DETAILED ACTION
The following is a Non-Final Office Action in response to communications filed March 23, 2026. Claims 1–3, 5, 7–9, 11–13, 15–16, 18–19, and 21–27 are amended, and claim 30 is canceled. Accordingly, claims 1–5, 7–9, 11–19, 21–29, and 31 are pending.
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on March 23, 2026 has been entered.
Response to Amendment/Argument
With respect to the previous rejection of claims under 35 U.S.C. 101, Applicant’s remarks have been fully considered but are not persuasive.
Applicant asserts that the claims do not recite mental processes under Step 2A Prong One because the claims distinguish the user from the computer elements. Examiner disagrees. MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(III)(C) describes computer-related considerations of the mental processes grouping under Step 2A Prong One and indicates that “[c]laims can recite a mental process even if they are claimed as being performed on a computer.” MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(III)(C) further states that, when evaluating a claim under the mental processes grouping, “examiners should review the specification to determine if the claimed invention is described as a concept that is performed in the human mind and applicant is merely claiming that concept performed 1) on a generic computer, or 2) in a computer environment, or 3) is merely using a computer as a tool to perform the concept.”
Here, Examiner maintains that the elements identified under Step 2A Prong One recite mental processes. For example, claim 1 recites a step for “identifying … a plurality of users that access the … platform”. Although the step is performed “by a collaboration recommendation service executed by a computing device,” the computing device is merely used as a tool to make an observation or evaluation that could be performed by a human observing workplace behaviors or reviewing a log of computer interactions/events. As a result, the step of “identifying” recites a mental process under Step 2A Prong One, and Applicant’s remarks are not persuasive.
Applicant further asserts that the claims are not directed to an abstract idea under Step 2A Prong One. Examiner directs Applicant to MPEP 2106.04(II) and notes that the Step 2A process, including both Step 2A Prong One and Step 2A Prong Two, determines when a claim is directed to an abstract idea. More particularly, Step 2A Prong One determines when a claim recites an abstract idea, and Step 2A Prong Two determines when a claim includes additional elements that integrate the abstract idea into a practical application. When a claim recites an abstract idea without including additional elements that integrate the abstract idea into a practical application, the claim is “directed to” an abstract idea under Step 2A. As a result, Applicant’s remarks are not persuasive because Applicant’s remarks misapply the Alice/Mayo test.
With respect to Step 2A Prong Two, Applicant asserts that, when considered in view of Applicant’s Specification, the claimed elements embody improvements in technology. Examiner disagrees. As noted in paragraph 42 of the Specification, the claimed techniques “reduce the demand for computing, storage, and networking resources by efficiently determining (e.g., calculating, updating, etc.) user-to-object attributes 104 and/or user-to-user collaboration scores 106.” In view of the Specification, Applicant’s claims embody improvements in a business process for generating collaboration recommendations without improving the associated technology. More particularly, the claims embody improvements in generating recommendations that are derived from determining user-to-object attributes and user-to-user collaboration scores, and the determined attributes and scores embody abstract claim elements under Step 2A Prong One. Further, although the abstract claim elements reduce demand on the computing system, the recited computer elements operate conventionally without any technological improvements. As a result, Applicant’s remarks are not persuasive because the claims embody improvements in an abstract, business process rather than an improvement in the recited technical elements.
With respect to Step 2B, Applicant asserts that the claims include additional elements that amount to significantly more than the abstract idea when considered in view of BASCOM. However, Applicant does not identify any element or combination of elements that embody a non-conventional and non-generic arrangement of additional elements. Further, Applicant’s Specification does not disclose any technological improvements for the same reasons as stated above. As a result, Applicant’s remarks are not persuasive.
Applicant’s remaining remarks have been fully considered but are moot in view of the updated rejection asserted below. Accordingly, Examiner maintains the rejection under 35 U.S.C. 101 and directs Applicant to the relevant explanation below.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112(b)
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.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 1–5, 7–9, 11–19, 21–29, and 31 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim 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.
Claims 1, 11, and 16 recite “the same time” in the element for “emitting”. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claims 1, 11, and 16 further recite “respective client devices” in the element for “emitting”. However, claims 1, 11, and 16 previously recite “respective client devices” in the element reciting “identifying … a plurality of users”. As a result, the scope of the claims is indefinite because it is unclear whether Applicant intends for the second recitation of “respective client devices” to reference the first recitation or intends to introduce second, different “respective client devices”.
For purposes of examination, claims 1, 11, and 16 are interpreted as reciting “emitting, by the collaboration recommendation service, the one or more collaboration recommendations in real-time in response to user interactions with the computer-readable content objects occurring at [[the]] a same time respective users are interacting with the computer-readable content objects through the respective client devices and respective networks”.
Finally, claims 1, 11, and 16 recite “the first and second computer readable content objects” in the final element of each claim. Although the claims previously recite “the first computer content object” and “the second computer readable content object,” there is insufficient antecedent basis for “the first and second computer readable content objects” in the claims.
For purposes of examination, the claims are interpreted as reciting “the first computer readable content object and the second computer readable content object[[s]]” in the final element of each claim.
In view of the above, claims 1, 11, and 16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
Claims 2–5, 7–9, 12–15, 17–19, 21–29, and 31, which depend from claims 1, 11, and 16, inherit the deficiencies described above. As a result, claims 2–5, 7–9, 12–15, 17–19, 21–29, and 31 are similarly rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
Claims 2, 12, and 25 recite “the first and second users” in the step for “generating”. Although claims 1, 11, and 16, from which claims 2, 12, and 25 depend, previously recite “a first user” and “a second user,” there is insufficient antecedent basis for “the first and second users” in claims 2, 12, and 25.
For purposes of examination, claims 2, 12, and 25 are interpreted as reciting “the first user and the second user[[s]]” in the step for “generating”.
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 1–5, 7–9, 11–19, 21–29, and 31 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to non-statutory subject matter. Specifically, claims 1–5, 7–9, 11–19, 21–29, and 31 are directed to an abstract idea without additional elements amounting to significantly more than the abstract idea.
With respect to Step 2A Prong One of the framework, claim 1 recites an abstract idea. Claim 1 includes elements for “identifying a plurality of users that access the distributed computing and storage platform to interact with a plurality of computer-readable content objects that are managed by the distributed computing and storage platform”; “the at least one computer-readable event object describing at least one user-to-object interaction event that associates an interaction by at least one user of the plurality of users with at least one computer-readable content object of the plurality of computer-readable content objects”; “generating one or more collaboration recommendations based at least in part on a time-decayed value being applied to a score of the at least one user-to-object interaction event”; “emitting the one or more collaboration recommendations in response to user interactions with the computer-readable content objects at the same time respective users are interacting with the computer-readable content objects through respective client devices and respective networks”; “generating a relationship between a first user and a second user of the distributed computing and storage platform based at least in part upon an affinity between a first computer-readable content object and a second computer-readable content object”; and “wherein the data structure comprises a first key column, a second key column, and an affinity type column, the first key column comprises a first object identifier of the first computer-readable content object, the second key column comprises a second object identifier of the second computer-readable content object, and the affinity type column comprises information pertaining to the affinity between the first and second computer readable content objects.”
The limitations above recite an abstract idea. More particularly, the elements above recite certain methods of organizing human activity related to commercial business relations and/or managing personal behavior or relationships or interactions between people because the elements describe a process for evaluating user-object interactions to generate collaboration recommendations between users. Further, the elements above recite mental processes because the elements embody observations or evaluations that can be practically performed in the mind or by a human using pen and paper. As a result, claim 1 recites an abstract idea under Step 2A Prong One.
Claims 11 and 16 include substantially similar limitations to those included with respect to claim 1. As a result, claims 11 and 16 recite an abstract idea under Step 2A Prong One for the same reasons as stated above with respect to claim 1.
Claims 2–5, 7–9, 12–15, 17–19, 21–29, and 31 further describe the process for evaluating user-object interactions to generate collaboration recommendations between users and further recite certain methods of organizing human activity and/or mental processes for the same reasons as stated above. As a result, claims 2–5, 7–9, 12–15, 17–19, 21–29, and 31 recite an abstract idea under Step 2A Prong One.
With respect to Step 2A Prong Two of the framework, claim 1 does not include additional elements that integrate the abstract idea into a practical application. Claim 1 includes additional elements that do not recite an abstract idea under Step 2A Prong One. The additional elements include a collaboration recommendation service executed by a computing device of the distributed computing and storage platform, respective client devices, one or more networks, “receiving” a data stream, “processing” the data stream, “emitting” in real time, and “adding a row or a column to a data structure”. When considered in view of the claim as a whole, the additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because the additional computer elements are generic computing components that are merely used as a tool to perform the recited abstract idea, and the remaining additional elements do no more than generally link the use of the recited abstract idea to a particular technological environment. As a result, claim 1 does not include any additional elements that integrate the abstract idea into a practical application under Step 2A Prong Two.
As noted above, claims 11 and 16 include substantially similar limitations to those included with respect to claim 1. Although claim 11 further includes a non-transitory computer readable medium and a processor and claim 16 further includes a processor and memory, the additional elements, when considered in view of the claim as a whole, do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because the additional computer elements are generic computing components that are merely used as a tool to perform the recited abstract idea. As a result, claims 11 and 16 do not include any additional elements that integrate the abstract idea into a practical application under Step 2A Prong Two.
Claims 4, 9, 14, 17, 23, 27, and 29 include additional elements that do not recite an abstract idea under Step 2A Prong One. The additional elements include packets of a data stream (claims 4, 14, and 17), “removing” from the data structure (claims 9, 23, and 27), and a cloud-based content management platform (claim 29). When considered in view of the claims as a whole, the additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because the additional elements do no more than generally link the use of the recited abstract idea to a particular technological environment. As a result, claims 4, 9, 14, 17, 23, 27, and 29 do not include additional elements that integrate the abstract idea into a practical application under Step 2A Prong Two.
Claims 2–3, 5, 7–8, 12–13, 15, 18–19, 21–22, 24–26, 28, and 31 do not include any additional elements beyond those included with respect to the claims from which claims 2–3, 5, 7–8, 12–13, 15, 18–19, 21–22, 24–26, 28, and 31 depend. As a result, claims 2–3, 5, 7–8, 12–13, 15, 18–19, 21–22, 24–26, 28, and 31 do not include any additional elements that integrate the abstract idea into a practical application under Step 2A Prong Two for the same reasons as stated above.
With respect to Step 2B of the framework, claim 1 does not include additional elements amounting to significantly more than the abstract idea. As noted above, claim 1 includes additional elements that do not recite an abstract idea under Step 2A Prong One. The additional elements include a collaboration recommendation service executed by a computing device of the distributed computing and storage platform, respective client devices, one or more networks, “receiving” a data stream, “processing” the data stream, “emitting” in real time, and “adding a row or a column to a data structure”. The additional elements do not amount to significantly more than the recited abstract idea because the additional computer elements are generic computing components that are merely used as a tool to perform the recited abstract idea, and the remaining additional elements do no more than generally link the use of the recited abstract idea to a particular technological environment. Further, looking at the additional elements as an ordered combination adds nothing that is not already present when considering the additional elements individually. As a result, claim 1 does not include any additional elements that amount to significantly more than the recited abstract idea under Step 2B.
As noted above, claims 11 and 16 include substantially similar limitations to those included with respect to claim 1. Although claim 11 further includes a non-transitory computer readable medium and a processor and claim 16 further includes a processor and memory, the additional elements do not amount to significantly more than the recited abstract idea because the additional computer elements are generic computing components that are merely used as a tool to perform the recited abstract idea. Further, looking at the additional elements as an ordered combination adds nothing that is not already present when considering the additional elements individually. As a result, claims 11 and 16 do not include any additional elements that amount to significantly more than the recited abstract idea under Step 2B.
Claims 4, 9, 14, 17, 23, 27, and 29 include additional elements that do not recite an abstract idea under Step 2A Prong One. The additional elements include packets of a data stream (claims 4, 14, and 17), “removing” from the data structure (claims 9, 23, and 27), and a cloud-based content management platform (claim 29). The additional elements do not amount to significantly more than the recited abstract idea because the additional elements do no more than generally link the use of the recited abstract idea to a particular technological environment. Further, looking at the additional elements as an ordered combination adds nothing that is not already present when considering the additional elements individually. As a result, claims 4, 9, 14, 17, 23, 27, and 29 do not include additional elements that amount to significantly more than the recited abstract idea under Step 2B.
Claims 2–3, 5, 7–8, 12–13, 15, 18–19, 21–22, 24–26, 28, and 31 do not include any additional elements beyond those included with respect to the claims from which claims 2–3, 5, 7–8, 12–13, 15, 18–19, 21–22, 24–26, 28, and 31 depend. As a result, claims 2–3, 5, 7–8, 12–13, 15, 18–19, 21–22, 24–26, 28, and 31 do not include any additional elements that amount to significantly more than the recited abstract idea under Step 2B for the same reasons as stated above.
Therefore, the claims are directed to an abstract idea without additional elements amounting to significantly more than the abstract idea. Accordingly, claims 1–5, 7–9, 11–19, 21–29, and 31 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 as being directed to non-statutory subject matter.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to WILLIAM S BROCKINGTON III whose telephone number is (571)270-3400. The examiner can normally be reached M-F, 8am-5pm, 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, Rutao Wu can be reached at 571-272-6045. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of published or unpublished applications may be obtained from Patent Center. Unpublished application information in Patent Center is available to registered users. To file and manage patent submissions in Patent Center, visit: https://patentcenter.uspto.gov. Visit https://www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/patent-center for more information about Patent Center and https://www.uspto.gov/patents/docx for information about filing in DOCX format. For additional questions, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/WILLIAM S BROCKINGTON III/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3623
Prosecution Insights