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 .
1. This communication is responsive to the Amendment filed 1/2/2026.
2. Claims 1-21 are pending in this application. Claims 1, 10 and 18 are independent claims. In the instant Amendment, claims 1, 5, 10, 14, 18 and 20 were amended. This is a Non-Final action on the RCE filed 1/2/2026.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
3. 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.
4. Claim(s) 1-21 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ball et al (“Ball” US 2017/0139919) in view of Gan et al (“Gan” US 2016/0371258).
Regarding claim 1, Ball discloses a method comprising:
identifying, by a processor, a subset of files with comments to be of interest to a user of a cloud-based content management platform, wherein identifying the subset of files with comments to be of interest to the user comprises (see fig 6, 690; also see paragraph [0071]; e.g., content/comments of interest):
providing characteristics of a set of comments included in a plurality of files associated with a user account of the user on the cloud-based content management platform as input to a trained machine learning model, the set of comments pertaining to one or more comment threads comprising comments added by other users in the plurality of files (see paragraphs [0060], [0146] and [0155]; e.g., training machine learning model with comments and user historical actions);
determining, based on one or more outputs of the trained machine model, rankings of individual comments from the set of comments included in the plurality of files, each ranking indicating whether a respective comment is to be of interest to the user (see figs 3-10 and paragraphs [0088]-[0119]; e.g., comments are selected and presented to user based on a history of user interactions with comments and the number of comments as well as the amount of time other users viewed the post/article/video), the one or more outputs comprising, for individual comments from the set of comments, respective predicted interest indicators for the user (see paragraphs [0008], [0118], [0127] and [0160]; e.g., “Each interaction that relates to a comment may be evaluated to determine a numeric signal value, e.g., a positive or negative value to be added to the comment's ranking score.”); and
identifying, among the plurality of files associated with the user account of the user, the subset of files each including at least one comment with a ranking indicating that a respective comment is to be of interest to the user see fig 6, 690; also see paragraph [0071]; e.g., content/comments of interest); and
providing, by the processor, a graphical user interface (GUD) of the cloud-based content management platform for presentation to the user, the GUI identifying the subset of files and, for each identified file, a respective comment included in the identified file, and a date of the respective comment (see figs 3A and 13 and paragraph [0004]; e.g., social networking platform ranks comments on a post/article/video and presents the highest ranking comments associated with a post/article/video to user).
Ball does not expressly disclose collaborative documents. However, Gan discloses that it is well-known in the art to utilize collaborative documents (see paragraphs [0038]-[0039]; e.g., file is a collaborative document). It would have been obvious to an artisan before the effective filing date of the present invention to include Gan’s teachings in Ball’s user interface as a well-known alternative in the art which produces an expected result.
Regarding claim 2, Ball discloses wherein the characteristics of the set of comments included in the plurality of files associated with the user account of the user comprise one or more of interactions of the user with a comment thread associated with a respective comment from the set of comments, recency of a respective comment from the set of comments, a length of a respective comment from the set of comments, or a level of collaboration between the user and another user that added a respective comment from the set of comments (see figs 3-13, 1318; e.g., user interactions, including the amount of time spent viewing/interacting with a post/comment thread, are recorded and used to score and rank comments).
Regarding claim 3, Ball discloses further comprising determining the interactions of the user with the comment thread associated with the respective comment by determining at least one of:
whether the user has added an initial comment in the comment thread associated with the respective comment; or whether the user has added a comment as a reply to the initial comment or another comment in the comment thread associated with the respective comment (see fig 13 and paragraphs [0164]-[0198]; e.g., user added comment as a reply).
Regarding claim 4, Ball discloses further comprising determining at least one of: a status of the comment thread associated with the respective comment, the status including an open status or a close status; a number of comments included in the comment thread associated with the respective comment; a number of different users involved in the comment thread associated with the respective comment; a proportion of comments in the comment thread associated with the respective comment that are added by the user; a proportion of comments in the comment thread associated with the respective comment that are added by other users; or a length of time period the comment thread associated with the respective comment remained open (see figs 3-13 and paragraphs [0164]-[0198]; e.g., comments are selected and presented to user based on a history of user interactions with comments and the number of comments as well as the amount of time other users viewed the post/article/video).
Regarding claim 5, Ball discloses wherein each respective predicted interest indicators for the user comprises a comment score for a corresponding comment in the set of comments (see paragraphs [0008], [0118], [0127] and [0160]; e.g., “Each interaction that relates to a comment may be evaluated to determine a numeric signal value, e.g., a positive or negative value to be added to the comment's ranking score.”), and wherein determining, based on one or more outputs of the trained machine model, rankings of individual comments from the set of comments included in the plurality of files, ranking each comment in the set of comments based on comment scores (see fig 6, 608; e.g., order/rank comments by score).
Regarding claim 6, Ball discloses wherein identifying, among the plurality of files associated with the user account of the user, the subset of files each including at least one comment with a ranking indicating that a respective comment is to be of interest to the user comprises: selecting one or more comments from the set of comments based on rankings; identifying the plurality of files that each include at least one of the one or more selected comments; determining a document score for each of the plurality of files based on the comment scores of the one or more selected comments; ranking the files based on document scores; and selecting the subset of files based on the rankings (see fig 8; e.g., presenting content based on scoring and ranking).
Regarding claim 7, Ball discloses wherein determining the document score for each of the plurality of files based on the comment scores of the one or more selected comments comprises: identifying a set of comment threads, each comment thread being associated with at least one of the one or more selected comments; determining a comment thread score for each comment thread in the set of comment threads based on the comment score of one or more selected comments associated with a respective comment thread; and determining the document score for each file based on a comment thread score of one or more comment threads associated with a respective file (see paragraphs [0060], [0146] and [0155]; e.g., determining scoring based on comment score).
Regarding claim 8, Ball discloses wherein a respective selected comment included in an identified file corresponds to a most recent comment or a comment with a highest importance score amongst one or more comments included in the identified file (see figs 4A-5B and paragraph [0004]; e.g., social networking platform ranks comments on a post/article/video and presents the highest ranking comments associated with a post/article/video to user).
Regarding claim 9, Ball discloses wherein the GUI comprises one or more suggestion cards, each suggestion card identifying each of the subset of files and a respective comment, each suggestion card comprising: a title information including a document type and a title of a respective file; an image representation of the respective file; a first intelligent button to reply to the respective comment from a respective suggestion card without opening the respective file; a second intelligent button to close the respective comment from the respective suggestion card without opening the respective file; a comment text including content of the respective comment; and a reason text describing a reason for the selection of the respective comment (see figs 3 and 13).
Claims 10-16 are similar in scope to claims 1-7, respectively, and are therefore rejected under similar rationale.
Regarding claim 17, Ball discloses wherein the GUI comprises one or more suggestion cards, each suggestion card identifying each of the subset of files and a respective comment, each suggestion card comprising: a title information including a document type and a title of a respective file; an image representation of the respective file; a first intelligent button to reply to the respective comment from a respective suggestion card without opening the respective file; a second intelligent button to close the respective comment from the respective suggestion card without opening the respective file; a comment text including content of the respective comment; and a reason text describing a reason for the selection of the respective comment (see figs 3 and 13).
Claims 18-21 are similar in scope to claims 1-2 and 5-6, respectively, and are therefore rejected under similar rationale.
Response to Arguments
5. Applicant’s arguments with respect to the claim(s) have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument.
Conclusion
6. The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Chi et al (US 2017/0220580).
7. Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to RASHAWN N TILLERY whose telephone number is (571)272-6480. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 9:00a - 5:30p.
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, William L Bashore can be reached at (571) 272-4088. 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.
/RASHAWN N TILLERY/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2174