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 .
DETAILED ACTION
This is a non-final rejection. Claims 1-20 are pending.
Status of Claims
Applicant’s amendment date 02/04/2026, amending claim 1-20.
Information Disclosure Statement (IDS)
The information disclosure statement(s) filed on 09/29/2023 comply with the provisions 37 CFR 1.97, 1.98, and MPEP 609 and is considered by the Examiner.
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on 02/04/2026 has been entered.
Continuation
This application is a continuation of U.S. application 16/989,362 (filed 08/10/2020, now U.S. Patent No. 11,816,615, that is continuation of U.S. application 15/476,734, now U.S. Patent No. 10796255). See MPEP §201.08. In accordance with MPEP §609.02 A. 2 and MPEP §2001.06(b) (last paragraph), the Examiner has reviewed and considered the prior art cited in the Parent Applications. Also in accordance with MPEP §2001.06(b) (last paragraph), all documents cited or considered ‘of record’ in the Parent Applications are now considered cited or ‘of record’ in this application. Additionally, Applicant(s) are reminded that a listing of the information cited or ‘of record’ in the Parent Application need not be resubmitted in this application unless Applicants desire the information to be printed on a patent issuing from this application. See MPEP §609.02 A. 2. Finally, Applicants are reminded that the prosecution history of the Parent Application is relevant in this application. See e.g., Microsoft Corp. v. Multi-Tech Sys., Inc., 357 F.3d 1340, 1350, 69 USPQ2d 1815, 1823 (Fed. Cir. 2004) (holding that statements made in prosecution of one patent are relevant to the scope of all sibling patents).
Terminal Disclaimer
The terminal disclaimer filed on 01 October 2025 disclaiming the terminal portion of any patent granted on this application which would extend beyond the expiration date of US 11816615 (16/989,362) has been reviewed and is accepted. The terminal disclaimer has been recorded.
Response to Amendment
The previously pending rejection under 35 USC 101, will be maintained. The 101 rejection is updated in light of the amendments.
With regard to the rejection under 35 USC 102/103- Applicant’s arguments, see pages 14-17, filed 02/04/2026, with respect to the art rejection have been fully considered and are persuasive, the rejection under 35 USC 102/103 has been withdrawn. No art rejection has been put forth in the rejection for the reason found in the “Allowable Subject Matter” section found below.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Response to Arguments under 35 USC 101:
Applicant argues (Pages 13-14 of the remarks):
Amended independent claims 8 and 15 also recite similar additional patent
eligible subject matter.
Accordingly, the§ 101 rejection is moot with respect to the currently amended claims and Applicant submits that the currently amended independent claims are directed to patent-eligible subject matter and not directed to an abstract mental process that can be performed by the human mind or any other abstract idea. Even assuming, arguendo, that the claims are directed to an abstract idea, the amendments to the claims integrate any such abstract idea into a practical application.
Examiner respectfully disagrees:
The Applicant's Specification titled "MANAGING PROJECT TASKS USING CONTENT ITEMS
" emphasizes the business need for data analysis, "In summary, the present disclosure relates to methods and systems for determining a similarity of plurality content item and associate the content item with the first existing/candidate content item collections . In example aspects, based on different collected data" (Spec. figure 11). Thus, data analytics to the Specification is a business concept being addressed by the claimed invention.
As the bolded claim limitations above demonstrate, independent claims 1, 8 and 15 recites the abstract idea.
As the bolded claim limitations above demonstrate, independent claims 1, 8 and 15 are directed to the abstract idea of determining a similarity of plurality content item and associate the content item with the first existing/candidate content item collections. which is considered certain methods of organizing human activity because the bolded claim limitations pertain to (i) fundamental economic principles or practices, (ii) commercial or legal interactions and (iii) managing personal behavior or relationships or interactions between people. See MPEP §2106.04(a)(2)(II).
Applicant's claims as recited above provide a business solution of determining a similarity of plurality content item and associate the content item with the first existing/candidate content item collections. Applicant's claimed invention pertains to fundamental economic principles or practices (including hedging, insurance, mitigating risk), commercial or legal interactions including agreements in the form of contracts, legal obligations; advertising, marketing or sales activities or behaviors; business relations, and managing personal behavior or relationships or interactions between people and including agreements in the form of contracts, legal obligations; advertising, marketing or sales activities or behaviors; business relations and because the independent claims 1, 8 and 15 recites the abstract idea of determining a similarity of plurality content item and associate the content item with the first existing/candidate project. See MPEP §2106.04(a)(2)(II).
In prong two of step 2A, an evaluation is made whether a claim recites any additional element, or combination of additional element, that integrate the exception into a practical application of that exception. An “additional element” is an element that is recited in the claim in addition to (beyond) the judicial exception (i.e., an element/limitation that sets forth an abstract idea is not an additional element). The phrase “integration into a practical application” is defined as requiring an additional element or a combination of additional elements in the claim to apply, rely on, or use exception, such that it is more than a drafting effort designed to monopolize the exception.
The claims recite the additional limitation a system, a non-transitory, processor, memory, a client device(s) and a content management system are recited in a high level of generality and recited as performing generic computer functions routinely used in computer applications. Adding the words “apply it” (or an equivalent) with the judicial exception, or mere instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer, e.g., a limitation indicating that a particular function such as creating and maintaining electronic records is performed by a computer, as discussed in Alice Corp. 134 S. Ct, at 2360,110 USPQ2d at 1984 (see MPEP 2106.05(f). All of these additional elements are not significantly more because these, again, are merely the software and/or hardware components used to implement the abstract idea on a general purpose computer.
The Examiner has therefore determined that the additional elements, or combination of additional elements, do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application. Accordingly, the claim(s) is/are directed to an abstract idea (step 2A-prong two: NO).
The Alice framework, step 2B (Part 2 of Mayo) determine if the claim is sufficient to ensure that the claim amounts to “significantly more” than the abstract idea itself. These additional elements recite conventional computer components and conventional functions of:
Independent claims do not include my limitations amounting to significantly more than the abstract idea, along. The claims include various elements that are not directed to the abstract idea. These elements include a system, a non-transitory, processor, memory, and a content management system.
Examiner asserts that a system, a non-transitory, processor, memory, a client device(s), and a content management system are a generic computing element performing generic computing functions. (See MPEP 2106.05(f))
Further, with regard to mining (i.e., searching over a network), receiving, processing, storing data, and parsing (i.e. extract, transform data), the courts have recognized the following computer functions as well-understood, routing, and conventional functions when they are claimed in a merely generic manner (e.g., at a high level of generality) or as insignificant extra-solution activity (i.e. “receiving, processing, transmitting, storing data”, etc.) are well-understood, routine, etc. (MPEP 2106.05(d))
Therefore, the claims at issue do not require any nonconventional computer, network, or display components, or even a “non-conventional and non-generic arrangement of know, conventional pieces,” but merely call for performance of the claimed on a set of generic computer components” and display devices.
In addition, fig. 1, of the specifications detail any combination of a generic computer system program to perform the method. Generically recited computer elements do not add a meaningful limitation to the abstract idea because the Alice decision noted that generic structures that merely apply abstract ideas are not significantly more than the abstract ideas.
Claim Rejections 35 USC §101
35 U.S.C. § 101 reads as follows:
Whoever invents or discovers any new and useful process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter, or any new and useful improvement thereof, may obtain a patent therefor, subject to the conditions and requirements of this title.
Claims 1-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 101 because the claimed invention is directed to non-statutory subject matter, specifically an abstract idea without a practical application or significantly more than the abstract idea.
Under the 35 U.S.C. §101 subject matter eligibility two-part analysis, Step 1 addresses whether the claim is directed to one of the four statutory categories of invention, i.e., process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter. See MPEP §2106.03. If the claim does fall within one of the statutory categories, it must then be determined in Step 2A [prong 1] whether the claim is directed to a judicial exception (i.e., law of nature, natural phenomenon, and abstract idea). See MPEP §2106.04. If the claim is directed toward a judicial exception, it must then be determined in Step 2A [prong 2] whether the judicial exception is integrated into a practical application. See MPEP §2106.04(d). Finally, if the judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application, it must additionally be determined in Step 2B whether the claim recites "significantly more" than the abstract idea. See MPEP §2106.05.
Examiner note: The Office's 2019 Revised Patent Subject Matter Eligibility Guidance (2019 PEG) is currently found in the Ninth Edition, Revision 10.2019 (revised June 2020) of the Manual of Patent Examination Procedure (MPEP), specifically incorporated in MPEP §2106.03 through MPEP §2106.07(c).
Regarding Step 1
Claims 1-7 are directed toward a method (process). Claims 8-14 are directed to a non-transitory (machine) and Claims 15-20 are directed to a system (machine). Thus, all claims fall within one of the four statutory categories as required by Step 1.
Regarding Step 2A [prong 1]
Claims 1-20 are directed toward the judicial exception of an abstract idea. Independent claims 8 and 15 recites essentially the same abstract features as claim 1, thus are abstract for the same reasons as claim 1.
Regarding independent claim 1, the bolded limitations emphasized below correspond to the abstract ideas of the claimed invention:
Claim 1. A computer-implemented method comprising:
receiving, by a content management system, a selection of a content item managed by the content management system;
determining, by the content management system and from a first client device, a plurality of relevance scores that estimate a level of relevance between the content item and a plurality of candidate content item collections (claim 15:existing item collections) based on a semantic similarity between the content item and other content items associated with the plurality of candidate/existing content item collections, by determining the semantic similarity based on one or more of: keywords phrases, vector representations of content items, natural language, or content item contents;
based on the plurality of relevance scores, providing, by the content management system, for display on the first client device, a subset of the plurality of candidate/existing content item collections;
receiving, by the content management system and from the first client device, a request to add the content item to a first candidate content item collections of the subset of the plurality of candidate/existing content item collections; and
based on the request, associating, by the content management system, the content item with the first candidate/existing content item collections;
receiving, from the first client device, an update to the content item;
determining one or more user accounts associated with the first candidate content item collection; and
based on association of the content item with the first candidate content item collection, providing an update notification to one or more client devices corresponding to the one or more user accounts associated with the first candidate content item collection.
The Applicant's Specification titled "MANAGING PROJECT TASKS USING CONTENT ITEMS
" emphasizes the business need for data analysis, "In summary, the present disclosure relates to methods and systems for determining a similarity of plurality content item and associate the content item with the first existing/candidate content item collections . In example aspects, based on different collected data" (Spec. figure 11). Thus, data analytics to the Specification is a business concept being addressed by the claimed invention.
As the bolded claim limitations above demonstrate, independent claims 1, 8 and 15 recites the abstract idea.
As the bolded claim limitations above demonstrate, independent claims 1, 8 and 15 are directed to the abstract idea of determining a similarity of plurality content item and associate the content item with the first existing/candidate content item collections. which is considered certain methods of organizing human activity because the bolded claim limitations pertain to (i) fundamental economic principles or practices, (ii) commercial or legal interactions and (iii) managing personal behavior or relationships or interactions between people. See MPEP §2106.04(a)(2)(II).
Applicant's claims as recited above provide a business solution of determining a similarity of plurality content item and associate the content item with the first existing/candidate project. Applicant's claimed invention pertains to fundamental economic principles or practices (including hedging, insurance, mitigating risk), commercial or legal interactions including agreements in the form of contracts, legal obligations; advertising, marketing or sales activities or behaviors; business relations, and managing personal behavior or relationships or interactions between people and including agreements in the form of contracts, legal obligations; advertising, marketing or sales activities or behaviors; business relations and because the independent claims 1, 8 and 15 recites the abstract idea of determining a similarity of plurality content item and associate the content item with the first existing/candidate project. See MPEP §2106.04(a)(2)(II).
Dependent claims 2-7, 9-14, and 16-20 further reiterate the same abstract ideas with further embellishments (the bolded limitations), such as
claim 2 (similarly claims 9 and 16) identifying, by the content management system, a plurality of suggested member user accounts to associate with the first candidate content item collections by performing a natural language processing analysis of content associated with a plurality of candidate member user accounts; and
providing, by the content management system, for display the plurality of suggested member user accounts.
claim 3 (similarly claims 10 and 17) identifying, by the content management system, the plurality of candidate member user accounts based on an interaction history of the plurality of candidate member user accounts with the one or more user account associated with the first candidate/existing content item collections.
claim 4 (similarly claims 11 and 18) identifying, by the content management system, the plurality of candidate member user accounts based on an interaction history of the plurality of candidate member user accounts with the content item and/or existing project.
claim 5 (similarly claims 12 and 19) identifying, by the content management system, a suggested content item to add to the first candidate/existing content item collections based on a comparison between the suggested content item and the content item; and
providing, by the content management system, for display the suggested content item.
claim 6 (similarly claims 13 and 20) identifying, by the content management system, a suggested content item to add to the first candidate/existing content item collections based on a comparison between the suggested content item and the first candidate/existing content item collections; and
providing, by the content management system, for display the suggested content item.
claim 7 (similarly claim 14) identifying, by the content management system, a suggested content item to add to the first candidate content item collections based on a comparison between the suggested content item and interaction history of the one or more user accounts associated with to the first candidate content item collections; and
providing, by the content management system, for display the suggested content item.
which are nonetheless directed towards fundamentally the same abstract ideas as indicated for independent claims 1, 8 and 15.
Regarding Step 2A [prong 2]
Claims 1-20 fail to integrate the abstract idea into a practical application. Independent claim 1 (similarly claims 8 and 15) include the following bolded additional elements which do not amount to a practical application:
Claim 1. A content management system, a client device(s)
Claim 8. A non-transitory computer readable medium comprising one or more sequences of instructions, which, when executed by one or more processors, causes a content management system to perform operations comprising: a client device(s)
Claim 15. A system, comprising:
one or more processors; and a memory having programming instructions stored thereon, which, when executed by the one or more processors, cause the system to perform operations comprising: a client device(s)
The bolded limitations recited above in independent claim 1 (similarly claims 8 and 15) pertain to additional elements which merely provide an abstract-idea-based-solution implemented with computer hardware and software components, including the additional elements of a system, a non-transitory, processor, memory, a client device(s), and a content management system. which fail to integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because there are (1) no actual improvements to the functioning of a computer, (2) nor to any other technology or technical field, (3) nor do the claims apply the judicial exception with, or by use of, a particular machine, (4) nor do the claims provide a transformation or reduction of a particular article to a different state or thing, (5) nor provide other meaningful limitations beyond generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment, in view of MPEP §2106.04(d)(1) and §2106.05 (a-c & e-h), (6) nor do the claims apply the judicial exception to effect a particular treatment or prophylaxis for a disease or medical condition, in view of MPEP §2106.04(d)(2).
The Specification provides a high level of generality regarding the additional elements claimed without sufficient detail or specific implementation structure so as to limit the abstract idea, for instance, the computing platform includes generic processors, memories, and communication interfaces. See Figure 1A of the specification. Nothing in the Specification describes the specific operations recited in claims 1, 8 and 15 as particularly invoking any inventive programming, or requiring any specialized computer hardware or other inventive computer components, i.e., a particular machine, or that the claimed invention is somehow implemented using any specialized element other than all-purpose computer components to perform recited computer functions. The claimed invention is merely directed to utilizing computer technology as a tool for solving a business problem of data analytics. Nowhere in the Specification does the Applicant emphasize additional hardware and/or software elements which provide an actual improvement in computer functionality, or to a technology or technical field, other than using these elements as a computational tool to automate and perform the abstract idea. See MPEP §2106.05(a & e).
The relevant question under Step 2A [prong 2] is not whether the claimed invention itself is a practical application, instead, the question is whether the claimed invention includes additional elements beyond the judicial exception that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application by imposing a meaningful limit on the judicial exception. This is not the case with Applicant's claimed invention which merely pertains to steps for determining a similarity of plurality content item and associate the content item with the first existing/candidate project and the additional computer elements a tool to perform the abstract idea, and merely linking the use of the abstract idea to a particular technological environment. See MPEP §2106.04 and §21062106.05(f-h). Alternatively, the Office has long considered data gathering, analysis and data output to be insignificant extra-solution activity, and these additional elements do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. See MPEP §2106.04 and §2106.05(g). Thus, the additional elements recited above fail to provide an actual improvement in computer functionality, or to a technology or technical field. See MPEP §2106.04(d)(1) and §2106§2106.05 (a & e).
Instead, the recited additional elements above, merely limit the invention to a technological environment in which the abstract concept identified above is implemented utilizing the computational tools provided by the additional elements to automate and perform the abstract idea, which is insufficient to provide a practical application since the additional elements do no more than generally link the use of the abstract idea to a particular technological environment. See MPEP §2106.04. Automating the recited claimed features as a combination of computer instructions implemented by computer hardware and/or software elements as recited above does not qualify an otherwise unpatentable abstract idea as patent eligible. Alternatively, the Office has long considered data gathering and data processing as well as data output recruitment information on a social network to be insignificant extra-solution activity, and these additional elements used to gather and output recruitment information on a social network are insignificant extra-solution limitations that do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. See MPEP §2106.05(g). The current invention determining a similarity of plurality content item and associate the content item with the first existing/candidate project. When considered in combination, the claims do not amount to improvements of the functioning of a computer, or to any technology or technical field. Applicant's limitations as recited above do nothing more than supplement the abstract idea using additional hardware/software computer components as a tool to perform the abstract idea and generally link the use of the abstract idea to a technological environment, which is not sufficient to integrate the judicial exception into a practical application since they do not impose any meaningful limits.
Dependent claims 2-7, 9-14, and 16-20 merely incorporate the additional elements recited above, along with further embellishments of the abstract idea of independent claims 1, 8 and 15 respectively, for example, the bolded limitations emphasized below correspond to the additional elements: claims 2, 9, and 16 NPL. This limitation is at most merely insignificant extra-solution activity (MPEP 2106.05(g)) and thus fails to integrate the recited abstract idea into a practical application. This limitation is at most merely insignificant extra-solution activity (MPEP 2106.05(g)) and thus fails to integrate the recited abstract idea into a practical application. Which are nonetheless directed towards fundamentally the same abstract ideas as indicated for independent claims 1, 8 and 15, but these features only serve to further limit the abstract idea of independent claims 1, 8 and 15, furthermore, merely using/applying in a computer environment such as merely using the computer as a tool to apply instructions of the abstract idea do nothing more than provide insignificant extra-solution activity since they amount to data gathering, analysis and outputting. Furthermore, they do not pertain to a technological problem being solved in a meaningful way beyond generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment, and/or the limitations fail to achieve an actual improvement in computer functionality or improvement in specific technology other than using the computer as a tool to perform the abstract idea.
Therefore, the additional elements recited in the claimed invention individually, and in combination fail to integrate the recited judicial exception into any practical application.
Regarding Step 2B
Claims 1-20 do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because the additional element(s) as described above with respect to Step 2A Prong 2, the additional element of Claims 1, 8 and 15. a system, a non-transitory, processor, memory, a client device(s), and a content management system. The displaying interface and storing data merely amount to a general purpose computer used to apply the abstract idea(s) (MPEP 2106.05(f)) and/or performs insignificant extra-solution activity, e.g. data retrieval and storage, as described above (MPEP 2106.05(g)) which are further merely well-understood, routine, and conventional activit(ies) as evidenced by MPEP 2106.06(05)(d)(II) (describing conventional activities that include transmitting and receiving data over a network, electronic recordkeeping, storing and retrieving information from memory, electronically scanning or extracting data from a physical document, and a web browser’s back and forward button functionality). Therefore, similarly the combination and arrangement of the above identified additional elements when analyzed under Step 2B also fails to necessitate a conclusion that the claims amount to significantly more than the abstract idea directed to determining a similarity of plurality content item and associate the content item with the first existing/candidate project.
Claims 1-20 is accordingly rejected under 35 USC 101 because the claimed invention is directed to a judicial exception (i.e., a law of nature, a natural phenomenon, or an abstract idea(s)) without significantly more.
Allowable Subject Matter
Regarding the 35 USC 103 rejection, No art rejections has been put forth in the rejection.
Closest prior art to the invention include Yan et al. US 2015/0186538: Method and system for cross-platform searching of multiple information sources and devices, York et al. US 2013/0275429: System and method for enabling contextual recommendations and collaboration within content, He et al. US 2015/0278200: Convolutional latent semantic models and their applications, and Alonso, Omar, and Stefano Mizzaro. "Using crowdsourcing for TREC relevance assessment." Information processing & management 48.6 (2012): 1053-1066.
None of the prior art of record, taken individually or in combination, teach, inter alia, teaches the claimed invention as detailed in independent claims, determining, by the content management system and from a first client device, a plurality of relevance scores that estimate a level of relevance between the content item and a plurality of candidate content item collections (claim 15:existing item collections) based on a semantic similarity between the content item and other content items associated with the plurality of candidate/existing content item collections, … receiving, by the content management system and from the first client device, a request to add the content item to a first candidate content item collections of the subset of the plurality of candidate/existing content item collections; and based on the request, associating, by the content management system, the content item with the first candidate/existing content item collections; … determining one or more user accounts associated with the first candidate content item collection; and based on association of the content item with the first candidate content item collection”. The reason to withdraw the 35 USC 103 rejection of claims 1-20 in the instant application is because the prior art of record fails to teach the overall combination as claimed. Therefore, it would not have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the prior art to meet the combination above without unequivocal hindsight and one of ordinary skill would have no reason to do so. Upon further searching the examiner could not identify any prior art to teach these limitations. The prior art on record, alone or in combination, neither anticipates, reasonably teaches, not renders obvious the Applicant’s claimed invention.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Alonso, Omar, and Stefano Mizzaro. "Using crowdsourcing for TREC relevance assessment." Information processing & management 48.6 (2012): 1053-1066.
Larabie-Belanger US 2015/0288756: Determining presence in an application accessing shared and synchronized content.
Viau US 2014/0330832: Universal idea capture and value creation apparatuses, methods and systems.
Sundaresan US 2009/0144259: Using reputation measures to improve search relevance.
Perkowski CA 2391572: Method of and system for enabling brand-image communication between vendors and consumers.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to HAMZEH OBAID whose telephone number is (313)446-4941. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8 am-5 pm EST.
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, Patricia Munson can be reached at (571) 270-5396. 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.
/HAMZEH OBAID/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3624