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 .
The amendments to the independent claims (1 and 11) have changed the scope of the invention and necessitated new grounds of rejections. Accordingly, these prior rejections are withdrawn:
Claim(s) 1, 2, 4-6, 10-12, 14-16 and 20 rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Pimento (“Working with Symbols in Adobe XD”, published: Jun. 15, 2017, pages 1-17) in view of Techbyter (“Adobe Gives Illustrator Users Something to Cheer About”, published: Dec 2018, pages: 1-5) in view of Sasikumar (cited in applicant’s filed IDS on: 03/19/2025, US Application: US 2018/0217965, published: Aug. 2, 2018, filed: Mar. 21, 2018).
Claim(s) 3 and 13 rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Pimento (“Working with Symbols in Adobe XD”, published: Jun. 15, 2017, pages 1-17) in view of Techbyter (“Adobe Gives Illustrator Users Something to Cheer About”, published: Dec 2018, pages: 1-5) in view of Sasikumar (US Application: US 2018/0217965, published: Aug. 2, 2018, filed: Mar. 21, 2018) in view of Goyal et al (US Application: US 20180300046, published: Oct. 18, 2018, filed: Apr. 12, 2017).
Claim(s) 7, 9, 17 and 19 rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Pimento (“Working with Symbols in Adobe XD”, published: Jun. 15, 2017, pages 1-17) in view of Techbyter (“Adobe Gives Illustrator Users Something to Cheer About”, published: Dec 2018, pages: 1-5) in view of Sasikumar (US Application: US 2018/0217965, published: Aug. 2, 2018, filed: Mar. 21, 2018) in view of Johnson et al (US Application: US 2008/0304807, published: Dec. 11, 2008, filed: Jun. 8, 2007).
Claim(s) 8 and 18 rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Pimento (“Working with Symbols in Adobe XD”, published: Jun. 15, 2017, pages 1-17) in view of Techbyter (“Adobe Gives Illustrator Users Something to Cheer About”, published: Dec 2018, pages: 1-5) in view of Sasikumar (US Application: US 2018/0217965, published: Aug. 2, 2018, filed: Mar. 21, 2018) in view of Johnson et al (US Application: US 2008/0304807, published: Dec. 11, 2008, filed: Jun. 8, 2007) in view of Lee et al (US Patent: 9706023, issued: Jul. 11, 2017, filed: Dec. 3, 2013).
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 01/20/2026 has been entered.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112:
The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor of carrying out his invention.
Claims 1-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention.
With regards to claim 1, it recites “…the match count includes a numerical quantity of frames that are included in the set of frames but not displayed in the interface” , however this limitation is limiting the numerical quantity to items that are only ‘not displayed’ in the interface. In contrast, the specification recites “In this example, the match count is ten, which indicates that the computing device has automatically selected seven other frames that are not displayed in the current view, but that will be edited together with frames 10, 20, 30.”, and this explains that at least SOME of the enumerated count(s) (3 in this case) are actually in view as 7 were not in view. Paragraphs 0061-0063 of the instant application’s specification further explain examples of the count have BOTH items displayed and items not displayed in the interface. Thus, it appears there is lack of written description to support the count to only display items that are not in view/display.
With regards to claims 2-10, they are rejected under similar rationale as claim 1, as they do not further resolve the issues of claim 1.
With regards to claim 11, it is rejected under similar rationale as claim 1.
With regards to claims 12-20, they are rejected under similar rationale as claim 11, as they do not further resolve the issues of claim 11.
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.
Claim(s) 1, 2, 4-6, 10-12, 14-16 and 20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Pimento (“Working with Symbols in Adobe XD”, published: Jun. 15, 2017, pages 1-17) in view of Techbyter (“Adobe Gives Illustrator Users Something to Cheer About”, published: Dec 2018, pages: 1-5) in view of Shiverick et al (US Application: US 20090043762, published: Feb. 12, 2009, filed: Aug. 13, 2008).
With regards to claim 1, Pimento teaches a method comprising:
causing a display device to display an interface for editing a layout comprising a plurality of frames including a first frame (page 8: each object can be a ‘frame’ of content on a page having other objects of content some frames of content can contain multiple objects (nested). This frame can be a ‘symbol’ and the symbol can be repeated on different pages as explained in pages 4 and 5: where symbols such as the barista frame object (which includes color and text content in these examples) are repeated across different pages);
receiving a request to perform a multi-edit operation based on a selection of the first frame; automatically identifying, in the plurality of frames, a set of frames (page 5: a symbol/frame can be selected and then other instances of the symbol/frame (a plurality of instances) are identified to propagate changes such as position , size, appearance characteristics to the identified symbol instances); and
performing the multi-edit operation on the set of frames (pages 5 and 7: the changes such as position, size or appearance are applied/edited to all the instances of the symbol on the different pages).
Although Pimento teaches ‘automatically identifying in the plurality of frames, a set of frames, … performing the multi-edit operation on the set of frames’, Pimento does not expressly teach identifying, in the plurality of frames a set of frames based on characteristics shared with the first frame; causing the display device to display a match count, wherein the match count includes a numerical quantity of frames that are included in the set of frames but not displayed in the interface.
Yet Techbyter teaches identifying, in the plurality of [object sets] based on characteristics shared the first [object set] (page 1 and page 6: a plurality of objects can be searched/identified based upon desired characteristics such as appearance and size, such as the image of specific circles having specific appearance in page 6).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing of the invention to have modified Pimento’s ability to identify a selection of a first frame object (to perform a multi-edit operation) in a page of information, and automatically identifying (and selecting) a plurality of frame objects (corresponding to their pages of information) for propagating a multi-edit operation based on the first frame object, such that the plurality of objects identified could have been based on characteristics shared with the first object, as taught by Techbyter. The combination would have allowed Pimento to have allowed identification of “one of the images and then … find the dozens or hundreds of identical items through the illustration and change them all with a single edit” (Techbyter, page 1)
However, although the combination teaches a plurality of frame-objects can be matched/identified and selected to apply a propagating a multi-edit operation based on the first frame-object, the combination does not expressly teach … causing the display device to display a match count, wherein the match count includes a numerical quantity of frames that are included in the set of frames but not displayed in the interface.
Yet Shiverick et al teaches causing the display device to display a [select] count, wherein the [select] count includes a numerical quantity of [objects items] that are included in the set of [objects items] but not displayed in the interface (paragraph 0072: a count is displayed to indicate a number of items matched/selected and the number can represent number of object items without having the items necessarily displayed in a current interface view).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing of the invention to have modified Pimento and Techbyter’s ability to identify (and select) a plurality (interpreted as a quantity/number) of matching frame-objects, such that the selections are displayed as an enumerated number as taught by Shiverick et al. The combination would have allowed Pimento and Techbyter to have easily and quickly identified a number of items selected, even if they are not displayed in current view.
With regards to claim 2. The method of Claim 1, the combination of Pimento, Techbyter and Shiverick et al teaches wherein the characteristics comprise shared identifiers or metadata (as explained in the rejection of claim 1 in Techbyter of page 1 and page 6: appearance-content characteristics for content such as appearance and/or size can be amongst the shared characteristics, and the examiner respectfully points out that data that impacts an appearance is interpreted as metadata (see page 6 of Techbyter: which shows appearance includes shape/color data/content)), and is rejected under similar rationale.
With regards to claim 4. The method of Claim 1, the combination of Pimento, Techbyter and Shiverick et al teaches wherein the characteristics comprise shared content within the set of frames (as explained in the rejection of claim 1 in Techbyter of page 1 and page 6: appearance-content characteristics for content such as appearance and/or size can be amongst the shared characteristics, and the examiner respectfully points out that data that impacts an appearance is interpreted as metadata (see page 6 of Techbyter: which shows appearance includes shape/color data/content)), and is rejected under similar rationale.
With regards to claim 5. The method of Claim 4, the combination of Pimento, Techbyter and Shiverick et al teaches wherein the shared content comprises at least one of: text, images, and shapes (as explained in the rejection of claim 1 in Techbyter of page 1 and page 6: appearance-content characteristics for content such as appearance and/or size can be amongst the shared characteristics, and the examiner respectfully points out that data that impacts an appearance is interpreted as metadata (see page 6 of Techbyter: which shows appearance includes shape/color data/content of circle images)), and is rejected under similar rationale.
With regards to claim 6. The method of Claim 1, the combination of Pimento, Techbyter and Shiverick et al teaches wherein the set of frames correspond to at least one of: a plurality of pages, and a plurality of documents (as explained in the rejection of claim 1, page 8 and frame objects can be associated with their own ‘pages’/sets of information), and is rejected under similar rationale.
With regards to claim 10. The method of Claim 1, the combination of Pimento, Techbyter and Shiverick et al teaches wherein the multi-edit operation comprises, in the set of frames, at least one of: editing a particular object, setting or editing a property of the particular object, editing or modifying text of the particular object, moving the particular object, scaling or resizing or changing a shape of the particular object, creating or placing the particular object as a new object, deleting the particular object, and duplicating the particular object (as similarly explained in the rejection of claim 1, pages 5 and 7: the changes such as position, size or appearance are applied/edited to all the instances of the symbol (and their corresponding content objects) on the different pages), and is rejected under similar rationale.
With regards to claim 11, Pimento teaches … causing a display device to display an interface for editing a layout comprising a plurality of frames including a first frame (page 8: each object can be a ‘frame’ of content on a page having other objects of content some frames of content can contain multiple objects (nested). This frame can be a ‘symbol’ and the symbol can be repeated on different pages as explained in pages 4 and 5: where symbols such as the barista frame object (which includes color and text content in these examples) are repeated across different pages);
receiving a request to perform a multi-edit operation based on a selection of the first frame; automatically identifying, in the plurality of frames, a set of frames based on characteristics shared with the first frame; and performing the multi-edit operation on the set of frames (page 5: a symbol/frame can be selected and then other instances of the symbol/frame (a plurality of instances) are identified to propagate changes such as position , size, appearance characteristics to the identified symbol instances);
However of Pimento does not expressly teach one or more non-transitory computer-readable storage medium storing instructions that, when executed by one or more processors, cause the one or more processors to perform functions comprising: causing a display device … ; … identifying, in the plurality of frames a set of frames based on characteristics shared with the first frame
Yet Techbyter teaches identifying, in the plurality of [object sets] based on characteristics shared the first [object set] (page 1 and page 6: a plurality of objects can be searched/identified based upon desired characteristics such as appearance and size, such as the image of specific circles having specific appearance in page 6).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing of the invention to have modified Pimento’s ability to identify a selection of a first frame object (to perform a multi-edit operation) in a page of information, and automatically identifying (and selecting) a plurality of frame objects (corresponding to their pages of information) for propagating a multi-edit operation based on the first frame object, such that the plurality of objects identified could have been based on characteristics shared with the first object, as taught by Techbyter. The combination would have allowed Pimento to have allowed identification of “one of the images and then … find the dozens or hundreds of identical items through the illustration and change them all with a single edit” (Techbyter, page 1)
Although the combination teaches a plurality of frame-objects can be matched/identified and selected to apply a propagating a multi-edit operation based on the first frame-object, the combination does not expressly teach … causing the display device to display a match count, wherein the match count includes a numerical quantity of frames that are included in the set of frames but not displayed in the interface.
Yet Shiverick et al teaches causing the display device to display a [select] count, wherein the [select] count includes a numerical quantity of [objects items] that are included in the set of [objects items] but not displayed in the interface (paragraph 0072: a count is displayed to indicate a number of items matched/selected and the number can represent number of object items without having the items necessarily displayed in a current interface view).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing of the invention to have modified Pimento and Techbyter’s ability to identify (and select) a plurality (interpreted as a quantity/number) of matching frame-objects, such that the selections are displayed as an enumerated number as taught by Shiverick et al. The combination would have allowed Pimento and Techbyter to have easily and quickly identified a number of items selected, even if they are not displayed in current view.
With regards to claim 12. The one or more non-transitory computer-readable storage medium of Claim 11, the combination of Pimento, Techbyter and Shiverick et al teaches wherein the characteristics comprise shared identifiers or metadata (as explained in the rejection of claim 12 in Techbyter of page 1 and page 6: appearance-content characteristics for content such as appearance and/or size can be amongst the shared characteristics, and the examiner respectfully points out that data that impacts an appearance is interpreted as metadata (see page 6 of Techbyter: which shows appearance includes shape/color data/content)), and is rejected under similar rationale.
With regards to claim 14. The one or more non-transitory computer-readable storage medium of Claim 11, the combination of Pimento, Techbyter and Shiverick et al teaches wherein the characteristics comprise shared content within the set of frames (as explained in the rejection of claim 11 in Techbyter of page 1 and page 6: appearance-content characteristics for content such as appearance and/or size can be amongst the shared characteristics, and the examiner respectfully points out that data that impacts an appearance is interpreted as metadata (see page 6 of Techbyter: which shows appearance includes shape/color data/content)), and is rejected under similar rationale.
With regards to claim 15. The one or more non-transitory computer-readable storage medium of Claim 14, the combination of Pimento, Techbyter and Shiverick et al teaches wherein the shared content comprises at least one of: text, images, and shapes (as explained in the rejection of claim 11 in Techbyter of page 1 and page 6: appearance-content characteristics for content such as appearance and/or size can be amongst the shared characteristics, and the examiner respectfully points out that data that impacts an appearance is interpreted as metadata (see page 6 of Techbyter: which shows appearance includes shape/color data/content of circle images)), and is rejected under similar rationale.
With regards to claim 16. The one or more non-transitory computer-readable storage medium of Claim 11, the combination of Pimento, Techbyter and Shiverick et al teaches wherein the set of frames correspond to at least one of: a plurality of pages, and a plurality of documents (as explained in the rejection of claim 11, page 8 of Pimentto: frame objects can be associated with their own ‘pages’/sets of information), and is rejected under similar rationale.
With regards to claim 20. The one or more non-transitory computer-readable storage medium of Claim 11, the combination of Pimento, Techbyter and Shiverick et al teaches wherein the multi-edit operation comprises, in the set of frames, at least one of: editing a particular object, setting or editing a property of the particular object, editing or modifying text of the particular object, moving the particular object, scaling or resizing or changing a shape of the particular object, creating or placing the particular object as a new object, deleting the particular object, and duplicating the particular object (as similarly explained in the rejection of claim 11, pages 5 and 7 of Pimento: the changes such as position, size or appearance are applied/edited to all the instances of the symbol (and their corresponding content objects) on the different pages), and is rejected under similar rationale.
Claim(s) 3 and 13 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Pimento (“Working with Symbols in Adobe XD”, published: Jun. 15, 2017, pages 1-17) in view of Techbyter (“Adobe Gives Illustrator Users Something to Cheer About”, published: Dec 2018, pages: 1-5) in view of Shiverick et al (US Application: US 20090043762, published: Feb. 12, 2009, filed: Aug. 13, 2008) in view of Goyal et al (US Application: US 20180300046, published: Oct. 18, 2018, filed: Apr. 12, 2017).
With regards to claim 3. The method of Claim 1, the combination of Pimento, Techbyter and Shiverick et al teaches wherein the characteristics, as similarly explained in the rejection of claim 1, and is rejected under similar rationale.
However the combination does not expressly teach … characteristics comprise common edit or duplication history.
Yet Goyal et al teaches … characteristics comprise common edit or duplication history (paragraphs 0021, 0026 0048, and 0049: similar content objects that are associated with common usage/edits in the past (preferences) are identified ).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing of the invention to have modified Pimento, Techbyter and Shiverick et al's ability to identify frames based upon matching characteristics, such that the characteristics that could play a factor in matching could be past/common historical tendencies for object content, as taught by Pimento. The combination would have allowed Pimento, Techbyter and Shiverick et al to have obtained relevant image objects that are associated with prior edit preference(s) (Goyal et al, paragraph 0049).
With regards to claim 13. The one or more non-transitory computer-readable storage medium of Claim 11, the combination of Pimento, Techbyter and Shiverick et al teaches wherein the characteristics, as similarly explained in the rejection of claim 11, and is rejected under similar rationale.
However the combination does not expressly teach … characteristics comprise common edit or duplication history.
Yet Goyal et al teaches … characteristics comprise common edit or duplication history (paragraphs 0021, 0026 0048, and 0049: similar content objects that are associated with common usage/edits in the past (preferences) are identified ).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing of the invention to have modified Pimento, Techbyter and Shiverick et al’s ability to identify frames based upon matching characteristics, such that the characteristics that could play a factor in matching could be past/common historical tendencies for object content, as taught by Pimento. The combination would have allowed Pimento, Techbyter and Shiverick et al to have obtained relevant image objects that are associated with prior edit preference(s) (Goyal et al, paragraph 0049).
Claim(s) 7, 9, 17 and 19 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Pimento (“Working with Symbols in Adobe XD”, published: Jun. 15, 2017, pages 1-17) in view of Techbyter (“Adobe Gives Illustrator Users Something to Cheer About”, published: Dec 2018, pages: 1-5) in view of Shiverick et al (US Application: US 20090043762, published: Feb. 12, 2009, filed: Aug. 13, 2008) in view of Johnson et al (US Application: US 2008/0304807, published: Dec. 11, 2008, filed: Jun. 8, 2007).
With regards to claim 7. The method of Claim 1, the combination of Pimento, Techbyter and Shiverick et al teaches wherein the request to perform the multi-edit operation is based on … the set of frames (as similarly explained in the rejection of claim 1, a user provides input to initiate/perform a multi-edit operation through a selection of a frame-object), and is rejected under similar rationale.
However the combination does not teach … based on receiving a confirmation in response to causing an indication of the set of frames in the interface.
Yet Johnson et al teaches … based on receiving a confirmation in response to causing an indication of the set of [objects/items] … in the interface (paragraph 0008: identified item instances are proposed to the user and the user confirms them to perform a subsequent action/operation).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing of the invention to have modified Pimento, Techbyter and Shiverick et al’s ability to perform multi-edit operation and identify a set of frame-objects, such that the identified set of objects can be first prompted for confirmation prior to proceeding with the action/operation, as taught by Johnson et al. The combination would have allowed Pimento, Techbyter and Shiverick et al to have reduced difficulty performing operations while performing operations efficiently (Johnson et al, paragraph 0002).
With regards to claim 9. The method of Claim 7, the combination of Pimento, Techbyter, Shiverick et al and Johnson et al teaches wherein the indication comprises displaying, in the interface, a quantity of frames in the set of frames, as explained in the rejection of claim 7 (as explained Pimento, Techbyter, Shiverick et al and Johnson’s identified frame objects were modified to include border(s) surrounding a quantity of identified objects (Johnson in Fig. 5), and is rejected under similar rationale.
With regards to claim 17. The one or more non-transitory computer-readable storage medium of Claim 11, the combination of Pimento, Techbyter, Shiverick et al teaches wherein the request to perform the multi-edit operation is based on … the set of frames (as similarly explained in the rejection of claim 11, a user provides input to initiate/perform a multi-edit operation through a selection of a frame-object), and is rejected under similar rationale.
However the combination does not teach … based on receiving a confirmation in response to causing an indication of the set of frames in the interface.
Yet Johnson et al teaches … based on receiving a confirmation in response to causing an indication of the set of [items] … in the interface (paragraph 0008: identified item instances are proposed to the user and the user confirms them to perform a subsequent action/operation).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing of the invention to have modified Pimento, Techbyter and Shiverick et al’s ability to perform multi-edit operation and identify a set of frame-objects, such that the identified set of objects can be first prompted for confirmation prior to proceeding with the action/operation, as taught by Johnson et al. The combination would have allowed Pimento, Techbyter and Shiverick et alto have reduced difficulty performing operations while performing operations efficiently (Johnson et al, paragraph 0002).
With regards to claim 19. The one or more non-transitory computer-readable storage medium of Claim 17, Pimento, Techbyter, Shiverick et al, and Johnson et al teaches wherein the indication comprises displaying, in the interface, a quantity of frames in the set of frame , as explained in the rejection of claim 17 (as explained Pimento, Techbyter, Shiverick et al and Johnson’s identified frame objects were modified to include border(s) surrounding a quantity of identified objects (Johnson in Fig. 5), and is rejected under similar rationale.
Claim(s) 8 and 18 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Pimento (“Working with Symbols in Adobe XD”, published: Jun. 15, 2017, pages 1-17) in view of Techbyter (“Adobe Gives Illustrator Users Something to Cheer About”, published: Dec 2018, pages: 1-5) in view of Shiverick et al (US Application: US 20090043762, published: Feb. 12, 2009, filed: Aug. 13, 2008) in view of Johnson et al (US Application: US 2008/0304807, published: Dec. 11, 2008, filed: Jun. 8, 2007) in view of Lee et al (US Patent: 9706023, issued: Jul. 11, 2017, filed: Dec. 3, 2013).
With regards to claim 8. The method of Claim 7, the combination of Pimento, Techbyter, Shiverick et al and Johnson et al teaches wherein the indication comprises , as similarly explained in the rejection of claim 7, and is rejected under similar rationale.
However the combination does not expressly teach the indication comprises distinguishing the set of frames from the plurality of frames in the interface by at least one of: an increased line thickness, a different color, and a distinct border style.
Yet Lee et al teaches the indication comprises distinguishing the set of [objects] from the plurality of [objects] in the interface by at least one of: an increased line thickness, a different color, and a distinct border style (Fig. 5: a set of objects identified have a distinct border style surrounding a quantity/number/amount of the objects that corresponding to specific criteria).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing of the invention to have modified Pimento, Techbyter, Shiverick et al and Johnson et al’s ability to identify and indicate a set of frame objects from a plurality of frame objects, such that a visual indication can be implemented to emphasize a quantity/amount of the set of identified objects through lines/borders having thickness and borders surrounding the set of identified objects, as taught by Lee et al. The combination would have allowed a convenient way to identify items that match various conditions (Lee et al, column 1, lines 15-19).
With regards to claim 18. The one or more non-transitory computer-readable storage medium of Claim 17, the combination of Pimento, Techbyter, Shiverick et al and Johnson et al teaches wherein the indication comprises …, as similarly explained in the rejection of claim 17, and is rejected under similar rationale.
However the combination does not expressly teach the indication comprises distinguishing the set of frames from the plurality of frames in the interface by at least one of: an increased line thickness, a different color, and a distinct border style.
Yet Lee et al teaches the indication comprises distinguishing the set of [objects] from the plurality of [objects] in the interface by at least one of: an increased line thickness, a different color, and a distinct border style (Fig. 5: a set of objects identified have a distinct border style surrounding a quantity/number/amount of the objects that corresponding to specific criteria).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing of the invention to have modified Pimento, Techbyter, Shiverick et al and Johnson et al’s ability to identify and indicate a set of frame objects from a plurality of frame objects, such that a visual indication can be implemented to emphasize a quantity/amount of the set of identified objects through lines/borders having thickness and borders surrounding the set of identified objects, as taught by Lee et al. The combination would have allowed a convenient way to identify items that match various conditions (Lee et al, column 1, lines 15-19).
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 12/17/2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
The applicant’s arguments with respect to claim 1 are directed to the amended claim language. The new amended claim language has changed the scope of the invention and necessitated a new grounds of rejection . The examiner respectfully directs the applicant’s attention to the rejection of claim 1 above for an explanation as to how the limitations of claim 1 are now rejected.
The applicant’s arguments with respect to claim 11 for being allowable for reasons presented by the applicant for claim 1, are not persuasive since claim 1 has been shown/explained to be rejected above.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to WILSON W TSUI whose telephone number is (571)272-7596. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 9 am -6 pm.
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, Adam Queler can be reached at (571) 272-4140. 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.
/WILSON W TSUI/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2172