DETAILED ACTION
This office action is responsive to claims 1 - 20 filed in this application Sjolander et al., U.S. Patent Application No. 18/750,948, (Filed June 21, 2024) claiming priority to U.S. Provisional Patent Application No. 63/626,526 (Filed January 29, 2024).
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) filed on October 17, 2024 is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97, 1.98 and MPEP § 609. The references listed therein have been considered and placed in the application file.
Double Patenting
The nonstatutory double patenting rejection is based on a judicially created doctrine grounded in public policy (a policy reflected in the statute) so as to prevent the unjustified or improper timewise extension of the “right to exclude” granted by a patent and to prevent possible harassment by multiple assignees. A nonstatutory double patenting rejection is appropriate where the claims at issue are not identical, but at least one examined application claim is not patentably distinct from the reference claim(s) because the examined application claim is either anticipated by, or would have been obvious over, the reference claim(s). See, e.g., In re Berg, 140 F.3d 1428, 46 USPQ2d 1226 (Fed. Cir. 1998); In re Goodman, 11 F.3d 1046, 29 USPQ2d 2010 (Fed. Cir. 1993); In re Longi, 759 F.2d 887, 225 USPQ 645 (Fed. Cir. 1985); In re Van Ornum, 686 F.2d 937, 214 USPQ 761 (CCPA 1982); In re Vogel, 422 F.2d 438, 164 USPQ 619 (CCPA 1970); and In re Thorington, 418 F.2d 528, 163 USPQ 644 (CCPA 1969).
A timely filed terminal disclaimer in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(c) or 1.321(d) may be used to overcome an actual or provisional rejection based on a nonstatutory double patenting ground provided the reference application or patent either is shown to be commonly owned with this application, or claims an invention made as a result of activities undertaken within the scope of a joint research agreement. A terminal disclaimer must be signed in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(b).
The USPTO internet Web site contains terminal disclaimer forms which may be used. Please visit http://www.uspto.gov/forms/. The filing date of the application will determine what form should be used. A web-based eTerminal Disclaimer may be filled out completely online using web-screens. An eTerminal Disclaimer that meets all requirements is auto-processed and approved immediately upon submission. For more information about eTerminal Disclaimers, refer to http://www.uspto.gov/patents/process/file/efs/guidance/eTD-info-I.jsp.
Claim 1 is rejected on the ground of obviousness double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 1 of respectively, U.S. Patent Nos. 11,733,973 and 12,373,172. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because the claims of the Patents anticipate the claims of the instant Application, with the exception of the limitation “dynamically generating a code signature or sample for implementing the first design component in a production environment based on the code attribute values that map to the set of design component properties of the first design component,” which would be obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention in light of the teachings of prior art reference Chen (see infra) which teaches design objects are presented as programming code that implements the selected graphical objects. Stump at Abstract; id. at ¶¶ 0076 & 00105 – 0107; at ¶ 0065 (code may be stored as snippets). One of ordinary skill the art would have been motivated to combine the teachings of prior art reference Stump with the Patents for the purpose of allowing the user to view and edit the code representing the design objects.
Claims 2 – 20 are rejected on the ground of obviousness double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 1 of respectively, U.S. Patent Nos. 11,733,973 and 12,373,172. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because the claims are obvious in view of the Patents cited and the art used infra to teach the dependent claims and associated motivation.
Claim Rejections 35 U.S.C. §103
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102 of this title, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claim 1 – 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Stump et al., United States Patent Application Publication No. 2023/0161563 (Published May 25, 2023, filed December 22, 2022) in view of Bailey et al., United States Patent No. 7,340,721 (Patented March 4, 2008, filed January 16, 2004) (“Bailey”).
Claims 1, 12, and 20
With respect to claims 1, 12, and 20 Stump teaches the invention as claimed including a computer-implemented method comprising:
storing a set of rules for mapping design component properties to code attribute values; detecting a user selection of a first design component … the first design component being associated with a corresponding set of design component properties; determining code attribute values for the set of design component properties based on the set of rules; and in response to detecting the user selection, dynamically generating a code signature or sample for implementing the first design component in a production environment based on the code attribute values that map to the set of design component properties of the first design component. {A design canvas may be comprised of two display areas, one in which graphical objects are places to identify program objects where the objects can be given properties such as names, and a second in which code is presented which is programming code that implements the selected graphical objects where the code has been displayed based on rules matching it to the selected graphical object and where the code incorporates the parameters added to the graphical object, as well as where changes to the code in the text editor will be reflected in changes to the graphical canvas and also where changes to the graphical canvas will be reflected in the code in the text editor. Stump at Abstract; id. at ¶¶ 0076, 0096 & 0105 – 0107; at ¶ 0065 (code may be stored as snippets); id. at ¶¶ 0088, 0092, & 0103 (The code and design objects may be customized using a domain specific language); id. at ¶¶ 0051 & 0056 (design is translated to an executable and deployed to devices for execution); id. at figs. 5 & 13.}
However, Stump doesn’t explicitly teach the limitation:
when the first design component is rendered on a design interface as part of a graphic design on a canvas, {Bailey does teach this limitation. Bailey teaches using a graphical designer canvas with a reflective code editor, as taught in Stump, may include where the graphical canvas renders the selected components in a representative fashion to how they will be viewed in the deployed design, such as placing application windows, scroll bars, and labels in their relative positions in a GUI design canvas. Bailey at Abstract; id. at col. 13 ll. 8 – 21 & 64 – col. 14 ln. 41; id. col. 14 – 15 (control component customization interface); id. at figs. 1 & 4D.
Stump and Bailey are analogous art because they are from the “same field of endeavor” and are both from the same “problem-solving area.” Specifically, they are both from the field of software development, and both are trying to solve the problem of how to implements a graphical development environment.
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine using a graphical designer canvas with a reflective code editor, as taught in Stump with where the design canvas renders the components, as taught in Bailey. Bailey teaches that a graphical development greatly simplifies the development process. Id. at col. 2 ll. 4 - 25. Therefore, one having ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to combine using a graphical designer canvas with a reflective code editor, as taught in Stump with where the design canvas renders the components, as taught in Bailey, for the purpose of using a known graphical representation method with a graphical development environment.}
Claims 2 and 13
With respect to claims 2 and 13 Stump and Bailey teaches the invention as claimed including:
further comprising: storing a set of customized code snippets for one or more design components, including the first design component; wherein dynamically generating the code signature or sample includes integrating the code attribute values with the customized code snippet for the first design component. {A design canvas may be comprised of two display areas, one in which graphical objects are places to identify program objects where the objects can be given properties such as names, and a second in which code is presented which is programming code that implements the selected graphical objects where the code has been displayed based on rules matching it to the selected graphical object and where the code incorporates the parameters added to the graphical object, as well as where changes to the code in the text editor will be reflected in changes to the graphical canvas and also where changes to the graphical canvas will be reflected in the code in the text editor. Stump at Abstract; id. at ¶¶ 0076 & 00105 – 0107; at ¶ 0065 (code may be stored as snippets); id. at ¶¶ 0088, 0092, & 0103 (The code and design objects may be customized using a domain specific language); id. at ¶¶ 0051 & 0056 (design is translated to an executable and deployed to devices for execution); id. at figs. 5 & 13.}
Claims 3 and 14
With respect to claims 3 and 14 Stump and Bailey teaches the invention as claimed including:
wherein integrating the code attribute values with the customized code snippet for the first design component includes filtering the customized code snippet for the first design component based on the code attribute values that map to the set of design component properties of the first design component. {A design canvas may be comprised of two display areas, one in which graphical objects are places to identify program objects where the objects can be given properties such as names, and a second in which code is presented which is programming code that implements the selected graphical objects where the code has been displayed based on rules matching it to the selected graphical object and where the code incorporates the parameters added to the graphical object, as well as where changes to the code in the text editor will be reflected in changes to the graphical canvas and also where changes to the graphical canvas will be reflected in the code in the text editor. Stump at Abstract; id. at ¶¶ 0076, 0097 – 0100, & 00105 – 0107; at ¶ 0065 (code may be stored as snippets); id. at ¶¶ 0088, 0092, & 0103 (The code and design objects may be customized using a domain specific language); id. at ¶¶ 0051 & 0056 (design is translated to an executable and deployed to devices for execution); id. at figs. 5 & 13; id. at ¶ 0102 (matching snippet with design component).}
Claims 4 and 15
With respect to claims 4 and 15 Stump and Bailey teaches the invention as claimed including:
further comprising: displaying the dynamically generated set of code in a panel while the first design component of the user selection is rendered on the design interface. {A design canvas may be comprised of two display areas, one in which graphical objects are places to identify program objects where the objects can be given properties such as names, and a second in which code is presented which is programming code that implements the selected graphical objects where the code has been displayed based on rules matching it to the selected graphical object and where the code incorporates the parameters added to the graphical object, as well as where changes to the code in the text editor will be reflected in changes to the graphical canvas and also where changes to the graphical canvas will be reflected in the code in the text editor. Stump at Abstract; id. at ¶¶ 0076, 0097 – 0100, & 00105 – 0107; at ¶ 0065 (code may be stored as snippets); id. at ¶¶ 0088, 0092, & 0103 (The code and design objects may be customized using a domain specific language); id. at ¶¶ 0051 & 0056 (design is translated to an executable and deployed to devices for execution); id. at figs. 5 & 13; id. at ¶ 0102 (matching snippet with design component).}
Claims 5 and 16
With respect to claims 5 and 16 Stump and Bailey teaches the invention as claimed including:
further comprising: enabling user to interact with the panel to view the dynamically generated set of code in a code editor. {A design canvas may be comprised of two display areas, one in which graphical objects are places to identify program objects where the objects can be given properties such as names, and a second in which code is presented which is programming code that implements the selected graphical objects where the code has been displayed based on rules matching it to the selected graphical object and where the code incorporates the parameters added to the graphical object, as well as where changes to the code in the text editor will be reflected in changes to the graphical canvas and also where changes to the graphical canvas will be reflected in the code in the text editor. Stump at Abstract; id. at ¶¶ 0076, 0097 – 0100, & 00105 – 0107; at ¶ 0065 (code may be stored as snippets); id. at ¶¶ 0088, 0092, & 0103 (The code and design objects may be customized using a domain specific language); id. at ¶¶ 0051 & 0056 (design is translated to an executable and deployed to devices for execution); id. at figs. 5 & 13; id. at ¶ 0102 (matching snippet with design component).}
Claims 6 and 17
With respect to claims 6 and 17 Stump and Bailey teaches the invention as claimed including:
further comprising: enabling the user to interact with the code editor to create an alternative set of code for implementing the first design component in the production environment; and automatically displaying the alternative set of code with the panel. {A design canvas may be comprised of two display areas, one in which graphical objects are places to identify program objects where the objects can be given properties such as names, and a second in which code is presented which is programming code that implements the selected graphical objects where the code has been displayed based on rules matching it to the selected graphical object and where the code incorporates the parameters added to the graphical object, as well as where changes to the code in the text editor will be reflected in changes to the graphical canvas and also where changes to the graphical canvas will be reflected in the code in the text editor. Stump at Abstract; id. at ¶¶ 0076, 0097 – 0100, & 00105 – 0107; at ¶ 0065 (code may be stored as snippets); id. at ¶¶ 0088, 0092, & 0103 (The code and design objects may be customized using a domain specific language); id. at ¶¶ 0051 & 0056 (design is translated to an executable and deployed to devices for execution); id. at figs. 5 & 13; id. at ¶ 0102 (matching snippet with design component).}
Claims 7 and 18
With respect to claims 7 and 18 Stump and Bailey teaches the invention as claimed including:
further comprising: detecting a change to the first design component based on a user input provided through the design interface; automatically updating the code signature for the first design component based on a corresponding change to the design component properties. {A design canvas may be comprised of two display areas, one in which graphical objects are places to identify program objects where the objects can be given properties such as names, and a second in which code is presented which is programming code that implements the selected graphical objects where the code has been displayed based on rules matching it to the selected graphical object and where the code incorporates the parameters added to the graphical object, as well as where changes to the code in the text editor will be reflected in changes to the graphical canvas and also where changes to the graphical canvas will be reflected in the code in the text editor. Stump at Abstract; id. at ¶¶ 0076, 0097 – 0100, & 00105 – 0107; at ¶ 0065 (code may be stored as snippets); id. at ¶¶ 0088, 0092, & 0103 (The code and design objects may be customized using a domain specific language); id. at ¶¶ 0051 & 0056 (design is translated to an executable and deployed to devices for execution); id. at figs. 5 & 13; id. at ¶ 0102 (matching snippet with design component).}
Claim 8
With respect to claim 8 Stump and Bailey teaches the invention as claimed including:
wherein the design component properties include a Boolean property that determines whether a layer of the first design component is visible or not visible. {Stump at ¶ 0102; id. at col. 17 ll. 33 – 35 (interface elements have visibility properties which may be set to true or false).}
Claim 9
With respect to claim 9 Stump and Bailey teaches the invention as claimed including:
wherein the design component properties include a text property. {A design canvas may be comprised of two display areas, one in which graphical objects are places to identify program objects where the objects can be given text properties such as names, and a second in which code is presented which is programming code that implements the selected graphical objects where the code has been displayed based on rules matching it to the selected graphical object and where the code incorporates the parameters added to the graphical object, as well as where changes/customization to the code in the text editor will be reflected in changes to the graphical canvas and also where changes to the graphical canvas will be reflected in the code in the text editor. Stump at Abstract; id. at ¶¶ 0076, 0097 – 0100, & 00105 – 0107; at ¶ 0065 (code may be stored as snippets); id. at ¶¶ 0088, 0092, & 0103 (The code and design objects may be customized using a domain specific language); id. at ¶¶ 0051 & 0056 (design is translated to an executable and deployed to devices for execution); id. at figs. 5 & 13; id. at ¶ 0102 (matching snippet with design component).}
Claims 10 and 19
With respect to claims 10 and 19 Stump and Bailey teaches the invention as claimed including:
wherein the design component properties include a variant property that defines the first design component as a variant of another design component. {A design canvas may be comprised of two display areas, one in which graphical objects are places to identify program objects where the objects can be given properties such as names, and a second in which code is presented which is programming code that implements the selected graphical objects where the code has been displayed based on rules matching it to the selected graphical object and where the code incorporates the parameters added to the graphical object, as well as where changes/customization to the code in the text editor will be reflected in changes to the graphical canvas and also where changes to the graphical canvas will be reflected in the code in the text editor. Stump at Abstract; id. at ¶¶ 0076, 0097 – 0100, & 00105 – 0107; at ¶ 0065 (code may be stored as snippets); id. at ¶¶ 0088, 0092, & 0103 (The code and design objects may be customized using a domain specific language); id. at ¶¶ 0051 & 0056 (design is translated to an executable and deployed to devices for execution); id. at figs. 5 & 13; id. at ¶ 0102 (matching snippet with design component).}
Claim 11
With respect to claim 11 Stump and Bailey teaches the invention as claimed including:
wherein the design component properties include an instance swap property. {A design canvas may be comprised of two display areas, one in which graphical objects are places to identify program objects where the objects can be given text properties such as names, and a second in which code is presented which is programming code that implements the selected graphical objects where the code has been displayed based on rules matching it to the selected graphical object and where the code incorporates the parameters added to the graphical object, as well as where changes/customization to the code in the text editor will be reflected in changes to the graphical canvas and also where changes to the graphical canvas will be reflected in the code in the text editor. Stump at Abstract; id. at ¶¶ 0076, 0097 – 0100, & 00105 – 0107; at ¶ 0065 (code may be stored as snippets); id. at ¶¶ 0088, 0092, & 0103 (The code and design objects may be customized using a domain specific language); id. at ¶¶ 0051 & 0056 (design is translated to an executable and deployed to devices for execution); id. at figs. 5 & 13; id. at ¶ 0102 (matching snippet with design component); id. at ¶ 0090 (instances may have properties).}
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to THEODORE E HEBERT whose telephone number is (571)270-1409. The examiner can normally be reached on Monday to Friday 9:00 a.m. to 6:00 p.m..
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, Lewis Bullock can be reached on 571-272-3759. 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.
//T.H./ September 25, 2026
Examiner, Art Unit 2199
/LEWIS A BULLOCK JR/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2199
