DETAILED ACTION
Response to Amendment
Claims 1-20 are pending.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments filed 05/22/2026 have been fully considered.
The objection to the title of the invention not being descriptive has been withdrawn in view of the amended title of the invention to "INFORMATION PROCESSING APPARATUS, NON-TRANSITORY COMPUTER READABLE MEDIUM STORING PROGRAM, AND INFORMATION PROCESSING METHOD FOR PERFORMING VERSION MANAGEMENT OF DOCUMENT".
Regarding the rejections of claim 1 under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Bern et al. (US20170272388A1), Applicant argues on page 8 that Bern fails to anticipate the features of ''present, to the user, second documents that are revised version documents of the first document from among the extracted documents; and receive a document designated by the user from among the second documents, and perform version management of the designated second document together with the first document such that a history of revision of the designated second document is presented to the user" as clarified in claim 1.
Applicant’s arguments are persuasive. In view of the amendment and after further search and consideration, claim 1 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Bern in view of Choudhury et al. (US20160012082A1), wherein Choudhury is relied upon to disclose the amended limitation as discussed in the rejection below.
As to any argument not specifically addressed, they are the same as those discussed above.
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.
Claims 1-2 and 4-8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Bern et al. (US20170272388A1) in view of Choudhury et al. (US20160012082A1).
Regarding claim 1, Bern-Choudhury discloses an information processing apparatus comprising (Bern; para [0080] shows attachment versioning or dynamic version updating in which when a first user attaches a binary file, such as a Word document, and sends it, and a second user uploads a revised version of the same file, Universal Email Platform (UEP) may determine that the file is updated by the second user and may apply the changes to replace the first version with the second version):
a processor configured to (Bern; para [0147]):
receive, in a message exchange service for exchanging a message and a document attached to the message, designation of a range of target messages from a user (Bern; para [0101] shows email, instant messaging or online chat between two or more participants; when one participant attaches a new file attachment, all other participants receive his comments and attachments in substantially real-time; para [0104] shows the user may wish to look at only a range of dates, senders, subject, attachments or attachment types (such as text or pictures));
extract documents included in the range (Bern; para [0094] shows if an updated version of the same base file is attached by one user in a conversation, other users in the same conversation will receive the most recent version of the attached file; para [0105] shows a user may search for threads based on various criteria such as date range; para [0112] shows various versions of the same base document or file attachment may be reviewed based on timestamp or contents; para [0137] shows a user may search for threads that have particular attachment types, such as text or image attachments), and
receive a first document [master or base document] designated by the user from among the extracted documents (Bern; para [0101] shows the master attachment; para [0112] shows various versions of the same base document or file attachment may be reviewed based on timestamp or contents);
present, to the user, second documents [updates] that are documents related to the first document from among the extracted documents (Bern; para [0094] shows if an updated version of the same base file is attached by one user in a conversation, other users in the same conversation will receive the most recent version of the attached file; para [0101] shows the system simply updates the master attachment rather than having multiple copies of different versions of the same attachment; para [0112] shows various versions of the same base document or file attachment may be reviewed, based on timestamp or contents, and the latest version is posted in the virtual conversation accessible by all participants); and
receive a document designated by the user from among the second documents (Bern; para [0094] shows attachments and versioning software module 462 may provide version control for binary attachments such as text or slide files his module may further provide previews for common file types attached to email messages so a user does not have to fully open an attached file to see its contents).
Bern fails to show:
present, to the user, second documents that are revised version documents of the first document from among the extracted documents; and
perform version management of the designated second document together with the first document such that a history of revision of the designated second document is presented to the user.
However, Choudhury discloses:
present, to the user, second documents that are revised version documents of the first document from among the extracted documents ([Abstract] shows a document management system; revision history timelines can be rendered, thereby providing users with a visual understanding of how content contained within a given document relates to content contained in other documents managed by the document management system); and
perform version management of the designated second document together with the first document such that a history of revision of the designated second document is presented to the user (Fig. 6 and para [0054] show a sequence of document history revision events. New Document A was added to document repository 160. Therefore new timeline T1 was created for new Document A. New Document C was then added to document repository 160, and because it was found to resemble existing Document A, it was added to timeline T1. New Document F was then added to document repository 160, and because it was found to resemble existing Document C, it was added to timeline T1.)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the system in Bern with the teaching of Choudhury in order to associate content provided within a managed document with a content-based revision history timeline (Choudhury; para [0011]).
Regarding claim 2, Bern-Choudhury discloses the information processing apparatus according to claim 1, wherein the processor is configured to:
specify a storage date and time of the extracted document, and present, to the user, a document having an oldest storage date and time as a candidate of the first document (Bern; para [0021] shows some cloud computing solutions let users store content and files on a location that is accessible from any computer; para [0080] shows a first user attaches a binary file, such as a Word document, and sends it; para [0101] shows the system simply updates the master attachment rather than having multiple copies of different versions of the same attachment; para [0112] shows various versions of the same base document or file attachment may be reviewed based on timestamp or contents).
Regarding claim 4, Bern-Choudhury discloses the information processing apparatus according to claim 1, wherein the processor is configured to:
present, to the user, messages to which the first document or the second document is attached (Bern; para [0101] shows when one participant responds to a comment in the stream or attaches a new digital object, such as a file attachment, all other participants receive his comments and attachments in substantially real-time).
Regarding claim 5, Bern-Choudhury discloses the information processing apparatus according to claim 4, wherein the processor is configured to:
receive a message designated by the user from among the presented messages; and manage the designated message together with the first document and documents as targets of the version management (Bern; para [0080] shows attachment versioning or dynamic version updating in which when a first user attaches a binary file, such as a Word document, and sends it, and a second user uploads a revised version of the same file, Universal Email Platform (UEP) may determine that the file is updated by the second user and may apply the changes to replace the first version with the second version).
Regarding claim 6, Bern-Choudhury discloses information processing apparatus according to claim 1, wherein the processor is configured to:
present, to the user, documents that are not targets of the version management among the second documents; and manage a document designated by the user among the presented documents that are not targets of the version management as information representing properties of the first document and documents that are targets of the version management (Bern; para [0101] shows when one participant responds to a comment in the stream or attaches a new digital object, such as a file attachment, all other participants receive his comments and attachments in substantially real-time).
Regarding claim 7, claim 7 is directed to a computer readable medium. Claim 7 requires limitations that are similar to those recited in the system claim 1 to carry out the method steps. And since Bern-Choudhury combined teaches the system that carries out the method including limitations required to carry out the method steps, therefore claim 7 would have also been obvious in view of Bern-Choudhury combined.
Furthermore, Bern-Choudhury discloses a non-transitory computer readable medium storing program causing a computer to execute a process (Bern; para [0030]).
Regarding claim 8, claim 8 is directed to a method. Claim 8 requires limitations that are similar to those recited in the system claim 1 to carry out the method steps. And since Bern-Choudhury combined teaches the system that carries out the method including limitations required to carry out the method steps, therefore claim 8 would have also been obvious in view of Bern-Choudhury combined.
Claim 3 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Bern in view of Choudhury, further in view of Edelstein et al. (US20130262420A1).
Regarding claim 3, Bern-Choudhury fails to teach the information processing apparatus according to claim 1, wherein the processor is configured to:
present, to the user, a document having a file name similar to a file name of the first document as a candidate of the second document.
However, Edelstein discloses present, to the user, a document having a file name similar to a file name of the first document as a candidate of the second document ([Abstract] shows the management of documents and versions of documents within collaboration and document sharing systems; para [0064] shows determining associations between document versions include finding document versions with similar names.)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the system in Bern-Choudhury with the teaching of Edelstein in order to determine associations between document versions include finding document versions with similar names (Edelstein; para [0064]).
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). 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 TAN DOAN whose telephone number is (571)270-0162. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 8am - 5pm ET.
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, Oscar Louie, can be reached at (571) 270-1684. 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.
/TAN DOAN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2445
Prosecution Insights