DETAILED ACTION
Response to Amendment
1. This written action is responding to the amendment dated on 01/02/2026.
2. The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under
the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
3. The double patenting rejection to claims 1-20 is maintained.
4. Claims 1, 10 and 16 are amended.
5. Claims 1-20 are submitted for examination.
6. Claims 1-20 are rejected.
7. The Examiner would like to point out that this action is made final (See MPEP
706.07a).
8.
Applicant’s Argument:
On pages 11-13 of the Remarks/Arguments, Applicant argues that the combination of Goldberg and Anima does not teach in response to the user input, causing, by a processing device, the source application data object created in the source application to be embedded in a host application file of the host application, without requiring the user to switch to the host application, wherein the embedded source application data object is to be persistently stored as part of the host application file and rendered within a host application user interface as content of the host application file.
Response to Argument:
Goldberg substantially teaches user interface for the web-based collaborative platform showing a collaborator's workspaces or folders stored by the collaboration platform that are synchronized with folders stored on the collaborator's computer [0091] and fig. 5). Components in a sync client running on a local computer that synchronizes copies of work items stored on the local computer with copies of work items stored in a server sync folder within a web-based collaboration environment [0074], fig. 4A, wherein the items such as any digital or electronic content that can be viewed or accessed via an electronic device, and wherein the digital continent may include PDF file, doc, slides, images, audio files and etc. [0028] and further Anima substantially teaches a user may move an objection from application to another application without being required to switch between the applications [0117-0118], wherein one of the applications is a processing application (i.e. content editing application) [0066], and wherein the second application can perform a plurality of functions such analyzing and tracking information (i.e. a task management application) [0040-0041].
9.
Double Patenting
The nonstatutory double patenting rejection is based on a judicially created doctrine grounded in public policy (a policy reflected in the statute) so as to prevent the unjustified or improper timewise extension of the “right to exclude” granted by a patent and to prevent possible harassment by multiple assignees. A nonstatutory double patenting rejection is appropriate where the conflicting claims are not identical, but at least one examined application claim is not patentably distinct from the reference claim(s) because the examined application claim is either anticipated by, or would have been obvious over, the reference claim(s). See, e.g., In re Berg, 140 F.3d 1428, 46 USPQ2d 1226 (Fed. Cir. 1998); In re Goodman, 11 F.3d 1046, 29 USPQ2d 2010 (Fed. Cir. 1993); In re Longi, 759 F.2d 887, 225 USPQ 645 (Fed. Cir. 1985); In re Van Ornum, 686 F.2d 937, 214 USPQ 761 (CCPA 1982); In re Vogel, 422 F.2d 438, 164 USPQ 619 (CCPA 1970); In re Thorington, 418 F.2d 528, 163 USPQ 644 (CCPA 1969).
A timely filed terminal disclaimer in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(c) or 1.321(d) may be used to overcome an actual or provisional rejection based on nonstatutory double patenting provided the reference application or patent either is shown to be commonly owned with the examined application, or claims an invention made as a result of activities undertaken within the scope of a joint research agreement. See MPEP § 717.02 for applications subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA as explained in MPEP § 2159. See MPEP § 2146 et seq. for applications not subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA . A terminal disclaimer must be signed in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(b).
The USPTO Internet website contains terminal disclaimer forms which may be used. Please visit www.uspto.gov/patent/patents-forms. The filing date of the application in which the form is filed determines what form (e.g., PTO/SB/25, PTO/SB/26, PTO/AIA /25, or PTO/AIA /26) should be used. A web-based eTerminal Disclaimer may be filled out completely online using web-screens. An eTerminal Disclaimer that meets all requirements is auto-processed and approved immediately upon submission. For more information about eTerminal Disclaimers, refer to www.uspto.gov/patents/process/file/efs/guidance/eTD-info-I.jsp.
Claims 1-20 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-20 of U.S. Patent No. 11,977,649 in view of Loureiro and Ahad as mentioned below, wherein the claims of the patent No. 11,977,649 does not recite: embedding an object created by a source application into a host application without requiring a user to switch to the host application, and wherein the source application and the host application are data management applications of different types including a task management application type and a content editing application type, however Anima substantially teaches a user may move an objection from application to another application without being required to switch between the applications [0117-0118], wherein one of the applications is a processing application (i.e. content editing application) [0066], and wherein the second application can perform a plurality of functions such analyzing and tracking information (i.e. a task management application) [0040-0041].
10.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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 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 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 of this title, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
Claims 1-2, 5-11, 14-17 and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Goldberg et al. US 2013/0013560 (hereinafter Goldberg), and further in view of Anima et al. US 2019/0095255 (hereinafter Anima).
Regarding claim 1 Goldberg teaches a method comprising:
receiving user input of a user, the user input indicating a command to embed a source application data object created in a source application into a host application, wherein the source application and the host application are data management applications of different types including a content editing application type (Goldberg teaches an interface allows a user to upload, download, share folders and files with a server [0030], [0091-0092], fig. 5]. Digital content can include PDF files, .doc, slides, images, audio files and multimedia content [0028]);
in response to the user input, causing, by a processing device, the source application data object created in the source application to be embedded in a host application file of the host application (Goldberg teaches user interface for the web-based collaborative platform showing a collaborator's workspaces or folders stored by the collaboration platform that are synchronized with folders stored on the collaborator's computer [0091] and fig. 5), wherein the embedded source application data object is to be persistently stored as part of the host application file and rendered within a host application user interface as content of the host application file (Goldberg teaches components in a sync client running on a local computer that synchronizes copies of work items stored on the local computer with copies of work items stored in a server sync folder within a web-based collaboration environment [0074], fig. 4A, wherein the items such as any digital or electronic content that can be viewed or accessed via an electronic device, and wherein the digital continent may include PDF file, doc, slides, images, audio files and etc. [0028];
identifying a modification made to the embedded source application data object via the host application user interface of the host application; sending a notification to the source application to update a corresponding source copy of the source application data object in a source application data store based on the modification made to the embedded source application data object, A first type of triggering occurs once a change made to a file stored in a server sync folder, wherein a notification may be sent from a notification server to a triggering event module on a client, which cause a change to be downloaded to the local syn folders of other collaborators, wherein the state of file/folder to be changed on the client [0076-0079], fig. 4A. A second type of triggering event occurs when a change has been made to a local folder on a collaborator’s computer, wherein a notification of the change is sent to the sync server, wherein a copying manager uploads the changed file to replace a copy of the file stored in the server sync folder [0080-0081], fig. 7);
identifying a change made by a user to the source copy of the source application data object via a source application user interface of the source application; determining, based on access permissions associated with the host application file, whether the user is allowed to make changes to the host application file; and
responsive to determining that the user is allowed to make changes to the host application file, causing, by the processing device, the host application to update the embedded source application data object in a host application data store based on the change made by the user to the source copy of the source application data object (Goldberg teaches associating a plurality of permissions with specific work spaces and with work items, wherein users may have different permission levels, for example reading, writing and synchronizing [0042-0044], wherein a first type of triggering occurs once a change made to a file stored in a server sync folder, wherein a notification may be sent from a notification server to a triggering event module on a client, which cause a change to be downloaded to the local syn folders of other collaborators, and wherein the state of file/folder to be changed on the client [0076-0079], fig. 4A and 5.
A second type of triggering event occurs when a change has been made to a local folder on a collaborator’s computer, wherein a notification of the change is sent to the sync server, wherein a copying manager uploads the changed file to replace a copy of the file stored in the server sync folder [0080-0081], fig. 7). Goldberg does not teach embedding an object created by a first application into a second application without requiring a user to switch to the second application, wherein the first application and the second application are data management applications of different types including a task management application type and a content editing application type. Anima substantially teaches a user may move an objection from application to another application without being required to switch between the applications [0117-0118], wherein one of the applications is a processing application (i.e. content editing application) [0066], and wherein the second application can perform a plurality of functions such analyzing and tracking information (i.e. a task management application) [0040-0041].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention was made to modify Goldberg such that the invention further includes embedding an object created by a first application into a second application without requiring a user to switch to the second application, wherein the first application and the second application are data management applications of different types including a task management application type and a content editing application type. One would have been motivated to do so to simplify the user experience and may reduce power consumption of computing device [0118].
Regarding claim 2 Goldberg as modified teaches the method of claim 1, wherein: identifying the change made to the source copy of the source application data object comprises receiving a notification, initiated by the source application, regarding the change made to the source copy of the source application data object; and causing the host application to update the embedded source application data object in the host application data store comprises: causing the embedded source application data object to be updated in the host application data store with the change made by the user (Goldberg teaches associating a plurality of permissions with specific work spaces and with work items, wherein users may have different permission levels, for example reading, writing and synchronizing [0042-0044], wherein a first type of triggering occurs once a change made to a file stored in a server sync folder, wherein a notification may be sent from a notification server to a triggering event module on a client, which cause a change to be downloaded to the local syn folders of other collaborators [0076-0077], fig. 5, and wherein the state of file/folder to be changed on the client [0078-0079], fig. 4A.
A second type of triggering event occurs when a change has been made to a local folder on a collaborator’s computer, wherein a notification of the change is sent to the sync server, wherein a copying manager uploads the changed file to replace a copy of the file stored in the server sync folder [0080-0081], fig. 7).
Regarding claim 5 Goldberg as modified teaches the method of claim 1, further comprising:
recording information associated with the source application data object in a common data store accessible to the source application and the host application, wherein the information associated with the source application data object is also recorded in the host application data store and the source application data store, wherein the host application data store is accessible to the host application but not the source application, and the source application data store is accessible to the source application but not the host application, and wherein the source application is of the content editing application type and the host application is of the task management application type (Goldberg teaches a collaboration platform allows multiple users or collaborators to access or collaborate on efforts on work items such that each user can see, remotely, edits, revisions, comments, or annotations being made to specific work items through their own user devices [0030], wherein a client may include a tree to track the state of folder/file [0078], fig. 4A, and a sync server may store a tree to track a current state of the folder/file such as saving, creating, renaming a file [0087], fig. 4B, wherein the system may include a plurality of clients, and wherein a plurality of copies of the folder/file are stored on the plurality of clients [0081], and further Anima teaches one of the applications is a processing application (i.e. content editing application) [0066], and wherein the second application can perform a plurality of functions such analyzing and tracking information (i.e. a task management application) [0040-0041]).
Regarding claim 6 Goldberg as modified teaches the method of claim 5, further comprising:
recording the modification made to the embedded source application data object in the common data store; and recording the change made to the source copy of the source application data object in the common data store (Goldberg teaches when an action is performed on a work item by a given user or any other activity is detected in the work space, other users in the same work space may be notified in real time or in near real time. Activities which trigger real time notifications can include adding, deleting, or modifying collaborators in the work space, adding, deleting a work item in the work space, creating a discussion topic in the work space [0045], wherein a first type of triggering occurs once a change made to a file stored in a server sync folder, wherein a notification may be sent from a notification server to a triggering event module on a client, which cause a change to be downloaded to the local syn folders of other collaborators [0076-0077], fig. 5, and wherein the state of file/folder to be changed on the client [0078-0079], fig. 4A.
A second type of triggering event occurs when a change has been made to a local folder on a collaborator’s computer, wherein a notification of the change is sent to the sync server, wherein a copying manager uploads the changed file to replace a copy of the file stored in the server sync folder [0080-0081], fig. 7).
Regarding claim 7 Goldberg as modified teaches the method of claim 5, further comprising: periodically performing a data inconsistency check of the information associated with the source application data object between the host application data store and the common data store (Goldberg teaches when a triggering event occurs [0078], a state module accesses the last known state of the folder/file tree stored in the state database and compares the current state with the last known state to determine which file and/or folder has changed. Once the changed files and/or folders have been identified, the copying manager downloads the changed file(s) from the server sync folder to the local sync folder [0079]).
Regarding claim 8 Goldberg as modified teaches the method of claim 7, further comprising: responsive to detecting a data inconsistency, updating data recorded in the host application data store based on corresponding data recorded in the common data store (Goldberg teaches a first type of triggering occurs once a change made to a file stored in a server sync folder, wherein a notification may be sent from a notification server to a triggering event module on a client, which cause a change to be downloaded to the local syn folders of other collaborators [0076-0077], and wherein the state of file/folder to be changed on the client [0078-0079], fig. 4A. A second type of triggering event occurs when a change has been made to a local folder on a collaborator’s computer, wherein a notification of the change is sent to the sync server, wherein a copying manager uploads the changed file to replace a copy of the file stored in the server sync folder [0080-0081], fig. 7).
Regarding claim 9 Goldberg as modified teaches the method of claim 7, further comprising: responsive to detecting a data inconsistency, generating a notification referring to the data inconsistency associated with the source application data object for users with access permissions that allow editing of the host application file (Goldberg teaches associating a plurality of permissions with specific work spaces and with work items, wherein users may have different permission levels, for example reading, writing and synchronizing [0042-0044], wherein a first type of triggering occurs once a change made to a file stored in a server sync folder, wherein a notification may be sent from a notification server to a triggering event module on a client, which cause a change to be downloaded to the local syn folders of other collaborators [0076-0077], and wherein the state of file/folder to be changed on the client [0078-0079], fig. 4A. A second type of triggering event occurs when a change has been made to a local folder on a collaborator’s computer, wherein a notification of the change is sent to the sync server, wherein a copying manager uploads the changed file to replace a copy of the file stored in the server sync folder [0080-0081], fig. 7).
In response to Claim 10: Rejected for the same reason as claim 1
In response to Claim 11: Rejected for the same reason as claim 2
In response to Claim 14: Rejected for the same reason as claims 5-6
In response to Claim 15: Rejected for the same reason as claims 7-9
In response to Claim 16: Rejected for the same reason as claim 1
In response to Claim 17: Rejected for the same reason as claim 2
In response to Claim 20: Rejected for the same reason as claims 5-6
6.
Claims 4, 13 and 19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Goldberg and Anima as mentioned above, and further in view of Khurana et al. US 2019/0318418 (hereinafter Khurana).
Regarding claim 4 Goldberg as modified teaches the method of claim 1, further comprising:
upon identifying the modification made to the embedded source application data object via the host application user interface, sending the notification to the source application to update the corresponding source copy of the source application data object in the source application data store (Goldberg teaches a first type of triggering occurs once a change made to a file stored in a server sync folder, wherein a notification may be sent from a notification server to a triggering event module on a client, which cause a change to be downloaded to the local syn folders of other collaborators [0076-0077], and wherein the state of file/folder to be changed on the client [0078-0079], fig. 4A. A second type of triggering event occurs when a change has been made to a local folder on a collaborator’s computer, wherein a notification of the change is sent to the sync server, wherein a copying manager uploads the changed file to replace a copy of the file stored in the server sync folder [0080-0081], fig. 7). The combination of Goldberg and Anima does not teach periodically resending the notification to update an item until a confirmation of a successful update is generated. Khurana substantially teaches periodically send notification messages to the customer until a payment is authorized and/or for a set period time. For example, the system may ask the customer to update payment information [0037].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention was made to modify Goldberg and Anima such that the invention further includes periodically resending the notification to update an item until a confirmation of a successful update is generated. One would have been motivated to do so to make the system friendlier, for example reminding a user periodically to perform an essential task.
In response to Claim 13: Rejected for the same reason as claim 4
In response to Claim 19: Rejected for the same reason as claim 4
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 extension fee 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 date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Ayoub Alata whose telephone number is (313) 446-6541. The examiner can normally be reached on M-F: 8:00am-4:30pm.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner's supervisor, Jay Kim can be reached at (571) 272-3804. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
/AYOUB ALATA/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2494