DETAILED ACTION
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 .
Priority
The examiner acknowledges the present application claims priority to China Application CN202111364886.4, filed 11/17/2021.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 7/30/2024 and 4/24/2026 are in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement is being considered by the examiner.
Specification
The disclosure is objected to because of the following informalities: the title is not descriptive enough. Although it states "INFORMATION PROCESSING METHOD AND APPARATUS, ELECTRONIC DEVICE, AND STORAGE MEDIUM," it is not indicative of the invention or inventive concept. Please update the title to be clearer regarding the invention. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Interpretation
The broadest reasonable interpretation (BRI) of claims 1-12, 14-18, 20, and 23-24 includes contingent limitations. 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. See MPEP 2111.04 (II). For example, claim 1 recites (emphasis added):
An information processing method, comprising:
receiving a first document, so as to perform preset processing on the first document;
determining, based on document content of the first document, or the document content and associated information of the first document, whether there is an alert item in the first document that satisfies a preset condition; and
displaying the first document in association with the alert item in response to there being the alert item in the first document, wherein the alert item is displayed in association with category information.
The BRI of claim 1 requires steps a) and b) with step c) being contingent (and thus, not required). Step c) includes steps that are not required to be performed because the conditions precedent are not met (e.g. when there is no alert item that satisfies a preset condition in the first document). Any dependent claim(s) that depends on a contingent limitation are also contingent.
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.
Claims 1-12, 14-18, 20, and 23-24 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.
Claim 1 recites “displaying the first document in association with the alert item in response to there being the alert item in the first document.” This can be interpreted as circular logic. This limitation can mean “display the first document with the alert in response to there being an alert in the first document.” This limitation would be disconnected from the first two limitations, because it just depends on itself. This limitation can also be interpreted as “display the first document with the alert item that satisfied the preset condition in response to there being an alert in the first document.” Then this limitation continues building on the first and second limitations. It is unclear how this claim should be interpreted. The examiner interprets the clam as the latter.
Claim 4 recites “a user type comprises a first-type user and a second-type user.” What is a user type, as used here? This limitation does not seem to refer to any limitation recited in claims 3 and 1. This limitation just introduces “a user type comprises...” This limitation does not further clarify the scope of the claims 1 or 3.
Claim 4 recites “a user type comprises a first-type user and a second-type user.” It is unclear how can “a user type” comprise a first-type user and a second-type user? Wouldn’t that be 2 user types? Then shouldn’t “a user type” be “a plurality of user types”? Perhaps the user-types are the same? This lacks clarity. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim 4 recites “a first-type user” in the 3rd limitation. It is unclear if this is the same or different than “a first-type user” introduced in the first limitation. Clarification is required.
Claim 7 recites “an associated alert item.” It is unclear if “an associated alert item” is the same or not from “the alert item” in the first line. There are many items the “alert item” is associated to in claim 1, as well. It is also unclear if this “an associated alert item” is the same or not from the alert item in claim 1, as well.
Claim 7 recites “the second control is triggered.” It is unclear if this is the same or different from “an associated second control” in line 1. The examiner interprets this as any control.
Claim 7 recites “the second control is triggered.” Here, “triggered” is in past tense, so it has already been triggered in the past. However, there is no mention of performing this triggering in claim 7 nor in claim 1.
Claim 7 recites “after a first collaborating user hides the alert item.” Is the alert item of claim 1 hidden, the alert item of claim 7 hidden, or the associated alert item of claim 7 hidden? This limitation is unclear. The examiner interprets any item is hidden.
Claim 7 recites “… hides the alert item through the second control…” It is unclear if this is the same or different from “an associated second control” in line 1. The examiner interprets this as any control.
Claim 7 recites “…the hidden alert item is still displayed…” Should this be “the hidden associated alert item,” since the first limitation says “an associated alert item is hidden?” It is unclear which alert item is hidden.
Claim 7 recites “…the hidden alert item is still displayed…” How can a hidden alert item be still displayed? Isn’t this a contradiction? It is unclear what is displayed, and what is hidden.
Claim 7 recites “a control for undoing the hiding…” and “the control for undoing the hiding.” If an alert item is still displayed on the second collaborating user, why is there a control for unhiding, because it’s not hidden. Unclear what this control is for.
Claim 7 recites “a control for accepting the hiding.” If an alert item is still displayed on the second collaborating user, why is there a control for accepting the hiding? Because it’s not hidden. Unclear what this control is for.
Claim 9 recites “triggered.” Here, “triggered” is in past tense, so it has already been triggered in the past. However, there is no mention of performing this triggering in claim 9 nor in claim 1.
Claim 16 recites “the alert item being triggered.” This limitation is in past tense, so it has already been triggered in the past. However, there is no mention of performing this triggering in claim 16 nor in claim 1. Thus, this limitation is unclear. The Examiner interprets this to mean “displaying the first document in association with the alert item in response to there being the alert item in the first document,” as recited in claim 1.
Claim 20 recites “after the alert item is triggered.” This limitation is in past tense, so it has already been triggered in the past. However, there is no mention of performing this triggering in claim 20, claim 17, nor in claim 1. Thus, this limitation is unclear. The Examiner interprets this to mean “displaying the first document in association with the alert item in response to there being the alert item in the first document,” as recited in claim 1.
Claims 2-12, 14-18, 20, and 23-24 are dependent claims, and inherit the 35 U.S.C. §112(b) rejections from claim 1.
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 24 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to non-statutory subject matter.
Claim 24 recites “computer-readable storage medium.” The computer-readable storage medium is described in the original specification paragraph [0106], which reads: “It should be noted that the above computer-readable medium described in the present disclosure may be a computer-readable signal medium… the computer-readable signal medium may include a data signal propagated in a baseband or as a part of a carrier, the data signal carrying computer-readable program code.” Furthermore, based on the open ended description of the computer-readable storage medium, it can also be interpreted as being as signal per se. As such, the claim is not limited to statutory subject matter and is therefore non-statutory. The Examiner recommends using the term "non-transitory computer-readable storage medium."
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.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
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.
Claims 1-3, 10-12, 16, and 23-24 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Haribhakti et al., Patent Application Publication number US 20220207429 A1, (hereinafter “Haribhakti”), in view of “Google Workspace Updates.” [published 8/20/2019] [online] [retrieved on 4/28/2026] Retrieved from the internet <URL: https://web.archive.org/web/20211111210859/https://workspaceupdates.googleblog.com/2019/08/improved-as-you-type-spelling-and-grammar.html > (hereinafter “Google”).
Claim 1: Haribhakti teaches “An information processing method (i.e. a collaborative document management system (e.g., Confluence® by Atlassian, Inc.) may configure a data classification system structured as discussed herein to generate alerts or other periodic data object reports to identify any published user documents (e.g., Confluence® pages) that contain sensitive information such as enterprise passwords, credit card numbers, or other personally identified information [Haribhakti 0080]), comprising:
receiving a first document (i.e. data acquisition (e.g., receipt of a data object, etc.) [Haribhakti 0120]… Data objects… include one or more text based elements such as, for example, company name, username, password, message text, file text, or combinations thereof [Haribhakti 0100]), so as to perform preset processing on the first document (i.e. text cleaning (e.g., parsing the data object into individual words or characters, etc.) [Haribhakti 0120] note: the Examiner interprets this as intended use);
determining, based on document content of the first document, or the document content and associated information of the first document, whether there is an alert item in the first document that satisfies a preset condition (i.e. a natural language processing algorithm may scan a data object… utilize one or more discovered words (e.g., “email,” etc.) as an input… the discovered word (e.g., “email”) is identified in association with a data classification label based on accuracy score information… and the discovered word has a sufficient accuracy score (e.g., above a predefined threshold value) the data classification label may be applied. For example, if “email” is discovered in a data object and the predefined threshold value, associated with the natural language processing algorithm, is 70% then the “PII/DirectRestricted” data classification label may be applied based on the word “email” having an 78% accuracy score in relation to the “PII/DirectRestricted” data classification label [Haribhakti 0257]); and
displaying… the alert item in response to there being the alert item in the first document (i.e. a notification may be generated, based at least on the detection of one or more data classification labels, and transmitted to an associated system user (e.g., collaboration software administrator, etc.) [Haribhakti 0313]), wherein the alert item is displayed in association with category information (i.e. As an additional example, a system administrator for a service desk and incident management software suite may request a report of all incidents handled by a particular help desk employee and sorted based on particular key terms identified in the employee's incident notes. In such an example, the data object containing the incident notes would be associated with data classification labels based on the contents of the notes allowing the system administrator to, via a user interface, define data classification labels for detection to include in the requested report [Haribhakti 0313] note: a system administrator may also request a report of all text with the “PII/DirectRestricted” data classification label. This report would include the text (alert item), which is associated with the “PII/DirectRestricted” category).”
Haribhakti is silent regarding displaying “the first document in association with” the alert item.
Google teaches “receiving a first document, so as to perform preset processing on the first document (i.e. All suggestions and corrections take place automatically as you type [Google pg 5, bullet #2]… You’ll now see inline spelling and contextual grammar suggestions in your draft emails as you type. If you’ve made a grammar mistake, a squiggly blue line will appear under the phrase as you write it [Google pg 5 ¶1, Fig. 2A-2B] note: scanning the text for spelling and grammar mistakes corresponding to preset processing);
determining, based on document content of the first document, or the document content and associated information of the first document, whether there is an alert item in the first document that satisfies a preset condition (i.e. All suggestions and corrections take place automatically as you type [Google pg 5, bullet #2]… You’ll now see inline spelling and contextual grammar suggestions in your draft emails as you type. If you’ve made a grammar mistake, a squiggly blue line will appear under the phrase as you write it [Google pg 5 ¶1, Fig. 2A-2B] note: spelling and grammar mistakes satisfy the preset condition of a misspelled word. Note2: instant specification 0036 states “the alert items may include content with errors in the first document,” i.e. spelling errors); and
displaying the first document in association with the alert item in response to there being the alert item in the first document (i.e. All suggestions and corrections take place automatically as you type [Google pg 5, bullet #2]… You’ll now see inline spelling and contextual grammar suggestions in your draft emails as you type. If you’ve made a grammar mistake, a squiggly blue line will appear under the phrase as you write it [Google pg 5 ¶1, Fig. 2A-2B] note: spelling and grammar mistakes (alerts) show up with squiggly underlines within a document. Note2: claims do not require any indication of an alert notification. Just that the “alert item” is displayed. The alert item is the misspelled word, and is displayed when it is input into the document. In other words, a user types a misspelled word, which is an alert item. In response to typing the misspelled word (alert item), the document is now displayed with a misspelled word (alert item)),…”
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the invention/combination Haribhakti to include the feature of having the ability to also display the document as disclosed by Google.
One would have been motivated to do so, before the effective filing date of the invention because it provides the benefit of having the context of the document available, to provide more information to the user about the alert item, which allows the user to make a more informed decision.
Claim 2: Haribhakti and Google teach all the limitations of claim 1, above. Google teaches “wherein the method further comprises:
displaying a first control in a display interface where the preset processing is performed on the first document (Google Fig. 2A shows an underlined squiggly line as a control, when spell check (parsing/preset processing) is performed); and
the displaying the first document in association with the alert item in response to there being the alert item in the first document comprises:
in response to a first operation on the first control, if there is the alert item in the first document, displaying the first document in association with the alert item (Google Fig. 2A-2B shows that clicking on the underlined squiggly line redisplays the alert item as a highlighted alert item within the document. Note: this limitation is contingent upon displaying the alert item).”
One would have been motivated to combine Haribhakti and Google, before the effective filing date of the invention because it provides the benefit of having the context of the document available, to provide more information to the user about the alert item, which allows the user to make a more informed decision.
Claim 3: Haribhakti and Google teach all the limitations of claim 1, above. Google teaches “wherein the performing preset processing on the first document comprises: performing the preset processing on the first document by at least two collaborating users (Google Fig. 2A-2B shows an email document, which is a collaboration document (1 user creates the document, another user reviews the document upon receipt). Instant specification 0036 recites “preset processing may be, for example, collaborative creation of the document, or collaborative review of the document content”); and
the displaying the first document in association with the alert item in response to there being the alert item in the first document comprises:
displaying the first document in association with the alert item in display interfaces of the collaborating users who perform the preset processing on the first document (Google Fig. 2A-2B shows an email document, which is a collaboration document (1 user creates the document, another user reviews the document upon receipt). The user who creates/types the document gets the displayed document with the misspelled work/alert item. Note: this limitation is contingent upon displaying the alert item).”
One would have been motivated to combine Haribhakti and Google, before the effective filing date of the invention because it provides the benefit of having the context of the document available, to provide more information to the user about the alert item, which allows the user to make a more informed decision.
Claim 10: Haribhakti and Google teach all the limitations of claim 2, above. Google teaches “wherein before responding to the first operation on the first control, the method further comprises at least one of the following:
displaying, on the first control, first prompt information indicating whether there is an alert item (Google Fig. 2A shows an underlined squiggly line as a control, when spell check (parsing/preset processing) is performed. This control is also a prompt indicating there is a misspelled word. This underlined squiggly line is displayed before clicking on the misspelled word with the underlined squiggly line); or
setting a display style of the first control based on whether there is an alert item in the first document, wherein a display style of the first control when there is an alert item in the first document is different from a display style of the first control when there is no alert item in the first document (Note: this limitation is contingent upon an operation on the first control of claim 2, which is contingent upon displaying the alert item).”
One would have been motivated to combine Haribhakti and Google, before the effective filing date of the invention because it provides the benefit of visually showing whether there is an alert item or not, which allows the user to make a more informed decision.
Claim 11: Haribhakti and Google teach all the limitations of claim 10, above. Google teaches “wherein the method further comprises at least one of the following:
displaying the first prompt information when the preset processing is performed on the first document for the first time (i.e. All suggestions and corrections take place automatically as you type [Google pg 5, bullet #2]… You’ll now see inline spelling and contextual grammar suggestions in your draft emails as you type. If you’ve made a grammar mistake, a squiggly blue line will appear under the phrase as you write it [Google pg 5 ¶1, Fig. 2A-2B] note: underlined squiggly line is displayed as a user types, which is the first time the document is parsed for errors);
displaying the first prompt information when a control identifier is hovering over the first control; or
hiding the first control after the first control is subjected to the first operation (Note: these limitations are contingent upon a prompt information of claim 10, which are contingent upon an operation on the first control of claim 2. Or contingent upon an operation on the first control of claim 2 directly, which is contingent upon displaying the alert item).”
One would have been motivated to combine Haribhakti and Google, before the effective filing date of the invention because it provides the benefit of visually showing whether there is an alert item or not, which allows the user to make a more informed decision.
Claim 12: Haribhakti and Google teach all the limitations of claim 1, above. Google teaches “wherein the method further comprises at least one of the following:
a risk level of the alert item being displayed in the alert item;
category information of the alert item being displayed in the alert item (Google Fig. 2A-2B shows red underlines for spelling category alerts, and blue underlines for grammar category alerts);
arranging and displaying the alert item in a first display area according to a position order of content corresponding to the alert item in the first document;
after the first document is displayed in association with the alert item, displaying, by default in the first document, content corresponding to a first alert item (Note: these limitations are contingent upon displaying the alert item);
the alert item being provided with an associated second control, and an associated alert item being hidden after the second control is triggered;
the alert item being provided with an associated third control, the third control being configured to, after being subjected to a third operation, display second prompt information of the alert item associated with the third control; or
displaying a fourth control, the fourth control being configured to, after being triggered, re-determine whether there is an alert item and display the alert item based on current content of the first document..”
One would have been motivated to combine Haribhakti and Google, before the effective filing date of the invention because it provides the benefit of providing more information to the user about the alert item, which allows the user to make a more informed decision.
Claim 16: Haribhakti and Google teach all the limitations of claim 1, above. Google teaches “wherein the method further comprises: in response to the alert item being triggered, performing at least one of the following:
displaying, in the first document, content corresponding to the triggered alert item (i.e. All suggestions and corrections take place automatically as you type [Google pg 5, bullet #2]… You’ll now see inline spelling and contextual grammar suggestions in your draft emails as you type. If you’ve made a grammar mistake, a squiggly blue line will appear under the phrase as you write it [Google pg 5 ¶1, Fig. 2A-2B] note: displaying the misspelled word as content corresponding to the triggered alert item);
changing, in the first document, a display style of the content corresponding to the triggered alert item (i.e. All suggestions and corrections take place automatically as you type [Google pg 5, bullet #2]… You’ll now see inline spelling and contextual grammar suggestions in your draft emails as you type. If you’ve made a grammar mistake, a squiggly blue line will appear under the phrase as you write it [Google pg 5 ¶1, Fig. 2A-2B] note: display style changed to have an underline);
if the content corresponding to the triggered alert item has been deleted from the first document, displaying fourth prompt information; or
if the content corresponding to the triggered alert item still exists in the first document, displaying the triggered alert item in a first preset style, or if the content corresponding to the triggered alert item has been deleted from the first document, displaying the triggered alert item in a second preset style, wherein the first preset style is different from the second preset style (Note: this limitation is contingent upon the alert item being triggered, which is contingent upon displaying the alert item).”
One would have been motivated to combine Haribhakti and Google, before the effective filing date of the invention because it provides the benefit of providing more information to the user about the alert item, which allows the user to make a more informed decision.
Claim 23: Haribhakti and Google teach an electronic device, comprising:
at least one memory and at least one processor, wherein the at least one memory is configured to store program code, and the at least one processor is configured to call the program code (i.e. the processor 202 may be configured to execute instructions stored in the memory 204 [Haribhakti 0194]) stored in the at least one memory to perform the method according to claim 1 (see rejection of claim 1).
Claim 24: Haribhakti and Google teach a computer-readable storage medium configured to store program code that, when executed by a processor (i.e. the processor 202 may be configured to execute instructions stored in the memory 204 [Haribhakti 0194]), causes the processor to perform the method according to claim 1 (see rejection of claim 1)
Claims 4-9, 14-15, 17-18 and 20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Haribhakti, in view of Google, in view of Yacoub et al., Patent Number US 8826169 B1 (hereinafter “Yacoub”).
Claim 4: Haribhakti and Google teach all the limitations of claim 3, above. Haribhakti and Google are silent regarding “wherein a user type comprises a first-type user and a second-type user, the second-type user being attributed to the first-type user, and a user type of the collaborating users being the second-type user; and the displaying the first document in association with the alert item in display interfaces of the collaborating users who perform the preset processing on the first document comprises: determining a display policy for displaying the alert item in the display interfaces of the collaborating users, based on whether a first-type user to whom the collaborating users are attributed and a first-type user to whom a preset object is attributed belong to a same preset set of first-type users, wherein the preset object comprises at least one of the following: the processing flow, a creator of the first document, or an initiator of the processing flow.”
Yacoub teaches “wherein
a user type comprises a first-type user (i.e. a plurality of users [Yacoub Col 5 lines 56 - Col 6 lines 7, Fig. 1-3]) and a second-type user, the second-type user being attributed to the first-type user (i.e. a current user [Yacoub Col 5 lines 56 - Col 6 lines 7, Fig. 1-3] note: a current user is one of many collaborating users), and a user type of the collaborating users being the second-type user (i.e. For example, suppose that a plurality of users [first collaborating user] of a plurality of devices 100 decide to hide the portion 302 of content item 106… one or more portions 302 of the content item 106 that are popularly or frequently hidden by other users (i.e., "popular collapses" or "popular hides") may be identified to a current user [second collaborating user] such as by underlining 304 and/or by a message 306 [Yacoub Col 5 lines 56 - Col 6 lines 7, Fig. 1-3]); and
the displaying the first document in association with the alert item in display interfaces of the collaborating users who perform the preset processing on the first document comprises:
determining a display policy for displaying the alert item in the display interfaces of the collaborating users, based on whether a first-type user to whom the collaborating users are attributed and a first-type user to whom a preset object is attributed belong to a same preset set of first-type users,
wherein the preset object comprises at least one of the following: the processing flow, a creator of the first document, or an initiator of the processing flow (Note: this limitation is contingent upon a preset object, which is contingent upon a display policy, which is contingent upon displaying the alert item).”
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the invention/combination of Haribhakti and Google to include the feature of having the ability to have collaborating users as disclosed by Yacoub.
One would have been motivated to do so, before the effective filing date of the invention because it provides the benefit to increase the number of people who can work/edit/view a document at the same time, which increases user productivity.
Claim 5: Haribhakti and Google and Yacoub teach all the limitations of claim 4, above.
Haribhakti and Google and Yacoub teach “wherein the determining a display policy for displaying the alert item in the display interfaces of the collaborating users comprises:
if the collaborating users and the preset object belong to the same preset set of first-type users, determining, according to a first preset rule, whether to display the alert item and/or which alert item to display when it is determined to display the alert item; or
if the collaborating users and the preset object belong to different preset sets of first-type users, determining, according to a second preset rule, whether to display the alert item and/or which alert item to display when it is determined to display the alert item,
wherein the first preset rule is different from the second preset rule (Note: this limitation is contingent upon a display policy, which is contingent upon displaying the alert item. See claim interpretation section).”
Claim 6: Haribhakti and Google and Yacoub teach all the limitations of claim 4, above.
Haribhakti and Google and Yacoub teach “wherein
the preset set of first-type users comprises one or at least two first-type users (Note: this limitation is contingent upon a preset set, which in claim 4 is contingent upon a display policy, which is contingent upon displaying the alert item. See claim interpretation section).”
Claim 7: Haribhakti and Google teach all the limitations of claim 1, above. Haribhakti and Google are silent regarding “wherein the alert item is provided with an associated second control, and an associated alert item is hidden after the second control is triggered; and
after a first collaborating user hides the alert item through the second control, the hidden alert item is still displayed in a display interface of a second collaborating user, along with
a control for undoing the hiding, or
the control for undoing the hiding and a control for accepting the hiding,
wherein the first collaborating user is different from the second collaborating user.”
Haribhakti and Google teach alert items in claim 1 (Haribhakti 0257, Google pg 5, Fig. 2A-2B, above). Yacoub teaches “wherein the… item is provided with an associated second control, and an associated… item is hidden after the second control is triggered (Yacoub Fig. 1-3 shows text to be hidden, as well as a “Hide” button); and
after a first collaborating user hides the… item through the second control, the hidden… item is still displayed in a display interface of a second collaborating user (i.e. For example, suppose that a plurality of users [first collaborating user] of a plurality of devices 100 decide to hide the portion 302 of content item 106… one or more portions 302 of the content item 106 that are popularly or frequently hidden by other users (i.e., "popular collapses" or "popular hides") may be identified to a current user [second collaborating user] such as by underlining 304 and/or by a message 306, or by any other suitable indicator, such as highlighting, color coding, bolding, italicizing, or the like. Furthermore, a selectable control or "hide" button 308 may be displayed adjacent to the portion 302 to enable the user to conveniently and quickly hide the particular portion 302 using a single step of selecting the hide button 308. For example, the user may tap the hide button 308 to automatically hide the identified portion 302 of the content item 106 [Yacoub Col 5 lines 56 - Col 6 lines 7, Fig. 1-3]), along with
a control for undoing the hiding, or
the control for undoing the hiding (i.e. various types of controls 208 may include arrows… a right-pointing arrow may be displayed as the control 208, and may be selected by the user to unhide the hidden content. The unhidden content may be presented along with a left-pointing arrow or other graphic as a control that may be selected to re-hide the unhidden content [Yacoub Col 5 lines 27-34, Fig. 1-3] note: control 208 may include both arrows at the same time, which can hide and unhide content) and a control for accepting the hiding (i.e. For example, suppose that a plurality of users [first collaborating user] of a plurality of devices 100 decide to hide the portion 302 of content item 106… one or more portions 302 of the content item 106 that are popularly or frequently hidden by other users (i.e., "popular collapses" or "popular hides") may be identified to a current user [second collaborating user] such as by underlining 304 and/or by a message 306, or by any other suitable indicator, such as highlighting, color coding, bolding, italicizing, or the like. Furthermore, a selectable control or "hide" button 308 may be displayed adjacent to the portion 302 to enable the user to conveniently and quickly hide the particular portion 302 using a single step of selecting the hide button 308. For example, the user may tap the hide button 308 to automatically hide the identified portion 302 of the content item 106 [Yacoub Col 5 lines 56 - Col 6 lines 7, Fig. 1-3]),
wherein the first collaborating user is different from the second collaborating user (Yacoub’s plurality of users, and current user [Yacoub Col 5 lines 56 - Col 6 lines 7, Fig. 1-3]).”
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the invention/combination of Haribhakti and Google to include the feature of having the ability to show and hide text as disclosed by Yacoub.
One would have been motivated to do so, before the effective filing date of the invention because it provides the benefit to exert more control over what is hidden and what is shown, which increases user flexibility.
Claim 8: Haribhakti and Google and Yacoub teach all the limitations of claim 7, above.
Haribhakti and Google and Yacoub teach “wherein
if the second collaborating user triggers the control for undoing the hiding, based on permission information of the second collaborating user and the first collaborating user,
the hiding of the alert item in a display interface of the first collaborating user is undone, or
a request to undo the hiding of the alert item is sent to the first collaborating user (Note: this limitation is contingent upon a user triggering the control).”
Claim 9: Haribhakti and Google teach all the limitations of claim 1, above. Haribhakti and Google are silent regarding “wherein the alert item is provided with an associated second control, and an associated alert item is hidden after the second control is triggered, the hiding comprising: changing a display position or display style of the hidden alert item, to distinguish the hidden alert item from an unhidden alert item; and
after a first collaborating user hides the alert item through the second control, displaying a control for undoing the hiding in a display interface of the first collaborating user.”
Haribhakti and Google teach alert items in claim 1 (Haribhakti 0257, Google pg 5, Fig. 2A-2B, above). Yacoub teaches “wherein the… item is provided with an associated second control (Yacoub Fig. 1-3 shows text to be hidden, as well as a “Hide” button), and an associated… item is hidden after the second control is triggered (Yacoub Fig. 1-3 shows the text is hidden), the hiding comprising: changing a display position or display style of the hidden… item, to distinguish the hidden… item from an unhidden… item (Yacoub Fig. 1-3 shows the text is hidden and removed from display (style) and unhidden text is moved up in its place (position)); and
after a first collaborating user hides the alert item through the second control, displaying a control for undoing the hiding in a display interface of the first collaborating user (Yacoub Fig. 1-3 shows an “Unhide” button).”
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the invention/combination of Haribhakti and Google to include the feature of having the ability to hide text as disclosed by Yacoub.
One would have been motivated to do so, before the effective filing date of the invention because it provides the benefit of visually hiding text, and reformatting the rest of the content, for better visibility, increasing non-hidden content that can be displayed on the page, and indicating to the user that sections have been hidden.
Claim 14: Haribhakti and Google teach all the limitations of claim 12, above. Haribhakti and Google teach “wherein the method further comprises at least one of the following:
after the alert item is hidden, displaying the hidden alert item and a fifth control in a target region, the fifth control being configured to undo the hiding of the alert item;
when the fourth control is triggered to re-determine whether there is an alert item and display the alert item, keeping the hiding of the alert item that is hidden before the fourth control is triggered;
after the alert item associated with the second control is hidden, synchronously hiding the alert item associated with the second control in a display interface of a target collaborating user who is attributed to the same first-type user as a current collaborating user, wherein the target collaborating user is a collaborating user related to the processing flow of the first document; or
displaying a number of alert items in a first display area, and after the alert item associated with the second control is hidden, changing the number of the alert items displayed in the first display area (Note: this limitation is contingent upon displaying the alert item).”
Haribhakti and Google teach alert items in claim 1 (Haribhakti 0257, Google pg 5, Fig. 2A-2B, above). Additionally, Yacoub teaches “wherein the method further comprises at least one of the following:
after the… item is hidden, displaying the hidden… item (i.e. For example, suppose that a plurality of users [first collaborating user] of a plurality of devices 100 decide to hide the portion 302 of content item 106… one or more portions 302 of the content item 106 that are popularly or frequently hidden by other users (i.e., "popular collapses" or "popular hides") may be identified to a current user [second collaborating user] such as by underlining 304 and/or by a message 306, or by any other suitable indicator, such as highlighting, color coding, bolding, italicizing, or the like. Furthermore, a selectable control or "hide" button 308 may be displayed adjacent to the portion 302 to enable the user to conveniently and quickly hide the particular portion 302 using a single step of selecting the hide button 308. For example, the user may tap the hide button 308 to automatically hide the identified portion 302 of the content item 106 [Yacoub Col 5 lines 56 - Col 6 lines 7, Fig. 1-3]) and a fifth control in a target region, the fifth control being configured to undo the hiding of the… item (i.e. various types of controls 208 may include arrows… a right-pointing arrow may be displayed as the control 208, and may be selected by the user to unhide the hidden content. The unhidden content may be presented along with a left-pointing arrow or other graphic as a control that may be selected to re-hide the unhidden content [Yacoub Col 5 lines 27-34, Fig. 1-3] note: control 208 may include both arrows at the same time, which can hide and unhide content);
when the fourth control is triggered to re-determine whether there is an alert item and display the alert item, keeping the hiding of the alert item that is hidden before the fourth control is triggered;
after the alert item associated with the second control is hidden, synchronously hiding the alert item associated with the second control in a display interface of a target collaborating user who is attributed to the same first-type user as a current collaborating user, wherein the target collaborating user is a collaborating user related to the processing flow of the first document; or
displaying a number of alert items in a first display area, and after the alert item associated with the second control is hidden, changing the number of the alert items displayed in the first display area.”
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the invention/combination of Haribhakti and Google to include the feature of having the ability to hide and unhide text as disclosed by Yacoub.
One would have been motivated to do so, before the effective filing date of the invention because it provides the benefit of quickly being able to hide and unhide sections that have already been hidden.
Claim 15: Haribhakti and Google and Yacoub teach all the limitations of claim 14, above. Google teaches “wherein
if the document content associated with the alert item displayed in the target region (Google Fig. 2A-2B shows underlined words in the target region of a document), or the document content and the associated information no longer satisfy the preset condition, third prompt information is displayed (i.e. All suggestions and corrections take place automatically as you type [Google pg 5, bullet #2]… You’ll now see inline spelling and contextual grammar suggestions in your draft emails as you type. If you’ve made a grammar mistake, a squiggly blue line will appear under the phrase as you write it [Google pg 5 ¶1, Fig. 2A-2B]) (Note: this limitation is contingent upon displaying the alert item).”
One would have been motivated to combine Haribhakti and Google and Yacoub, before the effective filing date of the invention because it provides the benefit of displaying additional information regarding the alert item to the user, so they can make more informed decisions.
Claim 17: Haribhakti and Google teach all the limitations of claim 1, above. Haribhakti and Google teach alert items in claim 1 (Haribhakti 0257, Google pg 5, Fig. 2A-2B, above).
Haribhakti and Google teach “wherein the… item is expandable and collapsible, and shortened information and detailed information of the… item are displayed when the… item is expanded, while the shortened information of the… item is displayed and the detailed information of the… item is hidden when the… item is collapsed (Note: this limitation is contingent upon displaying the alert item).”
Additionally, Yacoub teaches “wherein the alert item is expandable and collapsible, and shortened information and detailed information of the alert item are displayed when the alert item is expanded, while the shortened information of the alert item is displayed and the detailed information of the alert item is hidden when the alert item is collapsed (i.e. one or more portions of content may be hidden by a provider of the content item, such as by an author, publisher, or a content item provider. In this example, an indicator 602 is located adjacent to a location of hidden content that may be unhidden by the user. For instance, the indicator 602 may be a "+" sign that may be selected by the user to unhide the hidden content [Yacoub Col 8 lines 22-28, Fig. 6]) (Note: this limitation is contingent upon displaying the alert item).”
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the invention/combination of Haribhakti and Google to include the feature of having the ability to expand and collapse information as disclosed by Yacoub.
One would have been motivated to do so, before the effective filing date of the invention because it provides the benefit to organize information, and save space when extra information is not needed.
Claim 18: Haribhakti and Google and Yacoub teach all the limitations of claim 17, above. Haribhakti and Google teach alert items in claim 1 (Haribhakti 0257, Google pg 5, Fig. 2A-2B, above). Yacoub teaches “wherein at least one as follows is applied:
the shortened information comprises: the category information of the alert item and the risk level of the alert item; and/or the detailed information comprises: document content corresponding to the alert item in the first document; or
after the… item is expanded, at least one presentation area is displayed in the… item, the presentation area being used to display content corresponding to the… item in the first document (Yacoub Fig. 6 shows expanded item “Basque Country” with a presentation area below it, displaying content corresponding to “Basque Country”), and content displayed in different presentation areas is at different positions in the first document (Yacoub Fig. 6 shows other content in different areas (e.g. Maps section 416), at different positions (at the bottom) of the page) (Note: this limitation is contingent upon displaying the alert item).”
One would have been motivated to do so, before the effective filing date of the invention because it provides the benefit to organize information, and save space when extra information is not needed.
Claim 20: Haribhakti and Google and Yacoub teach all the limitations of claim 17, above. Haribhakti and Google teach alert items in claim 1 (Haribhakti 0257, Google pg 5, Fig. 2A-2B, above). Yacoub teaches “wherein at least one of the following is satisfied:
after the first document is displayed in association with the alert item, a first alert item is expanded by default, and the remaining alert items are collapsed by default;
after the alert item is triggered, the triggered alert item is expanded and the remaining alert items are collapsed; or
when the… item is collapsed, a fifth control for expanding the… item is displayed, and when the… item is expanded, the fifth control is hidden (Yacoub Fig. 6 shows that when items are collapsed, a “+” is displayed for expanding the item. When the item is expanded, the “+” is no longer displayed (it turns into a “-“ sign)) (Note: this limitation is contingent upon displaying the alert item).”
One would have been motivated to combine Haribhakti and Google and Yacoub, before the effective filing date of the invention because it provides the benefit to provide a control to expand and collapse information, which allows a user to control when they want to see the information, which allows the user flexibility when they want to view the information.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Bostick (US 20160132721 A1) listed on 892 is related to finding alert items in text, and hiding them.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to SAMUEL SHEN whose telephone number is (469)295-9169 and email address is samuel.shen@uspto.gov. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Thursday, 7:00 am - 5:00 pm CT.
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, Fred Ehichioya can be reached on (571) 272-4034. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of published or unpublished applications may be obtained from Patent Center. Unpublished application information in Patent Center is available to registered users. To file and manage patent submissions in Patent Center, visit: https://patentcenter.uspto.gov. Visit https://www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/patent-center for more information about Patent Center and https://www.uspto.gov/patents/docx for information about filing in DOCX format. For additional questions, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/S.S./Examiner, Art Unit 2179
/IRETE F EHICHIOYA/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2179
Prosecution Insights