DETAILED ACTION
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA . 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 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.
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) 1-5, 7-17, and 19-20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hsu (US 2007/0200873) in view of Sinha et al. (US 2013/0332476) and Noris et al. (US 2011/0175916).
Regarding claim 1, Hsu teaches/suggests: A computer-implemented method comprising:
determining, by at least one processor (Hsu Fig. 1: processing unit 102), vertices at points of a plurality of paths in a vector image (Hsu [0050] “the user has used the vector drawing tool 208 to create a spiral 250 including a plurality of nodes 252 defining the points of manipulation of the vector based object of the spiral” [0045] “The spline tool 218 may allow a user to draw a B-spline path, which may provide some functionality over a Bezier path” [The nodes meet the vertices.]);
converting, by the at least one processor, a second path representation of the plurality of paths of the vector image (Hsu [0051] “a converter 130 which may automatically convert a graphic of one type to another type automatically” [0053] “the vector object 250 may be converted to pixel data 450 and manipulated as pixel data”).
Hsu does not teach/suggest a first path representation of the plurality of paths of the vector image. Sinha, however, teaches/suggests a first path representation of the plurality of paths of the vector image (Sinha [0045] “the vector road network is expressed as a graph G=(V, E), where the edge set is E and vertex set is V”). Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, the substitution of one known element (the vector network of Sinha) for another (the vector paths of Hsu) would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art because such substitutions would have yielded predictable results, namely the vector graphics.
Hsu as modified by Sinha does not teach/suggest:
determining, by the at least one processor, pairs of points connected by primitives corresponding to the plurality of paths;
generating, by the at least one processor, a bidirectional intermediate representation of a vector image comprising the vertices at the points connected by edges representing the primitives according to the pairs of points; and
converting, by the at least one processor, a first path representation of the plurality of paths of the vector image to a second path representation of the plurality of paths of the vector image utilizing the bidirectional intermediate representation.
Noris, however, teaches/suggests:
determining, by the at least one processor, pairs of points connected by primitives corresponding to the plurality of paths (Noris [0144] “junction table (or graph) indicating which strokes join to which other strokes”);
generating, by the at least one processor, a
Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the converter of Hsu as modified by Sinha to include the hybrid representation (the intermediate representation) of Noris for the conversion. As such, Hsu as modified by Sinha and Noris teaches/suggests:
converting, by the at least one processor, a first path representation of the plurality of paths of the vector image to a second path representation of the plurality of paths of the vector image utilizing the bidirectional intermediate representation (Hsu [0053]-[0054] “the vector object 250 may be converted to pixel data 450 and manipulated as pixel data … Pixel data may be converted to a vector object in any suitable manner” Sinha [0045] “the vector road network is expressed as a graph G=(V, E), where the edge set is E and vertex set is V” Noris [0075] “from the graph topology, junction points, etc., the vectorizer might reconstruct a vectorized curve (piecewise polynomial representation, or the like) for each stroke” [In view of Hsu, Sinha, and Noris, the hybrid representation that converts the vector network (the first path representation) to the vector paths (the second path representation) and back meets the bidirectional intermediate representation.]).
Regarding claim 2, Hsu as modified by Sinha and Noris teaches/suggests: The computer-implemented method of claim 1, further comprising determining a set of junctions and pairs of junctions in a vector network graph corresponding to the first path representation (Sinha [0045] “Each unique road segment, e, that has been encoded as a feature is an edge in this graph ... an edge can be represented as a line or path between two vertices ... Each junction v (intersecting point of two or more road elements) is represented as a vertex in this graph”), wherein converting the first path representation to the second path representation comprises converting the set of junctions and the pairs of junctions in the vector network graph of the first path representation to Bezier curves according to the vertices while traversing the edges of the bidirectional intermediate representation (Noris [0075] “from the graph topology, junction points, etc., the vectorizer might reconstruct a vectorized curve (piecewise polynomial representation, or the like) for each stroke”). The same rationale to combine as set forth in the rejection of claim 1 above is incorporated herein.
Regarding claim 3, Hsu as modified by Sinha and Noris teaches/suggests: The computer-implemented method of claim 2, wherein generating the bidirectional intermediate representation comprises:
determining the vertices at coordinates corresponding to the set of junctions from the vector network graph (Sinha [0045] “Each unique road segment, e, that has been encoded as a feature is an edge in this graph ... an edge can be represented as a line or path between two vertices ... Each junction v (intersecting point of two or more road elements) is represented as a vertex in this graph”);
determining the primitives comprising parameterizable curves corresponding to the pairs of junctions from the vector network graph (Sinha [0045] “Each unique road segment, e, that has been encoded as a feature is an edge in this graph ... an edge can be represented as a line or path between two vertices ... Each junction v (intersecting point of two or more road elements) is represented as a vertex in this graph” Noris [0142] “stroke table, providing a listing of the strokes, each stroke represented by a parameterization of the stroke's curve”);
generating, within the bidirectional intermediate representation, the edges representing the primitives connecting the vertices according to the parameterizable curves (Noris [0142] “stroke table, providing a listing of the strokes, each stroke represented by a parameterization of the stroke's curve”);
determining a set of contours comprising one or more primitive sequences forming one or more closed paths in the vector image (Hsu [0045] “split a closed path to become an open path”); and
generating a mapping of the set of contours to corresponding vertices and corresponding edges of the bidirectional intermediate representation (Hsu [0045] “split a closed path to become an open path” Noris [0142] “stroke table, providing a listing of the strokes, each stroke represented by a parameterization of the stroke's curve” [0144] “junction table (or graph) indicating which strokes join to which other strokes”).
The same rationale to combine as set forth in the rejection of claim 1 above is incorporated herein.
Regarding claim 4, Hsu as modified by Sinha and Noris teaches/suggests: The computer-implemented method of claim 1, further comprising determining path data for Bezier curves including end points and control points of the Bezier curves in the first path representation (Hsu[0045] “The spline tool 218 may allow a user to draw a B-spline path, which may provide some functionality over a Bezier path” [The end and control points are inherent features of the vector paths.]), wherein converting the first path representation to the second path representation comprises converting the path data of the Bezier curves including the end points and the control points of the plurality of paths in the first path representation to a vector network graph comprising a set of junctions and pairs of junctions (Hsu [0051] “a converter 130 which may automatically convert a graphic of one type to another type automatically” Sinha [0045] “Each unique road segment, e, that has been encoded as a feature is an edge in this graph ... an edge can be represented as a line or path between two vertices ... Each junction v (intersecting point of two or more road elements) is represented as a vertex in this graph”). In view of Hsu, Sinha, and Noris, converting the vector paths (the first path representation) to the vector network (the second path representation) meets the converting. The same rationale to combine as set forth in the rejection of claim 1 above is incorporated herein.
Regarding claim 5, Hsu as modified by Sinha and Noris teaches/suggests: The computer-implemented method of claim 4, wherein generating the bidirectional intermediate representation comprises:
determining the vertices at coordinates corresponding to the end points of the Bezier curves from the path data (Hsu [0045] “The spline tool 218 may allow a user to draw a B-spline path, which may provide some functionality over a Bezier path” [The end points are inherent features of the vector paths.]);
determining the control points of the Bezier curves from the path data (Hsu [0045] “The spline tool 218 may allow a user to draw a B-spline path, which may provide some functionality over a Bezier path” [The control points are inherent features of the vector paths.]);
generating, within the bidirectional intermediate representation, the edges comprising the control points connecting the vertices according to connected Bezier curves in the vector image (Noris [0142] “stroke table, providing a listing of the strokes, each stroke represented by a parameterization of the stroke's curve”);
determining a set of contours comprising one or more primitive sequences forming one or more closed paths in the vector image (Hsu [0045] “split a closed path to become an open path”); and
generating a mapping of the set of contours to corresponding vertices and corresponding edges of the bidirectional intermediate representation (Hsu [0045] “split a closed path to become an open path” Noris [0142] “stroke table, providing a listing of the strokes, each stroke represented by a parameterization of the stroke's curve” [0144] “junction table (or graph) indicating which strokes join to which other strokes”).
The same rationale to combine as set forth in the rejection of claim 1 above is incorporated herein.
Regarding claim 7, Hsu as modified by Sinha and Noris teaches/suggests: The computer-implemented method of claim 1, wherein generating the bidirectional intermediate representation comprises:
determining a sequence of paths that forms a closed path in the vector image (Hsu [0045] “split a closed path to become an open path”); and
determining a set of contours that map the sequence of paths to corresponding edges of the bidirectional intermediate representation with color information indicating fill data for the closed path (Hsu [0045] “split a closed path to become an open path … copy the fill color from object to another” Sinha [0045] “the vector road network is expressed as a graph G=(V, E), where the edge set is E and vertex set is V” Noris [0144] “junction table (or graph) indicating which strokes join to which other strokes”).
The same rationale to combine as set forth in the rejection of claim 1 above is incorporated herein.
Regarding claim 8, Hsu as modified by Sinha and Noris teaches/suggests: The computer-implemented method of claim 1, wherein converting the first path representation to the second path representation comprises:
receiving a request to perform an image editing operation on the vector image utilizing an image editing tool associated with the second path representation (Hsu [0041] “if a vector mode layer is indicated by the layer mode indicator, then the selector may select the vector editor 128” [0044] “To add a node, the add node tool may be used to click on a path segment where a node doesn't currently exist. The shape of a Bezier path may not be affected by adding a node”);
converting the first path representation to the second path representation in response to determining that image editing tool is associated with the second path representation (Hsu [0044] “To add a node, the add node tool may be used to click on a path segment where a node doesn't currently exist. The shape of a Bezier path may not be affected by adding a node” Noris [0075] “from the graph topology, junction points, etc., the vectorizer might reconstruct a vectorized curve (piecewise polynomial representation, or the like) for each stroke”); and
performing, via the image editing tool, the image editing operation utilizing the second path representation in response to converting the first path representation to the second path representation (Hsu [0044] “To add a node, the add node tool may be used to click on a path segment where a node doesn't currently exist. The shape of a Bezier path may not be affected by adding a node” Noris [0075] “from the graph topology, junction points, etc., the vectorizer might reconstruct a vectorized curve (piecewise polynomial representation, or the like) for each stroke”).
The same rationale to combine as set forth in the rejection of claim 1 above is incorporated herein.
Regarding claim 9, Hsu as modified by Sinha and Noris teaches/suggests: The computer-implemented method of claim 8, further comprising:
determining, in response to performing the image editing operation, an updated bidirectional intermediate representation of the vector image according to one or more changes to the second path representation (Hsu [0050] “the spiral 250 of FIG. 2 has been modified by moving nodes 302 and 304 out of the spiral. Since the spiral is a vector based object in a vector mode layer, the object 300 is displayed with a continuous line defined by the nodes” Noris [0144] “junction table (or graph) indicating which strokes join to which other strokes”); and
generating an updated first path representation utilizing the updated bidirectional intermediate representation (Hsu [0052] “exiting the pixel data editor frame may automatically convert the basis (and possibly modified) pixel data to the target vector object” Noris [0144] “junction table (or graph) indicating which strokes join to which other strokes”).
The same rationale to combine as set forth in the rejection of claim 1 above is incorporated herein.
Regarding claim 10, Hsu as modified by Sinha and Noris teaches/suggests: A system comprising:
one or more memory devices (Hsu Fig. 1: system memory 104); and
one or more processors (Hsu Fig. 1: processing unit 102) configured to cause the system to:
determine, for a vector image comprising a plurality of paths, a first path representation of the plurality of paths comprising a set of junctions corresponding to shared points in the vector image and pairs of junctions corresponding to primitives (Sinha [0045] “Each unique road segment, e, that has been encoded as a feature is an edge in this graph ... an edge can be represented as a line or path between two vertices ... Each junction v (intersecting point of two or more road elements) is represented as a vertex in this graph”);
generate, from the first path representation, a bidirectional intermediate representation of a vector image comprising vertices at the set of junctions connected by edges representing the primitives according to the pairs of junctions (Noris [0142] “stroke table, providing a listing of the strokes, each stroke represented by a parameterization of the stroke's curve” [0144] “junction table (or graph) indicating which strokes join to which other strokes”);
generate, utilizing the bidirectional intermediate representation in connection with a request to perform an image editing operation on the vector image, a second path representation of the plurality of paths by generating path data according to the vertices while traversing the edges of the bidirectional intermediate representation (Hsu [0044] “To add a node, the add node tool may be used to click on a path segment where a node doesn't currently exist. The shape of a Bezier path may not be affected by adding a node” Noris [0142] “stroke table, providing a listing of the strokes, each stroke represented by a parameterization of the stroke's curve” [0144] “junction table (or graph) indicating which strokes join to which other strokes”); and
perform the image editing operation according to the path data from the second path representation (Hsu [0044] “To add a node, the add node tool may be used to click on a path segment where a node doesn't currently exist. The shape of a Bezier path may not be affected by adding a node”).
The same rationale to combine as set forth in the rejection of claim 1 above is incorporated herein.
Regarding claim 11, Hsu as modified by Sinha and Noris teaches/suggests: The system of claim 10, wherein the one or more processors are configured to cause the system to generate the second path representation by:
determining that the image editing operation corresponds to an image editing tool that modifies data in a path space corresponding to the second path representation (Hsu [0044] “To add a node, the add node tool may be used to click on a path segment where a node doesn't currently exist. The shape of a Bezier path may not be affected by adding a node”); and
converting the first path representation to the second path representation in response to determining that the image editing operation corresponds to the image editing tool (Hsu [0044] “To add a node, the add node tool may be used to click on a path segment where a node doesn't currently exist. The shape of a Bezier path may not be affected by adding a node” Noris [0075] “from the graph topology, junction points, etc., the vectorizer might reconstruct a vectorized curve (piecewise polynomial representation, or the like) for each stroke”).
The same rationale to combine as set forth in the rejection of claim 1 above is incorporated herein.
Regarding claim 12, Hsu as modified by Sinha and Noris teaches/suggests: The system of claim 11, wherein the one or more processors are configured to cause the system to:
determine one or more changes to the second path representation in the path space corresponding to the second path representation based on the image editing operation (Hsu [0050] “the spiral 250 of FIG. 2 has been modified by moving nodes 302 and 304 out of the spiral. Since the spiral is a vector based object in a vector mode layer, the object 300 is displayed with a continuous line defined by the nodes” Noris [0144] “junction table (or graph) indicating which strokes join to which other strokes”); and
generate an updated bidirectional intermediate representation based on the one or more changes to the second path representation (Hsu [0052] “exiting the pixel data editor frame may automatically convert the basis (and possibly modified) pixel data to the target vector object” Noris [0144] “junction table (or graph) indicating which strokes join to which other strokes”).
The same rationale to combine as set forth in the rejection of claim 1 above is incorporated herein.
Regarding claim 13, Hsu as modified by Sinha and Noris teaches/suggests: The system of claim 10, wherein the one or more processors are configured to cause the system to:
determine the first path representation as a vector network graph comprising the set of junctions and the pairs of junctions (Sinha [0045] “Each unique road segment, e, that has been encoded as a feature is an edge in this graph ... an edge can be represented as a line or path between two vertices ... Each junction v (intersecting point of two or more road elements) is represented as a vertex in this graph”); and
generate, utilizing the bidirectional intermediate representation, the second path representation as a plurality of Bezier curves comprising end points based on the vertices and control points based on the primitives (Hsu[0045] “The spline tool 218 may allow a user to draw a B-spline path, which may provide some functionality over a Bezier path” [The end and control points are inherent features of the vector paths.] Noris [0144] “junction table (or graph) indicating which strokes join to which other strokes”).
The same rationale to combine as set forth in the rejection of claim 1 above is incorporated herein.
Regarding claim 14, Hsu as modified by Sinha and Noris teaches/suggests: The system of claim 10, wherein the one or more processors are configured to cause the system to generate the bidirectional intermediate representation by:
determining, from the first path representation, one or more primitives that form a closed path in the vector image (Hsu [0045] “split a closed path to become an open path”);
determining color information indicating fill data for the closed path (Hsu [0045] “copy the fill color from object to another”); and
generating a set of contours that map the one or more primitives to one or more edges of the bidirectional intermediate representation with the color information (Sinha [0045] “the vector road network is expressed as a graph G=(V, E), where the edge set is E and vertex set is V” Noris [0144] “junction table (or graph) indicating which strokes join to which other strokes”).
The same rationale to combine as set forth in the rejection of claim 1 above is incorporated herein.
Regarding claim 15, Hsu as modified by Sinha and Noris teaches/suggests: The system of claim 14, wherein the one or more processors are configured to cause the system to:
generate the second path representation by iterating through the set of contours to construct a closed path object including one or more Bezier curves from the one or more edges (Hsu [0045] “The spline tool 218 may allow a user to draw a B-spline path, which may provide some functionality over a Bezier path … split a closed path to become an open path”); and
assign the color information to the one or more Bezier curves based on the set of contours in the bidirectional intermediate representation (Hsu [0045] “copy the fill color from object to another” Noris [0142] “stroke table, providing a listing of the strokes, each stroke represented by a parameterization of the stroke's curve”).
The same rationale to combine as set forth in the rejection of claim 1 above is incorporated herein.
Regarding claim 16, Hsu as modified by Sinha and Noris teaches/suggests: The system of claim 10, wherein the one or more processors are configured to cause the system to generate the bidirectional intermediate representation by generating a data structure comprising the vertices including coordinates of the set of junctions and the edges with control points of the primitives (Hsu [0045] “The spline tool 218 may allow a user to draw a B-spline path, which may provide some functionality over a Bezier path” Sinha [0045] “Each unique road segment, e, that has been encoded as a feature is an edge in this graph ... an edge can be represented as a line or path between two vertices ... Each junction v (intersecting point of two or more road elements) is represented as a vertex in this graph” Noris [0142] “stroke table, providing a listing of the strokes, each stroke represented by a parameterization of the stroke's curve” [0144] “junction table (or graph) indicating which strokes join to which other strokes”). The same rationale to combine as set forth in the rejection of claim 1 above is incorporated herein.
Hsu, Sinha, and Noris are silent regarding with primitive types. However, the concept and advantages of including primitive types are well known and expected in the art (Official Notice). It would have been obvious for the hybrid representation of Hsu as modified by Sinha and Noris to include the primitive types for identification.
Regarding claim 17, Hsu as modified by Sinha and Noris teaches/suggests: A non-transitory computer readable medium storing instructions thereon that, when executed by at least one processor, cause the at least one processor to perform operations (Hsu Fig. 1: processing unit 102 and system memory 104) comprising:
determining, for a vector image comprising a plurality of paths, a first path representation of the plurality of paths comprising path data including end points and control points of the plurality of paths (Hsu[0045] “The spline tool 218 may allow a user to draw a B-spline path, which may provide some functionality over a Bezier path” [The end and control points are inherent features of the vector paths.]);
generating, from the first path representation, a bidirectional intermediate representation of a vector image comprising vertices of the end points connected by edges representing the plurality of paths according to the control points of the plurality of paths (Noris [0142] “stroke table, providing a listing of the strokes, each stroke represented by a parameterization of the stroke's curve” [0144] “junction table (or graph) indicating which strokes join to which other strokes”); and
generating, utilizing the bidirectional intermediate representation, a second path representation of the plurality of paths comprising a graph including a set of junctions corresponding to the vertices and primitives corresponding to the edges (Sinha [0045] “Each unique road segment, e, that has been encoded as a feature is an edge in this graph ... an edge can be represented as a line or path between two vertices ... Each junction v (intersecting point of two or more road elements) is represented as a vertex in this graph” Noris [0142] “stroke table, providing a listing of the strokes, each stroke represented by a parameterization of the stroke's curve” [0144] “junction table (or graph) indicating which strokes join to which other strokes”).
The same rationale to combine as set forth in the rejection of claim 1 above is incorporated herein.
Regarding claim 19, Hsu as modified by Sinha and Noris teaches/suggests: The non-transitory computer readable medium of claim 17, wherein generating the bidirectional intermediate representation comprises:
determining that one or more paths of the plurality of paths form a closed path according to the path data of the first path representation (Hsu [0045] “split a closed path to become an open path”);
determining color information associated with the one or more paths (Hsu [0045] “copy the fill color from object to another”); and
determining a set of contours that map an edge sequence corresponding to the one or more paths to a primitive sequence with color information indicating fill data for the closed path (Hsu [0045] “split a closed path to become an open path … copy the fill color from object to another” Sinha [0045] “the vector road network is expressed as a graph G=(V, E), where the edge set is E and vertex set is V” Noris [0144] “junction table (or graph) indicating which strokes join to which other strokes”).
The same rationale to combine as set forth in the rejection of claim 1 above is incorporated herein.
Regarding claim 20, Hsu as modified by Sinha and Noris teaches/suggests: The non-transitory computer readable medium of claim 17, wherein generating the second path representation comprises:
detecting an image editing operation that modifies the first path representation according to one or more changes to the path data (Hsu [0050] “the spiral 250 of FIG. 2 has been modified by moving nodes 302 and 304 out of the spiral. Since the spiral is a vector based object in a vector mode layer, the object 300 is displayed with a continuous line defined by the nodes”);
generating an updated bidirectional intermediate representation based on the one or more changes to the path data (Hsu [0050] “the spiral 250 of FIG. 2 has been modified by moving nodes 302 and 304 out of the spiral. Since the spiral is a vector based object in a vector mode layer, the object 300 is displayed with a continuous line defined by the nodes” Noris [0144] “junction table (or graph) indicating which strokes join to which other strokes”); and
generating an updated second path representation utilizing the updated bidirectional intermediate representation (Hsu [0052] “exiting the pixel data editor frame may automatically convert the basis (and possibly modified) pixel data to the target vector object” Noris [0144] “junction table (or graph) indicating which strokes join to which other strokes”).
The same rationale to combine as set forth in the rejection of claim 1 above is incorporated herein.
Claim(s) 18 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hsu (US 2007/0200873) in view of Sinha et al. (US 2013/0332476) and Noris et al. (US 2011/0175916) as applied to claim 17 above, and further in view of Rong et al. (US 6879946).
Regarding claim 18, Hu discloses in [0045]: “split a closed path to become an open path.” Hsu as modified by Sinha and Noris does not teach/suggest: The non-transitory computer readable medium of claim 17, wherein generating the bidirectional intermediate representation comprises:
determining that a first end point of the path data is within a threshold distance of a second end point of the path data; and
merging the first end point and the second end point as a single vertex.
Rong, however, teaches/suggests merging (Rong col. 13 ll. 14-46 “eliminate duplicated features resulting from potentially noisy input data … If its value is less than a preset threshold (normally the distance threshold is about 2-3 pixels in length), the two points are merged into one”). Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the closed path of Hsu as modified by Sinha and Noris such that the end points are merged as taught/suggested by Rong because of noisy input data. As such, Hsu as modified by Sinha, Noris, and Rong teaches/suggests:
determining that a first end point of the path data is within a threshold distance of a second end point of the path data (Hsu [0045] “split a closed path to become an open path” Rong col. 13 ll. 14-46 “If its value is less than a preset threshold (normally the distance threshold is about 2-3 pixels in length), the two points are merged into one”); and
merging the first end point and the second end point as a single vertex (Rong col. 13 ll. 14-46 “If its value is less than a preset threshold (normally the distance threshold is about 2-3 pixels in length), the two points are merged into one”).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claim 6 is objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter: The limitation “determining the vertices and the edges by utilizing a k-d tree representation of the path data of the Bezier curves to merge a subset of end points of the plurality of paths as a shared point according to a parameterizable radius,” taken as a whole, renders the claim patentably distinct over the prior art.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure:
US 2013/0127856 – render diffusion curves
US 2014/0320540 – graphic data representation
US 2022/0277501 – modify vector graphics
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ANH-TUAN V NGUYEN whose telephone number is 571-270-7513. The examiner can normally be reached on M-F 9AM-5PM ET. 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, JASON CHAN can be reached on 571-272-3022. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/ANH-TUAN V NGUYEN/
Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2619