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. DETAILED ACTION The instant application having Application No. 18/531,684 filed on 12/06/2023 is presented for examination. Examiner Notes Examiner cites particular columns and line numbers in the references as applied to the claims below for the convenience of the applicant. Although the specified citations are representative of the teachings in the art and are applied to the specific limitations within the individual claim, other passages and figures may apply as well. It is respectfully requested that, in preparing responses, the applicant fully consider the references in entirety as potentially teaching all or part of the claimed invention, as well as the context of the passage as taught by the prior art or disclosed by the examiner. Drawings The applicant’s drawings submitted are acceptable for examination purposes. Authorization for Internet Communications The examiner encourages Applicant to submit an authorization to communicate with the examiner via the Internet by making the following statement (from MPEP 502.03): “Recognizing that Internet communications are not secure, I hereby authorize the USPTO to communicate with the undersigned and practitioners in accordance with 37 CFR 1.33 and 37 CFR 1.34 concerning any subject matter of this application by video conferencing, instant messaging, or electronic mail. I understand that a copy of these communications will be made of record in the application file.” Please note that the above statement can only be submitted via Central Fax, Regular postal mail, or EFS Web. Information Disclosure Statement As required by M.P.E.P. 609 , the applicant’s submissions of the Information Disclosure Statement dated 8/30/2024, 5/19/2025 and 8/22/2025 are acknowledged by the examiner and the cited references have been considered in the examination of the claims now pending. Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102 The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action: A person shall be entitled to a patent unless – (a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention. Claim s 1, 2, and 7-18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Hur (US 2015 / 0277860 ) . As per claim 1, Hur discloses a network computer system comprising: one or more processors (Fig. 1, 30); a memory to store a set of instructions (Fig. 1, 30); wherein the one or more processors access the instructions from the memory to perform operations (Fig. 1, 30) that include: providing an interactive system (Fig. 1, Editor 10) for enabling one or more users to create, modify and/or share user-created content on a canvas (Paragraph 45 “ the editor 10 is a component for to develop a mashup program .” See also, paragraph 46 “ The editor plug-in monitors a user input in the editor 10. In addition, the editor plug-in extracts source code unit information associated with the user input and transmits the extracted source code unit information to the code recommendation server 30. ”); detecting content entry input of a user on the canvas (P aragraph 46 “ The editor plug-in monitors a user input in the editor 10. ) in response to detecting content entry input, (i) automatically triggering execution of a plugin, the plugin being implemented as a program that executes separately from the interactive system (Paragraph 46 “ The editor plug-in 20 may receive recommendation code data (may include a plurality of code units) from the code recommendation server 30 and provide the received recommendation code data to the editor 10 and receive selection of at least any one of the recommendation code data from the editor 10. ”) ; and (ii) rendering at least a first output generated by execution of the plugin with the user-created content (Paragraph 46 “ The received recommendation code may be inserted into the source code of the editor 10 and the editor plug-in 20 may report the selected code to the code recommendation server 30. ”). As per claim 2, Hur further discloses wherein providing at least the first output includes modifying a rendering of a content item that includes the content entry input (Paragraph 69). As per claim 7, Hur further discloses wherein the operations further comprise: maintaining a data store that identifies a plurality of plugins (Paragraph 47 “ The code recommendation server 30 as a database for selecting the recommendation code may include the code repository 40. The code repository 40 may be positioned inside or outside the code recommendation server 30. That is, more resources for selecting the recommendation code may be secured by accessing a third repository other than the code repository 40 included in the code recommendation server 30. The code recommendation sever 30 selects the recommendation code data through a specific code recommendation algorithm and hereinafter, this will be described in detail in a description part of an operation process of the code recommendation server 30. ) ; and selecting, by default, preference or user input, one of the plurality of plugins to execute in response to the content entry input (Paragraph 47). As per claim 8, Hur further discloses wherein the content entry input includes a key strike; and wherein execution of the plugin is performed in response to the detected key strike (Paragraph 46 “ The editor plug-in monitors a user input in the editor 10. ”). As per claim 9, Hur further discloses wherein the content entry corresponds to a text content entered on the graphic design (Paragraph 46 “ The editor plug-in monitors a user input in the editor 10. ”). As per claim 10, Hur further discloses further comprising: in response to triggering execution of the plugin results, implementing one or more operations specified by execution of the plugin to identify input for processing by the plugin (Paragraph 47 “ The code recommendation sever 30 selects the recommendation code data through a specific code recommendation algorithm and hereinafter, this will be described in detail in a description part of an operation process of the code recommendation server 30. ”). As per claim 11, Hur further discloses wherein b) includes triggering multiple plugins, and wherein c) includes providing one or more outputs, resulting from execution of the multiple plugins (Paragraph 51 “ Moreover, the code recommendation unit selects the recommendation code through the matching criteria (S350) and responds to the editor with the recommendation code (S360). After the response, the process may return to the request stand-by step (S300) again. ). As per claim 12, Hur further discloses wherein c) includes providing the first output generated by execution of the first plugin, and a second output generated by execution of the second plugin (Paragraph 51 “ Moreover, the code recommendation unit selects the recommendation code through the matching criteria (S350) and responds to the editor with the recommendation code (S360). After the response, the process may return to the request stand-by step (S300) again. ). As per claim 13, Hur further discloses wherein c) includes executing the first plugin to obtain the first output, executing the second plugin to obtain the second output, and selecting between the first output and the second output (Paragraph 51 “ Moreover, the code recommendation unit selects the recommendation code through the matching criteria (S350) and responds to the editor with the recommendation code (S360). After the response, the process may return to the request stand-by step (S300) again. ). As per claim 14, Hur further discloses wherein c) includes executing the first plugin to obtain the first output, executing the second plugin to obtain the second output, and combining the first output and the second output (Paragraph 51 “ Moreover, the code recommendation unit selects the recommendation code through the matching criteria (S350) and responds to the editor with the recommendation code (S360). After the response, the process may return to the request stand-by step (S300) again. ). As per claim 15, Hur further discloses wherein the first output and/or the second output include a visual element that is rendered with the canvas (Paragraph 46 “ The editor plug-in monitors a user input in the editor 10. In addition, the editor plug-in extracts source code unit information associated with the user input and transmits the extracted source code unit information to the code recommendation server 30. ”). As per claim 16, Hur further discloses wherein the modified rendering of the content item does not modify the user-created content on the canvas (Paragraph 46 “ The editor plug-in 20 may communicate with the editor 10 and the code recommendation server 30. The editor plug-in monitors a user input in the editor 10. ”). As per claim 1 7 , it is a method claim having similar limitations as cited in claim 1 and is thus rejected under the same rationale. As per claim 1 8 , it is a medium claim having similar limitations as cited in claim 1 and is thus rejected under the same rationale. 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 3-6 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hur in view of Curzi (US 2021 / 0303652 ) . As per claim 3, Hur does not expressly disclose but Curzi discloses wherein the content entry input includes an alphanumeric entry, and wherein modifying the rendering includes modifying an appearance of a set of alphanumeric entries that are rendered on the canvas, the set of alphanumeric entries including the content entry (Paragraph 141 “ User input components 954 may include, for example, alphanumeric input components (for example, a keyboard or a touch screen), pointing components (for example, a mouse device, a touchpad, or another pointing instrument), and/or tactile input components (for example, a physical button or a touch screen that provides location and/or force of touches or touch gestures) configured for receiving various user inputs, such as user commands and/or selections. ”). Therefore it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Hur to include the teachings of Curzi because it provides “ new and approved mechanisms for providing such advanced writing assistance tools to web-based content. ” Curzi, paragraph 2. As per claim 4, Hur does not expressly disclose but Curzi discloses The network computer system of claim 1, wherein the operations further comprise: providing a user-interface feature in connection with the content entry input on the canvas (Paragraph 141); and wherein providing the output includes modifying the user-interface feature to include the output generated by execution of the output (Paragraph 76). As per claim 5, Hur does not expressly disclose but Curzi discloses wherein providing the output includes supplementing a menu feature with one or more options to enable the user to select to modify the user-created content based on the output (Paragraph 21 “ The WAF plug-in or extension may identify textual elements of the content, which the user may add, delete, or modify, and monitor these elements for changes in the content. Furthermore, the WAF plug-in or extension may provide assistive features, such as but not limited to spellcheck, grammar checking, and/or style checking. ”). As per claim 6, Hur does not expressly disclose but Curzi discloses wherein providing the output includes generating a second user-interface feature that includes one or more elements generated by execution of the plugin (Paragraph 21). Conclusion The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Wolff (US 7 , 770 , 102 ) disclose recognizing strings and annotating, or labeling, the strings with a type label. After the strings are annotated with a type label, application program modules may use the type label to provide users with a choice of actions. If the user's computer does not have any actions associated with a type label, the user may be provided with the option to surf to a download Uniform Resource Locator (URL) and download action plug-ins for that type label. One or more recognizer plug-ins perform the recognition of particular strings in an electronic document. The recognizer plug-ins may be packaged with an application program module or they may be written by third parties to recognize particular strings that are of interest. One or more action plug-ins provide possible actions to be presented to the user based upon the type label associated with the string. Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to FILLIN "Examiner name" \* MERGEFORMAT TIMOTHY A MUDRICK whose telephone number is FILLIN "Phone number" \* MERGEFORMAT (571)270-3374 . The examiner can normally be reached FILLIN "Work Schedule?" \* MERGEFORMAT 9am-5pm Central 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, FILLIN "SPE Name?" \* MERGEFORMAT Pierre Vital can be reached at FILLIN "SPE Phone?" \* MERGEFORMAT (571)272-4215 . 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. /TIMOTHY A MUDRICK/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2198 3/03/2026