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 .
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on January 23, 2026 has been entered.
All claims are identical to or patentably indistinct from, or have unity of invention with claims in the application prior to the entry of the submission under 37 CFR 1.114 (that is, restriction (including a lack of unity of invention) would not be proper) and all claims could have been finally rejected on the grounds1 and art of record in the next Office action if they had been entered in the application prior to entry under 37 CFR 1.114. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL even though it is a first action after the filing of a request for continued examination and the submission under 37 CFR 1.114. See MPEP § 706.07(b). 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.
Response to Arguments
Claims 1–5, 14–18, 21 and 23 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 102(a)(1) as being unpatentable over U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2003/0014445 A1 (“Formanek”). This is the same ground of rejection presented under 35 U.S.C. § 103, except all of the limitations involving the Garofalo reference were removed from the claim. In this rejection, all limitations continue to map to the same portions of Formanek for exactly the same reasons presented before. The Applicant’s continued traversal of the rejection has been considered, but is not persuasive for the following reasons.
The Applicant first argues that Formanek’s rendering of source material across a plurality of screens of displayed electronic text “is different from” the claimed process of generating a plurality of “separate pages corresponding to the electronic text,” but never explains how they are different. (Response 12–13). This argument is not persuasive, because it is not fully responsive to the rejection. See 37 C.F.R § 1.111(c). The rejection asserts that the plurality of different pages are indeed generated, albeit generated as the user scrolls on the rendering device. The claim language remains broad enough to include this embodiment, so a finding of anticipation is necessary.
The Examiner’s response is the same for the Applicant’s argument that “the reflowed document image 410 in Formanek's solution is a continuous long-image, which is not paginated into multiple separated pages.” (See Response 13). Formanek does not say that the entire “continuous long-image” is displayed on the screen all at once. Rather, the user must scroll, and each time he does, he is effectively viewing a new page rendering on his device.
If the Applicant wishes to continue pursuing this aspect of the invention, the Examiner encourages the Applicant to further describe the structure of the file that the method produces (assuming there is written support in the Specification, which the Examiner has not confirmed). Otherwise, the claim language will continue to read on embodiments that simply render a plurality of pages as distinct screens.
The Applicant’s remaining arguments (Response 13–14) focus on the last limitation, which says, “the display attribute information in the published document is retained.”
Specifically, the Applicant continues to argue that Formanek does not “retain” the display attribute information, because Formanek discloses making “adjustments” to the resolution of the images and the text font. However, this argument continues to ignore the claim language, which only says that the display attribute information in the published document is retained. Formanek’s method does not destroy the original published document in order to reflow it; Formanek simply modifies a rasterized copy of the original document. See, e.g., Formanek ¶ 28 (explaining that the process operates on a rasterized/bitmap version of the original document). The Applicant has not shown where, in Formanek’s disclosure, the information from the original document is lost.
For these reasons, the rejection of claim 1 remains unchanged, apart from the removal of the additional reference, which was only relied upon for claim limitations that the Applicant removed from the claim.
To the extent the Applicant argues that “[a]nalogous amendments and arguments apply to independent claims 14 and 23, and thus independent claims 14 and 23 are patentable,” (Response 15), the Examiner likewise asserts analogous responses to those arguments. None of the dependent claims are patentable for analogous reasons.
Therefore, the Applicant’s request for a notice of allowance (Response 16) is respectfully denied. The Applicant’s request to refrain from mailing this action to make arrangements for an interview (Response 16) is also denied, because the Applicant has not yet had an opportunity to review the merits of this rejection, and therefore, an interview would not advance prosecution at this time.
Claim Objections
The Office objects to claims 1, 14, and 23 because the word “front” appears to be a misspelling of the word “font” (“… the size display attribute information comprises a size of a front”).
Additionally, the Office objects to claims 1, 14, and 23, because the amendments tack two limitations onto the end of the claim, instead of inserting them together with their corresponding claim element (“wherein the display attribute information comprises size display attribute information, the size display attribute information comprises a size of a front in response to the plurality of document segment contents being text content, and the size display attribute information comprises at least one of a picture length or a picture width related to a picture size in response to the plurality of document segment contents being a picture content.”).
Tacking these elements onto the end of the claim makes the narrative of the invention difficult to follow, as the step to which they pertain (“determining display attribute information of each document segment content”) occurs much earlier, before several other intervening steps.
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections – 35 U.S.C. § 102
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 1–5, 14–18, and 23 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 102(a)(1) as being unpatentable over U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2003/0014445 A1 (“Formanek”).
Claim 1
Formanek discloses:
An electronic text generation method comprising:
“FIG. 2 is a flow chart illustrating various higher level steps that may be performed in accordance with the process of the present invention,” Formanek ¶ 28, while FIG. 5 illustrates further details of steps 212–214. See Formanek ¶ 30. Accordingly, in relation to the claimed invention, this rejection will start with the discussion of FIG. 2, and then move on to the more detailed steps illustrated in FIG. 5 where appropriate.
parsing a plurality of document segment contents belonging to a preset document segment type of a published document,
Having loaded an electronic document “in image format as a bit map, image or page decomposition is performed to identify the block positions of various text regions and graphical elements on the electronic document page at step 204.” Formanek ¶ 29. For example, as shown in FIG. 3b, “OCR software can be used to identify various text blocks 304, 308, 310, 312, 314, 316 and 318, as well as graphics blocks 306.” Formanek ¶ 32.
and determining display attribute information of each document segment content,
After identifying the block positions of various text regions and graphical elements, further analysis is performed in steps 212–214, which will now be discussed together with FIG. 5. As shown in FIG. 5, for each “block” identified earlier, the method determines whether the block contains a graphic or text. Formanek ¶ 36. In the case of graphics, the method further determines the size and resolution of each graphic, see Formanek ¶ 44, and in the case of text, the method further determines the dimensions of bounding boxes for each of the text block’s words, Formanek ¶ 37, and the size and resolution of the text’s font. Formanek ¶ 40.
wherein the preset document segment type comprises at least one of a body document segment type or a flyleaf document segment type;
Claim 1 does not require a determination of whether the preset document segment comprises at least one of a body document segment type or a flyleaf document segment type; it merely requires the parsed document segments to “belong to” one or more of the body document or flyleaf document types. Per the Applicant’s limited description of these two types in the Specification, Formanek’s electronic document is “at least one of” a body document segment type or a flyleaf document segment type because it comprises either text, images, or both.
determining a typesetting position of each document segment content based on preset typesetting attribute information of an electronic reader and the display attribute information; and
“[A]lternate positions for graphics blocks and word bounding boxes are calculated at step 212. This process is more fully disclosed with respect to this description of FIG. 5.” Formanek ¶ 30. Specifically, based on both the width of the screen and the width of each word within a block, a limited number of words are placed onto each successive line. Formanek ¶ 37. Likewise, “the resolution of the graphics blocks is adjusted to fit the total display width of the target display.” Formanek ¶ 44.
performing processing of typesetting and drawing for the plurality of document segment contents at the typesetting position based on the display attribute information to generate an electronic text corresponding to the published document;
“At step 214, each of the word bounding boxes and graphics block positions is extracted for display on the target device, as is also disclosed in FIG. 5.” Formanek ¶ 30.
obtaining display size information of a target display device;
“At step 210, the display width of the target device such as the width of the display screen 103 of PDA 100 is determined.” Formanek ¶ 30.
paging the electronic text based on the display size information and the typesetting attribute information to generate a plurality of pagings corresponding to the electronic text, wherein the display size information determines a size of each of the plurality of pages displayed on the display device,
At step 212, “alternate positions for graphics blocks and word bounding boxes are calculated at step 212,” and “[a]t step 214, each of the word bounding boxes and graphics block positions is extracted for display on the target device, as is also disclosed in FIG. 5.” Formanek ¶ 30. “This results in a reflowed document image 410 that has a width corresponding to the target display width so that the user may read the reflowed document image by merely scrolling in a vertical direction to read the document. This eliminates the need for tedious scrolling in both a horizontal and vertical direction to read documents that have not been reflowed to the width of the target display.” Formanek ¶ 34.
wherein the display attribute information comprises size display attribute information, the size display attribute information comprises a size of a front in response to the plurality of document segment contents being text content,
As shown in FIG. 5, for each “block” identified earlier, the method determines whether the block contains a graphic or text. Formanek ¶ 36. In the case of text, the method further determines the dimensions of bounding boxes for each of the text block’s words, Formanek ¶ 37, and the size and resolution of the text’s font. Formanek ¶ 40.
and the size display attribute information comprises at least one of a picture length or a picture width related to a picture size in response to the plurality of document segment contents being a picture content,
Likewise, for each of the graphics, the method further determines the size and resolution of each graphic. Formanek ¶ 44. This includes a check of whether “the width of the graphic fits within the width of the target display.” Formanek ¶ 44.
wherein the plurality of document segment contents are laid out into at least one page based on size information in the typesetting attribute information, and the plurality of documents segment content are displayed based on the display attribute information,
“At step 510, the processor determines whether the block contains graphics. If it does, the graphics are scaled and positioned proportionally to fit within the target display width at step 528.” Formanek ¶ 36. On the other hand, if the block contains text, the text is laid out onto the page in accordance with the size of the text’s font (among other things). Formanek ¶ 37.
and the display attribute information in the published document is retained.
Formanek’s method does not destroy the Original Document to reflow it; Formanek simply renders a readable copy of the original document. See, e.g., Formanek ¶ 28 (explaining that the process operates on a rasterized/bitmap version of the original document).
Claim 2
Formanek discloses the method of claim 1, wherein parsing the plurality of document segment contents belonging to the preset document segment type of the published document comprises:
determining a document segment start mark and a document segment end mark corresponding to the preset document segment type; and
“OCR software can be used to identify various text blocks 304, 308, 310, 312, 314, 316 and 318, as well as graphics blocks 306.” Formanek ¶ 32.
parsing a document content between each document segment start mark and the adjacent document segment end mark to obtain the plurality of document segment contents.
As shown in FIG. 5, for each block, “the first word or next word within the text block is retrieved,” and processed, until “there are no further words to process within that block of text.” Formanek ¶ 37.
Claim 3
Formanek discloses the method of claim 1, wherein determining the typesetting position of each document segment content based on preset typesetting attribute information of the electronic reader and the display attribute information comprises:
determining, based on the display attribute information, a first display size of each content unit in each document segment content;
In the case of text, for each word within a block, the method determines the “word width” of that word in block 516. Formanek ¶ 37.
In the case of an image, “the size of a graphics block is determined.” Formanek ¶ 44.
determining, based on the typesetting attribute information, a second display size of each display unit in the electronic reader; and
“At step 504, the target display width is determined, as indicated above, either automatically by accessing stored information or by intervention by the user.”
typesetting each content unit based on the second display size and the first display size to determine the typesetting position of each document segment content.
In the case of text, “it is determined if the current word would cause the variable ‘line width’ to exceed the total display width,” and “ [i]f it is determined that the words cannot be adjusted to fit on the current line, a new line is started at step 526,” whereas, “[i]f it is determined at 516 that the line width plus the word width is less than the total display width of the reflowed document image 410, the word is placed on the current line at step 518, positioned to the right of the previous word, if there is a previous word on that line.” Formanek ¶ 37.
In the case of an image, “the resolution of the graphics blocks is adjusted to fit the total display width of the target display.” Formanek ¶ 44.
Claim 4
Formanek discloses the method of claim 3, wherein determining, based on the display attribute information, the first display size of each content unit in each document segment content, comprises:
if a content unit is text content, obtaining a size style and a font style of the text content; and determining a first display size of the text content based on the size style and font style;
“The blocks of text, such as blocks 304, 308-318 that have a point size within the normal reading range in the decomposed image 302 (FIG. 3b), such as 10 to 12 point size type are determined. These text blocks are referred to as standard size text blocks.” Formanek ¶ 41. Additionally, “the resolution of blocks of text that have a point size that is outside the normal range, i.e. greater than 12 point type or less than 10 point type, is determined. These blocks of text are considered to be non-standard size text blocks. At step 610, the resolution of the non-standard size text blocks is adjusted based upon a scaling factor related to the point size of the stored file using the black and white resolution data to generate gray scale resolution data.” Formanek ¶ 43.
if a content unit is picture content, obtaining a picture size of the picture content; and determining a first display size of the picture content based on the picture size.
“As also shown in FIG. 6, at step 612, the size of a graphics block is determined. At step 614, the type of graphics block may also be determined. For example, some graphics may appear as pictures while other graphics may appear as bar charts or pie charts. At step 616, the resolution of the graphics blocks is adjusted to fit the total display width of the target display. Depending on the type of graphic in the graphic box, various data reduction techniques or data enhancement techniques can be used to adjust the resolution so that the width of the graphic fits within the width of the target display.” Formanek ¶ 44.
Claim 5
Formanek discloses the method of claim 1, wherein
if the preset document segment type is a type of flyleaf document segment, the method, after performing processing of typesetting and drawing for the plurality of document segment contents based on the display attribute information, further comprises:
Formanek performs the following steps for every type of document, and since neither claim 1 nor claim 5 require a determination of whether or not the preset document segment type is the flyleaf type, it is sufficient that Formanek performs these steps for every type of document, since that includes performing these steps for a flyleaf type of document.
obtaining a background picture of the flyleaf document segment; and
“The processor then accesses the first or next block of information which may be either a text block or a graphics block, as indicated at step 508.” Formanek ¶ 36.
rendering the background picture in a background area of a typesetting position corresponding to the flyleaf document segment.
“At step 510, the processor determines whether the block contains graphics. If it does, the graphics are scaled and positioned proportionally to fit within the target display width at step 528.” Formanek ¶ 36.
Claims 14–18
Claims 14–18 recite a general purpose computer that performs the same method as claims 1–5 during its normal operation. As such, claims 14–18 are anticipated by the prior art general purpose computer for the same reasons.
Claim 23
Claim 23 recites the same memory that the device of claim 14 comprises, and is therefore rejected over the same findings and rationale (with the additional elements falling within the open-ended “comprising” scope of the claim).
Claim Rejections – 35 U.S.C. § 103
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 of this title, 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.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned at the time any inventions covered therein were effectively filed absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 C.F.R. § 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned at the time a later invention was effectively filed in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. § 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. § 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
I. Formanek and Beavers teach claims 7 and 20.
Claims 7 and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over Formanek as applied to claims 1 and 14 above, and further in view of U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2016/0034430 A1 (“Beavers”).
Claim 7
Formanek teaches the method of claim 1, wherein,
determining all body document segment contents of the body document segment type of the published document;
For each section retrieved from a magazine’s issue feed, the magazine distribution system retrieves 445 “one or more digital content items to be included in the section of the digital magazine issue.” Garofalo ¶ 46.
obtaining, based on the webpage code of the published document, a belonged table of contents hierarchy identifier to which the body document segment belongs;
As shown in FIG. 5C, the section feed 525 obtained in the aforementioned step “includes one or more entries. Each entry includes information about a digital content item, such as an article, image, narrative or creative piece, to be included in the section of the digital magazine issue.” Garofalo ¶ 54. Notably, FIG. 5C shows that “a paragraph field 560 including text to be included in a paragraph of the digital content item” belongs to each entry. Garofalo ¶ 55.
determining, based on the belonged table of contents hierarchy identifier, target body document segments corresponding to the all table of contents titles in all the body document segment contents;
“Examples of information about a digital content item of the section determined by the content retrieval module 320 include the title of the digital content item, the identifier identifying the digital content item, the author of the digital content item, one or more images to present along with the digital content item, and the content, such as text or images, of the digital content item to be presented to the user.” Garofalo ¶ 37. Again, as shown in FIG. 5C, this includes all of the content 562–560 within the “content” tag 556.
building, based on a typesetting position of the target body document segments, a correspondence between a typesetting beginning position of the target body document segments and the corresponding table of contents title
“The content presentation module 335 formats the retrieved issue of the digital magazine based on various criteria, such as the client device used by the user 110 or the application executing on the client device used by the user 110. In another example, the content presentation module 335 formats the digital content items to include in the sections of the digital magazine issue based on the stylistic preferences and indicators included in the section feed published by the publisher 130 . . . . The content presentation module 335 provides the user 110 with the formatted digital magazine issue (including the various digital content items included in the sections of the digital magazine issue) for consumption.” Garofalo ¶ 43.
Formanek does not explicitly disclose building a “correspondence” for “jumping to the corresponding typesetting beginning position based on the correspondence in response to a trigger operation of the table of contents title.”
Beavers, however, teaches a method comprising:
building, based on a typesetting position of the target body document segments, a correspondence between a typesetting beginning position of the target body document segments and the corresponding table of contents title for jumping to the corresponding typesetting beginning position based on the correspondence in response to a trigger operation of the table of contents title.
“The user device 100 generates 460 a summary view GUI for the requested type of summary view using the grouped page thumbnails. The user device 100 may, e.g., generate a GUI for a table of contents view, a bookmark view, or a highlights & notes view. The GUI vertically lists identified segments, and horizontally lists page thumbnails associated with each identified segment.” Beavers ¶ 68.
Notably, within this view (shown in FIG. 2B), “page thumbnails are selectable, and if selected, e.g., via a user tapping on the thumbnail, the GUI 220 displays the ebook page corresponding to the selected page thumbnail.” Beavers ¶ 41.
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to improve Formanek and Garofalo with Beavers’s GUI 220. One would have been motivated to add Beavers’s GUI 220 to Formanek and Garofalo’s respective publisher interfaces because the GUI 220 helps a user “easily . . . discern an exact location within a segment using the page thumbnails within the segment, and navigate directly to the associated ebook page by selecting the corresponding page thumbnail.” Beavers ¶ 41.
Claim 20
Claim 20 is substantially similar to claim 7, and therefore rejected based on the same findings and rationale as provided above.
II. Formanek and Hancock teach claims 9, 10, and 22.
Claims 9, 10, and 22 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over Formanek as applied to claims 1 and 14 above, and further in view of U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2019/0114308 A1 (“Hancock”).
Claim 9
Formanek teaches the method of claim 1, but does not explicitly disclose the concept of “document segment content groups” recited in claim 9.
Hancock, however, teaches an improved method (FIG. 6) for reflowing the content of a document’s pages to fit differently-sized pages, but further comprising:
identifying whether the plurality of document segment contents contain at least one document segment content group meeting a preset association condition,
“The document layout system, in some embodiments, associates content items in a content item group with one other.” Hancock ¶ 110.
wherein each document segment content group contains a plurality of document segment contents meeting the preset association condition;
“To illustrate, FIG. 5A shows a single page of a dynamic document 504 that includes an arrangement of content items (e.g., a first content item 510a, a second content item 510b, a third content item 510c, and a fourth content item 510d) collectively referred to as ‘content item 510.’ As shown, the first content item 510a, second content item 510b, and third content item 510c are arranged into a content item group 506. As further shown, the fourth content item 510d is not included in the content item group 506.” Hancock ¶ 107.
if the at least one document segment content group is contained, determining whether the plurality of document segment contents in each document segment content group is on the same page; if not on the same page, adjusting the plurality of document segment contents in the corresponding document segment content group to the same page based on a preset adjustment policy.
“[T]he document layout system keeps content items in a content item group together. As such, when the document layout system modifies the arrangement of the dynamic document, for example, due to receiving updated dynamic content, the document layout system maintains the content items together in the content item group.” Hancock ¶ 110. “The document layout system can iteratively test various dimensions of various content items to determine the optimal arrangement of content items, such as an arrangement that minimizes the dynamic document's length or avoids content items flowing across pages of the dynamic document.” Hancock ¶ 64.
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to improve Formanek’s electronic text display method with Hancock’s technique of grouping elements together, so that they stay together on the same page. One would have been motivated to improve Formanek with Hancock’s technique because “each time a data visualization changes size in a document, an individual often has to manually update the paginated report to fix undesirable effects, such as overlapping objects or large unused spaces in the document.” Hancock ¶ 4.
Claim 10
Formanek and Hancock teach the method of claim 9, wherein adjusting the plurality of document segment contents in the corresponding document segment content group to the same paging based on the preset adjustment policy comprises:
adjusting a typesetting position of at least one document segment content in the corresponding document segment content group, so that a plurality of document segment contents in the corresponding document segment content group belong to the same paging; and/or, adjusting a content display size of at least one document segment content in the corresponding document segment content group, so that a plurality of document segment contents in the corresponding document segment content group belong to the same paging.
“[T]he document layout system keeps content items in a content item group together. As such, when the document layout system modifies the arrangement of the dynamic document, for example, due to receiving updated dynamic content, the document layout system maintains the content items together in the content item group.” Hancock ¶ 110. “The document layout system can iteratively test various dimensions of various content items to determine the optimal arrangement of content items, such as an arrangement that minimizes the dynamic document's length or avoids content items flowing across pages of the dynamic document.” Hancock ¶ 64.
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to improve Formanek’s electronic text display method with Hancock’s technique of grouping elements together, so that they stay together on the same page. One would have been motivated to improve Formanek with Hancock’s technique because “each time a data visualization changes size in a document, an individual often has to manually update the paginated report to fix undesirable effects, such as overlapping objects or large unused spaces in the document.” Hancock ¶ 4.
Claim 22
Claim 22 is substantially similar to claim 9, and therefore rejected based on the same findings and rationale as provided above.
III. Formanek and Garofalo teach claims 24 and 25
Claims 24 and 25 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2003/0014445 A1 (“Formanek”) in view of U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2016/0205173 A1 (“Garofalo”).
Claim 24
Formanek teaches the method of claim 1, but does not explicitly disclose the remaining steps of claim 24.
Garofalo, however, teaches a method (FIG. 4) comprising:
obtaining all table of contents titles of the published document;
“Upon receiving [an] issue feed for an issue of [a] digital magazine from [a] publisher 130, the magazine distribution system 140 determines 430 from the issue feed information about the digital magazine issue as well as information about one or more sections of the digital magazine issue.” Garofalo ¶ 45 (emphasis added).
obtaining a table of contents hierarchy identifier of each table of contents title
“The magazine distribution system 140 determines 430 from the issue feed the URI for a section feed of the digital magazine issue.” Garofalo ¶ 45. To be clear, the magazine distribution system 140 does this for each of the one or more section feeds. See Garofalo ¶ 29.
based on a webpage code of the published document,
As shown in FIG. 5B, the issue feed 515 comprises webpage code that identifies each of the section feeds as <entry> elements. See Garofalo ¶ 52.
building a hierarchical order of all the table of contents titles based on the table of contents hierarchy identifier;
“The magazine distribution system 140 transmits 435 a request for the section feed for a section of the digital magazine issue to the publisher 130. The request includes the URI of the section feed determined by the magazine distribution system 140.” Garofalo ¶ 46. In response, “the publisher 130 transmits 440 the section feed for the section of the digital magazine issue to the magazine distribution system 140,” and “the magazine distribution system 140 retrieves 445 from the section feed information about the section of the digital magazine as well as one or more digital content items to be included in the section of the digital magazine issue.” Garofalo ¶ 46.
and performing processing of typesetting and drawing for all the table of contents titles in accordance with the hierarchical order based on the typesetting attribute information.
“The magazine distribution system 140 formats 450 the issue of the digital magazine to include the information about the issue of the digital magazine, such as the title of the digital magazine and the image to include on the cover of the digital magazine issue, information about one or more sections of the digital magazine issue, and the digital content items to include in each of the one or more sections of the digital magazine.” Garofalo ¶ 47. A “content presentation module 335 formats the digital content items to include in the sections of the digital magazine issue based on the stylistic preferences and indicators included in the section feed published by the publisher 130.” Garofalo ¶ 43.
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to improve Formanek’s typesetting method with Garofalo’s method for obtaining content from a feed. One would have been motivated to improve Formanek with Garofalo’s method because this would enable magazine publishers to take advantage of the typesetting benefits afforded by both references. See Garofalo ¶ 3.
Claim 25
Claim 25 is substantially similar to claim 24, and therefore rejected for the same reasons.
Conclusion
All claims are identical to or patentably indistinct from, or have unity of invention with claims in the application prior to the entry of the submission under 37 CFR 1.114 (that is, restriction (including a lack of unity of invention) would not be proper) and all claims could have been finally rejected on the grounds and art of record in the next Office action if they had been entered in the application prior to entry under 37 CFR 1.114. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL even though it is a first action after the filing of a request for continued examination and the submission under 37 CFR 1.114. See MPEP § 706.07(b). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Justin R. Blaufeld whose telephone number is (571)272-4372. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 9:00am - 4:00pm ET.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, James K Trujillo can be reached at (571) 272-3677. 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.
Justin R. Blaufeld
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 2151
/Justin R. Blaufeld/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2151
1 As a reminder, “[c]hanging the statutory basis of rejection from 35 U.S.C. 103 to 35 U.S.C. 102, but relying on the same teachings,” and “[r]elying on fewer than all references in support of a 35 U.S.C. 103 rejection, but relying on the same teachings,” do not constitute a new ground of rejection. See MPEP § 1207.03.
Prosecution Insights