DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
[1] The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
[2] A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on 31 March 2026 has been entered.
Notice to Applicant
[3] This communication is in response to the Amendment and the Request for Continued Examination (RCE) filed 31 March 2026. It is noted that this application is a National Stage Entry of PCT/CN2022/113333 filed 18 August 2022 which benefits from priority to Chinese Patent Application Serial No. 202110949675.0 filed 18 August 2021. Claims 3, 9, 12-37, 39, and 41 have been cancelled. Claims 1, 5-8, 10, 38, and 43-47 have been amended. Claim 48 has been added. Claims 1-2, 4-8, 10-11, 38, 40, and 42-48 are pending.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101
35 U.S.C. 101 reads as follows:
Whoever invents or discovers any new and useful process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter, or any new and useful improvement thereof, may obtain a patent therefor, subject to the conditions and requirements of this title.
[4] Previous rejection(s) of claims 1-2, 4-11, 38, 40, and 42-47 (now claims 1-2, 4-8, 10-11, 38, 40, and 42-48 as presented by amendment) under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to non-statutory subject matter, specifically an abstract idea without significantly more has/have not been overcome by the amendments to the subject claims and is/are maintained. The revised statement of rejection presented below is necessitated by amendment and addresses the present amendments to the pending claims.
The following analysis is based on the framework for determining patent subject matter eligibility under 35 U.S.C. 101 established in the decisions of the Supreme Court in Mayo Collaborative Services v. Prometheus Labs., Incorporated and Alice Corporation Pty. Ltd. v. CLS Bank International, et al. (See MPEP 2106 subsection III and 2106.03-2106.05). Claim(s) 1-2, 4-8, 10-11, 38, 40, and 42-48 as a whole is/are determined to be directed to an abstract idea. The rationale for this determination is explained below:
Abstract ideas are excluded from patent eligibility based on a concern that monopolization of the basic tools of scientific and technological work might serve to impede, rather than promote, innovation. Still, inventions that integrate the building blocks of human ingenuity into something more by applying the abstract idea in a meaningful way are patent eligible (See MPEP 2106.04).
Consistent with the findings of the Supreme Court in Mayo Collaborative Services v. Prometheus Labs., Incorporated and Alice Corporation Pty. Ltd. v. CLS Bank International, et al. ineligible abstract ideas are defined in groups, namely: (1) Mathematical Concepts (e.g., mathematical relationships, mathematical formulas or equations, and mathematical calculations; (2) Mental Processes (e.g., concepts performed or performable in the human mind including observations, evaluations, judgements, or opinions); and (3) Certain Methods of Organizing Human Activity. Groupings of Certain Methods of Organizing Human Activity include three sub-categories within the group, namely: (1) fundamental economic principles or practices; (2) commercial or legal interactions (e.g., agreements in the form of contracts, legal obligations, advertising, marketing or sales activities or behaviors, and business relations); (3) managing personal behavior or relationships or interactions between people (e.g., social activities, teaching, and following rules or instructions) (See MPEP 2106.04(a).
Eligibility Step 1: Four Categories of Statutory Subject Matter (See MPEP 2106.03): Independent claims 1, 38, and 47 are directed to a method, a system, and non-transitory computer-readable storage medium, respectively, and are reasonably understood to be properly directed to one of the four recognized statutory classes of invention designated by 35 U.S.C. 101; namely, a process or method, a machine or apparatus, an article of manufacture, or a composition of matter. While the claims, generally, are directed to recognized statutory classes of invention, each of method/process, system/apparatus claims, and computer-readable media/articles of manufacture are subject to additional analysis as defined by the Courts to determine whether the particularly claimed subject matter is patent-eligible with respect to these further requirements. In the case of the instant application, each of claims 1, 38, and 47 are determined to be directed to ineligible subject matter based on the following analysis/guidance:
Eligibility Step 2A prong 1: (See MPEP 2106.04): In reference to claim 1, the claimed invention is directed to non-statutory subject matter because the claim(s) as a whole, considering all claim elements both individually and in combination, do/does not amount to significantly more than an abstract idea. The claim(s) is/are directed to the abstract idea of executing a sequence of tasks of editing and inputting content to coordinate the generation and production of a document, which is reasonably considered to be method of Organizing Human Activity. In particular, the general subject matter to which the claims are directed executes a workflow, i.e., a sequence of tasks, including editing, display, and messaging operations among collaborative users to assemble a document, which is an ineligible concept of Organizing Human Activity, namely: managing interactions between people (e.g., following rules or instructions to edit and produce a document).
In support of Examiner’s conclusion, Examiner respectfully directs Applicant’s attention to the claim limitations of representative claim 1. In particular, claim 1 includes:
“…in response to a trigger operation for a workflow type, [providing] an editing page comprising a workflow identification and/or a workflow content, wherein the workflow type comprises at least approval workflow or report workflow and the workflow content comprises a document, the document being a co- operable shared document;”, “…receiving…on the editing page, a first user identification and a submission time of a corresponding workflow input by a predetermined user;”…”… in response to a submission instruction for the workflow type, transmitting, by the electronic device, the corresponding workflow to a first user based on the first user identification and the submission time, and establishing the shared document in a document space of the first user, wherein the first user has an edit permission for the shared document;…”, and “…in response to a submission instruction for the workflow by the first user…[providing] an audit message of the workflow to a second user, wherein the second user has an audit permission for the shared document, and the first user and the second user are users corresponding to different processing stages of the workflow.…”
Considered as an ordered combination, the steps/functions of claim 1 are reasonably considered to be representative of the inventive concept and are further reasonably understood to be series of actions or activities directed to a general process of executing a sequence of tasks of editing and inputting content to coordinate the generation and production of a document, which is an ineligible concept of Organizing Human Activity, namely: managing interactions between people (e.g., following rules or instructions to edit and produce a document) (See MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)).
Claims 1, 38, and 47 recite technical elements which have been considered at each step of Examiner’s analysis but are determined to constitute generic computing structures executing generic computing functions previously identified by the courts, as further analyzed under Step 2A prong 2 and Step 2B below.
Eligibility Step 2A prong 2: (See MPEP 2106.04(d)): Under step 2A prong two, Examiners are to consider additional elements recited in the claim beyond the judicial exception and evaluate whether those additional elements integrate the exception into a practical application. Further, to be considered a recitation of an element which integrates the judicial exception into a practical application, the additional elements must apply, rely on, or use the judicial exception in a manner that imposes meaningful limits on the judicial exception, such that the claim is more than a drafting effort designed to monopolize the exception.
Additional technical elements of claim 1 that potentially integrate the claimed ineligible subject matter into a practical application of the claimed subject are limited to: an “electronic device”. Though not expressly required by the claim as constructed, Examiner assumes the recited “display” and “transmitting” steps are directed to displaying content on a computer display and transmitting data or information among computers/devices via a computer network. Claims 38 and 47 identify additional technical elements which include: “a processor”, “memory storing instructions”, “computing device” and “computer-readable medium storing instructions”.
(1) The “processor”, “computing device”, and “computer-readable medium storing instructions” are identified as engaged in an unspecified, general manner in the performance of each of the recited steps/functions.
(2) The “electronic device” is identified as receiving input from users on a editing page and transmitting workflows and audit messages.
(3) The “displaying” is identified as being performed on the electronic device.
With respect to the above noted functions attributable to the identified additional elements, MPEP 2106.05 stipulates that: There are no additional elements in the claim; Adding the words “apply it” (or an equivalent) with the judicial exception, or mere instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer, or merely uses a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea – see MPEP 2106.05(f); and/or (4) Generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use – see MPEP 2106.05(h) serve as indications that the use of the technology recited does not indicate integration into a practical application of the judicial exception.
Each of the above noted limitations states a result (e.g., workflows are triggered, pages are displayed, content is presented and edited, workflows and content is transmitted etc.) as associated in a general and unspecified manner with a respective “processor” or “computing device” and “instructions. A recitation of “by a processor” or “executing instructions”, absent clarification of particular processing steps executed by the underlying technology to produce the result are reasonably understood to be an equivalent of “apply it”. The identified functions performed by the recited technology are limited to: (1) receiving and sending data via a computer network (e.g., transmitting workflows and content); (2) storing, retrieving, and displaying information and data from a generic computer memory (e.g., instructions, content, pages); (3) displaying data on a generic computer display (e.g., displaying an editing page); and (4) performing repetitive mental functions using the obtaining information/data (e.g., editing documents) (See MPEP 2106.05(f)).
Accordingly, claim 1 is reasonably understood to be conducting standard, and formally manually performed process of executing a sequence of tasks of editing and inputting content to coordinate the generation and production of a document using the generic devices as tools to perform the abstract idea. The identified functions of the recited additional elements reasonably constitute a general linking of the abstract idea to a generic technological environment, e.g., generic devices capable of displaying and receiving edits to a document. The claimed executing a sequence of tasks of editing and inputting content to coordinate the generation and production of a document benefits from the inherent efficiencies gained by data transmission, data storage, and information display capacities of generic computing devices, but fails to present an additional element(s) which practical integrates the judicial exception into a practical application of the judicial exception.
Eligibility Step 2B: (See MPEP 2106.05): Analysis under step 2B is further subject to the Revised Examination Procedure responsive to the Subject Matter Eligibility Decision in Berkheimer v. HP, Inc. issued by the United States Patent and Trademark Office (19 April 2018). Examiner respectfully submits that the recited uses of the underlying computer technology constitute well-known, routine, and conventional uses of generic computers operating in a network environment. In support of Examiner’s conclusion that the recited functions/role of the computer as presented in the present form of the claims constitutes known and conventional uses of generic computing technology, Examiner provides the following:
In reference to the Specification as originally filed, Examiner notes paragraphs [0129]-[0134]. In the noted disclosure, the Specification provides listings of generic computing systems, e.g., a general computing platform including exemplary servers, network configurations and various processor configuration which are identified as capable and interchangeable for performing the disclosed processes. The disclosure does not identify any particular modifications to the underlying hardware elements required to perform the inventive methods and functions. Accordingly, it is reasonably understood that this disclosure indicates that the hardware elements and network configurations suitable for performing the inventive methods are limited to commercially available systems at the time of the invention. Absent further clarification, it is reasonably understood that any modifications/improvements to the underlying technology attributable to the inventive method/system are limited to improvements realized by the disclosed computer-executable routines and the associated processes performed.
While the above noted disclosure serves to provide sufficient explanation of technical elements required to perform the inventive method using available computing technology, the disclosure does not appear to identify any particular modifications or inventive configurations of the underlying hardware elements required to perform the inventive methods and functions. Accordingly, it is reasonably understood that the disclosure indicates that the hardware elements and network configurations suitable for performing the inventive methods are limited to commercially available systems at the time of the invention. Further, absent further clarification, it is reasonably understood that any modifications/improvements to the underlying technology attributable to the inventive method/system are limited to improvements realized by the disclosed computer-executable routines and the associated processes performed.
The claims specify that the above identified generic computing structures and associated functions/routines include:
(1) The “processor”, “computing device”, and “computer-readable medium storing instructions” are identified as engaged in an unspecified, general manner in the performance of each of the recited steps/functions.
(2) The “electronic device” is identified as receiving input from users on a editing page and transmitting workflows and audit messages.
(3) The “displaying” is identified as being performed on the electronic device.
While Examiner acknowledges that the noted limitations are computer-implemented, Examiner respectfully submits that, in aggregate (e.g., “as a whole”) they do not amount to significantly more than the abstract idea/ineligible subject matter to which the claimed invention is primarily directed.
While utilizing a computer, the claimed invention is not rooted in computer technology nor does it improve the performance of the underlying computer technology. The computer-implemented features of the claimed invention noted above are reasonably limited to: (1) receiving and sending data via a computer network (e.g., transmitting workflows and content); (2) storing, retrieving, and displaying information and data from a generic computer memory (e.g., instructions, content, pages); (3) displaying data on a generic computer display (e.g., displaying an editing page); and (4) performing repetitive mental functions using the obtaining information/data (e.g., editing documents).
The above listed computer-implemented functions are distinguished from the generic data storage, retrieval, transmission, and data manipulation/processing capacities of the generic systems identified in the Specification solely by the recited identification of particular data elements that are of utility to a user performing the specific method of executing a sequence of tasks of editing and inputting content to coordinate the generation and production of a document. In summary, the computer of the instant invention is facilitating non-technical aims, i.e., executing a sequence of tasks of editing and inputting content to coordinate the generation and production of a document, because it has been programmed to store, retrieve, and transmit specific data elements and/or instructions that is/are of utility to the user. The non-technical functions of executing a sequence of tasks of editing and inputting content to coordinate the generation and production of a document benefit from the use of computer technology, but fail to improve the underlying technology.
In support, the courts have previously found that utilization of a computer to receive or transmit data and communications over a network and/or employing generic computer memory and processor capacities store and retrieve information from a computer memory are insufficient computer-implemented functions to establish that an otherwise unpatentable judicial exception (e.g. abstract idea) is patent eligible. With respect to the determinations of the Courts regarding using a computer for sending and receiving data or information over a computer network and storing and retrieving information from computer memory, see at least: receiving or transmitting data over a network, e.g., using the Internet to gather data, Symantec, 838 F.3d at 1321, 120 USPQ2d at 1362; sending messages over a network OIP Techs., Inc., v. Amazon.com, Inc., 788 F.3d 1359, 1363, 115 USPQ2d 1090, 1093 (Fed. Cir. 2015) (sending messages over a network); receiving and sending information over a network buySAFE, Inc. v. Google, Inc., 765 F.3d 1350, 1355, 112 USPQ2d 1093, 1096 (Fed. Cir. 2014) (computer receives and sends information over a network); storing and retrieving information in memory, Versata Dev. Group, Inc. v. SAP Am., Inc., 793 F.3d 1306, 1334, 115 USPQ2d 1681, 1701 (Fed. Cir. 2015); OIP Techs., 788 F.3d at 1363, 115 USPQ2d at 1092-93 and see performing repetitive calculations, Flook, 437 U.S. at 594, 198 USPQ2d at 199; and Bancorp Services v. Sun Life, 687 F.3d 1266, 1278, 103 USPQ2d 1425, 1433 (Fed. Cir. 2012) with respect to the performance of repetitive calculations does not impose meaningful limits on the scope of the claims.
Independent claims 38 and 47, directed to an apparatus/system and computer-executable instructions stored on computer-readable media for performing the method steps are rejected for substantially the same reasons, in that the generically recited computer components in the apparatus/system and computer readable media claims add nothing of substance to the underlying abstract idea.
Dependent claims 2, 4-8, 10-11, 40, 42-46, and 48 when analyzed as a whole are held to be ineligible subject matter and are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the additional recited limitation(s) fail(s) to establish that the claimed invention is not directed to an abstract idea.
Viewed as a whole, these additional claim element(s) do not provide meaningful limitation(s) to transform the abstract idea into a patent eligible application of the abstract idea such that the claim(s) amounts to significantly more than the abstract idea itself. Therefore, the claim(s) are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 as being directed to non-statutory subject matter.
In accordance with all relevant considerations and aligned with previous findings of the courts, the technical elements imparted on the method that would potentially provide a basis for meeting a “significantly more” threshold for establishing patent eligibility for an otherwise abstract concept by the use of computer technology fail to amount to significantly more than the abstract idea itself. For further guidance and authority, see Alice Corporation Pty. Ltd. v. CLS Bank International, et al. 573 U.S.____ (2014)) (See MPEP 2106).
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 (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
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.
[5] Claim(s) 1-2, 4-8, 10-11, 38, 40, and 42-48 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Milvaney et al., (United States Patent Application Publication No. 2019/0370749 hereinafter ‘Milvaney’), in view of Alabdrabalnabi et al. (United States Patent Application Publication No. 2021/0406831 hereinafter ‘Alabdrabalnabi’), and further in view of DeNeui et al. (United States Patent Application Publication No. 2022/0269851 hereinafter ‘DeNeui’).
With respect to (currently amended) claim 1, Milvaney discloses a method of information processing, comprising: in response to a trigger operation for a workflow type, displaying an editing page comprising a workflow identification and/or a workflow content, and the workflow content comprising a document, the document being a co-operable shared document (Milvaney et al.; paragraphs [0050]-[0054] [0058]-[0061] [0090]-[0091]; See at least collaborative/shared document. See further trigger events detect display of document content and interface including editing functions); receiving, on the editing page, an edited content input by a predetermined user (Milvaney et al.; paragraphs [0036] [0080] [0090]; See at least user interfaces or reviewing edits performed by designated users); and in response to a submission instruction for the workflow type, transmitting a corresponding workflow to a first user (Milvaney et al.; paragraphs [0083] [0090] [0097]; See at least notifying reviewer and forwarding content edits for approval).
Milvaney further teaches “…in response to a submission instruction for the workflow by the first user, transmitting, by the electronic device, an audit message of the workflow to a second user (Milvaney et al.; paragraphs [0083] [0090] [0097]; See at least notifying reviewer and forwarding content edits for approval, The notification is reasonably a form of audit message).
With respect to the requirement “…wherein the workflow type comprises at least approval workflow or report workflow and the workflow content comprises a document, the document being a co-operable shared document…”, Milvaney discloses workflow template types, i.e., workflow types. Milvaney fails to explicitly state that a workflow is an approval or report workflow.
However, as evidenced by Alabdrabalnabi, trigger of separate approval workflows is well-known in the art (Alabdrabalnabi et al.; paragraphs [0014] [0053]; See at least triggering of approval workflow).
Claim 1 has been amended with respect to the previously recited “receiving on the editing page” limitation to further specify “…receiving, by the electronic device, on the editing page, a first user identification and a submission time of a corresponding workflow input by a predetermined user…”.
Claim 1 has been further amended to specify that the transmission of the corresponding workflow to a first user is “…based on the first user identification and the submission time, and establishing the shared document in a document space of the first user, wherein the first user has an edit permission for the shared document…” and with respect to the previously recited audit message “…wherein the second user has an audit permission for the shared document, and the first user and the second user are users corresponding to different processing stages of the workflow…”.
With respect to these elements, while Milvaney discloses functionality to search for document edits by a listing of users and time of entries, which is reasonably a form of document access based on user identification and submission time, and Milvaney further discloses permissions for document editing, Milvaney fails to expressly provide an example of establishing the shared document based a first user ID and submission time.
However, as evidenced by DeNeui, it is well-known in the art to direct or control display of shared documents in a document workflow system based on an input user identifier and to further include timestamped information associated with inputs from first and second uses having distinct permissions within the document editing workflow (DeNeui et al.; paragraphs [0087] [0091] [0122] [0220]-[0223] [0258]; See at least user permissions, user role, time of day and editing time used to direct interactions with shared document. See further customizable setting for permissions, timestamps associated with user identifiers).
Regarding the combination that includes Alabdrabalnabi, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to have modified the editing pane features of Milvaney by further including the well-known practice of utilizing trigger-initiated approval workflows as taught by Alabdrabalnabi. The instant invention is directed to a system and method of generating a document using a collaborative platform. As Milvaney disclose the use of an editing pane UI in the context of a system and method for generating a document using a collaborative platform and Alabdrabalnabi similarly discloses utilizing trigger-initiated approval workflows in a shared document workflow process in the context of a system and method for generating a document using a collaborative platform, the teachings are reasonably considered to have been derived from analogous references and applied in the manner disclosed by the respective references. Accordingly, one of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make the noted combination/modification as rationalized by combining prior art elements accordingly to known methods to yield the predictable results of utilizing known known workflow processes to ensure sufficient approval and compliance of regulated processes.
Regarding the combination that includes DeNeui, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to have modified the permission structures and document routing and editing permissions of Milvaney by further including the well-known practice of utilizing user permissions, user role, time of day and editing time to direct interactions with shared document as taught by DeNeui. The instant invention is directed to a system and method of generating a document using a collaborative platform. As Milvaney disclose the use of an editing pane UI including permission structures and document routing and editing permissions in the context of a system and method for generating a document using a collaborative platform and DeNeui similarly discloses utilizing user permissions, user role, time of day and editing time to direct interactions with shared document in the context of a system and method for generating a document using a collaborative platform, the teachings are reasonably considered to have been derived from analogous references and applied in the manner disclosed by the respective references. Accordingly, one of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make the noted combination/modification as rationalized by combining prior art elements accordingly to known methods to yield the predictable results of utilizing known permission and user identification inputs to ensure editing and modification functions are enabled and disabled as required by security and authorization requirements to interact with shared data/documents as motivated by a desire to ensure participants are acting in a targeted manner on permitted elements of the document.
With respect to claim 2, Milvaney discloses a method wherein the in response to a trigger operation for a workflow type, displaying an editing page comprises: in response to a trigger operation for a first workflow type, displaying an editable document page (Milvaney et al.; paragraphs [0050] [0080] [0083]; See at least triggers and UI including editing functions); or in response to a trigger operation for a second workflow type, displaying an editable document page and a further predetermined and non-editable workflow content (Milvaney et al.; paragraphs [0059] [0080] [0083]; See at least trigger display. See further permissions and access/restrictions to editing functions).
With respect to claim 4, Milvaney discloses a method further comprising: in response to an expanding operation for the document, displaying an entire content of the document on the editing page (Milvaney et al.; paragraphs [0050] [0075] [0080] Fig. 2; See at least display of both selected content elements and display of entire document); and in response to a folding operation for the document, displaying, on the editing page, indication information representing the content of the document (Milvaney et al.; paragraphs [0057] [0059] [0075]; See at least content associated with stage represented and accessible by selectable icons or identifiers).
With respect to (currently amended) claim 5, Milvaney discloses a method further comprising receiving, on the editing page, an edited content input by a predetermined user comprises: receiving, on the editing page, guidance information input by a predetermined user for instructing the first user to edit content of the document (Milvaney et al.; paragraphs [0083] [0090] [0091]; See at least suggest and comment changes and edits directed to specified users).
With respect to (currently amended) claim 6, Milvaney discloses a method wherein the in response to a submission instruction for the workflow type, transmitting a corresponding workflow to a first user comprises:in response to the submission instruction for the workflow type, transmitting the workflow to a corresponding first user based on the submission time and the first user identification (Milvaney et al.; paragraphs [0067] [0073]; See at least selectable users listing and search for changes made during a specified time period).
With respect to (currently amended) claim 7, Milvaney discloses a method further comprising receiving, on the editing page, edited content input by a predetermined user further comprises: receiving, on the editing page, a reminder time input by the predetermined user (Milvaney et al.; paragraphs [0067] [0071] [0073]; See at least reminders and setting clock to timer to remind user and schedule the display of a stage indicator); the method further comprising: transmitting a reminder message of the workflow to the first user based on the reminder time Milvaney et al.; paragraphs [0067] [0071] [0073]; See at least reminders and setting clock to timer to remind user and schedule the display of a stage indicator).
With respect to (currently amended) claim 8, Milvaney discloses a method further comprising receiving, on the editing page, edited content input by a predetermined user comprises: receiving, on the editing page, a second user identification input by the predetermined user (Milvaney et al.; paragraphs [0050] [0065]-[0067]; See at least selectable users listing and search for changes made during a specified time period); the method further comprising: in response to a submission instruction for the workflow by the first user, transmitting an audit message of the workflow to a second user based on the second user identification (Milvaney et al.; paragraphs [0049]-[0050] [0063]-[0065] [0071]; See at least setting reminders and messaging to designated users to perform tasks, i.e., reasonably a form of “audit message”).
Claim 9 is cancelled.
With respect to claim 10, Milvaney discloses a method further comprising: in response to an editing operation for the document in the document space, applying a synchronous update of an edited content into the document of the workflow content (Milvaney et al.; paragraphs [0050]-[0051] [0066]; See at least real-time, i.e., synchronous, updates of content across document).
With respect to claim 11, Milvaney discloses a method further comprising: in response to the submission instruction for the workflow type, creating a user identity corresponding to the workflow type (Milvaney et al.; paragraphs [0065]-[0067]; See at least user/participant directory associated with workflow); or in response to the trigger operation for the workflow type, creating a user identity corresponding to the workflow type (Milvaney et al.; paragraphs [0065]-[0067]; See at least user/participant directory associated with workflow).
With respect to (new) claim 48, Milvaney discloses a method further comprising: in response to the trigger operation for a new document control, displaying a customizable editable document page; or in response to a trigger operation for a template document control, displaying an editable template document page, wherein the template document comprises commonly used scenes (Milvaney et al.; paragraphs [0069]-[0071] [0080]; See at least triggering event and responsive display of a native control UI element to insert comments, i.e., customizable control. See further customizations of selective stage etc. Examiner notes the alternative language requiring only one of the two recited responses to the recited trigger control).
[6] Claims 38, 40, 42-46, and 47 substantially repeat the subject matter addressed above with respect to claims 1-2, 4-11, and 48 as directed to the enabling system and computer-readable medium storing computer-executable instructions. With respect to these elements, Milvaney discloses enabling the disclosed method employing analogous systems and executable instructions (See at least Milvaney Figs. 3-8). Accordingly, claims 38, 40, 42-46, and 47 are rejected under the applied teachings, conclusions obviousness, and rationale to modify as discussed above with respect to claims 1-2, 4-11, and 48.
Response to Remarks/Amendment
[7] Applicant's remarks filed 16 September 2025 have been fully considered and are addressed as follows:
[i] In response to previous rejection(s) of claim(s) 1-2, 4-11, 38, 40, and 42-47 (now claims 1-2, 4-8, 10-11, 38, 40, and 42-48 as presented by amendment) under 35 U.S.C. 101 as being directed to non-statutory subject matter as set forth in the previous Office Action mailed 31 December 2025, Applicant generally asserts that the claims as amended illustrate a technical solution for online collaboration by integrating co-operable shared documents with workflow types which addresses a need for collaborative editing interactions among a plurality of users. Applicant further remarks, generally, that the establishment of a document in a shared space is not a generic data transmission. In response, Examiner respectfully notes that the technical elements presented in the amended claims are limited to: an “electronic device”. Though not expressly required by the claim as constructed, Examiner assumes the recited “display” and “transmitting” steps are directed to displaying content on a computer display and transmitting data or information among computers/devices via a computer network. Claims 38 and 47 identify additional technical elements which include: “a processor”, “memory storing instructions”, “computing device” and “computer-readable medium storing instructions”.
With respect to these elements:
(1) The “processor”, “computing device”, and “computer-readable medium storing instructions” are identified as engaged in an unspecified, general manner in the performance of each of the recited steps/functions.
(2) The “electronic device” is identified as receiving input from users on a editing page and transmitting workflows and audit messages.
(3) The “displaying” is identified as being performed on the electronic device.
Respectfully, the identified functions performed by the recited technology are limited to: (1) receiving and sending data via a computer network (e.g., transmitting workflows and content); (2) storing, retrieving, and displaying information and data from a generic computer memory (e.g., instructions, content, pages); (3) displaying data on a generic computer display (e.g., displaying an editing page); and (4) performing repetitive mental functions using the obtaining information/data (e.g., editing documents).
Applicant’s remaining remarks are reasonably considered to have been fully addressed in the context of the revised rejection of the claims presented above responsive to the amendments to the subject claims and in consideration of the framework for determining patent subject matter eligibility under 35 U.S.C. 101 established in the decisions of the Supreme Court in Mayo Collaborative Services v. Prometheus Labs., Incorporated and Alice Corporation Pty. Ltd. v. CLS Bank International, et al. (See MPEP 2106 subsection III and 2106.03-2106.05).
[ii] Applicant’s remarks directed to previous rejection(s) of claim(s) 1-2, 4-11, 38, 40, and 42-47 (now claims 1-2, 4-8, 10-11, 38, 40, and 42-48 as presented by amendment) under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable as set forth in the previous Office Action mailed 31 December 2025 have been fully considered and are moot in light of newly added grounds of rejection responsive to the amendments to the subject claims. See revised rejection under 35 U.S.C. 103 presented above.
Conclusion
[8] The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Cited NON-PATENT Literature:
Inoue et al., Slidestack: A Co-editable Web Presentation Platform for Facilitating Knowledge Sharing, 2014-03-01, 2014 International Conference on Computational Science and Computational Intelligence (Volume: 1, 2014, Page(s): 291-296): Relevant Teachings: Inoue discloses a system/method that provides document sharing in a web presentation context. The publication establishes at least that sharing permissions and co-editable documents in a webpage shared document format are common practice in the art.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ROBERT D RINES whose telephone number is (571)272-5585. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 9am - 5pm.
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, Beth V Boswell can be reached at 571-272-6737. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of published or unpublished applications may be obtained from Patent Center. Unpublished application information in Patent Center is available to registered users. To file and manage patent submissions in Patent Center, visit: https://patentcenter.uspto.gov. Visit https://www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/patent-center for more information about Patent Center and https://www.uspto.gov/patents/docx for information about filing in DOCX format. For additional questions, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/ROBERT D RINES/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3625
Prosecution Insights