DETAILED ACTION
This action is responsive to the communication filed on 11/27/2025.
No claims have been amended.
No claims have been added and/or canceled.
Claims 1-17 are pending.
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 .
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 11/27/2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. In response to applicants argument that the combined references fail to teach and/or disclose features related to claim 1 of the application as highlighted in the remarks, the examiner respectfully disagrees.
Applicants submits Demmer teaches a group-based messaging service and discloses a system where users exchange data in group-based communication platforms where each group has associated members, workspaces, and permissions. The examiner agrees and with applicants submission. However, Demmer further teaches generating a new shared workspace (i.e. a newly created group) and associating an existing channel with the shared workspace (i.e. associating information from an existing channel). Kalinichenko was relied on merely for teaching “extracting information”. Applicants suggest the combination constitutes impermissible hindsight because Demmer focuses on general group communications and access control, without providing any mechanism for historical data migration to new groups. However, Demmer explicitly suggest to improve effectiveness and efficiency in communications associated with the communication platform, the techniques described herein enable a user account that satisfies established criteria access to communication channels and/or other features associated with the workspace and all of the users associated with the workspace…that is, the user account can discover communication channels, users, and/or other objects and features consistent with other users in the workspace (see paragraph 0023). Thus, Demmer discloses the discovery of and access to historical data (i.e. the existing channels).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
Claim(s) 1-5, 8-11 and 14-17 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Demmer et al (US Pub. No. 20230069507 herein after “Demmer”) and Kalinichenko et al (US Pub No. 20230030976 herein after “Kalinichenko”).
As per claim 1, and similarly claims 16 and 17, Demmer discloses an information processing apparatus comprising:
a processor configured to:
extract at least one information of a conversation performed or a document used in an existing group, which is associated with a new group, from among pieces of information related to the existing group in a case where the new group is created in a message exchange service for exchanging a message between a plurality of users for each group (Demmer, para[0029,0094,0096] the communication platform can be group-based; data associated with one or more communication channels or direct messaging instances associated with a shared workspace; the application 150 can receive data from the workspace management component 120, the messaging component 122, and/or a third-party computing device(s) 106 (e.g., third-party application 136, third-party data 134, etc.)); and
perform control such that the extracted information is displayed to be selectable as a candidate for information viewable by a user of the new group (Demmer, para[0052,0095,0107] data associated with a communication channel can be presented via a user interface, for presenting data associated with the communication platform; in response to receiving a search input…the communication platform can cause one or more indicators associated with one or more workspaces 316 corresponding to the search input to be presented via the shared workspace interface 302).
Demmer does not explicitly disclose, however, Kalinichenko discloses
extract at least one information of a conversation performed or a document used in an existing group, which is associated with a new group (Kalinichenko, para[0050,0054] relevant topics may be extracted, keywords may also be extracted using various natural language processing methods).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of the ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate Kalinichenko’s teaching of extracting information into Demmer’s teaching of Integrated Workspaces because one of the ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to identify relevant topics.
As per claim 2, Demmer does not disclose, however, Kalinichenko discloses the information processing apparatus according to claim 1, wherein the processor is configured to: in a case where at least one of a title, a participating user, or a new conversation related to the new group is specified, extract at least one information of a conversation or a document associated with the at least one of the title, the participating user, or the new conversation related to the new group from among the pieces of information related to the existing group (Kalinichenko, para[0038,0054,0059]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of the ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate Kalinichenko’s teaching of extracting information into Demmer’s teaching of Integrated Workspaces because one of the ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to identify relevant topics.
As per claim 3, Demmer discloses the information processing apparatus according to claim 2, wherein the processor is configured to: perform control such that the at least one information of the conversation or the document associated with the at least one of the title, the participating user, or the new conversation related to the new group is displayed to be selectable as the candidate for the information viewable by the user of the new group after the new conversation is performed and at a predesignated timing (Demmer, para[0113-0120,0128]).
As per claim 4, Demmer discloses the information processing apparatus according to claim 2, wherein the processor is configured to: perform control such that the at least one information of the conversation or the document associated with the at least one of the title, the participating user, or the new conversation related to the new group is displayed to be selectable as the candidate for the information viewable by the user of the new group after the new conversation is performed and at a timing designated by the user (Demmer, para[0107]).
As per claim 5, Demmer discloses the information processing apparatus according to claim 1, wherein the processor is configured to: in a case where a participating user is newly added to the existing group to form a new group, extract at least one information of a conversation or a document associated with the newly added participating user of the new group from among the pieces of information related to the existing group (Demmer, para[0014]).
As per claim 8, Demmer does not disclose, however, Kalinichenko discloses the information processing apparatus according to claim 6, wherein the processor is configured to: extract the at least one information of the conversation or the document associated with the new group from among pieces of information related to a group selected from among the candidates for the existing group based on at least one of a content of a conversation performed or a viewing history of a document used in the selected group (Kalinichenko, para[0058]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of the ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate Kalinichenko’s teaching of extracting information into Demmer’s teaching of Integrated Workspaces because one of the ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to identify relevant topics.
As per claim 9, Demmer does not disclose, however, Kalinichenko discloses the information processing apparatus according to claim 7, wherein the processor is configured to: extract the at least one information of the conversation or the document associated with the new group from among pieces of information related to a group selected from among the candidates for the existing group based on at least one of a content of a conversation performed or a viewing history of a document used in the selected group (Kalinichenko, para[0058]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of the ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate Kalinichenko’s teaching of extracting information into Demmer’s teaching of Integrated Workspaces because one of the ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to identify relevant topics.
As per claim 10, Demmer discloses the information processing apparatus according to claim 8, wherein the viewing history of the document includes at least one of a viewing time, the number of times of viewing, or the number of viewed pages of the document, and the processor is configured to: extract the at least one information of the conversation or the document associated with the new group from among the pieces of information related to the selected group by using a total value obtained by adding up at least one of the viewing time, the number of times of viewing, or the number of viewed pages of the document obtained for each participating user of the selected group for all participating users of the selected group (Demmer, para[0087]). See also 2022/0382820
As per claim 11, Demmer discloses the information processing apparatus according to claim 9, wherein the viewing history of the document includes at least one of a viewing time, the number of times of viewing, or the number of viewed pages of the document, and the processor is configured to: extract the at least one information of the conversation or the document associated with the new group from among the pieces of information related to the selected group by using a total value obtained by adding up at least one of the viewing time, the number of times of viewing, or the number of viewed pages of the document obtained for each participating user of the selected group for all participating users of the selected group (Demmer, para[0087]). See also 2022/0382820
As per claim 14, Demmer discloses the information processing apparatus according to claim 10, wherein the processor is configured to: perform control such that each extracted information on the conversation and the document associated with the new group is displayed to be selectable in association with the conversation and the document (Demmer, para[0089-0090]).
As per claim 15, Demmer discloses the information processing apparatus according to claim 11, wherein the processor is configured to: perform control such that each extracted information on the conversation and the document associated with the new group is displayed to be selectable in association with the conversation and the document (Demmer, para[0089-0090]).
Claim(s) 6 and 7 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Demmer and Kalinichenko and further in view of Taylor et al (US Pub. No. 20210342541 herein after “Taylor”).
As per claim 6, neither Demmer nor Kalinichenko discloses, however, Taylor discloses the information processing apparatus according to claim 1, wherein the processor is configured to: perform control such that candidates for the existing group are displayed to be selectable in order of a degree of similarity between information related to the new group and information related to the existing group (Taylor, para[0037,0054]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of the ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate Taylor’s teaching of similarity-type comparisons into Demmer and Kalinichenko’s teaching because one of the ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to provide similarity analysis.
As per claim 7, neither Demmer nor Kalinichenko discloses, however, Taylor the information processing apparatus according to claim 6, wherein the processor is configured to: derive the degree of similarity from at least one information of a title, a participating user, or a conversation related to a group (Taylor, para[0037,0054]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of the ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate Taylor’s teaching of similarity-type comparisons into Demmer and Kalinichenko’s teaching because one of the ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to provide similarity analysis.
Claim(s) 12 and 13 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Demmer and Kalinichenko and further in view of Zagat et al (US Pub. No. 2022/0382820 herein after ‘Zagat”).
As per claim 12, Demmer does not disclose, however, Zagat discloses the information processing apparatus according to claim 10, wherein the processor is configured to: perform weighting on at least one of the viewing time, the number of times of viewing, or the number of viewed pages of the document based on features of each participating user of the selected group (Zagat, para[0188]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of the ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate Zagat’s teaching of weighted characteristics into Demmer and Kalinichenko’s teaching because one of the ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to determine a rank based on weighted factors.
As per claim 13, Demmer does not disclose, however, Zagat discloses the information processing apparatus according to claim 11, wherein the processor is configured to: perform weighting on at least one of the viewing time, the number of times of viewing, or the number of viewed pages of the document based on features of each participating user of the selected group (Zagat, para[0188]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of the ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate Zagat’s teaching of weighted characteristics into Demmer and Kalinichenko’s teaching because one of the ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to determine a rank based on weighted factors.
Conclusion
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. 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 Natisha Cox whose telephone number is (571)270-7167. The examiner can normally be reached on Monday to Friday, 10am - 6:00pm EST.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Umar Cheema can be reached on (571)270-3037. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is (571) 273-8000.
Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see http://pairdirect.uspto.gov. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/NATISHA D COX/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2458