similar limitations as in Claim 1 and is rejected under similar rationale. Furthermore, Jovanovic et al discloses obtaining an updated movable type template obtained by supplementing the preset movable type template (FIG. 1; 0036, 0040, 0045; Claim 1: layout receives updated information to change the layout information). In addition, Jovanovic et al discloses wherein the 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 the preset movable type template comprises: determining a rendering size information of a respective text elements to be typeset based on the element types of the respective text elements to be typeset(0009, 0038, 0044:size of each content/text element is determined such as the text size for a title, sub-title, body) and the rendering size relationship between an element types indicated by the updated movable type template. (0013, 0036, 0040, 0045-0046, 0051: discloses a template/layout comprising different element types having semantic relationship between each other. For example, text size of titles and sub-titles are larger than the text size used in bodies, captions, and headers/footers. Furthermore, these elements are movable to form different layouts; thus, each layout(s) used/generated is a form of a type template (0014)). Furthermore, one of a skilled artisan would realize that if the cited art is able to perform this functionality once, then it will perform the functionality again. Thus, the functionality of determining the text elements of the layout/template and the relationships between the elements can be performed any/multiple layout/template(s).
However, the cited art fails to specifically disclose before the 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 and indicated by the preset movable type template, the method further comprises: displaying the preset movable type template in an editable state. However, Makino discloses displaying the preset movable type template in an editable state (FIG. 12; 0165: discloses a template with containers. The displaying occurs before rendering size information and rendering size relationship is determined as explained in FIG. 13-16 and its corresponding paragraphs 0166-0180.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of Applicant’s invention to have modified the cited art with the cited feature(s) of Makino since it would have provided the benefit of implementing layout processing which can flexibly reflect user's intention by enabling any layout adjustment algorithm to be set for each area.
Furthermore, the cited art fails to specifically disclose obtaining an updated movable type template obtained by supplementing the preset movable type template; wherein the updated movable type template comprises a rendering size relationship between a special element type that does not exist in the preset movable type template and other element types. However, Templeman discloses receiving a metaform in an editable form wherein data is flown in the metaform. (Abstract; Col 3, ll. 15-25; Col 11, ll. 16-20) Templeman discloses That is, if the size (position) of title frame 86 changes, the position of body column frame 90 must also change. Likewise, if the position of body column frame 90 changes, the position of title frame 86 may also be affected.(col 9, lines 26-30) In addition, Templeman discloses If the header frame 84 expands to accommodate additional data, for example, the title frame 86 may need to be repositioned in the Y-direction. Such relationships, in this particular example, are indicated by links 132a-d. Still other constraints may be classified as grow constraints. Examples are indicated by links 134a-h. In frame 90, e.g., when additional data is flowed into the first column of the newsletter, the body column frame 90 must expand to accommodate the additional data. Thus, a constraint system is employed in the present invention to dynamically size and position frames as data is flowed into them. (Col 8, ll 65 – Col 9, ll. 8) Therefore, Templeman discloses maintaining consistent relationships between frames as the frames change size and/or location. (col 8, lines 45-48) Thus, Templelman discloses adding types of text elements to a layout/template that did not exist (weren’t present) prior to adding, determine the relationships between the different text elements that are added and update the relationships between the texts based on the text added to the template that results in changing the positioning and sizes of containers of the template. Thus, template discloses an updated movable type template.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of Applicant’s invention to have modified the cited art with the cited feature(s) of Templeman since it would have provided the benefit of receives input information from a variety of sources and which displays the file in the manner originally intended by the creator of the document quickly and efficiently. (col 3, ll. 3-5)
As per dependent claim 19, Claim 19 recites similar limitations as in Claim 8 and is rejected under similar rationale.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 4-5, 15-16, 22 would be allowable if rewritten to overcome the rejection(s) under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), 2nd paragraph and the 35 U.S.C 101 rejection(s) set forth in this Office action and to include all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 11/13/25 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
On page 12, in regards to the objection to the Abstract/specification, Applicant states the Abstract is amended to address the objection the specification/abstract and request withdrawal of the objection. However, the Examiner disagrees. In response, the objection to the specification/abstract remains for the following reason(s): The Examiner respectfully states that the replacement/current abstract is not written in the narrative form since it similarly repeats the language/wording/phrasing(s) of the independent claims. In other words, The Examiner respectfully states the current Abstract is merely a combination of a number of the limitations from the independent claims. The Examiner respectfully states that the Applicant did not provide any explanation how the replacement Abstract is considered in narrative form and not a slight rewording of the claim limitations from the independent claims. As stated, the Examiner respectfully states the abstract should be a summary of the claim invention that allows the Office and the public to quickly determine, from a cursory inspection, the nature and gist of the technical disclosure. The abstract should be a summary of the claim invention; not a repeat of the exact/similar wording that is written/used in the independent claims and/or written like a claim. Therefore, the objection to the Abstract remains.
On page 12 in response to Applicant’s arguments towards the 112 rejection, the Examiner respectfully state Applicant’s amendment did not overcome all of the pending issues that were disclosed in the previous office action in regards to claims 1-8, 10, 12; therefore, 112 Issues for these claims remain, In addition, the amendment made to the claims 1, 6, 8, 10, and 12 resulted in a new 112 issue(s) that were not previously addressed/presented.
On page 13, in regards to the 101 rejection, Applicant argues that the independent claim(s) have been amended to now include “displaying a typeset content on a view interface of a client terminal”. Applicant argues that displaying on a view interface is not directed to an abstract idea since displaying does not recite a mental process because displaying cannot be performed in the human mind. In addition. Applicant argues that the incorporating of displaying on a view interface of a client terminal now includes additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the alleged abstract idea. Therefore, Applicant overall states the amended claim as a whole integrates the alleged mental processes into a practical application; thus, not directed to a judicial exception. However, the Examiner disagrees.
In response, the Examiner agrees that amended argued claim limitation is not considered a mental process and eligible under Step 2A, Prong 1. However, the Examiner respectfully states that Applicant’s invention does not result in integrating the claimed abstract into a practical application being performed, particularly Step 2A, Prong Two. In other words, the Examiner states that the claim recites judicial exception wherein Applicant’s invention recite additional elements that do not integrate claimed abstract into a practical application. In particular, this judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application:
displaying a typeset content on a view interface of a client terminal”
The “displaying” limitation is a mere nominal or tangential addition to the claim recited at a high level of generality, and thus are insignificant extra-solution activity. See MPEP 2106.05(g) (“whether the limitation is significant”) The view interface and client terminal in the displaying limitation is claimed at a high level of generality such that the view interface and client terminal are used as a tool to perform the generic computer function of displaying data. See MPEP 2106.05(f).
The Examiner adds that the display limitation is merely displaying static content with no other functionality with the displayed content being claimed. This, the limitation is merely a basic display of data for viewing only and thus considered as insignificant extra-solution activity.
In addition, the claim recites these other additional elements: view interface and client terminal to perform the displaying step. 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 displaying 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.
Thus, Applicant’s argument(s) are not persuasive and the claim(s) recite an abstract idea
Furthermore, under Step 2B, the claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. The displaying limitation is recited at a high level of generality. These elements amount to presenting offers and gathering statistics, are well-understood, routine, conventional activity (OIP Techs., 788 F.3d at 1362-63, 115 USPQ2d at 1092-93). See MPEP 2106.05(d), subsection II.
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 displaying step 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.
Thus, Applicant’s argument(s) are not persuasive and the claim(s) recite an abstract idea.
On pages 12-13, in regards to the 103 rejection of the independent claims, Applicant argues that the cited art, Jovanovic, does not teach 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.”. Applicant argues that Jovanovic does not teach a rendering size relationship or features as explained in 0068 of Applicant’s specification. However, the Examiner disagrees.
In response to applicant's argument that the references fail to show certain features of the invention, it is noted that the features upon which applicant relies (i.e., rendering size relationship or features as explicitly explained in 0068 of Applicant’s specification) are not recited in the rejected claim(s). Although the claims are interpreted in light of the specification, limitations from the specification are not read into the claims. See In re Van Geuns, 988 F.2d 1181, 26 USPQ2d 1057 (Fed. Cir. 1993).
After consideration of Applicants arguments of the independent claims 1, 10, and 12, the Examiner respectfully states Applicant’s remarks are not persuasive to overcome the Jovanovic reference and respectfully direct the Applicant to the rejection explained above for the reasons why the claim(s) remains rejected under the reference Jovanovic.
Arguments in regards of the new limitations of Claims 1, 10, and 12, brought forth in the amendments and not addressed by Jovanovic, are now in view of the new ground(s) of rejection of 35 USC 103 using the new reference(s) Fu.
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.
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. Please refer to MPEP 713.09 for scheduling interviews after the mailing of this office action.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Adam Queler can be reached at 5712724140. 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