DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 10/1/2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
101 Rejection
Applicant states (pp. 10) that “generating a data structure” requires actions by a processor which cannot be performed mentally. Examiner respectfully disagrees, since data structures and files have long been used before computers came to existence.
Besides elements performable mentally, claims 1-20 include additional elements that are either high-level recitations of generic computer components and functions that represent mere instructions to apply an exception, or recognized by the courts as well-understood, routine, and conventional activity, such as “hyperlinking” in claim 3, and “hierarchical database” in claim 14. Thus claims 1-20 are not eligible accordingly.
103 Rejection
Claim 10
Applicant states (pp. 11) that Moore does not teach transformation of data from the file system into the GUI. Examiner respectfully disagrees.
Moore generates (i.e., publishes) a GUI tree view of a virtual folder structure, where virtual folders as containers [0019] create (i.e., render) location-independent views [0124] based on queries dynamically executed on items in the database to generate (i.e., transform into) results as virtual folders [0021].
Claims 10 and 13
Applicant further states (pp. 12) that Moore does not teach in claims 10 and 13 that the “quick link” and “Filter by” portions are part of the GUI, or that they are generated based on metadata. Examiner respectfully disagrees.
Moore generates (i.e., publishes) a GUI tree view (i.e., visual elements) of a virtual folder structure, where virtual folders as containers [0019] create (i.e., render) location-independent views [0124] based on queries dynamically executed on items in the database to generate (i.e., transform into) results as virtual folders (i.e., metadata) [0021], enabling users to manipulate files and navigate/browse folders (i.e., functional components) conveniently (fig. 6; [0159]-[0160]). The GUI display area (i.e., on display device) is divided (i.e., moved) into sections (i.e., portions), e.g., the 'January work' quick link is shown in the quick links section of the GUI (fig. 31, #612) for items filtered by query term “January” [0203].
Claim 15
Applicant further states that Moore does not teach claim 15, because according to parent claim 10, the number of filters is metadata of the GUI, not of the assets. In addition, Moore does not teach the size of “Filter by” portion being dependent on the number of filters. Examiner respectfully disagrees.
Moore takes (i.e., receives) a regular file system (i.e., client system) of items (i.e., assets) [0123], e.g., "my documents" folder [0158], and stores metadata properties (i.e., code of assets) of items (i.e., files and folders) in a database [0020]-[0021].
Moore divides the left navigation pane in GUI into sections, e.g., a 'Filter by' section with filters configured to apply to item metadata, including file size. A “stack by” function changes (i.e., adjusts) the view to show stacks (i.e., layout of sections) for the various numerical ranges (i.e., section sizes) of file size [0199]. For example, size of the ‘Filter by’ section is adjusted based on the number of filters (i.e., amount of metadata) configured (i.e., selected) (fig. 26).
Claim 17
Applicant further states (pp. 13) that Moore combined with Template does not teach claim 17, especially in displaying contents of files in sections of the template, nor in different templates for files vs. folders. Examiner respectfully disagrees.
Moore displays (i.e., generates) a GUI tree view (i.e., mirrored file structure) (fig. 7) of a virtual folder structure (i.e., data structure) (fig. 6) in accordance with a physical folder arrangement (i.e., file structure) on a hard drive (fig. 5), which is based on the traditional implementation of folders such as NTFS [0157]. Filters can be configured to apply to different properties of items (i.e., file vs. folder), including file type and file size [0199].
Claim 1
Applicant further states (pp. 14) that Moore does not teach the claim 1 limitation “rendering the contents of the plurality of folder assets based on the mirrored file structure and the metadata”. Examiner respectfully disagrees.
Moore teaches a file viewer having a virtual address bar associated with displaying (i.e., rendering) files (i.e., contents of assets) (fig. 43; [0219]).
Claim 6
Applicant further states (pp. 15) that a URL is not the same as the virtual address of Moore. Examiner respectfully disagrees, since a URL is an address used to find a resource on the Internet, analogous to a virtual address of an item in the file system of Moore.
Claim 18
Applicant further states (pp. 15) that Moore does not teach claim 18, especially GUI for a folder listing out files in the folder and for text content of a file. Examiner respectfully disagrees.
Many GUI designs and layouts (i.e., templates) in Moore are selectable based on item metadata, e.g., there are many view types for items displayed (i.e., listed) in the listview area such as details of an item (i.e., items in a folder or text of a document) [0249].
Claims 4-5
Applicant further states (pp. 16) that Muralidhar does not teach transforming folder content for rendering. Examiner respectfully disagrees.
Muralidhar generates an external table (i.e., file structure) to store metadata about external data (i.e., content folder), and maintains materialized views (i.e., transformations) over the external table (Muralidhar: [0032]), which are refreshed (i.e., redirected) in response to (i.e., tracking) changes to external data (Muralidhar: [0035]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to apply the teachings of Muralidhar to Moore. One having ordinary skill in the art would have found motivation to utilize the materialized view of Muralidhar as the virtual address of Moore, in order to automatically keep in sync the folder structure with its view in the corresponding virtual folder structure.
In summary, the cited prior art of record combined teaches the argued limitations of independent claims 1, 10 and 17 and their dependent claims.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
Claims 14 and 15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as failing to set forth the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant regards as the invention.
Claim 14 recites the limitation "the file structure". There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Both parent claim 10 and dependent claim 15 recite limitation “a file size”. It is not clear whether the instance in claim 15 is the same as the instance in claim 10.
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 an abstract idea as a mental process without significantly more.
Claim 1 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101.
Step 1
Claim 1 recites “A method”, which is directed to a statutory category.
Step 2A – Prong One
Claim 1 recites the following limitations directed to an abstract idea:
“generating a data structure based on the content folder, the data structure including…folder assets and metadata…arranged with nodes according to relationships between…folder assets” recites an abstract idea as a mental process. One can mentally observe or evaluate by generating a data structure to organize folder assets according to the file structure.
“assigning a unique identifier to the content folder and to each of the…folder assets in the data structure to tag a node of the data structure” recites an abstract idea as a mental process, One can mentally observe or evaluate by creating a unique identifier for each folder asset.
“transferring the data structure into a mirrored file structure” recites an abstract idea as a mental process. One can mentally observe or evaluate by rearranging the same folder assets in a different file structure.
“moving the transformed digital content of the content folder…to a graphical user interface (GUI) on a display device according to a template” recites an abstract idea as a mental process. One can mentally observe or evaluate by presenting the mirrored file structure in the GUI.
Step 2A – Prong Two
This abstract idea is not integrated into a practical application.
Claim 1 includes additional elements “processor”, “instructions”, “memory”, “GUI”, “display device”, “website”, “client system” and “digital content”, which are high-level recitations of generic computer components and functions that represent mere instructions to apply an exception per MPEP §2106.05(f).
Viewing the additional limitations together and the claim as a whole, nothing provides integration into a practical application.
Step 2B
Claim 1 includes additional element “receiving a content folder…from a client system” and “moving…digital content…to a GUI on a display device”, which qualify as “i. Receiving or transmitting data over a network”, and is recognized by the courts as well-understood, routine, and conventional activity per MPEP §2106.05(d)(II).
The conclusions on the mere instructions to apply the abstract idea using generic computer components and functions carry over and do not add significantly more or provide any "inventive concept".
Claim 10 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101.
Step 1
Claim 10 recites “A method”, which is directed to a statutory category.
Step 2A – Prong One
Claim 10 recites the following limitations directed to an abstract idea:
“analyzing…metadata…of the plurality of assets” recites an abstract idea as a mental process. One can mentally observe or evaluate by analyzing relationships between assets.
“organizing the plurality of assets into a file system” recites an abstract idea as a mental process. One can mentally observe or evaluate by organizing assets into a file system.
“generating a template…; rendering a graphical user interface (GUI)…, wherein data…is transformed from the file system into the GUI…moved to portions of the template” recites an abstract idea as a mental process. One can mentally observe or evaluate by displaying assets in the GUI according to a file system template.
“publishing a website or a mobile application with the GUI on the display device” recites an abstract idea as a mental process. One can mentally observe or evaluate by presenting a website or mobile application in the GUI.
Step 2A – Prong Two
This abstract idea is not integrated into a practical application.
Claim 10 includes additional elements “processor”, “instructions”, “memory”, “client system”, “file system”, “templating engine”, “GUI”, “display device”, “website”, “mobile application”, “code”, “server” and “network”, which are high-level recitations of generic computer components and functions that represent mere instructions to apply an exception per MPEP §2106.05(f).
Viewing the additional limitations together and the claims as a whole, nothing provides integration into a practical application.
Step 2B
Claim 10 includes additional elements “receiving…assets from a client system” and “data…is transformed…into the GUI”, which qualifies as “i. Receiving or transmitting data over a network”, and is recognized by the courts as well-understood, routine, and conventional activity per MPEP §2106.05(d)(II).
The conclusions on the mere instructions to apply the abstract idea using generic computer components and functions carry over and do not add significantly more or provide any "inventive concept".
Claim 17 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101.
Step 1
Claim 17 recites “A system” comprising a server and a network, which is directed to a statutory category.
Step 2A – Prong One
Claim 17 recites the following limitations directed to an abstract idea:
“analyze metadata of the plurality of assets” recites an abstract idea as a mental process. One can mentally observe or evaluate by analyzing relationships between assets.
“organize the plurality of assets into a file system” recites an abstract idea as a mental process. One can mentally observe or evaluate by organizing assets into a file system.
“generate a template…; render…based on the template, wherein…the template for a file…looks different from the template for a folder” recites an abstract idea as a mental process. One can mentally observe or evaluate by displaying assets in the GUI according to a file system template.
“publish a website or a mobile application with the GUI” recites an abstract idea as a mental process. One can mentally observe or evaluate by presenting a website or mobile application in the GUI.
Step 2A – Prong Two
This abstract idea is not integrated into a practical application.
Claim 17 includes additional elements “processor”, “instructions”, “memory”, “client system”, “templating engine”, “file system”, “GUI”, “display device”, “website”, “mobile application”, “code”, “server” and “network”, which are high-level recitations of generic computer components and functions that represent mere instructions to apply an exception per MPEP §2106.05(f).
Viewing the additional limitations together and the claims as a whole, nothing provides integration into a practical application.
Step 2B
Claim 17 includes additional elements “receive…assets from a client system” and “move content…in the GUI”, which qualify as “i. Receiving or transmitting data over a network”, and is recognized by the courts as well-understood, routine, and conventional activity per MPEP §2106.05(d)(II).
The conclusions on the mere instructions to apply the abstract idea using generic computer components and functions carry over and do not add significantly more or provide any "inventive concept".
In summary, claims 1, 10 and 17 are not eligible. Claims 2-9, 11-16 and 18-20 depend on claims 1, 10 and 17 respectively, and recite the same abstract idea.
Step 2A Prong One
Claims 2-9 depend on claim 1, and recite additional elements that are mentally performable. Claims 2-3 associate folder meta tags with the data structure, which are used to identify related folder assets. Claims 4-5 redirect users to a new URL when the resource associated with an old URL is changed. Claims 6-7 generate a folder path based on the file structure, which is represented as a URL and used for search engine optimization. Claim 8 filters the file structure without coding, and claim 9 generates metadata using a search tool.
Claims 11-16 depend on claim 10, and recite additional elements that are mentally performable. Claims 11-12 represent file structure as a tree, with non-leaf nodes representing folders and leaf nodes representing files. Claims 13-15 generate sections of the template based on metadata such as file type, file size or amount of metadata. Claim 16 generates a mirrored file structure, which is a rearranged view of the file structure.
Claims 18-20 depend on claim 17, and recite additional elements that are mentally performable. Claims 18-19 select and generate the template based on topic metadata associated with assets in the mirrored file structure. Claim 20 adjusts the template layout based on the type of display.
Step 2A Prong Two
Claim 3 recites “hyperlinking”. Claim 4 recites “redirect”. Claims 4-6 recite “URL”. Claim 7 recites “search engine optimization”. Claims 3 and 6-9 recite “tool”. Claim 14 recites “hierarchical database”. These are high-level recitations of generic computer components and functions that represent mere instructions to apply an exception per MPEP §2106.05(f).
In summary, these dependent claims do not add any additional elements sufficient to make the claims non-abstract. Therefore, they are not eligible accordingly.
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 10-17 and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Moore et al. US patent application 2004/0230599 [herein “Moore”], and further in view of What is a Website Template? https://blog.boxmode.com/what-is-a-website-template/#:~:text=A%20website%20template%20is%20a,to%20become%20full%2Dfledged%20websites, pp. 1-10, 2021 [herein “Template”].
Claim 10 recites “A method executed via a processor based on instructions stored on non-transitory memory of the processor, the method, comprising: receiving a plurality of assets from a client system;”
Moore takes (i.e., receives) a regular file system (i.e., client system) of items (i.e., assets) [0123], e.g., "my documents" folder [0158], and stores metadata properties (i.e., code of assets) of items (i.e., files and folders) in a database [0020]-[0021]. Moore offers custom previewers (i.e., templates) for numerous file and non-file (i.e., folder) items including images, videos, contacts, games, documents, spreadsheets, slide presentations, drawings files etc. [0272].
Claim 10 further recites “analyzing, via the processor, metadata embedded in code of the plurality of assets, wherein the metadata includes a file size and a file type; organizing the plurality of assets into a file system based on metadata of each of the plurality of assets;”
Moore displays (i.e., organizes) a GUI tree view (fig. 7) of a virtual folder structure (fig. 6) in accordance with (i.e., analyzing) a physical folder arrangement (i.e., file system) on a hard drive (fig. 5), which is based on the traditional implementation of folders such as NTFS [0157]. Filters can be configured to apply to different properties of items, including file type and file size [0199].
Claim 10 further recites “generating a template via a templating engine based on the file system; rendering a graphical user interface (GUI) based on the template, wherein data from the file system is transformed from the file system into the GUI based on the metadata and is automatically moved to portions of the template; and publishing a website or a mobile application with the GUI on the display device.”
The instant specification gives an example website template (spec. fig. 6A; [0101]). In general, a website template is a pre-made web page or a set of web pages, built (i.e., embedded) with HTML and CSS coding languages (Template: pp. 3/10), where any user can insert their content (text, images, media) to get a publish-ready website (Template: pp. 1/10). Thus Examiner interprets website template to mean the structure, visual elements and functional components of a website.
Moore generates (i.e., publishes) a GUI tree view (i.e., visual elements) of a virtual folder structure, where virtual folders as containers [0019] create (i.e., render) location-independent views [0124] using a file viewer (fig. 43; [0219]) based on queries dynamically executed on items in the database to generate (i.e., transform into) results as virtual folders (i.e., metadata) [0021], enabling users to manipulate files and navigate/browse folders (i.e., functional components) conveniently (fig. 6; [0159]-[0160]). The GUI display area (i.e., on display device) is divided (i.e., moved) into sections (i.e., portions), e.g., the 'January work' quick link is shown in the quick links section for items filtered by query term “January” (fig. 31, #612; [0203]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to apply the teachings of Template to Moore. One having ordinary skill in the art would have found motivation to adopt the industry standard definition of website template as the location-independent views of Moore, to describe the structure, visual elements and functional components of a website.
Claim 11 recites “The method of claim 10, wherein the file system includes a parent node and a plurality of child nodes.”
Moore generates a GUI tree (i.e., nodes and arcs) view of a virtual folder structure of virtual folders creating location-independent views [0124], where each node in the tree view (i.e., parent/child node) represents a virtual folder (fig. 6; [0159]-[0160]).
Claim 12 recites “The method of claim 11, wherein the parent node is a folder, and wherein the plurality of child nodes includes one or more of a plurality of sub-folders and a plurality of files.”
Moore takes a regular file system of items (i.e., files and folders) [0123], and generates a GUI tree view of a virtual folder structure of virtual folders creating location-independent views [0124], where each node in the tree view denotes a virtual folder (fig. 6; [0159]-[0160]). A parent virtual folder is a container of child virtual folders (i.e., sub-folders) (fig. 7, #510-#511).
Claim 13 recites “The method of claim 10, wherein rendering the GUI further includes analyzing the metadata and generating one or more sections of the template based on the metadata.”
Moore divides (i.e., analyzes) the left navigation pane in GUI into sections, e.g., an 'All categories' section for quick links, and a 'Filter by' section to filter by date, author, etc. (fig. 32).
Claim 14 recites “The method of claim 13, wherein the one or more sections are generated based on file types of a hierarchical database generated from the file structure, and wherein the file types include documents, videos, images, music, PDFs, and spreadsheets.”
Moore displays a GUI tree (i.e., hierarchical) view (fig. 7) of a virtual folder structure (fig. 6) in accordance with a physical folder arrangement (i.e., file structure) on a hard drive (fig. 5), which is based on the traditional implementation of folders such as NTFS [0157]. Moore divides the left navigation pane in GUI into (i.e., generates) sections, e.g., a 'Filter by' section with a 'file type' filter including choices for Excel (i.e., spreadsheets), PowerPoint and Word (i.e., documents), where a “stack by” function changes the view to show (i.e., generate) stacks (i.e., sections) for the various file types [0198].
Claim 15 recites “The method of claim 13, wherein a size of each of the one or more sections is adjusted based on one or more of a file size and an amount of the metadata and wherein a lay-out of the one or more sections is adjusted based on user selection.”
Moore divides the left navigation pane in GUI into sections, e.g., a 'Filter by' section with filters configured to apply to item metadata, including file size. A “stack by” function changes (i.e., adjusts) the view to show stacks (i.e., layout of sections) for the various numerical ranges (i.e., section sizes) of file size [0199]. For example, size of the ‘Filter by’ section is adjusted based on the number of filters (i.e., amount of metadata) configured (i.e., selected) (fig. 26).
Claim 16 recites “The method of claim 10, wherein organizing the plurality of assets into the file system includes generating a mirrored file structure.”
Moore generates a GUI tree view (i.e., mirrored file structure) of a virtual folder structure, where virtual folders create location-independent views [0124] that allow users to manipulate files and navigate/browse folders (i.e., assets) conveniently (fig. 6; [0159]-[0160]).
Claim 17 recites “A system for generating a website, comprising: a client system in communication with a server via a network; and a logic subsystem including one or more processors with instructions stored on non-transitory memory thereof that when executed cause the one or more processors to: receive a plurality of assets from a client system;”
Moore takes (i.e., receives) a regular file system (i.e., client system) of items (i.e., assets) [0123], e.g., "my documents" folder [0158], and stores metadata properties (i.e., code of assets) of items (i.e., files and folders) in a database [0020]-[0021]. Moore offers custom previewers (i.e., templates) for numerous file and non-file (i.e., folder) items including images, videos, contacts, games, documents, spreadsheets, slide presentations, drawings files etc. [0272].
Claim 17 further recites “analyze, via the one or more processors, metadata embedded in code of the plurality of assets, wherein the metadata includes a file size and a file type; organize the plurality of assets into a file system based on the metadata of each of the plurality of assets;”
Moore displays (i.e., organizes) a GUI tree view (fig. 7) of a virtual folder structure (fig. 6) in accordance with (i.e., analyzing) a physical folder arrangement (i.e., file system) on a hard drive (fig. 5), which is based on the traditional implementation of folders such as NTFS [0157]. Filters can be configured to apply to different properties of items (i.e., file vs. folder), including file type and file size [0199].
Claim 17 further recites “generate a template via a templating engine based on the file system; render a graphical user interface (GUI) based on the template to display and automatically move contents of files in sections of the template based on the metadata, wherein sections of the GUI are based on transforming file types of the plurality of assets, and wherein the template generated for a file of the file system looks different from the template generated for a folder of the file system; and publish a website or a mobile application with the GUI on a display device.”
The instant specification gives an example website template (spec. fig. 6A; [0101]). In general, a website template is a pre-made web page or a set of web pages, built (i.e., embedded) with HTML and CSS coding languages (Template: pp. 3/10), where any user can insert their content (text, images, media) to get a publish-ready website (Template: pp. 1/10). Thus Examiner interprets website template to mean the structure, visual elements and functional components of a website.
Moore generates (i.e., publishes) a GUI tree view (i.e., visual elements) of a virtual folder structure, where virtual folders as containers [0019] create (i.e., render) location-independent views [0124] based on queries dynamically executed on items (i.e., content) in the database to generate (i.e., transform into) results as virtual folders [0021], enabling users to manipulate files and navigate/browse folders (i.e., functional components) conveniently (fig. 6; [0159]-[0160]). The GUI display area (i.e., on display device) is divided (i.e., moved) into sections, e.g., the 'January work' quick link is shown in the quick links section for items filtered by query term “January” (fig. 31, #612; [0203]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to apply the teachings of Template to Moore. One having ordinary skill in the art would have found motivation to adopt the industry standard definition of website template as the location-independent views of Moore, to describe the structure, visual elements and functional components of a website.
Claim 20 recites “The system of claim 17, wherein a layout of the template is adjusted according to a type of a display, the type of display being the website or the mobile application, and wherein the layout of the template is varied according to a size of the display.”
Many GUI designs and layouts in Moore are selectable (i.e., adjustable) based on item metadata, e.g., there are many view types for items displayed in the listview area [0249], with corresponding system configurations (e.g., type/size of display), including hand-held devices (i.e., mobile applications) [0128].
Claims 1 and 6-9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Moore, in view of Template, and further in view of BY_HANDLE_FILE_INFORMATION structure (fileapi.h). 2021, pp. 1-4. https://learn.microsoft.com/en-us/windows/win32/api/fileapi/ns-fileapi-by_handle_file_information [herein “NTFS”].
Claim 1 recites “A method executed via a processor based on instructions stored on non-transitory memory of the processor, the method comprising: receiving a content folder of a file structure, the content folder including a plurality of folder assets from a client system;”
Moore takes (i.e., receives) a regular file system (i.e., client system) of items (i.e., assets) [0123], e.g., "my documents" folder (i.e., content folder) [0158], and stores metadata properties of items (i.e., files and folders) in a database [0020]-[0021]. Moore offers custom previewers (i.e., templates) for numerous file and non-file (i.e., folder) items including images, videos, contacts, games, documents, spreadsheets, slide presentations, drawings files etc. [0272].
Claim 1 further recites “generating a data structure based on the content folder, the data structure including the plurality of folder assets and metadata corresponding to the plurality of folder assets arranged with nodes according to relationships between the plurality of folder assets, wherein the metadata includes a file size and a file type;”
Moore displays (i.e., generates) a GUI tree view (i.e., mirrored file structure) (fig. 7) of a virtual folder structure (i.e., data structure) (fig. 6) in accordance with a physical folder arrangement (i.e., file structure) on a hard drive (fig. 5), which is based on the traditional implementation of folders such as NTFS [0157]. Filters can be configured to apply to different properties of items, including file type and file size [0199].
Moore does not disclose limitation “assigning a unique identifier to the content folder and to each of the plurality of folder assets in the data structure to tag a node of the data structure;” however, NTFS exposes (i.e., assigns) a unique 'file ID' to uniquely identify (i.e., tag) a file or directory through APIs (NTFS: pp. 3/4).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to apply the teachings of NTFS to Moore. One having ordinary skill in the art would have found motivation to adopt the industry standard NTFS file system from which the virtual folder structure of Moore is derived.
Claim 1 further recites “transferring the data structure into a mirrored file structure, and transforming content of the plurality of folders into digital content; and automatically moving the transformed digital content of the content folder based on the metadata to a graphical user interface (GUI) on a display device according to a template, the template corresponding to a website and including sections rendering the contents of the plurality of folder assets based on the mirrored file structure and the metadata.”
The instant specification gives an example website template (spec. fig. 6A; [0101]). In general, a website template is a pre-made web page or a set of web pages where any user can insert their content (text, images, media) to get a publish-ready website (Template: pp. 1/10). Thus Examiner interprets website template to mean the structure, visual elements and functional components of a website.
Moore displays a GUI tree (i.e., nodes and arcs/relationships) view (i.e., visual elements) of (i.e., transferred from) a virtual folder structure, where virtual folders as containers [0019] create (i.e., render) location-independent views [0124] using a file viewer (fig. 43; [0219]) based on queries dynamically executed on items (i.e., digital content) in the database to generate (i.e., transform into) results as virtual folders [0021], enabling users to manipulate files and navigate/browse folders (i.e., functional components) conveniently (fig. 6; [0159]-[0160]). The GUI display area (i.e., on display device) is divided (i.e., moved) into sections, e.g., the 'January work' quick link is shown in the quick links section for items filtered by query term “January” (fig. 31, #612; [0203]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to apply the teachings of Template to Moore. One having ordinary skill in the art would have found motivation to adopt the industry standard definition of website template as the location-independent views of Moore, to describe the structure, visual elements and functional components of a website.
Claim 6 recites “The method of claim 1, further comprising automatically generating a folder path based on the file structure, and wherein the folder path is integrated into a folder structure as a URL by a folder-based URL tool.”
A virtual address (i.e., URL) in Moore, or virtual path, represents a filter dynamically executed on items in the database [0024] for selecting content stored in the file system (i.e., file structure) [0037].
Claim 7 recites “The method of claim 1, further comprising generating breadcrumbs using a breadcrumb tool for the plurality of folder assets in the mirrored file structure to generate a file path for each of the plurality of folder assets, and wherein the breadcrumbs are used for search engine optimization.”
Moore provides (i.e., generates) a virtual address bar consisting of one or more segments (i.e., breadcrumbs), each segment corresponding to a filter (i.e., file path) for selecting content (i.e., assets) stored in the file system (i.e., file structure) [0037], to facilitate navigation (i.e., search engine optimization).
Claim 8 recites “The method of claim 1, further comprising filtering the file structure using a no code tool to track dependencies of a page of a website displaying the GUI.”
Moore generates (i.e., displays) a GUI tree view (i.e., page) of a virtual folder structure, where virtual folders are queries (i.e., no code tool) dynamically executed (i.e., filtered) on item metadata (i.e., dependencies) in the file system (i.e., file structure) [0024].
Claim 9 recites “The method of claim 1, further comprising generating relevant metadata corresponding to the plurality of folder assets using a search tool.”
Virtual folders in Moore are queries (i.e., searches) dynamically executed on item (i.e., folder asset) metadata in the database [0021].
Claims 2-3 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Moore as applied to claim 1 above, in view of Template and NTFS, and further in view of Zhang. US patent 9,449,080 [herein “Zhang”].
Claim 2 recites “The method of claim 1, further comprising associating folder meta tags of the mirrored file structure to the data structure.”
Moore teaches claim 1, but does not disclose this claim; however, Zhang analyzes document content to provide automatic suggestions (i.e., associations) for related (i.e., hyperlinked) tags (i.e., meta tags) or summaries (Zhang: 9:33-39).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to apply the teachings of Zhang to Moore. One having ordinary skill in the art would have found motivation to utilize tags of Zhang as item metadata to connect an item in the folder structure (i.e., file structure) with its view (i.e., mirrored file structure) in the corresponding virtual folder structure (i.e., data structure) of Moore.
Claim 3 recites “The method of claim 2, further comprising identifying assets related to the plurality of folder assets within a same or different content folder using a related pages tool based on folder meta tags, and automatically hyperlinking the identified assets.”
Moore and Zhang teach claim 2, where Zhang analyzes document content (i.e., assets) to provide automatic suggestions of related pages based on related (i.e., hyperlinked) tags (i.e., meta tags) or summaries (Zhang: 9:33-39).
Claims 4-5 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Moore as applied to claim 1 above, in view of Template and NTFS, and further in view of Muralidhar et al. US patent application 2020/0334230 [herein “Muralidhar”].
Claim 4 recites “The method of claim 1, further comprising tracking a change in the position of a content folder in the file structure and automatically issuing a redirect to create a new URL, and wherein the user is directed to the new URL when the user requests a resource using an old URL corresponding to the new URL.”
A virtual address (i.e., new URL) in Moore represents (i.e., creates) a filter dynamically executed (i.e., redirected) on items in the database [0024] for selecting content stored in the file system (i.e., old URL) [0037].
Moore teaches claim 1, but does not disclose this claim; however, Muralidhar generates an external table (i.e., file structure) to store metadata about external data (i.e., content folder), and maintains materialized views over the external table (Muralidhar: [0032]), which are refreshed (i.e., redirected) in response to (i.e., tracking) changes to external data (Muralidhar: [0035]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to apply the teachings of Muralidhar to Moore. One having ordinary skill in the art would have found motivation to utilize the materialized view of Muralidhar as the virtual address of Moore, in order to automatically keep in sync the folder structure with its view in the corresponding virtual folder structure.
Claim 5 recites “The method of claim 1, further comprising automatically syncing the mirrored file structure to changes in the file structure to create a new URL, and wherein the user is directed to the new URL when the user requests a resource using an old URL corresponding to the new URL.”
A virtual address (i.e., new URL) in Moore represents a filter dynamically executed (i.e., redirected) on items in the database [0024] for selecting content stored in the file system (i.e., old URL) [0037].
Moore teaches claim 1, but does not disclose this claim; however, Muralidhar generates an external table (i.e., file structure) to store metadata about external data, and maintains materialized views (i.e., mirrored file structure) over the external table (Muralidhar: [0032]), which are refreshed (i.e., redirected) in response to (i.e., syncing) changes to external data (Muralidhar: [0035]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to apply the teachings of Muralidhar to Moore. One having ordinary skill in the art would have found motivation to utilize the materialized view of Muralidhar as the virtual address of Moore, in order to automatically keep in sync the folder structure with its view in the corresponding virtual folder structure.
Claims 18-19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Moore as applied to claim 17 above, in view of Template, and further in view of Zhang.
Claim 18 recites “The system of claim 17, wherein the instructions further enable the one or more processors to select the template based on a topic related to the plurality of assets, and wherein a GUI for a folder lists out items in the folder and the GUI for a file consists of text content of the file.”
Many GUI designs and layouts (i.e., templates) in Moore are selectable based on item metadata, e.g., there are many view types for items displayed (i.e., listed) in the listview area such as details of an item (i.e., items in a folder or text of a document) [0249].
Moore teaches claim 17, but does not disclose this claim; however, Zhang provides accurate search results based on topic terms or concepts extracted from documents as document tags or categories (Zhang: 6:65-7:2).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to apply the teachings of Zhang to Moore. One having ordinary skill in the art would have found motivation to customize GUI designs and layouts in Moore based on topic terms extracted by Zhang.
Claim 19 recites “The system of claim 17, wherein the templating engine generates the template by rendering the plurality of assets of a mirrored file structure based on evaluated metadata of the plurality of assets.”
Moore displays a GUI tree view (i.e., mirrored file structure) of a virtual folder structure (fig. 6) in accordance with a physical folder arrangement on a hard drive (fig. 5), which is based on the traditional implementation of folders such as NTFS [0157]. Many GUI designs and layouts (i.e., templates) in Moore are selectable based on item metadata [0249]. Moore divides the left navigation pane in GUI into sections, e.g., a 'Filter by' section with filters configured to apply to item metadata, including file type or file size. A “stack by” function changes (i.e., generates) the view to show stacks for various file types, or by analogy, or various numerical ranges of file size [0198]-[0199].
Moore teaches claim 17, but does not disclose this claim; however, Zhang provides accurate search results based on topic terms or concepts extracted from documents as document tags or categories (i.e., evaluated metadata) (Zhang: 6:65-7:2).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to apply the teachings of Zhang to Moore. One having ordinary skill in the art would have found motivation to customize GUI designs and layouts in Moore based on topic terms extracted by Zhang.
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 SHELLY X. QIAN whose telephone number is (408)918-7599. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 8-5 PT.
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, Boris Gorney can be reached at (571)270-5626. 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.
/BORIS GORNEY/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2154
/SHELLY X QIAN/Examiner, Art Unit 2154
