Detailed Office 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 .
Status: Please all the replies and correspondence should be addressed to Examiner’s new art unit 2629. Receipt is acknowledged of papers submitted on 06-03-2025 under new application being continuation of parent Application No. 18,098,912 filed 01/19/2023 matured to U.S. Patent No. 12,347,003 on 01-01-2025, which have been placed of record in the file. Claims 1-20 are pending in this action.
Priority
Applicant’s claim for the benefit of a prior-filed application under 35 U.S.C. 119(e) or under 35 U.S.C. 120, 121, 365(c), or 386(c) is acknowledged. Applicant has complied with one or more conditions for receiving the benefit of an earlier filing date under 35 U.S.C. . 119(e) or under 35 U.S.C. 120, 121, 365(c), or 386(c).
Examiner cites particular columns and line numbers in the references as applied to the claims below for the convenience of the applicant. Although the specified citations are representative of the teachings in the art and are applied to the specific limitations within the individual claim, other passages and figures may apply as well. It is respectfully requested that, in preparing responses, the applicant fully consider the references in entirety as potentially teaching all or part of the claimed invention, as well as the context of the passage as taught by the prior art or disclosed by the examiner.
Specification
Applicant is reminded of the proper language and format for an abstract of the disclosure.
The abstract should be in narrative form and generally limited to a single paragraph on a separate sheet within the range of 50 to 150 words in length. The abstract should describe the disclosure sufficiently to assist readers in deciding whether there is a need for consulting the full patent text for details.
The language should be clear and concise and should not repeat information given in the title. It should avoid using phrases which can be implied, such as, “The disclosure concerns,” “The disclosure defined by this invention,” “The disclosure describes,” etc. In addition, the form and legal phraseology often used in patent claims, such as “means” and “said,” should be avoided.
The abstract of the disclosure is objected to because the abstract uses phrases “Certain aspects and features of this disclosure relate to providing”. A corrected abstract of the disclosure is required and must be presented on a separate sheet, apart from any other text. See MPEP § 608.01(b).
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 06-03-2025 is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement is being considered by the examiner.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112:
The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor of carrying out his invention.
Claims 1, 8 and 15 rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention. Claims 1, 8 and 15 reciting “transmitting the sequence of deltas to each of the plurality of client applications to impart a synchronized version of the vector graphical design to each of the plurality of client applications.” Is not supported as well as recited in the specification.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claim 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) 1-3, 8-10 and 15 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over BERI; Tarun et al. (US 20230367754 A1) hereinafter referenced as BERI et al. in view of Page James Sherwood (US 20150324490 A1) hereinafter referenced as Page.
Regarding Claim 1, BERI et al. discloses a method comprising: receiving, from a first client application among a plurality of client applications (paras. 22, 27), a first delta for a vector graphical design (paras. 27-29); receiving, from a second client application among the plurality of client applications paras. 27-29, 31 discloses another editor), a second delta for the vector graphical design, wherein each of the first delta and the second delta includes a graphical construct (paras. 27-29, 31); serializing the first delta and the second delta to provide a sequence of deltas configured to produce a synchronized vector graphical design, wherein the synchronized vector graphical design includes the graphical construct from the first delta and the graphical construct from the second delta (please see paras. abstract, 19, 22, 27-29, 32, 113 discloses methods for collaborative editing of vector graphics in which a command corresponding to a change (i.e., a delta) to an entity in a vector path can be received at a client. This change and an additional change from another client can be merged sequentially (serially) into a synchronized version of the design according to an order of execution. Given that the command corresponds to a change in an entity it must include some form of component indicating the type of entity to be changed. further discloses that the graphical design can be displayed and also having serial buses for communication)
However, BERI et al. fails to disclose transmitting the sequence of deltas to impart the synchronized vector graphical design to each of the plurality of client applications.
However, prior art of Page a method comprising: receiving, from a first client application (para. 10, a respective style for the user by mapping an identifier) among a plurality of client applications (paras. 9, 10 discloses store associations between each of multiple users), a first delta for a vector graphical design (paras. 9, 10, 106, discloses receiving a basic style (e.g., a pre-style) which a customer (or user) may later modify style data (delta) for the style may be created by a user who may be a customer for customized product); receiving, from a second client application among the plurality of client applications (paras. 9, 10 discloses store associations between each of multiple users), a second delta for the vector graphical design 106, discloses receiving a basic style (e.g., a pre-style) which a customer (or user) may later modify style data (delta) for the style may be created by a user who may be a customer for customized product), wherein each of the first delta and the second delta includes a graphical construct (para. 9 and 10 disclosing creating (or constructing) user identifiable style, para. 228, disclosing where style is graphical data); serializing the first delta and the second delta to provide a sequence of delt as configured to produce a synchronized (para. 111 disclosing the customization vectors, and the style for the user may happen in any order or in parallel), vector graphical design (para. 9, para. 228), wherein the synchronized vector graphical design includes the graphical construct from the first delta and the graphical construct from the second delta (paras. 9, 10, 11, 228); and transmitting the sequence of deltas to impart the synchronized vector graphical design to each of the plurality of client applications (para. 111 disclosing the customization vectors, and the style for the user may happen in any order or in parallel, para. 9 and 10 disclosing creating (or constructing) user identifiable style, para. 228, disclosing where style is graphical data, paras.66, 114, disclosing transmitted to b view by the user).
BERI et al. teaches an improved image of the document co-editing system tracking and propagate changes made by different editors and accurately apply changes received from other users as well as accurately propagated to the other co-editing parties.
BERI et al. teaches collaborative editing of vector graphics in which a directive corresponding to a change (i.e., a delta) to an entity in a vector path can be received at a client. This change and an additional change from another client can be merged into a synchronized version of the design according to an order of execution. Given that the directive corresponds to a change in an entity it must include some form of component indicating the type of entity to be changed.
Page teaches transmitting the sequence of deltas to impart the synchronized vector graphical design to each of the plurality of client applications.
BERI et al. does not teach transmitting the sequence of deltas to impart the synchronized vector graphical design to each of the plurality of client applications.
Hence the prior art includes each element claimed, although not necessarily in a single prior art reference, with the only difference between the claimed invention and the prior art being the lack of actual combination of the elements in a single prior art reference.
In combination, BERI et al. performs the same function as it does separately of managing process operating displaying the graphical design including the input delta and the at least one additional delta.
Page performs the same function as it does separately providing data representing the user-specific design for display and The loading of the product design, the customization vectors, and the style for the user may happen in any order or in parallel. Therefore one of ordinary skill in the art could have combined the elements as claimed by known methods, and that in combination, each element merely performs the same function as it does separately.
The results of the combination would have been predictable and resulted in modifying the invention of BERI et al. to include transmitting the sequence of deltas to impart the synchronized vector graphical design to each of the plurality of client applications, as disclosed by Page thereby customizing the product design using a default value for the respective attribute, and providing data for the customized product design for the three-dimensional product, as Page discusses at para. 4
Therefore, the claimed subject matter would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made.
Regarding Claim 2, Page discloses transmitting an acknowledgement message for the first delta to the first client application and for the second delta to the second client application (para. 89, 113)
Please also see prior art of BERI et al. disclosure, please see paras. 26-29 applying, in response to the receiving of, the first delta to the first client application and for the second delta to the second client application. the synchronized version of the graphical design; and displaying the pending version of the graphical design at para. 40.
Regarding Claim 3, BERI et al. discloses each of the graphical constructs includes an entity for a vector path and attributes of the entity for the vector path (paras. 25 attributes of the entity for the vector path, 27-29 applying, in response to the command, the input delta of the vector path to a pending version of the graphical vector design).
Regarding Claim 8, BERI et al. discloses a method comprising: receiving, from a first client application among a plurality of client applications (paras. 22, 27), a first delta for a vector graphical design (paras. 27-29); receiving, from a second client application among the plurality of client applications paras. 27-29, 31 discloses another editor), a second delta for the vector graphical design, wherein each of the first delta and the second delta includes a graphical construct (paras. 27-29, 31); serializing the first delta and the second delta to provide a sequence of deltas configured to produce a synchronized vector graphical design, wherein the synchronized vector graphical design includes the graphical construct from the first delta and the graphical construct from the second delta (please see paras. abstract, 19, 22, 27-29, 32, 113 discloses methods for collaborative editing of vector graphics in which a command corresponding to a change (i.e., a delta) to an entity in a vector path can be received at a client. This change and an additional change from another client can be merged sequentially (serially) into a synchronized version of the design according to an order of execution. Given that the command corresponds to a change in an entity it must include some form of component indicating the type of entity to be changed. further discloses that the graphical design can be displayed and also having serial buses for communication)
However, BERI et al. fails to disclose transmitting the sequence of deltas to impart the synchronized vector graphical design to each of the plurality of client applications.
However, prior art of Page a method comprising: receiving, from a first client application (para. 10, a respective style for the user by mapping an identifier) among a plurality of client applications (paras. 9, 10 discloses store associations between each of multiple users), a first delta for a vector graphical design (paras. 9, 10, 106, discloses receiving a basic style (e.g., a pre-style) which a customer (or user) may later modify style data (delta) for the style may be created by a user who may be a customer for customized product); receiving, from a second client application among the plurality of client applications (paras. 9, 10 discloses store associations between each of multiple users), a second delta for the vector graphical design 106, discloses receiving a basic style (e.g., a pre-style) which a customer (or user) may later modify style data (delta) for the style may be created by a user who may be a customer for customized product), wherein each of the first delta and the second delta includes a graphical construct (para. 9 and 10 disclosing creating (or constructing) user identifiable style, para. 228, disclosing where style is graphical data); serializing the first delta and the second delta to provide a sequence of delt as configured to produce a synchronized (para. 111 disclosing the customization vectors, and the style for the user may happen in any order or in parallel), vector graphical design (para. 9, para. 228), wherein the synchronized vector graphical design includes the graphical construct from the first delta and the graphical construct from the second delta (paras. 9, 10, 11, 228); and transmitting the sequence of deltas to impart the synchronized vector graphical design to each of the plurality of client applications (para. 111 disclosing the customization vectors, and the style for the user may happen in any order or in parallel, para. 9 and 10 disclosing creating (or constructing) user identifiable style, para. 228, disclosing where style is graphical data, paras.66, 114, disclosing transmitted to b view by the user).
BERI et al. teaches an improved image of the document co-editing system tracking and propagate changes made by different editors and accurately apply changes received from other users as well as accurately propagated to the other co-editing parties.
BERI et al. teaches collaborative editing of vector graphics in which a directive corresponding to a change (i.e., a delta) to an entity in a vector path can be received at a client. This change and an additional change from another client can be merged into a synchronized version of the design according to an order of execution. Given that the directive corresponds to a change in an entity it must include some form of component indicating the type of entity to be changed.
Page teaches transmitting the sequence of deltas to impart the synchronized vector graphical design to each of the plurality of client applications.
BERI et al. does not teach transmitting the sequence of deltas to impart the synchronized vector graphical design to each of the plurality of client applications.
Hence the prior art includes each element claimed, although not necessarily in a single prior art reference, with the only difference between the claimed invention and the prior art being the lack of actual combination of the elements in a single prior art reference.
In combination, BERI et al. performs the same function as it does separately of managing process operating displaying the graphical design including the input delta and the at least one additional delta.
Page performs the same function as it does separately providing data representing the user-specific design for display and The loading of the product design, the customization vectors, and the style for the user may happen in any order or in parallel. Therefore one of ordinary skill in the art could have combined the elements as claimed by known methods, and that in combination, each element merely performs the same function as it does separately.
The results of the combination would have been predictable and resulted in modifying the invention of BERI et al. to include transmitting the sequence of deltas to impart the synchronized vector graphical design to each of the plurality of client applications, as disclosed by Page thereby customizing the product design using a default value for the respective attribute, and providing data for the customized product design for the three-dimensional product, as Page discusses at para. 4
Therefore, the claimed subject matter would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made.
Regarding Claim 9, BERI et al. discloses transmitting an acknowledgement message for at least one of the first plurality of pending delta to the first client application and for at least one of the second plurality of pending deltas to the second client application. (please see paras. 26-29 applying, in response to the command, the input delta of the vector path to a pending version of the graphical design, para. 40 discloses the synchronized version of the graphical design; and displaying the pending version of the graphical design).
Regarding Claim 10, BERI et al. discloses each of the first plurality and the second plurality of pending deltas includes a graphical construct, the graphical construct further including an entity for a vector path and attributes of the entity for the vector path (paras. 25 attributes of the entity for the vector path, 27-29 applying, in response to the command, the input delta of the vector path to a pending version of the graphical vector design)
Regarding Claim 15, BERI et al. discloses a system comprising: a memory component; and a processing device coupled to the memory component, the processing device to perform operation (para. 100) comprising: receiving, from a first client application among a plurality of client applications (paras. 22, 27), a first delta for a vector graphical design (paras. 27-29); receiving, from a second client application among the plurality of client applications paras. 27-29, 31 discloses another editor), a second delta for the vector graphical design, wherein each of the first delta and the second delta includes a graphical construct (paras. 27-29, 31); serializing the first delta and the second delta to provide a sequence of deltas configured to produce a synchronized vector graphical design, wherein the synchronized vector graphical design includes the graphical construct from the first delta and the graphical construct from the second delta (please see paras. abstract, 19, 22, 27-29, 32, 113 discloses methods for collaborative editing of vector graphics in which a command corresponding to a change (i.e., a delta) to an entity in a vector path can be received at a client. This change and an additional change from another client can be merged sequentially (serially) into a synchronized version of the design according to an order of execution. Given that the command corresponds to a change in an entity it must include some form of component indicating the type of entity to be changed. further discloses that the graphical design can be displayed and also having serial buses for communication)
However, BERI et al. fails to disclose transmitting the sequence of deltas to impart the synchronized vector graphical design to each of the plurality of client applications.
However, prior art of Page a method comprising: receiving, from a first client application (para. 10, a respective style for the user by mapping an identifier) among a plurality of client applications (paras. 9, 10 discloses store associations between each of multiple users), a first delta for a vector graphical design (paras. 9, 10, 106, discloses receiving a basic style (e.g., a pre-style) which a customer (or user) may later modify style data (delta) for the style may be created by a user who may be a customer for customized product); receiving, from a second client application among the plurality of client applications (paras. 9, 10 discloses store associations between each of multiple users), a second delta for the vector graphical design 106, discloses receiving a basic style (e.g., a pre-style) which a customer (or user) may later modify style data (delta) for the style may be created by a user who may be a customer for customized product), wherein each of the first delta and the second delta includes a graphical construct (para. 9 and 10 disclosing creating (or constructing) user identifiable style, para. 228, disclosing where style is graphical data); serializing the first delta and the second delta to provide a sequence of delt as configured to produce a synchronized (para. 111 disclosing the customization vectors, and the style for the user may happen in any order or in parallel), vector graphical design (para. 9, para. 228), wherein the synchronized vector graphical design includes the graphical construct from the first delta and the graphical construct from the second delta (paras. 9, 10, 11, 228); and transmitting the sequence of deltas to impart the synchronized vector graphical design to each of the plurality of client applications (para. 111 disclosing the customization vectors, and the style for the user may happen in any order or in parallel, para. 9 and 10 disclosing creating (or constructing) user identifiable style, para. 228, disclosing where style is graphical data, paras.66, 114, disclosing transmitted to b view by the user).
BERI et al. teaches an improved image of the document co-editing system tracking and propagate changes made by different editors and accurately apply changes received from other users as well as accurately propagated to the other co-editing parties.
BERI et al. teaches collaborative editing of vector graphics in which a directive corresponding to a change (i.e., a delta) to an entity in a vector path can be received at a client. This change and an additional change from another client can be merged into a synchronized version of the design according to an order of execution. Given that the directive corresponds to a change in an entity it must include some form of component indicating the type of entity to be changed.
Page teaches transmitting the sequence of deltas to impart the synchronized vector graphical design to each of the plurality of client applications.
BERI et al. does not teach transmitting the sequence of deltas to impart the synchronized vector graphical design to each of the plurality of client applications.
Hence the prior art includes each element claimed, although not necessarily in a single prior art reference, with the only difference between the claimed invention and the prior art being the lack of actual combination of the elements in a single prior art reference.
In combination, BERI et al. performs the same function as it does separately of managing process operating displaying the graphical design including the input delta and the at least one additional delta.
Page performs the same function as it does separately providing data representing the user-specific design for display and The loading of the product design, the customization vectors, and the style for the user may happen in any order or in parallel. Therefore one of ordinary skill in the art could have combined the elements as claimed by known methods, and that in combination, each element merely performs the same function as it does separately.
The results of the combination would have been predictable and resulted in modifying the invention of BERI et al. to include transmitting the sequence of deltas to impart the synchronized vector graphical design to each of the plurality of client applications, as disclosed by Page thereby customizing the product design using a default value for the respective attribute, and providing data for the customized product design for the three-dimensional product, as Page discusses at para. 4
Therefore, the claimed subject matter would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made.
Claim(s) 4-7, 11-14, and 16-20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over BERI; Tarun et al. (US 20230367754 A1) hereinafter referenced as BERI et al. in view of Page James Sherwood (US 20150324490 A1) hereinafter referenced as Page as applied to Claims 1-38-10 and 15 above and further in view of Beaver III Robert I et al. (US 20210312096 A1) hereinafter referenced as Beaver III et al.
Regarding Claim 4, Beri et al. in view of Page fails to discloses the entity for the vector path includes a transient, universally unique identifier (uuid) configured for storage in a uuid-to-permanent identifier map and a uuid-to-temporary identifier map associated with at least one of the plurality of client applications.
However, in the Applicant field of endeavor prior art of BEAVER, III et al. discloses the entity for the vector path includes a transient, universally unique identifier (uuid) configured for storage in a uuid-to-permanent identifier map and a uuid-to-temporary identifier map associated with at least one of the plurality of client applications (please see abstract, paras. 89, 92, 340, 341, disclosing the entity for the vector path includes a transient, universally unique identifier (uuid) configured for storage in a uuid-to-permanent identifier map and a uuid-to-temporary identifier map associated with at least one of the plurality of client applications).
BERI et al. teaches an improved image of the document co-editing system tracking and propagate changes made by different editors and accurately apply changes received from other users as well as accurately propagated to the other co-editing parties.
BERI et al. teaches collaborative editing of vector graphics in which a directive corresponding to a change (i.e., a delta) to an entity in a vector path can be received at a client. This change and an additional change from another client can be merged into a synchronized version of the design according to an order of execution. Given that the directive corresponds to a change in an entity it must include some form of component indicating the type of entity to be changed.
BEAVER, III et al. the entity for the vector path includes a transient, universally unique identifier (uuid) configured for storage in a uuid-to-permanent identifier map and a uuid-to-temporary identifier map associated with at least one of the plurality of client applications
BERI et al. does not teach the entity for the vector path includes a transient, universally unique identifier (uuid) configured for storage in a uuid-to-permanent identifier map and a uuid-to-temporary identifier map associated with at least one of the plurality of client applications
Hence the prior art includes each element claimed, although not necessarily in a single prior art reference, with the only difference between the claimed invention and the prior art being the lack of actual combination of the elements in a single prior art reference.
In combination, BERI et al. performs the same function as it does separately of managing process operating displaying the graphical design including the input delta and the at least one additional delta.
BEAVER, III et al. the performs the same function as it does separately providing data representing the user-specific design for display and The loading of the product design, the customization vectors, and the style for the user using graphical user interface and UUID corresponding plurality of key-value pairs that represents a full description of the custom product.
Therefore one of ordinary skill in the art could have combined the elements as claimed by known methods, and that in combination, each element merely performs the same function as it does separately.
The results of the combination would have been predictable and resulted in modifying the invention of BERI et al. to include the entity for the vector path includes a transient, universally unique identifier (uuid) configured for storage in a uuid-to-permanent identifier map and a uuid-to-temporary identifier map associated with at least one of the plurality of client applications, as disclosed by BEAVER, III et al. thereby transmitting the digital descriptions with the embedded tokens to a digital authority to extract the tokens from the received data and using the tokens to retrieve manufacturing instructions for manufacturing the digital and physical products, as BEAVER, III et al. discusses at para. 3.
Therefore, the claimed subject matter would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made.
Regarding Claim 5, BEAVER, III et al. discloses the attributes of the entity for the vector path are stored in a sparse set providing spatial coherence (paras. 106, 111, 112).
Please also see BERI et al. at paras. 25, 34.
Regarding Claim 6, BERI et al. discloses the sparse set further comprises: a values array; a sparse array including an index of the values array; and a dense array (paras. 3, 19, 30).
Regarding Claim 7, BEAVER, III et al. discloses the first delta and the second delta are configurable to apply to a same vector path (para. 401).
Please also see BERI et al. disclosure at paras.27-29 discloses collaborative editing of vector graphics in which a command corresponding to a change (i.e., a delta) to an entity in a vector path can be received at a client.
Regarding Claim 11, BEAVER, III et al. discloses the entity for the vector path includes a transient, universally unique identifier (uuid) configured for storage in a uuid-to-permanent identifier map and a uuid-to-temporary identifier map associated with at least one of the plurality of client applications. (please see abstract, paras. 89, 92, 340, 341, disclosing the entity for the vector path includes a transient, universally unique identifier (uuid) configured for storage in a uuid-to-permanent identifier map and a uuid-to-temporary identifier map associated with at least one of the plurality of client applications).
Regarding Claim 12, BEAVER, III et al. discloses the attributes of the entity for the vector path are stored in a sparse set providing spatial coherence (paras. 106, 111, 112).
Please also see BERI et al. at paras. 25, 34.
Regarding Claim 13, BERI et al. discloses the sparse set further comprises: a values array; a sparse array including an index of the values array; and a dense array. (paras. 3, 19, 30).
Regarding Claim 14, BEAVER, III et al. discloses each of the first plurality of pending deltas is configurable to apply a same vector path as any of the second plurality of pending deltas (para. 401).
Please also see BERI et al. disclosure at paras.27-29 discloses collaborative editing of vector graphics in which a command corresponding to a change (i.e., a delta) to an entity in a vector path can be received at a client.
Regarding Claim 16, Page discloses transmitting an acknowledgement message for the first delta to the first client application and for the second delta to the second client application (para. 89, 113)
Please also see prior art of BERI et al. disclosure, please see paras. 26-29 applying, in response to the receiving of, the first delta to the first client application and for the second delta to the second client application. the synchronized version of the graphical design; and displaying the pending version of the graphical design at para. 40.
Please also see BEAVER, III et al. disclosure at abstract, paras. 3
Regarding Claim 17, BERI et al. discloses each of the graphical constructs includes an entity for a vector path and attributes of the entity for the vector path (paras. 25 attributes of the entity for the vector path, 27-29 applying, in response to the command, the input delta of the vector path to a pending version of the graphical vector design).
Please also see BEAVER, III et al. disclosure at paras. 338-341.
Regarding Claim 18, BEAVER, III et al. discloses the entity for the vector path includes a transient, universally unique identifier (uuid) configured for storage in a uuid-to-permanent identifier map and a uuid-to-temporary identifier map associated with at least one of the plurality of client applications. (please see abstract, paras. 89, 92, 340, 341, disclosing the entity for the vector path includes a transient, universally unique identifier (uuid) configured for storage in a uuid-to-permanent identifier map and a uuid-to-temporary identifier map associated with at least one of the plurality of client applications).
Regarding Claim 19, BEAVER, III et al. discloses the attributes of the entity for the vector path are stored in a sparse set providing spatial coherence (paras. 6, 106, 111, 112, 338-341).
Please also see BERI et al. at paras. 25, 34.
Please see Page disclosure at paras. 44-48
Regarding Claim 20, BERI et al. discloses the sparse set further comprises: a values array; a sparse array including an index of the values array; and a dense array. (paras. 3, 19, 25, 30, 34).
Please see BEAVER, III et al. disclosure at 338-341.
Please see Page disclosure at paras. 44-48.
Double Patenting
The nonstatutory double patenting rejection is based on a judicially created doctrine grounded in public policy (a policy reflected in the statute) so as to prevent the unjustified or improper timewise extension of the “right to exclude” granted by a patent and to prevent possible harassment by multiple assignees. A nonstatutory double patenting rejection is appropriate where the conflicting claims are not identical, but at least one examined application claim is not patentably distinct from the reference claim(s) because the examined application claim is either anticipated by, or would have been obvious over, the reference claim(s). See, e.g., In re Berg, 140 F.3d 1428, 46 USPQ2d 1226 (Fed. Cir. 1998); In re Goodman, 11 F.3d 1046, 29 USPQ2d 2010 (Fed. Cir. 1993); In re Longi, 759 F.2d 887, 225 USPQ 645 (Fed. Cir. 1985); In re Van Ornum, 686 F.2d 937, 214 USPQ 761 (CCPA 1982); In re Vogel, 422 F.2d 438, 164 USPQ 619 (CCPA 1970); In re Thorington, 418 F.2d 528, 163 USPQ 644 (CCPA 1969).
A timely filed terminal disclaimer in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(c) or 1.321(d) may be used to overcome an actual or provisional rejection based on nonstatutory double patenting provided the reference application or patent either is shown to be commonly owned with the examined application, or claims an invention made as a result of activities undertaken within the scope of a joint research agreement. See MPEP § 717.02 for applications subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA as explained in MPEP § 2159. See MPEP §§ 706.02(l)(1) - 706.02(l)(3) for applications not subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA . A terminal disclaimer must be signed in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(b).
The USPTO Internet website contains terminal disclaimer forms which may be used. Please visit www.uspto.gov/patent/patents-forms. The filing date of the application in which the form is filed determines what form (e.g., PTO/SB/25, PTO/SB/26, PTO/AIA /25, or PTO/AIA /26) should be used. A web-based eTerminal Disclaimer may be filled out completely online using web-screens. An eTerminal Disclaimer that meets all requirements is auto-processed and approved immediately upon submission. For more information about eTerminal Disclaimers, refer to www.uspto.gov/patents/process/file/efs/guidance/eTD-info-I.jsp.
Claims 1-15 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting over claims 1-17 of US patent No. 12,380,825 B2 and claims 1-15 of U.S. Patent No. 11,996;024 B2, if allowed, would improperly extend the “right to exclude” already granted in the patent. The subject matter claimed in the instant application is fully disclosed in the patent and is covered by the patent since the patent and the application are claiming common subject matter, as follows: Comparison of claims 1-15 of Instant application to claims 1-17 of US patent No. 12,242,148 B2 and claims 1-15 of U.S. Patent No. 11, 11,996;024 B2.
Furthermore, there is no apparent reason why applicant was prevented from presenting claims corresponding to those of the instant application during prosecution of the application which matured into a patent. See In re Schneller, 397 F.2d 350, 158 USPQ 210 (CCPA 1968). See also MPEP § 804.
Instant Application Number
19,226,722
US Patent No. 12,347,003
. 1. A method comprising: receiving, from a first client application among a plurality of client applications, a first delta for a vector graphical design; receiving, from a second client application among the plurality of client applications, a second delta for the vector graphical design, wherein each of the first delta and the second delta includes a graphical construct; serializing the first delta and the second delta to provide a sequence of deltas configured to produce a synchronized vector graphical design, wherein the synchronized vector graphical design includes the graphical construct from the first delta and the graphical construct from the second delta; and transmitting the sequence of deltas to impart the synchronized vector graphical design to each of the plurality of client applications.
1. A method comprising: receiving, at a first client application from a plurality of client applications, a command corresponding to an input delta of a vector path for a graphical design, the command including a component defining a type of vector graphics entity; transmitting the input delta of the vector path from the client application to a live editing server; receiving, from the live editing server, an acknowledgement of the input delta and at least one additional delta from at least a second client application from among the plurality of client applications; serially merging, in response to the acknowledgement and the at least one additional delta, the input delta and the at least one additional delta into a synchronized version of the graphical design, wherein the synchronized version represents an editing state of the graphical design; and displaying the graphical design including the input delta and the at least one additional delta.
Note the comparison of independent claim 1 of instant application, to patented parent application claims 1 of US patent No. 12,247,003 B2. to avoid 101 statutory double patenting rejections the claims limitation by curtailing the details and language has been changed. However, instant application independent claim limitations are described in independent claims of the parent applications. They both are claiming “Graphical constructs are efficiently described by integer-based identifiers, and graphical constructs of the same type are stored in a definitional component. Each client maintains both a pending state representation and a synchronized state representation of the graphical design to independently track the state of the representation at a live editing server. The use of integer-based identifiers for graphical constructs provides an efficient change representation that can be communicated with minimal network traffic. All copies of the graphical design represented among clients reach a consistent state quickly even when multiple users are making changes to the same vector path, eliminating the need to track changes manually or to move large files.”.
Further other Claims 2-20 of instant application claims same or similar limitation as well as maps to one to one of claims 2-17 of US patent No. 12,247,003 B2.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Applicant is requested to review the cited prior art on USPTO 892.
The prior art of Baek Jongmin et al. (US 20180189369 A1) disclosure, paras. 18-142, disclosing methods, and non-transitory computer-readable storage media for managing a version history of a synchronized content item. In one implementation, a first client device associated with a first account of a content management system can receive a first version (i.e., the latest version) of the content item. The first client device can determine differences or a "diff" between the first version and a second version (e.g., the next-to-latest version) of the synchronized content item and upload the first version and the diff to the content management system. Upon receiving the first version and the diff, the content management system may store the first version and the diff and ping a second client device to determine whether the second client device can receive the first version. If so, the content manage system can download the first version and the diff to the second client device. The second client device can generate a notification when the download finishes and present the notification with an interface element for requesting presentation of the diff. When the second client device detects a selection of the interface element, the second client device can present the diff. While many conventional content management systems leave users wanting from a deficit of version history information, some conventional content management systems provide an excess of version history information without providing users with tools to understand what can often be a substantial amount of data. For example, the conventional systems may provide their users with access to hundreds, thousands, or an even greater number of versions of a synchronized content item, and their users must fend for themselves to make sense of this voluminous data. In various implementations of the present technology, a content management system can provide sorting, filtering, and/or other analytical tools to enable an account user to surface versions of a synchronized content item most pertinent to her. For example, the content management system may support sorting and/or filtering on the basis of a version's metadata (e.g., modification date, content item name and/or other identifier, editor, editor's geographic location, editor's network location, editor's host type, editor's host operating system, editor's client application type, file size, a difference in size between the version and a previous version, etc.). In addition, the content management system may enable quantitative filtering, such as to include and/or exclude versions having at least, no more than, and/or exactly a specified number of edits, types of edits (e.g., insertions, deletions, modifications, relocations, formatting, etc.), updated segments (e.g., sentences, paragraphs, pages, etc.), views without edits, etc. The content management system may also support keyword search and/or filtering on the basis of a version's content, comments, edit categorization (e.g., major, minor, etc.), updated named segment(s) (e.g., title, abstract, history, see also, references, etc.), among other criteria. The content management system can also generate a diff or comparison between and among any other number of versions of a synchronized content item. For example, the content management system may receive a request to produce a diff from three or more specified versions of the content item and return a single comparison color-coding or otherwise differentiating differences among the three or more versions. Disclosed below are additional functions and advantages of the present technology. In various implementations of the present technology, a content management system can streamline version history management by building into client interfaces tools for generating comparisons between multiple versions of synchronized content items, merging multiple sets of changes to the content items, acquiring statistical information regarding version histories of the content items (e.g., number of versions, number of editors, number of specific types of edits, average time between edits, average number of edits per editor, average and/or total number of edits over specified periods of time, maximum text added in a version, maximum text deleted in a version, etc.), among other version history management tasks. In some implementations, these tools may be immediately accessible from a notification regarding updates to a synchronized content item (in addition to being accessible in other locations). In some implementations, the content management system may provide these tools via a non-native content viewer or editor (i.e., the content viewer or editor is part of a web interface of the content management system or is otherwise a distinct component of a client interface of the content management system rather than a plug-in, library, driver, etc. of a native application). This may be especially suitable for cross-platform account users of a synchronized content item and/or for an account user who cannot run or would prefer not to run a native content viewer or editor on her device. In addition or alternatively, the content management system may integrate these version history management tools with a native application for the content item.
The prior art of Wilson Joseph Loyal et al. (US 9876828 B1) disclosure; Col. 3, Line 19 to Col. 28, Line 12, discloses, a computer-implemented method includes receiving, using one or more computing devices, input from a second user selecting to remix an existing design of a first user; generating, using the one or more computing devices, a new version of the existing design including one or more layers from the existing design; receiving, using the one or more computing devices, one or more design inputs from the second user, the one or more design inputs remixing at least one of the one or more layers included from the existing design; applying, using the one or more computing devices, the one or more design inputs to the new version of the existing design to create a remixed design; and sharing, via a computer network, the remixed design with one or more other users. A system includes one or more processors and one or more memories storing instructions that, when executed by the one or more processors, cause the system to perform various operations, which include receiving input from a second user selecting to remix an existing design of a first user; generating a new version of the existing design including one or more layers from the existing design; receiving one or more design inputs from the second user, the one or more design inputs remixing at least one of the one or more layers included from the existing design; applying the one or more design inputs to the new version of the existing design to create a remixed design; and sharing, via a computer network, the remixed design with one or more other users. (4) Another innovative aspect of the subject matter described in this disclosure may be embodied in methods that include receiving, using one or more computing devices, input from a second user selecting to remix an existing design of a first user; generating, using the one or more computing devices, a new version of the existing design including one or more layers from the existing design; receiving, using the one or more computing devices, one or more design inputs from the second user, the one or more design inputs remixing at least one of the one or more layers included from the existing design; applying, using the one or more computing devices, the one or more design inputs to the new version of the existing design to create a remixed design; and sharing, via a computer network, the remixed design with one or more other users. A non-transitory tangible computer-readable medium having stored thereon one or more data structures comprising: first metadata for a plurality of graphical layers of a first layered image comprising an initial graphical design; a first flattened image of the initial graphical design; second metadata for a plurality of graphical layers of a second layered image comprising a remixed version of the initial graphical design; and a second flattened image of the remixed version of the initial graphical design. The methods that include determining a design by a user; sharing the design via one or more social networks; tracking remixing of the design into remixes by users; tracking sharing of remixes of the design by the users via the one or more social networks; determining an influence of the design based on remixing of the design by the users and sharing of the remixes of the design by the users; and providing data describing the influence of the design to the user. Determining, using one or more computing devices, a design pack including design elements, the design pack being associated with a user; adding, using one or more computing devices, the design pack to a marketplace accessible by other users; tracking, using one or more computing devices, usage of the design elements of the design pack in designs curated by the users; tracking, using one or more computing devices, sharing of designs having one or more of the design elements from the design pack; and determining, using one or more computing devices, an influence of one or more of the design pack and one or more elements of the design pack based on the usage of the design elements in the designs and the sharing of the designs including one or more of the design elements from the design pack.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to PRABODH M DHARIA whose telephone number is (571)272-7668. The examiner can normally be reached Monday -Friday 9:00 AM to 5:30 PM.
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, Benjamin Lee can be reached at 571-272-2963. 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.
Any response to this action should be mailed to:
Commissioner of Patents and Trademarks
P.O. Box 1450
Alexandria VA 22313-1450
/Prabodh M Dharia/
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 2629
07-29-2026
Prosecution Insights