Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Status of Claims
Claims 1, 4, 10, 17, and 19 are currently amended. No claims have been cancelled. Therefore claims 1-20 are presented for examination.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed August 15, 2005 with respect to the rejection of claims 1-20 under 35 U.S.C. 101 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant argues with respect to 101, “The Examiner characterizes the claims as reciting "mental processes" and "certain methods of organizing human activity." However, as amended, the claims are not directed to mere mental processes or human activity. Instead, they recite a specific improvement to computer functionality: a system that pre-computes and stores policy consistency results as compact metadata, enabling access control to shared resources via a single metadata lookup, without re-evaluating policies at access time. However, Examiner disagrees. Per MPEP 2106.05 (a), “It is important to note that in order for a method claim to improve computer functionality, the broadest reasonable interpretation of the claim must be limited to computer implementation. That is, a claim whose entire scope can be performed mentally, cannot be said to improve computer technology. Synopsys, Inc. v. Mentor Graphics Corp., 839 F.3d 1138, 120 USPQ2d 1473 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (a method of translating a logic circuit into a hardware component description of a logic circuit was found to be ineligible because the method did not employ a computer and a skilled artisan could perform all the steps mentally).” Here the claimed invention of generating segment records, tracking members of a groups, and recording the collaboration policy between group members and segments can be performed using pen and paper, and thus is not limited to computer implementation.
Applicant further argues that the amended claims recites “" A metadata generator configured to, in response to a change in group membership, generate or update metadata for the group, the metadata comprising a segment indicator and a count indicator reflecting the segments represented in the group and the number of members assigned to each segment, wherein the metadata encodes the result of the policy consistency analysis for the group membership, and wherein the metadata is maintained to reflect the current group membership and policy consistency status; and " A document management system controlling collaboration among users by authorizing access to shared resources for a user based on a single lookup of the current metadata for the group, the current metadata having been generated or updated prior to the access request, without re-evaluating segment policies at access time. This structure and processing flow cannot practicably be performed in the human mind. The system-level improvement-eliminating repeated policy evaluations and enabling fast, metadata- based access control-results in reduced processor cycles, lower latency, and improved scalability.” However, the claimed invention merely invokes computers to as a tool and the resulting enhancements come from using a computer in its ordinary capacity. See MPEP 2106.05 (f)(2), “ Use of a computer or other machinery in its ordinary capacity for economic or other tasks (e.g., to receive, store, or transmit data) or simply adding a general-purpose computer or computer components after the fact to an abstract idea (e.g., a fundamental economic practice or mathematical equation) does not integrate a judicial exception into a practical application or provide significantly more. See Affinity Labs v. DirecTV, 838 F.3d 1253, 1262, 120 USPQ2d 1201, 1207 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (cellular telephone); TLI Communications LLC v. AV Auto, LLC, 823 F.3d 607, 613, 118 USPQ2d 1744, 1748 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (computer server and telephone unit). Similarly, “claiming the improved speed or efficiency inherent with applying the abstract idea on a computer” does not integrate a judicial exception into a practical application or provide an inventive concept. Intellectual Ventures I LLC v. Capital One Bank (USA), 792 F.3d 1363, 1367, 115 USPQ2d 1636, 1639 (Fed. Cir. 2015).”
Applicant states, “The claims are analogous to those found eligible in Enfish LLC v. Microsoft Corp., 822 F.3d 1327 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (improved data structure), McRO, Inc. v. Bandai Namco Games America Inc., 837 F.3d 1299 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (specific rules improving computer animation), and USPTO Example 37 (GUI icon relocation). In each, the claims recited a specific data structure or processing flow that improved computer functionality, and were found to be integrated into a practical application.” However, the Examiner asserts that the instant claims are not like that of Enfish, which was directed to self-referential table for a computer database that required a four-step algorithm that achieved the improvements, as opposed to merely any form of storing tabular data; rather, what the instant invention does here is use updated metadata to lookup data in a table to determine group policy consistency which is part of the abstract idea and not an improvement to database technology.
Applicant further argues, “Even if the claims were found to recite an abstract idea, the amendments provide an inventive concept. The combination of (1) a metadata structure encoding policy consistency, (2) automatic generation and maintenance of segment and count indicators, and (3) a document management system that authorizes access via a single metadata lookup, is not conventional, generic, or routine. The cited prior art does not teach or suggest these features, nor the technical improvement they provide.” Although the courts often evaluate considerations such as the conventionality of an additional element in the eligibility analysis, the search for an inventive concept should not be confused with a novelty or non-obviousness determination. See Mayo, 566 U.S. at 91, 101 USPQ2d at 1973 (rejecting “the Government’s invitation to substitute §§ 102, 103, and 112 inquiries for the better established inquiry under § 101”)” , see MPEP 2106.05 (I). Additionally, the limitations of (1) a metadata encoding policy consistency, (2) automatic generation and maintenance of segment and count indicators, and (3) a document management system that authorizes access via a single metadata lookup are part of the abstract idea and do not provide inventive concept. Even when considered in combination, the limitations amount to no more than perform the abstract idea with the use a general purpose computer.
Applicant’s arguments, with respect to the rejection of claims 1-20 under 35 U.S.C. 103 have been fully considered and are persuasive. The rejection of claims 1-20 under 35 U.S.C. 103 has been withdrawn.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101
Claims 1-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
Claims 1, 10, and 19 recite generating a set of user records, each user record including user attributes identifying a corresponding user; generating a set of group records, each group record corresponding to a group of users and including group membership information indicative of users that are members of the corresponding group; generating a set of segment records identifying a first set of users and a second set of users and assigning a first user to the first segment and the second segment, the first segment having a first policy indicating permitted collaboration with users assigned to another segment, other than the first segment, the second segment having a second policy indicating permitted collaboration with users assigned to another segment, other than the second segment, the segment management system assigning a second user to the first segment; controlling membership in each group of users based on whether the policies corresponding to the segments to which the users are assigned are consistent with one another; in response to a change in a group membership for a given group, generate an up-to-date metadata for the given group, the up-to-date metadata comprising a segment indicator and a count indicator reflecting the segments represented in the given group and a number of members assigned to each segment, wherein the up-to-date metadata encodes a result of a policy consistency analysis associated with a current group membership for the given group, and wherein the up-to-date metadata is maintained to reflect the current group membership and a policy consistency status; and controlling collaboration among users by authorizing access to shared resources for a user based on a single lookup of the up-to-date metadata for the given group, the up-to-date metadata having been generated or updated prior to an access request, without re-evaluating segment policies at access time. The limitations above are process that under the broadest reasonable interpretation fall into the “mental processes” grouping of abstract ideas (concepts performed in the human mind by observation, evaluation, judgement, and opinion) and/or “certain methods of organizing human activity” including managing personal behavior or interactions between people (including following rules or instructions) grouping of abstract ideas, see MPEP 2106.04 (a) (2) (II) and MPEP 2106.04 (a) (2) (III).
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application because the additional elements are not indicative of integration into a practical application. The additional elements of “a computer-implemented method” (claim 10), “a computer system” (claims 1 and 10), “user management system” (claim 1), “a group management system” (claim 1), “a segment management system” (claim 1), “ a group membership system” (claim 1), and “a document management system” (claim 1), “a computer system comprising: one or more processors” (claim 19), “memory storing computer executable instructions which, when executed by the one or more processors cause the one or more processors to” (claim 19), “a metadata generator” (claim 1) are recited at a high-level of generality and amount to no more than mere instructions to implement the abstract idea on a computer.
The claims do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception for the same reasons as presented above. The claims as whole describe how to apply the concept of controlling collaboration between groups of users using generic computer elements. Moreover, the additional elements are known and conventional elements as evidenced by the specification at paragraphs 0061-0062 and 0071-0092–describing these elements at a high-level of generality. Even when considered in combination, these additional elements represent mere instructions to implement the abstract idea on a computer, which do not provide an inventive concept. Therefore, the claims are ineligible.
Dependent claims 2-9, 11-18, and 20 recite additional details that further narrow the previously recited abstract idea. The additional elements of “a metadata generator” (claims 4 and 8) and “a metadata analysis system” (claim 7) merely uses the computer as a tool to perform the abstract idea and are recited at a high-level of generality. These additional elements are not indicative of an integration into a practical application nor do the additional elements amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. Thus, even when viewed as whole, nothing in the claims adds significantly more than the abstract idea. Therefore, the claims are ineligible.
Closest Prior Art
The closest prior art of record is:
Sinha et al (US 2016/0357971 ) disclose metadata includes a table identifying particular sections or portions of the corresponding electronic document and identify the groups and/or individual who are authorized to access those sections. This table may be updated dynamically in response to changes made to the electronic document .
Yu et al (US 2021/0019705) discloses a system for controlling collaboration among users based on group membership.
Conclusion
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. 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 nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) 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 SHANNON S CAMPBELL whose telephone number is (571)272-5587. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 7am-3:30pm.
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. 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.
/SHANNON S CAMPBELL/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3628