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 .
Claims 1-20 are pending. Claims 1-3. 5-9, 11, 12, 14-16, 18, and 19 are currently amended. Claims 1, 7, and 14 are independent 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.
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 3, 4, 9, 10, 16, and 17 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.
Claim 3 recites 3 different limitations in the alternative: “at least one of: a second portion of the second list of events previously scheduled meetings to cancel, a third portion of the second list of events previously scheduled meetings to associate an ownership of each event to a second user profile, or a fourth portion of the second list of events previously scheduled meetings to disassociate the user profile as an invitee,…” and claim 4 depends on claim 3 but only on one of the alternatives, namely “a third portion of the second list of events previously scheduled meetings to associate an ownership of each event to a second user profile”. If the case is one of meetings to cancel or meetings to dissociate, claim 4 subject matter has no context of a second user profile. Claim construction of claims 3 and 4 is problematic and must be corrected. Claims 9 and 10 and 16 and 17 have the same problem.
Claim 6 recites “a second administrative user profile” and it is not clear if this is referring to the administrative user profile already recited in claim 1.
Claim 9 recites a “third user profile” but claim 10 recites “the second user profile” when it should read “the third user profile”.
Claim 12 recites “a second administrative profile” but it is not clear if this is referring to the claim 7 limitation “a second user profile”.
Claim 16 recites the limitation “a third user profile” and claim 17 recites “the second user profile” on lines 3 and 6 which should read “third user profile.”
Claim 19 recites “a second administrative user profile” and it is not clear if this is referring to the second user profile already recited in claim 14.
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)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 1, 2, 5, 6, 7, 8, 11, 12, 14, 15, 18, and 19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Shah et al. (US 2018/0285406 A1, hereinafter Shah).
Regarding claim 1, Shah teaches a system comprising: one or more processors; and one or more non-transitory computer-readable media storing computer-executable instructions that, when executed, cause the one or more processors to perform operations, [Figure 1] comprising:
determining that a user profile is included in an organization that maintains user profiles associated with users of the organization; determining that a user of the user profile has departed from the organization, [Par.[0025] contact objects table (profile) and database action with respect to the status of an employee; Figure 2, Par.[0036] Leanne Tomlin no longer affiliated with the Acme org];
identifying, based at least in part on accessing the user profile and in response to the user departing from the organization, one or more groups associated with the user profile and the organization, [Par.[0036]-[0037], Figure 2, 206 and associated description];
identifying previously scheduled meetings associated with the one or more groups and the user profile, [Par.[0025], Figure 2, 204 queries the database to identify one or more event objects that are likely to be relevant to the contact object or otherwise influenced by the database action (tasks 202, 204)];
generating, based on the previously scheduled meetings data representative of a recommendation list that includes at least a portion of the previously scheduled meetings the recommendation list including at least one of the previously scheduled meetings to modify in response to the user profile departing the organization, [Par.[0025] the recommendation engine 126 may monitor one or more particular fields (or columns) of a contact object table 105 to identify when a value of a field within the entries (or rows) associated with a particular entity (e.g., a user, a tenant, or the like) is changed; Figure 2, 204, 206, 208; Par.[0026]: the recommendation engine 126 may obtain the unique identifier associated with the contact object and search the event object table 105 for event objects having a field for invitees or attendees that includes or matches that unique identifier, thereby identifying existing events associated with that contact object; Figure 3 list shows Leanne Tomlin strikethrough];
causing the recommendation list to be displayed via a user interface associated with an administrative user profile, [Figure 3 and Par.[0029] (GUI) display of the event object on the client device 106 within the client application 107 that indicates the identified contact objects as being potentially relevant to the event along with their suggested associative or dissociative relationships with the event];
receiving, in response to displaying the recommendation list and from the administrative user profile, user input data representing an intent to modify a previously scheduled meeting associated with the portion of the previously scheduled meetings; and causing, based on the user input data, the previously scheduled meeting to be modified, [Figure 2, 208, 210 and Par.[0032] The GUI display may include a button, hyperlink, or similar GUI element adapted to allow the user to accept or reject the suggestions generated by the recommendation engine 126. When the user accepts a suggestion, the application platform 124 and/or the recommendation engine 126 updates the contact and event objects in the database 104 to establish the new logical associations in the database 104]].
Claims 7 and 14 correspond to claim 1 and are rejected as above.
Regarding claim 2, Shah teaches the system of claim 1, wherein identifying the previously scheduled meetings comprises: identifying a first set of events associated with the one or more groups that were organized by the user profile; identifying a second set of events associated with the one or more groups that the user profile is listed as an invitee; and generating, based on the first set and the second set, the previously scheduled meetings, [Figure 2, 204 and 206 identifies all event objects (meetings) related to the contact object and other contact objects as described in Par.[0025]-[0027], see Figure 3].
Regarding claim 3, Shah teaches the system of claim 1, wherein the recommendation list includes at least one of: a second portion of the previously scheduled meetings to cancel, a third portion of the previously scheduled meetings to associate an ownership of each event to a second user profile, or a fourth portion of the previously scheduled meetings to disassociate the user profile as an invitee, [Figures 2 and 3, see the example case of Leanne Tomlin].
Regarding claim 5, Shah teaches the system of claim 1, wherein causing the event previously scheduled meeting to be modified comprises: disassociating the user profile from the previously scheduled meeting, modifying an ownership of the previously scheduled meeting to a second user profile, or cancelling the previously scheduled meeting, [claim is recited in the alternative: Figures 2 and 3, Par.[0038] among others noted elsewhere, in response to detecting the changes suggesting a dissociative relationship between the Leanne Tomlin contact object and the meeting event object, the recommendation engine 126 generates the graphical representation 304 of the Leanne Tomlin contact object within the invitee list 302 using a visually distinguishable characteristic (e.g., strikethrough) that recommends or suggests that Leanne Tomlin be removed from the invitee list].
Regarding claim 6, Shah teaches the system of claim 1, wherein determining that the user has departed from the organization is based on at least one of: a second administrative user profile removing the user profile from the organization, a difference in an organization chart associated with the organization, a deactivation of the user profile, or a modified role associated with the user profile, [Figure 2, 202 identifying a database action with respect to a contact object, changes made in the database, like deactivating the profile or role change or removal].
Claims 7 with 13 and 14 with 20 correspond to claim 1 and are rejected as above.
Claims 8, 11, and 12 are obvious variants of claims 2, 5, and 6, respectively and are rejected as above (profile labels are different).
Claims 15, 18, and 19 are obvious variants of claims 2, 5, and 6, respectively and are rejected as above (profile labels are different).
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 3, 4, 9, 10, 16, and 17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Shah in view of Herrin et al. (US 2016/0358117 A1, hereinafter Herrin).
Regarding claim 3, Shah teaches the system of claim 1, wherein the recommendation list includes at least one of: a second portion of the previously scheduled meetings to cancel, [Par.[0012] and others], or a fourth portion of the previously scheduled meetings to disassociate the user profile as an invitee, [Figures 2 and 3, see the example case of Leanne Tomlin];
Shah does not explicitly teach a third portion of the previously scheduled meetings to associate an ownership of each event to a second user profile, [see 112b rejection];
Herrin in an analogous art teaches wherein the recommendation list includes
a third portion of the second list of events to associate an ownership of each event to a second user profile, [Figure 3, 313, shows recommending new owners for the digital resources];
it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective date of the claimed invention to modify meeting ownerships of the person leaving the company. The motivation and suggestion would have been to indicate the correct status of dissociated personnel of the company, [Shah: Figure 2].
Regarding claim 4, Shah and Herrin teach the system of claim 3, and Herrin teaches wherein the second user profile is determined based on at least one of: a first role of the user profile and a second role of the second user profile, [dependent claim is obvious over Shah in view of Herrin as above; Par.[0002] and elsewhere is described one or more new owners for a digital asset may be identified and recommended by analyzing how the asset was used by all persons in system, the relationships between different persons and/or assets (e.g., are they in the same group, same skillset, same usage patterns), or other desired user selection criteria, Par.[0041]],
a difference between the user profile and the second user profile in an organization chart being equal to or greater than a threshold difference, [dependent claim is obvious over Shah in view of Herrin as above; Par.[0002] and elsewhere is described one or more new owners for a digital asset may be identified and recommended by analyzing how the asset was used by all persons in system, the relationships between different persons and/or assets (e.g., are they in the same group, same skillset, same usage patterns), or other desired user selection criteria; Par.[0041]], or
historical data indicative of a frequency or recency of the second user profile being associated with ownership of events, [dependent claim is obvious over Shah in view of Herrin as above; Par.[0002] and elsewhere is described one or more new owners for a digital asset may be identified and recommended by analyzing how the asset was used by all persons in system, the relationships between different persons and/or assets (e.g., are they in the same group, same skillset, same usage patterns), or other desired user selection criteria; Figure 1, Par.[0041]: “one or more new owners or users are recommended for each identified digital asset. For example, a list of one or more potential new owners may be identified in a visual display at step 313, where the new owners are selected from the other users who have accessed or modified the digital asset in question.”].
Claims 9 and 10 correspond to claims 3 and 4, respectively and are rejected as above.
Claims 16 and 17 correspond to claims 3 and 4, respectively and are rejected as above.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claims 1-20 have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument.
Reference Shah addresses the amended limitations in the independent claims and the combination of Shah and Herrin addresses the noted dependent claims.
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 PADMA MUNDUR whose telephone number is (571)272-5383. The examiner can normally be reached 9:30 AM to 6:00 PM.
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, Wing Chan can be reached at 571 272 7493. 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.
/PADMA MUNDUR/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2441