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 .
Response to Amendment
The Amendment filed 1/23/2026 has been entered. Claims 1-20 remain pending in the application.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments filed with the Amendment, with respect to rejections under prior art have been fully considered and are moot upon a new ground(s) of rejection, as necessitated by amendment, as outlined below.
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.
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].
Jamison (US Patent Application Publication 2022/0201049), referred to as Jamison herein.
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, 5-6, 8-11, 15-16, and 18 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Rochelle in view of Jamison in further 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);
to other users at other clients and stored at the server database. The spreadsheet is shown embedded within the email application);
receiving a request to modify the set of data associated with the second application based on a second user interaction with
However, Rochelle appears not to expressly disclose the limitations in strikethrough above. However, in the same field of endeavor, Jamison discloses viewing content associated with a link from outside of the application platform (Jamison, Abstract),
upon detecting a first user interaction with a UI element associated with the reference to the set of data, transmitting a request to a computing system associated with the second application for at least a portion of the set of data associated with the second application; updating the UI for the first application to include, in the electronic document and with the content, the at least the portion of the set of data associated with the second application (Jamison, Fig. 5C with ¶0115-¶0118, ¶0140-¶0142 – a preview of the linked external application content is shown within the application in response to a hover interaction. ¶0117 – previewed content includes a variety of types, including documents and files. Fig. 6 with ¶0142 – the user request for a preview results in a request to be transmitted to the server for the preview data).
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 links of Rochelle to include a preview of the content based on the teachings of Jamison. The motivation for doing so would have been enable the user to preview the linked content without having to modify of the content in the first application prior to seeing the linked content, and to save computing resources by transmitting only a portion of the linked content for preview.
However, Rochelle as modified appears not to expressly disclose that the modifiable embedded content of Rochelle is specifically the at least the portion of the set of data. However, in the same field of endeavor, Katahanas discloses third-party content embedding (Katahanas, Abstract with 2:45-60),
embedding the previewed content generated from a link (Katahanas, Figs. 11A-11B with 39:38-40:24 – inserting the content to be embedded from the displayed preview in response to user interaction with the preview).
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 embedding the content from a preview based on the teachings of Katahanas. The motivation for doing so would have been to enable the user to insert the content into the document following evaluation of the format and placement (Katahanas, 39:38-54).
Regarding claim 2, Rochelle as modified discloses the elements of claim 1 above, and further discloses wherein updating the UI for the first application to include the at least the portion of the set of data in the electronic document comprises: identifying, from a template library, a template associated with the second application that corresponds to the set of data, wherein the at least the portion of the set of data is included according to the identified template (Katahanas, 6:15-34, 10:59-11:7, 35:30-47 – format designations (templates) for 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 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 at least the portion of the set of data with the reference to the set of data (Rochelle, Fig. 9C with ¶0053, ¶0059-¶0062 – email application interface at a client contains embedded networked spreadsheet application).
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 at least the portion of the set of data (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. Fig. 9C with ¶0053, ¶0059-¶0062 – email application interface at a client contains embedded networked spreadsheet application).
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);
application server to other users at other clients and stored at the server database. The spreadsheet is shown embedded within the email application);
receiving a request to modify the set of data associated with the second application based on a second user interaction with
However, Rochelle appears not to expressly disclose the limitations in strikethrough above. However, in the same field of endeavor, Jamison discloses viewing content associated with a link from outside of the application platform (Jamison, Abstract),
upon detecting a first user interaction with a UI element associated with the reference to the set of data, transmitting a request to a computing system associated with the second application for at least a portion of the set of data associated with the second application; updating the UI for the first application to include, in the electronic document and with the content, the at least the portion of the set of data associated with the second application (Jamison, Fig. 5C with ¶0115-¶0118, ¶0140-¶0142 – a preview of the linked external application content is shown within the application in response to a hover interaction. ¶0117 – previewed content includes a variety of types, including documents and files. Fig. 6 with ¶0142 – the user request for a preview results in a request to be transmitted to the server for the preview data).
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 links of Rochelle to include a preview of the content based on the teachings of Jamison. The motivation for doing so would have been enable the user to preview the linked content without having to modify of the content in the first application prior to seeing the linked content, and to save computing resources by transmitting only a portion of the linked content for preview.
However, Rochelle as modified appears not to expressly disclose that the modifiable embedded content of Rochelle is specifically the at least the portion of the set of data. However, in the same field of endeavor, Katahanas discloses third-party content embedding (Katahanas, Abstract with 2:45-60),
embedding the previewed content generated from a link (Katahanas, Figs. 11A-11B with 39:38-40:24 – inserting the content to be embedded from the displayed preview in response to user interaction with the preview).
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 embedding the content from a preview based on the teachings of Katahanas. The motivation for doing so would have been to enable the user to insert the content into the document following evaluation of the format and placement (Katahanas, 39:38-54).
Regarding claim 12, Rochelle as modified discloses the elements of claim 11 above, and further discloses wherein updating the UI for the first application to include the at least the portion of the set of data in of the electronic document comprises: identifying, from a template library, a template associated with the second application that corresponds to the set of data, wherein the at least the portion of the set of data is included according to the identified template (Katahanas, 6:15-34, 10:59-11:7, 35:30-47 – format designations (templates) for 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 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);
receiving a request to modify the set of data associated with the second application based on a second user interaction with
However, Rochelle appears not to expressly disclose the limitations in strikethrough above. However, in the same field of endeavor, Jamison discloses viewing content associated with a link from outside of the application platform (Jamison, Abstract),
upon detecting a first user interaction with a UI element associated with the reference to the set of data, transmitting a request to a computing system associated with the second application for at least a portion of the set of data associated with the second application; updating the UI for the first application to include, in the electronic document and with the content, the at least the portion of the set of data associated with the second application (Jamison, Fig. 5C with ¶0115-¶0118, ¶0140-¶0142 – a preview of the linked external application content is shown within the application in response to a hover interaction. ¶0117 – previewed content includes a variety of types, including documents and files. Fig. 6 with ¶0142 – the user request for a preview results in a request to be transmitted to the server for the preview data).
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 links of Rochelle to include a preview of the content based on the teachings of Jamison. The motivation for doing so would have been enable the user to preview the linked content without having to modify of the content in the first application prior to seeing the linked content, and to save computing resources by transmitting only a portion of the linked content for preview.
However, Rochelle as modified appears not to expressly disclose that the modifiable embedded content of Rochelle is specifically the at least the portion of the set of data. However, in the same field of endeavor, Katahanas discloses third-party content embedding (Katahanas, Abstract with 2:45-60),
embedding the previewed content generated from a link (Katahanas, Figs. 11A-11B with 39:38-40:24 – inserting the content to be embedded from the displayed preview in response to user interaction with the preview).
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 embedding the content from a preview based on the teachings of Katahanas. The motivation for doing so would have been to enable the user to insert the content into the document following evaluation of the format and placement (Katahanas, 39:38-54).
Regarding claim 19, Rochelle as modified discloses the elements of claim 18 above, and further discloses updating the UI for the first application to include the at least the portion of the set of data in the electronic document comprises: identifying, from a template library, a template associated with the second application that corresponds to the set of data, wherein the at least the portion of the set of data is included according to the identified template (Katahanas, 6:15-34, 10:59-11:7, 35:30-47 – format designations (templates) for 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 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).
Claim(s) 7 and 17 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Rochelle in view of Jamison in further 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 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.
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 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.
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
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). 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 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