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 .
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 filing of a terminal disclaimer by itself is not a complete reply to a nonstatutory double patenting (NSDP) rejection. A complete reply requires that the terminal disclaimer be accompanied by a reply requesting reconsideration of the prior Office action. Even where the NSDP rejection is provisional the reply must be complete. See MPEP § 804, subsection I.B.1. For a reply to a non-final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.111(a). For a reply to final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.113(c). A request for reconsideration while not provided for in 37 CFR 1.113(c) may be filed after final for consideration. See MPEP §§ 706.07(e) and 714.13.
The USPTO Internet website contains terminal disclaimer forms which may be used. Please visit www.uspto.gov/patent/patents-forms. The actual 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/apply/applying-online/eterminal-disclaimer.
Patent
(US 12056664 B2)
Instant Application
(18/766,941)
1. A system for automatically altering information within an electronic document based on an externally detected occurrence, the system comprising:
at least one processor configured to: access an electronic word processing document divided into a plurality of distinct blocks;
display an interface presenting at least one tool for enabling an author of the electronic word processing document to define an electronic rule triggered by an external network-based occurrence, the electronic rule including an automation associated with an underlying logic rule, and wherein defining the electronic rule includes selecting one or more conditions and selecting one of the distinct blocks of the electronic word processing document;
embed the electronic rule into the selected distinct block, wherein at least one parameter of the embedded electronic rule is restricted to entities possessing permission for access to the embedded electronic rule;
receive, in association with the electronic rule, a conditional instruction to edit the selected distinct block in response to the external network-based occurrence corresponding to at least one of the selected conditions;
detect that the external network-based occurrence corresponds to the at least one of the selected conditions; and
in response to detecting that the external network-based occurrence corresponds to the at least one of the selected conditions, implement the conditional instruction and thereby automatically edit the selected distinct block.
1. A system for automatically altering information within an electronic document based on an externally detected occurrence, the system comprising:
at least one processor configured to: access an electronic word processing document;
display an interface presenting at least one tool for enabling an author of the electronic word processing document to define an electronic rule triggered by an external network-based occurrence;
receive, in association with the electronic rule, a conditional instruction to edit the electronic word processing document in response to the external network-based occurrence;
detect the external network-based occurrence; and
in response to the detection of the external network-based occurrence, implement the conditional instruction and thereby automatically edit the electronic word processing document.
Instant claims 1-20 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-6, 8-13 and 36-40 of U.S. Patent No. 12,056,664 B2. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because to: “edit the electronic word processing document” as provided by the instant application in the table above corresponds to “edit the selected distinct block” of “the electronic word processing document” as provided by the Patent as also provided by the table above.
Claims 1, 8 and 15 of the instant application are anticipated by the Patent Claims 1, 8 and 36 in that Claims 1, 8 and 15 of the Patent contains all the limitations of Claims 1, 8 and 15 of the instant application. Claims 1, 8 and 15 of the instant application therefore are not patently distinct from the Patent claims and as such are unpatentable for obvious-type double patenting. The Instant application Claims 1, 8 and 15 are broader in every aspect than the Patent Claims 1, 8 and 36 and are therefore an obvious variant thereof.
Although the conflicting claims are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because removing inherent and/or unnecessary limitations/step and rearranging the claims would be within the level of one of ordinary skill in the art. It is well settled that the omission of an element, e.g. “interference affected channel”, and its function is an obvious expedient if the remaining elements perform the same function as before. In re Karlson, 136 USPQ 184 (CCPA 1963). Also note Ex parte Rainu, 168 USPQ 375 (Bd. App. 1969). Omission of a reference element or step whose function is not needed would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art.
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 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.
1. Claims 1-6, 8-13, and 15-19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Ferguson et al US PGPUB 2002/0065849 A1 (“Ferguson”)
Per claim 1, Ferguson discloses a system for automatically altering information within an electronic document based on an externally detected occurrence, the system comprising:
at least one processor configured to: access an electronic word processing document (Abstract; fig. 6; fig. 18C; These data may inserted within (1) a table of the word processing document, (2) an insertion point within the word processing document or (3) within a spreadsheet or other document inserted within a word processing document.…, para. [0057]; para. [0127]; para. [0155]-[0156]; para. [0216]);
display an interface presenting at least one tool for enabling an author of the electronic word processing document to define an electronic rule triggered by an external network-based occurrence (fig. 18J; para. [0054]; Using the available features of the productivity application 100, a user can create a new word processing document…, para. [0085]; para. [0147]-[0148]; para. [0198]; therein is depicted an exemplary process 1700 for inserting network-based content at a designated insertion point in the word document …, para. [0207]; The user may then select a stored or "pre-canned" query displayed by the wizard, or may choose to define new query parameters (step 1706). The queries may correspond to network-based content that is to be inserted into the word processing document …, para. [0208]; In order to specify query input parameters, the user may be presented with a query wizard parameters dialog box 1810…A plurality of available query parameters may be presented in a first area 1820 of the exemplary query wizard dialog box 1810. The user may then input default parameter values or create a control for the user to input dynamic parameters …, para. [0209]-[0210]; The user is then presented with a datasource dialog box for defining the source for the network-based content to be provided in response to the query parameter…The datasource dialog box may include fields for entering (1) the location of the network source (i.e. a URL of a network location for the content), (2) whether the content is to be placed as a text box or as standard text, (3) whether the data is to be updated when the network content changes at the selected content source …, para. [0211], URL as example rule, “whether the data is to be updated” condition as example condition);
receive, in association with the electronic rule, a conditional instruction to edit the electronic word processing document in response to the external network-based occurrence (the augmented productivity application allows the user to embed network-enabling objects in the word processing document by a plurality of mechanisms, with the optional ability to automatically update such content in the word processing document if the content from the online source changes, para. [0045]; para. [0205]; para. [0207]-[0212]);
detect the external network-based occurrence (fig. 18C; fig. 18J; the augmented productivity application allows the user to embed network-enabling objects in the word processing document by a plurality of mechanisms, with the optional ability to automatically update such content in the word processing document if the content from the online source changes, para. [0045]; para. [0127]) and
in response to the detection of the external network-based occurrence, implement the conditional instruction and thereby automatically edit the electronic word processing document (para. [0045]; para. [0127]; The datasource dialog box may include fields for entering (1) the location of the network source (i.e. a URL of a network location for the content), (2) whether the content is to be placed as a text box or as standard text, (3) whether the data is to be updated when the network content changes at the selected content source …, para. [0211]-[0212]).
Per Claim 2, Ferguson discloses the system of claim 1, wherein the at least one processor is further configured to access an internet communications interface, and wherein the external network-based occurrence includes a change to an internet web page (para. [0098]; para. [0155]; para. [0211]).
Per Claim 3, Ferguson discloses the system of claim 2, wherein the at least one processor is further configured to pull data from the internet web page and insert the pulled data into the electronic word processing document (para. [0127]; para. [0175]).
Per Claim 4, Ferguson discloses the system of claim 2, wherein in displaying the at least one interface, the at least one processor is configured to present a logical template for constructing the electronic rule, the logical template including at least one field for designating the external source (para. [0211]-[0212]).
Per Claim 5, Ferguson discloses the system of claim 1, wherein the instruction to edit includes at least one of adding text, modifying text, deleting text, rearranging text, adding a graphic within text, inserting video within text, inserting an image within text, or inserting audio information within text (para. [0127]; para. [0175]).
Per Claim 6, Ferguson discloses the system of claim 1, wherein the at least on processor is further configured to access an internal network communications interface, and wherein the external network-based occurrence includes a change to a locally-stored or a cloud-stored file (para. [0007]; para. [0127]; para. [0150]).
Per Claim 8, Ferguson discloses a non-transitory computer readable medium containing instructions that when executed by at least one processor, perform operations for automatically altering information within an electronic document based on an externally detected occurrence, the operations comprising:
accessing an electronic word processing document (Abstract; fig. 6; fig. 18C; These data may inserted within (1) a table of the word processing document, (2) an insertion point within the word processing document or (3) within a spreadsheet or other document inserted within a word processing document.…, para. [0057]; para. [0127]; para. [0155]-[0156]; para. [0216]);
displaying an interface presenting at least one tool for enabling an author of the electronic word processing document to define an electronic rule triggered by an external network-based occurrence (fig. 18J; para. [0054]; Using the available features of the productivity application 100, a user can create a new word processing document…, para. [0085]; para. [0147]-[0148]; para. [0198]; therein is depicted an exemplary process 1700 for inserting network-based content at a designated insertion point in the word document …, para. [0207]; The user may then select a stored or "pre-canned" query displayed by the wizard, or may choose to define new query parameters (step 1706). The queries may correspond to network-based content that is to be inserted into the word processing document …, para. [0208]; In order to specify query input parameters, the user may be presented with a query wizard parameters dialog box 1810…A plurality of available query parameters may be presented in a first area 1820 of the exemplary query wizard dialog box 1810. The user may then input default parameter values or create a control for the user to input dynamic parameters …, para. [0209]-[0210]; The user is then presented with a datasource dialog box for defining the source for the network-based content to be provided in response to the query parameter…The datasource dialog box may include fields for entering (1) the location of the network source (i.e. a URL of a network location for the content), (2) whether the content is to be placed as a text box or as standard text, (3) whether the data is to be updated when the network content changes at the selected content source …, para. [0211], URL as example rule, “whether the data is to be updated” condition as example condition);
receiving, in association with the electronic rule, a conditional instruction to edit the electronic word processing document in response to the external network-based occurrence (the augmented productivity application allows the user to embed network-enabling objects in the word processing document by a plurality of mechanisms, with the optional ability to automatically update such content in the word processing document if the content from the online source changes, para. [0045]; para. [0205]; para. [0207]-[0212]);
detecting the external network-based occurrence (fig. 18C; fig. 18J; the augmented productivity application allows the user to embed network-enabling objects in the word processing document by a plurality of mechanisms, with the optional ability to automatically update such content in the word processing document if the content from the online source changes, para. [0045]; para. [0188]; a "time until stale" field may be associated with each query included in the word processing web page …, para. [0198]; para. [0205]; para. [0207]-[0210]; The datasource dialog box may include fields for entering (1) the location of the network source (i.e. a URL of a network location for the content), (2) whether the content is to be placed as a text box or as standard text, (3) whether the data is to be updated when the network content changes at the selected content source …, para. [0211]-[0212]) and
in response to the detection of the external network-based occurrence, implement the conditional instruction and thereby automatically edit the electronic word processing document (para. [0045]; para. [0127]; The datasource dialog box may include fields for entering (1) the location of the network source (i.e. a URL of a network location for the content), (2) whether the content is to be placed as a text box or as standard text, (3) whether the data is to be updated when the network content changes at the selected content source …, para. [0211]-[0212]).
Per Claim 9, Ferguson discloses the e non-transitory computer readable medium of claim 8, wherein the operations further comprise accessing an internet communications interface, and wherein the external network- based occurrence includes a change to an internet web page (para. [0098]; para. [0155]; para. [0211]).
Per Claim 10, Ferguson discloses the non-transitory computer readable medium of claim 9, wherein the operations further comprise pulling data from the internet web page and inserting the pulled data into the electronic word processing document (para. [0127]; para. [0175]).
Per Claim 11, Ferguson discloses the non-transitory computer readable medium of claim 9, wherein in displaying the at least one interface, the operations comprise presenting a logical template for constructing the electronic rule, the logical template including at least one field for designating the external source (para. [0211]-[0212]).
Per Claim 12, Ferguson discloses the non-transitory computer readable medium of claim 8, wherein the instruction to edit includes at least one of adding text, modifying text, deleting text, rearranging text, adding a graphic within text, inserting video within text, inserting an image within text, or inserting audio information within text (para. [0127]; para. [0175]).
Per Claim 13, Ferguson discloses the non-transitory computer readable medium of claim 8, wherein the operations further comprise accessing an internal network communications interface, and wherein the external network-based occurrence includes a change to a locally-stored or a cloud-stored file (para. [0007]; para. [0127]; para. [0150]).
Per Claim 15, Ferguson discloses a method for automatically altering information within an electronic document based on an externally detected occurrence, the method comprising:
accessing an electronic word processing document (Abstract; fig. 6; fig. 18C; These data may inserted within (1) a table of the word processing document, (2) an insertion point within the word processing document or (3) within a spreadsheet or other document inserted within a word processing document.…, para. [0057]; para. [0127]; para. [0155]-[0156]; para. [0216]);
displaying an interface presenting at least one tool for enabling an author of the electronic word processing document to define an electronic rule triggered by an external network-based occurrence (fig. 18J; para. [0054]; Using the available features of the productivity application 100, a user can create a new word processing document…, para. [0085]; para. [0147]-[0148]; para. [0198]; therein is depicted an exemplary process 1700 for inserting network-based content at a designated insertion point in the word document …, para. [0207]; The user may then select a stored or "pre-canned" query displayed by the wizard, or may choose to define new query parameters (step 1706). The queries may correspond to network-based content that is to be inserted into the word processing document …, para. [0208]; In order to specify query input parameters, the user may be presented with a query wizard parameters dialog box 1810…A plurality of available query parameters may be presented in a first area 1820 of the exemplary query wizard dialog box 1810. The user may then input default parameter values or create a control for the user to input dynamic parameters …, para. [0209]-[0210]; The user is then presented with a datasource dialog box for defining the source for the network-based content to be provided in response to the query parameter…The datasource dialog box may include fields for entering (1) the location of the network source (i.e. a URL of a network location for the content), (2) whether the content is to be placed as a text box or as standard text, (3) whether the data is to be updated when the network content changes at the selected content source …, para. [0211], URL as example rule, “whether the data is to be updated” condition as example condition);
receiving, in association with the electronic rule, a conditional instruction to edit the electronic word processing document in response to the external network-based occurrence (the augmented productivity application allows the user to embed network-enabling objects in the word processing document by a plurality of mechanisms, with the optional ability to automatically update such content in the word processing document if the content from the online source changes, para. [0045]; para. [0205]; para. [0207]-[0212]);
detecting the external network-based occurrence (fig. 18C; fig. 18J; the augmented productivity application allows the user to embed network-enabling objects in the word processing document by a plurality of mechanisms, with the optional ability to automatically update such content in the word processing document if the content from the online source changes, para. [0045]; para. [0188]; a "time until stale" field may be associated with each query included in the word processing web page …, para. [0198]; para. [0205]; para. [0207]-[0210]; The datasource dialog box may include fields for entering (1) the location of the network source (i.e. a URL of a network location for the content), (2) whether the content is to be placed as a text box or as standard text, (3) whether the data is to be updated when the network content changes at the selected content source …, para. [0211]-[0212]) and
in response to the detection of the external network-based occurrence, implement the conditional instruction and thereby automatically edit the electronic word processing document (para. [0045]; para. [0127]; The datasource dialog box may include fields for entering (1) the location of the network source (i.e. a URL of a network location for the content), (2) whether the content is to be placed as a text box or as standard text, (3) whether the data is to be updated when the network content changes at the selected content source …, para. [0211]-[0212]).
Per Claim 16, Ferguson discloses the method of claim 15, the method further comprising accessing an internet communications interface, and wherein the external network-based occurrence includes a change to an internet web page (para. [0098]; para. [0155]; para. [0211]).
Per Claim 17, Ferguson discloses the method of claim 16, the method further comprising pulling data from the internet web page and inserting the pulled data into the electronic word processing document (para. [0127]; para. [0175]).
Per Claim 18, Ferguson discloses the method of claim 15, wherein the instruction to edit includes at least one of adding text, modifying text, deleting text, rearranging text, adding a graphic within text; inserting video within text, inserting an image within text, or inserting audio information within text (para. [0127]; para. [0175]).
Per Claim 19, Ferguson discloses the method of claim 15, the method further comprising accessing an internal network communications interface, and wherein the external network-based occurrence includes a change to a locally-stored or a cloud-stored file (para. [0007]; para. [0127]; para. [0150]).
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.
2. Claims 7, 14 and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ferguson in view of Sawicki et al US 7,389,473 B1 (“Sawicki”)
Per Claim 7, Ferguson discloses the system of claim 1, wherein the electronic word processing document is divided into a plurality of blocks (fig. 6; para. [0127]; para. [0216]);
Ferguson does not explicitly disclose each block having at least one separately adjustable permission setting, and wherein, when the electronic rule is embedded within a particular block, information related to the electronic rule is restricted to entities possessing permission for access to the particular block
However, this feature is taught by Sawicki (col. 2, ln 18-30; The beginning and the ending locations for the selected user edit permission region are encoded in the saved file using a permission start element and a permission end element. The permission start element contains a unique identifier that typically matches the unique identifier of the permission end element. The permission start element also typically contains the editor attribute (which specifies the user or group that has permission to edit the region). Alternatively (or conjunctively), the permission end element could be defined…, col. 8, ln 14-24)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing of the invention to combine the teachings of Sawicki with the system of Ferguson in arriving at “each block having at least one separately adjustable permission setting, and wherein, when the electronic rule is embedded within a particular block, information related to the electronic rule is restricted to entities possessing permission for access to the particular block”, because such combination would have resulted in limiting the editing capabilities of a word document among different users (Sawicki, col. 5, ln 53-63).
Per Claim 14, Ferguson discloses the non-transitory computer readable medium of claim 8,
Medium claim 14 and system claim 7 are related as medium and the system of using same, with each claimed element's function corresponding to the claimed method step. Accordingly claim 14 is similarly rejected under the same rationale as applied above with respect to claim 7.
Per Claim 20, Ferguson discloses the method of claim 15,
Method claim 20 and system claim 7 are related as method and the system of using same, with each claimed element's function corresponding to the claimed method step. Accordingly claim 20 is similarly rejected under the same rationale as applied above with respect to claim 7.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. See PTO 892 form.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to OLUJIMI A ADESANYA whose telephone number is (571)270-3307. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 8:30-5:00pm.
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, Richemond Dorvil can be reached at 571-272-7602. 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.
/OLUJIMI A ADESANYA/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2658