DETAILED ACTION
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
This action is in response to claim amendments and remarks filed by Applicant’s representative on May 2, 2026. Claims 1-20 are pending, no claims have been canceled, and no new claims have been added.
Response to Amendments and Remarks
Applicant’s latest filed claim amendments and corresponding remarks dated May 2, 2026 have been received and fully considered. Applicant’s remarks and/or comments are generally directed to the current claim amendment(s), and accordingly deemed moot in light of the new grounds of rejection provided with this action.
With regards to Applicant’s latest amendments and remarks, Applicant firstly notes and remarks that the independent claim(s), and particularly independent claim 1, has been further amended to now expressly recite
“A method for curating access-only content items of user groups in a cloud-based collaboration environment, the method comprising:
creating, by a processor of a collaboration server, a content hub in the cloud-based collaboration environment, the content hub comprising a logical representation of a collection of content items stored in a repository maintained by the collaboration server;
populating, by the processor of the collaboration server, the content hub with hub information defining the content hub;
adding, by the processor of the collaboration server, one or more selected content items of the content items stored in the repository maintained by the collaboration server to the content hub; and
publishing, by the processor of the collaboration server, the content hub in the cloud-based collaboration environment, wherein the selected content items added to the content hub are available for access only to a plurality of users of the collaboration server based on a defined collaboration for the content hub, wherein the defined collaboration for the content hub identifies the plurality of users as collaborators within the content hub, and wherein the defined collaboration for the content hub is defined separate from any collaborations between the plurality of users defined in workspaces of the cloud-based collaboration environment.”.
With respect to the above, Applicant notes and remarks that none of the prior art reference(s) applied in rejecting independent claim 1 [Pearl et al, Smith et al, Lee et al], either individually or in combination with other prior art disclosures, expressly and properly discloses or suggests the above amended or recited claim feature(s) or limitation(s) of publishing, by the processor of the collaboration server, the content hub in the cloud-based collaboration environment, wherein the selected content items added to the content hub are available for access only to a plurality of users of the collaboration server based on a defined collaboration for the content hub, ‘wherein the defined collaboration for the content hub identifies the plurality of users as collaborators within the content hub’, and wherein the defined collaboration for the content hub is defined separate from any collaborations between the plurality of users defined in workspaces of the cloud-based collaboration environment -- as currently recited by amended independent claim 1 above (and similarly in independent claims 10 & 19).
However, in response to Applicant’s amended feature and associated remarks, the Office asserts and notes that the newly amended feature(s) and described elements are now expressly taught or disclosed in view of teachings and/or disclosures by at least Arnold et al, as discussed / cited with this action.
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.
Claims 1-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Pearl et al. (U.S. Patent Publication 2017/0048285), hereinafter Pearl, in view of Smith et al. (U.S. Patent Publication 2021/0271495), hereinafter Smith, in view of Lee et al. (U.S. Patent Publication 2013/0014023), hereinafter Lee, and in further view of Arnold et al (hereinafter Arnold), Foreign Patent Publication CA 3181294 A1 (publication date December 2021).
Regarding claim 1, Pearl shows
A method for curating access-only content items of user groups in a cloud-based collaboration environment, the method comprising: ([0166]; [0214-0215]; i.e. A method performed by a content management server/host server comprising processor, memory and instructions to perform the method.)
creating, by a processor of a collaboration server, (Fig. 16A, 1610; Fig. 1, 100; i.e. content management server/host server) a content hub (i.e. workspace) in the cloud-based collaboration environment, (Fig. 16) the content hub comprising a logical representation (Fig. 16A, 1617; i.e. object visualization) of a collection of content items ([0048]; i.e. work items) stored in a repository (Fig. 16A, 1620; i.e. 1, 130; i.e. storage device/repository) maintained by the collaboration server; ([0061]; [0165- 0166]; [0168]; [0009]) .
populating, by the processor of the collaboration server, the content hub with hub information (i.e. object relationships - files and folders/user access permissions/etc.) defining the content hub; ([0168])
adding, (i.e. uploading) by the processor of the collaboration server, one or more selected content items (i.e. work item/document) of the content items stored in the repository maintained by the collaboration server to the content hub; and ([0050])
publishing, (i.e. presenting) by the processor of the collaboration server, the content hub (Fig. 16A, 1606-1) in the cloud-based collaboration environment, wherein the selected content items added to the content hub are available for access only to a plurality of users ([0062]; i.e. collaborators) of the collaboration server based on a defined collaboration for the content hub, ([0168]; [0063])
However, Pearl fails to show
adding, by the processor of the collaboration server, one or more selected content items of the content items stored in the repository maintained by the collaboration server to the content hub; and
Smith shows
adding, by the processor of the collaboration server, (Fig. 1, 112; server) one or more selected content items of the content items stored in the repository (Fig. 1, 114; i.e. data store) maintained by the collaboration server to the content hub; (i.e. workspace) and ([0036]; [0030-0031])
Smith and Pearl are considered analogous art because they involve workspaces comprised of documents. Pearl shows that a collaborator may upload a document to the workspace. Smith shows that a user may add a document to the workspace that already exists in the repository. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Pearl to incorporate the teachings of Smith wherein adding, by the processor of the collaboration server, one or more selected content items of the content items stored in the repository maintained by the collaboration server to the content hub. Doing so provides that shared documents may be stored in the cloud storage.
However, Pearl in view of Smith fails to show
wherein the defined collaboration for the content hub is defined separate from any collaborations between the plurality of users defined in workspaces of the cloud-based collaboration environment.
Lee shows
publishing the content hub (Fig. 4, 410; Fig. 14; i.e. files and folders workspace) in the cloud- based collaboration environment, (Fig. 4; [0065]) wherein the selected content items added to the content hub are available for access only to a plurality of users of the collaboration server based on a defined collaboration for the content hub, ([0042-0043]) wherein the defined collaboration for the content hub is defined separate from any collaborations between the plurality of users defined in workspaces (i.e. discussion workspaces) of the cloud-based collaboration environment. ([0044]; i.e. Separate discussion permission for the users from that of the linked files/folders workspace may be assigned.)
Lee and Pearl in view of Smith are considered analogous art because they involve shared workspaces. Pearl shows a shared workspace that includes files and folders. Lee shows that a separate discussion workspace may also be created. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Pearl in view of Smith to incorporate the teachings of Lee wherein the collaboration for the content hub is defined separate from any collaborations between the plurality of users defined in workspaces of the cloud- based collaboration environment. Doing so provides for more control of the discussions of the workspaces.
However, Pearl in view of Smith in view of Lee fails to show
publishing, by the processor of the collaboration server, the content hub in the cloud-based collaboration environment, wherein the selected content items added to the content hub are available for access only to a plurality of users of the collaboration server based on a defined collaboration for the content hub, ‘wherein the defined collaboration for the content hub identifies the plurality of users as collaborators within the content hub’…
Arnold shows
publishing, by the processor of the collaboration server, the content hub in the cloud-based collaboration environment, wherein the selected content items added to the content hub are available for access only to a plurality of users of the collaboration server based on a defined collaboration for the content hub, ‘wherein the defined collaboration for the content hub identifies the plurality of users as collaborators within the content hub’… (Arnold: [pg. 154, L19 – pg. 155, L23]; i.e. As further illustrated by the related users element 906 in FIG. 9, the contextual hub system 116 can identify related information based on users associated with the contextual hub. Generally, the Contextual hub system 116 can identify ‘users associated with a contextual hub’ by determining ‘collaborating users’ that have access to the contextual hub and/or by identifying users that have sent or received information that is included in the contextual hub. Based on identifying related users or users associated with the contextual hub, the contextual hub system 116 can determine to include information from third-party sources based on an association with the related users. For instance, the Contextual hub system 116 can include content from a third- party source based on determining that a link to the content was sent by or sent to a collaborating user of the contextual hub. In another example, the Contextual hub system 116 identifies a contact that is associated with an email that the user added to the contextual hub. The Contextual hub system 116 identifies content from third-party sources that is associated with the ‘content.Math’. for instance, the contextual system can identify links to emails, instant messages, documents, links, or other content that the contact has sent to, received from, or collaborated with the user) ( [pg. 180, L 15 – pg. 181, L5] e.g., As part of generating a contextual model, the contextual hub system 116 can identify collaborating users within a contextual hub. As illustrated in FIG. 14A, the contextual hub management graphical user interface 1404 includes a collaborating users elements 1414. The collaborating users elements 1414 indicates collaborating users within the contextual hub 1416. The contextual hub management graphical user interface 1404 may further indicate collaborating users via a collaborating users indicators 1418. As mentioned, the contextual hub system 116 can identify related content based on collaborating users listed within the collaborating users elements 1414.) ([Fig. 16] e.g., ‘Associate a Contextual Hub with User Accounts Associated with Client Devices’_1602) ( [pg. 217, L 2 – pg. 218, L1] [Fig. 17a]; e.g., The contextual hub management graphical user interface 1704 displays information relating to a contextual hub 1710. For instance, the contextual hub management graphical user interface 1704 includes a group space 2261, a private space 1714, a group history 1706, and a private history 1708. The contextual hub system 116 also presents collaborating users element 1716 to indicate the identity of users collaborating users within the contextual hub. As illustrated in FIG. 17A, the contextual hub system 116 provides the identities of collaborating users within the contextual hub via the collaborating users element 1716 and the listed collaborating users element 1726. As mentioned previously, the contextual hub system 116 can associate a contextual hub with one or more users. More specifically, the contextual hub system 116 may designate one or more additional users as collaborating users within a contextual hub..)
Arnold and Pearl in view of Smith in view of Lee are considered analogous art because they involve shared workspaces. Pearl shows a shared workspace that includes files and folders. Lee shows that a separate discussion workspace may also be created. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Pearl in view of Smith in view of Lee to incorporate the teachings of Arnold wherein the collaboration for the content hub is defined separate from any collaborations between the plurality of users defined in workspaces of the cloud- based collaboration environment and wherein the defined collaboration for the content hub identifies the plurality of users as collaborators within the content hub. Doing so provides for more user access control to the discussions and content to the workspaces of the collaboration hub.
Regarding claim 2, Pearl in view of Smith in view of Lee and in further view of Arnold shows all of the features with respect to claim 1 as outlined above. Pearl in view of Smith in view of Lee further shows
The method of claim 1, wherein creating the content hub in the cloud-based collaboration environment comprises:
creating a Content Application Object (CAO) (Pearl: Fig. 16A, 1617; i.e. object visualization) for the content hub; and (Pearl: [0168])
associating the created CAO with the content hub. (Pearl: [0168]; i.e. The object visualization is presented in the workspace thereby being associate with the workspace.)
Regarding claim 3, Pearl in view of Smith in view of Lee and in further view of Arnold shows all of the features with respect to claim 1 as outlined above. Pearl in view of Smith in view of Lee further shows
The method of claim 2, wherein populating the content hub comprises adding the hub information to the CAO, the hub information comprising one or more of a name for the content hub, a description of the content hub, (i.e. folders and files and their relationships) or one or more sections (i.e. folders) within the content hub. (Pearl: Fig. 16A, 1606-1; [0168])
Regarding claim 4, Pearl in view of Smith in view of Lee and in further view of Arnold shows all of the features with respect to claim 1 as outlined above. Pearl in view of Smith in view of Lee further shows
The method of claim 2, wherein adding one or more content items to the content hub comprises: confirming each editor of the added one or more content items has access to the one or more content items within the content hub; and (Pearl: [0049] and Smith: [0031]; i.e. Before a user may edit a document, the ACL/permissions would be checked to verify that user is permitted for editing.)
adding an Access Only Collaboration (AOC) to the added one or more content items, the AOC defining the collaboration for the content hub. (Pearl: [0049] and Smith: [0031]; i.e. metadata with ACL for each document)
Regarding claim 5, Pearl in view of Smith in view of Lee and in further view of Arnold shows all of the features with respect to claim 1 as outlined above. Pearl in view of Smith in view of Lee further shows
The method of claim 4, wherein publishing the content hub in the cloud-based collaboration environment comprises:
adding an association (i.e. object relationship) of each of the added one or more content items to the CAO; (Pearl: [0168]; Fig. 16A, 1616)
adding an AOC collaboration (i.e. permissions) for each of one or more viewers of the added one or more content items; and (Pearl: [0049])
adding searchable text (i.e. title) to the CAO, (Smith: Fig. 2A, 225; i.e. visual representation) the searchable text describing the content hub or content items added to the content hub. (Smith: [0037- 0038])
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Pearl to incorporate the teachings of Smith wherein adding searchable text to the CAO, the searchable text describing the content hub or content items added to the content hub to provide a more descriptive view of the workspace.
Regarding claim 6, Pearl in view of Smith in view of Lee and in further view of Arnold shows all of the features with respect to claim 1 as outlined above. Pearl in view of Smith in view of Lee further shows
The method of claim 2, further comprising updating (i.e. adding a document) the content hub, (i.e. workspace) wherein updating the content hub comprises: (Smith: [0055])
one or more of changing the hub information (i.e. set of documents) for the content hub adding one or more content items to the content hub, or removing one or more content items from the content hub; and (Smith: [0052]; [0055])
publishing the content hub with the changed hub information, without the removed one or more content items or with the added one or more content items. (Smith: [0055])
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Pearl to incorporate the teachings of Smith wherein updating the content hub comprises: one or more of changing the hub information for the content hub adding one or more content items to the content hub, or removing one or more content items from the content hub and publishing the content hub with the changed hub information, without the removed one or more content items or with the added one or more content items to ensure that the workspace remains current.
Regarding claim 7, Pearl in view of Smith in view of Lee and in further view of Arnold shows all of the features with respect to claim 1 as outlined above. Pearl in view of Smith in view of Lee further shows
The method of claim 6, wherein changing the hub information for the content hub comprises saving the changed hub information for the content hub. (Smith: [0055]; i.e. The metadata of the workspace is modified/saved.)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Pearl to incorporate the teachings of Smith wherein changing the hub information for the content hub comprises saving the changed hub information for the content hub for the same motivation as detailed in claim 6.
Regarding claim 8, Pearl in view of Smith in view of Lee and in further view of Arnold shows all of the features with respect to claim 1 as outlined above. Pearl in view of Smith in view of Lee further shows
The method of claim 6, wherein adding one or more content items to the content hub comprises: confirming editors for the added one or more content items have access to the added content items within the content hub; and (Pearl: [0049] and Smith: [0031]; i.e. Before a user may edit a document, the ACL/permissions would be checked to verify that user is permitted for editing.)
adding an Access Only Collaboration (AOC) to the added content items. (Pearl: [0049] and Smith: [0031]; i.e. metadata with ACL for each document)
Regarding claim 9, Pearl in view of Smith in view of Lee and in further view of Arnold shows all of the features with respect to claim 1 as outlined above. Pearl in view of Smith in view of Lee further shows
The method of claim 6, wherein publishing the content hub comprises:
adding content item associations on the CAO (Pearl: object visualization and Smith: Fig. 2A, 225; [0052]; i.e. visual representation of the workspace) associated with the content hub for any added content items; (Pearl: [0064]; Fig. 16A; [0168]; i.e. Work items/file may be added. The object visualization would inherently be updated. and Smith [0054-0055])
removing content item associations on the CAO associated with the content hub for any removed content items; (Pearl: [0064]; Fig. 16A; [0168]; i.e. Work items/file may be deleted. The object visualization would inherently be updated.)
updating searchable text (i.e. metadata of document or workspace to add the document to the workspace) for the content hub; and (Smith: [0056]; [0074]; [0052]; i.e. The metadata is considered searchable text at least because it would inherently be used to search/find documents in workspace that overlaps with active documents. Also, the metadata would be used to display messages in the workspace.)
updating a status for the content hub. (Smith: [0026]; [0030]; [0052]; i.e. The status may be updated to active or archived. Also, a status of the content hub may be updated to show the current list of objects/files.)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Pearl to incorporate the teachings of Smith wherein updating searchable text for the content hub and updating a status for the content hub to properly maintain the content hub.
Regarding claim 10, this system claim comprises limitations substantially the same as those detailed in claim 1 above and is accordingly rejected on the same basis.
Regarding claim 11, this system claim comprises limitations substantially the same as those detailed in claim 2 above and is accordingly rejected on the same basis.
Regarding claim 12, this system claim comprises limitations substantially the same as those detailed in claim 3 above and is accordingly rejected on the same basis.
Regarding claim 13, this system claim comprises limitations substantially the same as those detailed in claim 4 above and is accordingly rejected on the same basis.
Regarding claim 14, this system claim comprises limitations substantially the same as those detailed in claim 5 above and is accordingly rejected on the same basis. .
Regarding claim 15, this system claim comprises limitations substantially the same as those detailed in claim 6 above and is accordingly rejected on the same basis.
Regarding claim 16, this system claim comprises limitations substantially the same as those detailed in claim 7 above and is accordingly rejected on the same basis.
Regarding claim 17, this system claim comprises limitations substantially the same as those detailed in claim 8 above and is accordingly rejected on the same basis.
Regarding claim 18, this system claim comprises limitations substantially the same as those detailed in claim 9 above and is accordingly rejected on the same basis.
Regarding claim 19, Pearl shows
A non-transitory, computer-readable medium comprising a set of instructions stored therein which, when executed by a processor, causes the processor to curate access-only content items of user groups in a cloud-based collaboration environment by: ([0166]; [0214-0215]; i.e. A method performed by a content management server/host server comprising processor, memory and instructions to perform the method.)
creating a content hub (i.e. workspace) in the cloud-based collaboration environment, (Fig. 16) the content hub comprising a logical representation (Fig. 16A, 1617; i.e. object visualization) of a collection of content items ([0048]; i.e. work items) stored in a repository (Fig. 16A, 1620; i.e. 1, 130; i.e. storage device/repository) maintained by the collaboration server, ([0061]; [0165-0166]; [0168]; [0009])
wherein creating the content hub in the cloud-based collaboration environment comprises creating a Content Application Object (CAO) (Pearl: Fig. 16A, 1617; i.e. object visualization) for the content hub and (Pearl: [0168]) associating the created CAO with the content hub. (Pearl: [0168]; i.e. The object visualization is presented in the workspace thereby being associate with the workspace.)
populating the content hub with hub information (i.e. object relationships - files and folders/user access permissions/etc.) defining the content hub ([0168]) wherein populating the content hub comprises adding the hub information to the CAO, the hub information comprising one or more of a name for the content hub, a description of the content hub, (i.e. folders and files and their relationships) or one or more sections (i.e. folders) within the content hub; (Pearl: Fig. 16A, 1606-1; [0168])
adding, (i.e. uploading) one or more selected content items (i.e. work item/document) of the content items stored in the repository maintained by the collaboration server to the content hub; and ([0050]) wherein adding one or more content items to the content hub comprises confirming each editor of the added one or more content items has access to the one or more content items within the content hub and (Pearl: [0049]; i.e. Before a user may edit a document, the permissions would be checked to verify that user is permitted for editing.) adding an Access Only Collaboration (AOC) to the added one or more content items, the AOC defining a collaboration between a plurality of users for the content hub, (Pearl: [0049]) wherein the collaboration for the content hub (Fig. 16A; i.e. workspace 1606-1) is separate from other collaborations (Fig. 16A; i.e. workspace 1606-2) between the plurality of users defined in the cloud-based collaboration environment. (i.e. All collaborators may interact with more than one workspace. ([0166]) Therefore, all of the collaborators of workspace 1606-1 may also collaborate in workspace 1606-2.)
publishing, (i.e. presenting) the content hub (Fig. 16A, 1606-1) in the cloud-based collaboration environment, wherein the selected content items added to the content hub are available for access only to one or more users of the collaboration server based on a defined collaboration for the content hub, ([0168]; [0063]) , wherein publishing the content hub in the cloud-based collaboration environment comprises adding an association (i.e. object relationship) of each of the added one or more content items to the CAO, (Pearl: [0168]; Fig. 16A, 1616) adding an AOC collaboration (i.e. permissions) for each of one or more viewers of the added one or more content items and (Pearl: [0049]) adding searchable text to the CAO, the searchable text describing the content hub or content items added to the content hub.
However, Pearl fails to show
adding one or more selected content items of the content items stored in the repository maintained by the collaboration server to the content hub; and\
adding searchable text to the CAO, the searchable text describing the content hub or content items added to the content hub.
Smith shows
adding one or more selected content items of the content items stored in the repository (Fig. 1, 114; i.e. data store) maintained by the collaboration server to the content hub; (i.e. workspace) and ([0036]; [0030-0031])
adding searchable text (i.e. title) to the CAO, (Smith: Fig. 2A, 225; i.e. visual representation) the searchable text describing the content hub or content items added to the content hub. (Smith: [0037- 0038])
Smith and Pearl are considered analogous art because they involve workspaces comprised of documents. Pearl shows that a collaborator may upload a document to the workspace. Smith shows that a user may add a document to the workspace that already exists in the repository and add a title to the workspace. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Pearl to incorporate the teachings of Smith wherein adding one or more selected content items of the content items stored in the repository maintained by the collaboration server to the content hub and adding searchable text to the CAO, the searchable text describing the content hub or content items added to the content hub. Doing so provides that shared documents may be stored in the cloud storage and provides a more descriptive view of the workspace.
However, Pearl in view of Smith fails to show
wherein the collaboration for the content hub is defined separate from any collaborations between the plurality of users defined in workspaces of the cloud-based collaboration environment,
Lee shows
publishing, the content hub (Fig. 4, 410; Fig. 14; i.e. files and folders workspace) in the cloud- based collaboration environment, (Fig. 4; [0065]) wherein the selected content items added to the content hub are available for access only to one or more users of the collaboration server based on a defined collaboration for the content hub, ([0042-0043]) wherein the collaboration for the content hub is defined separate from any collaborations between the plurality of users defined in workspaces (i.e. discussion workspaces) of the cloud-based collaboration environment, ([0044]; i.e. Separate discussion permission for the users from that of the linked files/folders workspace may be assigned.)
Lee and Pearl in view of Smith are considered analogous art because they involve shared workspaces. Pearl shows a shared workspace that includes files and folders. Lee shows that a separate discussion workspace may also be created. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Pearl in view of Smith to incorporate the teachings of Lee wherein the collaboration for the content hub is defined separate from any collaborations between the plurality of users defined in workspaces of the cloud- based collaboration environment. Doing so provides for more control of the discussions of the workspaces.
However, Pearl in view of Smith in view of Lee fails to show
publishing, by the processor of the collaboration server, the content hub in the cloud-based collaboration environment, wherein the selected content items added to the content hub are available for access only to a plurality of users of the collaboration server based on a defined collaboration for the content hub, ‘wherein the defined collaboration for the content hub identifies the plurality of users as collaborators within the content hub’…
Arnold shows
publishing, by the processor of the collaboration server, the content hub in the cloud-based collaboration environment, wherein the selected content items added to the content hub are available for access only to a plurality of users of the collaboration server based on a defined collaboration for the content hub, ‘wherein the defined collaboration for the content hub identifies the plurality of users as collaborators within the content hub’… (Arnold: [pg. 154, L19 – pg. 155, L23]; i.e. As further illustrated by the related users element 906 in FIG. 9, the contextual hub system 116 can identify related information based on users associated with the contextual hub. Generally, the Contextual hub system 116 can identify ‘users associated with a contextual hub’ by determining ‘collaborating users’ that have access to the contextual hub and/or by identifying users that have sent or received information that is included in the contextual hub. Based on identifying related users or users associated with the contextual hub, the contextual hub system 116 can determine to include information from third-party sources based on an association with the related users. For instance, the Contextual hub system 116 can include content from a third- party source based on determining that a link to the content was sent by or sent to a collaborating user of the contextual hub. In another example, the Contextual hub system 116 identifies a contact that is associated with an email that the user added to the contextual hub. The Contextual hub system 116 identifies content from third-party sources that is associated with the ‘content.Math’. for instance, the contextual system can identify links to emails, instant messages, documents, links, or other content that the contact has sent to, received from, or collaborated with the user) ( [pg. 180, L 15 – pg. 181, L5] e.g., As part of generating a contextual model, the contextual hub system 116 can identify collaborating users within a contextual hub. As illustrated in FIG. 14A, the contextual hub management graphical user interface 1404 includes a collaborating users elements 1414. The collaborating users elements 1414 indicates collaborating users within the contextual hub 1416. The contextual hub management graphical user interface 1404 may further indicate collaborating users via a collaborating users indicators 1418. As mentioned, the contextual hub system 116 can identify related content based on collaborating users listed within the collaborating users elements 1414.) ([Fig. 16] e.g., ‘Associate a Contextual Hub with User Accounts Associated with Client Devices’_1602) ( [pg. 217, L 2 – pg. 218, L1] [Fig. 17a]; e.g., The contextual hub management graphical user interface 1704 displays information relating to a contextual hub 1710. For instance, the contextual hub management graphical user interface 1704 includes a group space 2261, a private space 1714, a group history 1706, and a private history 1708. The contextual hub system 116 also presents collaborating users element 1716 to indicate the identity of users collaborating users within the contextual hub. As illustrated in FIG. 17A, the contextual hub system 116 provides the identities of collaborating users within the contextual hub via the collaborating users element 1716 and the listed collaborating users element 1726. As mentioned previously, the contextual hub system 116 can associate a contextual hub with one or more users. More specifically, the contextual hub system 116 may designate one or more additional users as collaborating users within a contextual hub..)
Arnold and Pearl in view of Smith in view of Lee are considered analogous art because they involve shared workspaces. Pearl shows a shared workspace that includes files and folders. Lee shows that a separate discussion workspace may also be created. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Pearl in view of Smith in view of Lee to incorporate the teachings of Arnold wherein the collaboration for the content hub is defined separate from any collaborations between the plurality of users defined in workspaces of the cloud- based collaboration environment and wherein the defined collaboration for the content hub identifies the plurality of users as collaborators within the content hub. Doing so provides for more user access control to the discussions and content to the workspaces of the collaboration hub.
Regarding claim 20, this medium claim comprises limitations substantially the same as those detailed in claims 6-9 above and is accordingly rejected on the same basis.
Conclusion
Applicant’s amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office Action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP 706.06(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 mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to GLENFORD J MADAMBA whose telephone number is (571)272-7989. The examiner can normally be reached on Mondays to Fridays, 9am-5pm.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Christopher Parry can be reached on 571-272-8328. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 703-872-9306.
Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free).
/GLENFORD J MADAMBA/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2451
