DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
1. The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Remarks
2. Claims 21-40 have been examined and rejected. This Office action is responsive to the amendment filed on June 23, 2026, which has been entered in the above identified application.
Specification
3. The disclosure is objected to because of the following informalities:
a. [Paragraph 59, lines 4-5] recites “In some cases, workspaces may be represented by or understood a folder hierarchy.” Grammatical correction is needed.
b. In [paragraph 70, lines 11], Examiner suggests changing “weight can ensuring that” to --weight can ensure that--.
c. In [paragraph 85, line 9], Examiner suggests changing “For example, FIG. 7A” to --For example, FIG. 7B--.
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Objections
4. The correction to claim 33 has been approved, and the objection to the claim is withdrawn.
5. Claim 30 is objected to because of the following informalities: Claim 30 recites the limitation “the plurality of document templates” in [line 9] of the claim. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
6. The corrections to the last limitation in claims 21 and 30 have been approved, and the rejection to the claim under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) as failing to comply with the written description requirement for the last limitation in the claim is withdrawn.
7. The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
8. Claims 21-40 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claims contain subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention.
8-1. Regarding independent claim 21, nowhere in Applicant’s originally filed disclosure provides support for the limitation “in response to a usage attribute satisfying a document-creation activity threshold: obtaining, for the active workspace, data from one or more predictive data sources for a plurality of document templates” [claim 21, lines 8-10]. Applicant’s specification only discloses first obtaining document-creation histories for each of a plurality of document templates associated with the workspace for the workspace [paragraph 192; figure 9, ‘904’] and then determining, using the obtained document-creation histories, whether a usage attribute of the plurality of document templates satisfies a usage condition [paragraph 103; figure 9, ‘906’]. Nowhere discloses first determining that a usage attribute of a plurality of document templates satisfies a usage condition, and in response, obtaining document-creation histories, which the limitation “obtaining, for the active workspace, data from one or more predictive data sources for a plurality of document templates” appears to correspond to.
8-2. Regarding independent claim 30, nowhere in Applicant’s originally filed disclosure provides support for the limitation in [claim 30, lines 4-8, 15-16]:
in response to a usage attribute satisfying a document creation activity threshold:
obtaining, for a first workspace of the collaborative document system, data from a first predictive data source;
obtaining, for a second workspace of the collaborative document system, data from a second predictive data source;
…
detecting, from a user, a first document creation request originating from the first workspace;
Applicant’s specification only discloses first detecting a document creation request from a user in a workspace [paragraph 101; figure 9, ‘902’], then obtaining document-creation histories for each of a plurality of document templates associated with the workspace for the workspace [paragraph 192; figure 9, ‘904’], and then determining, using the obtained document-creation histories, whether a usage attribute of the plurality of document templates satisfies a usage condition [paragraph 103; figure 9, ‘906’]. Nowhere discloses first determining that a usage attribute of a plurality of document templates satisfies a usage condition, and in response, obtaining document-creation histories for a first and second workspace, which the limitations “obtaining, for a first workspace of the collaborative document system, data from a first predictive data source” and “obtaining, for a second workspace of the collaborative document system, data from a second predictive data source” appear to correspond to, and detecting a document creation request from a user in a workspace.
8-3. Regarding independent claim 36, nowhere in Applicant’s originally filed disclosure provides support for the limitation “in response to a usage attribute satisfying a document-creation activity threshold: obtaining, for the workspace, data from one or more predictive data sources for a plurality of document templates associated with the workspace” [claim 36, lines 16-18]. Applicant’s specification only discloses first obtaining document-creation histories for each of a plurality of document templates associated with the workspace for the workspace [paragraph 192; figure 9, ‘904’] and then determining, using the obtained document-creation histories, whether a usage attribute of the plurality of document templates satisfies a usage condition [paragraph 103; figure 9, ‘906’]. Nowhere discloses first determining that a usage attribute of a plurality of document templates satisfies a usage condition, and in response, obtaining document-creation histories, which the limitation “obtaining, for the workspace, data from one or more predictive data sources for a plurality of document templates associated with the workspace” appears to correspond to.
9. 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.
10. Claims 21-40 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.
10-1. Claim 21 recites the limitation "in response to a usage attribute satisfying a document-creation activity threshold:… detecting a user selection of an identifier of the displayed identifiers;" in [lines 8, 19] of the claim. It is unclear how detection of a user selection is in response to the usage attribute satisfying a document-creation activity threshold since the user selection appears to be a separate command made by the user that is performed after the plurality of document templates are displayed.
10-2. Claim 30 recites the limitation "in response to a usage attribute satisfying a document-creation activity threshold:… detecting a user selection of an identifier of the displayed identifiers;" in [lines 4, 21] of the claim. It is unclear how detection of a user selection is in response to the usage attribute satisfying a document-creation activity threshold since the user selection appears to be a separate command made by the user that is performed after the plurality of document templates are displayed.
10-3. Claim 36 recites the limitation "in response to a usage attribute satisfying a document creation activity threshold:… detecting a user selection of an identifier of the displayed identifiers;" in [lines 16, 28] of the claim. It is unclear how detection of a user selection is in response to the usage attribute satisfying a document-creation activity threshold since the user selection appears to be a separate command made by the user that is performed after the plurality of document templates are displayed.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
11. 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.
12. Claims 21-22, 24-34, 36-37, and 39-40 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ahlgren et al (U.S. Patent No. 8,082,301), in view of Chakra et al (U.S. Patent No. 10,963,475), and further in view of Schoppe (Pub. No. US 2013/0017846).
12-1. Regarding claim 21, Ahlgren teaches the claim comprising, in a collaborative document system comprising a plurality of user-generated documents, each user-generated document associated with a workspace of a plurality of workspaces of the collaborative document system:… receiving, from a client application operating on a client device, a document creation request associated with an active workspace of the plurality of workspaces of the collaborative document system, by disclosing a system that includes a processor and an interface for collaborators to perform collaborative activities and connect with people, strategies, technology, and resources [column 4, lines 35-49] where a user may select a New Resource option 1318 [figure 13] on an overview screen to create a resource [column 33, lines 4-7]. Resources are collections of elements defined by users that give the users access to information sources [column 4, lines 61-64]. Resources are organized into a plurality of workspaces, each of which provides a managed environment [column 6, lines 6-8]. Resources are created from resource templates as set by the administrator and assigned to specified workspaces [column 32, lines 65-66].
Although Ahlgren discloses responsive to the selection, displaying a plurality of resource templates [Ahlgren, column 33, lines 4-9; figure 17A], Ahlgren does not expressly teach that in response to receiving the document creation request:… obtaining, for the active workspace, data from one or more predictive data sources for a plurality of document templates; analyzing, for the plurality of document templates, the obtained data to predict document template usage for the active workspace; computing, based at least in part on the predicted document template usage, a respective relevance weight for one or more document templates of the plurality of document templates associated with the active workspace; causing identifiers of at least a subset of the plurality of document templates to be displayed to a user in accordance with a rank order, the rank order based at least in part on the computed relevance weights for the plurality of document templates. Chakra discloses an analytics engine that scores retrieved templates with a confidence level, and presents to the user a list of top template matches ranked by confidence level [column 5, line 59 to column 6, line 3; column 7, lines 54-57]. Meta-data surrounding a particular task includes a wide variety of information that would assist the analytics engine in selecting which templates to provide to the user, and includes the identity of the user, the role of the user, and the organization/department of the user [column 5, lines 8-31; column 6, lines 30-37]. Weighting factors are used to rank the relevance of templates [column 6, lines 56-59] such that those pieces of meta-data determined to be more relevant are given more weight [column 7, lines 37-40]. This includes usage history [column 7, lines 15-22; column 13 lines 28-30]. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to rank the resource templates in a workspace of Ahlgren based on usage history, as taught by Chakra. This would result in reduction in labor and time.
Ahlgren-Chakra do not expressly teach that the obtaining, analyzing, computing, and causing is performed in response to a usage attribute satisfying a document-creation activity threshold. Schoppe discloses that in response to a user entering a recipient for the creation of a new message, presenting an ordered list of predetermined text messages for selection, the ordering based on historical/statistical data comprising the number of times a given message has been previously selected by the user [paragraph 46]. Other factors or bases, in addition to the historical/statistical bases, may be used for sorting the list [paragraph 50]. A library stores the predetermined messages along with usage frequency for each message [paragraph 54]. Predetermined messages from the library are selected for display based on usage within a given period of time [paragraph 24, lines 21-23] and the selection frequency within the given period being above or equal to a threshold [paragraph 24, lines 1-19]. Setting a date range to restrict the evaluation of predetermined messages for display would help conserve processing power. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to perform the obtaining, analyzing, computing, and causing steps of Ahlgren-Chakra in response to the data satisfying a threshold date range, as taught by Schoppe. This would help conserve processing power.
Ahlgren-Chakra-Schoppe teach detecting a user selection of an identifier of the displayed identifiers; and in response to detecting the user selection of the identifier, causing respective template document content of a document template associated with the selected identifier to be populated in a creation interface displayed to the user for a new document, by disclosing that in response to selecting one of the resource templates, a resource template screen is opened [Ahlgren, column 33, lines 18-19; Chakra, column 5, line 59 to column 6, line 3; column 7, lines 54-57].
12-2. Regarding claim 22, Ahlgren-Chakra-Schoppe teach all the limitations of claim 21, wherein analyzing the obtained data to predict the document template usage comprises: analyzing the obtained data using a pattern recognition technique to predict the document template usage for the active workspace, by disclosing determining relevancy of templates based on a pattern of past usage history [Chakra, column 7, lines 15-32; column 13, lines 16-20].
12-3. Regarding claim 24, Ahlgren-Chakra-Schoppe teach all the limitations of claim 21, wherein: computing the respective relevance weight for the one or more document templates is further based at least in part on a project calendar associated with the document creation request, by disclosing determining relevancy of templates based in part on a user’s electronic calendar [Chakra, column 9, line 58 to column 10, line 2].
12-4. Regarding claim 25, Ahlgren-Chakra-Schoppe teach all the limitations of claim 21, further comprising: obtaining data from content of the document template, wherein the respective relevance weight is computed further based at least in part on the data from the content of the document template, by disclosing determining relevancy of templates based on the structure and content of a template [Chakra, column 5, lines 36-41; column 6, line 56 to column 7, line 9].
12-5. Regarding claim 26, Ahlgren-Chakra-Schoppe teach all the limitations of claim 21, wherein: the one or more predictive data sources comprise a calendar, a project timeline, a historical data, or a search query history, by disclosing determining relevancy of templates based on past usage history [Chakra, column 7, lines 15-32; column 13, lines 16-20] and a user’s electronic calendar [Chakra, column 9, line 58 to column 10, line 2].
12-6. Regarding claim 27, Ahlgren-Chakra-Schoppe teach all the limitations of claim 26, wherein: the one or more predictive data sources further comprise a title, a note, a description, or metadata associated with the calendar, the project timeline, the historical data, or the search query history, by disclosing determining relevancy of templates based on past usage history [Chakra, column 5, lines 36-59; column 7, lines 15-32; column 13, lines 16-20] and a user’s electronic calendar [Chakra, column 9, line 58 to column 10, line 2].
12-7. Regarding claim 28, Ahlgren-Chakra-Schoppe teach all the limitations of claim 21, wherein: the one or more predictive data sources comprise a calendar associated with an individual, an organization, the active workspace, or a project of the active workspace, by disclosing determining relevancy of templates based in part on a user’s electronic calendar [Chakra, column 9, line 58 to column 10, line 2].
12-8. Regarding claim 29, Ahlgren-Chakra-Schoppe teach all the limitations of claim 21, wherein: the one or more predictive data sources comprise a project milestone, a production target, a due date, or a phase completion deadline, by disclosing determining relevancy of templates based on past usage history, which includes time of year that reports have been created [Chakra, column 5, lines 36-59; column 7, lines 15-32; column 13, lines 16-20] and a user’s electronic calendar indicating a date of an upcoming meeting [Chakra, column 9, line 58 to column 10, line 2].
12-9. Regarding claim 30, Ahlgren teaches the claim comprising, in a collaborative document system comprising a plurality of user-generated documents associated with workspaces of the collaborative document system:… detecting, from a user, a first document creation request originating from the first workspace, by disclosing a system that includes a processor and an interface for collaborators to perform collaborative activities and connect with people, strategies, technology, and resources [column 4, lines 35-49] where a user may select a New Resource option 1318 [figure 13] on an overview screen to create a resource [column 33, lines 4-7]. Resources are collections of elements defined by users that give the users access to information sources [column 4, lines 61-64]. Resources are organized into a plurality of workspaces, each of which provides a managed environment [column 6, lines 6-8]. Resources are created from resource templates as set by the administrator and assigned to specified workspaces [column 32, lines 65-66].
Although Ahlgren discloses responsive to the selection, displaying a plurality of resource templates [Ahlgren, column 33, lines 4-9; figure 17A], Ahlgren does not expressly teach obtaining, for a first workspace of the collaborative document system, data from a first predictive data source; obtaining, for a second workspace of the collaborative document system, data from a second predictive data source; analyzing, for the plurality of document templates, the obtained data from the first predictive data source and the obtained data from the second predictive data source to predict document template usage for the first workspace; computing, based at least in part on the predicted document template usage, a respective relevance weight for one or more document templates of the plurality of document templates associated with the first workspace;… responsive to detecting the first document creation request, causing identifiers of at least a subset of the plurality of document templates to be displayed to the user in accordance with a first rank order, the first rank order based at least in part on the respective relevance weights for the one or more document templates. Chakra discloses an analytics engine that scores retrieved templates with a confidence level, and presents to the user a list of top template matches ranked by confidence level [column 5, line 59 to column 6, line 3; column 7, lines 54-57]. Meta-data surrounding a particular task includes a wide variety of information that would assist the analytics engine in selecting which templates to provide to the user, and includes the identity of the user, the role of the user, and the organization/department of the user [column 5, lines 8-31; column 6, lines 30-37]. Weighting factors are used to rank the relevance of templates [column 6, lines 56-59] such that those pieces of meta-data determined to be more relevant are given more weight [column 7, lines 37-40]. This includes usage history of the requesting user [column 5, lines 36-38; column 7, lines 15-28] as well as other users [column 7, lines 28-33; column 11, lines 3-7; column 13 lines 16-20, 28-30]. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to rank the resource templates in a workspace of Ahlgren based on usage history of the requesting user and other users, as taught by Chakra. This would result in reduction in labor and time. Since a template may be assigned to specified workspaces [Ahlgren, column 32, lines 65-66] of which different users are assigned [Ahlgren, column 6, lines 6-14] such that each user has access to components of their respectively assigned workspace including the ability to access resource templates belonging to their assigned workspace [Ahlgren, column 33, lines 4-7], and determining which resource templates to display for a workspace [Ahlgren, column 33, lines 4-9; figure 17A] is based on ranking the templates according to usage history of the requesting user [Chakra, column 5, lines 36-38; column 7, lines 15-28] as well as other users [Chakra, column 7, lines 28-33; column 11, lines 3-7; column 13 lines 16-20, 28-30], data sources from a first and a second workspace may be obtained and analyzed to predict a resource template usage for the first workspace and display a list of top template matches ranked by confidence level [Chakra, column 5, line 59 to column 6, line 3; column 7, lines 54-57].
Ahlgren-Chakra do not expressly teach that the obtaining for a first workspace, obtaining for a second workspace, analyzing, computing, and causing is performed in response to a usage attribute satisfying a document creation activity threshold. Schoppe discloses that in response to a user entering a recipient for the creation of a new message, presenting an ordered list of predetermined text messages for selection, the ordering based on historical/statistical data comprising the number of times a given message has been previously selected by the user [paragraph 46]. Other factors or bases, in addition to the historical/statistical bases, may be used for sorting the list [paragraph 50]. A library stores the predetermined messages along with usage frequency for each message [paragraph 54]. Predetermined messages from the library are selected for display based on usage within a given period of time [paragraph 24, lines 21-23] and the selection frequency within the given period being above or equal to a threshold [paragraph 24, lines 1-19]. Setting a date range to restrict the evaluation of predetermined messages for display would help conserve processing power. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to perform the obtaining, analyzing, computing, and causing steps of Ahlgren-Chakra in response to the data satisfying a threshold date range, as taught by Schoppe. This would help conserve processing power.
Ahlgren-Chakra-Schoppe teach detecting a user selection of an identifier of the displayed identifiers; and in response to detecting the user selection of the identifier, causing respective template document content of a document template associated with the selected identifier to be populated in a creation interface displayed to the user for a new document, by disclosing that in response to selecting one of the resource templates, a resource template screen is opened [Ahlgren, column 33, lines 18-19; Chakra, column 5, line 59 to column 6, line 3; column 7, lines 54-57].
12-10. Regarding claim 31, Ahlgren-Chakra-Schoppe teach all the limitations of claim 30, wherein the collaborative document system comprises a plurality of workspaces, each workspace associated with a different set of user-generated documents organized in a different organizational hierarchy, by disclosing that domains, initiatives, and resources are organized into a plurality of workspaces, each of which provides a managed environment [Ahlgren, column 6, lines 6-8]. The system gives each collaborator/user access to one or more workspaces where a user may have different roles in different workspaces [Ahlgren, column 6, lines 8-10]. Resources may be organized into resource hierarchies, and the resource hierarchies belong to domains, which themselves may be hierarchically organized [Ahlgren, column 5, lines 15-18].
12-11. Regarding claim 32, Ahlgren-Chakra-Schoppe teach all the limitations of claim 30, further comprising: receiving, from the user, a definition for a first user-generated document template for use in the first workspace, by disclosing that new resource templates may be created [Ahlgren, column 27, lines 32-46].
Ahlgren-Chakra-Schoppe teach including the first user-generated document template in the plurality of document templates and not in a second plurality of document templates associated with the second workspace, by disclosing that resource templates can be associated or disassociated with a workspace [Ahlgren, column 28, lines 16-19].
12-12. Regarding claim 33, Ahlgren-Chakra-Schoppe teach all the limitations of claim 30, wherein: detecting, from the user, a second document creation request originating from the second workspace, by disclosing that the user may navigate to another workspace [Ahlgren, column 30, lines 16-18] and select a New Resource option 1318 [figure 13] on an overview screen to create a resource [Ahlgren, column 33, lines 4-7].
Ahlgren-Chakra-Schoppe teach responsive to detecting the second document creation request, causing identifiers of at least a subset of a second plurality of document templates to be displayed to the user in accordance with a second rank order, the second rank order based at least in part on respective document-creation histories for the second plurality of document templates, by disclosing responsive to the selection, displaying a plurality of resource templates [Ahlgren, column 33, lines 4-9; figure 17A] that are ranked according to usage history of the requesting user [Chakra, column 5, lines 36-38; column 7, lines 15-28] as well as other users [Chakra, column 7, lines 28-33; column 11, lines 3-7; column 13 lines 16-20, 28-30]
12-13. Regarding claim 34, Ahlgren-Chakra-Schoppe teach all the limitations of claim 30, wherein analyzing the obtained data to predict the document template usage comprises: analyzing the obtained data using a pattern recognition technique to predict the document template usage for the first workspace, by disclosing determining relevancy of templates based on a pattern of past usage history [Chakra, column 7, lines 15-32; column 13, lines 16-20].
12-14. Regarding claim 36, Ahlgren teaches the claim comprising, at a client device of a collaborative document system, the collaborative document system comprising a plurality of user-generated documents associated with workspaces of the collaborative document system: displaying a graphical user interface on a display, by disclosing a system that includes a processor and an interface for collaborators to perform collaborative activities and connect with people, strategies, technology, and resources [column 4, lines 35-49]. Resources are collections of elements defined by users that give the users access to information sources [column 4, lines 61-64]. Resources are organized into a plurality of workspaces, each of which provides a managed environment [column 6, lines 6-8]. Resources are created from resource templates as set by the administrator and assigned to specified workspaces [column 32, lines 65-66]. An overview screen is provided that allows a user to interact with the system and navigate through the system [column 30, lines 12-16; figure 13].
Ahlgren teaches displaying, in a first region of the graphical user interface, a plurality of workspace identifiers, each respective workspace identifier corresponding to a respective workspace that is associated with a respective set of user-generated documents, by disclosing displaying a list of workspaces the user has been assigned [column 6, lines 8-10; column 27, lines 62-63; column 30, lines 16-18; figure 13]. The components of a workspace include resources [column 6, lines 11-14] which are collections of elements defined by users that give the users access to information sources [column 4, lines 61-64].
Ahlgren teaches receiving a selection of a workspace identifier from the plurality of workspace identifiers, the workspace identifier associated with a workspace within the collaborative document system; in response to receiving the selection of the workspace identifier, displaying, in the first region, a plurality of document links, each respective document link corresponding to a respective user-generated document associated with the workspace, by disclosing that the user may navigate to a workspace [column 30, lines 16-18] such that the overview screen displays a navigator screen 1302 for the workspace [column 30, lines 18-19; figure 13] that displays created resources [column 31, lines 43-45, 53-57; column 31, line 66 to column 32, line 2]. Selecting a resource displays the resource’s objects in a workspace details view [column 30, lines 22-24; column 31, lines 45-47; column 32, lines 2-4; figure 15C].
Ahlgren teaches… detecting, from a user, a document creation request originating from the workspace, by disclosing that the user may select a New Resource option 1318 [figure 13] on the overview screen to create a resource [column 33, lines 4-7].
Although Ahlgren discloses responsive to the selection, displaying a plurality of resource templates [Ahlgren, column 33, lines 4-9; figure 17A], Ahlgren does not expressly teach that in response to detecting the document creation request:… obtaining, for the workspace, data from one or more predictive data sources for a plurality of document templates associated with the workspace; determining, for the plurality of document templates and the workspace, a predicted document template usage based at least in part on the obtained data; determining, based at least in part on the predicted document template usage, a respective relevance weight for one or more document templates of the plurality of document templates associated with the workspace; displaying, in a second region of the graphical user interface, identifiers of at least a subset of the plurality of document templates in accordance with a rank order, the rank order based at least in part on the determined relevance weights for the plurality of document templates. Chakra discloses an analytics engine that scores retrieved templates with a confidence level, and presents to the user a list of top template matches ranked by confidence level [column 5, line 59 to column 6, line 3; column 7, lines 54-57]. Meta-data surrounding a particular task includes a wide variety of information that would assist the analytics engine in selecting which templates to provide to the user, and includes the identity of the user, the role of the user, and the organization/department of the user [column 5, lines 8-31; column 6, lines 30-37]. Weighting factors are used to rank the relevance of templates [column 6, lines 56-59] such that those pieces of meta-data determined to be more relevant are given more weight [column 7, lines 37-40]. This includes usage history [column 7, lines 15-22; column 13 lines 28-30]. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to rank the resource templates in a workspace of Ahlgren based on usage history, as taught by Chakra. This would result in reduction in labor and time.
Ahlgren-Chakra do not expressly teach that the obtaining, determining a predicted document template usage, determining a respective relevance weight, and displaying is performed in response to a usage attribute satisfying a document creation activity threshold. Schoppe discloses that in response to a user entering a recipient for the creation of a new message, presenting an ordered list of predetermined text messages for selection, the ordering based on historical/statistical data comprising the number of times a given message has been previously selected by the user [paragraph 46]. Other factors or bases, in addition to the historical/statistical bases, may be used for sorting the list [paragraph 50]. A library stores the predetermined messages along with usage frequency for each message [paragraph 54]. Predetermined messages from the library are selected for display based on usage within a given period of time [paragraph 24, lines 21-23] and the selection frequency within the given period being above or equal to a threshold [paragraph 24, lines 1-19]. Setting a date range to restrict the evaluation of predetermined messages for display would help conserve processing power. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to perform the obtaining, analyzing, computing, and causing steps of Ahlgren-Chakra in response to the data satisfying a threshold date range, as taught by Schoppe. This would help conserve processing power.
Ahlgren-Chakra-Schoppe teach detecting a user selection of an identifier of the displayed identifiers; and in response to detecting the user selection of the identifier, causing a document template associated with the selected identifier to be displayed in a third region of the graphical user interface, by disclosing that in response to selecting one of the resource templates, a resource template screen is opened [Ahlgren, column 33, lines 18-19; Chakra, column 5, line 59 to column 6, line 3; column 7, lines 54-57].
12-15. Regarding claim 37, Ahlgren-Chakra-Schoppe teach all the limitations of claim 36, wherein determining the predicted document template usage comprises: analyzing the obtained data using a pattern recognition technique to predict the document template usage for the workspace, by disclosing determining relevancy of templates based on a pattern of past usage history [Chakra, column 7, lines 15-32; column 13, lines 16-20].
12-16. Regarding claim 39, Ahlgren-Chakra-Schoppe teach all the limitations of claim 36, wherein: computing the respective relevance weight for the one or more document templates is further based at least in part on a time of year associated with the document creation request, by disclosing that meta-data to assist the analytics engine includes information gathered when the request is made, such as the date, the day of the week, and time of day [Chakra, column 5, lines 8-20].
12-17. Regarding claim 40, Ahlgren-Chakra-Schoppe teach all the limitations of claim 36, further comprising: obtaining data from content of the document template, wherein the respective relevance weight is computed further based at least in part on the data from the content of the document template, by disclosing determining relevancy of templates based on the structure and content of a template [Chakra, column 5, lines 36-41; column 6, line 56 to column 7, line 9].
13. Claims 23, 35, and 38 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ahlgren et al (U.S. Patent No. 8,082,301), in view of Chakra et al (U.S. Patent No. 10,963,475), in view of Schoppe (Pub. No. US 2013/0017846), and further in view of Kumar et al (U.S. Patent No. 10,963,636).
13-1. Regarding claim 23, Ahlgren-Chakra-Schoppe teach all the limitations of claim 22. Ahlgren-Chakra-Schoppe do not expressly teach wherein the pattern recognition technique comprises: a classification algorithm, a clustering algorithm, an ensemble learning algorithm, a regression algorithm, or a probabilistic classifier. Kumar discloses using a machine learning model trained using historical data with known outcomes to select a template for recommendation to the user [column 3, lines 3-6]. The historical data can vary depending on user preferences, and can be based on commodity, region, user, process owner, item to be procured, last or previously used templates, etc. [column 3, lines 6-10]. The machine learning model can take a variety of forms including, without limitation, an extreme gradient boosting algorithm, a neural network model (including deep learning), a logistic regression model, a support vector machine, a random forest, a nearest neighbor model, a Bayesian model, a genetic algorithm, and/or the like [column 3, lines 15-20; column 4, lines 63-67]. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to determine the list of top template matches of Ahlgren-Chakra-Schoppe using a machine learning model, as taught by Kumar. This would increase efficiency by providing more suitable recommendations.
13-2. Regarding claim 35, Ahlgren-Chakra-Schoppe teach all the limitations of claim 34. Ahlgren-Chakra-Schoppe do not expressly teach wherein the pattern recognition technique comprises: a classification algorithm, a clustering algorithm, an ensemble learning algorithm, a regression algorithm, or a probabilistic classifier. Kumar discloses using a machine learning model trained using historical data with known outcomes to select a template for recommendation to the user [column 3, lines 3-6]. The historical data can vary depending on user preferences, and can be based on commodity, region, user, process owner, item to be procured, last or previously used templates, etc. [column 3, lines 6-10]. The machine learning model can take a variety of forms including, without limitation, an extreme gradient boosting algorithm, a neural network model (including deep learning), a logistic regression model, a support vector machine, a random forest, a nearest neighbor model, a Bayesian model, a genetic algorithm, and/or the like [column 3, lines 15-20; column 4, lines 63-67]. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to determine the list of top template matches of Ahlgren-Chakra-Schoppe using a machine learning model, as taught by Kumar. This would increase efficiency by providing more suitable recommendations.
13-3. Regarding claim 38, Ahlgren-Chakra-Schoppe teach all the limitations of claim 37. Ahlgren-Chakra-Schoppe do not expressly teach wherein the pattern recognition technique comprises: a classification algorithm, a clustering algorithm, an ensemble learning algorithm, a regression algorithm, or a probabilistic classifier. Kumar discloses using a machine learning model trained using historical data with known outcomes to select a template for recommendation to the user [column 3, lines 3-6]. The historical data can vary depending on user preferences, and can be based on commodity, region, user, process owner, item to be procured, last or previously used templates, etc. [column 3, lines 6-10]. The machine learning model can take a variety of forms including, without limitation, an extreme gradient boosting algorithm, a neural network model (including deep learning), a logistic regression model, a support vector machine, a random forest, a nearest neighbor model, a Bayesian model, a genetic algorithm, and/or the like [column 3, lines 15-20; column 4, lines 63-67]. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to determine the list of top template matches of Ahlgren-Chakra-Schoppe using a machine learning model, as taught by Kumar. This would increase efficiency by providing more suitable recommendations.
Response to Arguments
14. The Examiner acknowledges the Applicant’s amendments to claims 21, 30, 33, and 36.
Regarding independent claim 21, Applicant alleges that Ahlgren et al (U.S. Patent No. 8,082,301) in view of Chakra et al (U.S. Patent No. 10,963,475) do not describe or suggest any determination that a usage attribute satisfies a usage attribute satisfying a document-creation activity threshold, as has been amended to the claim.
Examiner has rejected claim 21 under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ahlgren et al (U.S. Patent No. 8,082,301), in view of Chakra et al (U.S. Patent No. 10,963,475), and further in view of Schoppe (Pub. No. US 2013/0017846). Applicant’s arguments have been considered but are moot in view of the new grounds of rejection.
Similar arguments have been presented for independent claim 30 and 36 and thus, Applicant’s arguments are not persuasive for the same reasons.
Applicant states that dependent claims 22-29, 31-35, and 37-40 recite all the limitations of the independent claims, and thus, are allowable in view of the remarks set forth regarding independent claims 21, 30, and 36. However, as discussed above, Ahlgren, in view of Chakra, and further in view of Schoppe are considered to teach claims 21, 30, and 36, and consequently, claims 22-29, 31-35, and 37-40 are rejected.
Conclusion
15. 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.
16. Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ALVIN H TAN whose telephone number is (571)272-8595. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 10AM-6PM.
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, Scott Baderman can be reached at 571-272-3644. 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.
/ALVIN H TAN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2118
Prosecution Insights