DETAILED ACTION
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
This action is responsive to the Amendment filed on 06/17/2026.
Claims 1-3, 5-16 and 18-21 are pending in the case.
Claims 4 and 17 have been cancelled.
No further claims have been added.
Claims 1, 18 and 19 are independent claims.
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.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claim(s) 1, 5, 7-10, 15, 16, 18 and 19 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sreenivasan et al. (US 2022/0414323 A1, filed on 06/25/2021, hereinafter “Sreenivasan”) in view of Misra et al. (US 2021/0397270 A1, filed on 06/21/2021, hereinafter “Misra”) and further in view of Gupta et al. (US 9,529,788 B1, issued 12/27/2016, hereinafter “Gupta”).
Independent Claims 1, 18 and 19:
Sreenivasan discloses an electronic device comprising:
one or more processors (Sreenivasan: Fig. 10, ¶ [0107]); and
a storage device [non-transitory computer-readable storage medium] for storing one or more programs, the one or more programs, when executed by the one or more processors, causing the one or more processors to implement a method comprising (Sreenivasan: Fig. 10, ¶ [0107]-[0110]):
in response to receiving a presenting operation for a document content, displaying at least one first document identification at a first predetermined position in a content page of a document (In response to the user triggering the document creation request by selecting control element 210, a document template selection interface is displayed and comprises recommended document templates, Sreenivasan: Fig. 5, ¶ [0077]-[0078]. The document template selection interface can be displayed in a position that is within the content page of the document, Sreenivasan: Figs. 3A and 4, ¶ [0063].); and
in response to receiving a search operation, displaying a second document identification (The user can enter text via the search field input and the selection interface may display a list of document templates that correspond to the search input, Sreenivasan: Fig. 3A, ¶ [0063].)
Although Sreenivasan does not explicitly teach what happens to the recommended document templates when the user enters the search input, it is a known feature to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to replace recommended items with search results. For example, Misra teaches that when the user provides a search input, recommended items are replaced with items corresponding to the user’s search input, Misra: Fig. 6F, ¶ [0199].
Accordingly, 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 method of Sreenivasan wherein in response to receiving the search operation, replacing a recommended item with a search result item, as taught by Misra.
One would have been motivated to make such a combination in order to improve the user’s experience by providing the user with a less cluttered search interface (Misra: Fig. 6F, ¶ [0199]).
In combination, Sreenivasan in view of Misra teaches a method in response to receiving a search operation, replacing or hiding the first document identification (The user can enter text via the search field input and the selection interface may display a list of document templates that correspond to the search input, Sreenivasan: Fig. 3A, ¶ [0063]. When the user provides a search input, recommended items are replaced with items corresponding to the user’s search input, Misra: Fig. 6F, ¶ [0199]).
Sreenivasan in view of Misra does not appear to expressly teach a method wherein the search operation corresponds to an editing operation at a second predetermined position in the content page.
However, Gupta teaches a method wherein the search operation corresponds to an editing operation at a second predetermined position in the content page and wherein the replacing or hiding the first document identification comprises in response to receiving a content input operation in a second content type region at the second predetermined position in the content page, obtaining an inputted content and obtaining a second document identification based on the inputted content and replacing the first document identification with the second document identification (The user can create a new job post (document) that includes a field for a job title, in response to inputting a job title, a search is performed for job templates that sufficiently match the user input, Gupta: Fig. 5A, column 9 lines 30-42 and column 10 lines 6-27. Accordingly, Examiner considers the operation to input the job title to be a search operation since it triggers a search for templates. The Job templates can be displayed within the same page as the job post form and can comprise a first set of templates, Gupta: Fig. 3, column 5 lines 22-50. As can be seen in comparing Figs. 3 and 5A, when the input for the job title is provided, the first set of templates are replaced with a second set that corresponds to the user’s input. ).
Accordingly, 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 method of Sreenivasan in view of Misra wherein the search operation corresponds to an editing operation at a second predetermined position in the content page and wherein the replacing or hiding the first document identification comprises in response to receiving a content input operation in a second content type region at the second predetermined position in the content page, obtaining an inputted content and obtaining a second document identification based on the inputted content and replacing the first document identification with the second document identification, as taught by Gupta.
One would have been motivated to make such a combination in order to improve the user’s experience by providing a more efficient means for triggering a search for relevant document templates (Gupta: Fig. 5A, column 9 lines 30-42 and column 10 lines 6-27).
Claim 5:
The rejection of claim 4 is incorporated. Sreenivasan in view of Misra and further in view of Gupta further teaches a method wherein the replacing the first document identification with the second document identification comprises: hiding the first document identification and displaying the second document identification at a corresponding position of the first document identification (In response to the user triggering the document creation request by selecting control element 210, a document template selection interface is displayed and comprises recommended document templates, Sreenivasan: Fig. 5, ¶ [0077]-[0078]. The user can enter text via the search field input and the selection interface may display a list of document templates that correspond to the search input, Sreenivasan: Fig. 3A, ¶ [0063]. The search input can be performed in response to inputting a job title in a document content field, Gupta: Fig. 5A, column 9 lines 30-42 and column 10 lines 6-27. When the user provides a search input, recommended items are replaced with items corresponding to the user’s search input, Misra: Fig. 6F, ¶ [0199].).
Claim 7:
The rejection of claim 1 is incorporated. Sreenivasan in view of Misra and further in view of Gupta further teaches a method further comprising:
in response to receiving a presenting operation on a document content, displaying a first component at the first predetermined position (In response to the user triggering the document creation request by selecting control element 210, a document template selection interface is displayed and comprises recommended document templates, Sreenivasan: Fig. 5, ¶ [0077]-[0078]. The document template selection interface comprises a dismiss control element 222-1 (first component), Sreenivasan: Fig. 3A, ¶ [0063].); and
in response to a triggering operation on the first component, hiding a content of the first predetermined position (When the user selects the dismiss control 222-1 the document template selection interface is dismissed (hiding a content of the first predetermined position), Sreenivasan: ¶ [0064].).
Claim 8:
The rejection of claim 1 is incorporated. Sreenivasan in view of Misra and further in view of Gupta further teaches a method further comprising:
in response to receiving a presenting operation for a document content, displaying a second component at the first predetermined position (In response to the user triggering the document creation request by selecting control element 210, a document template selection interface is displayed and comprises recommended document templates, Sreenivasan: Fig. 5, ¶ [0077]-[0078]. A list display control element 220-1, Sreenivasan: ¶ [0064].);
in response to a triggering operation for the second component, displaying a document identification interface, the document identification interface comprising at least one document identification which has an association relationship with the editing operation (The user can select the list display control element in order to cause all available templates to be shown, Sreenivasan: ¶ [0064]. The user can select the “Browse All” link to view all canned templates, Gupta: Fig. 3, column 6 lines 11-24. The canned templates are related to jobs, Sreenivasan: column 5 lines 31-50. The editing operation pertains to jobs, Gupta: column 5 lines 31-50.).
One would have been motivated to make such a combination in order to improve the user’s experience by enabling the user to better manage the different type of document templates (Gupta: Fig. 3, column 6 lines 11-24).
Claim 9:
The rejection of claim 1 is incorporated. Sreenivasan in view of Misra and further in view of Gupta further teaches a method further comprising:
in response to a triggering operation for the first document identification, obtaining a target document content corresponding to the first document identification, displaying the target document content at a content page of the document, and hiding a content of the first document identification and/or the first predetermined position (Sreenivasan: Figs. 3A-3B, ¶ [0062], [0071]).
Claim 10:
The rejection of claim 1 is incorporated. Sreenivasan in view of Misra and further in view of Gupta further teaches a method further comprising:
in response to a triggering operation for the first document identification, displaying a first document page, the first document page comprising a document content corresponding to the first document identification (Sreenivasan: Figs. 3A-3B, ¶ [0062], [0071]).
Claim 15:
The rejection of claim 8 is incorporated. Sreenivasan in view of Misra and further in view of Gupta further teaches a method wherein the in response to a triggering operation for the second component, displaying a document identification interface comprises:
if the number of obtained second document identifications is greater than a predetermined number, in response to a triggering operation for the second component, displaying a document identification interface, the document identification interface comprising at least one second document identification and at least one second document identification (If the number of document templates that are displayed in response to selecting the list display control is more than the number that can be displayed at one time (predetermined number), a scrollable interface is displayed with the maximum amount of document templates that can be displayed and additional document templates are accessible via a scrolling input, Sreenivasan: Fig. 3A, ¶ [0064].); or,
if the number of obtained second document identifications is less than or equal to a predetermined number, in response to a triggering operation for the second component, displaying a document identification interface, the document identification interface comprising at least one first document identification.
Claim 16:
The rejection of claim 1 is incorporated. Sreenivasan in view of Misra and further in view of Gupta further teaches a method wherein the obtaining a second document identification based on the content and replacing the first document identification with the second document identification comprises:
obtaining the second document identification by performing a fuzzy search in a template library based on the content to, and replacing the first document identification with the second document identification (In response to the user triggering the document creation request by selecting control element 210, a document template selection interface is displayed and comprises recommended document templates, Sreenivasan: Fig. 5, ¶ [0077]-[0078]. The user can enter text via the search field input and the selection interface may display a list of document templates that correspond to the search input, Sreenivasan: Fig. 3A, ¶ [0063]. The search input can be performed in response to inputting a job title in a document content field, Gupta: Fig. 5A, column 9 lines 30-42 and column 10 lines 6-27. When the user provides a search input, recommended items are replaced with items corresponding to the user’s search input, Misra: Fig. 6F, ¶ [0199]. The search input string does not need to match the template identifier exactly (fuzzy search), Gupta: Fig. 5A, column 9 lines 30-42.).
One would have been motivated to make such a combination in order to provide a more effective means of returning relevant search results (Gupta: Fig. 5A, column 9 lines 30-42.).
Claim(s) 2, 3, 20 and 21 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sreenivasan in view of Misra, further in view of Gupta and further in view of Borzello et al. (US 2014/0201672 A1, published 07/17/2014, hereinafter “Borzello”).
Claims 2 and 20:
The rejection of claims 1 and 18 are incorporated. Sreenivasan in view of Misra and further in view of Gupta does not appear to expressly teach a device and method wherein the in response to receiving an editing operation at a second predetermined position in the content page, replacing or hiding the first document identification comprises:
in response to receiving a content input operation in a first content type region at a second predetermined position in the content page, hiding the first document identification.
However, Borzello teaches a device and method wherein in response to receiving an input operation in an area not pertaining to a menu interface, hiding the menu interface (Borzello: Fig. 2, ¶ [0059]).
Accordingly, 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 device and method of Sreenivasan in view of Misra and further in view of Gupta wherein in response to receiving an input operation in an area not pertaining to a menu interface, hiding the menu interface, as taught by Borzello.
One would have been motivated to make such a combination in order to improve the user’s experience by providing a more efficient means of dismissing the menu interface (Borzello: Fig. 2, ¶ [0059]).
In combination, Sreenivasan in view of Misra, further in view of Gupta and further in view of Borzello teaches a device and method wherein the in response to receiving an editing operation at a second predetermined position in the content page, replacing or hiding the first document identification comprises:
in response to receiving a content input operation in a first content type region at a second predetermined position in the content page, hiding the first document identification (The template menu interface is displayed on the document content page, Sreenivasan: Fig. 3A, ¶ [0077]; Gupta: Fig. 5A. When the user provides input on a job title field, a search operation is performed for the template menu interface: Gupta: column 9 lines 30-36. Accordingly, in this combination the job title field is effectively an area that serves as an input area for the menu interface. There are other input fields that do not affect the template menu interface, Gupta: Fig. 5A, column 4 lines 22-67 and column 5 lines 1-3. When the user performs an action that is outside of the menu or the conditions for surfacing a predictive command are not met, the menu interface is dismissed, DeMello: Fig. 7, ¶ [0073]. The conditions for surfacing a predictive command includes providing input into the job title field, Gupta: column 9 lines 30-42. Accordingly, in this combination, if the user provides input to another field other than the job title field, the template menu would be automatically dismissed and the templates within the menu (first document identification) would effectively be hidden.).
Claims 3 and 21:
The rejection of claims 1 and 18 are incorporated. Sreenivasan in view of Misra and further in view of Gupta does not appear to expressly teach a device and method wherein the in response to receiving an editing operation at a second predetermined position in the content page, replacing or hiding the first document identification comprises:
in response to receiving a focus location operation in a first content type region at a second predetermined position in the content page, hiding the first document identification.
However, Borzello teaches a device and method wherein in response to receiving an input operation in an area not pertaining to a menu interface, hiding the menu interface (Borzello: Fig. 2, ¶ [0059]).
Accordingly, 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 device and method of Sreenivasan in view of Misra and further in view of Gupta wherein in response to receiving an input operation in an area not pertaining to a menu interface, hiding the menu interface, as taught by Borzello.
One would have been motivated to make such a combination in order to improve the user’s experience by providing a more efficient means of dismissing the menu interface (Borzello: Fig. 2, ¶ [0059]).
In combination, Sreenivasan in view of Misra, further in view of Gupta and further in view of Borzello teaches a device and method wherein the in response to receiving an editing operation at a second predetermined position in the content page, replacing or hiding the first document identification comprises:
in response to receiving a focus location operation in a first content type region at a second predetermined position in the content page, hiding the first document identification (The template menu interface is displayed on the document content page, Sreenivasan: Fig. 3A, ¶ [0077]; Gupta: Fig. 5A. When the user provides input on a job title field, a search operation is performed for the template menu interface: Gupta: column 9 lines 30-36. Accordingly, in this combination the job title field is effectively an area that serves as an input area for the menu interface. There are other input fields that do not affect the template menu interface, Gupta: Fig. 5A, column 4 lines 22-67 and column 5 lines 1-3. When the user performs an action that is outside of the menu or the conditions for surfacing a predictive command are not met, the menu interface is dismissed, DeMello: Fig. 7, ¶ [0073]. The conditions for surfacing a predictive command includes providing input into the job title field, Gupta: column 9 lines 30-42. Accordingly, in this combination, if the user provides input to another field other than the job title field, the template menu would be automatically dismissed and the templates within the menu (first document identification) would effectively be hidden.).
Claim(s) 11 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sreenivasan in view of Misra, further in view of Gupta and further in view of Furtwangler et al. (US 2016/0071303 A1, published 03/10/2016, hereinafter “Furtwangler”).
Claim 11:
The rejection of claim 1 is incorporated. Sreenivasan in view of Misra and further in view of Gupta does not appear to expressly teach a method further comprising:
in response to the first document identification being focused on, moving the first document identification a first predetermined distance along a first direction.
However, Furtwangler teaches a method comprising:
in response to a first item being focused on, moving the first item a first predetermined distance along a first direction (Furtwangler: Fig. 7A-7B, ¶ [0052]).
Accordingly, 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 method of Sreenivasan in view of Misra and further in view of Gupta to comprise:
in response to a first item being focused on, moving the first item a first predetermined distance along a first direction, as taught by Furtwangler.
One would have been motivated to make such a combination in order to improve the user’s experience by providing a more effective means for visually distinguishing focused items in a list of multiple selectable items (Furtwangler: Fig. 7A-7B, abstract, ¶ [0005], [0052]).
In implementing the focus indent feature of Furtwangler into the invention of Sreenivasan in view of Misra and further in view of Gupta, the indented item (as taught by Furtwangler) would correspond to a document template identifier (first document identification) since the list of selectable items corresponds to document template identifiers in the invention of Sreenivasan in view of Misra and further in view of Gupta. Accordingly, in combination, Sreenivasan in view of Misra, further in view of Gupta and further in view of Furtwangler teaches a method further comprising:
in response to the first document identification being focused on, moving the first document identification a first predetermined distance along a first direction.
Claim(s) 12-14 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sreenivasan in view of Misra, further in view of Gupta and further in view of Lapointe (US 2008/0147626 A1, published 06/19/2008, hereinafter “Lapointe”).
Claims 12-14:
The rejection of claim 4 is incorporated. Sreenivasan in view of Misra and further in view of Gupta does not appear to expressly teach a method wherein the obtaining a second document identification based on the content and replacing the first document identification with the second document identification comprises:
if a second document identification is not identified based on the content, displaying prompt information without a second document identification.
However, Lapointe further teaches a method wherein if search results provide zero matches, a prompt is displayed to the user without any results (Lapointe: ¶ [0021].).
Accordingly, 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 method of Sreenivasan in view of Misra and further in view of Gupta wherein if search results provide zero matches, a prompt is displayed to the user without any results, as taught by Lapointe.
One would have been motivated to make such a combination in order to improve the user’s experience by better assisting the user in retrieving search results in zero results are populated in response to the user’s first search operation (Lapointe: ¶ [0021].).
In combination, Sreenivasan in view of Misra, further in view of Gupta and further in view of Lapointe teaches a method wherein the obtaining a second document identification based on the content and replacing the first document identification with the second document identification comprises:
if a second document identification is not identified based on the content, displaying prompt information without a second document identification (In response to the user triggering the document creation request by selecting control element 210, a document template selection interface is displayed and comprises recommended document templates, Sreenivasan: Fig. 5, ¶ [0077]-[0078]. The user can enter text via the search field input and the selection interface may display a list of document templates that correspond to the search input, Sreenivasan: Fig. 3A, ¶ [0063]. The search input can be performed in response to inputting a job title in a document content field, Gupta: Fig. 5A, column 9 lines 30-42 and column 10 lines 6-27. When the user provides a search input, recommended items are replaced with items corresponding to the user’s search input, Misra: Fig. 6F, ¶ [0199]. If search results provide zero matches, a prompt is displayed to the user without any results, Lapointe: ¶ [0021].).
According to MPEP § 2111.04 II, “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. For example, assume a method claim requires step A if a first condition happens and step B if a second condition happens. If the claimed invention may be practiced without either the first or second condition happening, then neither step A or B is required by the broadest reasonable interpretation of the claim.” Since the condition for performing the steps of claims 12 and 13 is not met when the condition of claim 14 is satisfied, the performance recited by these steps need not be carried out for the claimed method to be performed. Accordingly, the evidence of obviousness of these steps is not required.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claim 6 is objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s prior art arguments have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant argues that the prior art of record does not teach “…receiving a content input operation in a second content type region at the second predetermined position in the content page” because the form field of Gupta is not a content editing region within a document content page (Remarks: page 11). Examiner respectfully disagrees.
Gupta teaches an interface for creating a job post (document), Gupta: abstract. Examiner considers an electronic form template used to create a job post to be a document content page, because the electronic form page displays the content for the document. The text input fields provided in the templates used to create the job post are characterized by Gupta as containing “editable content”, Gupta: abstract, column 2 lines 40-49. This is not dissimilar to the text input fields used in Sreenivasan to create a document, Sreenivasan: Fig. 3B, ¶ [0071]. Each input field of Gupta corresponds to a different type of content, Gupta: Fig. 5A, column 4 lines 22-52. Accordingly, Gupta clearly teaches the cited limitations.
Applicant also argues that motivation to combine does not provide a sufficient articulated reason to combine the references in the specific manner required to arrive at the claimed invention because the applied references operate in disparate contexts and a person of ordinary skill in the art would not have had a clear reason to modify the combination to arrive at the specific claimed approach (Remarks: pages 12 and 13). Examiner respectfully disagrees.
Each of the cited prior art are in the field of content creation and include search interfaces for assisting in the creation of content. One of ordinary skill in the art would have clear motivation to utilize the different features in the cited references to better assist the user in content creation for the reasons Examiner articulated in the motivation to combine.
Therefore, Examiner respectfully asserts that the cited art sufficiently teaches the limitations recited in the amended claims.
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 DANIEL RODRIGUEZ whose telephone number is (571)272-3633. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 5:30 am - 2:30 pm.
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, Stephen Hong can be reached at (571) 272-4124. 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.
/DANIEL RODRIGUEZ/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2178
Prosecution Insights