DETAILED ACTION
Receipt of Applicant’s Amendment, filed April 14, 2026 is acknowledged.
Claim 17 was amended
Claims 1-12, 16, and 26 were cancelled.
Claims 13-15, 17-25, 27-33 are pending in this office action.
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.”)…
obtaining the document identifier from the metadata of the enhanced document (Marano, ¶40 “The network administrator may use security server 4 to decrypt the embedded data of the tag, which may reveal a document activity log showing the time, date, and user to whom the document was downloaded, to what IP address, and under what policy restrictions. The administrator may thereby identify the last known user to receive the document. In addition, where the tag contains a unique document identification number, the document presented may be compared against the document that was last downloaded ant its authenticity and/or accuracy established”);
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.”)…
obtaining the document identifier from the metadata of the enhanced document (Marano, ¶40 “The network administrator may use security server 4 to decrypt the embedded data of the tag, which may reveal a document activity log showing the time, date, and user to whom the document was downloaded, to what IP address, and under what policy restrictions. The administrator may thereby identify the last known user to receive the document. In addition, where the tag contains a unique document identification number, the document presented may be compared against the document that was last downloaded ant its authenticity and/or accuracy established”);
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 April 14, 2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
With regard to claim 13, applicant argues that the GUID of Richter is merely an identifier for the template object.
In response, this statement is factually incorrect. 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). The citations provided by applicant linking the GUID to the template are correct, but this does not assert that the GUID is only used to identify the template. As detailed above, Richter explicitly depicts the GUID being associated with both the particular business object and the particular raw data stream.
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.
Based on the above reasoning the applied rejection is maintained.
With regard to claim 13, applicant argues that the GUIDs are generated by the system of Richter and stored within databases rather than any functioning as metadata embedded within the enhanced document itself.
In response, the claim does not preclude the GUID being generated by the system, or being stored within the databases. With regard to ‘metadata’, one of ordinary skill in the art would recognize that metadata is data about data, e.g. data describing other data. Within the device Richter teaches that the bitstream includes attributes for identifying the bitstream, and that are associated with the bitstream with the particular template (See Paragraph 20). Since this attribute data identifies the bitstream and associates it with the particular template, one of ordinary skill in the art would recognize it as Metadata. One of ordinary skill in the art would also recognize that the GUID may reasonable searve as said Identifier. The claim mapping is not made in view of Ritcher alone, but is a combination of Ritcher in view of Marano, which teaches embedding a tag into the metadata of a document (Marano, ¶38) which may be used to provide unique identification of the document (Marano, ¶37). Within the 103 combination, the device of Ritcher has been modified to embed the GUID as a tag into the metadata of the document as taught by Marano, to facilitate being able to uniquely identify the document using said GUID. Applicant 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).
Based on the above reasoning the applied rejection is maintained.
With regard to claim 13 applicant argues that the ‘bitstream’ of Ritcher does not read on the document identifier. Applicant requests clarification of what element is mapped to the document identifier.
In response, the claimed document identifier has been mapped to the GUID (Fig 4B) that uniquely identifies the bit stream. For sake of clarity, the bit steam has been read as being the raw data that is the contents of the document. The raw bit stream is used to populate the template to generate the “enhanced document”, which is referred to as the First application document within Ritcher.
With regard to claim 13, applicant argues that the office does not demonstrate thow the GUID is used for identifying and retrieving encoded content of the enhanced document.
In response, the GUID is a unique identifier for the content. It is used for identifying the bit stream and the particular template (Ritcher ¶20). One of ordinary skill in the art would recognize this as facilitating “identifying and retrieving”. Furthermore, the claim does not require the operation of identifying or retrieving. This language is recited as an intended use for the document identifier. The claim recites “a document identifier for identifying and retrieving encoded content of the enhanced document”. What the document identifier is used for is a recitation of intended use of the document identifier. One of ordinary skill in the art would recognize that any document identifier that uniquely identifiers the content (e.g. like the GUID) would be capable of performing the recited intended use.
Applicant argues that using the GUID to identify and retrieve the enhanced document would conflate the identifier and retrieving of the template. Applicant again asserts that the GUID is only used to identify the template and not the raw data stream.
In response, the template is tied to the business object and the raw data stream via the GUID. When Ritcher discusses retrieving and accessing the template, it is the template for the particular business object, for the particular raw data stream as is depicted in Figures 4A and 4B. The GUID is explicitly depicted as identifying the raw data stream (See Figure 4B, which depicts a table with the GUID, length, and raw data stream, where the GUID is clearly the unique identifier within the table).
With regard to claim 13, applicant argues that Ritcher does not teach obtaining the document identifier form the metadata a of the enhanced document.
In response, the claim is rejected based on a combination of Ritcher and Marano. Within the proposed combination, the GUID is embedded within the document using the techniques taught by Marano. When Ritcher seeks to perform a Get_Data routine, within the proposed combination, that data is retrieved using the GUID. Within the proposed combination, that GUID may reasonably be obtained from the decryption of the tag as taught by Marano.
Based on the above reasoning, the applied rejection is maintained.
With regard to claim 13, applicant argues that Ritcher teaches away from the use of embedded metadata as a mechanism for facilitating accurate document creation. Applicant cites Ritcher Paragraph 2, which is discussing templates not allowing documents to be shared among different business computer applications.
In response, the ability to share a document among different computer applications. This issue is caused by the templates being distinct formats that the various computer applications are not compatible with. The problem Ritcher is discussing is regarding the format of the data (e.g. the template) and not the use of the GUID as embedded metadata. The solution that Ritcher presents, is to associate the GUID with the template, and data stream in such a way that the data stream may be used to populate a second template so that the newly generated content may be compatible with a second format. Again, reinforcing the notion that the issue is with the format/template and not with the use of the GUID as metadata.
With regard to claim 13, applicant argues that the bitstream of Richter does not read on the claimed document identifier.
In response, this is agreed. The document identifier was mapped to “the information for identifying” said bit stream. The ‘information for identifying’, enabling the identifying and retrieval of said bitstream. As can be seen in Figure 4B, the GUID is the identifier for the raw bit stream. Applicant’s arguments do not apply to the rejection put forth.
Based on the above reasoning the applied rejection is maintained.
With regard to claim 13, Applicant argues that Richter generates the GUID.
In response, the claims do not place any restriction on who generates the document ID. The claims merely recite obtaining said document ID. The generation of the document ID would be recognized as ‘obtaining’ said document ID. It is suggested that the claims be amended to clarify which device generates the GUID should that be a key aspect of the invention.
Based on the above reasoning the applied rejection is maintained.
With regard to claim 13, applicant argues that the tag providing unique document identification does not function as a document identifier embedded as metadata in the enhanced document. Specifically, applicant argues that the tag is added to the document after a download request has been permitted, and thus is not used for retrieving the encoded content.
In response to 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). Furthermore, applicant’s arguments appear to attempt to take a piecemeal analysis of Marano itself. Marano explicitly teaches that the embedded tag may be decrypted so that the identifier may be used to retrieve the document (Marano, ¶35; ¶40) from storage so that it may be compared to a newly updated version to identify if the document was modified. Marano explicitly teaches that tag serves as unique document identification. As such, the plain reading of the text reads on the plain meaning of the claimed “document identifier”. Applicant appears to assert that since the document is already set for download, the tag is not used for retrieval. This argument is insufficient for two primary reasons: (1) as stated above, applicant appears to ignore where the tag is used to retrieve the document in future stations, and (2) the ‘identifying and retrieving’ is recited as an intended use of the Document ID. The claim recites the language the recitation of “Document ID for identifying and retrieving encoded content”. When read as part of the claim as a whole, the document ID is being recited as being for functionality that is not recited as being performed by the claimed device. The claim does not recite retrieving encoded content. Instead, the claim recites that the Document ID may be used for retrieving encoded content. One of ordinary skill in the art would recognize that any document ID that uniquely identifies a document may reasonably be used for identifying and retrieving said document.
With regard to claim 13, applicant argues that within the broadest reasonable interpretation of claim 13, the document identifier is embedded within the enhanced document prior to the receiving of the enhanced document.
In response, the claims do not recite any timing limitation regarding when the document identifier is embedded. The claims reciting receiving the enhanced document, the enhanced document having the identifier embedded. There is no recitation of when the embedding occurs, or what device performs the embedding. Furthermore, applicant’s evaluation of the prior art is discussing when the document is received by the user (e.g. downloaded), not when the document is received at the document submission platform. Applicant’s arguments do not apply to the claim mapping put forth.
Based on the above reasoning the applied prior art reads on the claimed device.
With regard to claim 13, applicant argues that within the proposed combination the GUID is generated by the system of Richter and therefore would not be embedded as metadata in the enhanced document.
In response, the claims do not preclude the interpretation that the system that receives the enhanced document, may also be the system that embeds the GUID in the document. The claims do not recite which device, or when the document ID is embedded. The claims merely recite receiving a document which has the document ID embedded. One of ordinary skill in the art would recognize the generation of the document as functioning to ‘receive’ said document. One of ordinary skill in the art would reasonably recognize that the system that generates the document, may also be the system that embeds the ID, and as such has ‘received’ the embedded document.
Applicant argues features that are not required by the broadest reasonable interpretation of the claim language. Although the claims are interpreted in light of the specification, limitations from the specification are not read into the claims. See In re Van Geuns, 988 F.2d 1181, 26 USPQ2d 1057 (Fed. Cir. 1993). Applicant is importing limitations from the specification to imply that the embedding must occur prior to the document being received.
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 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
Prosecution Insights