Graphic Element Comparison in Document Merging

Resolve Bottlenecks,
Find Innovative SolutionsGenerate Solutions

Solution Overview

Problem

Current document comparison tools, such as Microsoft Word 2003 and Adobe FrameMaker 7.0, inadequately handle comparisons and mergers of graphic documents, particularly failing to recognize changes in artwork and image files, leading to inefficient identification and merging of differences in packaging materials production, where regional variations and last-minute changes are common.

Innovation Solution

A system and method that includes an Adobe Acrobat plug-in with a document comparator and merger, which examines graphic elements in vector format documents to generate an edit script for merging documents while preserving significant graphic elements, and provides a visualizer for layering and modifying the comparison results to facilitate the identification of similarities and differences.

Engineering Contradictions & Design Principles

VSEngineering Contradiction Analysis

1Measurement precision

If document comparison tools use traditional text-based comparison methods, then they can effectively compare textual content, but they fail to accurately recognize and compare graphic elements such as artwork and image files

Engineering Contradiction:

Improvegraphic element comparison accuracyVSAvoidcapability to handle mixed content types

Core Design Contradiction:

Measurement precisionVSAdaptability or versatility

Solution Approach 1:

The system segments the document comparison process into distinct handlers for different content types. Text elements are compared using traditional text-based methods, while graphic elements (artwork, images, photographs) are compared using specialized graphic comparison algorithms that analyze visual properties, dimensions, and content characteristics. This segmentation allows each content type to be evaluated with the most appropriate method, resolving the contradiction between text-based precision and graphic element adaptability.

Inventive Principle:

Principle #1Segmentation

2Measurement precision

If the system performs detailed comparison of all graphic elements, then it can identify all differences, but it increases processing time and computational resources

Engineering Contradiction:

Improvedifference identification accuracyVSAvoiddocument comparison time

Core Design Contradiction:

Measurement precisionVSLoss of time

Solution Approach 1:

The system implements a two-stage comparison approach. First, it performs a quick preliminary comparison using key properties (dimensions, file hashes, basic attributes) to identify obviously different elements. Second, it performs detailed comparison only on elements that showed differences in the preliminary stage or are flagged as important. This partial action approach maintains high accuracy for critical differences while significantly reducing overall processing time by avoiding exhaustive detailed comparison of all elements.

Inventive Principle:

Principle #16Partial or excessive action

Solution Approach 2:

Before performing detailed graphic element comparison, the system executes preliminary actions including generating checksums of graphic files, comparing document metadata, and identifying elements that have unchanged properties (such as elements with identical dimensions and file hashes). This preliminary filtering eliminates many elements from requiring detailed comparison, thus reducing processing time while maintaining accuracy for the remaining critical elements.

Inventive Principle:

Principle #10Preliminary action

3Productivity

If the system merges all identified differences between documents, then it creates a comprehensive merged document, but it may introduce errors and require extensive user review

Engineering Contradiction:

Improvemerging efficiencyVSAvoidmerge accuracy

Core Design Contradiction:

ProductivityVSReliability

Solution Approach 1:

The system implements feedback mechanisms where comparison results are presented to users for verification and correction. The visualizer displays identified differences and proposed merges, allowing users to review and approve or reject specific changes. User feedback is used to refine the comparison algorithms and adjust merging parameters, improving both the reliability of automatic merging and user confidence in the results over time.

Inventive Principle:

Principle #23Feedback

Solution Approach 2:

The visualizer component serves as an intermediary between the automatic comparison/merging system and the user. It presents differences in a comprehensible format, allows users to review proposed merges, and provides controls for manual adjustment. This intermediary layer enables the system to maintain high productivity through automatic processing while ensuring reliability through user oversight and correction capabilities.

Inventive Principle:

Principle #24Intermediary (Mediator)

Data Source

PatentUS7694217B2Systems and methods for comparing documents containing graphic elements

Publication Date: 2010.04.06 EASTMAN KODAK CO

AI summary

A system and methods for comparing graphic elements in a changed document to those in a reference document is described. Attributes of selected graphic elements are first adjusted before comparing so that comparing does not identify certain document changes.