DETAILED ACTION
This action is in response to application 18/737843, filed on 6/7/2024. Claims 1-20 are pending. The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 1-9, 11, and 13-19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by USPGPUB 2021/0247967, hereinafter “Wichary.”
Regarding claim 1, Wichary anticipates “A network computer system comprising: a memory sub-system to store a set of instructions; (see, e.g., Wichary, para. 12, 52, fig. 1B sec. 10, 150) and
one or more memory resources storing interactive graphic design system instructions that, when executed by one or more processors, cause the one or more processors to perform operations that comprise providing workspace data describing one or more design interfaces and the interactive graphic design system instructions to a user computing device, wherein the interactive graphic design system instructions, when executed at the user computing device, causes the user computing device to perform operations (see, e.g., Wichary, para. 12, 52, fig. 1B sec. 100, 152) comprising:
determining a first set of differences between a first version of a design interface and a second version of the design interface based on a comparison of a first set of workspace data for the first version of the design interface with a second set of workspace data for the second version of the design interface; (see, e.g., Wichary, para. 31, 34, 57-58, 64-65)
rendering, on a canvas, the first version of the design interface for display to a user at the user computing device; (see, e.g., Wichary, para. 58-59, 65-66) and
rendering, within the canvas, one or more visual representations of the first set of differences between the first version of the design interface and the second version of the design interface.” (see, e.g., Wichary, para. 59, 65-67).
Regarding claim 2, Wichary anticipates “The network computer system of claim 1, wherein determining the first set of differences comprises: matching one or portions of a hierarchical structure associated with at least one of the first set of workspace data or the second set of workspace data to a second set of differences that is a subset of the first set of differences; and generating a logical grouping of the second set of differences within the first set of differences.” (see, e.g., Wichary, para. 25, 31).
Regarding claim 3, Wichary anticipates “The network computer system of claim 2, wherein matching the one or more portions of the hierarchical structure to the second set of differences comprises determining that the second set of differences is associated with a node in the hierarchical structure.” (see, e.g., Wichary, para. 25, 32, 40-42).
Regarding claim 4, Wichary anticipates “The network computer system of claim 2, wherein the one or more visual representations include a summary of the second set of differences within a portion of the design interface.” (see, e.g., Wichary, para. 25, 32, 40-42).
Regarding claim 5, Wichary anticipates “The network computer system of claim 2, wherein the logical grouping corresponds to at least one of a component, a style, a top-level node, or a page.” (see, e.g., Wichary, para. 25, 32, 40-42).
Regarding claim 6, Wichary anticipates “The network computer system of claim 1, wherein the one or more visual representations include an on-canvas label indicating a portion of the design interface that is affected by one or more differences in the first set of differences.” (see, e.g., Wichary, para. 72-74).
Regarding claim 7, Wichary anticipates “The network computer system of claim 6, wherein the on-canvas label further indicates at least one of an added design element, an edited design element, a removed design element, or a change to an external library used to define a design element.” (see, e.g., Wichary, para. 72-74).
Regarding claim 8, Wichary anticipates “The network computer system of claim 1, wherein the one or more visual representations include at least one of a ghost frame representing a deletion of a deleted design element or a highlighting of a design element that is affected by one or more differences in the first set of differences.” (see, e.g., Wichary, para. 50).
Regarding claim 9, Wichary anticipates “The network computer system of claim 1, wherein the operations further comprise: determining the second version of the design interface based on a time at which the design interface was accessed by the user; and generating an alert of a change to the design interface between the second version and the first version.” (see, e.g., Wichary, para. 59, 65-67).
Regarding claim 11, Wichary anticipates “The network computer system of claim 1, wherein the first version of the design interface comprises a most recent version of the design interface and the second version of the design interface comprises an older version of the design interface.” (see, e.g., Wichary, para. 59, 65-67).
Regarding claim 13, Wichary anticipates “A non-transitory computer-readable medium that stores instructions, executable by one or more processors, to cause the one or more processors to perform operations (see, e.g., Wichary, para. 12, 52, fig. 1B sec. 100, 152) comprising:
determining a first set of differences between a first version of a design interface and a second version of the design interface based on a comparison of a first set of workspace data for the first version of the design interface with a second set of workspace data for the second version of the design interface; (see, e.g., Wichary, para. 31, 34, 57-58, 64-65)
rendering, on a canvas, the first version of the design interface for display to a user; (see, e.g., Wichary, para. 58-59, 65-66) and
rendering, within the canvas, one or more visual representations of the first set of differences between the first version of the design interface and the second version of the design interface.” (see, e.g., Wichary, para. 59, 65-67).
Regarding claim 14, Wichary anticipates “The non-transitory computer-readable medium of claim 13, wherein determining the first set of differences comprises: determining the first set of differences based on a comparison of a first hierarchical structure represented by the first set of workspace data and a second hierarchical structure represented by the second set of workspace data; and generating one or more logical groupings of the first set of differences under one or more nodes of the first hierarchical structure.” (see, e.g., Wichary, para. 25, 31).
Regarding claim 15, Wichary anticipates “The non-transitory computer-readable medium of claim 14, wherein the one or more visual representations include a summary of one or more differences within a logical grouping in the one or more logical groupings.” (see, e.g., Wichary, para. 72-74).
Regarding claim 16, Wichary anticipates “The non-transitory computer-readable medium of claim 14, wherein the one or more nodes represent at least one of a component, a style, a top-level node, or a page.” (see, e.g., Wichary, para. 25, 32, 40-42).
Regarding claim 17, Wichary anticipates “The non-transitory computer-readable medium of claim 13, wherein the one or more visual representations include an on-canvas label indicating (i) a portion of the design interface that is affected by one or more differences in the first set of differences and (ii) a type of change associated with the one or more differences, wherein the type of change comprises at least one of an added design element, an edited design element, a removed design element, or a change to an external library associated with a design element.” (see, e.g., Wichary, para. 25, 32, 40-42).
Regarding claim 18, Wichary anticipates “The non-transitory computer-readable medium of claim 13, wherein the one or more visual representations include at least one of a ghost frame representing a deletion of a deleted design element or a highlighting of a design element that is affected by one or more differences in the first set of differences.” (see, e.g., Wichary, para. 50).
Regarding claim 19, Wichary anticipates “A method for operating a computing device comprising one or more processors, (see, e.g., Wichary, para. 12, 52, fig. 1B sec. 100, 152) the method comprising:
determining a first set of differences between a first version of a design interface and a second version of the design interface based on a comparison of a first set of workspace data for the first version of the design interface with a second set of workspace data for the second version of the design interface; (see, e.g., Wichary, para. 31, 34, 57-58, 64-65)
rendering, on a canvas, the first version of the design interface for display to a user; (see, e.g., Wichary, para. 58-59, 65-66) and
rendering, within the canvas, one or more visual representations of the first set of differences between the first version of the design interface and the second version of the design interface.” (see, e.g., Wichary, para. 59, 65-67).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
Claim 10 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wichary and USPGPUB 2020/0363943, hereinafter “Millington.”
Regarding claim 10, Wichary discloses “The network computer system of claim 1,” but does not appear to disclose the further limitation “wherein the operations further comprise: displaying a list of versions of the design interface; and receiving, via the displayed list of versions of the design interface, a selection of the second version of the design interface prior to rendering the one or more visual representations of the first set of differences within the canvas.”
Millington discloses (at para. 79-80) that its User Interface Design Platform includes “a method 700 for generating a changed properties list” regarding “a predefined, customized, or imported object” which is then “identified by the change control module 150 in response to a user command (e.g., a selection of a control on the developer interface 140 by the user to generate the changed properties list.).” Millington and Wichary are directed toward user interface development and therefore are analogous art. On or before the effective filing date of the instant application, one of ordinary skill in the art would have deemed it obvious to try to combine Millington’s lists of UI object versions with the collaborative UI design method of Wichary, thereby obtaining the invention of the instant claim. A clear and predictable benefit of so combining would have appeared as the ability to more efficiently represent various changes among associated UI versions. Accordingly, the instant claim is unpatentable over the combination of Wichary and Millington.
Claims 12 and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wichary and USPGPUB 2021/0397942, hereinafter “Collomosse.”
Regarding claim 12, Wichary discloses “The network computer system of claim 1,” but does not appear to disclose the further limitation “wherein rendering the one or more visual representations comprises: rendering, within a viewport associated with the canvas, a first visual representation of a first difference in the first set of differences; receiving user input to navigate to a second difference in the first set of differences; determining the second difference based on a proximity to the viewport; and rendering, within the viewport, a second visual representation of the second difference.”
Collomosse discloses “Learning to Search User Experience Designs Based on Structural Similarity” and describes (at fig. 1 & associated text, para. 25-33) visually depicting differences among UI designs based on, among other things, “locations of components” and “closeness.” Collomosse and Wichary are directed toward user interface development and therefore are analogous art. On or before the effective filing date of the instant application, one of ordinary skill in the art would have deemed it obvious to try to combine Millington’s depictions of user interface element closeness with the collaborative UI design method of Wichary, thereby obtaining the invention of the instant claim. A clear and predictable benefit of so combining would have appeared as the ability to more efficiently represent various changes among associated UI versions. Accordingly, the instant claim is unpatentable over the combination of Wichary and Collomosse.
Regarding claim 20, Wichary discloses “The method of claim 19,” but does not appear to disclose the further limitation “wherein rendering the one or more visual representations comprises: rendering, within a viewport associated with the canvas, a first visual representation of a first difference in the first set of differences; receiving user input to navigate to a second difference in the first set of differences; determining the second difference based on a proximity to the viewport; and rendering, within the viewport, a second visual representation of the second difference.”
Collomosse discloses “Learning to Search User Experience Designs Based on Structural Similarity” and describes (at fig. 1 & associated text, para. 25-33) visually depicting differences among UI designs based on, among other things, “locations of components” and “closeness.” Collomosse and Wichary are directed toward user interface development and therefore are analogous art. On or before the effective filing date of the instant application, one of ordinary skill in the art would have deemed it obvious to try to combine Millington’s depictions of user interface element closeness with the collaborative UI design method of Wichary, thereby obtaining the invention of the instant claim. A clear and predictable benefit of so combining would have appeared as the ability to more efficiently represent various changes among associated UI versions. Accordingly, the instant claim is unpatentable over the combination of Wichary and Collomosse.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to RYAN D COYER whose telephone number is (571) 270-5306. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 12pm-10pm 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, Wei Zhen can be reached on 571-272-3708. 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.
/Ryan D. Coyer/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2191
Prosecution Insights