DETAILED ACTION
This action is responsive to the amendments filed 11/17/2025.
Claims 1, 3-9 and 15-20 are pending. Claims 1, 3-5, 15 and 17-20 are currently amended, and Claims 2 and 10-14 are canceled.
All prior rejections under 35 U.S.C. § 103 are withdrawn as necessitated by amendment.
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.
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.
Claims 1, 3-7 and 15-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Komoda, U.S. PGPUB No. 2021/0073464 (“Komoda”), in view of Venkatraman, et al., U.S. Patent No. 10,810,361 (“Venkatraman”), and in view of Dowling, et al., U.S. PGPUB No. 2019/0361580 (“Dowling”).
With regard to Claim 1, Komoda teaches an information processing apparatus comprising: a processor configured to:
display a file icon image representing a document file shared by a plurality of users on a screen of a terminal apparatus of a user, a single file icon image being prepared for a single document file ([0062] describes that a representation image representing an entire document can be displayed on an editing screen, where [0061] describes that the document is displayed in an editing screen. [0060] describes that the editing screen is provided to a client, where [0020] describes that users operate multiple corresponding clients to browse and edit a document); and
in a case where another user is viewing or editing the document file, display information indicative of the other user and information indicative of a part of the document file which the other user is viewing or editing while displaying the file icon image ([0064] describes that when another user different from the viewing user is editing a page of the document, a message stating this is connected to the representation image to indicate where in the document that user is editing. This is shown in Fig. 5).
Komoda, in view of Venkatraman teaches displaying the file icon image without opening the document file on the screen of the terminal apparatus of the user, wherein the other user is a plurality of other users, the processor is configured to display a plurality of user images indicative of the plurality of other users on the file icon image.
Komoda teaches the file icon image including information about other users editing information, as described above. Venkatraman shows at Fig. 21E that multiple document images can be displayed while no documents are open, where documents can include images corresponding to multiple users that have edited the document. Col. 58, lines 5-35 and Fig. 24B show that user icons displayed on the documents are clickable, such that additional information can be accessed.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time this application was filed to combine Komoda with Venkatraman. One of skill in the art would have sought the combination, to improve user experience by enabling the use of images to represent editi8ng users on a document, thereby allowing other users to more easily and immediately identify those currently accessing and editing a document.
Venkatraman, in view of Dowling teaches that the processor is configured to dynamically enlarge a user image on the file icon image corresponding to a position where an operation of the user is detected among the plurality of user images while not changing a size of the file icon image.
Venkatraman teaches at Col. 58, lines 5-35 and Fig. 24B show that user icons displayed on the documents are clickable, such that additional information can be accessed. Dowling at Fig. 4A shows that icons indicating concurrent editors of a document can be selected in an interface, causing the icons but not the underlying document to be enlarged. Fig. 4B shows a further selection of one of the expanded icons causes a further expansion to display the user’s contact card. This is also described at [0029].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time this application was filed to combine Dowling with Venkatraman and Komoda. One of skill in the art would have sought the combination, to improve user experience by enabling for quick access to information about collaborators through an interface that doesn’t necessitate the opening of an underlying document.
Claim 19 recites a medium storing instructions which execute the process carried out by the apparatus of Claim 1, and is similarly rejected. Claim 20 recites a method carried out by the apparatus of Claim 1, and is likewise rejected.
With regard to Claim 3, Dowling teaches that the processor is configured to display the plurality of user images so that a form in which each user image is displayed in a case where the other user is viewing the document file and a form in which the user image is displayed in a case where the other user is editing the document file are different. [0024] describes that an activity status for a collaborative document user can be provided, along with an indication whether the user is editing or simply reviewing the shared document.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time this application was filed to combine Dowling with Venkatraman and Komoda. One of skill in the art would have sought the combination, to improve user experience by enabling for quick access to information about collaborators through an interface that doesn’t necessitate the opening of an underlying document.
With regard to Claim 4, Dowling teaches that the processor is configured to display the information indicative of the other users and the information indicative of the part in association with the plurality of user images in a case where an operation of the user on the user image is detected. [0038] describes that a user can provide an input to a graphical element displayed in connection with another user, which causes additional information about the user as well as information about the element a user is viewing or editing.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time this application was filed to combine Dowling with Venkatraman and Komoda. One of skill in the art would have sought the combination, to improve user experience by enabling for quick access to information about collaborators through an interface that doesn’t necessitate the opening of an underlying document.
With regard to Claim 5, Dowling teaches that the processor is configured to display the information indicative of the other users and the information indicative of the part in association with the plurality of user images in a case where an operation of the user on the user image is detected. [0038] describes that a user can provide an input to a graphical element displayed in connection with another user, which causes additional information about the user as well as information about the element a user is viewing or editing.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time this application was filed to combine Dowling with Venkatraman and Komoda. One of skill in the art would have sought the combination, to improve user experience by enabling for quick access to information about collaborators through an interface that doesn’t necessitate the opening of an underlying document.
With regard to Claim 6, Komoda teaches that the information indicative of the part includes a page number indicative of the part and a page image showing a whole page of the page number. [0062] describes that the representation image includes an image therein for each of the pages in the document. [0064] describes that the page images in the representation image correspond to page numbers of pages in the document, thereby making a page number part of the information conveyed.
With regard to Claim 7, Komoda teaches that the information indicative of the part includes a page number indicative of the part and a page image showing a whole page of the page number. [0062] describes that the representation image includes an image therein for each of the pages in the document. [0064] describes that the page images in the representation image correspond to page numbers of pages in the document, thereby making a page number part of the information conveyed.
With regard to Claim 15, Dowling teaches that the processor is configured to display the plurality of user images indicative of the plurality of other users in a descending order of priority set in advance for each of the plurality of other users in a case where the plurality of user images indicative of the plurality of other users are displayed on the file icon image. [0028] describes that the system can be set to stack multiple icons in an order corresponding to the order in which the users selected the item.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time this application was filed to combine Dowling with Venkatraman and Komoda. One of skill in the art would have sought the combination, to improve user experience by enabling for quick access to information about collaborators through an interface that doesn’t necessitate the opening of an underlying document.
With regard to Claim 16, Dowling teaches that the processor is configured to display an image indicative of the number of other users on the file icon image. [0027] describes that an icon stack can be displayed, where the number of icons in the stack corresponds to the number of users who are active in the particular element.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time this application was filed to combine Dowling with Venkatraman and Komoda. One of skill in the art would have sought the combination, to improve user experience by enabling for quick access to information about collaborators through an interface that doesn’t necessitate the opening of an underlying document.
With regard to Claim 17, Dowling teaches that the processor is configured to display, in association with the image indicative of the number of other users, a list of information concerning viewing or editing of the other user(s) in a case where an operation of the user on the image indicative of the number of other users is detected. [0048]-[0049] describes that a user can expand a display of information about a plurality of other users whose icons are stacked because of being active in the same element. [0051] describes that expanding is carried out by hovering over the stack in one embodiment.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time this application was filed to combine Dowling with Venkatraman and Komoda. One of skill in the art would have sought the combination, to improve user experience by enabling for quick access to information about collaborators through an interface that doesn’t necessitate the opening of an underlying document.
With regard to Claim 18, Dowling teaches that the processor is configured to transmit a message inquiring a state of viewing or editing of the other user to the other user. [0038]-[0040] describe that a user can expand a view to see a contact card for a user, which allows for sending an email or chat message to that user.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time this application was filed to combine Dowling with Venkatraman and Komoda. One of skill in the art would have sought the combination, to improve user experience by enabling for quick access to information about collaborators through an interface that doesn’t necessitate the opening of an underlying document.
Claims 8 and 9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Komoda, in view of Venkatraman, in view of Dowling, and in view of Kodimer, et al., U.S. PGPUB No. 2013/0298014 (“Kodimer”).
With regard to Claim 8, Kodimer teaches that the processor is configured to display an enlarged image in association with the page image in a case where an operation of the user on the page image is detected, the enlarged image being an image in which a portion of the page image that corresponds to a position where the operation of the user is detected is dynamically enlarged. [0058]-[0059] describe that multiple page thumbnails are displayed in an interface; a user can select one of the thumbnails, causing the thumbnail to be enlarged on the display.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time this application was filed to combine Kodimer with Komoda, Venkatraman and Dowling. One of skill in the art would have sought the combination, to improve user experience by allowing additional operations for viewing and manipulating information in the interface.
With regard to Claim 9, Kodimer teaches that the processor is configured to display an enlarged image in association with the page image in a case where an operation of the user on the page image is detected, the enlarged image being an image in which a portion of the page image that corresponds to a position where the operation of the user is detected is dynamically enlarged. [0058]-[0059] describe that multiple page thumbnails are displayed in an interface; a user can select one of the thumbnails, causing the thumbnail to be enlarged on the display.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time this application was filed to combine Kodimer with Komoda, Venkatraman and Dowling. One of skill in the art would have sought the combination, to improve user experience by allowing additional operations for viewing and manipulating information in the interface.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments have been considered but are moot, as the newly cited Venkatraman reference cures the deficiencies with regard to the previously cited prior art references in teaching or suggesting the display of images over a file icon image.
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to KEITH D BLOOMQUIST whose telephone number is (571)270-7718. The examiner can normally be reached M-F, 8:30-5 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, Kieu Vu can be reached at 571-272-4057. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of 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.
/KEITH D BLOOMQUIST/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2171
12/19/2025
Prosecution Insights