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 non-final office action is in response to the Application filed on 6/29/2023, with which is a CIP of 17/679,006 Filing Date 02/23/2022, with priority to PRO 63/230,398 Filing Date 08/06/2021 and PRO 63/225,835 Filing Date 07/26/2021 and PRO 63/152,541 Filing Date 02/23/2021 and is a CIP of 15/499,882 Filing Date 04/27/2017 with priority to PRO 62/485,908 Filing Date 04/15/2017 and PRO 62/328,469 Filing Date 04/27/2016.
Claim(s) 1-43 are pending for examination, claims 1, 2, 5-8, 10, 18-21, 27, 28, 31-36 are rejected, claims 3, 4, 9, 11, 17, 22-26, 29, 30, 37-43 are withdrawn. Claim(s) 1 and 28 is/are independent claim(s).
Double Patenting
The nonstatutory double patenting rejection is based on a judicially created doctrine grounded in public policy (a policy reflected in the statute) so as to prevent the unjustified or improper timewise extension of the “right to exclude” granted by a patent and to prevent possible harassment by multiple assignees. A nonstatutory double patenting rejection is appropriate where the conflicting claims are not identical, but at least one examined application claim is not patentably distinct from the reference claim(s) because the examined application claim is either anticipated by, or would have been obvious over, the reference claim(s). See, e.g., In re Berg, 140 F.3d 1428, 46 USPQ2d 1226 (Fed. Cir. 1998); In re Goodman, 11 F.3d 1046, 29 USPQ2d 2010 (Fed. Cir. 1993); In re Longi, 759 F.2d 887, 225 USPQ 645 (Fed. Cir. 1985); In re Van Ornum, 686 F.2d 937, 214 USPQ 761 (CCPA 1982); In re Vogel, 422 F.2d 438, 164 USPQ 619 (CCPA 1970); In re Thorington, 418 F.2d 528, 163 USPQ 644 (CCPA 1969).
A timely filed terminal disclaimer in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(c) or 1.321(d) may be used to overcome an actual or provisional rejection based on nonstatutory double patenting provided the reference application or patent either is shown to be commonly owned with the examined application, or claims an invention made as a result of activities undertaken within the scope of a joint research agreement. See MPEP § 717.02 for applications subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA as explained in MPEP § 2159. See MPEP § 2146 et seq. for applications not subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA . A terminal disclaimer must be signed in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(b).
The filing of a terminal disclaimer by itself is not a complete reply to a nonstatutory double patenting (NSDP) rejection. A complete reply requires that the terminal disclaimer be accompanied by a reply requesting reconsideration of the prior Office action. Even where the NSDP rejection is provisional the reply must be complete. See MPEP § 804, subsection I.B.1. For a reply to a non-final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.111(a). For a reply to final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.113(c). A request for reconsideration while not provided for in 37 CFR 1.113(c) may be filed after final for consideration. See MPEP §§ 706.07(e) and 714.13.
The USPTO Internet website contains terminal disclaimer forms which may be used. Please visit www.uspto.gov/patent/patents-forms. The actual filing date of the application in which the form is filed determines what form (e.g., PTO/SB/25, PTO/SB/26, PTO/AIA /25, or PTO/AIA /26) should be used. A web-based eTerminal Disclaimer may be filled out completely online using web-screens. An eTerminal Disclaimer that meets all requirements is auto-processed and approved immediately upon submission. For more information about eTerminal Disclaimers, refer to www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/applying-online/eterminal-disclaimer.
Claims 1, 2, 5, 6, 7, 8, 10 rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-8 of U.S. Patent No. 12,106,039. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because the claims appear to be a broader version of the allowed claims.
Patent No. 12,106,039
App. No. 18/216069
1. A system, comprising:
a document serving circuit structured to:
access a document data, the document data comprising data for a unified document surface; and provide at least a portion of the document data to a client serving circuit; and
the client serving circuit structured to:
implement a unified document surface interface in response to the at least a portion of the document data;
implement an extension creation interface for defining a pack;
provide a pack implementation value to the document serving circuit in response to user interactions with the extension creation interface; and
determine a pack definition value in response to the pack implementation value,
wherein the pack definition value comprises an
access authorization description associated with an author of the pack that is utilized to implement an
external data access of the pack, wherein the document serving circuit is further structured to access a pack marketplace in response to the pack definition value.
1. A system, comprising:
a document serving circuit structured to access a document data, the document data comprising data for a unified document surface, and to provide at least a portion of the document data to a client serving circuit;
the client serving circuit structured to
implement a unified document surface interface in response to the at least a portion of the document data;
the client serving circuit further structured to implement an extension creation interface, and to
provide a pack implementation value to the document serving circuit in response to user interactions with the extension creation interface; and
wherein the document serving circuit is further structured to determine a pack definition value in response to the pack implementation value.
(from claim 2 below)
wherein the pack definition value comprises an access authorization description.
10. The system of claim 1, wherein the pack definition value comprises an external data access value.
2. The system of claim 1, wherein: the pack implementation value comprises an access authorization value.
2. The system of claim 1, wherein the pack implementation value comprises an access authorization value, and … (moved above)
3. The system of claim 1, wherein the document serving circuit is further structured to expose the pack to a workspace in response to the pack definition value.
5. The system of claim 2, wherein the document serving circuit is further structured to expose the pack to a workspace in response to the pack definition value.
5. The system of claim 2, wherein the document serving circuit is further structured to expose a pack to a workspace in response to the pack definition value.
4. The system of claim 3, further comprising: a second client serving circuit structured to: access the pack; implement an extension utilization interface; and incorporate at least a portion of the pack into a second document in response to user interactions with the extension utilization interface, the second document being associated with the workspace.
6. The system of claim 5, further comprising a second client serving circuit structured to: access the pack; implement an extension utilization interface; and incorporate at least a portion of the pack into a second document in response to user interactions with the extension utilization interface, the second document being associated with the workspace.
6. The system of claim 5, further comprising a second client serving circuit structured to access the pack, to implement an extension utilization interface, and to incorporate at least a portion of the pack into a second document in response to user interactions with the extension utilization interface, wherein the second document is associated with the workspace.
7. The system of claim 6, wherein the document serving circuit is further structured to isolate the access authorization description from the second client serving circuit.
7. The system of claim 6, wherein the document serving circuit is further structured to isolate the access authorization description from the second client serving circuit.
8. The system of claim 7, wherein: the pack comprises at least one of a service or an external data value; and the access authorization description comprises authorization information for access to the at least one of the service or the external data value.
8. The system of claim 7, wherein the pack comprises at least one of a service or an external data value, and wherein the access authorization description comprises authorization information for access to the at least one of the service or the external data value.
(No equivalent claims)
18. The system of claim 5, wherein the access authorization description comprises an authorization type for each one of a service or an external data access of the pack.
19. The system of claim 18, wherein the document serving circuit is further structured to require authorization information for the service or the external data access from a second user of a second document utilizing the pack in response to the authorization type comprising a user authorization type.
20. The system of claim 19, wherein the document serving circuit is further structured to access the service or the external data access using separate credentials from the required authorization information.
21. The system of claim 19, wherein the document serving circuit is further structured to provide access to the service or the external data access to the second user of the second document utilizing the pack in response to the authorization type comprising a system authorization type.
27. The system of claim 10, wherein the extension creation interface is configured to limit access to the external data access value to a defined external data component of the extension creation interface.
9. The system of claim 1, wherein the document serving circuit is further structured to publish a pack to the pack marketplace in response to the pack definition value.
10. The system of claim 9, wherein the publishing the pack comprises storing the pack in a pack repository.
11. The system of claim 9, wherein the document serving circuit is further structured to publish the pack to the pack marketplace via a pack publishing interface.
12. The system of claim 11, wherein the pack publishing interface comprises at least one of: version tracking or version management.
13. The system of claim 9, wherein the publishing the pack generates at least one of: a record of a version, a date of publishing, or a description of the pack.
14. The system of claim 9, wherein: a new version of a published pack is automatically pushed to users; and the pack is updated to the new version of the pack in a document.
15. The system of claim 14, wherein the updating of the pack depends on a type of the updating.
16. The system of claim 15, wherein: security type updating is required to be deployed; and other types of updating, other than security type updating, are deployed as at least one of: a notification updating or a grace period updating.
17. The system of claim 14, wherein the updating of the pack is configured according to a setting comprising at least one of: author settings, document settings, user settings, or system settings.
18. The system of claim 17, wherein the setting is governed by at least one of: a hierarchy or permissions.
19. The system of claim 17, wherein the author settings take precedence over the user settings or the document settings.
20. The system of claim 17, wherein the author settings take precedence over the document settings based on at least one of: a relative permission; or status of at least one of: an author of the pack or a document owner.
21. The system of claim 17, wherein a setting associated with a higher rated user takes precedence over a setting of a lower level user.
22. The system of claim 17, wherein the setting includes one or more of: automatic updates, notifications based updates, grace period updates, or developer control updates.
(No equivalent claims)
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, 2, 5-8, 10, 18-21, 27, 28, 31-36 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Didrickson; Kristof et al. US Pub. No. 2022/0036311 (Didrickson).
Claim 1:
Didrickson teaches:
A system, comprising:
a document serving circuit structured to access a document data, the document data comprising data for a unified document surface, and to provide at least a portion of the document data to a client serving circuit [¶ 0080] (viewing and editing collaborative content items. Such content items may include, but are not limited to, word processing documents, spreadsheet documents, and slide show presentation documents, collaborative document with various types of content could be a “unified document surface”);
the client serving circuit structured to implement a unified document surface interface in response to the at least a portion of the document data [¶ 0079-86] (Fig. 5, editing view is of a collaborative content item having reusable components);
the client serving circuit further structured to implement an extension creation interface, and to provide a pack implementation value to the document serving circuit in response to user interactions with the extension creation interface [¶ 0135-138] (FIG. 11 depicts creating and editing a reusable component); and
wherein the document serving circuit is further structured to determine a pack definition value in response to the pack implementation value [¶ 0087-93] (association between an attribute and a character or a range of one or more characters may be established by a numerical index or numerical indices into the attributed text string that identify the character or range of characters with which the attribute is associated. An attribute may be a key/value pair, identified by the key, where no two attributes that apply to a given character of the attributed text string have the same key. Attributes associated with the attributed text string may be processed in an application-specific manner, reusable content with a name value, a numerical index and a key/value pair attribute could be a “pack implementation value”).
Didrickson teaches all the elements of the claim, however some of these elements may by in different embodiments and use different terminology, for example Didrickson does not use the phrase “unified document surface”, but the document described in Didrickson has differing types of elements and could be considered a “unified document surface”. Similarly, Didrickson does not use the phrases “pack implementation value” or “pack definition value”, but describes what is disclosed in the applicant’s specification.
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the different embodiments of Didrickson and that the difference in terminology is an obvious variant.
The reason, rationale, and motivation for this combination would have been used to “enable organizations to save time and money and improve productivity” [Didrickson: ¶ 0004].
Claim 2:
Didrickson teaches:
The system of claim 1, wherein the pack implementation value comprises an access authorization value, and wherein the pack definition value comprises an access authorization description [¶ 0046-48] (Individual users can be assigned different access privileges to a content item shared with them, a user's permissions for a content item can be explicitly set for that user. A user's permissions can also be set based on a type or category associated with the user).
Claim 5:
Didrickson teaches:
The system of claim 2, wherein the document serving circuit is further structured to expose a pack to a workspace in response to the pack definition value [¶ 0079-86] (Fig. 5, editing view is of a collaborative content item having reusable components) [¶ 0087-93] (association between an attribute and a character or a range of one or more characters may be established by a numerical index or numerical indices into the attributed text string that identify the character or range of characters with which the attribute is associated. An attribute may be a key/value pair, identified by the key, where no two attributes that apply to a given character of the attributed text string have the same key. Attributes associated with the attributed text string may be processed in an application-specific manner, reusable content with a name value, a numerical index and a key/value pair attribute could be a “pack implementation value”).
Claim 6:
Didrickson teaches:
The system of claim 5, further comprising a second client serving circuit structured to access the pack, to implement an extension utilization interface, and to incorporate at least a portion of the pack into a second document in response to user interactions with the extension utilization interface, wherein the second document is associated with the workspace [¶ 0104-124] (FIG. 7, FIG. 8 and FIG. 9 illustrate user interfaces and associated processes for using an inline reusable component selection expression to select and insert a reusable component into a collaborative content item).
Claim 8:
Didrickson teaches:
The system of claim 6, wherein the document serving circuit is further structured to isolate the access authorization description from the second client serving circuit [¶ 0034, 46-47, 127, 142-145] (content can be provided by users and associated with user accounts that may have various privileges. For example, privileges can include permissions to: see content item titles, see other metadata for the content item (e.g. location data, access history, version history, creation/modification dates, comments, file hierarchies, etc.), read content item contents, modify content item metadata, modify content of a content item, comment on a content item, read comments by others on a content item, or grant or remove content item permissions for other users).
Claim 9:
Didrickson teaches:
The system of claim 7, wherein the pack comprises at least one of a service or an external data value [¶ 0038, 55, 92, 91] (content providers and service providers) [¶ 0079-86] (Fig. 5, editing view is of a collaborative content item having reusable components), and wherein the access authorization description comprises authorization information for access to the at least one of the service or the external data value [¶ 0034, 46-47, 127, 142-145] (content can be provided by users and associated with user accounts that may have various privileges. For example, privileges can include permissions to: see content item titles, see other metadata for the content item (e.g. location data, access history, version history, creation/modification dates, comments, file hierarchies, etc.), read content item contents, modify content item metadata, modify content of a content item, comment on a content item, read comments by others on a content item, or grant or remove content item permissions for other users) [¶ 0066-69] (access content) [¶ 0070-71] (security management).
Claim 10:
Didrickson teaches:
The system of claim 1, wherein the pack definition value comprises an external data access value [¶ 0034, 46-47, 127, 142-145] (content can be provided by users and associated with user accounts that may have various privileges. For example, privileges can include permissions to: see content item titles, see other metadata for the content item (e.g. location data, access history, version history, creation/modification dates, comments, file hierarchies, etc.), read content item contents, modify content item metadata, modify content of a content item, comment on a content item, read comments by others on a content item, or grant or remove content item permissions for other users).
Claim 18:
Didrickson teaches:
The system of claim 5, wherein the access authorization description comprises an authorization type for each one of a service or an external data access of the pack [¶ 0034, 46-47, 127, 142-145] (content can be provided by users and associated with user accounts that may have various privileges. For example, privileges can include permissions to: see content item titles, see other metadata for the content item (e.g. location data, access history, version history, creation/modification dates, comments, file hierarchies, etc.), read content item contents, modify content item metadata, modify content of a content item, comment on a content item, read comments by others on a content item, or grant or remove content item permissions for other users).
Claim 19:
Didrickson teaches:
The system of claim 18, wherein the document serving circuit is further structured to require authorization information for the service or the external data access from a second user of a second document utilizing the pack in response to the authorization type comprising a user authorization type [¶ 0066] (various ways to access content including a login for a second user).
Claim 20:
Didrickson teaches:
The system of claim 19, wherein the document serving circuit is further structured to access the service or the external data access using separate credentials from the required authorization information [¶ 0066] (create a user account and access the collaborative content item using the identification information).
Claim 22:
Didrickson teaches:
The system of claim 19, wherein the document serving circuit is further structured to provide access to the service or the external data access to the second user of the second document utilizing the pack in response to the authorization type comprising a system authorization type [¶ 0056] (determine whether access to requested content items is authorized, generate one-time use authentication tokens for a user account, and assigns an expiration period or date to each authentication token).
Claim 27:
Didrickson teaches:
The system of claim 10, wherein the extension creation interface is configured to limit access to the external data access value to a defined external data component of the extension creation interface [¶ 0071] (create a user account and access the collaborative content item using the identification information) [¶ 0134] (catalogs available for a particular collaborative content item, user, or group (team) of users may be limited to a particular set of catalogs).
Claim 28:
Didrickson teaches:
A system, comprising:
a document serving circuit structured to access a document data, the document data comprising data for a unified document surface, and to provide at least a portion of the document data to a client serving circuit [¶ 0080] (viewing and editing collaborative content items. Such content items may include, but are not limited to, word processing documents, spreadsheet documents, and slide show presentation documents, collaborative document with various types of content could be a “unified document surface”);
the client serving circuit structured to:
implement a unified document surface interface in response to the at least a portion of the document data [¶ 0079-86] (Fig. 5, editing view is of a collaborative content item having reusable components);
access a pack list comprising a plurality of exposed packs, each comprising a capability extension created in response to a corresponding pack definition value [¶ 0131-134] (FIG. 10 depicts a reusable component selector graphical user interface window for selecting a reusable component to insert into a collaborative content item);
implement a pack addition interface in response to the pack list [¶ 0104-124] (FIG. 7, FIG. 8 and FIG. 9 illustrate user interfaces and associated processes for using an inline reusable component selection expression to select and insert a reusable component into a collaborative content item); and
install at least a portion of a pack of the plurality of exposed packs, into a document comprising at least a portion of the document data, in response to user interactions with the pack addition interface [¶ 0104-124] (FIG. 7, FIG. 8 and FIG. 9 illustrate user interfaces and associated processes for using an inline reusable component selection expression to select and insert a reusable component into a collaborative content item).
Claims 31-36:
Claim(s) 31 is/are substantially similar to claims 8 or 18 and is/are rejected using the same art and the same rationale.
Claim(s) 32 is/are substantially similar to claim 8 or 19 and is/are rejected using the same art and the same rationale.
Claim(s) 33 is/are substantially similar to claim 20 and is/are rejected using the same art and the same rationale.
Claim(s) 34 is/are substantially similar to claim 7 and is/are rejected using the same art and the same rationale.
Claim(s) 35 is/are substantially similar to claim 19 and is/are rejected using the same art and the same rationale.
Claim(s) 36 is/are substantially similar to claim 20 and is/are rejected using the same art and the same rationale.
Prior Art
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Please See PTO-892: Notice of References Cited.
Evidence of the level skill of an ordinary person in the art for Claim 1:
Cragun; Brian John et al. US 20090259662 teaches: reuse of component; control access to content in a repository.
SATISH; Sourabh et al. US 20220247784 teaches: webhook proxy architecture enables the extension framework to authenticate and authorize external applications and services desiring to ingest data into the IT and security operations application for use by one or more plugins.
JIMENEZ SALGADO; Rolando et al. US 20200053176 teaches: enable the use of a segment or chunk of information which can be shared and reused among users and documents, and yet can evolve in form and content (e.g., via its metadata) as the information is developed and refined. As used herein, a chunk of information may generally be defined as a set of modifiable and reusable.
BYARD; David Mark William et al. US 20200019414 teaches: permissions that control access to the extensions based on the container application mode.
Spencer; Gavin et al. US 10503822 teaches: plug-in for spreadsheet application; provided as a vendor native ‘plug-in’ or extension type of software add-in within the spreadsheet application, but may also be provided as a web-service add-on model.
Citations to Prior Art
A reference to specific paragraphs, columns, pages, or figures in a cited prior art reference is not limited to preferred embodiments or any specific examples. It is well settled that a prior art reference, in its entirety, must be considered for all that it expressly teaches and fairly suggests to one having ordinary skill in the art. Stated differently, a prior art disclosure reading on a limitation of Applicant's claim cannot be ignored on the ground that other embodiments disclosed were instead cited. Therefore, the Examiner's citation to a specific portion of a single prior art reference is not intended to exclusively dictate, but rather, to demonstrate an exemplary disclosure commensurate with the specific limitations being addressed. In re Heck, 699 F.2d 1331, 1332-33,216 USPQ 1038, 1039 (Fed. Cir. 1983) (quoting In re Lemelson, 397 F.2d 1006, 1009, 158 USPQ 275, 277 (CCPA 1968". In re: Upsher-Smith Labs. v. Pamlab, LLC, 412 F.3d 1319, 1323,75 USPQ2d 1213,1215 (Fed. Cir. 2005); In re Fritch, 972 F.2d 1260, 1264,23 USPQ2d 1780, 1782 (Fed. Cir. 1992); Merck & Co. v. Biocraft Labs., Inc., 874 F.2d 804, 807,10 USPQ2d 1843, 1846 (Fed. Cir. 1989); In re Fracalossi, 681 F.2d 792,794 n.1, 215 USPQ 569, 570 n.1 (CCPA 1982); In re Lamberti, 545 F.2d 747, 750, 192 USPQ 278, 280 (CCPA 1976); In re Bozek, 416 F.2d 1385,1390,163 USPQ 545, 549 (CCPA 1969).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to BENJAMIN J SMITH whose telephone number is (571)270-3825. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 11:00 - 7:30 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, RENEE CHAVEZ can be reached on (571)270-1104. 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.
/Benjamin Smith/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2172 Direct Phone: 571-270-3825
Direct Fax: 571-270-4825
Email: benjamin.smith@uspto.gov