DETAILED ACTION
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 .
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on 03/24/2026 has been entered.
Claim Status
Claims 1-15, 18-22 are pending.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claims 1-15, 18-22 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.
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 1-6, 8-15, 18-22 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more. The following is Examiner's analysis of the claimed invention under the 2019 Revised Patent Subject Matter Eligibility Guidance (PEG)
STEP 1 ls the claim to a Process, Machine, Manufacture or Composition of matter? Yes. Claim 1 recites a machine (system), claim 11 recites a process (method), claim 20 recites a manufacture (non-transitory computer-readable media).
STEP2A Prong one: Does The Claim Recite An Abstract Idea, Law Of Nature, or Natural Phenomenon? Yes. Claim 1 (and similar claims 11 and 20) recites “generate a first profile for the first individual based upon the input” which falls within the mental processes grouping of abstract ideas. The BRI of “generating a profile” covers performance of the limitation in the mind; therefore, the claim recites an abstract idea.
Claim 1 (and similar claims 11 and 20) recites “perform a lookup in the at least one memory device for electronic documents linked to the first profile based upon the request; and cause at least the one or more electronic documents and the further electronic document to be displayed by the user computing device based upon the lookup identifying the one or more linking data files and the further linking data file” which falls within the certain methods of organizing human activity grouping if abstract ideas. The step of “looking up a document based on a request” is filtering content; therefore, the claim recites an abstract idea.
STEP2A Prong two: Does The Claim Recite Additional Elements That Integrate The Judicial Exception Into A Practical Application? No. Claim 1 recites “a computer system for multimedia document relational storage and retrieval based upon linking electronic documents, the computer system comprising at least one processor in communication with at least one memory device, wherein the at least one processor is programmed to” which amounts to merely including instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer.
Claim 11 recites “a computer-implemented method for multimedia document relational storage and retrieval based upon linking electronic documents, the computer- implemented method performed by a data storage and access (DSA) computer device including at least one processor in communication with at least one memory device, the computer-implemented method comprising” which amounts to merely including instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer.
Claim 20 recites “at least one non-transitory computer-readable media having computer-executable instructions embodied thereon for multimedia document relational storage and retrieval based upon linking electronic documents, wherein when executed by a computing device including at least one processor in communication with at least one memory device, the computer-executable instructions cause the at least one processor to” which amounts to merely including instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer.
Claim 1 (and similar claims 11 and 20) recites “for one or more electronic documents of a plurality of electronic documents stored in the at least one memory device, receive an input from a user computing device associated with a first individual indicating that the first individual is associated with the one or more electronic documents” which is mere necessary data gathering.
Claim 1 (and similar claims 11 and 20) recites “in the at least one memory device” which amounts to merely including instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer.
Claim 1 (and similar claims 11 and 20) recites “electronically link the one or more electronic documents to the first profile by storing one or more linking data files linking the one or more electronic documents to the first profile in the at least one memory device; receive a further electronic document associated with the first individual from the user computing device; electronically link the further electronic document to the first profile in the at least one memory device by storing a further linking data file linking the further electronic document to the first profile in the at least one memory device; receive a request for information associated with the first individual from the user computing device” which is mere necessary data gathering because all uses of the recited judicial exception require such data gathering or data output.
Step 2B: Does the claim recite additional elements that amount to significantly more than the judicial exception? No. The courts have determined merely including instructions to implement the abstract idea on a computer does not qualify as “significantly more” when recited in a claim with a judicial exception (See Alice Corp., 573 U.S. at 225-26, 110 USPQ2d at 1984).
The courts have determined merely indicating a field of use in which to apply a judicial exception does not amount to significantly more than the judicial exception (see Diamond v. Diehr, 450 U.S. 175, 192 n.14, 209 USPQ 1, 10 n. 14 (1981)).
There is no indication that the elements of the claim, individually nor in combination, integrate the judicial exception into a practical application or amount to significantly more than the judicial exception.
For the reasons above, claims 1, 11, and 20 are rejected as being directed to nonpatentable subject matter under §101. This rejection applies equally to the dependent claims (except claim 7). The additional limitations of the dependent claims are addressed briefly below:
Regarding claim 2
STEP 1 ls the claim to a Process, Machine, Manufacture or Composition of matter? Yes. The claim recites a machine (system).
STEP2A Prong one: Does The Claim Recite An Abstract Idea, Law Of Nature, or Natural Phenomenon? Yes. The claim inherits the abstract idea of the parent claim.
STEP2A Prong two: Does The Claim Recite Additional Elements That Integrate The Judicial Exception Into A Practical Application? No. The claim recites “wherein the at least one processor is further programmed to: receive an indication that a first electronic document is associated with the first individual and a second individual; and associate the first electronic document with the first profile and a second profile associated with the second individual” which is mere necessary data gathering.
Step 2B: Does the claim recite additional elements that amount to significantly more than the judicial exception? No. The courts have determined mere data gathering to not be enough to qualify as “significantly more” when recited in a claim with a judicial exception (See CyberSource v. Retail Decisions, Inc., 654 F.3d 1366, 1375, 99 USPQ2d 1690, 1694 (Fed. Cir. 2011)).
Regarding claim 3
STEP 1 ls the claim to a Process, Machine, Manufacture or Composition of matter? Yes. The claim recites a machine (system).
STEP2A Prong one: Does The Claim Recite An Abstract Idea, Law Of Nature, or Natural Phenomenon? Yes. The claim inherits the abstract idea of the parent claim.
STEP2A Prong two: Does The Claim Recite Additional Elements That Integrate The Judicial Exception Into A Practical Application? No. The claim recites “wherein the at least one processor is further programmed to: analyze a second electronic document to detect a potential association with the first individual; and add the second electronic document to the first profile based on the potential association” which is mere necessary data gathering.
Step 2B: Does the claim recite additional elements that amount to significantly more than the judicial exception? No. The courts have determined mere data gathering to not be enough to qualify as “significantly more” when recited in a claim with a judicial exception (See CyberSource v. Retail Decisions, Inc., 654 F.3d 1366, 1375, 99 USPQ2d 1690, 1694 (Fed. Cir. 2011)).
Regarding claim 4
STEP 1 ls the claim to a Process, Machine, Manufacture or Composition of matter? Yes. The claim recites a machine (system).
STEP2A Prong one: Does The Claim Recite An Abstract Idea, Law Of Nature, or Natural Phenomenon? Yes. The claim inherits the abstract idea of the parent claim.
STEP2A Prong two: Does The Claim Recite Additional Elements That Integrate The Judicial Exception Into A Practical Application? No. The claim recites “wherein the plurality of electronic documents includes one or more of images, text files, audio files, video files, or scan files” which is mere necessary data gathering.
Step 2B: Does the claim recite additional elements that amount to significantly more than the judicial exception? No. The courts have determined mere data gathering to not be enough to qualify as “significantly more” when recited in a claim with a judicial exception (See CyberSource v. Retail Decisions, Inc., 654 F.3d 1366, 1375, 99 USPQ2d 1690, 1694 (Fed. Cir. 2011)).
Regarding claim 5
STEP 1 ls the claim to a Process, Machine, Manufacture or Composition of matter? Yes. The claim recites a machine (system).
STEP2A Prong one: Does The Claim Recite An Abstract Idea, Law Of Nature, or Natural Phenomenon? Yes. The claim inherits the abstract idea of the parent claim.
STEP2A Prong two: Does The Claim Recite Additional Elements That Integrate The Judicial Exception Into A Practical Application? No. The claim recites “wherein the one or more electronic documents of the plurality of electronic documents are secure electronic documents” which is mere necessary data gathering.
Step 2B: Does the claim recite additional elements that amount to significantly more than the judicial exception? No. The courts have determined mere data gathering to not be enough to qualify as “significantly more” when recited in a claim with a judicial exception (See CyberSource v. Retail Decisions, Inc., 654 F.3d 1366, 1375, 99 USPQ2d 1690, 1694 (Fed. Cir. 2011)).
Regarding claim 6
STEP 1 ls the claim to a Process, Machine, Manufacture or Composition of matter? Yes. The claim recites a machine (system).
STEP2A Prong one: Does The Claim Recite An Abstract Idea, Law Of Nature, or Natural Phenomenon? Yes. The claim inherits the abstract idea of the parent claim.
STEP2A Prong two: Does The Claim Recite Additional Elements That Integrate The Judicial Exception Into A Practical Application? No. The claim recites “wherein the secure electronic documents include one or more of wills, bank account information, insurance policies, birth certificates, death certificates, baptism documents, marriage certificates, or diplomas” which is mere necessary data gathering.
Step 2B: Does the claim recite additional elements that amount to significantly more than the judicial exception? No. The courts have determined mere data gathering to not be enough to qualify as “significantly more” when recited in a claim with a judicial exception (See CyberSource v. Retail Decisions, Inc., 654 F.3d 1366, 1375, 99 USPQ2d 1690, 1694 (Fed. Cir. 2011)).
Regarding claim 7
STEP 1 ls the claim to a Process, Machine, Manufacture or Composition of matter? Yes. The claim recites a machine (system).
STEP2A Prong one: Does The Claim Recite An Abstract Idea, Law Of Nature, or Natural Phenomenon? Yes. The claim inherits the abstract idea of the parent claim.
STEP2A Prong two: Does The Claim Recite Additional Elements That Integrate The Judicial Exception Into A Practical Application? Yes. The claim recites “wherein each user is associated with an access level and wherein the at least one processor is further programmed to validate the access level of the first individual before granting access to the secure electronic documents” which recites an improvement to technology.
Regarding claim 8
STEP 1 ls the claim to a Process, Machine, Manufacture or Composition of matter? Yes. The claim recites a machine (system).
STEP2A Prong one: Does The Claim Recite An Abstract Idea, Law Of Nature, or Natural Phenomenon? Yes. The claim inherits the abstract idea of the parent claim.
STEP2A Prong two: Does The Claim Recite Additional Elements That Integrate The Judicial Exception Into A Practical Application? No. The claim recites “wherein the at least one processor is further programmed to store a plurality of profiles for a plurality of individuals including associations with the plurality of electronic documents” which is mere necessary data gathering.
Step 2B: Does the claim recite additional elements that amount to significantly more than the judicial exception? No. The courts have determined mere data gathering to not be enough to qualify as “significantly more” when recited in a claim with a judicial exception (See CyberSource v. Retail Decisions, Inc., 654 F.3d 1366, 1375, 99 USPQ2d 1690, 1694 (Fed. Cir. 2011)).
Regarding claim 9
STEP 1 ls the claim to a Process, Machine, Manufacture or Composition of matter? Yes. The claim recites a machine (system).
STEP2A Prong one: Does The Claim Recite An Abstract Idea, Law Of Nature, or Natural Phenomenon? Yes. The claim recites “wherein the at least one processor is further programmed to: store a plurality of attributes for each electronic document of the plurality of electronic documents; receive a request including at least one attribute of the plurality of attributes; and filter the plurality of electronic documents based on the at least one attribute in the request” which is content filtering.
STEP2A Prong two: Does The Claim Recite Additional Elements That Integrate The Judicial Exception Into A Practical Application? No. There is no indication that the elements of the claim
integrate the judicial exception into a practical application.
Step 2B: Does the claim recite additional elements that amount to significantly more than the judicial exception? No. The courts have determined mere data gathering to not be enough to qualify as “significantly more” when recited in a claim with a judicial exception (See CyberSource v. Retail Decisions, Inc., 654 F.3d 1366, 1375, 99 USPQ2d 1690, 1694 (Fed. Cir. 2011)).
Regarding claim 10
STEP 1 ls the claim to a Process, Machine, Manufacture or Composition of matter? Yes. The claim recites a machine (system).
STEP2A Prong one: Does The Claim Recite An Abstract Idea, Law Of Nature, or Natural Phenomenon? Yes. The claim inherits the abstract idea of the parent claim.
STEP2A Prong two: Does The Claim Recite Additional Elements That Integrate The Judicial Exception Into A Practical Application? No. The claim recites “wherein the at least one processor is further programmed to generate an album of electronic documents associated with the first individual” which is mere necessary data gathering.
Step 2B: Does the claim recite additional elements that amount to significantly more than the judicial exception? No. The courts have determined mere data gathering to not be enough to qualify as “significantly more” when recited in a claim with a judicial exception (See CyberSource v. Retail Decisions, Inc., 654 F.3d 1366, 1375, 99 USPQ2d 1690, 1694 (Fed. Cir. 2011)).
Regarding claim 12
STEP 1 ls the claim to a Process, Machine, Manufacture or Composition of matter? Yes. The claim recites a process (method).
STEP2A Prong one: Does The Claim Recite An Abstract Idea, Law Of Nature, or Natural Phenomenon? Yes. The claim inherits the abstract idea of the parent claim.
STEP2A Prong two: Does The Claim Recite Additional Elements That Integrate The Judicial Exception Into A Practical Application? No. The claim recites “receiving an indication that a first electronic document is associated with the first individual and a second individual; and associating the first electronic document with the first profile and a second profile associated with the second individual” which is mere necessary data gathering.
Step 2B: Does the claim recite additional elements that amount to significantly more than the judicial exception? No. The courts have determined mere data gathering to not be enough to qualify as “significantly more” when recited in a claim with a judicial exception (See CyberSource v. Retail Decisions, Inc., 654 F.3d 1366, 1375, 99 USPQ2d 1690, 1694 (Fed. Cir. 2011)).
Regarding claim 13
STEP 1 ls the claim to a Process, Machine, Manufacture or Composition of matter? Yes. The claim recites a process (method).
STEP2A Prong one: Does The Claim Recite An Abstract Idea, Law Of Nature, or Natural Phenomenon? Yes. The claim inherits the abstract idea of the parent claim.
STEP2A Prong two: Does The Claim Recite Additional Elements That Integrate The Judicial Exception Into A Practical Application? No. The claim recites “analyzing a second electronic document to detect a potential association with the first individual; and adding the second electronic document to the first profile based on the potential association” which is mere necessary data gathering.
Step 2B: Does the claim recite additional elements that amount to significantly more than the judicial exception? No. The courts have determined mere data gathering to not be enough to qualify as “significantly more” when recited in a claim with a judicial exception (See CyberSource v. Retail Decisions, Inc., 654 F.3d 1366, 1375, 99 USPQ2d 1690, 1694 (Fed. Cir. 2011)).
Regarding claim 14
STEP 1 ls the claim to a Process, Machine, Manufacture or Composition of matter? Yes. The claim recites a process (method).
STEP2A Prong one: Does The Claim Recite An Abstract Idea, Law Of Nature, or Natural Phenomenon? Yes. The claim inherits the abstract idea of the parent claim.
STEP2A Prong two: Does The Claim Recite Additional Elements That Integrate The Judicial Exception Into A Practical Application? No. The claim recites “wherein the plurality of electronic documents includes one or more of images, text files, audio files, video files, or scan files” which is mere necessary data gathering.
Step 2B: Does the claim recite additional elements that amount to significantly more than the judicial exception? No. The courts have determined mere data gathering to not be enough to qualify as “significantly more” when recited in a claim with a judicial exception (See CyberSource v. Retail Decisions, Inc., 654 F.3d 1366, 1375, 99 USPQ2d 1690, 1694 (Fed. Cir. 2011)).
Regarding claim 15
STEP 1 ls the claim to a Process, Machine, Manufacture or Composition of matter? Yes. The claim recites a process (method).
STEP2A Prong one: Does The Claim Recite An Abstract Idea, Law Of Nature, or Natural Phenomenon? Yes. The claim inherits the abstract idea of the parent claim.
STEP2A Prong two: Does The Claim Recite Additional Elements That Integrate The Judicial Exception Into A Practical Application? No. The claim recites “wherein the one or more electronic documents of the plurality of electronic documents are secure electronic documents” which is mere necessary data gathering.
Step 2B: Does the claim recite additional elements that amount to significantly more than the judicial exception? No. The courts have determined mere data gathering to not be enough to qualify as “significantly more” when recited in a claim with a judicial exception (See CyberSource v. Retail Decisions, Inc., 654 F.3d 1366, 1375, 99 USPQ2d 1690, 1694 (Fed. Cir. 2011)).
Regarding claim 18
STEP 1 ls the claim to a Process, Machine, Manufacture or Composition of matter? Yes. The claim recites a process (method).
STEP2A Prong one: Does The Claim Recite An Abstract Idea, Law Of Nature, or Natural Phenomenon? Yes. The claim inherits the abstract idea of the parent claim.
STEP2A Prong two: Does The Claim Recite Additional Elements That Integrate The Judicial Exception Into A Practical Application? No. The claim recites “further comprising storing a plurality of profiles for a plurality of individuals including associations with the plurality of electronic documents” which is mere necessary data gathering.
Step 2B: Does the claim recite additional elements that amount to significantly more than the judicial exception? No. The courts have determined mere data gathering to not be enough to qualify as “significantly more” when recited in a claim with a judicial exception (See CyberSource v. Retail Decisions, Inc., 654 F.3d 1366, 1375, 99 USPQ2d 1690, 1694 (Fed. Cir. 2011)).
Regarding claim 19
STEP 1 ls the claim to a Process, Machine, Manufacture or Composition of matter? Yes. The claim recites a process (method).
STEP2A Prong one: Does The Claim Recite An Abstract Idea, Law Of Nature, or Natural Phenomenon? Yes. The claim inherits the abstract idea of the parent claim.
STEP2A Prong two: Does The Claim Recite Additional Elements That Integrate The Judicial Exception Into A Practical Application? No. The claim recites “storing a plurality of attributes for each electronic document of the plurality of electronic documents; receiving a request including at least one attribute of the plurality of attributes; and filtering the plurality of electronic documents based on the at least one attribute in the request” which is mere necessary data gathering.
Step 2B: Does the claim recite additional elements that amount to significantly more than the judicial exception? No. The courts have determined mere data gathering to not be enough to qualify as “significantly more” when recited in a claim with a judicial exception (See CyberSource v. Retail Decisions, Inc., 654 F.3d 1366, 1375, 99 USPQ2d 1690, 1694 (Fed. Cir. 2011)).
Regarding claim 21
STEP 1 ls the claim to a Process, Machine, Manufacture or Composition of matter? Yes. The claim recites a machine (system).
STEP2A Prong one: Does The Claim Recite An Abstract Idea, Law Of Nature, or Natural Phenomenon? Yes. The claim inherits the abstract idea of the parent claim.
STEP2A Prong two: Does The Claim Recite Additional Elements That Integrate The Judicial Exception Into A Practical Application? No. The claim recites “wherein the one or more linking data files comprise metadata added to the one or more electronic documents, and wherein the further linking data file comprises further metadata added to the further electronic document” which is mere necessary data gathering.
Step 2B: Does the claim recite additional elements that amount to significantly more than the judicial exception? No. The courts have determined mere data gathering to not be enough to qualify as “significantly more” when recited in a claim with a judicial exception (See CyberSource v. Retail Decisions, Inc., 654 F.3d 1366, 1375, 99 USPQ2d 1690, 1694 (Fed. Cir. 2011)).
Regarding claim 22
STEP 1 ls the claim to a Process, Machine, Manufacture or Composition of matter? Yes. The claim recites a machine (system).
STEP2A Prong one: Does The Claim Recite An Abstract Idea, Law Of Nature, or Natural Phenomenon? Yes. The claim inherits the abstract idea of the parent claim.
STEP2A Prong two: Does The Claim Recite Additional Elements That Integrate The Judicial Exception Into A Practical Application? No. The claim recites “wherein the one or more linking data files are stored separately from the one or more electronic documents, and wherein the further linking data file is stored separately from the further electronic document” which is mere necessary data gathering.
Step 2B: Does the claim recite additional elements that amount to significantly more than the judicial exception? No. The courts have determined mere data gathering to not be enough to qualify as “significantly more” when recited in a claim with a judicial exception (See CyberSource v. Retail Decisions, Inc., 654 F.3d 1366, 1375, 99 USPQ2d 1690, 1694 (Fed. Cir. 2011)).
Taken alone, the additional elements of the dependent claims (except claim 7) do not amount to significantly more than the above-identified judicial exception (the abstract idea). Looking at the limitations as an ordered combination adds nothing that is not already present when looking at the elements taken individually. There is no indication that the combination of elements improves the functioning of a computer or improves any other technology. Their collective functions merely provide conventional computer implementation.
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, 4, 8-11, 14, and 18- 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Gutta et al (US 20070022440 A1) hereafter Gutta in view of Trenz et al (US 20100306708 A1) hereafter Trenz
Regarding claim 1, Gutta teaches a computer system for multimedia document relational storage and retrieval based upon linking electronic documents, the computer system comprising at least one processor in communication with at least one memory device, wherein the at least one processor is programmed to: for one or more electronic documents of a plurality of electronic documents stored in the at least one memory device, receive an input from a user computing device associated with a first individual indicating that the first individual is associated with the one or more electronic documents (Para 0008, retrieving at least one video clip associated with the at least one keyword resulting from the searching); generate a first profile for the first individual in the at least one memory device based upon the input (Para 0037, a user profile is generated based at least in part on the extracted key frames and EPG information); receive a further electronic document associated with the first individual from the user computing device (Para 0033, The user interface 300 is equipped with a search engine that searches a remote database and/or a remote network, such as the Internet for video clips representative of the title ); receive a request for information associated with the first individual from the user computing device (Para 0029, The user interface prompts a user for feedback on at least one preference for generating a recommendation); perform a lookup in the at least one memory device for electronic documents linked to the first profile based upon the request (Para 0029, As discussed above, some types of recommenders use feedback from a user to help in generating a recommendation for video or other content); and cause at least the one or more electronic documents and the further electronic document to be displayed by the user computing device based upon the lookup identifying the one or more linking data files and the further linking data file (Para 0029, Generally, a user interface, referred to in FIG. 2 by reference numeral 200, is generated and viewed on the screen 118 of the display 104 under control of the processor 108).
Gutta does not appear to explicitly teach electronically link the one or more electronic documents to the first profile by storing one or more linking data files linking the one or more electronic documents to the first profile in the at least one memory device; electronically link the further electronic document to the first profile in the at least one memory device by storing a further linking data file linking the further electronic document to the first profile in the at least one memory device.
In analogous art, Trenz teaches electronically link the one or more electronic documents to the first profile by storing one or more linking data files linking the one or more electronic documents to the first profile in the at least one memory device (Para 0003, interactive hub-and-spoke arrangements are provided which visually link user profiles to media assets); electronically link the further electronic document to the first profile in the at least one memory device by storing a further linking data file linking the further electronic document to the first profile in the at least one memory device (Para 0003, interactive hub-and-spoke arrangements are provided which visually link user profiles to media assets) (“media assets” teaches “further electronic document”). It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Gutta to include the teaching of Trenz. One of ordinary skill in the art would be motivated to implement this modification in order to recommend content, as taught by Trenz (Para 0081, Alternatively or in addition, processing circuitry may extract characteristics of the selected media asset and recommend or provide other media assets to the user in which the user may have an interest).
Regarding claim 4, Gutta in view of Trenz teaches the computer system of Claim 1, wherein the plurality of electronic documents includes one or more of images, text files, audio files, video files, or scan files (Gutta, Para 0027, The recommender 110, alternatively referred to as a recommender engine, generates recommendations for video content, such as television program).
Regarding claim 8, Gutta in view of Trenz teaches the computer system of Claim 1, wherein the at least one processor is further programmed to store a plurality of profiles for a plurality of individuals including associations with the plurality of electronic documents (Gutta, Para 0014, In which case the recommender can generate a user profile based at least in part on the preference information and generates the recommendation based at least in part on the user profile).
Regarding claim 9, Gutta in view of Trenz teaches the computer system of Claim 1, wherein the at least one processor is further programmed to: store a plurality of attributes for each document of the plurality of electronic documents; receive a request including at least one attribute of the plurality of attributes; and filter the plurality of electronic documents based on the at least one attribute in the request (Gutta, Para 0027, The recommender 110, alternatively referred to as a recommender engine, generates recommendations for video content, such as television program, or other content in response to user feedback and/or viewing habits of a user.).
Regarding claim 10, Gutta in view of Trenz teaches the computer system of Claim 1, wherein the at least one processor is further programmed to generate an album of electronic documents associated with the first individual (Gutta, Para 0009, The generating of the preference information from the at least one video clip).
Claim 11 is the device claim corresponding to the system claim 1, and is analyzed and rejected accordingly.
Claim 14 is the method claim corresponding to the system claim 4, and is analyzed and rejected accordingly.
Claim 18 is the method claim corresponding to the system claim 8, and is analyzed and rejected accordingly.
Claim 19 is the method claim corresponding to the system claim 9, and is analyzed and rejected accordingly.
Claim 20 is the media claim corresponding to the system claim 1, and is analyzed and rejected accordingly.
Claims 2, 3, 5, 6, 7, 12, 13, and 15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Gutta in view of Trenz in view of Dweck et al (WO 03038675 A1) hereafter Dweck.
Regarding claim 2, Gutta in view of Trenz teaches the computer system of Claim 1, as shown above. Gutta in view of Trenz does not appear to explicitly teach wherein the at least one processor is further programmed to: receive an indication that a first electronic document is associated with the first individual and a second individual; and associate the first electronic document with the first profile and a second profile associated with the second individual.
In analogous art, Dweck teaches wherein the at least one processor is further programmed to: receive an indication that a first electronic document is associated with the first individual and a second individual; and associate the first electronic document with the first profile and a second profile associated with the second individual (Page 8 lines 2-4, The content controller 900 also transmits documents to content readers 20 in response to a customer's request or a pre-defined customer preference). It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Gutta in view of Trenz to include the teaching of Dweck. One of ordinary skill in the art would be motivated to implement this modification in order to facilitate access to documents, as taught by Dweck (Page 1 lines 9-10, The present invention relates to systems and methods for facilitating access to documents).
Regarding claim 3, Gutta in view of Trenz teaches the computer system of Claim 1, as shown above. Gutta in view of Trenz does not appear to explicitly teach wherein the at least one processor is further programmed to: analyze a second electronic document to detect a potential association with the first individual; and add the second electronic document to the first profile based on the potential association.
In analogous art, Dweck teaches wherein the at least one processor is further programmed to: analyze a second document to detect a potential association with the first individual; and add the second document to the first profile based on the potential association(Page 8 lines 2-4, The content controller 900 also transmits documents to content readers 20 in response to a customer's request or a pre-defined customer preference). It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Gutta in view of Trenz to include the teaching of Dweck. One of ordinary skill in the art would be motivated to implement this modification in order to facilitate access to documents, as taught by Dweck (Page 1 lines 9-10, The present invention relates to systems and methods for facilitating access to documents).
Regarding claim 5, Gutta in view of Trenz teaches the computer system of Claim 1, as shown above. Gutta in view of Trenz does not appear to explicitly teach wherein one or more electronic documents of the plurality of electronic documents are secure electronic documents.
In analogous art, Dweck teaches wherein one or more electronic documents of the plurality of documents are secure electronic documents (Page 10 lines 3-6, For example, a tag may indicate that a document is related to a security instrument). It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Gutta in view of Trenz to include the teaching of Dweck. One of ordinary skill in the art would be motivated to implement this modification in order to facilitate access to documents, as taught by Dweck (Page 1 lines 9-10, The present invention relates to systems and methods for facilitating access to documents).
Regarding claim 6, Gutta in view of Trenz in view of Dweck further teaches the computer system of Claim 5, wherein the secure electronic documents include one or more of wills, bank account information, insurance policies, birth certificates, death certificates, baptism documents, marriage certificates, or diplomas (Deck, Page 8 lines 14-16, a content reader 20 interested in having access to enhanced information may 15 provide a monthly subscription payment via a payment identifier such as a credit card, debit card, or bank account number .or digital payment protocol information). It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Gutta in view of Trenz to include the teaching of Dweck. One of ordinary skill in the art would be motivated to implement this modification in order to facilitate access to documents, as taught by Dweck (Page 1 lines 9-10, The present invention relates to systems and methods for facilitating access to documents).
Regarding claim 7, Gutta in view of Trenz in view of Dweck teaches the computer system of Claim 5, wherein each user is associated with an access level and wherein the at least one processor is further programmed to validate the access level of the first individual before granting access to the one or more secure electronic documents (Dweck, Page 19 lines 7-8, when the content reader 20 provides a user name and password during a registration process). It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Gutta in view of Trenz to include the teaching of Dweck. One of ordinary skill in the art would be motivated to implement this modification in order to facilitate access to documents, as taught by Dweck (Page 1 lines 9-10, The present invention relates to systems and methods for facilitating access to documents).
Claim 12 is the method claim corresponding to the system claim 2, and is analyzed and rejected accordingly.
Claim 13 is the method claim corresponding to the system claim 3, and is analyzed and rejected accordingly.
Claim 15 is the method claim corresponding to the system claim 5, and is analyzed and rejected accordingly.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Brooks Hale whose telephone number is 571-272-0160. The examiner can normally be reached 9am to 5pm est.
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, Sanjiv Shah can be reached on (571) 272-4098. 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.
/B.T.H./Examiner, Art Unit 2166
/SANJIV SHAH/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2166
Prosecution Insights