Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Claims 1-20 are pending in this application.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 17-18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Regarding claim 17, the term “relative height” is a relative term which renders the claim indefinite. The term “relative height” is not defined by the claim, the specification does not provide a standard for ascertaining the requisite degree, and one of ordinary skill in the art would not be reasonably apprised of the scope of the invention.
Claim 18 recites “a second instance of an additional common character within a third visual text object”. There is no recitation of a first instance of an additional common character. As such, it is not clear what “a second instance” refers to.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101
35 U.S.C. 101 reads as follows:
Whoever invents or discovers any new and useful process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter, or any new and useful improvement thereof, may obtain a patent therefor, subject to the conditions and requirements of this title.
Claims 1-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
Step 1: Claims 1-8 recite a method, claims 9-15 recite a system, claims 16-20 recite a non-transitory computer readable medium. Thus, each claim is directed to one of the four statutory categories of patentable subject matter.
Claim 1:
Step 2A Prong 1: claim 1 recites the following abstract ideas:
-determining, utilizing a common character detection model, a first instance of a common character within the first visual text object and a second instance of the common character within the second visual text object (The claim does not put any limit on what the common character detection model comprises or how the utilization is performed. As such, this determination, as drafted and under its broadest reasonable interpretation, recites an abstract idea of mental process, since the determination can be practically performed in human mind, with or without the use of physical aid, like pen and paper. A person can look at two words having common character(s) and determine what the common character is, where it is in the first word, and where it is in the second word).
-generating a modified second visual text object by replacing the second instance of the common character within the second visual text object with an empty character space (The claim does not put any limit on how the generating and replacing are performed. As such, this limitation, as drafted and under its broadest reasonable interpretation, recites an abstract idea of mental process, since the generating and replacing can be practically performed in human mind, with or without the use of a physical aid, like a pen and paper. A person can remove/erase the common letter in the second word, thereby creating (generating) a modified second word which is the second word without the common letter.
- generate a blended text object by aligning the first visual text object and the modified second visual text object within the digital design document based on the first instance of the common character and the empty character space. (The claim does not put any limit on how the aligning is performed. As such, this limitation, as drafted and under its broadest reasonable interpretation, recites an abstract idea of mental process, since the generating and replacing can be practically performed in human mind, with or without the use of a physical aid, like a pen and paper. A person can arrange/align/line up the first word and the modified second word on the paper by moving the modified second word to cross the first word so that at the position of the common letter of the first word and the blank (erased letter) of the modified second word. The arrangement can be done by erasing the second modified word and re-write it at the new position to cross the first word in the manner as described above.
Please note that the use of a physical aid would not negate the mental nature of this limitation. See MPEP 2106.04(a)(2), subsection IlI.B).
Step 2A Prong 2: claim 1 recites the following additional elements:
“receiving an indication of a user interaction with a visual text object blending element of a user interface of a client device, wherein the user interface displays a digital design document having a first visual text object and a second visual text object;” and “in response to the user interaction with the visual text object blending element,”. These steps amount to gathering data for use in the claimed process which is considered insignificant extra-solution activity (MPEP 2106.05(g)).
Additional elements “client device”, “user interface”, “digital design document” are recited at a high level of generality and amount to no more than instructions to implement the abstract idea using generic computer components (MPEP 2106.05(f)).
As such, the additional elements of claim 1, alone or in combination, fail to integrate the abstract idea into a practical application. Thus, the claim is directed to an abstract idea.
Step 2B:
As discussed above with respect to integration of the abstract idea into a practical application,
additional elements “client device”, “user interface”, “digital design document” are recited at a high level of generality and amount to no more than instructions to implement the abstract idea using generic computer components (MPEP 2106.05(f)), additional element of “receiving an indication of a user interaction with a visual text object blending element of a user interface of a client device, wherein the user interface displays a digital design document having a first visual text object and a second visual text object;” and “in response to the user interaction with the visual text object blending element,” amount to insignificant extra-solution activity as well as WURC activity similar to “receiving or transmitting data over a network, e.g., using the Internet to gather data, Symantec, 838 F.3d at 1321, 120 USPQ2d at 1362 (utilizing an intermediary computer to forward information)” (see MPEP 2106.05(d)). These limitations, taken either alone or in combination, fail to provide an inventive concept. Thus, the claim is not patent eligible.
Claim 2 depends on claim 1, thus the analysis for claim 1 applied.
In addition, claim 2 recites “generating the blended text object by: generating a modified first instance of the common character by adjusting a size of the first instance of the common character based on a combined height of the first visual text object and the second visual text object; and aligning the modified second visual text object to the modified first instance of the common character within the digital design document”. These steps can be practically performed in human mind, with or without the use of a physical aid, like a pen and paper.
A person can look at two words that have a common letter, observe the height of the first word, observe the height of the second word. Then the person can erase the common letter in the first word, then on the same position, the person can re-write the common letter with different height such that the new height equals the height of the first word plus the height of the second word. The person, thereby, generates a modified first instance of the common letter. Then the person can move the modified second word (created in steps of claim 1) and align it to the modified first instance of the common letter.
Claim 2 does not include additional elements that integrate the abstract idea into practical application or amount to significantly more than the abstract idea. Claim 2 is ineligible.
Claim 3 depends on claim 1, thus the analysis for claim 1 applied.
In addition, claim 3 recites
- generating the blended text object by: determining, utilizing the common character detection model, a third instance of the common character within a third visual text object;
-generating a modified third visual text object by replacing the third instance of the common character within the third visual text object with an additional empty character space; and aligning the modified third visual text object within the digital design document based on the first instance of the common character and the additional empty character space.
These steps can be practically performed in human mind, a person can observe the words and that the third word has the common letter. The person can remove/erase the common letter in the third word, thereby creating (generating) a modified third word (which is the third word without the common letter). A person can arrange/align/line up the modified third word based on the first instance of the common letter and the additional empty letter space from the third word.
Claim 3 does not include additional elements that integrate the abstract idea into practical application or amount to significantly more than the abstract idea. Claim 3 is ineligible.
Claim 4 depends on claim 1, thus the analysis for claim 1 applied.
In addition, claim 4 recites:
-generating the blended text object by: determining first text style features associated with the first visual text object and second text style features associated with the second visual text object; and aligning the first visual text object and the second visual text object while maintaining the first text style features of the first visual text object and maintaining the second text style features of the second visual text object.
These steps of claim 4 can be practically performed in human mind, with or without the aid of pen and paper. A person can observe words and determine their color and/or size. Then the person can re-write the words but keep the color and/or size of the words the same.
Claim 4 does not include additional elements that integrate the abstract idea into practical application or amount to significantly more than the abstract idea. Claim 4 is ineligible.
Claim 5 depends on claim 1, thus the analysis for claim 1 applied.
In addition, claim 5 recites:
- generating the blended text object by aligning the first visual text object and a third visual text object within the digital design document based on an intersection of a first instance of an additional common character within the first visual text object and an additional empty space replacing a second instance of the additional common character within the third visual text object.
These steps of claim 5 can be practically performed in human mind, with or without the aid of pen and paper. A person can observe words, then align the first word and a third word based on an intersection of a first instance of an additional common letter within the first word and an additional empty space replacing a second instance of the additional common letter within the third word.
Claim 5 does not include additional elements that integrate the abstract idea into practical application or amount to significantly more than the abstract idea. Claim 5 is ineligible.
Claim 6 depends on claim 1, thus the analysis for claim 1 applied.
In addition, claim 6 recites:
- wherein the first visual text object has a first orientation and the second visual text object has a second orientation and aligning the first visual text object and the modified second visual text object within the digital design document comprises aligning the first visual text object in the first orientation and the modified second visual text object in the second orientation such that first visual text object and the modified second visual text object intersect at the first instance of the common character and the empty character space.
These steps of claim 6 can be practically performed in human mind, with or without the aid of pen and paper. A person can observe words and see that the first word has a first orientation and a second word has a second orientation, (can be vertical or horizontal) . Then the person can align the first word vertically (for example) and the second modified word horizontally such that the first word and the modified second word cross each other at the first common letter in the first word and the empty place of the second modified word.
Claim 6 does not include additional elements that integrate the abstract idea into practical application or amount to significantly more than the abstract idea. Claim 6 is ineligible
Claim 7 depends on claim 1, thus the analysis for claim 1 applied.
In addition, claim 7 recites:
- generating, utilizing an object sequence generation model, an ordered object sequence comprising a plurality of visual text objects from the digital design document including the first visual text object and the second visual text object, ordered such that each adjacent pair of visual text objects in the ordered object sequence have a shared character.
The claim does not put any limit on what the object sequence generation model comprises or how the utilization is performed. As such, the generating, as drafted and under its broadest reasonable interpretation, recites an abstract idea of mental process, since the determination can be practically performed in human mind, with or without the use of a physical aid, like a pen and paper. A person can order words in a way that each adjacent pair has a shared/common letter.
Claim 7 does not include additional elements that integrate the abstract idea into practical application or amount to significantly more than the abstract idea. Claim 7 is ineligible.
Claim 8 depends on claim 7, thus the analysis for claim 7 applied.
In addition, claim 8 recites:
- replacing, for each adjacent pair of visual text objects in the ordered object sequence, a second instance of the shared character with a character space; and aligning the plurality of visual text objects within the digital design document by, for each adjacent pair of visual text objects in the ordered object sequence, aligning each adjacent pair of visual text objects based on a second instance of the shared character and the character space.
These steps can be practically performed in human mind, with or without the aid of pen and paper. A person can replace a second instant of the shared character with a character space (empty space) in a word by erasing the second instant of the shared letter in the word. The person then can arrange/align each adjacent pair of words based on a second instant of the shared letter and the empty space.
Claim 8 does not include additional elements that integrate the abstract idea into practical application or amount to significantly more than the abstract idea. Claim 8 is ineligible.
Claim 9:
Step 2A Prong 1: claim 9 recites the following abstract idea:
-extracting a plurality of visual text objects from a …… document, the plurality of visual text objects comprising a plurality of text style features. This step can be practically performed in human mind since human mind can recognize patterns, filter, and memorize information. A person can look at words on a paper, recognize their style features such as size, color, form, and memorize them.
generating, utilizing an object sequence generation model, an ordered object sequence comprising the plurality of visual text objects ordered such that adjacent pairs of visual text objects in the ordered object sequence share common characters (the claim does not put any limit on what the object sequence generation model comprises or how the utilization is performed. As such, the generating, as drafted and under its broadest reasonable interpretation, recites an abstract idea of mental process, since the generating can be practically performed in human mind, with or without the use of physical aid, like a pen and paper. A person can arrange words in a way that each adjacent pairs have a common letter.
-generating, utilizing the ordered object sequence, a blended text object by: replacing instances of the common characters shared in the adjacent pairs of visual text objects in the ordered object sequence with empty character spaces; and aligning the adjacent pairs from the ordered object sequence based on the empty character spaces such that the plurality of visual text objects intersect and maintain the plurality of text style features.
(The claim does not put any limit on how the generating and replacing are performed. As such, this limitation, as drafted and under its broadest reasonable interpretation, recites an abstract idea of mental process, since the generating and replacing can be practically performed in human mind, with or without the use of a physical aid, like a pen and paper. A person can remove/erase the common letter in pairs of words then re-arrange those words. The re-arrangement/alignment can be done by re-writing them based on the erase letters such that wprds intersect. The words can be re-write in a similar way (with respect to color, size…) as they were before the re-arrangement.
Please note that the use of a physical aid would not negate the mental nature of this limitation. See MPEP 2106.04(a)(2), subsection IlI.B).
Step 2A Prong 2: claim 9 recites the following additional elements:
- “system”, “memory component”, “processing device”, “digital design document” are recited at a high level of generality and amount to no more than instructions to implement the abstract idea using generic computer components (MPEP 2106.05(f)).
As such, the additional elements in claim 9 fail to integrate the abstract idea into a practical application. Thus, claim 9 is directed to an abstract idea.
Step 2B:
-additional elements of “system”, “memory component”, “processing device”, “digital design document” are recited at a high level of generality and amount to no more than instructions to implement the abstract idea using generic computer components (MPEP 2106.05(f)).
As such, the additional elements of claim 9 fail to amount to significantly more than the abstract idea into a practical application. Thus, claim 9 is ineligible.
These limitations, taken either alone or in combination, fail to provide an inventive concept. Thus, the claim is not patent eligible.
Claim 10 depends on claim 9, thus the analysis for claim 9 applied.
In addition, claim 10 recites:
-extracting the plurality of visual text objects comprises extracting a set of text style features associated with a first visual text object of the plurality of visual text objects, wherein the set of text style features comprise a text color and a text size, and aligning the adjacent pairs comprises aligning the first visual text object and a second visual text object while maintaining the text color and the text size of the first visual text object.
The step of “extracting …..” can be performed in human mind as analyzed above. The step of “aligning the adjacent pairs…..” can be practically done in human mind with/without the use of pen and paper.
Claim 10 does not include additional elements that integrate the abstract idea into practical application or amount to significantly more than the abstract idea. Claim 10 is ineligible.
Claim 11 depends on claim 9, thus the analysis for claim 9 applied.
In addition, claim 11 recites:
-generating the ordered object sequence comprises: determining, utilizing a common character detection model, matched visual text objects sharing common characters; and iteratively analyzing combinations of the matched visual text objects, utilizing the object sequence generation model, to generate the ordered object sequence.
Regarding claim 11, the steps of determining can be practically performed in human mind since the claim does not put a limit on how common character detection model and object sequence generation model comprise and/or utilized. A person can look at the words and match the words which share common letters. Then the person can observe and analyze combinations of matched words to arrange them in order This process can repeat in the person’s mind, with or without the use of pen and paper, to create the ordered word sequence.
Claim 11 does not include additional elements that integrate the abstract idea into practical application or amount to significantly more than the abstract idea. Claim 11 is ineligible.
Claim 12 depends on claim 9, thus the analysis for claim 9 applied.
In addition, claim 12 recites:
-generating the ordered object sequence comprises generating a first adjacent pair of visual text objects comprising a first visual text object having a first instance of a common character and a second visual text object having a second instance of the common character; and replacing the instances of the common characters comprises, generating a modified second visual text object by replacing the second instance of the common character of the second visual text object with an empty character space.
These steps can be practically performed in human mind, with or without the aid of pen and paper. A person can write a first adjacent pair of words wherein the first word has a first instance of a common letter and the second word has the second instance of the common letter. Then the person creates a modified second word by erasing the second instance of the common letter in the second word.
Claim 12 does not include additional elements that integrate the abstract idea into practical application or amount to significantly more than the abstract idea. Claim 12 is ineligible.
Claim 13 depends on claim 12, thus the analysis for claim 12 applied.
In addition, claim 13 recites:
-generating a modified first visual text object by modifying a size of the first instance of the common character based on a combined height of the first visual text object and the modified second visual text object; and aligning the modified first visual text object and the modified second visual text object based on the size of the first instance of the common character.
These steps can be practically performed in human mind, with or without the aid of pen and paper. A person can observe the height of the first word and the second modified word, then modify the size of the first instance of the common letter based on the combine height of the first word and the second modified word. Then the person can align the modified first word and the modified second word based on the size of the first instance of the common letter.
Claim 13 does not include additional elements that integrate the abstract idea into practical application or amount to significantly more than the abstract idea. Claim 13 is ineligible.
Claim 14 depends on claim 12, thus the analysis for claim 12 applied.
In addition, claim 14 recites:
-extracting a first orientation of the first visual text object and a second orientation of the second visual text object; and aligning the first visual text object in the first orientation and the modified second visual text object in the second orientation such that first visual text object and the modified second visual text object intersect at the empty character space and the first instance of the common character.
The step of “extracting a first orientation of the first visual text object and a second orientation of the second visual text object” can be performed in human mind. A person can look at the first word and memorize its orientation. Likewise, the person can look at the second word and memorize its orientation.
The step of “aligning the first visual text object in the first orientation and the modified second visual text object in the second orientation such that first visual text object and the modified second visual text object intersect at the empty character space and the first instance of the common character” can be practically performed in human mind, with or without the aid of pen and paper. Words can be written horizontally or vertically (different orientations). A person can align the first word in the first orientation and the modified second word in the second orientation such that the first word and the modified second word intersect at the empty space and the first instance of the common letter.
Claim 14 does not include additional elements that integrate the abstract idea into practical application or amount to significantly more than the abstract idea. Claim 14 is ineligible.
Claim 15 depends on claim 14, thus the analysis for claim 14 applied.
In addition, claim 15 recites:
-generating the ordered object sequence by generating a second adjacent pair of visual text objects comprising the second visual text object having a first instance of an additional common character and a third visual text object having a second instance of the additional common character; and aligning the second visual text object and the third visual text object based on the additional common character.
These steps can be practically performed in human mind, with or without the aid of pen and paper. A person can generate a second adjacent pair of words comprising the second word having a first instance of additional common letter and a third word having a second instance of the additional common letter, and arrange/align the second word and the third word based on the additional common letter.
Claim 15 does not include additional elements that integrate the abstract idea into practical application or amount to significantly more than the abstract idea. Claim 15 is ineligible.
Claim 16:
Step 2A Prong 1: claim 16 recites the following abstract idea:
-determining, utilizing a common character detection model, a first instance of a common character within the first visual text object and a second instance of the common character within the second visual text object (The claim does not put any limit on what the common character detection model comprises or how the utilization is performed. As such, this determination, as drafted and under its broadest reasonable interpretation, recites an abstract idea of mental process, since the determination can be practically performed in human mind, with or without the use of a physical aid, like a pen and paper. A person can look at two words having common character(s) and determine what the common character is, where it is in the first word, and where it is in the second word).
-generating a modified second visual text object by replacing the second instance of the common character within the second visual text object with an empty character space (The claim does not put any limit on how the generating and replacing are performed. As such, this limitation, as drafted and under its broadest reasonable interpretation, recites an abstract idea of mental process, since the generating and replacing can be practically performed in human mind, with or without the use of a physical aid, like a pen and paper. A person can remove/erase the common letter in the second word, thereby creating (generating) a modified second word which is the second word without the common letter.
- generate a blended text object by aligning the first visual text object and the modified second visual text object within the digital design document based on the first instance of the common character and the empty character space. (The claim does not put any limit on how the aligning is performed. As such, this limitation, as drafted and under its broadest reasonable interpretation, recites an abstract idea of mental process, since the generating and replacing can be practically performed in human mind, with or without the use of a physical aid, like a pen and paper. A person can arrange/align/line up the first word and the modified second word on the paper by moving the modified second word to cross the first word so that at the position of the common letter of the first word and the blank (erased letter) of the modified second word. The arrangement can be done by erasing the second modified word and re-write it at the new position to cross the first word in the manner as described above.
Please note that the use of a physical aid would not negate the mental nature of this limitation. See MPEP 2106.04(a)(2), subsection IlI.B).
Step 2A Prong 2: claim 16 recites the following additional elements:
“receiving an indication of a user interaction with a visual text object blending element of a user interface of a client device, wherein the user interface displays a digital design document having a first visual text object and a second visual text object;” and “in response to the user interaction with the visual text object blending element,”. These steps amount to gathering data for use in the claimed process which is considered insignificant extra-solution activity (MPEP 2106.05(g)).
-additional elements “client device”, “user interface”, “digital design document”, “non-transitory computer readable medium” are recited at a high level of generality and amounts to no more than instructions to implement the abstract idea using generic computer components (MPEP 2106.05(f)).
As such, the additional elements in claim 16 fail to integrate the abstract idea into a practical application. Thus, claim 16 is directed to an abstract idea.
Step 2B:
As discussed above with respect to integration of the abstract idea into a practical application,
additional elements “client device”, “user interface”, “digital design document”, “non-transitory computer readable medium” are recited at a high level of generality and amount to no more than instructions to implement the abstract idea using generic computer components (MPEP 2106.05(f)), additional element of “receiving an indication of a user interaction with a visual text object blending element of a user interface of a client device, wherein the user interface displays a digital design document having a first visual text object and a second visual text object;” and “in response to the user interaction with the visual text object blending element,” amount to insignificant extra-solution activity as well as WURC activity similar to “receiving or transmitting data over a network, e.g., using the Internet to gather data, Symantec, 838 F.3d at 1321, 120 USPQ2d at 1362 (utilizing an intermediary computer to forward information)” (see MPEP 2106.05(d)). These limitations, taken either alone or in combination, fail to provide an inventive concept. Thus, the claim is not patent eligible.
As such, the additional elements of claim 16 fail to amount to significantly more than the abstract idea. Thus, claim 16 is ineligible.
Claim 17 depends on claim 16, thus the analysis for claim 16 applied.
In addition, claim 17 recites:
- generating a modified first instance of the common character by adjusting a size of the first instance of the common character based on a combined height of the first visual text object and the second visual text object; and aligning the modified second visual text object to the modified first instance of the common character within the digital design document based on a relative height of the second visual text object to the modified first instance of the common character.
These steps can be practically performed in human mind, with or without the use of a physical aid, like a pen and paper. A person can look at two words that have a common letter, observe the height of the first word, observe the height of the second word. Then the person can erase the first instance of common letter in the first word, then on the same position, the person can re-write the common letter with different height such that the new height equals the height of the first word plus the height of the second word. The person, thereby, generates a modified first instance of the common letter. Then the person can align the modified second word to the modified first instance of the common letter based on the relative height of the second word to the modified first instance of the common letter.
Claim 17 does not include additional elements that integrate the abstract idea into practical application or amount to significantly more than the abstract idea. Claim 17 is ineligible.
Claim 18 depends on claim 16, thus the analysis for claim 16 applied.
In addition, claim 18 recites:
- generating a modified third visual text object by replacing a second instance of an additional common character within a third visual text object with an additional empty character space; and aligning the first visual text object and the modified third visual text object within the digital design document based on a first instance of the common character within the first visual text object and the additional empty character space.
These steps can be practically performed in human mind, with or without the use of a physical aid, like a pen and paper. A person can generate a modified third word by replacing a second instance of an additional common letter within a third word with an additional empty space (by erasing the a second instance of an additional common letter within a third word). Then the person can and align the first word and the modified third word based on a first instance of the common letter within the first word and the additional empty space.
Claim 18 does not include additional elements that integrate the abstract idea into practical application or amount to significantly more than the abstract idea. Claim 18 is ineligible.
Claim 19 depends on claim 16, thus the analysis for claim 16 applied.
In addition, claim 19 recites:
- generating, utilizing an object sequence generation model, an ordered object sequence comprising the first visual text object and the second visual text object, ordered such that pairs of adjacent visual text objects in the ordered object sequence have a shared character.
Regarding claim 19, the steps of determining can be practically performed in human mind since the claim does not put a limit on what an object sequence generation model comprise and/or utilized. A person can generate an ordered word sequence which has the first word and the second word, order in way that pairs of adjacent words in the ordered word sequence have a shared letter.
Claim 19 does not include additional elements that integrate the abstract idea into practical application or amount to significantly more than the abstract idea. Claim 19 is ineligible.
Claim 20 depends on claim 16, thus the analysis for claim 16 applied.
In addition, claim 20 recites:
-extracting a first set of text style features of the first visual text object, the first set of text style features comprising a first font size or a first font color; extracting a second set of text style features of the second visual text object, the second set of text style features comprising a second font size or a second font color; and aligning the first visual text object and the second visual text object while maintaining the first set of text style features of the first visual text object and maintaining the second set of text style features of the second visual text object.
The step of “extracting…….” can be performed in human mind. A person can look at the first word and memorize its font size and font color. Likewise, the person can look at the second word and memorize its font size and font color
The step of “aligning the first visual text object and the second visual text object while maintaining the first set of text style features of the first visual text object and maintaining the second set of text style features of the second visual text object” can be practically performed in human mind, with or without the aid of pen and paper. A person can align the first word and second word while keeping the first set of text style features of the first word and also keeping the second set of text style features of the second word.
Claim 20 does not include additional elements that integrate the abstract idea into practical application or amount to significantly more than the abstract idea. Claim 20 is ineligible.
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 1-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Dhanuka et al (US 20210224465 A1, hereinafter “Dhanuka”) in view of Wik (US 20180154249)
Regarding claims 1 and 16, Dhanuka teaches method and medium for blending selected visual text objects (see Fig 2A). Dhanuka teaches receiving an indication of a user interaction with a visual text object blending element of a user interface of a client device (Fig. 1, Fig. 16A-16C, para. 0029-0030), wherein the user interface displays a digital design document having a first visual text object and a second visual text object (Fig. 1). Dhanuka’s teaching of blending visual text object includes models to detect user selection of visual text objects, analyze the selected visual text objects for character properties (para. 0030), and merge/align selected visual text objects (para. 0034, 0217-0218). Dhanuka’s teaching of blending visual text objects further includes replacement within area text object (para. 0004, 0243). Dhanuka does not teach determining common characters between visual text objects.
Wik teaches a method for blending/merging text objects, the method includes a user interface for displaying a digital design document having a first visual text object and a second visual text object (see at least Fig. 9 where several words are displayed); determining, utilizing a common character detection model, a first instance of a common character within the first visual text object and a second instance of the common character within the second visual text object (the words “SCARF” and the “CALF” has common character “C”; generating a modified second visual text object by replacing the second instance of the common character within the second visual text object with an empty character space (detach C (replace “C” with a blank position) to obtained (blank)ALF) and in response to the user interaction with the visual text object blending element, generate a blended text object by aligning the first visual text object and the modified second visual text object within the digital design document based on the first instance of the common character and the empty character space (see Fig. 9, par 105, attach (blank)ALF to “SCARF” at the position of common C (Junction Letter)).
Both Dhanuka and Wik’s teachings are dealing with merging visual text object on an interface to created blended text objects. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the blending text techniques of Dhanuka to include the well-known replacing common character with empty space and align text based on the common character and the empty space taught by Wik. Since Dhanuka teaching only can replace character properties, one would have been motivated to make such a combination in order to provide Dhanuka’s interface with the capability to also replace the common characters when needed to enhance the flexibility and efficiency of the system (Dhanuka, para. 0004).
Regarding claims 2 and 17, Dhanuka in view of Wik teaches the method of claim 1, but does not specifically teach generating a modified first instance of the common character by adjusting a size of the first instance of the common character based on a combined height of the first visual text object and the second visual text object; and aligning the modified second visual text object to the modified first instance of the common character within the digital design document. However, Dhanuka further teaches calculating and modifying height of the text line in aligning text objects [para. 0089]. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the blending text techniques of Dhanuka and Wik to include generating a modified first instance of the common character by adjusting a size of the first instance of the common character based on a combined height of the first visual text object and the second visual text object; and aligning the modified second visual text object to the modified first instance of the common character within the digital design document based on a relative height of the second visual text object to the modified first instance of the common character.
. One would have been motivated to make such a combination in order to enhance the flexibility and efficiency of the Dhanuka and Wik’s system (Dhanuka, para. 0004).
Regarding claim 3, Dhanuka in view of Wik does not specifically teach determining, utilizing the common character detection model, a third instance of the common character within a third visual text object; generating a modified third visual text object by replacing the third instance of the common character within the third visual text object with an additional empty character space; and aligning the modified third visual text object within the digital design document based on the first instance of the common character and the additional empty character space. However, the interface of Wik displays several visual objects (words) (See Figures 9-27). Dhanuka in view of Wik teaches the detecting and aligning two words having a common character as described in claim 1, it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art to apply the same operation to a third word in Dhanuka and Wik’s system to have: determining, utilizing the common character detection model, a third instance of the common character within a third visual text object; generating a modified third visual text object by replacing the third instance of the common character within the third visual text object with an additional empty character space; and aligning the modified third visual text object within the digital design document based on the first instance of the common character and the additional empty character space, as recited in claim 3. One would have been motivated to make such a combination in order to enhance the flexibility and efficiency of the Dhanuka and Wik’s system (Dhanuka, para. 0004).
Regarding claim 4, Dhanuka in view of Wik teaches the method of claim 1, further comprising generating the blended text object by: determining first text style features associated with the first visual text object and second text style features associated with the second visual text object; and aligning the first visual text object and the second visual text object while maintaining the first text style features of the first visual text object and maintaining the second text style features of the second visual text object (Wik, Fig. 9, para. 105, words maintain text style features in the new arrangement).
Regarding claim 5, Dhanuka in view of Wik teaches the method of claim 1. In addition, the interface of Wik displays several visual objects (words) (See Figures 9-27). It would have been obvious for one skill in the art to apply the same operations to a third word in Dhanuka and Wik’s system to have: generating the blended text object by aligning the first visual text object and a third visual text object within the digital design document based on an intersection of a first instance of an additional common character within the first visual text object and an additional empty space replacing a second instance of the additional common character within the third visual text object, as recited in claim 5. One would have been motivated to make such a combination in order to enhance the flexibility and efficiency of the Dhanuka and Wik’s system (Dhanuka, para. 0004).
Regarding claim 6, Dhanuka in view of Wik teaches the method of claim 1, wherein the first visual text object has a first orientation and the second visual text object has a second orientation and aligning the first visual text object and the modified second visual text object within the digital design document comprises aligning the first visual text object in the first orientation and the modified second visual text object in the second orientation such that first visual text object and the modified second visual text object intersect at the first instance of the common character and the empty character space (Dhanuka, para. 0003) (Wik, Fig. 9 shows, before alignment, “SCARF” lies horizontal, CALF lies vertical, (blank)ALF lies vertical at first. Then after alignment, “SCARF” lies horizontal, (blank)ALF lies vertical, “SCARF” and (blank)ALF intersect at the Junction Letter C and (blank) of (blank)ALF, also see para. 105).
Regarding claims 7 and 19, Dhanuka in view of Wik teaches the method of claim 1, further comprising generating, utilizing an object sequence generation model, an ordered object sequence comprising a plurality of visual text objects from the digital design document including the first visual text object and the second visual text object, ordered such that each adjacent pair of visual text objects in the ordered object sequence have a shared character (Wik, Fig. 9 “SCARF” and “CALF” have at least one shared character “C”, Fig. 9-27).
Regarding claim 8, Dhanuka in view of Wik teaches the method of claim 7. It would have been obvious to one of skill in the art to modify the system of Dhanuka and Wik to achieve the opertions: replacing, for each adjacent pair of visual text objects in the ordered object sequence, a second instance of the shared character with a character space; and aligning the plurality of visual text objects within the digital design document by, for each adjacent pair of visual text objects in the ordered object sequence, aligning each adjacent pair of visual text objects based on a second instance of the shared character and the character space. One would have been motivated to make such a combination in order to enhance the flexibility and efficiency of the Dhanuka and Wik’s system (Dhanuka, para. 0004).
Regarding claim 9, Dhanuka teaches a system comprising: a memory component; and one or more processing devices coupled to the memory component (Fig. 19). Dhanuka system operations include receiving an indication of a user interaction with a visual text object blending element of a user interface of a client device (Fig. 1, Fig. 16A-16C, para. 0029-0030), wherein the user interface displays a digital design document having a plurality of visual text objects (words) (Fig. 1), extracting a plurality of visual text objects (words) from a digital design document, the plurality of visual text objects comprising a plurality of text style features (Figures 1, 2A, 17, para. 0235-240). Dhanuka’s system detects user selection of visual text objects, analyzes the selected visual text objects for character properties (para. 0030), and merges/aligns selected visual text objects (para. 0034, 0217-0218). Dhanuka’s teaching of blending visual text objects further includes replacement within area text object (para. 0004, 0243). Dhanuka does not teach determining common characters between visual text objects. Wik teaches generating, utilizing an object sequence generation model, an ordered object sequence comprising the plurality of visual text objects ordered such that adjacent pairs of visual text objects in the ordered object sequence share common characters (Wik, Fig. 9 “SCARF” and “CALF” have at least one shared character “C”), and generating, utilizing the ordered object sequence, a blended text object by: replacing instances of the common characters shared in the adjacent pairs of visual text objects in the ordered object sequence with empty character spaces (for example, detach C (replace “C” with a blank position) to obtained (blank)ALF); and aligning the adjacent pairs from the ordered object sequence based on the empty character spaces such that the plurality of visual text objects intersect and maintain the plurality of text style features (attach (blank)ALF to “SCARF” at the position of common C (Junction Letter) (SCARF and CALF intersect) (words maintained text style features in the new arrangement) (see at least Fig. 9, par 105).
Both Dhanuka and Wik’s teachings are dealing with merging visual text object on an interface to created blended text objects. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the blending text techniques of Dhanuka to include the well-known replacing common character with empty space and align text based on the empty space and maintain the text style features taught by Wik. Since Dhanuka teaching only can replace character properties, one would have been motivated to make such a combination in order to provide Dhanuka’s interface with the capability to also replace the common characters when needed to enhance the flexibility and efficiency of the system (Dhanuka, para. 0004).
Regarding claims 10, Dhanuka in view of Wik teaches extracting the plurality of visual text objects comprises extracting a set of text style features associated with a first visual text object of the plurality of visual text objects, wherein the set of text style features comprise a text color and a text size and aligning the adjacent pairs comprises aligning the first visual text object and a second visual text object while maintaining the text color and the text size of the first visual text object (Dhanuka, Figures 1, 2A, 17, para. 0235-240), (Wik, words maintained text style features (color/size in the new arrangement) (see at least Fig. 9, par 105).
Regarding claim 11, Dhanuka in view of Wik teaches wherein generating the ordered object sequence comprises: determining, utilizing a common character detection model, matched visual text objects sharing common characters; and iteratively analyzing combinations of the matched visual text objects, utilizing the object sequence generation model, to generate the ordered object sequence (Wik, Fig. 9-27).
Regarding claim 12, Dhanuka in view of Wik teaches generating the ordered object sequence comprises generating a first adjacent pair of visual text objects comprising a first visual text object having a first instance of a common character and a second visual text object having a second instance of the common character; and replacing the instances of the common characters comprises, generating a modified second visual text object by replacing the second instance of the common character of the second visual text object with an empty character space (Wik, Fig. 9, para. 0105, “SCARF” and “CALF” have at least one shared character “C”, detach C (replace “C” with a blank position) to obtained (blank)ALF).
Regarding claim 13, Dhanuka in view of Wik teaches the system of claim 12, but does not specifically teach generating a modified first visual text object by modifying a size of the first instance of the common character based on a combined height of the first visual text object and the modified second visual text object; and aligning the modified first visual text object and the modified second visual text object based on the size of the first instance of the common character. However, Dhanuka further teaches calculating and modifying height of the text line in aligning text objects [para. 0089]. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the blending text techniques of Dhanuka and Wik to include generating a modified first visual text object by modifying a size of the first instance of the common character based on a combined height of the first visual text object and the modified second visual text object; and aligning the modified first visual text object and the modified second visual text object based on the size of the first instance of the common character. One would have been motivated to make such a combination in order to enhance the flexibility and efficiency of the Dhanuka and Wik’s system (Dhanuka, para. 0004).
Regarding claim 14, Dhanuka in view of Wik teaches the system of claim 12, wherein the operations further comprise: extracting a first orientation of the first visual text object and a second orientation of the second visual text object (Dhanuka, Figures 1, 2A, 17, para. 0003, para. 0235-240); and aligning the first visual text object in the first orientation and the modified second visual text object in the second orientation such that first visual text object and the modified second visual text object intersect at the empty character space and the first instance of the common character (Wik, Fig. 9 shows, before alignment, “SCARF” lies horizontal, CALF lies vertical, (blank)ALF lies vertical at first. Then after alignment, “SCARF” lies horizontal, (blank)ALF lies vertical, “SCARF” and (blank)ALF intersect at the Junction Letter C and (blank) of (blank)ALF, also see para. 105).
Regarding claim 15, Dhanuka in view of Wik teaches the system of claim 14. It would have been obvious to one of skill in the art to modify the system of Dhanuka and Wik to achieve the opertions: generating the ordered object sequence by generating a second adjacent pair of visual text objects comprising the second visual text object having a first instance of an additional common character and a third visual text object having a second instance of the additional common character; and aligning the second visual text object and the third visual text object based on the additional common character. One would have been motivated to make such a combination in order to enhance the flexibility and efficiency of the Dhanuka and Wik’s system (Dhanuka, para. 0004).
Regarding claim 18, Dhanuka in view of Wik teaches the medium of claim 16. It would have been obvious to one of skill in the art to modify the system of Dhanuka and Wik to achieve the opertions: generating a modified third visual text object by replacing a second instance of an additional common character within a third visual text object with an additional empty character space; and aligning the first visual text object and the modified third visual text object within the digital design document based on a first instance of the common character within the first visual text object and the additional empty character space. One would have been motivated to make such a combination in order to enhance the flexibility and efficiency of the Dhanuka and Wik’s system (Dhanuka, para. 0004).
Regarding claim 20, Dhanuka in view of Wik teaches the medium of claim 16, further comprise: extracting a first set of text style features of the first visual text object, the first set of text style features comprising a first font size or a first font color; extracting a second set of text style features of the second visual text object, the second set of text style features comprising a second font size or a second font color (Dhanuka, Figures 1, 2A, 17, para. 0235-240); and aligning the first visual text object and the second visual text object while maintaining the first set of text style features of the first visual text object and maintaining the second set of text style features of the second visual text object (Wik, words maintained text style features (color/size in the new arrangement) (see at least Fig. 9, par 105).
Conclusion
Jain (US 11250607) teaches a system for merging object in digital design document which relates to the instant application.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Kieu Vu whose telephone number is (571) 272-4057. The examiner can normally be reached on Monday - Thursday (6:30am - 4:30pm).
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Kieu Vu can be reached on (571) 272-4057. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of 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.
/KIEU D VU/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2171
Prosecution Insights