Detailed Action
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Continued Examination under 37 C.F.R. § 1.114
A request for continued examination under 37 C.F.R. § 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 C.F.R. § 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 C.F.R. § 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 C.F.R. § 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 C.F.R. § 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on November 4, 2025 has been entered.
Response to Amendment
This Non-Final Office action is responsive to the amendment and reply filed on November 4, 2025 (hereafter “Response”). The amendments to the claims are acknowledged and have been entered.
Claims 1, 2, 10, 12, 14, 16, 17, 23–25, and 34 are now amended.
Claims 8 and 22 are now cancelled.
Claims 1, 2, 7–17, 21–28, and 30–35 are pending in the application.
Response to Arguments
Informalities
While the amendments resolve certain informalities raised by objection in the previous Office Action, others remain, and further informalities were introduced by the amendments. Therefore, some of the objections to the claims remain.
Subject Matter Eligibility
Claims 1, 2, 7–17, 21–28, and 30–35 were previously rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 101 because the claimed invention was directed to a judicial exception (i.e., a law of nature, a natural phenomenon, or an abstract idea) without significantly more. In response, the Applicant narrowed the scope of the independent claims to require the users operate a particular arrangement of windows and buttons (or drop down menus) to direct the computers on the computer network to carry out the otherwise-abstract idea of peer review recited in the claims.
As the MPEP explains, “[w]hen determining whether a claim integrates a judicial exception, into a practical application in Step 2A Prong Two and whether a claim recites significantly more than a judicial exception in Step 2B, examiners should consider whether the judicial exception is applied with, or by use of, a particular machine.” MPEP § 2106.05(b). Here, the MPEP provides a list of three different factors to consider when determining whether a claim requires a “particular” machine for purposes of eligibility. Of those factors, the Examiner is particularly moved by (1) “The particularity or generality of the elements of the machine or apparatus, i.e., the degree to which the machine in the claim can be specifically identified (not any and all machines),” and (2) “Integral use of a machine to achieve performance of a method . . . in contrast to where the machine is merely an object on which the method operates.” Id.
Regarding factor (1), the claim does not merely require “windows” or “buttons” at large, rather, it requires a specific combination of two windows, one of which includes the buttons or drop-down menus. To be clear, the Examiner maintains that windows, buttons, and drop-down menus are each well understood, routine, and conventional components of a user interface, as evidenced by their presence in both lay dictionaries and computer dictionaries. That being said, in contrast to versions of this claim that recite all possible manner of receiving the relevant input for the abstract idea, it cannot be said that “any and all machines” have this exact combination of user interface elements (albeit conventional user interface elements).
Regarding factor (2), this particular arrangement of windows, buttons, and drop down menus are not merely bells and whistles tacked onto the invention, rather, they are recited exactly at the heart of the inventive concept, providing the mechanism by which the reviewers designate the intended audience of their comments.
Accordingly, since the claims now recite a “particular machine,” the claims appear to be subject-matter eligible, necessitating a withdrawal of all grounds of rejection under 35 U.S.C. § 101.
Rejections under 35 U.S.C. § 112
While the amendments resolve issues raised in the 35 U.S.C. § 112 rejections in the previous Office Action, others remain or were introduced by the amendments. Therefore, the claims at least stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 112(b)
Obviousness
Claims 1, 2, 7, 9–14, 16, 17, 21, 23–25, and 30–35 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2016/0041961 A1 (hereafter “Romney”) in view of U.S. Patent No. 8,418,051 (“Bourdev”), the rejection only being withdrawn for the claims that are now cancelled.
The Applicant’s remarks have been considered in light of the amendment, but are not persuasive. All of the Applicant’s remarks focus on the Office’s previous findings concerning the formatting of highlights that reviewers can add to a publication, and whether or not those findings properly correspond to the claimed comments. However, all of the findings set forth in the rejection below concern comments submitted by each of the reviewers, and their types of visibility among different, select groups of other users. Accordingly, the claims remain obvious over the prior art for the reasons set forth herein (some of which are new as of this Office Action).
Accordingly, the Applicant’s request for a notice of allowance (Response 20) cannot be granted at this time.
Claim Objections
The Office objects to claims 1, 2, and 16 for having the following informalities.
In both claims 1 and 16, the phrase “wherein the multiple comments include a first type of comments with an indication that the first type of comments directed to the author of the written document” is missing the verb “are” between “comments” and “directed to,” because “directed to” describes a property of the comments.
In claims 2 and 17, each claim is missing a conjunction before the newly added step.
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections – 35 U.S.C. § 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 1, 2, 7, 9–17, 21, 23–28, and 30–35 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.
Claim 1
Claim 1 is indefinite for two reasons. For one, claim 1 is indefinite because the following limitation contradicts itself, making it impossible to resolve the actual scope of the limitation:
combine, at the central editorial management system, a second set of the second type of comments for the written document received via the communication interface from each of the multiple remote user terminals into a second single, combined document for the author of the written document that includes combined comments that includes combined comments of the first type of comments and excludes the second type of comments received from each of the multiple remote user terminals;
As should be evident from the above highlighting, the above limitation requires a document that both combines the “second type” of comments, yet somehow also excludes the second type of comments. The scope of a document that both includes and excludes the same comments is indefinite, since it is unclear whether or not the second type of comments are in the document.
Second, claim 1 is also indefinite because it swaps the roles of the first and second types of comments halfway through the claim:
receive, from each of the multiple remote user terminals, multiple comments … the multiple comments include:
a first type of comments with an indication that the first type of comments directed to the author of the written document based on a first received user selection via the user selectable button or drop down menu at the second window, and
a second type of comments with an indication that the second type of comments are directed to an editor of the written document based on a second received user selection via the user selectable button or drop down menu at the second window;
…
combine, at the central editorial management system, a first set of the first type of comments for the written document received via the communication interface from each of the multiple remote user terminals into a first single, combined document for the editor of the written document;
combine, at the central editorial management system, a second set of the second type of comments for the written document received via the communication interface from each of the multiple remote user terminals into a second single, combined document for the author the written document . . .
transmit from the central editorial management system via the communication interface the first single, combined document of the first type of comments for the written document to the author of the written document; and
transmit from the central editorial management system via the communication interface the second single, combined document of the second type of comments for the written document to the editor for the written document.
Initially, we are told that the first type of comments are for the author and the second type are for the editor, but then, when it comes time to combine the comments, the claim says that the combined documents are now for the wrong parties: the author’s document now has the combination of “second type” comments, while the editor’s document now has the combination of “first type” comments. The claim then switches back to the original convention, transmitting the document with the first type of comments to the author instead of the editor for whom it was created, and likewise for the second document containing the second type of comments.
In view of the foregoing, the Examiner recommends the following amendment to correct both problems:
combine, at the central editorial management system, a first set of the first type of comments for the written document received from the single user via the communication interface from each of the multiple remote user terminals into a first single, combined document for the [[editor]] author of the written document that includes combined comments of the first type of comments and excludes the second type of comments received from each of the multiple remote user terminals;
combine, at the central editorial management system, a second set of the second type of comments for the written document received from the single user via the communication interface from each of the multiple remote user terminals into a second single, combined document for the [[author]] editor of the written document
In addition to recommending the above amendment, the Examiner will also apply prior art to the claims as though the above suggestion is in force, in order to maintain compact prosecution.
Claims 2, 7, 9–15, 27, 28, and 30–34
Claims 2, 7, 9–15, 27, 28, and 30–34 are indefinite because they incorporate the indefinite subject matter of their parent claim 1 by reference.
Claim 16
Claim 16, while directed to a method rather than a system, is indefinite for the same reasons given above for its sister claim 1.
Claims 17, 21, 23–26, and 35
Claims 17, 21, 23–26, and 35 are indefinite because they incorporate the indefinite subject matter of their parent claim 16 by reference.
Claim Rejections – 35 U.S.C. § 103
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. § 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102 of this title, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned at the time any inventions covered therein were effectively filed absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 C.F.R. § 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned at the time a later invention was effectively filed 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.
I. Romney and Bourdev teach claims 1, 2, 7, 9–14, 16, 17, 21, 23–25, and 30–35.
Claims 1, 2, 7, 9–14, 16, 17, 21, 23–25, and 30–35 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2016/0041961 A1 (hereafter “Romney”) in view of U.S. Patent No. 8,418,051 (“Bourdev”).
Claim 1
Romney teaches:
A central editorial management system for document review, comprising:
“FIG. 1 depicts one embodiment of a system 100 for facilitating publication preparation efforts by a single user or among a plurality of users.” Romney ¶ 56.
a memory; and at least one processor coupled to the memory and configured to:
Distributed throughout the system are several modules 202–216, 300–322, 402–422, 502, and 504, inter alia. See Romney ¶¶ 74, 99, 118, and FIGS. 2–5. Each of the modules are to be implemented as software stored in a memory and executed by a processor reading the software from the memory. See Romney ¶¶ 37–50. Some of the foregoing modules will be discussed below where relevant.
receive a written document from an author for review;
Romney teaches several different modules for receiving a written document from its author: the document may be drafting from scratch in a word processing module 112 of a client 108, uploaded as an existing full-text copy, or scanned from a hard copy. Romney ¶¶ 66, 85, and 86.
process, at the central editorial management system, the written document for review at a reviewer user interface of a remote user terminal;
As understood by the Examiner, this scope of this step includes any pre-processing that the central editorial management system performs before the central editorial management system ever transmits it to the remote user terminal, and before it is displayed by the reviewer user interface. The subsequent language that says the processing is “for review at a reviewer user interface of a remote user terminal” simply means that any such processing is merely applied with the intent or end-goal of sending a processed version of the document to the remote user terminal.
To that end, several of Romney’s modules likewise perform processing on the uploaded/created document. For example, “an image insertion module” is “configured to access images within the user's publication library and/or image library and insert the images into the editable document.” Romney ¶ 131. As another example, “citation insertion module 406 can be configured [to] insert a bibliographic citation to a selected publication [from a] publication list into a document displayed by the word processing application.” Romney ¶ 123. And, as yet another example, “the citation module 114 is configured to store and/or embed [a] publication list or a reference to [a] publication list in the electronic file of the editable document.” Romney ¶ 132.
display, at the reviewer user interface at each of multiple remote user terminals to receive peer review of the written document in parallel from the multiple remote user terminals,
A “literature review module 212 is configured to allow a user to perform one or more literature review actions on publications stored in the research management apparatus 104,” such as the uploaded publication discussed above. Romney ¶ 100. Specifically, “the literature review module 212 may unify the efforts of multiple reviewers by providing a single publication library that can be accessed by multiple users of a group (e.g., a research team) and reviewed through a user interface. This user interface can permit each member of the group to access the publications stored to the literature review module 212 by members of the group, and track and save literature review actions made by each member of the group on the publications.” Romney ¶ 103.
More specifically, literature review module 212 includes a “comment module 306,” see Romney ¶ 107, that causes the aforementioned user interface to display the arrangement shown in FIG. 15. Romney ¶ 150. This arrangement same arrangement of first and second windows described later in claim 1, but will be discussed together with claim 1’s recitation of those two windows, below.
wherein each of the multiple remote user terminals is remote from the central editorial management system and connected to the central editorial management system via a communication interface:
As shown in FIG. 1, the research management apparatus 104 provides access to each of its modules via computer network 106, and therefore, the members of the group are provided with the user interface and the literature via their respective interfaces with computer network 106. Romney ¶¶ 59–61.
a first window that displays the written document to a peer reviewer at a respective remote user terminal
Turning now to the arrangement in FIG. 15, Romney’s comment module 306 causes the computer to display a “display window 630” in which the publication under review is displayed. Romney ¶ 152 (referring to FIG. 15).
and to receive user selection of a section of the written document, and
“During the process of literature review, the reviewer/user may choose to highlight selected portions of a publication” depicted in the display window 630. Romney ¶ 150.
a second window
Still referring to FIG. 15 for now, comment module 306 is further configured to “open[] a comment window 1506,” in response to the user selecting an option for “adding a comment to the selected text.” Romney ¶ 150.
that is configured to receive entry of different types of peer review comments for the section of the written document selected in the first window
“The comment window generally provides the user with the ability to type a comment that is associated with the selected text.” Romney ¶ 151.
and displaying a user selectable button or drop down menu to receive an indication of a type of review comment;
“Additionally, a user can designate the comment as private or locked, such as by selecting the lock icon 1518.” Romney ¶ 151. As a reminder, the broadest reasonable interpretation of “button or drop down menu” is that only one is required to meet the elements of the claim.
“Public literature review actions may be designated as being visible to selected members of the user’s group or to the entire group, while private literature review actions may be visible only to the user that perform that literature review action.” Romney ¶ 113. “Locked” is not further described in Romney’s disclosure, except that it represents a fourth type of review action, in addition to the three different levels of publicity mentioned above.
receive, from each of the multiple remote user terminals, multiple comments about the written document at an entry component at the second window of the reviewer user interface of the respective remote user terminal,
Comment module 306 is programmed to receive, from each of the reviewers, multiple comments pertaining to multiple portions of the document. See Romney ¶ 150 (“During the process of literature review, the reviewer/user may choose to highlight selected portions of a publication and add comments to portions of the text”) (emphasis added).
wherein the multiple comments include:
a first type of comments with an indication that the first type of comments directed to one or more first users] of the written document based on a first received user selection via the user selectable button or drop down menu at the second window, and
a second type of comments with an indication that the second type of comments are directed to one or more second users] of the written document based on a second received user selection via the user selectable button or drop down menu at the second window;
As mentioned above, “[p]ublic literature review actions may be designated as being visible to selected members of the user’s group or to the entire group, while private literature review actions may be visible only to the user that perform that literature review action,” Romney ¶ 113, and each of these levels of visibility may be so designated via the “lock icon 1518.” Romney ¶ 151.
Romney thus discloses several different types of comments—one for each potential combination of selectable members granted visibility of that comment—each type being based on the users who are allowed to see them.
display, in response to reception of the multiple comments and prior to a submission of the multiple comments to an editing system, a visual preview of the multiple comments of the single user at the respective remote user terminal, wherein the visual preview automatically formats and displays the first type of comments
“The comment module 306 can cooperate with a user interface that displays a publication to a user,” such that the person commenting can see the user-created/added text, hyperlinks, and/or images attached the commenter has attached to the publication or the specific portion of a publication. See Romney ¶ 107 and FIG. 15.
separate, at the central editorial management system for the multiple comments received from each of the multiple remote user terminals, the first type of comments that are
“[T]he literature review module 212 can be configured to save all highlights and comments in a separate storage location. For example, the data identifying highlighting and comments within a publication may be stored separately from the publication.” Romney ¶ 152.
combine, at the central editorial management system, a first set of the first type of comments for the written document received via the communication interface from each of the multiple remote user terminals into a first single, combined document for the editor of the written document;
combine, at the central editorial management system, a second set of the second type of comments for the written document received via the communication interface from each of the multiple remote user terminals into a second single, combined document for the author of the written document that includes combined comments;
The literature review module 212 further includes a “history module 316” that is configured to keep “a log that tracks and correlates information related to each literature review action and social literature review action, such as the username, the type of literature review action, the date and time of the literature review action, and/or details of the literature review action.” Romney ¶ 114.
Importantly, however, the history module 316 is further configured to generate, for display to different respective users, “a filtered set of history data based on custom filters or selected filters of the user.” Romney ¶ 114 (emphasis added). In other words, each time the history module 316 displays a new instance of the filtered set of history data to a different user, it is effectively repeating the process of combining all of the history data that matches the custom or selected filters of that particular user.
Furthermore, as mentioned above, “[p]ublic literature review actions may be designated as being visible to selected members of the user’s group or to the entire group, while private literature review actions may be visible only to the user that perform that literature review action.” Romney ¶ 113. In other words, one form of generating filtered lists by the history module 316 includes generating lists of only those literature review actions that are visible to the user who is requesting them.
transmit from the central editorial management system via the communication interface the first single, combined document of the first type of comments for the written document to the author of the written document;
The history module 316 is further configured to display the filtered log to the user who requests them. Romney ¶ 114. Accordingly, as shown in FIG. 17, “the website 600 can provide a comment icon 680 which when selected opens a comment window 1700 that displays all comments and social comments made by a user or group member on the selected publication.” Romney ¶ 154.
and transmit from the central editorial management system via the communication interface the second single, combined document of the second type of comments for the written document
“In an embodiment, the history module 216 is configured to display a filtered set of history data based on custom filters or selected filters of the user. This feature can enable a user to view all actions performed by a selected user or users or to view a certain type of action or to view actions performed at a certain time.” Romney ¶ 114. Accordingly, Romney at least teaches that the comment window 1700 may be used to from whichever group of users (and thus, type of comments) the history module 216 is requested to filter. See Romney ¶ 154 and FIG. 17.
In view of the foregoing, the only difference between Romney and the claimed invention is that Romney does not explicitly anticipate each of the users being known to one another as “editors” or “authors” of the publication.
Bourdev, however, teaches:
A system for document review, comprising: a memory; and at least one processor coupled to the memory and configured to:
As shown in FIG. 1D, system 100 includes a general-purpose computer. Bourdev col. 4 ll. 26–33. As such, system 100 includes a memory with instructions that cause the at least one processor to perform the steps described in Bourdev’s disclosure. See Bourdev col. 8 l. 56 through col. 9 l. 33.
receive a written document from an author for review;
“The collaborative review system 108 provides access to a document record 112 for the document. The document record 112 includes the document as well as the issues associated with the document.” Bourdev col. 4 ll. 64–67.
receive, from each of the multiple remote user terminals, multiple comments about the written document at an entry component displayed at the second window of the reviewer user interface of the respective remote user terminal,
“The reviewers 104 read the document and associate one or more comments with the document in a review mode.” Bourdev col. 4 ll. 36–38. The “or more” portion falls within the scope of “multiple comments.” Also, please be advised that in Bourdev’s disclosure “a comment may also be referred to as an issue. The two terms are used interchangeably.” Bourdev col. 4 ll. 41–43.
wherein the multiple comments include: a first type of comments with an indication that the first type of comments [are] directed to the author of the written document
“When a reviewer 104 creates an issue, the reviewer 104 can assign the issue to one or more editors 105. For example, the reviewer 104 can select editors from a list of editors.” Bourdev col. 6 ll. 47–49. “The author 102 may be an editor 105.” Bourdev col. 4 l. 47.
and a second type of comments with an indication that the second type of comments are directed to an editor of the written document;
“Different comments can be assigned and sent to different editors. For example, in FIG. 1A, comment 1 is assigned and sent to editor 1 and comment 2 is assigned and sent to editor 2.” Bourdev col. 4 ll. 3–6. In other words, Bourdev’s system receives multiple comments/issues from a reviewer 104, who assigns respective comments to respective editors 105. One of those editors 105 may be the document’s author 102, whereas others of those editors 105 may simply be editors.
Note that while this part of Bourdev’s disclosure uses the word “issue” instead of “comment,” “[t]he two terms are used interchangeably” in Bourdev’s disclosure. Bourdev col. 4 ll. 41–43.
combine, at the central editorial management system, a first set of the first type of comments for the written document received via the communication interface from each of the multiple remote user terminals into a first single, combined document for the editor of the written document;
combine, at the central editorial management system, a second set of the second type of comments for the written document received via the communication interface from each of the multiple remote user terminals into a second single, combined document for the author of the written document that includes combined comments of the first type of comments and excludes the second type of comments received from each of the multiple remote user terminals;
“In the system 100, the issues in the issue record 122 are organized in a tree structure 150 . . . . In other implementations, the issues in the issue record 122 can be organized as a list.” Bourdev col. 6 ll. 13–18.
transmit from the central editorial management system via the communication interface the first single, combined document of the first type of comments for the written document to the author of the written document; and
transmit from the central editorial management system via the communication interface the second single, combined document of the second type of comments for the written document to the editor for the written document.
“The comments can be presented to an editor in a selective manner, such that only the comments assigned to the editor are presented to the editor.” Bourdev col. 3 ll. 20–22. Recall that Bourdev uses the word “editor” for everyone involved in the process, including the author. However, this disclosure teaches that the comments are separated and hidden such that only the comments assigned to each respective editor (one of whom is the document’s author) are shown to the appropriate user.
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to enhance Romney’s comment module with the author/reviewer commenting technique taught by Bourdev. One would have been motivated to improve Romney’s comments with Bourdev’s technique, because Bourdev’s commenting technique makes it “easy for a reviewer to determine what has changed between the first and second draft of a document under review,” Bourdev col. 3 ll. 28–30, thereby enhancing Romney’s existing mechanism for collaborating amongst multiple users.
Claim 2
Romney and Bourdev teach the central editorial management system of claim 1, wherein the memory and the at least one processor are further configured to:
automatically associate each of the multiple comments entered at the second window of the reviewer user interface with a portion of the written document selected at the first window of the reviewer user interface;
“In one embodiment, when the user selects text, a toolbar 1504 can be presented to the user. The toolbar 1504 provides the user with the option of adding highlighting 1502 the selected text and/or adding a comment to the selected text.” Romney ¶ 150.
store an association between a respective comment and a respective portion of the written document, wherein a combined document based on the multiple comments indicates a corresponding portion of the written document based on the stored association for each of comment of the multiple comments.
“[T]he literature review module 212 can be configured to save all highlights and comments in a separate storage location. For example, the data identifying highlighting and comments within a publication may be stored separately from the publication.” Romney ¶ 152.
Claim 7
Romney and Bourdev teach the central editorial management system of claim 1, wherein the memory and the at least one processor are further configured to:
generate a document including the first type of comments and the second type of comments received at the entry component from at least one peer reviewer; and transmit the document to an editor user interface.
The history module 316 is further configured to display the entire log, or display select portions of “the literature review actions and social literature review actions of a user and/or users of a group.” Romney ¶ 114. Accordingly, as shown in FIG. 17, “the website 600 can provide a comment icon 680 which when selected opens a comment window 1700 that displays all comments and social comments made by a user or group member on the selected publication.” Romney ¶ 154.
Claim 9
Romney and Bourdev teach the central editorial management system of claim 1, wherein,
as a part of processing the written document for review at the reviewer user interface, the memory and the at least one processor are further configured to establish a link between one or more user selectable reference citations in the written document and a copy of a corresponding reference.
“The citation insertion module 406 can be configured [to] insert a bibliographic citation to a selected publication [from a] publication list into a document displayed by the word processing application.” Romney ¶ 123. For example, a user may “insert a citation 1910 to [a] selected publication into the document 1842,” as shown in FIG. 19, “by clicking an insert citation button 1906.” Romney ¶ 161.
Inserting a citation to a reference establishes a link in at least two different ways. First, the citation becomes logically “linked” to the document in the sense that changes made to the paper referenced by the bibliographic citation automatically synchronize with the written document’s bibliography. See Romney ¶ 125. Second, citations in the written document 1842 include an “an open icon 1904 . . . through which the user can open and access the publication the research management apparatus 104 through a browser 110 that accesses the research management apparatus 104.” Romney ¶ 161.
Claim 10
Romney and Bourdev teach the central editorial management system of claim 9, wherein the memory and the at least one processor are further configured to:
receive a selection of a user selectable citation in the written document at the first window of the reviewer user interface; and display the copy of the corresponding reference, in response to the selection.
“In one embodiment, an open icon 1904 can be included in the publication detail window 1900 through which the user can open and access the publication the research management apparatus 104 through a browser 110 that accesses the research management apparatus 104.” Romney ¶ 161.
Claim 11
Romney and Bourdev teach the central editorial management system of claim 1, wherein,
as a part of processing the written document for review at the reviewer user interface, the memory and the at least one processor are further configured to establish a link between one or more user selectable citations to a table in the written document and a copy of a corresponding table.
“The comment module 306 can cooperate with the display module 300 to enable a user to add a comment to a publication or a portion of a publication shown through the display module 300. Comments refer to include user-created/added text, hyperlinks, and/or images attached to a publication or a specific portion of a publication.” Romney ¶ 107. Importantly, Romney uses the word “images” broadly to include “images and photos, graphs, charts, and the like, which can be utilized by the user when researching and writing a paper.” Romney ¶ 90.
Claim 12
Romney and Bourdev teach the central editorial management system of claim 11, wherein the memory and the at least one processor are further configured to:
receive a selection of a user selectable citation in the written document at the first window of the reviewer user interface; and display the copy of the corresponding table, in response to the selection.
As shown in FIG. 16, a comment is identified by a comment icon 1600, and “[w]hen the comment icon 1600 is selected or the comment is otherwise opened, the comment window appears and displays the initial comment 1602.” Romney ¶ 153. Recall from the rejection of claim 11 that comments can include images, which themselves include graphs and charts. See Romney ¶ 107.
Claim 13
Romney and Bourdev teach the central editorial management system of claim 1, wherein, as a part of processing the written document for review at the user interface, the memory and the at least one processor are further configured to
establish a link between one or more user selectable citations to an appendix in the written document and a copy of a corresponding appendix.
“The comment module 306 can cooperate with the display module 300 to enable a user to add a comment to a publication or a portion of a publication shown through the display module 300. Comments refer to include user-created/added text, hyperlinks, and/or images attached to a publication or a specific portion of a publication.” Romney ¶ 107.
Claim 14
Romney and Bourdev teach the central editorial management system of claim 13, wherein the memory and the at least one processor are further configured to:
receive a selection of a user selectable citation in the written document at the first window of the reviewer user interface; and display the copy of the corresponding appendix in response to the selection.
As shown in FIG. 16, a comment is identified by a comment icon 1600, and “[w]hen the comment icon 1600 is selected or the comment is otherwise opened, the comment window appears and displays the initial comment 1602.” Romney ¶ 153.
Claims 16, 17, 21, and 23–25
Claims 16, 17, 21, and 23–25 recite the same method that the system of claims 1, 2, 7, and 9–14 perform, and are therefore rejected according to the same findings and rationale as provided above for those claims.
Claim 28
Romney and Bourdev teach the central editorial management system of claim 1, where at least one processor is further configured to:
receive reviewing input indicating an intended party for each of the multiple comments.
“Different comments can be assigned and sent to different editors. For example, in FIG. 1A, comment 1 is assigned and sent to editor 1 and comment 2 is assigned and sent to editor 2.” Bourdev col. 4 ll. 3–6.
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to enhance Romney’s comment module with the author/reviewer comments taught by Bourdev. One would have been motivated to combine Bourdev’s comments with Romney’s comments (or even substitute them), because Bourdev’s commenting technique makes it “easy for a reviewer to determine what has changed between the first and second draft of a document under review,” Bourdev col. 3 ll. 28–30, thereby enhancing Bourdev’s existing mechanism for collaborating amongst multiple users.
Claim 30
Romney and Bourdev teach the central editorial management system of claim 1, wherein the at least one processor is further configured to:
group subsets of a plurality of comments from the multiple remote user terminals, in the first single, combined document or the second single, combined document based on at least one of a section of the written document or a comment type.
“Sections of documents can be pre-assigned to editors. An issue made in a given section can by default be assigned to the editor responsible for that section.” Bourdev col. 6 ll. 51–54.
Claim 31
Romney and Bourdev teach the central editorial management system of claim 1,
wherein the first visual format for the first type of comments for the author and the second visual format for the second type of comments for the editor are displayed at the preview with different colors.
“As shown, the toolbar 1504 can include a color palette that provides the user with multiple colors of highlighting. In an embodiment, the toolbar 1504 may also include the option to lock or make private the highlighting.” Romney ¶ 150. In other words, Romney at least discloses providing a plurality of different types of comments, including different types of comments distinguished by their highlighting color, and different types of comments distinguished by their visibility or level of permission.
Claim 32
Romney and Bourdev teach the central editorial management system of claim 1,
wherein the first visual format for the first type of comments for the author and the second visual format for the second type of comments for the editor are displayed at the preview with at least one of different highlighting, different fonts, different font sizes, different use of italics, or different text boldness.
“As shown, the toolbar 1504 can include a color palette that provides the user with multiple colors of highlighting. In an embodiment, the toolbar 1504 may also include the option to lock or make private the highlighting.” Romney ¶ 150. In other words, Romney at least discloses providing a plurality of different types of comments, including different types of comments distinguished by their highlighting color, and different types of comments distinguished by their visibility or level of permission.
Claim 33
Romney and Bourdev teach the central editorial management system of claim 1,
wherein the preview illustrates the first type of comments for the author in a separate window from the second type of comments for the editor.
“As depicted in FIGS. 6 and 17 and as previously mentioned, the website 600 can provide a comment icon 680 which when selected opens a comment window 1700 that displays all comments and social comments made by a user or group member on the selected publication.” Romney ¶ 154.
Claim 34
Romney and Bourdev teach the central editorial management system of claim 1,
wherein the preview illustrates the first type of comments for the author and the second type of comments for the editor in a single window that is separate from the first window in which the written document is displayed.
“As depicted in FIGS. 6 and 17 and as previously mentioned, the website 600 can provide a comment icon 680 which when selected opens a comment window 1700 that displays all comments and social comments made by a user or group member on the selected publication.” Romney ¶ 154.
Claim 35
Claim 35 is directed to the same method that the system of claim 30 performs during the course of its normal operation, and is therefore rejected over the same findings and rationale as provided above for claim 30.
II. Romney, Bourdev, and Berstis teach claims 15 and 26.
Claims 15 and 26 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over Romney and Bourdev as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2004/0187084 A1 (“Berstis”).
Claim 15
Romney and Bourdev teach the central editorial management system of claim 1, but do not explicitly disclose the same having selectable options for spell or grammar checking for a plurality of technical fields.
Berstis, however, teaches a memory and processor configured to:
display a selectable option for a spelling check or grammar check for a plurality of technical fields;
As shown in Figure 8, a spell checker window 800 displays a drop-down menu 844 with menu items each corresponding to different dictionaries to be used by the spell checker. Berstis ¶ 64.
receive a selection of one of the plurality of technical fields;
The user “select[s] the appropriate source file in the drop-down menu.” Berstis ¶ 64.
and display results of the spelling check or the grammar check based on a selected technical field.
After selecting the desired source file from the drop-down menu, the user can view the newly selected source file’s replacement term for the misspelled word (or unexpanded acronym). Berstis ¶ 64.
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to improve Romney’s word processor with Berstis’s spell checking technique. One would have been motivated to combine Berstis with Romney because Romney’s overall system is meant for academic writing, and in furtherance of that goal, Berstis’s technique helps simplify technical papers. See Berstis ¶¶ 7 and 10.
Claim 26
Claim 26 is directed to the same method that the system of claim 15 performs, and is therefore rejected according to the same findings and rationale as provided above in the rejection thereof.
III. Romney, Bourdev, and Pinnamaneni teach claim 27.
Claim 27 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over Romney and Bourdev as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2021/0141991 A1 (“Pinnamaneni”).
Claim 27
Romney and Bourdev teach the central editorial management system of claim 1, but do not appear to explicitly disclose inserting a paragraph number corresponding to the comment being sent to an author or editor.
Pinnamaneni, however, teaches a system with at least one processor configured to:
receive a selection of a portion of the written document in combination with a corresponding comment of the multiple comments;
Annotation capable web browser 24 is configured to receive “input to create [an] annotation.” Pinnamaneni ¶ 99. For example, as shown in FIGS. 4–6, a user highlights text and inputs a comment about the highlighted text into annotation comment input box 30. Pinnamaneni ¶ 74.
and insert a paragraph number with the corresponding comment when sending the corresponding comment to the author or the editor.
After the user writes his annotation, the annotation capable web browser creates a data structure called a “screenshot bundle” that comprises (among other things), bundled with the text of the annotation’s comment, “information for finding the selected piece of text in the document,” typically by using information from the document object model (DOM). Pinnamaneni ¶ 102.
Importantly, the DOM information recorded in the screenshot bundle includes information about the “tag” and the “index” of the element of HTML that corresponds to the annotation. Pinnamaneni ¶ 103. The “index” is understood to those of ordinary skill in the art to refer to the ordinal number of a particular element amongst a set of elements. See World Wide Web Consortium, Document Object Model (DOM) Level 1 Specification 51 and 62 (Version 1.0, Oct. 1 1998), https://www.w3.org/TR/1998/REC-DOM-Level-1-19981001/DOM.pdf (“DOM Level 1 Spec.). Meanwhile, those of ordinary skill in the art will recognize that a “tag” describes the name of an element’s type, see DOM Level 1 Spec. 18, 23, and 39, and in particular, one such tag name in HTML documents includes elements defined with the <p> tag, denoting that they are to be read as paragraphs. DOM Level 1 Spec. 13 and 73; see also World Wide Web Consortium, HTML 4.0 Specification 87 (Apr. 24, 1998), (“The P element represents a paragraph.”).
Putting it together, Pinnamaneni teaches storing data with its annotation comments that identifies the portion of source material being commented upon as a “paragraph,” and identifies the portion’s “number” with respect to the order that it appears in the underlying source document.
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to improve Romney and Bourdev’s commenting systems with Pinnamaneni’s technique of including reference data—including paragraph numbers—in comments that are assigned to an original work. One would have been motivated to improve Romney and Bourdev with Pinnamaneni’s paragraph numbering technique because the additional paragraph numbering information “facilitate[s] finding the selected text in different scenarios,” by providing “multiple search methods” for finding the text. Pinnamaneni ¶ 103.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Justin R. Blaufeld whose telephone number is (571)272-4372. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 9:00am - 4:00pm ET.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, James K Trujillo can be reached at (571) 272-3677. 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 CA