DETAILED ACTION
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
Examiner Notes
(1) In the case of amending the Claimed invention, Applicant is respectfully requested to indicate the portion(s) of the specification which dictate(s) the structure relied on for proper interpretation and also to verify and ascertain the metes and bounds of the claimed invention. This will assist in expediting compact prosecution. MPEP 714.02 recites: “Applicant should also specifically point out the support for any amendments made to the disclosure. See MPEP § 2163.06. An amendment which does not comply with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.121 (b), (c), (d), and (h) may be held not fully responsive. See MPEP § 714.” Amendments not pointing to specific support in the disclosure may be deemed as not complying with provisions of 37 C.F.R. 1.131 (b), (c), (d), and (h) and therefore held not fully responsive. Generic statements such as "Applicants believe no new matter has been introduced" may be deemed insufficient.
(2) Examiner cites particular columns, paragraphs, figures and line numbers in the references as applied to the claims below for the convenience of the applicant. Although the specified citations are representative of the teachings in the art and are applied to the specific limitations within the individual claim, other passages and figures may apply as well. It is respectfully requested that, in preparing responses, the applicant fully consider the references in their entirety as potentially teaching all or part of the claimed invention, as well as the context of the passage as taught by the prior art or disclosed by the Examiner.
Remarks
Receipt of Applicant’s Amendment file on 10/01/2025 is acknowledged.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claims 1 and 8 have been considered but are moot in view of the new ground(s) of rejection (See new reference of Wright; analysis is provided below).
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 of this title, 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, 4, 6-8, 11, 13-14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Stoitsev et al. (U.S. Pub. No. 2009/0037912 A1) in view of Mackintosh et al. (U.S. Patent No. 10,235,459 B1), further in view of Wright et al. (U.S. Pub. No. 2012/0191804 A1).
Regarding claim 1, Stoitsev et al. (U.S. Pub. No. 2009/0037912 A1) teaches a computer-implemented method, comprising:
receiving a first board load request from a client device to render a board on a client issue tracking application running on a web browser (paragraph [0057], when a task model is requested from the client, such as when the client wants to view a globally managed in a displayed task model and double clicks on a task tree node; also see paragraph [0071], the client application checks if 404 an entry for the specified task exists in the local task model cache; if a local link is found, such as a local file path to or memory address of a task description document stored on the client, the task content is retrieved; also see paragraph [0057],local task model cache link a unique model root task identifier of the retrieved task model; any subsequent demands to view the retrieved globally managed task will result in delivering the local copy); the first board load request comprising: a board identifier of a requested board, the board identifier corresponding to an issue tracking board comprising a set of task objects (also see paragraph [0037], task structures comply with the above described processing and globally accessible through their task ID; also see paragraph [0071], the client application checks if 404 an entry for the specified task exists in the local task model cache; if a local link is found, such as a local file path to or memory address of a task description document stored on the client, the task content is retrieved; also see paragraph [0057],local task model cache link a unique model root task identifier of the retrieved task model; any subsequent demands to view the retrieved globally managed task will result in delivering the local copy);
identifying, by a server, a particular cache record from a set of cache records stored in the server, wherein the particular cache record was generated prior to the first board load request in response to board load request that was requested by particular user prior to the first board load request (paragraph [0071], the client application checks if 404 an entry for the specified task exists in the local task model cache; if a local link is found, such as a local file path to or memory address of a task description document stored on the client, the task content is retrieved; also see paragraph [0057],local task model cache link a unique model root task identifier of the retrieved task model; any subsequent demands to view the retrieved globally managed task will result in delivering the local copy; noted, “any subsequent demands to view the retrieved globally managed task will result in delivering the local copy”, which is an indication that the there is a request for the cache item for the user prior to the subsequent demand [first board load request], which reads on as claimed);
upon determining that the particular cache record for the requested board is present in the set of cache records at the server, receiving the particular cache record from the set of cache records (paragraph [0071], the client application checks if 404 an entry for the specified task exists in the local task model cache; if a local link is found, such as a local file path to or memory address of a task description document stored on the client, the task content is retrieved; also see paragraph [0057],local task model cache link a unique model root task identifier of the retrieved task model; any subsequent demands to view the retrieved globally managed task will result in delivering the local copy), the particular cache record comprising identifiers of a set of objects present in the board (paragraph [0057], when a task model is requested from the client, such as when the client wants to view a globally managed in a displayed task model and double clicks on a task tree node; local task model cache link a unique model root task identifier of the retrieved task model; any subsequent demands to view the retrieved globally managed task will result in delivering the local copy).
Stoitsev does not explicitly disclose: a user identifier for a particular user, wherein: the particular cache record corresponds to the user identifier; the particular cache record comprises cached data corresponding to a first subset of task objects from the set of task objects of the issue tracking board that were determined to satisfy at least view permissions with respect to the particular user, the cached data excluding a second subset of task objects from the set of task objects that were determined to not satisfy the at least view permissions with respect to the particular user.
Mackintosh teaches: a user identifier for a particular user (Fig. 2, col. 23, line 39-55, a user identification associated with the user may be identifier; the user identification specifies the identity of a user of the computing device may be utilized to determined access information when the content processing system provide such information for storage in the personal cache), wherein: the particular cache record corresponds to the user identifier (Fig. 2, col. 23, line 39-55, a user identification associated with the user may be identifier; the user identification specifies the identity of a user of the computing device may be utilized to determined access information when the content processing system provide such information for storage in the personal cache); the particular cache record comprises cached data corresponding to a first subset of task objects from the set of task objects of the issue tracking board that were determined to satisfy at least view permissions with respect to the particular user, the cached data excluding a second subset of task objects from the set of task objects that were determined to not satisfy the at least view permissions with respect to the particular user (Fig. 2, col. 23, line 39-55, a user identification associated with the user may be identifier; the user identification specifies the identity of a user of the computing device may be utilized to determined access information when the content processing system provide such information for storage in the personal cache; also see col. 24, line 25-40, access to the stored information in the entry of the personal cache of the user is restricted…; only those entries in personal cache and/or personal index that are associated with access information that is determined to match the user identification may be accessed; noted, “only those entries in personal cache and/or personal index that are associated with access information that is determined to match the user identification may be accessed” which interpreted as “a first subset of task objects from the set of task objects of the issue tracking board that were determined to satisfy at least view permissions with respect to the particular user, the cached data excluding a second subset of task objects from the set of task objects that were determined to not satisfy the at least view permissions with respect to the particular user”).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in art before the effective filing date of the claim invention to include a user identifier for a particular user, wherein: the particular cache record corresponds to the user identifier; the particular cache record comprises cached data corresponding to a first subset of task objects from the set of task objects of the issue tracking board that were determined to satisfy at least view permissions with respect to the particular user, the cached data excluding a second subset of task objects from the set of task objects that were determined to not satisfy the at least view permissions with respect to the particular user into task management of Stoitsev.
Motivation to do so would be to include a user identifier for a particular user, wherein: the particular cache record corresponds to the user identifier; the particular cache record comprises cached data corresponding to a first subset of task objects from the set of task objects of the issue tracking board that were determined to satisfy at least view permissions with respect to the particular user, the cached data excluding a second subset of task objects from the set of task objects that were determined to not satisfy the at least view permissions with respect to the particular user, preventing viewing of the entry by non-authorized users and preventing searching of the entry by non-authorized users (Mackintosh, col. 2, line 55-59).
Stoitsev as modified by Mackintosh do not explicitly disclose:
the particular cache record comprising a list of object identifiers of a set of objects corresponding to the first subset of task objects present in the board; based on the list of object identifiers, retrieving, from the set of cache records at the server, object data from the first subset of task objects.
Wright teaches: the particular cache record comprising a list of object identifiers of a set of objects corresponding to the first subset of task objects present in the board (Fig. 4, paragraph [0040]-[0041], the cache controller performs a cache lookup in cache using the static content element identifier; the cache lookup is, for example, comparing the current static content element identifier to a table of static content element identifiers and their corresponding content elements; also see paragraph [0043], the cache lookup table is used during the cache lookup to determine whether a request content element is present in the cache, noted “the cache table” is interpreted as “a list of object identifiers of a set of objects corresponding to the first subset of task objects present in the board”); based on the list of object identifiers, retrieving, from the set of cache records at the server, object data from the first subset of task objects (Fig. 4, paragraph [0040]-[0041], teaches the cache controller performs a cache lookup in cache using the static content element identifier; the cache lookup is, for example, comparing the current static content element identifier to a table of static content element identifiers and their corresponding content elements; the cache controller receives a cache response indicate whether or not a cached item has been found for the requested content element, if the response is positive, i.e., the requested content had been cached previously, the request can be fulfilled from the cache and the requested content element is sent from the cache to the user device; also see paragraph [0042]).
Stoitsev as modified by Mackintosh and Wright further teach:
hydrating the particular cache record based on the retrieved object data (Stoitsev, paragraph [0071], the client application checks if 404 an entry for the specified task exists in the local task model cache; if a local link is found, such as a local file path to or memory address of a task description document stored on the client, the task content is retrieved; also see paragraph [0057], local task model cache link a unique model root task identifier of the retrieved task model; any subsequent demands to view the retrieved globally managed task will result in delivering the local copy; noted, as the data object is identified in the cache in regards to demands to view the task, the local copy of managed task in cache will be delivered, while Wright, Fig. 4, paragraph [0040]-[0041], teaches the cache controller performs a cache lookup in cache using the static content element identifier; the cache lookup is, for example, comparing the current static content element identifier to a table of static content element identifiers and their corresponding content elements; the cache controller receives a cache response indicate whether or not a cached item has been found for the requested content element, if the response is positive, i.e., the requested content had been cached previously, the request can be fulfilled from the cache and the requested content element is sent from the cache to the user device; also see paragraph [0042], which reads on as claimed);
and communicating the hydrated particular cache record to the client device for rendering the requested board including the first subset of the task objects in the client issue tracking application of the client device (Stoitsev, paragraph [0071], the client application checks if 404 an entry for the specified task exists in the local task model cache; if a local link is found, such as a local file path to or memory address of a task description document stored on the client, the task content is retrieved; also see paragraph [0057], local task model cache link a unique model root task identifier of the retrieved task model; any subsequent demands to view the retrieved globally managed task will result in delivering the local copy; noted, “delivering the local copy” imply communicating the cache data to the client device, while Wright, Fig. 4, paragraph [0040]-[0041], teaches the cache controller performs a cache lookup in cache using the static content element identifier; the cache lookup is, for example, comparing the current static content element identifier to a table of static content element identifiers and their corresponding content elements; the cache controller receives a cache response indicate whether or not a cached item has been found for the requested content element, if the response is positive, i.e., the requested content had been cached previously, the request can be fulfilled from the cache and the requested content element is sent from the cache to the user device; also see paragraph [0042]).
Regarding claim 4, Stoitsev as modified by Mackintosh and Wright teach all claimed limitations as set forth in rejection of claim 1, further teach wherein the board load request is a first board load request, the set of cache records is a first set of cache records, the board identifier is a first board identifier (Stoitsev, paragraph [0071], the client application checks if 404 an entry for the specified task exists in the local task model cache; if a local link is found, such as a local file path to or memory address of a task description document stored on the client, the task content is retrieved; also see paragraph [0057], local task model cache link a unique model root task identifier of the retrieved task model; any subsequent demands to view the retrieved globally managed task will result in delivering the local copy), and further comprising: receiving a second board load request from the client device to render a second board in the web browser running on the client device, the second board load request comprising a board identifier of a second requested board (Stoitsev, paragraph [0057], when a task model is requested from the client, such as when the client wants to view a globally managed in a displayed task model and double clicks on a task tree node); the board load request comprising: a board identifier of a requested board, the board identifier corresponding to an issue tracking board comprising a set of task objects (Stoitsev, paragraph [0037], task structures comply with the above described processing and globally accessible through their task ID; also see paragraph [0071], the client application checks if 404 an entry for the specified task exists in the local task model cache; if a local link is found, such as a local file path to or memory address of a task description document stored on the client, the task content is retrieved; also see paragraph [0057],local task model cache link a unique model root task identifier of the retrieved task model; any subsequent demands to view the retrieved globally managed task will result in delivering the local copy); upon determining that the set of cache records does not include a cache record for the second requested board, generating and communicating a data request to a main data store, the data request comprising the board identifier (Stoitsev, paragraph [0057], when a task model is requested from the client, such as when the client wants to view a globally managed in a displayed task model and double clicks on a task tree node; also see paragraph [0037], task structures comply with the above described processing and globally accessible through their task ID; also see paragraph [0071], the client application checks if 404 an entry for the specified task exists in the local task model cache; if a local link is found, such as a local file path to or memory address of a task description document stored on the client, the task content is retrieved; if no task entry is found in the local task model cache, a task query request is created based on unique task identifier, such as a task ID; the request is then sent to the server; also see paragraph [0072], the server parses the request data and retrieves the task data from the task repository, while Wright, Fig. 4, paragraph [0040]-[0041], teaches the cache controller performs a cache lookup in cache using the static content element identifier; the cache lookup is, for example, comparing the current static content element identifier to a table of static content element identifiers and their corresponding content elements; the cache controller receives a cache response indicate whether or not a cached item has been found for the requested content element, if the response is positive, i.e., the requested content had been cached previously, the request can be fulfilled from the cache and the requested content element is sent from the cache to the user device; also see paragraph [0042], if the response for the ache lookup in step 306 and 308 is negative, the content element is downloaded from the content provider); receiving board scope data from the main data store, the board scope data comprising identifiers of one or more objects present in the second board (Stoitsev, paragraph [0071], the client application checks if 404 an entry for the specified task exists in the local task model cache; if a local link is found, such as a local file path to or memory address of a task description document stored on the client, the task content is retrieved; if no task entry is found in the local task model cache, a task query request is created based on unique task identifier, such as a task ID; the request is then sent to the server; also see paragraph [0072], the server parses the request data and retrieves the task data from the task repository the generated task model is returned as response data, while Wright, Fig. 4, paragraph [0040]-[0041], teaches the cache controller performs a cache lookup in cache using the static content element identifier; the cache lookup is, for example, comparing the current static content element identifier to a table of static content element identifiers and their corresponding content elements; the cache controller receives a cache response indicate whether or not a cached item has been found for the requested content element, if the response is positive, i.e., the requested content had been cached previously, the request can be fulfilled from the cache and the requested content element is sent from the cache to the user device; also see paragraph [0042], if the response for the ache lookup in step 306 and 308 is negative, the content element is downloaded from the content provider).
Regarding claim 6, Stoitsev as modified by Mackintosh and Wright teach all claimed limitations as set forth in rejection of claim 1, further teach wherein the set of cache records further comprise one or more user identifiers of users that are associated to the one or more objects present in the board (Mackintosh, Fig. 2, col. 23, line 39-55, the user identification specifies the identity of a user of the computing device may be utilized to determined access information when the content processing system provide such information for storage in the personal cache; also see col. 24, line 25-40, access to the stored information in the entry of the personal cache of the user is restricted…; only those entries in personal cache and/or personal index that are associated with access information that is determined to match the user identification may be accessed).
Regarding claim 7, Stoitsev as modified by Mackintosh and Wright teach all claimed limitations as set forth in rejection of claim 6, further teach retrieving user data for the one or more user identifiers that are assigned to the set of objects present in the board (Mackintosh, Fig. 2, col. 23, line 39-55, a user identification associated with the user may be identifier; the user identification specifies the identity of a user of the computing device may be utilized to determined access information when the content processing system provide such information for storage in the personal cache; also see col. 24, line 25-40, access to the stored information in the entry of the personal cache of the user is restricted…; only those entries in personal cache and/or personal index that are associated with access information that is determined to match the user identification may be accessed); and hydrating the set of cache records based on the retrieved user data (Mackintosh, Fig. 2, col. 23, line 39-55, a user identification associated with the user may be identifier; the user identification specifies the identity of a user of the computing device may be utilized to determined access information when the content processing system provide such information for storage in the personal cache; also see col. 24, line 25-40, access to the stored information in the entry of the personal cache of the user is restricted…; only those entries in personal cache and/or personal index that are associated with access information that is determined to match the user identification may be accessed; in combination with the teaching of Stoitsev, paragraph [0071], teaches the client application checks if 404 an entry for the specified task exists in the local task model cache; if a local link is found, such as a local file path to or memory address of a task description document stored on the client, the task content is retrieved; also see paragraph [0057], local task model cache link a unique model root task identifier of the retrieved task model; any subsequent demands to view the retrieved globally managed task will result in delivering the local copy; noted, as the data object is identified in the cache in regards to demands to view the task, the local copy of managed task in cache will be delivered; it reads on as claimed).
As per claim 8, this claim is rejected on grounds corresponding to the same rationales given above for rejected claim 1 and is similarly rejected.
As per claims 11, 13-14, these claims are rejected on grounds corresponding to the same rationales given above for rejected claims 4, 6-7 respectively and are similarly rejected.
Claims 5 and 12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Stoitsev et al. (U.S. Pub. No. 2009/0037912 A1) in view of Mackintosh et al. (U.S. Patent No. 10,235,459 B1) and Wright et al. (U.S. Pub. No. 2012/0191804 A1), further in view of Brintle (U.S. Pub. No. 20070282658 A1) and Vishnumurty et al. (Korean Publication Number KR 10-1213923B1).
Regarding claim 5, Stoitsev as modified by Mackintosh and Wright teach all claimed limitations as set forth in rejection of claim 4, but do not explicitly disclose: wherein the board scope data comprises user identifiers of one or more user assigned to the one or more objects present in the board.
Bristle teaches: wherein the board scope data comprises user identifiers of one or more user assigned to the one or more objects present in the board (Brintle, Figs. 3 and 8 illustrates the assigned tasks data for user A).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in art before the effective filing date of the claim invention to include wherein the board scope data comprises user identifiers of one or more user assigned to the one or more objects present in the board into task management of Brintle.
Motivation to do so would be to include wherein the board scope data comprises user identifiers of one or more user assigned to the one or more objects present in the board to overcome issue such as a user may not be able to specify which tasks to share with others, but may only have the option of sharing all tasks with others, and then have to manually select those tasks which the user would like to maintain as private (Brintle, col. 1, line 35-39).
Stoitsev as modified by Mackintosh, Wright and Brintle do not explicitly disclose: storing the user identifiers of one or more user assigned to the one or more object present in the board in the second board cache record.
Vishnumurty teaches: storing the user identifiers of one or more user assigned to the one or more object present in the board in the second board cache record (page 9, paragraph [6], project server/database the returns the rows for project P1 and the rows for tasks T1, T2 and T3 as new rows to the client; when the client receives this data, the cache manager adds to the cache and records that it has a project P1 with version stamp 1 in its cache for user2).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in art before the effective filing date of the claim invention to include storing the user identifiers of one or more user assigned to the one or more object present in the board in the second board cache record into task management of Brintle.
Motivation to do so would be to include storing the user identifiers in the second board cache record to allow a user to create and/or edit project data without having to be connected to a project server/database (Vishnumurty, page 4, 7th paragraph).
As per claim 12, this claim is rejected on grounds corresponding to the same rationales given above for rejected claim 5 and is similarly rejected.
Claims 15-18 and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Stoitsev et al. (U.S. Pub. No. 2009/0037912 A1) in view of Mackintosh et al. (U.S. Patent No. 10,235,459 B1) and Wright et al. (U.S. Pub. No. 2012/0191804 A1), further in view of Vishnumurty et al. (Korean Publication Number KR 10-1213923B1).
Regarding claim 15, Stoitsev as modified by Mackintosh and Wright teach all claimed limitations as set forth in rejection of claim 8, but do not explicitly disclose: receiving a board event, the board event indicating an update to particular cache record; and deleting the particular cache record.
Vishnumurty teaches: receiving a board event, the board event indicating an update to particular cache record (Vishnumurty, page 9, page 10, 1st paragraph, assuming that user2 decide to delete job T2; the cache manager records that it has version “2” of project P1 in its cache for user 2); and deleting the particular cache record (page 9, assuming that user2 decide to delete job T2; if user decides to save and confirm in the project, the cache manger put task T2 in the delete bucket; the change are made).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in art before the effective filing date of the claim invention to include a receiving a board event, the board event indicating an update to particular cache record; and deleting the particular cache record into task management of Stoitsev.
Motivation to do so would be to include receiving a board event, the board event indicating an update to particular cache record; and deleting the particular cache record to allow a user to create and/or edit project data without having to be connected to a project server/database (Vishnumurty, page 4, 7th paragraph).
Regarding claim 16, Brintle as modified by Mackintosh and Wright teach all claimed limitations as set forth in rejection of claim 8, but do not explicitly disclose: receiving a board event, the board event indicating an update to the set of cache records; and updating the set of cache records based on the board event.
Vishnumurty teaches: receiving a board event, the board event indicating an update to the set of cache records (Vishnumurty, page 9, page 10, 1st paragraph, assuming that user2 decide to change the duration of job T3 to 4 days; if user decides to save and confirm in the project, the cache manger put task T2 in the update data bucket; the cache manager records that it has version “2” of project P1 in its cache for user 2); and updating the set of cache records based on the board event (page 9, assuming that user2 decide to change the duration of job T3 to 4 days; if user decides to save and confirm in the project, the cache manger put task T2 in the update data bucket; the change are made).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in art before the effective filing date of the claim invention to include receiving a board event, the board event indicating an update to the set of cache records; and updating the set of cache records based on the board event into task management of Stoitsev.
Motivation to do so would be to include receiving a board event, the board event indicating an update to the set of cache records; and updating the set of cache records based on the board event to allow a user to create and/or edit project data without having to be connected to a project server/database (Vishnumurty, page 4, 7th paragraph)
Regarding claim 17, Stoitsev as modified by Mackintosh, Wright and Vishnumurty teach all claimed limitations as set forth in rejection of claim 16, further teach determining whether the update to the set of cache records includes an update that affects identifiers of the set of objects present in the board or the one or more user identifiers of the users that are assigned to the set of objects present in the board; and updating the set of cache records upon determining that the update to the set of cache records includes the update that affects the identifiers of the set of objects present in the board or the one or more user identifiers of the users that are assigned to the set of objects present in the board (Vishnumurty, page 9, page 10, 1st paragraph, assuming that user2 decide to delete job T2; assuming that user2 decide to change the duration of job T3 to 4 days; if user decides to save and confirm in the project, the cache manger put task T2 in the update data bucket; the change are made; the cache manager records that it has version “2” of project P1 in its cache for user 2).
Regarding claim 18, Stoitsev as modified by Mackintosh, Wright and Vishnumurty teach all claimed limitations as set forth in rejection of claim 17, further teach wherein the update affects identifiers of the set of objects present in the board if the update adds a new object or deletes an existing object in the board (Vishnumurty, page 9, page 10, 1st paragraph, assuming that user2 decide to delete job T2; the cache manager records that it has version “2” of project P1 in its cache for user 2; if user decides to save and confirm in the project, the cache manger put task T2 in the delete bucket; the change are made).
Regarding claim 20, Stoitsev as modified by Mackintosh, Wright and Vishnumurty teach all claimed limitations as set forth in rejection of claim 15, further teach: determining whether the board event relates to any of the set of cache records (Vishnumurty, page 9, page 10, 1st paragraph, assuming that user2 decide to delete job T2; the cache manager records that it has version “2” of project P1 in its cache for user 2); in response to determining that the board event relates to at least one cache records of the set of cache records, deleting the at least one cache record (Vishnumurty, page 9, assuming that user2 decide to delete job T2; if user decides to save and confirm in the project, the cache manger put task T2 in the delete bucket; the change are made).
Claim 19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Stoitsev et al. (U.S. Pub. No. 2009/0037912 A1) in view of Mackintosh et al. (U.S. Patent No. 10,235,459 B1), Wright et al. (U.S. Pub. No. 2012/0191804 A1), and Vishnumurty et al. (Korean Publication Number KR 10-1213923B1), further in view of Newhouse et al. (U.S. Pub. No. 20180189734 A1).
Regarding claim 19, Stoitsev as modified by Mackintosh, Wright and Vishnumurty teach all claimed limitations as set forth in rejection of claim 17, but do not explicitly disclose wherein the update affects the one or more user identifiers if the update changes an assignee associated with an object of the set of objects present in the board.
Newhouse teaches: wherein the update affects the one or more user identifiers if the update changes an assignee associated with an object of the set of objects present in the board (Newhouse, paragraph [0150]-[0051], [0060], [0077], [0080], a user with access rights assigned by the content management system may access, view, and/or makes changes to the collaborative content item; permission can specify whether a project member can add/or assign task; add or assign project roles; determining candidate project items for the identified project; the candidate project items include all the project items (e.g., content items, task, etc.) managed by the content management system; permission can specify whether a project member can add/or assign task; if the role is reassigned to a different user, the (task, target user) association can be automatically updated, such as by updating an explicit mapping between the new user and the task or through the updated project owner role mapping; also see paragraph [0082]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in art before the effective filing date of the claim invention to include wherein the update affects the one or more user identifiers if the update changes an assignee associated with an object of the set of objects present in the board into cache management of Stoitsev.
Motivation to do so would be to include wherein the update affects the one or more user identifiers if the update changes an assignee associated with an object of the set of objects present in the board to provide access to many different types of content items that may be stored in many different locations while simultaneously providing information about the users associated with a project and what actions these users have performed in relation to project items (Newhouse, paragraph [0005]).
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 KEN HOANG whose telephone number is (571)272-8401. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 7:30am-5:00pm.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Charles Rones can be reached at (571)272-4085. 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.
/KEN HOANG/Examiner, Art Unit 2168
/ANHTAI V TRAN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2168