DETAILED ACTION
The present office action is responsive to the applicant’s filling an RCE on 07/13/2026.
The application has claims 17-27 and 29-33 present. Claims 17, 18, 19, 21, 23, 24, 25, 27, 29, 30, 32, 33 have been amended. All present claims have been examined.
Previous rejections under 35 USC § 112, 102 and 103 have been withdrawn as necessitated by the claim’s amendments.
This action is made Non-Final.
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 .
Examiner Notes
Examiner cites particular columns, paragraphs, figures and line numbers in the references as applied to the claims below for the convenience of the applicant. Although the specified citations are representative of the teachings in the art and are applied to the specific limitations within the individual claim, other passages and figures may apply as well. It is respectfully requested that, in preparing responses, the applicant fully consider the references in their entirety as potentially teaching all or part of the claimed invention, as well as the context of the passage as taught by the prior art or disclosed by the examiner. The entire reference is considered to provide disclosure relating to the claimed invention. The claims & only the claims form the metes & bounds of the invention. Office personnel are to give the claims their broadest reasonable interpretation in light of the supporting disclosure. Unclaimed limitations appearing in the specification are not read into the claim. Prior art was referenced using terminology familiar to one of ordinary skill in the art. Such an approach is broad in concept and can be either explicit or implicit in meaning. Examiner's Notes are provided with the cited references to assist the applicant to better understand how the examiner interprets the applied prior art. Such comments are entirely consistent with the intent & spirit of compact prosecution.
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.
Claim(s) 17-21, 29-32 and 33 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over YAMASHITA SHINJI (JP2003337810A) published 2002-12-12, as provided on the IDS and KITADA ATSUSHI (JP2007305119A) as provided by the IDS filed 7/23/2026.
In regards to claims (17, 32 and 33), YAMASHITA teaches an information processing system comprising: one or more hardware processors; and one or more memories storing one or more programs configured to be executed by the one or more hardware processors, the one or more programs including instructions for: referring to template data indicating a layout including a text object (see para 17, 27-32, 39, 48 data from a template and string data to be inserted on the templated based on the input field. Template within an editing environment provides building blocks to generate and display a document. The editing information on the template is extracted and used to acquire and merge text into the fields, see para 29-30); referring to the association information in which a character string before replacement is associated with a plurality of replaced character strings corresponding to the character string before replacement (see para 17, 27-32, 39, 48: data to be inserted on the templated based on the input field and matching attribute associated. Para 30: “A character input field having an input field name that matches the item as an attribute is associated with the item”); and performing control to output a plurality of pieces of layout data in which, out of the text object included in the template data, a character string of a text object having a character string corresponding to the character string before replacement is replaced with each of the plurality of replaced character strings associated with the character string before replacement in the association information (see para 27-31, 38: merging string and template to be provided and creating a preview of the merge of text. On para 48-50 talks about replacing a character string original with other text -replacing text on the template field with the new text data-).
YAMASHITA doesn’t specifically teach generating association information by extracting a character string from the text object from the template data, comparing the extracted character string with character strings in a database to obtain a field name, and associating the field name with the text object in the template data.
KITADA teaches generating association information by extracting a character string from the text object from the template data, comparing the extracted character string with character strings in a database to obtain a field name, and associating the field name with the text object in the template data. (see at least para 27-29, 33: teaches association, a database can be connected to a master template and allows association of objects from the template with the database information can be accomplished and also provides previewing of the replaced).
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 teachings of KITADA with the teachings of YAMASHITA in order to allow a user to make a comparison and associated template objects or text with a database field data and field name, since it by doing so, it would improve the incorporation of data into the template since it would facilitate the process to associate fields with data from a database and thus preview any possible changes to a template until a user reaches a desired output (see para 28).
In regards to claims 18, YAMASHITA teaches wherein: in the association information, each of a plurality of character strings before replacement including a first character string before replacement and a second character string before replacement is associated with the plurality of replaced character strings (see para 47-50: if there is original character when process first it presents those first, the process is repeated until no other text is available) , and wherein the one or more programs further include instructions for performing control to output a plurality of pieces of layout data including the following layouts: first layout data in which a character string of a first text object having the character string corresponding to the first character string before replacement out of the plurality of text objects included in the template data is replaced with a replaced character string for the first layout data out of the plurality of replaced character strings associated with the first character string before replacement in the association information and in which a character string of a second text object having a character string corresponding to the second character string is replaced with the replaced character string for the first layout data out of the plurality of replaced character strings associated with the second character string before replacement in the association information (see para 47, 50: the process first verifies available characters within the template data and if there is original (first) character when process, it presents those first, then the process is repeated until no other text is available), and second layout data in which the character string of the first text object is replaced with a replaced character string for the second layout data out of the plurality of replaced character strings associated with the first character string before replacement in the association information and in which the character string of the second text object is replaced with the replaced character string for the second layout data out of the plurality of replaced character strings associated with the second character string before replacement in the association information (see para 17, 22, template data including multiple fields where the process repeats to insert the available text character).
In regards to claim 19, YAMASHITA teaches wherein: the association information is information in a table form (see para 22, 27-30: replacing or merging character strings from table format from database); the plurality of replaced character strings are arranged in a table including rows and columns, wherein replaced character strings corresponding to an identical layout data are aligned in one of the rows or the columns and replaced character strings corresponding to different layout are aligned in the other of the rows or columns (see para 15-20, 32-38: arranged in table structures with classified data with identical in one direction and different in another – in similar matter to classification to different row or column).
In regards to claim 20, YAMASHITA teaches, wherein the plurality of replaced character strings for the identical layout data are data in an identical record group out of a plurality of record groups included in the association information (see para 22, 27-30: replacing or merging character strings from table format from database).
In regards to claim, 21 YAMASHITA teaches wherein the one or more programs further include instructions for: out of the text object included in the template data, searching for the text object having the character string corresponding to the character string before replacement, and performing control to output a plurality of pieces of layout data in which the character string of the searched text object is replaced with each of the plurality of replaced character strings associated with the character string before replacement in the association information (see para 27-31, 38: merging string and template to be provided and creating a preview of the merge of text. On para 42-48: providing user option to select another string to insert. On para 48-50 talks about replacing a character string original with other text).
In regards to claim 29, YAMASHITA teaches wherein the one or more programs further include instructions for generating the association information in response to a specific display item being operated in a state where a preview image based on the template data is displayed (see para 38-39: generating a preview of the data).
In regards to claim 30, YAMASHITA teaches wherein the one or more programs further include instructions for: performing control to display a preview image based on the template data; receiving a selection of the association information to be used in the control based on a predetermined display item being operated in a state where the preview image is displayed, and referring to the selected association information (see para 38-39: preview and confirming on the client device based on the associated data).
In regards to claim 31, YAMASHITA teaches wherein the plurality of pieces of layout data to be output is output to and stored in a storage apparatus, or output to a printer and printed, or output to a webserver, or output to a social networking service (see para 17: stored and database and printed).
Claim(s) 22 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over YAMASHITA and KITADA as applied to claims above and further in view of Thomas et al. (US 20070203923).
In regards to claim 22, YAMASHITA teaches providing user option to select another string to insert (see para 42-48), but doesn’t specifically teach wherein the searching is similarity-retrieving.
Thomas teaches wherein the searching is similarity-retrieving (see at least para 83: teaches that is well known to use matching algorithms which are used for matching based on such features as similarity of names, annotation, attributes and relations. Further teaches that by using such techniques for matching using similarities a system can provide a list for user’s selection).
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 teachings of Thomas with the teachings of YAMASHITA in order to incorporate the technique for similarity search based on feature like names, annotation, attributes and relations, since it by doing so, it would improve the incorporation of data into the template since it would facilitate providing similar option that a user can select to insert on a field and thus improving the users experience for editing the data.
Claim(s) 23 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over YAMASHITA and KITADA as applied to claims above and further in view of Lipscomb (US 20080184288).
In regards to claim 23, YAMASHITA doesn’t specifically teach wherein the template data is a template including a text object having a visible character string.
Lipscomb teaches wherein the template data is a template including a text object having a visible character string (see para 99: template and replacing a placeholder (first text) with another text form database).
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 teachings of Lipscomb with the teachings of YAMASHITA in order to incorporate the technique for similarity for replacing a first visible text, since by having a first data available on the input field allows the users to determine if the customized second data relates to the original one or is the correct context.
Claim(s) 24-25 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over YAMASHITA and KITADA as applied to claims above and further in view of Marcos et al. (US 20140164076).
In regards to claim 24, YAMASHITA doesn’t specifically teach wherein the one or more programs further include instructions for receiving, from a user, an operation of selecting data to be used as the template data from a plurality of pieces of layout data having different designs or layouts.
Marcos teaches wherein the one or more programs further include instructions for receiving, from a user, an operation of selecting data to be used as the template data from a plurality of pieces of layout data having different designs or layouts (see at least para 20, 29-30, 43: teaches providing users with interface to select multiple templates with different layout and content to be populated).
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 teachings of Marcos with the teachings of YAMASHITA in order to incorporate the technique for allow to select from different templates and layouts, since by doing so, it enhances the system to allow users to further customize and tailor to their wants or needs (see para 30-31).
In regards to claim 25, YAMASHITA doesn’t specifically teach wherein the template data is data created by the user by arranging the text object.
Marcos teaches wherein the template data is data created by the user by arranging the text object (see para 29-31: the template and editing interface allow a user to create user-editable components).
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 teachings of Marcos with the teachings of YAMASHITA in order to incorporate the technique for allow to create the content by the user, since by doing so, it enhances the system to allow users to further customize and tailor to their wants or needs (see para 30-31).
Claim(s) 26-27 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over YAMASHITA and KITADA as applied to claims above and further in view of SCHIBILLA et al. (DE10125104A1).
In regards to claim 26 YAMASHITA doesn’t specifically teach wherein the one or more programs further include instructions for notifying a user in a case where a number of characters or a display width in a case where rendering is performed of the replaced character string is greater than that of the character string before replacement.
SCHIBILLA teaches wherein the one or more programs further include instructions for notifying a user in a case where a number of characters or a display width in a case where rendering is performed of the replaced character string is greater than that of the character string before replacement (see at least para 12-18: teaches comparing size and providing identification of the determination).
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 teachings of SCHIBILLA for comparing and notifying user of the comparing and determination result associated with field and text length/size with the teachings of YAMASHITA, since it provides improvements by providing feedback associated with the issue.
In regards to claim 27, YAMASHITA doesn’t specifically teach, wherein the one or more programs further include instructions for performing control to output layout data in which the replaced character string is displayed with a reduced font size when the replaced character string in longer than
the character string before replacement such that a display width of the replaced character string does not exceed the display width of the character string before replacement.
SCHIBILLA teaches wherein the one or more programs further include instructions for performing control to output layout data in which the replaced character string is displayed with a reduced font size when the replaced character string in longer than the character string before replacement such that a display width of the replaced character string does not exceed the display width of the character string before replacement (see at least para 12-18: teaches comparing size and providing identification of the determination. On para 8, 26-28: changing the font size, e.g. reducing).
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 teachings of SCHIBILLA for comparing and notifying user of the comparing and determination result associated with field and text length/size and performing a modification of the font size with the teachings of YAMASHITA, since it provides improvements by providing facilitating the modifications to the text that will be inserted into the template field, thus allowing the whole text to be entered.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments 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.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Doyle et al. (US 20170069043): teaches databases that store electronic data files, object and property mappings, and report templates can be combined into various combinations. In still some other embodiments, database includes a single database that stores electronic data files, object and property mappings, and report templates.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MARIO M VELEZ-LOPEZ whose telephone number is (571)270-7971. The examiner can normally be reached on M-F 10:30am-5:30pm.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Scott Baderman, can be reached at telephone number 571-272-3644. 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 and Private PAIR for authorized users only. Should you have questions about access to 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.
/MARIO M VELEZ-LOPEZ/
Examiner, Art Unit 2118
/SCOTT T BADERMAN/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2118
Prosecution Insights