DETAILED ACTION
The present office action is responsive to the applicant’s filling an amendment on 12/08/2025.
The application has claims 17-33 present. Claims 1-16 have been cancelled. All present claims have been examined.
This action is made 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 § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Regarding claim 19, the phrase "and the plurality of replaced character strings corresponding to replaced character strings different from each other and used for identical layout data are identical in the other different from the one of the row and the column in the table form" renders the claim indefinite because the claim language as provided makes it unclear to understand the metes and bounds of what exactly is required. See MPEP § 2173.05(d). For purpose of examination, it will be interpreted as replacing or merging character strings from table format from database.
Regarding claim 27, the phrase “wherein the one or more programs further include instructions for performing control to output layout data in which the character string before replacement is replaced with the replaced character string smaller than the character string before replacement in font size in order that a display width of the replaced character string in a case where rendering is performed is within the display width of the character string before replacement in a case where rendering is performed” renders the claim indefinite because the claim language makes it confusing to understand the metes and bounds as provided. See MPEP § 2173.05(d). For purpose of examination, determine if the character string to replace is longer, and reduce the font size.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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 the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claim(s) 17-21, 29-32 and 33 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by YAMASHITA SHINJI (JP2003337810A) published 2002-12-12, as provided on the IDS.
In regards to claims (17, 32 and 33), YAMASHITA discloses 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 edition information 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 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 edition information, 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).
In regards to claims, 18 YAMASHITA discloses 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 edition information 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 first it presents those first, 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 claims, 19 YAMASHITA discloses wherein: the association information is information in a table form; the plurality of replaced character strings corresponding to an identical replaced character string are identical in one of a row and a column in the table form; and the plurality of replaced character strings corresponding to replaced character strings different from each other and used for identical layout data are identical in the other different from the one of the row and the column in the table form (see para 22, 27-30: replacing or merging character strings from table format from database).
In regards to claims, 20 YAMASHITA discloses, 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 claims, 21 YAMASHITA discloses wherein the one or more programs further include instructions for: out of the text object included in the edition information, 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 discloses 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 edition information is displayed (see para 38-39: generating a preview of the data).
In regards to claim 30, YAMASHITA discloses wherein the one or more programs further include instructions for: performing control to display a preview image based on the edition information; 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 claims, 31 YAMASHITA discloses 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 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) 22 and 28 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over YAMASHITA 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.
In regards to claim 28, YAMASHITA doesn’t specifically teach wherein the one or more programs further include instructions for: generating the association information in such a way that a character string of a text object extracted from the edition information is the character string before replacement; and performing control to perform the outputting by using the association information generated, to which the replaced character string is added.
Thomas teaches wherein the one or more programs further include instructions for: generating the association information in such a way that a character string of a text object extracted from the edition information is the character string before replacement; and performing control to perform the outputting by using the association information generated, to which the replaced character string is added (see at least abstract and para 3, 7-10: teaches model which are used to facilitate generation and merging of data. Mapping formulas).
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 model based mapping, since it by doing so, it would improve the incorporation of data into the template since it would facilitate merging templates with data obtain from sources, thus enhancing user experience when creating documents.
Claim(s) 23 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over YAMASHITA 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 edition information is a template including a text object having a visible character string.
Lipscomb teaches wherein the edition information 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 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 edition information 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 edition information 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 edition information is data created by the user by arranging the text object.
Marcos teaches wherein the edition information 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 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 character string before replacement is replaced with the replaced character string smaller than the character string before replacement in font size in order that a display width of the replaced character string in a case where rendering is performed is within the display width of the character string before replacement in a case where rendering is performed (NOTE: interpreted as provided on the 112 rejection above).
SCHIBILLA teaches wherein the one or more programs further include instructions for performing control to output layout data in which the character string before replacement is replaced with the replaced character string smaller than the character string before replacement in font size in order that a display width of the replaced character string in a case where rendering is performed is within the display width of the character string before replacement in a case where rendering is performed (NOTE: interpreted as provided on the 112 rejection above “determine if the character string to replace is longer, and reduce the font size.“) (see at least para 12-18: teaches comparing size and providing identification of the determination. On para 8: reducing the font size).
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 fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant argues that the new claims are not taught by the prior art of YAMASHITA. Examiner respectfully disagrees. The Independent claim language as provided for the newly added claims is taught by YAMASHITA as provided in the new rejection above.
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 nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to 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