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 AIA .
Status of Claims
This communication is a Final Office action in response to communications received on 09/10/2025. Claims 1, 8 and 15 have been amended. Therefore, claims 1-20 are currently pending and have been addressed below.
Response to Amendment
Applicant has amended claims 8 and 15 to overcome the claim objections. Examiner withdraws the objections for claims 8 and 15.
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 1-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 101 because the claimed invention is directed to a judicial exception without a practical application and significantly more.
Step 1: Identifying Statutory Categories
When considering subject matter eligibility under 35 U.S.C. § 101, it must be determined whether the claims are directed to one of the four statutory categories of invention, i.e., process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter (i.e., Step 1). In the instant case, claims 1-20 are directed to a system (i.e. a machine). Thus, each of these claims fall within one of the four statutory categories. Nevertheless, the claims fall within the judicial exception of an abstract idea.
Step 2A: Prong One: Abstract Ideas
Claims 1-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention recites an abstract idea. Independent claim 1 recites: receiving, from a first authorized user account, a request to generate a reminder corresponding to an element of a collaboration content item; determining, based on past interactions of the first authorized user account, a reminder type from a plurality of reminder types; generating a reminder record based on the request, the reminder record comprising an indication of the element of the collaboration content item and an indication of the reminder type; storing the reminder record corresponding to the reminder in association with the first authorized user account and a second authorized user account; receiving, from the second authorized user account, a request to view one or more reminders associated with the second authorized user account; generating a representation of the reminder, wherein the representation of the reminder includes a reference to the element of the collaboration content item; and the representation to the underlying collaboration content item, whereby a user interaction retrieves and presents the corresponding content item within the collaboration environment; causing display via a second authorized user authorized to access the collaboration content item; detecting user interaction with the representation of the reminder; and responsive to detecting the user interaction, updating to include the collaboration content item corresponding to the reminder.
Independent claim 8 recites: receiving, from a first authorized user account, a request to generate a reminder corresponding to an element of a collaboration content item; generating a reminder record based on the request, the reminder record comprising an indication of the element of the collaboration content item; storing the reminder record corresponding to the reminder in association with the first authorized user account and a second authorized user account; receiving, from the second authorized user account, a request to view one or more reminders associated with the second authorized user account; generating a representation of the reminder, wherein the representation of the reminder includes a reference to the element of the collaboration content item and the representation to the underlying collaboration content item, whereby a user interaction retrieves and presents the corresponding content item within the collaboration environment; causing display via a second authorized user authorized to access the collaboration content item; detecting user interaction with the representation of the reminder; and responsive to detecting the user interaction, updating to include the collaboration content item corresponding to the reminder, and augmenting the display of the collaboration content item by visually emphasizing the element in the collaboration content item that is associated with the reminder.
Independent claim 15 recites: receiving, from a first authorized user account, a request to generate a reminder corresponding to an element of a collaboration content item; generating a reminder record based on the request, the reminder record comprising an indication of the element of the collaboration content item; storing the reminder record corresponding to the reminder in association with the first authorized user account; receiving, from the first authorized user account, a request to view one or more reminders associated with the first authorized user account; generating a representation of the reminder, wherein the representation of the reminder includes a reference to the element of the collaboration content item; and the representation to the underlying collaboration content item, whereby a user interaction retrieves and presents the corresponding content item within the collaboration environment; causing display via a first authorized user device authorized to access the collaboration content item; detecting user interaction with the representation of the reminder; and responsive to detecting the user interaction, updating to include the collaboration content item corresponding to the reminder, and augmenting the display of the collaboration content item by visually emphasizing the element in the collaboration content item that is associated with the reminder. The limitations as drafted, is a process that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, falls under the abstract groupings of: Mental Processes (concepts performed in the human mind (including an observation, evaluation, judgement, opinion (independent claims recite for example, “receiving, from a first authorized user account, a request to generate a reminder”, “determining, based on past interactions of the first authorized user account, a reminder type from a plurality of reminder types”, “generating a reminder record based on the request”, “receiving a request to view one or more reminders”, “generating a representation of the reminder”, “detecting user interaction with the representation of the reminder”, “responsive to detecting the user interaction”, “updating to include the collaboration content item corresponding to the reminder”, (dependent claim 2) “augmenting the display of the collaboration content item by visually emphasizing the element in the collaboration content item that is associated with the reminder”, (dependent claims 3, 9 and 16) “the plurality of reminder types comprises a review reminder type, a send reminder type, and an edit reminder type” (dependent claims 4 and 11) “setting an amount of time as a due date for the reminder” (dependent claims 5, 12 and 19) “monitoring the due date for the reminder record to determine when the reminder is coming up due” (dependent claims 6, 13 and 19) “responsive to the reminder record coming up due, notifying the first authorized user account and the second authorized user account”.) Concepts performed in the human mind as mental processes because the steps of receiving, determining, generating, storing, detecting, responsive to detecting, updating, and analyzing data mimic human thought processes of observation, evaluation, judgement and opinion, perhaps with paper and pencil, where data interpretation is perceptible in the human mind. See In re TLI Commc’ns LLCPatentLitig., 823 F.3d 607, 611 (Fed. Cir. 2016); FairWarning IP, LLC v. Iatric Sys., Inc., 839 F.3d 1089, 1093-94 (Fed. Cir. 2016)).
Certain methods of organizing human activity (commercial or legal interactions (including advertising, marketing or sales activities or behaviors; business relations; (managing personal behavior or relationships or interactions between people (including social activities, teaching, and following rules or instructions). As the claims discuss generating reminders based on requests, determining a reminder type from a plurality of reminder types; generating a reminder record based on the request, storing the reminder record corresponding to the reminder in association with the first authorized user account and a second authorized user account; receiving, from the second authorized user account, a request to view one or more reminders associated with the second authorized user account; generating a representation of the reminder, causing display via a second authorized user authorized to access the collaboration content item; detecting user interaction with the representation of the reminder; and responsive to detecting the user interaction, updating to include the collaboration content item corresponding to the reminder, which is one of certain methods of organizing human activity. Dependent claims 2-7, 9-14 and 16-20 add additional limitations, for example: (claim 2) augmenting the display of the collaboration content item by visually emphasizing the element in the collaboration content item that is associated with the reminder, (claims 3, 9 and 16) the plurality of reminder types comprises a review reminder type, a send reminder type, and an edit reminder type
(claims 4 and 11) setting an amount of time as a due date for the reminder (claims 5, 12 and 19) monitoring the due date for the reminder record to determine when the reminder is coming up due
(claims 6, 13 and 19) responsive to the reminder record coming up due, notifying the first authorized user account and the second authorized user account (claim 7) determining, based on the past interactions of the first authorized user account, the reminder type from the plurality of reminder types comprises: further determining the reminder type from the plurality of reminder types based on other past interactions of other authorized user accounts (claims 14 and 20) identifying other past interactions of other authorized user accounts; and generating the reminder record based on the past interactions and the other past interactions, but these only serve to further limit the abstract idea. If a claim limitation, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation of methods of mental processes and organizing human activity but for the recitation of generic computer components, the claims recite an abstract idea.
Step 2A: Prong Two
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application because the claims merely describe how to generally “apply” the abstract idea. In particular, the claims only recite the additional elements – computing system, processor(s), non-transitory computer readable medium, graphical user interface, linked, user device. These additional elements are recited at a high-level of generality such that it amounts to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using generic computer components. Simply implementing the abstract idea on generic computer components is not a practical application of the abstract idea, as it adds the words “apply it” (or an equivalent) with the judicial exception, or mere instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer, or merely uses a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea, as discussed in MPEP 2106.05(f). The limitations generally link the abstract idea to a particular technological environment or field of use (such as computing, see MPEP 2106.05(h)). The “receiving, from a first authorized user account, a request to generate a reminder corresponding to an element of a collaboration content item”; “receiving, from the second authorized user account, a request to view one or more reminders associated with the second authorized user account” limitations describe data gathering. The Office has long considered data gathering to be insignificant extra-solution activity. Merely adding insignificant extra-solution activity to an abstract idea does not integrate the exception into a practical application, see MPEP 2106.05(g)). Looking at the limitations as an ordered combination adds nothing that is not already present when looking at the elements taken individually. There is no indication that the combination of elements improves the functioning of a computer or improves any other technology. Their collective functions merely provide generic computer implementation and do not impose a meaningful limit to integrate the abstract idea into a practical application.
Step 2B:
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 discussion of integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, the additional elements amount to no more than mere instructions to apply an exception and generally link the abstract idea to a particular technological environment or field of use. With respect to the computer components, these limitations are described in Applicant’s own specification as generic and conventional elements. See at least Applicants specification Figure 11A; para 0129, recites “Figures 11A illustrates a conventional system bus computing system architecture 1100 wherein the components of the system are in electrical communication with each other using a bus 1105. Example system 1100 includes a processing unit (CPU or processor) 1110 and a system bus 1105 that couples various system components including the system memory 1115, such as read only memory (ROM) 1120 and random access memory (RAM) 1125, to the processor 1110. The system 1100 can include a cache of high-speed memory connected directly with, in close proximity to, or integrated as part of the processor 1110. The system 1100 can copy data from the memory 1115 and/or the storage device 1130 to the cache 1112 for quick access by the processor 1110. In this way, the cache can provide a performance boost that avoids processor 1110 delays while waiting for data. These and other modules can control or be configured to control the processor 1110 to perform various actions. Other system memory 1115 may be available for use as well. The memory 1115 can include multiple different types of memory with different performance characteristics. The processor 1110 can include any general purpose processor”. Thus, the specification spells out different generic equipment that might be applied using the concept and the particular steps such conventional processing would entail based on the concept of information access. Thus, the claims at issue amount to nothing significantly more than instructions to apply the abstract idea using some unspecified, generic computers. The use of such generic computers to receive or transmit data over a network has been identified as well understood, routine and conventional activity by the courts. With respect to ““receiving, from a first authorized user account, a request to generate a reminder corresponding to an element of a collaboration content item”; “receiving, from the second authorized user account, a request to view one or more reminders associated with the second authorized user account” limitations, which amounts to mere data gathering or merely add insignificant extra-solution activity to the abstract idea, see MPEP 2106.05(g). The legal precedent in Symantec, TLI and OIP Techs court decisions cited in MPEP 2106.05(d)(II) indicated that receipt and transmission of information over a computer network are a well-understood, routine, and conventional functions when claimed in a generic manner, as is the case here. See also Trading Techs. Int’l, Inc. v. IBG LLC, 921 F.3d 1084, 1093 (Fed. Cir. 2019) (data gathering and displaying are well-understood, routine, and conventional activities). Furthermore, dependent claims have been fully analyzed to determine whether there are additional limitations recited that amount to significantly more than the abstract idea. The claims recite additional limitations, for example: (claim 2) augmenting the display of the collaboration content item by visually emphasizing the element in the collaboration content item that is associated with the reminder, (claims 3, 9 and 16) the plurality of reminder types comprises a review reminder type, a send reminder type, and an edit reminder type (claims 4 and 11) setting an amount of time as a due date for the reminder (claims 5, 12 and 19) monitoring the due date for the reminder record to determine when the reminder is coming up due (claims 6, 13 and 19) responsive to the reminder record coming up due, notifying the first authorized user account and the second authorized user account (claim 7) determining, based on the past interactions of the first authorized user account, the reminder type from the plurality of reminder types comprises: further determining the reminder type from the plurality of reminder types based on other past interactions of other authorized user accounts (claims 14 and 20) identifying other past interactions of other authorized user accounts; and generating the reminder record based on the past interactions and the other past interactions.. These limitations do not include an improvement to another technology or technical field, an improvement to the functioning of the computer itself, or meaningful limitations beyond generally linking the use of the abstract idea to a particular technological environment. Thus, nothing in the claim adds significantly more to an abstract idea. The claims are ineligible. Looking at the limitations as an ordered combination adds nothing that is not already present when looking at the elements taken individually. There is no indication that the combination of elements improves the functioning of a computer or improves any other technology. Their collective functions merely provide conventional computer implementation. Therefore, since there are no limitations in the claim that transform the exception into a patent eligible application such that the claim amounts to significantly more than the exception itself, the claims are rejected under 35 USC 101 as being directed to non-statutory subject matter.
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 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.
The factual inquiries set forth in Graham v. John Deere Co., 383 U.S. 1, 148 USPQ 459 (1966), that are applied 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 non-obviousness.
Claims 1-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Axe (WO 02/21413 A2), hereinafter “Axe”, over Rathod (WO 2015/036817), hereinafter “Rathod”.
Regarding Claim 1, Axe teaches A computing system comprising: one or more processors; and a non-transitory computer readable medium including one or more instructions that, when executed by the one or more processors, cause the computing system to perform operations comprising: (Axe, Figure 19, teaches the computing system including processor(s), ROM (Read-Only Memory), Examiner notes ROM is a non-transitory medium);
receiving, from a first authorized user account, a request to generate a reminder corresponding to an element of a collaboration content item; (Axe, page 102, teaches authorized users; page 92, generating reminders and notifications; page 2, collaborative productivity applications created by anyone and delivered using familiar communication mechanisms; an approach that can facilitate distribution of secure, collaborative applications among separate but networked enterprises, so that users or applications of different enterprises can collaborate);
determining, … of the first authorized user account, a reminder type from a plurality of reminder types; (Axe, page 86, teaches “process-level” reminders to selected recipients in the recipient list. In another embodiment, the system is configured to send a “task level” reminder to all recipients in a recipient list. The owner of the task can send “ad-hoc” reminders to everyone in a recipient list.);
generating a reminder record based on the request, the reminder record comprising an indication of the element of the collaboration content item and an indication of the reminder type; (Axe, page 89, records the notification in a notification log (Examiner notes recording the notification in a notification log is a reminder record). Further, databases are taught throughout Axe, see at least Axe, page 7, Content may be stored in a database of a server. Further, see Axe at least page 96, teaches a database for messages (Examiner notes a reminder record) including the attributes and reminder type);
storing the reminder record corresponding to the reminder in association with the first authorized user account and a second authorized user account; (Axe, page 102, teaches authorized users; Examiner notes storing data is taught throughout Axe, see at least Axe page 88, stored in a notification time value in the database);
receiving, from the second authorized user account, a request to view one or more reminders associated with the second authorized user account; (Axe, page 102, teaches authorized users; Axe, pages 7-8, a shared workspace is created in which multiple persons or systems can interact; Axe, Figure 16, and page 62, teaches request to present a view is received);
generating a graphical user interface comprising a representation of the reminder, wherein the representation of the reminder includes a reference to the element of the collaboration content item (Axe, Abstract teaches a graphical user interface; Figure 9B; Axe, page 102, the request may comprise an HTTL request or an internal programmatic function call; the request is forwarded to a container that contains the building block associated with the view … the application server forwards the presentation data object to the presenter ... The system then invokes a presentation method) and the representation is linked to the underlying collaboration content item, whereby a user interaction retrieves and presents the corresponding content item within the collaboration environment (Links are taught throughout Axe. See for example, Axe Figure 9B is a diagram of a My Groups screen that is generated and displayed when a user selects the My Groups link of the portal home page. Further, Figure 9B comprises function links including Application shortcuts including File Sharing);
causing display of the graphical user interface via a second authorized user device authorized to access the collaboration content item; (Axe, Abstract teaches a graphical user interface; Axe, page 102, discusses access controls and the security framework which enables one user to develop applications with another party and have some of the data to be shared amongst the users associated with that party. The security framework comprises a plurality of interfaces); … with the representation of the reminder via the graphical user interface; and (Axe, Abstract teaches a graphical user interface; Axe, page 7, teaches applications as defined herein enable full interaction and navigation of dynamic content; A shared workspace is created in which multiple persons or systems can interact within the same transportable application);
responsive to … , updating the graphical user interface to include the collaboration content item corresponding to the reminder (Axe, Abstract teaches a graphical user interface, Axe, pages 7-8, a shared workspace is created in which multiple persons or systems can interact; The content of the application is current when read; the application is constantly updated so users can always see the most current information and responses).
Yet, Axe does not appear to explicitly teach and in the same field of endeavor Rathod teaches based on past interactions … detecting user interaction … detecting the user interaction (Rathod, page 1, enabling communication among anybody-to-anybody, anywhere, anytime any device for anything based on plurality of innovative ways including based on structured updated status, structured requests, structured shared contents determining connectable users for enabling users to establish connections, presenting interfaces & multimedia types of contents and conducting activities, actions, events, transactions, communications, collaborations, workflows & tasks; Rathod, page 8, detecting user interaction; Rathod, page 35, information about user interactions with other entities comprises information about activity, actions, event, transaction, current location or place & purpose of user's and or interacted entities interaction with other users, information about where, when, how, why, with whom, who is involves, for what interaction take place, full or partial or selective data, profile, shared data, past or historical related data).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine Axe with based on past interactions … detecting user interaction as taught by Rathod with the motivation for enabling communication among anybody-to-anybody, anywhere, anytime any device for anything based on plurality of innovative ways including collaborations, workflows & tasks (Rathod, page 1). The Axe invention now incorporating the Rathod invention, has all the limitations of claim 1.
Regarding Claim 2, Axe, now incorporating Rathod, teaches The computing system of claim 1, wherein the operations further comprise: augmenting the display of the collaboration content item by visually emphasizing the element in the collaboration content item that is associated with the reminder (Axe, page 134, teaches recipients of the message notified appropriately, and the new content is highlighted when such recipients read the message. Examiner notes Applicants specification does not include “augmenting” or “emphasizing”, however, Applicants specification, para 0085 recites: “highlight content” which is analogous to Axe. See Axe at least pages 124 and 134 teaches “highlight” information).
Regarding Claim 3, Axe, now incorporating Rathod, teaches The computing system of claim 1, wherein the plurality of reminder types comprises a review reminder type, a send reminder type, and an edit reminder type (Axe, page 86, discusses a plurality of reminder types: “process-level” reminders to selected recipients in the recipient list. In another embodiment, the system is configured to send a “task level” reminder to all recipients in a recipient list. The owner of the task can send “ad-hoc” reminders to everyone in a recipient list. Examiner Note: The name of the reminder type is a label and is non-functional descriptive material or printed matter as it does not explicitly alter or impact the steps of the invention and therefore it does not distinguish the invention from the prior art in terms of patentability.)
Regarding Claim 4, Axe, now incorporating Rathod, teaches The computing system of claim 1, wherein generating the reminder record based on the request comprises: setting an amount of time as a due date for the reminder … of the first authorized user account (Axe, page 89, records the notification in a notification log (Examiner notes recoding the notification in a notification log is a reminder record); Axe, page 102, teaches authorized users; Axe, page 87, the owner of a process can schedule specific "due-date" reminders to be sent to everyone either at the process or at the task level. The owner can send the reminder either on a particular date or a specified period before the due date (e.g., two days before, two weeks before, etc.).) Yet, Axe does not appear to explicitly teach and in the same field of endeavor Rathod teaches based on the past interactions (Rathod, page 1, enabling communication among anybody-to-anybody, anywhere, anytime any device for anything based on plurality of innovative ways including based on structured updated status, structured requests, structured shared contents determining connectable users for enabling users to establish connections, presenting interfaces & multimedia types of contents and conducting activities, actions, events, transactions, communications, collaborations, workflows & tasks; Rathod, page 35, information about user interactions with other entities comprises information about activity, actions, event, transaction, current location or place & purpose of user's and or interacted entities interaction with other users, information about where, when, how, why, with whom, who is involves, for what interaction take place, full or partial or selective data, profile, shared data, past or historical related data).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine Axe with based on the past interactions as taught by Rathod with the motivation for enabling communication among anybody-to-anybody, anywhere, anytime any device for anything based on plurality of innovative ways including collaborations, workflows & tasks (Rathod, page 1).
Regarding Claim 5, Axe, now incorporating Rathod, teaches The computing system of claim 4, further comprising: monitoring the due date for the reminder record to determine when the reminder is coming up due (Axe, page 85, notifications may be issued as a result of the following activities: Response to a building block by a user; change in process or task due dates).
Regarding Claim 6, Axe, now incorporating Rathod, teaches The computing system of claim 5, further comprising: responsive to the reminder record coming up due, notifying the first authorized user account and the second authorized user account (Axe, page 102, teaches authorized users; Axe, page 85, Reminders are prompts sent to users. Examples of reminders include: Inform a user that a due date is fast approaching; inform all users about an important process development; etc.)
Regarding Claim 7, Axe, now incorporating Rathod, teaches The computing system of claim 1, determining, … of the first authorized user account, the reminder type from the plurality of reminder types comprises: further determining the reminder type from the plurality of reminder types … of other authorized user accounts (Axe, page 102, teaches authorized users; Axe, page 86, teaches “process-level” reminders to selected recipients in the recipient list. In another embodiment, the system is configured to send a “task level” reminder to all recipients in a recipient list. The owner of the task can send “ad-hoc” reminders to everyone in a recipient list; Examiner notes “process-level”, “task level”, “ad-hoc” are a plurality of reminder types);
Yet, Axe does not appear to explicitly teach and in the same field of endeavor Rathod teaches based on the past interactions … based on other past interactions (Rathod, page 1, enabling communication among anybody-to-anybody, anywhere, anytime any device for anything based on plurality of innovative ways including based on structured updated status, structured requests, structured shared contents determining connectable users for enabling users to establish connections, presenting interfaces & multimedia types of contents and conducting activities, actions, events, transactions, communications, collaborations, workflows & tasks; Rathod, page 35, information about user interactions with other entities comprises information about activity, actions, event, transaction, current location or place & purpose of user's and or interacted entities interaction with other users, information about where, when, how, why, with whom, who is involves, for what interaction take place, full or partial or selective data, profile, shared data, past or historical related data).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine Axe with based on the past interactions … based on other past interactions as taught by Rathod with the motivation for enabling communication among anybody-to-anybody, anywhere, anytime any device for anything based on plurality of innovative ways including collaborations, workflows & tasks (Rathod, page 1).
Regarding Claim 8, Axe teaches A computing system comprising: one or more processors; and a non-transitory computer readable medium including one or more instructions that, when executed by the one or more processors, cause the computing system to perform operations comprising: (Axe, Figure 19, teaches the computing system including processor(s), ROM (Read-Only Memory), Examiner notes ROM is a non-transitory medium);
receiving, from a first authorized user account, a request to generate a reminder corresponding to an element of a collaboration content item; (Axe, page 102, teaches authorized users; page 92, generating reminders and notifications; page 2, collaborative productivity applications created by anyone and delivered using familiar communication mechanisms; an approach that can facilitate distribution of secure, collaborative applications among separate but networked enterprises, so that users or applications of different enterprises can collaborate);
generating a reminder record based on the request, the reminder record comprising an indication of the element of the collaboration content item; (Axe, page 89, records the notification in a notification log (Examiner notes recording the notification in a notification log is a reminder record). Further, databases are taught throughout Axe, see at least Axe, page 7, Content may be stored in a database of a server. . Further, see Axe at least page 96, teaches a database for messages (Examiner notes a reminder record) including the attributes and reminder type);
storing the reminder record corresponding to the reminder in association with the first authorized user account and a second authorized user account; (Axe, page 102, teaches authorized users; Examiner notes storing data is taught throughout Axe, see at least Axe page 88, stored in a notification time value in the database);
receiving, from the second authorized user account, a request to view one or more reminders associated with the second authorized user account; (Axe, page 102, teaches authorized users; Axe, pages 7-8, a shared workspace is created in which multiple persons or systems can interact; Axe, Figure 16, and page 62, teaches request to present a view is received);
generating a graphical user interface comprising a representation of the reminder, wherein the representation of the reminder includes a reference to the element of the collaboration content item (Axe, Abstract teaches a graphical user interface; Figure 9B; Axe, page 102, the request may comprise an HTTL request or an internal programmatic function call; the request is forwarded to a container that contains the building block associated with the view … the application server forwards the presentation data object to the presenter ... The system then invokes a presentation method) and the representation is linked to the underlying collaboration content item, whereby a user interaction retrieves and presents the corresponding content item within the collaboration environment; (Links are taught throughout Axe. See for example, Axe Figure 9B is a diagram of a My Groups screen that is generated and displayed when a user selects the My Groups link of the portal home page. Further, Figure 9B comprises function links including Application shortcuts including File Sharing);
causing display of the graphical user interface via a second authorized user device authorized to access the collaboration content item; (Axe, Abstract teaches a graphical user interface; Axe, page 102, discusses access controls and the security framework which enables one user to develop applications with another party and have some of the data to be shared amongst the users associated with that party. The security framework comprises a plurality of interfaces);
… with the representation of the reminder via the graphical user interface; and (Axe, Abstract teaches a graphical user interface; Axe, page 7, teaches applications as defined herein enable full interaction and navigation of dynamic content; A shared workspace is created in which multiple persons or systems can interact within the same transportable application);
responsive to … , updating the graphical user interface to include the collaboration content item corresponding to the reminder, and (Axe, Abstract teaches a graphical user interface, Axe, pages 7-8, a shared workspace is created in which multiple persons or systems can interact; The content of the application is current when read; the application is constantly updated so users can always see the most current information and responses).
augmenting the display of the collaboration content item by visually emphasizing the element in the collaboration content item that is associated with the reminder (Axe, page 134, teaches recipients of the message notified appropriately, and the new content is highlighted when such recipients read the message. Examiner notes Applicants specification does not include “augmenting” or “emphasizing”, however, Applicants specification, para 0085 recites: “highlight content” which is analogous to Axe).
Yet, Axe does not appear to explicitly teach and in the same field of endeavor Rathod teaches detecting user interaction … detecting the user interaction (Rathod, page 1, enabling communication among anybody-to-anybody, anywhere, anytime any device for anything based on plurality of innovative ways including based on structured updated status, structured requests, structured shared contents determining connectable users for enabling users to establish connections, presenting interfaces & multimedia types of contents and conducting activities, actions, events, transactions, communications, collaborations, workflows & tasks; Rathod, page 8, detecting user interaction; Rathod, page 35, information about user interactions with other entities comprises information about activity, actions, event, transaction, current location or place & purpose of user's and or interacted entities interaction with other users, information about where, when, how, why, with whom, who is involves, for what interaction take place, full or partial or selective data, profile, shared data, past or historical related data).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine Axe with detecting user interaction … detecting the user interaction as taught by Rathod with the motivation for enabling communication among anybody-to-anybody, anywhere, anytime any device for anything based on plurality of innovative ways including collaborations, workflows & tasks (Rathod, page 1). The Axe invention now incorporating the Rathod invention, has all the limitations of claim 8.
Regarding Claim 9, Axe, now incorporating Rathod, teaches The computing system of claim 8, wherein the reminder record comprises an indication of a reminder type from a plurality of reminder types, wherein the plurality of reminder types comprise a review reminder type, a send reminder type, and an edit reminder type (Axe, page 89, records the notification in a notification log (Examiner notes recoding the notification in a notification log is a reminder record); Axe, page 86, discusses a plurality of reminder types: “process-level” reminders to selected recipients in the recipient list. In another embodiment, the system is configured to send a “task level” reminder to all recipients in a recipient list. The owner of the task can send “ad-hoc” reminders to everyone in a recipient list. Examiner Note: The name of the reminder type is a label and is non-functional descriptive material or printed matter as it does not explicitly alter or impact the steps of the invention and therefore it does not distinguish the invention from the prior art in terms of patentability.)
Regarding Claim 10, Axe, now incorporating Rathod, teaches The computing system of claim 8, wherein generating the reminder record based on the request comprises: … and generating the reminder record (Axe, page 89, records the notification in a notification log (Examiner notes recoding the notification in a notification log is a reminder record));
Yet, Axe does not appear to explicitly teach and in the same field of endeavor Rathod teaches identifying past interactions of the first authorized user account with other reminders or other content items … based on the past interactions (Rathod, page 117, teaches reminder management; page 35, information about user interactions with other entities comprises information about activity, actions, event, transaction, current location or place & purpose of user's and or interacted entities interaction with other users, information about where, when, how, why, with whom, who is involves, for what interaction take place, full or partial or selective data, profile, shared data, past or historical related data; Rathod, page 80, enabling user(s) to access, sort, filter, import, export, format, analyze, data mine, text analysis, process, index, store, share & view historical messages, conversations, communications).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine Axe with identifying past interactions of the first authorized user account with other reminders or other content items … based on the past interactions as taught by Rathod with the motivation for enabling communication among anybody-to-anybody, anywhere, anytime any device for anything based on plurality of innovative ways including collaborations, workflows & tasks (Rathod, page 1).
Regarding Claim 11, Axe, now incorporating Rathod, teaches The computing system of claim 10, wherein generating the reminder record based on the request comprises: setting an amount of time as a due date for the reminder … of the first authorized user account (Axe, page 89, records the notification in a notification log (Examiner notes recoding the notification in a notification log is a reminder record); Axe, page 102, teaches authorized users; Axe, page 87, the owner of a process can schedule specific "due-date" reminders to be sent to everyone either at the process or at the task level. The owner can send the reminder either on a particular date or a specified period before the due date (e.g., two days before, two weeks before, etc.).) Yet, Axe does not appear to explicitly teach and in the same field of endeavor Rathod teaches based on the past interactions (Rathod, page 1, enabling communication among anybody-to-anybody, anywhere, anytime any device for anything based on plurality of innovative ways including based on structured updated status, structured requests, structured shared contents determining connectable users for enabling users to establish connections, presenting interfaces & multimedia types of contents and conducting activities, actions, events, transactions, communications, collaborations, workflows & tasks; Rathod, page 35, information about user interactions with other entities comprises information about activity, actions, event, transaction, current location or place & purpose of user's and or interacted entities interaction with other users, information about where, when, how, why, with whom, who is involves, for what interaction take place, full or partial or selective data, profile, shared data, past or historical related data).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine Axe with based on the past interactions as taught by Rathod with the motivation for enabling communication among anybody-to-anybody, anywhere, anytime any device for anything based on plurality of innovative ways including collaborations, workflows & tasks (Rathod, page 1).
Regarding Claim 12, Axe, now incorporating Rathod, teaches The computing system of claim 11, further comprising: monitoring the due date for the reminder record to determine when the reminder is coming up due (Axe, page 85, notifications may be issued as a result of the following activities: Response to a building block by a user; change in process or task due dates).
Regarding Claim 13, Axe, now incorporating Rathod, teaches The computing system of claim 12, further comprising: responsive to the reminder record coming up due, notifying the first authorized user account and the second authorized user account (Axe, page 102, teaches authorized users; Axe, page 85, Reminders are prompts sent to users. Examples of reminders include: Inform a user that a due date is fast approaching; inform all users about an important process development; etc.)
Regarding Claim 14, Axe, now incorporating Rathod, teaches The computing system of claim 10, wherein generating the reminder record … comprises: identifying … of other authorized user accounts; and generating the reminder record based on the … (Axe, page 89, records the notification in a notification log (Examiner notes recoding the notification in a notification log is a reminder record); Axe, page 102, teaches authorized users; Axe, page 86, teaches “process-level” reminders to selected recipients in the recipient list. In another embodiment, the system is configured to send a “task level” reminder to all recipients in a recipient list. The owner of the task can send “ad-hoc” reminders to everyone in a recipient list; Examiner notes “process-level”, “task level”, “ad-hoc” are a plurality of reminder types);
Yet, Axe does not appear to explicitly teach and in the same field of endeavor Rathod teaches based on the past interactions … other past interactions … past interactions and the other past interactions (Rathod, page 1, enabling communication among anybody-to-anybody, anywhere, anytime any device for anything based on plurality of innovative ways including based on structured updated status, structured requests, structured shared contents determining connectable users for enabling users to establish connections, presenting interfaces & multimedia types of contents and conducting activities, actions, events, transactions, communications, collaborations, workflows & tasks; Rathod, page 35, information about user interactions with other entities comprises information about activity, actions, event, transaction, current location or place & purpose of user's and or interacted entities interaction with other users, information about where, when, how, why, with whom, who is involves, for what interaction take place, full or partial or selective data, profile, shared data, past or historical related data).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine Axe with based on the past interactions … other past interactions … past interactions and the other past interactions as taught by Rathod with the motivation for enabling communication among anybody-to-anybody, anywhere, anytime any device for anything based on plurality of innovative ways including collaborations, workflows & tasks (Rathod, page 1).
Regarding Claim 15, Axe teaches A computing system comprising: one or more processors; and a non-transitory computer readable medium including one or more instructions that, when executed by the one or more processors, cause the computing system to perform operations comprising: (Axe, Figure 19, teaches the computing system including processor(s), ROM (Read-Only Memory), Examiner notes ROM is a non-transitory medium);
receiving, from a first authorized user account, a request to generate a reminder corresponding to an element of a collaboration content item; (Axe, page 102, teaches authorized users; page 92, generating reminders and notifications; page 2, collaborative productivity applications created by anyone and delivered using familiar communication mechanisms; an approach that can facilitate distribution of secure, collaborative applications among separate but networked enterprises, so that users or applications of different enterprises can collaborate);
generating a reminder record based on the request, the reminder record comprising an indication of the element of the collaboration content item; (Axe, page 89, records the notification in a notification log (Examiner notes recording the notification in a notification log is a reminder record). Further, databases are taught throughout Axe, see at least Axe, page 7, Content may be stored in a database of a server. Further, see Axe at least page 96, teaches a database for messages (Examiner notes a reminder record) including the attributes and reminder type);
storing the reminder record corresponding to the reminder in association with the first authorized user account; (Axe, page 102, teaches authorized users; Examiner notes storing data is taught throughout Axe, see at least Axe page 88, stored in a notification time value in the database);
receiving, from the first authorized user account, a request to view one or more reminders associated with the first authorized user account; (Axe, page 102, teaches authorized users; Axe, pages 7-8, a shared workspace is created in which multiple persons or systems can interact; Axe, Figure 16, and page 62, teaches request to present a view is received);
generating a graphical user interface comprising a representation of the reminder, wherein the representation of the reminder includes a reference to the element of the collaboration content item (Axe, Abstract teaches a graphical user interface; Figure 9B; Axe, page 102, the request may comprise an HTTL request or an internal programmatic function call; the request is forwarded to a container that contains the building block associated with the view … the application server forwards the presentation data object to the presenter ... The system then invokes a presentation method) and the representation is linked to the underlying collaboration content item, whereby a user interaction retrieves and presents the corresponding content item within the collaboration environment; (Links are taught throughout Axe. See for example, Axe Figure 9B is a diagram of a My Groups screen that is generated and displayed when a user selects the My Groups link of the portal home page. Further, Figure 9B comprises function links including Application shortcuts including File Sharing);
causing display of the graphical user interface via a first authorized user device authorized to access the collaboration content item; (Axe, Abstract teaches a graphical user interface; Axe, page 102, discusses access controls and the security framework which enables one user to develop applications with another party and have some of the data to be shared amongst the users associated with that party. The security framework comprises a plurality of interfaces);
… with the representation of the reminder via the graphical user interface; and responsive to …, (Axe, Abstract teaches a graphical user interface; Axe, page 7, teaches applications as defined herein enable full interaction and navigation of dynamic content; A shared workspace is created in which multiple persons or systems can interact within the same transportable application);
updating the graphical user interface to include the collaboration content item corresponding to the reminder, and (Axe, Abstract teaches a graphical user interface, Axe, pages 7-8, a shared workspace is created in which multiple persons or systems can interact; The content of the application is current when read; the application is constantly updated so users can always see the most current information and responses).
augmenting the display of the collaboration content item by visually emphasizing the element in the collaboration content item that is associated with the reminder (Axe, page 134, teaches recipients of the message notified appropriately, and the new content is highlighted when such recipients read the message. Examiner notes Applicants specification does not include “augmenting” or “emphasizing”, however, Applicants specification, para 0085 recites: “highlight content” which is analogous to Axe).
Yet, Axe does not appear to explicitly teach and in the same field of endeavor Rathod teaches detecting user interaction … detecting the user interaction (Rathod, page 1, enabling communication among anybody-to-anybody, anywhere, anytime any device for anything based on plurality of innovative ways including based on structured updated status, structured requests, structured shared contents determining connectable users for enabling users to establish connections, presenting interfaces & multimedia types of contents and conducting activities, actions, events, transactions, communications, collaborations, workflows & tasks; Rathod, page 8, detecting user interaction; Rathod, page 35, information about user interactions with other entities comprises information about activity, actions, event, transaction, current location or place & purpose of user's and or interacted entities interaction with other users, information about where, when, how, why, with whom, who is involves, for what interaction take place, full or partial or selective data, profile, shared data, past or historical related data).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine Axe with detecting user interaction … detecting the user interaction as taught by Rathod with the motivation for enabling communication among anybody-to-anybody, anywhere, anytime any device for anything based on plurality of innovative ways including collaborations, workflows & tasks (Rathod, page 1). The Axe invention now incorporating the Rathod invention, has all the limitations of claim 15.
Regarding Claim 16, Axe, now incorporating Rathod, teaches The computing system of claim 15, wherein the reminder record comprises an indication of a reminder type from a plurality of reminder types, wherein the plurality of reminder types comprise a review reminder type, a send reminder type, and an edit reminder type (Axe, page 86, discusses a plurality of reminder types: “process-level” reminders to selected recipients in the recipient list. In another embodiment, the system is configured to send a “task level” reminder to all recipients in a recipient list. The owner of the task can send “ad-hoc” reminders to everyone in a recipient list. Examiner Note: The name of the reminder type is a label and is non-functional descriptive material or printed matter as it does not explicitly alter or impact the steps of the invention and therefore it does not distinguish the invention from the prior art in terms of patentability.)
Regarding Claim 17, Axe, now incorporating Rathod, teaches The computing system of claim 15, wherein generating the reminder record based on the request comprises: identifying … of the first authorized user account with other reminders or other content items; and generating the reminder record … (Axe, page 102, teaches authorized users; Axe, page 86, teaches “process-level” reminders to selected recipients in the recipient list. In another embodiment, the system is configured to send a “task level” reminder to all recipients in a recipient list. The owner of the task can send “ad-hoc” reminders to everyone in a recipient list; Examiner notes “process-level”, “task level”, “ad-hoc” are a plurality of reminder types);
Yet, Axe does not appear to explicitly teach and in the same field of endeavor Rathod teaches past interactions … based on the past interactions (Rathod, page 1, enabling communication among anybody-to-anybody, anywhere, anytime any device for anything based on plurality of innovative ways including based on structured updated status, structured requests, structured shared contents determining connectable users for enabling users to establish connections, presenting interfaces & multimedia types of contents and conducting activities, actions, events, transactions, communications, collaborations, workflows & tasks; Rathod, page 35, information about user interactions with other entities comprises information about activity, actions, event, transaction, current location or place & purpose of user's and or interacted entities interaction with other users, information about where, when, how, why, with whom, who is involves, for what interaction take place, full or partial or selective data, profile, shared data, past or historical related data).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine Axe with past interactions … based on the past interactions as taught by Rathod with the motivation for enabling communication among anybody-to-anybody, anywhere, anytime any device for anything based on plurality of innovative ways including collaborations, workflows & tasks (Rathod, page 1).
Regarding Claim 18, Axe, now incorporating Rathod, teaches The computing system of claim 17, wherein generating the reminder record based on the request comprises: setting an amount of time as a due date for the reminder … of the first authorized user account (Axe, page 102, teaches authorized users; Axe, page 87, the owner of a process can schedule specific "due-date" reminders to be sent to everyone either at the process or at the task level. The owner can send the reminder either on a particular date or a specified period before the due date (e.g., two days before, two weeks before, etc.).) Yet, Axe does not appear to explicitly teach and in the same field of endeavor Rathod teaches based on the past interactions (Rathod, page 1, enabling communication among anybody-to-anybody, anywhere, anytime any device for anything based on plurality of innovative ways including based on structured updated status, structured requests, structured shared contents determining connectable users for enabling users to establish connections, presenting interfaces & multimedia types of contents and conducting activities, actions, events, transactions, communications, collaborations, workflows & tasks; Rathod, page 35, information about user interactions with other entities comprises information about activity, actions, event, transaction, current location or place & purpose of user's and or interacted entities interaction with other users, information about where, when, how, why, with whom, who is involves, for what interaction take place, full or partial or selective data, profile, shared data, past or historical related data).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine Axe with based on the past interactions as taught by Rathod with the motivation for enabling communication among anybody-to-anybody, anywhere, anytime any device for anything based on plurality of innovative ways including collaborations, workflows & tasks (Rathod, page 1).
Regarding Claim 19, Axe, now incorporating Rathod, teaches The computing system of claim 18, further comprising: monitoring the due date for the reminder record to determine when the reminder is coming up due; (Axe, page 85, notifications may be issued as a result of the following activities: Response to a building block by a user; change in process or task due dates) and responsive to the reminder record coming up due, notifying the first authorized user account (Axe, page 102, teaches authorized users; Axe, page 85, Reminders are prompts sent to users. Examples of reminders include: Inform a user that a due date is fast approaching; inform all users about an important process development; etc.).
Regarding Claim 20, Axe, now incorporating Rathod, teaches The computing system of claim 17, wherein generating the reminder record … comprises: identifying … of other authorized user accounts; and generating the reminder record based on the … (Axe, page 89, records the notification in a notification log (Examiner notes recoding the notification in a notification log is a reminder record); Axe, page 102, teaches authorized users; Axe, page 86, teaches “process-level” reminders to selected recipients in the recipient list. In another embodiment, the system is configured to send a “task level” reminder to all recipients in a recipient list. The owner of the task can send “ad-hoc” reminders to everyone in a recipient list; Examiner notes “process-level”, “task level”, “ad-hoc” are a plurality of reminder types); Yet, Axe does not appear to explicitly teach and in the same field of endeavor Rathod teaches based on the past interactions … other past interactions … past interactions and the other past interactions (Rathod, page 1, enabling communication among anybody-to-anybody, anywhere, anytime any device for anything based on plurality of innovative ways including based on structured updated status, structured requests, structured shared contents determining connectable users for enabling users to establish connections, presenting interfaces & multimedia types of contents and conducting activities, actions, events, transactions, communications, collaborations, workflows & tasks; Rathod, page 35, information about user interactions with other entities comprises information about activity, actions, event, transaction, current location or place & purpose of user's and or interacted entities interaction with other users, information about where, when, how, why, with whom, who is involves, for what interaction take place, full or partial or selective data, profile, shared data, past or historical related data).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine Axe with based on the past interactions … other past interactions … past interactions and the other past interactions as taught by Rathod with the motivation for enabling communication among anybody-to-anybody, anywhere, anytime any device for anything based on plurality of innovative ways including collaborations, workflows & tasks (Rathod, page 1).
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments filed on 09/10/2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Regarding 35 U.5.C. § 101 rejections: Examiner has updated the 101 rejections in light of the most recent claim amendments. Applicant’s arguments have been fully considered but are found unpersuasive and Examiner maintains the 101 rejection.
With respect to Applicant remarks (remarks page 11): “The Office Action has stated that the claims can be "performed in the human mind as a metnal process."OA at 5. Applicant respectfully traverses the rejection. As amended, claim 1 now recites additional elements that integrate any alleged judicial exception into a practical application, consistent with the Office's §101 guidance as well as the current case law. Step 2A, Prong One: Claims are not directed to a judcial exception
Claim 1 is presented above. The claim elements cannot practically be performed in the human mind. No person could, without computing resources, maintain multi-user linked reminder records, generate responsive GUIs, and dynamically retrieve and present collaboration content items. The Federal Circuit has held that inventions "necessarily rooted in computer technology in order to overcome a problem specifically arising in the realm of computer networks" are not abstract. DDR Holdings, LLC v. Hotels.com, 773 F.3d 1245, 1257 (Fed. Cir. 2014). Accordingly, the claims are not directed to a mental process.”
Examiner respectfully disagrees.
Applicant is arguing “computing resources” and “GUIs”. Examiner respectfully notes additional elements are considered in Step 2A: Prong Two and Step 2B; not in Step2A: Prong One: Abstract Ideas. Further, Examiner respectfully notes the limitations cover both methods of organizing human activity and mental processes. See complete 101 analysis above.
With respect to Applicant remarks (remarks page 12): “Step 2A, Prong Two: the claims include a practical application
The current claims, as amended, integrate any potential exception into a practical application. For example, the current claims include an improvement to collaboration systems. The amendment expressly recites that the reminder representation is "linked to the underlying collaboration content item, whereby a user interaction retrieves and presents the corresponding content item within the collaboration environment." This feature of claim 1 demonstrates a concrete improvement to collaboration platforms, allowing users to access contextually relevant content without losing context or navigating away from the environment.
Further, the claims include a GUI integration. The current claims recite features that are analogous to USPTO Example 37 (GUI icon relocation), where claims were held eligible because GUI rearrangement integrated a mental step into a computer improvement. Likewise, the present claims improve how collaboration systems present and retrieve content through GUIs.
Still further, the current claims are not a generic implementation of a GUI. The claimed architecture (multi-user reminder records, linked GUI representations, dynamic retrieval within the collaboration environment) is not a generic application of computers. Rather, it is a specific, technological solution to the technical problem of maintaining context in collaborative content systems. Thus, under Prong Two, the claim is clearly integrated into a practical application.”
Examiner respectfully disagrees. With respect to integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, the computing elements are additional elements to perform the steps and amount to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using generic computer components. Examiner fails to see how the generic recitations of these most basic computer components and/or of a system so integrates the judicial exception as to “impose a meaningful limit on the judicial exception, such that the claim is more than a drafting effort designed to monopolize the judicial exception.” Guidance, 84 Fed. Reg. at 53. Thus, Examiner finds that the claims recite the judicial exception of certain methods of organizing human activity and mental processes and is not integrated into a practical application.
Further, with respect to Applicant’s remarks on Example 37 and the user interface, Examiner has reviewed Applicants specification and has not found a unique user interface, rather, the user interface is a broadly claimed, generic user interface which does not bring about some benefit to the use of a computing device, nor does it demonstrate a technologically rooted solution to a computer-centric problem or recite an improvement to another technology or technical field. Therefore, Applicant’s remarks are found unpersuasive.
With respect to Applicant remarks (remarks page 12): “Step 2B - the claims recite significantly more
Even if viewed as reciting an abstract idea, the claim recites significantly more than just the abstract idea. For example, the linking of reminder representations to underlying content items within a collaborative environment is neither well-understood nor routine. The claimed combination of features provides an inventive concept, analogous to BASCOM Global Internet Servs. v. AT&TMobility, 827 F.3d 1341 (Fed. Cir. 2016), where a non-conventional arrangement of known components supplied eligibility. Furthermore, the claims enhance the functionality of collaboration content management systems, much like the database improvement in Enfish, LLC v. Microsoft Corp., 822 F.3d 1327 (Fed. Cir. 2016).
Accordingly, the claims, as amended, are not directed to a judicial exception under Step 2A, Prong One. Even if viewed otherwise, it is integrated into a practical application under Prong Two, and in all events recites an inventive concept under Step 2B.”
Examiner respectfully disagrees.
With respect to BASCOM, in BASCOM, as in the instant case, the claimed invention was directed to an abstract idea. However, the distinction between BASCOM and the instant case is that the claimed invention had a “non-conventional and non-generic arrangement of the additional elements.” This non-conventional arrangement was “installation of a filtering tool at a specific location, remote from the end-users, with customizable filtering features specific to each end user.” (BASCOM, 827 F.3d at 1345). In the instant case, there is no indication that the arrangement is non-conventional or non-generic. Instead, the computing elements appear to be generic computing components used in their ordinary capacity. Therefore, Applicant’s remarks are found unpersuasive. Further, looking at the limitations as an ordered combination adds nothing that is not already present when looking at the elements taken individually. Each step does no more than require a generic
computer to perform generic computer functions. The claims do not, for example, purport to improve the functioning of the computer itself. In addition, the claims do not affect an improvement in any other
technology or technical field. The specification spells out different generic equipment and parameters that might be applied using the concept and the particular steps such conventional processing would entail based on the concept of information access. Thus, the claims at issue amount to nothing significantly more than instructions to apply the abstract idea using some unspecified, generic computer(s). Therefore, Applicants remarks are found unpersuasive and Examiner maintains the 101 rejection.
Regarding 35 U.S.C. § 103 rejections. With respect to the prior art rejections, Applicants arguments have been fully considered but are found unpersuasive. Examiner has updated the rejections in light of the most recent claim amendments.
With respect to Applicant’s remarks (remarks, pages 13-14) on claim 1 limitation: “generating a reminder record based on the request, the reminder record comprising an indication of the element of the collaboration content item and an indication of the reminder type..." Examiner does not find Applicant’s remarks persuasive. See Axe at least page 96, teaches a database for messages (Examiner notes a reminder record) including the attributes and reminder type.
Further, with respect to Applicant’s remarks on claim 2, Examiner respectfully notes Applicant’s own specification does not include “visually emphasizing”. Rather, Applicant’s specification includes “highlight” which is analogous to the Axe reference. See at least Axe, pages 124 and 134. Axe page 124, for example teaches “information can be highlighted”. Therefore, Applicant’s remarks are unpersuasive.
Therefore, Applicants remarks are found unpersuasive and Examiner maintains the 103 rejection with respect to these and all depending claims unless otherwise indicated.
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to REBECCA R NOVAK whose telephone number is (571)272-2524. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 8:30am - 5:00pm EST.
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, Lynda Jasmin can be reached on (571) 272-6782. 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.
/R.R.N./Examiner, Art Unit 3629
/ANDREW B WHITAKER/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3629
Prosecution Insights