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
Status of the Application
The following is a Non-Final Office Action in response to communication received on 9/25/2023. Claims 1-20 are pending in this office action.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101
35 U.S.C. 101 reads as follows:
Whoever invents or discovers any new and useful process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter, or any new and useful improvement thereof, may obtain a patent therefor, subject to the conditions and requirements of this title.
Claims 1-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
Claims 1-10 recite a machine as the claims recite a system with a processor executing instructions. Claims 11-18 recite a machine as the claims recite a system with a processor executing instructions. Claims 19-20 recite a process as the claims recite a method.
The claim(s) recite(s) the idea of modifying a piece of content, then determining the differences between pieces of content to determine where the content was updated or modified, and generating a report of the modifications.
The claims recite limitations including observations, evaluations, judgements and opinions that could be performed in the human mind or with aid of pen and paper and according the claims recite a mental process.
Further the idea of modifying a piece of content, then determining the differences between pieces of content to determine where the content was updated or modified, and generating a report of the modifications recite subject matter relating to managing personal behavior or relationships or interactions between people including social activities, teachings, or following rules or instructions which is a certain method of organizing human activities.
Mental processes and certain methods of organizing human activities are in the groupings of enumerated abstracts ideas, and hence the claims recite an abstract idea.
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application because the claims merely recite limitations that are not indicative of integration into a practical application in that the claims merely recite:
(1) Adding the words “apply it” ( or an equivalent) with the judicial exception, or mere instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer, or merely uses a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea (see MPEP 2106.05(f)) and (2) Generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use (see MPEP 2106.05(h)).
Specifically as recited in the claims:
As per claim 1, the claims recite providing an original document that includes text to a client, receiving modifications about the document from a client, generating and updating a document based on the modifications, determine differences between the original document and the updated document and generating a report based on that determination. These are limitations a human or humans could perform. The additional elements that these limitations that a human or humans could perform are being performed by software running on a computer ( “ one or more processors; and one or more hardware storage devices that store instructions that are executable by the one more processors to conform the system to:”) and the document is “code” merely results in apply it. Specifically here the claim invokes computers or other machinery merely as a tool to perform an existing process. Use of a computer or other machinery in its ordinary capacity for economic or other tasks (e.g. to receive, store, or transmit data) or simply adding a general purpose computer or computer components after the fact to an abstract idea does not integrate a judicial exception into a practical application or provide significantly more. Further here the claim recites only the idea of a solution or outcome, i.e. the claim fails to recite details of how a solution to a problem is accomplished, as the claims merely recite a result oriented solution and lack details as to how the computer performs the modifications which is equivalent to the words apply it.
Further limitations that could be performed by a human or humans that instead recite being performed by software running on a computer ( “ one or more processors; and one or more hardware storage devices that store instructions that are executable by the one more processors to conform the system to:”) and the document is “code” merely results in generally linking it to the field of computers.
As per claim 2, the claims recite merely using identifiers in the body of text, for example marking the first change is here, the second change is there etc. that are all limitations a human or humans could perform. The additional element that document is “code” has been addressed above in claim 1.
As per claim 3, the claims recite merely using identifiers in the body of text, for example marking the first change is here, the second change is there etc. (which would be predefined paragraph identification code). These are limitations a human or humans could perform. There are no additional elements beyond those previously discussed.
As per claim 4, the claims recite merely using identifier codes in the body of text, for example marking the first change is here, the second change is there etc. These all limitations a human or humans could perform. The additional element that the code is a ‘hash’ merely results in apply it or generally linking it to the field of computers. Specifically here the claim recites only the idea of a solution or outcome, i.e. the claim fails to recite details of how a solution to a problem is accomplished, as the claims merely recite a result oriented solution and lack details as to how the computer performs the modifications which is equivalent to the words apply it. Here applicant has not recited or claimed improved hashing rather merely using a hash to provide information.
Further limitations that could be performed by a human or humans that instead being performed by “hash or hashing” as broadly recited in the claims merely results in generally linking it to the field of computers.
As per claim 5, the claims recite identifying the user who made the changes to the document. These all limitations a human or humans could perform. The additional element that the document is code merely results in apply it or generally linking it to the field of computers as discussed above in claim 1.
As per claim 6, the claims recite updating the identifiers based on updates to the corresponding document text. These all limitations a human or humans could perform. The additional element that the document is code merely results in apply it or generally linking it to the field of computers as discussed above in claim 1.
As per claim 7, the claims recite generating a report of updates to a document based on identifiers of updated and modified content in the document. These all limitations a human or humans could perform. There are no additional elements beyond those discussed in claim 1.
As per claim 8, the claims recite generating a providing a report based on modifications and updates to the bodies of text between the documents. These all limitations a human or humans could perform. There are no additional elements beyond those discussed in claim 1.
As per claim 9, the claims recite prompting a user to review the text that was modified and updated. These all limitations a human or humans could perform. There are no additional elements beyond those discussed in claim 1.
As per claim 10, the claims recite the document comprises a representation of text in a single syntax (which could be like an orderly arrangement of information) for depicting logic, content, and structural components within a document. These all limitations a human or humans could perform. The additional element that the document is code merely results in apply it or generally linking it to the field of computers as discussed above in claim 1.
The additional element that the type of code is “homoiconic” merely results in apply it. Specifically here the claim recites only the idea of a solution or outcome, i.e. the claim fails to recite details of how a solution to a problem is accomplished, as the claims merely recite a result oriented solution and lack details as to how the computer performs the modifications which is equivalent to the words apply it. Here applicant has not recited or claimed improved “homoiconic code” rather merely using “homoiconic code” to provide information, which is at the apply it level.
Further limitations that could be performed by a human or humans that instead being performed by “homoiconic code” as broadly recited in the claims merely results in generally linking it to the field of computers.
As per claim 11, the claims recite providing an original document that includes text to a client, receiving modifications about the document from a client, deleting information from a document, generating and updating a document based on the modifications, determine differences between the original document and the updated document and generating a report based on that determination. These are limitations a human or humans could perform. The additional elements that these limitations that a human or human could perform are being performed by software running on a computer ( “ one or more processors; and one or more hardware storage devices that store instructions that are executable by the one more processors to conform the system to:”) and the document is “code” merely results in apply it. Specifically here the claim invokes computers or other machinery merely as a tool to perform an existing process. Use of a computer or other machinery in its ordinary capacity for economic or other tasks (e.g. to receive, store, or transmit data) or simply adding a general purpose computer or computer components after the fact to an abstract idea does not integrate a judicial exception into a practical application or provide significantly more. Further here the claim recites only the idea of a solution or outcome, i.e. the claim fails to recite details of how a solution to a problem is accomplished, as the claims merely recite a result oriented solution and lack details as to how the computer performs the modifications which is equivalent to the words apply it.
Further limitations that could be performed by a human or humans that instead being performed by software running on a computer ( “ one or more processors; and one or more hardware storage devices that store instructions that are executable by the one more processors to conform the system to:”) and the document is “code” merely results in generally linking it to the field of computers.
As per claim 12, the claims recite merely using identifiers in the body of text, for example marking the first change is here, the second change is there etc. that are all limitations a human or humans could perform. The additional element that document is “code” has been addressed above in claim 11.
As per claim 13, the claims recite merely using identifiers in the body of text, for example marking the first change is here, the second change is there etc. (which would be predefined paragraph identification code). These are limitations a human or humans could perform. There are no additional elements beyond those previously discussed.
As per claim 14, the claims recite merely using identifier codes in the body of text, for example marking the first change is here, the second change is there etc. where some identifiers are deleted based on user or client modifications. These are limitations a human or humans could perform.
The additional element that document is “code” has been addressed above in claim 11.
As per claim 15, the claims recite identifying the user who made the changes to the document like deleting information. These all limitations a human or humans could perform. There are no additional elements beyond those previously discussed.
As per claim 16, the claims recite providing a report to a client where the reports include information on text that was deleted or modified. These all limitations a human or humans could perform. There are no additional elements beyond those previously discussed.
As per claim 17, the claims recite prompting a user to review the text that was modified and updated. These all limitations a human or humans could perform. There are no additional elements beyond those discussed in claim 11.
As per claim 18, the claims recite the document comprises a representation of text in a single syntax (which could be like an orderly arrangement of information) for depicting logic, content, and structural components within a document. These all limitations a human or humans could perform. The additional element that the document is code merely results in apply it or generally linking it to the field of computers as discussed above in claim 11.
The additional element that the type of code is “homoiconic” merely results in apply it. Specifically here the claim recites only the idea of a solution or outcome, i.e. the claim fails to recite details of how a solution to a problem is accomplished, as the claims merely recite a result oriented solution and lack details as to how the computer performs the modifications which is equivalent to the words apply it. Here applicant has not recited or claimed improved “homoiconic code” rather merely using “homoiconic code” to provide information, which is at the apply it level.
Further limitations that could be performed by a human or humans that instead being performed by “homoiconic code” as broadly recited in the claims merely results in generally linking it to the field of computers.
As per claim 19, the claims recite providing an original document that includes text to a client, receiving modifications about the document from a client, generating and updating a document based on the modifications, determine differences between the original document and the updated document and generating a report based on that determination. These are limitations a human or humans could perform. The additional elements that these limitations that a human or human with a piece of paper are instead being performed by the document being “code” merely results in apply it. Specifically here the claim invokes computers or other machinery merely as a tool to perform an existing process. Use of a computer or other machinery in its ordinary capacity for economic or other tasks (e.g. to receive, store, or transmit data) or simply adding a general purpose computer or computer components after the fact to an abstract idea does not integrate a judicial exception into a practical application or provide significantly more. Further here the claim recites only the idea of a solution or outcome, i.e. the claim fails to recite details of how a solution to a problem is accomplished, as the claims merely recite a result oriented solution and lack details as to how the computer performs the modifications which is equivalent to the words apply it.
As per claim 20, the claims recite the document comprises a representation of text in a single syntax (which could be like an orderly arrangement of information) for depicting logic, content, and structural components within a document. These all limitations a human or humans could perform. The additional element that the document is code merely results in apply it or generally linking it to the field of computers as discussed above in claim 19.
The additional element that the type of code is “homoiconic” merely results in apply it. Specifically here the claim recites only the idea of a solution or outcome, i.e. the claim fails to recite details of how a solution to a problem is accomplished, as the claims merely recite a result oriented solution and lack details as to how the computer performs the modifications which is equivalent to the words apply it. Here applicant has not recited or claimed improved “homoiconic code” rather merely using “homoiconic code” to provide information, which is at the apply it level.
The claim(s) does/do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because the claims merely recite limitations that are not indicative of an inventive concept (“significantly more”) in that the claims merely recite: (1) Adding the words “apply it” ( or an equivalent) with the judicial exception, or mere instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer, or merely uses a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea (see MPEP 2106.05(f)) and (2) Generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use (see MPEP 2106.05(h)), as detailed above with respect to the practical application step.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
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)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claim(s) 1-9, 11-17, and 19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being unpatentable over Collins et al. (United States Patent Application Publication Number: US 2016/0055196).
As per claim 1, Collins et al. teaches A system, comprising: (see paragraph 0084, Examiner’s note: method implemented with a computing system).
one or more processors; and one or more hardware storage devices that store instructions that are executable by the one or more processors to configure the system to: (see paragraphs 0074-0075, 0155, and 0163, Examiner’s note: software running on a computer to perform the functions).
provide a runtime representation of a base body of code to a client, the base body of code comprising a plurality of bodies of text; receive a client-specific dataset comprising one or more client-specific modifications to the runtime representation of the base body of code; generate a client-specific body of code based upon the client-specific dataset, the client-specific body of code comprising a plurality of client-specific bodies of text based upon one or more client modifications to the plurality of bodies of text caused by the one or more client-specific modifications to the runtime representation of the base body of code; obtain an updated body of code based upon one or more updates to the base body of code, the updated body of code comprising a plurality of updated bodies of text based upon one or more updates to the plurality of bodies of text; determine an intersection between (i) one or more bodies of text of the plurality of bodies of text that were updated according to the one or more updates to the plurality of bodies of text and (ii) one or more bodies of text of the plurality of bodies of text that were modified according to the one or more client modifications to the plurality of bodies of text; and generate a report based upon the intersection (see paragraphs 0006-0009, 0013, 0062, 0245, 0305-0306 and corresponding Figures 17a-17b, Examiner’s note: teaches comparing two documents to determine the difference and providing it in a diff which would be report (see paragraphs 0006-0009). An example is described in paragraphs 0305-0306 related to a law practice. Paragraphs 0111-0114 and corresponding Figures 17a-18b show changes presented side by side. Paragraphs 0013, 0062, and 0245 discusses deletions, insertions, and redundant text).
As per claim 2, Collins et al. teaches
wherein the base body of code comprises a set of respective identifiers, the set of respective identifiers comprising a respective identifier for each of the plurality of bodies of text (see paragraphs 0007-0013, 0029, 0048, and 0062-0065, Examiner’s note: teaches performing markup text corresponding to non-matching regions where regions are defined as paragraphs, sentences, words or identical characters).
As per claim 3, Collins et al. teaches
wherein each respective identifier of the set of respective identifiers comprises a respective predefined paragraph identification code. (see paragraphs 0007-0013, 0029, 0048, and 0062-0065, Examiner’s note: teaches performing markup text corresponding to non-matching regions where regions are defined as paragraphs, sentences, words or identical characters).
As per claim 4, Collins et al. teaches
wherein each respective identifier of the set of respective identifiers comprises a hash code generated based upon content of a respective body of text of the plurality of bodies of text. (see paragraphs 0200-0201, 0203-0205, 0244,0251, 0281, Examiner’s note: teaches hashing the document and using that to determine information).
As per claim 5, Collins et al. teaches
wherein the one or more client modifications to the plurality of bodies of text cause modification of at least some respective identifiers of the set of respective identifiers to generate a set of client-modified respective identifiers, the set of client- modified respective identifiers being represented within the client-specific body of code (see paragraphs 0291 and 0305-0306, Examiner’s note: different users modifying the document and using this information to provide relevant information).
As per claim 6, Collins et al. teaches
wherein the one or more updates to the plurality of bodies of text cause updating of at least some respective identifiers of the set of respective identifiers to generate a set of updated respective identifiers, the set of updated respective identifiers being represented within the updated body of code. (see paragraphs 0006-0009, 0013, 0062, 0245, 0305-0306 and corresponding Figures 17a-17b, Examiner’s note: teaches comparing two documents to determine the difference and providing it in a diff which would be report (see paragraphs 0006-0009). An example is described in paragraphs 0305-0306 related to a law practice. Paragraphs 0111-0114 and corresponding Figures 17a-18b show changes presented side by side. Paragraphs 0013, 0062, and 0245 discusses deletions, insertions, and redundant text).
As per claim 7, Collins et al. teaches
wherein determining the intersection comprises determining an intersection between (i) one or more respective identifiers of the set of respective identifiers that become updated to generate the set of updated respective identifiers and (ii) one or more respective identifiers of the set of respective identifiers that become modified to generate the set of client-modified respective identifiers. (see paragraphs 0006-0009, 0013, 0062, 0245, 0305-0306 and corresponding Figures 17a-17b, Examiner’s note: teaches comparing two documents to determine the difference and providing it in a diff which would be report (see paragraphs 0006-0009). An example is described in paragraphs 0305-0306 related to a law practice. Paragraphs 0111-0114 and corresponding Figures 17a-18b show changes presented side by side). Paragraphs 0013, 0062, and 0245 discusses deletions, insertions, and redundant text).
As per claim 8, Collins et al. teaches
wherein the report comprises a client notification provided to the client, wherein the client notification indicates the one or more bodies of text that were modified according to the one or more client modifications and that were updated according to the one or more updates. (see paragraphs 0006-0009, 0013, 0062, 0245, 0305-0306 and corresponding Figures 17a-17b, Examiner’s note: teaches comparing two documents to determine the difference and providing it in a diff which would be report (see paragraphs 0006-0009). An example is described in paragraphs 0305-0306 related to a law practice. Paragraphs 0111-0114 and corresponding Figures 17a-18b show changes presented side by side. Paragraphs 0013, 0062, and 0245 discusses deletions, insertions, and redundant text).
As per claim 9, Collins et al. teaches
wherein the report prompts the client to review the one or more bodies of text that were modified according to the one or more client modifications and that were updated according to the one or more updates (see paragraph 0045, 0143, 0264-0266, 0294, and 0304, Examiner’s note: diff document for review for the user (see paragraphs 0045, 0264-0266). Alerting the user in paragraphs 0143, 0294, and 0304).
As per claim 11, Collins teaches A system, comprising: (see paragraph 0084, Examiner’s note: method implemented with a computing system).
one or more processors; and one or more hardware storage devices that store instructions that are executable by the one or more processors to configure the system to: (see paragraphs 0074-0075, 0155, and 0163, Examiner’s note: software running on a computer to perform the functions).
provide a runtime representation of a base body of code to a client, the base body of code comprising a plurality of bodies of text; receive a client-specific dataset comprising one or more client-specific modifications to the runtime representation of the base body of code; generate a client-specific body of code based upon the client-specific dataset, the client-specific body of code comprising a plurality of client-specific bodies of text based upon one or more client modifications to the plurality of bodies of text caused by the one or more client-specific modifications to the runtime representation of the base body of code, the one or more client modifications to the plurality of bodies of text causing deletion of at least some bodies of text of the plurality of bodies of text such that the plurality of client-specific bodies of text comprises fewer bodies of text than the plurality of bodies of text; obtain an updated body of code based upon one or more updates to the base body of code, the updated body of code comprising a plurality of updated bodies of text based upon one or more updates to the plurality of bodies of text; and generate a report in response to determining that the one or more updates to the plurality of bodies of text comprises an update to the at least some bodies of text of the plurality of bodies of text that were deleted according to the one or more client modifications to the plurality of bodies of text. (see paragraphs 0006-0009, 0013, 0062, 0245, 0305-0306 and corresponding Figures 17a-17b, Examiner’s note: teaches comparing two documents to determine the difference and providing it in a diff which would be report (see paragraphs 0006-0009). An example is described in paragraphs 0305-0306 related to a law practice. Paragraphs 0111-0114 and corresponding Figures 17a-18b show changes presented side by side. Paragraphs 0013, 0062, and 0245 discusses deletions, insertions, and redundant text).
As per claim 12, Collins teaches
wherein the base body of code comprises a set of respective identifiers, the set of respective identifiers comprising a respective identifier for each of the plurality of bodies of text. (see paragraphs 0007-0013, 0029, 0048, and 0062-0065, Examiner’s note: teaches performing markup text corresponding to non-matching regions where regions are defined as paragraphs, sentences, words or identical characters).
As per claim 13, Collins teaches
wherein each respective identifier of the set of respective identifiers comprises a respective predefined paragraph identification code. (see paragraphs 0007-0013, 0029, 0048, and 0062-0065, Examiner’s note: teaches performing markup text corresponding to non-matching regions where regions are defined as paragraphs, sentences, words or identical characters).
As per claim 14, Collins teaches
wherein the one or more client modifications to the plurality of bodies of text cause deletion of at least some respective identifiers of the set of respective identifiers to generate a set of client-modified respective identifiers, the set of client- modified respective identifiers being represented within the client-specific body of code (see paragraphs 0013, 0061-0062, 0177-0178, 0180, and 0299, Examiner’s note: teaches determining deleted text and computing diff statistics).
As per claim 15, Collins teaches
wherein determining that the one or more updates to the plurality of bodies of text comprises the update to the at least some bodies of text of the plurality of bodies of text that were deleted according to the one or more client modifications to the plurality of bodies of text is based upon the set of client-modified respective identifiers. (see paragraphs 0013, 0061-0062, 0177-0178, 0180, and 0299, Examiner’s note: teaches determining deleted text and computing diff statistics).
As per claim 16, Collins teaches
wherein the report comprises a client notification provided to the client, wherein the client notification indicates that the update occurred to the at least some bodies of text of the plurality of bodies of text that were deleted according to the one or more client modifications to the plurality of bodies of text. (see paragraphs 0006-0009, 0013, 0062, 0245, 0305-0306 and corresponding Figures 17a-17b, Examiner’s note: teaches comparing two documents to determine the difference and providing it in a diff which would be report (see paragraphs 0006-0009). An example is described in paragraphs 0305-0306 related to a law practice. Paragraphs 0111-0114 and corresponding Figures 17a-18b show changes presented side by side. Paragraphs 0013, 0062, and 0245 discusses deletions, insertions, and redundant text).
As per claim 17, Collins teaches
wherein the report prompts the client to review the update to the at least some bodies of text of the plurality of bodies of text. (see paragraph 0045, 0143, 0264-0266, 0294, and 0304, Examiner’s note: diff document for review for the user (see paragraphs 0045 and 0264-0266). Alerting the user in paragraphs 0143, 0294, and 0304).
As per claim 19, Collins teaches A method, comprising: (see paragraph 0084, Examiner’s note: method implemented with a computing system).
providing a runtime representation of a base body of code to a client, the base body of code comprising a plurality of bodies of text; receiving a client-specific dataset comprising one or more client-specific modifications to the runtime representation of the base body of code; generating a client-specific body of code based upon the client-specific dataset, the client-specific body of code comprising a plurality of client-specific bodies of text based upon one or more client modifications to the plurality of bodies of text caused by the one or more client-specific modifications to the runtime representation of the base body of code; obtaining an updated body of code based upon one or more updates to the base body of code, the updated body of code comprising a plurality of updated bodies of text based upon one or more updates to the plurality of bodies of text; determining an intersection between (i) one or more bodies of text of the plurality of bodies of text that were updated according to the one or more updates to the plurality of bodies of text and (ii) one or more bodies of text of the plurality of bodies of text that were modified according to the one or more client modifications to the plurality of bodies of text; and generating a report based upon the intersection. (see paragraphs 0006-0009, 0013, 0062, 0245, 0305-0306 and corresponding Figures 17a-17b, Examiner’s note: teaches comparing two documents to determine the difference and providing it in a diff which would be report (see paragraphs 0006-0009). An example is described in paragraphs 0305-0306 related to a law practice. Paragraphs 0111-0114 and corresponding Figures 17a-18b show changes presented side by side. Paragraphs 0013, 0062, and 0245 discusses deletions, insertions, and redundant text).
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) 10, 18, and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Collins et al. (United States Patent Application Publication Number: US 2016/0055196) further in view of Shelline et al. (United States Patent Application Publication Number: US 2017/0011016).
As per claim 10, Collins teaches
wherein the base body of code, the client-specific body of code, or the updated body of code comprise a representation of code that comprises a single syntax for depicting logic components, content components, and structural components (see paragraphs 0108, 0232, 0139, figure 14d, examiner’s note: code that includes if, then else statements for removing matches to return information).
Collins does not expressly teach using homoiconic code
However, Shelline which is in the art of automated document generation (see abstract) teaches using homoiconic code (see paragraphs 0036-0040, 0045-0046, and 0053, Examiner’s note: using homoiconic syntax to provide information).
Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art to have modified Collins with the aforementioned teachings from Shelline with the motivation of providing another known type of code to perform queries (like if, then, else)(see Shelline paragraphs 0040-0041), when performing queries on content through computer code is known (see Collins paragraphs 0108, 0232, 0139, figure 14d).
As per claim 18, Collins teaches
wherein the base body of code, the client-specific body of code, or the updated body of code comprise a representation of code that comprises a single syntax for depicting logic components, content components, and structural components. (see paragraphs 0108, 0232, 0139, figure 14d, examiner’s note: code that includes if, then else statements for removing matches to return information).
Collins does not expressly teach using homoiconic code
However, Shelline which is in the art of automated document generation (see abstract) teaches using homoiconic code (see paragraphs 0036-0040, 0045-0046, and 0053, Examiner’s note: using homoiconic syntax to provide information).
Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art to have modified Collins with the aforementioned teachings from Shelline with the motivation of providing another known type of code to perform queries (like if, then, else)(see Shelline paragraphs 0040-0041), when performing queries on content through computer code is known (see Collins paragraphs 0108, 0232, 0139, figure 14d).
As per claim 20, Collins teaches
wherein the base body of code, the client-specific body of code, or the updated body of code comprise a representation of code that comprises a single syntax for depicting logic components, content components, and structural components. (see paragraphs 0108, 0232, 0139, figure 14d, examiner’s note: code that includes if, then else statements for removing matches to return information).
Collins does not expressly teach using homoiconic code
However, Shelline which is in the art of automated document generation (see abstract) teaches using homoiconic code (see paragraphs 0036-0040, 0045-0046, and 0053, Examiner’s note: using homoiconic syntax to provide information).
Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art to have modified Collins with the aforementioned teachings from Shelline with the motivation of providing another known type of code to perform queries (like if, then, else)(see Shelline paragraphs 0040-0041), when performing queries on content through computer code is known (see Collins paragraphs 0108, 0232, 0139, figure 14d).
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure:
Diamond et al. (United States Patent Application Publication Number: US 2006/0282762) teaches a collaborative document review (see abstract)
Parker et al. (United States Patent Number: US 7,933,952) teaches a system for enabling collaborative authoring of a document (See abstract)
Megiddo et al. (United States Patent Application Publication Number: US 2014/0289645) teaches tracking changes in a collaborative environment (see abstract)
Goyal (United States Patent Application Publication Number: US 2015/0339282) teaches a system for displaying document modifications on a timeline (see abstract)
Religa et al. (United States Patent Application Publication Number: US 2022/0382728) teaches a system for generation of revision summaries (see abstract)
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to KIERSTEN SUMMERS whose telephone number is (571)272-6542. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 7-3:30.
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, Nathan Uber can be reached on 5712703923. 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.
/KIERSTEN V SUMMERS/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3626