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 .
Specification
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.
Claim Objections
Claims 17 and 20 are objected to because of the following informalities:
Claim 17 is an improper independent claim and should be rewritten in proper independent claim format.
Claim 20 recites ‘in card form’; however, it should recite - - in a card form - -.
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Interpretation
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(f):
(f) Element in Claim for a Combination. – An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The claims in this application are given their broadest reasonable interpretation using the plain meaning of the claim language in light of the specification as it would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art. The broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim element (also commonly referred to as a claim limitation) is limited by the description in the specification when 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is invoked.
As explained in MPEP § 2181, subsection I, claim limitations that meet the following three-prong test will be interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
(A) the claim limitation uses the term “means” or “step” or a term used as a substitute for “means” that is a generic placeholder (also called a nonce term or a non-structural term having no specific structural meaning) for performing the claimed function;
(B) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is modified by functional language, typically, but not always linked by the transition word “for” (e.g., “means for”) or another linking word or phrase, such as “configured to” or “so that”; and
(C) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function.
Use of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim with functional language creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites sufficient structure, material, or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Absence of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is not to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is not interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites function without reciting sufficient structure, material or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Claim limitations in this application that use the word “means” (or “step”) are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action. Conversely, claim limitations in this application that do not use the word “means” (or “step”) are not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action.
This application includes one or more claim limitations that do not use the word “means,” but are nonetheless being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, because the claim limitation(s) uses a generic placeholder that is coupled with functional language without reciting sufficient structure to perform the recited function and the generic placeholder is not preceded by a structural modifier. Such claim limitation(s) is/are: an acquiring module and a comparing module in claims 15 and 18-20.
Because this/these claim limitation(s) is/are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, it/they is/are being interpreted to cover the corresponding structure described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof.
If applicant does not intend to have this/these limitation(s) interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, applicant may: (1) amend the claim limitation(s) to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph (e.g., by reciting sufficient structure to perform the claimed function); or (2) present a sufficient showing that the claim limitation(s) recite(s) sufficient structure to perform the claimed function so as to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph.
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.
Claim 4-6, 8, 9 and 13 are 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.
Regarding claim 4, claim 4 recites “jumping to a page where the table, the picture or the newly added page is located, and highlighting the table, the picture or the newly added page, in response to a preset operation for the table, the picture or the newly added page in the first type document, the second type document or the comparison result”. It is unclear how these alternative limitations are intended to relate. It is unclear which limitations “or the newly added page is located, and highlighting the table, the picture or the newly added page” are intended to modify. It is unclear how “or the newly added page in the first type document, the second type document or the comparison result” are intended to relate. It is unclear which limitations “in response to a preset operation for the table” is intended to modify. For the purposes of examination, this limitation is interpreted as: jumping to a page where the table, the picture or the newly added page is located; in response to a preset operation for the table, the picture, the newly added page in the first type document, the second type document, or the comparison result, highlighting the table, the picture, or the newly added page
Regarding claim 5, claim 5 recites “jumping to a page where the table, the picture or the newly added page is located, and displaying the table, the picture or the newly added page in the first type document and the second type document in alignment, in response to a preset operation for the table, the picture or the newly added page in the first type document, the second type document or the comparison result”. It is unclear how these alternative limitations are intended to relate. It is unclear which limitations “or the newly added page is located, and displaying the table” are intended to modify. The claim does not previously recite a “newly added page in the first type document”. The claim does not previously recite a “second type document in alignment”. It is unclear how “or the newly added page in the first type document, the second type document or the comparison result” are intended to relate. It is unclear which limitations “in response to a preset operation for the table” is intended to modify. For the purposes of examination, this limitation is interpreted as: jumping to a page where the table, the picture or the newly added page is located; in response to a preset operation for the table, the picture, the newly added page in the first type document, the second type document or the comparison result, the picture or the newly added page in the first type document and the second type document in alignment
Regarding claim 6, claim 6 recites “in response to a preset operation for the second area, the first type document and the second type document jump to a page corresponding to a comparison result at a preset position of the second area”. It is whether this limitation is intended to recite “in response to a preset operation for the second area, the first type document and the second type document”. It is whether this limitation is intended to recite “the first type document and the second type document jump to a page”. For the purposes of examination, this limitation is interpreted as: jump to a page corresponding to a comparison result at a preset position of the second area, in response to a preset operation for the second area, the first type document and the second type document
Regarding claim 8, claim 8 recites “wherein when a table and/or a picture of one of the first type document and the second type document are displayed on a current page, a comparative display is performed based on a top of the table and/or the picture and a corresponding line number of a page where the table and/or the picture are located”. It is unclear how these alternative limitations are intended to relate. It is unclear which limitations “of one of the first type document and the second type document” are intended to modify. It is unclear how “and/or the picture and a corresponding line number” are intended to relate. For the purposes of examination, this limitation is interpreted as: wherein when a first table or a second picture are displayed on a current page, a comparative display is performed based on a top of the first table, the second picture, or a corresponding line number of a page where the first table or the second picture are located, wherein the second picture is of one of the first type document and the second type document
Regarding claim 9, claim 9 recites “wherein when a table and/or a picture of the first type document and a table and/or a picture of the second type document are both displayed on a current page, a connection mark is displayed in the first type document and the second type document based on tops of corresponding tables and/or pictures”. It is unclear which limitations “of the first type document” and “of the second type document” are intended to modify. It is unclear how “a table and/or a picture of the first type document and a table and/or a picture of the second type document” are intended to relate. It is unclear how “the first type document and the second type document based on tops of corresponding tables and/or pictures” are intended to relate. For the purposes of examination, this limitation is interpreted as: wherein when a first table, a first picture, a second table, or a second picture are displayed on a current page, a connection mark is displayed in the first type document and the second type document, wherein the first picture is of the first type document, the second picture is of the second type document, and the connection mark is based on tops of corresponding tables and/or pictures
Regarding claim 13, claim 13 recites “wherein when a replacement between a picture and characters or a replacement between a table and characters exists between the first type document and the second type document, a corresponding picture, a corresponding table and corresponding characters are highlighted, and replacement description information is displayed in the comparison result”. It is unclear which limitations “or a replacement between a table and characters exists between the first type document and the second type document” are intended to modify. It is unclear how “the second type document, a corresponding picture, a corresponding table and corresponding characters are highlighted, and replacement description information is displayed in the comparison result” are intended to relate. For the purposes of examination, this limitation is interpreted as: wherein when a replacement between a picture, characters, a replacement between, a table, or characters exists between the first type document and the second type document, the comparison result is displayed including a corresponding picture, a corresponding table, corresponding characters are highlighted, and replacement description information
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101
35 U.S.C. 101 reads as follows:
Whoever invents or discovers any new and useful process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter, or any new and useful improvement thereof, may obtain a patent therefor, subject to the conditions and requirements of this title.
Claim 17 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to non-statutory subject matter.
Regarding claim 17, claim 17 recites a storage medium for storing a program code. However, the specification does not define what type of medium is included in the computer-readable memory device. According to MPEP 2111, examiner is obliged to give the terms or phrases their broadest interpretation definition awarded by one of an ordinary skill in the art unless applicant has provided some indication of the definition of the claimed terms or phrases. Therefore, examiner interprets the storage medium as including any type of medium which includes carrier medium such as signals. Signals are directed to a non-statutory subject matter. Thus, claim 17 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 for directing to a non-statutory subject matter. Applicant is advised to amend to “non-transitory” to overcome this rejection.
Claims 1-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
Claims 1, 15, 16, and 17
Step 1: Claims 1, 15, 16, and 17 recite a method, an apparatus, a terminal, and a medium; therefore, they are directed to the statutory categories of a method, a machine, and a manufacture.
Step 2A Prong 1: The claims recite, inter alia:
comparing the first type document with the second type document, and displaying a comparison result of blocky content; Under its broadest reasonable interpretation in light of the specification, this limitation encompasses the mental process of comparing documents to create a comparison result, which is an evaluation or observation that is practically capable of being performed in the human mind with the assistance of pen and paper, or is a mathematical concept that is achievable through mathematical computation.
Step 2A Prong 2: This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. The additional elements of “An information processing method, comprising”, “An information processing apparatus, wherein the information processing apparatus comprises: an acquiring module configured to acquire”, “a comparing module configured to compare”, “A terminal, comprising: at least one memory and at least one processor, wherein the at least one memory is configured to store a program code, and the at least one processor is configured to invoke the program code stored in the at least one memory to”, “A storage medium for storing a program code for executing the information processing method”, and “wherein the first type document is an electronic version of the preset file and the second type document is a scanned version of the preset file” amount to no more than generally linking the use of a judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use (see MPEP § 2106.05(h). The claimed computer components are recited at a high level of generality and are merely invoked as tool to perform the abstract idea. The additional elements of “acquiring a first type document and a second type document of a preset file, and displaying the first type document and the second type document in a first area of a page“ and “displaying a comparison result of blocky content in a second area of the page, wherein the blocky content comprises a picture, a table and/or a newly added page” amount to insignificant extra-solution activity in the form of mere data gathering and output (see MPEP § 2106.05(g)). Even when viewed in combination, these additional element do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application and the claims are thus directed to the abstract idea.
Step 2B: The claims do not contain significantly more than the judicial exception. “An information processing method, comprising”, “An information processing apparatus, wherein the information processing apparatus comprises: an acquiring module configured to acquire”, “a comparing module configured to compare”, “A terminal, comprising: at least one memory and at least one processor, wherein the at least one memory is configured to store a program code, and the at least one processor is configured to invoke the program code stored in the at least one memory to”, “A storage medium for storing a program code for executing the information processing method”, and “wherein the first type document is an electronic version of the preset file and the second type document is a scanned version of the preset file” amount to no more than generally linking the use of a judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use (see MPEP § 2106.05(h)). Mere instructions to apply an exception using a generic computer component cannot provide an inventive concept. The additional elements of “acquiring a first type document and a second type document of a preset file, and displaying the first type document and the second type document in a first area of a page “ and “displaying a comparison result of blocky content in a second area of the page, wherein the blocky content comprises a picture, a table and/or a newly added page” amounts to insignificant extra-solution activity in the form of mere data gathering and output (see MPEP § 2106.05(g)), and is a well-understood, routine, conventional activity (see MPEP § 2106.05(d); “Receiving or transmitting data over a network”). Nothing in the claims provides significantly more than that abstract idea. As such, the claims are ineligible.
Claims 2-14 and 18-20
Step 1: Claims 2-14 and 18-20 recite a method and an apparatus; therefore, they are directed to the statutory categories of a method and a machine.
Step 2: claims 2-14 and 18-20 merely narrow the previously recited abstract idea limitations. For the reasons described above with respect to claims 1, 15, 16, and 17, this judicial exception is not meaningfully integrated into a practical application, or significantly more than the abstract idea. The claims disclose similar limitations described for the independent claims above and do not provide anything more than the mental processes that are practically capable of being performed in the human mind with the assistance of pen and paper and mathematical concepts that are achievable through mathematical computation.
Claims 2, 18, and 20 further recite the additional elements of “wherein the comparison result is displayed in a card form”. These elements amount to insignificant extra-solution activity in the form of mere data gathering and output (see MPEP § 2106.05(g)), and is a well-understood, routine, conventional activity (see MPEP § 2106.05(d); “Receiving or transmitting data over a network”).
Claims 3 and 19 further recite the additional element of “a number of single-line comparison results of the table is greater than a first threshold and/or a number of overall comparison results for the table is greater than a second threshold”. Under its broadest reasonable interpretation in light of the specification, this limitation encompasses the mental process of comparing using a threshold through analysis and elimination, which is an evaluation or observation that is practically capable of being performed in the human mind with the assistance of pen and paper, or is a mathematical concept that is achievable through mathematical computation. The additional elements of “wherein when the blocky content comprises the table” and “all content of the table is displayed in a card” amounts to insignificant extra-solution activity in the form of mere data gathering and output (see MPEP § 2106.05(g)).
Claim 4 further recites the additional elements of “jumping to a page where the table, the picture or the newly added page is located, and highlighting the table, the picture or the newly added page, in response to a preset operation for the table, the picture or the newly added page in the first type document, the second type document or the comparison result”. These elements amount to insignificant extra-solution activity in the form of mere data gathering and output (see MPEP § 2106.05(g)), and is a well-understood, routine, conventional activity (see MPEP § 2106.05(d); “Receiving or transmitting data over a network”).
Claim 5 further recites the additional elements of “jumping to a page where the table, the picture or the newly added page is located, and displaying the table, the picture or the newly added page in the first type document and the second type document in alignment, in response to a preset operation for the table, the picture or the newly added page in the first type document, the second type document or the comparison result”. These elements amount to insignificant extra-solution activity in the form of mere data gathering and output (see MPEP § 2106.05(g)), and is a well-understood, routine, conventional activity (see MPEP § 2106.05(d); “Receiving or transmitting data over a network”).
Claim 6 further recites the additional elements of “wherein in response to a preset operation for the second area, the first type document and the second type document jump to a page corresponding to a comparison result at a preset position of the second area”. These elements amount to insignificant extra-solution activity in the form of mere data gathering and output (see MPEP § 2106.05(g)), and is a well-understood, routine, conventional activity (see MPEP § 2106.05(d); “Receiving or transmitting data over a network”).
Claim 7 further recites the additional elements of “wherein when a plurality of continuous differences between the second type document and the first type document are all newly added pages, a plurality of continuous newly added pages are merged into one card for display, and the plurality of continuous newly added pages are displayed in a form of thumbnails in the one card”. These elements amount to insignificant extra-solution activity in the form of mere data gathering and output (see MPEP § 2106.05(g)), and is a well-understood, routine, conventional activity (see MPEP § 2106.05(d); “Receiving or transmitting data over a network”).
Claim 8 further recites the additional elements of “wherein when a table and/or a picture of one of the first type document and the second type document are displayed on a current page, a comparative display is performed based on a top of the table and/or the picture and a corresponding line number of a page where the table and/or the picture are located”. These elements amount to insignificant extra-solution activity in the form of mere data gathering and output (see MPEP § 2106.05(g)), and is a well-understood, routine, conventional activity (see MPEP § 2106.05(d); “Receiving or transmitting data over a network”).
Claim 9 further recites the additional elements of “wherein when a table and/or a picture of the first type document and a table and/or a picture of the second type document are both displayed on a current page, a connection mark is displayed in the first type document and the second type document based on tops of corresponding tables and/or pictures”. These elements amount to insignificant extra-solution activity in the form of mere data gathering and output (see MPEP § 2106.05(g)), and is a well-understood, routine, conventional activity (see MPEP § 2106.05(d); “Receiving or transmitting data over a network”).
Claim 10 further recites the additional elements of “wherein the comparison result is returned in a form of separate pictures”. These elements amount to insignificant extra-solution activity in the form of mere data gathering and output (see MPEP § 2106.05(g)), and is a well-understood, routine, conventional activity (see MPEP § 2106.05(d); “Receiving or transmitting data over a network”).
Claim 11 further recites the additional elements of “sending a selected corresponding card to a group chat in response to a preset operation for a card of the comparison result”. These elements amount to insignificant extra-solution activity in the form of mere data gathering and output (see MPEP § 2106.05(g)), and is a well-understood, routine, conventional activity (see MPEP § 2106.05(d); “Receiving or transmitting data over a network”).
Claim 12 further recites the additional elements of “automatically sending a preset comparison result and a corresponding description information to an instant messaging application”. These elements amount to insignificant extra-solution activity in the form of mere data gathering and output (see MPEP § 2106.05(g)), and is a well-understood, routine, conventional activity (see MPEP § 2106.05(d); “Receiving or transmitting data over a network”).
Claim 13 further recites the additional elements of “wherein when a replacement between a picture and characters or a replacement between a table and characters exists between the first type document and the second type document, a corresponding picture, a corresponding table and corresponding characters are highlighted, and replacement description information is displayed in the comparison result”. These elements amount to insignificant extra-solution activity in the form of mere data gathering and output (see MPEP § 2106.05(g)), and is a well-understood, routine, conventional activity (see MPEP § 2106.05(d); “Receiving or transmitting data over a network”).
Claim 14 further recites the additional element of “wherein the comparison result further comprises stamp detection information on whether stamps in the first type document and the second type document are matched with a subject”. Under its broadest reasonable interpretation in light of the specification, this limitation encompasses the mental process of determining stamp information, which is an evaluation or observation that is practically capable of being performed in the human mind with the assistance of pen and paper, or is a mathematical concept that is achievable through mathematical computation.
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.
Claims 1-6, 8-10, and 13-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Panferov et al. (US 20150169995 A1, published 06/18/2015), hereinafter Panferov.
Regarding claim 16, Panferov teaches the claim comprising:
A terminal, comprising: at least one memory and at least one processor, wherein the at least one memory is configured to store a program code, and the at least one processor is configured to invoke the program code stored in the at least one memory to (Panferov Figs. 1-12; [0008], One embodiment of the present disclosure relates to a method for presenting differences between a plurality of documents. The method includes identifying, using a computing device comprising one or more processors, one or more differences between a first document and at least one second document of the plurality of document; [0010], Another embodiment relates to a computer-readable storage medium having instructions stored thereon that, when executed by a processor, cause the processor to perform operations; [0070], FIG. 12 shows a possible example of a computer platform (1200) that may be used to implement embodiments of the present disclosure. The computer platform (1200) includes at least one processor (1202) connected to a memory (1204))
acquire a first type document and a second type document of a preset file, and display the first type document and the second type document in a first area of a page, wherein the first type document is an electronic version of the preset file and the second type document is a scanned version of the preset file (Panferov Figs. 1-12; [0024], Using a GUI, the system may allow synchronized display of the documents being compared and directly pointing out visually those places where the user (operator) needs to turn his attention; [0027], Printed documents can be converted into digitally encoded, scanned-document images by various means, including electro-optico-mechanical scanning devices and digital cameras. FIG. 1 illustrates a typical desktop scanner and personal computer that are together used to convert printed documents into digitally encoded electronic documents stored in mass-storage devices and/or electronic memories; [0030], In a digitally encoded scanned-document file, each pixel is represented by a fixed number of bits, with the pixel encodings arranged sequentially; [0035], Referring now to FIG. 5, a flow diagram of a process for comparing documents and finding differences (changes) in the documents; initially only paper documents may be provided for comparison, or only electronic documents. There may also be combined versions of documents provided for input, such as a printed version and an electronic version, and so forth. If this happens, paper versions of the document may be digitized if necessary; for example, paper documents can be scanned, faxed or photographed; [0036], the original documents intended for comparison may be presented in paper form as a file with a "picture" such as .jpeg, or .tiff format, etc.; as a PDF file (vector, scanned, or scanned and containing a text layer); as a file from a text editor (such as MS Word or OpenOffice); or in another way (e.g., in a different type of electronic file format); [0037], FIG. 5 illustrates comparison of two versions of documents to determine whether there are differences between them. However, the number of documents to be compared may not be limited to merely two versions. At step 501, more than two versions of a document may be provided initially for comparison; for example, there may be three (or more) differing versions of documents provided; [0066], FIG. 11 shows an example of a user interface that displays a list of significant differences (1101) and images of two documents being compared, (1102) and (1103));
and compare the first type document with the second type document, and display a comparison result of blocky content in a second area of the page, wherein the blocky content comprises a picture, a table and/or a newly added page (Panferov Figs. 1-12; [0037], FIG. 5 illustrates comparison of two versions of documents to determine whether there are differences between them. However, the number of documents to be compared may not be limited to merely two versions. At step 501, more than two versions of a document may be provided initially for comparison; for example, there may be three (or more) differing versions of documents provided; [0041], At step 505, the system may compare the texts produced using OCR of the documents being analyzed; [0063], In addition to comparing text information using geometry mapping, other information blocks in the document can be compared, such as tables, pictures, stamps, signatures, etc. Comparing the images present in a document may be done by one of the known methods, such as using pixel by pixel comparison. Comparison of tables not only takes into account the text information in them, comparison of which can be done using the method described above, but also takes into account the structures of the tables. In other words, the correspondence of the number of columns, rows and their corresponding coordinates in the document may be taken into account during comparison; [0066], the list of changes may be shown as in FIG. 11 in the form of a recapitulation of the discrepancies (1101) indicating the page on which the discrepancy in question was found. The list (1101) may display a change of the type 6bo.fwdarw.cTao ["was".fwdarw."became"], and additional information may also be shown, such as the number of the page on which the discrepancy was located; [0069], yellow may be the signal that in this area differences of the "deleted" type were found, while red might indicate "inserted", etc)
Regarding claims 1 and 15, claims 1 and 15 contain substantially similar limitations to those found in claim 16. Consequently, claims 1 and 15 are rejected for the same reasons.
Regarding claim 2, Panferov teaches all the limitations of claim 1, further comprising:
wherein the comparison result is displayed in a card form (Panferov Figs. 1-12; [0037], FIG. 5 illustrates comparison of two versions of documents to determine whether there are differences between them. However, the number of documents to be compared may not be limited to merely two versions. At step 501, more than two versions of a document may be provided initially for comparison; for example, there may be three (or more) differing versions of documents provided; [0041], At step 505, the system may compare the texts produced using OCR of the documents being analyzed; [0063], In addition to comparing text information using geometry mapping, other information blocks in the document can be compared, such as tables, pictures, stamps, signatures, etc. Comparing the images present in a document may be done by one of the known methods, such as using pixel by pixel comparison. Comparison of tables not only takes into account the text information in them, comparison of which can be done using the method described above, but also takes into account the structures of the tables. In other words, the correspondence of the number of columns, rows and their corresponding coordinates in the document may be taken into account during comparison; [0066], the list of changes may be shown as in FIG. 11 in the form of a recapitulation of the discrepancies (1101) indicating the page on which the discrepancy in question was found. The list (1101) may display a change of the type 6bo.fwdarw.cTao ["was".fwdarw."became"], and additional information may also be shown, such as the number of the page on which the discrepancy was located; [0069], yellow may be the signal that in this area differences of the "deleted" type were found, while red might indicate "inserted", etc)
Regarding claims 18 and 20, claims 18 and 20 contain substantially similar limitations to those found in claim 2. Consequently, claims 18 and 20 are rejected for the same reasons.
Regarding claim 3, Panferov teaches all the limitations of claim 1, further comprising:
wherein when the blocky content comprises the table and a number of single-line comparison results of the table is greater than a first threshold and/or a number of overall comparison results for the table is greater than a second threshold, all content of the table is displayed in a card (Panferov Figs. 1-12; [0041], At step 505, the system may compare the texts produced using OCR of the documents being analyzed; [0042], the list of discrepancies may be filtered after discarding the differences that are insignificant to the user (operator) or are "false."; [0050], the normalized values of distances between the characters at the edges [of the space], are compared (706). If the values for the distances between the characters at the edges differ insignificantly, such as no more than some threshold value th, then it is considered that the appearance of the extra distance is caused by the characteristics of OCR, so the discrepancy is considered false, and the data may not be shown to the operator. The size for the threshold value th may be previously established or selected (e.g., by a user); [0053], significant discrepancies form a final list of discrepancies intended for the user; [0056], the distance from the last letter before the line break to the right edge of the text in the column is larger than some characteristic threshold value; [0063], In addition to comparing text information using geometry mapping, other information blocks in the document can be compared, such as tables, pictures, stamps, signatures, etc. Comparing the images present in a document may be done by one of the known methods, such as using pixel by pixel comparison. Comparison of tables not only takes into account the text information in them, comparison of which can be done using the method described above, but also takes into account the structures of the tables. In other words, the correspondence of the number of columns, rows and their corresponding coordinates in the document may be taken into account during comparison; [0066], the list of changes may be shown as in FIG. 11 in the form of a recapitulation of the discrepancies (1101) indicating the page on which the discrepancy in question was found. The list (1101) may display a change of the type 6bo.fwdarw.cTao ["was".fwdarw."became"], and additional information may also be shown, such as the number of the page on which the discrepancy was located; [0069], yellow may be the signal that in this area differences of the "deleted" type were found, while red might indicate "inserted", etc)
Regarding claim 19, claim 19 contain substantially similar limitations to those found in claim 3. Consequently, claim 19 is rejected for the same reasons.
Regarding claim 4, Panferov teaches all the limitations of claim 1, further comprising:
jumping to a page where the table, the picture or the newly added page is located, and highlighting the table, the picture or the newly added page, in response to a preset operation for the table, the picture or the newly added page in the first type document, the second type document or the comparison result (Panferov Figs. 1-12; [0041], At step 505, the system may compare the texts produced using OCR of the documents being analyzed; [0053], significant discrepancies form a final list of discrepancies intended for the user; [0056], the distance from the last letter before the line break to the right edge of the text in the column is larger than some characteristic threshold value; [0063], In addition to comparing text information using geometry mapping, other information blocks in the document can be compared, such as tables, pictures, stamps, signatures, etc. Comparing the images present in a document may be done by one of the known methods, such as using pixel by pixel comparison. Comparison of tables not only takes into account the text information in them, comparison of which can be done using the method described above, but also takes into account the structures of the tables. In other words, the correspondence of the number of columns, rows and their corresponding coordinates in the document may be taken into account during comparison; [0066], the list of changes may be shown as in FIG. 11 in the form of a recapitulation of the discrepancies (1101) indicating the page on which the discrepancy in question was found. The list (1101) may display a change of the type 6bo.fwdarw.cTao ["was".fwdarw."became"], and additional information may also be shown, such as the number of the page on which the discrepancy was located; [0069], One of the results of comparison of documents might be, for example, putting the visual displays of the differing areas on the screen (510). For example, if a discrepancy is found in the documents, the specific area (text) where this difference is located is color-highlighted; yellow may be the signal that in this area differences of the "deleted" type were found, while red might indicate "inserted", etc; claim 8, providing a list of the significant differences to the user; and when the user selects a significant difference from the list of significant differences, providing a visualization of the significant difference in the first document and the at least one second document)
Regarding claim 5, Panferov teaches all the limitations of claim 1, further comprising:
jumping to a page where the table, the picture or the newly added page is located, and displaying the table, the picture or the newly added page in the first type document and the second type document in alignment, in response to a preset operation for the table, the picture or the newly added page in the first type document, the second type document or the comparison result (Panferov Figs. 1-12; [0041], At step 505, the system may compare the texts produced using OCR of the documents being analyzed; [0053], significant discrepancies form a final list of discrepancies intended for the user; [0056], the distance from the last letter before the line break to the right edge of the text in the column is larger than some characteristic threshold value; [0063], In addition to comparing text information using geometry mapping, other information blocks in the document can be compared, such as tables, pictures, stamps, signatures, etc. Comparing the images present in a document may be done by one of the known methods, such as using pixel by pixel comparison. Comparison of tables not only takes into account the text information in them, comparison of which can be done using the method described above, but also takes into account the structures of the tables. In other words, the correspondence of the number of columns, rows and their corresponding coordinates in the document may be taken into account during comparison; [0066], the list of changes may be shown as in FIG. 11 in the form of a recapitulation of the discrepancies (1101) indicating the page on which the discrepancy in question was found. The list (1101) may display a change of the type 6bo.fwdarw.cTao ["was".fwdarw."became"], and additional information may also be shown, such as the number of the page on which the discrepancy was located; [0069], One of the results of comparison of documents might be, for example, putting the visual displays of the differing areas on the screen (510). For example, if a discrepancy is found in the documents, the specific area (text) where this difference is located is color-highlighted; yellow may be the signal that in this area differences of the "deleted" type were found, while red might indicate "inserted", etc; claim 8, providing a list of the significant differences to the user; and when the user selects a significant difference from the list of significant differences, providing a visualization of the significant difference in the first document and the at least one second document)
Regarding claim 6, Panferov teaches all the limitations of claim 1, further comprising:
wherein in response to a preset operation for the second area, the first type document and the second type document jump to a page corresponding to a comparison result at a preset position of the second area (Panferov Figs. 1-12; [0041], At step 505, the system may compare the texts produced using OCR of the documents being analyzed; [0053], significant discrepancies form a final list of discrepancies intended for the user; [0056], the distance from the last letter before the line break to the right edge of the text in the column is larger than some characteristic threshold value; [0063], In addition to comparing text information using geometry mapping, other information blocks in the document can be compared, such as tables, pictures, stamps, signatures, etc. Comparing the images present in a document may be done by one of the known methods, such as using pixel by pixel comparison. Comparison of tables not only takes into account the text information in them, comparison of which can be done using the method described above, but also takes into account the structures of the tables. In other words, the correspondence of the number of columns, rows and their corresponding coordinates in the document may be taken into account during comparison; [0066], the list of changes may be shown as in FIG. 11 in the form of a recapitulation of the discrepancies (1101) indicating the page on which the discrepancy in question was found. The list (1101) may display a change of the type 6bo.fwdarw.cTao ["was".fwdarw."became"], and additional information may also be shown, such as the number of the page on which the discrepancy was located; [0069], One of the results of comparison of documents might be, for example, putting the visual displays of the differing areas on the screen (510). For example, if a discrepancy is found in the documents, the specific area (text) where this difference is located is color-highlighted; yellow may be the signal that in this area differences of the "deleted" type were found, while red might indicate "inserted", etc; claim 8, providing a list of the significant differences to the user; and when the user selects a significant difference from the list of significant differences, providing a visualization of the significant difference in the first document and the at least one second document)
Regarding claim 8, Panferov teaches all the limitations of claim 1, further comprising:
wherein when a table and/or a picture of one of the first type document and the second type document are displayed on a current page, a comparative display is performed based on a top of the table and/or the picture and a corresponding line number of a page where the table and/or the picture are located (Panferov Figs. 1-12; [0041], At step 505, the system may compare the texts produced using OCR of the documents being analyzed; [0053], significant discrepancies form a final list of discrepancies intended for the user; [0055], there may be detected differences in the form of additional word wraps and page breaks, changes in page numbering, etc; [0056], the distance from the last letter before the line break to the right edge of the text in the column is larger than some characteristic threshold value; [0063], In addition to comparing text information using geometry mapping, other information blocks in the document can be compared, such as tables, pictures, stamps, signatures, etc. Comparing the images present in a document may be done by one of the known methods, such as using pixel by pixel comparison. Comparison of tables not only takes into account the text information in them, comparison of which can be done using the method described above, but also takes into account the structures of the tables. In other words, the correspondence of the number of columns, rows and their corresponding coordinates in the document may be taken into account during comparison; [0066], the list of changes may be shown as in FIG. 11 in the form of a recapitulation of the discrepancies (1101) indicating the page on which the discrepancy in question was found. The list (1101) may display a change of the type 6bo.fwdarw.cTao ["was".fwdarw."became"], and additional information may also be shown, such as the number of the page on which the discrepancy was located; [0069], One of the results of comparison of documents might be, for example, putting the visual displays of the differing areas on the screen (510). For example, if a discrepancy is found in the documents, the specific area (text) where this difference is located is color-highlighted; yellow may be the signal that in this area differences of the "deleted" type were found, while red might indicate "inserted", etc; claim 8, providing a list of the significant differences to the user; and when the user selects a significant difference from the list of significant differences, providing a visualization of the significant difference in the first document and the at least one second document)
Regarding claim 9, Panferov teaches all the limitations of claim 1, further comprising:
wherein when a table and/or a picture of the first type document and a table and/or a picture of the second type document are both displayed on a current page, a connection mark is displayed in the first type document and the second type document based on tops of corresponding tables and/or pictures (Panferov Figs. 1-12; [0041], At step 505, the system may compare the texts produced using OCR of the documents being analyzed; [0053], significant discrepancies form a final list of discrepancies intended for the user; [0055], there may be detected differences in the form of additional word wraps and page breaks, changes in page numbering, etc; [0056], the distance from the last letter before the line break to the right edge of the text in the column is larger than some characteristic threshold value; [0063], In addition to comparing text information using geometry mapping, other information blocks in the document can be compared, such as tables, pictures, stamps, signatures, etc. Comparing the images present in a document may be done by one of the known methods, such as using pixel by pixel comparison. Comparison of tables not only takes into account the text information in them, comparison of which can be done using the method described above, but also takes into account the structures of the tables. In other words, the correspondence of the number of columns, rows and their corresponding coordinates in the document may be taken into account during comparison; [0066], the list of changes may be shown as in FIG. 11 in the form of a recapitulation of the discrepancies (1101) indicating the page on which the discrepancy in question was found. The list (1101) may display a change of the type 6bo.fwdarw.cTao ["was".fwdarw."became"], and additional information may also be shown, such as the number of the page on which the discrepancy was located; [0069], One of the results of comparison of documents might be, for example, putting the visual displays of the differing areas on the screen (510). For example, if a discrepancy is found in the documents, the specific area (text) where this difference is located is color-highlighted; yellow may be the signal that in this area differences of the "deleted" type were found, while red might indicate "inserted", etc; claim 8, providing a list of the significant differences to the user; and when the user selects a significant difference from the list of significant differences, providing a visualization of the significant difference in the first document and the at least one second document)
Regarding claim 10, Panferov teaches all the limitations of claim 2, further comprising:
wherein the comparison result is returned in a form of separate pictures (Panferov Figs. 1-12; [0041], At step 505, the system may compare the texts produced using OCR of the documents being analyzed; [0053], significant discrepancies form a final list of discrepancies intended for the user; [0055], there may be detected differences in the form of additional word wraps and page breaks, changes in page numbering, etc; [0056], the distance from the last letter before the line break to the right edge of the text in the column is larger than some characteristic threshold value; [0063], In addition to comparing text information using geometry mapping, other information blocks in the document can be compared, such as tables, pictures, stamps, signatures, etc. Comparing the images present in a document may be done by one of the known methods, such as using pixel by pixel comparison. Comparison of tables not only takes into account the text information in them, comparison of which can be done using the method described above, but also takes into account the structures of the tables. In other words, the correspondence of the number of columns, rows and their corresponding coordinates in the document may be taken into account during comparison; [0066], the list of changes may be shown as in FIG. 11 in the form of a recapitulation of the discrepancies (1101) indicating the page on which the discrepancy in question was found. The list (1101) may display a change of the type 6bo.fwdarw.cTao ["was".fwdarw."became"], and additional information may also be shown, such as the number of the page on which the discrepancy was located; [0069], One of the results of comparison of documents might be, for example, putting the visual displays of the differing areas on the screen (510). For example, if a discrepancy is found in the documents, the specific area (text) where this difference is located is color-highlighted; yellow may be the signal that in this area differences of the "deleted" type were found, while red might indicate "inserted", etc; claim 8, providing a list of the significant differences to the user; and when the user selects a significant difference from the list of significant differences, providing a visualization of the significant difference in the first document and the at least one second document)
Regarding claim 13, Panferov teaches all the limitations of claim 1, further comprising:
wherein when a replacement between a picture and characters or a replacement between a table and characters exists between the first type document and the second type document, a corresponding picture, a corresponding table and corresponding characters are highlighted, and replacement description information is displayed in the comparison result (Panferov Figs. 1-12; [0041], At step 505, the system may compare the texts produced using OCR of the documents being analyzed; [0053], significant discrepancies form a final list of discrepancies intended for the user; [0055], there may be detected differences in the form of additional word wraps and page breaks, changes in page numbering, etc; [0056], the distance from the last letter before the line break to the right edge of the text in the column is larger than some characteristic threshold value; [0063], In addition to comparing text information using geometry mapping, other information blocks in the document can be compared, such as tables, pictures, stamps, signatures, etc. Comparing the images present in a document may be done by one of the known methods, such as using pixel by pixel comparison. Comparison of tables not only takes into account the text information in them, comparison of which can be done using the method described above, but also takes into account the structures of the tables. In other words, the correspondence of the number of columns, rows and their corresponding coordinates in the document may be taken into account during comparison; [0066], the list of changes may be shown as in FIG. 11 in the form of a recapitulation of the discrepancies (1101) indicating the page on which the discrepancy in question was found. The list (1101) may display a change of the type 6bo.fwdarw.cTao ["was".fwdarw."became"], and additional information may also be shown, such as the number of the page on which the discrepancy was located; [0069], One of the results of comparison of documents might be, for example, putting the visual displays of the differing areas on the screen (510). For example, if a discrepancy is found in the documents, the specific area (text) where this difference is located is color-highlighted; yellow may be the signal that in this area differences of the "deleted" type were found, while red might indicate "inserted", etc; claim 8, providing a list of the significant differences to the user; and when the user selects a significant difference from the list of significant differences, providing a visualization of the significant difference in the first document and the at least one second document)
Regarding claim 14, Panferov teaches all the limitations of claim 1, further comprising:
wherein the comparison result further comprises stamp detection information on whether stamps in the first type document and the second type document are matched with a subject (Panferov Figs. 1-12; [0041], At step 505, the system may compare the texts produced using OCR of the documents being analyzed; [0053], significant discrepancies form a final list of discrepancies intended for the user; [0055], there may be detected differences in the form of additional word wraps and page breaks, changes in page numbering, etc; [0056], the distance from the last letter before the line break to the right edge of the text in the column is larger than some characteristic threshold value; [0063], In addition to comparing text information using geometry mapping, other information blocks in the document can be compared, such as tables, pictures, stamps, signatures, etc. Comparing the images present in a document may be done by one of the known methods, such as using pixel by pixel comparison. Comparison of tables not only takes into account the text information in them, comparison of which can be done using the method described above, but also takes into account the structures of the tables. In other words, the correspondence of the number of columns, rows and their corresponding coordinates in the document may be taken into account during comparison; [0066], the list of changes may be shown as in FIG. 11 in the form of a recapitulation of the discrepancies (1101) indicating the page on which the discrepancy in question was found. The list (1101) may display a change of the type 6bo.fwdarw.cTao ["was".fwdarw."became"], and additional information may also be shown, such as the number of the page on which the discrepancy was located; [0069], One of the results of comparison of documents might be, for example, putting the visual displays of the differing areas on the screen (510). For example, if a discrepancy is found in the documents, the specific area (text) where this difference is located is color-highlighted; yellow may be the signal that in this area differences of the "deleted" type were found, while red might indicate "inserted", etc; claim 8, providing a list of the significant differences to the user; and when the user selects a significant difference from the list of significant differences, providing a visualization of the significant difference in the first document and the at least one second document)
Regarding claim 17, Panferov teaches all the limitations of claim 1, further comprising:
A storage medium for storing a program code for executing the information processing method according to claim 1 (Panferov Figs. 1-12; [0008], One embodiment of the present disclosure relates to a method for presenting differences between a plurality of documents. The method includes identifying, using a computing device comprising one or more processors, one or more differences between a first document and at least one second document of the plurality of document; [0010], Another embodiment relates to a computer-readable storage medium having instructions stored thereon that, when executed by a processor, cause the processor to perform operations; [0070], FIG. 12 shows a possible example of a computer platform (1200) that may be used to implement embodiments of the present disclosure. The computer platform (1200) includes at least one processor (1202) connected to a memory (1204); see also rejection of claim 1 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.
Claim 7 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Panferov in view of BV et al. (US 20230141448 A1, published 05/11/2023), hereinafter BV.
Regarding claim 7, Panferov teaches all the limitations of claim 2, further comprising:
wherein when a plurality of continuous differences between the second type document and the first type document are all newly added pages, a plurality of continuous newly added pages are merged into one card for display, and the plurality of continuous newly added pages are displayed (Panferov Figs. 1-12; [0041], At step 505, the system may compare the texts produced using OCR of the documents being analyzed; [0053], significant discrepancies form a final list of discrepancies intended for the user; [0055], there may be detected differences in the form of additional word wraps and page breaks, changes in page numbering, etc; [0056], the distance from the last letter before the line break to the right edge of the text in the column is larger than some characteristic threshold value; [0063], In addition to comparing text information using geometry mapping, other information blocks in the document can be compared, such as tables, pictures, stamps, signatures, etc. Comparing the images present in a document may be done by one of the known methods, such as using pixel by pixel comparison. Comparison of tables not only takes into account the text information in them, comparison of which can be done using the method described above, but also takes into account the structures of the tables. In other words, the correspondence of the number of columns, rows and their corresponding coordinates in the document may be taken into account during comparison; [0066], the list of changes may be shown as in FIG. 11 in the form of a recapitulation of the discrepancies (1101) indicating the page on which the discrepancy in question was found. The list (1101) may display a change of the type 6bo.fwdarw.cTao ["was".fwdarw."became"], and additional information may also be shown, such as the number of the page on which the discrepancy was located; [0069], One of the results of comparison of documents might be, for example, putting the visual displays of the differing areas on the screen (510). For example, if a discrepancy is found in the documents, the specific area (text) where this difference is located is color-highlighted; yellow may be the signal that in this area differences of the "deleted" type were found, while red might indicate "inserted", etc; claim 8, providing a list of the significant differences to the user; and when the user selects a significant difference from the list of significant differences, providing a visualization of the significant difference in the first document and the at least one second document)
However, Panferov fails to expressly disclose wherein when a plurality of continuous differences between the second type document and the first type document are all newly added pages, a plurality of continuous newly added pages are merged into one card for display, and the plurality of continuous newly added pages are displayed in a form of thumbnails in the one card. In the same field of endeavor, BV teaches:
wherein when a plurality of continuous differences between the second type document and the first type document are all newly added pages, a plurality of continuous newly added pages are merged into one card for display, and the plurality of continuous newly added pages are displayed in a form of thumbnails in the one card (BV Figs. 1-14; [0026], the various versions of the document in the version history 102 to be compared to identify changes from one version to the next. By comparing a representation of a version of the document to a representation of a previous version of the document, a progression of how the document changed (e.g., what got added when, at what point did something change, was something removed, etc.), can be determined by the design management system 100; [0037], Newly added artboards are categorized as “artboard-addition” changes and removed artboards are categorized as “artboard-deletion.” Artboards are identified as having been added or deleted when there is no corresponding artboard in one of the versions being processed. Similarly, if an element is removed from a version of the document as compared to a previous version, then that change is categorized as a “deletion.” Likewise, if an element is added as compared to a previous version of the document, then that change is categorized as an “addition.”; [0040], FIG. 2 illustrates a diagram of a structure of a document 200; [0044], FIG. 4 illustrates an example of changes to a document; the design management system ranks the highlighted artboard changes as one of the most significant change indexed by “3 February, 2:59 am” with a distance of 400 points from the previous snapshot. Here, as seen, three new artboards 406 as highlighted in the zoom view were added in the “3 February, 2:59 am” version as compared to the “3 February, 1:27 am” version; [0052-0053], the user interface 1000 can include a table that includes a version number/rank 1004, a version timestamp 1006, a thumbnail of the changes 1008, and tags 1010. For example, version 8 is shown as having changes. This is illustrated in thumbnails 1012, which may be selected to show the user an easy to compare view of the version to the previous version. Additionally, the changes have been tagged with a text change tag 1014 indicating that the changes include, but are not limited to, text changes when compared to the previous version. In some embodiments, the user interface 1000 can also include a global summary 1016 which includes the edit type counter data in visual form, indicating the number of each type of change that appears in the version history)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to have incorporated wherein when a plurality of continuous differences between the second type document and the first type document are all newly added pages, a plurality of continuous newly added pages are merged into one card for display, and the plurality of continuous newly added pages are displayed in a form of thumbnails in the one card as suggested in BV into Panferov. Doing so would be desirable because there coediting is a key aim of collaboration, that allows multiple creators to design simultaneously on the same canvas/artboard. Increasingly, design workflows are moving to digital platforms which enable geographic distribution of collaborators. As a result, scenarios wherein designers with varying levels of expertise work together on a common canvas are on the rise. This may take the form of cloud-based documents which may be maintained remotely and accessed by multiple users. Cloud documents enable collaboration—in some cases, real-time coediting. Cloud documents are frequently auto-saved, and these prior saves may be made available to a user via document history or version history. This enables users to browse, access, and restore prior states of the document on which they are collaborating. However, management of changes, particularly over long-lived documents, is complex and it can be difficult to identify the version where specific changes were made to the document without already knowing when those changes were made (see BV [0001]). These and other problems exist with regard to collaborative design in electronic systems (see BV [0002]). Introduced here are techniques/technologies that provide an automated approach to surface changes in a cloud document over time. This enables a different manner of browsing changes and identifying points that may represent inflection points in the lifetime of the document. In some embodiments, a design management system compares versions of a document to clearly demarcate changes that the user might find interesting when solving the problem of choosing which version of the document to open or mark as a milestone. These identified inflection points can then be leveraged by users for increased ease in navigation as well as to mark bookmarked versions for archival and future use (see BV [0003]). prior systems do not tackle the problem of understanding changes in the complex digital design space, wherein the scope of changes can range from minute (changing the border thickness of a rectangle) to significant (changing the emotional theme of the canvas). No attempt is made at deriving the intent and/or ranking (e.g., by quality, significance, etc.) the changes. Text-editing models and image-editing models apply simple changes with a restricted scope across small time periods. Embodiments gather and summarize changes across much larger time periods, such as all or some of the lifecycle of a design document (see BV [0021]).
Claims 11 and 12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Panferov in view of Costenaro et al. (US 20120284344 A1, published 11/08/2012), hereinafter Costenaro.
Regarding claim 11, Panferov teaches all the limitations of claim 2, further comprising:
sending a selected corresponding card (Panferov Figs. 1-12; [0041], At step 505, the system may compare the texts produced using OCR of the documents being analyzed; [0063], In addition to comparing text information using geometry mapping, other information blocks in the document can be compared, such as tables, pictures, stamps, signatures, etc. Comparing the images present in a document may be done by one of the known methods, such as using pixel by pixel comparison. Comparison of tables not only takes into account the text information in them, comparison of which can be done using the method described above, but also takes into account the structures of the tables. In other words, the correspondence of the number of columns, rows and their corresponding coordinates in the document may be taken into account during comparison; [0066], the list of changes may be shown as in FIG. 11 in the form of a recapitulation of the discrepancies (1101) indicating the page on which the discrepancy in question was found. The list (1101) may display a change of the type 6bo.fwdarw.cTao ["was".fwdarw."became"], and additional information may also be shown, such as the number of the page on which the discrepancy was located; [0069], One of the results of comparison of documents might be, for example, putting the visual displays of the differing areas on the screen (510). For example, if a discrepancy is found in the documents, the specific area (text) where this difference is located is color-highlighted; yellow may be the signal that in this area differences of the "deleted" type were found, while red might indicate "inserted", etc; claim 8, providing a list of the significant differences to the user; and when the user selects a significant difference from the list of significant differences, providing a visualization of the significant difference in the first document and the at least one second document)
However, Costenaro fails to expressly disclose sending a selected corresponding card to a group chat in response to a preset operation for a card of the comparison result. In the same field of endeavor, Costenaro teaches:
sending a selected corresponding card to a group chat in response to a preset operation for a card of the comparison result (Costenaro Figs. 1-9; abs. Changes made to a document are automatically summarized within an electronic message; [0003], A reviewer may make many different types of changes to the document (e.g. deleting/adding content, adding comments, and the like). After making any changes to the document, a summary of the changes is automatically inserted into an electronic message that is then sent to one or more recipients; [0022], Messaging application(s) 24 may be one or more different messaging applications. For example, computing device 100 may include an email application, an Instant Messaging (IM) application, an SMS, MMS application, a real-time information network (e.g. Twitter.RTM. interface), a social networking application, and the like; [0024], Summary manager 26 is configured to automatically include summary information such as current live information and/or latest information relating to the document and/or a summary of changes made to a document within an electronic message that is sent to one or more recipients; [0039], As each reviewer makes changes to the documents, the electronic messages including the summaries creates a history of the changes. This assists users in seeing the changes made to a document in an electronic message (e.g. email context) summarized. These electronic messages form a change log that is recorded in electronic messages. This thread of electronic messages may be used to catch up on the changes that are made to a document over time and can be easily reviewed in a chronological format that electronic communications provide. A user having limited display capacity (e.g. mobile device) may also review the changes made to the attachment or linked document/file without having to open the document to see the changes; [0050], FIG. 4 illustrates an electronic message that is automatically created in response to a user directly making changes to a shared document; [0051], The message may be addressed to different recipients. For example, a user editing the document may be asked the recipients to receive the electronic message that includes the automatically generated summary information. According to an embodiment, the recipients are automatically selected based on the sharing permissions of the document and the users that are assigned to review the document; [0074], an electronic message is sent to each of the determined recipients. The message is sent using the appropriate method depending on the type of message (e.g. email, SMS, MMS, and the like);)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to have incorporated sending a selected corresponding card to a group chat in response to a preset operation for a card of the comparison result as suggested in Costenaro into Panferov. Doing so would be desirable authors of documents routinely email documents to other users for review. A user receiving the document for review opens the attached document, makes changes/comments in the document and emails the document back to the author. It is often difficult for users to keep up with all of the different changes made to the document by their co-authors or editors (see Costenaro [0001]). As each reviewer makes changes to the documents, the electronic messages including the summaries creates a history of the changes. This assists users in seeing the changes made to a document in an electronic message (e.g. email context) summarized. These electronic messages form a change log that is recorded in electronic messages. This thread of electronic messages may be used to catch up on the changes that are made to a document over time and can be easily reviewed in a chronological format that electronic communications provide. A user having limited display capacity (e.g. mobile device) may also review the changes made to the attachment or linked document/file without having to open the document to see the changes (see Costenaro [0039]).
Regarding claim 12, Panferov teaches all the limitations of claim 2, further comprising:
automatically sending a preset comparison result and a corresponding description information (Panferov Figs. 1-12; [0041], At step 505, the system may compare the texts produced using OCR of the documents being analyzed; [0063], In addition to comparing text information using geometry mapping, other information blocks in the document can be compared, such as tables, pictures, stamps, signatures, etc. Comparing the images present in a document may be done by one of the known methods, such as using pixel by pixel comparison. Comparison of tables not only takes into account the text information in them, comparison of which can be done using the method described above, but also takes into account the structures of the tables. In other words, the correspondence of the number of columns, rows and their corresponding coordinates in the document may be taken into account during comparison; [0066], the list of changes may be shown as in FIG. 11 in the form of a recapitulation of the discrepancies (1101) indicating the page on which the discrepancy in question was found. The list (1101) may display a change of the type 6bo.fwdarw.cTao ["was".fwdarw."became"], and additional information may also be shown, such as the number of the page on which the discrepancy was located; [0069], One of the results of comparison of documents might be, for example, putting the visual displays of the differing areas on the screen (510). For example, if a discrepancy is found in the documents, the specific area (text) where this difference is located is color-highlighted; yellow may be the signal that in this area differences of the "deleted" type were found, while red might indicate "inserted", etc; claim 8, providing a list of the significant differences to the user; and when the user selects a significant difference from the list of significant differences, providing a visualization of the significant difference in the first document and the at least one second document)
However, Costenaro fails to expressly disclose automatically sending a preset comparison result and a corresponding description information to an instant messaging application. In the same field of endeavor, Costenaro teaches:
automatically sending a preset comparison result and a corresponding description information to an instant messaging application (Costenaro Figs. 1-9; abs. Changes made to a document are automatically summarized within an electronic message; [0003], A reviewer may make many different types of changes to the document (e.g. deleting/adding content, adding comments, and the like). After making any changes to the document, a summary of the changes is automatically inserted into an electronic message that is then sent to one or more recipients; [0022], Messaging application(s) 24 may be one or more different messaging applications. For example, computing device 100 may include an email application, an Instant Messaging (IM) application, an SMS, MMS application, a real-time information network (e.g. Twitter.RTM. interface), a social networking application, and the like; [0024], Summary manager 26 is configured to automatically include summary information such as current live information and/or latest information relating to the document and/or a summary of changes made to a document within an electronic message that is sent to one or more recipients; [0039], As each reviewer makes changes to the documents, the electronic messages including the summaries creates a history of the changes. This assists users in seeing the changes made to a document in an electronic message (e.g. email context) summarized. These electronic messages form a change log that is recorded in electronic messages. This thread of electronic messages may be used to catch up on the changes that are made to a document over time and can be easily reviewed in a chronological format that electronic communications provide. A user having limited display capacity (e.g. mobile device) may also review the changes made to the attachment or linked document/file without having to open the document to see the changes; [0050], FIG. 4 illustrates an electronic message that is automatically created in response to a user directly making changes to a shared document; [0051], The message may be addressed to different recipients. For example, a user editing the document may be asked the recipients to receive the electronic message that includes the automatically generated summary information. According to an embodiment, the recipients are automatically selected based on the sharing permissions of the document and the users that are assigned to review the document; [0074], an electronic message is sent to each of the determined recipients. The message is sent using the appropriate method depending on the type of message (e.g. email, SMS, MMS, and the like);)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to have incorporated automatically sending a preset comparison result and a corresponding description information to an instant messaging application as suggested in Costenaro into Panferov. Doing so would be desirable authors of documents routinely email documents to other users for review. A user receiving the document for review opens the attached document, makes changes/comments in the document and emails the document back to the author. It is often difficult for users to keep up with all of the different changes made to the document by their co-authors or editors (see Costenaro [0001]). As each reviewer makes changes to the documents, the electronic messages including the summaries creates a history of the changes. This assists users in seeing the changes made to a document in an electronic message (e.g. email context) summarized. These electronic messages form a change log that is recorded in electronic messages. This thread of electronic messages may be used to catch up on the changes that are made to a document over time and can be easily reviewed in a chronological format that electronic communications provide. A user having limited display capacity (e.g. mobile device) may also review the changes made to the attachment or linked document/file without having to open the document to see the changes (see Costenaro [0039]).
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Milvaney (US 20200162561 A1) see Figs. 1-12 and [0035], [0037], [0072].
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JOHN T REPSHER III whose telephone number is (571)272-7487. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday, 8AM-5PM EST.
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, Jennifer Welch can be reached at (571) 272-7212. 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.
/JOHN T REPSHER III/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2143