DETAILED ACTION
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 .
This office action is in response to the application and Information Disclosure Statement filed on 2 February 2024.
This office action is made Non Final.
Claims 1-20 are pending. Claims 1, 8, and 15 are independent claims.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement filed 2/2/24 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. A copy of CN104156354, listed on the IDS, was not provided to the Office. It has been placed in the application file, but the information referred to therein has not been considered.
Specification
The abstract of the disclosure is objected to because the abstract involves language that is not particularly in narrative form since it repeats the language/wording/phrasing(s) of the independent claims. The abstract should be a summary of the claim invention that allows the Office and the public to quickly determine, from a cursory inspection, the nature and gist of the technical disclosure. The abstract should be a summary of the claim invention; not a repeat of the exact/similar wording that is written/used in the independent claims. A corrected abstract of the disclosure is required and must be presented on a separate sheet, apart from any other text. See MPEP § 608.01(b).
Applicant is reminded of the proper language and format for an abstract of the disclosure.
The abstract should be in narrative form and generally limited to a single paragraph on a separate sheet within the range of 50 to 150 words in length. The abstract should describe the disclosure sufficiently to assist readers in deciding whether there is a need for consulting the full patent text for details.
The language should be clear and concise and should not repeat information given in the title. It should avoid using phrases which can be implied, such as, “The disclosure concerns,” “The disclosure defined by this invention,” “The disclosure describes,” etc. In addition, the form and legal phraseology often used in patent claims, such as “means” and “said,” should be avoided.
Drawings
The drawings are objected to as failing to comply with 37 CFR 1.84(p)(4) because reference character “106” has been used to designate both “page upload storage” (see FIG 1) and “paper upload storage” (see FIG 3). Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance.
The drawings are objected to as failing to comply with 37 CFR 1.84(p)(4) because “502”, “504”, “506”, “508”, “510”, “512”, “514”, “516”, “518” have been used to designate “reference lists”( The wording of 0047 discloses reference lists being associated with 502, 504, 506, 508, 510, 512, 514, 516, and 518); reference characters "520" and "522" have both been used to designate “journal B has 2.54 cm (roughly 1 inch) margin on all sides”. (The wording of 0048 discloses journal B being associated with both 520 and 522); reference characters “604” and “606” have been used to designate “characteristics the formatting style is determined to be in style-B” (The wording of 0050 discloses “characteristics the formatting style is determined to be in style-B” being both 604 and 606); reference characters “710” and “712” have been used to designate “reformatting the reference list” (The wording of 0051 discloses reformatting the reference list being both 710 and 712); reference characters “802”, “804”, “806”, and “808” have been used to designate “corrected format styles at different times” (The wording of 0052 discloses corrected format styles at different times being 802, 804, 806, 808); reference characters “1000” and “1001” have been used to designate “computer” (see FIG 10 with 1000 pointing to “computer) Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101
35 U.S.C. 101 reads as follows:
Whoever invents or discovers any new and useful process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter, or any new and useful improvement thereof, may obtain a patent therefor, subject to the conditions and requirements of this title.
Claims 1-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
Claim 1
Step 2A, Prong 1:
The limitation of “monitoring contextual information of human-computer interactions (HCI) in a computing environment for reformatting formatted papers” as drafted, is a process that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind, and/or performed by a human with a pen and paper but for generic computer components. That is, other than reciting for “computing environment”, nothing in the claim element precludes the step “monitoring” from practically being performed in the mind and/or performed by a human with a pen and paper but for generic computer components. For example, “monitoring” in the context of this claim encompasses the user observing the interactions as they occur.
Similarly, the limitation of “integrating the monitored contextual information into a data structure via a formatting application” as drafted, is a process that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind, and/or performed by a human with a pen and paper but for generic computer components. That is, but for “data structure” and “formatting application”, “integrating” in the context of this claim encompasses the user recording/taking notes of the observed interactions on paper with a pen.
Similarly, the limitation of “generating a paper that is formatted in accordance with predetermined formatting requirements of a publication” as drafted, is a process that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind, and/or performed by a human with a pen and paper but for generic computer components. That is, “generating” in the context of this claim encompasses the user writing a paper with a pen/pencil written in a certain style.
If a claim limitation, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind and/or performed by a human with a pen and paper but for the recitation of generic computer components, then it falls within the “Mental Processes” grouping of abstract ideas. Accordingly, the claim recites an abstract idea.
Step 2A, Prong 2:
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. In particular, the claim recites these additional elements:
wherein the generated paper is uploaded to a page upload storage that stores the paper for the publication.
The “uploaded” limitation is merely post-solution steps of transmitting data recited at a high level of generality, and thus are insignificant extra-solution activity. See MPEP 2106.05(g) (“whether the limitation is significant”). The storing limitation is a mere nominal or tangential addition to the claim recited at a high level of generality, and thus are insignificant extra-solution activity. See MPEP 2106.05(g) (“whether the limitation is significant”). In addition, all uses of the recited judicial exceptions require such data gathering, storing data and/or transmitting data, as such, these limitations do not impose any meaningful limits on the claim. These limitations amount to necessary data gathering or transmitting data. See MPEP 2106.05. The page upload storage in the limitations is claimed at a high level of generality such that the page upload storage is used as tool to perform the generic computer function of uploading or storing data. See MPEP 2106.05(f).
In addition, the claim recites these other additional elements – computing environment, data structure, formatting application, and page upload storage to perform the monitoring, integrating, generating, uploaded, and/or stores steps. The computing environment, data structure, formatting application, and page upload storage in the steps are recited at a high-level of generality (i.e., as a generic processor performing a generic computer function of monitoring, integrating, generating, uploaded, and/or stores functionality) such that it amounts no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic component. Accordingly, these additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because it does not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. The claim is directed to an abstract idea.
Step 2B:
The claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception.
The “uploaded” limitation is recited at a high level of generality. These elements amount to receiving or transmitting data over a network and are well-understood, routine, conventional activity(e.g. buySAFE, Inc. v. Google, Inc., 765 F.3d 1350, 1355, 112 USPQ2d 1093, 1096 (Fed. Cir. 2014)). See MPEP 2106.05(d), subsection II. The storing limitation is recited at a high level of generality. This element amounts to storing and retrieving information in memory are well-understood, routine, conventional activity (Versata Dev. Group, Inc. v. SAP Am., Inc., 793 F.3d 1306, 1334, 115 USPQ2d 1681, 1701 (Fed. Cir. 2015); OIP Techs., 788 F.3d at 1363, 115 USPQ2d at 1092-93). See MPEP 2106.05(d), subsection II.
The use of a page upload storage in the uploaded/stores step(s) amounts to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component. Even when considered in combination, these additional elements represent mere instructions to implement an abstract idea or other exception (use of a page upload storage) and insignificant extra-solution activity, which do not provide an inventive concept.
In addition, as discussed above with respect to integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, the additional elements of using the computing environment, data structure, formatting application, and page upload storage to perform the monitoring, integrating, generating, uploaded, and/or stores steps amounts to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component. Mere instructions to apply an exception using a generic computer component cannot provide an inventive concept. The claim is not patent eligible.
Claim 8
Claim 8 recites the corresponding system of the method of claim 1 wherein the system of Claim 8 contains similar subject matter/limitations and elements of the
method of Claim 1. Therefore, the corresponding system of Claim 8 is rejected under similar rationale found in the rejection of the method of Claim 1.
Furthermore, Claim 8 has the following additional elements: processor and memory. In regards to the processor and memory:
Step 2A, Prong 2:
In addition, the claim recites these other additional elements – processor, memory, computing environment, data structure, formatting application, and page upload storage to perform the monitoring, integrating, generating, uploaded, and/or stores steps. The computing environment, data structure, formatting application, and page upload storage in the steps are recited at a high-level of generality (i.e., as a generic processor performing a generic computer function of monitoring, integrating, generating, uploaded, and/or stores functionality) such that it amounts no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic component. Accordingly, these additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because it does not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. The claim is directed to an abstract idea.
Step 2B:
In addition, as discussed above with respect to integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, the additional elements of using the processor, memory, computing environment, data structure, formatting application, and page upload storage to perform the monitoring, integrating, generating, uploaded, and/or stores steps amounts to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component. Mere instructions to apply an exception using a generic computer component cannot provide an inventive concept. The claim is not patent eligible.
Claim 15
Claim 15 recites the corresponding product/medium of the method of claim 1 wherein the product/medium of Claim 15 contains similar subject matter/limitations and (additional) elements of the method of claim 1. Therefore, the corresponding product/medium of Claim 15 is rejected under similar rationale found in the rejection of the method of claim 1.
Dependent Claims 2-7, 9-14, 16-20
As per dependent claim 2, the limitation “selecting a default format style of a paper processed according to monitored HCI contexts or user selection.” is a process that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind and/or performed by a human with a pen and paper but for generic computer components but for the recitation of generic computer components. That is, “selecting” in the context of this claim encompasses the user manually making a choice when given a list of options to pick from.
If a claim limitation, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind and/or performed by a human with a pen and paper but for the recitation of generic computer components, then it falls within the “Mental Processes” grouping of abstract ideas. Accordingly, the claim recites an abstract idea.
As per dependent claim 3, the limitation “analyzing format styles...” is a process that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind and/or performed by a human with a pen and paper but for generic computer components but for the recitation of generic computer components. That is, “analyzing” in the context of this claim encompasses the user manually user evaluate/reviewing the formatting styles currently present.
If a claim limitation, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind and/or performed by a human with a pen and paper but for the recitation of generic computer components, then it falls within the “Mental Processes” grouping of abstract ideas. Accordingly, the claim recites an abstract idea.
As per dependent claim 4, the limitation “identify a current format style...” is a process that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind and/or performed by a human with a pen and paper but for generic computer components but for the recitation of generic computer components. That is, “identify” in the context of this claim encompasses the user manually user determine the formatting style currently presented.
If a claim limitation, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind and/or performed by a human with a pen and paper but for the recitation of generic computer components, then it falls within the “Mental Processes” grouping of abstract ideas. Accordingly, the claim recites an abstract idea.
As per dependent claim 5, the limitation “validating if the current format style...” is a process that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind and/or performed by a human with a pen and paper but for generic computer components but for the recitation of generic computer components. That is, “validating” in the context of this claim encompasses the user manually user determine if the current format style is selected.
If a claim limitation, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind and/or performed by a human with a pen and paper but for the recitation of generic computer components, then it falls within the “Mental Processes” grouping of abstract ideas. Accordingly, the claim recites an abstract idea.
As per dependent claim 6, the limitation “recommending a proper formatting style...” is a process that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind and/or performed by a human with a pen and paper but for generic computer components but for the recitation of generic computer components. That is, “recommending” in the context of this claim encompasses the user manually picking a formatting style from a list that the user believes will correct the error.
If a claim limitation, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind and/or performed by a human with a pen and paper but for the recitation of generic computer components, then it falls within the “Mental Processes” grouping of abstract ideas. Accordingly, the claim recites an abstract idea.
As per dependent claim 7, the limitation(s) “provide a client application” encompasses insignificant extra-solution activity. Accordingly, these additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because they do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. The claim is directed to an abstract idea.
The claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. As noted above, providing data has been found by the courts to be well understood, routine, and conventional functionality (See e.g. buySAFE, Inc. v. Google, Inc.). Mere instructions to apply an exception using a generic computer component cannot provide an inventive concept. The claim is not patent eligible.
As per dependent claims 9-14, Claims 9-14 recites the corresponding system form of the method form of claims 2-7 wherein the system of Claims 9-14 contains similar subject matter/limitations and (additional) elements of the method of claims 2-7. Therefore, the corresponding system of Claims 9-14 is rejected under similar rationale found in the rejection of the method of claims 2-7.
As per dependent claims 16-20, Claims 16-20 recites the corresponding product/medium form of the method form of claims 2-7 wherein the product/medium of Claims 16-20 contains similar subject matter/limitations and (additional) elements of the method of claims 2-7. Therefore, the corresponding product/medium of Claims 16-20 is rejected under similar rationale found in the rejection of the method of claims 2-7.
Claims 15-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to non-statutory subject matter.
Claim 15 discloses computer readable product comprising a “computer readable storage medium”; however, the exact term "computer readable storage medium" is not explicitly defined in Applicant's specification. Paragraph 0065 discloses open-end/non-limiting examples of the computer readable storage medium; however, the specification does not explicitly limit the storage medium to just 5 only be the hardware elements that were cited and examples are not considered definitions. Therefore, since Applicant's specification does not explicitly disclose a computer readable storage medium, the broadest reasonable interpretation is used by the Examiner.
"The broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim drawn to a computer readable medium (also 10 called machine readable medium and other such variations) typically covers forms of non-transitory tangible media and transitory propagating signals per se in view of the ordinary and customary meaning of computer readable media, particularly when the specification is silent. See MPEP 2111.01. When the broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim covers a signal per se, the claim must be rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 101 as covering non-statutory subject matter. See In re Nuijten, 500 F.3d 1346, 1356-57 (Fed. 15 Cir. 2007) (transitory embodiments are not directed to statutory subject matter) and Interim Examination Instructions for Evaluating Subject Matter Eligibility Under 35 U.S.C. § 101, Aug. 24, 2009; p. 2."
Thus, the broadest, reasonable interpretation of “computer readable storage medium” encompasses nonstatutory subject matter (transmission media) that is unpatentable under 35 U.S.C. 101.
Any claim not specifically addressed, above, is being rejected as its failure to overcome the incorporated deficiencies of a claim upon which is depends on.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
Claim(s) 1-4, 8-11, 15-18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Gururajan et al (US20170220545, 2017) in further view of Glassop (US 20140351693, 2014)
As per independent claim 1, Gururajan et al discloses a method comprising:
monitoring contextual information of human-computer interactions (HCI) in a computing environment for reformatting formatted papers; (0036, 0041-0042,0049: scans and indexes contents and formatting properties based on user inputs)
integrating the monitored contextual information into a data structure via a formatting application; and (Abstract, 0008, 0031, 0045, 0084: generates a template via a system/application)
generating a paper that is formatted in accordance with predetermined formatting requirements; wherein the generated paper is uploaded to a page upload storage that stores the paper (0085-0087: new document formatted based on the generate template is generated. The new document is saved in a database that is remote. (0032)
However, Gururajan et al fails to specifically disclose a computing environment for reformatting (existing) formatted papers and generating a paper that is formatted in accordance with predetermined formatting requirements of a publication wherein the generated paper is published. However, Glassop discloses taking an existing document and applying a style guide to the document. (0113) Style Guides provide a composition in the style of a target academic journal. (0174) Once applied, the document with the applied style guide/formatting is outputted that can be printed. Furthermore, FIG 4A and 4C discloses that a document is a complication of C-frames (0020-0022, 0098-0099, 0113). In addition, buttons such as bold, italicize and underline text can be used thus allowing each c-frames to be formatted. Thus, once a document has been composed/created (combining C-frames) having existing formatting then a style guide is applied. (Claim 1)Thus, Glassop discloses reformatting documents that have applied styles already.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of Applicant’s invention to have modified Gururajan et al with the cited feature(s) of Glassop since it would have provided the benefit of structuring writing for various type purposes to assist writers to write to academic standard (Glassop, 0007)
As per dependent claim 2, Gururajan et al discloses selecting a default format style of a paper processed according to monitored HCI contexts or user selection. (0085: formatting properties already selected and applied to new document, a form of default format style being selected)
As per dependent claim 3, Claim 3 is directed to analyzing formatting styles of content elements., Gururajan et al describes analyzing at least a title and author element for their formatting styles. (0042: discloses identifying the author element (who wrote the document/paper) and identifying the formatting applied to the author element (right justification, double spacing) across multiple documents. 0043 discloses identifying a title heading that has the same formatting style across multiple documents.) Thus, Gururajan et al discloses/support analyzing multiple elements, such as a title and author element, for their formatting styles. The Examiner states the additional elements listed in the claims i.e. title, authors, abstract, background, problem discussion, experiment, discussion, conclusion, and reference list in the paper, are nominally recited and the claims do not distinguish how each of these elements are analyzed for their formatting style
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing of the invention to have modified Gururajan et al’s ability to analyze a particular type of formatting style, such that a plurality of formatting styles are also recognized, as also taught by Gururajan et al’s (it is noted that the claim recites the following listing of plurality of formatting styles title, authors, abstract, background, problem discussion, experiment, discussion, conclusion, and reference list in the paper, of which each of them are only different in name, and thus ,functionally, this combination supports additional formatting styles that only differ in name, rather than function)). This would have provided the benefit of saving time and steps in creating documents from scratch or in reworking existing documents, thus reducing the amount of user input and the computing device processing power needed to process the user input. (0031)
Furthermore, the differences (name/label of each element) in the claim are only found in the nonfunctional descriptive material and do not have any functionality. Thus, this descriptive material will not distinguish the claimed invention from the prior art in terms of patentability, see In re Gulack, 703 F.2d 1381, 1385, 217 USPQ 401, 404 (Fed. Cir. 1983); In re Lowry, 32 F.3d 1579, 32 USPQ2d 1031 (Fed. Cir. 1994). Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill before the effective filing date of Applicant’s invention to include analyzing different names/labels of the elements in the document for their assigned formatting because such data having any functionality as claimed and because the subjective interpretation of the data does not patentably distinguish the claimed invention. See also MPEP 2161.01 which states “USPTO personnel need not give patentable weight to printed matter absent a new and unobvious functional relationship between the printed matter and the substrate. See Lowry, 32 F.3d at 1583-84, 32 USPQ2d at 1035 ; In re Ngai, 367 F.3d 1336, 70 USPQ2d 1862 (Fed. Cir. 2004).” See also MPEP 2111.05, particularly section III.
In addition, Gururajan et al discloses the paper is processed for editing (0085-0086: filling in content after the new document is generated).
As per dependent claim 4, Gururajan et al discloses identifying a current format style in the paper. (0085: formatting properties already selected; thus, identified)
As per independent claims 8 and 15, Claims 8 and 15recite similar limitations as in Claim 1 and are rejected under similar rationale. Furthermore, Gururajan et al discloses a processor, memory, and a medium (FIG 8)
As per dependent claims 9-11, 16-18, Claims 9-11, 16-18 recite similar limitations as in Claims 2-4 and are rejected under similar rationale.
Claim(s) 5-6, 12-13, 19-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Gururajan et al in further view of Glassop in further view of Qureshi et al (US20140229481, 2014)
As per dependent claim 5, based on the rejection of Claim 1 and the rationale, along with the motivation incorporated, Glassop discloses applying formatting from a study guide. Glassop discloses a particular Style Guide in order to provide a composition in the style of, for example, a target academic journal. Thus, when the study guide is applied, it applying the styles to the document that meet the style of a journal, a form of making the document being in compliance with selected format styles. However, the cited art fails to especially disclose validating if the current format style of the paper is in compliance with selected format styles by comparing predicted format styles and identified format styles.
However, Qureshi et al discloses a verification report that identifies the current format styles required for a provided document to be submitted. (FIG 16; 0120 The verification report indicates whether or not the document meets the assigned formatting requirements by visual icons of meeting a formatting requirement or failing to meet a formatting requirement. (FIG. 16, 0120, 0122) One of a skilled artisan would have realized that in order to create and display a verification report such as Qureshi et al, that the document had to be analyzed and compared to the provided format requirements beforehand in order to determine the current applied formatting styles of the document meet the formatting requirements, a form of validating. FIG 16 discloses the verification report indicates that current document has used the correct font type, font size, and line spacing. Therefore, Qu discloses validating if the current formatting style is in compliance with the formatting requirement by comparing predicted format styles and identified format styles.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill before the effective filing date of Applicant’s invention to have modified the cited art with the cited feature(s) of Qureshi et al since it would have provided the benefit of allowing the student to correct any mistakes noted on the report prior to submission (0122)
As per dependent claim 6, based on the rejection of Claim 1 and the rationale, along with the motivation, incorporated, Glassop discloses applying formatting from a study guide. Glassop discloses a particular Style Guide in order to provide a composition in the style of, for example, a target academic journal. Thus, when the study guide is applied, it applying the styles to the document that meet the style of a journal, a form of providing recommended proper formatting styles. However, Gururajan et al and Glassop fail to specifically disclose recommending a proper formatting style for correcting any invalid format styles including paper structure, layout, line space, font type and size, citation format, and reference orders. However, FIG 16 and 0120 of Qureshi et al discloses that if the formatting of the document, a user wishes to submit, has the correct font type setting (san serif), has the correct font size setting (12), and has the correct line spacing setting (double). FIG 16 discloses if the document has either satisfied the formatting requirements by either visually showing a check mark icon (yes for satisfying) or with a X icon (no/error for not satisfying) next to each requirement. One of a skilled artisan would have realized that if the document was not typed in san serif, then “Font: san serif” would had a “X” icon indicating it did not satisfy this particular requirement. In addition, one of a skilled artisan would have realized that if the document was not typed with a font size of 12 , then “Font size 12” also would had a “X” icon indicating it did not satisfy this particular requirement. In addition, FIG. 16 visually indicates each of the particular formatting requirement needs to be satisfied for the document prior to be submitted. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of Applicant’s invention that Qureshi et al discloses provides visual recommendations of proper formatting styles for correcting invalid format styles, that includes line space, font type and size through the use of check marks and “X” marks. This would have provided the intrinsic advantage of the user writing the document a visual guide on helping and improving their document to meet the necessary requirements
Thus, Qureshi et al et al discloses the support of recommending multiple formatting styles, for correcting invalid formatting styles, such as font type and size and line spacing. The Examiner states the additional elements listed in the claims i.e. paper structure, layout, line space, font type and size, citation format, and reference orders are nominally recited and the claims do not distinguish how each of these elements are analyzed for their formatting style
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing of the invention to have modified Qureshi et al’s ability to recommend a particular type of formatting style, such that a plurality of formatting styles are also recommended, as also taught by Qureshi et al’s (it is noted that the claim recites the following listing of plurality of formatting styles, paper structure, layout, line space, font type and size, citation format, and reference orders, of which each of them are only different in name, and thus, functionally, this combination supports additional formatting styles that only differ in name, rather than function). This would have provided the benefit of maximizing effectiveness in helping users to improve their writing skills. (0106)
Furthermore, the differences (name/label of each formatting style) in the claim are only found in the nonfunctional descriptive material and do not have any functionality. Thus, this descriptive material will not distinguish the claimed invention from the prior art in terms of patentability, see In re Gulack, 703 F.2d 1381, 1385, 217 USPQ 401, 404 (Fed. Cir. 1983); In re Lowry, 32 F.3d 1579, 32 USPQ2d 1031 (Fed. Cir. 1994). Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill before the effective filing date of Applicant’s invention to include recommending different names/labels of formatting styles for correcting any invalid formatting styles because such data having any functionality as claimed and because the subjective interpretation of the data does not patentably distinguish the claimed invention. See also MPEP 2161.01 which states “USPTO personnel need not give patentable weight to printed matter absent a new and unobvious functional relationship between the printed matter and the substrate. See Lowry, 32 F.3d at 1583-84, 32 USPQ2d at 1035 ; In re Ngai, 367 F.3d 1336, 70 USPQ2d 1862 (Fed. Cir. 2004).” See also MPEP 2111.05, particularly section III.
As per dependent claims 12-13, 19-20, Claims 12-13, 19-20 recite similar limitations as in Claims 5-6 and are rejected under similar rationale.
Claim(s) 7 and 14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Gururajan et al in further view of Glassop in further view of Chilakamarri et al (US 20180033322, 2018)
As per dependent claim 7, Gururajan et al discloses a server application that reformats the paper. (0032,0078) . In addition, the server interacts with a client (0029, 0107). Furthermore, based on the rejection of Claim 1 and the rationale, along with the motivation, incorporated, Glassop discloses a server application that reformats the paper (0035-0038; Claim 25) As explained in independent claim 1, the structured document of C-frame already comprised formatting prior to the document being formatted to a predefined format. Thus, the server reformats the structured document to another format. . In addition, the server interacts with a client (0034-0035). However, the cited art fails to specifically disclose providing a client application as a plug-in to a word processing application, wherein the client application interacts with a server application. However, Chilakamarri et al discloses a user may access the research server when using a word processing application with a research plug-in or browser extension running on a user device. (0021,0032) For example, 0047 discloses the user, using their user device, using the plugin of the word processing application to access stored selections of the user stored on the server (see also FIG. 1; 0013, 0048)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill before the effective filing date of Applicant’s invention to have modified the cited art with the cited feature(s) of Chilakamarri et al since it would have provided the benefit of enabling users to search for and be served relevant content quicker (0011)
As per dependent claim 14, Claim 14 recites similar limitations as in Claim 7 and is rejected under similar rationale.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to DAVID FABER whose telephone number is (571)272-2751. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Thursday.
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, Adam Queler can be reached at 5712724140. 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.
/ADAM M QUELER/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2172
/D.F/Examiner, Art Unit 2172