DETAILED ACTION
Response received on February 2, 2026 has been acknowledged. Claims 1, 10, and 16 have been amended and claims 2-9, 11-15, and 17-20 remain original. Therefore, Claims 1-20 are pending.
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Status of Claims
This Final Office action is in response to the application filed on 03/30/2023 and in response to Applicant’s Arguments/Remarks filed on 02/02/2026. Claims 1-20 are pending.
Priority
The application 18/192,943 was filed on 03/30/2023.
Applicant’s Reply
Applicant's response of February 2, 2026 has been entered. The examiner will address applicant’s remarks at the end of this office action. Applicant' s amendments filed 2/02/2026, with respect to Claim 1, 10, and 16 have been fully considered.
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 judicial exception (i.e., a law of nature, a natural phenomenon, or an abstract idea) without significantly more.
Claim 1-9 are directed to a method (process), Claims 10-15 are directed to a system (machine) and claims 16-20 are directed to a non-transitory computer-readable medium (manufacture/manufacture). Thus, these claims fall within one of the four statutory categories of invention. (Step 1: Yes)
For step 2A, the Examiner has identified independent method Claim 1 as the claim that represents the claimed invention for analysis and is similar to independent claim 10 and 16. Claim 1, as exemplary is recited below, isolating the abstract idea from the additional elements, wherein the abstract idea is set in bold:
A computer-implemented method comprising: setting, by a content management system, an unlocked status for a collaborative content item within a permission data table associated with the collaborative content item, wherein the permission data table comprises editing permissions for a first user account and additional user accounts: providing, by the content management system to a first client device associated with the first user account, contents of a collaborative content item for display within a collaborative editing session of an application; receiving, by the content management system from the first user account via a user interaction with a graphical lock-state interface element within the application, a user account initiated lock indication to disable editing permissions associated with the first user account for the collaborative content item within the collaborative editing session of the application; updating, based on the user account initiated lock indication, the permission data table by disabling editing permissions associated with the first user account for the collaborative content item within the collaborative editing session of the application to create a locked status for the first user account while maintaining the editing permissions associated with the additional user accounts for the collaborative content item in the unlocked status; and modifying, in response to updating the permission data table, a visual appearance of the graphical lock-state interface element to reflect a transition between the unlocked status and the locked status for the first user account.
The above bolded limitations recite the abstract idea of controlling editing permissions associated with individual user accounts for collaborative documents without affecting the editing permissions associated with additional user accounts using a straightforward and concise presentation. These limitations under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers certain methods of organizing human activity (i.e., managing personal behavior or relationships or interactions between people and following rules or instructions) but for the recitation of generic computer components. That is, other than reciting a process implemented by an “content management system”, “a graphical lock-state interface element within the application”, “application”, and “client device”, nothing in the claim precludes the steps from practically being performed manually by person. For example, for the generic computing components, this claim encompasses managing user interactions in a collaborative editing environment, which can be performed manually with one person can verbally instruct others to stop editing so they can make exclusive changes. A person can manually manage access and collaboration without the use of a computer. The mere nominal recitation of a “content management system”, “a graphical lock-state interface element within the application”, “application”, and “client device” do not take the claim out of the methods of organizing human interactions grouping. Accordingly, Claims 1, 10 and 16 recite an abstract idea. (Step 2A- Prong 1: YES. The claims are abstract).
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application (2nd prong of eligibility test for step 2A) because the additional element of the claims are merely being used as a tool to execute the abstract idea, see MPEP 2106.05(f). Claim 1 recites the additional element of “content management system”, “a graphical lock-state interface element within the application”, “application”, and “client device”. Claim 10 includes the additional element of a Claim 1 as well as the additional elements of “processor”, a “non-transitory CRM”, and “computing device” and Claim 16 recites a “processor”, “graphical user interface”, a “non-transitory CRM”, and “computing device.” These additional elements are all considered nothing more than generic computing devices to perform generic communicating functions such as storing data and instructions, transmitting and receiving data between computers. The computing devices are recited at a high-level of generality (i.e., as a generic processor performing a generic computer function of communicating data between users) such that they amount no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component. The claimed invention recites additional elements that appears to be used in their ordinary capacity as generic computing components for processing data, storing information, and facilitating data generation, without any improvement to the functioning of the computer itself or a transformation of any particular technology. The additional elements are considered nothing more than a general link of the abstract idea to technical environment. See MPEP 2106.04(d)(I) and MPEP 2106.05(A). Accordingly, these additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because they do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea and are at a high level of generality when considered both individually and as a whole such that it amounts no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component. Thus, Claims 1, 10, and 16 are directed to an abstract idea without a practical application.
For step 2B, the claim(s) do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because they do not amount to more than simply instructing one to practice the abstract idea by using generic computer components to carry out the steps that define the abstract idea. This does not render the claims as being eligible. See MPEP 2106.05(f). The additional elements when considered both individually and as an ordered combination did not add significantly more to the abstract idea because they were simply applying the abstract idea using generic computer components which cannot provide an inventive concept. Accordingly, these additional elements, do not change the outcome of the analysis, and claims 1, 10, and 16 are not patent eligible.
Claims 2-5 and 11-13, recite elements that further limit the abstract idea of the independent claims to include maintaining the locked status for the collaborative content item until receiving an unlock indication, maintaining the locked status for the editing permissions of the collaborative content item until an end of a viewing session, a global lock indication to disable global editing permissions associated with the first user account for a plurality of collaborative content items associated with the first user account, and disabling editing permissions for the collaborative content item for the first user account. The dependent claims 2-5 and 11-13 do not include any additional elements and therefore are considered patent ineligible for the reasons given above.
Claims 6 and 7 recite elements that further limit the abstract idea of the independent claims to include a user-specific lock indication to disable editing permissions associated with the first user account for a plurality of collaborative content items associated with a second user account. The dependent claims 6 and 7 do not include any additional elements and therefore are considered patent ineligible for the reasons given above.
Claims 8, 9, 14 and 15 recite elements that further limit the abstract idea of the independent claims to include receiving an edit request to edit content of the collaborative content item and disabling editing permissions. In addition, they recite the additional element of a second client device. The second client device is recited at a high-level of generality such that it amounts no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic component. Even, in combination, this additional element does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application and do not amount to significantly more than the abstract idea itself. The claims are patent ineligible.
Claims 17-20 recite limitations that further define the abstract idea noted in claims 1 and 10. The claims recite wherein the locked status is a time-based locked status, that disables editing to the collaborative content item for a specified period of time, an edit request to edit content of the collaborative content item and a group-specific lock indication to disable editing permissions associated with the first user account for a plurality of collaborative content items associated with a designated group of user accounts. The dependent claims 17-20 do not include any additional elements and therefore are considered patent ineligible for the reasons given above.
Response to arguments
Applicant's arguments filed February 2, 2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
The comments regarding the 35 USC 101 rejection are noted. On page 12 of Applicant’s response, applicant submits that the amended claims are directed to statutory subject matter and are eligible under § 101. Examiner respectfully disagrees. The applicant is referred to the 101-rejection section above as to why the claims are still not patent eligible. Applicant submits that the claims do not recite an abstract idea, and that none of the limitations recited in Applicant's claims recite subject matter that falls within any of the enumerated groupings, as indicated by MPEP §2106.04(a), of abstract ideas. Examiner respectfully disagrees. Examiner notes that the core of the claimed invention itself still relates to controlling editing permissions associated with individual user accounts for collaborative documents, which is a form of managing personal behavior or relationships or interactions between people. As such, the claims fall within the judicial exception of “certain methods of organizing human activity” as outlines in MPEP 2106.04(a). Simply performing this activity using computers doesn’t exclude it from this category. Examiner notes that if the invention were to offer certain business or compliance-related benefits, these benefits alone do not demonstrate that the abstract idea is integrated into a specific practical application. Furthermore, the claims do not recite any improvement to the technology, nor do they include any additional elements that apply the abstract idea in a meaningful way beyond merely implementing it on a generic computing component.
Applicant further argues that in contrast to the enumerated subgroupings outlined in MPEP § 2106.04(a), currently amended independent claim 1 (and similarly currently amended independent claims 10 and 16) is not directed to an abstract idea, but rather is directed to a specific improvement to computer-based collaborative computing systems that has no meaningful analog outside such systems. Examiner respectfully disagrees. Examiner notes that the claimed steps merely recite managing user permissions and lock states for collaborative content, an organizing and controlling activity that falls within the abstract idea groupings of MPEP § 2106.04(a), implemented using a generic computer component without a technological improvement that extends beyond the functioning of the computer system itself. Applicant further argues that as amended, the independent claims do not recite a judicial exception in accordance with MPEP § 2106.04. Examiner respectfully disagrees. Examiner respectfully disagrees. The claims are still directed to an abstract idea that is not integrated into a practical application. Examiner notes that while the claims do include computer-implemented elements and recite a modification to user account permissions, the underlying focus of the claim invention still remains on organizing human activity-specifically, managing user access and control over shared content. This is a recognized judicial exception. Applicant further argues that the amended claims are directed to a technological improvement akin to the improvement found patent eligible in Core Wireless under Alice Prong One. Examiner respectfully disagrees. Examiner maintains that the amended claims are directed to abstract ideas of managing user permissions and content access, without a specific improvement to computer functionality. Unlike Core Wireless, the claims at hand use generic computing components and do not enhance the user interface or system performance.
Applicant further argues that as in Core Wireless, the currently amended claims impose meaningful constraints on how information is presented and interacted with, rather than using conventional or generic user interface techniques. Examiner respectfully disagrees because, unlike Core Wireless, the claimed graphical lock-state interface element merely reflects the underlying permission status ad uses conventional UI techniques to present and receive user input, without reciting a specific manner of information presentation or interaction that improves the operation of the user interface itself. Applicant further argues that the currently amended claims do not recite a generic toggle or menu navigation but recite a graphical user interface element whose visual state is dynamically synchronized with machine-enforced permission logic through a permission data table that disables editing permissions for an initiating user account while maintaining access for other user accounts. Examiner respectfully disagrees. Examiner notes that the claimed graphical interface element and its synchronization with a permission data table merely describe the routine automation and display of access control logic, which constitutes generic computer functionality rather than a specific technical improvement to user interface operation or computer performance. Applicant further argues that similar to claims found eligible in Core Wireless, therefore, the currently amended claims "provide a simplified interface to enable the user account to straightforwardly enable or disable editing permissions to the collaborative content item." The examiner acknowledges the applicant’s argument but still maintains that the amended claims dot not recite a specific improvement to a user interface as in Core Wireless, where claim elements were tied to a particular manner of displaying information. More specifically, here the claims broadly recite enabling or disabling editing permissions without reciting any details of how the interface itself is improved or how it simplifies user interaction beyond generic implementation.
Applicant further argues that like the claims upheld in Core Wireless, the currently amended claims are directed to a specific, non-conventional manner of presenting and interacting with an underlying computing system through a user interface. Examiner respectfully disagrees. Examiner notes that the unlike the claims in Core Wireless, the amended claims do not recite a specific, non-conventional user interface or information architecture, but instead generically present and receive user input to trigger permission changes, which is a conventional way of interacting with an underlying computing system. Applicant further argues that the currently amended independent claims 1, 10, and 16 integrate any alleged abstract idea into a practical application. Examiner respectfully disagrees. Examiner notes that the amended independent claims do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application, as they merely apply conventional permission controls using generic computing components without adding meaningful limitations beyond the abstract idea itself, per MPEP§ 2106.05. Applicant further argues that the currently amended claims recite a specific technique for disabling editing permissions for a collaborative content item within a collaborative editing session of an application in a technical improvement over existing collaborative editing systems at the time of filing. Examiner respectfully disagrees as the claimed technique for disabling editing permissions represents a business method for generic access control mechanism in collaborative systems that exist at the time of filing. Thus, the claims do not describe a specific technical solution that improves the functioning of the computer or editing system itself.
Applicant further argues that the claims are not directed to an abstract idea, but to a patent-eligible concept that improves computer technology with the claimed collaborative document locking system. Examiner respectfully disagrees for the same reasons mentioned above and maintains that the claimed collaborative document locking system implements a known concept using generic components and does not improve computer technology itself, but rather applies an abstract idea of access control in a conventional manner. Applicant further argues that the currently amended claims require an ordered combination of specific graphical user interface elements and use of a permission data table that integrates any alleged abstract idea into a practical application. The examiner disagrees because the claimed ordered combination of GUI elements and a permission data table merely aggregates conventional display and access control functions in their generic manner, and therefore does not integrate the alleged abstract idea into a practical application under MPEP 2106.04 (d). Applicant further argues that the currently amended claims amount to significantly more than any alleged abstract idea and therefore supply the requisite inventive concept under Alice Step 2B. Examiner respectfully disagrees. The Examiner notes that the additional elements, considered individually and as an ordered combination, recite commonly known and generic computer operations for enforcing ad displaying permissions, and therefore do not provide an inventive concept sufficient to transform the abstract idea under Alice step 2B. For the reasons mentioned above, the argument to the contrary is not persuasive. Thus, the rejections of Claims 1-20 under 35 USC 101 are maintained.
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
extension fee 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 date of this final
action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ALAA WADIE HUSSEIN whose telephone number is (571) 270-1748. The examiner can normally be reached M-F: 8:00-5:00.
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, Jessica Lemieux can be reached on 571-270-3445. 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.
/A.W.H./ Examiner, Art Unit 3626
/JESSICA LEMIEUX/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3626