DETAILED ACTION
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 .
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 1, 2, 3, 4, 12, 13, 14, 15, and 16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Sefton (US 20210191607 A1).
Regarding claim 1:
Sefton teaches:
A display effect processing method, comprising:
determining, in response to an editing operation on a target element, at least one associated element corresponding to the target element and a target display effect of the at least one associated element (Sefton: If the user decides to end the gesture at this point, this completes the placing here thereby saving (“finalizing”) the potential graphical information unit as a new graphical information unit on the canvas. Because the formerly potential unit has now been finalized as a new unit on the canvas, a new hierarchy can now be deduced. This will deduce the new (formerly “potential”) graphical information unit as a child of the first graphical information unit and a parent of the second graphical information unit. [0036]); and
adjusting a current display effect of the at least one associated element in an interactive interface based on the target display effect (see Note 1A), such that the target display effect of the at least one associated element is adjusted and displayed (see Note 1B) based on the editing operation on the target element (Sefton: The graphical information unit (Cello Zzote 2702) was selected (“Picked up”) with all its descendants inferred as being the cluster. The same gesture proceeded to move and resize the selected graphical information unit (Cello Zzote 2702) with this occurring concurrently and proportionally to all its descendants (Cello Zzote 2702 and its descendants thereby comprise being the cluster) according to the hierarchical relationships as deduced prior to the user input. [0657]).
Note 1A: The Example from FIGS. 39F-39G showcases that a current size (current display effect) of a descendant Zzote 2704 (associated element) in Fig. 39F may be adjusted based on a user’s target size (target display effect) in Fig. 39G. Note that in the Sefton reference, “graphical information units […] are sometimes referred to as Zzotes. [0008]”
Note 1B: The Example from FIGS. 39F-39G showcases that the target display effect (in this case, updated size and position of the Zzote) of the at least one associated element is displayed in a user interface.
Regarding claim 2:
Sefton teaches:
The method according to claim 1 (as shown above), wherein the editing operation on the target element comprises:
detecting a size adjustment operation on the target element (Sefton: In some implementations, the size and/or position of a selected graphical information unit is adjusted according to user input, [0014]); or
detecting an editing operation on element content of the target element (Sefton: in some implementations a Zzote of any given size may be viewed/edited by the user at an appropriate scale as required [0228]).
Regarding claim 3:
Sefton teaches:
The method according to claim 1 (as shown above), wherein adjusting the current display effect of the at least one associated element in the interactive interface based on the target display effect comprises:
determining a target display image based on the target display effect (Sefton: [FIG. 4] also shows how the Zzotes are nested based on the sizing of the Zzotes. In this case, the first photographic Zzote 404 has two child Zzotes, including a side image Zzote 406. This side image 406 also has a child Zzote 408. [0157]), and displaying the target display image in the interactive interface (see Note 3A).
Note 3A: Fig. 4 of Sefton showcases the “Zzotes” containing resized images within an interactive interface.
Regarding claim 4:
The method according to claim 1 (as shown above), wherein determining the at least one associated element corresponding to the target element and the target display effect of the at least one associated element comprises:
determining the at least one associated element according to a preset constraint logic, wherein the at least one associated element has a constraint relationship with the target element, and/or the at least one associated element has a constraint relationship with each other (Sefton: the application of these rules thereby result in deduced hierarchical clusters of graphical information units (starting from any given unit) through theoretically unlimited levels of such parents/children relationships [0013]), and the constraint relationship is at least one of position or size constraint relationship (Sefton: A descendant of the selected graphical information unit is any graphical information unit that can be reached from the selected graphical information unit through a sequence of one or more parent/child relationships. Adjusting the size and/or position of the selected graphical information unit applies concurrently and proportionally with all its descendants [0014]; see Note 4A); and
determining the target display effect of the at least one associated element based on an editing target of the target element and the constraint relationship between the at least one associated element and the target element, wherein the editing target is a target of the editing operation (Sefton: during such continuously varying user input, the viewport displays both the adjusted graphical information units (i.e., the moving/resizing cluster of individual graphical information units), and the other (non-adjusted) graphical information units on the canvas according to all of their individual current sizes and positions [0015]; see Note 4B).
Note 4A: In [0014], Sefton teaches determining a parent/child relationship between units based on size and position, and states that size and position of descendant units are adjusted proportionally to the selected parent unit. In other words, the descendants may be constrained to change based on the sizing and positioning of the parent.
Similarly, the specification of the present application recites: “A may have a position constraint relationship, a size constraint relationship, or a position and size constraint relationship. Assuming that element B and element A have a position constraint relationship, it indicates that a position of element B changes with a change in a position of element A.” [0055].
Therefore, the relationship taught by Sefton is at least one of a position or size constraint relationship.
Note 4B: In [0015], Sefton teaches that the adjusted size (target display effect) of a cluster (editing target: Sefton in [0014] that “the cluster is the selected graphical information unit and any such prior-deduced descendants”) may be displayed in the canvas. It follows that the determining of the adjusted size is based on the constraint relationship between the at least one associated element and the target element because Sefton teaches that the cluster (which is determined based on the parent/child relationships of the graphical information units) may be displayed with the adjusted size.
Regarding claim 12:
Claim 12 is substantially similar to claim 1, and is therefore rejected for similar reasons. Claim 12 contains the following notable differences:
Claim 12 claims an electronic device instead of a display effect processing method. Sefton teaches an electronic device: “In accordance with some implementations, an electronic device has a display, one or more processors, and memory. The electronic device has a graphical user interface having a viewport of a canvas containing a plurality of individually positioned and sized graphical information units, which are sometimes referred to as Zzotes.” [0008]
Regarding claim 13:
Claim 13 is substantially similar to claim 1, and is therefore rejected for similar reasons. Claim 13 contains the following notable differences:
Claim 13 claims an non-transitory storage medium instead of a display effect processing method. Sefton teaches an non-transitory storage medium: “In some implementations, a non-transitory computer readable storage medium stores one or more programs. The one or more programs are configured for execution by one or more processors of an electronic device having a display. The one or more programs include instructions for performing any of the methods described herein or implementing any of the electronic devices described herein.” [0063]
Regarding claim 14:
Claim 14 is substantially similar to claim 2, and is therefore rejected for similar reasons. Claim 14 contains the following notable differences:
Claim 14 claims an electronic device instead of a display effect processing method. In the rejection of claim 12, it was shown that Sefton teaches an electronic device.
Regarding claim 15:
Claim 15 is substantially similar to claim 3, and is therefore rejected for similar reasons. Claim 15 contains the following notable differences:
Claim 15 claims an electronic device instead of a display effect processing method. In the rejection of claim 12, it was shown that Sefton teaches an electronic device.
Regarding claim 16:
Claim 16 is substantially similar to claim 4, and is therefore rejected for similar reasons. Claim 16 contains the following notable differences:
Claim 16 claims an electronic device instead of a display effect processing method. In the rejection of claim 12, it was shown that Sefton teaches an electronic device.
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.
Claims 5, 6, 7, 9, 10, 17, 18, 19, and 21 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sefton (US 20210191607 A1).
Regarding claim 5:
Sefton teaches:
The method according to claim 4 (as shown above),
wherein the at least one associated element comprises a plurality of associated elements (Sefton: for any given descendent graphical information unit that at least partially overlaps the rectangle, all of its own descendants are also included (irrespective of whether they themselves overlap the rectangle) because they are regarded as components of the given graphical information unit.) [0049]), and
determining the target display effect of the at least one associated element based on the editing target of the target element and the constraint relationship between the at least one associated element and the target element comprises:
based on the editing target of the target element, determining an element display effect of each of the associated elements sequentially according to the constraint relationship between the at least one associated element and the constraint relationship between the at least one associated element and the target element (Sefton: when calculating the effective scale of a given Zzote, the user interface traverses the graph of Zzotes from top of hierarchy-downwards to gather the information required to display any given viewport at a given scale. [0324]; see Note 5A); and
obtaining the target display effect by combining the element display effects of each of the associated elements (Sefton: In some other alternative implementations that use alternative numeric systems, the position, width, and height parameters for a Zzote are stored relative to the Zzote's parent-Zzote. In this case, the scaling of these numbers does not get increasingly small for increased levels of sub-Zzote. In this case, when calculating the effective scale of a given Zzote, the user interface traverses the graph of Zzotes from top of hierarchy-downwards to gather the information required to display any given viewport at a given scale. [0324]; see Note 5B).
Note 5A: In [0324], Sefton teaches an alternative implementation where the scale (element display effect) of a given “Zzote” (associated element) may be calculated based on sequential traversal (“from top of hierarchy-downwards”) of the hierarchy of Zzotes (constraint relationship between the at least one associated element and the target element). In Note 4B, it was discussed that the user may adjust a cluster of Zzotes (editing target), which requires determining a scale for each parent (target element) and descendent in the cluster. It follows that calculating the scale of a given Zzote would be “based on the editing target of the target element”.
Note 5B: In [0324], Sefton teaches an alternative embodiment where “the position, width, and height parameters for a Zzote are stored relative to the Zzote's parent-Zzote”. It would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to “combine” the scaling effect of each sub-descendants in order to render descendants of a target graphical information unit, because Sefton teaches that gathering the scale of each descendant in the hierarchy is necessary to “calculat[e] the effective scale of a given Zzote”.
Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would be obvious to combine the embodiment in [0324] of Sefton with the teachings of Sefton because the embodiment in [0324] of Sefton enables the teachings of Sefton to work with alternative numbering systems: “Some implementations represent the data stored (e.g., identifying position, width, and height) for each Zzote in various forms of numeric systems. One such numeric system is an absolute coordinate system. Other implementations represent position, width, and height in alternative numeric systems.” [0324].
Regarding claim 6:
Sefton teaches:
The method according to claim 5 (as shown above), wherein based on the editing target of the target element, determining an element display effect of each of the associated elements sequentially according to the constraint relationship between the at least one associated element and the constraint relationship between the at least one associated element and the target element comprises:
determining an associated element as a reference adjustment element based on the constraint relationship between the at least one associated element and the constraint relationship between the at least one associated element and the target element (Sefton: If a Zzote is not placed on any other Zzote, then it can be viewed as being at the top-level of the hierarchy. Sometimes this is referred to as being on the Zzote-Desk. (This is similar to a computer desktop.) Sometimes a Zzote that is on the Zzote-Desk is referred to as a “Base-Zzote” because it is at the base of any stack and has no parents (73));
determining an element adjustment sequence based on the constraint relationship between the at least one associated element (Sefton: Zzotes dynamically form hierarchies based on size and overlap [0129]; see Note 6A); and
determining the element display effect of each of the associated elements sequentially based on the editing target of the target element and the element adjustment sequence with reference to the reference adjustment element (Sefton: the user interface traverses the graph of Zzotes from top of hierarchy-downwards to gather the information required to display any given viewport at a given scale [0324]; see Note 5A and Note 6B).
Note 6A: As discussed in Note 5A, Sefton teaches that the element display effect (scale) may be determined sequentially based on the hierarchy of Zzotes. The hierarchy parsing starts at the top with the base Zzote, which was previously analogized to the reference adjustment element. Sefton teaches that the calculation of scale of a given Zzote parses data downwards until it reaches the given Zzote (in this case, analogous to the target element), which takes into account the scale (editing target) of the given Zzote, as shown in Fig. 40A-40F, where Sefton showcases that “the user can rescale all of the contents of a parent Zzote within a selected rectangular region, and position them along with shrinking or expanding them.” (584).
Note 6B: A hierarchy is necessarily acyclic, as otherwise there may be no “highest” or top element in a hierarchy. In Note 5A, it was discussed that Sefton traverses “from top of hierarchy-downwards” to calculate scale for each Zzote. Therefore, the hierarchy inherently includes an element adjustment sequence. Furthermore, because the hierarchy in Sefton is defined based on the size and overlap of Zzotes, the hierarchy will be based on the size and positions (constraint relationship) of the descendant Zzotes (associated elements).
Regarding claim 7:
Sefton teaches:
The method according to claim 6 (as shown above), wherein determining the element display effect of each of associated elements sequentially based on the editing target of the target element and the element adjustment sequence with reference to the reference adjustment element comprises:
for any associated element to be adjusted, determining a dependent associated element of the associated element to be adjusted according to the constraint logic (Sefton: In some implementations, the size and/or position of a selected graphical information unit is adjusted according to user input. A descendant of the selected graphical information unit is any graphical information unit that can be reached from the selected graphical information unit through a sequence of one or more parent/child relationships [0014]); and
determining an element display effect of the associated element to be adjusted based on the element display effect of the dependent associated element (Sefton: Adjusting the size and/or position of the selected graphical information unit applies concurrently and proportionally with all its descendants (if any) according to the hierarchical relationships as deduced prior to the user input. [0014]).
Regarding claim 9:
Sefton teaches:
The method according to claim 6, wherein the constraint logic is represented by a directed acyclic graph (see Note 9A), any node in the directed acyclic graph is the target element or the associated element (Sefton: Zzotes dynamically form hierarchies based on size and overlap. Within a Zzote hierarchy, the terms “parent,” “child,” “ancestor,” and “descendant” are used to describe certain Zzotes. [0129]), and determining the associated element as the reference adjustment element based on the constraint relationship between the at least one associated element and the constraint relationship between the at least one associated element and the target element comprises:
determining an in-degree parameter of each node in the directed acyclic graph (see Note 9B), and
determining an element corresponding to a node with an in-degree parameter of zero as the reference adjustment element (Sefton: It also follows that some deduced hierarchical clusters of graphical information units from a given starting unit may consist of no descendants, and this is thereby a cluster constituted of just the one given starting unit itself. [0013]).
Note 9A: As discussed in Note 6B, a hierarchy (as described by Sefton) is inherently acyclic. Therefore, the Examiner understands the hierarchy of Sefton to be analogous to a directed acyclic graph.
Note 9B: The specification teaches: “When the in-degree of the node is 0, it indicates that no node depends on the node.” [0063]. Sefton in [0013] discusses that some clusters may graphical information units with no descendants, and therefore are a cluster of “one starting unit”. In order to determine that a graphical information unit has no descendants, the number of descendants (the in-degree parameter) must be determined.
Regarding claim 10:
Sefton teaches:
The method according to claim 1 (as shown above),
wherein the target element is a text box (Sefton: In some implementations, in a standard text-only Zzote there are two regions of text. [0393]), and the at least one associated element is a background of the text box (Sefton: if the user taps the background of a very large great-great-great-grandfather Zzote, it does not typically make sense for the user to see this as selecting a Zzote. In fact the user may consider that Zzote to be the background of the display in the viewport [0285]; see Note 10B).
Note 10A: In [0393], Sefton teaches that a Zzote may only contain text (thus functioning similarly to a text box) and, in [0285], teaches that if a Zzote is parent of other Zzotes, it may function as a background to those Zzotes. Sefton teaches that: “Any Zzote can have sub-Zzotes, those sub-Zzotes can have sub-Zzotes, and so forth.” [0284]. Therefore, in a situation where “a very large great-great-great-grandfather Zzote” (associated element and background of the text box) is considered as a background to a text-only sub-Zzote (target element and text box), Sefton teaches the limitations of claim 10.
Regarding claim 17:
Claim 17 is substantially similar to claim 5, and is therefore rejected for similar reasons. Claim 17 contains the following notable differences:
Claim 17 claims an electronic device instead of a display effect processing method. In the rejection of claim 12, it was shown that Sefton teaches an electronic device.
Regarding claim 18:
Claim 18 is substantially similar to claim 6, and is therefore rejected for similar reasons. Claim 18 contains the following notable differences:
Claim 18 claims an electronic device instead of a display effect processing method. In the rejection of claim 12, it was shown that Sefton teaches an electronic device.
Regarding claim 19:
Claim 19 is substantially similar to claim 7, and is therefore rejected for similar reasons. Claim 19 contains the following notable differences:
Claim 19 claims an electronic device instead of a display effect processing method. In the rejection of claim 12, it was shown that Sefton teaches an electronic device.
Regarding claim 21:
Claim 21 is substantially similar to claim 9, and is therefore rejected for similar reasons. Claim 21 contains the following notable differences:
Claim 21 claims an electronic device instead of a display effect processing method. In the rejection of claim 12, it was shown that Sefton teaches an electronic device.
Claims 8 and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sefton (US 20210191607 A1) in view of Hosotsubo (US 20060198555 A1).
Regarding claim 8:
Sefton teaches:
The method according to claim 7 (as shown above), wherein the element display effect is a size of the element (Sefton: the effective scale of a given Zzote [0324]), and determining the element display effect of the associated element to be adjusted based on the element display effect of the dependent associated element comprises:
Sefton fails to teach:
determining an associated constraint size based on an element size of the dependent associated element;
determining a fixed constraint size between the dependent associated element and the associated element to be adjusted; and
determining a size of the associated element to be adjusted based on the associated constraint size and the fixed constraint size.
Hosotsubo teaches:
determining an associated constraint size based on an element size of the dependent associated element (Hosotsubo: In optimizing calculation, if a violation of rules (that is, constraints imposed to the containers) has occurred, the container sizes are calculated again in step S904 to prevent occurrence of the violation of rules. The rules described herein are the constraints set by the user when creating the layout. Examples of the constraints are the size and the position of a container and the length of a flexible link. [0164]);
determining a fixed constraint size between the dependent associated element and the associated element to be adjusted (Hosotsubo: FIG. 15 is a diagram illustrating a resultant layout in a case where a link having a fixed size is used [0171]); and
determining a size of the associated element to be adjusted based on the associated constraint size and the fixed constraint size (Hosotsubo: assuming that a link 1503 having a fixed size is set between the containers 1203 and 1204, the left side 1212 of the container 1203 and the right side 1213 of the container 1204 cannot move, due to the anchors 1201 and 1202. Therefore, the changed sizes of the containers become larger than the link size. Because the link size is fixed and is preferentially computed at the layout calculation, the sizes of the container 1203 (see FIG. 12) and the container 1204 (see FIG. 12) are changed. [0172]; see Note 8A).
Note 8A: The Examiner interpreted the limitations of claim 8 in view of Fig. 2D and [0065] of the specification of the present application. As best understood by the Examiner, [0065] describes a fixed constraint size M between two elements and an associated constraint size Y representing the size of an element.
Hosotsubo teaches in [0164] that each container may have constraints, such as the size of the container. Therefore, the Hosotsubo teaches determining a constraint size based on an element size of the element.
Hosotsubo also teaches “links” having a fixed size in [0171], depicted in Fig. 15 of Hosotsubo. Fig. 15 showcases that the link 1503 is positioned between two associated elements, the image of the happy face, and the image of the up arrow. In Fig. 15, the image data is inserted into containers 1203 and 1204, which prompts a change in size of the containers (see [0171]). Therefore, the Examiner interprets the link to be between elements that are “to be adjusted”.
Hosotsubo further teaches that the size of containers 1203 and 1204 are changed based on the fixed link in [0172]. In [0164] cited above, Hosotsubo also teaches that “if a violation of rules (that is, constraints imposed to the containers) has occurred, the container sizes are calculated again”. Therefore, the Examiner understands Hosotsubo to teach “determining a size of the associated element to be adjusted based on the associated constraint size and the fixed constraint size”.
Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art to combine the teachings of Hosotsubo with Sefton. Determining a size of the associated element to be adjusted based on the associated constraint size and the fixed constraint size, as in Hosotsubo, would benefit the Sefton teachings by simplifying processing for layouts where elements may overlap one another (such as the Zzotes taught in Sefton): “In a case where a link associating a plurality of partial display areas with one another is not set, the partial display areas overlap with one another. There is a fear that appearance is deteriorated. In a case where a link for preventing overlap is set in the partial display areas that do not need to be associated with one another, the number of factors of dynamic change of layout increases. Thus, there is a fear that processing is complicated.” (Hosotsubo, Abstract).
Regarding claim 20:
Claim 20 is substantially similar to claim 8, and is therefore rejected for similar reasons. Claim 20 contains the following notable differences:
Claim 20 claims an electronic device instead of a display effect processing method. In the rejection of claim 12, it was shown that Sefton teaches an electronic device.
Conclusion
The Examiner identified potential limitation(s) in the specification that would overcome the prior art rejections under 102(a)(2) and 103 if amended into the claims. Note that in such a situation, further search and consideration would be required:
“the coverage area of the background is adaptively adjusted according to the coverage area of the text box after editing, so that the coverage area of the background still matches the coverage area of the text content after the text content is increased” as in [0049] of the specification of the present application.
“different types of constraint logics, such as […] a four-side scaling constraint relationship” as in [0066] of the specification of the present application.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to VINCENT ALEXANDER PROVIDENCE whose telephone number is (571)270-5765. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Thursday 8:30-5:00.
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, King Poon can be reached at (571)270-0728. 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.
/VINCENT ALEXANDER PROVIDENCE/Examiner, Art Unit 2617 /KING Y POON/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2617
Prosecution Insights