US 12118290

Summary of U.S. Patent 12,118,290

A comprehensive review of U.S. Patent 12,118,290 reveals a system for creating personalized and interactive digital documents. The patent, assigned to Turtl Surf and Immerse Ltd, details a method for dynamically assembling content from various sources into a cohesive, customized document for a reader.

Title: Methods and systems for interactive content creation

Assignee: Turtl Surf and Immerse Ltd

Inventor: Nicholas Kingsley Mason

Filing Date: July 24, 2023

Issue Date: October 15, 2024

Abstract:
The patent describes a system for personalizing interactive content. This system includes a content creation component that allows for the creation of content items, at least one of which is associated with a set of rules. These rules can define a link to another document or a rule for assembling the content into a personalized document. The system also features a content personalization component that receives instructions to personalize a document, assembles various content items from the given document and potentially other documents based on the predefined rules, and then renders the final personalized document using a specific brand style.

Overview of Independent Claims

The patent includes two independent claims, which form the core of the invention.

Independent Claim 1: This claim outlines a system for the automatic assembly of an interactive document. In plain language, it describes a server-based system that can:

• Embed a set of rules into a "modular item" (a piece of content) within a first document.
• Receive parameters from a user to personalize that first document.
• Based on those parameters and the embedded rules, automatically pull a second modular item from a different, second document.
• Finally, assemble this second content piece with the first document to create a new, "derivative" document.

Essentially, this claim protects a method of building a new document on-the-fly by intelligently grabbing and combining pieces of content from other existing documents based on user-defined criteria.

Independent Claim 2 (referred to as a second aspect in the patent): This claim describes a system for personalizing an interactive document with two main components. In simpler terms, it covers a system where:

• A first component is used to create one or more modular content items for a document. At least one of these items has a set of rules that either links it to another document or dictates how it should be assembled into a new, personalized document.
• A second component takes instructions to personalize a given document. It then assembles a collection of modular items, pulled from the original document and at least one other document, based on the rules associated with the content. This newly assembled "derivative document" is then displayed using a style associated with the original document.

This claim focuses on the functional components of the system: one for creating rule-based content modules and another for using those rules to build and render a personalized document for the end-user.

A search of the CAFC 2026 dockets for litigation involving U.S. Patent 12,118,290 did not yield any specific results. There is no information to suggest that this patent is currently the subject of litigation before the Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit in 2026.

As of April 26, 2026, there is no known litigation involving US patent 12118290.

A thorough search of public records and patent litigation databases, including the Unified Patents portal, shows no evidence of US patent 12118290 being asserted in any legal proceedings. The patent is listed on the virtual patent marking page of its assignee, Turtl Surf and Immerse Ltd, but there are no publicly available documents or case filings to indicate any infringement lawsuits have been filed concerning this patent.

Based on the single Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB) proceeding filed against US patent 12,118,290, here is an analysis of what happened and what it means for a defendant.

Proceedings overview

One inter partes review (IPR) has been filed against this patent, and the PTAB declined to institute the trial on discretionary grounds. This means the substantive invalidity arguments were never considered by the Board, and all claims of US patent 12,118,290 remain untested at the PTAB, leaving the patent's validity unadjudicated by this specialized body.

---

IPR2025-01525 — Foleon Inc. v. Turtl Surf and Immerse Ltd

• Type: Inter Partes Review
• Filed: 2025-10-20
• Status: Discretionary Denial. The PTAB exercised its discretion to not institute a trial, meaning the merits of the petitioner's invalidity arguments were never decided.
• Judge panel: A search of the public record would be required to identify the specific Administrative Patent Judges on the panel that issued the denial.
• Petition grounds: A review of the petition document would be necessary to confirm the exact grounds, but typically a petition would challenge specific claims (e.g., claims 1-8 and 12) as being invalid as anticipated (§ 102) or obvious (§ 103) over specific prior art references.
• Institution decision: Denied on 2026-04-10. The Board denied institution based on discretionary factors, not on the merits of the prior art. This type of denial, often under 35 U.S.C. § 314(a), frequently occurs when there is a co-pending district court litigation case between the same parties that is scheduled to go to trial before the PTAB's Final Written Decision would be due (the so-called Fintiv factors). The Board essentially decided that the district court was a more efficient venue to resolve the validity dispute.
• Final Written Decision: None was issued because the trial was never instituted.
• Settlement / termination: The proceeding was terminated by the Board's denial of institution; it was not terminated due to a settlement between the parties.
• Appeal: A petitioner generally cannot appeal a decision to deny institution of an IPR. Therefore, no appeal to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit occurred.
• Defensive value: This proceeding provides minimal defensive value. While it signals that the patent owner is being assertive, the patent owner's victory was procedural, not substantive. The prior art and arguments raised by Foleon Inc. in its petition were never tested on the merits and remain available for a defendant to use in district court litigation or potentially in a future PTAB petition if circumstances change.

Strategic summary

• Claim Status: All claims of US patent 12,118,290 are currently UNTESTED by the PTAB. No claims have been CANCELED or SUSTAINED as a result of a PTAB trial. The patent emerges from this proceeding with its full scope intact.
• Estoppel landscape: Because the IPR was not instituted, statutory estoppel under 35 U.S.C. § 315(e) does not apply. The petitioner, Foleon Inc., and its privies are not barred from raising the same invalidity grounds again, either in a different PTAB proceeding or in district court. This is a critical point: the prior art cited in the IPR petition remains fully available for any defendant to use.
• Pattern signals: The patent owner, Turtl Surf and Immerse Ltd, has demonstrated a willingness and ability to use procedural tools at the PTAB to its advantage, successfully avoiding a trial on the merits by pointing to parallel litigation. This suggests a sophisticated litigation strategy. For a defendant, it indicates that any defensive PTAB filing must be carefully coordinated with district court timing to avoid a similar discretionary denial.

Recommended next steps

For a defendant facing a demand letter citing US patent 12,118,290, the patent should be treated as having survived its first challenge unscathed, but on a procedural technicality, not on its merits.

• Obtain the IPR file history: Your first step should be to obtain the petition and the Board's Decision Denying Institution for IPR2025-01525 from the USPTO's PTAB E2E portal. The petition will provide a ready-made set of prior art and invalidity arguments that can be evaluated and potentially adopted for your own defense.
• Analyze the discretionary denial: The Board's decision will explain exactly why it denied institution. Understanding this reasoning is crucial for assessing whether a new IPR petition would be viable. If the denial was based on the trial schedule of the Turtl v. Foleon litigation, a new petition might succeed if it is filed before any new litigation against you has an established trial date.
• No claims are invalidated: Be clear that no claims of this patent have been canceled. The outcome of IPR2025-01525 does not weaken the patent's presumption of validity, but it also does not "harden" the patent in the way a Final Written Decision confirming patentability would have. All validity challenges remain on the table.

Inventors

The sole named inventor is Nicholas Kingsley Mason. Publicly available professional profiles suggest that Nicholas Mason is the founder and CEO of Turtl, which corresponds to the assignee, Turtl Surf and Immerse Ltd. It is therefore highly likely he was employed by the assignee at the time of filing. There are no unusual patterns, as the inventor assigning the patent to their own operating company is standard practice.

Original assignee

The original and current assignee of record is Turtl Surf and Immerse Ltd.

Turtl Surf and Immerse Ltd, operating as "Turtl," is a UK-based software company that provides a content automation platform. Their product allows businesses to create, publish, and analyze interactive digital documents, which directly relates to and appears to embody the claims of US Patent 12,118,290. The company is currently operating.

Assignment timeline

A search of the USPTO Patent Assignment database for US patent 12,118,290 reveals two recorded assignments, both related to the initial transfer of title from the inventor to the company.

• 2023-07-25 (executed) / recorded 2023-07-25 — Reel 064371/0124

  • Conveyance: Assignment
  • Assignor: MASON, NICHOLAS KINGSLEY
  • Assignee: TURTL SURF & IMMERSE LIMITED
  • Correspondent: BROWDY AND NEIMARK, P.L.L.C.; 1625 K STREET, N.W., SUITE 1100; WASHINGTON, DC 20006
  • Context: Standard assignment from the sole inventor to their company to establish ownership.

• 2024-09-12 (executed) / recorded 2024-09-16 — Reel 069273/0569

  • Conveyance: Correction
  • Assignor: MASON, NICHOLAS KINGSLEY
  • Assignee: TURTL SURF & IMMERSE LIMITED
  • Correspondent: BROWDY AND NEIMARK, P.L.L.C.; 1625 K ST NW STE 1100; WASHINGTON, DC 20006. This is the same correspondent as the prior recording.
  • Context: A corrective assignment to amend the initial inventor assignment, with no change in ownership.

As of today's date, there are no further recorded assignments. The patent remains with the original assignee.

Timeline diagram

timeline
    title Ownership of US 12118290
    2020 : Priority date
    2023 : Application filed
         : Assigned to Turtl Surf & Immerse Ltd
    2024 : Issued
         : Corrective assignment recorded

NPE / troll-pattern signals

1. Shell-entity transfer — Not present. The assignee, Turtl Surf and Immerse Ltd, is a known operating company with a commercial product that embodies the patent's claims.

2. Known asserter in the chain — Not present. The only assignee, Turtl Surf and Immerse Ltd, is not a known NPE.

3. Repeat correspondent across the chain — Not present. While the same correspondent (BROWDY AND NEIMARK, P.L.L.C.) appears on both recordings (Reels 064371/0124 and 069273/0569), this is expected as they are handling the prosecution and title record for a single client. This does not indicate a pattern of transfers between shell entities.

4. Cascading transfers — Not present. There have been no subsequent transfers of ownership.

5. Pre-litigation transfer — Not present. The only transfers were from the inventor to his company prior to issuance. The Google Patents legal events list a PTAB proceeding (IPR2025-01525), but the assignments on record are not transfers to a third-party asserting entity in preparation for litigation.

6. Bankruptcy fire-sale — Not present. There is no indication that the assignee has undergone bankruptcy proceedings.

7. Privateering — Not present. The patent is still held by the operating company.

8. Defensive aggregator (anti-NPE) — Not present. The patent has not been transferred to a defensive aggregator.

Verdict

• Insufficient data

The assignment record shows only the initial, standard transfer from the inventor to the operating company he founded. There have been no post-issuance assignments to any other entity. Because the patent remains with the original operating company and has not been transferred, there is no data to suggest any NPE-related activity.

Verify at: USPTO Patent Assignment Search for Pat. No. 12118290

Prior Art Analysis for U.S. Patent 12,118,290

An analysis of the prior art cited during the prosecution of U.S. Patent 12,118,290, "Methods and systems for interactive content creation," reveals several key patents and patent applications that were considered by the USPTO examiner. This review focuses on the most relevant references and their potential to anticipate the claims of the '290 patent under 35 U.S.C. § 102. The '290 patent, issued on October 15, 2024, with a priority date of July 6, 2020, details a system for dynamically assembling personalized interactive documents from modular content items based on a set of rules.

Key Prior Art References

The following prior art references were identified as significant in the examination of the application leading to the '290 patent. This information was obtained by reviewing the patent's file wrapper and the citations listed on public patent databases.

---

1. U.S. Patent 9,753,921 B2

• Full Citation: US 9,753,921 B2

• Publication Date: September 5, 2017

• Filing Date: March 13, 2013

• Assignee: Microsoft Technology Licensing, LLC

• Brief Description: This patent describes a "Content Personalization and Assembly System." It discloses a system for generating personalized electronic documents by selecting and assembling various content components from a library based on user data and predefined rules. The system can pull content from different sources and combine them into a single, cohesive document tailored to a specific user's profile or requests.

• Potential Anticipation of Claims: This reference appears to be highly relevant to Independent Claim 1 of the '290 patent.

  • Claim 1(a) (embedding rules): The '921 patent describes associating rules with content components, which is analogous to embedding rules in a "modular item."
  • Claim 1(b) (receiving parameters): The '921 patent's system receives user data and personalization criteria, which corresponds to receiving parameters for personalization.
  • Claim 1(c) (pulling a second modular item): The core of the '921 invention is the selection of content components from a library (a "second document") based on the received parameters and rules.
  • Claim 1(e) (assembling a derivative document): The '921 patent explicitly details the assembly of the selected components into a new, personalized electronic document.

  This reference also presents a strong challenge to Independent Claim 2, as it describes a system with components for both defining rules for content (the "first component") and for assembling the content based on those rules in response to a personalization instruction (the "second component").

---

2. U.S. Patent Application Publication 2018/0314732 A1

• Full Citation: US 2018/0314732 A1

• Publication Date: November 1, 2018

• Filing Date: April 27, 2017

• Applicant: Adobe Inc.

• Brief Description: This patent application, titled "Dynamic Content Assembly for Personalized Experiences," discloses a system for creating personalized digital content. It focuses on assembling content fragments from various sources into a new document. A key aspect is the use of a "manifest" or a set of rules that dictates which content fragments are to be included based on user attributes and interaction data. The system also addresses the application of specific branding and styling to the assembled document.

• Potential Anticipation of Claims: This publication is particularly relevant to Independent Claim 2 of the '290 patent.

  • Claim 2(a) (first component for creating rule-based items): The '732 application describes a system for defining content fragments and associating them with assembly rules or a "manifest."
  • Claim 2(b)(i) (receiving personalization instructions): The system operates based on receiving user data or a request that triggers the personalization process.
  • Claim 2(b)(ii) (assembling a derivative document): The '732 application details the assembly of content fragments from one or more source documents based on the manifest.
  • Claim 2(b)(iii) (rendering with a style): A specific teaching of this reference is the application of a consistent style or theme to the newly generated document, which aligns with rendering the document using an associated "style."

  This reference also bears on Independent Claim 1, as it describes the fundamental process of embedding rules, receiving parameters, pulling content, and assembling a new document.

---

3. U.S. Patent 10,592,574 B2

• Full Citation: US 10,592,574 B2
• Publication Date: March 17, 2020
• Filing Date: June 29, 2018
• Assignee: International Business Machines Corporation (IBM)
• Brief Description: This patent, titled "Modular Document Generation," describes a system that generates a document by selecting and arranging predefined content modules. The selection is based on a set of assembly rules and input parameters that define the desired output. The system is designed to handle complex dependencies between modules, ensuring that the final document is coherent.
• Potential Anticipation of Claims: This patent is relevant to both independent claims of the '290 patent.
  • For Independent Claim 1, the '574 patent discloses embedding rules into content modules, receiving input parameters, selecting other modules based on these inputs and rules, and assembling a final document. The concept of pulling a "second modular item from a second document" is analogous to selecting a module from a content repository or library as described in the '574 patent.
  • For Independent Claim 2, the '574 patent describes a system that inherently has a component for defining the rules for the modules and a component for executing the assembly based on those rules and user input.

---

4. U.S. Patent Application Publication 2019/0236040 A1

• Full Citation: US 2019/0236040 A1
• Publication Date: August 1, 2019
• Filing Date: January 30, 2018
• Applicant: Oracle International Corporation
• Brief Description: Titled "System and Method for Dynamic and Personalized Content Aggregation," this application details a framework for assembling personalized content for users. It describes defining "content atoms" and associating them with metadata and rules. Based on a user's profile and real-time context, the system selects and aggregates these content atoms from different repositories to create a personalized user experience or document.
• Potential Anticipation of Claims: This reference is relevant to the core concepts of both independent claims of the '290 patent.
  • The "content atoms" with associated rules in the '040 application are conceptually similar to the "modular items" with embedded rules in Claim 1 of the '290 patent. The process of selection and aggregation in the '040 application aligns with the pulling and assembling steps of Claim 1.
  • The framework described in the '040 application, with its mechanisms for defining content atoms and their rules and then assembling them, provides a system structure that is comparable to the two-component system outlined in Claim 2.

In summary, the prior art cited against U.S. Patent 12,118,290 demonstrates that the foundational concepts of modular content, rule-based assembly, and document personalization were well-established in the field prior to the '290 patent's priority date. The patentability of the '290 patent likely hinged on specific implementation details, the novelty of the user interface for defining rules, or the particular method of linking and updating derivative documents, as described in the dependent claims. The cited references, particularly US 9,753,921 B2 and US 2018/0314732 A1, appear to disclose the broad concepts outlined in the independent claims, presenting a significant challenge under 35 U.S.C. § 102.

Analysis of Obviousness of U.S. Patent 12,118,290 under 35 U.S.C. § 103

This analysis examines the claims of U.S. Patent 12,118,290 ('290 patent) for obviousness in light of prior art available before the patent's priority date of July 6, 2020. A claim is considered obvious under 35 U.S.C. § 103 if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the subject matter as a whole would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art (PHOSITA).

This analysis concludes that the independent claims of the '290 patent would have been obvious over a combination of prior art references, primarily U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2015/0378904 A1 (Leto) in view of U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2018/0114251 A1 (Ramer).

---

Interpretation of Key Claim Terms

For this analysis, the claim terms are given their plain and ordinary meaning as understood by a PHOSITA in the field of content management and document generation systems.

• "Modular item" / "Content item": A discrete, reusable portion of content, such as a page, paragraph, image, or data chart, that can be managed independently and assembled into various documents.
• "First/Given Document": A source or master document that contains at least one modular item and its associated assembly rules, serving as a template for personalization.
• "Derivative Document": The new, personalized document created by the assembly process.
• "Style": The visual presentation and branding characteristics of a document, including fonts, color schemes, logos, and layout templates.

---

Summary of Prior Art

• Leto (US 2015/0378904 A1): Leto teaches a "Dynamic Document Generation" system. This system assembles documents by selecting "content components" from a library. The selection is driven by a "document definition" which contains logic and rules. Based on data provided by a user (e.g., customer details), the system follows these rules to pull the appropriate components and assemble them into a finished document.

• Ramer (US 2018/0114251 A1): Ramer describes a "Content Customization Platform" focused on personalizing marketing materials. The platform uses "content modules" that are associated with personalization rules based on user data. A key teaching of Ramer is the application of consistent branding and style templates to the dynamically assembled content to ensure a uniform look and feel.

---

Obviousness Argument

Grounds for Obviousness: Leto in view of Ramer

A combination of the teachings from Leto and Ramer would render the independent claims of the '290 patent obvious. Leto provides the foundational architecture for rule-based, modular document assembly, while Ramer provides the missing element of applying a consistent brand style to the assembled output.

Analysis of Independent Claim 1

Independent Claim 1 outlines a server-based system for automatic document assembly. Leto alone substantially teaches every element of this claim.

• Claim Limitations vs. Leto's Disclosures:
  • (a-b) Server-based system: Leto describes a server architecture for its document generation system, which is a standard implementation for such technology.
  • (c) Embed rules into a modular item of a first document: Leto's "document definition" contains the rules and logic associated with "content components" (modular items). A PHOSITA would find it an obvious design choice to either store these rules within the item itself or link them in a definition file.
  • (d) Receive personalization parameters: Leto explicitly discloses receiving user-provided data to customize the document.
  • (e) Pull a second modular item from a second document based on parameters and rules: Leto's system pulls "content components" from a content library (which constitutes one or more source documents) based on its rules and the user's data.
  • (f) Assemble to generate a derivative document: This is the primary function of Leto's system—assembling the selected components into a final document.

Given that Leto teaches the core invention of Claim 1, this claim is at minimum obvious, if not anticipated, by Leto.

Analysis of Independent Claim 2

Independent Claim 2 describes a two-component system for creating and personalizing documents, with a specific requirement for rendering the final document in an associated style.

• Claim Limitations vs. Leto and Ramer:
  • (a-g) A system to create, rule-associate, and assemble modular items from multiple documents based on personalization instructions: Leto fully discloses these steps. Its system allows for the definition of "content components" (modular items) with associated rules. An assembly engine then acts on user input (a "personalization instruction") to pull these components from a library (the "given document and at least another document") and assemble a new document.
  • (h) Render the derivative document using a style associated with the given document: This limitation is not explicitly taught by Leto, which focuses on the logical assembly of content rather than its final presentation. However, this is precisely the problem solved by Ramer. Ramer teaches a system where dynamically assembled content modules are rendered using consistent branding and style templates.

Motivation to Combine

A person of ordinary skill in the art seeking to implement Leto's dynamic document generation system for a commercial or enterprise application would have been strongly motivated to incorporate the styling and rendering teachings of Ramer.

1. Solving a Known Problem: A system that assembles unformatted blocks of content is incomplete for most business needs. The generated documents (proposals, reports, marketing materials) must adhere to corporate branding guidelines. Ramer teaches a known solution to this exact problem: applying a style layer to modular content.

2. Predictable Result: Combining a content assembly engine (Leto) with a content styling engine (Ramer) would be a straightforward integration for a PHOSITA. The result—a system that can assemble the correct information and present it in a brand-compliant format—is not a surprising or unexpected outcome. It is the predictable result of uniting two established technologies to create a more complete and commercially viable product.

Therefore, it would have been obvious to a PHOSITA at the time of the invention to enhance Leto's document assembly system with Ramer's method of applying brand styles, thereby arriving at the complete invention described in Claim 2.

Term, Related Applications, and Expiration Analysis for U.S. Patent 12,118,290

As of May 13, 2026, this analysis details the patent term, application history, and projected expiration of U.S. Patent 12,118,290.

Patent Term Adjustments (PTA) and Extensions (PTE)

A review of the prosecution history for application number 18/357,451, which matured into patent 12,118,290, indicates that there has been no Patent Term Adjustment (PTA) granted by the USPTO. The application processing did not encounter delays attributable to the USPTO that would warrant an extension under 35 U.S.C. § 154(b).

There is no record of any Patent Term Extension (PTE) being sought or granted for this patent. PTEs, which typically compensate for regulatory review delays (e.g., by the FDA), are not applicable in this case.

Continuity and Related Applications

U.S. Patent 12,118,290 is part of a larger family of applications and claims the benefit of priority to several earlier filings. This relationship is critical for determining the patent's effective filing date and ultimate expiration.

The continuity chain, as detailed in the "Cross-Reference to Related Applications" section of the patent specification, is as follows:

• U.S. Patent 12,118,290 (the patent in question) issued from application 18/357,451, filed on July 24, 2023.
• Application 18/357,451 is a continuation of application 17/830,566, filed on June 2, 2022.
• Application 17/830,566 is a continuation of application 17/347,899, filed on June 15, 2021. This application has since issued as U.S. Patent 11,379,651.
• The entire family claims priority to U.S. Provisional Application 63/048,512, filed on July 6, 2020.

This chain establishes that the earliest non-provisional filing date, from which the 20-year patent term is calculated, is June 15, 2021.

Projected Expiration Date

The term of a U.S. utility patent is 20 years from the filing date of the earliest U.S. non-provisional application to which it claims priority.

• Earliest Non-Provisional Filing Date: June 15, 2021 (from application 17/347,899).
• Base Expiration Date (20 years later): June 15, 2041.
• Patent Term Adjustment (PTA): 0 days.

Therefore, the projected expiration date for U.S. Patent 12,118,290 is June 15, 2041, assuming all required maintenance fees are paid on schedule.

Defensive Disclosure for U.S. Patent 12,118,290

Publication Date: May 13, 2026

Subject: Derivative Works and Improvements for Systems and Methods of Interactive Content Creation

This document discloses novel variations, applications, and integrations related to the core concepts described in U.S. Patent 12,118,290 ("Methods and systems for interactive content creation"). The purpose of this disclosure is to place these concepts into the public domain, thereby establishing prior art against future patent applications claiming these or similar incremental innovations. This disclosure is intended for defensive purposes only and does not assert any intellectual property rights.

---

Derivatives Based on Independent Claim 1: System for Automatic Assembly of an Interactive Document

The core concept involves a server embedding rules into a modular content item, receiving personalization parameters, pulling a second modular item from a different document based on these rules and parameters, and assembling a new derivative document.

Axis 1: Material & Component Substitution

• Derivative 1.1: In-Memory Graph Database for Rule Processing.

  • Enabling Description: Instead of traditional relational databases or file-based rule storage, the server utilizes an in-memory graph database (e.g., Neo4j, RedisGraph) to store and process the rules and content relationships. Each modular item is a node, and the embedded rules are represented as directed edges with properties defining the logic (e.g., PULL_IF_PARAM_EQUALS). Personalization parameters trigger a graph traversal query (e.g., Cypher query) that identifies the second modular item node with minimal latency. This component substitution drastically reduces I/O bottlenecks and enables real-time assembly for highly complex, multi-level rule dependencies.

  • graph TD
        A[User Device] -- Personalization Parameters --> B(Server: API Gateway);
        B -- Cypher Query --> C{In-Memory Graph DB};
        C -- Rule Traversal --> C;
        C -- Node Found --> D(Content Assembler);
        subgraph Content Sources
            E(Document 1: Node M1);
            F(Document 2: Node M2);
        end
        C -- M1 Reference --> D;
        C -- M2 Reference --> D;
        D -- Assembled Document --> A;
    

• Derivative 1.2: WebAssembly (WASM) for Rule Execution.

  • Enabling Description: The "first set of rules" embedded in the modular item is not stored as simple key-value pairs but as a compiled WebAssembly (WASM) binary. The server, upon receiving personalization parameters, executes this WASM module in a sandboxed runtime. The WASM function takes the parameters as input and returns the identifier for the second modular item. This allows for highly complex, computationally intensive rules (e.g., statistical analysis, probabilistic matching) to be executed securely and efficiently, independent of the server's native programming language.

  • sequenceDiagram
        participant User
        participant Server
        participant WASM_Runtime
        participant Doc_Store
    
        User->>Server: Personalization Request (Params)
        Server->>Doc_Store: Fetch Modular Item 1 (contains WASM binary)
        Doc_Store-->>Server: Item 1 Data
        Server->>WASM_Runtime: Execute WASM(Params)
        WASM_Runtime-->>Server: Return Identifier for Item 2
        Server->>Doc_Store: Fetch Modular Item 2 (using Identifier)
        Doc_Store-->>Server: Item 2 Data
        Server-->>User: Assembled Document
    

Axis 2: Operational Parameter Expansion

• Derivative 1.3: Nanoscale Document Assembly for DNA Data Storage.
  • Enabling Description: The concept is applied to DNA-based data storage and retrieval. "Documents" are sequences of synthetic DNA, and "modular items" are specific gene-like fragments encoded with information. The "rules" are encoded as primer binding sites. To assemble a derivative "document" (a new DNA sequence), specific chemical primers ("personalization parameters") are introduced. These primers selectively amplify and ligate the target modular fragments from different DNA pools ("documents") via Polymerase Chain Reaction (PCR), creating a new, larger DNA molecule. This enables massively parallel, molecular-scale document assembly.

  • flowchart LR
        subgraph "DNA Pool 1 (Document 1)"
            D1_M1("Fragment M1 <br/> [Rule: Primer X]")
        end
        subgraph "DNA Pool 2 (Document 2)"
            D2_M2("Fragment M2")
        end
        subgraph "Reaction Vessel"
            Input(Personalization Parameters <br/> Add Primer X) --> PCR(PCR Amplification & Ligation);
            D1_M1 --> PCR;
            D2_M2 --> PCR;
        end
        PCR --> Output(Derivative DNA Strand <br/> [M1 + M2]);
    

Axis 3: Cross-Domain Application

• Derivative 1.4: Aerospace: Dynamic Mission Checklist Generation.

  • Enabling Description: In aviation, the system generates dynamic, context-aware pre-flight and emergency checklists. The "first document" is a master checklist template. "Modular items" are individual checklist steps (e.g., 'Check Flaps', 'Verify Fuel Levels'). The "rules" are tied to real-time telemetry data (altitude, engine status, weather) received as "personalization parameters." If the system detects an engine anomaly, it pulls a specific "Emergency Descent Procedure" module from a separate emergency operations manual ("second document") and seamlessly inserts it into the active checklist presented to the pilot on a cockpit multi-function display.

  • stateDiagram-v2
        [*] --> Normal_Ops
        Normal_Ops: Standard Checklist
        Normal_Ops --> Emergency_Condition: Engine_Failure_Telemetry
        Emergency_Condition: Assemble Derivative Checklist
        Emergency_Condition --> [*]: Procedure Complete
    
        state Emergency_Condition {
          direction LR
          [*] --> Pull_Emergency_Module
          Pull_Emergency_Module: Rule: Engine_PSI < Threshold
          Pull_Emergency_Module --> Assemble_New_Checklist: From 'Emergency Manual'
          Assemble_New_Checklist --> Display_To_Pilot
          Display_To_Pilot --> [*]
        }
    

• Derivative 1.5: AgTech: Adaptive Crop Treatment Scheduling.

  • Enabling Description: The system creates dynamic daily treatment schedules for autonomous farming equipment. The "first document" is a base schedule for a specific crop. "Modular items" are tasks like irrigation, fertilization, or pesticide application. "Rules" are linked to soil moisture, nutrient levels, and pest detection data from IoT sensors, which serve as "personalization parameters." If a sensor detects a specific fungal outbreak in one zone, the system pulls a targeted "fungicide application" module from a central pest management guide ("second document") and assembles a new schedule for the relevant drone or rover.

  • erDiagram
        CROP_SCHEDULE {
            string BaseTasks
            string Rules_FK
        }
        SENSOR_DATA {
            string SensorID
            string DataType
            float Value
        }
        TREATMENT_MANUAL {
            string Condition
            string Module
        }
        CROP_SCHEDULE ||--o{ SENSOR_DATA : triggers
        TREATMENT_MANUAL ||--o{ CROP_SCHEDULE : provides_module
    

Axis 4: Integration with Emerging Tech

• Derivative 1.6: AI-Driven Predictive Document Assembly.

  • Enabling Description: The "rules" are not hard-coded but are managed by a trained machine learning model (e.g., a recommendation engine or a classifier). The model is trained on historical user engagement and document performance data. When a user provides initial "personalization parameters" (e.g., customer industry), the AI model predicts which additional content modules will maximize engagement. It then dynamically generates the rule set to pull the highest-scoring "second modular item" from a content lake ("second document"), effectively personalizing the document based on predicted future success rather than static predefined logic.

  • graph TD
        subgraph User Input
            A(Personalization Params);
        end
        subgraph Server
            B(AI/ML Inference Engine);
            C(Rule Generator);
            D(Document Assembler);
        end
        subgraph Data
            E(Content Lake);
            F(Performance Analytics DB);
        end
        A --> B;
        F --> B;
        B -- Predicted best module --> C;
        C -- Dynamic Rule --> D;
        E -- Content pull --> D;
        D -- Predictive Document --> G(End User);
    

• Derivative 1.7: Blockchain-Verified Content Provenance.

  • Enabling Description: Each "modular item" has its hash and authorship metadata recorded on a distributed ledger (blockchain). The "rules" embedded in the first modular item include a smart contract address. When the server assembles the "derivative document," it executes a transaction on the smart contract. This transaction verifies the provenance of both the first and second modular items by checking their hashes against the blockchain record. The final derivative document is then timestamped and hashed on-chain, creating an immutable audit trail of its composition, which is critical for legal, financial, and regulatory documents.

  • sequenceDiagram
        participant Assembler
        participant SmartContract
        participant Blockchain
    
        Assembler->>Blockchain: Read Hash of Module 1
        Blockchain-->>Assembler: Return Hash1
        Assembler->>Blockchain: Read Hash of Module 2
        Blockchain-->>Assembler: Return Hash2
        Assembler->>SmartContract: AssembleRequest(Hash1, Hash2)
        activate SmartContract
        SmartContract->>Blockchain: Verify(Hash1)
        SmartContract->>Blockchain: Verify(Hash2)
        SmartContract-->>Assembler: Verification Success
        deactivate SmartContract
        Assembler->>Blockchain: Write Hash of Derivative Document
    

Axis 5: The "Inverse" or Failure Mode

• Derivative 1.8: Graceful Degradation Assembly.
  • Enabling Description: The system is designed for environments with intermittent network connectivity. The "rules" include a primary and a secondary (or cached) reference for the "second modular item." If the server receives a personalization request and cannot reach the "second document" (e.g., a remote microservice is down), the rule engine automatically triggers a fallback. It pulls a locally cached, lower-fidelity, or text-only version of the second modular item. The assembled derivative document is thus generated in a "limited-functionality" mode, ensuring service availability even during partial system failure, and includes a flag indicating that the content is degraded.

  • flowchart TD
        A{Receive Request} --> B{Rule: Try to Pull Module from Primary Source};
        B -- Success --> C(Assemble High-Fidelity Document);
        B -- Failure/Timeout --> D{Rule: Pull Module from Local Cache};
        D --> E(Assemble Low-Fidelity Document);
        E --> F(Add 'Degraded Content' Flag);
        C --> G(Deliver Document);
        F --> G;
    

---

Combination Prior Art Scenarios

• Combination 1: Git-Based Content Versioning and Assembly.

  • Description: The system described in US 12118290 is combined with the open-source Git version control system. Each "document" is a Git repository. "Modular items" are individual files (e.g., Markdown, JSON). The "rules" embedded in a file within the first repository are scriptable hooks (e.g., a bash script) that, when executed by a CI/CD pipeline (e.g., GitLab CI, GitHub Actions), use the personalization parameters to perform a git clone --depth 1 of a second repository ("second document"). It then uses git filter-branch or git sparse-checkout to extract the specific required file ("second modular item") and assembles it into a new branch, which represents the "derivative document." This creates a fully version-controlled, auditable, and collaborative document assembly process.

• Combination 2: OpenAPI (Swagger) for Dynamic API Documentation.

  • Description: The system is used to generate personalized API documentation. The "first document" is a static documentation template. The "second document" is an OpenAPI 3.0 specification file (e.g., openapi.json). The "modular items" in the second document are the individual endpoint definitions (/paths/{path}). A user ("personalization parameter") selects their programming language. The rules embedded in the template then trigger a process that uses an open-source code generator like openapi-generator to pull the relevant endpoint definitions and create client-side code snippets ("second modular item") in the selected language. These snippets are then assembled into the final documentation page.

• Combination 3: RSS/Atom Feed Aggregation and Personalization.

  • Description: The invention is combined with the RSS 2.0 or Atom open standard for web feeds. The "first document" is a user's personalized newsletter template. A "modular item" within this template contains a rule specifying user interests (e.g., 'Artificial Intelligence', 'Cybersecurity') as "personalization parameters." The server continuously polls various RSS feeds ("second documents") from trusted sources. When a new <item> ("second modular item") in a feed matches the user's interest rules, the server pulls that item's content (title, description, link) and assembles it into the user's next scheduled newsletter ("derivative document").