CTNF 18/451,084 CTNF 74606 Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status 07-03-aia AIA 15-10-aia The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA. Claims 1-8 are pending. Information Disclosure Statement The information disclosure statements (IDS) submitted on 5 January 2026, 11 March 2024 and 16 August 2023 are in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statements are being considered by the examiner. Specification 06-11 AIA The title of the invention is not descriptive. A new title is required that is clearly indicative of the invention to which the claims are directed. Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112 07-30-02 AIA 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. 07-34-01 Claims 2-3 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 2 last line “the identical work region” lacks antecedent basis. Claim 3 inherits the deficiency of its parent claim 2. Art rejection is applied to claims 2-3 as best understood in light of the rejection under U.S.C. 112 discussed above. Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102 07-06 AIA 15-10-15 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. 07-07-aia AIA 07-07 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 – 07-08-aia AIA (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. 07-12-aia AIA (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. 07-15-aia AIA Claim(s) 1, 7, 8 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102 (a)(1) as being anticipated by Wilde et al (US 20220343258 A1) provided by the applicant . Regarding claim 1, Wilde discloses, teaches or suggests an information processing apparatus (machine 1700, figure 17, which according to paragraph 84 implements the method described in D1, in particular the content recommendation engine 310 in figure 4) comprising: a processor (1702) configured to : based on state information indicating a state of electronic content (document being authored, paragraph 58, using document authoring application 124 in figure 4), operation information indicating an operation performed in the past with respect to the electronic content of the state ("copy and paste activities", "file activities", paragraph 58, which are collectively called "signals", paragraph 63, used to train an ML module, paragraph 61), and a state of target content that is electronic content operated by a user (current activities of the user, paragraph 58), specify a recommended operation that is an operation to be subsequently performed by the user with respect to the target content ("the content element suggestion module 406 identifies content (that the user 130 is likely to include as part of a project) from the set of candidate items in the user interface", paragraph 62); based on a work database in which information related to a work including a plurality of operations performed in the past with respect to electronic content is stored and in which an attribute of the electronic content (the trained ML model, paragraph 61. An ML stores information relating to an activity if it was trained based on it.), details of the plurality of operations performed in the past with respect to the electronic content ("files last opened", paragraph 58), and an attribute of related content that is electronic content related to the electronic content with respect to at least one operation of the plurality of operations are associated with each other, an attribute of the target content ("type of content", paragraph 58), and an operation detail performed by the user so far with respect to the target content ("copy and paste activity", paragraph 58), specify a similar work similar to a work with respect to the target content from the work stored in the work database ("the content element suggestion module 406 generates a display of the set of candidate projects/items in a user interface (e.g., a pane) of the programmatic client 108", paragraph 62); specify an attribute of the related content that is an attribute of the related content included in the similar work with respect to an operation corresponding to the recommended operation performed in the similar work (suggestions are based on "key words, key phrases in the document", paragraph 63 which are put into the ML model: "the content element search module 402 uses machine learning to identify relevant keywords or key terms", paragraph 58); specify target-related content that is electronic content related to the recommended operation with respect to the target content, from electronic content having the specified attribute based on the target content (the recommended content); and notify the user of the target-related content (display of suggestions being generated, see above). Claims 7, 8 essentially recite limitations similar to claim 1 in form of non-transitory computer readable medium storing executable instructions and method respectively thus are rejected for the same reasons discussed in claim 1 above . 07-15-aia AIA Claim(s) 1-5, 7-8 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102 (a)(1) as being anticipated by Nakatomi et al (US 7668799 B2) , Regarding claim 1, Nakatomi substantially discloses, teaches or suggests an information processing apparatus comprising: a processor ( see at least Fig.3 processing unit ) configured to: based on state information indicating a state of electronic content, operation information indicating an operation performed in the past with respect to the electronic content of the state, and a state of target content that is electronic content operated by a user, specify a recommended operation that is an operation to be subsequently performed by the user with respect to the target content ( see at least Fig.7 items S11-S16 ); based on a work database in which information related to a work including a plurality of operations performed in the past with respect to electronic content is stored and in which an attribute of the electronic content, details of the plurality of operations performed in the past with respect to the electronic content, and an attribute of related content that is electronic content related to the electronic content with respect to at least one operation of the plurality of operations are associated with each other, an attribute of the target content, and an operation detail performed by the user so far with respect to the target content, specify a similar work similar to a work with respect to the target content from the work stored in the work database ( see at least col.6 lines 30-37 ); specify an attribute of the related content that is an attribute of the related content included in the similar work with respect to an operation corresponding to the recommended operation performed in the similar work ( see a least Fig.7 blocks S13-S15 ); specify target-related content that is electronic content related to the recommended operation with respect to the target content, from electronic content having the specified attribute based on the target content ( see at least Fig.7 blocks S16-S20 ); and notify the user of the target-related content ( see at least col.7 lines 14-21 ). Regarding claim 2. The information processing apparatus according to claim 1, wherein the processor is configured to: specify, as the target-related content, electronic content that is electronic content having the specified attribute and that is stored in the identical work region to the target content ( see at least col.3 lines 42-49 ). Regarding claim 3, Nakatomi further teaches the information processing apparatus according to claim 2, wherein the processor is configured to: specify the target-related content based on detail information that is extracted by analyzing the target content and that indicates a detail of the target content and detail information that is extracted by analyzing the electronic content having the specified attribute and that indicates a detail of the electronic content ( see at least col.7 lines 31-41 ). Regarding claim 4, Nakatomi further teaches the information processing apparatus according to claim 1, wherein the processor is configured to: specify a plurality of recommended operations ( see at least col.10 lines 33-39 ); specify a plurality of pieces of target-related content related to the plurality of recommended operations, respectively ( see at least col.10 lines 50-56 ); and display the plurality of pieces of target-related content on a display unit in an aspect of showing the related recommended operations ( see at least col.10 lines 57-67 ). Regarding claim 5, Nakatomi further teaches the information processing apparatus according to claim 1, wherein the processor is configured to: open the target content and the target-related content in accordance with an operation of selecting the recommended operation by the user ( see at least col.9 lines 55-62 ). Claims 7, 8 essentially recite limitations similar to claim 1 in form of non-transitory computer readable medium storing executable instructions and method respectively thus are rejected for the same reasons discussed in claim 1 above . Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103 07-06 AIA 15-10-15 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. 07-20-aia AIA 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. 07-21-aia AIA Claim (s) 6 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Nakatomi et al (US 7668799 B2), further in view of Hatada (WO 2004003804 A1) . Regarding claim 6, Nakatomi does not specifically show the information processing apparatus according to claim 1, wherein the processor is configured to: in a case where the user does not have access permission for the target-related content, notify the user that the target-related content is specified and that the user does not have the access permission for the target-related content. However it is customary in the art as shown by Hatada that access authority is determined by an authentication process ( see at least Hatada Fig.6 ). it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to include determining access permission and notifying the user as claimed while implementing the apparatus of Nakatomi in order to alert the user upon access denial to target-related content . Conclusion 07-96 AIA The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Anno (US 20090307195 A1) teaches a document management apparatus is provided in a system that includes a project management unit capable of managing progress of a project to which a user belongs. The document management apparatus includes a reception unit configured to receive a search keyword input by the user and user attribute thereof, a search unit configured to search document information based on the search keyword received by the reception unit, an obtaining unit configured to detect the project to which the user belongs based on the user attribute received by the reception unit, and obtain a phase of the detected project from the project management unit, an extraction unit configured to extract document information which is operated on a number of times that is equal to or more than a threshold value in the project phase obtained by the obtaining unit, from the document information searched by the search unit, and an output unit configured to output the document information searched by the search unit and the document information extracted by the extraction unit to provide the user therewith. Inazumi et al (WO 2019244910 A1) teach a work management system, a higher-order system, a subordinate system, a work execution system, a work device, a work management method, and a program, with which effective utilization of the work device can easily be achieved. A work management system (1) is provided with a subordinate system (3) and a higher-order system (2). The subordinate system (3) outputs a request (D3) corresponding to work. The higher-order system (2) determines whether to provide an authorization (D4) with respect to the request (D3). When an authorization (D4) is provided for the request (D3) the subordinate system (3) executes the work corresponding to the request (D3) on one or more work devices (4). Rogynskyy et al (US 10489430 B1) teach systems and methods for matching electronic activities to record objects using feedback based match policies can include accessing a plurality of electronic activities and record objects. The systems and method can include identifying candidate record objects by applying a matching model. The systems and methods can include selecting a record object based on a match score. The systems and methods can include configuring the matching model in a first configuration responsive to a first feedback type or configuring the matching model in a second configuration responsive to a second feedback type. Sun, Tong. "An intelligent wizard for automatic workflow modeling." 2006 IEEE International Conference on Systems, Man and Cybernetics. Vol. 4. IEEE, 2006. Abstract- Workflow modeling is playing an increasingly important role in representing end-to-end business process for workflow analysis, integration, automation and optimization purposes. This paper introduces an intelligent tool that automatically generates workflow models based on a set of given user constraints and underlying service capability ontology for production printing domain through an ease-to-use wizard-like interface. Unlike any existing workflow modeling tool, this intelligent wizard does not require the users with technical expertise in process modeling. The wizard-like interface provided in the proposed tool enables business people to easily create workflow models that match the user constraints provided via a set of questionnaire. The resulting workflow model is represented from three viewpoints: service view, product view and device view. This paper discusses the tool's architecture and key components, such as domain ontology on user constraints and service capability, and ontology-based inference engine that implements the automatic workflow generation algorithm. Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to UYEN T LE whose telephone number is (571)272-4021. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 9-5. 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, Ajay M Bhatia can be reached at 5712723906. 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. /UYEN T LE/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2156 23 April 2026 Application/Control Number: 18/451,084 Page 2 Art Unit: 2156 Application/Control Number: 18/451,084 Page 3 Art Unit: 2156 Application/Control Number: 18/451,084 Page 4 Art Unit: 2156 Application/Control Number: 18/451,084 Page 5 Art Unit: 2156 Application/Control Number: 18/451,084 Page 6 Art Unit: 2156 Application/Control Number: 18/451,084 Page 7 Art Unit: 2156 Application/Control Number: 18/451,084 Page 8 Art Unit: 2156 Application/Control Number: 18/451,084 Page 9 Art Unit: 2156 Application/Control Number: 18/451,084 Page 10 Art Unit: 2156 Application/Control Number: 18/451,084 Page 11 Art Unit: 2156 Application/Control Number: 18/451,084 Page 12 Art Unit: 2156 Application/Control Number: 18/451,084 Page 13 Art Unit: 2156 Application/Control Number: 18/451,084 Page 14 Art Unit: 2156 Application/Control Number: 18/451,084 Page 15 Art Unit: 2156
Prosecution Insights