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 .
Remarks
Claims 1-20 are pending.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
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.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
Claims 1, 3-5, 9-10 and 19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Mullins et al. (‘Mullins’ hereinafter) (Publication Number 20160378734) in view of Matze et al. (‘Matze’ hereinafter) (Patent Number 11487628) and further in view of Wright (Publication Number 20240357019).
As per claim 1, Mullins teaches
A computer-implemented method comprising: (see abstract and background)
tracking, by a content management system, a plurality of viewer interactions
providing, by the content management system, a content item interaction analytics timeline for display within a graphical user interface of a client device, the content item interaction analytics timeline representing segment change events based on navigation between the one or more segments of the content item based on the plurality of viewer interactions, wherein the content item interaction analytics timeline includes representations of the plurality of viewer interactions presented in chronological order; (display timeline shows fragments and section annotations, paragraph [0090]; see also figure 21, where top of window shows timeline and sections of the document; see also paragraph [0085] that describes volume of editing annotations in figure 19 that can be interpreted as an interaction analytics timeline; see also paragraph [0108]; fragment ID for tracking changes to the content of a fragment, paragraphs [0043],[0046]-[0048]; note that document edits and changes to the content of a fragment reads on the claimed segment change events)
receiving, by the content management system, a user interaction with a first representation of the representations of the plurality of viewer interactions; (figures 19-22 & paragraphs [0090]-[0095], where user can interact to view materialization of representations edits and state of the document and fragments)
and after receiving the user interaction with the first representation, providing, by the content management system, a preview of an associated segment associated with the first representation for display in the graphical user interface. (figures 19-22 & paragraphs [0092]-[0095], where user can view materialization of state of document and fragments)
Mullins does not explicitly indicate “universally unique identifier (UUID)”.
However, Matze teaches “universally unique identifier (UUID)” (column 5, lines 15-20).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine Mullins and Matze because using the steps claimed would have given those skilled in the art the tools to improve the invention by being able to more easily identify how to store and locate file fragments or portions that can be stored on particular file systems in a replicated file system (see Matze, column 5, lines 40-60) This gives the user the advantage of being able to quickly find desired file fragments or portions.
Neither Mullins and Matze explicitly indicate “that capture a viewer's sequential navigation progress through a content item”.
However, Wright discloses “that capture a viewer's sequential navigation progress through a content item” (tracking user navigation events including generated tracking data of user interactions, paragraphs [0014],[0071]-[0072],[0081]-[0084]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine Mullins, Matze and Wright because using the steps claimed would have given those skilled in the art the tools to improve the invention by informing content providers of what content is useful to consumers, and what content leads to user interactions (see Wright, background). This gives the user the advantage of having automated collection of feedback from consumers to avoid inquiries to busy consumers.
As per claim 3, Mullins teaches
providing one or more actionable insights in the content item interaction analytics timeline including changing a segment order, deleting a segment, moving a link, or providing a suggestion based on analysis of the plurality of viewer interactions. (paragraph [0076], [0108])
As per claim 4, Mullins teaches
receiving a selection of the preview; and causing to open a window that links to the associated segment, wherein the one or more actionable insights are presented in the window to provide an option to execute a respective change. (figure 21, where lower window shows segment associated with sections/fragments selected)
As per claim 5, Mullins teaches
the plurality of viewer interactions includes link selection events within a segment, or segment element selection events. (paragraph [0108]).
As per claim 9, Mullins teaches
the content item includes electronic content items, electronic spreadsheets, or electronic portfolios. (electronic documents, paragraph [0056])
As per claim 10,
This claim is rejected on grounds corresponding to the reasons given above for rejected claim 1 and is similarly rejected.
As per claim 19,
This claim is rejected on grounds corresponding to the reasons given above for rejected claim 1 and is similarly rejected.
Claims 2, 11-14, 18 and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Mullins et al. (‘Mullins’ hereinafter) (Publication Number 20160378734) in view of Matze et al. (‘Matze’ hereinafter) (Patent Number 11487628) and further in view of Wright (Publication Number 20240357019) and further in view of Van Megchelen (Publication Number 20130283232).
As per claim 2, Mullins teaches
Neither Mullins, Matze nor Wright explicitly indicate “providing, within the graphical user interface of the client device, a directory interface comprising a plurality of content items including the content item stored at the content management system”.
However, Van Megchelen discloses “providing, within the graphical user interface of the client device, a directory interface comprising a plurality of content items including the content item stored at the content management system” (visualization of code with code segment in multi-level folder tree, paragraph [0015]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine Mullins, Matze, Wright and Van Megchelen because using the steps claimed would have given those skilled in the art the tools to improve the invention by allowing for the management of code globally by allowing code segments to be available for search worldwide (see Van Megchelen, paragraphs [0002]-[0004]). This gives the user the advantage of easier access to desired code.
As per claim 11,
This claim is rejected on grounds corresponding to the reasons given above for rejected claim 2 and is similarly rejected.
As per claim 12, Mullins teaches
provide one or more actionable insights in the content item interaction analytics timeline including changing a segment order, deleting a segment, moving a link, or providing a suggestion based on analysis of the plurality of viewer interactions. (paragraph [0076], [0108])
As per claim 13, Mullins teaches
receive a selection of the preview; and cause to open a window that links to the associated segment, wherein the one or more actionable insights are presented in the window to provide an option to execute a respective change. (figure 21, where lower window shows segment associated with sections/fragments selected)
As per claim 14, Mullins teaches
the plurality of viewer interactions includes link selection events within a segment, or segment element selection events. (paragraph [0108]).
As per claim 18, Mullins teaches
the content item includes electronic content items, electronic spreadsheets, or electronic portfolios. (electronic documents, paragraph [0056])
As per claim 20,
This claim is rejected on grounds corresponding to the reasons given above for rejected claim 2 and is similarly rejected.
Claim 6 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Mullins et al. (‘Mullins’ hereinafter) (Publication Number 20160378734) in view of Matze et al. (‘Matze’ hereinafter) (Patent Number 11487628) and further in view of Wright (Publication Number 20240357019) and further in view of MacDonald-Korth et al. (‘MacDonald-Korth’ hereinafter) (Patent Number 10867321).
As per claim 6, Mullins teaches
Neither Mullins, Matze nor Wright explicitly indicate “receiving a request to generate a custom link associated with the content item; receiving a request to access the custom link; and in response to the request to access the custom link,
However, MacDonald-Korth discloses “receiving a request to generate a custom link associated with the content item; receiving a request to access the custom link; and in response to the request to access the custom link,
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine Mullins, Matze, Wright and MacDonald-Korth because using the steps claimed would have given those skilled in the art the tools to improve the invention by providing a quick and efficient way for users to obtain desired information. This gives the user the advantage of more efficient use of expensive resources.
Claims 7-8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Mullins et al. (‘Mullins’ hereinafter) (Publication Number 20160378734) in view of Matze et al. (‘Matze’ hereinafter) (Patent Number 11487628) and further in view of Wright (Publication Number 20240357019) and further in view of David (Patent Number 7274375).
As per claim 7,
Neither Mullins, Matze nor Wright explicitly indicate “based on analysis of the plurality of viewer interactions, providing an option to generate a summary for how a viewer viewed the content item or an option to categorize the viewer based on viewer type”.
However, David discloses “based on analysis of the plurality of viewer interactions, providing an option to generate a summary for how a viewer viewed the content item or an option to categorize the viewer based on viewer type” (user may generate reports that summarize time spent on various activities, column 2, line 65 through column 3, line 10 & figure 4).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine Mullins, Matze, Wright and David because using the steps claimed would have given those skilled in the art the tools to improve the invention by providing a more accurate way for employees to account for time spent on various projects (see David, background). This gives the user the advantage of better time management for employees.
As per claim 8,
Neither Mullins, Matze nor Wright explicitly indicate “linking the content item interaction analytics timeline with a summary chart that indicates how much time is spent on each segment by one or more viewers”.
However, David discloses “linking the content item interaction analytics timeline with a summary chart that indicates how much time is spent on each segment by one or more viewers” (user may generate reports that summarize time spent on various activities, column 2, line 65 through column 3, line 10 & figure 4).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine Mullins, Matze, Wright and David because using the steps claimed would have given those skilled in the art the tools to improve the invention by providing a more accurate way for employees to account for time spent on various projects (see David, background). This gives the user the advantage of better time management for employees.
Claim 15 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Mullins et al. (‘Mullins’ hereinafter) (Publication Number 20160378734) in view of Matze et al. (‘Matze’ hereinafter) (Patent Number 11487628) and further in view of Wright (Publication Number 20240357019) and further in view of Van Megchelen (Publication Number 20130283232) and further in view of MacDonald-Korth et al. (‘MacDonald-Korth’ hereinafter) (Patent Number 10867321).
As per claim 15, Mullins teaches
Neither Mullins, Matze. Wright nor Van Megchelen explicitly indicate “receive a request to generate a custom link associated with the content item; receive a request to access the custom link; and in response to the request to access the custom link,
However, MacDonald-Korth discloses “receive a request to generate a custom link associated with the content item; receive a request to access the custom link; and in response to the request to access the custom link,
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine Mullins, Matze, Wright, Van Megchelen and MacDonald-Korth because using the steps claimed would have given those skilled in the art the tools to improve the invention by providing a quick and efficient way for users to obtain desired information. This gives the user the advantage of more efficient use of expensive resources.
Claims 16-17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Mullins et al. (‘Mullins’ hereinafter) (Publication Number 20160378734) in view of Matze et al. (‘Matze’ hereinafter) (Patent Number 11487628) and further in view of Wright (Publication Number 20240357019) and further in view of Van Megchelen (Publication Number 20130283232) and further in view of David (Patent Number 7274375).
As per claim 16,
Neither Mullins, Matze. Wright nor Van Megchelen explicitly indicate “based on analysis of the plurality of viewer interactions, provide an option to generate a summary for how a viewer viewed the content item or an option to categorize the viewer based on viewer type”.
However, David discloses “based on analysis of the plurality of viewer interactions, provide an option to generate a summary for how a viewer viewed the content item or an option to categorize the viewer based on viewer type” (user may generate reports that summarize time spent on various activities, column 2, line 65 through column 3, line 10 & figure 4).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine Mullins, Matze, Wright, Van Megchelen and David because using the steps claimed would have given those skilled in the art the tools to improve the invention by providing a more accurate way for employees to account for time spent on various projects (see David, background). This gives the user the advantage of better time management for employees.
As per claim 17,
Neither Mullins, Matze. Wright nor Van Megchelen explicitly indicate “link the content item interaction analytics timeline with a summary chart that indicates how much time is spent on each segment by one or more viewers”.
However, David discloses “link the content item interaction analytics timeline with a summary chart that indicates how much time is spent on each segment by one or more viewers” (user may generate reports that summarize time spent on various activities, column 2, line 65 through column 3, line 10 & figure 4).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine Mullins, Matze, Wright, Van Megchelen and David because using the steps claimed would have given those skilled in the art the tools to improve the invention by providing a more accurate way for employees to account for time spent on various projects (see David, background). This gives the user the advantage of better time management for employees.
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. It is noted that the newly added Wright reference, in combination with previously cited references, teaches the amended claims as shown above.
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 JAY A MORRISON whose telephone number is (571)272-7112. The examiner can normally be reached on Monday - Friday, 8:00 am - 4:00 pm ET.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Trujillo K James, can be reached at telephone number (571)272-3677. 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.
/Jay A Morrison/
Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2151
Prosecution Insights