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 .
Applicant's Response
In Applicant's Response dated 1/6/2026, Applicant amended the Claims and argued against all objections and rejections set forth in the previous Office Action.
All objections and rejections not reproduced below are withdrawn.
The prior art rejections of the Claims under 35 U.S.C. 103 previously set forth are withdrawn.
The examiner appreciates the applicant noting where the support for the amendments are described in the specification.
The Application was filed on 08/29/2023, 371 of PCT/CN2022/078560 filing date 03/01/2022 with priority to CN 202110226955.9 filing date 03/01/2021.
Claim(s) 1-7, 9, 11, 13-14 are pending for examination. Claim(s) 1, 13-14 is/are independent claim(s).
Claim Objections
Claims, 1, 13, 14 objected to because of the following informalities:
Claims 1, 13, 14 recites: “the same content” in line 6 (claim 1), line 10 (claim 13), line 8 (claim 14). The recited “the same content” lacks antecedent basis in the claim. The claims recite “first document based on content” and “tag indicating content”, but not “same content”.
Claim 2 objected to because of the following informalities:
Claim 2 recites: “extracting a keyword from the content;” in line 3. It is unclear if this “keyword” is the same “keyword” recited in claim 1, from which claim 2 depends, or if the recited “a keyword” is a different keyword.
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
Claim(s) 1, 13, 14 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Garfield, Eugene et al. US Pub. No. 2003/0001873 (Garfield) in view of Maurer; Slade et al. US Pub. No. 20150279426 (Maurer).
Claim 1:
Jones teaches:
A document tag generating method [¶ 0010-11] (classification tags, citation index tags), comprising:
providing a candidate tag for a first document based on content of the first document [¶ 0066-68, 84-86, 89] (nodes numbers identified under the "Cites" and "Cited" columns of the FIG. 1 tabular display are hot-linked to the identifying node detail information in the Node Details Table 52);
generating a tag indicating content in the first document in response to a first preset operation on the candidate tag, wherein the tag is associated with a second document, [¶ 0045-48] (FIG. 1, there are three columns of statistical and identifying information: "Cites"; "Nodes"; and "Cited." The "Node" column (or field) identifies each paper in the analysis, The "Cites" field contains two items of information: the number of times the paper at that node of the historiograph cited others within the historiograph [shown in brackets]; and, the node identifier of the papers (shown in parentheses) that were cited by the paper at the node of interest; the "Cited" field, where the node numbers of papers citing the paper at any particular node are listed (in parentheses) along with the total number of citations [in brackets] to that node) and wherein the tag comprises a keyword indicative of the content in the first document [¶ 0083] (word or phrase is matched with the title field in the source database and papers having that word or phrase are selected for processing to create a citation network) [¶ 0007, 12, 95-97] (key word);
displaying the second document, wherein the second document comprises the same indicated by the tag, the second document further comprises information of a third document, and the third document includes the same content indicated by the tag but does not adopt the tag [¶ 0014, 68, 72] (missing links, Clicking on each of these links displays a popup list for the user) [¶ 0064, 72, 81] (suspect link, analyze to identify possible mistakes in citations);
displaying an interface element in the second document [¶ 0014, 68, 72] (missing links, Clicking on each of these links displays a popup list for the user) [¶ 0064, 72, 81] (suspect link, analyze to identify possible mistakes in citations); … .
Garfield does not appear to explicitly disclose “adopting the tag for the third document through the second document”.
However, the disclosure of Maurer teaches:
in response to receiving an operation performed on the interface element, adding the tag to the third document and adopting the tag for the third document through the second document [¶ 0181] (creation of the forward reference in the first editor's document automatically creates a collapse-able backward reference section that contains a link within the second editor's document back to the first editor's document, the editor’s document in Maurer could be an “interface element”, creation of the forward reference is done while editing inside the interface and could be considered “an operation performed on the interface element”) [¶ 0180] (checkboxes as a widget, clicking a checkbox within the document, clicking a checkbox is “an operation performed on the interface element”) [¶ 0173-174] (editor-based user interface where the features can be functionally composed with each other; checklists, radio buttons, text entry areas) [¶ 0142] (interface that allows a user to specify labels for events) [¶ 0172] (keywords) [¶ 0182] (tagging document)
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the method of forward and backward citation in Garfield and the method of creating a backward reference in Maurer, with a reasonable expectation of success.
The motivation for doing so would have been the use of known technique to improve similar devices (methods, or products) in the same way; (See KSR Int’l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 US 398, 82 USPQ2d 1385, 1396 (U.S. 2007) and MPEP § 2143(D)).
The know technique of creating a backward reference in Maurer could be applied to the citation index in Garfield. Maurer and Garfield are similar devices because each disclose document citation, linking or references. One of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that applying the known technique would improve the similar devices and resulted in an improved system, with a reasonable expectation of success, to “provide an intuitive, easy-to-use interface” [Maurer: ¶ 0129, 172].
ALTENRATE REJECTION:
Claim(s) 1, 13, 14 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being obvious over Knudson; Eric et al. US Pat. No. 10,650,086 (Knudson) in view of Armstrong; Orin Russell US Pub. No. 2009/0234816 (Armstrong).
Claim 1:
Knudson teaches:
A document tag generating method, comprising:
providing a candidate tag for a first document based on content of the first document [Col. 16, Ln. 23-65] (word processing interface includes a suggested tag with hover box. The word processing interface also shows hover box for a tag. The browser interface includes another embodiment of a works cited page); and
generating a tag indicating content in the first document in response to a first preset operation on the candidate tag, wherein the tag is associated with a second document, and wherein the tag comprises a keyword indicative of the content in the first document [Col. 21, Ln. 4-55] (author can click on the suggested tag, which will cause the browser interface to display data about the two suggested tags. The author can then disambiguate which of the two tags already in the database is correct, match words could be “keyword”) [Col. 18, Ln. 55-68] (sections, words, or phrases in the first report are matched with, connected to, or otherwise related to facts in other reports, matching words or phrases could be “a keyword indicative of the content”) [Col. 20, Ln. 11-21] (match hidden text in a report document, where the hidden text indicates which portions of the report document are associated with the tag) [Col. 23, Ln. 23 – Col. 24, Ln. 16] (tags that match words in the report document)
[Col. 16, Ln. 36-54] (tag can be suggested if the same or similar words appear in other source documents or have been tagged in other report documents) [Col. 21, Ln. 4-29] (tags can be suggested by searching the database for tags that match or are very similar to words in the report document);
displaying the second document, wherein the second document comprises the same indicated by the tag, the second document further comprises information of a third document [Col. 13, Ln. 47-68] (selecting the portion 304 of the source document may open up additional options, the browser interface provides a button to add the source as a citation, as well as a button to add the source as a footnote) [Col. 18, Ln. 12-24] (cite and cited); and the third document includes the same content indicated by the tag but does not adopt the tag [Col. 9, Ln. 36-61] (option to add a citation or a footnote) [Col. 14, Ln. 1-13] (provides a button 308 to add the source as a citation); …
Knudson does not appear to explicitly disclose “adopting the tag for the third document through the second document”.
However, the disclosure of Armstrong teaches:
displaying an interface element in the second document [¶ 0028, 37, 81] (manually create citation through user interface);
in response to receiving an operation performed on the interface element, adding the tag to the third document and adopting the tag for the third document through the second document [¶ 0042, 64, 69] (alters the data file associated with the cited document so as to add or alter a record that describes this pinpoint citation, or alternatively alters the metadata in text file) [¶ 0028, 35, 37, 60, 64, 76-77] (the list 110 of items of quoted text is dynamic, changing each time a new document 10 or web page 12 is analyzed that quotes from source text 120).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the method of automatic tag generation in Knudson and the method of quoting text in Armstrong, with a reasonable expectation of success.
The motivation for doing so would have been the use of known technique to improve similar devices (methods, or products) in the same way; (See KSR Int’l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 US 398, 82 USPQ2d 1385, 1396 (U.S. 2007) and MPEP § 2143(D)).
The know technique of quoting text in Armstrong could be applied to the tag generation of Knudson. Knudson and Armstrong are similar devices because each have tags and quotes or citations. One of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that applying the known technique would improve the similar devices and resulted in an improved system, with a reasonable expectation of success, to “improve the quality of results obtained by a user query of the text documents” [Armstrong: ¶ 0033].
ALTENRATE REJECTION:
Claim(s) 1, 13, 14 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being obvious over Koutrika; Georgia et al. US Pub. No. 2017/0308525 (Koutrika) in view of Harrington; Steven J. et al. US Pub. No. 2007/0156768 (Harrington).
Claim 1:
Koutrika teaches:
A document tag generating method, comprising:
providing a candidate tag for a first document based on content of the first document [¶ 0066, 70, 73-73] (Recommended segments of the cited document may be imbedded into the primary document for reference by a reader.); and
generating a tag indicating content in the first document in response to a first preset operation on the candidate tag, wherein the tag is associated with a second document, and wherein the tag comprises a keyword indicative of the content in the first document [¶ 0020, 40, 44-45, 51-52, 55-57, 6164, 68] (generate at least one candidate segment that matches or explains the citation claim) [¶ 0020-21, 33, 41, 47, 62-64] (key terms are “keywords”);
displaying the second document, wherein the second document comprises the same indicated by the tag, the second document further comprises information of a third document [¶ 0073] (selects, for example, dicks or hovers over a citation 1002 in a primary document 1004, a window appears that displays a cited document 1006 and portions of the document representing recommended segments); …
Koutrika does not appear to explicitly disclose “adopting the tag for the third document through the second document”.
However, the disclosure of Harrington teaches:
… and the third document includes the same content indicated by the tag but does not adopt the tag [¶ 0063-64] (Fig. 4, 450-460, edit reference doc, propagate to source document, a document in an interface could be a “an operation performed on the interface element”, propagate to the source document could be to “adopt”); …
displaying an interface element in the second document [¶ 0033, 56, 75-79] (displaying and selecting a document fragment from a document management system and adding a reference to a fragment object referring to the selected document fragment to the referencing document),
in response to receiving an operation performed on the interface element, adding the tag to the third document and adopting the tag for the third document through the second document [¶ 0063-64] (Fig. 4, 450-460, edit reference doc, propagate to source document, a document in an interface could be a “an operation performed on the interface element”, propagate to the source document could be to “adopt”).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the method of automatic tag generation in Koutrika and the method of dynamic document references in Harrington, with a reasonable expectation of success.
The motivation for doing so would have been the use of known technique to improve similar devices (methods, or products) in the same way; (See KSR Int’l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 US 398, 82 USPQ2d 1385, 1396 (U.S. 2007) and MPEP § 2143(D)).
The know technique of creating dynamic document references in Harrington could be applied to the tag generation of Koutrika. Koutrika and Harrington are similar devices because each teach references. One of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that applying the known technique would improve the similar devices and resulted in an improved system, with a reasonable expectation of success, for “the ability to more flexibly propagate changes back to a source document” [Harrington: ¶ 0012].
Claims 13, 14:
Claim(s) 13 and 14is/are substantially similar to claim 1 and is/are rejected using the same art and the same rationale.
Claim 1 is a “method” claim, claim 13 is a “system/device” claim and claim 14 is a “medium” claim, but the steps or elements of each claim are essentially the same.
Claim(s) 2-7, 9, 11 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Garfield, Eugene et al. US Pub. No. 2003/0001873 (Garfield) in view of Maurer; Slade et al. US Pub. No. 20150279426 (Maurer) in view of Jones; Andrew R. et al. US Pub. No. 2013/0174002 (Jones).
Claim 2:
Garfield and Maurer do not appear to explicitly disclose “extracting a keyword”.
However, the disclosure of Jones teaches:
The document tag generating method according to claim 1, wherein providing the candidate tag for the first document based on content of the first document comprises:
from the content [¶ 0041] (detect an exact matching character sequence or multiple matching character sequences in the character sequences 312 in the one or more of character sequence columns 320, matching characters could be a “keyword”) [¶ 0052] (If at step 506 a match exists, the character sequence recognition logic determines whether the match is to a single character sequence in the set of character sequence columns specified by the user or to multiple character sequences in the set of character sequence columns specified by the user); and
providing the candidate tag for the first document based on the extracted keyword or a network keyword related to the extracted keyword [¶ 0052] (presents the multiple matching character sequences to the user (step 516), matching characters could be a “keyword”).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the method of forward and backward citation in Garfield and the method of creating a backward reference in Maurer and the method of hyperlinking in Jones, with a reasonable expectation of success.
The motivation for doing so would have been the use of known technique to improve similar devices (methods, or products) in the same way; (See KSR Int’l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 US 398, 82 USPQ2d 1385, 1396 (U.S. 2007) and MPEP § 2143(D)).
The know technique of extracting keywords in Jones could be applied to creating a backward reference in Maurer and the citation index in Garfield. Jones Maurer, and Garfield are similar devices because each disclose document citation, linking or references. One of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that applying the known technique would improve the similar devices and resulted in an improved system, with a reasonable expectation of success, to “provide an intuitive, easy-to-use interface” [Maurer: ¶ 0129, 172].
Jones also teaches:
[¶ 0040-41] (scan text for tags) [¶ 0052] (If at step 506 a match exists, the character sequence recognition logic determines whether the match is to a single character sequence in the set of character sequence columns specified by the user or to multiple character sequences in the set of character sequence columns specified by the user) [¶ 0048] (Fig. 4 shows six documents each with an identifier, Fig. 4 also shows the document 410 with a link to document 412, as well as adding a link to element 416, with the option shown in 414 listing two of the documents listed in 402) [¶ 0041-42, 44-46, 49-52] (character sequence matches and associated link insertions) [¶ 0052] (presents the multiple matching character sequences to the user (step 516)) [¶ 0040-41] (scan text for tags) [¶ 0048-50, Fig. 4] (document title matching text of electronic communication) [¶ 0052] (If at step 506 a match exists, the character sequence recognition logic determines whether the match is to a single character sequence in the set of character sequence columns specified by the user or to multiple character sequences in the set of character sequence columns specified by the user) [¶ 0041-42, 44-46, 49-52] (character sequence matches and associated link insertions) [¶ 0052] (presents the multiple matching character sequences to the user (step 516)) [¶ 0048-50] (WebSphere Redbook, WebSphere User Manual) [¶ 0181] (the creation of the forward reference in the first editor's document automatically creates a collapse-able backward reference section that contains a link within the second editor's document back to the first editor's document).
Claim 3:
Jones teaches:
The document tag generating method according to claim 1, wherein providing the candidate tag for the first document based on content of the first document comprises:
providing the candidate tag for the first document based on a tag of a third document when the first document references the third document [¶ 0041-42, 44-46, 49-52] (character sequence matches and associated link insertions) [¶ 0052] (presents the multiple matching character sequences to the user (step 516)) [¶ 0040-41] (scan text for tags).
Claim 4:
Jones teaches:
The document tag generating method according to claim 1, wherein providing the candidate tag for the first document based on content of the first document comprises:
providing the candidate tag for the first document based on a tag of a fourth document corresponding to a content block of the fourth document when the first document references the content block of the fourth document [¶ 0041-42, 44-46, 49-52] (character sequence matches and associated link insertions) [¶ 0052] (presents the multiple matching character sequences to the user (step 516)) [¶ 0048-50] (WebSphere Redbook, WebSphere User Manual).
Claim 5:
Garfield teaches:
The document tag generating method according to claim 1, wherein a title of the second document is the tag, or content of the second document is the tag [¶ ] ().
Claim 6:
Jones teaches:
The document tag generating method according to claim 1, wherein the tag is associated with the second document comprises:
creating, based on the tag, the second document associated with the tag in the absence of the second document; or creating an association relationship between the tag and the second document in the presence of the second document [¶ 0052] (associated link that has been inserted at step 514, inserting the link creates a “second document”).
Claim 7:
Jones teaches:
The document tag generating method according to claim 1, further comprising:
displaying document content of the second document in response to a second preset operation on the tag [¶ 0050] (electronic communication, pop-up window, insert link).
Claim 9:
Jones teaches:
The document tag generating method according to claim 1, wherein the second document further comprises:
Information of a document that has adopted the tag [¶ 0050] (insert of decline, present the multiple matching character sequences to the user in pop-up window 414 so that the user may indicate a selection of one of the presented multiple matching character sequences or decline insertion of a link altogether. Responsive to the user indicating a selection of one of the presented multiple matching character sequences and clicking the "Insert" button).
Claim 11:
Jones teaches:
The document tag generating method according to claim 9, further comprising:
displaying a title of the document and document content of a content block of the document where the tag is located at a preset position in the second document [¶ 0050] (title is displayed with the link).
Prior Art
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Please See PTO-892: Notice of References Cited.
Evidence of the level skill of an ordinary person in the art for Claim 1:
Newly Cited:
Brown; Paul Robert et al. US 20110302145 teaches: keyword; Recommending opportunities for link placement includes determining Web pages and other content sources (e.g., messaging users/sites, such as online forum, blog, or microblog posters/users) that are relevant to a subject matter domain that is described by one or more sets of keywords.
Csomai; Andras et al. US 20100145678 suggesting keywords and links linking important terms to the relevant pages in Wikipedia
KOBAYASHI KUNITO JP 2021043955 teaches: chains of citation; each symbol for expressing the citation relationship, or each important phrase is added with the <span> tag and </span. It is described by inserting the item number, a symbol for expressing the citation relationship, or an important phrase between the > tag.
Kim; Larry US 20090292677 define associations between keyword groups and web pages--these relationships can in turn be used to configure the editor to automatically suggest relevant hyper-links for cross-referencing related web pages.
Malcolm; Jerry Walter US 6256631 court opinion can be parsed to generate hyperlinks to every court opinion cited in the document.; automatically creating hyperlinks in documents for a plurality of interconnected web pages, keyword.
Previously Cited:
Claghorn; Ronald US 20090043824 teaches: inserted citations in the child document, the invention will automatically generate links between the word clusters in the parent document and the corresponding word clusters in the child document.
Garfield, Eugene et al. US 20030001873 teaches: reference is (i) added to the list of nodes that become part of the historiograph and (ii) added to the "citing" nodes list of references in the historiography.
Daughtry; Chenita D. et al. US 20100161599 teaches: dynamically generate keywords that are common between parent-child sources and effectively form links from the parent source to multiple pertinent child sources.
Ramahefarivony, Eric et al. US 20030016242 teaches: hyperlinks are usually reserved for management and viewing of documents by enabling information to be added from a source document by links to complementary documents with an infinite number of nesting levels, the innovation lies in its use in an automation application, in other words complementary documents can equally well be inserted and viewed in real time during the design and during operation of the automation application.
Carroll; Martin D. US 20090292673 teaches: Links to references cited in a given electronic document are automatically generated in conjunction with processing of the electronic document.
Kalra; Rajat et al. US 11080737 teaches: share button, automatically sends relevant item information and user information to the server system which creates an affiliate link by referring to a database of affiliate information.
Sotomayor; Bernardo Rafael US 5708825 teaches: Fig. 3; automatically extracting key topics, such as concepts or phrases, from documents and generating summary pages containing key topic lists and hyperlinks to the extracted key topics, and even specifically to automatically generating hyperlink indexes for documents.
Malcolm; Jerry Walter US 6256631 teaches: court opinion can be parsed to generate hyperlinks to every court opinion cited in the document; automatically creating hyperlinks in documents for a plurality of interconnected web pages, keyword.
Tashiro; Koichi US 20170039171 teaches: document association device includes: receive designation of a first document and a second document to be referred to from the first document; a dividing unit configured to divide the second document into a plurality of portions; a relevant portion identifying unit configured to compare contents of the respective portions of the divided second document with contents of a predetermined portion of the first document, and identify the portion having the highest degree of association with the predetermined .sup.-portion among the plurality of portions as a relevant portion; and an associating unit configured to associate the relevant portion of the second document with the predetermined portion of the first document, to enable calling up of the relevant portion from the predetermined portion.
Csomai; Andras et al. US 20170039171 teaches: improved keyword extraction methods are combined with word sense disambiguation into a system for automatically generating annotations to enrich text with links to encyclopedic knowledge.; Wikify! System that integrates the keyword extraction algorithm, automatically identifies the important keywords in the input document, and the word sense disambiguation algorithm that assigns.
Rosenblum; Joseph A. et al. US 11640438 teaches: automatically altering code of a webpage to intelligently insert links to other webpages based on keyword searches and optimization.
Berry; Matthew G. US 20090235150 teaches: automatically generating hyperlinks associated with multimedia content within electronic text files.
Horowitz; Damon M. et al. US 6122647 teaches: Fig. 5; generate new hypertext links to other documents that may be relevant to the target document.
Kutilek; Jack et al. US 20150220497 teaches: a plurality of documents is received from a user. Then, a list of search terms each correlated to a hyperlink destination is generated from the received selection of the electronic documents. Each of the plurality of electronic documents is scanned for text strings that match search terms stored in a list. Without user intervention, activatable hyperlinks from the matched text strings in the plurality of electronic documents are generated.
Van de Kerkhof; Jan et al. US Pub. No. 2020/0410157 (Van de Kerkhof) [¶ 0037] (design documents could be a “candidate tag”) [¶ 0038] (UI device 104 to output user interface 110C, which may include an indication of the one or more candidate documents to be linked from the sequence of one or more words “design document”. For example, user interface 110C includes menu 116 that includes menu items 118A and 118B associated with candidate document “Product X Design Doc” and candidate document “Product X Slides,”) [¶ 0032-42] (UI device 104 to output user interface 110C, which may include an indication of the one or more candidate documents to be linked from the sequence of one or more words “design document”. For example, user interface 110C includes menu 116 that includes menu items 118A and 118B associated with candidate document “Product X Design Doc” and candidate document “Product X Slides,”).
Citations to Prior Art
A reference to specific paragraphs, columns, pages, or figures in a cited prior art reference is not limited to preferred embodiments or any specific examples. It is well settled that a prior art reference, in its entirety, must be considered for all that it expressly teaches and fairly suggests to one having ordinary skill in the art. Stated differently, a prior art disclosure reading on a limitation of Applicant's claim cannot be ignored on the ground that other embodiments disclosed were instead cited. Therefore, the Examiner's citation to a specific portion of a single prior art reference is not intended to exclusively dictate, but rather, to demonstrate an exemplary disclosure commensurate with the specific limitations being addressed. In re Heck, 699 F.2d 1331, 1332-33,216 USPQ 1038, 1039 (Fed. Cir. 1983) (quoting In re Lemelson, 397 F.2d 1006, 1009, 158 USPQ 275, 277 (CCPA 1968". In re: Upsher-Smith Labs. v. Pamlab, LLC, 412 F.3d 1319, 1323,75 USPQ2d 1213,1215 (Fed. Cir. 2005); In re Fritch, 972 F.2d 1260, 1264,23 USPQ2d 1780, 1782 (Fed. Cir. 1992); Merck & Co. v. Biocraft Labs., Inc., 874 F.2d 804, 807,10 USPQ2d 1843, 1846 (Fed. Cir. 1989); In re Fracalossi, 681 F.2d 792,794 n.1, 215 USPQ 569, 570 n.1 (CCPA 1982); In re Lamberti, 545 F.2d 747, 750, 192 USPQ 278, 280 (CCPA 1976); In re Bozek, 416 F.2d 1385,1390,163 USPQ 545, 549 (CCPA 1969).
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claim(s) 1-7, 9, 11, 13-14 have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument.
35 USC 103 Rejection:
Applicant's arguments filed 11/20/2025 regarding Knudson have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
The applicant argues that “Knudson does not disclose first generating a tag, i.e., a keyword indicative of a content in the first document; then displaying a second document that comprises the same content as the first document, information of a third document which also includes the same content but for which no tag has been generated, and an interface element; then in response to receiving an operation performed on the interface element displayed in the second document, adding the tag to the third document and adopting the tag for the third document through the second document.” (Response pages 13-14).
The examiner respectfully disagrees.
First the examiner would like to note that the applicant’s claims do not require very much specificity. The broadest reasonable interpretation of many of the claim elements in view of the specification is extremely broad. For instance, “generating a tag” could refer to a metadata tag, a citation to another document, or a hyperlink. Also, “the same content” could be a title, a phrase, paraphrased text, or a whole document. Finally, the recited “an operation performed on the interface element” could include almost any operation performed on any content in a user interface, this could include editing, selecting, clicking, tapping, and many more operations.
The combination of Knudson and Armstrong teach the claim limitations.
Knudson teaches matching tag words to words in a document, these matching words could be considered “keywords”. Knudson they suggests tags to the user base on the matching words and the user can accept or reject the suggested tags.
Knudson teaches: [Col. 16, Ln. 36-54] (tag can be suggested if the same or similar words appear in other source documents or have been tagged in other report documents) [Col. 21, Ln. 4-29] (tags can be suggested by searching the database for tags that match or are very similar to words in the report document).
Knudson also teaches: [Col. 21, Ln. 4-55] (author can click on the suggested tag, which will cause the browser interface to display data about the two suggested tags. The author can then disambiguate which of the two tags already in the database is correct, match words could be “keyword”) [Col. 18, Ln. 55-68] (sections, words, or phrases in the first report are matched with, connected to, or otherwise related to facts in other reports, matching words or phrases could be “a keyword indicative of the content”) [Col. 20, Ln. 11-21] (match hidden text in a report document, where the hidden text indicates which portions of the report document are associated with the tag) [Col. 23, Ln. 23 – Col. 24, Ln. 16] (tags that match words in the report document).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to BENJAMIN J SMITH whose telephone number is (571)270-3825. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 11:00 - 7:30 EST.
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, ADAM QUELER can be reached on (571) 272-4140. 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.
/Benjamin Smith/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2172 Direct Phone: 571-270-3825
Direct Fax: 571-270-4825
Email: benjamin.smith@uspto.gov