DETAILED ACTION
This action is responsive to the filing of 11/13/23. Claims 21-40 are pending and have been considered below.
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 .
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 30-33 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to non-statutory subject matter.
In summary, claims 30-33 recite a “computer-readable storage medium” to perform operations. Because the Specification of the present application does not expressly define this medium as to any particular details, the ordinary meaning of “computer-readable storage medium” recited in the claims includes nonstatutory media (i.e. signals.) Thus, the broadest, reasonable interpretation of “medium bearing instructions” encompasses nonstatutory subject matter (transmission media) that is unpatentable under 35 U.S.C. 101. Examiner suggests adding ‘non-transitory.’
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.
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.
Claim 28 recites the limitation "the predicted number of total actions." There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
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.
Claim(s) 21-40 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Moshenek (2014/0012616.)
Claim 21, 30, 34: Moshenek discloses a system, comprising:
at least one processor (par. 21, processor); and memory storing instructions (par. 21, memories for storing program code) that, when executed by the at least one processor, cause the system to perform a set of operations, the set of operations comprising:
obtaining a conversation thread (Fig. 10-11, task) associated with content (Fig. 11: task profile, Files, Additional Info, Contact info, etc.), the conversation thread including a plurality of comments authored by multiple different authors (par. 93, Users may add notes 1102 which is additional commentary regarding a task, or add, delete, or download files 1103 that are relevant to the task);
generating a predicted measure of completion for the received conversation thread (Fig. 10: Weeks out; par. 51, each task is marked with a specific due date--subtracting the completion date by the number of days/weeks prior to completion that the task due);
providing, for display at a user interface, the predicted measure of completion for the received conversation thread (Fig. 10: “Weeks out” column), the predicted measure of completion being associated with the conversation thread at the user interface (Fig. 10: the measure is for each task), and an annotation of the predicted measures of completion that is different from a remaining total number of turns as predicted (Fig. 10: “Due Date” column annotation);
identifying a comment thread from a plurality of comment threads based on the predicted measure of completion (Fig. 10: sorting the tasks based on ‘Weeks out.’ Note the downward triangle next to ‘Task’); and
providing, for display at the user interface, the identified comment thread as a recommend comment thread for completion by a user (Fig. 10: placing the least / most task as sorted by ‘Weeks out’ at the top of the stack as ‘recommended.’)
Claim 22, 31: Moshenek discloses the system of claim 21, wherein the set of operations further comprises: receiving a plurality of conversation threads associated with the content, the plurality of conversation threads each including a plurality of comments authored by multiple different authors; for each conversation thread of the plurality of conversation threads, generating a predicted measure of completion for the respective conversation thread; and causing the plurality of conversation threads to be displayed at the user interface based on the respective predicted measure of completion for respective conversation threads (par. 93, Users may add notes 1102 which is additional commentary regarding a task, or add, delete, or download files 1103 that are relevant to the task; Fig. 10: “Weeks out” column.)
Claim 23, 35: Moshenek discloses the system of claim 22, wherein the plurality of conversation threads is displayed as being sorted according to a user indicated selection associated with the predicted measure of completion for each conversation thread (Fig. 10: sorting the tasks based on ‘Weeks out,’ or any other column. Note the downward triangle next to ‘Task.’)
Claim 24, 36: Moshenek discloses the system of claim 22, wherein the set of operations further comprises generating a predicted measure of completion associated with the content, the predicted measure of completion being based on the plurality of conversation threads (par. 15, tasks appear with a certain number of years, months, weeks, and days remaining for completion, this time corresponding to the scheduled opening date of the franchise.)
Claim 25, 33, 37: Moshenek discloses the system of claim 21, wherein the content is at least one of source code, text of a word processing document, or slides of a presentation document (Fig. 11: task profile, Files, Additional Info, Contact info, etc.)
Claim 26, 38: Moshenek discloses the system of claim 21, wherein the conversation thread associated with the content is received at a machine learning model trained on a plurality of resolved conversation threads (par. 51, each task is marked with a specific due date--subtracting the completion date by the number of days/weeks prior to completion that the task due.)
Claim 27: Moshenek discloses the system of claim 21, wherein the predicted measure of completion is displayed at the user interface in a graphical form (Fig. 10: Weeks out, in graphical form; I.e. presented on a Graphical User Interface.)
Claim 28, 40: Moshenek discloses the system of claim 21, wherein the predicted number of total actions for the conversation thread to be resolved is a predicted number of total comments to resolve the conversation thread (Fig. 10: placing the least / most task as sorted by ‘Weeks out’ at the top of the stack as ‘recommended.’)
Claim 29: Moshenek discloses the system of claim 21, wherein the conversation thread is rearranged based on the predicted measurements of completion associated with the received conversation thread (Fig. 10: sorting the tasks based on ‘Weeks out,’ or any other column. Note the downward triangle next to ‘Task.’)
Claim 39: Moshenek discloses the method of claim 34, wherein the predicted number of remaining actions until the respective conversation thread is resolved is a predicted number of comments to be added to the respective conversation thread until the respective conversation thread is resolved (Fig. 10: placing the least / most task as sorted by ‘Weeks out’ at the top of the stack as ‘recommended.’)
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure: Bechtel (9,258,375) analyzing user activity in a collaborative environment.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ANDREY BELOUSOV whose telephone number is (571) 270-1695 and Andrew.belousov@uspto.gov email. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Friday EST.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Adam Queler, can be reached at telephone number 571-272-4140. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from Patent Center and the Private Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from Patent Center or Private PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Patent Center and Private PAIR for authorized users only. Should you have questions about access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free).
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) Form at https://www.uspto.gov/patents/uspto-automated- interview-request-air-form.
/Andrey Belousov/
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 2145
1/6/26