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 .
This Office Action is in response to the application 18/677385 filed on 05/29/2024.
Claims 1-20 have been examined and are pending in this application.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102 of this title, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claims 1-2, 5-8, 10-13, 16-17 and 19-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over LOPEZ-URICOECHEA et al. (“Lopez,” US 2018/0343261) in view of Klebe (US 7373330).
Regarding claim 1: Lopez discloses a method, comprising:
receiving, by a publishing computer program, content from a user electronic device (Lopez: par. 0038 method 350 begins at block 352 where a user of a data storage system identifies one or more items to be shared with an external user);
saving, by the publishing computer program, the content to a secure site (Lopez: par. 0034 data store 110 is shown as a single data store that is local to data storage provider 100 [] data store 110 illustratively stores a number of electronic files 120 within folders 122);
communicating, by the publishing computer program, a first message to a plurality of recipients, wherein the first message comprises a link to the content on the secure site (Lopez: par. 0039 the data storage system will generate a link using link generator 109, as indicated at block 364. While the link may be communicated to the recipient of the sharing operation in any suitable form [] generally proceeds to automatically send an electronic communication containing the link to the recipient);
sending, by the publishing computer program, a second message to each of the plurality of recipients with an authentication code (Lopez: par. 0039 data storage system 100, using messaging system 108, or other suitable messaging functionality, generates an access code communication to the recipient of the sharing link, as indicated at block 370);
receiving, by the publishing computer program, an access by a recipient electronic device for one of the plurality of recipients (Lopez: par. 0039 when the recipient receives the sharing link, they may actuate the link in order to access the electronic content. When the link is actuated, the data storage system will receive a link request, typically in the form of an HTTP request, as indicated at block 368);
prompting, by the publishing computer program, the one recipient for the authentication code (Lopez: par. 0039 the data storage system receives a code via user interface component 104 from the recipient of the sharing link);
presenting, by the publishing computer program, the content to the one recipient (Lopez: par. 0039 if the code is received within the requisite time, and matches the code sent to the recipient, block 374 will pass control to block 376 where the recipient of the sharing link is granted access to the item(s) of electronic content).
Lopez does not explicitly disclose collecting, by a metrics collecting computer program, metrics for recipient interaction with the content and making available, by the metrics collecting computer program, the metrics to the user electronic device.
However, Klebe discloses collecting, by a metrics collecting computer program, metrics for recipient interaction with the content (Klebe: col. 4 lines 52-57 the metrics content server 214 provides access to the publisher's content stored in database 230. It also creates a log file 216 that records various user activities, including login to the system, registration, creation of a user profile and the reading and printing of selected content); and
making available, by the metrics collecting computer program, the metrics to the user electronic device (Klebe: col. 4 lines 58-60 the contents of log file 216 can be extracted and formatted by a metrics reporting server 218 and provided to a reporting client 222 as indicated).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the teachings of Klebe with the system/method of Lopez to include collecting, by a metrics collecting computer program, metrics for recipient interaction with the content. One would have been motivated to publishing of digital content and methods and systems for tracking and controlling the forwarding of encrypted documents by users via email (Klebe: col. 1 lines 8-11).
Regarding claim 2: Lopez in view of Klebe discloses the method of claim 1.
Lopez further discloses receiving, by the publishing computer program, contact information for the plurality of recipients (Lopez: par. 0022 generate a significant number of access authentication e-mails to known e-mail addresses of external sharees).
Regarding claim 5: Lopez in view of Klebe discloses the method of claim 1.
Klebe further discloses wherein the metrics comprise a time spent on a portion of the content (Klebe: col. 15 lines 8-14 the logging apparatus 1700 uses a signature generator 1720 to generate a message authentication code (MAC) 1718 based on the [] the timestamp 1716 of the current log record).
The motivation is the same that of claim 1 above.
Regarding claim 6: Lopez in view of Klebe discloses the method of claim 1.
Klebe further discloses wherein the metrics comprise an interaction with a portion of the content (Klebe: fig. 12, col. 14 lines 57-61 the client site server 1204 logs all client activity that occurs at the customer site in a plaintext log file 1240 [] such activity could include accessing and opening a document, selecting a document, searching or printing a document).
The motivation is the same that of claim 1 above.
Regarding claim 7: Lopez in view of Klebe discloses the method of claim 1.
Klebe further discloses wherein the metrics comprise shares of a portion of the content (Klebe: col. 5 lines 12-16 the metrics publishing tool encrypts documents for distribution via the distribution system).
The motivation is the same that of claim 1 above.
Regarding claim 8: Lopez in view of Klebe discloses the method of claim 1.
Lopez further discloses modifying, by the computer program, the content for the one recipient based on prior metrics for the one recipient (Lopez: par. 0038 the sharer of the selected item(s) of electronic content may set one or more permissions relative to allowed activities that the recipient of the sharing operation can perform on the selected item(s) of content. Examples of activities include reading, modifying, deleting, etc.).
Regarding claim 10: Lopez in view of Klebe discloses the method of claim 1.
Klebe further discloses identifying, by the computer program, information of interest to the one recipient based on the metrics (Klebe: col. 16 lines 55-60 a document identifier is computed by the metrics server 2206 at the application service provider site 2204 from the encrypted content and stored with a decryption key. Users 2200 and 2202 interested in receiving the content log into the metrics server 2206 at the application service provider site 2204);
retrieving, by the computer program, additional information based on the information of interest (Klebe: col. 16 lines 62-65 the metrics server 2206 retrieves user information and profiles from the metrics user database 2212 located at the application service provider site 2204 and uses this information to log in the users); and
communicating, by the computer program, a third message comprising the additional information (Klebe: col. 17 lines 6-10 the viewer then computes a document identifier from the encrypted document content and uses the identifier to request a key from the server 2206 in order to decrypt the document. The key is forwarded from the server 2206 to the viewer).
The motivation is the same that of claim 1 above.
Regarding claim 11: Lopez in view of Klebe discloses the method of claim 1.
Klebe further discloses maintaining, by the computer program, an audit trail for the content based on the metrics (Klebe: col. 12 lines 16-20 the content preparation process starts in step 1300 and proceeds to step 1302 where the publishing tool examines each file in the content directories, or in the compressed content file archive in a location specified in the customer configuration file), wherein the metrics identify additional recipients that received or viewed the content via the one recipient (Klebe: col. 15 lines 48-52 the process begins when a user logged into a customer site server (for example server 1204, FIG. 12) at a customer site 1900 uses the metrics viewer operating in his browser to send an e-mail to another user in order to "forward" a selected content document).
The motivation is the same that of claim 1 above.
Regarding claim 12: Lopez discloses a non-transitory computer readable storage medium, including instructions stored thereon, which when read and executed by one or more computer processors (Lopez: fig. 6 item 17 processor), cause the one or more computer processors to perform steps comprising:
receiving content from a user electronic device (Lopez: par. 0038 method 350 begins at block 352 where a user of a data storage system identifies one or more items to be shared with an external user);
saving the content to a secure site (Lopez: par. 0034 data store 110 is shown as a single data store that is local to data storage provider 100 [] data store 110 illustratively stores a number of electronic files 120 within folders 122);
communicating a first message to a plurality of recipients, wherein the first message comprises a link to the content on the secure site (Lopez: par. 0039 the data storage system will generate a link using link generator 109, as indicated at block 364. While the link may be communicated to the recipient of the sharing operation in any suitable form [] generally proceeds to automatically send an electronic communication containing the link to the recipient);
sending a second message to each of the plurality of recipients with an authentication code (Lopez: par. 0039 data storage system 100, using messaging system 108, or other suitable messaging functionality, generates an access code communication to the recipient of the sharing link, as indicated at block 370);
receiving an access by a recipient electronic device for one of the plurality of recipients (Lopez: par. 0039 when the recipient receives the sharing link, they may actuate the link in order to access the electronic content. When the link is actuated, the data storage system will receive a link request, typically in the form of an HTTP request, as indicated at block 368);
prompting the one recipient for the authentication code (Lopez: par. 0039 the data storage system receives a code via user interface component 104 from the recipient of the sharing link);
presenting the content to the one recipient (Lopez: par. 0039 if the code is received within the requisite time, and matches the code sent to the recipient, block 374 will pass control to block 376 where the recipient of the sharing link is granted access to the item(s) of electronic content).
Lopez does not explicitly disclose collecting metrics for recipient interaction with the content and making available the metrics to the user electronic device.
However, Klebe discloses collecting metrics for recipient interaction with the content (Klebe: col. 4 lines 52-57 the metrics content server 214 provides access to the publisher's content stored in database 230. It also creates a log file 216 that records various user activities, including login to the system, registration, creation of a user profile and the reading and printing of selected content); and
making available the metrics to the user electronic device (Klebe: col. 4 lines 58-60 the contents of log file 216 can be extracted and formatted by a metrics reporting server 218 and provided to a reporting client 222 as indicated).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the teachings of Klebe with the system/method of Lopez to include collecting metrics for recipient interaction with the content. One would have been motivated to publishing of digital content and methods and systems for tracking and controlling the forwarding of encrypted documents by users via email (Klebe: col. 1 lines 8-11).
Regarding claim 13: Claim 13 is similar in scope to claim 2, and is therefore rejected under similar rationale.
Regarding claim 16: Lopez in view of Klebe discloses the non-transitory computer readable storage medium of claim 12.
Klebe further discloses wherein the metrics comprise a time spent on a portion of the content (Klebe: col. 15 lines 8-14 the logging apparatus 1700 uses a signature generator 1720 to generate a message authentication code (MAC) 1718 based on the [] the timestamp 1716 of the current log record), an interaction with a portion of the content (Klebe: fig. 12, col. 14 lines 57-61 the client site server 1204 logs all client activity that occurs at the customer site in a plaintext log file 1240 [] such activity could include accessing and opening a document, selecting a document, searching or printing a document) and/or shares of a portion of the content (Klebe: col. 5 lines 12-16 the metrics publishing tool encrypts documents for distribution via the distribution system).
The motivation is the same that of claim 12 above.
Regarding claim 17: Claim 17 is similar in scope to claim 8, and is therefore rejected under similar rationale.
Regarding claims 19-20: Claims 19-20 are similar in scope to claims 10-11, respectively, and are therefore rejected under similar rationale.
Claims 3-4 and 14-15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over LOPEZ-URICOECHEA et al. (“Lopez,” US 2018/0343261) in view of Klebe (US 7373330) and HANNEDOUCHE et al. (“Hannedouche,” US 2022/0046418).
Regarding claim 3: Lopez in view of Klebe discloses the method of claim 1.
Lopez further discloses validating, by the publishing computer program, an email address for the one recipient and the authentication code (Lopez: par. 0041 once the user has entered their e-mail address in field 402 [] the user will enter their password into password field 410 and select the sign in button 412 [] the data storage system, using access control component 106 will determine whether the user has properly authenticated).
Lopez in view of Klebe does not explicitly disclose determining, by the publishing computer program, that there is not a cookie or certificate on the recipient electronic device indicating that the recipient electronic device is registered and storing, by the publishing computer program, a cookie or certificate on the recipient electronic device.
However, Hannedouche discloses determining, by the publishing computer program, that there is not a cookie or certificate on the recipient electronic device indicating that the recipient electronic device is registered (Hannedouche: par. 0025 at operation 230, the external device connects to the IP address using the certificate for authenticated communication issued by the authentication portal service and [] if the authentication process is not completed within the time period associated with the certificate for authenticated communication, registration of the external device to the management system may be denied); and
storing, by the publishing computer program, a cookie or certificate on the recipient electronic device (Hannedouche: par. 0031 keys, device information, identification, configurations, etc. may be stored in the memory 408 and/or the storage unit 412).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the teachings of Hannedouche with the system/method of Lopez and Klebe to include determining that there is not a cookie or certificate on the recipient electronic device indicating that the recipient electronic device is registered. One would have been motivated to provide a method of authenticating a device on a system to receive a certificate of authentication from the authentication system portal (Hannedouche: par. 0003).
Regarding claim 4: Lopez in view of Klebe discloses the method of claim 1.
Lopez in view of Klebe does not explicitly disclose determining, by the publishing computer program, that there is a cookie or certificate on the recipient electronic device indicating that the recipient electronic device is registered and determining, by the publishing computer program, that the cookie or certificate has not expired.
However, Hannedouche discloses determining, by the publishing computer program, that there is a cookie or certificate on the recipient electronic device indicating that the recipient electronic device is registered (Hannedouche: par. 0025 at operation 230, the external device connects to the IP address using the certificate for authenticated communication issued by the authentication portal service and if the certificate for authenticated communication is valid and as long as the associated time has not expired, the external device is registered with the management system); and
determining, by the publishing computer program, that the cookie or certificate has not expired (Hannedouche: par. 0024 the authentication portal may associate a predetermined time-period for which the certificate for authenticated communication is valid).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the teachings of Hannedouche with the system/method of Lopez and Klebe to include determining that there is a cookie or certificate on the recipient electronic device indicating that the recipient electronic device is registered. One would have been motivated to provide a method of authenticating a device on a system to receive a certificate of authentication from the authentication system portal (Hannedouche: par. 0003).
Regarding claims 14-15: Claims 14-15 are similar in scope to claims 3-4, respectively, and are therefore rejected under similar rationale.
Claims 9 and 18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over LOPEZ-URICOECHEA et al. (“Lopez,” US 2018/0343261) in view of Klebe (US 7373330) and Naufel (US 2024/0379019).
Regarding claim 9: Lopez in view of Klebe discloses the method of claim 1.
Lopez in view of Klebe does not explicitly disclose prompting, by the computer program, a large language model to infer feedback on the content from the metrics and the content and receiving, by the computer program, inferred feedback from the large language model.
However, Naufel discloses prompting, by the computer program, a large language model to infer feedback on the content from the metrics and the content (Naufel: par. 0264 Learning platform 200 may utilize feedback system 232 to harness user feedback and continuously refine the learning content and pathways through the application of reinforcement learning. Feedback system 232 may incorporate multiple LLM 210); and
receiving, by the computer program, inferred feedback from the large language model (Naufel: par. 0048 reinforcement learning branch 162 may receive as input feedback 140 as provided by reinforcement learning algorithm 184 as output. Such feedback 140 may originate from user prompts providing direct feedback to learning platform 165 or from indirect feedback).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the teachings of Naufel with the system/method of Lopez and Klebe to include prompting a large language model to infer feedback on the content from the metrics and the content. One would have been motivated to provide systems, methods, and apparatuses for implementing an adaptive and scalable Artificial Intelligence (AI) driven personalized learning platform (Naufel: par. 0002).
Regarding claim 18: Claim 18 is similar in scope to claim 9, and is therefore rejected under similar rationale.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Fahimeh Mohammadi whose telephone number is (571)270-7857. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 9:00 - 5:00.
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, Luu Pham can be reached at 5712705002. 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.
/FAHIMEH MOHAMMADI/ Examiner, Art Unit 2439
/LUU T PHAM/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2439