DETAILED ACTION
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on 3/13/2026 has been entered.
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 .
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101
3. 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.
4. Claims 1, 2, 6 – 13 and 16 – 22 and 24 are directed to an abstract idea without significantly more. Independent claims 1, 13 and 20 recite a computer-implemented method comprising: storing resource sharing information comprising a delegation policy, resource metadata for a shared resource of a sharer and communication channel information for communicating with the sharer through a predetermined sequence of one or more channels; generating a virtual link based on the resource metadata, wherein the virtual link is a HyperText Transfer Protocol (HTTP) Uniform Resource Locator (URL); transmitting the virtual link to one or more sharees based on the resource metadata; and updating the resource metadata by: receiving a resource request for the shared resource related with the virtual link; sending, based on the resource metadata being expired, an activation request to the sharer for re-activating the shared resource through a selected channel according to the predetermined sequence of the one or more channels, wherein the resource metadata being expired is determined based on a HTTP 401 status code; updating the resource metadata based on the re-activating of the shared resource by the sharer; receiving a second resource request for the shared resource related with the virtual link; and updating the resource metadata according to a re-activation policy based on the delegation policy indicating full delegation and the resource metadata being expired, wherein updating the resource metadata in response to the second resource request is done without contacting the sharer.
The limitations, as drafted, describe a process that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitations in the mind but for the recitation of generic computer components. The abstract idea limitation is “generating a virtual link based on the resource metadata …” in Prong I step 2A. Other limitations including “storing … resource sharing information …,” “transmitting … the virtual link …” and “updating … the resource metadata …,” “receiving a resource request …,” “sending … an activation request …,” “updating the resource metadata …,” “receiving a second resource request …” and “updating the resource metadata according to a re-activation policy …” are considered pre/post-activity solutions for receiving a state of performance information and performing an action which is merely an applied application which insignificantly amounts to a judicial exception. Thus, these claims are directing to abstract idea under 35 USC 101.
That is nothing in the claim elements preclude the steps from practically being performed in the mind. All of the non-abstract limitations are pre/post-activity solutions for getting/obtaining/manipulating/displaying data without significantly more. If a claim limitation, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind but for the recitation of generic computer components, then it falls within the “Mental Processes” grouping of abstract ideas. Accordingly, the claims recite an abstract idea.
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. In particular, the components in the non-abstract steps are recited at a high-level of generality (i.e., as a generic processor performing a generic computer function of receiving information, executing a function and making a decision) such that it amounts no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component. Additionally, the steps of “storing … resource sharing information …,” “transmitting … the virtual link …,” “updating … the resource metadata …,” “receiving a resource request …,” “sending … an activation request …,” “updating the resource metadata …,” “receiving a second resource request …” and “updating the resource metadata according to a re-activation policy …” are pre/post-activity solutions as gathering/manipulating data that are insignificant under Prong II step 2A and 2B. See buySAFE, Inc. v. Google, Inc., 765 F.3d 1350, 1355, 112 USPQ2d 1093, 1096 (Fed. Cir. 2014) (computer receives and sends information over a network) as noted in MPEP 2106.05(d)(II)(i). Accordingly, this additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because it does not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. The claims are directed to an abstract idea.
The claims do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. As discussed above with respect to integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, the additional element of using a computer to perform the noted steps amounts to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component. Mere instructions to apply an exception using a generic computer component cannot provide an inventive concept. The claims are not patent eligible.
Additionally dependent claims 2, 6 – 12 and 14 – 19, 21, 22 and 24 are similarly rejected as being directed to an abstract idea since these claims are either further detailing the abstract idea by analyzing/processing the data or the elements are insignificant. More specifically, the dependent claims do not include additional elements, alone or in combination, that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception.
As per claim 2, updating the resource metadata periodically recites generic computer components for applying the abstract idea.
As per claim 6, verifying availability of the one or more channels which is insignificant extra solution activity as explained above.
As per claim 7, wherein the communication channel information comprises a communication application programming interface (API) for each of the one or more channels recite generic computer components for applying the abstract idea.
As per claims 9 and 17, wherein the resource metadata comprises a termination policy and the method further comprises: removing the resource sharing information for a sharee among the one or more sharees based on sharing of the shared resource for the sharee being terminated according to the termination policy recite generic computer components for applying the abstract idea.
As per claim 10, wherein the termination policy comprises: the sharing of the shared resource being terminated for the sharee after an expiration date for the sharee; recite generic computer components for applying the abstract idea.
As per claims 11 and 18, wherein the resource metadata comprises an address of the shared resource and granting information on the shares which is insignificant extra solution activity as explained above.
As per claims 12 and 19, wherein the granting information comprises a sharee list and access authorization for each sharee in the sharee list which is insignificant extra solution activity as explained above.
As per claim 21, updating the resource metadata comprises: updating the resource metadata based on receiving updated resource metadata from the sharer which is insignificant extra solution activity as explained above.
As per claim 22, wherein the termination policy comprises: the sharing of the shared resource being terminated for the sharee after access authorization of the shared resource to the sharee is terminated which is insignificant extra solution activity as explained above.
As per claim 24, wherein sending the activation request to the sharer utilizes a webhook of the communication API for the selected channel which is insignificant extra solution activity as explained above.
Allowable Subject Matter
4. Claims 1, 2, 6 – 13 and 16 – 22 and 24 would be allowable if amended to overcome the 35 USC § 101 rejections recited above.
5. The following is an examiner’s statement of reasons for allowance:
Regarding claim 1, the closest prior art is Lin et al. (U.S. Publication 2018/0152460), Rathod (U.S. Publication 2016/0255139), Dwan et al. (U.S. Publication 2014/0282901) and Evans et al. (U.S. Publication 2014/0229544). Lin teaches a computer-implemented method comprising: storing resource sharing information comprising resource metadata for a shared resource of a sharer; generating a virtual link based on the resource metadata; transmitting the virtual link to one or more sharees based on the resource metadata; and updating the resource metadata, by: receiving a resource request for the shared resource related with the virtual link. Rathod discloses communication channel information for communicating with the sharer through a predetermined sequence of one or more channels. Dwan discloses sending, based on the resource metadata being expired, an activation request to the sharer for re-activating the shared resource through a selected channel according to the predetermined sequence of the one or more channels; and updating the resource metadata based on the re-activating of the shared resource by the sharer. Evans discloses wherein the virtual link is a HyperText Transfer Protocol (HTTP) Uniform Resource Locator (URL), and wherein the resource metadata being expired is determined based on a HTTP status code selected from a group consisting of: a HTTP 404 status code, and a HTTP 401 status code.
However, the art of record does not teach, nor render obvious a computer-implemented method comprising: storing resource sharing information comprising a delegation policy, resource metadata for a shared resource of a sharer and communication channel information for communicating with the sharer through a predetermined sequence of one or more channels; generating a virtual link based on the resource metadata, wherein the virtual link is a HyperText Transfer Protocol (HTTP) Uniform Resource Locator (URL); transmitting the virtual link to one or more sharees based on the resource metadata; and updating the resource metadata by: receiving a resource request for the shared resource related with the virtual link; sending, based on the resource metadata being expired, an activation request to the sharer for re-activating the shared resource through a selected channel according to the predetermined sequence of the one or more channels, wherein the resource metadata being expired is determined based on a HTTP 401 status code; updating the resource metadata based on the re-activating of the shared resource by the sharer; receiving a second resource request for the shared resource related with the virtual link; and updating the resource metadata according to a re-activation policy based on the delegation policy indicating full delegation and the resource metadata being expired, wherein updating the resource metadata in response to the second resource request is done without contacting the sharer.
Claims 13 and 20 are variants of claim 1 and are conditionally allowable for at least the reasons of claim 1, as are claims 2, 6, 7, 9 – 12, 21, 22 and 24 which depend from claim 1 and claims 17 - 19 which depend from claim 13.
Any comments considered necessary by applicant must be submitted no later than the payment of the issue fee and, to avoid processing delays, should preferably accompany the issue fee. Such submissions should be clearly labeled “Comments on Statement of Reasons for Allowance.”
Response to Arguments
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101
6. Applicant's arguments have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
7. Applicant first argues (“First” argument) on page 8 that the instant independent claims are allowable since they are similar to Example 39 and do not “set forth or describe any mathematical relationships, calculations, formulas, or equations using words or mathematical symbols.” First, Example 39 recites a Method for Training a Neural Network for Facial Detection. The instant claims recite a method of resource sharing. Example 39 is thus not relevant or analogous to the claimed invention. Second, the subject rejections do not allege that the claims recite mathematical concepts, but are rather directed to mental processes.
8. Applicant next argues (“Second” and “Third” arguments) on page 9 that the claims recite an improvement in technology. While the claims may improve the efficiency in the way the underlying technology is utilized, there is no improvement to the technology itself, which consists of generic processors.
9. Finally, applicant’s “Fourth” argument regarding a “close call” is not persuasive as evidenced by the detailed analysis recited in the above rejections.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
10. Applicant’s arguments have been fully considered and are persuasive. The rejections have been withdrawn.
Conclusion
11. Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to WILLIAM C WOOD whose telephone number is (571)272-5285. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday, 8:00 am - 4:30 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, Chat C Do can be reached at 571-272-3721. 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.
/WILLIAM C WOOD/Examiner, Art Unit 2193
/Chat C Do/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2193
Prosecution Insights