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 Rejections - 35 USC § 101
35 U.S.C. 101 reads as follows:
Whoever invents or discovers any new and useful process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter, or any new and useful improvement thereof, may obtain a patent therefor, subject to the conditions and requirements of this title.
Claims 1, 3-7, 9-14, and 16-21 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
Regarding Claim 1,
Claim 1 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
Step 1 Analysis: Claim 1 is directed to a method for data processing, which is directed to a process, one of the statutory categories.
Step 2A Prong One Analysis: The limitations:
“monitoring …a plurality of inputs into the channel that are from a set of participants to the channel and are associated with a segment of code comprising an error stored at a first external data platform”
“identifying, based at least in part on monitoring the plurality of inputs into the channel… the error associated with the segment of code”
“identifying …based at least in part on querying the first external data platform, one or more actions associated with the first external data platform of the one or more external data platforms, wherein the one or more actions are identified from a set of actions that is associated with the first external data platform and preconfigured for the communication platform, and wherein the one or more actions comprise adding the one or more users associated with the segment of code to the set of participants of the channel”
“automatically adding, based at least in part on identifying the one or more actions by the communication service and using data from the first external data platform, the one or more users associated with the segment of code to the set of participants of the channel”
As drafted, under their broadest reasonable interpretations, cover mental processes, i.e., concepts performed in the human mind (including an observation, evaluation, judgement, opinion). The above limitations in the context of this claim correspond to mental processes, e.g., evaluation and judgement with assistance of pen and paper.
Step 2A Prong Two Analysis: The judicial exceptions are not integrated into a practical application. In particular, the claim recited additional elements that are mere instructions to apply an exception (See MPEP 2106.05(f)) and insignificant extra-solution activity (See MPEP 2106.05(g)).
The limitations:
“by a communication service that is a participant to a channel of a communication platform”
“wherein the communication service is configured to execute one or more machine learning models…”
“…executing the one or more machine learning models”
“by the communication service, based at least in part on processing of an input of the plurality of inputs by the one or more machine learning models…”
As drafted, are additional elements that amount to no more than mere instructions to apply an exception for the abstract ideas. See MPEP 2106.05(f).
The limitations:
“access one or more external data platforms including the first external data platform that are external to the communication platform and linked to the channel”
“querying, based at least in part on the plurality of inputs being associated with the segment of code, the first external data platform for an indication of one or more users associated with the segment of code”
“posting an indication of the error in the segment of code on the first external data platform using an account of a participant of the set of participants that is linked to the first external data platform”
“automatically displaying, in a user interface component associated with the channel and based at least in part on identifying the one or more actions associated with the first external data platform, a set of interactive components for triggering execution of the one or more action associated with the first external data platform, wherein the user interface component includes a chat window component for the channel”
“automatically posting, based at least in part on identifying the one or more actions by the communication service and using the account of the participant, the indication of the error in the segment of code on the first external data platform”
As drafted, are additional elements that amount to no more than insignificant extra-solution activity. See MPEP 2106.05(g).
Therefore, the additional elements do not integrate the abstract ideas into a practical application.
Step 2B Analysis: The claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. As discussed above with respect to the integration of the abstract ideas into a practical application, all of the additional elements are “mere instructions to apply an exception” and “insignificant extra-solution activity”. Specifically, the accessing, querying, posting, automatically displaying, and automatically posting limitations recite the well-understood, routine, and conventional activity of receiving or transmitting data over a network, OIP Techs., Inc., v. Amazon.com, Inc., 788 F.3d 1359, 1363, 115 USPQ2d 1090, 1093 (Fed. Cir. 2015) (sending messages over a network). Mere instructions to apply an exception and insignificant extra-solution activity cannot provide an inventive concept. The claim is not patent eligible.
Regarding Claim 3,
Claim 3 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
Step 1 Analysis: Claim 3 is directed to a method for data processing, which is directed to a process, one of the statutory categories.
Step 2A Prong One Analysis: See corresponding analysis of claim 1.
Step 2A Prong Two Analysis: The judicial exceptions are not integrated into a practical application. In particular, the claim recited additional elements that are additional details that do not apply the exception in a meaningful way (See MPEP 2106.05(e)) and insignificant extra-solution activity (See MPEP 2106.05(g)).
The limitations:
“wherein execution of the one or more actions are triggered based at least in part on receiving the input comprising the selection”
As drafted, are additional elements that do not apply an exception for the abstract ideas in a meaningful way. See MPEP 2106.05(e).
The limitations:
“triggering, by the communication service, display of the user interface component at the communication platform, wherein the user interface component includes an indication of the one or more actions and an indication of the data of the first external data platform”
“receiving, at the communication service, input comprising selection of the one or more actions, the data, or both at the user interface component”
As drafted, are additional elements that amount to no more than insignificant extra-solution activity. See MPEP 2106.05(g).
Therefore, the additional elements do not integrate the abstract ideas into a practical application.
Step 2B Analysis: The claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. As discussed above with respect to the integration of the abstract ideas into a practical application, all of the additional elements are additional details that do not apply an exception for the abstract ideas in a meaningful way and “insignificant extra-solution activity”. Specifically, the receiving limitation recites the well-understood, routine, and conventional activity of receiving or transmitting data over a network. MPEP 2106.05(d)(II); OIP Techs., Inc., v. Amazon.com, Inc., 788 F.3d 1359, 1363, 115 USPQ2d 1090, 1093 (Fed. Cir. 2015) (sending messages over a network). Further, the displaying limitation recites the well-understood, routine, and conventional activity of storing and retrieving information in memory. MPEP 2106.05(d)(II); Versata Dev. Group, Inc. v. SAP Am., Inc., 793 F.3d 1306, 1334, 115 USPQ2d 1681, 1701 (Fed. Cir. 2015). Additional details that do not apply the exception in a meaningful way and insignificant extra-solution activity cannot provide an inventive concept. The claim is not patent eligible.
Regarding Claim 4,
Claim 4 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
Step 1 Analysis: Claim 4 is directed to a method for data processing, which is directed to a process, one of the statutory categories.
Step 2A Prong One Analysis: The limitations:
“generating, …a set of content items based at least in part on the data from the first external data platform”
As drafted, under their broadest reasonable interpretations, cover mental processes, i.e., concepts performed in the human mind (including an observation, evaluation, judgement, opinion). The above limitations in the context of this claim correspond to mental processes, e.g., evaluation and judgement with assistance of pen and paper.
Step 2A Prong Two Analysis: The judicial exceptions are not integrated into a practical application. In particular, the claim recited additional elements that are mere instructions to apply an exception (See MPEP 2106.05(f)) and insignificant extra-solution activity (See MPEP 2106.05(g)).
The limitations:
“by the communication service”
As drafted, are additional elements that amount to no more than mere instructions to apply an exception for the abstract ideas. See MPEP 2106.05(f).
The limitations:
“triggering display of the set of content items at the user interface component”
As drafted, are additional elements that amount to no more than insignificant extra-solution activity. See MPEP 2106.05(g).
Therefore, the additional elements do not integrate the abstract ideas into a practical application.
Step 2B Analysis: The claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. As discussed above with respect to the integration of the abstract ideas into a practical application, all of the additional elements are “mere instructions to apply an exception” and “insignificant extra-solution activity”. Further, the displaying limitation recites the well-understood, routine, and conventional activity of storing and retrieving information in memory. MPEP 2106.05(d)(II); Versata Dev. Group, Inc. v. SAP Am., Inc., 793 F.3d 1306, 1334, 115 USPQ2d 1681, 1701 (Fed. Cir. 2015). Mere instructions to apply an exception and insignificant extra-solution activity cannot provide an inventive concept. The claim is not patent eligible.
Regarding Claim 5,
Claim 5 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
Step 1 Analysis: Claim 5 is directed to a method for data processing, which is directed to a process, one of the statutory categories.
Step 2A Prong One Analysis: See corresponding analysis of claim 4.
Step 2A Prong Two Analysis: The judicial exceptions are not integrated into a practical application. In particular, the claim recited additional elements that are additional details that do not apply the exception in a meaningful way (See MPEP 2106.05(e)).
The limitations:
“wherein the set of content items comprises one or more of a document, a user profile, a work item, or a uniform resource locator associated with the first external data platform”
As drafted, are additional elements that do not apply an exception for the abstract ideas in a meaningful way. See MPEP 2106.05(e).
Therefore, the additional elements do not integrate the abstract ideas into a practical application.
Step 2B Analysis: The claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. As discussed above with respect to the integration of the abstract ideas into a practical application, all of the additional elements are additional details that do not apply an exception for the abstract ideas in a meaningful way. The claim is not patent eligible.
Regarding Claim 6,
Claim 6 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
Step 1 Analysis: Claim 6 is directed to a method for data processing, which is directed to a process, one of the statutory categories.
Step 2A Prong One Analysis: See corresponding analysis of claim 3.
Step 2A Prong Two Analysis: The judicial exceptions are not integrated into a practical application. In particular, the claim recited additional elements that are mere instructions to apply an exception (See MPEP 2106.05(f)).
The limitations:
“updating, by the communication service, the one or more machine learning models based at least in part on the received input”
As drafted, are additional elements that amount to no more than mere instructions to apply an exception for the abstract ideas. See MPEP 2106.05(f).
Therefore, the additional elements do not integrate the abstract ideas into a practical application.
Step 2B Analysis: The claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. As discussed above with respect to the integration of the abstract ideas into a practical application, all of the additional elements are “mere instructions to apply an exception”. Mere instructions to apply an exception cannot provide an inventive concept. The claim is not patent eligible.
Regarding Claim 7,
Claim 7 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
Step 1 Analysis: Claim 7 is directed to a method for data processing, which is directed to a process, one of the statutory categories.
Step 2A Prong One Analysis: See corresponding analysis of claim 3.
Step 2A Prong Two Analysis: The judicial exceptions are not integrated into a practical application. In particular, the claim recited additional elements that are additional details that do not apply the exception in a meaningful way (See MPEP 2106.05(e)).
The limitations:
“wherein the user interface component comprises a sidebar with the set of interactive components, an input into the channel of the communication platform, or both”
As drafted, are additional elements that do not apply an exception for the abstract ideas in a meaningful way. See MPEP 2106.05(e).
Therefore, the additional elements do not integrate the abstract ideas into a practical application.
Step 2B Analysis: The claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. As discussed above with respect to the integration of the abstract ideas into a practical application, all of the additional elements are additional details that do not apply an exception for the abstract ideas in a meaningful way. Additional details that do not apply an exception for the abstract ideas in a meaningful way cannot provide an inventive concept. The claim is not patent eligible.
Regarding Claim 9,
Claim 9 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
Step 1 Analysis: Claim 9 is directed to a method for data processing, which is directed to a process, one of the statutory categories.
Step 2A Prong One Analysis: See corresponding analysis of claim 1.
Step 2A Prong Two Analysis: The judicial exceptions are not integrated into a practical application. In particular, the claim recited additional elements that are additional details that do not apply the exception in a meaningful way (See MPEP 2106.05(e)) and mere instructions to apply an exception (See MPEP 2106.05(f)).
The limitations:
“wherein identifying the one or more actions are based at least in part on performing the natural language processing analysis”
As drafted, are additional elements that do not apply an exception for the abstract ideas in a meaningful way. See MPEP 2106.05(e).
The limitations:
“performing, by the one or more machine learning models, a natural language processing analysis on one or more of the plurality of inputs”
As drafted, are additional elements that amount to no more than mere instructions to apply an exception for the abstract ideas. See MPEP 2106.05(f).
Therefore, the additional elements do not integrate the abstract ideas into a practical application.
Step 2B Analysis: The claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. As discussed above with respect to the integration of the abstract ideas into a practical application, all of the additional elements are additional details that do not apply an exception for the abstract ideas in a meaningful way and “mere instructions to apply an exception”. Additional details that do not apply an exception for the abstract ideas in a meaningful way and mere instructions to apply an exception cannot provide an inventive concept. The claim is not patent eligible.
Regarding Claim 10,
Claim 10 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
Step 1 Analysis: Claim 10 is directed to a method for data processing, which is directed to a process, one of the statutory categories.
Step 2A Prong One Analysis: The limitations:
“identifying, …based at least in part on performing the natural language processing analysis, a communication context associated with the channel”
As drafted, under their broadest reasonable interpretations, cover mental processes, i.e., concepts performed in the human mind (including an observation, evaluation, judgement, opinion). The above limitations in the context of this claim correspond to mental processes, e.g., evaluation and judgement with assistance of pen and paper.
Step 2A Prong Two Analysis: The judicial exceptions are not integrated into a practical application. In particular, the claim recited additional elements that are mere instructions to apply an exception (See MPEP 2106.05(f)) and insignificant extra-solution activity (See MPEP 2106.05(g)).
The limitations:
“by the communication service”
As drafted, are additional elements that amount to no more than mere instructions to apply an exception for the abstract ideas. See MPEP 2106.05(f).
The limitations:
“querying, by the communication service, the one or more external data platforms based at least in part on the communication context”
As drafted, are additional elements that amount to no more than insignificant extra-solution activity. See MPEP 2106.05(g).
Therefore, the additional elements do not integrate the abstract ideas into a practical application.
Step 2B Analysis: The claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. As discussed above with respect to the integration of the abstract ideas into a practical application, all of the additional elements are “mere instructions to apply an exception” and “insignificant extra-solution activity”. Specifically, the querying limitation recites the well-understood, routine, and conventional activity of receiving or transmitting data over a network. MPEP 2106.05(d)(II); OIP Techs., Inc., v. Amazon.com, Inc., 788 F.3d 1359, 1363, 115 USPQ2d 1090, 1093 (Fed. Cir. 2015) (sending messages over a network). Mere instructions to apply and insignificant extra-solution activity cannot provide an inventive concept. The claim is not patent eligible.
Regarding Claim 11,
Claim 11 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
Step 1 Analysis: Claim 11 is directed to a method for data processing, which is directed to a process, one of the statutory categories.
Step 2A Prong One Analysis: The limitations:
“identifying, …the set of actions based at least in part on receiving the data from the first external data platform”
“selecting, …the one or more actions from the identified set of actions based at least in part on the data from the first external data platform and the communication context associated with the channel”
As drafted, under their broadest reasonable interpretations, cover mental processes, i.e., concepts performed in the human mind (including an observation, evaluation, judgement, opinion). The above limitations in the context of this claim correspond to mental processes, e.g., evaluation and judgement with assistance of pen and paper.
Step 2A Prong Two Analysis: The judicial exceptions are not integrated into a practical application. In particular, the claim recited additional elements that are mere instructions to apply an exception (See MPEP 2106.05(f)) and insignificant extra-solution activity (See MPEP 2106.05(g)).
The limitations:
“by the communication service”
As drafted, are additional elements that amount to no more than mere instructions to apply an exception for the abstract ideas. See MPEP 2106.05(f).
The limitations:
“receiving, by the communication service and in response to querying the one or more external data platforms, the data from the first external data platform”
As drafted, are additional elements that amount to no more than insignificant extra-solution activity. See MPEP 2106.05(g).
Therefore, the additional elements do not integrate the abstract ideas into a practical application.
Step 2B Analysis: The claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. As discussed above with respect to the integration of the abstract ideas into a practical application, all of the additional elements are “mere instructions to apply” and “insignificant extra-solution activity”. Specifically, the receiving limitation recites the well-understood, routine, and conventional activity of receiving or transmitting data over a network. MPEP 2106.05(d)(II); OIP Techs., Inc., v. Amazon.com, Inc., 788 F.3d 1359, 1363, 115 USPQ2d 1090, 1093 (Fed. Cir. 2015) (sending messages over a network). Mere instructions to apply and insignificant extra-solution activity cannot provide an inventive concept. The claim is not patent eligible.
Regarding Claim 12,
Claim 12 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
Step 1 Analysis: Claim 12 is directed to a method for data processing, which is directed to a process, one of the statutory categories.
Step 2A Prong One Analysis: See corresponding analysis of claim 1.
Step 2A Prong Two Analysis: The judicial exceptions are not integrated into a practical application. In particular, the claim recited additional elements that are additional details that do not apply the exception in a meaningful way (See MPEP 2106.05(e)).
The limitations:
“wherein each of the one or more external data platforms is associated with a different set of preconfigured actions for the communication platform”
As drafted, are additional elements that do not apply an exception for the abstract ideas in a meaningful way. See MPEP 2106.05(e).
Therefore, the additional elements do not integrate the abstract ideas into a practical application.
Step 2B Analysis: The claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. As discussed above with respect to the integration of the abstract ideas into a practical application, all of the additional elements are additional details that do not apply an exception for the abstract ideas in a meaningful way. The claim is not patent eligible.
Regarding Claim 13,
Claim 13 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
Step 1 Analysis: Claim 13 is directed to a method for data processing, which is directed to a process, one of the statutory categories.
Step 2A Prong One Analysis: See corresponding analysis of claim 1.
Step 2A Prong Two Analysis: The judicial exceptions are not integrated into a practical application. In particular, the claim recited additional elements that are additional details that do not apply the exception in a meaningful way (See MPEP 2106.05(e)).
The limitations:
“wherein the plurality of inputs comprises a set of messages, temporal data associated with the set of messages, a set of data attributes associated with the set of participants to the channel, configuration data associated with the channel, or a combination thereof”
As drafted, are additional elements that do not apply an exception for the abstract ideas in a meaningful way. See MPEP 2106.05(e).
Therefore, the additional elements do not integrate the abstract ideas into a practical application.
Step 2B Analysis: The claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. As discussed above with respect to the integration of the abstract ideas into a practical application, all of the additional elements are additional details that do not apply an exception for the abstract ideas in a meaningful way. The claim is not patent eligible.
Regarding Claim 14,
Claim 14 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
Step 1 Analysis: Claim 14 is directed to an apparatus for data processing, which is directed to a machine, one of the statutory categories.
Step 2A Prong One Analysis: The limitations:
“monitor …a plurality of inputs into the channel that are from a set of participants to the channel and are associated with a segment of code comprising an error stored at a first external data platform”
“identify, based at least in part on monitoring the plurality of inputs into the channel… the error associated with the segment of code”
“identify …based at least in part on querying the first external data platform, one or more actions associated with the first external data platform of the one or more external data platforms, wherein the one or more actions are identified from a set of actions that is associated with the first external data platform and preconfigured for the communication platform, and wherein the one or more actions comprise adding the one or more users associated with the segment of code to the set of participants of the channel”
“automatically add, based at least in part on identifying the one or more actions by the communication service and using data from the first external data platform, the one or more users associated with the segment of code to the set of participants of the channel”
As drafted, under their broadest reasonable interpretations, cover mental processes, i.e., concepts performed in the human mind (including an observation, evaluation, judgement, opinion). The above limitations in the context of this claim correspond to mental processes, e.g., evaluation and judgement with assistance of pen and paper.
Step 2A Prong Two Analysis: The judicial exceptions are not integrated into a practical application. In particular, the claim recited additional elements that are mere instructions to apply an exception (See MPEP 2106.05(f)) and insignificant extra-solution activity (See MPEP 2106.05(g)).
The limitations:
“An apparatus for data processing, comprising: a processor; memory coupled with the processor; and instructions stored in the memory and executable by the processor to cause the apparatus to”
“by a communication service that is a participant to a channel of a communication platform”
“wherein the communication service is configured to execute one or more machine learning models…”
“…executing the one or more machine learning models”
“by the communication service, based at least in part on processing of an input of the plurality of inputs by the one or more machine learning models…”
As drafted, are additional elements that amount to no more than mere instructions to apply an exception for the abstract ideas. See MPEP 2106.05(f).
The limitations:
“access one or more external data platforms including the first external data platform that are external to the communication platform and linked to the channel”
“query, based at least in part on the plurality of inputs being associated with the segment of code, the first external data platform for an indication of one or more users associated with the segment of code”
“posting an indication of the error in the segment of code on the first external data platform using an account of a participant of the set of participants that is linked to the first external data platform”
“automatically display, in a user interface component associated with the channel and based at least in part on identifying the one or more actions associated with the first external data platform, a set of interactive components for triggering execution of the one or more action associated with the first external data platform, wherein the user interface component includes a chat window component for the channel”
“automatically post, based at least in part on identifying the one or more actions by the communication service and using the account of the participant, the indication of the error in the segment of code on the first external data platform”
As drafted, are additional elements that amount to no more than insignificant extra-solution activity. See MPEP 2106.05(g).
Therefore, the additional elements do not integrate the abstract ideas into a practical application.
Step 2B Analysis: The claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. As discussed above with respect to the integration of the abstract ideas into a practical application, all of the additional elements are “mere instructions to apply an exception” and “insignificant extra-solution activity”. Specifically, the accessing, querying, posting, automatically displaying, and automatically posting limitations recite the well-understood, routine, and conventional activity of receiving or transmitting data over a network, OIP Techs., Inc., v. Amazon.com, Inc., 788 F.3d 1359, 1363, 115 USPQ2d 1090, 1093 (Fed. Cir. 2015) (sending messages over a network). Mere instructions to apply an exception and insignificant extra-solution activity cannot provide an inventive concept. The claim is not patent eligible.
Regarding Claim 16,
Claim 16 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
Step 1 Analysis: Claim 16 is directed to an apparatus for data processing, which is directed to a machine, one of the statutory categories.
Step 2A Prong One Analysis: See corresponding analysis of claim 14.
Step 2A Prong Two Analysis: The judicial exceptions are not integrated into a practical application. In particular, the claim recited additional elements that are additional details that do not apply the exception in a meaningful way (See MPEP 2106.05(e)) and insignificant extra-solution activity (See MPEP 2106.05(g)).
The limitations:
“wherein execution of the one or more actions are triggered based at least in part on receiving the input comprising the selection”
As drafted, are additional elements that do not apply an exception for the abstract ideas in a meaningful way. See MPEP 2106.05(e).
The limitations:
“trigger, by the communication service, display of the user interface component at the communication platform, wherein the user interface component includes an indication of the one or more actions and an indication of the data of the first external data platform”
“receive, at the communication service, input comprising selection of the one or more actions, the data, or both at the user interface component”
As drafted, are additional elements that amount to no more than insignificant extra-solution activity. See MPEP 2106.05(g).
Therefore, the additional elements do not integrate the abstract ideas into a practical application.
Step 2B Analysis: The claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. As discussed above with respect to the integration of the abstract ideas into a practical application, all of the additional elements are additional details that do not apply an exception for the abstract ideas in a meaningful way and “insignificant extra-solution activity”. Specifically, the receiving limitation recites the well-understood, routine, and conventional activity of receiving or transmitting data over a network. MPEP 2106.05(d)(II); OIP Techs., Inc., v. Amazon.com, Inc., 788 F.3d 1359, 1363, 115 USPQ2d 1090, 1093 (Fed. Cir. 2015) (sending messages over a network). Further, the displaying limitation recites the well-understood, routine, and conventional activity of storing and retrieving information in memory. MPEP 2106.05(d)(II); Versata Dev. Group, Inc. v. SAP Am., Inc., 793 F.3d 1306, 1334, 115 USPQ2d 1681, 1701 (Fed. Cir. 2015). Additional details that do not apply the exception in a meaningful way and insignificant extra-solution activity cannot provide an inventive concept. The claim is not patent eligible.
Regarding Claim 17,
Claim 17 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
Step 1 Analysis: Claim 17 is directed to an apparatus for data processing, which is directed to a machine, one of the statutory categories.
Step 2A Prong One Analysis: The limitations:
“generate, …a set of content items based at least in part on the data from the first external data platform”
As drafted, under their broadest reasonable interpretations, cover mental processes, i.e., concepts performed in the human mind (including an observation, evaluation, judgement, opinion). The above limitations in the context of this claim correspond to mental processes, e.g., evaluation and judgement with assistance of pen and paper.
Step 2A Prong Two Analysis: The judicial exceptions are not integrated into a practical application. In particular, the claim recited additional elements that are mere instructions to apply an exception (See MPEP 2106.05(f)) and insignificant extra-solution activity (See MPEP 2106.05(g)).
The limitations:
“by the communication service”
As drafted, are additional elements that amount to no more than mere instructions to apply an exception for the abstract ideas. See MPEP 2106.05(f).
The limitations:
“trigger display of the set of content items at the user interface component”
As drafted, are additional elements that amount to no more than insignificant extra-solution activity. See MPEP 2106.05(g).
Therefore, the additional elements do not integrate the abstract ideas into a practical application.
Step 2B Analysis: The claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. As discussed above with respect to the integration of the abstract ideas into a practical application, all of the additional elements are “mere instructions to apply an exception” and “insignificant extra-solution activity”. Further, the displaying limitation recites the well-understood, routine, and conventional activity of storing and retrieving information in memory. MPEP 2106.05(d)(II); Versata Dev. Group, Inc. v. SAP Am., Inc., 793 F.3d 1306, 1334, 115 USPQ2d 1681, 1701 (Fed. Cir. 2015). Mere instructions to apply an exception and insignificant extra-solution activity cannot provide an inventive concept. The claim is not patent eligible.
Regarding Claim 18,
Claim 18 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
Step 1 Analysis: Claim 18 is directed to an apparatus for data processing, which is directed to a machine, one of the statutory categories.
Step 2A Prong One Analysis: See corresponding analysis of claim 17.
Step 2A Prong Two Analysis: The judicial exceptions are not integrated into a practical application. In particular, the claim recited additional elements that are additional details that do not apply the exception in a meaningful way (See MPEP 2106.05(e)).
The limitations:
“wherein the set of content items comprises one or more of a document, a user profile, a work item, or a uniform resource locator associated with the first external data platform”
As drafted, are additional elements that do not apply an exception for the abstract ideas in a meaningful way. See MPEP 2106.05(e).
Therefore, the additional elements do not integrate the abstract ideas into a practical application.
Step 2B Analysis: The claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. As discussed above with respect to the integration of the abstract ideas into a practical application, all of the additional elements are additional details that do not apply an exception for the abstract ideas in a meaningful way. The claim is not patent eligible.
Regarding Claim 19,
Claim 19 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
Step 1 Analysis: Claim 19 is directed to an apparatus for data processing, which is directed to a machine, one of the statutory categories.
Step 2A Prong One Analysis: See corresponding analysis of claim 16.
Step 2A Prong Two Analysis: The judicial exceptions are not integrated into a practical application. In particular, the claim recited additional elements that are mere instructions to apply an exception (See MPEP 2106.05(f)).
The limitations:
“update by the communication service, the one or more machine learning models based at least in part on the received input”
As drafted, are additional elements that amount to no more than mere instructions to apply an exception for the abstract ideas. See MPEP 2106.05(f).
Therefore, the additional elements do not integrate the abstract ideas into a practical application.
Step 2B Analysis: The claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. As discussed above with respect to the integration of the abstract ideas into a practical application, all of the additional elements are “mere instructions to apply an exception”. Mere instructions to apply an exception cannot provide an inventive concept. The claim is not patent eligible.
Regarding Claim 20,
Claim 20 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
Step 1 Analysis: Claim 20 is directed to a non-transitory computer-readable medium storing code for data processing, which is directed to a machine, one of the statutory categories.
Step 2A Prong One Analysis: The limitations:
“monitor …a plurality of inputs into the channel that are from a set of participants to the channel and are associated with a segment of code comprising an error stored at a first external data platform”
“identify, based at least in part on monitoring the plurality of inputs into the channel… the error associated with the segment of code”
“identify …based at least in part on querying the first external data platform, one or more actions associated with the first external data platform of the one or more external data platforms, wherein the one or more actions are identified from a set of actions that is associated with the first external data platform and preconfigured for the communication platform, and wherein the one or more actions comprise adding the one or more users associated with the segment of code to the set of participants of the channel”
“automatically add, based at least in part on identifying the one or more actions by the communication service and using data from the first external data platform, the one or more users associated with the segment of code to the set of participants of the channel”
As drafted, under their broadest reasonable interpretations, cover mental processes, i.e., concepts performed in the human mind (including an observation, evaluation, judgement, opinion). The above limitations in the context of this claim correspond to mental processes, e.g., evaluation and judgement with assistance of pen and paper.
Step 2A Prong Two Analysis: The judicial exceptions are not integrated into a practical application. In particular, the claim recited additional elements that are mere instructions to apply an exception (See MPEP 2106.05(f)) and insignificant extra-solution activity (See MPEP 2106.05(g)).
The limitations:
“A non-transitory computer-readable medium storing code for data processing, the code comprising instructions executable by a processor to…”
“by a communication service that is a participant to a channel of a communication platform”
“wherein the communication service is configured to execute one or more machine learning models…”
“…executing the one or more machine learning models”
“by the communication service, based at least in part on processing of an input of the plurality of inputs by the one or more machine learning models…”
As drafted, are additional elements that amount to no more than mere instructions to apply an exception for the abstract ideas. See MPEP 2106.05(f).
The limitations:
“access one or more external data platforms including the first external data platform that are external to the communication platform and linked to the channel”
“query, based at least in part on the plurality of inputs being associated with the segment of code, the first external data platform for an indication of one or more users associated with the segment of code”
“posting an indication of the error in the segment of code on the first external data platform using an account of a participant of the set of participants that is linked to the first external data platform”
“automatically display, in a user interface component associated with the channel and based at least in part on identifying the one or more actions associated with the first external data platform, a set of interactive components for triggering execution of the one or more action associated with the first external data platform, wherein the user interface component includes a chat window component for the channel”
“automatically post, based at least in part on identifying the one or more actions by the communication service and using the account of the participant, the indication of the error in the segment of code on the first external data platform”
As drafted, are additional elements that amount to no more than insignificant extra-solution activity. See MPEP 2106.05(g).
Therefore, the additional elements do not integrate the abstract ideas into a practical application.
Step 2B Analysis: The claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. As discussed above with respect to the integration of the abstract ideas into a practical application, all of the additional elements are “mere instructions to apply an exception” and “insignificant extra-solution activity”. Specifically, the accessing, querying, posting, automatically displaying, and automatically posting limitations recite the well-understood, routine, and conventional activity of receiving or transmitting data over a network, OIP Techs., Inc., v. Amazon.com, Inc., 788 F.3d 1359, 1363, 115 USPQ2d 1090, 1093 (Fed. Cir. 2015) (sending messages over a network). Mere instructions to apply an exception and insignificant extra-solution activity cannot provide an inventive concept. The claim is not patent eligible.
Regarding Claim 21,
Claim 21 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
Step 1 Analysis: Claim 21 is directed to a method for data processing, which is directed to a process, one of the statutory categories.
Step 2A Prong One Analysis: See corresponding analysis of claim 1.
Step 2A Prong Two Analysis: The judicial exceptions are not integrated into a practical application. In particular, the claim recited additional elements that are additional details that do not apply the exception in a meaningful way (See MPEP 2106.05(e)).
The limitations:
“wherein the one or more users are associated with the segment of code based at least in part on the one or more users being contributors to the segment of code according to a datastore of the first external data platform”
As drafted, are additional elements that do not apply an exception for the abstract ideas in a meaningful way. See MPEP 2106.05(e).
Therefore, the additional elements do not integrate the abstract ideas into a practical application.
Step 2B Analysis: The claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. As discussed above with respect to the integration of the abstract ideas into a practical application, all of the additional elements are additional details that do not apply an exception for the abstract ideas in a meaningful way. The claim is not patent eligible.
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.
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.
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.
Claims 1, 3-5, 7, 9-14, 16-18, and 20-21 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Greene et al. (U.S. Patent Publication No. 2019/0200177) (“Greene”) in view of Chatterjee (Automatically Identifying the Quality of Developer Chats for Post Hoc Use) (“Chatterjee”) in further view of Ehsan et al. (An Empirical Study of Developer Discussions in the Gitter Platform) (“Ehsan”).
Regarding claim 1, Greene teaches a method for data processing, comprising: monitoring, by a communication service that is a participant to a channel of a communication platform, a plurality of inputs into the channel that are from a set of participants to the channel (Greene [0037] “As used herein, the terms “group-based communication channel” and “channel” refer to a virtual communications environment or feed that is configured to display messaging communications posted by channel members (e.g., validated users accessing the environment using client devices) that are viewable only to the members of the group.”; [0039] “User interest indicators include all signals of engagement by a user with a group-based communication interface including, without limitation, message communications and message communication information, user profile associated information, direct messages and direct message information, client device reported location data, mouse-over data, click data, channel engagement data, and the like.” Greene provides monitoring user messaging in a communication channel corresponding to monitoring, by a communication service that is a participant to a channel of a communication platform, a plurality of inputs into the channel that are from a set of participants to the channel.) …wherein the communication service is configured to execute one or more machine learning models (Greene [0052] “The term “unread direct message score” refers to the output of ranking model or algorithm such as a co-ranking model, a statistical model, a machine learning model, a trainable classifier, a supervised learning model, and the like, which indicates the relevance of an unread direct message to a user based on attributes of the unread direct message (e.g., metadata, urgent message indicator, timing, etc.) and attributes of the user (i.e., user profile associated data, client device location, etc.). In one embodiment, the unread direct message score is used to determine the display order of one or more unread direct messages within a group-based communication interface.” Green provides the communication service is configured to execute one or more machine learning models.) and access one or more external data platforms including the first external data platform that are external to the communication platform and linked to the channel (Greene [0136] “Group-based communication system 105 supports many external applications and clients (such as Google Docs, GitHub, etc.) and group-based communication server 106 may retrieve actions the user of a client device has taken with respect to those external applications and clients by analyzing application log files or other app activity data (i.e., user application interaction indicators.)” Greene provides accessing one or more external data platforms including the first external data platform that are external to the communication platform and linked to the channel.) … querying, based at least in part on the plurality of inputs being associated with the segment of code, the first external data platform for an indication of one or more users associated with the segment of code (Greene [0136] “In some embodiments, group-based communication server 106 may query group-based communication repository 107 and/or a memory associated with client device 101C to determine or otherwise identify one more one or more recently accessed files associated with the group-based communication system 105. Group-based communication system 105 supports many external applications and clients (such as Google Docs, GitHub, etc.) and group-based communication server 106 may retrieve actions the user of a client device has taken with respect to those external applications and clients by analyzing application log files or other app activity data (i.e., user application interaction indicators.)” Greene provides querying external data platforms such as GitHub for user associated app data, wherein GitHub provides an indication of one or more users associated with the segment of code, corresponding to querying, based at least in part on the plurality of inputs being associated with the segment of code, the first external data platform for an indication of one or more users associated with the segment of code.); identifying, by the communication service, based at least in part on processing of an input of the plurality of inputs by the one or more machine learning models, and based at least in part on querying the first external data platform, one or more actions associated with the first external data platform of the one or more external data platforms, wherein the actions are identified from a set of actions that is associated with the first external data platform and preconfigured for the communication platform, and wherein the one or more actions comprise adding the one or more users associated with the segment of code to the set of participants of the channel (Greene [0072] “Group-based users are organized into organization groups (e.g., employees of each company may be a separate organization group) and each organization group may have one or more group-based communication channels (explained below) to which users may be assigned or which the users may join (e.g., group-based communication channels may represent departments, geographic locations such as offices, product lines, user interests, topics, issues, and/or the like). A group identifier may be used to facilitate access control for a message (e.g., access to the message, such as having the message return as part of search results in response to a search query, may be restricted to those users having the group identifier associated with their user profile)”; [0136] “In some embodiments, group-based communication server 106 may query group-based communication repository 107 and/or a memory associated with client device 101C to determine or otherwise identify one more one or more recently accessed files associated with the group-based communication system 105. Group-based communication system 105 supports many external applications and clients (such as Google Docs, GitHub, etc.) and group-based communication server 106 may retrieve actions the user of a client device has taken with respect to those external applications and clients by analyzing application log files or other app activity data (i.e., user application interaction indicators.)” Greene provides actions such as adding users to communication channels, wherein users may be associated with external applications such as GitHub, wherein users are associated with segments of code.) …automatically displaying, in a user interface component associated with the channel and based at least in part on identifying the one or more actions associated with the first external data platform, a set of interactive components for triggering execution of the one or more actions associated with the first external data platform (Greene [0203] “FIG. 8 represents an exemplary group-based communication interface 800 displayed on a client device. Group-based communication interface 800 includes priority pane 802, last actions pane 806, missed pane 812, user information pane 815, channel list pane 816, and direct messages pane 817. It should be noted that the renderable priority object, the renderable last actions object, and the renderable missed object may all include a plurality of messages, lists, indications, etc. These messages will be ranked according to their corresponding scores. Client device 101C may then determine how many of these messages, lists, indications, etc., to display to the group-based communications interface within each respective pane based on the various display orders.” Greene provides automatically displaying, in a user interface component associated with the channel and based at least in part on identifying the action associated with the first external data platform, a set of interactive components for triggering execution of the action associated with the first external data platform, as shown in Figure 8.), wherein the user interface component includes a chat window component for the channel (Greene [0203] “FIG. 8 represents an exemplary group-based communication interface 800 displayed on a client device. Group-based communication interface 800 includes priority pane 802, last actions pane 806, missed pane 812, user information pane 815, channel list pane 816, and direct messages pane 817. It should be noted that the renderable priority object, the renderable last actions object, and the renderable missed object may all include a plurality of messages, lists, indications, etc.” Greene provides user messaging included in the interface corresponding to the user interface component includes a chat window component for the channel).
Greene fails to teach monitoring, by a communication service that is a participant to a channel of a communication platform, a plurality of inputs into the channel that are from a set of participants to the channel and are associated with a segment of code comprising an error stored at a first external data platform … identifying, based at least in part on monitoring the plurality of inputs into the channel and executing the one or more machine learning models, the error associated with the segment of code … posting an indication of the error in the segment of code on the first external data platform using an account of a participant of the set of participants that is linked to the first external data platform … automatically adding, based at least in part on identifying the one or more actions by the communication service and using data from the first external data platform, the one or more users associated with the segment of code to the set of participants of the channel; and automatically posting, based at least in part on identifying the one or more actions by the communication service and using the account of the participant, the indication of the error in the segment of code on the first external data platform.
However, Chatterjee teaches monitoring, by a communication service that is a participant to a channel of a communication platform, a plurality of inputs into the channel that are from a set of participants to the channel (Chatterjee Section 2 Motivational Examples “Both of the above pairs of problem-solving (Table 1) and API-related (Table 2) conversations exhibit the need of a mechanism for assessing quality of content in developer chats. Thus, based on previous research in determining quality of other kinds of developer communications, we investigate a more systematic and software engineering (SE)-specific quality assessment approach for automatically determining post hoc-quality developer chat conversations… We selected five channels from four programming enforced by a moderator in the selected channels, each channel on Slack is intended for a particular purpose.” Chatterjee provides a developer chat including participants to a channel (the developers), as shown in Tables 1 and 2, wherein the chat messages from each developer correspond to the channel inputs from participants.) and are associated with a segment of code comprising an error stored at a first external data platform (Chatterjee Table 2(b) “Herbert: I have something seemingly complex and puzzling. I’m trying to add dynamic localization to my library, which also powers a REST API … I’m trying to do this by running within a context switcher: <code segment> But I’m getting this opaque error and can’t figure out how to isolate it <error trace>.”; Section 3 Toward Discerning Post Hoc-Quality Conversations “As mentioned earlier, we conducted an analysis of 400 Slack conversations with conversation non-participants judging the informational value of conversations.. We selected five channels from four programming communities (two channels from elmlang ,and one from each of python dev, clojurians, and racket) with an active presence on Slack, and were willing to provide us API tokens for downloading chats for research purposes.” Chatterjee provides user developer chat messages, as shown in Table 1, including Slack conversations comprising a message from a developer indicating an error associated with a segment of code, which corresponds to the segment of code comprising an error stored at a first external data platform, wherein Slack corresponds a first external data platform.) …identifying, based at least in part on monitoring the plurality of inputs into the channel and executing the one or more machine learning models, the error associated with the segment of code (Chatterjee Section 4.2 Machine Learning-based Classification “We investigated several supervised machine learning-based approaches to automatically identify post hoc-quality conversations. We describe the conversation features followed by the suite of machine learning algorithms investigated for this classification task… Table 3 lists the features in each set with their value range; descriptions of why and how we extract each feature follow”; Table 3 “CX… Contains Error Message? [the error associated with the segment of code]”; Section 5.5 Evaluation Results and Discussion “RQ1: How effective are machine learning-based techniques for automatic identification of post hoc quality developer chats?.. Table 5 presents precision, recall, F-measure, AUC and MCC for each configuration... Classifier Effectiveness. Figure 2 graphically depicts the overall effectiveness using Q&A:SEterms for the baseline and all features for the ML-based classifiers. From Table 5 and Figure 2 we observe that precision across all methods is nearly the same (except Q&A:Code , which has a precision of 0.91 but a low recall of 0.30); however, we see differences in the rest of the measures.” Chatterjee provides multiple machine learning classifiers trained to identify features in chats, wherein the features include messages of code comprising an error, as shown in the Features column of Table 3, and the message from Hebert in Table 2b, and wherein the results of the classification by the machine learning models are listed in Table 5 as indicated by the rows labeled CX, wherein the classifiers identify messages associated with an error associated with a segment of code.) …posting an indication of the error in the segment of code on the first external data platform using an account of a participant of the set of participants that is linked to the first external data platform (Chatterjee Table 2(b) “Herbert: I have something seemingly complex and puzzling. I’m trying to add dynamic localization to my library, which also powers a REST API … I’m trying to do this by running within a context switcher: <code segment> But I’m getting this opaque error and can’t figure out how to isolate it <error trace> [posting an indication of the error…using an account of a participant of the set of participants that is linked to the first external data platform].”; Section 3 Toward Discerning Post Hoc-Quality Conversations “As mentioned earlier, we conducted an analysis of 400 Slack conversations with conversation non-participants judging the informational value of conversations.. We selected five channels from four programming communities (two channels from elmlang ,and one from each of python dev, clojurians, and racket) with an active presence on Slack, and were willing to provide us API tokens for downloading chats for research purposes.” Chatterjee provides monitoring chat messages from an external data platform such as Slack, wherein an indication of the error in the code was posted by the user account labeled as Herbert, as shown in Table 2, wherein Herbert is a developer account and a participant linked to the external data platform (Slack).) …automatically posting, based at least in part on identifying the one or more actions by the communication service and using the account of the participant, the indication of the error in the segment of code on the first external data platform (Chatterjee Table 2(b) “Herbert: I have something seemingly complex and puzzling. I’m trying to add dynamic localization to my library, which also powers a REST API … I’m trying to do this by running within a context switcher: <code segment> But I’m getting this opaque error and can’t figure out how to isolate it <error trace> [posting an indication of the error…using an account of a participant of the set of participants that is linked to the first external data platform].”; Section 3 Toward Discerning Post Hoc-Quality Conversations “As mentioned earlier, we conducted an analysis of 400 Slack conversations with conversation non-participants judging the informational value of conversations.. We selected five channels from four programming communities (two channels from elmlang ,and one from each of python dev, clojurians, and racket) with an active presence on Slack, and were willing to provide us API tokens for downloading chats for research purposes.” Chatterjee provides user/developers posting indications of errors in a segment of code in a chat associated with an external data platform such as Slack, as shown in the message from Herbert in Table 2, corresponding to automatically posting an indication of the error in a segment of code on the external platform (Slack) based in part on identify actions and using the account of the participant (Herbert).)
Greene and Chatterjee are both considered to be analogous to the claimed invention because they are in the same field of artificial intelligence and more specifically applied to communication channels. Therefore, it would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Greene with the above teachings of Chatterjee. Doing so would allow for building software maintenance tools so that they contribute to efficient problem solving and enrich existing knowledge-bases and community knowledge (Chatterjee Section 7 Summary and Future Work “Understanding the quality of the information in those chats is essential for building software maintenance tools so that they contribute to efficient problem solving and enrich existing knowledge-bases and community knowledge.”).
Further, Ehsan teaches …automatically adding, based at least in part on identifying the one or more actions by the communication service and using data from the first external data platform, the one or more users associated with the segment of code to the set of participants of the channel (Ehsan Table 3 “D3: So, my app is getting a “http error 500” server error. [one or more users associated with the segment of code]”; Section 3.4 Identifying threads “Tracking the involved developers: Our approach starts by checking if any of the following messages mention the developer D1 of the initial message M1.Table 5 shows an illustrative example of our approach. In the message M3, the developer D1 is mentioned. So, we added the developer D3 [adding a user associated with a segment of code to a channel] to the Involvement Group (IG) [channel], which contains all the developers participating in the current thread. Next, our approach identifies any message that is posted by the developers of the IG or if other developer mentions any developer from the IG (e.g., adding the message M4 to the thread T1).” Ehsan provided automatically developers to the involvement group based on segments of code and identified errors. )
Greene, Chatterjee, and Ehsan are both considered to be analogous to the claimed invention because they are in the same field of artificial intelligence and more specifically applied to communication channels. Therefore, it would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Greene in view of Chatterjee with the above teachings of Ehsan. Doing so would allow for developers to improve the quality of their code (Ehsan Section 1 Introduction “Developers use chatrooms to ask general inquiries, discuss new features in a certain project, or ask for advice to improve the quality of their code”)
Regarding claim 3, Greene in view of Chatterjee in further view of Ehsan teaches further comprising: triggering, by the communication service, display of the user interface component at the communication platform, wherein the user interface component includes an indication of the one or more actions and an indication of the data of the first external data platform (Greene [0072] “Group-based users are organized into organization groups (e.g., employees of each company may be a separate organization group) and each organization group may have one or more group-based communication channels (explained below) to which users may be assigned or which the users may join (e.g., group-based communication channels may represent departments, geographic locations such as offices, product lines, user interests, topics, issues, and/or the like). A group identifier may be used to facilitate access control for a message (e.g., access to the message, such as having the message return as part of search results in response to a search query, may be restricted to those users having the group identifier associated with their user profile)”; [0136] “Group-based communication system 105 supports many external applications and clients (such as Google Docs, GitHub, etc.) and group-based communication server 106 may retrieve actions the user of a client device has taken with respect to those external applications and clients by analyzing application log files or other app activity data (i.e., user application interaction indicators.)”; [0203] “FIG. 8 represents an exemplary group-based communication interface 800 displayed on a client device.” Greene provides displaying a user interface such as the one shown in Figure 8, which includes a plurality of interactive components including channels which users can be added to through interaction including data from the external data platforms.); and receiving, at the communication service, input comprising selection of the one or more actions, the data, or both at the user interface component, wherein execution of the one or more actions are triggered based at least in part on receiving the input comprising the selection (Greene [0070] “As used herein, “request” refers to an instruction or direction, generally initiated by a user, via a client device, for an action to taken by a group-based communication server. For instance, a user may request, via a client device, to view a specific group-based communication channel (e.g., selected channel view request), create a channel (e.g., channel request), view a selected channel (e.g., selected channel view request), view a summary of channels the user follows (e.g., channel summary view request), view profile data of another user, view certain message communication information, share a select channel communication message from a channel to the selected group-based communication channel from which the channel was created (e.g., share request), receive notifications regarding a channel (e.g., follow request), notify a selected member of a channel communication message (e.g., follow request), etc.” Greene provides user requests for selecting channels/groups, corresponding to receiving, at the communication service, input comprising selection of the action, the data, or both at the user interface component, wherein execution of the action is triggered based at least in part on receiving the input comprising the selection.).
It would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Greene in view of Chatterjee in further view of Ehsan for the same reasons disclosed above in the rejection of claim 1.
Regarding claim 4, Greene in view of Chatterjee in further view of Ehsan teaches further comprising: generating, by the communication service, a set of content items based at least in part on the data from the first external data platform (Greene [0136] “Group-based communication system 105 supports many external applications and clients (such as Google Docs, GitHub, etc.) and group-based communication server 106 may retrieve actions the user of a client device has taken with respect to those external applications and clients by analyzing application log files or other app activity data (i.e., user application interaction indicators.)”; [0194] “Each time Mary James access a Google Drive® file, via group-based communication system 105, a client device, indicates this action (e.g., as an access event log, etc.) to group-based communication server 106. Group-based communication server 106 may then store, in the user's profile, a user application interaction indicator that indicates Mary James access history for a particular file stored in Google Drive® or, more generally, for the Google Drive® service itself.” Greene provides generating user profile information based on data from an external platform such as GitHub corresponding to generating, by the communication service, a set of content items based at least in part on the data from the first external data platform.); and triggering display of the set of content items at the user interface component (Greene [0064] “A “direct messaging pane” is a display pane configured to display a list of user identifiers associated with users who have sent (via respective client devices) direct messages to a client device associated with a user. The direct messaging pane may also indicate when new direct messages are received.” Greene provides display panes including user identifiers which include corresponding profile information corresponding to triggering display of the set of content items at the user interface component.).
It would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Greene in view of Chatterjee in further view of Ehsan for the same reasons disclosed above in the rejection of claim 3.
Regarding claim 5, Greene in view of Chatterjee in further view of Ehsan teaches wherein the set of content items comprises one or more of a document, a user profile, a work item, or a uniform resource locator associated with the first external data platform (Greene [0194] “Each time Mary James access a Google Drive® file, via group-based communication system 105, a client device, indicates this action (e.g., as an access event log, etc.) to group-based communication server 106. Group-based communication server 106 may then store, in the user's profile, a user application interaction indicator that indicates Mary James access history for a particular file stored in Google Drive® or, more generally, for the Google Drive® service itself.” Greene provides content items such as a user profile information corresponding to a user profile.).
It would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Greene in view of Chatterjee in further view of Ehsan for the same reasons disclosed above in the rejection of claim 4.
Regarding claim 7, Greene in view of Chatterjee in further view of Ehsan teaches wherein the user interface component comprises a sidebar with the set of interactive components, an input into the channel of the communication platform, or both (Greene [0203] “FIG. 8 represents an exemplary group-based communication interface 800 displayed on a client device. Group-based communication interface 800 includes priority pane 802, last actions pane 806, missed pane 812, user information pane 815, channel list pane 816, and direct messages pane 817. It should be noted that the renderable priority object, the renderable last actions object, and the renderable missed object may all include a plurality of messages, lists, indications, etc. These messages will be ranked according to their corresponding scores. Client device 101C may then determine how many of these messages, lists, indications, etc., to display to the group-based communications interface within each respective pane based on the various display orders”; [0212] “Channels list pane 816 is an interface environment that is configured to display group-based communication channels actuators (i.e., links) that correspond to the group-based communication channels a user is a member of. This information may be transmitted to the client device by group-based communication server 106. Group-based communication server 106 may query user profile data to determine one or more associated group-based communication channel identifiers and return to the client device corresponding links to memory locations of the group-based communication channels. Each shown group-based communication channel is an actuator that when selected will act as link to their respective group-based communication channel.” Greene provides a client GUI for users/clients to interact with comprising a sidebar with interactive components such as the plurality of channels 816 shown in figure 8, which may be interacted with by a user through an actuator that when selected will act as a link to their respective group-based communication channel.).
It would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Greene in view of Chatterjee in further view of Ehsan for the same reasons disclosed above in the rejection of claim 3.
Regarding claim 9, Greene in view of Chatterjee in further view of Ehsan teaches further comprising: performing, by the one or more machine learning models, a natural language processing analysis on one or more of the plurality of inputs (Greene [0087] “For example, hashtags in the message communication may indicate topics associated with the message communication. In another example, the message communication may be analyzed (e.g., by itself, with other message communications in a conversation primitive) or parsed using a machine learning technique, such as topic modeling, to determine topics associated with the message communication.” Greene provides parsing messages using machine learning, corresponding to performing, by the one or more machine learning models, a natural language processing analysis on one or more of the plurality of inputs.), wherein identifying the one or more actions are based at least in part on performing the natural language processing analysis (Greene [0072] “Group-based users are organized into organization groups (e.g., employees of each company may be a separate organization group) and each organization group may have one or more group-based communication channels (explained below) to which users may be assigned or which the users may join (e.g., group-based communication channels may represent departments, geographic locations such as offices, product lines, user interests, topics, issues, and/or the like).”; [0087] “For example, hashtags in the message communication may indicate topics associated with the message communication. In another example, the message communication may be analyzed (e.g., by itself, with other message communications in a conversation primitive) or parsed using a machine learning technique, such as topic modeling, to determine topics associated with the message communication.”; [0091] “In one implementation, the message communication may be parsed (e.g., using PHP commands) to determine third party metadata. For example, third party metadata may indicate whether the user who sent the message communication is an authorized representative of the group-based communication channel (e.g., an authorized representative may be authorized by the company to respond to questions in the group-based communication channel.)” Greene provides adding users to channel comprising parsing user messages with machine learning, wherein the parsing includes extracting information from third part (external) applications including user group representatives, corresponding to wherein identifying the action is based at least in part on performing the natural language processing analysis.).
It would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Greene in view of Chatterjee in further view of Ehsan for the same reasons disclosed above in the rejection of claim 1.
Regarding claim 10, Greene in view of Chatterjee in further view of Ehsan teaches further comprising: identifying, by the communication service and based at least in part on performing the natural language processing analysis, a communication context associated with the channel (Greene [0087] “For example, hashtags in the message communication may indicate topics associated with the message communication. In another example, the message communication may be analyzed (e.g., by itself, with other message communications in a conversation primitive) or parsed using a machine learning technique, such as topic modeling, to determine topics associated with the message communication.” Greene provides analyzing user messages with machine learning to determine topics associated with messages, corresponding to identifying, by the communication service and based at least in part on performing the natural language processing analysis, a communication context associated with the channel.); and querying, by the communication service, the one or more external data platforms based at least in part on the communication context (Greene [0087] “For example, hashtags in the message communication may indicate topics associated with the message communication. In another example, the message communication may be analyzed (e.g., by itself, with other message communications in a conversation primitive) or parsed using a machine learning technique, such as topic modeling, to determine topics associated with the message communication.”; [0136] “In some embodiments, group-based communication server 106 may query group-based communication repository 107 and/or a memory associated with client device 101C to determine or otherwise identify one more one or more recently accessed files associated with the group-based communication system 105. Group-based communication system 105 supports many external applications and clients (such as Google Docs, GitHub, etc.) and group-based communication server 106 may retrieve actions the user of a client device has taken with respect to those external applications and clients by analyzing application log files or other app activity data (i.e., user application interaction indicators.)” Greene provides querying external platforms including determining topics from messages corresponding to communication contexts.).
It would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Greene in view of Chatterjee in further view of Ehsan for the same reasons disclosed above in the rejection of claim 9.
Regarding claim 11, Greene in view of Chatterjee in further view of Ehsan teaches further comprising: receiving, by the communication service and in response to querying the one or more external data platforms, the data from the first external data platform (Greene [0136] “In some embodiments, group-based communication server 106 may query group-based communication repository 107 and/or a memory associated with client device 101C to determine or otherwise identify one more one or more recently accessed files associated with the group-based communication system 105. Group-based communication system 105 supports many external applications and clients (such as Google Docs, GitHub, etc.) and group-based communication server 106 may retrieve actions the user of a client device has taken with respect to those external applications and clients by analyzing application log files or other app activity data (i.e., user application interaction indicators.)” Greene provides querying external data platforms such as GitHub and receiving external data, corresponding to receiving, by the communication service and in response to querying the one or more external data platforms, the data from the first external data platform.); identifying, by the communication service, the set of actions based at least in part on receiving the data from the first external data platform (Greene [0072] “Group-based users are organized into organization groups (e.g., employees of each company may be a separate organization group) and each organization group may have one or more group-based communication channels (explained below) to which users may be assigned or which the users may join (e.g., group-based communication channels may represent departments, geographic locations such as offices, product lines, user interests, topics, issues, and/or the like). A group identifier may be used to facilitate access control for a message (e.g., access to the message, such as having the message return as part of search results in response to a search query, may be restricted to those users having the group identifier associated with their user profile)”; [0136] “Group-based communication system 105 supports many external applications and clients (such as Google Docs, GitHub, etc.) and group-based communication server 106 may retrieve actions the user of a client device has taken with respect to those external applications and clients by analyzing application log files or other app activity data (i.e., user application interaction indicators.)” Greene provides adding user to channels based on data from external data platforms, corresponding to identifying, by the communication service, the set of actions based at least in part on receiving the data from the first external data platform); and selecting, by the communication service, the one or more actions from the identified set of actions based at least in part on the data from the first external data platform and the communication context associated with the channel (Greene [0072] “Group-based users are organized into organization groups (e.g., employees of each company may be a separate organization group) and each organization group may have one or more group-based communication channels (explained below) to which users may be assigned or which the users may join (e.g., group-based communication channels may represent departments, geographic locations such as offices, product lines, user interests, topics, issues, and/or the like). A group identifier may be used to facilitate access control for a message (e.g., access to the message, such as having the message return as part of search results in response to a search query, may be restricted to those users having the group identifier associated with their user profile)”; [0087] “In another example, the message communication may be analyzed (e.g., by itself, with other message communications in a conversation primitive) or parsed using a machine learning technique, such as topic modeling, to determine topics associated with the message communication.”; [0136] “Group-based communication system 105 supports many external applications and clients (such as Google Docs, GitHub, etc.) and group-based communication server 106 may retrieve actions the user of a client device has taken with respect to those external applications and clients by analyzing application log files or other app activity data (i.e., user application interaction indicators.)” Greene provides adding user to channels based on data from external data platforms including parsing user messages to determine topics associated with messages, corresponding to selecting, by the communication service, the action from the identified set of actions based at least in part on the data from the first external data platform and the communication context associated with the channel.).
It would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Greene in view of Chatterjee in further view of Ehsan for the same reasons disclosed above in the rejection of claim 10.
Regarding claim 12, Greene in view of Chatterjee in further view of Ehsan teaches wherein each of the one or more external data platforms is associated with a different set of preconfigured actions for the communication platform (Greene [0136] “In some embodiments, group-based communication server 106 may query group-based communication repository 107 and/or a memory associated with client device 101C to determine or otherwise identify one more one or more recently accessed files associated with the group-based communication system 105. Group-based communication system 105 supports many external applications and clients (such as Google Docs, GitHub, etc.) and group-based communication server 106 may retrieve actions the user of a client device has taken with respect to those external applications and clients by analyzing application log files or other app activity data (i.e., user application interaction indicators.)” Greene provides different external data platforms such as Google Docs, GitHub, etc., corresponding to each of the one or more external data platforms is associated with a different set of preconfigured actions for the communication platform.).
It would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Greene in view of Chatterjee in further view of Ehsan for the same reasons disclosed above in the rejection of claim 1.
Regarding claim 13, Greene in view of Chatterjee in further view of Ehsan teaches wherein the plurality of inputs comprises a set of messages, temporal data associated with the set of messages, a set of data attributes associated with the set of participants to the channel, configuration data associated with the channel, or a combination thereof (Greene [0029] “This disclosure describes a system for determining relevant direct messages and message communications within a group-based communication system.” Greene provides messages as the plurality of inputs.).
It would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Greene in view of Chatterjee in further view of Ehsan for the same reasons disclosed above in the rejection of claim 1.
Regarding claim 14, it is the apparatus for data processing embodiment of claim 1 with similar limitations to claim 1 and is rejected using the same reasoning found above in the rejection of claim 1. Further Greene teaches a processor (Greene [0095] “The group-based communication server 106 may be embodied by one or more computing systems, such as apparatus 200 shown in FIG. 2. The apparatus 200 may include a processor 202…”); memory coupled with the processor (Greene [0095] “The group-based communication server 106 may be embodied by one or more computing systems, such as apparatus 200 shown in FIG. 2. The apparatus 200 may include a processor 202, a memory 201…”); and instructions stored in the memory and executable by the processor (Greene [0099] “In an example embodiment, the processor 202 may be configured to execute instructions stored in the memory 201 or otherwise accessible to the processor.”).
It would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Greene in view of Chatterjee in further view of Ehsan for the same reasons disclosed above in the rejection of claim 1.
Regarding claim 16, the rejection of claim 14 is incorporated herein. Further, the limitations in this claim are taught by Greene in view of Chatterjee in further view of Ehsan for the same reasons disclosed above in the rejection of claim 3.
Regarding claim 17, the rejection of claim 16 is incorporated herein. Further, the limitations in this claim are taught by Greene in view of Chatterjee in further view of Ehsan for the same reasons disclosed above in the rejection of claim 4.
Regarding claim 18, the rejection of claim 17 is incorporated herein. Further, the limitations in this claim are taught by Greene in view of Chatterjee in further view of Ehsan for the same reasons disclosed above in the rejection of claim 5.
Regarding claim 20, it is the non-transitory computer-readable medium storing code for data processing embodiment of claim 1 with similar limitations to claim 1 and is rejected using the same reasoning found above in the rejection of claim 1. Further, Greene teaches a non-transitory computer-readable medium storing code for data processing (Greene [0097] “The memory 201 may be non-transitory and may include, for example, one or more volatile and/or non-volatile memories.”), the code comprising instructions executable by a processor (Greene [0099] “In an example embodiment, the processor 202 may be configured to execute instructions stored in the memory 201 or otherwise accessible to the processor.”).
It would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Greene in view of Chatterjee in further view of Ehsan for the same reasons disclosed above in the rejection of claim 1.
Regarding claim 21, Greene in view of Chatterjee in further view of Ehsan teaches wherein the one or more users are associated with the segment of code based at least in part on the one or more users being contributors to the segment of code according to a datastore of the first external data platform (Greene [0136] “Group-based communication system 105 supports many external applications and clients (such as Google Docs, GitHub, etc.) and group-based communication server 106 may retrieve actions the user of a client device has taken with respect to those external applications and clients by analyzing application log files or other app activity data (i.e., user application interaction indicators.)” Greene provides users associated with GitHub, which is external to the communication platform, corresponding to the one or more users are associated with the segment of code based at least in part on the one or more users being contributors to the segment of code according to a datastore of the first external data platform).
It would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Greene in view of Chatterjee in further view of Ehsan for the same reasons disclosed above in the rejection of claim 1.
Claims 6 and 19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Greene et al. (U.S. Patent Publication No. 2019/0200177) (“Greene”) in view of Chatterjee (Automatically Identifying the Quality of Developer Chats for Post Hoc Use) (“Chatterjee”) in further view of Ehsan et al. (An Empirical Study of Developer Discussions in the Gitter Platform) (“Ehsan”) in further view of Ferrick et al. (U.S. Patent Publication No. 2019/0222544) (“Ferrick”).
Regarding claim 6, Greene in view of Chatterjee in further view of Ehsan teaches the method of claim 3 as discussed above in the rejection of claim 3, but fails to teach wherein receiving the indication of the selection of the action comprises: updating, by the communication service, the one or more machine learning models based at least in part on the received input.
However, Ferrick teaches wherein receiving the indication of the selection of the action comprises: updating, by the communication service, the one or more machine learning models based at least in part on the received input (Ferrick [0079] “In another embodiment, the triggering event registry 206 may be updated programmatically using machine learning techniques, such as by using a trigger identification computational learning model that is trained using historical user interaction data associated with one or more group-based communication interfaces. One example triggering event registry comprises user interaction data, external application information such as external application ID, external application address, application dialog requests associated with the user interaction data, user profile data associated with the user interaction data, other indicators generated based on the aforementioned data, and the like”; [0112] “In some examples, the training engine 702 is configured to access or otherwise ingest historical triggering event identification data from historical triggering event identification database 715 to train the triggering event identification model 710 via supervised or unsupervised computational learning.” Ferrick provides training machine learning models based on received historical triggering event data, which may also correspond to external applications, corresponding to updating, by the communication service, the one or more machine learning models based at least in part on the received input.).
Greene, Chatterjee, Ehsan and Ferrick are all considered to be analogous to the claimed invention because they are in the same field of artificial intelligence and more specifically applied to communication channels. Therefore, it would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Greene in view of Chatterjee and Ehsan with the above teachings of Ferrick. Doing so would allow for training a model to output a label, a characterization, or the like (Ferrick [0080] “Given a trained computation learning model, the system is configured to ingest or otherwise access historical triggering event identification data related to a current triggering event identification. Given said historical triggering event identification data, the example systems and methods are configured to output a label, a characterization, or the like.”).
Regarding claim 19, the rejection of claim 16 is incorporated herein. Further, the limitations in this claim are taught by Greene in view of Chatterjee in further view of Ehsan and Ferrick for the same reasons disclosed above in the rejection of claim 6.
Response to Arguments
Regarding the rejection applied under 35 U.S.C. 112 of claims 2 and 15, Applicant’s cancellation of claims 2 and 15 overcomes the rejection.
Regarding the rejection applied under 35 U.S.C. 102, Applicant’s arguments with respect to claims have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument.
Regarding the rejection applied under 35 U.S.C. 101, Applicant firstly asserts that the claims are patent eligible because the claims do not recite an abstract idea, but even assuming so, recite features that integrate any alleged abstract ideas into a practical application, such as an improvement in the technologies of software testing and real-time information sharing for a group communications platform (“Remarks”, Page 12-14).
However, as discussed above in the 35 U.S.C. 101 rejection of claim 1 above, amended independent claim 1 recites a plurality of abstract ideas, including “identify … one or more actions associated with the first external data platform of the one or more external data platforms” and “automatically add … the one or more users associated with the segment of code to the set of participants of the channel”, which correspond to mental processes. Therefore, even assuming the claims did recite an improvement, it would be in the abstract ideas. The MPEP notes that it is important to keep in mind that an improvement in the abstract idea itself is not an improvement in technology. MPEP 2106.05(a)(II). Therefore, even if the claims did recite an improvement, it would be an improvement in the abstract idea of identifying actions and adding users to a set of participants. Therefore, the claims remain rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101.
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 nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) 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 mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to KURT NICHOLAS PRESSLY whose telephone number is (703)756-4639. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8-4.
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, Kamran Afshar can be reached at (571) 272-7796. 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.
/KURT NICHOLAS PRESSLY/Examiner, Art Unit 2125
/KAMRAN AFSHAR/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2125
Prosecution Insights