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 .
Claim Objections
Claim 1 is objected to because of the following informalities: In line 4, "rich" should be changed to --a rich--. Appropriate correction is required.
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 (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.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
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.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
Claim 1 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over:
- Payne et al. (Pub. No. US 2003/0066028), in view of:
- Singleton et al. (Pub. No. US 2004/0153465);
- Crewdson (Pub. No. US 2009/0125892); and
- Cook (Pub. No. US 2002/0059095).
Regarding claim 1,
- Payne et al. (Pub. No. US 2003/0066028) teaches:
- a method for creating a web-based form (Payne, paragraphs [0125] and [0053]; Paragraph [0125] generally teaches a process that enables a user to generate documents (i.e., a method for creating forms). Paragraph [0053] teaches that in order to generate a representation of a service, a user at the user device 2 activates his web browser to communicate with the document provider 4 via the network server 2a (i.e., the method includes creating the form documents using a web browser, or in other words, the method is for creating a web-based form).), the method comprising:
- generating a source document comprising relevant questions and prompts for inclusion in the form (Payne, paragraphs [0097] and [0117]; Paragraph [0097] teaches that the XSL style sheet provides in the document a heading "Qualification Questions" and generates a table of qualification questions (i.e., generating a source document comprising questions) by retrieving the text associated with all service elements of type "question" (S58) from all activities of the service representation indicated by the XSL style sheet (i.e., the questions included in the form are deemed to be “relevant”, since the document generator retrieves text associated with all service elements in order to determine the type of questions from all activities to include in the form). Paragraph [0117] teaches that the XSL style sheets may include rules that cause a heading for a service description to be generated and include a prompt for the user to include his own description of the service (i.e., the document generator includes prompts for inclusion in the form).); and
- converting the source document to rich text document (Payne, paragraph [0031]; Paragraph [0031] teaches that the output document creator is provided to convert the standard format created by the document creator (i.e., the document created in the standard format is interpreted to be the equivalent of the source document recited in Applicant’s claimed invention) to a specific output format selected by the user, such as RTF (Rich Text Format) (i.e., converting the source document to rich text document).);
…
…
…
…
- Payne does not explicitly teach, however, in analogous art of methods for generating web-based documents, Singleton et al. (Pub. No. 2004/0153465) teaches a method, comprising:
- converting the rich text document to an .scr document (Singleton, paragraphs [0022] and [0030]; Paragraph [0022] teaches report templates are created and edited in Microsoft Word. When completed, a report template 200 is saved in a rich text format (RTF) file, and the RTF file is provided as input to a program that converts the RTF into an Extensible Stylesheet Language (XSL) file (i.e., converting the rich text document to a .scr document, where the XSL file is interpreted to be the equivalent of a .scr document since Applicant describes .scr documents as text files (see Applicant’s specification as filed on December 19, 2024, paragraph [0268], and XSL files are known in the art to be plain text files.) Paragraph [0030] teaches that this feature is beneficial for generating documents with desired data items.).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art of methods for generating web-based documents at the time of the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the process for generating web-based documents taught by Payne, to incorporate a step and feature directed to converting a rich text document into a .scr document, as taught by Singleton, in order to generate documents with desired data items. See Singleton, paragraph [0030]; see also MPEP § 2143 G.
- The combination of: Payne, as modified in view of Singleton, does not explicitly teach, however, in analogous art of methods for generating web-based documents, Crewdson (Pub. No. US 2009/0125892) teaches a method, comprising:
- processing the .scr document through a text manipulation language to create a T-spec document (Crewdson, paragraphs [0029] and [0094]; Paragraph [0029] teaches a method including preparing a specification document (i.e., a T-spec document) with statements that collectively specify requirements of the software system, the requirement statements expressed with language elements of a specification language (i.e., a text manipulation language), and the specification document having an associated source file (i.e., the T-spec document is created from the original .scr document). Paragraph [0094] teaches that this feature is beneficial for providing a single documentation source that is consistent with the running application.).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art of methods for generating web-based documents at the time of the effective filing date of the claimed invention to further modify the process for generating web-based documents taught by Payne, as modified in view of Singleton, to incorporate a step and feature directed to processing a .scr document through a text manipulation language to create a T-spec document, as taught by Crewdson, in order to provide a single documentation source that is consistent with the running application. See Crewdson, paragraph [0094]; see also MPEP § 2143 G.
-The combination of: Payne, as modified in view of: Singleton and Crewdson, does not explicitly teaches, however, in analogous art of methods for generating web-based documents, Cook (Pub. No. US 2002/0059095) teaches a method, comprising:
- generating one or more of a PERL document, a Javascript document, and an HTML document from the .scr document (Cook, paragraph [0022]; Paragraph [0022] teaches that in order to transfer the information into the Lead Management Intranet Site 22, the converted recorded information is saved as an HTML file (i.e., generating an HTL document from the .scr document).); and
- publishing the one or more PERL document, Javascript document, and HTML document for access via a web browser (Cook, paragraphs [0022] and [0023]; Paragraph [0022] teaches that the HTML file is published by using a Publish to Internet feature in a program such as WordPro™. to the Lead Management Web Site 22 or is copied to a Lotus-Domino-enabled Lotus Notes® Workroom (i.e., publishing the HTML document for access via a web browser) for distribution, follow-up and tracking. Paragraph [0023] teaches that these features are beneficial for transferring information into an intranet site.).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art of methods for generating web-based documents at the time of the effective filing date of the claimed invention to further modify the process for generating web-based documents taught by Payne, as modified in view of: Singleton and Crewdson, to incorporate steps and features directed to: (i) generating an HTML document from a .scr document, and (ii) publishing the HTML document for access via a web browser, as taught by Cook, in order to transfer information into an intranet site. See Cook, paragraph [0023]; see also MPEP § 2143 G.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Nicholas Akogyeram II whose telephone number is (571) 272-0464. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday, between 8:00am - 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, Jason Dunham can be reached at (571) 272-8109. 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.
Official replies to this Office action may now be submitted electronically by registered
users of the EFS-Web system. Information on EFS-Web tools is available on the Internet at:
http://www.uspto.gov/patents/processlfi!elefslguidance/index.isp. An EFS-Web Quick-Start
Guide is available at: http://www.uspto.gov/ebc/portallefslquick-start.pdf.
Alternatively, official replies to this Office Action may still be submitted by any one of fax, mail, or hand delivery.
Faxed replies should be directed to the central fax at (571) 273-8300.
Mailed replies should be addressed to:
United States Patent and Trademark Office:
Commissioner of Patents and Trademarks
P.O. Box 1450
Alexandria, VA 22313-1450
Hand delivered responses should be brought to the United States Patent and Trademark Office Customer Service Window:
Randolph Building
401 Dulany Street
Alexandria, VA 22314-1450
/N.A.A./Examiner, Art Unit 3686
/JONATHON A. SZUMNY/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3686