DETAILED ACTION
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
This action is in response to remarks and claim amendments filed by Applicant’s representative on March 27, 2026. Claims 1-4 and 14-28 are pending, claims 5-13 have been canceled, and new claims 29-31 have been added to the claim set.
Response to Amendments and Remarks
With regards to Applicant’s latest claim amendments and associated remarks filed on March 27, 2026, the Office notes that Applicant’s remarks / comments are generally directed to the latest filed amended claim features (amended independent claims 1, 14 and 22). In this regard, the Office has fully considered the latest filed claim amendments and corresponding remarks, but finds the claim amendment(s) unpersuasive to overcome the current rejection of the claims over the applied prior art or prior art combination, as the amended and/or argued claim feature{s} appear to be still taught or disclosed by one or more of the applied prior art reference(s), as now cited in this office action.
With respect to amended independent claims 1, 14, and 22 and claim 1 in particular, Applicant notes and remarks that the claim{s} have been amended to now recite
“A method comprising:
storing, for an account identifier representing a user account, event data for calendar events associated with the account identifier and file data for files owned by the account identifier;
tracking historical associations between the event data and the file data, each association representing a recorded access of a file occurring while a prior calendar event was ongoing; and for a subsequent calendar event:
obtaining a set of parameters for of a file retrieval request;
comparing the set of parameters and the associations between the event data and the file data based on identifying similarities between the set of parameters and the prior calendar event corresponding to each of the associations; and
selecting a recommended file for the file retrieval request based on the comparison of the set of parameters and the associations between the event data and the file data”.
With respect to the independent claim(s), and amended independent claim 1 in particular, Applicant firstly notes and/or remarks that none of Dhanabalan Chilakamarri and/or Radhakrishnan -- and Radhakrishnan in particular -- teaches or discloses the newly amended feature(s) of “comparing the set of parameters and the associations between the event data and the file data based on identifying similarities between the set of parameters and the prior calendar event corresponding to each of the associations…”, as currently recited by amended claim 1, and the independent claims are thus distinguishable over the prior art. However, in response to Applicant’s above amendment and corresponding remarks, the Office notes and asserts that Applicant has not considered and/or fully appreciated all of the teachings and disclosures of the cited prior art references, and by Radhakrishnan in particular, as the amended features / limitations of the amended independent claims still appear to be expressly taught in view of additional disclosures or teachings by at least Radhakrishnan -- as further disclosed and cited in a same ground of rejection included with this Office action (see updated rejection for claims 1, 14 and 22 rejecting the amended feature / limitation below).
With regards to amended claim 1, Applicant also argues or remarks that the cited prior art, and Radhakrishnan in particular, fails to properly teach the recited feature of tracking historical associations between the event data and the file data, each association representing a recorded access of a file occurring while a prior calendar event was ongoing; and for a subsequent calendar event. In support of his argument, Applicant remarks that although Radhakrishnan expressly teaches, among others, monitoring / tracking of ‘calendar events’ (meeting, conference, presentation, etc.) [Radhakrishnan: 0039], as well as document ‘access characteristics’ including data that includes ‘historical sharing’ of the digital document {i.e., which of the ‘digital documents’ have been accessed and/or ‘shared’ with other user in the ‘past’ (presumably during an ‘ongoing’ or ‘previous’ calendar event {meeting or conference} attended or participated in by the users) [Radhakrishnan: 0039-0042] -– this fails to disclose the said feature because Radhakrishnan does not teach or suggest ‘each association representing a ‘recorded access of a file’ (historical file access) occurring while a prior calendar event was ongoing’ (the file / document was accessed in a prior / past event or meeting and noted) as recited.
The Office respectfully disagrees. In response to Applicant’s argument, the Office significantly asserts and remarks that contrary to Applicant’s argument, Radhakrishnan clearly and expressly makes clear in the cited/noted portions above [Radhakrishnan: 0039-0042] that his invention ‘monitors and tracks’ digital calendar events {past / previous and/or ongoing events / meetings / presentations, etc.} including any documents ‘shared’ (accessed) during those respective calendar events {meetings / conferences / presentations}. It is thus clear that the argued feature is sufficiently disclosed by Radhakrishnan based on this teaching alone.
Nonetheless, Radhakrishnan additionally makes it clear with respect to Fig. 1 that “the Event Document Management system ‘associates’ digital documents with digital calendar events based on ‘content connections’ between the digital documents and the calendar events (e.g., without requiring user input) [0047], and that “the Event document management system can determine a ‘content connection’ by analyzing {tracking} ‘document content’, ‘calendar event content’, ‘access characteristics of the document’, and/or ‘historical meeting information’ associated with the digital calendar event” [0029]. Radhakrishnan also expressly notes that
“As used herein, the term “calendar event characteristics” refer to a measurable or otherwise discernable attribute that refers to a digital calendar event. In particular, calendar characteristics may refer to calendar content or historical meeting information related to a digital calendar event. As used herein, “calendar content” refers to data included within or referring to a digital calendar event. In particular, calendar content includes text included within a calendar event (e.g., digital calendar event title, digital calendar event description, text, or messages of a calendar event); images included within a calendar event; dates, times, or locations of a meeting associated with a calendar event; contact information included within a calendar event (e.g., conference call numbers, collaboration spaces) invitee lists included within a calendar event, accepted lists included within a calendar event, and rejected lists included within a calendar event. Further, as used herein, “historical meeting information” refers to data describing the ‘context’ surrounding a digital calendar event. In particular, historical meeting information refers to ‘data’ indicating a ‘relation’ {associations} between a digital calendar event and another digital calendar event. For example, historical meeting information includes ‘data’ indicating that an event is part of a ‘recurring event’ (e.g., the invitation is associated with an iteration of a weekly meeting) or a ‘series of calendar events with similar participants’…”. [Radhakrishnan: 0045]
Moreover, Radhakrishnan also makes it abundantly clear that
“As shown in FIG. 1, the Event Document Management System can also determine a content connection based on (document) ‘Access characteristics’_112. Some ‘examples’ of Access characteristics 112 that can be used to determine a content connection between a digital document and a digital calendar event having a plurality of participants includes the ‘history of sharing the digital document’ among the plurality of participants, whether some of the participants already have access to the digital document (e.g., some participants have access credentials to a protected digital document), whether any of the participants exhibit a ‘pattern’ of ‘opening the digital document’ at a ‘time’ related to the calendar event (e.g., always opens the digital document an hour before a recurring weekly meeting), whether several of the participants have ‘opened the digital document at some point in time’ {including a ‘prior calendar event’}, ‘general access time’ of the digital document by one or more of the participants, and whether one or more of the participants have ‘edited’ the digital document ‘in the past’ {during a prior / previous calendar event / meeting} …”. [Radhakrishnan: 0050]
Even further, Radhakrishnan explicitly teaches or disclose that
“Additionally, digital document 520 includes Action items report portion 530 and prior meeting summary portion 538. As mentioned above, if ‘previous iterations of the event’ (prior calendar events / meetings) have ‘associated digital documents’, the Event document management system can ‘leverage’ the ‘digital documents associated with the previous iterations of the event’ to generate (or modify) a ‘digital document associated with the current iteration {the current event / meeting}’. For example, in one or more embodiments, the event document management system can incorporate content from the digital documents associated with the previous iterations (e.g., the action items, summary of the previous meeting, etc.) into a digital document associated with the current iteration.…”. [Radhakrishnan: 0105]
Additionally, Radhakrishnan explicitly teaches and discloses in one aspect that
“Additionally, second digital calendar event indicator 548 includes new document option 552. In particular, new document option 552 allows a participant of the digital calendar event to leverage the contents of existing digital documents in the creation of a new digital document. For example, if the digital calendar event “David <> Anbu” is a recurring calendar event in which past iterations of the event have been associated with digital documents (e.g., a digital document titled “Meeting Notes: David <> Anbu”), then selection of new document option 552 generates a ‘new digital document’ associated with an ‘upcoming iteration of the digital calendar event’ using the contents of the digital document ‘associated with the past iterations of the event’ (similar to digital document 520 of FIG. 5B).…”. [Radhakrishnan: 0115]
Based on the above teachings or disclosed embodiments, it is clear that Radhakrishnan teaches the ’tracking’, monitoring and/or recording of the ‘access of a file’ (historical file access) by a user during a previous or ongoing calendar event (i.e., document / file ‘Access characteristics’_112, including ‘time of access’, and whether a file / document was accessed in a ‘previous’ (past) or current (ongoing) event / meeting). Accordingly, the Office asserts that Radhakrishnan properly and more than sufficiently discloses the argued / recited feature of tracking historical associations between the event data and the file data, each association representing a recorded access of a file occurring while a prior calendar event was ongoing; and for a subsequent calendar event – and the Office maintains the rejection of the feature / limitation over the current prior art combination for at least the reasons and justifications given above.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103(a) 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.
Claim(s) 1-4, 14-28, 29-31 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being disclosed by Dhanabalan et al (hereinafter Dhanabalan), US Patent Publication 20210232542 A1 (filing date January 2020) in view of Chilakamarri et al (hereinafter Chilakamarri) US Patent Publication 20190288968 A1 (publication date September 2019) and in further view of Radhakrishnan et al (hereinafter Radhakrishnan) US Patent Publication 20190266573 A1 (publication date August 2019).
As per claim{s} 1, 14, 22, Dhanabalan discloses a method comprising:
storing, for an account identifier representing a user account (Dhanabalan: e.g., active User ‘Account’ identified by Log-In ‘Username & Password’ which corresponds to user account data stored in the Database 236) [0059; Fig, 2c], event data for events (Dhanabalan: e.g., ‘request for a file’ / file ‘access’ by a user / when a file was accessed or modified, etc.) [Abstract, 0001, 0003, 0125] associated with the account identifier and file data for files owned by the account identifier (Dhanabalan: e.g., Database 236 associated with the Access management server(s) 204b may, for example, include ‘information’ used to process user requests, such as ‘User account data’ {i.e., Username, password, access rights, security questions and answers, etc.), ‘file and folder metadata’ (e.g., name, description, storage location, access rights, source IP address, etc.), and ‘logs’ {user activity / events} among other things) [0060; Fig. 2c]; tracking associations between the event data and the file data, each association representing a recorded access of a file during (Dhanabalan: e.g., In some implementations, the ‘file tags’ may also include a timestamp identifying when the files were created, ‘when the files were last modified’, ‘when the files were last accessed’, ‘the numbers of times the files were accessed’, or the like.) [0125, 0131] (e.g., The feedback component 730 may be configured to ‘accumulate information’ {collect / track information} ‘relating to the files that are selected by senders’, for example, from ranked lists of recommended files for corresponding requests. The feedback component 730 may use such ‘collected information’ as feedback to train or ‘update’ the recommendation algorithm(s) or technique(s) employed by the system. In some embodiments, the feedback component 730 may ‘update the mappings’ between the feature set determined from the file request and the file tags...For example, if the sender selects the highest ranked file, then the feedback component 730 may not update any algorithms or data. But if the sender selects a file other than the highest ranked file, however, then the feedback component 730 ‘may update’ the algorithm/data used to determine the ranking. The feedback component 730 may, for example, ‘update the weights’ associated with a feature set based on the file tags associated with the selected file ) [0137-0138];
obtaining a set of parameters for a file retrieval request (Dhanabalan: e.g., file ‘data vector’ / ‘feature set’) [0139] (e.g., In a non-limiting example, a Recipient may send a ‘message’ requesting a file to the File recommendation system 102, where the ‘subject’ line may be “National Conference presentation” and the message body may be “Can you send me the most recent version of this year's presentation and the recording from last week's meeting?” In such a case, the File recommendation system 102 may determine a ‘data vector’ representing the ‘feature set’ {keywords, age of file, access frequency, file type, location} corresponding to the message as {“National Conference”, “modified recently”, “unknown”, “PowerPoint”, “not relevant”}. The File recommendation system 102 may also determine another ‘data vector’, identifying that the recipient is requesting ‘two files’— a ‘presentation’ and a ‘meeting recording’. The ‘other data vector’ may be {“National Conference”, “created/modified last week”, “not specified”, “audio file”, “not specified”}) [0139; Fig. 1];
comparing the set of parameters and the associations between the event data and the file data (Dhanabalan: e.g., a computing system performs a method that involves receiving a message including information describing a requested file, the message identifying a user who has access to the requested file; analyzing the information to determine at least one feature associated with the requested file; determining a plurality of files that the identified user is authorized to access; determining file tags associated with the plurality of files; ‘comparing the at least one feature with the file tags’ to determine a list of recommended files from the plurality of files; and causing a computing device of the identified user to display the list of recommended files) [0005] (e.g., The File recommendation system 102 may then ‘compare the determined information with ‘metadata associated with files’ {i.e., ‘file tags’, that a sender is authorized to access }, and may determine one or more recommended files that potentially match the requested file. The File recommendation system 102 may ‘present the recommended file(s) to the sender’, and may then send the file to the recipient after receiving approval from the sender. ) [0120; Fig. 1]; and
selecting a recommended file for the file retrieval request based on the comparison of the set of parameters and the associations between the event data and the file data (Dhanabalan: e.g., In some implementations, the system may ‘present the sender with a {recommended} ‘list of files’ (from the files the sender is authorized to access) that potentially match the requested file’, and ‘the sender may select the matching file from such a list’ to provide to the recipient in response to the request) [0031; 0120, 0122; 0127; Fig. 1] (e.g., The File recommendation system 102 may then ‘compare the determined information with ‘metadata associated with files’ {i.e., ‘file tags’, that a sender is authorized to access }, and may ‘determine one or more recommended files that potentially match the requested file’. The File recommendation system 102 may then ‘present the recommended file(s) to the sender’, and may then send the file to the recipient after receiving approval from the sender. ) [0120; Fig. 1];
But while Dhanabalan discloses substantial features of the invention as above, he does not explicitly disclose the additional recited feature(s) of the method further comprising tracking associations between the event data and the file data, each association representing a recorded access of a file during a ‘calendar’ event’.
However, in a related endeavor, Chilakamarri particularly discloses the additional recited feature(s) of the method further comprising ‘the additional recited feature(s) of the method further comprising tracking associations between the event data and the file data, each association representing a recorded access of a file during a ‘calendar’ event’ (Chilakamarri: e.g., expressly discloses as his invention method for influencing collaboration for a group of users, the method comprising: detecting a ‘triggering event associated with a file’; accessing a data resource to select one or more ‘calendar events’ or a communication session having a date and a time associated with a time of the triggering event; obtaining contact information of one or more attendees listed in the calendar event or the communication session; generating a ‘recommendation to share the file’, where in the recommendation includes a description of the’ triggering event’; generating a message containing a ‘link to the file’ or an ‘attachment of the file’, the message configured with a list of recipients that is based on the attendees of the ‘calendar event’ or users associated with the communication session; and delivering the message to the recipients utilizing the contact information) [see Claim 1] (e.g., In one illustrative example, a user may ‘present’ the ‘contents of a file’ using a presentation application. The system can detect a ‘triggering event’, such as a transition of the application from a ‘presentation mode’ to an ‘editing mode’. The system can then identify individuals of interest by accessing the calendar of the presenter and identifying invitees or attendees listed in a ‘calendar event’. The system can then generate a ‘message’ with an attachment of the file or a link to the file. The system can also automatically populate the message with email addresses of the attendees. The message can be generated as part of an in-application feature of the presentation application or the message can be provided in a separate application such as an email application….The ‘individuals of interest’ may be identified by a number of techniques including, but not limited to, ‘analysis of calendar data’ {calendar event}, location data, or any other contextual data. Based on one or more ‘factors’, such as a ‘time of a presentation’, ‘a time a file was edited’, a ‘time of a calendar event’, a location of the user, or a ‘time of a communication session of one or more users’, a system can identify the individuals of interest. In one example, computer users that have a common ‘calendar event’ with a presenter of a file can be identified as individuals of interest. Other ‘factors’ may also be considered, such as whether a user has accepted a ‘particular calendar event’. Such factors can be processed with other contextual information such as a user's location at the time of the group ‘activity’, i.e., a presentation, etc. Users that are co-located at a time of a group activity can be identified as individuals of interest ) [0021-0022] [also 0033; Fig. 5] [0042; Fig. 3].
It would thus be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective date of the invention to modify and/or combine Dhanabalan’s invention with the above said additional feature, as expressly disclosed by Chilakamarri, for the motivation of providing a method and system to drive collaboration between users by analyzing user interactions with productivity applications, as well as provide file sharing recommendations, tools, and notifications to users engaged in a group activity {conference / collaboration activity} to provide contextually aware suggestions and/or automated actions at the right time to drive efficient, collaborative behaviors [Abstract, 0003; Fig. 1].
Further, while Dhanabalan and Chilakamarri discloses substantial features of the invention as above, they do not explicitly disclose the additional recited feature(s) of the method further comprising tracking ‘historical associations’ between the event data and the file data, each association representing ‘a recorded access of a file occurring while a prior calendar event was ongoing’ as well as the feature of performing the steps of obtaining a set of parameters for a file retrieval request; comparing the set of parameters and the associations between the event data and the file data; and selecting a recommended file for the file retrieval request based on the comparison ‘for a subsequent calendar event’.
However, in a related endeavor, Radhakrishnan particularly discloses the additional recited feature(s) of the method further comprising the additional recited feature(s) of the method further comprising tracking ‘historical associations’ between the event data and the file data (Radhakrishnan: e.g., expressly discloses The present disclosure relates to generating and utilizing digital ‘associations’ between digital documents and digital calendar events based on determined content ‘connections’ {associations}. For example, one or more embodiments ‘suggest a digital document’ to a user for ‘association’ with a digital calendar event based on content ‘connections’ between the digital document and the digital calendar event. In particular, one or more embodiments determine a ‘content connection’ based on ‘document characteristics’ {i.e., document content and access characteristics) and ‘calendar event characteristics’ {i.e., calendar content and ‘historical meeting information’}) [Abstract, 0029-0030; Figs 1, 2a-b], each association representing ‘a recorded access of a file occurring while a prior calendar event was ongoing’ (Radhakrishnan: e.g., Further, as used herein, “access characteristics” refers to any measurable or otherwise discernable ‘attribute’ relating to the ‘access of a digital document’. For example, ‘access characteristics’ includes data regarding ‘historical sharing of the digital document’ {i.e., which users the digital document has been shared with ‘in the past’), ‘access credentials or permissions’ of various users (which users already have access to the digital document and/or have ‘opened’ the digital document ‘in the past’), and data regarding ‘historical access of the digital document’ {i.e., “users who have accessed or edited the digital document in the past”, the times at which the digital document has been accessed, etc.}) [0042] [0060; Fig. 2a] as well as the feature of performing the steps of obtaining a set of parameters for a file retrieval request; comparing the set of parameters and the associations between the event data and the file data; and selecting a recommended file for the file retrieval request based on the comparison ‘for a subsequent calendar event’ (Radhakrishnan: e.g., as mentioned, the Event Document Management System can provide suggested digital documents to ‘associate’ with a digital ‘calendar event’ based on a determined ‘content connection’ {association}. For example, FIG. 3A illustrates example user interface 300 in which the event document management system provides a ‘suggestion’ to a participant of a digital calendar event to associate a digital document with the event in accordance with one or more embodiments ) [0070; Fig. 3a] (e.g., As shown in FIG. 3A, add event interface 308 also includes Document suggestion 322. In particular, Document suggestion 322 includes suggested document 324 and acceptance option 326. In particular, Suggested document 324 reflects a digital document ‘selected for association’ with the digital calendar event (i.e., “Alpha Team Weekly Report”) entered in the add event interface 308. The Event document management system ‘compares’ the ‘characteristics of the digital calendar event’ (e.g., the contents in the add event interface 308 and/or historical event information) and ‘documents characteristics’ of a plurality of digital documents and identifies a ‘content connection’ with suggested document 324 (i.e. the digital document entitled “AlphaNotes”) [0074; Fig. 3a] (e.g., . For example, Digital calendar manager 1014 can determine whether a user will be participating in any ‘upcoming calendar events’. Additionally, or alternatively, Digital calendar manager 1014 can extract, from the digital calendar applications, ‘calendar event characteristics’, which can be used by model builder 1004 to train a model and Suggested Document modeler 1006 to use the trained model to determine a ‘content connection’ between a ‘digital document’ and a particular ‘calendar event’. Additionally, when Event document converter 1006 ‘associates a digital document with a calendar event’, Digital calendar manager 1014 provides the ‘copy of the digital document’ or a ‘link’ to the copy to the digital calendar application to make the digital document or link accessible through the application's user interface.) [0157; Fig 10].
Radhakrishnan also discloses the amended / recited feature of comparing the set of parameters and the associations between the event data and the file data ‘based on identifying similarities between the set of parameters and the prior calendar event corresponding to each of the associations’ (Radhakrishnan: e.g., Further, as used herein, the term “content connection” refers to a ‘similarity’, relation, or correlation between a digital document and a digital calendar event. In particular, ‘content connection’ refers to a similarity, relation, or correlation that exists between ‘document characteristics’ of a digital document and ‘calendar event characteristics’ of a digital calendar event. For example, content connection can include a digital document and a digital calendar event having the same or similar titles or description content) [0044] (e.g., Event Document Management system can determine a ‘content connection’ exists if the two strings meet a ‘threshold of similarity’. For example, if the date of a digital calendar event is represented by numerals and slashes (e.g., 1/10/18) and the same date is represented in a digital document by letters and numbers (e.g., January 10, 2018), the Event Document Management system can determine that the two strings are ‘similar enough’ that a ‘content connection’ exists) [0051].
It would thus be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective date of the invention to modify the combination of Dhanabalan and Chilakamarri with the above said additional feature(s), as expressly disclosed by Radhakrishnan, for the motivation of providing a method and system for generating and utilizing digital associations between digital documents and digital calendar events based on determined content connections [Abstract, 0005; Fig. 1].
Claim(s) 14, 22 recite(s) substantially the same limitations / features as claim 1, is/are distinguishable only by its/their statutory category (non-transitory MRSM, computing device), and accordingly rejected on the same basis.
As per claim{s} 2, 24, Dhanabalan in view of Chilakamarri in view of Radhakrishnan discloses the method further comprising performing the obtaining, comparing, and selecting in response to initiating the subsequent calendar event (Chilakamarri: e.g., ‘Calendar Events’) [see Claim 1] [0021-0022] [also 0033; Fig. 5] [0042; Fig. 3] as the file retrieval request, and wherein the set of parameters comprises event parameters for the subsequent event (Dhanablan: e.g., After a user of the authorized client 202b has properly logged in to an access management server 204b, the server 204b may receive a request from the client 202b for access to one of the files 228 or folders to which the logged in user has access rights. The ‘request’ may either be for the authorized client 202b to itself to obtain access to a file 228 or folder {first request / event} or to provide such access to the unauthorized client 202c {other request / subsequent event}. In some embodiments, in response to receiving an access request from an authorized client, the access management server 204b may communicate with the storage control server(s) 204c (e.g., either over the Internet via appliances 208b and 208c or via an appliance 208d positioned between networks 206d and 206e) to obtain a token generated by the storage control server 204c that can subsequently be used to access the identified file 228 or folder) [0062] (e.g., receiving a ‘second indication’ {request} that a file is to be made accessible to a second device via the first computing device) [0003-0004].
As per claim{s} 3, Dhanabalan in view of Chilakamarri in view of Radhakrishnan, and Dhanabalan in particular, discloses the method further comprising performing the obtaining, comparing, and selecting in response to receiving the file retrieval request as user input, wherein the user input includes the set of parameters (Dhanabalan: e.g., file ‘data vector’ / ‘feature set’ {equiv to ‘parameter’ set}) [0139] (e.g., In a non-limiting example, a Recipient may send a ‘message’ requesting a file to the File recommendation system 102, where the ‘subject’ line may be “National Conference presentation” and the message body may be “Can you send me the most recent version of this year's presentation and the recording from last week's meeting?” In such a case, the File recommendation system 102 may determine a ‘data vector’ representing the ‘feature set’ {keywords, age of file, access frequency, file type, location} corresponding to the message as {“National Conference”, “modified recently”, “unknown”, “PowerPoint”, “not relevant”}. The File recommendation system 102 may also determine another ‘data vector’, identifying that the recipient is requesting ‘two files’— a ‘presentation’ and a ‘meeting recording’. The ‘other data vector’ may be {“National Conference”, “created/modified last week”, “not specified”, “audio file”, “not specified”}) [0139; Fig. 1]
As per claim{s} 4, 15, Dhanabalan in view of Chilakamarri in view of Radhakrishnan discloses the method further comprising during the subsequent calendar event (Radhakrishnan: e.g., ‘subsequent {i.e., second} iteration of a recurring event’) [0101]: retrieving event parameters for the subsequent calendar event; recording an accompanying file accessed by the user account during the subsequent event; and storing an association between the file data for the accompanying file and the event parameters for the subsequent event (Dhanabalan: e.g.,
TABLE 2: Example Files that Potentially ‘Match’ the Requested files [Wingdings font/0xE0]
Rank Filename File type Last accessed Other File tags
1 “National Conference Mtg” PowerPoint ‘Modified Yesterday”
2 “Meeting notes” Audio ‘Created last week’ “National Conference”
3 ”National Conference Agenda” Word ”Modified Last Week”
4 “National Conference” PowerPoint “Modified Last Year”
The PowerPoint file named “National Conference” that was ‘modified yesterday’ may be ranked ‘higher’ than the other files based on the weights of the feature set (e.g., “National Conference”:0.5, “modified recently”:0.06, and “PowerPoint”:0.4). Furthermore, the PowerPoint file named “National Conference” that was ‘modified last year’ may be ranked ‘lowest’ because it was not recently modified. Similarly, the Word file named “National Conference agenda” may be ranked ‘lower’ than one or more files because according to the ‘feature set’ {parameters} a word document likely does not match the requested file…For illustration purposes, in an example case, the sender may ‘select’ the ‘third ranked file’ from the above Table 2 to send to the recipient in response to at least one of the requested files. The File Recommendation System 102, as part of ‘feedback analysis’, may determine that the difference between the first ranked file and the third ranked (selected) file is that the first one is a PowerPoint file and the selected one is a Word file, and the File recommendation system 102 may update the original ‘feature set weights’ —> {“National Conference”:0.5, “modified recently”:0.06, “unknown”:0.03, “PowerPoint”:0.4, “not relevant”:0.01} to lower the weight associated with the file type feature, for example, as {“National Conference”:0.7, “modified recently”:0.06, “unknown”:0.03, “PowerPoint”:0.2, “not relevant”:0.01}. Thus, the file recommendation system 102 may adjust the file type feature, in this case, to have a lower importance than previously based on the file selected by the sender… The File recommendation system 102 may ‘store’ the updated weights for the feature set along with the request message, so it can be used for future processing. That is, if a request from a recipient is received that includes ‘similar content’ (similar subject line, message body, etc.) then the File recommendation system 102 may use the ‘updated weights’ for the ‘feature set’ corresponding to the request. ) [Table 2, 0144-0146].
As per claim{s} 16, Dhanabalan in view of Chilakamarri in view of Radhakrishnan, and Chilakamarri in particular, discloses the method wherein storing the event data and the file data includes storing the event data in at least one event repository that is accessible by multiple client devices and storing the file data in at least one file repository that is accessible by the multiple client devices (Chilakamarri: e.g., ‘The data storage 1010 can include, host, or provide one or more real or virtual datastores 1026A-1026N (hereinafter referred to collectively and/or generically as “datastores 1026”). The datastores 1026 are configured to host data used or created by the application servers 1008 and/or other data. Although not illustrated in FIG. 10, the datastores 1026 also can host or store web page documents, word documents, presentation documents, data structures, algorithms for execution by a recommendation engine, and/or other data utilized by any application program or another module. Aspects of the datastores 1026 may be associated with a service for ‘storing files’] [0075; Fig. 10].
As per claim{s} 17, 28, Dhanabalan in view of Chilakamarri in view of Radhakrishnan, and Chilakamarri in particular, discloses the method wherein the event data includes at least one of an event start time, an event end time, an event date, an event title, an event body, or an event participant list (Chilakamarri: e.g., The system can also identify individuals of interest, select calendar events, and/or rank calendar events based on an analysis of other contextual data, such as a user's location data {i.e., ‘Meeting Time’ and/or user’s location} ] [0037] (e.g., ‘time of a particular calendar event’ coinciding with a time of a triggering event ) [0053-0054; Fig. 8] (e.g., Communication Session / Group Activity ‘Time’ & ‘Date’) [Claim 1].
As per claim{s} 18, Dhanabalan in view of Chilakamarri in view of Radhakrishnan, and Chilakamarri in particular, discloses the method wherein execution of the instructions causes the processor to retrieve the event data, retrieve the file data, obtain the associations, compare the set of parameters to the associations, and provide the recommended file in response to initiating a subsequent calendar event as the file retrieval request (Chilakamarri: e.g., In one illustrative example, a user may ‘present’ the ‘contents of a file’ using a presentation application. The system can detect a ‘triggering event’, such as a transition of the application from a ‘presentation mode’ to an ‘editing mode’. The system can then identify individuals of interest by accessing the calendar of the presenter and identifying invitees or attendees listed in a ‘calendar event’. The system can then generate a ‘message’ with an attachment of the file or a link to the file. The system can also automatically populate the message with email addresses of the attendees. The message can be generated as part of an in-application feature of the presentation application or the message can be provided in a separate application such as an email application….The ‘individuals of interest’ may be identified by a number of techniques including, but not limited to, ‘analysis of calendar data’ {calendar event}, location data, or any other contextual data. Based on one or more ‘factors’, such as a ‘time of a presentation’, ‘a time a file was edited’, a ‘time of a calendar event’, a location of the user, or a ‘time of a communication session of one or more users’, a system can identify the individuals of interest. In one example, computer users that have a common ‘calendar event’ with a presenter of a file can be identified as individuals of interest. Other ‘factors’ may also be considered, such as whether a user has accepted a ‘particular calendar event’. Such factors can be processed with other contextual information such as a user's location at the time of the group ‘activity’, i.e., a presentation, etc. Users that are co-located at a time of a group activity can be identified as individuals of interest ) [0021-0022] [also 0033; Fig. 5] [0042; Fig. 3].
As per claim{s} 19, Dhanabalan in view of Chilakamarri in view of Radhakrishnan, and Chilakamarri in particular, discloses the method wherein execution of the instructions causes the processor to retrieve the event data, retrieve the file data, obtain the associations, compare the set of parameters to the associations, and provide the recommended file in response to receiving a user input as the file retrieval request (Chilakamarri: e.g., In one illustrative example, a user may ‘present’ the ‘contents of a file’ using a presentation application. The system can detect a ‘triggering event’, such as a transition of the application from a ‘presentation mode’ to an ‘editing mode’. The system can then identify individuals of interest by accessing the calendar of the presenter and identifying invitees or attendees listed in a ‘calendar event’. The system can then generate a ‘message’ with an attachment of the file or a link to the file. The system can also automatically populate the message with email addresses of the attendees. The message can be generated as part of an in-application feature of the presentation application or the message can be provided in a separate application such as an email application….The ‘individuals of interest’ may be identified by a number of techniques including, but not limited to, ‘analysis of calendar data’ {calendar event}, location data, or any other contextual data. Based on one or more ‘factors’, such as a ‘time of a presentation’, ‘a time a file was edited’, a ‘time of a calendar event’, a location of the user, or a ‘time of a communication session of one or more users’, a system can identify the individuals of interest. In one example, computer users that have a common ‘calendar event’ with a presenter of a file can be identified as individuals of interest. Other ‘factors’ may also be considered, such as whether a user has accepted a ‘particular calendar event’. Such factors can be processed with other contextual information such as a user's location at the time of the group ‘activity’, i.e., a presentation, etc. Users that are co-located at a time of a group activity can be identified as individuals of interest ) [0021-0022] [also 0033; Fig. 5] [0042; Fig. 3].
As per claim{s} 20, Dhanabalan in view of Chilakamarri in view of Radhakrishnan, and Dhanabalan in particular, discloses the method wherein execution of the instructions further causes the processor to request credentials associated with the user account; and retrieve the event data from a third-party service provider using the credentials (Dhanabalan: e.g., active User ‘Account’ identified by Log-In ‘Username & Password’ which corresponds to user account data stored in the Database 236) [0059; Fig, 2c] (e.g., ‘request for a file’ / file ‘access’ by a user / when a file was accessed or modified, etc.) [Abstract, 0001, 0003, 0125] (e.g., Database 236 associated with the Access management server(s) 204b may, for example, include ‘information’ used to process user requests, such as ‘User account data’ {i.e., Username, password, access rights, security questions and answers, etc.), ‘file and folder metadata’ (e.g., name, {file} description, storage location, access rights, source IP address, etc.), and ‘logs’ {user activity / events} among other things) [0060; Fig. 2c].
As per claim{s} 21, Dhanabalan in view of Chilakamarri in view of Radhakrishnan, and Chilakamarri in particular, discloses the non-transitory machine-readable storage medium wherein execution of the instructions causes the processor to record the accompanying file by performing at least one of recording that the file is opened during the ongoing event, recording that the file is closed during the ongoing event, or recording that the file is in focus during the event (Chilakamarri: e.g., In one illustrative example, a user may ‘present’ the ‘contents of a file’ using a presentation application. The system can detect a ‘triggering event’, such as a transition of the application from a ‘presentation mode’ to an ‘editing mode’. The system can then identify individuals of interest by accessing the calendar of the presenter and identifying invitees or attendees listed in a ‘calendar event’. The system can then generate a ‘message’ with an attachment of the file or a link to the file. The system can also automatically populate the message with email addresses of the attendees. The message can be generated as part of an in-application feature of the presentation application or the message can be provided in a separate application such as an email application….The ‘individuals of interest’ may be identified by a number of techniques including, but not limited to, ‘analysis of calendar data’ {calendar event}, location data, or any other contextual data. Based on one or more ‘factors’, such as a ‘time of a presentation’, ‘a time a file was edited’, a ‘time of a calendar event’, a location of the user, or a ‘time of a communication session of one or more users’, a system can identify the individuals of interest. In one example, computer users that have a common ‘calendar event’ with a presenter of a file can be identified as individuals of interest. Other ‘factors’ may also be considered, such as whether a user has accepted a ‘particular calendar event’. Such factors can be processed with other contextual information such as a user's location at the time of the group ‘activity’, i.e., a presentation, etc. Users that are co-located at a time of a group activity can be identified as individuals of interest ) [0021-0022] [also 0033; Fig. 5] [0042; Fig. 3].
As per claim{s} 23, Dhanabalan in view of Chilakamarri in view of Radhakrishnan discloses the computing device causing the processor to record an accompanying file accessed by the user account during a prior ongoing calendar event (Radhakrishnan: e.g., ‘previous / prior meeting’) [0105]; and store an association between the file data for the accompanying file and event parameters of the ongoing calendar event (Chilakamarri: e.g., In one illustrative example, a user may ‘present’ the ‘contents of a file’ using a presentation application. The system can detect a ‘triggering event’, such as a transition of the application from a ‘presentation mode’ to an ‘editing mode’. The system can then identify individuals of interest by accessing the calendar of the presenter and identifying invitees or attendees listed in a ‘calendar event’. The system can then generate a ‘message’ with an attachment of the file or a link to the file. The system can also automatically populate the message with email addresses of the attendees. The message can be generated as part of an in-application feature of the presentation application or the message can be provided in a separate application such as an email application….The ‘individuals of interest’ may be identified by a number of techniques including, but not limited to, ‘analysis of calendar data’ {calendar event}, location data, or any other contextual data. Based on one or more ‘factors’, such as a ‘time of a presentation’, ‘a time a file was edited’, a ‘time of a calendar event’, a location of the user, or a ‘time of a communication session of one or more users’, a system can identify the individuals of interest. In one example, computer users that have a common ‘calendar event’ with a presenter of a file can be identified as individuals of interest. Other ‘factors’ may also be considered, such as whether a user has accepted a ‘particular calendar event’. Such factors can be processed with other contextual information such as a user's location at the time of the group ‘activity’, i.e., a presentation, etc. Users that are co-located at a time of a group activity can be identified as individuals of interest ) [0021-0022] [also 0033; Fig. 5] [0042; Fig. 3].
As per claim{s} 25, Dhanabalan in view of Chilakamarri in view of Radhakrishnan, and Dhanabalan in particular, discloses the computing device wherein the processor is to compare the set of parameters to the associations using a machine learning algorithm (Dhanabalan: e.g., he system shown in FIG. 4C may, for example, aggregate relevant notifications, tasks, and insights, and thereby give the user 426 a dynamic productivity tool. In some embodiments, the resource activity feed may be intelligently populated by utilizing ‘machine learning and artificial intelligence (AI) algorithms’) [0093].
As per claim{s} 26, Dhanabalan in view of Chilakamarri in view of Radhakrishnan, and Chilakamarri in particular, discloses the computing device wherein the processor is to obtain at least one of the event data or the set of associations from a remote device as the repository, using the communications interface (Chilakamarri: e.g., The data storage 1010 can include, host, or provide one or more real or virtual datastores 1026A-1026N (hereinafter referred to collectively and/or generically as “datastores 1026”). The datastores 1026 are configured to host data used or created by the application servers 1008 and/or other data. Although not illustrated in FIG. 10, the datastores 1026 also can host or store web page documents, word documents, presentation documents, data structures, algorithms for execution by a recommendation engine, and/or other data utilized by any application program or another module. Aspects of the datastores 1026 may be associated with a service for ‘storing files’] [0075; Fig. 10].
As per claim{s} 27, Dhanabalan in view of Chilakamarri in view of Radhakrishnan, and Chilakamarri in particular, discloses the computing device wherein the processor is to obtain at least one of the event data or the set of associations from a local memory of the computing device as the repository (Chilakamarri: e.g., Memory_904 / Mass Storage Device_ 912) [0059; Fig. 9].
As per claim{s} 29, Dhanabalan in view of Chilakamarri in view of Radhakrishnan, and Radhakrishnan in particular, discloses the method wherein identifying similarities between the set of parameters and the prior calendar event corresponding to each of the associations comprises identifying similarities between account identifiers specified in the file retrieval request and participants in the prior calendar event (Radhakrishnan: e.g., In one or more alternative embodiments, the Event Document Management system provides each connection with a ‘value’ that correlates to a determined importance of that connection in determining overall relevance of the digital document to the digital calendar event. For example, Event Document Management system can provide a first value to a connection where the ‘participant lists’ of a digital document and digital calendar event are ‘the same’ and a second higher value to a connection where the titles of the digital document and the event match, because a ‘group of participants’ may be included within several different unrelated events where it is more likely that a digital document with a title matching that of the calendar event is relevant to that specific event.) [0052].
As per claim{s} 30, Dhanabalan in view of Chilakamarri in view of Radhakrishnan, and Radhakrishnan in particular, discloses the method wherein identifying similarities between the set of parameters and the prior calendar event corresponding to each of the associations comprises identifying similarities between the set of parameters and a title or body of the prior calendar event (Radhakrishnan: e.g., In one or more alternative embodiments, the Event Document Management system provides each connection with a ‘value’ that correlates to a determined importance of that connection in determining overall relevance of the digital document to the digital calendar event. For example, Event Document Management system can provide a first value to a connection where the ‘participant lists’ of a digital document and digital calendar event are ‘the same’ and a second higher value to a connection where the ‘titles’ of the digital document and the event match, because a ‘group of participants’ may be included within several different unrelated events where it is more likely that a digital document with a title matching that of the calendar event is relevant to that specific event) [0052].
As per claim{s} 31, Dhanabalan in view of Chilakamarri in view of Radhakrishnan, and Radhakrishnan in particular, discloses the method further comprising for the subsequent calendar event, selecting a second recommended file for the file retrieval request based on the comparison of the set of parameters and the associations between the event data and the file data; and determining a ranking between the recommended file and the second recommended file (Radhakrishnan: e.g., In one or more embodiments, the Event Document Management system then ‘ranks’ the plurality of digital documents based on the overall content connection score associated with each of the digital documents. The Event Document Management system can then ‘select’ the digital document having the ‘highest score’ (or ‘any number of digital documents’ having the ‘highest scores’) to provide as a suggestion to a participant…) [0053].
Conclusion
Applicant’s amendment necessitated the same grounds of rejection presented in this Office Action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP 706.06(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any extension fee pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to GLENFORD J MADAMBA whose telephone number is (571)272-7989. The examiner can normally be reached on Mondays-Fridays, 8am-5pm.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor Christopher Parry can be reached on 571-272-8328. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 703-872-9306.
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).
/GLENFORD J MADAMBA/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2451
Prosecution Insights