DETAILED ACTION 1. Claims 1-9 are pending. Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status 2. The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA. Information Disclosure Statement 3. The IDS filed 7/19/23, 6/28/24, and 6/10/25 are considered. Specification 4. The disclosure is objected to because of the following informalities: The title of the invention is not descriptive. A new title is required that is clearly indicative of the invention to which the claims are directed. Appropriate correction is required. 5. The abstract of the disclosure is objected to because it is not directed towards the entire disclosure. The abstract is merely a copy of claim 1. A corrected abstract of the disclosure is required and must be presented on a separate sheet, apart from any other text. See MPEP § 608.01(b). Claim Interpretation MPEP 2111.04 recites “The broadest reasonable interpretation of a method (or process) claim having contingent limitations requires only those steps that must be performed and does not include steps that are not required to be performed because the condition(s) precedent are not met” and “The broadest reasonable interpretation of a system (or apparatus or product) claim having structure that performs a function, which only needs to occur if a condition precedent is met, requires structure for performing the function should the condition occur”. 6. Claims 1, 3, 5, 6, 8, and 9 all recite contingent limitations (e.g. “in a case where…”) and therefore are examined in view of MPEP 2111.04. 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 appl icant regards as his invention. 7. Claim 9 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention. In regard to claim 9, claim 9 is a method claim that recites contingent limitations. In view of MPEP 2111.04, method claims having contingent limitations requires only those steps that must be performed and does not include steps that are not required to be performed because the condition(s) precedent are not met . Claim 9 only recites two streps, where both steps are displaying steps and the displaying steps are contingent on “ an operation of designating a first link object is performed ” and “a n operation of designating a second link object is performed ”, respectively. However, the claims are not written in such a way where the conditions are required to be met (e.g. an operation of designating a first/second link is NOT performed). Accordingly, the displaying steps are not required to be performed and therefore the claim fails to recite an y required steps of the claimed method. Accordingly, the claim is indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention. To overcome this rejection, the examiner recommends amending the method claim(s) to no longer recite contingent limitations and instead recite the limitations in a positive light (e.g. “performing an operation of designating a first link object, wherein, in response to the performing the operation of designating the first link object, displaying…”). Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102 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. 8. Claim(s) 1 -3 and 5-9 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102 (a)(1) as being anticipated by Mukherjee (US 2018/0373688 A1) . In regard to claim 1, Mukherjee discloses a n information processing system comprising: one or a plurality of processors configured to (Paragraph 0070 lines 1-2, Paragraph 0071 lines 1-4, and Paragraph 0072 lines 1-5) : in a case where an operation of designating a first link object is performed, perform a control of displaying annotation information of a first web page associated with the first link object in a superimposed manner on the first web page ( Paragraph 0023 lines 16-19, Paragraph 0024 lines 1-3, Paragraph 0054, Paragraph 0058 lines 4-7, Paragraph 0060 , Paragraph 0062 lines 1-6, Paragraph 0064 lines 1-7 : a user dereferences special URL (e.g. first link object) and annotations associated with special URL are overlayed in a first web page) ; and in a case where an operation of designating a second link object is performed, perform a control of displaying annotation information of a second web page associated with the second link object in a superimposed manner on the second web page ( Paragraph 0026 lines 7-10, Paragraph 0048 lines 4-7, Paragraph 0060, Paragraph 0066, Paragraph 0067, and Paragraph 0068 lines 1-3: a user dereferences a second special URL (e.g. second link object) an annotations associated with the second special URL are overlayed in a second web page) , wherein information for accessing the first web page is identical to information for accessing the second web page (Fig. 14 elements 1402 and 1403 and Paragraph 0066: the page URL is the same for both the special URL and the second special URL) . In regard to claim 2, Mukherjee discloses wherein the one or the plurality of processors are configured to: manage the information for accessing the first web page and the annotation information of the first web page in association with the first link object; and manage the information for accessing the second web page and the annotation information of the second web page in association with the second link object (Paragraph 0052 and Paragraph 0066: annotation table is maintained for managing the accessing of the web pages and corresponding annotations using the special URL’s) . In regard to claim 3, Mukherjee discloses wherein the one or the plurality of processors are configured to: in a case where an operation of editing the annotation information of each of the first web page and the second web page is performed, update the annotation information to content after the editing and manage versions before and after the update (Paragraph 0026, Paragraph 0066, and Paragraph 0069: user’s accessing respective first and second web pages with the annotations can further edit by adding additional annotations which are stored using a different version number) . In regard to claim 5, Mukherjee discloses wherein the one or the plurality of processors are configured to: in a case where an operation of duplicating each of the first link object and the second link object is performed, duplicate each of the first link object and the second link object; and manage the information, which is managed in association with each of the first link object and the second link object, in association with each of the first link object and the second link object after the duplication (Paragraph 0026, Paragraph 0066, and Paragraph 0069: user’s accessing respective first and second web pages with the annotations can further edit by adding additional annotations which are stored using a different version number, where each special URL is duplicated with a corresponding version number added) . In regard to claim 6, Mukherjee discloses wherein the one or the plurality of processors are configured to: in a case where an operation of inputting the information for accessing each of the first web page and the second web page is performed instead of the operation of designating the first link object or the second link object, perform a control of not displaying the annotation information of each of the first web page and the second web page (Fig. 4, Paragraph 0033 lines 1-8 and Paragraph 0038 lines 1-5: if the user types the URL of the web page in the browser, the web page is displayed without any annotations, as to display the annotations, the web page must be accessed through the special URL’s) . In regard to claim 7, Mukherjee discloses wherein the operation of inputting the information for accessing each of the first web page and the second web page is an operation of inputting a uniform resource locator of each of the first web page and the second web page into an address bar of a browser (Fig. 4, Paragraph 0033 lines 1-8: URL is typed in the URL field of a web browser) . In regard to claim 8, medium claim 8 corresponds generally to system claim 1 and recites similar features in medium form and therefore is rejected under the same rationale. In regard to claim 9, method claim 9 corresponds generally to system claim 1 and recites similar features in method form and therefore is rejected under the same rationale. 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. 9. Claim(s) 4 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Mukherjee (US 2018/0373688 A1) and further in view of Roy et al. (US 2014/0173393 A1) . In regard to claim 4, while Mukherjee teaches the first and second web pages and each of the versions, they fail to show the manage a captured image of each of the first web page and the second web page on which the annotation information is displayed in a superimposed manner, for each of the versions , as recited in the claims. R oy teaches annotating web pages similar to that of Mukherjee . In addition, R oy further teaches manage a captured image of web page s on which annotation information is displayed in a superimposed manner, for plural versions (Paragraph 0047, Paragraph 0048, Paragraph 0050, and Paragraph 0053: web page with markings overlaid is captured as a snapshot and saved, where additional markings can be overlaid and a second snapshot is captured and saved that includes the additional markings) . It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, having the teachings of Mukherjee and Roy before him before the effective filing date of the claimed invention , to modify the first and second web pages and each of the versions taught by Mukherjee to include the manage a captured image of web page s on which annotation information is displayed in a superimposed manner, for plural versions of R oy , in order to obtain wherein the one or the plurality of processors are configured to: manage a captured image of each of the first web page and the second web page on which the annotation information is displayed in a superimposed manner, for each of the versions . It would have been advantageous for one to utilize such a combination as storing the marked up content for later access and rendering by any suitable web browser would have been obtained, as suggested by R oy (Paragraph 0012 lines 4-8) . Conclusion 10. The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Watanabe et al. (US 2003/0081000 A1), see at least the abstract. Jia (US 2014/0089428 A1), see at least the abstract. Griffiths et al. (US 2013/0031455 A1), see at least the abstract. Barkie et al. (US 9519632 B1), see at least the abstract. 11. Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to FILLIN "Examiner name" \* MERGEFORMAT NICHOLAS S ULRICH whose telephone number is FILLIN "Phone number" \* MERGEFORMAT (571)270-1397 . The examiner can normally be reached FILLIN "Work Schedule?" \* MERGEFORMAT M-F 8-4 . 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, FILLIN "SPE Name?" \* MERGEFORMAT Fred Ehichioya can be reached at FILLIN "SPE Phone?" \* MERGEFORMAT (571)272-4034 . The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300. 12. 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. /Nicholas Ulrich/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2179