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 .
DETAILED ACTION
This Office Action is in response to the application 18/711,323 filed on 05/17/2024.
As per the Preliminary Amendment filed on 05/17/2024, Claims 13-14 have been amended; Claims 15-20 have been added. Claims 1-20 have been examined and are pending. This Action is made Non-FINAL.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statements (IDS) submitted on 08/16/2024 is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement is being considered by the examiner.
Claim Interpretation - 35 USC § 112
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: “document receiving module, configured to received …;” “relationship establishing module, configured to establish …;” “editing module, configured to receive …,” recited in claim 12.
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 Objections
Claim 14 is objected to because of the following informalities:
Regarding claim 14, claim 14 recites the limitation “[a] storage medium;” In light of the specification, for better clarity, it’s suggested that the aforementioned limitation be further amended to “[a] machine-readable storage medium, which is not a signal medium;” (emphasis added).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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.
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 1-2, 9 and 11-15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Massand (US 2010/0235763), published on Sept. 16, 2010.
Regarding claim 1, Massand discloses an information processing method (Figs. 5-6), comprising:
receiving a first document, and generating a second document based on the first document (pars. 0048-0052 and 0058-0062; Figs. 5-8, step 4; each of the reviewers designated by owner 130 receives a copy of master data file 124 containing document 122 and a unique secondary data file 128 associated with document 122; Fig. 5, step 5; reviewers 202, 204 and 208 return their respective secondary data files 128a, 128b and 128c containing suggested changes to central database 102);
establishing an association relationship between the second document and at least one associated person (pars. 0049-0053 and 0055-0058; Figs. 5-8; owner 130 has designated a first level, Level 1 or L1 of subordinate reviewers 202, 204 and 206, (R1, R2 and R3 respectively) to review a document), and displaying the association relationship in a first associated area of a content area of the second document (pars. 0053-0058; Figs. 3 and 5-8; “L1R3@litera.com” [i.e., level 1 reviewer 3 (206)] displayed on the comment window 74); and
receiving an edit operation performed by the associated person on the content area of the second document (pars. 0040-0041 and 0053-0058; Figs. 3 and 5-8; level 1 and level 2 reviewers edit and make changes to the document), and generating editing information in a second associated area of the content area of the second document based on the edit operation (pars. 0045 and 0048-0052; Figs. 8-10; changes made in the text in editing window 72 appear as a suggestion 76 in comment window 74 along with the identity of the reviewer and the time of the change; the reviewer may also make comments 78 directly into the comment window such as an explanation or description of the comments).
Regarding claim 2, Massand discloses the information processing method according to claim 1, wherein before the establishing an association relationship between the second document and at least one associated person, the method further comprises: displaying person recommendation information, a person search control, and/or a share control in the first associated area of the content area of the second document (pars. 0048-0053; Fig. 8; suggestion 76 and comments 78 of the reviewer L1R3@litera.com are displayed on window 74; see also pars. 0039-0045).
Regarding claim 9, Massand discloses the information processing method according to claim 1, wherein the edit operation comprises a modify operation and/or a comment operation performed on the content of the second document, and the editing information comprises information about a user that performs the edit operation and operation content of the edit operation (pars. 0048-0052 and 0058-0062; Figs. 5-8; see also pars. 0039-0045; Fig. 3).
Regarding claim 11, Massand discloses the information processing method according to claim 1, wherein the first document is a local document, and the second document is a document capable of being collaborated on by multiple people (0049-0053; Fig. 5; reviewers 202-026; see also pars. 0039-0042; Fig. 3).
Regarding claim 12, claim 12 is directed to an information processing apparatus corresponding to the method recited in claim 1. Claim 12 is similar in scope to claim 1, and is therefore rejected under similar rationale.
Regarding claim 13, claim 13 is directed to a terminal corresponding to the method recited in claim 1. Claim 13 is similar in scope to claim 1, and is therefore rejected under similar rationale.
Regarding claim 14, claim 14 is directed to a storage medium to perform the method recited in claim 1. Claim 14 is similar in scope to claim 1, and is therefore rejected under similar rationale.
Regarding claim 15, claim 15 is directed to a terminal corresponding to the method recited in claim 2. Claim 15 is similar in scope to claim 2, and is therefore rejected under similar rationale.
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 of this title, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
Claims 3-8 and 16-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Massand (US 2010/0235763), published on Sept. 16, 2010, in view of van Doorn et al. (“van Doorn,” US 10,101,893), issued on Oct. 16, 2018.
Regarding claim 3, Massand discloses the information processing method according to claim 1.
Massand displaying identity information (Massand: Fig. 10; L1R3, L1R2, L1R1), but does not explicitly disclose displaying editing stage information of the associated person, the editing stage information being used to indicate the progress of processing the second document by the associated person.
However, van Doorn discloses a method/system for tracking document feedback, including the steps of displaying editing stage information of the associated person, the editing stage information being used to indicate the progress of processing the second document by the associated person. (van Doorn: col. 3, lines 10-23; Figure 2; feedback status: ‘reviewed,’ ‘approved,’ and ‘not reviewed’ corresponding to recipient John Smith, Jane Doe, and Tom Barnes, respectively displayed on feedback tracking panel; the review status may also include the extent to which a document has been reviewed (e.g.: 0% reviewed, 25% reviewed, 75% reviewed, 100% reviewed; or, not reviewed, partially reviewed, mostly reviewed, completely reviewed).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine teachings of van Doorn with the system/method of Massand. One would have been motivated to visualize feedback/comments status of a plurality of reviewers on a document (van Doorn: col. 3, lines 10-23).
Regarding claim 4, Massand and van Doorn disclose the information processing method according to claim 3.
The combination of Massand and van Doorn further discloses changing the editing stage information from first editing stage information to second editing stage information in response to a view operation performed by the associated person on the second document (Massand: par. 0045; Fig. 10; van Doorn: col. 3, lines 10-23; Figure 2; “not reviewed” status of user Tom Barnes is displayed on the feedback tracking panel); or
changing the editing stage information from second editing stage information to third editing stage information in response to a trigger operation performed by the associated person on a preset control in the second document (Massand: par. 0045; Fig. 10; van Doorn: col. 3, lines 10-23; Figure 2; “approved” status of user Jane Doe is displayed on the feedback tracking panel).
The motivation is the same that of claim 3 above.
Regarding claim 5, Massand and van Doorn disclose the information processing method according to claim 4.
The combination of Massand and van Doorn further disclose, wherein the editing stage information in different stages has different information content, and the information content comprises a display status and identifier content (Massand: par. 0045; Fig. 10; van Doorn: col. 3, lines 10-23; Figure 2; feedback status: ‘reviewed,’ ‘approved,’ and ‘not reviewed’ corresponding to recipient John Smith, Jane Doe, and Tom Barnes, respectively displayed on feedback tracking panel; the review status may also include the extent to which a document has been reviewed (e.g.: 0% reviewed, 25% reviewed, 75% reviewed, 100% reviewed; or, not reviewed, partially reviewed, mostly reviewed, completely reviewed).
The motivation is the same that of claim 3 above.
Regarding claim 6, Massand discloses the information processing method according to claim 1, wherein [[a status]] an identifier is displayed in an associated area of a title of the second document (pars. 0039-0042 and 0048-0053; Figs. 3, 5 and 9; the file contains the identity 92 of the reviewer, the name 94 of the document being edited (identified as Doc1.txt) and a table 96 containing an indexed list of suggested changes made by a specific reviewer such as reviewer 202).
Massand discloses an identifier is displayed in an area as recited above, but does not explicitly disclose the identifier is a status identifier, and the status identifier is used to indicate whether the association relationship is established between the second document and the associated person.
However, van Doorn discloses a method/system for tracking document feedback, wherein the identifier is a status identifier, and the status identifier is used to indicate whether the association relationship is established between the second document and the associated person (van Doorn: col. 3, lines 10-23; Figure 2; feedback status: ‘reviewed,’ ‘approved,’ and ‘not reviewed’ corresponding to recipient John Smith, Jane Doe, and Tom Barnes, respectively displayed on feedback tracking panel; the review status may include status identifiers that indicate whether the recipient has opened the document, reviewed the document, provided comments, or approved the document).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine teachings of van Doorn with the system/method of Massand. One would have been motivated to visualize feedback/comments status of a plurality of reviewers on a document (van Doorn: col. 3, lines 10-23).
Regarding claim 7, Massand and van Doorn disclose the information processing method according to claim 6.
The combination of Massand and van Doorn further discloses displaying a first status identifier in response to the association relationship being not established between the second document and the associated person; (Massand: pars. 0048-0053; Fig. 8; van Doorn: col. 3, lines 10-23; Fig. 2; feedback status “not reviewed” of recipient “Tom Barnes” is displayed on the feedback tracking panel) or
displaying a second status identifier in response to the association relationship being established between the second document and the associated person (Massand: pars. 0048-0053; Fig. 8; suggestion 76 and comments 78 of the reviewer L1R3@litera.com are displayed on window 74; van Doorn: col. 3, lines 10-23; Fig. 2; feedback status of each recipient are display on the feedback tracking panel).
The motivation is the same that of claim 6 above.
Regarding claim 8, Massand and van Doorn disclose the information processing method according to claim 6.
The combination of Massand and van Doorn further discloses displaying a third status identifier in response to the associated person having processed the second document (Massand: pars. 0045-0049; Fig. 10; van Doorn: col. 2, lines 10-23; Fig. 2).
The motivation is the same that of claim 6 above.
Regarding claim 16, claim 16 is directed to a terminal corresponding to the method recited in claim 3. Claim 16 is similar in scope to claim 3, and is therefore rejected under similar rationale.
Regarding claim 17, claim 17 is directed to a terminal corresponding to the method recited in claim 4. Claim 17 is similar in scope to claim 4, and is therefore rejected under similar rationale.
Regarding claim 18, claim 18 is directed to a terminal corresponding to the method recited in claim 5. Claim 18 is similar in scope to claim 5, and is therefore rejected under similar rationale.
Regarding claim 19, claim 19 is directed to a terminal corresponding to the method recited in claim 6. Claim 19 is similar in scope to claim 6, and is therefore rejected under similar rationale.
Regarding claim 20, claim 20 is directed to a terminal corresponding to the method recited in claim 7. Claim 20 is similar in scope to claim 7, and is therefore rejected under similar rationale.
Claim 10 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Massand (US 2010/0235763), published on Sept. 16, 2010, in view of Motoyama (US 2004/0162750), published on Aug. 19, 2004.
Regarding claim 10, Massand discloses the information processing method according to claim 1.
Massand does not explicitly disclose generating an official version of the second document, wherein the generating an official version of the second document comprises: generating the official version of the second document based on a preset operation of a preset associated person in the associated person.
However, Motoyama discloses a method to manage project files including the steps of generating an official version of the second document, wherein the generating an official version of the second document comprises: generating the official version of the second document based on a preset operation of a preset associated person in the associated person (Motoyama: par. 0073; Fig. 8, steps 820-822; upon completion of a draft file, the status of the file is changed from draft to official and it is stored in the database indicating its status, at step 820; finally, at step 822, the official file is linked to the project site).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine teachings of Motoyama with the system/method of Massand. One would have been motivated to create an official version of a document after collaborating all changes from draft documents (Motoyama: par. 0073).
Conclusion
The prior art made of record on form PTO-892 and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Applicant is required under 37 C.F.R. § 1.111(c) to consider these references fully when responding to this action.
It is noted that any citation to specific, pages, columns, lines, or figures in the prior art references and any interpretation of the references should not be considered to be limiting in any way. A reference is relevant for all it contains and may be relied upon for all that it would have reasonably suggested to one having ordinary skill in the art. In re Heck, 699 F.2d 1331, 1332-33,216 USPQ 1038, 1039 (Fed. Cir. 1983) (quoting In re Lemelson, 397 F.2d 1006, 1009, 158 USPQ 275,277 (CCPA 1968))
Inquiries
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to LINH K PHAM whose telephone number is (571)270-3230. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Thursday from 8:00 AM to 6:00 PM (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, William L Bashore can be reached on (571) 272-4088. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of published or unpublished applications may be obtained from Patent Center. Unpublished application information in Patent Center is available to registered users. To file and manage patent submissions in Patent Center, visit: https://patentcenter.uspto.gov. Visit https://www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/patent-center for more information about Patent Center and https://www.uspto.gov/patents/docx for information about filing in DOCX format. For additional questions, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/LINH K PHAM/
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 2174
Prosecution Insights