DETAILED ACTION
Receipt of Applicant’s Amendment, filed December 12, 2025 is acknowledged.
Claims 1-12, 16, and 26 were cancelled.
Claims 13-15, 17-25, 27-33 are pending in this office action.
Response to Amendment
For the purpose of clarity of the record, the following support for the amendment to the specification and to the drawings is noted:
Paragraph [0030] of the original specification discusses the document submission system 160 authenticating itself. Furthermore, Paragraph [0028] details that while the document submission system 160 and the enhanced document parsing system 130 are illustrated as separate systems, this need not be the case, and that components and/or functionality of the enhanced document parsing system 130 may be integrated within the document submission system 160 itself.
Support for the remaining amendments and for the drawings have been identified in paragraphs [0027], [0049], and [0057] as indicted in applicants remarks.
The objection to the drawings is hereby withdrawn in view of the explanation provided by the applicant detailing which elements of the drawings were intended to depict the claimed features. See Remarks filed December 22, 2025.
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 13-33 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Richter [2010/0005115] in view of Marano [2009/0292930].
With regard to claim 13 Richter teaches A method for submitting an enhanced document, comprising:
receiving the enhanced document as first application data (Richter, ¶14 “Data is input into a first application document having a first format via a document template and received by the system.”; ¶18 “The first application document can be a template that was filled in by a user.”) having a first file format as first format (Richter, ¶14) at a document submission platform as the system receiving the data (Richter, ¶14; Figure 2, 210-230), the enhanced document comprising:
first content [[ as the data input having the first format via the document template (Richter, ¶14 “Data is input into a first application document having a first format via a document template and received by the system.”) encoded according to a first document schema the document template of the first format (Id; ¶17 “Templates are a data framework that allows users to easily create new documents by using predetermined data configurations”) defined by the first file format as the first format (Richter, ¶14), and
a document identifier (Richter, ¶20 “The information for identifying the raw data bitstream can include a name provided by the user, an identifier or some other form of identifying information, and association attributes can include a parent business object, data length and the like.”) for identifying and retrieving (Richter, ¶20 “the bitstream will include attributes, such as information for identifying the bitstream and associating the bitstream data with a particular template.”) encoded content of the enhanced document as the first application document template (Richter, ¶18 “The first application document can be a template that was filled in by a user.”), the document identifier [[ as associating (Richter, ¶21 “By associating the template to the GUID or business object, the point of reference for the data is raised to a business use level above the particular computer applications used to operate on the data. This makes the data generic to the enterprise, so the templates need only be associated with the business operations of the enterprise and the data can be imported into the appropriate templates in each of the different computer applications that may be used within an enterprise.”; ¶25 “The template object 221 can be assigned a unique identifier, such as, for example, a global unit identifier (GUID).”) as metadata as identifying information associated with a particular template (Richter, ¶20 “the bitstream will include attributes, such as information for identifying the bitstream and associating the bitstream data with a particular template.”) in the enhanced document as the first application document template (Richter, ¶18);
obtaining the document identifier from the metadata of the enhanced document (Richter, ¶26 “User client 202 identifies data that the user would like to incorporate into the template. The routine 217, such as, for example, Get_Data routine, can be called to extract or parse data, including user-identified data, from an identified document.”);
transmitting a request as the request from the second application (¶20 “a request is made for the data in the raw data string by a second application”) including the document identifier as Get GUID (Richter, Figure 3, 311) to a document creation system (Richter, Figure 3, 310-340), the request configured to cause the document creation system(Richter, Figure 3, 310-340) to retrieve and return (Richter, ¶32 “At step 315, the Template the proposed combination 330 makes a call, or fetch request to the XML Library 340.”; Figure 3, 315), from a document database as Fetch on Database (Richter, Figure 3, 315), second content as the converted data (Richter, ¶32 “The XML library 340 provides the XML data files for converting any of the pre-existing template data into a format suitable for a template chosen according to the GUID provided by the Template the proposed combination 330”; Figure 316) associated with the document identifier as GUID, which is exemplified as the proposed combination in the example (Id), wherein the second content is returned in a second file format as second format (Richter, ¶14 “In response to selection of a template in a second application, the raw data string is converted to a second application document having a second format according to the selected template.”) compatible with a parsing system (Richter, ¶33 “the template from which data is parsed, and the parsed data”) callable by the document submission platform (Richter, Figure 2, 210-230);
receiving the second content (Richter, Figure 2, 215 “Get Templates For User”) at the document submission platform (Richter, Figure 2, 210-230), the second content encoded according to a second document schema as the second template (Richter, ¶14 “In response to selection of a template in a second application, the raw data string is converted to a second application document having a second format according to the selected template.”) compatible with the document submission platform (Richter, Figure 2, 210-230) receiving the second content (Richter, Figure 2, 217 “Get Data”), the second document schema being different than the first document schema (Richter, ¶15 “maintaining data in a format usable by a plurality of different computer applications”); and
mapping as matching (Richter, ¶3 “If the data was compatible meaning that the data fields matched from the template of application Z to the data fields of application W, the user would be presented with the data”) the second content as content of application Z (Id) to one or more corresponding fields as matching data fields (Id) of a form as the template to be presented (id) associated with the document submission platform(Richter, Figure 2, 210-230).
Richter does not explicitly teach first content visible by a recipient of the enhanced document … the document identifier embedded as metadata in the enhanced document.
Marano teaches first content visible by a recipient as the user having been granted ‘view’ permission to the particular content (Marano, ¶31 “As described further below, these parameters may be used in determining whether or not to grant a request by a user on a user computer for an action on a particular document, and moreover, if permission for the action is granted, these parameters may determine conditions placed on such action.”; ¶33 “Thus, each document policy setting may be specific to the content of the document at the time of the request, and the security clearance of an individual user or user computer 8 to view that content.”) of the enhanced document (Marano, ¶33 “the content of the document”) encoded according to a first document schema defined by the first file format (Marano, ¶64 “Tagged documents may include machine-readable content embedded directly within the native document format itself, for example, as signed and encrypted metadata.”; ¶78 “Sub-modules including natural language and/or search expressions sub-module 158 may search the documents and file format integration sub-module 156 may discern file formats and access content of files in various formats.”; ¶93)…
the document identifier (Marano, ¶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 responsible for the misuse … The tag may include a unique document identification…”) embedded as metadata in the enhanced document (Marano, ¶37 “tags may be inserted into the document upon being downloaded to a user.”; ¶38 “The tag or data embedded in the tagged document may be signed or encrypted. The tag may be placed into the metadata of a document, such that it may not be visible to a user opening the document in the native application.”).
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 document sharing system taught by Richter to incorporate the tagging/tracking of documents as taught by Marano as it yields the predictable results of enabling document security (Marano, ¶3 “In a network where documents are shared among multiple users, document security is critically important”). It is noted that within the device taught by Marano, the system has a need to perform document conversion (Marano, ¶89 “The DRM engine may convert the document into the proper application format of the executing application and may deliver the document to the requesting user with the appropriate level of security strength as defined by the document policy setting.”) and one of ordinary skill in the art would consider it obvious to implement this using the conversion system taught by Richter.
With regard to claims 14 and 24 the proposed combination further teaches
registering the enhanced document (Marano, ¶46 “Based on the policy, the document may be modified to include a tag or a remote tracking code, as described above, to enables the file to remotely register itself when defined activities are taken.”) with the document creation system (Richter, Figure 3, 310-340);
receiving (Marano, ¶46 “For example, in the case of a PDF document, usage events, created by a user interacting with the document using Acrobat Reader or Acrobat, may include opening, printing, modifying, saving, etc., and notification of such may be forwarded by network communication and/or email from within the Acrobat Reader to the destination IP address designated in the remote tracking code.”), at the document submission platform (Marano, ¶46 “the destination IP address designated”; Richter, Figure 2, 210-230), a notification as notification (Marano, ¶46) when the enhanced document has been updated by a user as usage events such as modifying by a user (Marano, ¶46); and
requesting as the user being sent a reminder to upload (Marano, ¶35 “a violation may be determined based on failure to upload the document by that predetermined time, or a reminder may be sent to the user to upload the document, etc.”), by the document submission platform (Richter, Figure 2, 210-230), an updated version of the enhanced document as the request to upload the document (Marano, ¶64 “for each document request, upload or download of the document to or from shared document server”) after receiving the notification (Marano, ¶26 “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.”; ¶35 “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”).
With regard to claims 15 and 25 the proposed combination further teaches
receiving a set of enhanced documents created by a user as the user created templates and documents (Richter, ¶17 “Templates are a data framework that allows users to easily create new documents by using predetermined data configurations.”; Figure 2, 203);
presenting, to the user, the set of enhanced documents as the (Richter ¶26 “A template object 221 is created and returned to the user client 202”; Figure 215 and 215; ¶33 “Following step 316, the user client 302 is presented with templates filled in with pre-existing data that are associated with the GUID.”) at the document submission platform (Richter, Figure 2, 210-230); and
receiving a selected enhanced document (Richter, ¶33 “The user client 302 receives an input selecting one of the presented templates for presentation of the data.”; Figure 3, 309, 311) from the document creation system (Richter, Figure 3, 310-340).
With regard to claims 16 and 26, the proposed combination further teaches
authenticating the user (Richter, ¶24 “Upon authorization of the user client 202, a routine, such as constructor 211, can be instantiated as a private instance and will set an imported business object in the users attributes”; Marano, ¶28 “The user security level may include any restriction or permission on a user and/or user computer 8. A user may be identified, for example, by a username and/or password upon logging into the network to obtain access to or to request documents from shared document server 6.”) with the document creation system (Richter, Figure 3, 310-340; ¶40 “The server 510 comprises a processor and can host a plurality of software modules accessible by client terminals”) prior to (Richter, ¶24 “After completing authorization of the user client 202, a routine, such as, for example, Get_Master_ Templates, 213 is called. The exemplary Get_Master_Templates 213 routine identifies general templates available for all users.”) receiving the set of enhanced documents as getting the templates 309 is prior to showing the template data to the user 319 (Richter, Figure 3); and
authenticating the document submission platform as the computing device (e.g. Richter, Figure 2, 210-230) having a computer security level (Marano, ¶29 “A user computer security level may include a Computer Settings which may include set of restrictions or settings that define the permissions and/or restrictions on any or each of user computers 8 in computing network 2.”) with the document creation system (Richter, Figure 3, 310-340; ¶40 “The server 510 comprises a processor and can host a plurality of software modules accessible by client terminals”) prior to receiving the enhanced document (Richter, ¶23 “This XML formatted data is of a form that allows the plurality of different computer applications using the appropriate templates to access the data, store, manipulate and present the data on an output device, such as a display device or printer, or store the data in a database or other storage device (step 190).”).
With regard to claims 17 and 27, the proposed combination further teaches
Providing via the document submission platform (Richter, Figure 2, 210-230), a widget configured to parse as the Data is parsed from the first application document (Richter, ¶14 “The data is parsed from the first application document, and the parsed data is converted to a raw data string”) the encoded content of the enhanced document as the first application document (Id).
With regard to claims 18 and 28, the proposed combination further teaches
wherein the widget is further configured to detect whether a user is signed into (Marano, ¶28 “A user may be identified, for example, by a username and/or password upon logging into the network to obtain access to or to request documents from shared document server 6.”) a document creation platform hosted by the document creation system (Richter, Figure 3, 310-340).
With regard to claims 19 and 29, the proposed combination further teaches
sending a processing status of the enhanced document (Marano, ¶47 “The activity report may include, for example, a document identification number, a current document activity, that is, "OPEN,"”; ¶51 “OPEN”; ¶61 “suspect”) to the document creation system (Richter, Figure 3, 310-340).
With regard to claims 20 and 30, the proposed combination further teaches
wherein the processing status comprises a status indicator for indicating a status of the enhanced document, the status of the enhanced document (Marano, ¶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.”) comprising one of a received, processed as a open flag (Marano, ¶47; 51, approved (Marano, ¶95 “any request by a user to attach a document to an email message must be approved by the security server”), or rejected status as a suspect or warning flag (¶38 “The security server may reject attempts to upload documents that were downloaded with a tag if the uploaded document has not tag or contains a tag that has been tampered with.”; ¶61 “In some embodiments of the invention, some actions may be regarded as "suspect", for example, permitted with a warning flag”).
With regard to claims 21 and 31, the proposed combination further teaches
wherein the processing status of the enhanced document further comprises a notification of an error in processing the enhanced document (Marano, Figure 2, 200 “Verification Status: signature verification failed”; ¶35 “a violation may be determined based on failure to upload the document by that predetermined time”).
With regard to claims 22 and 33, the proposed combination further teaches
transmitting a query (Richter, Figure 3, 309, 311) to the document creation system (Richter, Figure 3, 310-340) to determine whether an updated version of the enhanced document is available; and
requesting as calling (Richter, ¶22 “The calling instance will know which template was selected by the user will be capable of presenting the data in an acceptable format based on the GUID and or other identifying information associated with the data in a template header or data string bitstream.”; Figure 3, 309, 311), from the document creation system (Richter, Figure 3, 310-340), content of the updated version of the enhanced document (Marano, ¶35 “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.”) in an alternate file format (Richter, ¶19 “Conversion engines in a conversion utility are capable of converting data of differing formats into an XML or other format are known in the computer arts.”; Marano, ¶89).
With regard to claim 23 the Richter teaches A document submission system comprising:
a processor (Richter, ¶40); and
a memory (Richter, ¶43) in communication with the processor, the memory having instructions stored thereon as software modules (Richter, ¶43), where the processor is configured to execute the instructions that cause the document submission system to:
receive the enhanced document as first application data (Richter, ¶14 “Data is input into a first application document having a first format via a document template and received by the system.”; ¶18 “The first application document can be a template that was filled in by a user.”) having a first file format as first format (Richter, ¶14) at a document submission platform as the system receiving the data (Richter, ¶14; Figure 2, 210-230), the enhanced document comprising:
first content [[ as the data input having the first format via the document template (Richter, ¶14 “Data is input into a first application document having a first format via a document template and received by the system.”) encoded according to a first document schema the document template of the first format (Id; ¶17 “Templates are a data framework that allows users to easily create new documents by using predetermined data configurations”) defined by the first file format as the first format (Richter, ¶14), and
a document identifier (Richter, ¶20 “The information for identifying the raw data bitstream can include a name provided by the user, an identifier or some other form of identifying information, and association attributes can include a parent business object, data length and the like.”) for identifying and retrieving (Richter, ¶20 “the bitstream will include attributes, such as information for identifying the bitstream and associating the bitstream data with a particular template.”) encoded content of the enhanced document as the first application document template (Richter, ¶18 “The first application document can be a template that was filled in by a user.”), the document identifier [[ as associating (Richter, ¶21 “By associating the template to the GUID or business object, the point of reference for the data is raised to a business use level above the particular computer applications used to operate on the data. This makes the data generic to the enterprise, so the templates need only be associated with the business operations of the enterprise and the data can be imported into the appropriate templates in each of the different computer applications that may be used within an enterprise.”; ¶25 “The template object 221 can be assigned a unique identifier, such as, for example, a global unit identifier (GUID).”) as metadata as identifying information associated with a particular template (Richter, ¶20 “the bitstream will include attributes, such as information for identifying the bitstream and associating the bitstream data with a particular template.”) in the enhanced document as the first application document template (Richter, ¶18);
obtain the document identifier from the metadata of the enhanced document (Richter, ¶26 “User client 202 identifies data that the user would like to incorporate into the template. The routine 217, such as, for example, Get_Data routine, can be called to extract or parse data, including user-identified data, from an identified document.”);
transmit a request as the request from the second application (¶20 “a request is made for the data in the raw data string by a second application”) including the document identifier as Get GUID (Richter, Figure 3, 311) to a document creation system (Richter, Figure 3, 310-340), the request configured to cause the document creation system(Richter, Figure 3, 310-340) to retrieve and return (Richter, ¶32 “At step 315, the Template the proposed combination 330 makes a call, or fetch request to the XML Library 340.”; Figure 3, 315), from a document database as Fetch on Database (Richter, Figure 3, 315), second content as the converted data (Richter, ¶32 “The XML library 340 provides the XML data files for converting any of the pre-existing template data into a format suitable for a template chosen according to the GUID provided by the Template the proposed combination 330”; Figure 316) associated with the document identifier as GUID, which is exemplified as the proposed combination in the example (Id), wherein the second content is returned in a second file format as second format (Richter, ¶14 “In response to selection of a template in a second application, the raw data string is converted to a second application document having a second format according to the selected template.”) compatible with a parsing system (Richter, ¶33 “the template from which data is parsed, and the parsed data”) callable by the document submission platform (Richter, Figure 2, 210-230);
receive the second content (Richter, Figure 2, 215 “Get Templates For User”) at the document submission platform (Richter, Figure 2, 210-230), the second content encoded according to a second document schema as the second template (Richter, ¶14 “In response to selection of a template in a second application, the raw data string is converted to a second application document having a second format according to the selected template.”) compatible with the document submission platform (Richter, Figure 2, 210-230) receiving the second content (Richter, Figure 2, 217 “Get Data”), the second document schema being different than the first document schema (Richter, ¶15 “maintaining data in a format usable by a plurality of different computer applications”); and
map as matching (Richter, ¶3 “If the data was compatible meaning that the data fields matched from the template of application Z to the data fields of application W, the user would be presented with the data”) the second content as content of application Z (Id) to one or more corresponding fields as matching data fields (Id) of a form as the template to be presented (id) associated with the document submission platform(Richter, Figure 2, 210-230).
Richter does not explicitly teach first content visible by a recipient of the enhanced document … the document identifier embedded as metadata in the enhanced document.
Marano teaches first content visible by a recipient as the user having been granted ‘view’ permission to the particular content (Marano, ¶31 “As described further below, these parameters may be used in determining whether or not to grant a request by a user on a user computer for an action on a particular document, and moreover, if permission for the action is granted, these parameters may determine conditions placed on such action.”; ¶33 “Thus, each document policy setting may be specific to the content of the document at the time of the request, and the security clearance of an individual user or user computer 8 to view that content.”) of the enhanced document (Marano, ¶33 “the content of the document”) encoded according to a first document schema defined by the first file format (Marano, ¶64 “Tagged documents may include machine-readable content embedded directly within the native document format itself, for example, as signed and encrypted metadata.”; ¶78 “Sub-modules including natural language and/or search expressions sub-module 158 may search the documents and file format integration sub-module 156 may discern file formats and access content of files in various formats.”; ¶93)…
the document identifier (Marano, ¶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 responsible for the misuse … The tag may include a unique document identification…”) embedded as metadata in the enhanced document (Marano, ¶37 “tags may be inserted into the document upon being downloaded to a user.”; ¶38 “The tag or data embedded in the tagged document may be signed or encrypted. The tag may be placed into the metadata of a document, such that it may not be visible to a user opening the document in the native application.”).
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 document sharing system taught by Richter to incorporate the tagging/tracking of documents as taught by Marano as it yields the predictable results of enabling document security (Marano, ¶3 “In a network where documents are shared among multiple users, document security is critically important”). It is noted that within the device taught by Marano, the system has a need to perform document conversion (Marano, ¶89 “The DRM engine may convert the document into the proper application format of the executing application and may deliver the document to the requesting user with the appropriate level of security strength as defined by the document policy setting.”) and one of ordinary skill in the art would consider it obvious to implement this using the conversion system taught by Richter.
With regard to claim 32 the proposed combination further teaches wherein the processing status of the enhanced document (Marano, ¶47 “The activity report may include, for example, a document identification number, a current document activity, that is, "OPEN,"”; ¶51 “OPEN”; ¶61 “suspect”) further comprises a notification (Marano, ¶46) of a company or role (Marano, ¶94 “Some embodiments of the invention may enable authorized users and groups of users having an authorized role to delegate document permissions for trusted users outside the computing network 2, e.g., for a partner or affiliated group outside the company network.”) associated with a submission of the enhanced document (Marano, ¶35 “if a user received a document in access only mode, and the user attempts to upload the document into shared document”).
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 and 23-30 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-5 and 13-16 of U.S. Patent No. US12373480B2. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because patent US12373480B2 covers the entirety of the claimed subject matter of the instant claims.
Instant Claim set
With regard to claims 13 and 26:
A method for submitting an enhanced document, comprising:
receiving the enhanced document having a first file format at a document submission platform, the enhanced document comprising:
first content visible by a recipient of the enhanced document encoded according to a first document schema defined by the first file format, and
a document identifier for identifying and retrieving encoded content of the enhanced document, the document identifier embedded as metadata in the enhanced document;
obtaining the document identifier from the metadata of the enhanced document;
transmitting
a request including the document identifier to a document creation system, the request configured to cause the document creation system to retrieve and return, from a document database, …;
receiving the second content
at the document submission platform, the second content encoded according to a second document schema compatible with the document submission platform receiving the second content, the second document schema being different than the first document schema; and
mapping the second content to one or more corresponding fields of a form associated with the document submission platform.
With regard to claims 14 and 24:
registering the enhanced document with the document creation system;
receiving, at the document submission platform, a notification when the enhanced document has been updated by a user; and
requesting, by the document submission platform, an updated version of the enhanced document after receiving the notification.
With regard to claims 15 and 25:
receiving a set of enhanced documents created by a user;
presenting, to the user, the set of enhanced documents at the document submission platform; and
receiving a selected enhanced document from the document creation system.
With regard to claims 16 and 26:
authenticating the user with the document creation system prior to receiving the set of enhanced documents; and
authenticating the document submission platform with the document creation system prior to receiving the enhanced document.
With regard to claims 17 and 27:
providing, via the document submission platform,
a widget configured to parse the encoded content of the enhanced document.
With regard to claims 18 and 28:
wherein the widget is further configured to
detect whether a user is signed into a document creation platform hosted by the document creation system.
With regard to claims 19 and 29:
sending a processing status of the enhanced document to the document creation system.
With regard to claims 20 and 30:
wherein the processing status comprises a status indicator for indicating a status of the enhanced document, the status of the enhanced document comprising one of a received, processed, approved, or rejected status.
US12373480B2
1. A method of processing an enhanced document, the method comprising:
receiving the enhanced document having a first file format at a document submission platform in response to a submission by a user, the enhanced document comprising:
first content visible by a recipient of the enhanced document encoded according to a first document schema defined by the first file format, and
a document identifier for identifying and retrieving encoded content of the enhanced document, the document identifier embedded as metadata in the enhanced document, and invisible to the recipient of the enhanced document;
obtaining the document identifier from the metadata of the enhanced document;
transmitting, after receiving the enhanced document,
a request including the document identifier to a document creation system, the request configured to cause the document creation system to retrieve and return, from a document database
second content associated with the document identifier, wherein the second content is returned in a second file format compatible with a parsing system callable by the document submission platform, and the second content comprises data of the first content;
receiving the second content from the document creation system
at the document submission platform, the second content encoded according to a second document schema compatible with the document submission platform receiving the second content, the second document schema being different than the first document schema; and
mapping the second content to one or more corresponding field values to form fields on a form presented through the document submission platform.
2. The method of claim 1, further comprising:
registering the enhanced document with the document creation system;
receiving, at the document submission platform, a notification when the enhanced document has been updated by the user; and
requesting, by the document submission platform, an updated version of the enhanced document after receiving the notification.
3. The method of claim 1, further comprising:
receiving a list of enhanced documents created by the user;
presenting, to the user, the list of enhanced documents at the document submission platform; and
receiving a selected enhanced document from a document creation platform in response to a user selection from the list of enhanced documents.
4. The method of claim 3, further comprising:
authenticating the user with the document creation system prior to receiving the list of enhanced documents; and
authenticating the document submission platform with the document creation system prior to receiving the enhanced document.
13. The document submission system of claim 5, wherein the processor is further configured to execute the instructions that cause the document submission system to
provide, via the document submission platform accessible by the user,
a widget configured to parse the encoded content of the enhanced document.
14. The document submission system of claim 13, wherein the widget is further configured to
detect whether the user is signed into a document creation platform hosted by the document creation system.
15. The document submission system of claim 5, wherein the processor is further configured to execute the instructions that cause the document submission system to
send a processing status of the enhanced document to the document creation system.
16. The document submission system of claim 15,
wherein the processing status comprises a status indicator for indicating a status of the enhanced document, the status of the enhanced document comprising one of a received, processed, approved, or rejected status.
Claims 21-22, 31-33 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-5 of U.S. Patent No. US12373480B2 in view of Marano.
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 patent US12373480B3 using the security techniques taught by Marano as it yields the predictable results of ensuring that the document is not changed by unauthorized users.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed December 22, 2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
With regard to Richter:
Applicant argue that the GUID of Richter does not teach “a document identifier for identifying and retrieving encoded content of the enhanced document” (Page 17 of remarks). Specifically applicant argues that the GUI of Richter is sued as an attribute within the bitstream to determine which specific templates to present to a user. That the GUI is an attribute that provides information regarding an identifier business entity for the template.
In response, within the device taught by Richter the GUID is associated with multiple elements, including the raw data stream, business object, and template used to display said data. Each GUID is associated with a particular business object (See Figure 4A) and a particular raw data stream (See Figure 4B). Paragraph [0020] is discussing how to identify a particular template that is able to present the specific raw data bit-stream represented by the GUID. The system associates the Template with the GUID so that the system will know which template is capable of presenting the data (¶22). Paragraph [0030] details the XML library used to store the data, detailing the use of a BLOB that is assigned the GUID and then the GUID is assigned toa template name (again for display purposes, ¶22).
The claim language requires that the document identifier be used for identifying and retrieving the encoded content. Within Richter, being that the GUID is associated with the raw data stream, the GUID satisfies the claim requirements. The claim requires the result for the data to include the GUID. Within Richter, a second application may submit a request for the data as discussed in Paragraph 20. Richter also depicts such requests being performed in Figure 3, where the system Template manager issues a Get GUID (Figure 3, 311) request, which ultimately results in the Converted Raw Data object and the template being obtained and returned to the user (Figure 3, 316; ¶34 “The data representing the document data in the template is returned at step 316 to the user client 302.”). Paragraph [0033] details this operation, wherein the GUID is used as an “identifier of the business object” associated with the template, and the “raw data string” is converted into an intermediate format to be inserted into the template for display.
Applicant asserts that the GUID associated with the template and the GUID associated with the content of the document are entirely different GUID (Page 18 of remarks).
In response, Richter provides an example in Figures FA and 4B, where the same GUID is used in the two tables. The GUID LHR2345VDR is associated with the raw data stream (Figure 4B), with “Template 1” (Figure 4A) and with the particular business object “PaymentList123” (Figure 4A).
Applicant argues that the use of the GUID for creating an instance of a user-selected template is a separate step than the step for retrieving any document content, e.g. step 315, (Remarks Page 19).
In response, Figure 3 is not depicting the generation of a blank template. At Step 308 the user selects the template they wish to view, and then steps 309-319 are the process of retrieving the template populated with the specific data. The use is not merely selecting a generic template in step 308, but is instead retrieving a specific instance of the template (See Step 303 which initiates the Instant request). The specific instance being requested (¶31) is one that is populated with pre-existing data (¶32 “At step 309, a template is selected based on an input into the interface on the user client 302, any pre-existing data in the selected template, such as pre-existing corporate name and address information and the like, is obtained in the following steps 311-316.”) The system is using the GUID that is associated with that data and template to perform the retrieval (¶32).
Based on the above reasoning the applied mapping reads on the claim language.
With regard to Marano:
Applicant argues that the tag embedded within the document as taught by Marano cannot be used for retrieval (Page 20 of remarks). Specifically, applicant argues that retrieval happens prior to the receiving of the document within the claims.
In response, the claims do not recite a time in which the document identifier (e.g. the tag) is embedded in the document. The claims recite receiving the enhanced document, and then detail what the enhanced document comprises, which includes the document identifier. There is no statement retarding when the tag is added, merely that the received document contains the tag. Within Marano, the device specifically modifies the document being downloaded to embed the tag and then provide the document (containing the embedded tag) to the user (Marano, ¶6). This means that all copies of the document from the server contain the tag. When a user attempts to upload a document to the server (meaning the server is receiving the file from the user), the system checks the tag within the document to identify if the document has been tampered with or not (¶38, ¶39). This means that when the server receives a file, it checks the file to identify if the document contains a tag within it. This means that once a document is effectively registered with the server, it contains a tag that uniquely identifies it to facilitate tracking that specific document.
Within the proposed combination, this tag may include the GUID as taught by Richter, which is used to retrieve the specific raw data stream within a specific template, e.g. the enhanced document. Within the proposed combination, this GUID may be inserted within the enhanced document to facilitate tracking that document (as taught by Marano). Applicant's arguments against the references individually, one cannot show nonobviousness by attacking references individually where the rejections are based on combinations of references. See In re Keller, 642 F.2d 413, 208 USPQ 871 (CCPA 1981); In re Merck & Co., 800 F.2d 1091, 231 USPQ 375 (Fed. Cir. 1986).
Conclusion
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to 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 at 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