DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on 5/20/2026 has been entered.
Response to Amendment
The Amendment filed 5/20/2026 has been entered. Claims 2, 12, and 19 have been cancelled. Claims 21-23 have been added. Claims 1, 3-11, 13-18, and 20-23 remain pending in the application.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed with the Amendment have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant argues that:
However, the "format designations" of Katahanas relate to "the format or display" of hosted data, such as "a card, phone number, name, or other single line format." Nothing in Katahanas teaches or suggests a template that "defines one or more data item types for inclusion in the content of the electronic document." Further, Katahanas teaches that hist data is retrieved from the external platform service and a format is determined which "may cause the creation and display of a card or single-entity selectable graphical object." Katahanas is silent regarding "transmitting a request...for a subset of the set of data..., wherein each data item of the subset of the set of data has a data item type of the one or more data item types defined by the template."
The Examiner cannot concur with the Applicant. For example, at Column 11 Katahanas discloses:
The link-creation module 124 or the hierarchical path interpreter module 122 may also be adapted to interpret a portion of the path text as a format or display command associated with a particular format. For example, a format command may be designated through a period “.” or other symbol that can be used to delineate an in-line formatting command. The format or display command may be used to designate whether the hosted data is presented as a card, phone number, name, or other single line format. The format or display command may also specify a table display format, embedded media display format, or other type of format as can be specified by the user. In some cases, the link creation module 124 or the hierarchical path interpreter module 122 automatically detects or determines a type of hosted data and constructs a default format or display command as part of the complete path or line command. (Emphasis added).
Additionally, Katahanas discloses at Column 37:
FIG. 8 depicts an alternative floating window or floating window object that includes multiple options obtained via the API call or request. In accordance with the creation of a link-insertion command similar to the example provided above with respect to FIGS. 5A-5C, a path interpreter module may return multiple results as a result of an API call or request. Specifically, the path interpreter module may formulate an API call to the target content source or external platform service (e.g., Salesco) based on a portion of the link path 810 (e.g., “contacts”). In response to the API call or request, the target content source may query an appropriate content store and provide a set of results or items that corresponds to the API request. The set of results may be determined based on the set of permissions granted to the user associated with the client device operating the graphical user interface (emphasis added).
To the extent that Applicant is arguing that the type of data corresponds to a filetype or extension of the target file, the Examiner has included a reference for consideration in the Conclusion section of this Office Action. The reference shows filtering by filetype, and is included to promote compact prosecution.
Prior Art
Listed herein below are the prior art references relied upon in this Office Action:
Rochelle et al. (US Patent Application Publication 2017/0255596), referred to as Rochelle herein [previously cited].
Katahanas et al. (US Patent Number 11,416,319), referred to as Katahanas herein [cited in Applicant’s IDS dated 3/1/2024].
Cheesman (US Patent Application Publication 2019/0318015), referred to as Cheesman herein [previously cited].
Examiner’s Note
Strikethrough notation in the pending claims has been added by the Examiner.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
Claim(s) 1, 3-6, 8-11, 13-16, 18, and 20-23 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Rochelle in view of Katahanas.
Regarding claim 1, Rochelle discloses a method for a server computing device, the method comprising: providing a client device with access to an electronic document using a user interface (UI) for a first application, wherein the electronic document includes content and a reference to a set of data associated with a second application (Rochelle, Fig. 9C with ¶0053, ¶0059-¶0062 – email application interface at a client contains a link to a spreadsheet document of a networked spreadsheet application. The email interface also includes content other than the spreadsheet);
updating the UI for the first application to include, in the electronic document and with the content, the
However, Rochelle appears not to expressly disclose the limitations in strikethrough above. However, in the same field of endeavor, Katahanas discloses third-party content embedding (Katahanas, Abstract with 2:45-60),
upon detecting a first user interaction with a UI element associated with the reference to the set of data, identifying, from a template library, a template associated with the second application, wherein the template defines one or more data item types for inclusion in the content of the electronic document (Katahanas, Figs. 4A-4D with 6:15-34, 10:59-11:7, 18:57-19:10, 25:32-48, 26:39-48, 35:30-47 – format designations (templates) for embedded content. The available template format is determined based on the target object);
transmitting a request to a computing system associated with the second application for a subset of the set of data associated with the second application, wherein each data item of the subset of data has the data item type of the one or more data item types defined by the template (Katahanas, Fig. 8 with 37:30-38:3 – API call based on “contacts” returns items which are all of a type “contacts” in the list of selectable options).
updating the UI for the first application to include, in the electronic document and with the content, the subset of the set of data items received from the computing system associated with the second application (Katahanas, Fig. 8 with 37:46-38:3 – the subset of items is displayed in a menu in the interface).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have modified the embedded content of Rochelle as modified to include formatting templates based on the teachings of Katahanas. The motivation for doing so would have been enable the user to customize the embedded view without requiring significant intervention from the user (Katahanas, 15:20-27).
Regarding claim 3, Rochelle as modified discloses the elements of claim 1 above, and further discloses determining whether the client device satisfies one or more authorization criteria associated with the second application, where the UI for the first application is updated based on the determination (Katahanas, 9:33-61, 11:33-11:49, 16:55-17:17, 31:15-36 – authentication tokens are required to access the embedded content).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have modified the embedded content of Rochelle to include authentication based on the teachings of Katahanas. The motivation for doing so would have been enable the user to access restricted content (Katahanas, 31:15-36).
Regarding claim 4, Rochelle as modified discloses the elements of claim 3 above, and further discloses wherein determining whether the client device satisfies one or more authorization criteria associated with the second application comprises: determining that the client device is associated with a user account of the second application; and determining that an authorization process associated with the user account of the second application has completed (Katahanas, 9:33-61, 11:33-11:49, 16:55-17:2, 31:15-36 – completed authentication are required to access the embedded content (second application)).
Regarding claim 5, Rochelle as modified discloses the elements of claim 1 above, and further discloses wherein the reference to the set of data associated with the second application comprises a uniform resource locator (URL) associated with a web page that comprises the set of data (Rochelle, ¶0053 – URL).
Regarding claim 6, Rochelle as modified discloses the elements of claim 1 above, and further discloses wherein the UI element is a second UI element, and wherein the method further comprises: determining that the electronic document comprises the reference to the set of data associated with the second application; responsive to determining that the reference is supported by the second application, updating the UI for the first application to include a first UI element; responsive to a user interaction with the first UI element, obtaining, from the second application, data associated with rendering the second UI element associated with the reference to the set of data; and updating the UI for the first application to include the second UI element (Rochelle, Fig. 9C with ¶0053, ¶0059-¶0062 – email application interface at a client contains a link to a spreadsheet document of a networked spreadsheet application. ¶0061 – users can select whether or not the embedding is supported).
Regarding claim 8, Rochelle as modified discloses the elements of claim 1 above, and further discloses wherein detecting the first user interaction with the UI element comprises at least one of: detecting that a user has engaged with the UI element via the UI, or detecting that the user has hovered at least one of a mouse or cursor of a peripheral device of the client device to a region of the UI that is adjacent to the UI element (Rochelle, Fig. 5 with ¶0039-¶0045 – users modify (engage) the cells of the spreadsheet document, which are reflected through the application server to other users at other clients and stored at the server database. ¶0032 – mouse input).
Regarding claim 9, Rochelle as modified discloses the elements of claim 1 above, and further discloses wherein the UI for the first application is updated to include the subset of the set of data with the reference to the set of data (Katahanas, Fig. 8 with 37:46-38:3 – the subset of items is displayed in a menu in the interface. Fig. 4E with 26:49-64 – multiple items can be selected for embedding).
Regarding claim 10, Rochelle as modified discloses the elements of claim 1 above, and further discloses wherein the UI for the first application is updated to replace the reference to the set of data with the subset of the set of data (Katahanas, Fig. 8 with 37:46-38:3 – the subset of items is displayed in a menu in the interface. Fig. 4E with 26:49-64 – multiple items can be selected for embedding. The subset continues to be refined in response to user interaction).
Regarding claim 11, Rochelle discloses a system comprising: a memory; and a set of processing devices coupled to the memory, wherein the set of processing devices is to perform operations comprising: providing a client device with access to an electronic document using a user interface (UI) for a first application, wherein the electronic document includes content and a reference to a set of data associated with a second application (Rochelle, Fig. 9C with ¶0053, ¶0059-¶0062 – email application interface at a client contains a link to a spreadsheet document of a networked spreadsheet application. The email interface also includes content other than the spreadsheet. ¶0031 – processor executing instructions stored in hardware memory);
updating the UI for the first application to include, in of the electronic document and with the content,
However, Rochelle appears not to expressly disclose the limitations in strikethrough above. However, in the same field of endeavor, Katahanas discloses third-party content embedding (Katahanas, Abstract with 2:45-60),
upon detecting a first user interaction with a UI element associated with the reference to the set of data, identifying, from a template library, a template associated with the second application, wherein the template defines one or more data item types for inclusion in the content of the electronic document (Katahanas, Figs. 4A-4D with 6:15-34, 10:59-11:7, 18:57-19:10, 25:32-48, 26:39-48, 35:30-47 – format designations (templates) for embedded content. The available template format is determined based on the target object);
transmitting a request to a computing system associated with the second application for a subset of the set of data associated with the second application, wherein each data item of the subset of data has the data item type of the one or more data item types defined by the template (Katahanas, Fig. 8 with 37:30-38:3 – API call based on “contacts” returns items which are all of a type “contacts” in the list of selectable options).
updating the UI for the first application to include, in the electronic document and with the content, the subset of the set of data associated with the second application (Katahanas, Fig. 8 with 37:46-38:3 – the subset of items is displayed in a menu in the interface).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have modified the embedded content of Rochelle as modified to include formatting templates based on the teachings of Katahanas. The motivation for doing so would have been enable the user to customize the embedded view without requiring significant intervention from the user (Katahanas, 15:20-27).
Regarding claim 13, Rochelle as modified discloses the elements of claim 11 above, and further discloses determining whether the client device satisfies one or more authorization criteria associated with the second application, where the UI for the first application is updated based on the determination (Katahanas, 9:33-61, 11:33-11:49, 16:55-17:17, 31:15-36 – authentication tokens are required to access the embedded content).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have modified the embedded content of Rochelle to include authentication based on the teachings of Katahanas. The motivation for doing so would have been enable the user to access restricted content (Katahanas, 31:15-36).
Regarding claim 14, Rochelle as modified discloses the elements of claim 13 above, and further discloses wherein determining whether the client device satisfies one or more authorization criteria associated with the second application comprises: determining that the client device is associated with a user account of the second application; and determining that an authorization process associated with the user account of the second application has completed (Katahanas, 9:33-61, 11:33-11:49, 16:55-17:17, 31:15-36 – completed authentication are required to access the embedded content (second application)).
Regarding claim 15, Rochelle as modified discloses the elements of claim 11 above, and further discloses wherein the reference to the set of data associated with the second application comprises a uniform resource locator (URL) associated with a web page that comprises the set of data (Rochelle, ¶0053 – URL).
Regarding claim 16, Rochelle as modified discloses the elements of claim 11 above, and further discloses wherein the UI element is a second UI element, and wherein the operations further comprise: determining that the electronic document comprises the reference to the set of data associated with the second application; responsive to determining that the reference is supported by the second application, updating the UI for the first application to include a first UI element; responsive to a user interaction with the first UI element, obtaining, from the second application, data associated with rendering the second UI element associated with the reference to the set of data; and updating the UI for the first application to include the second UI element (Rochelle, Fig. 9C with ¶0053, ¶0059-¶0062 – email application interface at a client contains a link to a spreadsheet document of a networked spreadsheet application. ¶0061 – users can select whether or not the embedding is supported).
Regarding claim 18, Rochelle discloses a non-transitory computer readable storage medium comprising instructions for a server that, when executed by a set of processing devices, cause the set of processing devices to perform operations comprising: providing a client device with access to an electronic document using a user interface (UI) for a first application, wherein the electronic document includes content and a reference to a set of data associated with a second application (Rochelle, Fig. 9C with ¶0053, ¶0059-¶0062 – email application interface at a client contains a link to a spreadsheet document of a networked spreadsheet application. The email interface also includes content other than the spreadsheet. ¶0031 – processor executing instructions stored in hardware memory);
updating the UI for the first application to include, in the electronic document and with the content, document, which are reflected through the application server to other users at other clients and stored at the server database. The spreadsheet is shown embedded within the email application);
However, Rochelle appears not to expressly disclose the limitations in strikethrough above. However, in the same field of endeavor, Katahanas discloses third-party content embedding (Katahanas, Abstract with 2:45-60),
upon detecting a first user interaction with a UI element associated with the reference to the set of data, identifying, from a template library, a template associated with the second application, wherein the template defines one or more data item types for inclusion in the content of the electronic document (Katahanas, Figs. 4A-4D with 6:15-34, 10:59-11:7, 18:57-19:10, 25:32-48, 26:39-48, 35:30-47 – format designations (templates) for embedded content. The available template format is determined based on the target object);
transmitting a request to a computing system associated with the second application for a subset of the set of data associated with the second application, wherein each data item of the subset of data has the data item type of the one or more data item types defined by the template (Katahanas, Fig. 8 with 37:30-38:3 – API call based on “contacts” returns items which are all of a type “contacts” in the list of selectable options).
updating the UI for the first application to include, in the electronic document and with the content, the subset of the set of data associated with the second application (Katahanas, Fig. 8 with 37:46-38:3 – the subset of items is displayed in a menu in the interface).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have modified the embedded content of Rochelle as modified to include formatting templates based on the teachings of Katahanas. The motivation for doing so would have been enable the user to customize the embedded view without requiring significant intervention from the user (Katahanas, 15:20-27).
Regarding claim 20, Rochelle as modified discloses the elements of claim 18 above, and further discloses determining whether the client device satisfies one or more authorization criteria associated with the second application, where the UI for the first application is updated based on the determination (Katahanas, 9:33-61, 11:33-11:49, 16:55-17:17, 31:15-36 – authentication tokens are required to access the embedded content).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have modified the embedded content of Rochelle to include authentication based on the teachings of Katahanas. The motivation for doing so would have been enable the user to access restricted content (Katahanas, 31:15-36).
Regarding claim 21, Rochelle as modified discloses the elements of claim 1 above, and further discloses receiving a request to modify the subset of the set of data associated with the second application based on a second user interaction with the subset of the set of data included in the electronic document; and transmitting an instruction to a computing system associated with the second application to modify the subset of the set of data in accordance with the request (Katahanas, Fig. 8 with 37:46-38:3 – the subset of items is displayed in a menu in the interface. Fig. 4E with 5:60-67, 26:49-64 – multiple items can be selected for embedding. The subset continues to be refined in response to user interaction. See also Figs. 2C-2D with 21:37-22:12).
Regarding claim 22, Rochelle as modified discloses the elements of claim 11 above, and further discloses wherein the operations further comprise: receiving a request to modify the subset of the set of data associated with the second application based on a second user interaction with the subset of the set of data included in the electronic document; and transmitting an instruction to a computing system associated with the second application to modify the subset of the set of data in accordance with the request (Katahanas, Fig. 8 with 37:46-38:3 – the subset of items is displayed in a menu in the interface. Fig. 4E with 5:60-67, 26:49-64 – multiple items can be selected for embedding. The subset continues to be refined in response to user interaction. See also Figs. 2C-2D with 21:37-22:12).
Regarding claim 23, Rochelle as modified discloses the elements of claim 18 above, and further discloses wherein the operations further comprise: receiving a request to modify the subset of the set of data associated with the second application based on a second user interaction with the subset of the set of data included in the electronic document; and transmitting an instruction to a computing system associated with the second application to modify the subset of the set of data in accordance with the request (Katahanas, Fig. 8 with 37:46-38:3 – the subset of items is displayed in a menu in the interface. Fig. 4E with 5:60-67, 26:49-64 – multiple items can be selected for embedding. The subset continues to be refined in response to user interaction. See also Figs. 2C-2D with 21:37-22:12).
Claim(s) 7 and 17 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Rochelle in view of Katahanas in further view of Cheesman.
Regarding claim 7, Rochelle as modified discloses the elements of claim 6 above. However, Rochelle appears not to expressly disclose detecting an error associated with at least one of the second application, the subset of the set of data associated with the second application, or the second UI element; and responsive to the detection, updating the UI to replace the second UI element with the first UI element.
However, in the same field of endeavor, Cheesman discloses synchronized collaborative document editing interfaces (Cheesman, Abstract), including
detecting an error associated with at least one of the second application, the at least the portion of the set of data associated with the second application, or the second UI element; and responsive to the detection, updating the UI to replace the second UI element with the first UI element (Cheesman, ¶0105, ¶0122 – when errors are detected in the updated version, the document is rolled back to a previous version).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have modified the document interface of Rochelle to include rolling back to previous versions in response to errors based on the teachings of Cheesman. The motivation for doing so would have been to continue to enable the user to interact with the content by providing a working version when a new version is broken.
Regarding claim 17, Rochelle as modified discloses the elements of claim 11 above. However, Rochelle appears not to expressly disclose wherein the operations further comprise: detecting an error associated with at least one of the second application, the subset of the set of data associated with the second application, or the second UI element; and responsive to the detection, updating the UI to replace the second UI element with the first UI element.
However, in the same field of endeavor, Cheesman discloses synchronized collaborative document editing interfaces (Cheesman, Abstract), including
detecting an error associated with at least one of the second application, the at least the portion of the set of data associated with the second application, or the second UI element; and responsive to the detection, updating the UI to replace the second UI element with the first UI element (Cheesman, ¶0105, ¶0122 – when errors are detected in the updated version, the document is rolled back to a previous version).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have modified the document interface of Rochelle to include rolling back to previous versions in response to errors based on the teachings of Cheesman. The motivation for doing so would have been to continue to enable the user to interact with the content by providing a working version when a new version is broken.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. References are at least relevant as indicated in the corresponding summary.
Tony Abbey, “File Explorer – advanced search methods”, https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TPkLNxsaNbE – filtering by file extension.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to DANIEL W PARCHER whose telephone number is (303)297-4281. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday, 9:00am - 5:00pm, Mountain Time.
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, William Bashore can be reached at (571)272-4088 (Eastern Time). 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.
/DANIEL W PARCHER/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2174
Prosecution Insights