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 CFR 1.114
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on 2/10/2026 has been entered.
Response to Amendment
Examiner acknowledges the amendments to the claims received on 2/10/2026 have been entered, and that no new matter has been added.
Response to Arguments
Argument 1: Applicant argues on page 11 in the filing on 2/10/2026 that a POSITA would not be motivated to modify Baker with Wuxi and Gilra, in claim 1.
Response to Argument 1: Argument 1 is moot in view of new grounds of rejection. The scope of the amendment has changed and new art has been applied.
Argument 2: Applicant argues on page 12 that the cited prior art does not teach the newly amended portions of claim 1.
Response to Argument 2: Argument 2 is moot in view of new grounds of rejection. The scope of the amendment has changed and new art has been applied.
Argument 3: Applicant argues on page 14 that “MDTechVideos” do not qualify as prior art because the video is inaccessible, for claim 3.
Response to Argument 3: Respectfully, the MDTechVideos art is still online on YouTube, and is accessible at the time of this office action, 3/17/2026. Perhaps the URL is difficult to follow because letter “O”s could be zero’s, and number 1’s can look like capital “I” or lower case “L”. The Examiner recommends filing an internet communication authorization form (E.COMM), so we can discuss the contents of this case over email, and also so the Examiner is able to email a direct link to the working video.
This meets the claim limitations as currently claimed, and Applicant's Arguments 1 and 2 filed on 2/10/2026 are moot in view of new grounds of rejection necessitated by the applicant’s amendment; Applicant’s Argument 3 is not persuasive. Applicant’s remaining statements regarding the remaining independent and dependent claims are moot or not persuasive for the reasons stated above.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
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.
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.
Claims 1, 5-6, 8, 12-13, 15 and 19 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Tanaka et al., Patent Application Publication number US 20150058717 A1, (hereinafter “Tanaka”), in view of Bhogal et al., Patent Application Publication number US 20110010350 A1 (hereinafter “Bhogal”), in view of Chinese Patent number CN 1801138 A, assigned to Wuxi Evermore Software CO LTD, (hereinafter “Wuxi”), included in the Form-892 dated 04/17/2025.
Claim 1: Tanaka teaches “A content editing method (i.e. performs the undo operation in accordance with the editing history data [Tanaka 0070]), comprising:
displaying, on a display page associated with Q first documents (i.e. the page display area 21 of the display unit 15 displays a part of a document (one or a plurality of pages) [Tanaka 0046] note: instant specification 0031 defines “first documents” as “one first document may be at least one page, at least one section, or at least one worksheet.” Note2: Q=1 displayed part of a document),… wherein the display page associated with the Q first documents comprises content of the first first document and does not comprise content of the second first document (i.e. the page display area 21 of the display unit 15 displays a part of a document (one or a plurality of pages) [Tanaka 0046] note: Tanaka displays a part of a document as a first first document. The rest of the document, the other pages, are not displayed),…;
receiving a first input for a target document to select, as a second document,… among the Q first documents… corresponding to the second document, wherein the target document comprises M first documents, M is a positive integer, and Q is a positive integer less than or equal to M (i.e. extracts only the editing history data of the editing operation performed in the page having the page number which is the same as that of the page which is currently displayed [Tanaka 0067, Fig. 4]…. when the instruction to perform the undo operation is received, the system control unit 11 (the undo and redo management unit 17) performs the undo operation in accordance with the editing history data… in the display undo/redo buffer 40 [Tanaka 0070] note: Tanaka’s user selects a page (a second document) from among many pages (a target document), to display and clicks on the undo button, as a first input. This selects the displayed section (Q=1) as the target section. Where the target section is one from among the many sections (M is at least 1). In other words, the claimed “Q is a positive integer less than or equal to M” requires that Q is a subset of M. The displayed section of Tanaka (Q) is less than or equal to the whole targeted document (M)); and
undoing editing of first content in a target location… in response to the first input, wherein the first content is content… corresponding to the second document, the first content does not comprise second content, the second content is content most recently edited in the target document (i.e. a first page is displayed and a first editing operation is performed in the first page, and then a second page is displayed and a second editing operation is performed in the second page. Then, the first page is displayed and a third editing operation is performed in the first page. Thereafter, when the undo operation is instructed, the third editing operation is firstly undone. Further, when the undo operation is instructed, the first editing operation is undone [Tanaka 0060] note: after “when the undo operation is instructed, the third editing operation is firstly undone,” then Tanaka is in a state where the most recently edited content is “a second page is displayed and a second editing operation is performed in the second page.” Then Tanaka’s undo operation is performed again, and the first editing operation on the first page is undone, which is not the most recently edited content (that would be Tanaka’s second operation on the second page), the second document is P first documents in the M first documents, and P is a positive integer less than or equal to M (the claimed “P is a positive integer less than or equal to M” requires that P is a subset of M. From this limitation, P is second documents. From claim 1 above, a selected target is a second document: “receiving a first input for a target document to select, as a second document.” Thus, P appears to be a selected portion of a document. A selected portion of document (P) is always a subset of the whole document (M). This limitation appears to be always true, or inherent. Nonetheless, Tanaka 0060 discloses “a first page is displayed and a first editing operation is performed in the first page… the first editing operation on the first page is undone.” The first page is selected to be displayed, and undo operations are performed on the selected first page, “P.” Tanaka’s first page, “P,” is a subset of the whole document, “M”).”
Tanaka is silent regarding displaying “a menu comprising editing labels corresponding to a first first document and a second first document among the Q first documents, in response to a first control operation,” and “each editing label comprises… location information, and editing content, and the editing labels displayed in the menu are arranged in reverse order of backup times corresponding to the respective editing labels.”
Bhogal teaches “A content editing method (i.e. A user may instruct the file editor to undo changes [Bhogal 0002]), comprising:
displaying, on a display page associated with Q first documents, a menu (i.e. selection, to show undo and/or redo history for an editable file being edited within the GUI 200. A pop-up menu may be displayed for the user on the display 104 in response to the detection… current image of the editable file may also be displayed in a transparent manner within the background of the GUI 200 [Bhogal 0040, Fig. 2] note: menu 200 is overlaid on the associated editable file/displayed page. Note2: instant specification 0031 defines “first documents” as “one first document may be at least one page, at least one section, or at least one worksheet.” Note2: Q=1 displayed part of a document) comprising editing labels corresponding to a first first document and a second first document among the Q first documents, in response to a first control operation (i.e. selection, to show undo and/or redo history for an editable file being edited within the GUI 200. A pop-up menu may be displayed for the user on the display 104 in response to the detection [Bhogal 0040, Fig. 2-5] note: Fig. 2-5 show a first section ACT and a second section DANCE),… each editing label comprises… location information (Bhogal Fig. 2, stack 204, shows editing change labels such as “A,” “ACX,” and “ACT,” which show the location in the word where the edit has taken place), and editing content (Bhogal Fig. 2, stack 204, shows editing content such as “A,” “ACX,” and “ACT,”), and the editing labels displayed in the menu are arranged in reverse order of backup times corresponding to the respective editing labels (i.e. the most recent edit in the logically-related sequence of changes represented by the edited changes 222 through 226 of the undo history 204 [Bhogal 0046, Fig. 2] note: “ACT” is the most recent change in the document. Bhogal Fig. 2 shows stack 204 with “ACT” on top as a first position, “ACX” in the middle, and “A” on the bottom as a last position. This is in reverse order);
receiving a first input for a target document to select, as a second document, one of the first first document and the second first document among the Q first documents… corresponding to the second document (i.e. the GUI 200 after detecting a user request to place the cursor 236 over the edited change 246 associated with the represented logical sequence of changes within the undo history 204 [Bhogal 0056, Fig. 3]),…; and
undoing editing of first content in a target location corresponding to the target editing label in response to the first input (i.e. the user wishes to undo the addition of the word "TOPIC" from the editable file and undo the removal of the word "DANCE" (e.g., redo the edit) to the editable file. As such, in response to detecting either a left mouse button press in combination with a mouse movement to the left or a "left" arrow key press, the requested changes may be performed to the editable file [Bhogal 0057, Fig. 3-5]), wherein the first content is content identified in the target editing label corresponding to the second document (Bhogal Fig. 2-5 shows cursor 236 identifying targeted editing labels for undo operations. Change regarding the words “DANCE” and “TOPIC” are performed as first content), the first content does not comprise second content (Bhogal Fig. 2-5 shows “ACT” as second content is not changed in Fig. 4-5), the second content is content most recently edited in the target document (From Bhogal 0046, Fig. 2, above, “ACT” is the most recently changed edit in the document. “ACT” is input into a keyboard with the letter A first (tile 222), then C second (tile 224), then T last (tile 226). This is ordered such that the most recent changes, the “T,” is stacked in a direction towards the lower right. “ACT” is lower on the menu, so it is a more recent change or it is in a lower part of the document. “ACT” as second content is not changed in Fig. 4),…”
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the invention/combination of Tanaka to include the feature of having the ability to display a menu in response to an operation, and including editing labels on the menu in reverse order as disclosed by Bhogal.
One would have been motivated to do so, before the effective filing date of the invention because it provides the benefit to hide the menu until it is required to be used, which reduces clutter, and increases screen space for applications. And it provides the benefit to list the most recent edits first, which are the more likely changes to be undone, which optimizes placement of the most likely used menu options, which decreases user manual effort from manually finding the correct menu option.
Tanaka and Bhogal are silent regarding each editing label comprises “a check box,” and receiving a first input “by checking a target check box of a target editing label.”
Wuxi teaches “A content editing method (i.e. operation items that need to be undone, perform the following steps [Wuxi 0033]), comprising:
displaying,…, a menu comprising editing labels corresponding to a first first document and a second first document among the Q first documents, in response to a first control operation,…, each editing label comprises a check box (i.e. Step 203: The user selects the operation item to be canceled. For example, the user selects to cancel the first operation item and the third operation item [Wuxi 0063] note: being able to selectively toggle multiple items on a list is functionally a checkbox. Note2: at least Q=1 first documents),…;
receiving a first input for a target document to select, as a second document, one of the first first document and the second first document among the Q first documents by checking a target check box of a target editing label corresponding to the second document (i.e. Step 203: The user selects the operation item to be canceled. For example, the user selects to cancel the first operation item and the third operation item [Wuxi 0063] note: being able to selectively toggle multiple items on a list is functionally a checkbox. Note2: at least Q=1 first documents),…; and
undoing editing of first content in a target location corresponding to the target editing label in response to the first input (i.e. Step 2: The user selects the operation item to be canceled in the operation item cancellation list, wherein the operation item is one or more operation items arbitrarily selected by the user [Wuxi 0035]… the operation cancellation subroutine cancels the operation items [Wuxi 0037] note: in a location of where the canceled operation (undo edit) is, corresponding to the selected operation item (editing label)), wherein the first content is content identified in the target editing label corresponding to the second document (i.e. Step 203: The user selects the operation item to be canceled. For example, the user selects to cancel the first operation item and the third operation item [Wuxi 0063] note: identified as first and third operation items), the first content does not comprise second content, the second content is content most recently edited in the target document (since the “the operation item is one or more operation items arbitrarily selected by the user [Wuxi 0035],” it follows that the “operation item” is different to an operation item that was most recently edited), the second document is P first documents in the M first documents, and P is a positive integer less than or equal to M (since the editable file of [Wuxi 0032] is an “electronic spreadsheet file,” it follows that the “operation items” of [Wuxi 0037] are content of at least one spreadsheet, i.e. worksheet. “P first document in the M first documents” indicates that P is a subset of M. This limitation is implicit, because the at least one second worksheet refers to worksheets comprising content for which editing should be undone, which is a subset of the M first worksheets; the number of worksheets in the subset can never be more than the number of total, i.e. M, worksheets in the target 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 modify the invention/combination of Tanaka and Bhogal to include the feature of having the ability to make selections with a checkbox as disclosed by Wuxi.
One would have been motivated to do so, before the effective filing date of the invention because it provides the benefit to have a clear UI element to show a user that one or more selections can be made at the same time, which increases efficiency.
Claim 5: Tanaka and Bhogal and Wuxi teach all the limitations of claim 1, above. Tanaka teaches “wherein before the receiving a first input for a target document, the method further comprises:
backing up all the editing content in the M first documents in a single document, wherein the editing content is content edited between the ith backup and the (i+1)th backup, and i is a positive integer (i.e. the document unit undo/redo buffer 30 can store 50 editing history data [Tanaka 0063] note: edit history is constantly being stored as edit history is being created).”
Claim 6: Tanaka and Bhogal and Wuxi teach all the limitations of claim 1, above. Tanaka teaches “wherein before the receiving a first input for a target document, the method further comprises: backing up all content in the M first documents in a single document; and
recording backup time information (i.e. the document unit undo/redo buffer 30 can store 50 editing history data [Tanaka 0063, Fig. 3] note: Fig. 3 shows backup time information for all content in the whole document M, which includes multiple pages).”
Claim 8: Tanaka, Bhogal, and Wuxi teach an electronic device, comprising: a memory storing computer-readable instructions; and a processor coupled to the memory and configured to execute the computer-readable instructions, wherein the computer-readable instructions, when executed by the processor (i.e. system control unit 11 comprises a CPU (Central Processing Unit), a ROM (Read Only Memory), and a RAM (Random Access Memory) as a main part. Further, by executing a program stored in the ROM, the function of the document editing apparatus 10 can be realized [Tanaka 0052]), cause the processor to perform operations corresponding to the method of claim 1; therefore, it is rejected under the same rationale.
Claim 12: Claim 12 is similar in content and in scope to claim 5, thus it is rejected under the same rationale.
Claim 13: Claim 13 is similar in content and in scope to claim 6, thus it is rejected under the same rationale.
Claim 15: Tanaka, Bhogal, and Wuxi teach a non-transitory computer-readable medium storing instructions that, when executed by a processor (i.e. system control unit 11 comprises a CPU (Central Processing Unit), a ROM (Read Only Memory), and a RAM (Random Access Memory) as a main part. Further, by executing a program stored in the ROM, the function of the document editing apparatus 10 can be realized [Tanaka 0052]), cause the processor to perform operations corresponding to the method of claim 1; therefore, it is rejected under the same rationale.
Claim 19: Claim 19 is similar in content and in scope to claim 5, thus it is rejected under the same rationale.
Claims 2, 4, 9, 11, 16, and 18 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Tanaka, in view of Bhogal, in view of Wuxi, in view of Baker et al., Patent Number US 6185591 B1 (hereinafter “Baker”).
Claim 2: Tanaka, Bhogal, and Wuxi teach all the limitations of claim 1, above. Tanaka, Bhogal, and Wuxi are silent regarding “wherein before the receiving a first input for a target document, the method further comprises: receiving a second input for the target document; and displaying, in a first manner in response to the second input, a region in which third content is located, wherein the first manner is different from a second manner, and the second manner is a manner of displaying a region in which fourth content is located, and wherein the third content is content edited in the second document within first duration, the third content and the fourth content are different content in the second document, the first content is content in the third content, and the first duration is less than total duration of editing the second document.”
Baker teaches “wherein before the receiving a first input for a target document, the method further comprises:
receiving a second input for the target document (i.e. selecting a menu option "Show all changes [Baker col 6 line 5); and
displaying, in a first manner in response to the second input, a region in which third content is located, wherein the first manner is different from a second manner, and the second manner is a manner of displaying a region in which fourth content is located (i.e. changes are shown in highlighted format [Baker col 6 lines 7-8, Fig. 1C] note: the highlighted content in Fig. 1C corresponds to the third content. Content that is not highlighted in Fig. 1C corresponds to fourth content), and
wherein the third content is content edited in the second document within first duration, the third content and the fourth content are different content in the second document, the first content is content in the third content, and the first duration is less than total duration of editing the second document (Since the editing steps (A)-(D) of Baker col 5 lines 35-50 were executed during a first duration after the document was drafted, and for said drafting some additional time was necessary, this means that the first duration is less than a total duration of editing).”
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the invention/combination of Tanaka, Bhogal, and Wuxi to include the feature of having the ability to highlight changed areas as disclosed by Baker.
One would have been motivated to do so, before the effective filing date of the invention because it provides the benefit to more easily see which sections have changed, which assists the user, which reduces user error.
Claim 4: Tanaka, Bhogal, and Wuxi teach all the limitations of claim 1, above. Tanaka, Bhogal, and Wuxi are silent regarding “wherein the first input comprises a third sub-input and a fourth sub-input, and wherein the undoing editing of first content in response to the first input comprises: in response to the third sub-input, selecting the second document from the M first documents, and displaying K editing labels corresponding to the second document, wherein each editing label is used to indicate one time of editing of the second document, and K is a positive integer; and in response to the fourth sub-input, selecting a first editing label from the K editing labels, and undoing editing of the first content, wherein the editing of the first content is indicated by the first editing label.”
Baker teaches “wherein the first input comprises a third sub-input and a fourth sub-input, and
wherein the undoing editing of first content in response to the first input comprises:
in response to the third sub-input, selecting the second document from the M first documents, and displaying K editing labels corresponding to the second document, wherein each editing label is used to indicate one time of editing of the second document, and K is a positive integer (The labels “c,” “d,” and “i,” displayed in Fig. 1C of Baker at the left border (next to the line numbers) are regarded as K editing labels, which are selected by a respective sub-input for undoing the editing. Each editing label is used to indicate one instance of editing of the second document); and
in response to the fourth sub-input, selecting a first editing label from the K editing labels, and undoing editing of the first content, wherein the editing of the first content is indicated by the first editing label (i.e. Click the right mouse button while pointing the cursor to the change "c" undo element below document record 010. This brings up a pop-up menu 18 with an item "Restore changed record" [Baker col 6 lines 25-28, Fig. 1C]).”
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the invention/combination of Tanaka, Bhogal, and Wuxi to include the feature of having the ability to display editing labels as disclosed by Baker.
One would have been motivated to do so, before the effective filing date of the invention because it provides the benefit to index each label, which offers more information to the user.
Claim 9: Claim 9 is similar in content and in scope to claim 2, thus it is rejected under the same rationale.
Claim 11: Claim 11 is similar in content and in scope to claim 4, thus it is rejected under the same rationale.
Claim 16: Claim 16 is similar in content and in scope to claim 2, thus it is rejected under the same rationale.
Claim 18: Claim 18 is similar in content and in scope to claim 4, thus it is rejected under the same rationale.
Claims 3, 10, and 17 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Tanaka, in view of Bhogal, in view of Wuxi, in view of Baker, in view of screen captures from YouTube video clip entitled "How To Add Comments And Feedback To Word Document," by user "MDTechVideos," Retrieved from the internet: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qM0nVIvVn_w (hereinafter “MDTechVideos”), which was included in the Form-892 dated 11/25/2024.
Claim 3: Tanaka and Bhogal and Wuxi and Baker teach all the limitations of claim 2, above. Wuxi teaches worksheets in a document in claim 1. Tanaka and Bhogal and Wuxi and Baker are silent regarding “wherein M is a positive integer greater than 1, and the second input comprises a first sub-input and a second sub-input, and wherein the displaying, in a first manner in response to the second input, a region in which third content is located comprises: in response to the first sub-input, selecting the second document from the M first documents, and displaying N pieces of time information corresponding to the second document, wherein each piece of time information is used to indicate a time at which the second document is backed up once, and N is a positive integer; and
in response to the second sub-input, selecting target time information from the N pieces of time information, determining target editing content corresponding to the target time information as the third content, and displaying, in the first manner, the region in which the third content is located.”
MDTechVideos teaches “wherein M is a positive integer greater than 1, and the second input comprises a first sub-input and a second sub-input, and
wherein the displaying, in a first manner in response to the second input, a region in which third content is located comprises:
in response to the first sub-input (MDTechVideos Fig. 1 shows creating a comment button), selecting the second document from the M first documents (MDTechVideos Fig. 2 shows creating a comment selects the portion of the document that is associated with the comment), and displaying N pieces of time information corresponding to the second document (MDTechVideos Fig. 2 shows newly created comment includes a timestamp), wherein each piece of time information is used to indicate a time at which the second document is backed up once (MDTechVideos Fig. 2 timestamp indicates the time the comment was created based on the selected second document/section. At a minimum, the timestamp indicates the time the selected portion existed in memory, or backed up once), and N is a positive integer; and
in response to the second sub-input (MDTechVideos Fig. 3 shows a non-highlighted, non-timestamped document. Clicking on commented text in word document brings up Fig. 4), selecting target time information from the N pieces of time information (MDTechVideos Fig. 4 shows comment w/ timestamp is selected), determining target editing content corresponding to the target time information as the third content (MDTechVideos Fig. 4 shows that whole section that the timestamped comment is referring to is determined and displayed), and displaying, in the first manner, the region in which the third content is located (MDTechVideos Fig. 4 shows that whole section that the timestamped comment is referring to is determined and displayed).”
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the invention/combination of Tanaka and Bhogal and Wuxi and Baker to include the feature of having the ability to select a section of a document and display timestamp information as disclosed by MDTechVideos.
One would have been motivated to do so, before the effective filing date of the invention because it provides the benefit to display the time when sections of document are selected, which helps users able to keep track of changes chronologically and vice versa.
Claim 10: Claim 10 is similar in content and in scope to claim 3, thus it is rejected under the same rationale.
Claim 17: Claim 17 is similar in content and in scope to claim 3, thus it is rejected under the same rationale.
Claims 7, 14, and 20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Tanaka, in view of Bhogal, in view of Wuxi, in view of Ramakesavan, Patent Number US 6704770 B1 (hereinafter “Ramakesavan”).
Claim 7: Tanaka and Bhogal and Wuxi teach all the limitations of claim 1, above. Tanaka and Bhogal and Wuxi teach “wherein before the receiving a first input for a target document, the method further comprises:…
displaying a control…, wherein the control is used to trigger, in reverse order of backup times in a single document, to undo editing of content (i.e. a document editing apparatus has an undo button… when the undo button is operated once, the newest editing operation is canceled and the editing state is returned to a previous state. Further, when the undo button is repeatedly operated, the editing operations are continuously canceled so as to trace back in time sequence [Tanaka 0005]).”
Tanaka and Bhogal and Wuxi are silent regarding “receiving a third input for the target document” and displaying a control “in response to the third input”
Ramakesavan teaches “receiving a third input for the target document; and
displaying a control in response to the third input (i.e. Edit menu 300 of FIG. 3 shows some typical Edit menu options, including Undo, Redo, Cut, Copy, and Past [Ramakesavan col 3 lines 12-15] note: a third input to activate the “Edit” menu, which shows at least 2 controls. One of which is “undo.”), wherein the control is used to trigger, in reverse order of backup times in a single document, to undo editing of content (i.e. Edit menu 300 of FIG. 3 shows some typical Edit menu options, including Undo, Redo, Cut, Copy, and Past [Ramakesavan col 3 lines 12-15] note: a third input to activate the “Edit” menu, which shows at least 2 controls. One of which is “undo.”).”
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the invention/combination of Tanaka and Bhogal and Wuxi to include the feature of having the ability to display two controls in response to an input as disclosed by Ramakesavan.
One would have been motivated to do so, before the effective filing date of the invention because it provides the benefit to reduce clutter on a GUI, by consolidating controls into a submenu.
Claim 14: Claim 14 is similar in content and in scope to claim 7, thus it is rejected under the same rationale.
Claim 20: Claim 20 is similar in content and in scope to claim 7, thus it is rejected under the same rationale.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Dhupar (US 20160179978 A1) listed on 892 is related to undo and redo of content specific operations.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to SAMUEL SHEN whose telephone number is (469)295-9169 and email address is samuel.shen@uspto.gov. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Thursday, 7:00 am - 5:00 pm CT.
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, Fred Ehichioya can be reached on (571) 272-4034. 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.
/S.S./Examiner, Art Unit 2179
/IRETE F EHICHIOYA/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2179