DETAILED ACTION
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 3 March 2023 is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement is being considered by the examiner.
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 24 April 2026 is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement is being considered by the examiner.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101
35 U.S.C. 101 reads as follows:
Whoever invents or discovers any new and useful process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter, or any new and useful improvement thereof, may obtain a patent therefor, subject to the conditions and requirements of this title.
Claims 1-9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
The claims recite, in various forms, specifying in a case where the user is about to post, or has posted, information that identifies certain data into a shared channel where multiple users can contribute (e.g. a collaborative canvas as a “channel”); a notification target user based on the operation history the target user has performed previously; and sending the notification target user a notification.
Under their broadest reasonable interpretation, the core limitations of specifying in a case where the user is about to post, or has posted, information that identifies certain data into a shared channel where multiple users can contribute are processes that fall within the “Methods of Organizing Human Activity” groupings of abstract ideas. In particular, the claim manages interactions between people by determining which user should receive a notification in a collaborative communication channel based on information associated with the data. The claim therefore recites an abstract idea because it is directed to selecting a user to notify and notifying that user in the context of user-to-user collaboration.
The limitation of a notification target user based on the operation history the target user has performed previously, is a process that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, fall within the “mental processes” grouping of abstract ideas. But for the recitation of generic computer components (e.g. “processor”, “channel”, “communication line”, “data of interest”), these steps could be performed in the mind or by a human using pen-and-paper. For example:
A person could manually tell another person who is related to the data that the data has been posted or updated.
A document posted in a workspace could be reviewed to determine who previously edited, view, or updated the document and determine that person as relevant to the document and notify that person.
Similarly, the limitation of and sending the notification target user a notification is a process that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind but for the recitation of generic computer components. For example, but for the “channel” language, “notifying” in this context encompasses a person manually telling another person that the content is related to them. 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, claims 1-9 recite an abstract idea.
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. In particular, the claim only recites one additional element of using a processor to perform both the specifying and notifying steps. The processor in both steps is recited at a high level of generality (i.e., as a generic processor performing generic computer functions of selecting a recipient and sending a notification) such that it amounts to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component. Accordingly, this additional element does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because it does not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. The claim is directed to an abstract idea.
The claim does 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 processor to perform both the specifying and notifying 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 claim is not patent eligible.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(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, 8 and 9 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a) as being anticipated by Meersma (US 11336703 B1).
As for Claims 1, 8 and 9, Meersma discloses An information processing apparatus comprising:
a processor (processing system 402 – Fig. 4), wherein the processor is configured to:
specify, in a case where information for specifying data of interest is contributed to a channel that is a place where a plurality of users are able to contribute information via a communication line or in a case where the information for specifying the data of interest is input for contribution to the channel (i.e. a user performs an action to add a message notification(@mention) to a distributed collaborative canvas or “channel”)(Col.3 lines 47-55), a notification target user (i.e. the user account corresponding to the @mention in the “assign to” field or the user who the AI determines is relevant to the content) based on data-related information including at least one of an operation history indicating a user who performs an operation with respect to the data of interest previously (i.e. In yet another example, trained AI processing is applied to determine data/content portions (e.g., components) of relevance to a user (e.g., based on a result of evaluating relevance scoring that evaluates an importance of a content portion to a specific user). Relevance analysis may be based on evaluation of signal data described herein including signal data pertaining to user activity related to specific data (e.g., a content portion). If there is an update to that data/content portion, a notification is automatically generated and sent to a user.) (Col.9 lines 2-26) or attribute information indicating a user registered as an attribute of the data of interest; and
perform notification to the notification target user after the information for specifying the data of interest is contributed (i.e. As such, the notification component 104 may receive back data to enable automatic creation of a notification pertaining to a message notification (e.g., an @mention) by the notification component 104. At processing operation 206, a notification for notifying the user account (recipient) of the @mention is automatically generated.)(Notification 312 – Fig.3B; Col.12 lines 47-63 & Col.19 lines 39-67)
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
Claims 2, 3 and 4 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Meersma in view of Shimamura (JP 2020053092 A).
As for Claim 2, Meersma fails to disclose wherein the processor is configured to: specify the notification target user from among a plurality of users who are able to read the information for specifying the data of interest contributed to the channel.
In an analogous art, Shimamura discloses, wherein the processor is configured to: specify the notification target user from among a plurality of users who are able to read the information for specifying the data of interest contributed to the channel.(i.e. a plurality of notification destination candidate users have access to the updated document and the best notification destination is elected based on operation history and user interest of the notification destination candidate users.)( ¶ 0041)
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify Meersma to include wherein the processor is configured to: specify the notification target user from among a plurality of users who are able to read the information for specifying the data of interest contributed to the channel as taught by Shimamura for the benefit of improving the relevance of notifications.
As for Claim 3, Meersma fails to disclose wherein the notification target user dynamically varies following accumulation of the operation history.
In an analogous art, Shimamura teaches wherein the notification target user dynamically varies following accumulation of the operation history. (i.e. the operation history table stores user operation history including document creation, viewing, updating and searching. The viewing history is used to determine recommended notification destinations (target users))( ¶ 0028 & 0041-0042)
Motivation to combine is similar to that of Claim 2.
As for Claim 4, Meersma fails to disclose wherein the notification target user dynamically varies following accumulation of the operation history.
In an analogous art, Shimamura teaches wherein the notification target user dynamically varies following accumulation of the operation history.
(i.e. the operation history table stores user operation history including document creation, viewing, updating and searching. The viewing history is used to determine recommended notification destinations (target users))( ¶ 0028 & 0041-0042)
Motivation to combine is similar to that of Claim 2.
Claims 5-7 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Meersma in view of Li (CN 101783809 A).
As for Claim 5, Meersma fails to disclose wherein the processor is configured to: receive a specifying condition of the notification target user regarding the data-related information from a user of interest who contributes the information for specifying the data of interest to the channel or inputs the information for specifying the data of interest to the information processing apparatus for contribution to the channel; and specify a user who satisfies the specifying condition, as the notification target user.
In an analogous art, Li discloses wherein the processor is configured to:
receive a specifying condition (i.e. online status, location, etc…; a requester can choose conditions for selecting other users. The CBUS server receives those conditions and searches for users whose URIs satisfy the selected condition.)( ¶ 0121) of the notification target user (i.e. user selected by CBUS server) regarding the data-related information from a user of interest (i.e requester) who contributes the information for specifying the data of interest to the channel or inputs the information for specifying the data of interest to the information processing apparatus (i.e. sends a request/selection condition to the CBUS Server) (¶ 0074) for contribution to the channel; and
specify a user who satisfies the specifying condition (i.e. the CBUS server selects the user based on the condition and sends the user URI list satisfying the condition and the content information required to be provided by the user URI list to the requester according to the request sent by the requester, so that the CBUS server can also send the user information satisfying the condition and range selected by the user and the selection condition to the requester, and the user's needs and experiences are better satisfied.)( ¶ 0074), as the notification target user.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify Meersma to include wherein the processor is configured to: receive a specifying condition of the notification target user regarding the data-related information from a user of interest who contributes the information for specifying the data of interest to the channel or inputs the information for specifying the data of interest to the information processing apparatus for contribution to the channel; and specify a user who satisfies the specifying condition, as the notification target user as taught in Li for the benefit of improving the accuracy of user notifications.
As for Claim 6, Meersma fails to disclose wherein the processor is configured to: perform notification to the user of interest in a case where there is no user who satisfies the specifying condition.
In an analogous art, Li discloses wherein the processor is configured to: perform notification to the user of interest in a case where there is no user who satisfies the specifying condition. (i.e. Optionally, the server may further include: a second sending unit 540, configured to send the user URI that does not satisfy the condition and the reason information thereof to the requester.) ( ¶ 0114)
Motivation to combine is similar to that of Claim 5.
As for Claim 7, Meersma fails to disclose wherein the processor is configured to: notify a user of interest who contributes the information for specifying the data of interest to the channel or inputs the information for specifying the data of interest to the information processing apparatus for contribution to the channel, of the specified notification target user.
In an analogous art, Li discloses wherein the processor is configured to: notify a user of interest (i.e. requester) who contributes the information for specifying the data of interest to the channel or inputs the information for specifying the data of interest to the information processing apparatus (i.e. sends a request/selection condition to the CBUS Server) (¶ 0074) for contribution to the channel, of the specified notification target user (i.e. the CBUS server selects the user based on the condition and sends the user URI list satisfying the condition and the content information required to be provided by the user URI list to the requester according to the request sent by the requester, so that the CBUS server can also send the user information satisfying the condition and range selected by the user and the selection condition to the requester, and the user's needs and experiences are better satisfied.)( ¶ 0074)
Motivation to combine is similar to that of Claim 5.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JONATHAN ESTRADA whose telephone number is (571) 272-9978. The examiner can normally be reached on Monday through Friday, 8:00 AM EST to 4:00 PM EST.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, CHRIS PARRY can be reached on (571) 272-8328. 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.
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.
/J.E./ Examiner, Art Unit 2451
/Chris Parry/ Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2451
Prosecution Insights