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 Amendment filed on 05/22/2026.
In the instant Amendment, claim 21 has been added; claim 6 was cancelled; claims 1, 5, 7 and 12 have been amended; and claims 1 and 12 are independent claims. Claims 1-5 and 7-21 have been examined and are pending. This Action is made FINAL.
Response to Arguments
Applicants’ arguments in the instant Amendment, filed on 05/22/2026, with respect to limitations listed below, have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant’s argument: “the Office Action has failed to establish a prima facie case of obviousness.”
The Examiner disagrees with the Applicants. The Examiner recognizes that obviousness may be established by combining or modifying the teachings of the prior art to produce the claimed invention where there is some teaching, suggestion, or motivation to do so found either in the references themselves or in the knowledge generally available to one of ordinary skill in the art. See In re Fine, 837 F.2d 1071, 5 USPQ2d 1596 (Fed. Cir. 1988), In re Jones, 958 F.2d 347, 21 USPQ2d 1941 (Fed. Cir. 1992), and KSR International Co. v. Teleflex, Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 82 USPQ2d 1385 (2007). In this case, Lopez teaches a link generation component is configured to generate a link to share the item of electronic content and Klebe teaches a forwarding engine in the content server prepares an e-mail message that contains a link to the document publisher. Lopez and Klebe are both from the same analogous art and therefore they are combinable. One of the ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention would been motivated to combine the two references to drive at applicant invention. Therefore, the examiner finds this argument not persuasive.
Applicant arguments: “[A]pplicant respectfully submits that Lopes does not disclose receiving, by a publishing computer program, content from a user electronic device.”
The Examiner disagrees with the Applicants. The Examiner respectfully submits that Lopez discloses 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). More specifically, Lopez discloses 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 [par. 0039]. Therefore, the examiner finds this argument not persuasive.
Applicant arguments: “[A]pplicant respectfully submits that Lopes does not disclose saving, by the publishing computer program, the content to a secure site.”
The Examiner disagrees with the Applicants. The Examiner respectfully submits that Lopez discloses 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). More specifically, Lopez discloses generally have wide applicability to any electronic system that is able to store electronic files and allow multiple users to selectively access and share such electronic files, the remainder of this description will be described with respect to an on-line data storage system that is accessible over the Internet [par. 0023] and software or components of the architecture as well as the corresponding data, can be stored on servers at a remote location [par. 0024]. Therefore, the examiner finds this argument not persuasive.
Applicant arguments: “[A]pplicant respectfully submits that Lopes does not disclose sending, by the publishing computer program, a second message to each of the plurality of recipients with an authentication code, wherein the authentication code is unique to each of the plurality of recipients.”
The Examiner disagrees with the Applicants. The Examiner respectfully submits that Lopez discloses sending, by the publishing computer program, a second message to each of the plurality of recipients with an authentication code, wherein the authentication code is unique to each of the plurality of recipients (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; par. 0020 the link is automatically e-mailed to the e-mail address of the sharee. This link then provides the recipient (i.e., sharee) with the necessary access to the shared item(s) of electronic content when the recipient invokes the link; par. 0042 the link may include a [] code [] the generated access code within a communication sent to the e-mail address associated with the link). More specifically, Lopez discloses when a recipient of an external sharing link attempts to use or otherwise invoke the link, the on-line sharing platform will generate a communication to a known endpoint of the recipient associated with the sharing link. In one example, this known endpoint is the e-mail address of the recipient (sharee). This can be done by having the on-line sharing platform send an e-mail containing an access code that the recipient must enter to the known email address of the recipient [par. 0021] and 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, the embodiment described herein generally proceeds to automatically send an electronic communication containing the link to the recipient as identified by the recipient's e-mail address, as indicated at block 366. [par. 0039]. Therefore, the examiner finds this argument not persuasive.
Applicant arguments: “[A]pplicant respectfully submits that Klebe does not disclose collecting, by a metrics collecting computer program, metrics for recipient interaction with the content.”
The Examiner disagrees with the Applicants. The Examiner respectfully submits that 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). More specifically, Klebe discloses 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 schematically by arrow 220. More specifically, the first time a user 200 accesses the metrics contents server 214, a registration file is created. This file includes user identifying information, such as a user ID and a password, that the user will utilize to access the system. This information is stored in a metrics user database 226 as indicated schematically by arrow 224. The information in the metrics user database 226 is used later to authenticate users who are requesting access to the publisher content [col. 4 lines 58-67 through col. 5 lines 1-3]. Therefore, the examiner finds this argument not persuasive.
Applicant arguments: “[A]pplicant respectfully submits that Klebe does not disclose making available, by the metrics collecting computer program, the metrics to the user electronic device.”
The Examiner disagrees with the Applicants. The Examiner respectfully submits that Klebe discloses 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). More specifically, Klebe discloses as shown in FIG. 3, the metrics server 314 hosts a web server 352, which actually performs the functions of login, registration and delivery of encrypted content and corresponding decryption keys [col. 5 lines 45-48] and after the user has been registered, the metrics server 314 downloads a metrics viewer applet to the web browser 340 operating in the user workstation 300. The metrics viewer 342 is an applet that retrieves and displays secured contents from the metrics server 314 [] The metrics viewer allows users to access content as they do in their familiar browser environments including reading, printing and emailing of content to other users while retaining control of the content [col. 6 lines 10-19]. Therefore, the examiner finds this argument not persuasive.
Applicant arguments: “[A]pplicant respectfully submits that Klebe does not disclose wherein the metrics comprise a time spent interaction with a portion of the content by the one recipient, in claim 5.”
The Examiner disagrees with the Applicants. The Examiner respectfully submits that Klebe discloses wherein the metrics comprise a time spent interaction with a portion of the content by the one recipient (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). More specifically, Klebe discloses the logging apparatus 1700 generates a sequential sequence number by means of the sequence number generator 1702. This number might be a sequential integer. Then, in step 1804, the generated sequence number is appended to the current log record 1706, (which includes the log record data 1706 and the timestamp 1708) by the appender 1704 [col. 15 lines 1-7]. Therefore, the examiner finds this argument not persuasive.
Applicant arguments: “[A]pplicant respectfully submits that Klebe does not disclose wherein the metrics comprise s number of shares of a portion of the content by screen share by the one recipient, in claim 7.”
The Examiner disagrees with the Applicants. The Examiner respectfully submits that Klebe discloses wherein the metrics comprise s number of shares of a portion of the content by screen share by the one recipient (Klebe: col. 5 lines 12-16 the metrics publishing tool encrypts documents for distribution via the distribution system). More specifically, Klebe discloses after the user has been registered, the metrics server 314 downloads a metrics viewer applet to the web browser 340 operating in the user workstation 300. The metrics viewer 342 is an applet that retrieves and displays secured contents from the metrics server 314. In one embodiment, this applet is a Java applet that operates in conventional browsers. The metrics viewer allows users to access content as they do in their familiar browser environments including reading, printing and emailing of content to other users while retaining control of the content. In a preferred embodiment of the viewer, the list of content use features can be changed by customization. For example, publishers preferring not to allow printing can customize the viewer applet to disable or eliminate the printing feature [col. 6 lines 10-23]. Therefore, the examiner finds this argument not persuasive.
Applicant arguments: “[A]pplicant respectfully submits that Klebe does not disclose wherein the metrics comprise a number of emails of the content by the one recipient, in claim 21.”
The Examiner disagrees with the Applicants. The Examiner respectfully submits that Lopez discloses wherein the metrics comprise a number of emails of the content by the one recipient (Lopez: par. 0022 generate a significant number of access authentication e-mails to known e-mail addresses of external sharees). More specifically, Lopez discloses a diagrammatic view of a user interface allowing a user to specify secure external sharing in accordance with one embodiment. User interface 200 may be rendered on any suitable device, such as devices 114, 116, 118 using UI component 104 of data storage system 100 [] a field 216 is provided that allows Joe Smith to enter one or more specific e-mail addresses of recipients of the sharing link that is being created. FIG. 2C shows that user Joe Smith has entered the e-mail address of a user at nasa.gov []. Additionally, since the nasa.gov e-mail address is not identified as within the Contoso account, access control component 106 has indicated to user Joe Smith that the specified e-mail address is outside of the user's organization, as indicated by warning 218 [par. 0035]. Therefore, the examiner finds this argument not persuasive.
Applicant arguments: “[A]pplicant respectfully submits that Hannedouche does not 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, storing, by the publishing computer program, a cookie or certificate on the recipient electronic device, in claim 3.”
The Examiner disagrees with the Applicants. The Examiner respectfully submits that Hannedouche discloses aforementioned limitations (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; par. 0031 keys, device information, identification, configurations, etc. may be stored in the memory 408 and/or the storage unit 412). More specifically, Hannedouche discloses an operation 304 initiates a timer and associates the timer with the certificate of authentication communicated to the external device. For example, the operation 304 may set 60 minutes as the time for which registration of the external device is valid by setting the timer associated with the external device to 60 minutes [par. 0026] and An operation 306 receives a request from the registered external device for access to the management system. In response to the request, an operation 308 evaluates the time to determine the remaining time for which the external devices registration is valid. If it is determined that the registration is still valid, an operation 312 grans access to the external device to the management system. If it is determined that the time period for valid registration has expired, an operation 310 re-initiates the process for authentication of the external device [par. 0027]. Therefore, the examiner finds this argument not persuasive.
Applicant arguments: “[A]pplicant respectfully submits that Hannedouche does not 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, in claim 4.”
The Examiner disagrees with the Applicants. The Examiner respectfully submits that 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). More specifically, Hannedouche discloses a token processing module 152 processes the random token provided by the user. For example, the token processing module 152 processes the random token to validate the token [] by reading the token from the external device 110 and entering it into the management system 140, the token is registered with the management system 140. The value of the token input to the management system 140 is cross-checked against the value of the token provided by the external device 110 to the user 102. When the user 102 enters the token into the management system 140, the token is registered with the management system 140 [par. 0018] and the external device connects to the portal authentication service and provides the token to the portal authentication service at an operation 210. The portal authentication service validates the token received from the external device against the token received from the user at operation 212 [par. 0022]. Therefore, the examiner finds this argument not persuasive.
The amended claims have been addressed in rejection below.
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, 7-8, 10-13, 16-17 and 19-21 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, wherein the authentication code is unique to each of the plurality of recipients (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; par. 0020 the link is automatically e-mailed to the e-mail address of the sharee. This link then provides the recipient (i.e., sharee) with the necessary access to the shared item(s) of electronic content when the recipient invokes the link; par. 0042 the link may include a [] code [] the generated access code within a communication sent to the e-mail address associated with the link);
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 interaction with a portion of the content by the one recipient (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 7: Lopez in view of Klebe discloses the method of claim 1.
Klebe further discloses wherein the metrics comprise s number of shares of a portion of the content by screen share by the one recipient (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, wherein the authentication code is unique to each of the plurality of recipients (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; par. 0020 the link is automatically e-mailed to the e-mail address of the sharee. This link then provides the recipient (i.e., sharee) with the necessary access to the shared item(s) of electronic content when the recipient invokes the link; par. 0042 the link may include a [] code [] the generated access code within a communication sent to the e-mail address associated with the link);
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.
Regarding claim 21: Lopez in view of Klebe discloses the method of claim 1.
Lopez further discloses wherein the metrics comprise a number of emails of the content by the one recipient (Lopez: par. 0022 generate a significant number of access authentication e-mails to known e-mail addresses of external sharees).
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
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to 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
Prosecution Insights