DETAILED ACTION
The action is responsive to the Application filed on 18/855569. Claims 1-7, 9, 11-16, 18-20 and 22-24 are pending in the case. Claims 1, 11 and 19 are independent claims.
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 .
Drawings
The drawings are objected to as failing to comply with 37 CFR 1.84(p)(5) because they do not include the following reference sign(s) mentioned in the description: S1-9 and steps 11-56. Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claim 7 and 9 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. As to claim 7, the claim recites “displaying the second document to the second user” which lacks antecedent basis therefore making the claim indefinite. For the purposes of examination, Examiner assumed the claim to recite “displaying the second document to a second user”. Claim 9 is rejected under the same rationale since it depends from claim 7.
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.
Claims 1-4, 11-14, 19, 20, 22 and 23 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sreekanth (US 20090150453 A1) in view of Lee et al. (US 20020035603 A1, hereinafter Lee).
As to claim 1, Sreekanth discloses a document display method, the method comprising:
receiving a first access request triggered by a first user, wherein the first access request carries an identifier of a second document ("FIG. 3 illustrates a flowchart of a method 300 for opening a document on either the desktop 205 or the PDA 260. At block 305, the user opens a document on either the desktop 205 or the PDA 260. At block 310, the respective application loads and renders the document," Sreekanth paragraph 0038, user request to open a particular document);
determining whether historical browsing status data of the second document exists based on the identifier of the second document ("In exemplary embodiments, the plugin 210, 265 checks if the document has any marker record in the marker registry database 315 by querying based on a combination of Document name and location of the document in the system at block 320. The method 300 then checks if a valid entry is retrieved at block 325. If at block 325, there is no entry in the database 315, the plugin 210, 265 does not do any work and the method 300 ends," Sreekanth paragraph 0038, checking the marker registry database to see if a record (i.e., historical browsing status data) exists for the opened document); and
in response to the historical browsing status data existing, controlling a display of the second document based the identifier of the second document and the historical browsing status data ("If at block 325, there is an entry the database 315, the plugin 210, 265 reads the marker entry and performs scroll operations to position the view at the specified location as defined in the marker entry at block 330," Sreekanth paragraph 0038).
However Sreekanth does not appear to explicitly disclose receiving a first access request triggered by a first user on a first document.
Lee teaches receiving a first access request triggered by a first user on a first document (“FIGS. 6A to 6D exemplarily show execution of the collaborative browsing according to the present invention. Referring to FIGS. 6A to 6D, a user 1 (FIG. 6A) and a user 2 (FIG. 6B) who participate in a session are browsing in the same web page (HTML text) having the URL of http://www.etri.re,kr. Here, when the user 1 clicks on the link R&D in the web page, of the web browsers of the users 1 and 2 who join in the session are changed into the corresponding URL, displaying the same web page corresponding to the URL to the user 1 (FIG. 6C) and user 2 (FIG. 6D),” Lee paragraph 0033, user request to access an R&D document triggered from clicking in a first document).
Accordingly 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 method of Sreekanth to open documents from a request in another document such as webpage as taught by Lee. One would have been motivated to make such a combination so that Sreekanth’s document marker mechanism could be used with more kinds of documents thus enhancing the utility of the finished product.
As to claim 2, Sreekanth as modified by Lee further discloses the method according to claim 1, wherein the controlling the display of the second document based the identifier of the second document and the historical browsing status data comprises:
displaying the second document to the first user based on the identifier of the second document ("FIG. 3 illustrates a flowchart of a method 300 for opening a document on either the desktop 205 or the PDA 260. At block 305, the user opens a document on either the desktop 205 or the PDA 260. At block 310, the respective application loads and renders the document… In exemplary embodiments, the plugin 210, 265 checks if the document has any marker record in the marker registry database 315 by querying based on a combination of Document name and location of the document in the system at block 320" Sreekanth paragraph 0038, document is displayed and has a name and location (i.e., an identifier)); and
controlling a browsing status of the second document based on the historical browsing status data, in response to it being determined that the second document is in a display status ("At block 310, the respective application loads and renders the document. The respective plugin 210, 265 becomes activated after the document has been completely read and rendered by the respective reader 215, 275… If at block 325, there is an entry the database 315, the plugin 210, 265 reads the marker entry and performs scroll operations to position the view at the specified location as defined in the marker entry at block 330," Sreekanth paragraph 0038, controlling the browsing status to scroll to the correct location after the second document is displayed).
As to claim 3, Sreekanth as modified by Lee further discloses the method according to claim 1, wherein the method further comprises after receiving the first access request triggered by the first user on the first document:
acquiring first browsing status data, wherein the first browsing status data is configured to describe a browsing status of the first document in response to the first access request being triggered (“FIG. 4 illustrates a flowchart of a method 400 for closing a document on either the desk-top 205 or the PDA 260. At block 405, the user closes the document… The plugin then creates an entry in the marker registry database 415 at block 420. At block 425, the method 400 determines if a valid entry is received. If at block 425, the marker registry 415 already has an entry for the same document, identified by a combination of the document name and location of the document in the system, then the registry 415 is updated with the new marker at block 430. If at block 425, the marker registry does not have an entry for the same document, then at block 435, a new entry is made in the Registry database 415,” Sreekanth paragraph 0039; “Here, when the user 1 clicks on the link R&D in the web page, of the web browsers of the users 1 and 2 who join in the session are changed into the corresponding URL, displaying the same web page corresponding to the URL to the user 1 (FIG. 6C) and user 2 (FIG. 6D),” Lee paragraph 0033, saving a browsing status marker for the document upon document close where in the combination between Sreekanth and Lee navigating from one page to another is a document close); and
establishing a correspondence between a first identifier and the first browsing status data, wherein the first identifier is configured to identify the first document (“The plugin then creates an entry in the marker registry database 415 at block 420. At block 425, the method 400 determines if a valid entry is received. If at block 425, the marker registry 415 already has an entry for the same document, identified by a combination of the document name and location of the document in the system, then the registry 415 is updated with the new marker at block 430. If at block 425, the marker registry does not have an entry for the same document, then at block 435, a new entry is made in the Registry database 415,” Sreekanth paragraph 0039, saving a browsing status marker in the registry where the marker associated with a name and location of the document (i.e., an identifier));
wherein the determining whether historical browsing status data of the second document exists based on the identifier of the second document comprises:
determining whether there is a correspondence comprising the identifier of the second document, to obtain a determination result (“In exemplary embodiments, the plugin 210, 265 checks if the document has any marker record in the marker registry database 315 by querying based on a combination of Document name and location of the document in the system at block 320. The method 300 then checks if a valid entry is retrieved at block 325. If at block 325, there is no entry in the database 315, the plugin 210, 265 does not do any work and the method 300 ends. If at block 325, there is an entry the database 315, the plugin 210, 265 reads the marker entry and performs scroll operations to position the view at the specified location as defined in the marker entry at block 330,” Sreekanth paragraph 0038, determining if the marker database contains an entry for the document name and location (i.e., an identifier)); and
determining whether the historical browsing status data of the second document exists based on the determination result (“In exemplary embodiments, the plugin 210, 265 checks if the document has any marker record in the marker registry database 315 by querying based on a combination of Document name and location of the document in the system at block 320. The method 300 then checks if a valid entry is retrieved at block 325. If at block 325, there is no entry in the database 315, the plugin 210, 265 does not do any work and the method 300 ends. If at block 325, there is an entry the database 315, the plugin 210, 265 reads the marker entry and performs scroll operations to position the view at the specified location as defined in the marker entry at block 330,” Sreekanth paragraph 0038, if the marker entry exists, reading the marker entry for browsing status data).
As to claim 4, Sreekanth as modified by Lee further discloses the method according to claim 3, wherein the determining whether the historical browsing status data of the second document exists based on the determination result comprises:
in response to the determination result indicating that there is the correspondence comprising the identifier of the second document, extracting the historical browsing status data of the second document from the correspondence comprising the identifier of the second document ("In exemplary embodiments, the plugin 210, 265 checks if the document has any marker record in the marker registry database 315 by querying based on a combination of Document name and location of the document in the system at block 320. The method 300 then checks if a valid entry is retrieved at block 325. If at block 325, there is an entry the database 315, the plugin 210, 265 reads the marker entry and performs scroll operations to position the view at the specified location as defined in the marker entry at block 330," Sreekanth paragraph 0038, reading (i.e., extracting) the browsing status data from the marker which is associated with the document name and location (i.e., an identifier)); and
in response to the determination result indicating that there is no correspondence comprising the identifier of the second document, determining that the historical browsing status data of the second document does not exist ("In exemplary embodiments, the plugin 210, 265 checks if the document has any marker record in the marker registry database 315 by querying based on a combination of Document name and location of the document in the system at block 320. The method 300 then checks if a valid entry is retrieved at block 325. If at block 325, there is no entry in the database 315, the plugin 210, 265 does not do any work and the method 300 ends," Sreekanth paragraph 0038, determining there is no browsing history for the particular document).
As to claim 11, Sreekanth discloses the document display method for applying to a first interaction module, comprising:
receiving a first access request triggered by a first user, wherein the first access request carries an identifier of a second document ("FIG. 3 illustrates a flowchart of a method 300 for opening a document on either the desktop 205 or the PDA 260. At block 305, the user opens a document on either the desktop 205 or the PDA 260. At block 310, the respective application loads and renders the document," Sreekanth paragraph 0038, user request to open a particular document); and
sending the identifier of the second document to a first processing module, and sending, after obtaining historical browsing status data of the second document, the historical browsing status data to the first processing module, such that the first processing module controls a display of the second document based on the identifier of the second document and the historical browsing status data, wherein the historical browsing status data is obtained based on the identifier of the second document ("In exemplary embodiments, the plugin 210, 265 checks if the document has any marker record in the marker registry database 315 by querying based on a combination of Document name and location of the document in the system at block 320. The method 300 then checks if a valid entry is retrieved at block 325. If at block 325, there is no entry in the database 315, the plugin 210, 265 does not do any work and the method 300 ends. If at block 325, there is an entry the database 315, the plugin 210, 265 reads the marker entry and performs scroll operations to position the view at the specified location as defined in the marker entry at block 330," Sreekanth paragraph 0038, checking the marker registry database to see if a record (i.e., historical browsing status data) exists for the opened document and if so controlling the document to scroll to a particular location).
However Sreekanth does not appear to explicitly disclose receiving a first access request triggered by a first user on a first document.
Lee teaches receiving a first access request triggered by a first user on a first document (“FIGS. 6A to 6D exemplarily show execution of the collaborative browsing according to the present invention. Referring to FIGS. 6A to 6D, a user 1 (FIG. 6A) and a user 2 (FIG. 6B) who participate in a session are browsing in the same web page (HTML text) having the URL of http://www.etri.re,kr. Here, when the user 1 clicks on the link R&D in the web page, of the web browsers of the users 1 and 2 who join in the session are changed into the corresponding URL, displaying the same web page corresponding to the URL to the user 1 (FIG. 6C) and user 2 (FIG. 6D),” Lee paragraph 0033, user request to access an R&D document triggered from clicking in a first document).
Accordingly 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 method of Sreekanth to open documents from a request in another document such as webpage as taught by Lee. One would have been motivated to make such a combination so that Sreekanth’s document marker mechanism could be used with more kinds of documents thus enhancing the utility of the finished product.
As to claim 12, Sreekanth as modified by Lee further discloses the method of claim 11, further comprising:
generating a document jump instruction based on the identifier of the second document (“In exemplary embodiments, the plugin 210, 265 checks if the document has any marker record in the marker registry database 315 by querying based on a combination of Document name and location of the document in the system at block 320. The method 300 then checks if a valid entry is retrieved at block 325. If at block 325, there is no entry in the database 315, the plugin 210, 265 does not do any work and the method 300 ends. If at block 325, there is an entry the database 315, the plugin 210, 265 reads the marker entry and performs scroll operations to position the view at the specified location as defined in the marker entry at block 330,” Sreekanth paragraph 0038);
wherein the sending the identifier of the second document to the first processing module comprises:
sending the document jump instruction to the first processing module, such that the first processing module displays the second document to the first user based on the identifier of the second document carried by the document jump instruction (“In exemplary embodiments, the plugin 210, 265 checks if the document has any marker record in the marker registry database 315 by querying based on a combination of Document name and location of the document in the system at block 320. The method 300 then checks if a valid entry is retrieved at block 325. If at block 325, there is no entry in the database 315, the plugin 210, 265 does not do any work and the method 300 ends. If at block 325, there is an entry the database 315, the plugin 210, 265 reads the marker entry and performs scroll operations to position the view at the specified location as defined in the marker entry at block 330,” Sreekanth paragraph 0038);
wherein the sending the historical browsing status data to the first processing module comprises:
sending the historical browsing status data to the first processing module after obtaining a status data query request sent by the first processing module, such that the first processing module controls a browsing status of the second document based on the historical browsing status data, wherein the status data query request is configured to request the first interaction module to provide the historical browsing status data (“In exemplary embodiments, the plugin 210, 265 checks if the document has any marker record in the marker registry database 315 by querying based on a combination of Document name and location of the document in the system at block 320. The method 300 then checks if a valid entry is retrieved at block 325. If at block 325, there is no entry in the database 315, the plugin 210, 265 does not do any work and the method 300 ends. If at block 325, there is an entry the database 315, the plugin 210, 265 reads the marker entry and performs scroll operations to position the view at the specified location as defined in the marker entry at block 330,” Sreekanth paragraph 0038).
As to claim 13, Sreekanth as modified by Lee further discloses the method according to claim 12, further comprising:
sending, after obtaining the status data query request sent by the first processing module, preset information to the first processing module in response to the historical browsing status data not existing, wherein the preset information is configured to indicate that the historical browsing status data does not exist in the first interaction module (“In exemplary embodiments, the plugin 210, 265 checks if the document has any marker record in the marker registry database 315 by querying based on a combination of Document name and location of the document in the system at block 320. The method 300 then checks if a valid entry is retrieved at block 325. If at block 325, there is no entry in the database 315, the plugin 210, 265 does not do any work and the method 300 ends,” Sreekanth paragraph 0038).
As to claim 14, Sreekanth as modified by Lee further discloses the method according to claim 12, wherein the method further comprises after the sending the document jump instruction to the first processing module:
obtaining first browsing status data sent by the first processing module, wherein the first browsing status data is configured to describe a browsing status of the first document in response to the first access request being triggered (“FIG. 4 illustrates a flowchart of a method 400 for closing a document on either the desk-top 205 or the PDA 260. At block 405, the user closes the document… The plugin then creates an entry in the marker registry database 415 at block 420. At block 425, the method 400 determines if a valid entry is received. If at block 425, the marker registry 415 already has an entry for the same document, identified by a combination of the document name and location of the document in the system, then the registry 415 is updated with the new marker at block 430. If at block 425, the marker registry does not have an entry for the same document, then at block 435, a new entry is made in the Registry database 415,” Sreekanth paragraph 0039; “Here, when the user 1 clicks on the link R&D in the web page, of the web browsers of the users 1 and 2 who join in the session are changed into the corresponding URL, displaying the same web page corresponding to the URL to the user 1 (FIG. 6C) and user 2 (FIG. 6D),” Lee paragraph 0033, saving a browsing status marker for the document upon document close where in the combination between Sreekanth and Lee navigating from one page to another is a document close); and
establishing a correspondence between a first identifier and the first browsing status data, wherein the first identifier is configured to identify the first document (“The plugin then creates an entry in the marker registry database 415 at block 420. At block 425, the method 400 determines if a valid entry is received. If at block 425, the marker registry 415 already has an entry for the same document, identified by a combination of the document name and location of the document in the system, then the registry 415 is updated with the new marker at block 430. If at block 425, the marker registry does not have an entry for the same document, then at block 435, a new entry is made in the Registry database 415,” Sreekanth paragraph 0039, saving a browsing status marker in the registry where the marker associated with a name and location of the document (i.e., an identifier));
wherein a process of obtaining the historical browsing status data comprises:
determining, after obtaining the correspondence comprising the identifier of the second document, the historical browsing status data of the second document from the correspondence comprising the identifier of the second document (“In exemplary embodiments, the plugin 210, 265 checks if the document has any marker record in the marker registry database 315 by querying based on a combination of Document name and location of the document in the system at block 320. The method 300 then checks if a valid entry is retrieved at block 325. If at block 325, there is no entry in the database 315, the plugin 210, 265 does not do any work and the method 300 ends. If at block 325, there is an entry the database 315, the plugin 210, 265 reads the marker entry and performs scroll operations to position the view at the specified location as defined in the marker entry at block 330,” Sreekanth paragraph 0038, if the marker entry exists, reading the marker entry for browsing status data).
As to claim 19, Sreekanth discloses a document display method for applying to a first processing module, comprising:
receiving an identifier of a second document and historical browsing status data of the second document sent by a first interaction module in response to the first processing module ("FIG. 3 illustrates a flowchart of a method 300 for opening a document on either the desktop 205 or the PDA 260. At block 305, the user opens a document on either the desktop 205 or the PDA 260. At block 310, the respective application loads and renders the document… In exemplary embodiments, the plugin 210, 265 checks if the document has any marker record in the marker registry database 315 by querying based on a combination of Document name and location of the document in the system at block 320. The method 300 then checks if a valid entry is retrieved at block 325. If at block 325, there is no entry in the database 315, the plugin 210, 265 does not do any work and the method 300 ends," Sreekanth paragraph 0038, user request to open a particular document and checking the marker registry database to see if a record (i.e., historical browsing status data) exists for the opened document); and
controlling a display of the second document based on the identifier of the second document and the historical browsing status data of the second document, such that the first processing module starts to display the second document ("If at block 325, there is an entry the database 315, the plugin 210, 265 reads the marker entry and performs scroll operations to position the view at the specified location as defined in the marker entry at block 330," Sreekanth paragraph 0038).
However Sreekanth does not appear to explicitly disclose the first processing module being displaying a first document.
Lee teaches the first processing module being displaying a first document (“FIGS. 6A to 6D exemplarily show execution of the collaborative browsing according to the present invention. Referring to FIGS. 6A to 6D, a user 1 (FIG. 6A) and a user 2 (FIG. 6B) who participate in a session are browsing in the same web page (HTML text) having the URL of http://www.etri.re,kr. Here, when the user 1 clicks on the link R&D in the web page, of the web browsers of the users 1 and 2 who join in the session are changed into the corresponding URL, displaying the same web page corresponding to the URL to the user 1 (FIG. 6C) and user 2 (FIG. 6D),” Lee paragraph 0033, user request to access an R&D document triggered from clicking in a first document).
Accordingly 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 method of Sreekanth to open documents from a request in another document such as webpage as taught by Lee. One would have been motivated to make such a combination so that Sreekanth’s document marker mechanism could be used with more kinds of documents thus enhancing the utility of the finished product.
As to claim 20, Sreekanth as modified by Lee further discloses the method according to claim 19, wherein the controlling the display of the second document comprises:
displaying, after receiving a document jump instruction sent by the first interaction module, the second document to a first user the identifier of the second document carried by the document jump instruction (“In exemplary embodiments, the plugin 210, 265 checks if the document has any marker record in the marker registry database 315 by querying based on a combination of Document name and location of the document in the system at block 320. The method 300 then checks if a valid entry is retrieved at block 325. If at block 325, there is no entry in the database 315, the plugin 210, 265 does not do any work and the method 300 ends. If at block 325, there is an entry the database 315, the plugin 210, 265 reads the marker entry and performs scroll operations to position the view at the specified location as defined in the marker entry at block 330,” Sreekanth paragraph 0038);
generating a status data query request based the identifier of the second document (“In exemplary embodiments, the plugin 210, 265 checks if the document has any marker record in the marker registry database 315 by querying based on a combination of Document name and location of the document in the system at block 320,” Sreekanth paragraph 0038);
sending the status data query request to the first interaction module (“In exemplary embodiments, the plugin 210, 265 checks if the document has any marker record in the marker registry database 315 by querying based on a combination of Document name and location of the document in the system at block 320,” Sreekanth paragraph 0038);
obtaining a status data query result fed back by the first interaction module, for the status data query request (“The method 300 then checks if a valid entry is retrieved at block 325. If at block 325, there is no entry in the database 315, the plugin 210, 265 does not do any work and the method 300 ends. If at block 325, there is an entry the database 315, the plugin 210, 265 reads the marker entry and performs scroll operations to position the view at the specified location as defined in the marker entry at block 330,” Sreekanth paragraph 0038); and
in response to the status data query result carries carrying the historical browsing status data of the second document, controlling a browsing status of the second document based on the historical browsing status data (“The method 300 then checks if a valid entry is retrieved at block 325. If at block 325, there is no entry in the database 315, the plugin 210, 265 does not do any work and the method 300 ends. If at block 325, there is an entry the database 315, the plugin 210, 265 reads the marker entry and performs scroll operations to position the view at the specified location as defined in the marker entry at block 330,” Sreekanth paragraph 0038).
As to claim 22, Sreekanth as modified by Lee further discloses the method according to claim 20, wherein the method further comprises after receiving the document jump instruction sent by the first interaction module:
sending first browsing status data to the first interaction module, wherein the first browsing status data is configured to describe a browsing status of the first document in response to receiving the document jump instruction sent by the first interaction module (“In exemplary embodiments, the plugin 210, 265 uses native application API to retrieve the required marker Details. The plugin then creates an entry in the marker registry database 415 at block 420. At block 425, the method 400 determines if a valid entry is received. If at block 425, the marker registry 415 already has an entry for the same document, identified by a combination of the document name and location of the document in the system, then the registry 415 is updated with the new marker at block 430,” Sreekanth paragraph 0039).
As to claim 23, Sreekanth as modified by Lee further discloses the method according to claim 22, wherein the first browsing status data is determined based on a historical browsing operation of the first user on the first document, and the historical browsing operation is configured to indicate a document browsing operation triggered by the first user on the first document before receiving the document jump instruction sent by the first interaction module (“In exemplary embodiments, the plugin 210, 265 uses native application API to retrieve the required marker Details. The plugin then creates an entry in the marker registry database 415 at block 420. At block 425, the method 400 determines if a valid entry is received. If at block 425, the marker registry 415 already has an entry for the same document, identified by a combination of the document name and location of the document in the system, then the registry 415 is updated with the new marker at block 430. If at block 425, the marker registry does not have an entry for the same document, then at block 435, a new entry is made in the Registry database 415. In exemplary embodiments, the update operation updates the fields for marker information and current time,” Sreekanth paragraph 0039), or
wherein the first browsing status data is determined based on document location information of the identifier of the second document, and the document location information is configured to indicate a position of the identifier of the second document on the first document.
Claims 5, 6, 15 and 24 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sreekanth (US 20090150453 A1) in view of Lee et al. (US 20020035603 A1, hereinafter Lee) in further view of Ueda (US 20070265994 A1).
As to claim 5, Sreekanth as modified by Lee discloses the method according to claim 1, however neither Sreekanth nor Lee appear to explicitly disclose a limitation wherein the method further comprises after the controlling the display of the second document based on the identifier of the second document and the historical browsing status data:
deleting the historical browsing status data of the second document.
Ueda teaches a limitation wherein the method further comprises after the controlling the display of the second document based on the identifier of the second document and the historical browsing status data:
deleting the historical browsing status data of the second document (“A collection of use history records for each of the documents accumulated in the use history storage unit 206 is uploaded to the document management server 100 next time the user logs into that document management server 100 (X05). When multiple document management servers 100 are provided in the system, only the use history record for the document downloaded from the logged-in document management server 100 is uploaded among the use history records accumulated in the use history storage unit 206. Note that whether or not to upload each use history record to the logged-in document management server 100 can be determined with use of the document ID of the use history record, because the document ID included in the document downloaded from the document management server 100 includes the information that can specify that the document management server 100 and the use history record include the document ID. The use history record thus uploaded may be deleted from the use history storage unit 206 of the client computer 200 (X06),” Ueda paragraph 0044).
Accordingly 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 method of Sreekanth to allow deleting the historical browsing status as taught by Ueda. One would have been motivated to make such a combination so that user privacy could be improved in situations where a user record of a viewed document is undesirable.
As to claim 6, Sreekanth as modified by Lee and Ueda further discloses the method according to claim 5, further comprising:
obtaining second browsing status data, after receiving a second access request triggered by the first user on the second document, wherein the second browsing status data is configured to describe a browsing status of the second document in response to the second access request being triggered ("At block 425, the method 400 determines if a valid entry is received... If at block 425, the marker registry does not have an entry for the same document, then at block 435, a new entry is made in the Registry database 415," Sreekanth paragraph 0039); and
establishing a correspondence between the identifier of the second document and the second browsing status data ("At block 425, the method 400 determines if a valid entry is received... If at block 425, the marker registry does not have an entry for the same document, then at block 435, a new entry is made in the Registry database 415," Sreekanth paragraph 0039).
As to claim 15, Sreekanth as modified by Lee discloses the method according to claim 11, however neither Sreekanth nor Lee appear to explicitly disclose a limitation further comprising:
deleting the historical browsing status data of the second document after obtaining control complete information sent by the first processing module, wherein the control complete information is configured to indicate that the first processing module has completed the controlling of the display of the second document.
Ueda teaches a limitation further comprising:
deleting the historical browsing status data of the second document after obtaining control complete information sent by the first processing module, wherein the control complete information is configured to indicate that the first processing module has completed the controlling of the display of the second document (“A collection of use history records for each of the documents accumulated in the use history storage unit 206 is uploaded to the document management server 100 next time the user logs into that document management server 100 (X05). When multiple document management servers 100 are provided in the system, only the use history record for the document downloaded from the logged-in document management server 100 is uploaded among the use history records accumulated in the use history storage unit 206. Note that whether or not to upload each use history record to the logged-in document management server 100 can be determined with use of the document ID of the use history record, because the document ID included in the document downloaded from the document management server 100 includes the information that can specify that the document management server 100 and the use history record include the document ID. The use history record thus uploaded may be deleted from the use history storage unit 206 of the client computer 200 (X06),” Ueda paragraph 0044).
Accordingly 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 method of Sreekanth to allow deleting the historical browsing status as taught by Ueda. One would have been motivated to make such a combination so that user privacy could be improved in situations where a user record of a viewed document is undesirable.
As to claim 24, Sreekanth as modified by Lee discloses the method according to claim 19, however neither Sreekanth nor Lee appear to explicitly disclose a limitation wherein the method further comprises after controlling the display of the second document based on the identifier of the second document and the historical browsing status data of the second document:
generating control complete information based on the identifier to be used the identifier of the second document; and sending the control complete information to the first interaction module, such that the first interaction module deletes the historical browsing status data of the second document.
Ueda teaches a limitation wherein the method further comprises after controlling the display of the second document based on the identifier of the second document and the historical browsing status data of the second document:
generating control complete information based on the identifier to be used the identifier of the second document; and sending the control complete information to the first interaction module, such that the first interaction module deletes the historical browsing status data of the second document (“A collection of use history records for each of the documents accumulated in the use history storage unit 206 is uploaded to the document management server 100 next time the user logs into that document management server 100 (X05). When multiple document management servers 100 are provided in the system, only the use history record for the document downloaded from the logged-in document management server 100 is uploaded among the use history records accumulated in the use history storage unit 206. Note that whether or not to upload each use history record to the logged-in document management server 100 can be determined with use of the document ID of the use history record, because the document ID included in the document downloaded from the document management server 100 includes the information that can specify that the document management server 100 and the use history record include the document ID. The use history record thus uploaded may be deleted from the use history storage unit 206 of the client computer 200 (X06),” Ueda paragraph 0044).
Accordingly 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 method of Sreekanth to allow deleting the historical browsing status as taught by Ueda. One would have been motivated to make such a combination so that user privacy could be improved in situations where a user record of a viewed document is undesirable.
Claims 7, 9, 16 and 18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sreekanth (US 20090150453 A1) in view of Lee et al. (US 20020035603 A1, hereinafter Lee) in further view of Vyas et al. (US 11366583 B1, hereinafter Vyas).
As to claim 7, Sreekanth as modified by Lee further discloses the method according to claim 1, further comprising:
in response to the historical browsing status data not existing, displaying the second document to the first user based on the identifier of the second document (“FIG. 3 illustrates a flowchart of a method 300 for opening a document on either the desktop 205 or the PDA 260. At block 305, the user opens a document on either the desktop 205 or the PDA 260. At block 310, the respective application loads and renders the document… If at block 325, there is no entry in the database 315, the plugin 210, 265 does not do any work and the method 300 ends,” Sreekanth paragraph 0038, document is loaded and displayed if no marker record exists), or
displaying the second document to a second user (“FIGS. 6A to 6D exemplarily show execution of the collaborative browsing according to the present invention. Referring to FIGS. 6A to 6D, a user 1 (FIG. 6A) and a user 2 (FIG. 6B) who participate in a session are browsing in the same web page (HTML text) having the URL of http://www.etri.re,kr. Here, when the user 1 clicks on the link R&D in the web page, of the web browsers of the users 1 and 2 who join in the session are changed into the corresponding URL, displaying the same web page corresponding to the URL to the user 1 (FIG. 6C) and user 2 (FIG. 6D),” Lee paragraph 0033).
Accordingly 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 method of Sreekanth to allow the first user to display a document to a second user as taught by Vyas. One would have been motivated to make such a combination so that the user has more ways to display a document, thus enhancing the utility of the finished product.
However neither Sreekanth nor Lee appear to explicitly disclose in response to the first user meeting a preset user condition, displaying the second document to the second user based on a process of controlling of the display of the second document in response to it being determined that the second user meets a follow-up reading condition.
Vyas teaches in response to the first user meeting a preset user condition, displaying the second document to a second user based on a process of controlling of the display of the second document in response to it being determined that the second user meets a follow-up reading condition ("Method 300 begins at step 302 where the collaboration engine 144 receives a request from a first user 102a to create a virtual collaboration room 132 for the first user 102a and one or more users 102 to synchronously co-edit a web application 116," Vyas column 14 lines 28-33; "In one embodiment, the collaboration engine 144 may customize transferring and synchronizing user events 134, such as view navigations. For example, the collaboration engine 144 may disable synchronization for scrolling up and scrolling down on the foreground webpage, and enable synchronization for navigating between webpages. As such, the view on the foreground webpage is not synchronized between sessions 128, such that each of the first user 102a and second user 102b can see a different view of the foreground webpage. Furthermore in this example, since navigating between webpages is synchronized, if any of the users 102 navigates to another webpage, this event is transferred and synchronized across sessions 128. In another example, the collaboration engine 144 may enable synchronization for scrolling up and down on the foreground webpage, and disable synchronization for navigating between webpages. In another example, the collaboration engine 144 may customize synchronization of the navigation views in any other manner, based on received instructions from the organizer of the virtual collaboration room 132 in the configuration file 152," Vyas column 13 lines 54-67 and column 14 lines 1-8, first user decides to share the webpage (i.e., first user meeting a condition) with a second user and locking the second user from scrolling the webpage (i.e., a follow-up reading condition).
Accordingly 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 method of Sreekanth to allow the first user to lock scrolling of the document to a second user as taught by Vyas. One would have been motivated to make such a combination so that the first user could focus viewing users on a particular part of a document thus enhancing collaboration.
As to claim 9, Sreekanth as modified by Lee and Vyas further discloses the method according to claim 7, however neither Sreekanth nor Lee appear to explicitly disclose a limitation wherein the second user is determined based on a document sharing scope, wherein the document sharing scope is determined based on a current conference participant ("Method 300 begins at step 302 where the collaboration engine 144 receives a request from a first user 102a to create a virtual collaboration room 132 for the first user 102a and one or more users 102 to synchronously co-edit a web application 116," Vyas column 14 lines 28-33; "In one embodiment, the collaboration engine 144 may customize transferring and synchronizing user events 134, such as view navigations. For example, the collaboration engine 144 may disable synchronization for scrolling up and scrolling down on the foreground webpage, and enable synchronization for navigating between webpages. As such, the view on the foreground webpage is not synchronized between sessions 128, such that each of the first user 102a and second user 102b can see a different view of the foreground webpage. Furthermore in this example, since navigating between webpages is synchronized, if any of the users 102 navigates to another webpage, this event is transferred and synchronized across sessions 128. In another example, the collaboration engine 144 may enable synchronization for scrolling up and down on the foreground webpage, and disable synchronization for navigating between webpages. In another example, the collaboration engine 144 may customize synchronization of the navigation views in any other manner, based on received instructions from the organizer of the virtual collaboration room 132 in the configuration file 152," Vyas column 13 lines 54-67 and column 14 lines 1-8; "For example, the disclosed system may receive the configuration of the synchronization of the user events with respect to each element from the organizer of the virtual collaboration room before generating the virtual collaboration room. For example, the disclosed system may enable the synchronization of user events on a first set of elements. As such, the user events on the first set of elements may be synchronized across the sessions. In another example, the disclosed system may disable the synchronization of user events on the second set of elements. As such, the user events on the second set of elements may not be synchronized across the sessions," Vyas column 2 lines 35-46, sharing user can decide if synchronization settings including scroll synchronization).
As to claim 16, Sreekanth as modified by Lee further discloses the method according to claim 11, further comprising:
sending a document instruction to a second interaction module such that the second interaction module controls a second processing module to follow up the controlling of the display of the second document by the first processing module (“FIGS. 6A to 6D exemplarily show execution of the collaborative browsing according to the present invention. Referring to FIGS. 6A to 6D, a user 1 (FIG. 6A) and a user 2 (FIG. 6B) who participate in a session are browsing in the same web page (HTML text) having the URL of http://www.etri.re,kr. Here, when the user 1 clicks on the link R&D in the web page, of the web browsers of the users 1 and 2 who join in the session are changed into the corresponding URL, displaying the same web page corresponding to the URL to the user 1 (FIG. 6C) and user 2 (FIG. 6D),” Lee paragraph 0033).
Accordingly 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 method of Sreekanth to allow the first user to display a document to a second user as taught by Vyas. One would have been motivated to make such a combination so that the user has more ways to display a document, thus enhancing the utility of the finished product.
However neither Sreekanth nor Lee appear to explicitly disclose:
in response to the first user meeting a preset user condition, sending a document follow-up instruction to a second interaction module in response to it being determined that a second user meets a follow-up reading condition, such that the second interaction module controls a second processing module to follow up the controlling of the display of the second document by the first processing module,
wherein the second user is determined based on a document sharing scope.
Vyas teaches in response to the first user meeting a preset user condition, sending a document follow-up instruction to a second interaction module in response to it being determined that a second user meets a follow-up reading condition, such that the second interaction module controls a second processing module to follow up the controlling of the display of the second document by the first processing module, wherein the second user is determined based on a document sharing scope ("Method 300 begins at step 302 where the collaboration engine 144 receives a request from a first user 102a to create a virtual collaboration room 132 for the first user 102a and one or more users 102 to synchronously co-edit a web application 116," Vyas column 14 lines 28-33; "In one embodiment, the collaboration engine 144 may customize transferring and synchronizing user events 134, such as view navigations. For example, the collaboration engine 144 may disable synchronization for scrolling up and scrolling down on the foreground webpage, and enable synchronization for navigating between webpages. As such, the view on the foreground webpage is not synchronized between sessions 128, such that each of the first user 102a and second user 102b can see a different view of the foreground webpage. Furthermore in this example, since navigating between webpages is synchronized, if any of the users 102 navigates to another webpage, this event is transferred and synchronized across sessions 128. In another example, the collaboration engine 144 may enable synchronization for scrolling up and down on the foreground webpage, and disable synchronization for navigating between webpages. In another example, the collaboration engine 144 may customize synchronization of the navigation views in any other manner, based on received instructions from the organizer of the virtual collaboration room 132 in the configuration file 152," Vyas column 13 lines 54-67 and column 14 lines 1-8, first user decides to share the webpage (i.e., first user meeting a condition) with a second user and locking the second user from scrolling the webpage (i.e., a follow-up reading condition).
Accordingly 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 method of Sreekanth to allow the first user to lock scrolling of the document to a second user as taught by Vyas. One would have been motivated to make such a combination so that the first user could focus viewing users on a particular part of a document thus enhancing collaboration.
As to claim 18, Sreekanth as modified by Lee and Vyas further discloses the method according to claim 17, wherein the document sharing scope is determined based on a current conference participant ("Method 300 begins at step 302 where the collaboration engine 144 receives a request from a first user 102a to create a virtual collaboration room 132 for the first user 102a and one or more users 102 to synchronously co-edit a web application 116," Vyas column 14 lines 28-33; "In one embodiment, the collaboration engine 144 may customize transferring and synchronizing user events 134, such as view navigations. For example, the collaboration engine 144 may disable synchronization for scrolling up and scrolling down on the foreground webpage, and enable synchronization for navigating between webpages. As such, the view on the foreground webpage is not synchronized between sessions 128, such that each of the first user 102a and second user 102b can see a different view of the foreground webpage. Furthermore in this example, since navigating between webpages is synchronized, if any of the users 102 navigates to another webpage, this event is transferred and synchronized across sessions 128. In another example, the collaboration engine 144 may enable synchronization for scrolling up and down on the foreground webpage, and disable synchronization for navigating between webpages. In another example, the collaboration engine 144 may customize synchronization of the navigation views in any other manner, based on received instructions from the organizer of the virtual collaboration room 132 in the configuration file 152," Vyas column 13 lines 54-67 and column 14 lines 1-8; "For example, the disclosed system may receive the configuration of the synchronization of the user events with respect to each element from the organizer of the virtual collaboration room before generating the virtual collaboration room. For example, the disclosed system may enable the synchronization of user events on a first set of elements. As such, the user events on the first set of elements may be synchronized across the sessions. In another example, the disclosed system may disable the synchronization of user events on the second set of elements. As such, the user events on the second set of elements may not be synchronized across the sessions," Vyas column 2 lines 35-46, sharing user can decide if synchronization settings including scroll synchronization).
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure:
US 20190197991 A1 to Zamir discloses preserving desktop state across login sessions where a scroll position for a particular document can be saved and then recalled when the particular document is opened again;
US 20160063131 A1 to Kuscher et al. discloses resuming session states where state information including scroll positions can be saved for documents and websites and when the documents or websites are reopened scrolling back to the saved scroll positions; and
US 20150319198 A1 to Gupta et al. discloses crowdsourcing for documents and forms where usage data of a document can be used to determine a default scroll position or page to view when opening the document.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to DANIEL SAMWEL whose telephone number is (313) 446-6549. The examiner can normally be reached Monday through Thursday 8:00-6:00 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, Kieu Vu can be reached at (571) 272-4057. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of published or unpublished applications may be obtained from Patent Center. Unpublished application information in Patent Center is available to registered users. To file and manage patent submissions in Patent Center, visit: https://patentcenter.uspto.gov. Visit https://www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/patent-center for more information about Patent Center and https://www.uspto.gov/patents/docx for information about filing in DOCX format. For additional questions, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/DANIEL SAMWEL/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2171
Prosecution Insights