DETAILED ACTION
Priority
Applicant’s claim for the benefit to 17/207,435 filed March 19, 2021, PCT/US2021/021135 filed March 5, 2021 and 63/021968 filed May 8, 2020 is acknowledged. The effective filing date used for examination purposes is therefore May 8, 2020.
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 .
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement filed November 22, 2023 fails to comply with 37 CFR 1.98(a)(2), which requires a legible copy of each cited foreign patent document; each non-patent literature publication or that portion which caused it to be listed; and all other information or that portion which caused it to be listed. It has been placed in the application file, but the information referred to therein has not been considered. Copies of the NPL documents considered were found in Parent application 18/236080. No copy of the following NPL has been provided:
-NPL #3 “Populate Web forms with JSP and XML – Tech Republic”
-NPL #18 International Search Report and Written Opinion Dated August 13, 2021 for Application Num PCT/US2021/021135.
Specification
The title of the invention is not descriptive. A new title is required that is clearly indicative of the invention to which the claims are directed. The title is generic and does not articulate the specific focus of this particular patent application.
The following title is suggested: Embedding executable code in enhanced resume.
Drawings
The drawings are objected to under 37 CFR 1.83(a). The drawings must show every feature of the invention specified in the claims. Therefore, the following claim limitations must be shown or the feature(s) canceled from the claim(s). No new matter should be entered.
Claims 1 and 9:“identifying executable code that, when executed, performs functionality associated with interacting with the enhanced document; and embedding the executable code in the enhanced document.”
Claim 17: “embedding executable code in the enhanced document that, when executed, supports enhanced document interactivity.”
And Claims 2-8, 10-16, and 18-20.
The drawings are objected to because figures 2-5 contain text that is blurred and unreadable (e.g. the text of the example structured data).
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. The figure or figure number of an amended drawing should not be labeled as “amended.” If a drawing figure is to be canceled, the appropriate figure must be removed from the replacement sheet, and where necessary, the remaining figures must be renumbered and appropriate changes made to the brief description of the several views of the drawings for consistency. Additional replacement sheets may be necessary to show the renumbering of the remaining figures. 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.
Claims 1-20 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.
With regard to claims 1, 9, and 17, claim 1 recites “receiving content… wherein the content is unstructured… generating an enhanced document… that encodes the content in a structured form”. This claim limitation lacks antecedent basis.
Where applicant acts as his or her own lexicographer to specifically define a term of a claim contrary to its ordinary meaning, the written description must clearly redefine the claim term and set forth the uncommon definition so as to put one reasonably skilled in the art on notice that the applicant intended to so redefine that claim term. Process Control Corp. v. HydReclaim Corp., 190 F.3d 1350, 1357, 52 USPQ2d 1029, 1033 (Fed. Cir. 1999). The terms “structured” and “unstructured” are indefinite because the specification does not clearly redefine them.
Paragraph [0003] of the initial specification appears to describe DOCX and PDF formats as “unstructured” formats. Yet, Paragraphs [0023] and [0047] both describe DOCX and PDF as structured formats. It is unclear if the DOCX and PDF formats should be considered ‘structured’ or ‘unstructured’ within the invention.
Paragraph [0003]: Electronic documents are frequently stored in file formats, like Microsoft Word's DOCX format or Adobe Acrobat's PDF format, that allow for documents to be rendered in a manner that is visually appealing to a human reader. But these formats typically store information in an unstructured manner making it difficult for automated parsing software (or parsers) to interpret the electronic document accurately, resulting in misread or miscategorized data.
Paragraph [0023] In response to a user request to export the initial document 150 in a particular file format (e.g., in Microsoft Word's DOCX format or Adobe Acrobat's PDF format), the enhanced document creation system 110 may export the initial document 150 as an enhanced document 151, namely by encoding the document content according to a defined schema and embedding the structured content as non-visible metadata in the enhanced document 151.
Paragraph [0047] Rendering logic 123 may allow the enhanced document creation system 110 to render an encoded document (or desensitized or translated document, as the case may be) in a particular file format (e.g., Microsoft Word's DOCX format or Adobe Acrobat's PDF format), which in some embodiments, may be specified by a user 101. The rendering logic 123, for example, may be used to generate an intermediate file from the encoded content, where the visual appearance of the document content (i.e., the positioning and style of the document content) may be provided by a skin definition associated with initial document 150, which may be stored and retrieved from skin library 114a. The enhanced document creation system 110, for example, may generate an HTML file comprising different HTML elements, with specified CSS styles, along with a linked CSS stylesheet to control the position and style (i .e., the visual appearance) of the document content. The enhanced document creation system 110 may then convert the intermediate file into a particular file format, like Microsoft Word's DOCX format or Adobe Acrobat's PDF format. In doing so, the enhanced document creation system 110 may make use of publicly available conversion libraries, like Aspose (for HTML to DOCX conversion) or ABCpdf (for HTML to PDF conversion).
Paragraph [0026] of the original specification describes the ‘enhanced document’, which is supposed to be the structured document, as being in JSON, HTML, RTF, or TXT format. Yet one of ordinary skill in the art would typically recognize “TXT format” as being ‘unstructured’.
Paragraph [0026] “the enhanced document parsing system 130 may be able to specify the format in which the encoded content should be returned (e.g., a JSON, HTML, RTF, or TXT format).”
For examination purposes the ‘unstructured’ document has been interpreted as a basic text file as this is the one format that one of ordinary skill in the art typically identifies as being ‘unstructured’. For examination purposes the ‘structured’ document has interpreted as including DOCX, PDF, or HTML (as per Paragraph [0047]) XML or JSON (as per Paragraph [0003]) formats.
With regard to claims 2, 10, and 18, the claim recites “generates an alert message indicating that the change may result in imperfect parsing”.
The term “may” is a relative term which renders the claim indefinite. The term “may” is not defined by the claim, the specification does not provide a standard for ascertaining the requisite degree, and one of ordinary skill in the art would not be reasonably apprised of the scope of the invention. It is unclear what would be considered a “result in imperfect parsing” or if the claim actually requires any such result. Furthermore, it is noted that the claim does not actually recite the performance of any parsing, but instead only recites the generation of a message which indicates something.
What the message indicates is a human derived meaning which doesn’t impact the claimed system, and as such amounts to non-functional descriptive material which does not impact the claimed system. The contents of the message itself may also be read as an intended use of the claimed alert message, as any human derived meaning may be inserted and have the same functional impact on the claimed device.
For examination purposes this claim limitation has been construed as --generating an alert message--.
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.
Claims 1-6, 9-14 and 17-19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Marano [2009/0292930] in view of Satyaki [Resume Parser with Natural Language Processing].
With regard to claim 1 Marano teaches A method of creating an enhanced document, comprising:
receiving content as the digitized files (Marano, ¶22 “The electronic documents stored on shared document server 6 may be received from any input means, including users typing data into a keyboard associated with user computers 8, or by an input means capable of converting physical documents to digitized files by a tangible process, e.g., by scanning physical documents using a scanner, etc.”) associated with creating an initial document as the document created with suitable document editing application (Marano, ¶23 “The documents on shared document server 6 may be created, accessed, edited, and/or otherwise modified using any of a number of applications, including for example and without limitation Final Cut Pro, Avid, Microsoft Office applications (Word, Excel, Power Point, Outlook, Visio, etc.), Adobe Reader or Acrobat, AutoCAD, SolidWorks, or any other suitable document editing application.”) with a document creation platform as security server 4 (Marano, ¶77 “Security server 4 may include an inventory management module 146 in conjunction with a data storage of an index of files under management 148 may keep track of files existing, created, deleted, their location, and other information.”), wherein the content is unstructured as Microsoft Office documents such as Word and PDF documents (Marano, ¶23 “The documents on shared document server 6 may be created, accessed, edited, and/or otherwise modified using any of a number of applications, including for example and without limitation Final Cut Pro, Avid, Microsoft Office applications (Word, Excel, Power Point, Outlook, Visio, etc.), Adobe Reader or Acrobat, AutoCAD, SolidWorks, or any other suitable document editing application.”; Please note that the term “unstructured” has been read interpreted as detailed in the 112b rejection above);
generating the enhanced document as the tagged document (Marano, ¶43 “a security policy may mandate that the document may be checked out with a "remote tracking" feature. In this embodiment, remote tracking code may be embedded in the metadata of a tagged document, for example, as an executable code or as a set of instructions to the native application.”) from the content of the initial document (Marano, ¶23) that encodes the content as embedding the remote tracking code in the metadata of the tagged document (Marano, ¶43) in a structured form according to a defined schema as the policy used (¶37 “The "tag document" policy setting may be a security platform to track and tag documents for detecting document misuse and for identifying the individual user and/or user computer 8 responsible for the misuse”) [[
identifying executable code as remote tracking code (Marano, ¶43 “a security policy may mandate that the document may be checked out with a "remote tracking" feature. In this embodiment, remote tracking code may be embedded in the metadata of a tagged document, for example, as an executable code or as a set of instructions to the native application.”) that, when executed, performs functionality as executes a set of instructions (Id) associated with interacting as document activity (Marano, ¶45 “According to some embodiments of the invention, the remote tracking code may be Acrobat JavaScript code embedded into a PDF document initiated by a document activity on remote user computer 8, for example, an open command, a save command, a print command, etc. The JavaScript code may initiate network 10 communications, for example, generating a message from the remote user computer 8 to the report destination device notifying the device of the document activity.”) with the enhanced document as the tagged tracked document (Id); and
embedding the executable code as embedded JavaScript remote tracking code (Marano, ¶45 “In one example, an Adobe Portable Document Format (PDF) document may be embedded with a JavaScript remote tracking code. For example, based on JavaScript version 1.5 ofIS0-16262 (formerly referred to as ECMAScript), JavaScript in Adobe Acrobat software may implement objects, methods, and properties that enable manipulation of PDF files. According to some embodiments of the invention, the remote tracking code may be Acrobat JavaScript code embedded into a PDF document initiated by a document activity on remote user computer 8, for example, an open command, a save command, a print command, etc. The”) in the enhanced document as the tagged document (Marano, ¶43 “a security policy may mandate that the document may be checked out with a "remote tracking" feature. In this embodiment, remote tracking code may be embedded in the metadata of a tagged document, for example, as an executable code or as a set of instructions to the native application.”).
Marano does not explicitly teach based on semantic meaning of elements of the content.
Satyaki teaches generating the enhanced document as generating a JSON resume (Satyaki, Page 4487 Section VI. Expected Outcome: “Once the user confirms the result of our parser the system generates a JSON resume and stores it in the NoSQL database.”) from the content as the results of our parser (Id) of the initial document as the text file that is passed to the parser (Satyaki, Page 4485-Page 4486 Section A. The Uploader: “First, the client uploads a file. The algorithm blocks any file having an extension other than '.pdf, '.doc', '.docx', '.odt', ' .ads ', '.txt'. After the client has successfully uploaded the file , the algorithm takes the file, reads the contents and writes the content into a text file before passing on the data to the parser.”) that encodes the content in a structured form as JSON format (Satyaki, Page 4487 Section VI. Expected Outcome: “Once the user confirms the result of our parser the system generates a JSON resume and stores it in the NoSQL database.”; Please note this claim limitation has been interpreted as detailed in the 112b rejection above) according to a defined schema as the defined JSON schema (Id), based on semantic meaning of elements of the content (Satyaki, Page 4486 Section II. Semantic Analysis: “Semantic analysis can be defined as the study of semantics i.e the structure and meaning of speech.”)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill to which said subject matter pertains at the time the invention was filed to have the device taught by Satyaki using the document security tagging system taught by Marano to facilitate maintaining security on the user’s information (Marano, ¶25 “Document security levels may be implemented in any number of ways, for example, as a scalar, e.g., on a scale from O to 10, or as a plurality of scalars, e.g., four binary bits to denote presence of customer names, phone numbers, credit card numbers, and currency amounts, respectively. Further description of classification is provided below in connection with FIG. 3.”) such as their contact information (Satyaki Page 4487; Figures E.9.1-E.9.3).
Please note that the semantic analysis taught by Satyaki may assist the system in determining what content should be tracked and restricted.
With regard to claims 2, 10 and 18 the proposed combination further teaches wherein identifying the executable code comprises identifying code configured to detect a change as modifications (Marano, ¶35 “Once a document is downloaded from shared document servers 6 to an individual user computer 8, further measures may be taken to maintain network security. For example, if a user received a document in access only mode, and the user attempts to upload the document into shared document server 6 after making modifications, security server 4 may ascertain that changes were made and may deny the request to upload the document. An alert may be raised to the security administrator.”) to the enhanced document as the shared document is the tagged document (Id) outside as at individual user computer 8 (Id) the document creation platform as the document servers (Id) and generates an alert message as an alert may be raised (Id) indicating that the change may result in imperfect parsing as denying permission to access or print or modify the document (¶33 “Examples of permissions or restrictions in a document policy setting may include, for example, granting or denying permission to access document, permission to modify document, permission to print document, permission to forward the document, etc.”; Please note what the alert message indicates is an intended use of the claimed system that also amounts to non-functional descriptive material. The meaning behind the alert message is a human derived meaning which does not impact the functionality of the claimed system).
With regard to claims 3, 11, and 19 the proposed combination further teaches wherein identifying the executable code comprises identifying configured to prevent changes to the enhanced document as denying the request to upload the document (Marano, ¶35 “Once a document is downloaded from shared document servers 6 to an individual user computer 8, further measures may be taken to maintain network security. For example, if a user received a document in access only mode, and the user attempts to upload the document into shared document server 6 after making modifications, security server 4 may ascertain that changes were made and may deny the request to upload the document. An alert may be raised to the security administrator.”) or denying permission to modify the document (¶33 “Examples of permissions or restrictions in a document policy setting may include, for example, granting or denying permission to access document, permission to modify document, permission to print document, permission to forward the document, etc.”).
With regard to claims 4 and 12, the proposed combination further teaches wherein identifying the executable code comprises identifying code configured to:
detect a change to a visual appearance of the enhanced document as a change to the formatting of the document but not the information contained within (Marano, ¶35 “For example, a user may have permission to make formatting modifications to a financial document and not have permission to modify the financial information in the document.”);
synchronizes the change with embedded content as updating the document security based on the modified version of the document (¶26 “At each instance, the document security level of the document may be established based on the most recently modified version of the document available. Thus, for example, if a document designated as restricted based on confidential content is downloaded to a user, and the document is modified to delete the confidential content, then upon being uploaded to the shared document server 6, the content may be evaluated and the document security level modified to be unrestricted.”); and
trigger generation of an updated enhanced document as modifying the security level (Id) with the document creation platform that captures the change as tracking the activity of the document (¶47 “The Acrobat software may execute the remote tracking code instructions to transmit a remote tracking report to the report the document activity to the report destination device. The activity report may include, for example, a document identification number, a current document activity, that is, "OPEN," a usage history or chain of custody included in the document permissions tag, a user name or user identification code or password, and/or the IP address of the user computer 8 on which the document is opened”).
With regard to claims 5 and 13, the proposed combination further teaches wherein identifying the executable code comprises identifying code configured to detect and generate a notification of a status as the usage history of the document (Marano, ¶37 “The tag may include a unique document identification, the identity of the user to whom the document was downloaded, a usage history of the document, e.g., a log of all usage of the document prior to being downloaded, a document hash code, a security level of the document, a document security policy of the document at the time it was downloaded, etc”) of the enhanced document as the tagged document (Id).
With regard to claims 6 and 14, the proposed combination further teaches wherein the status of the enhanced document is one of received as the usage history of users who have previously received the document (¶66 “an audit parameter, for example, a chain of custody or usage history that lists users who have previously received and/or accessed the document.”), processed as the log of actions for the document (¶42 “For example, the tag may include all uploads/downloads of the document, by which user, and under what conditions up until and including the last download based upon the most recent request. In some embodiments, the tag may include a log of actions on the document limited by the number of actions, e.g., single last action, or limited by the time of the actions, e.g., the last month.”), approved, approved, or rejected.
With regard to claim 9 Marano teaches An enhanced document creation system, comprising at least one processor (Marano, ¶72 “Security server 4 may include an application server with a plurality of operably communicating modules, which executed by a processor provide functionality according to embodiments of the invention”) coupled to at least one memory that includes instructions that, when executed by the at least one processor (Marano, ¶19), cause the enhanced document creation system to:
receive content as the digitized files (Marano, ¶22 “The electronic documents stored on shared document server 6 may be received from any input means, including users typing data into a keyboard associated with user computers 8, or by an input means capable of converting physical documents to digitized files by a tangible process, e.g., by scanning physical documents using a scanner, etc.”) associated with creating an initial document as the document created with suitable document editing application (Marano, ¶23 “The documents on shared document server 6 may be created, accessed, edited, and/or otherwise modified using any of a number of applications, including for example and without limitation Final Cut Pro, Avid, Microsoft Office applications (Word, Excel, Power Point, Outlook, Visio, etc.), Adobe Reader or Acrobat, AutoCAD, SolidWorks, or any other suitable document editing application.”) with a document creation platform as security server 4 (Marano, ¶77 “Security server 4 may include an inventory management module 146 in conjunction with a data storage of an index of files under management 148 may keep track of files existing, created, deleted, their location, and other information.”), wherein the content is unstructured as Microsoft Office documents such as Word and PDF documents (Marano, ¶23 “The documents on shared document server 6 may be created, accessed, edited, and/or otherwise modified using any of a number of applications, including for example and without limitation Final Cut Pro, Avid, Microsoft Office applications (Word, Excel, Power Point, Outlook, Visio, etc.), Adobe Reader or Acrobat, AutoCAD, SolidWorks, or any other suitable document editing application.”; Please note that the term “unstructured” has been read interpreted as detailed in the 112b rejection above);
generate an enhanced document as the tagged document (Marano, ¶43 “a security policy may mandate that the document may be checked out with a "remote tracking" feature. In this embodiment, remote tracking code may be embedded in the metadata of a tagged document, for example, as an executable code or as a set of instructions to the native application.”) from the content of the initial document (Marano, ¶23) that encodes the content as embedding the remote tracking code in the metadata of the tagged document (Marano, ¶43) in a structured form according to a defined schema as the policy used (¶37 “The "tag document" policy setting may be a security platform to track and tag documents for detecting document misuse and for identifying the individual user and/or user computer 8 responsible for the misuse”) [[
identify executable code as remote tracking code (Marano, ¶43 “a security policy may mandate that the document may be checked out with a "remote tracking" feature. In this embodiment, remote tracking code may be embedded in the metadata of a tagged document, for example, as an executable code or as a set of instructions to the native application.”) that, when executed, performs functionality as executes a set of instructions (Id) associated with interacting as document activity (Marano, ¶45 “According to some embodiments of the invention, the remote tracking code may be Acrobat JavaScript code embedded into a PDF document initiated by a document activity on remote user computer 8, for example, an open command, a save command, a print command, etc. The JavaScript code may initiate network 10 communications, for example, generating a message from the remote user computer 8 to the report destination device notifying the device of the document activity.”) with the enhanced document as the tagged tracked document (Id); and
embed the executable code as embedded JavaScript remote tracking code (Marano, ¶45 “In one example, an Adobe Portable Document Format (PDF) document may be embedded with a JavaScript remote tracking code. For example, based on JavaScript version 1.5 ofIS0-16262 (formerly referred to as ECMAScript), JavaScript in Adobe Acrobat software may implement objects, methods, and properties that enable manipulation of PDF files. According to some embodiments of the invention, the remote tracking code may be Acrobat JavaScript code embedded into a PDF document initiated by a document activity on remote user computer 8, for example, an open command, a save command, a print command, etc. The”) in the enhanced document as the tagged document (Marano, ¶43 “a security policy may mandate that the document may be checked out with a "remote tracking" feature. In this embodiment, remote tracking code may be embedded in the metadata of a tagged document, for example, as an executable code or as a set of instructions to the native application.”).
Marano does not explicitly teach based on semantic meaning of elements of the content.
Satyaki teaches generate the enhanced document as generating a JSON resume (Satyaki, Page 4487 Section VI. Expected Outcome: “Once the user confirms the result of our parser the system generates a JSON resume and stores it in the NoSQL database.”) from the content as the results of our parser (Id) of the initial document as the text file that is passed to the parser (Satyaki, Page 4485-Page 4486 Section A. The Uploader: “First, the client uploads a file. The algorithm blocks any file having an extension other than '.pdf, '.doc', '.docx', '.odt', ' .ads ', '.txt'. After the client has successfully uploaded the file , the algorithm takes the file, reads the contents and writes the content into a text file before passing on the data to the parser.”) that encodes the content in a structured form as JSON format (Satyaki, Page 4487 Section VI. Expected Outcome: “Once the user confirms the result of our parser the system generates a JSON resume and stores it in the NoSQL database.”; Please note this claim limitation has been interpreted as detailed in the 112b rejection above) according to a defined schema as the defined JSON schema (Id), based on semantic meaning of elements of the content (Satyaki, Page 4486 Section II. Semantic Analysis: “Semantic analysis can be defined as the study of semantics i.e the structure and meaning of speech.”)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill to which said subject matter pertains at the time the invention was filed to have the device taught by Satyaki using the document security tagging system taught by Marano to facilitate maintaining security on the user’s information (Marano, ¶25 “Document security levels may be implemented in any number of ways, for example, as a scalar, e.g., on a scale from O to 10, or as a plurality of scalars, e.g., four binary bits to denote presence of customer names, phone numbers, credit card numbers, and currency amounts, respectively. Further description of classification is provided below in connection with FIG. 3.”) such as their contact information (Satyaki Page 4487; Figures E.9.1-E.9.3).
Please note that the semantic analysis taught by Satyaki may assist the system in determining what content should be tracked and restricted.
With regard to claim 17 Marano teaches A method, comprising:
receiving content as the digitized files (Marano, ¶22 “The electronic documents stored on shared document server 6 may be received from any input means, including users typing data into a keyboard associated with user computers 8, or by an input means capable of converting physical documents to digitized files by a tangible process, e.g., by scanning physical documents using a scanner, etc.”) associated with creating an initial document as the document created with suitable document editing application (Marano, ¶23 “The documents on shared document server 6 may be created, accessed, edited, and/or otherwise modified using any of a number of applications, including for example and without limitation Final Cut Pro, Avid, Microsoft Office applications (Word, Excel, Power Point, Outlook, Visio, etc.), Adobe Reader or Acrobat, AutoCAD, SolidWorks, or any other suitable document editing application.”) with a document creation platform as security server 4 (Marano, ¶77 “Security server 4 may include an inventory management module 146 in conjunction with a data storage of an index of files under management 148 may keep track of files existing, created, deleted, their location, and other information.”), wherein the content is unstructured as Microsoft Office documents such as Word and PDF documents (Marano, ¶23 “The documents on shared document server 6 may be created, accessed, edited, and/or otherwise modified using any of a number of applications, including for example and without limitation Final Cut Pro, Avid, Microsoft Office applications (Word, Excel, Power Point, Outlook, Visio, etc.), Adobe Reader or Acrobat, AutoCAD, SolidWorks, or any other suitable document editing application.”; Please note that the term “unstructured” has been read interpreted as detailed in the 112b rejection above);
generating an enhanced document as the tagged document (Marano, ¶43 “a security policy may mandate that the document may be checked out with a "remote tracking" feature. In this embodiment, remote tracking code may be embedded in the metadata of a tagged document, for example, as an executable code or as a set of instructions to the native application.”) from the content of the initial document (Marano, ¶23) that encodes the content as embedding the remote tracking code in the metadata of the tagged document (Marano, ¶43) in a structured form according to a defined schema as the policy used (¶37 “The "tag document" policy setting may be a security platform to track and tag documents for detecting document misuse and for identifying the individual user and/or user computer 8 responsible for the misuse”) [[
embedding executable code as embedded JavaScript remote tracking code (Marano, ¶45 “In one example, an Adobe Portable Document Format (PDF) document may be embedded with a JavaScript remote tracking code. For example, based on JavaScript version 1.5 ofIS0-16262 (formerly referred to as ECMAScript), JavaScript in Adobe Acrobat software may implement objects, methods, and properties that enable manipulation of PDF files. According to some embodiments of the invention, the remote tracking code may be Acrobat JavaScript code embedded into a PDF document initiated by a document activity on remote user computer 8, for example, an open command, a save command, a print command, etc.”) in the enhanced document that as the tagged document (Marano, ¶43 “a security policy may mandate that the document may be checked out with a "remote tracking" feature. In this embodiment, remote tracking code may be embedded in the metadata of a tagged document, for example, as an executable code or as a set of instructions to the native application.”), when executed as executes a set of instructions (Id), supports enhanced document interactivity as document activity (Marano, ¶45 “According to some embodiments of the invention, the remote tracking code may be Acrobat JavaScript code embedded into a PDF document initiated by a document activity on remote user computer 8, for example, an open command, a save command, a print command, etc. The JavaScript code may initiate network 10 communications, for example, generating a message from the remote user computer 8 to the report destination device notifying the device of the document activity.”; Please note that what something “supports” is an intended use of that thing and does not recite any functionality being performed by the claimed device).
Marano does not explicitly teach based on semantic meaning of elements of the content.
Satyaki teaches generating the enhanced document as generating a JSON resume (Satyaki, Page 4487 Section VI. Expected Outcome: “Once the user confirms the result of our parser the system generates a JSON resume and stores it in the NoSQL database.”) from the content as the results of our parser (Id) of the initial document as the text file that is passed to the parser (Satyaki, Page 4485-Page 4486 Section A. The Uploader: “First, the client uploads a file. The algorithm blocks any file having an extension other than '.pdf, '.doc', '.docx', '.odt', ' .ads ', '.txt'. After the client has successfully uploaded the file , the algorithm takes the file, reads the contents and writes the content into a text file before passing on the data to the parser.”) that encodes the content in a structured form as JSON format (Satyaki, Page 4487 Section VI. Expected Outcome: “Once the user confirms the result of our parser the system generates a JSON resume and stores it in the NoSQL database.”; Please note this claim limitation has been interpreted as detailed in the 112b rejection above) according to a defined schema as the defined JSON schema (Id), based on semantic meaning of elements of the content (Satyaki, Page 4486 Section II. Semantic Analysis: “Semantic analysis can be defined as the study of semantics i.e the structure and meaning of speech.”)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill to which said subject matter pertains at the time the invention was filed to have the device taught by Satyaki using the document security tagging system taught by Marano to facilitate maintaining security on the user’s information (Marano, ¶25 “Document security levels may be implemented in any number of ways, for example, as a scalar, e.g., on a scale from O to 10, or as a plurality of scalars, e.g., four binary bits to denote presence of customer names, phone numbers, credit card numbers, and currency amounts, respectively. Further description of classification is provided below in connection with FIG. 3.”) such as their contact information (Satyaki Page 4487; Figures E.9.1-E.9.3).
Please note that the semantic analysis taught by Satyaki may assist the system in determining what content should be tracked and restricted.
Claims 7 and 15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Marano in view of Satyaki and Austin [2007/0203776].
With regard to claims 7 and 15 the proposed combination further teaches wherein identifying the executable code comprises identifying code as remote tracking code (Marano, ¶43 “a security policy may mandate that the document may be checked out with a "remote tracking" feature. In this embodiment, remote tracking code may be embedded in the metadata of a tagged document, for example, as an executable code or as a set of instructions to the native application.”) configured to as the remote tracking instructions causing the application to initiate communication to a specified destination (Marano, ¶44 “The remote tracking instructions may cause the executing application to initiate a communication over network 10, for example, by opening a port, or via Microsoft Outlook or another network 10 application. The remote tracking instructions may include the IP address of the report destination device, e.g., a network administrator computer and/or security server 4. An email or other network communication may be sent from the user computer 8 where the document is located to the IP address designated in the remote tracking instructions.”) [[]] from an author (Marano, ¶86 “(i) identity proof of trusted authors and recipients/users,”; ¶87 “a minimum set of metadata may be embedded in the document when the document is first generated and may remain embedded throughout the document's lifecycle. This metadata may include, for example, non-repudiated proof of author”) of the enhanced document as the tagged document (Id).
Marano does not explicitly teach where the contact is to request additional information from the author.
Austin teaches request as submitting a request via the provided communication means (Austin, ¶69 “After the resume is uploaded, initialized, categorized, and made available on the World Wide Web (Internet), employers will begin to browse the resume. Eventually, an employer who views the resume will be interested in the job candidate and want to contact him. He will do this by submitting a request (via the website) to view the entire resume, including the hidden sections like the contact information”) additional information as the hidden sections of the resume, like contact information (Id) from an author as the job candidate who drafted the resume (Id) of the enhanced document as the resume (Id).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill to which said subject matter pertains at the time the invention was filed to have implemented the proposed combination using the authorization concepts taught by Austin, as it yields the predictable results of enabling the candidate to hide their identity form their current employer (Austin, ¶71 “An important part of this invention is that at this point, the candidate can either approve or deny any request at will. This allows him to hide his identity from his current employer, and other companies he does not want to do business with, on a case-by-case basis. The prior art has not anticipated this feature and current resume listing sites do not have this ability.”). Please note that within the proposed combination of Marano and Satyaki, the user’s contact information restricted. One of ordinary skill in the art would see this as a equivalent means of hiding their identity similar to the redacting techniques used by Austin (¶61, ¶65), and would see the means of seeking approval from the candidate to access the information as valid within the proposed combination. Please note that the device taught by Marano provides the necessary connections for information to be transmitted for the system to facilitate the candidates approval of the requests, as denoted by the above mapping.
Claims 8, 16 and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Marano in view of Satyaki, Austin, and Bryce [2002/0143573].
With regard to claims 8 and 16, the proposed combination further teaches wherein identifying the executable code comprises identifying code as remote tracking code (Marano, ¶43 “a security policy may mandate that the document may be checked out with a "remote tracking" feature. In this embodiment, remote tracking code may be embedded in the metadata of a tagged document, for example, as an executable code or as a set of instructions to the native application.”) configured to as the remote tracking instructions causing the application to initiate communication to a specified destination (Marano, ¶44 “The remote tracking instructions may cause the executing application to initiate a communication over network 10, for example, by opening a port, or via Microsoft Outlook or another network 10 application. The remote tracking instructions may include the IP address of the report destination device, e.g., a network administrator computer and/or security server 4. An email or other network communication may be sent from the user computer 8 where the document is located to the IP address designated in the remote tracking instructions.”) [[(Marano, ¶86 “(i) identity proof of trusted authors and recipients/users,”; ¶87 “a minimum set of metadata may be embedded in the document when the document is first generated and may remain embedded throughout the document's lifecycle. This metadata may include, for example, non-repudiated proof of author”) of the enhanced document as the tagged document (Id).
The proposed combination does not explicitly teach where the communication is used to schedule a meeting. One of ordinary skill in the art would recognize this as an intended use of the communication between the reader of the document and the author of the document. Nevertheless, Bryce teaches schedule a meeting as the recruiter providing his interview schedule to the system (¶58 “the recruiter 306 may decide to invite the candidate 108 for an interview. In the latter event, the recruiter 306 may provide his interview schedule to the system. An invited candidate can then select an available time and interview location. The candidate's response is reflected in the recruiter's scheduling system, and the recruiter's confirmation is likewise forwarded to the candidate 108.”) with an author as the candidate (Id).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill to which said subject matter pertains at the time the invention was filed to have used the communication functionality mapped above to facilitate the recruiter to contact and schedule interviews with the candidate (Bryce, ¶58). Interviews are a standard part of the hiring process (Bryce, ¶5), yet these are not automatically integrated into recruiting systems (Bryce, ¶6 “A fifth problem is that existing recruiting systems do not integrate automated processes for obtaining the job seeker's references or for scheduling interviews.”). Within the proposed combination the resume contains the ability to contact the candidate (author of the document) as detailed above. The system may use this information to facilitate sending scheduling information to the candidate to facilitate the specific use case of job hiring and interviewing.
With regard to claim 20 the proposed combination further teaches wherein embedding the executable code comprises embedding executable code as remote tracking code (Marano, ¶43 “a security policy may mandate that the document may be checked out with a "remote tracking" feature. In this embodiment, remote tracking code may be embedded in the metadata of a tagged document, for example, as an executable code or as a set of instructions to the native application.”) is configured to as the remote tracking instructions causing the application to initiate communication to a specified destination (Marano, ¶44 “The remote tracking instructions may cause the executing application to initiate a communication over network 10, for example, by opening a port, or via Microsoft Outlook or another network 10 application. The remote tracking instructions may include the IP address of the report destination device, e.g., a network administrator computer and/or security server 4. An email or other network communication may be sent from the user computer 8 where the document is located to the IP address designated in the remote tracking instructions.”) at least one of detect and generate a notification of a status as the usage history of the document (Marano, ¶37 “The tag may include a unique document identification, the identity of the user to whom the document was downloaded, a usage history of the document, e.g., a log of all usage of the document prior to being downloaded, a document hash code, a security level of the document, a document security policy of the document at the time it was downloaded, etc”) of the enhanced document as the tagged document (Id), [[(Marano, ¶86 “(i) identity proof of trusted authors and recipients/users,”; ¶87 “a minimum set of metadata may be embedded in the document when the document is first generated and may remain embedded throughout the document's lifecycle. This metadata may include, for example, non-repudiated proof of author”) of the enhanced document as the tagged document (Id), or [[(Marano, ¶86 “(i) identity proof of trusted authors and recipients/users,”; ¶87 “a minimum set of metadata may be embedded in the document when the document is first generated and may remain embedded throughout the document's lifecycle. This metadata may include, for example, non-repudiated proof of author”) of the enhanced document as the tagged document (Id).
Marano does not explicitly teach where the contact is to request additional information from the author.
Austin teaches request as submitting a request via the provided communication means (Austin, ¶69 “After the resume is uploaded, initialized, categorized, and made available on the World Wide Web (Internet), employers will begin to browse the resume. Eventually, an employer who views the resume will be interested in the job candidate and want to contact him. He will do this by submitting a request (via the website) to view the entire resume, including the hidden sections like the contact information”) additional information as the hidden sections of the resume, like contact information (Id) from an author as the job candidate who drafted the resume (Id) of the enhanced document as the resume (Id).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill to which said subject matter pertains at the time the invention was filed to have implemented the proposed combination using the authorization concepts taught by Austin, as it yields the predictable results of enabling the candidate to hide their identity form their current employer (Austin, ¶71 “An important part of this invention is that at this point, the candidate can either approve or deny any request at will. This allows him to hide his identity from his current employer, and other companies he does not want to do business with, on a case-by-case basis. The prior art has not anticipated this feature and current resume listing sites do not have this ability.”). Please note that within the proposed combination of Marano and Satyaki, the user’s contact information restricted. One of ordinary skill in the art would see this as a equivalent means of hiding their identity similar to the redacting techniques used by Austin (¶61, ¶65), and would see the means of seeking approval from the candidate to access the information as valid within the proposed combination. Please note that the device taught by Marano provides the necessary connections for information to be transmitted for the system to facilitate the candidates approval of the requests, as denoted by the above mapping.
Marano does not explicitly teach where the communication is used to schedule a meeting. One of ordinary skill in the art would recognize this as an intended use of the communication between the reader of the document and the author of the document. Nevertheless, Bryce teaches schedule a meeting as the recruiter providing his interview schedule to the system (¶58 “the recruiter 306 may decide to invite the candidate 108 for an interview. In the latter event, the recruiter 306 may provide his interview schedule to the system. An invited candidate can then select an available time and interview location. The candidate's response is reflected in the recruiter's scheduling system, and the recruiter's confirmation is likewise forwarded to the candidate 108.”) with an author as the candidate (Id).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill to which said subject matter pertains at the time the invention was filed to have used the communication functionality mapped above to facilitate the recruiter to contact and schedule interviews with the candidate (Bryce, ¶58). Interviews are a standard part of the hiring process (Bryce, ¶5), yet these are not automatically integrated into recruiting systems (Bryce, ¶6 “A fifth problem is that existing recruiting systems do not integrate automated processes for obtaining the job seeker's references or for scheduling interviews.”). Within the proposed combination the resume contains the ability to contact the candidate (author of the document) as detailed above. The system may use this information to facilitate sending scheduling information to the candidate to facilitate the specific use case of job hiring and interviewing.
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 1-20 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 1 of U.S. Patent No. 11188707 in view of Marano, Austin and Bryce. Patent No. 11188707 in view of Marano teaches the underlying encoded document and the necessary functionality to perform the dependent claims. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill to which said subject matter pertains at the time the invention was filed to have implemented the device of 11188707 using the tagged document taught by Marano as it is capable of performing the required functionality. Austin and Bryce teach the intended use limitations and detail how such a document would be used within a job application environment.
Claims 1-20 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 1 of U.S. Patent No. 11281783 in view of Marano, Austin and Bryce. Patent No. 11281783 in view of Marano teaches the underlying encoded document and the necessary functionality to perform the dependent claims. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill to which said subject matter pertains at the time the invention was filed to have implemented the device of 11281783 using the tagged document taught by Marano as it is capable of performing the required functionality. Austin and Bryce teach the intended use limitations and detail how such a document would be used within a job application environment.
Claims 1-20 are provisionally rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 1 of copending Application No. 17/207435 in view of Marano, Austin and Bryce. Application 17/207435 in view of Marano teaches the underlying encoded document and the necessary functionality to perform the dependent claims. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill to which said subject matter pertains at the time the invention was filed to have implemented the device of Application 17/207435 using the tagged document taught by Marano as it is capable of performing the required functionality. Austin and Bryce teach the intended use limitations and detail how such a document would be used within a job application environment.
Claims 1-20 are provisionally rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 1 of copending Application No. 18/236080 in view of Marano, Austin and Bryce. Application 18/236080 in view of Marano teaches the underlying encoded document and the necessary functionality to perform the dependent claims. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill to which said subject matter pertains at the time the invention was filed to have implemented the device of Application 18/236080 using the tagged document taught by Marano as it is capable of performing the required functionality. Austin and Bryce teach the intended use limitations and detail how such a document would be used within a job application environment.
Claims 1-20 are provisionally rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 1 of copending Application No. 18/238130 in view of Marano, Austin and Bryce. Application 18/238130 in view of Marano teaches the underlying encoded document and the necessary functionality to perform the dependent claims. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill to which said subject matter pertains at the time the invention was filed to have implemented the device of Application 18/238130 using the tagged document taught by Marano as it is capable of performing the required functionality. Austin and Bryce teach the intended use limitations and detail how such a document would be used within a job application environment.
Claims 1-20 are provisionally rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 1 of copending Application No. 18/510581 in view of Marano, Austin and Bryce. Application 18/510581 in view of Marano teaches the underlying encoded document and the necessary functionality to perform the dependent claims. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill to which said subject matter pertains at the time the invention was filed to have implemented the device of Application 18/510581 using the tagged document taught by Marano as it is capable of performing the required functionality. Austin and Bryce teach the intended use limitations and detail how such a document would be used within a job application environment.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to AMANDA WILLIS whose telephone number is (571)270-7691. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 8am-2pm.
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, Ajay Bhatia can be reached on 571-272-3906. 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.
/AMANDA L WILLIS/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2156
Prosecution Insights