DETAILED ACTION
Summary and Status of Claims
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
This Office Action is in response to Applicant’s reply filed 9/18/2025.
Claims 2 and 12 are cancelled.
Claims 1, 3-11, and 13-20 are pending.
Claims 1, 3-11, and 13-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101.
Claims 1, 3, 4, 6-11, 13, 14, and 16-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ledet (US Patent Pub 2017/0357565), in view of Kaufman (US Patent Pub 2006/0265398).
Claims 5 and 15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ledet (US Patent Pub 2017/0357565), in view of Kaufman (US Patent Pub 2006/0265398), further in view of Navarro et al. (US Patent Pub 2016/0299771)
The text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office action.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement filed 7/21/2025 has been fully considered, initialed, and signed by the Examiner. A copy is attached to this Office action.
Specification
Applicant is reminded of the proper language and format for an abstract of the disclosure.
The abstract should be in narrative form and generally limited to a single paragraph on a separate sheet within the range of 50 to 150 words. It is important that the abstract not exceed 150 words in length since the space provided for the abstract on the computer tape used by the printer is limited. The form and legal phraseology often used in patent claims, such as "means" and "said," should be avoided. The abstract should describe the disclosure sufficiently to assist readers in deciding whether there is a need for consulting the full patent text for details.
The language should be clear and concise and should not repeat information given in the title. It should avoid using phrases which can be implied, such as, "The disclosure concerns," "The disclosure defined by this invention," "The disclosure describes," etc.
The abstract of the disclosure is objected to because it does not comply with the parameters described above, such as claim language and using phrases that should be avoided. Correction is required. See MPEP § 608.01(b).
The title of the invention is not descriptive. A new title is required that is clearly indicative of the invention to which the claims are directed.
Claim Objections
Claim 20 is objected to for the following informalities:
In the preamble, “the computer” in line 3 should be “a computer.”
Appropriate correction is required.
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.
Claims 1, 3-11, and 13-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to a judicial exception (i.e., a law of nature, a natural phenomenon, or an abstract idea) without significantly more. Determining whether claims are statutory under 35 U.S.C. 101 involves a two-step analysis. Step 1 requires a determination of whether the claims are directed to the statutory categories of invention. Step 2 requires a determination of whether the claims are directed to a judicial exception without significantly more. Step 2 is divided into two prongs, with the first prong having a part 1 and part 2. See MPEP 2106.
Claim 1
Pursuant to Step 2A, part 1, claims are analyzed to determine whether they are directed to an abstract idea. Pursuant to MPEP 2106, claims are deemed to be directed to an abstract idea if, under their broadest reasonable interpretation, they fall within one of the enumerated categories of (a) mathematical concepts, (b) certain methods of organizing human activity, and (c) mental processes. Under the broadest reasonable interpretation, the terms of the claim are presumed to have their plain meaning consistent with the specification as it would be interpreted by one of ordinary skill in the art. See MPEP 2111.
Claim 1 recites the limitations of: (1) obtaining, by a data management platform, data specification information from at least one collaborative user device, and a user of the collaborative user device is a data specification information maintenance user, (2) in accordance with a determination that data specification information does not match target data comprised in editable information, determining, by the data management platform, a target data modification message, (3) pushing, by the data management platform, the target data modification message to a target collaborative user device, so as to cause a target user to modify the target data through the target collaborative user device, (4) wherein the target data modification message comprises locating information of the target data, and the target collaborative user device is determined based on the locating information, (5) the editable information comprises editable shared information of a plurality of collaborative user devices, (6) the editable shared information comprises a data structure and data content maintained by different maintenance users, and if the target data is data of data structure type, the target user of the target collaborative user device is a data structure maintenance user, and (7) if the target data is data of data content type, the target user of the target collaborative user device is a data content maintenance user.
Courts consider a mental process if it “can be performed in the human mind, or by a human using a pen and paper.” The mental process grouping covers concepts performed in the human mind, including observation, evaluation, judgment, and opinion. MPEP 2016(a)(2)(III). Limitations can also be deemed insignificant extra-solution activity (IESA). The term "extra-solution activity" can be understood as activities incidental to the primary process or product that are merely a nominal or tangential addition to the claim. Extra-solution activity includes both pre-solution and post-solution activity. An example of pre-solution activity is a step of gathering data for use in a claimed process, e.g., a step of obtaining information about credit card transactions, which is recited as part of a claimed process of analyzing and manipulating the gathered information by a series of steps in order to detect whether the transactions were fraudulent. An example of post-solution activity is an element that is not integrated into the claim as a whole, e.g., a printer that is used to output a report of fraudulent transactions, which is recited in a claim to a computer programmed to analyze and manipulate information about credit card transactions in order to detect whether the transactions were fraudulent. MPEP 2106.05(g).
Limitation (1) is directed to IESA. Other than the fact that the data specification information is received from a data specification information maintenance user (i.e., someone who can maintain the specification information), the limitation provides no meaningful limits on the abstract idea. It merely specifies where the data is received from. Limitation (2) is directed to a step of determining a target data modification message, which is interpreted as some kind of message or notification. This determination is a result of a determination result that concludes target data does not match data specification information. It is noted that the determination of the matching is not performed and merely the result is received and used for the determination of the target data modification message. Thus, that portion of the limitation is merely IESA in the form of mere data gathering. The determination of the message is a mental step easily performed by a person in the mind as it merely involves steps of observation and evaluation and acting upon them. Limitation (3) is directed to sending a message to a user to modify target data. This is also a mental step because a person can easily perform this step in the mind through the aid of pen and paper or a computer as a tool. Limitation (4) is directed to locating information of the target data, which allows determining a target collaborative user. This is also a mental step of observing and evaluating information (i.e., locating information) and acting upon the results (i.e., sending the message to the appropriate person). Limitations (5) through (7) are directed to concept of a collaboration environment where if the target data found to have an issue (i.e., non-match) is of a particular type, then a message is sent to the appropriate user who is responsible for maintaining that particular type of data. Again, these limitations are directed to mental steps involving observation, evaluation, and judgment. A person can easily observe the type of data, evaluate and judge who is responsible for maintaining that type of data, and send off a message. The claim also recites a data management platform and collaborative user devices, which are recited at a high level of generality and do not provide meaningful limits on the abstract idea.
For at least these reasons, claim 1 is directed to an abstract idea categorized under mental processes.
Pursuant to Step 2A, part 2, claims are analyzed to determine whether the claim as a whole integrates the recited judicial exception into a practical application of the exception. This evaluation is performed by (1) identifying whether there are any additional elements recited in the claim beyond the judicial exception, and (2) evaluating those additional elements individually and in combination to determine whether the claim as a whole integrates the exception into a practical application. See MPEP 2106.04(d). One way to determine integration into a practical application is when the claimed invention improves the functioning of a computer or improves another technology or technical field. To evaluate an improvement to a computer or technical field, the specification must set forth an improvement in technology and the claim itself must reflect the disclosed improvement. See MPEP 2106.04(d)(1).
In this case, as explained above, claim 1 merely recites an abstract idea categorized under mental processes. As explained above, each of the limitations are directed to mental steps that involve non-specific determination steps based on provided data or received data. None of the limitations above providing meaningful limitations that adequately demonstrate an asserted improvement to the functioning of a computer or to the technology. The claim recites the additional components of a “data management platform” and a “target collaboration user device”. However, they are recited at a high level of generality and do not recite specific implementations that would be sufficient to integrate the abstract idea into a practical application.
For at least these reasons, claim 1 does not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application.
Pursuant to Step 2B, claims are analyzed to determine whether the claim as a whole amounts to significantly more than the recited exception i.e., whether any additional element, or combination of additional elements, adds an inventive concept to the claim. See MPEP 2106.05. In this case, claim 1 does not recite limitations that amount to significantly more than the abstract idea. For much of the reasons discussed above, none of the limitations add features that can be considered inventive steps and are significantly more than the abstract idea of essentially determining if there is an issue with data, determining who is responsible for said data, and sending a message to the responsible person to modify the data. The IESA steps involve well understood, routine, and conventional steps of transmission of information over a network. For at least these reasons, claim 1 is nonstatutory because they are directed to a judicial exception without significantly more.
Claim 3
Pursuant to step 2A, part 1, claim 3 depends on claim 1 and therefore recites the same abstract idea. Pursuant to step 2A, part 2, claim 3 recites the additional limitations of (1) wherein the data specification information at least comprises a data structure specification, (2) obtaining a data structure matching result by matching a data structure of the editable information and the data structure specification, (3) in accordance with a determination that the data structure matching result is abnormal, determining the target data based on the data structure matching result. Limitation (1) is directed to specifying the type of data that is to be processed or manipulated, which is IESA. Limitation (2) is step of obtaining a matching result by matching, which is a comparison step that is a mental step easily performed by a person in the mind through observation and evaluation. Limitation (3) is directed to a determination step that seems to simply determine the target data based on the prior determination, which again, is a mental step easily performed by a person in the mind. None of these limitations add meaningful limits to the identified abstract idea and amount to IESA and steps of analysis and determination. Therefore, these additional limitations do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application. Pursuant to step 2B, for the same reasons as discussed, these additional limitations do not provide an inventive concept. For at least these reasons, claim 3 is directed to a judicial exception without significantly more.
Claim 4
Pursuant to step 2A, part 1, claim 4 depends on claim 1 and therefore recites the same abstract idea. Pursuant to step 2A, part 2, claim 4 recites the additional limitations of (1) wherein the data specification information further comprises a data content specification, (2) obtaining a data content matching result by matching a data content of the editable information and the data content specification, (3) in accordance with a determination that the data content matching result is abnormal, determining the target data based on the data content matching result. For similar reasons as discussed in regards to claim 3 above, these additional limitations do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because they essentially the same except with regards to “data content” instead of “data structure”. Pursuant to step 2B, for the same reasons as discussed, these additional limitations do not provide an inventive concept. For at least these reasons, claim 4 is directed to a judicial exception without significantly more.
Claim 5
Pursuant to step 2A, part 1, claim 5 depends on claim 1 and therefore recites the same abstract idea. Pursuant to step 2A, part 2, claim 5 recites the additional limitations of (1) wherein the data specification information is data specification programming information, (2) in accordance with a determination that a programming language specification of the data specification programming information does not match a reference programming language, determining the matching result abnormal information, and determining target data contained in the programming language of the data specification information based on the matching result abnormal information. Limitation (1) is directed to IESA because it merely specifies a type of data to be processed or manipulated. Limitation (2) is directed to steps of determining a matching result abnormal information and determining target data in the data specification that is abnormal. In other words, pointing out where the issue in the data is, which is a mental step easily performed by a person of analyzing the data with regards to a reference programming language, and identifying issues (i.e., abnormal information) and identifying the portion of the data that has the issues (i.e., determining the target data …). As such, the limitations do not adequately demonstrate an asserted improvement. Therefore, these additional limitations do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application. Pursuant to step 2B, for the same reasons as discussed, these additional limitations do not provide an inventive concept. For at least these reasons, claim 5 is directed to a judicial exception without significantly more.
Claim 6
Pursuant to step 2A, part 1, claim 6 depends on claim 1 and therefore recites the same abstract idea. Pursuant to step 2A, part 2, claim 6 recites the additional limitations of wherein determining the target data modification message comprises (1) determining abnormal information of the target data based on the target data, (2) determining the target data modification message based on the abnormal information of the target data. These limitations are directed to steps of determination, which are mental steps involving evaluation and judgment. Neither limitation requires specific steps that are beyond the capabilities of a person to perform in the mind and also do not require specifics that adequately demonstrate an asserted improvement. The limitations merely determine abnormal information and determine a message based on it. Therefore, these additional limitations do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application. Pursuant to step 2B, for the same reasons as discussed, these additional limitations do not provide an inventive concept. For at least these reasons, claim 6 is directed to a judicial exception without significantly more.
Claim 7
Pursuant to step 2A, part 1, claim 7 depends on claim 6 and therefore recites the same abstract idea. Pursuant to step 2A, part 2, claim 7 recites the additional limitations of (1) wherein the target data modification message further comprises a modification prompt of the target data, and the modification prompt is determined based on the abnormal information. The limitation adds a modification prompt of the target data, but does not add meaningful limits as to what a modification prompt is, what it does, or how it is utilized to demonstrate the asserted improvement. The broadest reasonable interpretation is merely a notification message to a user to modify the target data, which can be written by a person to be sent to another person. Therefore, these additional limitations do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application. Pursuant to step 2B, for the same reasons as discussed, these additional limitations do not provide an inventive concept. For at least these reasons, claim 7 is directed to a judicial exception without significantly more.
Claim 8
Pursuant to step 2A, part 1, claim 8 depends on claim 1 and therefore recites the same abstract idea. Pursuant to step 2A, part 2, claim 8 recites the additional limitations of (1) wherein the editable information comprises data information from a database, and the data information and the data specification information are maintained by different maintenance users, (2) wherein the target data is data of the data information type, the target user of the target collaborative user device is a data information maintenance user, and the data information matches the data structure and the data content. Limitation (1) is directed to where the data is stored, which is a database. The database is recited at a high level of generality and does not provide meaningful limits on the abstract idea. The rest of the limitation merely states that the data is maintained by different users, which is essentially what a collaborative environment is. Limitation (2) is directed to specifying the type of data that is to be processed and otherwise performs similar mental steps as discussed above in regards to claims 3 and 4. Therefore, these additional limitations do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application. Pursuant to step 2B, for the same reasons as discussed, these additional limitations do not provide an inventive concept. For at least these reasons, claim 8 is directed to a judicial exception without significantly more.
Claim 9
Pursuant to step 2A, part 1, claim 9 depends on claim 1 and therefore recites the same abstract idea. Pursuant to step 2A, part 2, claim 9 recites the additional limitations of (1) in response to an update message of the editable information, determining, based on an update message of the target data, that an update indication of the target data is to be sent to the target collaborative user device, the update indication of the target data being for instructing the target collaborative user device to display the update message of the editable information. The limitation is directed to determining that an update is being performed and sending the target data to the appropriate collaborative user for displaying the message at the user device. As such, the limitation is a mental step of observing the update and evaluating based on the update, where to send the update for display. The limitation otherwise does not provide any meaningful limits on the abstract idea. Therefore, these additional limitations do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application. Pursuant to step 2B, for the same reasons as discussed, these additional limitations do not provide an inventive concept. For at least these reasons, claim 9 is directed to a judicial exception without significantly more.
Claim 10
Pursuant to step 2A, part 1, claim 10 depends on claim 9 and therefore recites the same abstract idea. Pursuant to step 2A, part 2, claim 10 recites the additional limitations of (1) wherein the editable information comprises editable shared information from a collaborative user device, and the update message of the target data comprises an update message from the editable shared information. The limitation merely specifies that the data is from a user of the collaborative system and the update is an update of the editable shared information of the collaborative system. These limitations do not provide meaningful limits on the abstract idea because they merely specify the type of data that is to be processed and/or manipulated. Therefore, these additional limitations do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application. Pursuant to step 2B, for the same reasons as discussed, these additional limitations do not provide an inventive concept. For at least these reasons, claim 10 is directed to a judicial exception without significantly more.
Claims 11 and 13-19 recite essentially the same subject matter as claims 1 and 3-9, respectively, in the form of an electronic device. Therefore, they are rejected for the same reasons. These claims recite the additional components of a processor and a memory for storing a program. However, these additional components are recited at a high level of generality and do not provide meaningful limits on the abstract idea identified above.
Claim 20 is essentially the same subject matter as claim 1 in the form of a computer readable storage medium. Therefore, it is rejected for the same reasons. Claim 20 recites the additional components of a computer readable storage medium and a computer, but they are recited at a high level of generality that does not provide meaningful limits on the abstract idea.
Claims 1, 3-11, and 13-20 are therefore not drawn to eligible subject matter as they are directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
To expedite a complete examination of the instant application, the claims rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 (nonstatutory) above are further rejected as set forth below in anticipation of applicant amending these claims to overcome the rejection.
Note on Prior Art Rejections
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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 of this title, 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.
The factual inquiries set forth in Graham v. John Deere Co., 383 U.S. 1, 148 USPQ 459 (1966), that are applied for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claims 1, 3, 4, 6-11, 13, 14, and 16-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ledet (US Patent Pub 2017/0357565), in view of Kaufman (US Patent Pub 2006/0265398).
In regards to claim 1, Ledet discloses a method of data management, comprising:
a. in accordance with a determination that data specification information does not match target data comprised in editable information, determining, by the data management platform, a target data modification message (Ledet at paras. 0052, 0055, 0062, 0076-78, 0125)1; and
b. pushing, by the data management platform, the target data modification message to a target collaborative user device, so as to cause a target user to modify the target data through the target collaborative user device (Ledet at paras. 0049, 0052, 0078, 0125)2;
c. wherein the target data modification message comprises locating information of the target data, and the target collaborative user device is determined based on the locating information (Ledet at paras. 0058, 0124-125)3;
d. the editable information comprises editable shared information of a plurality of collaborative user devices (Ledet at paras. 0052-53)4;
e. the editable shared information comprises a data structure and data content maintained by different maintenance users (Ledet at paras. 0062, 0125)5, and
f. if the target data is data of data structure type, the target user of the target collaborative user device is a data structure maintenance user (Ledet at paras. 0062, 0125);
g. if the target data is data of data content type, the target user of the target collaborative user device is a data content maintenance user (Ledet at paras. 0062, 0125)6.
Ledet does not expressly disclose obtaining, by a data management platform, data specification information from at least one collaborative user device, and a user of the collaborative user device is a data specification information maintenance user.
Kaufman discloses a system and method for managing reviews standards for digital documents involving validation, review, editing, and ongoing maintenance of a document in a collaborative environment. Kaufman at abstract. The system provides a set of standards, rules, and expectations that can be configured by a user (i.e., data specification information maintenance user). Kaufman at para. 0048. The review standards are then used to validate a document to determine if it meets the configured review standards. Kaufman at para. 0053.
Ledet and Kaufman are analogous art because they are directed to the same field of endeavor of collaboration systems with standards review.
At the time before the effective filing date of the instant application, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify Ledet by adding the features of obtaining, by a data management platform, data specification information from at least one collaborative user device, and a user of the collaborative user device is a data specification information maintenance user, as disclosed by Kaufman.
The motivation for doing so would have been allowing standards to be modified and maintained allows for greater communication between various levels of reviewers and a more efficient and streamlined review process. Kaufman at para. 0048.
In regards to claim 3, Ledet in view of Kaufman discloses the method of claim 1, wherein the data specification information at least comprises a data structure specification (Ledet at paras. 0062, 0125), and the method further comprises:
a. obtaining a data structure matching result by matching a data structure of the editable information and the data structure specification (Ledet at paras. 0062, 0125); and
b. in accordance with a determination that the data structure matching result is abnormal, determining the target data based on the data structure matching result. (Ledet at paras. 0062, 0125).7
In regards to claim 4, Ledet in view of Kaufman discloses the method of claim 1, wherein the data specification information further comprises a data content specification (Ledet at paras. 0062, 0125), and the method further comprises:
a. obtaining a data content matching result by matching a data content of the editable information and the data content specification (Ledet at paras. 0062, 0125); and
b. in accordance with a determination that the data content matching result is abnormal, determining the target data based on the data content matching result. (Ledet at paras. 0062, 0125).8
In regards to claim 6, Ledet in view of Kaufman discloses the method of claim 1, wherein determining the target data modification message comprises:
a. determining abnormal information of the target data based on the target data (Ledet at para. 0125)9; and
b. determining the target data modification message based on the abnormal information of the target data. (Ledet at para. 0125)10
In regards to claim 7, Ledet in view of Kaufman discloses the method of claim 6, wherein the target data modification message further comprises a modification prompt of the target data, and the modification prompt is determined based on the abnormal information. Ledet at paras. 0090, 0125.11
In regards to claim 8, Ledet discloses the method of claim 1, wherein the editable information comprises data information from a database (Ledet at paras. 0049-51), and the data information is maintained by a maintenance user; if the target data is data of the data information type, the target user of the target collaborative user device is a data information maintenance user, and the data information matches the data structure and the data content. Ledet at paras. 0062, 0125. As discussed above, particular parts of the data are associated with suitable users who are able to approve and make corrections of changes in the data. Therefore, if target data is deemed to have an issue and it is of data information type, the notification is sent to a suitable user (i.e., a data information maintenance user) that is able to address the issue.
Ledet does not expressly disclose the data specification information is maintained by a different maintenance user.
Kaufman discloses admin/content manager users can manage a checklist of rules and standards that need to be met (i.e., maintaining data specification information). Kaufman at para. 0107.
At the time before the effective filing date of the instant application, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify Ledet by adding the features of the data specification information is maintained by a different maintenance user, as disclosed by Kaufman.
The motivation for doing so would have been allowing standards to be modified and maintained allows for greater communication between various levels of reviewers and a more efficient and streamlined review process. Kaufman at para. 0048.
In regards to claim 9, Ledet in view of Kaufman discloses the method of claim 1, further comprising: in response to an update message of the editable information, determining, based on an update message of the target data, that an update indication of the target data is to be sent to the collaborative user device, the update indication of the target data being for instructing the collaborative user device to display the update message of the editable information. Ledet at paras. 0124-126.12
In regards to claim 10, Ledet in view of Kaufman discloses the method of claim 9, wherein the editable information comprises editable shared information from a collaborative user device (Ledet at paras. 0049, 0123)13, and the update message of the target data comprises an update message from the editable shared information (Ledet at paras. 0124-125)14; and/or the editable information comprises data information from a database, and the update message of the target data comprises database table hierarchical relationship update information from the database.
In regards to claim 11, Ledet discloses an electronic device, comprising:
a. a processor (Ledet at para. 0128); and
b. a memory for storing a program (Ledet at para. 0128);
c. wherein the program comprises instructions, which, when executed by the processor, cause the processor to perform acts comprising:
i. in accordance with a determination that data specification information does not match target data comprised in editable information, determining a target data modification message (Ledet at paras. 0052, 0055, 0062, 0076-78, 0125)15; and
ii. pushing the target data modification message to a target collaborative user device, so as to cause a target user to modify the target data through the target collaborative user device (Ledet at paras. 0049, 0052, 0078, 0125)16;
iii. wherein the target data modification message comprises locating information of the target data, and the target collaborative user device is determined based on the locating information (Ledet at paras. 0058, 0124-125)17;
iv. the editable information comprises editable shared information of a plurality of collaborative user devices (Ledet at paras. 0052-53)18;
v. the editable shared information comprises a data structure and data content maintained by different maintenance users (Ledet at paras. 0062, 0125)19, and
vi. if the target data is data of data structure type, the target user of the target collaborative user device is a data structure maintenance user (Ledet at paras. 0062, 0125);
vii. if the target data is data of data content type, the target user of the target collaborative user device is a data content maintenance user. (Ledet at paras. 0062, 0125)20
Ledet does not expressly disclose obtaining, by a data management platform, data specification information from at least one collaborative user device, and a user of the collaborative user device is a data specification information maintenance user.
Kaufman discloses a system and method for managing reviews standards for digital documents involving validation, review, editing, and ongoing maintenance of a document in a collaborative environment. Kaufman at abstract. The system provides a set of standards, rules, and expectations that can be configured by a user (i.e., data specification information maintenance user). Kaufman at para. 0048. The review standards are then used to validate a document to determine if it meets the configured review standards. Kaufman at para. 0053.
Ledet and Kaufman are analogous art because they are directed to the same field of endeavor of collaboration systems with standards review.
At the time before the effective filing date of the instant application, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify Ledet by adding the features of obtaining, by a data management platform, data specification information from at least one collaborative user device, and a user of the collaborative user device is a data specification information maintenance user, as disclosed by Kaufman.
The motivation for doing so would have been allowing standards to be modified and maintained allows for greater communication between various levels of reviewers and a more efficient and streamlined review process. Kaufman at para. 0048.
Claims 13, 14, and 16-19 are essentially the same as claims 3, 4, and 6-9, respectively, in the form of an electronic device. Therefore, they are rejected for the same reasons.
Claim 20 is essentially the same as claim 1 in the form of a non-transient computer-readable storage medium storing computer instructions thereon (Ledet at para. 0128). Therefore, it is rejected for the same reasons.
Claims 5 and 15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ledet (US Patent Pub 2017/0357565), in view of Kaufman (US Patent Pub 2006/0265398), further in view of Navarro et al. (US Patent Pub 2016/0299771) (Navarro).
In regards to claim 5, Ledet in view of Kaufman discloses the method of claim 1, wherein the data specification information is data specification programming information (Ledet at para. 0052, 0054), and does not expressly disclose the method further comprises:
a. in accordance with a determination that a data content specification of the data specification information does not match a predetermined data content specification, determining matching result abnormal information, and determining target data contained in the data content of the data specification information based on the matching result abnormal information; or
b. in accordance with a determination that a programming language specification of the data specification programming information does not match a reference programming language, determining the matching result abnormal information, and determining target data contained in the programming language of the data specification information based on the matching result abnormal information.
Ledet in view of Kaufman does not expressly disclose in accordance with a determination that a programming language specification of the data specification programming information does not match a reference programming language, determining the matching result abnormal information, and determining target data contained in the programming language of the data specification information based on the matching result abnormal information. In other words, Ledet does not expressly disclose validating a programming specification against a reference programming language/specification to determine if there are any issues. It is noted that Ledet discloses programming standards (i.e., programming language specifications) and that identified issues are sent as notifications to users determined to be suitable to address the issue. Thus, issues with the programming language standards would be sent to the individual who maintains them.
Navarro discloses a collaborative environment for generation of technical configuration data. The system includes a database that stores a reference configuration. Navarro at paras. 0011, 0152. The system allows users to create user configurations, which are validated against reference configurations (i.e., determining that a programming language specification of the data specification programming information does not match a reference programming language). Navarro at paras. 0201-0205.
Ledet, Kaufman, and Navarro are analogous art because they are directed to the same field of endeavor of collaborative project environments.
At the time before the effective filing date of the instant application, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify Ledet in view of Kaufman by adding the feature of in accordance with a determination that a programming language specification of the data specification programming information does not match a reference programming language, determining the matching result abnormal information, and determining target data contained in the programming language of the data specification information based on the matching result abnormal information, as disclosed by Navarro.
The motivation for doing so would have been to allow parallel editing of different user configurations by different experts (i.e., maintenance users). Navarro at para. 0095.
Claim 15 is essentially the same as claim 5 in the form of an electronic device. Therefore, it is rejected for the same reasons.
Response to Amendment
Specification
Applicant’s amendment to the abstract, title, and specification is acknowledged. However, Applicant’s amendments to the abstract and title are insufficient to overcome the objections. The abstract still does not meet the required parameters because it utilizes language that should be avoided and still uses claim language. Abstracts should be written in narrative form. The title has been amended but the amended title is still a generic title that is not descriptive of the claimed invention. Consequently, objection to the specification is maintained.
Rejection of Claims 8-10, 18, and 19 under 35 U.S.C 112(b)
Applicant’s amendment to claims 8-10, 18, and 19 is acknowledged. The rejection to claims 8-10, 18, and 19 under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) is withdrawn.
Response to Arguments
Rejection of Claims 1-20 under 35 U.S.C 101
Claims 2 and 12 are cancelled rendering their rejections moot.
Applicant’s arguments in regards to the rejection of claims 1, 3-11, and 13-20 under 35 U.S.C. 101 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant argues the claims, as amended, recite statutory subject matter because they are directed to a technical solution for data management by using a data management platform that effectively reduces the time required in information transfer process, improves collaboration efficiency, and guarantees data accuracy, which relates to the technical field of computer science. Remarks at 13. Applicant further argues the claims include additional elements that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application, such as a “data management platform” and a “target collaborative user device,” which are physical entities and/or software implemented modules running on computing hardware and cannot be abstract ideas. Applicant reasons that these components require specific software and hardware and their implementations cannot be realized through mental activity in the human mind. Remarks at 14. Lastly, Applicant argues the claims recite a tangible improvement that distinguishes from a monopoly on an abstract idea. Examiner respectfully disagrees.
Claim limitations are given their broadest reasonable interpretation in light of the specification. However, limitations from the specification are not read into the claims. MPEP 2111.
In response to Applicant’s argument that the “data management platform” and the “target collaborative user device” are physical entities that requires specific hardware and software implementations that cannot be realized in the human mind, these components are recited at a high level of generality that do not provide meaningful limits on the abstract idea. As set forth in the rejection above, the mental steps are the determination steps. The recited “data management platform” and “target collaborative user device” are not recited as mental steps or mental implementations but are indicated as recitations of generic computer devices which are used to perform insignificant extra solution activity and aid the person in performing the mental steps, where necessary. Although Applicant argues these components require specific software and hardware implementations, such specificity is not recited in the claim.
In response to Applicant’s arguments that the claims recite a tangible improvement and technical solution in the field of computer science that distinguishes from a monopoly of the abstract idea, Examiner asserts the claims do not recite with sufficient specificity the features and limitations that would adequately demonstrate the asserted improvements. As set forth in the rejection above, claim 1, for example, merely recites steps of insignificant extra solution activity and mental determination steps, which can be performed by a person in the mind with the aid of a computer as a tool. Applicant has not argued or explained why any of the steps being performed would be impractical or impossible for a person to perform with the aid of a computer. As asserted in the rejection above, the claims recite the abstract idea of determining whether data meets an obtained specification, identifying what data does not meet the obtained specification, and sending a message to the appropriate person who is most suitable to address the data identified not to meet the obtained specification. None of the other additional limitations, whether taken individually or in combination, are sufficient to integrate the abstract idea into a practical application. For the same reasons, the limitations do not amount to significantly more than the abstract idea. For at least these reasons, the claims are directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
Consequently, the rejection to claims 1, 3-11, and 13-20 under 35 U.S.C. 101 is maintained.
Rejection of claims 1, 3, 4, 6, 7, 9-11, 13, 14, 16, 17, and 19 under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1)
Applicant’s arguments in regards to the rejections to claims 1, 3, 4, 6, 7, 9-11, 13, 14, 16, 17, and 19 under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) are addressed below because the independent claims now incorporate limitations from a dependent claim that was previously rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103.
Consequently, the rejection to claims 1, 3, 4, 6, 7, 9-11, 13, 14, 16, 17, and 19 under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) is withdrawn.
Rejection of claims 2, 8, 12, and 18 under 35 U.S.C. 103
Claims 2 and 12 are cancelled.
Applicant’s arguments in regards to the rejections to claims 8 and 18 under 35 U.S.C. 103, have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. The limitations of cancelled claims 2 and 12 are now recited in independent claims 1, 11, and 20. In regards to claim 1, Applicant alleges Ledet in view of Kaufman fails to disclose all the limitations of claim 1. In particular, Applicant alleges Kaufman does not disclose (1) “obtaining, by a data management platform, data specification information from at least one collaborative user device, and a user of the collaborative user device is a data specification information maintenance user.” Applicant also alleges Ledet does not disclose limitations (2) “in accordance with a determination that data specification information does not match target data comprised in editable information, determining, by the data management platform, a target data modification message,” (3) “pushing, by the data management platform, the target data modification message to a target collaborative user device, so as to cause a target user to modify the target data through the target collaborative user device,” (4) “wherein the target data modification message comprises locating information of the target data, and the target collaborative user device is determined based on the locating information,” and (5) “the editable information comprises editable shared information of a plurality of collaborative user devices; the editable shared information comprises a data structure and data content maintained by different maintenance users, and if the target data is data of data structure type, the target user of the target collaborative user device is a data structure maintenance user; if the target data is data of data content type, the target user of the target collaborative user device is a data content maintenance user.”
Examiner is required to give claim limitations their broadest reasonable interpretation (BRI) in light of the specification. However, limitations from the specification are not read into the claims. MPEP 2111.
In regards to limitation (1), Applicant argues Kaufman does not disclose the “standards maintenance user” because the reviewer of Kaufman is not the same as the claimed “standards maintenance user.” Remarks at 17. Examiner respectfully disagrees. The BRI of limitation (1) merely requires obtaining “data specification information” from a “collaborative user device” that has a “user” who is a “data specification information maintenance user.” The limitation “data specification information maintenance user” is interpreted as a user that performs some type of maintenance on “data specification information.” Applicant does not explain why the “reviewer” in Kaufman is not the same as the “data specification information maintenance user” of the claim other than a mere allegation that they are different. Accordingly, Applicant's arguments do not comply with 37 CFR 1.111(c) because they do not clearly point out the patentable novelty which he or she thinks the claims present in view of the state of the art disclosed by the references cited or the objections made. Further, they do not show how the amendments avoid such references or objections. As noted by Applicant, Kaufman discloses a reviewer (i.e., a user). The reviewer is able to analyze and calibrate the review standards and methodologies, which includes ongoing maintenance of the process for validation, review, and continuous updating of communicated standards (i.e., maintenance of “data specification information”) Kaufman at paras. 0048, 0058. A process of a reviewer sending a reviewee the standards is the step of “obtaining” the “data specification information” and this process occurs in a collaborative environment (between reviewers and reviewees), which makes a reviewer device a “collaborative user device.” For at least these reasons, Ledet in view of Kaufman discloses limitation (1).
In regards to limitations (2)-(5), Applicant argues Ledet suggests sharing modified data or data to be modified but does not disclose anything about in accordance with a determination that data specification information does not match target data comprised in editable information, determining a target data modification message, and pushing the target data modification message to a target collaborative user device. Applicant further argues Ledet is silent with regards to the editable shared information comprising a data structure and data content maintained by different maintenance users, and if the target data is data of data structure type, the target user of the target collaborative user device is a data structure maintenance user, if the target data is data of data content type, the target user of the target collaborative user device is a data content maintenance user. Remarks at 18. Examiner respectfully disagrees.
In regards to limitation (2), Ledet discloses sharing modified code or data to be modified (i.e., target data comprised in editable information). Ledet at paras. 0052, 0055. The data can be software code. The system can determine if the code has a plurality of bugs (i.e., specification information does not match target data …). If bugs are identified, the system creates a plurality of notifications and transmitting the notifications (i.e., target data modification message) to user devices associated with the code development. User devices can be identified by corresponding user profiles that match the problem rating of the bug and are suitable to correct the problem. Ledet at paras. 0124-125. These users who receive are “different maintenance users”. For at least these reasons, Ledet discloses limitation (2).
In regards to limitation (3), as discussed above, the notification is set to identified users. These recipient users can update the code (i.e., cause a target user to modify the target data …). Ledet at para. 0125. For at least these reasons, Ledet discloses limitation (3).
In regards to limitation (4), the notification sent by the system includes a problem rating, which corresponds to a particular user profile. By matching the problem rating to the user profile, the notification is sent to the appropriate person. Ledet at para. 0125. In this way, the notification includes “locating information” that is used to determine the “target collaborative user device.” For at least these reasons, Ledet discloses limitation (4).
In regards to limitation (5), as discussed above, the program code is interpreted as “editable information” and is in a collaborative environment. Ledet at paras. 0052-53. The program code includes factors and metrics, such as data structures and code (i.e., data structures and content) to determine suitable people to address identified issues. Ledet at paras. 0062, 0125. Since the system identifies the appropriate user based on the identified issue, it is interpreted that if a data structure portion of the code is identified as having an issue, then the notification is sent to a user suitable to address the data structure issue. Similarly, a user suitable to address the data content issue is sent a notification if the issue is identified to be in the data content. Ledet at paras. 0062, 0125. For at least these reasons, Ledet discloses limitation (5).
Applicant does not present additional arguments with regards to the remaining limitations. Therefore, Examiner asserts the cited prior art discloses all the limitations of claim 1 for the reasons explained above. In regards to the remaining claims, Applicant refers to the arguments presented in regards to claim 1, which are addressed above. Consequently, the rejection to claims 8 and 18 under 35 U.S.C. 103 is maintained under the new grounds of rejection as necessitated by Applicant’s amendments. Claims 1, 3-11, and 13-20 are rejected under new grounds of rejection as necessitated by Applicant’s amendments.
Additional Prior Art
Additional relevant prior art are listed on the attached PTO-892 form. Some examples are:
Kleppner et al. (US Patent Pub 2013/0218845) discloses a system and method for web based collaboration for editing documents.
Joa et al. (US Patent Pub 2012/0254053) discloses a system and method for on demand information in an organization with collaboration.
Kambhampati et al. (US Patent 10,909,109) discloses a system and method for quality control testing in a shared database of a collaboration tool.
Jacob et al. (US Patent 10,346,429) discloses a system and method for managing collaborative datasets.
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(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 date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Examiner Michael Le whose telephone number is 571-272-7970 and fax number is 571-273-7970. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Fri 9:30 AM – 6 PM.
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, Tony Mahmoudi can be reached on 571-272-4078. 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.
/MICHAEL LE/Examiner, Art Unit 2163
/TONY MAHMOUDI/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2163
1 Modified data or data to be modified (i.e., target data comprised in editable information) is validated against configured metrics (i.e., data specification information). If validation finds an issue, then a notification (i.e., target modification message) is sent to determined recipients.
2 A notification (i.e., target data modification message) is sent to users of the system who are determined to be suitable to correct the identified problem (i.e., target user to modify … ).
3 The notification includes the issues with identifiers of where the issues are (i.e. locating information). This is used to determine suitable people to send the notification.
4 The software (or other data) is a result of collaborative work across a plurality of users.
5 The system relies on factors and metrics of the data, such as data structures and code (i.e., data structure and data content). The system is then able to determine suitable people (i.e., different maintenance users) to address identified issues.
6 The system identifies suitable people to notify based on the identified issue. In other words, if the issue is of a particular type because of its location in the data, or some other factor or metric, it is sent to the appropriate people (e.g., a data structure maintenance user or a data content maintenance user).
7 Ledet discloses identifying issues in the changed data (i.e., editable information) and based on the identified issues, determines the suitable users who should be notified to review and make modifications. The changes in the data can include data structure changes. Therefore, it is interpreted as data structure changes failing data structure standards (i.e., data structure specifications) would result in notifying suitable users.
8 Ledet discloses identifying issues in the changed data (i.e., editable information) and based on the identified issues, determines the suitable users who should be notified to review and make modifications. The changes in the data can include code changes (i.e., data content). Therefore, it is interpreted as code changes failing code standards (i.e., data content specifications) would result in notifying suitable users.
9 The notification provides information about the bug (i.e., abnormal information)
10 The notification includes information about the bug (i.e., based on the abnormal information).
11 The notification includes information about the changes and allows the user the ability to make changes, such as inserting a comment (i.e., modification prompt …).
12 Data that has been edited is sent to suitable users with information about the edit (i.e., update message …) and user interface information to view aspects of the editing and comments.
13 Data is received from collaboration users that can edit the code (i.e., editable shared information).
14 The notification sent to suitable users contains the code that was edited (i.e., editable shared information).
15 Modified data or data to be modified (i.e., target data comprised in editable information) is validated against configured metrics (i.e., data specification information). If validation finds an issue, then a notification (i.e., target modification message) is sent to determined recipients.
16 A notification (i.e., target data modification message) is sent to users of the system who are determined to be suitable to correct the identified problem (i.e., target user to modify … ).
17 The notification includes the issues with identifiers of where the issues are (i.e. locating information). This is used to determine suitable people to send the notification.
18 The software (or other data) is a result of collaborative work across a plurality of users.
19 The system relies on factors and metrics of the data, such as data structures and code (i.e., data structure and data content). The system is then able to determine suitable people (i.e., different maintenance users) to address identified issues.
20 The system identifies suitable people to notify based on the identified issue. In other words, if the issue is of a particular type because of its location in the data, or some other factor or metric, it is sent to the appropriate people (e.g., a data structure maintenance user or a data content maintenance user).
Prosecution Insights