DETAILED ACTION
This action is responsive to the filing of 5/20/26. Claims 1-20 are pending and have been considered below.
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 .
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, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
Claim(s) 1-20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Veeramachaneni (2022/0179986.) in view of Wagner (20100011036.)
Claim 1, 12, 19: Veeramachaneni discloses a non-transitory, computer-readable storage medium comprising instructions recorded thereon, wherein the instructions when executed by at least one data processor (par. 64, processor of a system) of a system, cause the system to perform a function on a workspace (Fig. 4: 400 manager UI) that includes multiple pages (Fig. 4: Folder1, Subfolder1, Doc1.doc, Doc2.xls, etc.), the workspace being presented on an interface (Fig. 4), the processor being caused to:
provide, on a content search page (Fig. 4: left side; Fig. 8B, data filter) presented on the interface of the workspace (Fig. 4: 400 Manager UI), a content list (Fig. 4: left side, showing a list, Folder1, Subfolder1, Doc1.doc, Doc2.xls, etc.),
wherein the content list includes multiple content entries (Fig. 4: Folder1, Subfolder1, Doc1.doc, Doc2.xls, etc.),
wherein each content entry of the multiple content entries includes a title (Fig. 4: left side, showing a list, Folder1, Subfolder1, Doc1.doc, Doc2.xls, etc.) and metadata (Fig. 4: Permission metadata for the content entries; par. 75) associated with a respective page of the multiple pages of the workspace (Fig. 4: content of the objects / documents),
wherein a page of the multiple pages is associated with an access permission defining users’ permissions to access the page (Fig. 4: 409, permissions),
wherein the content list includes content entries associated with pages that a user viewing the content search page does not have an access permission to access (Fig. 4: 413, showing the write access is not checked off under the Allow column for User 4); and
in response to a user input on a particular content entry on the content list (Fig. 4: 406, selection of the Doc1.doc; par. 290),
provide an access permission control item for changing the access permission to access the page associated with the particular content entry (Fig. 4: 409 Permission tab),
wherein the access permission control item indicates that the user does not have access to view the content of the page (Fig. 4: showing that users may have Read Access or not; Fig. 6: User2 ‘No Access’), and
in response to a user input on the access permission control item,
change the access permission of the page associated with the particular content entry even though the user requesting the change associated with the access permission does not have access to view the content of the page (Fig. 4: 408, Add User; 412-413, checking off / on various permissions),
wherein changing the access permission comprises adding or removing users from a group of one or more users that have the access permission to access the page (Fig. 4: 408, Add User; 412-413, checking off / on various permissions.)
However, Veeramachaneni does not explicitly disclose wherein the user requesting access change is the same user that is viewing the content list with an content item they don’t have access to.
Wagner discloses a similar method for content permission access, including: disclose wherein the user requesting access change is the same user that is viewing the content list with an content item they don’t have access to (par. 70, When the sent Link 125 (to access the file) is clicked by the recipient, the File Storage Area 105 may notify the file owner of the request. It may also tell the file requestor that the approval process has begun. If access to the File access permissions 130 is approved, the file requestor may click the Link 125 again and the document will download; par. 9, 49, 60.)
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to combine the teachings of Veeramachaneni with Wagner so as to allow user means for gaining access of a page / file that they don’t have initial access to by sending a request to the file owner.
Claim 2, 13, 20: Veeramachaneni and Wagner disclose the computer-readable medium of claim 1, wherein the multiple pages include parent pages and child pages that are hierarchically organized within the workspace, wherein a child page is a subpage of a parent page of the multiple pages (Veeramachaneni par. 293, user permissions associated with other related data objects such as a parent folder, grandparent folder, or great grandparent folder can also be viewed and managed through the UI), and wherein the child page inherits an access permission of the parent page at a time when the child page is generated (Veeramachaneni par. 293, Changes to permission states for users associated with a folder will flow down and become inherited by each subfolder associated with it.), and wherein the processor is further caused to, in an instance that the particular content entry is associated with a child page, in response to receiving the user input on the particular content entry to change the access permission of the particular page, change the access permission to the child page so that the access permission of the child page is different from the access permission of the respective parent page (Veeramachaneni par. 292, User 1 has full control to Doc1.doc which allows User 1 to modify, read and execute, read, and write to that document.)
Claim 3, 14: Veeramachaneni and Wagner disclose the computer-readable medium of claim 1, wherein the multiple pages include parent pages and child pages that are hierarchically organized within the workspace (Veeramachaneni par. 293, user permissions associated with other related data objects such as a parent folder, grandparent folder, or great grandparent folder can also be viewed and managed through the UI), wherein a child page is a subpage of a parent page of the multiple pages, and wherein the child page inherits an access permission of the parent page at a time when the child page is generated, and wherein the processor is further caused to, in an instance that the particular content entry is associated with a parent page, in response to receiving the user input on the particular content entry to change the access permission of the particular page, change the access permission to the parent page and to any child pages associated with the parent page (Veeramachaneni par. 293, Changes to permission states for users associated with a folder will flow down and become inherited by each subfolder associated with it.)
Claim 4, 15: Veeramachaneni and Wagner disclose the computer-readable storage medium of claim 1, wherein the processor is further caused to: in response to a user input on the access permission control item for changing the access permission, provide a window comprising a permission request control item for requesting access permission to the particular page, and a permission change control item for changing permission of the particular page (Veeramachaneni Fig. 4: 409, Permission tab, Add User; 412-413, checking off / on various permissions.)
Claim 5, 16: Veeramachaneni and Wagner disclose the computer-readable storage medium of claim 1, wherein the processor is further caused to: provide, on the content search page presented on the interface, multiple filtering control items, wherein each of the multiple filtering control items is associated with a feature of metadata associated with the multiple pages, and wherein each of the multiple filtering control items is selectable to provide a sub-list of the content list that includes those content entries that are associated with the respective feature of the metadata (Veeramachaneni Fig. 8B Sensitive Data filters; par. 316, FIG. 8B depicts an example UI for applying a sensitive data filter to data objects in a file server and managing user/user group entitlements based on the filtered results.)
Claim 6, 17: Veeramachaneni and Wagner disclose the computer-readable storage medium of claim 1, wherein the metadata includes a location, a group space, a creator, an access permission level associated with each of the multiple pages (Veeramachaneni Fig. 8B, Fig. 4: Permission metadata for the content entries; par. 75)
Claim 7, 18: Veeramachaneni and Wagner disclose the computer-readable storage medium of claim 1, wherein the processor is further caused to: provide a sidebar section comprising a control item for an additional content search; in response to a user input on the control item for the additional content search, provide, on an additional content search page that is different from the content search page, an additional content list of content entries, wherein each content entry on the additional content list is associated with a respective page of the multiple pages that the viewing in on the workspace has an access permission for (Veeramachaneni Fig. 8B Sensitive Data filters; par. 316, FIG. 8B depicts an example UI for applying a sensitive data filter to data objects in a file server and managing user/user group entitlements based on the filtered results.)
Claim 8: Veeramachaneni and Wagner disclose the computer-readable storage medium of claim 1, wherein the processor is further caused to: in response to the user input on the particular content entry on the content list, provide a link to the page associated with the particular content entry, and prior to opening the page associated with the link so that the user views the page associated with the particular content entry, provide the access permission control item for changing the permission to access the page associated with the particular content entry (Veeramachaneni Fig. 4: 409 permissions page; par. 289, The permission pane 409 may identify a user/user group associated with a data object along with the user/user group's permission access level 412 and a corresponding permission access state 413 (e.g., allow or deny).)
Claim 9: Veeramachaneni and Wagner disclose the computer-readable storage medium of claim 1, wherein the processor is further caused to: provide, on the content search page presented on the interface, a filtering control item for filtering the content list based on levels of access permission, wherein the levels of access permission include a private level, a workspace sharing level, an external sharing level, and an internet sharing level (Veeramachaneni par. 286, The index store 307 may also include a user permission index which may comprise a mapping of metadata information for user permissions associated with data objects such as user, file, owner, permission level.)
Claim 10: Veeramachaneni and Wagner disclose the computer-readable storage medium of claim 1, wherein the multiple pages of the workspace include pages of different hierarchical levels within the workspace, wherein the different hierarchical levels within the workspace are organized to include: the workspace, one or more teamspaces that are located under the workspace, parent pages that are located respectively under the workspace or the one or more teamspaces, and child pages that are located under their respective parent pages (Veeramachaneni Fig. 4: folders, and subfolders, and subsubfolders including objects), wherein the parent pages inherit the access permission of the respective workspace or the respective one or more teamspaces, wherein the child inherits the access permission of the respective pages (Veeramachaneni par. 293, For instance, permission changes to Folder1 403 may be passively inherited by Subfolder1, Subsubfolder2, Subsubfolder3, and Subsubfolder3, etc. The changes to the permission state for each parent folder will only flow down to the subfolder beneath it), and wherein the access permission of any of the one or more teamspaces, parent pages, and child pages is configured to be independently changeable (Veeramachaneni par. 293, Explicit changes to any folder/file can modify the permissions inherited from the parent folders.)
Claim 11: Veeramachaneni and Wagner disclose the computer-readable storage medium of claim 1, wherein the processor is further caused to: in response to receiving a user input to change the permission to access the page from the user, add an indication of the change in the permission to access the page to an action log associated with the page, wherein the action log is accessible by a creator of the page, and provide a notification of the modification in the permission to access the page to a group of users of the workspace, wherein the group of users has an authority to change the access permission to the page (Veeramachaneni Fig. 6A-6B: 410; par. 302-303, entitlement manager UI 400 comprising a permission activity log pane 410. The permission activity log pane 410 comprises an audit trail 605 of permission changes associated with user(s) to a data object.)
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claim(s) 1-20 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
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure: Sreenivasan (2022/0414323) managing access to files in a collaboration system.
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 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 ANDREY BELOUSOV whose telephone number is (571) 270-1695 and Andrew.belousov@uspto.gov email. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Friday EST.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Adam Queler, can be reached at telephone number 571-272-4140. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from Patent Center and the Private Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from Patent Center or Private PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Patent Center and Private PAIR for authorized users only. Should you have questions about access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free).
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) Form at https://www.uspto.gov/patents/uspto-automated- interview-request-air-form.
/Andrey Belousov/
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 2172
8/9/26
Prosecution Insights