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 communication is in response to the Amendment filed on 06/03/2026.
In the Instant amendment, claim 12 was canceled; claims 1 and 13-14 have been amended; Claims 1 and 13 are independent claims; Claims 1-11 and 13-20 have been examined and are pending. This Action is made FINAL.
Response to Arguments
The objection to claim 14 is withdrawn as the claim has been amended.
Applicant’s arguments filed on 09/03/2026 with respect to limitations listed below have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicants argue: Massand fails to disclose “wherein the first associated area and the second associated area are both disposed in same interface of the second document.”
The Examiner disagrees with the Applicants. The Examiner respectfully submits that Massand does disclose ‘wherein the first associated area and the second associated area are both disposed in same interface of the second document’ (pars. 0038-0040, 0045, 0048-0052 and 0053-0058; Figs. 7-8 and 10; the text of a document contained in the master data file is displayed in editing window 72 and the contents of the secondary data file are shown in comment window 74; editing window 72 and comment window 74 are displayed on the same interface of the display window 70). As discussed in paragraphs [0038]-[0040], [0045], [0048]-[0052] and [0053]-[0058], and illustrated on figures. 7-8 and 10, the editing window 71 and comment window 74 are displayed on the same interface of the display window 70, it’s clear that Massand discloses the limitations argued above.
Applicant’s arguments with respect to the limitations “the interface is synchronously displayed to the at least one associated person,” recited in amended claims 1 and 13 have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument.
The Examiner respectfully suggests that the claim be further amended and details in the specification be incorporated to distinguish the claimed invention over prior art of record.
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 1-2, 9, 11 and 13-15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Massand (US 2010/0235763), published on Sept. 16, 2010, in view of Larabie-Belanger (US 2015/0288774), published on Oct. 08, 2015.
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 at least one 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).
wherein the first associated area and the second associated area are both disposed in same interface of the second document (pars. 0038-0040, 0045, 0048-0052 and 0053-0058; Figs. 7-8 and 10; the text of a document contained in the master data file is displayed in editing window 72 and the contents of the secondary data file are shown in comment window 74; editing window 72 and comment window 74 are displayed on the same interface of the display window 70).
Massand does not explicitly disclose the interface is synchronously displayed to the at least one associated person.
However, Larabie-Belanger discloses a method/system for displaying synchronized content, wherein the interface is synchronously displayed to the at least one associated person (Larabie-Belanger: pars. 0048-0052, 0056, 0072, 0078 and 0118-0120; management module 204 displays presence information relating to other users by attaching a presence indicator to a user interface element associated with a synchronized content item).
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 * with the system/method of Massand. One would have been motivated to display synchronized content to users within collaboration environment (Larabie-Belanger: pars. 0048-0052).
Regarding claim 2, Massand and Larabie-Belanger disclose the information processing method according to claim 1.
The combination of Massand and Larabie-Belanger further discloses 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 (Massand: 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; Larabie-Belanger: pars. 0048-0052, 0056, 0072 and 0078; Figs. 5A-5D and 11).
Regarding claim 9, Massand and Larabie-Belanger disclose the information processing method according to claim 1.
The combination of Massand and Larabie-Belanger further discloses 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 (Massand: pars. 0048-0052 and 0058-0062; Figs. 5-8; see also pars. 0039-0045; Fig. 3; Larabie-Belanger: pars. 0048-0052, 0056, 0072 and 0078; Figs. 5A-5D and 11).
Regarding claim 11, Massand and Larabie-Belanger disclose the information processing method according to claim 1.
The combination of Massand and Larabie-Belanger further discloses wherein the first document is a local document, and the second document is a document capable of being collaborated on by multiple people (Massand: 0049-0053; Fig. 5; reviewers 202-026; see also pars. 0039-0042; Fig. 3; Larabie-Belanger: pars. 0048-0052, 0056, 0072 and 0078; Figs. 5A-5D and 11).
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.
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 Larabie-Belanger (US 2015/0288774), published on Oct. 08, 2015, and further in view of van Doorn et al. (“van Doorn,” US 10,101,893), issued on Oct. 16, 2018.
Regarding claim 3, Massand and Larabie-Belanger disclose the information processing method according to claim 1.
Massand further discloses displaying identity information (Massand: Fig. 10; L1R3, L1R2, L1R1).
Massand and Larabie-Belanger do 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 and Larabie-Belanger. 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, Larabie-Belanger and van Doorn disclose the information processing method according to claim 3.
The combination of Massand, Larabie-Belanger 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; Larabie-Belanger: Figs. 5A-5D and 11).
The motivation is the same as that of claim 3 above.
Regarding claim 5, Massand, Larabie-Belanger and van Doorn disclose the information processing method according to claim 4.
The combination of Massand, Larabie-Belanger 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 as that of claim 3 above.
Regarding claim 6, Massand and Larabie-Belanger disclose the information processing method according to claim 1.
Massand further discloses wherein [[a status]] an identifier is displayed in an associated area of a title of the second document (Massand: 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).
The combination of Massand and Larabie-Belanger 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 and Larabie-Belanger. 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, Larabie-Belanger and van Doorn disclose the information processing method according to claim 6.
The combination of Massand, Larabie-Belanger 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 as that of claim 6 above.
Regarding claim 8, Massand, Larabie-Belanger and van Doorn disclose the information processing method according to claim 6.
The combination of Massand, Larabie-Belanger 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 as 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 Larabie-Belanger (US 2015/0288774), published on Oct. 08, 2015, and further in view of Motoyama (US 2004/0162750), published on Aug. 19, 2004.
Regarding claim 10, Massand and Larabie-Belanger disclose the information processing method according to claim 1.
Massand and Larabie-Belanger do 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 and Larabie-Belanger. One would have been motivated to create an official version of a document after collaborating all changes from draft documents (Motoyama: par. 0073).
Conclusion
Applicant’s amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any extension fee pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Inquiry
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