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 .
DETAILED ACTION
1. This initial office action is based on the application filed on 11/29/2024, which claims 1-19 have been presented for examination.
Status of Claim
2. Claims 1-19 are pending in the application and have been examined below, of which, claims 1 and 19 are presented in independent form.
Priority
3. No prior document has been filed in this application.
Information Disclosure Statement
4. The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 06/23/2025 and 01/29/2026. The submission is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement is being considered by the examiner.
Examiner Notes
5. Examiner cites particular columns and line numbers in the references as applied to the claims below for the convenience of the applicant. Although the specified citations are representative of the teachings in the art and are applied to the specific limitations within the individual claim, other passages and figures may apply as well. It is respectfully requested that, in preparing responses, the applicant fully consider the references in entirety as potentially teaching all or part of the claimed invention, as well as the context of the passage as taught by the prior art or disclosed by the examiner.
Specification
6. Page 3, the description of FIG. 18 is missing.
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.
7. Claims 11-15 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 11, steps (2g) and (2h) recite the limitations “repeating the steps (2.5) to (2.7) and repeating the steps (2.2) to (2.8)” appears to be mis-descriptive since the steps (2.7) and (2.8) are not recited in claims 1-10; and as such, it renders the claim indefinite.
Claims 12-15 are also rejected since they are depend on claims 11.
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.
8. Claims 1-19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more. The analysis specific to Claims 1 and 19 are being presented below.
Claims 1 and 19:
Step 1 Analysis:
Claims 1-18 of the instant application are direct to process.
Claim 19 of the instant application are direct to apparatus.
Thus, they are statutory categories.
Step 2 Analysis:
Claim 1 recite:
(a) establishing a content index from the visual programming language file;
(b) obtaining and storing information related to at least one visible object in at least one visible section to be displayed in a visible region of a canvas into the content index;
(c) calculating a predicted canvas height and a predicted canvas width of the canvas based on the content index;
(d) displaying the at least one visible object in the visible region.
Step 2A -- Prong 1:
The claim 1 recites the limitations of:
(b) obtaining and [[storing]] information related to at least one visible object in at least one visible section to be displayed in a visible region of a canvas into the content index;
(c) calculating a predicted canvas height and a predicted canvas width of the canvas based on the content index;
Limitation (b) “obtaining information related to at least one visible object in at least one visible section to be displayed in a visible region of a canvas into the content index” is limitation that, as drafted, are processes that, under its broadest reasonable interpretations, covers performance of the limitation in the mind. That is, nothing in the claim elements precludes the step from practically being performed in the mind or with a pen and paper, i.e. “obtaining” can be performed in the human mind through observation, evaluation, judgement, opinion with the aid of pen and paper. As such, these limitations fall within the “Mental Processes” grouping of abstract ideas.
Limitation (b) “obtaining information related to at least one visible object in at least one visible section to be displayed in a visible region of a canvas into the content index” is limitation that, as drafted, are processes that, under its broadest reasonable interpretations, covers performance of the limitation in the mind. That is, nothing in the claim elements precludes the step from practically being performed in the mind or with a pen and paper, i.e. “obtaining” can be performed in the human mind through observation, evaluation, judgement, opinion with the aid of pen and paper. As such, these limitations fall within the “Mental Processes” grouping of abstract ideas.
Limitation (c) recites a concept that falls into the “mathematical concepts” group of abstract idea. This limitation also falls into the “mental process” group of abstract idea because the recited mathematical calculation can be practically performed in the human mind.
Step 2 Analysis:
Claim 19 recites:
(a) display an image corresponding to at least one visible object in a visible region of a canvas;
(b) receive a user command;
(c) store the visual programming language file, a content index of the visual programming language file, and a program code;
(d) establishing the content index from the visual programming language file;
(e) obtaining and storing information related to the at least one visible object in at least one visible section to be displayed in a visible region of the canvas into the content index;
(f) calculating a predicted canvas height and a predicted canvas width of the canvas based on the content index;
(g) displaying the at least one visible object in the visible region.
Step 2A -- Prong 1:
The claim 19 recites the limitations of:
(e) obtaining and [[storing]] information related to at least one visible object in at least one visible section to be displayed in a visible region of a canvas into the content index;
(f) calculating a predicted canvas height and a predicted canvas width of the canvas based on the content index;
Limitation (e) “obtaining information related to at least one visible object in at least one visible section to be displayed in a visible region of a canvas into the content index” is limitation that, as drafted, are processes that, under its broadest reasonable interpretations, covers performance of the limitation in the mind. That is, nothing in the claim elements precludes the step from practically being performed in the mind or with a pen and paper, i.e. “obtaining” can be performed in the human mind through observation, evaluation, judgement, opinion with the aid of pen and paper. As such, these limitations fall within the “Mental Processes” grouping of abstract ideas.
Limitation (f) recites a concept that falls into the “mathematical concepts” group of abstract idea. This limitation also falls into the “mental process” group of abstract idea because the recited mathematical calculation can be practically performed in the human mind.
Step 2A -- Prong 2:
The claim 1 recites additional limitation (a) is merely insignificant extra solution activity of create/generate data. Limitations (b) “storing information…” and (d) which perform as well-understood, routine and conventional 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 19 recites the additional limitations of “A display system”, “a display device”, “a memory device” and “a processor”. The limitations of “A display system”, “a display device”, “a memory device” and “a processor” are recited at a high level of generality, i.e., merely instructions to implement the abstract idea on a generic computer or merely uses a computer as a tool to perform the abstract idea. The limitation “a user interface” is as a tool to perform the abstract idea. Additionally, limitation (d) is merely insignificant extra solution activity of create/generate data. Limitations (a-c), (f) “storing information…” and (h) which perform as well-understood, routine and conventional 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.
Step 2B:
As explained with respect to Step 2A Prong Two, the additional elements in the claim are recited at a high level of generality and amount to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using generic computer components. Accordingly, the 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 same analysis applies here in 2B, i.e., simply adding extra-solution activity or well-understood, routine and conventional activity or generic computer components does not integrate a judicial exception into a practical application at Step 2A or provide an inventive concept in Step 2B since the courts have identified functions such as gathering, displaying, updating, transmitting/receiving and storing data as well-understood, routine, conventional activity. See MPEP 2106.05(d) and See MPEP 2106.05(g). Therefore, claims are ineligible.
Dependent claims
Additionally, claim 2 recites “(1.1) parsing the visual programming language file to obtain and store a total section number into the content index;(1.2) determining a location of the visible region;(1.3) identifying one or more potential visible sections expected to be displayed in the visible region based on a default section height; and(1.4) obtaining and storing a horizontal object number, a vertical object number, and related object structural information of each of the one or more potential visible sections into the content index” are limitations that, as drafted, are processes that, under its broadest reasonable interpretations, covers performance of the limitation in the mind. That is, nothing in the claim elements precludes the step from practically being performed in the mind or with a pen and paper, i.e. “parsing”, “determining”, “identifying” and “obtaining” can be performed in the human mind through observation, evaluation, judgement, opinion with the aid of pen and paper. As such, these limitations fall within the “Mental Processes” grouping of abstract ideas. Accordingly, these limitations do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because they do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea or provide an inventive concept and thus do not amount to significantly more that the abstract idea. As such, these claims fail both Step 2A prong 2 and Step 2B. Therefore, claim 2 is ineligible.
Additionally, claim 3 recites “establishing the canvas having an initial canvas height as the predicted canvas height and an initial canvas width as the predicted canvas width, based on the content index” is merely insignificant extra solution activity of create/generate data. Accordingly, these limitations do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because they do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea or provide an inventive concept and thus do not amount to significantly more that the abstract idea. As such, these claims fail both Step 2A prong 2 and Step 2B. Therefore, claim 3 is ineligible.
Additionally, claim 4 recites “wherein the initial canvas height is the total section number multiplied by the default section height and the initial canvas width is a largest horizontal object number of the one or more potential visible sections multiplied by a default object width” is merely insignificant extra solution activity of gathering data. Accordingly, these limitations do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because they do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea or provide an inventive concept and thus do not amount to significantly more that the abstract idea. As such, these claims fail both Step 2A prong 2 and Step 2B. Therefore, claim 4 is ineligible.
Additionally, claim 5 recites “(2.1) identifying the at least one visible object in at least one visible section to be displayed in the visible region;(2.2) obtaining section index and object information of the at least one visible object in the at least one visible section;(2.3) calculating an actual width and an actual height of the at least one visible object in the at least one visible section based on the object information” are limitations that, as drafted, are processes that, under its broadest reasonable interpretations, covers performance of the limitation in the mind. That is, nothing in the claim elements precludes the step from practically being performed in the mind or with a pen and paper, i.e. “identifying”, “obtaining” and “calculating” can be performed in the human mind through observation, evaluation, judgement, opinion with the aid of pen and paper. The limitations “(2.4) repeating steps (2.1) to (2.4) until all visible objects in all visible sections are identified if the at least one visible object includes multiple visible objects and the at least one visible section includes multiple visible sections” is merely insignificant extra solution activity of create/generate data” and “(2.5) storing the section index, the object information, and the actual width and the actual height of all visible objects in all visible sections into the content index” which perform as well-understood, routine and conventional activity. Accordingly, these limitations do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because they do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea or provide an inventive concept and thus do not amount to significantly more that the abstract idea. As such, these claims fail both Step 2A prong 2 and Step 2B. Therefore, claim 5 is ineligible.
Additionally, claim 6 recites determining a vertical coordinate of the visible region on the canvas; calculating a predicted vertical coordinate of the multiple sections based on the content index; and identify the at least one section having a predicted vertical coordinate corresponding to the vertical coordinate of the visible region on the canvas.” are limitations that, as drafted, are processes that, under its broadest reasonable interpretations, covers performance of the limitation in the mind. That is, nothing in the claim elements precludes the step from practically being performed in the mind or with a pen and paper, i.e. “determining”, “calculating” and “identifying” can be performed in the human mind through observation, evaluation, judgement, opinion with the aid of pen and paper. Accordingly, these limitations do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because they do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea or provide an inventive concept and thus do not amount to significantly more that the abstract idea. As such, these claims fail both Step 2A prong 2 and Step 2B. Therefore, claim 6 is ineligible.
Additionally, claim 7 recites “wherein the predicted vertical coordinate of a section is calculated by adding up a predicted section height of each section before the section, the predicted section height of an unparsed section is a default section height, the predicted section height of a parsed section is a sum of a predicted row height of each row in the parsed section, the predicted row height of a row without a displayed object is a default object height, and the predicted row height of a row with at least one displayed object is the largest actual object height” is merely insignificant extra solution activity of gathering data. Accordingly, these limitations do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because they do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea or provide an inventive concept and thus do not amount to significantly more that the abstract idea. As such, these claims fail both Step 2A prong 2 and Step 2B. Therefore, claim 7 is ineligible.
Additionally, claim 8 recites “determining a horizontal coordinate of the visible region on the canvas; calculating a predicted horizontal coordinate and a predicted vertical coordinate of the multiple objects in the at least one visible section based on the content index; and identify the at least one visible object having a predicted horizontal coordinate and a predicted vertical coordinate corresponding to the horizontal coordinate and the vertical coordinate of the visible region on the canvas” are limitations that, as drafted, are processes that, under its broadest reasonable interpretations, covers performance of the limitation in the mind. That is, nothing in the claim elements precludes the step from practically being performed in the mind or with a pen and paper, i.e. “determining”, “calculating” and “identify” can be performed in the human mind through observation, evaluation, judgement, opinion with the aid of pen and paper. Accordingly, these limitations do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because they do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea or provide an inventive concept and thus do not amount to significantly more that the abstract idea. As such, these claims fail both Step 2A prong 2 and Step 2B. Therefore, claim 8 is ineligible.
Additionally, claim 9 recites “wherein the predicted vertical coordinate of an object in one of the at least one visible section is calculated by adding up a predicted section height of each section before the section and a predicted row height of each row before the object in the section, each section is a parsed section or an unparsed section, the predicted section height of an unparsed section is a default section height, the predicted section height of a parsed section is a sum of a predicted row height of each row in the parsed section, the predicted row height of a row without a displayed object is a default object height, and the predicted row height of a row with at least one displayed object is the largest actual object height” is merely insignificant extra solution activity of gathering data. Accordingly, these limitations do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because they do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea or provide an inventive concept and thus do not amount to significantly more that the abstract idea. As such, these claims fail both Step 2A prong 2 and Step 2B. Therefore, claim 9 is ineligible.
Additionally, claim 10 recites “wherein the predicted horizontal coordinate of an object in one of the at least one visible section is calculated by adding up a predicted object width of each object before the object, each object is either a displayed object or a non-displayed object, the predicted object width of the displayed object is the actual object width, and the predicted object width of the non-displayed object is a default object width” is merely insignificant extra solution activity of gathering data. Accordingly, these limitations do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because they do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea or provide an inventive concept and thus do not amount to significantly more that the abstract idea. As such, these claims fail both Step 2A prong 2 and Step 2B. Therefore, claim 10 is ineligible.
Additionally, claim 11 recites “assigning an initial section as a current section;(2b) determining if the current section is outside of the visible region;(2c) if the current section is not outside of the visible region, obtain section index of the current section which is the at least one visible section;(2d) assigning an initial object in the current section as a current object;(2e) determining if the current object of the current section is outside of the visible region; (2f) if the current object is not outside of the visible region, obtain object information of the current object which is the at least one visible object, and calculate an actual width and an actual height of the current object;(2g) assigning a next object as the current object and repeating the steps (2.5) to (2.7) until all visible objects in the current section are identified; and (2h) assigning a next section as the current section and repeating the steps (2.2) to (2.8) until all visible sections are identified” can be performed in the human mind through observation, evaluation, judgement, opinion with the aid of pen and paper. The limitation “storing the section index, the object information, and the actual width and the actual height of all visible objects in all visible sections into the content index” which performs as well-understood, routine and conventional activity. Accordingly, these limitations do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because they do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea or provide an inventive concept and thus do not amount to significantly more that the abstract idea. As such, these claims fail both Step 2A prong 2 and Step 2B. Therefore, claim 11 is ineligible.
Additionally, claim 12 recites “setting a read state of the current section to be true” is merely insignificant extra solution activity of setting data. Accordingly, these limitations do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because they do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea or provide an inventive concept and thus do not amount to significantly more that the abstract idea. As such, these claims fail both Step 2A prong 2 and Step 2B. Therefore, claim 12 is ineligible.
Additionally, claim 13 recites “setting a read state of the current object to be true” is merely insignificant extra solution activity of setting data. Accordingly, these limitations do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because they do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea or provide an inventive concept and thus do not amount to significantly more that the abstract idea. As such, these claims fail both Step 2A prong 2 and Step 2B. Therefore, claim 13 is ineligible.
Additionally, claim 14 recites “generating a graph specification for the current object, the graph specification including the actual height, the actual width, an object type, an object name, an input variable, and an output variable of the current object.” is merely insignificant extra solution activity of generating/creating data. Accordingly, these limitations do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because they do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea or provide an inventive concept and thus do not amount to significantly more that the abstract idea. As such, these claims fail both Step 2A prong 2 and Step 2B. Therefore, claim 14 is ineligible.
Additionally, claim 15 recites “calculating a predicted section width of the current section by adding up a predicted object width of each object counted for the horizontal object number; wherein each object is either a displayed object or a non-displayed object, the predicted width of the displayed object is the actual object width, and the predicted width of the non-displayed object is a default object width; and calculating a predicted section height of the current section by adding up a predicted row height of each row in the current section; wherein the predicted row height of a row without a displayed object is a default object height and the predicted row height of a row with at least one displayed object is a largest actual object height of the row” are limitations that, as drafted, are processes that, under its broadest reasonable interpretations, covers performance of the limitation in the mind. That is, nothing in the claim elements precludes the step from practically being performed in the mind or with a pen and paper, i.e. “calculating” can be performed in the human mind through observation, evaluation, judgement, opinion with the aid of pen and paper. Accordingly, these limitations do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because they do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea or provide an inventive concept and thus do not amount to significantly more that the abstract idea. As such, these claims fail both Step 2A prong 2 and Step 2B. Therefore, claim 15 is ineligible.
Additionally, claim 16 recites “(3.1) adding up a predicted section height of each section in the visual programming language file to obtain the predicted canvas height; and(3.2) comparing a predicted section width of each visible section against a current maximum section width; and(3.3) if the largest predicted section width of each visible section is larger than [a]]the current maximum section width, storing the largest predicted section width of each visible section as a new maximum section width for the predicted canvas width” is merely insignificant extra solution activity of gathering data and performs as well-understood, routine and conventional activity. Accordingly, these limitations do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because they do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea or provide an inventive concept and thus do not amount to significantly more that the abstract idea. As such, these claims fail both Step 2A prong 2 and Step 2B. Therefore, claim 16 is ineligible.
Additionally, claim 17 recites generating a horizontal scrolling bar based on the predicted canvas width; and generating a vertical scrolling bar based on the predicted canvas height” is merely insignificant extra solution activity of creating/generating data. Accordingly, these limitations do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because they do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea or provide an inventive concept and thus do not amount to significantly more that the abstract idea. As such, these claims fail both Step 2A prong 2 and Step 2B. Therefore, claim 17 is ineligible.
Additionally, claim 18 recites “generating a layout image based on a graph specification for each of the at least one visible object” is merely insignificant extra solution activity of creating/generating data. Accordingly, these limitations do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because they do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea or provide an inventive concept and thus do not amount to significantly more that the abstract idea. As such, these claims fail both Step 2A prong 2 and Step 2B. Therefore, claim 18 is ineligible.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 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, 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.
9. Claim(s) 1-3, 5 and 18-19 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Manna (US Pub. No. 2020/0210518 A1 – IDS filed on 06/23/2025 – herein after Manna) in view of Penland et al. (US Pub. No. 2020/0356350 A1 – herein Penland).
Regarding claim 1.
Manna discloses
A method for displaying a portion of a visual [[programming language]] file having multiple objects arranged in multiple sections (the part of graphic design that deals in the arrangement of visual elements on a page. Layout usually is understandable in terms of some number of sections, panels, or the like, throughout a given page or screen, potentially as per requirements for the underlying application – paragraph [0006]. Each section/division represents a node/object – See paragraph [0066] and Fig. 9), comprising:
(1) establishing a content index from the visual [[programming language]] file (The whole page has some rows and columns that define the coordinates, and the drawn layout's position is noted throughout the coordinates. Jvider, for example, is a visual interface designer for Java and uses a grid system. Using Jvider, a user can draw layouts, elements, panels, etc., and they are notated using coordinates. As another example, Tkinter is Python's de facto standard GUI package, which provides a code-based grid system – See paragraph [0007]. The canvas represents the entire page/screen to be generated. The canvas is divided into sections, and sections are dividable as well. The user can insert design elements into the canvas and/or a section thereof. These design elements can be text, graphic, video, user-interface (e.g., radio button, dropdown list, button, etc.), and/or other design elements – See paragraph [0053]);
(2) obtaining and storing information related to at least one visible object in at least one visible section (the horizontal division creating upper and lower sections in the drawing canvas, and adding to the page object new objects corresponding to the upper and lower sections, the new objects having associated therewith respective height and width information – See paragraph [0014]) to be displayed in a visible region of a canvas into the content index (the first binary partition being represented in the page object as first and second objects that are sub-objects of a root object representing the drawing canvas as a whole – See paragraph [0023] – See Fig. 7B-7E and Figs 8-9, display UI);
(3) calculating a predicted canvas height and a predicted canvas width of the canvas based on the content index (the first distance may be defined as a percentage of the width of the drawing canvas and the second distance may be defined as a percentage of the height of the drawing canvas; and otherwise, the first distance may be defined as a percentage of the width of the identified predefined section and the second distance is defined as a percentage of the height of the identified predefined section – See paragraphs [0015-0016]);
Manna does not disclose
visual programming language
(4) displaying the at least one visible object in the visible region;
Penland discloses
visual programming language (visual programming language – See paragraphs [0420-0425])
(1) establishing a content index from the visual programming language file (In CSS, the z-index property specifies the stack order of an element. An element with greater stack order may be placed in front of an element with a lower stack order. An index works on positioned elements (position:absolute, position:relative, or position:fixed). Z-indexing of an onscreen item allows the 2D graphical interface to be displayed on top of items in the (X,Y,Z) grid. In certain spreadsheet applications and in certain embodiments of the dynamic multi-dimensional visual programming language of the instant invention, conjoiners need not be a separate data type; they may also be suggestive and invoked by description or GUI interrelationships. In certain embodiments of the disclosed multi-dimensional visual programming language – See paragraphs [0420-0425]);
(4) displaying the at least one visible object in the visible region (graphical items (also known as images, displayed images, items, displayed items, graphical items, objects, images, shapes, blocks, or cubes) – See paragraph [0018]. Graphical images positioned at assigned locations in a multi-dimensional space, which may be rendered into a graphical display on a 2D computer screen) – See paragraph [0581]).
It would have been obvious to one ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of claimed invention to use Penland’s teaching into Manna’s invention because incorporating Penland’s teaching would enhance Manna to enable to position graphical images at assigned locations in a multiple-dimensional space as suggested by Penland (paragraph [0581]).
Regarding claim 2, the method of claim 1, wherein the step (1) comprises the steps of:
Manna discloses
(1.1) parsing the visual [[programming language]] file to obtain and store a total section number into the content index (the divisions are maintained in a document object model (DOM) representation and shown visually – See Abstract. The dynamic layout depends on the whole page/screen or section – See paragraphs [0012 and 0100]);
(1.2) determining a location of the visible region (the horizontal division extending across the identified predefined section at a height location corresponding to where the respective operation instruction is provided – See paragraph [0014]);
(1.3) identifying one or more potential visible sections expected to be displayed in the visible region based on a default section height (the horizontal division extending across the identified predefined section at a height location corresponding to where the respective operation instruction is provided, the horizontal division creating upper and lower sections in the identified predefined section, and adding to the page object, as child objects of the object representing the identified predefined section – See paragraphs [0014]); and
(1.4) obtaining and storing a horizontal object number, a vertical object number, and related object structural information of each of the one or more potential visible sections into the content index (whether to create a horizontal or vertical division and associated objects, responsive to (a) a determination that a given operation instruction is provided within the first distance of the left or right edge of the drawing canvas and within the second distance of the upper or lower edge of the drawing canvas – See paragraph [0014-0015]).
Manna does not disclose
visual programming language
Penland discloses
visual programming language (visual programming language – See paragraphs [0420-0425])
It would have been obvious to one ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of claimed invention to use Penland’s teaching into Manna’s invention because incorporating Penland’s teaching would enhance Manna to enable to provide multi-dimensional visual programming language as suggested by Penland (paragraph [0420-0425]).
Regarding claim 3, the method of claim 2,
Manna discloses
before obtaining and storing information related to the at least one visible object to be displayed in the visible region of the canvas into the content index (it would be desirable to enable users, and potentially even end-users, to create UIs that are dynamic (e.g., “responsive” to resize and/or other operations) and that can be used for UIs of potentially any kind of application displayable via potentially any type of device. It furthermore would be desirable to create layouts in a simple way, e.g., via a well-designed UI, that supports the underlying operation, while providing dynamic features, separating out technical design from graphical layout, and automatically producing simple, consistent and repeatable (e.g., deterministic), and well-defined code output – See paragraphs [0010-0011]), further comprising:
establishing the canvas having an initial canvas height as the predicted canvas height and an initial canvas width as the predicted canvas width, based on the content index (the first distance may be defined as a percentage of the width of the drawing canvas and the second distance may be defined as a percentage of the height of the drawing canvas; and otherwise, the first distance may be defined as a percentage of the width of the identified predefined section and the second distance is defined as a percentage of the height of the identified predefined section – See paragraphs [0015-0016]).
Regarding claim 5, the method of claim 1, wherein the step (2) comprises steps of:
Penland discloses
(2.1) identifying the at least one visible object in at least one visible section to be displayed in the visible region (visually displayed images will be referred to as graphical items (also known as images, displayed images, items, displayed items, graphical items, objects, images, shapes, blocks, or cubes) – See paragraph [0018]);
(2.2) obtaining section index and object information of the at least one visible object in the at least one visible section (the function and variables section – See paragraphs [0367-0369]);
(2.3) calculating an actual width and an actual height of the at least one visible object in the at least one visible section based on the object information (use Code cubes to draw non-cuboid shapes in CSS, similar to how the environment draws a “VoxelWorld,” to create a series of elements which are then given width, height, visual styling and desired (X,Y,Z) pixel transforms and then are attached to an existing multi-dimensional architectural representation – See paragraph [0689-0690]);
(2.4) repeating steps (2.1) to (2.4) until all visible objects in all visible sections are identified if the at least one visible object includes multiple visible objects and the at least one visible section includes multiple visible sections (process is repeated until the guessing word in the word space is completed. After the word space is completed, an instruction is sent by the letter cube function controlling each letter cube to the large messaging wall at the back of the world – See paragraph [0632]); and
(2.5) storing the section index, the object information, and the actual width and the actual height of all visible objects in all visible sections into the content index (the z-index property specifies the stack order of an element. An element with greater stack order may be placed in front of an element with a lower stack order. An index works on positioned elements (position:absolute, position:relative, or position:fixed). Z-indexing of an onscreen item allows the 2D graphical interface to be displayed on top of items in the (X,Y,Z) grid – See paragraph [0421]).
It would have been obvious to one ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of claimed invention to use Penland’s teaching into Manna’s invention because incorporating Penland’s teaching would enhance Manna to enable create a series of elements which are then given width, height, visual styling and desired as suggested by Penland (paragraph [0689-0690]).
Regarding claim 18, the method of claim 1, wherein the step (4) further comprises:
Penland discloses
generating a layout image based on a graph specification for each of the at least one visible object (build logic chains and print, or visually display, results of boolean logic and other common logic trees – See paragraph [0678]).
It would have been obvious to one ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of claimed invention to use Penland’s teaching into Manna’s invention because incorporating Penland’s teaching would enhance Manna to enable to visually display, results of boolean logic and other common logic trees as suggested by Penland (paragraph [0678]).
Regarding claim 19.
Manna discloses
A display system for displaying a portion of a visual [[programming language]] file having multiple objects arranged in multiple sections (the part of graphic design that deals in the arrangement of visual elements on a page. Layout usually is understandable in terms of some number of sections, panels, or the like, throughout a given page or screen, potentially as per requirements for the underlying application – paragraph [0006]. Each section/division represents a node/object – See paragraph [0066] and Fig. 9), comprising:
a display device configured to display an image corresponding to at least one visible object in a visible region of a canvas (the canvas represents the entire page/screen to be generated. The canvas is divided into sections, and sections are dividable as well. The user can insert design elements into the canvas and/or a section thereof. These design elements can be text, graphic, video, user-interface (e.g., radio button, dropdown list, button, etc.), and/or other design elements – See paragraph [0054]);
a user interface configured to receive a user command (dragging and dropping elements onto the canvas in a section, creating text boxes and adding text, selecting an image file, etc. The UI element panel tool 414 may in some instances enable the user to specify DOM-compliant objects, attributes, and/or the like, for inclusion in the canvas. This on-the-fly creation and display functionality advantageously enables for example, recovery, modification, undo/redo, and/or other operations to be realized – See paragraphs [0058-0059]);
a memory device configured to store the visual [[programming language]] file, a content index of the visual [[programming language]] file, and a program code (HTML, CSS, JS, and/or other hardcoded files may be generated according to the page object. In the event that the user decides to implement a fully-custom responsive page, then separate layout structures for different screens may be generated and potentially combined in a single CSS file in this phase (e.g., as discussed in greater detail below). The created file(s) may be stored to the memory 404 – See paragraph [0063]); and
a processor connected to the display device, the user interface and the memory device (processors – See paragraph [0058]), wherein the program code is configured to instruct the processor to perform operations comprising:
(1) establishing a content index from the visual [[programming language]] file (The whole page has some rows and columns that define the coordinates, and the drawn layout's position is noted throughout the coordinates. Jvider, for example, is a visual interface designer for Java and uses a grid system. Using Jvider, a user can draw layouts, elements, panels, etc., and they are notated using coordinates. As another example, Tkinter is Python's de facto standard GUI package, which provides a code-based grid system – See paragraph [0007]. The canvas represents the entire page/screen to be generated. The canvas is divided into sections, and sections are dividable as well. The user can insert design elements into the canvas and/or a section thereof. These design elements can be text, graphic, video, user-interface (e.g., radio button, dropdown list, button, etc.), and/or other design elements – See paragraph [0053]);
(2) obtaining and storing information related to at least one visible object in at least one visible section (the horizontal division creating upper and lower sections in the drawing canvas, and adding to the page object new objects corresponding to the upper and lower sections, the new objects having associated therewith respective height and width information – See paragraph [0014]) to be displayed in a visible region of a canvas into the content index (the first binary partition being represented in the page object as first and second objects that are sub-objects of a root object representing the drawing canvas as a whole – See paragraph [0023] – See Fig. 7B-7E and Figs 8-9, display UI);
(3) calculating a predicted canvas height and a predicted canvas width of the canvas based on the content index (the first distance may be defined as a percentage of the width of the drawing canvas and the second distance may be defined as a percentage of the height of the drawing canvas; and otherwise, the first distance may be defined as a percentage of the width of the identified predefined section and the second distance is defined as a percentage of the height of the identified predefined section – See paragraphs [0015-0016]);
Manna does not disclose
visual programming language
(4) displaying the at least one visible object in the visible region;
Penland discloses
visual programming language (visual programming language – See paragraphs [0420-0425])
(1) establishing a content index from the visual programming language file (In CSS, the z-index property specifies the stack order of an element. An element with greater stack order may be placed in front of an element with a lower stack order. An index works on positioned elements (position:absolute, position:relative, or position:fixed). Z-indexing of an onscreen item allows the 2D graphical interface to be displayed on top of items in the (X,Y,Z) grid. In certain spreadsheet applications and in certain embodiments of the dynamic multi-dimensional visual programming language of the instant invention, conjoiners need not be a separate data type; they may also be suggestive and invoked by description or GUI interrelationships. In certain embodiments of the disclosed multi-dimensional visual programming language – See paragraphs [0420-0425]);
(4) displaying the at least one visible object in the visible region (graphical items (also known as images, displayed images, items, displayed items, graphical items, objects, images, shapes, blocks, or cubes) – See paragraph [0018]. Graphical images positioned at assigned locations in a multi-dimensional space, which may be rendered into a graphical display on a 2D computer screen) – See paragraph [0581]).
It would have been obvious to one ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of claimed invention to use Penland’s teaching into Manna’s invention because incorporating Penland’s teaching would enhance Manna to enable to position graphical images at assigned locations in a multiple-dimensional space as suggested by Penland (paragraph [0581]).
10. Claim(s) 6 and 8 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Manna and Penland as applied to claim 5 above, and further in view of Perkins et al. (US Pub. No. 2024/0353989 A1 – herein after Perkins).
Regarding claim 6, the method of claim 5, wherein, at step (2.1), the at least one visible section is first identified by the steps of:
Perkins discloses
determining a vertical coordinate of the visible region on the canvas (the new end position of the audio element preview 3002A is calculated so it vertically aligns with the horizontal position in the component previews 342 – See paragraph [0263]);
calculating a predicted vertical coordinate of the multiple sections based on the content index (The new end position (which is still 11 seconds into the asset) is calculated to vertically align with the position approximately ⅚.sup.ths through component preview 342S (noting that this position has changed as a result of re-displaying component preview 342R according to the current zoom level) – See paragraph [0280-0282]); and
identify the at least one section having a predicted vertical coordinate corresponding to the vertical coordinate of the visible region on the canvas (the slide path having a first portion corresponding to the fixed zoom mode and a second portion corresponding to the scaled zoom mode – See paragraph [0032]).
It would have been obvious to one ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of claimed invention to use Perkins’ teaching into Manna’s and Penland’s invention because incorporating Perkins’ teaching would enhance Manna and Penland to enable calculate element preview so it vertically aligns with the horizontal position in the component previews as suggested by Perkins (paragraph [0280-0282]).
Regarding claim 8, the method of claim 6, wherein, at step (2.1), the at least one visible object is identified by the steps of:
Perkins discloses
determining a horizontal coordinate of the visible region on the canvas (the new component width is the horizontal distance between the corresponding preview's leading edge and its newly positioned trailing edge—e.g. trailing edge x-coordinate minus leading edge x-coordinate – See paragraph [0223]);
calculating a predicted horizontal coordinate (the x-coordinate of a preview's leading edge may be calculated based on (zoom level*24 pixels*the corresponding audio element's start time (e.g. offset) (in seconds)) – See paragraph [0270]) and a predicted vertical coordinate of the multiple objects in the at least one visible section based on the content index (the new end position of the audio element preview 3002A is calculated so it vertically aligns with the horizontal position in the component previews 342 that corresponds to the audio element's end time – See paragraphs [0263-0265]); and
identify the at least one visible object having a predicted horizontal coordinate and a predicted vertical coordinate corresponding to the horizontal coordinate and the vertical coordinate of the visible region on the canvas (audio element previews such as 3002B and 3002C that play at the same time could be displayed on separate display ranks (e.g. one audio element preview displayed at a vertically higher (e.g. y-coordinate) position than the other) – See paragraphs [0265-0267]).
It would have been obvious to one ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of claimed invention to use Perkins’ teaching into Manna’s and Penland’s invention because incorporating Perkins’ teaching would enhance Manna and Penland to enable calculate element preview so it vertically aligns with the horizontal position in the component previews as suggested by Perkins (paragraph [0280-0282]).
11. Claim(s) 16 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Manna and Penland as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Zhao (CN 107656979 A – IDS filed on 06/23/2025 – herein after Zhao).
Regarding claim 16, the method of claim 1, wherein the step (3) comprises the steps of:
Manna discloses
(3.1) adding up a predicted section height of each section in the visual programming language file to obtain the predicted canvas height (continue to execute adding network view node and adding controller and logic and adding the graphic unit to the visual network group and setting the network size offset – See paragraphs [0014-0015]); and
(3.2) comparing a predicted section width of each visible section against a current maximum section width (The dynamic layout of certain example embodiments has a potentially high computation requirement compared to the other layouts. However, this concern is not really the user's burden; instead, it is a machine concern. The layout design time is better than the grid system or semi-dynamic system. Perfection can be is maximum, and full customization can be supported; and
Manna does not disclose
(3.3) if the largest predicted section width of each visible section is larger than the current maximum section width, storing the largest predicted section width of each visible section as a new maximum section width for the predicted canvas width.
Zhao discloses
(3.3) if the largest predicted section width of each visible section is larger than the current maximum section width, storing the largest predicted section width of each visible section as a new maximum section width for the predicted canvas width (the more the larger the width exceeds the preset rectangular maximum width, will occur, will increase the vertical height of the display rectangle. object acquiring unit acquires content to be displayed selected by the user operation, the target calculation unit sequentially calculates the display content on the canvas is too much position – See page 7),
It would have been obvious to one ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of claimed invention to use Zhao’ teaching into Manna’s and Penland’s invention because incorporating Zhao’ teaching would enhance Manna and Penland to enable increase the vertical height of the display rectangle. object acquiring unit acquires content to be displayed as suggested by Zhao (page 7).
12. Claim(s) 17 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Manna and Penland as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Xu (CN 116880943 A – herein after Xu).
Regarding claim 17, the method of claim 1, wherein step (3) further comprises:
Xu discloses
generating a horizontal scrolling bar based on the predicted canvas width (CanvasX =-(ScrollThumbLeft * (CanvasWidth/ScrollTrackWidth)) calculating the horizontal coordinate of the current canvas relative to the screen, wherein ScrollThumbLeft is the sliding block based on the current horizontal position in the ScrollTrack range, CanvasWidth is the canvas width, ScreenWidth is the screen width, ScrollTrackWidth is track length – See page 3); and
generating a vertical scrolling bar based on the predicted canvas height (PreviewBarHeight: browsing area height (including ScrollTrack, the height of the ScrollThumb area), ScrollTrackWidth: the width of the ScrollTrack, ScrollTrackHeight: the height of the ScrollTrack – See page 5).
It would have been obvious to one ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of claimed invention to use Xu’ teaching into Manna’s and Penland’s invention because incorporating Xu’ teaching would enhance Manna and Penland to enable to generate scroll track width as suggested by Xu (page 3).
Conclusion
13. The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Bian et al. (CN 115309485 A) discloses the target image data needed to be displayed in the visible window can be screened in the mass data, it can avoid the serious blocking phenomenon occurred when the mass data is programmed, improving the editing efficiency of the graphic data, and realizing the optimization of the data interaction display performance under the mass data condition – See Abstract and specification for more details.
Whilden et al. (US Pub. No. 2022/0318262 A1) discloses he block card includes user interface affordances to designate (i) a layout type that specifies a row-based arrangement, a column-based arrangement, or an inline arrangement, (ii) a mark type that specifies a shape for visual data marks, and (iii) one or more visual encodings. A data visualization for the data source is generated and displayed according to the layout type, the mark type, and the visual encodings specified on the block card – See Abstract and specification for more details.
Bailey (US Pub. No. 2008/0109785) discloses a graphical user interface (GUI) may be generated by the program-development environment, and displayed on the screen of a computer system. The GUI has several elements including a form window and a designer window – See Abstract and specification for more details.
Rathod (US Pub. No. 2018/0246983 A1) discloses displaying generated first and second structured sites or websites chronologically, based on date & time associated with corresponding received one or more types of content items, to respective target recipients or access rights associated users – See Abstract and specification for more details.
Gao (US Pub. No. 20230359447 A1) discloses running device of the first application may calculate an attribute value of each control unit based on the attribute constraint condition set in the first layout file, to automatically complete layout and display of the first display interface based on the attribute value of each control unit – See Abstract and specification for more details.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MONGBAO NGUYEN whose telephone number is (571)270-7180. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 8am-5pm.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Hyung S. Sough can be reached at 571-272-6799. 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.
/MONGBAO NGUYEN/ Examiner, Art Unit 2192