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 .
This Office Action is responsive to: Amendment filed 23 Sep. 2025
Claims 1-15 are pending in this case. Claims 1, 14 and 15 are independent claims
Applicant’s Response
In Applicant’s Response dated 23 Sep. 2025, Applicant amended claims 1, 8, 14 and 15; argued against all rejections previously set forth in the Office Action dated 15 Jul. 2025.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
Claims 1, 6-15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Shaver (Pub. No.: US 2014/0033088 A1; Filed: Oct. 8, 2008) in view of Vollmer et al. (Pub. No.: US 2014/0033088 A1; Filed: Oct. 8, 2008).
Regarding independent claims 1, 14 & 15, Shaver disclose an information processing system comprising: a processor configured to:
manage feature information on each feature of one or more objects included in an electronic document consisting of a plurality of pages, for each version of the electronic document (0021-0024);
Shaver does not expressly disclose accept an input operation of selecting an object included in a preview image of a predetermined page of the electronic document;
extract a difference in the feature information of the object included in the preview image between difference versions of the electronic document;
perform a control of displaying the difference in the feature information of the object included in the preview image between the different versions of the electronic document on the display unit in a mode identifiable by the user.
Vollmer teach accept an input operation of selecting an object included in a preview image of a predetermined page of the electronic document (0007; 0010; 0043);
extract a difference in the feature information of the object included in the preview image between difference versions of the electronic document (0007; 0010; 0043)
perform a control of displaying the difference in the feature information of the object included in the preview image between the different versions of the electronic document on the display unit in a mode identifiable by the user (0007; 0010; 0043).
Therefore before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to combine Vollmer with Shaver for the benefit of being able to see how the document has evolved over time, and also identifying who did what kind of changes to the document (0008).
Regarding dependent claim 6, Shaver disclose the information processing system according to claim 1, wherein the processor is configured to:
perform a control of displaying a difference between the feature information of a first version and the feature information of a second version of the electronic document designated by the user on the display unit in the mode identifiable by the user (0030-0034; 0043-0047; Fig. 2).
Regarding dependent claim 7, Shaver disclose the information processing system according to claim 6, wherein the processor is configured to:
perform a control of displaying a difference between the feature information of a current version as the first version, which is designated in advance by the user, and the feature information of the second version, which is sequentially designated by the user, on the display unit in the mode identifiable by the user (0030-0034; 0043-0047; Fig. 2).
Regarding dependent claim 8, Shaver disclose the information processing system according to claim 1, wherein the processor is configured to:
in a case where as the input operation, an operation of selecting a thumbnail image of the electronic document is performed on the image representing the electronic document, perform a control of displaying the difference on the display unit in the mode identifiable by the user (0024-0026; 0030-0034; 0043-0047; Fig. 2).
Regarding dependent claim 9, Shaver disclose the information processing system according to claim 8, wherein the processor is configured to:
in a case where as the operation of selecting the thumbnail image, an operation of superimposing a cursor that moves in the display unit in conjunction with the input operation of the user on the thumbnail image is performed, perform a control of displaying the difference on the display unit in the mode identifiable by the user (0024-0026; 0030-0034; 0043-0047; Fig. 2).
Regarding dependent claim 10, Shaver disclose the information processing system according to claim 9, wherein the processor is configured to:
as the mode identifiable by the user, perform a control of enlarging and displaying a preview image of each page of a version, in which the difference is generated, of the electronic document on the display unit such that a display size of the preview image is larger than a display size of the thumbnail image (0024-0026; 0030-0034; 0043-0047; Fig. 2).
Regarding dependent claim 11, Shaver disclose the information processing system according to claim 10, wherein the processor is configured to:
perform a control of enlarging and displaying the preview image side by side on the display unit (0024-0026; 0030-0034; 0043-0047; Fig. 2), and
in response to an input operation of transitioning one page by the user, perform a control of transitioning the other page in the same manner (0024-0026; 0030-0034; 0043-0047; Fig. 2).
Regarding dependent claim 12, Shaver disclose the information processing system according to claim 10, wherein the processor is configured to:
perform a control of enlarging and displaying the preview image side by side on the display unit (0024-0026; 0030-0034; 0043-0047; Fig. 2), and
in response to the input operation by the user, perform a control of changing one version of the electronic document in a state in which the other version of the electronic document is fixed (0024-0026; 0030-0034; 0043-0047; Fig. 2).
Regarding dependent claim 13, Shaver disclose the information processing system according to claim 12, wherein the processor is configured to:
in response to the input operation by the user, perform a control of changing a plurality of past versions as the one version of the electronic document according to a value indicating each of the past versions, in a state in which a current version as the other version of the electronic document is fixed (0024-0035).
Claims 2-5 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Shaver in view of Vollmer, further in view of Aoyagi (Pub. No.: US 2007/0133873 A1; Filed: Dec. 12, 2006).
Regarding dependent claim 2, Shaver in view of Vollmer does not expressly disclose the information processing system according to claim 1, wherein the processor is configured to:
manage the feature information including at least information indicating a position of the object in the electronic document, for each version of the electronic document.
Aoyagi teach manage the feature information including at least information indicating a position of the object in the electronic document, for each version of the electronic document (0103-0105; 0124; 0309).
Therefore, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to combine Aoyagi with Shaver in view of Vollmer for the benefit of providing efficient management of document data and, more particularly, to management of document data of a plurality of versions generated by updating document data.
Regarding dependent claim 3, Shaver in view of Vollmer, further in view of Aoyagi disclose the information processing system according to claim 2, wherein the processor is configured to:
manage the feature information including at information capable of specifying each of a page to which the object belongs and a disposition position of the object in the page as the information indicating the position, for each version of the electronic document (0103-0105; 0124; 0309).
Regarding dependent claim 4, Shaver disclose the information processing system according to claim 3, wherein the processor is configured to:
as the control of displaying the difference on the display unit in the mode identifiable by the user, perform a control of displaying a list image representing a relationship between a plurality of versions and the plurality of pages of the electronic document on the display unit (0023-0031).
Regarding dependent claim 5, Shaver disclose the information processing system according to claim 4, wherein the processor is configured to:
in a case where an input operation of designating the object included in the list image is performed, perform a control of highlighting a display position of the designated object for each version (0033; 0066).
NOTE
It is noted that any citations to specific, pages, columns, lines, or figures in the prior art references and any interpretation of the reference should not be considered to be limiting in any way. A reference is relevant for all it contains and may be relied upon for all that it would have reasonably suggested to one having ordinary skill in the art. See MPEP 2123.
Conclusion
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. 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 extension fee 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 JAMES J DEBROW whose telephone number is (571)272-5768. The examiner can normally be reached on 09:00 - 06:00.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, William Bashore can be reached on 571-272-4088. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from Patent Center and the Private Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from Patent Center or Private PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Patent Center or Private PAIR to authorized users only. Should you have questions about access to Patent Center or the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free).
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) Form at https://www.uspto.gov/patents/uspto-automated- interview-request-air-form.
/James J Debrow/
Primary Patent Examiner
Art Unit 2174
571-272-5768