Response to Amendment
The amendment filed on June 29, 2026 has been entered. Claims 1-2, 9, 11, 19-22 have been amended, and claims 6, 16 have been canceled. Claims 1-5, 7-15, 17-22 are currently pending in the application.
Response to Arguments
35 U.S.C 103
Applicant’s arguments filed with respect to the rejection(s) of claims 1-5, 7-15, 17-22 under U.S.C 103 have been fully considered and are persuasive. Therefore, the rejection has been withdrawn. However upon further consideration and in light of Applicant’s amendments, new grounds of rejection are made in view of Fukuda (U.S Pub # 20190065505).
35 U.S.C 101
Applicant’s arguments filed with respect to the rejection(s) of claims 1-5, 7-15, 17-22 under U.S.C 101 have been fully considered and are persuasive. Therefore, the rejection has been withdrawn.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
Claims 1-3, 9-10, 11-13, 19-22 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yamauchi (U.S Pub # 20170123630) in view of Fukuda (U.S Pub # 20190065505) and in further view of Keen (U.S Pub # 20200106876).
With regards to claim 1, Yamauchi discloses a method comprising:
determining, by a computing system and based at least in part on communications exchanged via one or more applications, a first keyword ([0036] keyword input by user);
determining, by the computing system, that at least a first file includes content corresponding to the first keyword, the first file being stored in a storage medium and accessible by a first client device ([0037] search for file with the keyword inputted by the user); and
causing, by the computing system, a user interface, at a first client device, to present at least a first user interface element indicative of the first file and displaying the matching value, the first user interface element being selectable to enable retrieval of the first file from a storage medium ([0089] search results are displayed and user can instruct display of contents of the file. [009]0 display number of files including the search keyword if it is larger than or equal to a first threshold value).
Yamauchi does not disclose however Fukuda discloses:
determining, by a computing system and based at least in part on communications exchanged via one or more software as a service (SaaS) applications ([0106] SaaS);
generating a first vector representation of the first keyword ([0094] generate context vector per keyword appearance);
determining, by the computing system and based on comparing the first vector representation to a plurality of different vector representations, that a second vector representation of one or more second keywords in a first file is associated with the first vector representation, the first keyword and the one or more second keywords being different, and the first vector representation and the second vector representation being different (compute the vector similarity per context per keyword instance); and
determining a matching value based on a similarity of the first vector representation and the second vector representation ([0045] pick result with the highest similarity value);
causing, by the computing system, a user interface, at the first client device, to present at least a first user interface element indicative of the first file (Fig. 3 # 104 [0038] present to the user those above a threshold and the score to the user).
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the date the current invention was effectively filed to have modified the system of Yamauchi by Fukuda to determine similarity values based on textual analysis.
One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this modification in order to re-rank results according to a similarity value (Fukuda [0008]).
Keen discloses:
at least a first keyword indicative of a first subject matter and associated with one or more potential recipients ([0018] determine topic of message and recipients);
storing, based at least in part on the matching value exceeding a threshold, the one or more potential recipients as metadata for the first file ([0066-0067] identify a threshold for number of messages that include both the selected recipient and the determined topic. If there are more messages with the selected recipient than the threshold, the recipient is considered and assigned an important recipient);
and the one or more potential recipients (Fig. 3a [0079] display content and “important recipients”).
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the date the current invention was effectively filed to have modified the system of Yamauchi and Fukuda by Keen to analyze intended recipients of a message.
One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this modification in order to identify a plurality of recipients of an email message (Keen [0004]).
Claims 11 and 20 correspond to claim 1 and are rejected accordingly.
With regards to claim 2, Yamauchi does not disclose however Keen discloses:
wherein the storing the one or more potential recipients as metadata comprises storing indication of associations between the one or more potential recipients and the one or more second keywords ([0064] after assigning a recipient role, extract metadata including keywords associated with a topic of the collected messages. [0065] Email narration program 200 determines a list of recipients associated with the topic of the collected message).
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the date the current invention was effectively filed to have modified the system of Yamauchi and Fukuda by Keen to analyze intended recipients of a message.
One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this modification in order to identify a plurality of recipients of an email message (Keen [0004]).
Claim 12 corresponds to claim 2 and is rejected accordingly.
With regards to claim 3, Yamauchi further discloses:
causing, by the computing system and based at least in part on determining the first keyword, the user interface to present a second user interface element indicative of the first keyword, the second user interface element being selectable to enable viewing of files related to the first subject matter ([0089] file icons and file names that may be selected).
Claim 13 corresponds to claim 3 and is rejected accordingly.
With regards to claim 9, Yamauchi does not disclose however Fukuda discloses:
the one or more second keywords comprise a plurality of words, and wherein the plurality of words do not comprise the first keyword (Fukuda [0092] keywords A,B,C).
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the date the current invention was effectively filed to have modified the system of Yamauchi by Fukuda to determine similarity values based on textual analysis.
One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this modification in order to re-rank results according to a similarity value (Fukuda [0008]).
Claim 19 corresponds to claim 9 and is rejected accordingly.
With regards to claim 10, Yamauchi further discloses:
wherein the computing system is configured to provide a remote access application at the first client device so as to enable access to the one or more applications hosted at one or more remote computing systems ([0126] client can server for files stored in an external electronic device such as a cloud server).
With regards to claim 21, Yamauchi does not disclose however Fukuda discloses:
wherein the matching value is based on the cosine similarity of first vector representation and the second vector representation ([0042] cosine similarity).
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the date the current invention was effectively filed to have modified the system of Yamauchi by Fukuda to determine similarity values based on textual analysis.
One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this modification in order to re-rank results according to a similarity value (Fukuda [0008]).
Claim 22 corresponds to claim 21 and is rejected accordingly.
Claims 4-5, 7, 14-15, 17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yamauchi (U.S Pub # 20170123630) in view of Fukuda (U.S Pub # 20190065505) and in further view of Keen (U.S Pub # 20200106876) and Prado (U.S Pub # 20080228479).
With regards to claim 4, Yamauchi does not disclose however Prado discloses:
receiving, by the computing system, an input from the client device indicating that the first file is to be shared ([0048] selects the files he wishes to send); and
causing, by the computing system, the first file to be shared with a second client device associated with the one or more potential recipients ([0048] choose the recipient of files to be sent to).
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the date the current invention was effectively filed to have modified the system of Yamauchi, Fukuda and Keen by the system of Prado to share files with a designated recipient.
One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this modification in order to transfer data files to another party by way of electronic mail or facsimile (Prado [0012]).
Claim 14 corresponds to claim 4 and is rejected accordingly.
With regards to claim 5, Yamauchi does not disclose however Prado discloses:
receiving, by the computing system from at least one other computing system, interaction data for a time period, the at least one other computing system configured to provide remote access to the one or more applications at the first client device, the interaction data including at least one of: email content, messaging content and project content ([0048] email); and
processing, by the computing system, the interaction data to determine the first keyword ([0040] files relevant to a keyword).
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the date the current invention was effectively filed to have modified the system of Yamauchi, Fukuda and Keen by the system of Prado to share files with a designated recipient.
One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this modification in order to transfer data files to another party by way of electronic mail or facsimile (Prado [0012]).
Claim 15 corresponds to claim 5 and is rejected accordingly.
With regards to claim 7, Yamauchi does not disclose however Prado discloses:
identifying, by the computing system, a plurality of files, stored in the storage medium, that a user operating the first client device is authorized to access using a file sharing service provided by the computing system ([0045] authorized users that can review files); and
determining, by the computing system and based at least in part on contents of the plurality of files, that the first file, from the plurality of files, includes content corresponding to the first keyword ([0040] files relevant to a keyword).
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the date the current invention was effectively filed to have modified the system of Yamauchi, Fukuda and Keen by the system of Prado to share files with a designated recipient.
One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this modification in order to transfer data files to another party by way of electronic mail or facsimile (Prado [0012]).
Claim 17 corresponds to claim 7 and is rejected accordingly.
Claims 8 and 18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yamauchi (U.S Pub # 20170123630) in view of Fukuda (U.S Pub # 20190065505) and in further view of Keen (U.S Pub # 20200106876) and Brand (U.S Pub # 20170147600).
With regards to claim 8, Yamauchi does not disclose however Brand discloses:
receiving, by the computing system, an input from the first client device, the input indicating a second file, different than the first file, is to be shared ([0032] sharing files);
determining, by the computing system, that contents of the second file does not correspond to the first keyword ([0032] evaluate the topic or keywords of the attachments based on the textual content of the files); and
causing, by the computing system and based at least in part on contents of the second file not corresponding to the first keyword, the user interface to present a notification that the second file is not related to the first subject matter ([0032] collaboration policy may require warning the sender to check and reconsider whether they are indeed sharing the files with the intended recipient).
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the date the current invention was effectively filed to have modified the system of Yamauchi, Fukuda and Keen by the system of Brand to warn users before sharing files.
One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this modification in order to securely share files from a cloud storage (Brand [0009]).
Claim 18 corresponds to claim 8 and is rejected accordingly.
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 TONY WU whose telephone number is (571)272-2033. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday (9-5).
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, Sanjiv Shah can be reached at (571) 272-4098. 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.
/TONY WU/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2166
Prosecution Insights