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 .
The following action is in response to the amendment and remarks of 12/05/2025.
Claims 1, 4, 6, 8, 11, 13, 15, 18 and 20 have been amended. Claims 3, 10 and 17 have been canceled.
Claims 1-2, 4-9, 11-16 and 18-20 are pending and have been considered below.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 12/13/2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Regarding the 35 USC 101 rejections of claims 1-20, Applicant argues that (1) none of the amended claims recite limitations that are directed towards methods of organizing human activity or mental process categories of abstract idea (Remarks pages 6-7), and that (2) the amended claims are directed towards a technological solution to a improving a technological field and therefore are not abstract (Remarks pages 7-9). The Examiner respectfully disagrees and the 35 USC 101 rejections have been updated and maintained to reflect the amendment to the claims.
Regarding Applicant’s argument (1) that none of the amended claims recite limitations that are directed towards any of the categories of abstract idea, the Examiner respectfully disagrees. The amended claims recite receiving a request comprising a set of values for a set of attributes; based on the set of values for the set of attributes, accessing a set of mappings, each mapping in the set of mappings specifying a user and values for a subset of the set of attributes; and generating a workspace comprising the set of values for the set of attributes and a set of identified users identified in the set of mappings with values for the subset of the set of attributes that match the set of values for the set of attributes. The limitation of generating a workspace comprising a set of identified users is clearly drawn to the subgrouping of certain methods of organizing human activity of managing personal behavior or relationships or interactions between people (MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(II)(C)). For example, organizing a group of people into a subject specific meeting is a common social activity. Further, the limitations of receiving a request comprising a set values of attributes then accessing a set of mappings specifying users and values for a subset of the attributes such that the identified users are identified by matching the set of values for the set of attributes in the mappings are drawn to mental processes that can be practically performed by a human with or without the use of a physical aid, including observations, evaluations, judgements and opinions (MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(III)). Continuing the previous example, a person with knowledge of each person in a group (accessing a mental set of mappings specifying values representing each persons’ attributes and grouping based on which values) can respond to someone asking them to organize a meeting of the group based on a subject (receiving a request comprising a set of values for a set of attributes) by organizing certain people in the group together for the meeting (mental matching of the attribute values of the people in the group with the desired attribute values of the meeting). The argument is not persuasive as a person is clearly equipped to perform to observation, evaluation and judgement required to organize a desired social space comprising a select group of people required by the above limitations.
Regarding Applicant’s argument (2) that the amended claims are directed towards a technological improvement to a technological field and therefore not abstract, the Examiner respectfully disagrees. The additional limitations not found in the abstract idea, that of executing a program stored on a non-transitory machine readable medium executable by a processing unit of a device to perform the judicial exception, were evaluated and found to be limitations recited at a high level amounting to generic computing functions for merely applying the abstract idea. While Applicant has highlighted potential technological improvements to workspace collaboration between users relative to the prior art, the claimed invention still only recites generic computer tools for implementing the abstract idea that amount to mere instructions to apply the exception using generic computer components. Applicant is encouraged to amend the claims to further recite technological improvements beyond the generic computing tools presently recited. The argument is not persuasive and the 35 USC 101 rejection has been updated to reflect the amendment.
Regarding the 35 USC 102 rejections of claims 1-20 by CHATTERJEE, Applicant argues that CHATTERJEE does not disclose accessing a set of mappings where each mapping in the set of mappings specifies a user and values for a subset of the set of attributes because CHATTERJEE merely teaches a mapping that can be used to reference and locate large objects specified out of line (Remarks pages 10-12). The Examiner respectfully disagrees.
CHATTERJEE discloses a set of mappings as parseable XML file defining properties of the workspace and other variables (¶32). During template instantiation, the properties of the workspace and a list of workspace members are accessed. Particularly, a set of members for the workspace are matched against desired attributes to be added to the workspace being created (¶46-48). This anticipates the broadly claimed accessed set of mappings specifying a user a values of a subset of the set of attributes to identify a set of users for the generated workspace. The argument is not persuasive and the 35 USC 102 rejections has been updated to reflect the amendment.
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 1-2, 4-9, 11-16 and 18-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
Regarding claims 1, 8 and 15, claim 1 recites:
“A non-transitory machine-readable medium storing a program executable by at least one processing unit of a device, the program comprising sets of instructions for:
receiving a request comprising a set of values for a set of attributes;
based on the set of values for the set of attributes, accessing a set of mappings, each mapping in the set of mappings specifying a user and values for a subset of the set of attributes; and
generating a workspace, the workspace comprising the set of values for the set of attributes and a set of users identified in the set of mappings with values for the subset of the set of attributes that match the set of values for the set of attributes.”
Step 1, MPEP 2106.03:
Claim 1 recites a non-transitory machine-readable medium and is directed to a statutory category of invention.
Claim 8 recites a method for performing the instructions of claim 1 and is directed to a statutory category of invention.
Claim 15 recites a system comprising processing units to execute the instructions of claim 1 and is directed to a statutory category of invention.
Step 2A Prong One, MPEP 2106.04, 2016.04(a):
The claims each recite the limitation of generating a workspace comprising a set of identified users. This limitation is directed the abstract idea of certain methods of organizing human activity, particularly managing personal behavior or relationships or interactions between people. See MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(II)(C). For example, organizing a group of people into a subject specific meeting is a common social activity.
The claims each further recite the limitations of receiving a request comprising a set values of attributes then accessing a set of mappings specifying users and values for a subset of the attributes such that the identified users are identified by matching the set of values for the set of attributes in the mappings. These limitations are drawn to mental processes that can be practically performed by a human with or without the use of a physical aid, including observations, evaluations, judgements and opinions (MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(III)). Continuing the previous example, a person with knowledge of each person in a group (accessing a mental set of mappings specifying values representing each persons’ attributes and grouping based on which values) can respond to someone asking them to organize a meeting of the group based on a subject (receiving a request comprising a set of values for a set of attributes) by organizing certain people in the group together for the meeting (mental matching of the attribute values of the people in the group with the desired attribute values of the meeting).
The grouping of limitations encompassing the abstract idea of organizing human activity and mental processes are considered together as a single abstract idea for further analysis. See MPEP 2106.04(II)(B).
Step 2A Prong Two, MPEP 2106.04(d):
Claim 1 recites a program, executable by at least one processing unit of a device, comprising sets of instructions for performing steps and claim 15 recites a set of processing units that execute for performing the steps. The program and processing units/device are recited at a high level of generality and are mere instructions to implement the abstract idea on a generic computer using generic computing tools. See MPEP 2106.05(f).
Step 2B, MPEP 2106.05:
Further, the additional elements of claims 1 and 15 including the generic computer tools does not amount to significantly more than the judicial exception as they amount to mere instructions to apply the exception using generic computer components. See MPEP 2106.05(f).
Regarding claims 2, 9 and 16, claim 2 recites:
“The non-transitory machine-readable medium of claim 1, wherein the set of values for the set of attributes is a first set of values for a first set of attributes, wherein the program further comprises sets of instructions for:
providing a first set of options for specifying the first set of values for the first set of attributes associated with the workspace
upon receiving the first set of values for the first set of attributes associated with the workspace, providing a second set of options for specifying a second set of values for a second set of attributes associated with the workspace.”
Step 1, MPEP 2106.03:
Claim 2 depends from the non-transitory machine-readable medium of claim 1 and is similarly drawn to a statutory category.
Claim 9 depends from the method of claim 8 and is similarly drawn to a statutory category.
Claim 16 depends from the system of claim 15 and is similarly drawn to a statutory category.
Step 2A Prong One, MPEP 2106.04, 2016.04(a):
The analysis of the parent is incorporated.
Step 2A Prong Two, MPEP 2106.04(d):
The claims each further recite that the wherein the set of values for the set of attributes is a first set of values for a first set of attributes, providing a first set of options for specifying the first set of values for the first set of attributes associated with the workspace upon receiving the first set of values for the first set of attributes associated with the workspace, providing a second set of options for specifying a second set of values for a second set of attributes associated with the workspace. These additional elements of what the set of values are and providing first and second options are mere data gathering and output and, as such, these limitations do not impose any meaningful limits on the claim. See MPEP 2106.05.
Step 2B, MPEP 2106.05:
As discussed above, the additional elements of the claims do not amount to significantly more than the judicial exception as they are recited at a high level of generality and amount to well-understood, routine, conventional activity of receiving and transmitting data over a network. See MPEP 2106.05(d)(II).
Regarding claims 4, 11 and 18, claim 4 recites:
“The non-transitory machine-readable medium of claim 1, wherein each mapping in the set of mappings further specifies a set of access control privileges for controlling access to the workspace by the user based on a status of the workspace, wherein the program further comprises a set of instructions for setting a status of the workspace to a first status.”
Step 1, MPEP 2106.03:
Claim 4 depends from the non-transitory machine-readable medium of claim 1 and is similarly drawn to a statutory category.
Claim 11 depends from the method of claim 8 and is similarly drawn to a statutory category.
Claim 18 depends from the system of claim 15 and is similarly drawn to a statutory category.
Step 2A Prong One, MPEP 2106.04, 2016.04(a):
The analysis of the parent is incorporated.
The claims further recite the limitation of setting a status of the workspace to a first status and for controlling access to the workspace by a user based on a status of the workspace. This limitation is directed the abstract idea of certain methods of organizing human activity, particularly managing personal behavior or relationships or interactions between people. See MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(II)(C).
Step 2A Prong Two, MPEP 2106.04(d):
The claims further recite wherein each mapping in the set of mappings specifies a set of access control privileges. This additional element of obtaining amounts to mere data gathering and does not, alone or in combination, integrate the judicial exception into a practical application. See MPEP 2106.05.
Step 2B, MPEP 2106.05:
As discussed above, the additional element of the claims including the data gathering step of obtaining, does not amount to significantly more than the judicial exception as it is recited at a high level of generality and amount to the well-understood, routine, conventional activity of receiving and transmitting data over a network. See MPEP 2106.05(d)(II).
Regarding claims 5, 12 and 19, claim 5 recites:
“The non-transitory machine-readable medium of claim 4, wherein the program further comprises sets of instructions for:
receiving an input from a user in the set of users; and
in response to receiving the input, setting the status of the workspace to a second status.”
Step 1, MPEP 2106.03:
Claim 5 depends from the non-transitory machine-readable medium of claim 4 and is similarly drawn to a statutory category.
Claim 12 depends from the method of claim 11 and is similarly drawn to a statutory category.
Claim 19 depends from the system of claim 118 and is similarly drawn to a statutory category.
Step 2A Prong One, MPEP 2106.04, 2016.04(a):
The analysis of the parent is incorporated.
The claims further each recite the limitations of receiving an input from a user in the set of users and, in response to receiving the input, setting the status of the workspace to a second status. This limitation is directed the abstract idea of certain methods of organizing human activity, particularly managing personal behavior or relationships or interactions between people. See MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(II)(C).
Step 2A Prong Two, MPEP 2106.04(d):
All elements are part of the abstract idea above.
Step 2B, MPEP 2106.05:
All elements are part of the abstract idea above.
Regarding claims 6, 13 and 20, claim 6 recites:
“The non-transitory machine-readable medium of claim 1, wherein the subset of the set of attributes specified in each mapping in the set of mappings comprises one or more of a region attribute, a department attribute, and a commodity attribute.”
Step 1, MPEP 2106.03:
Claim 6 depends from the non-transitory machine-readable medium of claim 3 and is similarly drawn to a statutory category.
Claim 13 depends from the method of claim 8 and is similarly drawn to a statutory category.
Claim 20 depends from the system of claim 15 and is similarly drawn to a statutory category.
Step 2A Prong One, MPEP 2106.04, 2016.04(a):
The analysis of the parent is incorporated.
Step 2A Prong Two, MPEP 2106.04(d):
The claims further recite wherein the subset of the set of attributes specified in each mapping in the set of mappings comprises one or more of a region attribute, a department attribute, and a commodity attribute. This additional element of what the subset of attributes comprise amounts to mere data gathering and does not, alone or in combination, integrate the judicial exception into a practical application. See MPEP 2106.05.
Step 2B, MPEP 2106.05:
As discussed above, the additional element of the claims does not amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. The use of this limitation does not amount to significantly more than the judicial exception as it is recited at a high level of generality and amounts to the insignificant extra-solution activity of selecting a particular data source or type of data to be manipulated. See MPEP 2106.05(g).
Regarding claims 7 and 14, claim 7 recites:
“The non-transitory machine-readable medium of claim 1, wherein the program further comprises providing a graphical user interface (GUI) comprising a set of user interface (UI) controls for specifying the set of values for the set of attributes associated with the workspace, wherein the set of values for the set of attributes associated with the workspace are received through the GUI.”
Step 1, MPEP 2106.03:
Claim 7 depends from the non-transitory machine-readable medium of claim 1 and is similarly drawn to a statutory category.
Claim 14 depends from the method of claim 8 and is similarly drawn to a statutory category.
Step 2A Prong One, MPEP 2106.04, 2016.04(a):
The analysis of the parent is incorporated.
Step 2A Prong Two, MPEP 2106.04(d):
The claims further recite a GUI comprising UI controls for receiving the set of values for the set of attributes associated with the workspace. The GUI is recited at a high level of generality and is mere instructions to implement the abstract idea on a generic computer using generic computing tools. See MPEP 2106.05(f).
Step 2B, MPEP 2106.05:
As discussed above, the additional elements of the claims do not amount to significantly more than the judicial exception as they amount to mere instructions to apply the exception using generic computer components. See MPEP 2106.05(f).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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 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)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 1-2, 4-9, 11-16 and 18-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by CHATTERJEE, US 2007/0124373 A1, previously presented.
Regarding claim 1, CHATTERJEE discloses a non-transitory machine-readable medium storing a program executable by at least one processing unit of a device, the program comprising sets of instructions for:
receiving a request comprising a set of values for a set of attributes (¶11-13: instantiating a new workspace from metadata definitions and properties, ¶32-34);
based on the set of values for the set of attributes, accessing a set of mappings, each mapping in the set of mappings specifying a user and values for a subset of the set of attributes (¶32: parseable XML file defining properties of the workspace and other); and
generating a workspace (¶33-34), the workspace comprising the set of values for the set of attributes and a set of users identified in the set of mappings with values for the subset of the set of attributes that match the set of values for the set of attributes (¶46-48: during template instantiation, the properties of the workspace and a list of workspace members are accessed and a set of members for the workspace are matched against desired attributes to be added to the workspace being created).
Regarding claim 2, CHATTERJEE discloses the non-transitory machine-readable medium of claim 1, wherein the set of values for the set of attributes is a first set of values for a first set of attributes (¶43), wherein the program further comprises sets of instructions for:
providing a first set of options for specifying the first set of values for the first set of attributes associated with the workspace upon receiving the first set of values for the first set of attributes associated with the workspace (¶43, ¶54),
providing a second set of options for specifying a second set of values for a second set of attributes associated with the workspace (¶34, ¶49, ¶54: workspace template may be iterated by users to evolve the workspace overtime).
Regarding claim 4, CHATTERJEE discloses the non-transitory machine-readable medium of claim 1, wherein each mapping in the set of mappings (¶44) further specifies a set of access control privileges for controlling access to the workspace by the user based on a status of the workspace (¶33: workspace properties such that the created workspace includes a set of users defining the collaboration group and at least one service, ¶48, ¶50), wherein the program further comprises a set of instructions for setting a status of the workspace to a first status (¶50).
Regarding claim 5, CHATTERJEE discloses the non-transitory machine-readable medium of claim 4, wherein the program further comprises sets of instructions for:
receiving an input from a user in the set of users (¶50); and
in response to receiving the input, setting the status of the workspace to a second status (¶50: user can manually choose to resolve a status conflict between workspace schemes).
Regarding claim 6, CHATTERJEE discloses the non-transitory machine-readable medium of claim 1, wherein the subset of the set of attributes specified in each mapping in the set of mappings comprises one or more of a region attribute, a department attribute, and a commodity attribute (¶42, Table 1).
Regarding claim 7, CHATTERJEE discloses the non-transitory machine-readable medium of claim 1, wherein the program further comprises providing a graphical user interface (GUI) comprising a set of user interface (UI) controls for specifying the set of values for the set of attributes associated with the workspace, wherein the set of values for the set of attributes associated with the workspace are received through the GUI (¶12, ¶32, ¶37, Fig. 2 201).
Regarding claims 8-9 and 11-14, claims 8-9 and 11-14 recite limitations similar to claims 1-2 and 4-7, respectively, and are similarly rejected.
Regarding claims 15-16 and 18-20, claims 15-18 and 18-20 recite limitations similar to claims 1-2 and 4-6, respectively, and are similarly rejected.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Appelbaum et al.
US 8453159 B2
Workspace for monitoring information events
Konanka et al.
US 20070101435 A1
Providing secure workspace environments
Demmler et al.
US 20200412737 A1
Role-based permission integration
Morozov et al.
WO 2009014975 A1
Providing secure workspace sessions
Sampemane, Geetanjali, Prasad Naldurg, and Roy H. Campbell. "Access control for active spaces." 18th Annual Computer Security Applications Conference, 2002. Proceedings.. IEEE, 2002.
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 ANDREW L TANK whose telephone number is (571)270-1692. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Thursday 9a-6p.
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, Matthew Ell can be reached at 571-270-3264. 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.
/ANDREW L TANK/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2141
Prosecution Insights