DETAILED ACTION
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
This action is responsive to communications: Amendment filed on 9/29/2025.
Claims 1-20 are pending. Claims 1, 8, and 15 are independent.
The previous rejection of claims 1-20 under 35 USC § 103 have been maintained in view of the amendment.
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, 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.
Claim(s) 1-20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Shrestha et al. (US2017/0316355) in view of Ghandi et al. (US2019/0155894) and Heller et al. (US2022/0382969) and Lorensson et al. (US2020/0193082).
In regards to claim 1, a computer-implemented method of generating document templates, the computer-implemented method comprising:
receiving a request for generating a document template of the document type (Shrestha et al. para[0060] ln1-11, receives request to initiate creation of workflow template);
identifying one or more component types of components of a document of the document template type (Shrestha et al. para[0061] ln1-5, identifies types of components steps of template);
for each component type of the one or more component types, selecting, a version of a document component template of the document component type, wherein the selected versions are from different document component templates (Shrestha et al. para para[0114] ln20-27 [0115] ln1-5, selects version of components steps to include in template that are popular in different templates);
combining the selected versions of the different document component templates to generate a document template (Shrestha et al. para[0116] ln1-8, combines selected step components to generate template); and
storing the generated document template as a new version of the document type in the repository (Shrestha et al. para[0117] ln1-7, stores template in template library).
Shrestha et al. does not explicitly disclose storing, by a document management system, a set of documents, each document comprising a set of document components, each document component having a document component type;
storing, by the document management system, a repository of document component templates, each document component template associated with a document component type, the repository storing a set of versions of document component templates for each document component type.
However Ghandi et al. substantially discloses storing, by a document management system, a set of documents, each document comprising a set of document components, each document component having a document component type (Ghandi et al. para[0053] ln1-10, repository 170 stores set of documents (layouts) comprising a set of components (features) );
storing, by the document management system, a repository of document component templates, each document component template associated with a document component type, the repository storing a set of versions of document component templates for each document component type (Ghandi et al. fig. 5 para[0060] ln1-9, access stored rules for generating component templates (automation objects)).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the filing date of the invention to have combined the template generation method of Shrestha et al. with the form generation method of Ghandi et al. in order to use machine learning to generate forms according to selected parameters (Ghandi et al. para[0003] ln6-12).
Shrestha et al. does not explicitly disclose receiving information describing a document workflow being executed by the document management system;
identifying a document type for use in the document workflow.
However Heller et al. substantially discloses receiving information describing a document workflow being executed by the document management system (Heller et al. para[0052] ln4-10, receives information about workflow being executed);
identifying a document type for use in the document workflow (Heller et al. fig. 2 para[0053] ln1-6, identifies type of document).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the filing date of the invention to have combined the template generation method of Shrestha et al. with the form template organization method of Heller et al. in order to identify templates used to create forms for specific applications (Heller et al. para[0007] ln4-10).
Shrestha et al. does not explicitly disclose using a context of the request and a mapping of a representation of a context associated with each version in the set of versions.
However Lorensson discloses using a context of the request and a mapping of a representation of a context associated with each version in the set of versions(Lorensson para[0088] ln1-7, using context and a mapping (document definition) to select a version of the component type (fragment)).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the filing date of the invention to have combined the template generation method of Shrestha et al. with the fragment construction method of Lorensson et al. in order to customize template for different contexts and platforms (Lorensson et al. para[0010]).
In regards to claim 2, Shrestha et al. as modified by Ghandi et al., Heller et al., and Lorensson et al. discloses the computer-implemented method of claim 1, further comprising: for each component type of the one or more component types, storing in association with each version of the document component template, a context for using the version of the document component template (Shrestha et al. para[0117] ln1-7).
In regards to claim 3, Shrestha et al. as modified by Ghandi et al., Heller et al., and Lorensson et al. discloses the computer-implemented method of claim 2, wherein selecting the version of the document template comprises:
determining a current context based on information describing the current document workflow and the information describing the one or more participants of the current document workflow (Shrestha et al. para[0101] ln71-14); and
comparing the current context with contexts associated with each of the one or more stored versions of the document template (Shrestha et al. para[0121] ln1-10).
In regards to claim 4, Shrestha et al. as modified by Ghandi et al., Heller et al., and Lorensson et al. discloses the computer-implemented method of claim 3, wherein information describing one or more participants of the document workflow comprises a category of an organization represented by a participant (Shrestha et al. para[0149] ln4-13).
In regards to claim 5, Shrestha et al. as modified by Ghandi et al., Heller et al., and Lorensson et al. discloses the computer-implemented method of claim 3, wherein the information describing the document workflow being executed by the document management system comprises information identifying a step of the document workflow being currently executed (Shrestha et al. para[0102] ln10-15).
In regards to claim 6, Shrestha et al. as modified by Ghandi et al., Heller et al., and Lorensson et al. discloses the computer-implemented method of claim 3, wherein each context is represented as a feature vector, wherein comparing the current context with a context of a stored version of the document template comprises determining a vector distance between the feature vector representation of the current context and a feature vector representation of the context of the stored version of the document template (Heller et al. para[0078] ln6-12).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the filing date of the invention to have combined the template generation method of Shrestha et al. with the form template organization method of Heller et al. in order to identify templates used to create forms for specific applications (Heller et al. para[0007] ln4-10).
In regards to claim 7, Shrestha et al. as modified by Ghandi et al., Heller et al., and Lorensson et al. discloses the computer-implemented method of claim 6, wherein a feature vector representation of a particular context is determined by performing steps comprising:
providing a representation of the particular context as input to a neural network (Ghandi para[0050] ln1-12); and
extracting an embedding generated by a hidden layer of the neural network as the feature vector representation of the particular context (Ghandi et al. para[0050] ln15-23).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the filing date of the invention to have combined the template generation method of Shrestha et al. with the form generation method of Ghandi et al. in order to use machine learning to generate forms according to selected parameters (Ghandi et al. para[0003] ln6-12).
Claims 8-14 recite substantially similar limitations to claims 1-7. Thus claims 8-14 are rejected along the same rationale as claims 1-7.
Claims 15-20 recite substantially similar limitations to claims 1-3 and 5-7. Thus claims 15-20 are rejected along the same rationale as claims 1-3 and 5-7.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 9/29/2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. Applicant argues on page 12-14 that Shrestha does not teach “for each component type of the one or more component types, selecting, using a context of the request and a mapping of a representation of a context associated with each version in the set of versions, a version of a document component template of the document type, wherein the selected versions are from different document component templates”
However Shrestha et a. as modified by Ghandi et al., Heller et al., and Lorensson et al. discloses for each component type of the one or more component types, selecting, using a context of the request and a mapping of a representation of a context associated with each version in the set of versions (Lorensson para[0087]-[0088]. Applicant argues specifically that Lorrensson doesn’t teach the limitation because Lorrensson’s “context” only refers to the theme of the document and not to the context of the request. This argument ignores that the cited paragraphs also discuss that which document version provided can be based off of “device type” and “user role” which are associated with making the rest and thus are “context of the request.” Further, because Lorrensson teaches being able to determine which fragments to include based on the context, there is necessarily logic to map certain contexts to certain outcomes. The examiner recommends that applicant further clarify what context of the request means and how the mapping is performed.
Conclusion
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. 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 nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) 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.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to NICHOLAS HASTY whose telephone number is (571)270-7775. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 8:30am-5:00pm.
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, Matt Ell can be reached at (571)270-3264. 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.
/N.H/Examiner, Art Unit 2141
/MATTHEW ELL/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2141