DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Status of Claims
This Office action is in response to correspondence received December 22, 2025.
Claims 1, 13, 16, 18, 19, 22, 26, and 27 are amended. Claims 1, 9-16, and 18-27 are pending and have been examined.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112:
The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor of carrying out his invention.
Claims 1, 9-16, and 18-27 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention.
Applicant recites the following new matter in claims 1, 26, and 27:
and automatically updating the project workspace with the dynamic data elements and presenting the project workspace enabling the user to work focused on the project workspace
This limitation follows:
periodically scanning a database and other resources to find dynamic data elements that can be associated with the project. There is support for this limitation in par 053:
Periodically start a scan of the database and the data elements available in the computer and other resources to find other relevant data elements that can be associated with this project. This is done by algorithmically matching the identifying features of the data elements to the identifying elements of the project. In certain embodiments, this process may be fully automatic, and in others it might prompt the user for input on whether the association is correct or not. In other embodiments, the process can involve algorithms like Machine Learning that give a confidence score of such potential matches, and the system may take the confidence in account to make an automated match vs prompting the user for input for lower confidence cases.
There is no support in par 053 or elsewhere in the original disclosure for and automatically updating the project workspace with the dynamic data elements and presenting the project workspace enabling the user to work focused on the project workspace. Note that support for both and automatically updating the project workspace with the dynamic data elements and presenting the project workspace enabling the user to work focused on the project workspace must be shown.
Claim 26:
an autonomous association engine for associating the information elements with the project workspace, wherein the information elements comprise keywords, expressions, contacts, document types, dates, times of events, and links
the autonomous association engine for periodically scanning a database and other resources to find dynamic data elements that can be associated with the project
There is no support for the autonomous association engine performing these steps in the original disclosure. Autonomous association engine is mentioned once in par 041, but not performing these specific steps.
Claims 9-16 and 18-25 are rejected for being dependent on claims 1, 26, and 27.
Therefore, claims 1, 9-16, and 18-27 are rejected under 35 USC 112.
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, 9-16, and 18-27 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more. Claim(s) 1, 26, and 27, which are similar in scope, recite:
A method comprising: generating a project workspace by incorporating data elements, wherein the data elements comprise at least one of email conversations, productivity files, collaborator contacts, files, folders, URLs in browser tabs, meeting information, collaboration chat messages, and messages directed to specific individuals or groups that are pertinent to a project in which a user is working on; processing the data elements to parse a content, and a context of the data elements; identifying information elements that are pertinent to the project from the data elements based on the content, and the context of the data elements; associating the information elements with the project workspace, wherein the information elements comprise keywords, expressions, contacts, document types, dates, times of events, and links; storing relevant data about the project comprising at least one of relationships between the project workspace and the data elements, associations with a master project and artifacts, the information elements from the data elements, ownership and permissions, a timeline of changes, and configuration data defining application inclusions within the project workspace; [presenting] the project workspace , [presenting] only the data elements associated with the project; periodically scanning a [data store] and other resources to find dynamic data elements that can be associated with the project; and automatically updating the project workspace with the dynamic data elements and presenting the project workspace enabling the user to work focused on the project workspace.
The abstract idea is a certain method of organizing human activity – managing personal behavior or relationships or interactions between people. The limitations here identify data elements including metadata which is data about data (file name, date saved) and create project spaces by linking different data elements together, and then presenting the results. This is similar to filtering content; considering historical usage information while inputting data; or storing user-selected pre-set limits on spending in a database, and when one of the limits is reached, communicating a notification to the user via a device. MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(II)(C). Alternatively the steps are those of a mental process as each step is an observation (gathering data) or judgment (linking or otherwise evaluating data), then presenting the results which could be done with pen and paper. MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(III). Dynamic data elements merely describes data elements that change (dynamic versus static) and this is a part of the abstract idea because dynamic data elements are identified in many abstract ideas. See MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(II)(C), offer-based price optimization, OIP Techs., Inc. v. Amazon.com, Inc., 788 F.3d 1359, 1362–63, 115 USPQ2d 1090, 1092-93 (Fed. Cir. 2015) (changing prices, changing offers, dynamic); Interval Licensing LLC, v. AOL, Inc., 896 F.3d 1335, 127 USPQ2d 1553 (an attention manager for acquiring content from an information source, controlling the timing of the display of acquired content, displaying the content, and acquiring an updated version of the previously-acquired content when the information source updates its content). The algorithm recited in claims 26 and 27 (“an algorithm for processing the data elements to parse a content…”) is high level and therefore is taught by a series of steps, which is a part of the abstract idea. Therefore, for these reasons the independent claims recite an abstract idea.
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. The additional elements listed below are apply it elements because they are high level ordinary computer elements that when combined amount to instructions to apply the abstract idea to a computer. See MPEP 2106.05(f)(2). Therefore, as they are apply it elements the combination or any element alone does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application.
Claim 1 recites:
executing a computer application on an operating system, wherein the computer application is configured for
a database
rendering a user interface through a display module by modifying a graphical user interface (GUI) of the operating system, and displaying within a browser within the computer application, or using a combination thereof; displaying
Claim 26 recites similar elements to claim 1 plus:
A system comprising: a computer application that is configured for
Claim 27 recites similar elements to claim 26 plus:
A non-transitory computer readable storage medium for storing a sequence of instructions which when executed by a processor causes
executing a computer application on an operating system, wherein the computer application is configured for
The claim(s) does/do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because for the same reason that the elements do not alone or in combination integrate the abstract idea into a practical application, they also do not recite significantly more than the abstract idea. Instructions to apply the abstract idea to a computer are not significantly more than the abstract idea.
Per the dependent claims:
Per claim 9, executing a computer application is a further apply it limitation analyzed the same as the ordinary computer elements above.
Per claim 10, the enabling limitation simply recites what a user can do with the ordinary computer elements and this is therefore a further apply it limitation.
Per claim 11, a limitation depicting a search bar that enables an act is a further apply it limitation, an ordinary computer element.
Per claim 12, the enablement of a user to configure is claiming that configuration is possible in a software app which is an apply it element
Per claim 13, reciting notifications that can be configured is like claim 12 claiming that configuration is possible, that a software app can be applied and therefore is an apply it element.
Per claim 14, claiming functional components that is part of an operating system is reciting that a software app is being used, a further apply it element.
Per claim 15, further recitations about enablement in something akin to a word processor or program similar to OneNote is a further apply it element.
Per claim 16, the software prompting for confirmation and reevaluation which is merely doing a claimed step again is a further apply it element.
Per claim 18, further limits the abstract idea with scanning steps in other words making connections between data, a part of the abstract idea.
Per claim 19, depicting time based relationships is simply showing analysis or results which is a part of the abstract idea, could be done with pen and paper, like writing a timeline.
Per claim 20, similar to claim 19 is simply showing the results, which is a part of the abstract idea.
Per claim 21, associating workspaces is a part of the abstract idea where under a broadest reasonable interpretation the workspaces are the projects identified in the abstract idea. Alternatively the workspaces are applied software elements with no detail and only their desired outcome or result. See MPEP 2106.05(f)(1).
Per claim 22, identifying “identifying” elements is a part of the abstract idea.
Per claim 23, monitoring and synchronizing based on inheritance is simply connecting data together which is a part of the abstract idea. (collecting, comparing, presenting the result – Electric Power Group).
Per claim 24, enabling someone to remove relationships is a further abstract idea element because it is stating that the user can change the relationships between information and data.
Per claim 25, creating a shareable template is an apply it limitation of using a software output that can be copy pasted.
Therefore, claims 1, 9-16, and 18-27 are rejected under 35 USC 101.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claim(s) 1, 9-16, 18 and 25-27 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Zionpour et al., US PGPUB 20220222431 A1 (“Zionpour”).
Per claims 1, 26, and 27, which are similar in scope, Zionpour teaches A method comprising: executing a computer application on an operating system, wherein the computer application is configured for generating a project workspace by incorporating data elements, wherein the data elements comprise at least one of email conversations, productivity files, collaborator contacts, files, folders, URLs in browser tabs, meeting information, collaboration chat messages, and messages directed to specific individuals or groups that are pertinent to a project in which a user is working on in Fig 6, pars 068-069.
Then, Zionpour teaches processing the data elements to parse a content, and a context of the data elements in par 118: "Pulling data may include accessing data, copying data, associating a timestamp with data, crawling data, downloading data, parsing data (e.g., transforming data from one data format to another), condensing data (e.g., through data compression or selective extraction of data elements, such as according to a condition parameter for an electronic rule), or any action that makes data suitable for use in performing a conditional instruction. Data may include text (e.g., displayed on a web page), HTML, text (which may or may not be displayed on a web page), metadata, a graphic, an image, an animation, a video, audio information, a data structure (e.g., a data structure define in HTML code), API code, application code (e.g., a method defined in code), or any other material that may be represented in a digital format. An internet web page may include a document, file, application, dataset (e.g., combination of data, discussed above), any other information displayable within a web browser, or any combination thereof. For example, an internet web page may include a hypertext document, which may be provided by a web site and/or displayable within a web browser. Inserting the data into the electronic word processing document may include adding text, metadata, a graphic, an image, an animation, a video, audio information, a data structure (e.g., a block), any other digital information, or any combination thereof, to the electronic word processing document (e.g., within the content data represented and/or displayed by the electronic word processing document) such that the data is stored or otherwise associated with the electronic word processing document. Inserting the data into the electronic word processing document may include performing an operation represented by an instruction to edit the information contained in the electronic word processing document, consistent with disclosed embodiments. In some embodiments, editing the electronic word processing document may involve adding information to the electronic word processing document that is associated with a condition of an electronic rule. For example, a condition of an electronic rule may be a condition that text information on a web page has changed in some manner (e.g., a flight time) and the changed text information and/or associated information may be added to the word processing document. As another example, a condition of an electronic rule may be a condition that a user account identifier has been added to a list, and the user account identifier may be added to the word processing document (e.g., as in-document text)." Pulling teaches parsing. Accessing data teaches parsing content where data is further explained along with metadata.
See also par 0120: “Consistent with some disclosed embodiments, the at least one processor may be configured to detect an external network-based occurrence. Detecting the external network-based occurrence may include requesting information (continuously or periodically) from a remote data source (e.g., through an API), accessing a web page, accessing a document, parsing data (e.g., information on a web page, HTML text, document text), receiving an alert (e.g., from an event listener), or otherwise determining information associated with a condition of an electronic rule. For example, the at least one processor may parse HTML, text of a web page for keywords or other data pertaining to a condition for an electronic rule. In some embodiments, the at least one process may compare HTML text to a version of the HTML text associated with an earlier point in time, to determine if a change corresponding to an electronic rule condition has occurred. Additionally or alternatively, an event listener may cause transmission of an indication of the external network-based occurrence to the at least one processor. Additionally or alternatively, an event API, which may be configured to communicate with one or more APIs, for example a third-party API and an API associated with editing electronic word processing documents.”
See also par 0147: “Consistent with some disclosed embodiments, a URL-based rule may be configured to select an internet located data based on context. Context may include at least one of a time of day, geographical area, history of actions (e.g., times and/or types of data changes, possibly associated with a URL or web page), web page layout, data structure, data structure configuration, data format, file, filetype, data type (e.g., text, an image, a video, a link, an advertisement banner), content (e.g., information conveyed by text, such as an identifier of a person, group, place, or object), entity associated with information (e.g., an ultimate and/or intermediate source of information, such as a URL, company, web page identifier, web site identifier, service identifier, application identifier, type of web browser), user accessing data, device accessing data, electronic rule parameter (e.g., URL-based rule parameter), any other information relevant to a selection of internet located data, or any combination thereof.” Here context content and metadata (URL, identifier, user accessing data) is taught.
See also par 043: “Some non-limiting examples of such machine learning algorithms may include classification algorithms, data regressions algorithms, image segmentation algorithms, visual detection algorithms (such as object detectors, face detectors, person detectors, motion detectors, edge detectors, etc.), visual recognition algorithms (such as face recognition, person recognition, object recognition, etc.), speech recognition algorithms, mathematical embedding algorithms, natural language processing algorithms,” which teaches that a natural language processing algorithm is used. See also pars 0148-0149.
Then, Zionpour teaches identifying information elements that are pertinent to the project from the data elements based on the content, and the context of the data elements in par 124: "For example, the particular block may be associated with (e.g., may include metadata relating to) at least one account identifier, device identifier, network identifier, group identifier, user identifier, or other information delineating at least one criterion, which, when satisfied, causes access to information within the particular block (e.g., an instance of the electronic non-word processing application). " A device identifier is metadata and is pertinent to the project as it would belong to someone that could be in the project.
See also par 0147: “As another example, at least one processor may determine that a portion of a web page displaying an image is irrelevant to a URL-based rule having a conditional instruction to source text from a web page, and may exclude the image from possible selection. Additionally or alternatively, at least one processor may determine (e.g., by parsing data according to a URL-based rule) an identifier that satisfies a parameter of a URL-based rule, such as an identifier of an individual (e.g., a name); an identifier of an activity (e.g., a flight number, tracking number, receipt number, project name, service name), a location identifier (zip code, physical address, latitude-longitude coordinates), an identifier of a physical object (e.g., a product identification number, a vehicle identifier), or an identifier of an intangible object (e.g., stock ticker symbol, HTML element).”
See also par 043: “Some non-limiting examples of such machine learning algorithms may include classification algorithms, data regressions algorithms, image segmentation algorithms, visual detection algorithms (such as object detectors, face detectors, person detectors, motion detectors, edge detectors, etc.), visual recognition algorithms (such as face recognition, person recognition, object recognition, etc.), speech recognition algorithms, mathematical embedding algorithms, natural language processing algorithms,” which teaches that a natural language processing algorithm is used. See also pars 0148-0149.
Then, Zionpour teaches associating the information elements with the project workspace, wherein the information elements comprise keywords, expressions, contacts, document types, dates, times of events, and links in par 124: "Possessing permission for access to the particular block may include being associated with a permission through a data structure (e.g., a permission table), having a user account associated with a permission value (e.g., a Boolean value that activates or deactivates a permission), or otherwise being associated with a value that enables an action with respect to a block. For example, only a user account (or other entity) possessing permission for access to the particular block may be permitted to view a change made to the block based on an electronic rule, consistent with disclosed embodiments. As another example, only a device (or other entity) possessing permission for access to the particular block may be permitted to add a condition (or other electronic rule parameter) to an electronic rule associated with the particular block." User account is a contact. The processing permission for access to an electronic rule is an autonomous association engine as this engine is only described by its functional result and here it operates autonomously as an electronic rule.
See also par 0146: “For example, information about a structure of data may include an identification of a portion of a web page (e.g., a first half of a web page, an upper left quadrant of a web page), an HTML element identifier (e.g., an HTML <body> indicator), a column identifier (e.g., a third column), a row identifier (e.g., a fourth row), a container name, or an identification of a portion of a web site (e.g., a group of web pages, a portion of a site map). Data at an address associated with the URL in the URL-based rule may include at least one text segment (e.g., displayed at a web page), dynamic display element (e.g., indicating a current time, sensor reading, location of a movable object (e.g., an object in transit), stock price, predicted (e.g., machine predicted) value, video, image, file, graphic, chart, graph, or any data derived from a source external to the electronic word processing document stored in a repository identifiable by a locating indicator (e.g., an address), discussed above. For example, a web address may be associated with a URL, which may direct a web browser (or other application) to a web page that displays or otherwise provides access to data.” A container name is a keyword. Link also taught.
See also par 0103: “Additionally or alternatively, a cloud-stored file may be stored at a repository located remotely. In some embodiments, cloud-stored files may be indexed according to a file identifier, document identifier, permission identifier, account identifier, user identifier, group identifier, network identifier, project identifier, date of creation, date of last edit, or combination thereof.” Dates teach dates.
Then, Zionpour teaches storing relevant data about the project comprising at least one of relationships between the project workspace and the data elements, associations with a master project and artifacts, the information elements from the data elements, ownership and permissions, a timeline of changes, and configuration data defining application inclusions within the project workspace in par 122: " one or more blocks and/or one or more non-block instances of data, which may include unstructured data (e.g., raw text). One or more of the blocks may have at least one separately adjustable permission setting. A separately adjustable permission setting may be set with respect to one block independent from (e.g., without influencing) a separately adjustable permission setting for another block. For example, a permission setting may include a parameter that may control the ability of a user, user account, device, system, or combination thereof to access a block, view a block, use a function associated with a block, edit a block, delete a block, move a block, re-size a block, influence a block, or perform any other operation relative to a block. Permission settings for a particular block in a document may be independent from the permission settings for other blocks located in the same document. For example, a first block may have restrictive permission settings that enable only the author of the document to edit the first block while a second block may have public permission settings that enable any user to edit the second block. " Notification settings par 0129: “Moreover, the embedded object may continue to reflect live information even if the electronic word processing document is scrolled, even in moments where the embedded object is not displayed. Automatic data insertion through objects embedded within an electronic word processing document may enhance the content of the electronic word processing document by presenting external and/or dynamic information through visual displays not previously integrated with electronic word processing documents. In some embodiments, using automatic data insertion through embedded objects may increase the efficiency and operations of workflow management functionality.” See also par 0119 where alert teaches notification: “For example, a conditional instruction may be an instruction to create a file, delete a file, change a permission, generate an alert (e.g., a pop-up window interface at a display), transmit an alert, create an email message, send an email message, change computer code (e.g., HTML, code), convert a file to a different file type, or any other instruction to alter data associated with an electronic word processing document or application associated with an electronic word processing document. For example, when an electronic word processing document is edited, an alert may be transmitted to one or more devices. As another example, when a particular block within an electronic word processing document is edited, information associated with the block (e.g., content displayed by the block) may be sent one or more devices (e.g., devices associated with user's having a permission associated with the electronic word processing document.” Conditional instructions are stored as taught in par 0171-0213 (see all stored on computer readable media).
Then, Zionpour rendering a user interface through a display module by modifying a graphical user interface (GUI) of the operating system, and displaying the project workspace within a browser, within the computer application, or using a combination thereof in Fig 14. See for dynamic presenting par 057: “For example, a communication interface may include a chat window, chat service, email application, and/or a live dynamic visualization configurable by multiple devices and/or user accounts. A graphics presentation editor may include a visualization configuration utility program, one or more input areas configurable to receive commands to change a visualization, or any other tool configurable to change displayed visualizations, such as images, graphics, videos, colors, shapes, charts, graphs, widgets, or any other displayable indicator.” See also par 060. See also par 064.
Then, Zionpour teaches displaying only the data elements associated with the project in par 67: " In some embodiments, when the electronic non-word processing application is embedded with a particular block, access to the electronic non-word processing application may be restricted to entities possessing permission for access to the particular block. Restricting access to entities possessing permission for access to a particular block may include performing a lookup of authorized entities in a repository with respect to the particular block and enabling the authorized entities to view and/or interact with the information contained in the particular block. In response to determining that an entity lacks authorization to access the particular block, the system may omit display of information in the particular block from the unauthorized entity or otherwise prevent the unauthorized entity from interacting with the information in the particular block. For example, the particular block may be associated with (e.g., may include metadata relating to) at least one account identifier, device identifier, network identifier, group identifier, user identifier, or other information delineating at least one criterion, which, when satisfied, causes access to information within the particular block (e.g., an instance of the electronic non-word processing application)." The block allows only certain information such as an instance of the processing application to be shown.
Zionpour further teaches periodically scanning a database and other resources for changes to the data elements and re-organize the project workspace to align with the changes in par 153: "Retrieving internet located data may include accessing data, copying data, associating a timestamp with data, crawling data, downloading data, parsing data (e.g., transforming data from one data format to another), condensing data (e.g., through data compression or selective extraction of data elements, such as according to a condition parameter for an electronic rule), or any action that makes data suitable for use in performing a conditional instruction. Executing the URL-based rule to retrieve internet located data may include carrying out the underling logical rule of the URL-based rule to carry out the action of accessing and transmitting internet located data for at least one processor to further manipulate or store in a repository. Executing the URL-based rule may be carried out manually (e.g., initiated by a user) or may be carried out automatically in response to a condition meeting a threshold, such as a detection of an update or at a defined time interval as discussed above. Internet located data may include at least one of text (e.g., displayed on a web page), HTML, text (which may or may not be displayed on a web page, and which may be contained in HTML source code), metadata, a graphic, an image, an animation, a video, audio information, an email, a data structure (e.g., a data structure define in HTML code), API code, application code (e.g., a method defined in code), any other material that may be represented in a digital format, or any combination thereof retrieved from a repository accessible on the internet. Internet located data may be displayed at and/or accessible from (e.g., through parsing HTML source code) a web page." Defined time interval teaches periodic.
Data structure is defined as a database in par 064: “For example, a data structure may include an XML database, an RDBMS database, an SQL database or NoSQL alternatives for data storage/search such as, for example, MongoDB, Redis, Couchbase, Datastax Enterprise Graph, Elastic Search, Splunk, Solr, Cassandra, Amazon DynamoDB, Scylla, HBase, and Neo4J. A data structure may be a component of the disclosed system or a remote computing component (e.g., a cloud-based data structure). Data in the data structure may be stored in contiguous or non-contiguous memory. Moreover, a data structure, as used herein, does not require information to be co-located. It may be distributed across multiple servers, for example, that may be owned or operated by the same or different entities. Thus, the term “data structure” as used herein in the singular is inclusive of plural data structures.”
Zionpour then teaches and automatically updating the project workspace with the dynamic data elements and presenting the project workspace enabling the user to work focused on the project workspace in par 0153: “For example, at least one processor may locate internet data using at least one identifier associated with an in-line object. For instance, an in-line object may display and/or be associated with (e.g., through metadata, a data structure, or other underlying data representation, which may be linked to an in-line object) at least one identifier, such as a URL, a physical object identification number, a device identifier, a tracking number, a location identifier (e.g., a zip code, a street address, etc.), an individual identifier, or any other data value that may indicate, at least in part, a source of information for an in-line object, which the at least one processor may use to locate internet data. By way of example, an in-line object may be associated with metadata including a tracking number for a physical object in transit, and the at least one processor may the tracking number to determine a source of information (e.g., a web page) associated with information to insert into the electronic word processing document (e.g., within the in-line object, at a location of the in-line object, or overlaying the in-line object.”
Per claim 9, Zionpour teaches the limitations of claim 1, above. Zionpour further teaches wherein the method further comprises executing the computer application as one of a local application and a cloud-based service accessible in par 103: "A cloud-stored file may include a file stored at a storage medium accessible to other devices across an internet connection, cellular network connection, satellite connection, or any other WAN communication connection. For example, a cloud-stored file may be stored at a storage medium associated with an entity that hosts (e.g., stores, displays, implements) one or more electronic rules, which may be associated with one or more files, documents, accounts, users, groups, networks, projects, or combination thereof. Additionally or alternatively, a cloud-stored file may be stored at a repository located remotely. In some embodiments, cloud-stored files may be indexed according to a file identifier, document identifier, permission identifier, account identifier, user identifier, group identifier, network identifier, project identifier, date of creation, date of last edit, or combination thereof. A file or portion of a file (e.g., one or more blocks), whether locally-stored, cloud-stored, or otherwise, may be encrypted prior to, during, or after storage. A file or portion of a file (e.g., one or more blocks) may also be decrypted to permit access, editing, or other operations, by a particular device, user, account, group, network, or any other entity. Additionally or alternatively, a file or portion of a file (e.g., one or more blocks) may be decrypted to permit implementation of an electronic rule, such as performing an edit to the file, or other conditional instruction, consistent with disclosed embodiments."
Per claim 10, Zionpour teaches the limitations of claim 1, above. Zionpour further teaches wherein the method further comprises enabling the user to manage properties and information about the project workspace in par 100: "Enabling an author of the electronic word processing document to define an electronic rule may include generating an interactable interface element, detecting an input (e.g., to an interactable interface element), configuring an interface, configuring a set of code (e.g., an electronic rule framework, electronic rule, application), opening a document (e.g., within a web browser), retrieving data (e.g., associated with a user, a user account, a document, a system, a device, an application, an information source), and/or any other operation to facilitate determination or preservation of a parameter for an electronic rule. An author of the electronic word processing document may include an originator of, owner of, editor of, or other entity with access permission to, the electronic word processing document."
Per claim 11, Zionpour teaches the limitations of claim 1, above. Zionpour further teaches wherein the method further comprises depicting a search bar that enables the user to search and show the data elements based on whether a searched item has an association with the data elements in par 105: " For example, the logical template may include at least one configuration of electronic rule parameters, electronic rule parameter (e.g., a condition, a conditional instruction, output action), electronic rule parameter constraint (e.g., a time window or other condition), relationship between electronic rule parameters, chart, expandable tree (e.g., of electronic rule parameters), interactable (e.g., clickable) user interface area (e.g., a button), menu (e.g., drop-down menu) search bar, field, graph (e.g., graphical depiction of an electronic rule), text, graphic, animation, line, web, cluster, any other visual representation of at least a portion of an electronic rule, or any combination thereof. "
Per claim 12, Zionpour teaches the limitations of claim 1, above. Zionpour further teaches wherein the method further comprises enabling the user to configure an application that is to be displayed within the project workspace in par 98: "An electronic word processing document may be configurable to be displayed (e.g., by an electronic word processing application) in a visual form, for example within an interface, consistent with disclosed embodiments. An electronic word processing document may also include any characteristic of an electronic document, discussed above. Consistent with some disclosed embodiments, the at least one processor may be configured to access an electronic word processing document."
Per claim 13, Zionpour teaches the limitations of claim 1, above. Zionpour further teaches wherein the method further comprises enabling the user to configure one or more notifications that are to be displayed within the project workspace in par 102: "An electronic rule being triggered by an external network-based occurrence may include executing (e.g., by a processing device) an operation (e.g., a conditional instruction) in response to a condition meeting a threshold. An operation of an electronic rule may include any functionality such as transmitting a communication (e.g., an API call), receiving a communication (e.g., data to use for updating an electronic file), constructing an API call, translating data (e.g., translating data from one API format to another API format, such as according to a data mapping), parsing data, pulling data, re-arranging data, changing data (e.g., data associated with an electronic word processing document), displaying data (e.g., an alert notification), or any other function that can influence data displayable at a device. "
Per claim 14, Zionpour teaches the limitations of claim 1, above. Zionpour further teaches wherein the computer application, is part of the operating system, that comprises functional components on the device operating with assistance of the operating system in par 103: “A cloud-stored file may include a file stored at a storage medium accessible to other devices across an internet connection, cellular network connection, satellite connection, or any other WAN communication connection. For example, a cloud-stored file may be stored at a storage medium associated with an entity that hosts (e.g., stores, displays, implements) one or more electronic rules, which may be associated with one or more files, documents, accounts, users, groups, networks, projects, or combination thereof. Additionally or alternatively, a cloud-stored file may be stored at a repository located remotely. In some embodiments, cloud-stored files may be indexed according to a file identifier, document identifier, permission identifier, account identifier, user identifier, group identifier, network identifier, project identifier, date of creation, date of last edit, or combination thereof. A file or portion of a file (e.g., one or more blocks), whether locally-stored, cloud-stored, or otherwise, may be encrypted prior to, during, or after storage. A file or portion of a file (e.g., one or more blocks) may also be decrypted to permit access, editing, or other operations, by a particular device, user, account, group, network, or any other entity. “
Per claim 15, Zionpour teaches the limitations of claim 1, above. Zionpour further teaches wherein the method further comprises: executing the computer application that enables the user to manage information stored about the project and add, modify, filter, or remove various elements of the information in par 96: “ Automatically altering information within an electronic document may include inserting, removing, changing the content of, re-positioning, re-formatting, or otherwise changing the visual appearance of at least one of: text, a graphic, a background, a link, a data structure, a video, metadata, block, a margin, or any other information displayable by the electronic document. In some embodiments, altering information within the electronic document may be implemented by at least one processor without manual intervention. For example, at least one processor may determine that one or more parameters are satisfied and may automatically cause the altering of information within the electronic document. Additionally or alternatively, automatically altering information within the electronic document may include altering information embedded in the electronic document that influences information displayed within the electronic document.”
Per claim 16, Zionpour teaches the limitations of claim 1, above. Zionpour further teaches wherein the method further comprises reevaluating the information elements and associations with other data elements by prompting the user for confirmation in par 141: “Additionally or alternatively, a processing device may cause the display of a confirmation interface, which may prompt a user to input confirmation of insertion of an in-line object (e.g., in response to input of a particular alphanumeric character string entered within the electronic word processing document followed by an input of a carriage return or tab keystroke).”
Per claim 18, Zionpour teaches the limitations of claim 1, above. Zionpour further teaches wherein the method further comprises: scanning the data elements for the content and the context that allow association with existing projects using the information elements upon receiving confirmation from the user in par 118: “”For example, a condition of an electronic rule may be a condition that text information on a web page has changed in some manner (e.g., a flight time) and the changed text information and/or associated information may be added to the word processing document. As another example, a condition of an electronic rule may be a condition that a user account identifier has been added to a list, and the user account identifier may be added to the word processing document (e.g., as in-document text).” See also par 135: “Data derived from a source external to the electronic word processing document may include static data, dynamic data, textual information, visual information, a file, a data structure, content data extracted from a data structure, a calculation result (e.g., a predictive value), a sensor reading, an identifier (e.g., of a user, device, project, system, data source, or network), or any other digital information conveyable by a web page or any other source of information. For example, a web page may convey (e.g., by displaying within a web browser) textual and/or visual information related to a number of physical objects (e.g., products), intangible objects (e.g., stocks, stock prices), or actions (e.g., services, projects). Additionally or alternatively, a web page may display a map identifying one or more locations of a person, group, object, building, or other thing.”
Per claim 25, Zionpour teaches the limitations of claim 1, above. Zionpour further teaches wherein the method further comprises: creating a shareable template of the project workspace and updating the shareable template over time with updated information in par 105: “Aspects of this disclosure may include, in displaying at least one interface, at least one processor being configured to present a logical template for constructing an electronic rule. Presenting a logical template for constructing the electronic rule may include causing the system to visually display a logical sentence structure (e.g., automation) for further configuration of an underlying logical rule, consistent with the description herein. For example, the logical template may include at least one configuration of electronic rule parameters, electronic rule parameter (e.g., a condition, a conditional instruction, output action), electronic rule parameter constraint (e.g., a time window or other condition), relationship between electronic rule parameters, chart, expandable tree (e.g., of electronic rule parameters), interactable (e.g., clickable) user interface area (e.g., a button), menu (e.g., drop-down menu) search bar, field, graph (e.g., graphical depiction of an electronic rule), text, graphic, animation, line, web, cluster, any other visual representation of at least a portion of an electronic rule, or any combination thereof. In some embodiments, a logical template may include a data structure representing and/or configured to implement an electronic rule. Additionally or alternatively, a logical template may include a visual representation of an electronic rule and/or at least one tool for constructing an electronic rule. For example, a logical template may include a layout of at least one condition, at least one computerized action, and at least one relationship between the two. In some embodiments, a logical template may include a button, which, upon receiving an input (e.g., mouse click), may add a field to the logical template (e.g., a field to associate with a particular electronic rule parameter). Additionally or alternatively, a logical template may include a drop-down menu, search bar, other input area, or combination thereof, which may use one or more inputs (e.g., keyboard entries) to search and/or display options for an electronic rule template. For example, based on one or more characters entered to an interface (e.g., a displayed representation of a field), a drop-down menu may display electronic rule parameters (e.g., conditions, conditional instructions) associated with (e.g., including overlapping characters with) the one or more characters. A selection of (e.g., mouse click on) one of the electronic rule parameters may cause the electronic rule parameter to be added to an electronic rule (e.g., adding segment of logic to an electronic rule being constructed). Based on at least one interaction with the logical template, an electronic rule (discussed above) may be constructed. For example, an electronic rule may be constructed to include one or more parameters (e.g., conditions and conditional instructions, discussed further below) corresponding to inputs made within an interface, consistent with disclosed embodiments.”
Thererefore, claims 1, 9-16, 18 and 25-27 are rejected under 35 USC 102.
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.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
Claim(s) 19 and 20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Zionpour et al., US PGPUB 20220222431 A1 (“Zionpour”) in view of Goldstein et al., US PGPUB 20170123932 (“Goldstein”).
Per claim 19, Zionpour teaches the limitations of claim 1, above. Zionpour does not teach wherein the method further comprises: depicting time-based relationships of the data elements and the information elements in a visual representation for the project or group of projects.
Goldstein teaches methods for tracking changes in documents. See abstract.
Goldstein teaches wherein the method further comprises: depicting time-based relationships of the data elements and the information elements in a visual representation for the project or group of projects in pars 048-049, see also Fig 3. Pars 048-049: “”In particular, the metadata record 240 for document 210a (i.e., document version 5) indicates in time field 260a a last modified time of Jan. 5, 2016 at 9:00 am. Change record 220c is the last change record 220 to have been generated at that time or earlier. The metadata record 240 for document 210a also indicates in time field 260b a first modified time of Jan. 1, 2016 at 5:00 am. Change record 220a is the first change record to have been generated at that time or later. Thus, the time fields 260a-b establish a time window in which modifications to the tracked metadata field 250 have occurred. The change management system 110 may thus use this time window to select change records 220 relevant to modifications of the tracked metadata field 250. For example, in this example, change records 220a-c are within the time window established by the time fields 260a-b in the metadata record of document 210a, and are therefore selected to be in the subset 410, whereas change record 220d is not selected to be in the subset. Further, consistent with the modifications counter 270 (which indicates three modifications), three change records 220a-c are selected to be in the subset 410.
Of course, the example of FIGS. 3 and 4 is a very simple example in which selection of the subset 410 excludes only a single change record 220d. However, a change management system 110 may be tracking massive numbers of other documents 210, and there may be myriad changes to those documents 210 that are unrelated to the predefined type of change that would cause the tracked metadata fields 250 associated therewith to be updated. Thus, according to various embodiments, the selection of subset 410 may be include selection of a very small number of change records 220 as compared to the total number of change records 220 in storage 120 by excluding numerous change records 220 that were generated either before or after the time window and which are not relevant to modifications of the tracked metadata field 250. Such a dramatic reduction in the number of change records 220 requiring consideration may be of significant assistance toward identifying the problem change record (which in this example is change record 220c).” Fig 3 teaches identifiers (names), time based elements (when changes happened) and identifying elements.
It would have been obvious to one ordinarily skilled in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify obvious to one ordinarily skilled in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the workspaces teaching of Zionpour with the track changes teaching of Goldstein because of the motivation taught in pars 02-03: “One way that change management systems may track documents and record changes is by generating change records that record differences between an earlier and a later version of a document. This change document may then be applied to the later version in order to recreate the earlier version. If several changes are made to the document, resulting in several versions, multiple change records may be generated. To revert back to the earliest version of a tracked document, according to some change management systems, each of the many change records that may have been generated for that document must be applied, as each change record only records the differences between a particular document version and the version immediately previous thereto. Deployed broadly, e.g., in support of an entire business or massive software project involving thousands of tracked documents, a massive number of change records may result. When a problem arises that requires rolling back documents, it may not be clear what change (or changes) to the tracked documents was responsible for the problem. With so many documents and associated change records, identifying the appropriate change record(s) to apply in order to alleviate the problem is often onerous and time-consuming.” Because Goldstein teaches a way to trace changes to find problems, one would be motivated to modify Zionpour with Goldstein so that problems can be resolved.
Per claim 20, Zionpour and Goldstein teach the limitations of claim 19, above. Zionpour does not teach wherein the visual representation comprises one of a timeline view and a graphical view.
Goldstein teaches wherein the visual representation comprises one of a timeline view and a graphical view in Fig 3 as it is a timeline view a list of times in order of time.
It would have been obvious to one ordinarily skilled in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify obvious to one ordinarily skilled in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the workspaces teaching of Zionpour with the track changes teaching of Goldstein because of the motivation taught in pars 02-03: “One way that change management systems may track documents and record changes is by generating change records that record differences between an earlier and a later version of a document. This change document may then be applied to the later version in order to recreate the earlier version. If several changes are made to the document, resulting in several versions, multiple change records may be generated. To revert back to the earliest version of a tracked document, according to some change management systems, each of the many change records that may have been generated for that document must be applied, as each change record only records the differences between a particular document version and the version immediately previous thereto. Deployed broadly, e.g., in support of an entire business or massive software project involving thousands of tracked documents, a massive number of change records may result. When a problem arises that requires rolling back documents, it may not be clear what change (or changes) to the tracked documents was responsible for the problem. With so many documents and associated change records, identifying the appropriate change record(s) to apply in order to alleviate the problem is often onerous and time-consuming.” Because Goldstein teaches a way to trace changes to find problems, one would be motivated to modify Zionpour with Goldstein so that problems can be resolved.
Claim(s) 21-24 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Zionpour et al., US PGPUB 20220222431 A1 (“Zionpour”) in view of Prakash et al., US PGPUB 20160110313 (“Prakash”).
Per claim 21, Zionpour teaches the limitations of claim 1, above. Zionpour does not teach wherein the method further comprises: associating the project workspace with one of a master project workspace and a child project workspace.
Prakash teaches wherein the method further comprises: associating the project workspace with one of a master project workspace and a child project workspace in par 129: “Using the Share function of the streams enabled interface, the user can send a PDF version of the “Sample Doc” to another user 1508. The back-end streams engine captures the metadata 1509 associated with “Sample Doc” and records pointers to the specific content items versions of 1501a and 1501b used in creating the PDF of the document, thereby identifying a static document dependent on versions of content items. A link to the static document can be created 1510 in the streams enabled interface which shows the Document History, or versions of the document within the stream.”
It would have been obvious to one ordinarily skilled in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the project workspace teaching of Zionpour with the master inheritance teaching of Prakash because Prakash teaches in par 015 that “[t]here is a need for more granular definition of the content creation process as documents for reading or presenting are not assembled at once but over time. This granular process needs to define a unit of content creation which can then be utilized as a means of constructing sophisticated documents for reading, printing and presenting. In this time-oriented process definition, there is a need for versioning controls that can track and manage the activity of a typical computer user in creating and assembling units of content into structured documents and presentations.” Because Prakash’s teaching enables content creation over time one would be motivated to modify Zionpour with Prakash to facilitate collaborative creation. For these reasons one would be motivated to combine Zionpour with Prakash.
Per claim 22, Zionpour and Prakash teach the limitations of claim 21, above. Zionpour does not teach wherein the method further comprises: inheriting a configured subset of the information elements from the master project workspace.
Prakash teaches wherein the method further comprises: inheriting a configured subset of the information elements from the master project workspace in par 130: “”Should the user then modify content item 1501a via the streams interface 1511, the stream engine creates a version content item for the old version of content item 1501a and copies all current context into the version content item 1512. The stream engine updates the master content item 1513 with the new modification data received and associates the master content item with the newer version content item, creating a parent-child relationship between the version content item and the master content item.”
It would have been obvious to one ordinarily skilled in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify obvious to one ordinarily skilled in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the project workspace teaching of Zionpour with the master inheritance teaching of Prakash because Prakash teaches in par 015 that “[t]here is a need for more granular definition of the content creation process as documents for reading or presenting are not assembled at once but over time. This granular process needs to define a unit of content creation which can then be utilized as a means of constructing sophisticated documents for reading, printing and presenting. In this time-oriented process definition, there is a need for versioning controls that can track and manage the activity of a typical computer user in creating and assembling units of content into structured documents and presentations.” Because Prakash’s teaching enables content creation over time one would be motivated to modify Zionpour with Prakash to facilitate collaborative creation. For these reasons one would be motivated to combine Zionpour with Prakash.
Per claim 23, Zionpour and Prakash teach the limitations of claim 22, above. Zionpour does not teach wherein the method further comprises: monitoring for changes in the project workspace based on the inheritance; and synchronizing the changes over time in the project workspace.
Prakash teaches wherein the method further comprises: monitoring for changes in the project workspace based on the inheritance; and synchronizing the changes over time in the project workspace in par 133: “In this manner, the streams engine records when content items and documents are created, edited or modified, maintains a history of versions of content items and documents, and who shared, viewed or had access to the content items or documents.” For synchronizing changes over time see par 0153: “This information often flows from multiple streams that synchronize the status of the content items across different stream enabled clients to ensure that a consistent set of data points is displayed. This allows Stream_MainUser to have a clear sense of progress being made against individual pieces of content and allows sharing of this status information in updates to the Customer Lead.”
It would have been obvious to one ordinarily skilled in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the project workspace teaching of Zionpour with the master inheritance teaching of Prakash because Prakash teaches in par 015 that “[t]here is a need for more granular definition of the content creation process as documents for reading or presenting are not assembled at once but over time. This granular process needs to define a unit of content creation which can then be utilized as a means of constructing sophisticated documents for reading, printing and presenting. In this time-oriented process definition, there is a need for versioning controls that can track and manage the activity of a typical computer user in creating and assembling units of content into structured documents and presentations.” Because Prakash’s teaching enables content creation over time one would be motivated to modify Zionpour with Prakash to facilitate collaborative creation. For these reasons one would be motivated to combine Zionpour with Prakash.
Per claim 24, Zionpour and Prakash teach the limitations of claim 21, above. Zionpour does not teach wherein the method further comprises: enabling the user to remove master child relationships between the project and a subsequent project.
Prakash teaches wherein the method further comprises: enabling the user to remove master child relationships between the project and a subsequent project in par 171: “The Stream Cloud presents a unique option to publish the contents of an activity, document view or even just an individual content item. Publishing pushes an immutable copy of the content to the Stream Cloud for permanent storage and also makes a unique hash signature of that content available publicly with the globally unique identifier(s) of the content item(s) involved—this is to ensure that the content signature can be verified by anyone and can be used to prove that the particular combination of characters in the content was published by a verified user, company or government entity. In our example, Stream_MainUser chooses to publish the proposal prior to having it signed off by the Customer Lead to ensure that an independently verifiable copy is available from Citta.
It would have been obvious to one ordinarily skilled in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify obvious to one ordinarily skilled in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the project workspace teaching of Zionpour with the master inheritance teaching of Prakash because Prakash teaches in par 015 that “[t]here is a need for more granular definition of the content creation process as documents for reading or presenting are not assembled at once but over time. This granular process needs to define a unit of content creation which can then be utilized as a means of constructing sophisticated documents for reading, printing and presenting. In this time-oriented process definition, there is a need for versioning controls that can track and manage the activity of a typical computer user in creating and assembling units of content into structured documents and presentations.” Because Prakash’s teaching enables content creation over time one would be motivated to modify Zionpour with Prakash to facilitate collaborative creation. For these reasons one would be motivated to combine Zionpour with Prakash.
Therefore, claims 19-24 are rejected under 35 USC 103.
Response to arguments:
35 USC 112
Applicant’s traversal is noted but as there are no arguments to accompany it is not persuasive.
35 USC 101
Applicant argues:
Applicant submits that the limitations fall outside the scope of human mental capabilities or organized human activities as the limitations involves processing and associating the dynamic digital data with the project, and render as a project workspace in real-time.
Importantly, the limitations of amended Claim 1 reflects functionality beyond simple automation or conventional steps. Applicant submits that Claim 1 is directed to computer- implemented operations that manipulate dynamic information elements within a digital project workspace environment, which cannot practically be performed by the human mind, human thought processes, or by organizing human activity. Applicant submits that these steps are inherently tied to a digital computing environment and require machine-based processing of dynamically changing data.
Examiner responds: The argument is considered but is unpersuasive. The following is simply using a computer to perform abstract idea steps: “computer- implemented operations that manipulate dynamic information elements within a digital project workspace environment” The steps can actually be practically be performed by a person or are steps that are organizing human activity. At any rate, the argument that they cannot “practically be performed” has no legal weight. Nor does it make sense on its face. The steps above could readily be done as a method of organizing human activity. Therefore this argument is unpersuasive.
Applicant argues: “Applicant also submits that Claim 1 expressly involves dynamic information elements, which are characterized by their ability to change over time, update in response to system events, and be continuously scanned and re-associated by the system. Such elements are not static facts or observations that can be mentally evaluated by a human. Instead, Claim 1 require: Continuous or event-driven automated scanning of data sources; real-time or near-real-time parsing of machine-readable data structures; associate relevant information elements within a project workspace. Applicant submits that a human mind cannot practically monitor, parse, and reassociate multiple dynamic data elements across a digital system as they change, nor can such operations be performed through mere observation, evaluation, or judgment.”
Continuous scanning is not claimed, periodic scanning (could be once a week) claimed, so the argument overstates the claim scope
Dynamic just means changing, this means nothing if one just stops to think about it. A clock is dynamic but time, as an element, cannot be claimed because it stands still. Stock prices change. Weather changes. This is irrelevant to whether it is a part of an abstract idea. It is unclear what Applicant wishes to say, that because a number or data element changes it couldn’t be a part of an abstract idea? This is unpersuasive. Changing data can be a part of an abstract idea. See the data in Electric Power Group.
Examiner disagrees, one can readily monitor (looking with eyes), parse (sort out), and reassociate (combine) multiple dynamic data elements (time and weather) across a digital system (refreshing a smartphone) as they change (time increases, weather changes). Unpersuasive as shown by example.
Applicant argues: “Applicant also submits that the limitations of Claim 1 are not directed to organizing human activity such as managing personal behavior or relationships or interactions between people. Applicant submits that Claim 1 recites computer-implemented operations that automate the technical management of heterogeneous digital data elements within an operating system and application environment. The claimed associations are between digital data objects, not people or human tasks. Although the data elements may originate from human communications (e.g., email conversations, chat messages, meeting information), Claim 1 does not recite
organizing people, assigning tasks, or coordinating human actions. These operations reflect identifying relevant dynamic digital information elements and presenting them within a project workspace, not human organizational practices. Claim 1 further recites periodically scanning a database and other resources to find dynamic data elements and automatically updating the project workspace. Such functionality is fundamentally machine-driven. Applicant submits that organized human activity typically involves rules for how people interact or work together. In contrast, the claimed method performs autonomous system operations on evolving datasets, which cannot be equated to organizing human behavior.”
Examiner disagrees, this is quintessential human activity. These are inarguably communications between people and they are collected, analyzed, and the results are displayed, see Electronic Power Group. The “autonomous system operations” are merely using a computer for its increased speed, see MPEP 2106.05(f)(2), A process for monitoring audit log data that is executed on a general-purpose computer where the increased speed in the process comes solely from the capabilities of the general-purpose computer, FairWarning IP, LLC v. Iatric Sys., 839 F.3d 1089, 1095, 120 USPQ2d 1293, 1296 (Fed. Cir. 2016). Similar to fair warning, Applicant claims benefits that are solely attributable to out of the box benefits of using a computer, that one can have a computer do something by telling it what to do (programming it). Therefore this is unpersuasive.
Applicant argues: Additionally, the limitations recite presenting the project workspace by modifying the graphical user interface in a targeted way to present a differentiated project workspace that enables user to focus only on project work at hand, minimize distractions, keep meaningful and related data on hand. Applicant submits that the step of rendering a user interface by modifying a graphical user interface of the operating system and displaying the project workspace within a browser or application further confirms that the claim is rooted in computer technology. Modifying an OS-level GUI and selectively displaying only associated information elements is a technical presentation and filtering function, not an abstraction of human organized activities.
Examiner responds: the GUI element itself (the piece of hardware) is an additional element and not a part of Prong 1, but presenting data even “dynamic data” (like the clock in the lower right hand portion of a window’s screen) is a part of the abstract idea as it can be done between people through talking or paper.
The arguments have been fully considered, but as they are unpersuasive, the abstract idea is maintained.
Applicant argues:
“Applicant submits that the amended Claim 1 implements a specific technical solution to a digital workspace problem. The claimed method addresses a computer-centric problem arising in modern computing environments-namely, the fragmentation of project-related information across multiple applications, data sources, and system resources (e.g., email clients, productivity tools, browsers, chat systems, and file repositories). This problem does not exist in the abstract; it is unique to digital operating systems and application ecosystems.
To solve this problem, the amended Claim 1 recites a particularized technical solution in which a project workspace is generated as a data construct, heterogeneous data elements
originating from disparate digital sources are processed to parse both content and context, and project-pertinent information elements are identified through machine-based analysis of the parsed content and context. The solution further periodically scans databases and other system resources to detect dynamic data elements”
Applicant has simply applied a few computer elements to an identified abstract idea. Applicant’s description even if all true is recognized as just using out of the box computer elements to perform an abstract idea process. Therefore this is unpersuasive.
Applicant argues: “and automatically updates the project workspace in response to changes in the underlying data. These steps go beyond mere data organization and instead improve how a computer system dynamically manages, correlates, and presents information across applications.
Applicant further submits that the amended Claim 1 further integrate the recited processing steps into a concrete, user-facing implementation by requiring modification of a graphical user interface (GUI) of the operating system through a display module and selectively displaying only those data elements associated with the project workspace within a browser, within the computer application, or a combination thereof. This is not a generic presentation of information; rather, the GUI is system-driven and dynamically modified based on continuously maintained data associations resulting in a focused and context-aware project workspace. Such operating system-level GUI manipulation represents a technical implementation detail that demonstrates the claim's integration into a practical application of the recited concepts.”
Even taking Applicant on its face, because a reference to the rejection shows that there is a very few computer elements being claimed, if there is a modification of a GUI that is required, it is not claimed positively in the steps. Applicant is only claiming, at most, a functional result without claiming the actual steps to modify a GUI, for example. See MPEP 2106.05(f)(1). Without claiming the actual technical steps of modifying the GUI, only that it was modified somehow, this is an apply it limitation which cannot be a practical application. This is therefore unpersuasive.
Applicant argues: “Applicant further submits that the recited steps of periodically scanning a database and other resources and automatically updating the project workspace are central to the claimed integration and directly improve computer functionality. These steps enable the system to detect newly created or modified data elements without user intervention, determine whether such data elements are associated with a project, and update the project workspace in real time or near-real time. By automating these operations, the claimed method reduces computational inefficiencies associated with manual searching, redundant navigation across multiple applications, and repeated user-initiated queries. As a result, the amended Claim 1 improve the manner in which users interact with complex computing environments which integrates the amended Claim 1 into a practical application.
Importantly, the recited storage, scanning, updating, and rendering steps do not constitute insignificant extra-solution activity. The recited steps do not constitute insignificant extra-solution activity because they are essential to achieving the claimed technical result and are not merely appended after an abstract idea has been performed. These operations are integral to the claimed solution, defining how the system continuously maintains, synchronizes and presents an up-to-date project workspace as underlying data changes.
Applicant also submits that these steps improve the operation of the computer system itself by reducing redundant data retrieval, minimizing unnecessary user interactions, and enabling automated synchronization across applications and data sources. Because the steps actively shape how the system processes, maintains, and presents data within the operating system and application environment, they are meaningful limitations that define how the invention works, rather than insignificant extra-solution activity. The practical utility of the invention arises from the cooperative interaction of these system-level steps within the operating system and application environment, further demonstrating that the amended Claim
1 are meaningfully integrated into a practical application.”
Examiner appreciates that these are “integral to the solution” but they are not integral in the sense of integrating additional elements into a practical application. As shown above, the additional elements are just computer implemented; basic GUI (like a computer screen or smartphone screen, for example); and a database. Further they are claimed performing in their ordinary capacity. See MPEP 2106.05(f)(2). This guidance shows that these elements are then not a practical application because it is no more than saying “do this abstract idea on a computer.” Arguments about user intervention are not based in law or guidance – the steps themselves being performed on a computer is addressed in this section. Insignificant extra solution activity was not reached (no decision made) because it was evident that the claims merely take an abstract idea and apply a few generic computing elements to it. So, this is apply it. As the arguments are considered but not persuasive, the finding of no practical application is maintained in the rejection, above.
Per the step 2B arguments, they are largely the same as the arguments for the practical application section. The MPEP allows for the arguments in the practical application section to be carried over to step 2B and examiner has done so. As there was no practical application, there is not significantly more. As the generic computing components were found to be apply it, they cannot be a meaningful limitation. Examiner disagrees that Applicant has recited “how the computer operates,” as one ordinarily skilled in the art would see no technical improvements of a computer, and even if so, merely claiming how a computer operates would not be sufficient, one would need to claim a technical improvement to the computer. There is no legal or guidance basis for Applicant’s argument that reciting how a computer operates has a bearing on 101.
Therefore for these reasons the 101 is maintained.
Prior Art arguments:
Zionpour et al. discloses collaborative word processing that enable user-defined automation rules for dynamically updating the content of a document. The disclosed automation operates in response to predefined rules associated with inline text or specified external data sources and is limited to modifying document content when certain conditions are detected, such as inserting or updating information blocks upon satisfaction of a URL-based condition. Accordingly, Zionpour is document-centric and focused on rule-based content insertion or modification within a single document.
In contrast, the claims of the present invention are not directed to document modification, but instead to the generation and maintenance of a project workspace that aggregates, organizes, and selectively filters multiple forms of unstructured data relevant to a project. The claimed invention relies on semantic parsing and autonomous contextual association to identify and associate project-pertinent information elements across heterogeneous data sources-functionality that is absent from Zionpour's static, rule-based automation framework. Moreover, Zionpour fails to disclose parsing a broad range of data sources across system and cloud environments, extracting project-specific identifying elements, or managing a workspace architecture that supports inheritance from a master project and contextual filtering of project-related elements.”
Examiner disagrees, see rejection above. Applicant misconstrues or misunderstands Zionpour with the term static, as Zionpour is pulling data from the internet on a periodic basis see 153, would be an absurdity to claim that it is “static” data. Please also see the title of the invention, “dynamic work document updates.” Examiner disagrees with this statement and reiterates here the rejection above which shows in numerous places “non” static data. Zionpour teaches what Applicant is claiming as Applicant uses high level generic terms like project workspace which Zionpour teaches in Fig 3, among many places. Therefore this is unpersuasive. Applicant the argues that Zionpour does not teach parsing a broad range of data. In fact, Zionpour teaches parsing “data” see par 0102 and then describes data throughout the disclosure in many different terms, so this is unpersuasive.
Zionpour does not teach away, and this is an argument for 103 secondary reference and not a 102 which now Zionpour is due to amendment. Whether or not Zionpour teaches “predetermined rule sets” is irrelevant as Zionpour teaches the limitations of Applicant’s claims, which Applicant has unpersuasively argued against.
There is no persuasive inoperability argument here as one ordinarily skilled in the art would be able to combine Zionpour with other software patents, and maintain “document centric rule triggers” This is because Applicant has said this would be so, but not explained it. This is simply unpersuasive, a software designer could add features without removing them. See: current state of Microsoft Office versus Office Windows 95 and all the features that have been added.
Applicant then argues Prakash, does not teach, teaches away, renders inoperable, etc etc, but Applicant does not argue the specific claims being taught and therefore this argument is no more than a general allegation and is unpersuasive. Likewise with Goldstein. It is noted that arguing that “objectives” would be changed in Goldstein is not a patent law argument--inoperability is about whether something actually wouldn’t physically work anymore. So, with software, which can be made to do so many things, is very difficult to make an inoperability argument. Just because it doesn’t fit the “objectives” of software doesn’t mean that it would be “inoperable” (NullPointerException). Therefore this is unpersuasive.
The arguments have been considered but are unpersuasive and the rejections are maintained.
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.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to RICHARD W. CRANDALL whose telephone number is (313)446-6562. The examiner can normally be reached M - F, 8:00 AM - 5:00 PM.
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, Anita Coupe can be reached at (571) 270-3614. 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.
/RICHARD W. CRANDALL/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3619