DETAILED ACTION
This action is responsive to the Amendment filed on 02/03/2026. Claims 1, 8, 12, 16, 17, 20, 32, and 37 have been amended. Claims 5-7, 13-15, 22-31, and 38-59 had been previously canceled. Claims 1-4, 8-12, 16-21, and 32-37 are pending in the case. Claims 1, 8, 16, and 32 are independent claims.
Claim Interpretations/Examiner’s Notes
The claims in this application are given their broadest reasonable interpretation using the plain meaning of the claim language in light of the specification as it would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art. Further, during examination, the claims must be interpreted as broadly as their terms reasonably allow (see In re American Academy of Science Tech Center, 367 F.3d 1359, 1369, 70 U.S.P.Q.2d 1827, 1834 (Fed. Cir. 2004)). Also, although the claims are interpreted in light of the specification, limitations from the specification are not read into the claims (see In re Van Geuns, 988 F.2d 1181, 26 U.S.P.Q.2d 1057 (Fed. Cir. 1993)). The following is provided to aid the reader in understanding how at least some claim elements (also commonly referred to as claim limitations), as a whole, have been considered in the rejections below:
“can be” [e.g. claims 1, 8, 16, and 32] = Claim scope is not limited by claim language that suggests or makes optional but does not require steps to be performed, or by claim language that does not limit a claim to a particular structure (see MPEP §§ 2111.04 & 2143.03).
“when” [e.g. claims 16, 32, and 36] = Even though the prior art rejection included below does not depend on the following technicality, it is nonetheless respectfully noted that the broadest reasonable interpretation of a method (or process) claim having contingent limitations requires only those steps that must be performed and does not include steps that are not required to be performed because the condition(s) precedent are not met. Therefore, as currently claimed, functionalities that currently depend on the condition associated with the “when” qualifier being true may not be narrowing the claims to the extent it may have been intended since, for purposes of prior art analysis, any prior art scenario showing at least one mappable instance wherein the contingency/triggering condition is not met/true would suffice to anticipate or render obvious these aspects. See “Contingent Limitations” in MPEP § 2111.04, subsection II and/or MPEP § 2143.03.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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 for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(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.
Claims 16-21 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Lee et al. (US Patent Application Pub. No. 2013/0014023, hereinafter “Lee”).
As to independent claim 16, Lee shows a method of providing a multi-user collaboration system [Abstract] involving one or more external users [e.g. a user/collaborator associated with an external company, department, institution, organization, etc. (¶¶ 39-41 & 47)], the method comprising:
creating a workspace [“the system receives user input to create a new workspace/folder” (¶ 73)] to which a plurality of digital materials [a plurality of “work items” (¶ 27) and/or “digital content” (¶ 29)] can be shared by one or more internal users [e.g. a created workspace may be shared by a user/collaborator associated with a same company, department, institution, organization, etc. as another user (¶¶ 39-41 & 47)];
creating one or more sub-workspaces in association with the workspace for one or more corresponding external user types, wherein each sub-workspace is accessible by an external user associated with a corresponding external user type [e.g. a sub-workspace may be created (¶ 29) for any given external user type, like users/collaborators associated with an external company, department, institution, organization, etc. (¶¶ 39-41 & 47)] to provide a sub-workspace feedback in respect of one or more digital materials of the plurality of digital materials shared to that sub-workspace [“A workspace can generally refer to any grouping of a set of digital content in the collaboration platform. In general, the content management system permits a user to group stored files in a hierarchical manner, such that a workspace made up of a group of files can be contained within another workspace, such as a folder. The grouping can be created, identified, or specified by a user or through other means. This user may be a creator user or administrative user, for example. The workspace can also include an online discussion area for collaborators to engage in an online discussion.” (¶ 29)];
automatically assigning a user to one or more of the workspaces and the one or more sub-workspaces based on one or more user attributes of the user [any invited user may be automatically assigned to any workspace or sub-workspace based on one or more user attributes of the user, like their permission level and/or the type of user that they are (Lee: ¶¶ 44, 57, & 82). For example, Lee shows automatically assigning users to workspaces or sub-workspaces based on either default settings and/or by automatically inheriting workspace/sub-workspace assignments based on their attributes.]; and
displaying a set of feedback on the one or more digital materials to the user [displaying a set of feedback/”discussions”/comments on the one or more digital materials to a user (figs. 5-8; ¶¶ 19, 49, & 53)], the set of feedback comprising the sub-workspace feedback received via the one or more sub-workspaces and a workspace feedback received via the workspace when the user has access to the workspace, and the set of feedback including only the sub-workspace feedback received via the one or more sub-workspaces to which the user has access [Access may be defined on a per workspace/sub-workspace basis, meaning that a user can be assigned to only have access to (and thus view the associated feedback of) a deliberately permitted sub-workspace (¶¶ 42-44). Said access entails only displaying the discussion/feedback of the workspaces and sub-workspaces to which the user in question has access (¶¶ 29-33 & 49-54). In other words, if a user is only authorized to access a specific sub-workspace, then that user would only be shown that sub-workspace’s feedback (¶ 44). On the other hand, if a given user happens to have access to both a parent workspace and a child sub-workspace, then that user would be shown the feedback associated with both the parent workspace and the child sub-workspace (¶ 54)].
As to dependent claim 17, Lee further shows:
wherein automatically assigning the user to the one or more of the workspaces and the one or more sub-workspaces comprises: identifying the one or more of the workspaces and the one or more sub-workspaces for the user by determining whether the one or more user attributes of the user corresponds with a workspace identifier assigned to each of the workspace and the one or more sub-workspaces [any invited user may be automatically assigned to any workspace or sub-workspace based on corroborating whether one or more user attributes of the user “satisfy” a workspace identifier/name/metadata/representation assigned to each of the workspace and the one or more sub-workspaces (¶¶ 44 & 57)].
As to dependent claim 18, Lee further shows:
wherein displaying the set of feedback on the one or more digital materials to the user comprises: determining whether the user is accessing the one or more digital materials via the workspace; and in response to determining the user is accessing the one or more digital materials via the workspace, displaying the workspace feedback and the sub-workspace feedback as the set of feedback, otherwise, displaying only the sub-workspace feedback [If a given user happens to be accessing the materials of a parent workspace, then that user would be shown the feedback associated with both the parent workspace and the child sub-workspace. Otherwise, only the sub-workspace feedback may be displayed. (¶¶ 53-54)].
As to dependent claim 19, Lee further shows:
wherein displaying the set of feedback on the one or more digital materials to the user comprises: determining whether the user has access to the workspace; and in response to determining the user has access to the workplace, displaying the workspace feedback and the sub-workspace feedback as the set of feedback, otherwise, displaying only the sub-workspace feedback [If it is determined that a user is authorized to access a parent workspace, then that user would be shown the feedback associated with both said parent workspace and its child sub-workspace (¶¶ 54 & 57). Otherwise, only the sub-workspace feedback may be displayed. (¶¶ 53-54)].
As to dependent claim 20, Lee further shows:
wherein creating the one or more sub-workspaces in association with the workspace for the one or more corresponding external user types comprises: automatically sharing at least one digital material from the plurality of digital materials to the one or more sub-workspaces based on the one or more corresponding external user types [Digital materials/work items/files/content associated with a created sub-workspace may be automatically shared with the invited/external user based on the one or more corresponding external user type (¶¶ 31, 39, 59, & 86).].
As to dependent claim 21, Lee further shows:
wherein the one or more sub-workspaces comprises at least two sub-workspaces created for the same external user type, and the method further comprises automatically assigning two different external users associated with the same external user type to the at least two sub-workspaces, each different external user having access only to the sub-workspace feedback provided within the sub-workspace to which that different external user has access [At least two sub-workspaces may be created for the same type of user (like users/collaborators associated with an external company, department, institution, organization, etc. (¶¶ 39-41 & 47)), and access for any of the aforementioned external user types may be defined on a per workspace/sub-workspace and per user basis, meaning that each user can be assigned to only have access to (and thus view the associated feedback of) a deliberately permitted sub-workspace (¶¶ 42-44). Said access entails only displaying the discussion/feedback of the workspaces and sub-workspaces to which the user in question has access (¶¶ 29-33 & 49-54).].
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis 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.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
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, 8-12, and 32-37 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over Lee et al. (US Patent Application Pub. No. 2013/0014023, hereinafter “Lee”) in view of Choi (Korean Patent Pub. No. 20180134319, hereinafter “Choi”).
As to independent claims 1 and 8, Lee shows a method and a concomitant multi-user collaboration system [Abstract] involving one or more external users [e.g. a user/collaborator associated with an external company, department, institution, organization, etc. (¶¶ 39-41 & 47)], the method comprising:
creating a workspace [“the system receives user input to create a new workspace/folder” (¶ 73)] to which a plurality of digital materials [a plurality of “work items” (¶ 27) and/or “digital content” (¶ 29)] can be shared by one or more internal users who are part of an internal entity operating within a local network restricted by a local network security [e.g. a created workspace may be shared with a user/collaborator who is part of an internal entity (e.g. a same company, department, institution, organization, etc.) operating within a local network (¶¶ 35-37) restricted by a local network security (¶¶ 39-41 & 47)];
receiving, from an internal user of the one or more internal users, an external collaboration request to collaborate with an external user type {…} [any internal user may initiate a collaboration request with any other user (¶¶ 29-31), including a user/collaborator associated with an external company, department, institution, organization, etc. (¶¶ 39-41)];
in response to receiving the external collaboration request to collaborate with the external user type: identifying, from at least the external user type, a collaboration type requested by the internal user [e.g. identifying, from at least the external user type, a collaboration type requested by the internal user, like what kind of collaborating duty or access will be provided (¶¶ 27-31 & 39-44)]; for the external type, creating an external user sub-workspace in association with the workspace, wherein the external user sub-workspace is accessible by an external user associated with the external user type to provide a sub-workspace feedback in respect of one or more digital materials of the plurality of digital materials shared to the external user sub-workspace [“A workspace can generally refer to any grouping of a set of digital content in the collaboration platform. In general, the content management system permits a user to group stored files in a hierarchical manner, such that a workspace made up of a group of files can be contained within another workspace, such as a folder. The grouping can be created, identified, or specified by a user or through other means. This user may be a creator user or administrative user, for example. The workspace can also include an online discussion area for collaborators to engage in an online discussion.” (¶ 29)]; and
assigning a sub-workspace user group to the external user sub-workspace based at least on the collaboration type, the sub-workspace user group comprising at least one external user associated with the external user type and at least one internal user of the one or more internal users to collaborate with the at least one external user [a user group may be assigned to the external user sub-workspace, where the group may include the internal “creator user or administrative user” (¶ 29) and any other invited external user (¶¶ 39-41)]; and
selectively displaying a set of feedback on the one or more digital materials to a user based on access assigned to the user [displaying a set of feedback/”discussions”/comments on the one or more digital materials to a user based on access assigned to the user (figs. 5-8; ¶¶ 19, 49, & 53)], wherein selectively displaying the set of feedback comprises: for the user with access to the workspace, displaying the sub-workspace feedback received via one or more sub-workspaces of the workspace and a workspace feedback received via the workspace, and for the user with access only to the one or more sub-workspaces, displaying only the sub-workspace feedback [Access may be defined on a per workspace/sub-workspace basis, meaning that a user can be assigned to only have access to (and thus view the associated feedback of) a deliberately permitted sub-workspace (¶¶ 42-44). Said access entails only displaying the discussion/feedback of the workspaces and sub-workspaces to which the user in question has access (¶¶ 29-33 & 49-54). In other words, if a user is only authorized to access a specific sub-workspace, then that user would only be shown that sub-workspace’s feedback (¶ 44). On the other hand, if a given user happens to have access to both a parent workspace and a child sub-workspace, then that user would be shown the feedback associated with both the parent workspace and the child sub-workspace (¶ 54)].
Lee does not appear to explicitly recite “an external user type that is restricted by the local network security of the internal entity to access its local network” as apparently intended. In an analogous art, Choi shows:
receiving, from an internal user of the one or more internal users, an external collaboration request to collaborate with an external user type [“The present invention relates to a sharing method of internal group information and a sharing program thereof. According to an embodiment of the present invention, the sharing method of internal group information comprises: a step (S100) of allowing a service server to receive a sharing request with regard to internal group information inside a specific sub-group from a user client of a first user; a sharing request determining step (S200) of allowing the service server to determine whether the sharing request is a sharing request with regard to the inside of the sub-group; and an external sharing step (S300) of generating and providing internal group information by data for external sharing.” (Choi: Abstract)] that is restricted by the local network security of the internal entity to access its local network [The collaboration request with the external user type is restricted by the local network security of the internal entity to access its local network (Choi: page 3, 1st and 4th paragraphs; page 4, paragraphs 4-8; and page 5, 3rd and 10th paragraphs).];
One of ordinary skill in the art, having the teachings of Lee and Choi before them prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention, would have been motivated to incorporate Choi’s external user type collaboration considerations into Lee. The rationale for doing so would have been that Lee was already concerned itself with enabling collaboration between a wide array of internal and external users, and Choi explicitly improved a user experience by allowing collaboration with external entities that otherwise would have been prevented from accessing internal resources. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the teachings of Lee and Choi (hereinafter, the “Lee-Choi” combination) in order to obtain the invention as recited in claims 1 and 8.
As to dependent claims 2 and 9, Lee-Choi further shows:
wherein displaying the set of feedback on the one or more digital materials to the user comprises: determining whether the user is accessing the one or more digital materials via the workspace; and in response to determining the user is accessing the one or more digital materials via the workspace, displaying the workspace feedback and the sub-workspace feedback as the set of feedback, otherwise, displaying only the sub-workspace feedback [If a given user happens to be accessing the materials of a parent workspace, then that user would be shown the feedback associated with both the parent workspace and the child sub-workspace. Otherwise, only the sub-workspace feedback may be displayed. (Lee: ¶¶ 53-54)].
As to dependent claims 3 and 10, Lee-Choi further shows:
wherein displaying the set of feedback on the one or more digital materials to the user comprises: determining whether the user has access to the workspace; and in response to determining the user has access to the workplace, displaying the workspace feedback and the sub-workspace feedback as the set of feedback, otherwise, displaying only the sub-workspace feedback [If it is determined that a user is authorized to access a parent workspace, then that user would be shown the feedback associated with both said parent workspace and its child sub-workspace (Lee: ¶¶ 54 & 57). Otherwise, only the sub-workspace feedback may be displayed. (Lee: ¶¶ 53-54)].
As to dependent claims 4 and 11, Lee-Choi further shows:
in response to receiving the external collaboration request with the external user type, automatically sharing at least one digital material from the plurality of digital materials to the sub-workspace based on the external user type [Digital materials/work items/files/content associated with a shared sub-workspace may be automatically shared with the invited/external user in response to receiving the external collaboration request (Lee: ¶¶ 31, 39, 59, & 86).].
As to dependent claim 12, Lee-Choi further shows:
create one or more sub-workspaces for the external user type, each sub-workspace of the one or more sub-workspaces being associated with a different external user associated with the external user type, and each different external user having access only to the sub-workspace feedback provided within the sub-workspace to which that different external user has access [Access for any given external user type (like users/collaborators associated with an external company, department, institution, organization, etc. (Lee: ¶¶ 39-41 & 47)) may be defined on a per workspace/sub-workspace and per user basis, meaning that each user can be assigned to only have access to (and thus view the associated feedback of) a deliberately permitted sub-workspace (Lee: ¶¶ 42-44). Said access entails only displaying the discussion/feedback of the workspaces and sub-workspaces to which the user in question has access (Lee: ¶¶ 29-33 & 49-54).].
As to independent claim 32, Lee shows a method of providing a multi-user collaboration system [Abstract] involving one or more external users [e.g. a user/collaborator associated with an external company, department, institution, organization, etc. (¶¶ 39-41 & 47)], the method comprising:
creating a workspace [“the system receives user input to create a new workspace/folder” (¶ 73)] to which a plurality of digital materials [a plurality of “work items” (¶ 27) and/or “digital content” (¶ 29)] can be shared by one or more internal users who are part of an internal entity operating within a local network restricted by a local network security [e.g. a created workspace may be shared with a user/collaborator who is part of an internal entity (e.g. a same company, department, institution, organization, etc.) operating within a local network (¶¶ 35-37) restricted by a local network security (¶¶ 39-41 & 47)];
creating a sub-workspace in association with the workspace for an external user type {…}, wherein the sub-workspace is accessible by an external user associated with the external user type [e.g. a sub-workspace may be created (¶ 29) for any given external user type, like users/collaborators associated with an external company, department, institution, organization, etc. (¶¶ 39-41 & 47)] to provide a sub-workspace feedback in respect of one or more digital materials of the plurality of digital materials shared to the sub-workspace [“A workspace can generally refer to any grouping of a set of digital content in the collaboration platform. In general, the content management system permits a user to group stored files in a hierarchical manner, such that a workspace made up of a group of files can be contained within another workspace, such as a folder. The grouping can be created, identified, or specified by a user or through other means. This user may be a creator user or administrative user, for example. The workspace can also include an online discussion area for collaborators to engage in an online discussion.” (¶ 29)];
receiving the sub-workspace feedback in respect of the one or more digital materials via the sub-workspace [receiving a feedback/”discussions”/comments on the one or more digital materials associated with a given sub-workspace (figs. 5-8; ¶¶ 19, 49, & 53)];
receiving a workspace feedback in respect of the one or more digital materials via the workspace [receiving a feedback/”discussions”/comments on the one or more digital materials associated with a given workspace (figs. 5-8; ¶¶ 19, 49, & 53)]; and
displaying a set of feedback on the one or more digital materials to a user [displaying a set of feedback/”discussions”/comments on the one or more digital materials to a user (figs. 5-8; ¶¶ 19, 49, & 53)], the set of feedback comprising the sub-workspace feedback received via the sub-workspace and the workspace feedback received via the workspace when the user has access to the workspace, and the set of feedback includes only the sub-workspace feedback when the user has access only to the sub-workspace [Access may be defined on a per workspace/sub-workspace basis, meaning that a user can be assigned to only have access to (and thus view the associated feedback of) a deliberately permitted sub-workspace (¶¶ 42-44). Said access entails only displaying the discussion/feedback of the workspaces and sub-workspaces to which the user in question has access (¶¶ 29-33 & 49-54). In other words, if a user is only authorized to access a specific sub-workspace, then that user would only be shown that sub-workspace’s feedback (¶ 44). On the other hand, if a given user happens to have access to both a parent workspace and a child sub-workspace, then that user would be shown the feedback associated with both the parent workspace and the child sub-workspace (¶ 54)].
As illustrated above, Lee shows creating a sub-workspace in association with the workspace for an external user type. However, Lee does not appear to explicitly recite “an external user type that is restricted by the local network security of the internal entity to access its local network” as apparently intended. In an analogous art, Choi shows:
creating a sub-workspace in association with the workspace for an external user type [“The present invention relates to a sharing method of internal group information and a sharing program thereof. According to an embodiment of the present invention, the sharing method of internal group information comprises: a step (S100) of allowing a service server to receive a sharing request with regard to internal group information inside a specific sub-group from a user client of a first user; a sharing request determining step (S200) of allowing the service server to determine whether the sharing request is a sharing request with regard to the inside of the sub-group; and an external sharing step (S300) of generating and providing internal group information by data for external sharing.” (Choi: Abstract)] that is restricted by the local network security of the internal entity to access its local network [The external user type is restricted by the local network security of the internal entity to access its local network (Choi: page 3, 1st and 4th paragraphs; page 4, paragraphs 4-8; and page 5, 3rd and 10th paragraphs).];
One of ordinary skill in the art, having the teachings of Lee and Choi before them prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention, would have been motivated to incorporate Choi’s external user type collaboration considerations into Lee. The rationale for doing so would have been that Lee was already concerned itself with enabling collaboration between a wide array of internal and external users, and Choi explicitly improved a user experience by allowing collaboration with external entities that otherwise would have been prevented from accessing internal resources. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the teachings of Lee and Choi (hereinafter, the “Lee-Choi” combination) in order to obtain the invention as recited in claim 32.
As to dependent claim 33, Lee-Choi further shows:
wherein displaying the set of feedback on the one or more digital materials to the user comprises: determining whether the user is accessing the one or more digital materials via the workspace; and in response to determining the user is accessing the one or more digital materials via the workspace, displaying the workspace feedback and the sub-workspace feedback as the set of feedback, otherwise, displaying only the sub-workspace feedback [If a given user happens to be accessing the materials of a parent workspace, then that user would be shown the feedback associated with both the parent workspace and the child sub-workspace. Otherwise, only the sub-workspace feedback may be displayed. (Lee: ¶¶ 53-54)].
As to dependent claim 34, Lee-Choi further shows:
wherein displaying the set of feedback on the one or more digital materials to the user comprises: determining whether the user has access to the workspace; and in response to determining the user has access to the workplace, displaying the workspace feedback and the sub-workspace feedback as the set of feedback, otherwise, displaying only the sub-workspace feedback [If it is determined that a user is authorized to access a parent workspace, then that user would be shown the feedback associated with both said parent workspace and its child sub-workspace (Lee: ¶¶ 54 & 57). Otherwise, only the sub-workspace feedback may be displayed. (Lee: ¶¶ 53-54)].
As to dependent claim 35, Lee-Choi further shows:
for each sub-workspace feedback, providing a workspace discussion for receiving one or more workspace discussion entries from the one or more internal users and a sub-workspace discussion for receiving one or more sub-workspace discussion entries from at least the external user associated with the sub-workspace [Discussions may be provided for both workspaces and sub-workspaces so that discussion entries can be received in each, respectively (Lee: figs. 5-8; ¶¶ 19, 49, & 53)].
As to dependent claim 36, Lee-Choi further shows:
wherein displaying the set of feedback on the one or more digital materials to the user comprises: displaying the sub-workspace feedback, the sub-workspace discussion and the workspace discussion associated with each sub-workspace feedback, and the workspace feedback received via the workspace when the user has access to the workspace, otherwise, displaying only the sub-workspace feedback and the sub-workspace discussion associated with each sub-workspace feedback when the user has access only to the sub-workspace [Access may be defined on a per workspace/sub-workspace basis, meaning that a user can be assigned to only have access to (and thus view the associated feedback of) a deliberately permitted sub-workspace (Lee: ¶¶ 42-44). Said access entails only displaying the discussion/feedback of the workspaces and sub-workspaces to which the user in question has access (Lee: ¶¶ 29-33 & 49-54). In other words, if a user is only authorized to access a specific sub-workspace, then that user would only be shown that sub-workspace’s feedback (Lee: ¶ 44). On the other hand, if a given user happens to have access to both a parent workspace and a child sub-workspace, then that user would be shown the feedback associated with both the parent workspace and the child sub-workspace (Lee: ¶ 54)].
As to dependent claim 37, Lee-Choi further shows:
wherein creating the sub-workspace in association with the workspace for the external user type comprises: creating one or more sub-workspaces for the external user type, each sub-workspace of the one or more sub-workspace being associated with a different external user associated with the external user type, and each different external user having access only to the sub-workspace feedback provided within the sub-workspace to which that different external user has access [Access for any given external user type (like users/collaborators associated with an external company, department, institution, organization, etc. (Lee: ¶¶ 39-41 & 47)) may be defined on a per workspace/sub-workspace and per user basis, meaning that each user can be assigned to only have access to (and thus view the associated feedback of) a deliberately permitted sub-workspace (Lee: ¶¶ 42-44). Said access entails only displaying the discussion/feedback of the workspaces and sub-workspaces to which the user in question has access (Lee: ¶¶ 29-33 & 49-54).].
Response to Arguments
As to Applicant’s arguments regarding claims 1 and 8, these prior art arguments have been fully considered but are moot in view of the new grounds of rejection presented above.
Moreover, as to Applicant’s arguments regarding claim 16, their arguments have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. Applicant argues:
“ Lee does not describe or suggest automatically assigning a user to one or more of the workspaces and the one or more sub-workspaces based on one or more user attributes of the user, as required in independent claim 16.
{…}
The Examiner analogizes this feature to the disclosure in Lee at paragraphs [0044] and [0057]. Lee discloses at paragraph [0044] that the ability of a user to contribute to a discussion workspace or to invite others to join the workspace can be tied to the permission level of the user. In paragraph [0057], it is disclosed in Lee that the permission level of users is tracked by a collaborator manager, and that when a sub-workspace is created, it can inherit the permission settings and collaborators of the parent workspace. There is no disclosure of automatically assigning a user to one or more of the workspaces and the one or more sub-workspaces based on one or more user attributes of the user, as required in independent claim 16.”
The Office respectfully disagrees and maintains that the metes and bounds of the “automatically assigning” feature as currently recited are significantly broad in scope, and therefore reasonably cover a scenario wherein any invited user may be automatically assigned to any workspace or sub-workspace based on one or more user attributes of the user, like their permission level and/or the type of user that they are (Lee: ¶¶ 44, 57, & 82). For example, Lee shows automatically assigning users to workspaces or sub-workspaces based on either default settings and/or by automatically inheriting workspace/sub-workspace assignments based on their attributes.
Therefore, the Office respectfully asserts that the cited art sufficiently teaches the limitations recited in the amended claims.
Conclusion
Applicant’s amendments necessitated the new grounds of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicants are reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 C.F.R. § 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any extension fee pursuant to 37 C.F.R. § 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the date of this final action.
It is noted that any citation to specific pages, columns, lines, or figures in the prior art references and any interpretation of the references should not be considered to be limiting in any way. A reference is relevant for all it contains and may be relied upon for all that it would have reasonably suggested to one having ordinary skill in the art. In re Heck, 699 F.2d 1331, 1332-33, 216 U.S.P.Q. 1038, 1039 (Fed. Cir. 1983) (quoting In re Lemelson, 397 F.2d 1006, 1009, 158 U.S.P.Q. 275, 277 (C.C.P.A. 1968)).
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ALVARO R CALDERON IV whose telephone number is (571)272-1818. The examiner can normally be reached on Monday - Friday (8:30am - 5:00pm).
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, Kieu Vu can be reached on (571) 272-4057. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/ALVARO R. CALDERON IV/
Examiner
Art Unit 2171
/KIEU D VU/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2171
Prosecution Insights