DETAILED ACTION
This office action is responsive to communication(s) filed on 3/5/2026.
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 .
Claims Status
Claims 1-20 are pending and are currently being examined.
Claims 1, 8 and 15 are independent.
Claims 1, 8, 10, 13, 15 and 20 are newly amended.
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 of this title, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
Claim(s) 1-4, 6-8, 10, 13-15, and 18-20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Haramati; Tal et al. (hereinafter Haramati – US 20220222625 A1) in view of Lee; Robert Edward (hereinafter Lee – US 20080109831 A1).
Independent Claim 1:
Haramati teaches:
A computer-implemented method comprising:
generating, as part of a digital design [presentation], a modified object [such as a slide] by performing a series of operations [edits] on an object depicted within the digital design, (at least one object is generated a modified slide, as part of a digital design [presentation], based on a series of operations [first through fourth edits] on the object depicted the presentation, ¶¶ 20 and 121-124 and figs. 12 and 13A)
and maintaining an operation history comprising the series of operations; (the edits and information indicating document portions edited are stored [maintaining] in a repository [an operation history comprising the series of operations], ¶ 96
receiving, from a client device, a request for a selective object-level undo operation on the modified object, (receiving an election of one of the edits in a historical interface, ¶¶ 126 and fig. 12:1214 and fig. 13A. The election results in a rolled-back display of the portion of the document/presentation corresponding to a past time associated with the election, ¶¶ 115 and 127 and figs. 12:1216 and 13A. That is, the edits after this past time are “undone” [a request for a selective object-level undo operation])
wherein the request specifies an operation to undo from among the series of operations performed on the object, (The election results in a rolled-back display of the portion of the document/presentation corresponding to a past time associated with the election, ¶¶ 115 and 127 and figs. 12:1216 and 13A. That is, the edits [specifies an operation to undo] after this past time are “undone”. The election that causes the rolling back can be an election of a button 1406 on a timeline, ¶ 147 and fig. 14)
wherein the series of operations comprises one or more additional operations subsequent to the operation to undo; (the selectable edits includes a series of operations, e.g., arranged from edits performed at an earliest time to those performed subsequently, ¶¶ 115, 127 and 135, and figs. 12:1216 and 13A)
modifying, in response to the request, the modified object by performing the selective object-level undo operation on the modified object to undo the operation from among the series of operations; (The election results in a rolled-back display of the portion of the document/presentation corresponding to a past time associated with the election, ¶¶ 115 and 127 and figs. 12:1216 and 13C. That is, the edits after this past time are “undone”. This necessarily involves, modifying the slide by based on the selected past time, at least in order to present the rolled-back slide)
and providing, for display on the client device, an updated digital design depicting an updated version of the modified object reflecting modifications from the series of operations excluding the operation undone by the selective object-level undo operation (The election results in a rolled-back display of the portion of the document/presentation corresponding to a past time associated with the election, ¶¶ 115, 127 and 142 and figs. 12:1216 and 13C. As can be seen in fig. 13C and ¶ 142, the slide version representative of the selected past time with appear on the left side of the interface [rolled-back], ¶ 142 and fig. 13C)
[…].
Haramati does not appear to expressly teach, but Lee teaches:
but including the one or more additional operations subsequent to the operation to undo (a non-sequential undo mechanism, in which an action removal manage allows users to remove an action from a program log without first removing actions subsequent to the being removed/undone, Abstract and ¶ 2, wherein actions can include, mouse clicks, text deletions, text formatting, etc., ¶¶ 27 and 33).
Accordingly, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify the method of Haramati to include but including the one or more additional operations subsequent to the operation to undo, as taught by Lee.
One would have been motivated to make such a combination in order to include improve the usability and efficiency provided by the method, e.g., by making it less cumbersome, and reducing tasks users have to redo, e.g., rewriting text, etc., Lee ¶¶ 5-6. Furthermore, it was well within the capabilities of a person having ordinary skill in the art, implementing Lee to Haramati, to have realized that such usability/efficiency would work nicely for edits done to the objects within Haramati, e.g., reducing having to rewrite texts within the objects/slides of Haramati.
Claim 2:
The rejection of claim 1 is incorporated. Haramati further teaches:
wherein receiving the request for the selective object-level undo operation comprises receiving an indication to undo an intermediate operation that occurred before a final operation of the series of operations on the object. (the user may choose any past time before a final operation, e.g., any slide previous to slide 6 in window 1306A, ¶¶ 136 and 142 and figs. 12 and 13A)
Claim 3:
The rejection of claim 1 is incorporated. Haramati further teaches:
wherein modifying the modified object comprises performing the selective object-level undo operation to undo a specified type of edit made to the object as part of the series of operations. (although slides in Haramati are used as examples of portions of documents/presentations, the user can select any portion of document for rollback of edits [undo operation], ¶ 92. As such, because a user can choose to undo edits in a particular portion of the document, this is, undo a specified type of edit made to the object as part of the series of operations. Here, the specific type would be edits within that region's [portion’s] scope)
Claim 4:
The rejection of claim 1 is incorporated. Haramati further teaches:
further comprising: providing, for display on the client device, an interface element for selecting the operation to undo from among the series of operations performed on the object; (the operations/edits are selectable from a series of edits in the timeline (history interface), see fig. 13A)
and excluding, from the interface element, global operations performed on the digital design as a whole and operations performed specific to other objects within the digital design. (options for other elements or related to global operations, like defaults or preferences, ¶ 53, are not listed [excluding] in the history interface, see fig. 13A).
Claim 6:
The rejection of claim 1 is incorporated. Haramati further teaches:
further comprising: generating a global history of operations performed within the digital design, the global history comprising indications of operation types and objects where the operations were applied; (Edits may include any addition, deletion, rearrangement, modification, correction, or other change made to the data or information of a slide [indications of operation types], and edits made to slides may include metadata that associates the edits with a specific slide and allows a processor to identify the edits as associated with the slide [indications of…objects where the operations were applied]. ¶ 129. For example, the title of a particular slide may change over time, and the information presented on the slide may also change, ¶ 145. Furthermore, the edits and information indicating the document portions are stored in a repository [global history], ¶ 96.)
and modifying the modified object by undoing the operation indicated by the selective object-level undo operation within the global history. (the rollback of document portions stored in the repository [within the global history] are considered rollbacks of historical edits [modifying the modified object by undoing the operation], ¶ 118 and fig. 12)
Claim 7:
The rejection of claim 1 is incorporated. Haramati further teaches:
further comprising: providing, for display within a digital design interface on the client device, a selective undo element indicating the series of operations performed to generate the modified object; (the slides in the timeline/historical interface 1306A serves for indicating the series of operations performed to generate the modified object, ¶¶ 136 and 142 and fig. 13A:1306A)
and receiving the request for the selective object-level undo operation by receiving a selection within the selective undo element of the operation to undo from among the series of operations. (The election results in a rolled-back display of the portion of the document/presentation corresponding to a past time associated with the election, ¶¶ 115, 127 and 142 and figs. 12:1216 and 13A. As can be seen in fig. 13A and ¶ 142, the slide version representative of the selected past time with appear on the right window [rolled-back], ¶ 142)
Independent Claim 8:
Haramati teaches:
A system comprising:
one or more memory devices;
and one or more processors coupled to the one or more memory devices, the one or more processors configured to cause the system to perform operations comprising:
generating, as part of a digital design, a first modified object and a second modified object modified after the first modified object within the digital design; (at least one object is generated a modified slide, as part of a digital design [presentation], based on a series of operations [first through fourth edits] on the object depicted the presentation, ¶¶ 20 and 121-124 and figs. 12 and 13A. The slide deck includes multiple slides [a first modified object and a second modified object modified after the first modified object], fig. 13A )
receiving, from a client device, a request for a selective object-level undo operation on the first modified object, (receiving an election of one of the edits in a historical interface, pertinent to a single slide, e.g., slide 1 [first modified object] ¶¶ 126 and fig. 12:1214 and fig. 13A. The election results in a rolled-back display of the portion of the document/presentation corresponding to a past time associated with the election, ¶¶ 115 and 127 and figs. 12:1216 and 13A. That is, the edits after this past time are “undone” [a request for a selective object-level undo operation])
wherein the request specifies an operation to undo from among a series of operations performed to generate the first modified object, (The election of one of the edits results for the slide [undo from among a series of operations performed to generate the first modified object] in a rolled-back display of the portion of the document/presentation corresponding to a past time associated with the election, ¶¶ 115 and 127 and figs. 12:1216 and 13C. That is, the edits [specifies an operation to undo] after this past time are “undone”. The election that causes the rolling back can be an election of a button 1406 on a timeline, ¶ 147 and fig. 14)
wherein the series of operations comprises one or more additional operations performed to generate the first modified object subsequent to the operation to undo; (the selectable edits includes a series of operations, e.g., arranged from edits performed at an earliest time to those performed subsequently, ¶¶ 115, 127 and 135, and figs. 12:1216 and 13A)
modifying, in response to the request, the first modified object by performing the selective object-level undo operation on the first modified object to undo the operation; (The election results in a rolled-back display of the portion of the document/presentation corresponding to a past time associated with the election, ¶¶ 115 and 127 and figs. 12:1216 and 13A. That is, the edits after this past time are “undone”. This necessarily involves, modifying the slide by based on the selected past time, at least in order to present the rolled-back slide)
and providing, for display on the client device, an updated digital design depicting the second modified object and an updated version of the first modified object reflecting modifications from the series of operations excluding the operation undone by the selective object-level undo operation (The election results in a rolled-back display of the portion of the document/presentation corresponding to a past time associated with the election, ¶¶ 115, 127 and 142 and figs. 12:1216 and 13A-C. As can be seen in fig. 13C and ¶ 142, the slide version representative of the selected past time with appear on the left side of the interface [rolled-back], ¶ 142 and fig. 13C, that is, an updated digital design depicting the second modified object and an updated version of the first modified object)
[…].
Haramati does not appear to expressly teach, but Lee teaches:
but including the one or more additional operations performed to generate the first modified object subsequent to the operation to undo (a non-sequential undo mechanism, in which an action removal manage allows users to remove an action from a program log without first removing actions subsequent to the being removed/undone, Abstract and ¶ 2, wherein actions can include, mouse clicks, text deletions, text formatting, etc., ¶¶ 27 and 33).
Accordingly, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify the method of Haramati to include but including the one or more additional operations performed to generate the first modified object subsequent to the operation to undo, as taught by Lee.
One would have been motivated to make such a combination in order to include improve the usability and efficiency provided by the method, e.g., by making it less cumbersome, and reducing tasks users have to redo, e.g., rewriting text, etc., Lee ¶¶ 5-6.
Claim 10:
The rejection of claim 8 is incorporated. Haramati-Lee further teaches:
updating an operation history for the first modified object by removing an entry corresponding to the operation to undo from the operation history; and regenerating the first modified object based on the updated operation history while preserving entries corresponding to the one or more additional operations performed to generate the first modified object subsequent to the operation to undo. (action removal manager removes action from log, updates the success program states, and leaves the successive actions in the program log, Lee ¶ 29)
Claim 13:
The rejection of claim 8 is incorporated. Haramati-Lee further teaches:
the first modified object is associated with a first object-level operation history; the second modified object is associated with a second object-level operation history distinct from the first object-level operation history; (Edits may include any addition, deletion, rearrangement, modification, correction, or other change made to the data or information of a slide. Tracking on a slide-by-slide basis, edits made to presentation slides may include storing or recording alterations made to slides of a stored deck of presentation slides such that alterations made to the slides may be stored in and retrieved from memory or repository individually for each slide, Haramati ¶ 129)
and performing the selective object-level undo operation on the first modified object comprises modifying the first object-level operation history without modifying the second object-level operation history. (action removal manager removes action from log, updates the success program states, and leaves the successive actions in the program log, Lee ¶ 29)
Claim 14:
The rejection of claim 8 is incorporated. Haramati further teaches:
wherein the operations further comprise:
generating a global history comprising object identifiers and operation identifiers for operations performed across a plurality of objects within the digital design; (Edits may include any addition, deletion, rearrangement, modification, correction, or other change made to the data or information of a slide [indications of operation types], ¶ 92, and edits made to slides may include metadata that associates the edits with a specific slide and allows a processor to identify the edits as associated with the slide [indications of…objects where the operations were applied], ¶ 129. For example, the title of a particular slide may change over time, and the information presented on the slide may also change, ¶ 145. Furthermore, the edits and information indicating the document portions are stored in a repository [global history], ¶ 96.)
and in response to the request for the selective object-level undo operation, determining an object identifier and an operation identifier for the operation to undo from among the series of operations performed to generate the first modified object. (because the edits can be undone/rolled-back, e.g., at a selective, granular level, ¶¶ 91-92, it is interpreted that the system determines an object identifier and an operation identifier for the operation to undo from among the series of operations performed to generate the first modified object, see above mapping)
Claim 15:
Claim(s) 15 is/are directed to a computer-readable medium for accomplishing the steps in claim 1, and is rejected using similar rationale(s).
Claim 18:
The rejection of claim 15 is incorporated. Haramati further teaches:
wherein providing the updated digital design for display comprises providing the updated version of the modified object and maintaining visual attributes of other objects within the digital design. (when the portion is rolled-back [“editing undone”] and displayed for the portion/slide, the rest of the document remain unchanged, ¶ 116.)
Claim 19:
The rejection of claim 15 is incorporated. Claim(s) 19 is/are directed to a computer-readable medium for accomplishing the steps in claim 2, and is rejected using similar rationale(s).
Claim 20:
The rejection of claim 19 is incorporated. Haramati-Lee further teaches:
updating the operation history by removing an entry corresponding to the intermediate operation from the operation history; and maintaining, within the operation history, an entry corresponding to the final operation that occurred after the intermediate operation, such that the final operation remains reflected in the updated digital design. (action removal manager removes action from log, updates the success program states, and leaves the successive actions in the program log, Lee ¶ 29)
Claim(s) 5 and 11 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Haramati (US 20220222625 A1) in view of Lee (US 20080109831 A1), as applied to claims 1 and 8 above, and further in view of Ginetti; Arnold (hereinafter Ginetti – US 20120047434 A1) and Nurse; Justin Michael et al. (hereinafter Nurse – US 20130198679 A1).
Claim 5:
The rejection of claim 1 is incorporated. Haramati involves selectively undoing operations, as explained above. However, Haramati does not appear to expressly teach, but Ginetti teaches:
providing, for display on the client device, an interface element depicting undoable operations for the modified object (a user may identify an edit to be undone by selecting the edit from a list [and edit stack], ¶ 28 and fig. 5).
Accordingly, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to further modify the method of Haramati to include providing, for display on the client device, an interface element depicting undoable operations for the modified object, as taught by Ginetti.
One would have been motivated to make such a combination in order to improve the usability of the method by allowing a user to distinguish named edits on the list, Ginetti Abstract and ¶¶ 5 and 26.
Haramati-Ginetti does not appear to expressly teach, but Nurse teaches:
further comprising: identifying, as part of the series of operations performed to generate the modified object, a cumulative edit that relies on modifications applied from a previous edit; […] excluding the previous edit. (based on timers, past operations in an undo list are grouped and saved together as to be undone using a single command, ¶¶ 142 and 145. Herein, because the operations are grouped as one, the individual previous edits are understood as being “excluded”).
Accordingly, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to further modify the method of Haramati to include further comprising: identifying, as part of the series of operations performed to generate the modified object, a cumulative edit that relies on modifications applied from a previous edit, […] excluding the previous edit, as taught by Nurse.
One would have been motivated to make such a combination in order to improve efficiency of the method by enhancing user-friendliness, and speed of editing/construction, Nurse ¶ 10, and providing in intuitive undo/redo groups, e.g., a user might immediately under 1 or two keystrokes as a typo, but after some time is more likely to remove whole sentences or paragraphs, Nurse ¶ 151.
Claim 11:
The rejection of claim 8 is incorporated. Haramati involves selectively undoing operations, as explained above. However, Haramati does not appear to expressly teach, but Ginetti teaches:
providing, for display on the client device, an interface element depicting undoable operations for the first modified object (a user may identify an edit to be undone by selecting the edit from a list [and edit stack], ¶ 28 and fig. 5).
Accordingly, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to further modify the method of Haramati to include and providing, for display on the client device, an interface element depicting undoable operations for the first modified object, as taught by Ginetti.
One would have been motivated to make such a combination in order to improve the usability of the method by allowing a user to distinguish named edits on the list, Ginetti Abstract and ¶¶ 5 and 26.
Haramati-Ginetti does not appear to expressly teach, but Nurse teaches:
wherein the operations further comprise: identifying, as part of the series of operations performed to generate the first modified object, an invalidating operation that invalidates a previous operation; (based on timers, past operations in an undo list are grouped and saved together as to be undone using a single command, ¶¶ 142 and 145. Herein, because the operations are grouped as one, the individual previous edits are understood as being “invalidating” as individual edits)
and that the interface element excluding the previous operation. (Herein, because the operations are grouped as one, the individual previous edits are understood as being “excluded”)
Accordingly, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to further modify the method of Haramati to include wherein the operations further comprise: identifying, as part of the series of operations performed to generate the first modified object, an invalidating operation that invalidates a previous operation, and that the interface element excluding the previous operation, as taught by Nurse.
One would have been motivated to make such a combination in order to improve efficiency of the method by enhancing user-friendliness, and speed of editing/construction, Nurse ¶ 10, and providing in intuitive undo/redo groups, e.g., a user might immediately under 1 or two keystrokes as a typo, but after some time is more likely to remove whole sentences or paragraphs, Nurse ¶ 151.
Claim(s) 9 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Haramati (US 20220222625 A1) in view of Lee (US 20080109831 A1), as applied to claim 8 above, and further in view of Johnston; Michael (hereinafter Johnston – US 20070294122 A1).
Claim 9:
The rejection of claim 8 is incorporated. Haramati further teaches:
wherein receiving the request for the selective object-level undo operation comprises receiving [an…] input comprising a gesture component indicating the first modified object […]indicating the operation to undo from among the series of operations performed to generate the first modified object. (a gesture or any other input can be used, ¶ 146)
Haramati does not appear to expressly teach, but Johnston teaches:
that the input is “combined” input that also comprises a “voice component” (a combined voice and gesture input uses to determine user intent, ¶ 18).
Accordingly, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify the method of Haramati to include that the input is “combined” input that also comprises a “voice component”, as taught by Johnston.
One would have been motivated to make such a combination in order to improve the input accuracy, Johnston ¶¶ 7-8.
Claim(s) 12 and 17 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Haramati (US 20220222625 A1) in view of Lee (US 20080109831 A1), as applied to claims 8 and 15 above, and further in view of Nurse; Justin Michael et al. (hereinafter Nurse – US 20130198679 A1).
Claim 12:
The rejection of claim 8 is incorporated. Haramati further teaches:
wherein the operation further comprise:
generating, for the digital design, an operation history of operations performed within the digital design; (the edits and information indicating the document portions are stored in a repository [an operation history of operations], ¶ 96)
Haramati does not appear to expressly teach, but Nurse teaches:
identifying, within the operation history, a cumulative operation that relies on modifications applied from a previous operation; (based on timers, past operations in an undo list are grouped and saved together as to be undone using a single command, ¶¶ 142 and 145.).
and generating a modified operation history comprising a merged operation by merging the cumulative operation with the previous operation to render the merged operation undoable. (based on timers, past operations in an undo list are grouped and saved together [merged] as to be undone using single command, ¶¶ 142 and 145.).
Accordingly, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to further modify the method of Haramati to include identifying, within the operation history, a cumulative operation that relies on modifications applied from a previous operation and generating a modified operation history comprising a merged operation by merging the cumulative operation with the previous operation to render the merged operation undoable, as taught by Nurse.
One would have been motivated to make such a combination in order to improve efficiency of the method by enhancing user-friendliness, and speed of editing/construction, Nurse ¶ 10, and providing in intuitive undo/redo groups, e.g., a user might immediately under 1 or two keystrokes as a typo, but after some time is more likely to remove whole sentences or paragraphs, Nurse ¶ 151.
Claim 17:
The rejection of claim 15 is incorporated. Haramati further teaches:
wherein the operations further comprise: generating, for the digital design, an operation history of operations performed within the digital design; (the edits and information indicating the document portions are stored in a repository [an operation history of operations], ¶ 96)
Haramati does not appear to expressly teach, but Nurse teaches:
identifying, within the operation history, an invalidating operation that invalidates a previous operation; (based on timers, past operations in an undo list are grouped and saved together as to be undone using a single command, ¶¶ 142 and 145. Herein, because the operations are grouped as one, the individual previous edits are understood as being “invalidating” as individual edits)
and generating a modified operation history comprising a merged operation by merging the invalidating operation with the previous operation to render the merged operation undoable (based on timers, past operations in an undo list are grouped and saved together [merged] as to be undone using single command, ¶¶ 142 and 145.).
Accordingly, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to further modify the method of Haramati to include identifying, within the operation history, an invalidating operation that invalidates a previous operation; and generating a modified operation history comprising a merged operation by merging the invalidating operation with the previous operation to render the merged operation undoable, as taught by Nurse.
One would have been motivated to make such a combination in order to improve efficiency of the method by enhancing user-friendliness, and speed of editing/construction, Nurse ¶ 10, and providing in intuitive undo/redo groups, e.g., a user might immediately under 1 or two keystrokes as a typo, but after some time is more likely to remove whole sentences or paragraphs, Nurse ¶ 151.
Claim(s) 16 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Haramati (US 20220222625 A1) in view of Lee (US 20080109831 A1), as applied to claim 15 above, and further in view of Madden; Thomas (hereinafter Madden – US 11119643 B1).
Claim 16:
The rejection of claim 15 is incorporated. Haramati displays list of options to select from in the timeline/historical interface, ¶¶ 115, 127 and 147, and figs. 12:1216, 13A, and fig. 14, and that selection could be via a touchable area such as a touchscreen or touchpad, ¶ 77.
Haramati does not appear to expressly teach, but Madden teaches:
wherein the operations further comprise: providing, for display on the client device, a selective undo element comprising a circular timeline indicating a chronology of operations performed to generate the modified object; (a touch screen in which selection of a list of items is performed via a circular menu and rotational input thereon, Madden Claim 1 and fig. 3)
and receiving the request for the selective object-level undo operation by receiving a circular drag input for navigating through the chronology of operations to locate the operation to undo. (a touch screen in which selection of a list of items is performed via a circular menu and rotational input thereon, Madden Claim 1 and fig. 3)
Accordingly, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to further modify the method of Haramati to include wherein the operations further comprise: providing, for display on the client device, a selective undo element comprising a circular timeline indicating a chronology of operations performed to generate the modified object; and receiving the request for the selective object-level undo operation by receiving a circular drag input for navigating through the chronology of operations to locate the operation to undo, as taught by Madden.
One would have been motivated to make such a combination in order to provide the selections of time points using a known and effective selection interface and touch input, Madden Claim 1 and fig. 3, and Haramati ¶¶ 115, 127 and 147, and figs. 12:1216, 13A, and fig. 14
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s 102 argument(s) have been fully considered and are persuasive. Therefore, the 102 rejection has been withdrawn. However, upon further consideration, new ground(s) of rejection is made in view of 103.
Applicant's 103 arguments filed have been fully considered but are moot in view of the new ground of rejections.
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Below is a list of these references, including why they are pertinent:
Breedvelt-Schouten; Ilse M. et al. US 20170031770 A1, is pertinent to claims 1, 4, 5, 8 and 15 for disclosing the displaying of a selectable undo stack (series of undoable operations), Abstract, ¶¶ 28-32 and figs. 2A-2E.
Yukawa; Junichi et al. US 20060227065 A1, is pertinent to claim 16 for disclosing menu selection based on circular motion on a touchpad, Yukawa Claim 23.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to GABRIEL S MERCADO whose telephone number is (408)918-7537. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Fri 8am-5pm (Eastern Time).
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, Kieu Vu can be reached at (571) 272-4057. 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.
/Gabriel Mercado/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2171
Prosecution Insights