DETAILED ACTION
This communication is responsive to Amendment filed 02/18/2026.
Claims 1-5, 7 and 9-22 are pending in this application. In the Amendment, claims 1, 5, 7, 12-15, 17 and 20 are amended, claims 6 and 8 are cancelled and claims 21-22 are new. 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 .
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 02/18/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant argued as recited in the Applicant's Claim 5 and Claim 17, as amended, one embodiment of a bounding-box-free solution comprises examining each point in an annotation input by the user on a device's display and calculating the distance between each of those points and the points that comprise other annotations associated with the display. As such, the process typically involves a greater number of calculations for a given annotation than a conventional bounding box approach. Accordingly, neither DeVoe nor Edala disclose or suggest the Applicant's Claim 5 and Claim 17, as amended.
The Examiner respectfully disagrees as DeVoe’s teaches the claims as amended wherein a plurality of points (touch-down points/lift-off points) are examined in the second annotation within a variable polygon that encompasses the plurality of graphic data points in the second annotation (DeVoe, para.37, 52, 55, 60-64, 68-69; path of contact data points; para.72-74, polygons/padding areas 156, 158, 160 encompass data points), wherein the examination comprises calculating a horizontal radius for each point of the plurality of graphic data points in the second annotation and a vertical radius for each point of the plurality of graphic data points in the second annotation within the variable polygon (DeVoe, Fig.9, padding distance 170 within each polygons/padding areas 156, 158, 160; para.68-74).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The rejection has been withdrawn as necessitated by the amendment.
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 1-5, 7, 9-11 and 13-22 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over DeVoe et al. (“DeVoe”, US 2019/0294660) in view of Edala et al. (“Edala”, US 2012/0060082).
As per claim 5, DeVoe teaches a computerized annotation system, comprising:
a computer memory (DeVoe, Fig.1, memory 20; para.40);
a display screen (DeVoe, Fig.1, display 12) that displays a document having text characters, wherein the text characters have an underlying document representation stored in the computer memory (DeVoe, para.76, Fig.7, store document data 128, Fig.13, para.91, underlying document data; para.57, document layer);
an input detector module that:
receives a first annotation to the document displayed on the display screen, wherein the first annotation comprises a plurality of graphic data points produced by interaction between the display screen and an input mechanism (DeVoe, Figs.6, 13-20D, annotation 72; para.37, 52, 55, 60-64, 68-69; annotations over document image; series of contact data points), wherein the input detector module initiates storage of the first annotation in the computer memory and initiates an update to the display screen to show both the document and the first annotation (DeVoe, para.50, 66-67, 76, Fig.7, store annotation inputs with document data 128); and
receives a second annotation to the document displayed on the display screen, wherein the second annotation comprises a plurality of graphic data points produced by interaction between the display screen and the input mechanism and wherein the second annotation is received within a predetermined time of the first annotation (DeVoe, para.72-74, padding overlap within duration), wherein the input detector module stores the second annotation in the computer memory, wherein the display screen updates to show both the document, the first annotation, and the second annotation (DeVoe, para.50, 66-67, 76, Fig.7, store annotation inputs);
an anchor module that:
examines each point of the plurality of graphic data points in the second annotation within a variable polygon that encompasses the plurality of graphic data points in the second annotation (DeVoe, para.37, 52, 55, 60-64, 68-69; path of contact data points; para.72-74, polygons/padding areas 156, 158, 160 encompass data points), wherein the examination comprises calculating a horizontal radius for each point of the plurality of graphic data points in the second annotation and a vertical radius for each point of the plurality of graphic data points in the second annotation within the variable polygon (DeVoe, Fig.9, padding distance 170 within each polygons/padding areas 156, 158, 160; para.68-74), forming a plurality of horizontal radii and a plurality of vertical radii from the second annotation (DeVoe, Fig.9, padding distance 170 within each polygons/padding areas 156, 158, 160; para.68-74);
links the first annotation to the second annotation in the computer memory to form a composite annotation if at least one horizontal radii of the plurality of horizontal radii and at least one vertical radii of the plurality of vertical radii overlap with a graphical data point of plurality of graphic data points for the first annotation (DeVoe, para.65, 72-74, annotations grouped into clusters based on padding area overlap).
However, DeVoe does not teach that each text character in the document has a unique identifier. Edala teaches a system of annotating documents wherein each text character is associated with a unique identifier (Edala, para.30, 34, 37-, 47-48, 57, document shingles represent text to anchor to). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to include Edala’s teaching with DeVoe’s system in order to determine exact anchor locations within documents.
As per claim 1, the system of DeVoe and Edala teaches the computerized annotation system of claim 5, comprising:
wherein the anchor module further:
calculates a center for the first annotation (DeVoe, para.82-83, central point of annotation);
determines a text character in the document whose presentation on the display screen lies in closest proximity to the determined first annotation center (DeVoe, para.57, 66, 75, 79, 82-84, text of underlying document data associated with annotation); and
stores a link between the unique identifier of the determined text character (Edala, para.30, 34, 37-, 47-48, 57, document shingles represent text to anchor to) and the first annotation in the computer memory, wherein the link is an anchor point for the first annotation and the document such that display of the first annotation with the determined text character remain linked in future displays of the document (DeVoe, para.56-57, 66, 75, 79, 82-84, anchor location 78).
As per claim 2, the system of DeVoe and Edala teaches the computerized annotation system of claim 1 wherein the input detector module receives an edit to the document that causes text characters in the document displayed on the display screen to move to a new location on the display screen, including the text character of the anchor point, the computerized annotation system, further comprising a display system that uses the link to move display of the first annotation a predetermined distance corresponding to movement of the anchor point in the display of the document on the display screen (DeVoe, para.77, 87, 90-94, subsequent modifications to document moves anchor location).
As per claim 3, the system of DeVoe and Edala teaches the computerized annotation system of claim 2 wherein the predetermined distance is no more than 10% of the anchor point movement (DeVoe, para.94, move distance 334; Edala, para.99).
As per claim 4, the system of DeVoe and Edala teaches the computerized annotation system of claim 1 wherein the anchor module calculating the center for the first annotation comprises calculating a weighted center for the first annotation, such that portions of the first annotation closer to the document on the display screen receive higher weight in determining the center for the first annotation (DeVoe, para.85; Edala, para.63, candidate anchoring position).
As per claim 7, the system of DeVoe and Edala teaches the computerized annotation system of claim 5, wherein the anchor module determining if the overlap between the first annotation and the second annotation on the display (DeVoe, para.72-74, padding area overlap), further comprises:
determining if the first annotation is contained within the second annotation (DeVoe, Fig.9, ellipsoid 156, 160; para.72-74, padding area overlap); and
determining if the second annotation is contained within the first annotation, wherein if the anchor module detects one of the first annotation contained within the second annotation and the second annotation contained within the first annotation, the anchor module finds that the first annotation and the second annotation overlap (DeVoe, para.72-74, padding area overlap).
As per claim 9, the system of DeVoe and Edala teaches the computerized annotation system of claim 1, the computerized annotation system wherein the input detector module receives an edit to the document, wherein the edit originated on another computing system (DeVoe, para.58-59, 90, annotations may be by other users), the input detector module further configured to:
store the edit to the document in the computer memory and cause the display screen to update display of the document by displaying the first annotation up to a predetermined distance corresponding to movement of the anchor point in the document (DeVoe, para.50, 58-59, 66-67, 76, 90).
As per claim 10, the system of DeVoe and Edala teaches the computerized annotation system of claim 9 wherein the received edit to the document comprises at least one of an addition to a text character in the document and a deletion of a text character in the document (DeVoe, para.59, 77, 88, modification of document).
As per claim 11, the system of DeVoe and Edala teaches the computerized annotation system of claim 9, wherein the input detector module is further configured to:
change a position of one or more text characters in the document on the display screen to accommodate the edit, the determined text character being one of the one or more text characters changing positions on the display screen (DeVoe, Figs.6, 13-20D, para.87-94, add/delete text); and
change a position of the annotation based on the position change of the determined text character (DeVoe, Figs.6, 13-20D, para.59, 87-94, anchor changed).
As per claim 13, the system of DeVoe and Edala teaches the computerized annotation system of claim 5 wherein the input mechanism comprises one of a stylus and a human finger (DeVoe, para.61, stylus).
As per claim 14, the system of DeVoe and Edala teaches the computerized annotation system of claim 5 wherein a future display of the future displays of the document comprises display of the document on another computing device (DeVoe, para. 56-59, 66, 75, 79, 82-84, 90, annotations may be by other users).
Claim 15 is similar in scope to claim 1, and is therefore rejected under similar rationale.
Claim 16 is similar in scope to claim 2, and is therefore rejected under similar rationale.
Claim 17 is similar in scope to claim 5, and is therefore rejected under similar rationale.
Claim 18 is similar in scope to claim 4, and is therefore rejected under similar rationale.
Claim 19 is similar in scope to claim 9, and is therefore rejected under similar rationale.
Claim 20 is similar in scope to claim 7, and is therefore rejected under similar rationale.
As per claim 21, the system of DeVoe and Edala teaches the computerized annotation system of claim 5, wherein the anchor module is further configured to: calculate a center for the composite annotation (DeVoe, para.82-83, central point of annotation); determine a text character in the document whose presentation on the display screen lies in closest proximity to the composite annotation center (DeVoe, para.57, 66, 75, 79, 82-84, text of underlying document data associated with annotation); and storing a link to the unique identifier of the determined text character and the composite annotation in the computer memory, wherein the stored link is an anchor point for the composite annotation and the document such that display of the composite annotation with document remains linked in future displays of the document (DeVoe, para.56-57, 66, 75, 79, 82-84, anchor location 78).
Claim 22 is similar in scope to claim 21, and is therefore rejected under similar rationale.
Claim 12 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over DeVoe et al. (“DeVoe”, US 2019/0294660) and Edala et al. (“Edala”, US 2012/0060082) in view of Thimbleby et al. (“Thimbleby”, US 2020/0005510).
As per claim 12, the system of DeVoe and Edala teaches the computerized annotation system of claim 5, however does not teach wherein the computerized annotation system operates for a sole user in a non-collaborative mode, wherein the document displayed on the display screen is encoded in a conflict-free replicated data type (CRDT) data structure in the computer memory. Thimbleby teaches a system of stroke input for a sole user in a non-collaborative mode, wherein the document displayed on the display screen is encoded in a conflict-free replicated data type (CRDT) data structure in the computer memory (Thimbleby, para.66-68, CRDT for updates). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to include Thimbleby’s teaching with the system of DeVoe and Edala in order to make updates independently and concurrently.
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.
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Forcier (US 6,499,043) teaches a method of combining strokes groups that are within a predetermined distance.
Inquiries
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to SAJEDA MUHEBBULLAH whose telephone number is (571)272-4065. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Tue/Thur-Fri 10am-8pm.
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, William L Bashore can be reached at 571-272-4088. 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.
/S.M./
Sajeda MuhebbullahExaminer, Art Unit 2174
/WILLIAM L BASHORE/ Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2174