DETAILED ACTION
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
1. 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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114.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 10/29/2025 has been entered.
Response to Amendment
2. This office action is in response to applicant’s communication filed on 10/29/2025 in response to PTO Office Action mailed 07/17/2025. The Applicant’s remarks and amendments to the claims and/or the specification were considered with the results as follows.
3. In response to the last Office Action, claims 1, 2, 8, 10, 11, 15 and 19 are amended. No claims are added or canceled. As a result, claims 1-20 are pending in this office action.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
4. Claims 1-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claim(s) contains 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, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention. The claimed feature “generating team recall data by aggregating, across the set of additional user accounts, data indicating whether local copies of each digital content item from the shared collection of digital content items are stored to given client devices associated with each additional user account from the set of additional user accounts” does not have support in the specification. The specification discloses collecting team recall data in para. [0051], para. [0053], para. [0054] and para. [0116] and para. [0117], but the specification lacks of disclosure describing how to collect or generate the team recall data.
Response to Arguments
5. Applicant's arguments with respect to 35 USC 101 have been fully considered but are not persuasive and the details are as follow:
Applicant’s argument with respect to claims 1, 8 and 15 stated as “The amended independent claims 1, 8 and 15 recite a practical application because determining, for the user account, a synchronization score with respect to each digital content item of the shared collection of digital content items by processing the team recall data through a synchronization prediction model trained to generate synchronization scores based on synchronization histories of digital content items is improving the functioning of a computer…”.
In response to Applicant’s argument, the Examiner disagrees because it is important to note that a claim whose entire scope can be performed mentally cannot be said to improve computer technology. Synopsys, Inc. v. Mentor Graphics Corp., 839 F.3d 1138, 120 USPQ2d 1473 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (a method of translating a logic circuit into a hardware component description of a logic circuit was found to be ineligible because the method did not employ a computer and a skilled artisan could perform all the steps mentally). Similarly, a claimed process covering embodiments that can be performed on a computer, as well as embodiments that can be practiced verbally or with a telephone, cannot improve computer technology. See RecogniCorp, LLC v. Nintendo Co., 855 F.3d 1322, 1328, 122 USPQ2d 1377, 1381 (Fed. Cir. 2017) (process for encoding/decoding facial data using image codes assigned to particular facial features held ineligible because the process did not require a computer). The claimed feature in claim 1, which determining a synchronization score with respect to each digital content item of a shared collection of digital content items by processing the collected team recall data through a synchronization prediction model trained to generate synchronization scores based on synchronization histories of digital content items is not sufficient to show an improvement in computer-functionality or an improvement to a database. The recited concept can be performed in human mind including an observation, evaluation, judgement, opinion. That is, other than reciting a content management system comprises a synchronization prediction model to train synchronization scores, nothing in the claim elements preclude the step from practically being performed in the mind. Under the broadest reasonable interpretation, the claimed feature which determining synchronization scores for digital content items based on training a machine-learning model by synchronization histories of digital content items, covers performance of the limitation in the mind for the recitation of generic computer components. A person can train a model using the synchronization histories and determine scores based on the result of the trained model. The amended limitation is mere instruction to implement an abstract idea on a computer and merely use a computer as a tool to retrieve data after a series of data gathering steps to perform an abstract idea. The data evaluating and gathering steps are insignificant extra-solution activity, the judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. Thus, taken alone, the additional limitation does not amount to significantly more than the above-identified judicial exception (the abstract idea). To show that the involvement of a computer assists in improving the technology, the claims must recite the details regarding how a computer aids the method, the extent to which the computer aids the method, or the significance of a computer to the performance of the method. Merely adding generic computer components to perform the method is not sufficient. Thus, the claim must include more than mere instructions to perform the method on a generic component or machinery to qualify as an improvement to an existing technology. See MPEP § 2106.05(f) for more information about mere instructions to apply an exception. Therefore, the 35 USC 101 rejection is maintained.
6. Applicant's arguments with respect to 35 USC 103 have been fully considered but are not persuasive and the details are as follow:
Applicant’s argument with respect to 35 USC 103 stated as “Kluesing, whether considered singly or in combination with the other cited references does not describe each limitation recited by independents claims 1, 8 and 15”.
In response to applicant's arguments against the references individually, one cannot show nonobviousness by attacking references individually where the rejections are based on combinations of references. See In re Keller, 642 F.2d 413, 208 USPQ 871 (CCPA 1981); In re Merck & Co., 800 F.2d 1091, 231 USPQ 375 (Fed. Cir. 1986). The cited references Kluesing, Grue and Green are still read on the argued features in Claims 1, 8 and 15. As mentioned above, the amended feature generating team recall data by aggregating, across the set of additional user accounts, data indicating whether local copies of each digital content item from the shared collection of digital content items are stored to given client devices associated with each additional user account from the set of additional user accounts does not comply with the written description requirement. The specification lacks sufficient written disclosure for the data aggregation process when generating team recall data. The Grue reference discloses aggregating additional information 206, which indicates that one or more member accounts can include user A, user B and/or user C and information 504, which indicates each content item [e.g., content item j] that have synchronized or stored, which is associated with user A, user B and user C (See Grue, para. [0058]-para. [0059], para. [0077] and Figures 2 and 5). Therefore, Kluesing in view of Grue discloses generating team recall data by aggregating, across the set of additional user accounts, data indicating whether local copies of each digital content item from the shared collection of digital content items are stored to a given client device associated with each additional user account from the set of additional accounts. As mentioned in the previous office action mailed on 07/17/2025. Kluesing in view of Grue does not explicitly disclose providing the team recall data through a synchronization prediction model trained to be generate synchronization scores based on synchronization histories of digital content items. The examiner has incorporated the Green reference to teach this feature only. The Green reference discloses generating team recall data comprising data that indicates whether each content item of the shared collection of content items is stored to a given client associated with a given user account from the set of additional user accounts and providing the team recall data through a synchronization prediction model trained to be generate synchronization scores based on synchronization histories of digital content items (See Green, para. [0054], para. [0055] para. [0060]). Hence, it is the combination the cited references Kluesing, Grue and Green disclose the claimed invention.
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.
In claims 1-20 [claims 1-10 are process claims, claims 8-14 are machine claims and 14-20 are article of manufacture claims] are rejected under 35 U.S.C 101 because the claimed invention is directed to a judicial exception (i.e., an abstract idea) without significantly more. Claims 1-20 are directed to the abstract idea of providing a set of content items from a shared collection of content items to a client device associated with user account based on synchronization scores, as explained in detail below. The claims do not include elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because the elements can be concepts performed in the human mind which do not add meaningful limits to practicing the abstract idea.
Claim 1 recites a computer-implemented method comprises:
identifying a user account and a set of additional user accounts having joint access to a shared collection of digital content items stored within a content management system (e.g., identifying a set user account having access to a collection of data can be performed in the human mind including observation and evaluation);
generating team recall data by aggregating, across the set of additional user accounts, data indicating whether local copies of each digital content from the shared collection of content items are stored to given client device associated with each additional user account from the set of additional user accounts (e.g., creating a piece of data after evaluating a set of user accounts to indicate whether the collection of digital data should be transferred to devices can be performed in the human mind after observation and evaluation using pen and paper);
determining, for the user account, a synchronization score with respect to each digital content item by processing the team recall data through a synchronization prediction model trained to generate synchronization scores based on synchronization histories of digital content items (e.g., “determining” merely observing a score with respect to the collection of data based on the created piece of data using a data model can be performed in the human mind);
providing a set of content items from the shared collection of content items to a client device associated with the user account based on determining that synchronization scores for the set of content items satisfy a first synchronization criteria (e.g., “providing” the collection of data based on the observed score number satisfies a condition can be performed in the human mind including an observation, evaluation and judgment);
Claim 1 as it is recited falls within one of the groupings of abstract ideas [e.g., mental process] enumerated in the 2019 PEG. The recited concept can be performed in human mind including an observation, evaluation, judgement, opinion. That is, other than reciting at least a content management system and client devices, nothing in the claim elements preclude the step from practically being performed in the mind. The additional elements in the claim recite a content management system to store a shared collection of content items and a plurality of client devices which received the shared collection of content items are recited at a high level of generality and add no more to the claimed invention than the components that perform an abstract idea. The additional elements merely use a computer as a tool to store and receive data after a series of data gathering steps. The data storing/accessing and/or data gathering steps are insignificant extra-solution activity, thus, the judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. The additional limitations do not appear to be improvements to the functioning of a computer or to any other technology or technical field. The additional elements do not amount to significantly more than the above-identified judicial exception (the abstract idea). Looking at the limitation as an ordered combination adds nothing that is not already present when looking at the elements taken individually. There is no indication that the combination of elements improves the functioning of a computer or improves any other technology. Their collective functions merely provide conventional computer implementation. Therefore, claim 1 is not patent eligible.
Claims 2, 4 and 5 further define the synchronization score with respect to each content item of the shared collection of content items based on team recall data and the user recall data are similar to claim 1 fall in “Mental Processes: Concepts performed in the human mind”, e.g., observation, evaluation, judgement and opinion, enumerated in the 2019 PEG. The claims do not include additional elements other than determining the synchronization score using a computer. The claims do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. Therefore, claims 2, 4 and 5 are ineligible subject under 35 USC 101.
Claims 3 and 7 further describes providing individual selection options that enable a user to select content items are similar to claim 1 fall in “Mental Processes: Concepts performed in the human mind”, e.g., observation, evaluation, judgement and opinion, enumerated in the 2019 PEG. The claims do not include additional elements other than selecting content items using a computer or a client device. The claims do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. Therefore, claims 3 and 7 are ineligible subject under 35 USC 101.
Claim 6 further describes providing a recommendation to synchronize a set of content items is similar to claim 1 fall in “Mental Processes: Concepts performed in the human mind”, e.g., observation, evaluation, judgement and opinion, enumerated in the 2019 PEG. That is, other than reciting at least a client device to perform operations, nothing in the claim elements preclude the step from practically being performed in the mind. The additional element in the claim recites a client device display is recited at a high level of generality and adds no more to the claimed invention than the components that perform an abstract idea. The additional element merely uses a computer/device as a tool to display data after a series of data gathering steps. The displaying and data gathering steps are insignificant extra-solution activity, thus, the judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. The additional limitation does not appear to be improvements to the functioning of a computer or to any other technology or technical field. The displaying elements (or combination of elements) are well-understood, routine or conventional activity “Presenting offers and gathering statistics,” OIP Techs., 788 F.3d at 1362-63, 115 USPQ2d at 1092-93 from MPEP 2106.05(d)(II). Thus, taken alone, the additional elements do not amount to significantly more than the above-identified judicial exception (the abstract idea). Looking at the limitation as an ordered combination adds nothing that is not already present when looking at the elements taken individually. There is no indication that the combination of elements improves the functioning of a computer or improves any other technology. Their collective functions merely provide conventional computer implementation. Therefore, claim 6 is not patent eligible.
Claim 8 recites a system comprises:
identifying a user account and a set of additional user accounts having joint access to a shared collection of digital content items stored within a content management system (e.g., identifying a set user account having access to a collection of data can be performed in the human mind including observation and evaluation);
generating team recall data by aggregating, across the set of additional user accounts, data indicating whether local copies of each digital content from the shared collection of content items are stored to given client device associated with each additional user account from the set of additional user accounts (e.g., creating a piece of data after evaluating a set of user accounts to indicate whether the collection of digital data should be transferred to devices can be performed in the human mind after observation and evaluation using pen and paper);
determining, for the user account, a synchronization score with respect to each digital content item by processing the team recall data through a synchronization prediction model trained to generate synchronization scores based on synchronization histories of digital content items (e.g., “determining” merely observing a score with respect to the collection of data based on the created piece of data using a data model can be performed in the human mind);
providing a set of content items from the shared collection of content items to a client device associated with the user account based on determining that synchronization scores for the set of content items satisfy a first synchronization criteria (e.g., “providing” the collection of data based on the observed score number satisfies a condition can be performed in the human mind including an observation, evaluation and judgment);
Claim 8 as it is recited falls within one of the groupings of abstract ideas [e.g., mental process] enumerated in the 2019 PEG. The recited concept can be performed in human mind including an observation, evaluation, judgement, opinion. That is, other than reciting at least a at least one processor; at least one non-transitory computer storage medium, content management system and a plurality of client devices, nothing in the claim elements preclude the step from practically being performed in the mind. The additional elements in the claim recite a storage medium in the content management system to store a shared collection of content items and a processor instructs the shared collection of content items to be stored in a client device are recited at a high level of generality and add no more to the claimed invention than the components that perform an abstract idea. The additional elements merely use a computer as a tool to store data after a series of data gathering steps. The data storing/accessing and/or data gathering steps are insignificant extra-solution activity, thus, the judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. The additional limitations do not appear to be improvements to the functioning of a computer or to any other technology or technical field. The additional elements do not amount to significantly more than the above-identified judicial exception (the abstract idea). Looking at the limitation as an ordered combination adds nothing that is not already present when looking at the elements taken individually. There is no indication that the combination of elements improves the functioning of a computer or improves any other technology. Their collective functions merely provide conventional computer implementation. Therefore, claim 8 is not patent eligible.
Claims 10, 11 and 12 further define the synchronization score with respect to each content item of the shared collection of content items based on team recall data and the user recall data are similar to claim 8 falls in “Mental Processes: Concepts performed in the human mind”, e.g., observation, evaluation, judgement and opinion, enumerated in the 2019 PEG. The claims do not include additional elements other than determining the synchronization score using a computer. The claims do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. Therefore, claims 10, 11 and 12 are ineligible subject under 35 USC 101.
Claims 9 and 14 further describes providing individual selection options that enable a user to select content items are similar to claim 8 falls in “Mental Processes: Concepts performed in the human mind”, e.g., observation, evaluation, judgement and opinion, enumerated in the 2019 PEG. The claims do not include additional elements other than selecting content items using a computer or a client device. The claims do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. Therefore, claims 9 and 14 are ineligible subject under 35 USC 101.
Claim 13 further describes providing a recommendation to synchronize a set of content items is similar to claim 8 falls in “Mental Processes: Concepts performed in the human mind”, e.g., observation, evaluation, judgement and opinion, enumerated in the 2019 PEG. That is, other than reciting at least a client device to perform operations, nothing in the claim elements preclude the step from practically being performed in the mind. The additional element in the claim recites a client device display is recited at a high level of generality and adds no more to the claimed invention than the components that perform an abstract idea. The additional element merely uses a computer/device as a tool to display data after a series of data gathering steps. The displaying and data gathering steps are insignificant extra-solution activity, thus, the judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. The additional limitation does not appear to be improvements to the functioning of a computer or to any other technology or technical field. The displaying elements (or combination of elements) are well-understood, routine or conventional activity “Presenting offers and gathering statistics,” OIP Techs., 788 F.3d at 1362-63, 115 USPQ2d at 1092-93 from MPEP 2106.05(d)(II). Thus, taken alone, the additional elements do not amount to significantly more than the above-identified judicial exception (the abstract idea). Looking at the limitation as an ordered combination adds nothing that is not already present when looking at the elements taken individually. There is no indication that the combination of elements improves the functioning of a computer or improves any other technology. Their collective functions merely provide conventional computer implementation. Therefore, claim 13 is not patent eligible.
Claim 15 recites a non-transitory computer readable storage medium comprises:
identifying a user account and a set of additional user accounts having joint access to a shared collection of digital content items stored within a content management system (e.g., identifying a set user account having access to a collection of data can be performed in the human mind including observation and evaluation);
generating team recall data by aggregating, across the set of additional user accounts, data indicating whether local copies of each digital content from the shared collection of content items are stored to given client device associated with each additional user account from the set of additional user accounts (e.g., creating a piece of data after evaluating a set of user accounts to indicate whether the collection of digital data should be transferred to devices can be performed in the human mind after observation and evaluation using pen and paper);
determining, for the user account, a synchronization score with respect to each digital content item by processing the team recall data through a synchronization prediction model trained to generate synchronization scores based on synchronization histories of digital content items (e.g., “determining” merely observing a score with respect to the collection of data based on the created piece of data using a data model can be performed in the human mind);
providing a set of content items from the shared collection of content items to a client device associated with the user account based on determining that synchronization scores for the set of content items satisfy a first synchronization criteria (e.g., “providing” the collection of data based on the observed score number satisfies a condition can be performed in the human mind including an observation, evaluation and judgment);
Claim 15 as it is recited falls within one of the groupings of abstract ideas [e.g., mental process] enumerated in the 2019 PEG. The recited concept can be performed in human mind including an observation, evaluation, judgement, opinion. That is, other than reciting at least a at least one processor; at least one non-transitory computer storage medium, content management system and a plurality of client devices, nothing in the claim elements preclude the step from practically being performed in the mind. The additional elements in the claim recite a storage medium in the content management system to store a shared collection of content items and a processor instructs the shared collection of content items to be stored in a client device are recited at a high level of generality and add no more to the claimed invention than the components that perform an abstract idea. The additional elements merely use a computer as a tool to store data after a series of data gathering steps. The data storing/accessing and/or data gathering steps are insignificant extra-solution activity, thus, the judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. The additional limitations do not appear to be improvements to the functioning of a computer or to any other technology or technical field. The additional elements do not amount to significantly more than the above-identified judicial exception (the abstract idea). Looking at the limitation as an ordered combination adds nothing that is not already present when looking at the elements taken individually. There is no indication that the combination of elements improves the functioning of a computer or improves any other technology. Their collective functions merely provide conventional computer implementation. Therefore, claim 15 is not patent eligible.
Claims 17, 18 and 19 further define the synchronization score with respect to each content item of the shared collection of content items based on team recall data and the user recall data are similar to claim 15, fall in “Mental Processes: Concepts performed in the human mind”, e.g., observation, evaluation, judgement and opinion, enumerated in the 2019 PEG. The claims do not include additional elements other than determining the synchronization score using a computer. The claims do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. Therefore, claims 17, 18 and 19 are ineligible subject under 35 USC 101.
Claims 16 and 20 further describes providing individual selection options that enable a user to select content items are similar to claim 15, fall in “Mental Processes: Concepts performed in the human mind”, e.g., observation, evaluation, judgement and opinion, enumerated in the 2019 PEG. The claims do not include additional elements other than selecting content items using a computer or a client device. The claims do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. Therefore, claims 16 and 20 are ineligible subject under 35 USC 101.
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 1-4, 8-11 and 15-17 and 19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over by Kluesing (US 2016/0357678 A1) and in view of Grue (US 2015/0222580 A1) and further in view of Green (US 2018/0081503 A1).
Referring to claims 1 and 15, Kluesing discloses a computer-implemented method (See para. [0094] and para. [0095], methods and non-transitory computer readable storage medium for reliably giving users quick access to content items that are important) comprising: identifying a user account and a set of additional user accounts having joint access to a shared collection of digital content items stored within a content management system (See para. [0033], para. [0034] and para. [0042], a content management system includes sharing module for managing sharing content publicly or privately, sharing content includes linking a content item in content storage with two or more user accounts so that each user account has access to the content item, the content can be shared across varying types of user accounts, note in para. [0046], multiple account identifiers can be associated with a single content indicating that the content item has shared across by multiple user accounts);
generating team recall data, by aggregating, across the set of additional user accounts See para. [0033], para. [0034] and para. [0042], a content management system includes sharing module for managing sharing content publicly or privately, sharing content includes linking a content item in content storage with two or more user accounts so that each user account has access to the content item, the content can be shared across varying types of user accounts, note in para. [0046], multiple account identifiers can be associated with a single content indicating that the content item has shared across by multiple user accounts), data indicating […] local copies of each given content item from the shared collection of content items (See para. abstract, claim 9 and para.[0054], the content management system creates or stores data [e.g. metadata] relating how recently the item was shared by a user of client device, how recently the content item was shared to a user of client device, how recently the content was shared by a user of client device via another device, how recently the content item was edited by the user of client device, how recently the content item was open by a user of client device via another non-mobile device, etc.) will be stored to given client devices associated with the each additional user account from the set of additional user accounts (See para. abstract, claim 9 and para. [0052], the content management system generates a prioritized list of content items and automatically sends a subset of content items that represent high-priority content items to client for caching, note generating a prioritized list involves deciding whether or not each content item should be on the prioritized list and then cached or synchronized to client devices);
determining, for the user account, a synchronization score with respect to each digital content item of the shared collection of digital content items by processing the team recall data (See para. [0054], creating a file score for each content item based on examining the metadata in the content management system); and providing a set of digital content items from the shared digital collection of content items to a client device associated with the user account (See para. [0052], storing a prioritized list of content items from the content management system to client devices) based on determining that synchronization scores for the set of digital content items satisfy a first synchronization criteria (See para. [0061], para. [0062] and para. [0085], determining the file scores for the content items which meet higher fetch priority scores for selecting the priorities list of content items).
Kluesing does not explicitly disclose generating team recall data by aggregating, across the set of additional user accounts, data indicating whether a local content item of each digital content item from the shared collection of digital contents are stored to a given client devices associated with each additional user account from the set of additional user accounts and providing the team recall data through a synchronization prediction model trained to be generate synchronization scores based on synchronization histories of digital content items.
Grue discloses generating team recall data by aggregating, across the set of additional user accounts (See para. [0058], aggregating additional information 206, which indicates that one or more member accounts can include user A, user B, user C), data indicating whether a local content item of each digital content item from the shared collection of digital contents are stored to a given client device associated with each additional user account from the set of additional user accounts (See para. [0058], para. [0059], para. [0077] and Figure 2, information 504 indicates each content item [e.g., content item j] that have synchronized is associated with a user B account, a user A account and a user C account).
Hence, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the Kluesing’s system to include recall data that indicates whether each content item of the shared collection of content items is synchronized to a given client associated with a given user account from the set of additional user accounts, as taught by Grue, in order to track when the user performing the edit to provide highly focused search results to the user (See Hunter, para. [0004] and para. [0051]). In addition, both references (Green, Grue, Kluesing) teach features that are directed to analogous art and they are directed to the same field of endeavor, such as suggesting highly desirable digital content items to users. This close relation between all references highly suggests an expectation of success.
Kluesing in view of Grue does not explicitly disclose providing the team recall data through a synchronization prediction model trained to be generate synchronization scores based on synchronization histories of digital content items.
However, Green discloses wherein determining a synchronization score with respect to each content item of the shared collection of content items (See para. [0040], generating team recall data comprising data that indicates whether each content item of the shared collection of content items is stored to a given client associated with a given user account from the set of additional user accounts) comprises providing the team recall data through a synchronization prediction model trained to be generate synchronization scores based on synchronization histories of digital content items (See para. [0060], the system determines a ranked list of documents that have highest scores and sends to a client, note in para. [0054] and para. [0055], processing training data includes input events such as mostly recently accessed document, other specified interactions by the user with the document, other specified interactions by other uses with the document or relationships between the document and other documents or events through a machine learning network to produce a score for each document).
Hence, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the score of the Kluesing’s system to be processed through a machine learning model, as taught by Green, in order to facilitate quick access to users and relieve users from having to navigate file paths to find desired documents (See Green, para. [0004] and para. [0005]). In addition, all references (Kluesing, Grue and Green) teach features that are directed to analogous art and they are directed to the same field of endeavor, such as synchronizing highly desirable digital content items to users based on scores. This close relation between all references highly suggests an expectation of success.
As to claims 2, 10, 17, Kluesing discloses generating user recall data that indicates, for each content item of the shared collection of digital content items (See para. [0054], the content management system creates or stores data [e.g., metadata] relating how each user interacts with an item, for example, how recently the item was opened or edited from an interface), whether a user copy of given digital item will be stored to the client device associated with the user account (See para. [0052], the content management system generates a prioritized list of content items and automatically sends a subset of content items that represent high-priority content items to client for caching, note generating a prioritized list involves deciding whether or not each content item should be on the prioritized list and then cached or synchronized to client devices); wherein determining the synchronization score comprises determining, for the user account, the synchronization score with respect to each digital content item of the shared collection of digital content items based at least on the team recall data and the user recall data (See para. [0034] and para. [0054], creating a file score for each content item based on examining the metadata in the content management system, the metadata describes data items include shared folders that are linked with and available to multiple user accounts and data items include regular folders that is accessible to a user).
Grue discloses generating user recall data comprising data that indicates whether a content item of the shared collection of content items is stored to a given client associated with a given user account from the set of additional user accounts (See para. [0058], para. [0077] and figure 2, information 504 indicates each content item [e.g., content item j] that have synchronized is associated with a user B account, a user A account and a user C account).
Hence, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the Kluesing’s system to include recall data that indicates whether each content item of the shared collection of content items is synchronized to a given client associated with a given user account from the set of additional user accounts, as taught by Grue, in order to track when the user performing the edit to provide highly focused search results to the user (See Hunter, para. [0004] and para. [0051]). In addition, all references (Grue, Green, Kluesing) teach features that are directed to analogous art and they are directed to the same field of endeavor, such as suggesting highly desirable digital content items to users. This close relation between all references highly suggests an expectation of success.
As to claims 3, 9 and 16, Kluesing discloses wherein providing the set of content items from the shared collection of digital content items to the client device associated with the user account comprises providing individual selection options that enable a user to select individual digital content items of the set of digital content items for synchronization to the client device (See para. [0062], the content management system allows user to select a subset of digital content items in the user account).
As to claims 4, 11 and 19, Kluesing discloses determining the synchronization score comprises determining for the user account, the synchronization score with respect to each content item of the shared collection of digital content items based at least on the team recall data and the content collection data (See abstract and claim 19, “a system comprising: a first client device having configured to store and synchronize local copies of digital content items stored on a content management system, the client device having a first amount of available caching space; and the content management system configured to: generate, by the content management system, for each content item associated with a user account a Fetch Priority score based on the associated metadata; and receive, from the first client device authorized on a user account of the content management system, a first amount of free memory available on the first client device for caching one or more digital content items associated with the user account, wherein each content item associated with the user account has associated metadata; and select a first subset of digital content items from the digital content items associated with the user account based on the generated Fetch Priority scores and a first amount of available caching space, wherein the first amount of available caching space is less than or equal to a first amount of free memory available on the first client device”).
Grue discloses generating content collect data comprising data that indicates whether a sample of digital content items from the shared collection of content haves have been stored to client devices associated with the additional user accounts wherein determining a synchronization score for a given content item of the shared collection of digital content items comprises determining a probability that the user account will access the given content item (See para. [0058], para. [0077] and figure 2, information 504 indicates each content item [e.g., content item j] that have synchronized is associated with a user B account, a user A account and a user C account).
Referring to claim 8, Kluesing discloses a system comprising: at least one processor (See para. [0092], a computer system includes a processing unit); at least one non-transitory computer-readable storage medium comprising instructions that, when executed by the at least one processor (See para. [0092] and Figure 6A, the system includes software modules for controlling the processing unit, the software modules are stored in a computer readable medium in connection with the processing unit), cause the system to:
identify a user account and a set of additional user accounts having joint access to a shared collection of digital content items stored within a content management system (See para. [0033], para. [0034] and para. [0042], a content management system includes sharing module for managing sharing content publicly or privately, sharing content includes linking a content item in content storage with two or more user accounts so that each user account has access to the content item, the content can be shared across varying types of user accounts, note in para. [0046], multiple account identifiers can be associated with a single content indicating that the content item has shared across by multiple user accounts);
generating team recall data, by aggregating, across the set of additional user accounts See para. [0033], para. [0034] and para. [0042], a content management system includes sharing module for managing sharing content publicly or privately, sharing content includes linking a content item in content storage with two or more user accounts so that each user account has access to the content item, the content can be shared across varying types of user accounts, note in para. [0046], multiple account identifiers can be associated with a single content indicating that the content item has shared across by multiple user accounts), data indicating […] local copies of each given content item from the shared collection of content items (See para. abstract, claim 9 and para.[0054], the content management system creates or stores data [e.g. metadata] relating how recently the item was shared by a user of client device, how recently the content item was shared to a user of client device, how recently the content was shared by a user of client device via another device, how recently the content item was edited by the user of client device, how recently the content item was open by a user of client device via another non-mobile device, etc.) will be stored to given client devices associated with the each additional user account from the set of additional user accounts (See para. abstract, claim 9 and para. [0052], the content management system generates a prioritized list of content items and automatically sends a subset of content items that represent high-priority content items to client for caching, note generating a prioritized list involves deciding whether or not each content item should be on the prioritized list and then cached or synchronized to client devices);
determine, for the user account, a synchronization score with respect to each content item of the shared collection of digital content items based at least on the team recall data (See para. [0054], creating a file score for each content item based on examining the metadata in the content management system); and
provide a set of digital content items from the shared collection of digital content items to a client device associated with the user account (See para. [0052], storing a prioritized list of digital content items from the content management system to client devices) based on determining that synchronization scores for the set of digital content items satisfy a first synchronization criteria (See para. [0061], para. [0062] and para. [0085], determining the file scores for the digital content items which meet higher fetch priority scores for selecting the priorities list of digital content items).
Kluesing does not explicitly disclose generating team recall data by aggregating, across the set of additional user accounts, data indicating whether a local content item of each digital content item from the shared collection of digital contents are stored to a given client devices associated with each additional user account from the set of additional user accounts and providing the team recall data through a synchronization prediction model trained to be generate synchronization scores based on synchronization histories of digital content items.
Grue discloses generating team recall data by aggregating, across the set of additional user accounts (See para. [0058], aggregating additional information 206, which indicates that one or more member accounts can include user A, user B, user C), data indicating whether a local content item of each digital content item from the shared collection of digital contents are stored to a given client device associated with each additional user account from the set of additional user accounts (See para. [0058], para. [0059], para. [0077] and Figure 2, information 504 indicates each content item [e.g., content item j] that have synchronized is associated with a user B account, a user A account and a user C account).
Hence, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the Kluesing’s system to include recall data that indicates whether each content item of the shared collection of digital content items is synchronized to a given client associated with a given user account from the set of additional user accounts, as taught by Grue, in order to track when the user performing the edit to provide highly focused search results to the user (See Hunter, para. [0004] and para. [0051]). In addition, all references (Green, Grue, Kluesing) teach features that are directed to analogous art and they are directed to the same field of endeavor, such as suggesting highly desirable digital content items to users. This close relation between all references highly suggests an expectation of success.
Kluesing in view of Grue does not explicitly disclose providing the team recall data through a synchronization prediction model trained to be generate synchronization scores based on synchronization histories of digital content items.
However, Green discloses wherein determining a synchronization score with respect to each content item of the shared collection of content items (See para. [0040], generating team recall data comprising data that indicates whether each content item of the shared collection of content items is stored to a given client associated with a given user account from the set of additional user accounts) comprises providing the team recall data through a synchronization prediction model trained to be generate syn