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 .
DETAILED ACTION
1. This action is responsive to: an original application filed on 27 May 2024 with acknowledgement that this application is a continuation of a 371 PCT that claims foreign priority to an Australia application filed on 25 November 2021
2. Claims 1-5, 7, 11, 13, and 26-45, are currently pending. Claims 1-4, 7, and11, are independent claims.
3. The IDS submitted on 30 May 2024 has been considered.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101
4. 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.
5. Claims 1-5, 7, 11, 13, and 26-45, fail to recite statutory subject matter, as defined in 35 U.S.C. 101, because:
The claimed invention is/are directed to a judicial exception (i.e., abstract idea) without significantly more.
The independent claims 1-4, 7, and 11, recite a method or system, of retrieving data items or associating access settings for data items (see claims 1-4), or storing group identities of users and group relationships (see claim 7), or creating data objects with access settings (see claim 11).
These claims are system, method, and apparatus that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of an abstract idea (i.e. managing user or group access to data) without significantly more. It appears the Applicant is attempting to patent a method to access data based on a comparison.
Moreover, see the Examiner “Subject Matter Eligibility Test for products and Processes” for details:
Step 1: YES (Claim(s) is/are process, machine, manufacture or composition of the matter)
Step 2A : 2106.04 (II) (A) (Does the claim recites an Abstract idea. Law of nature or natural phenomenon? YES…
Prong One: Judicial Exception
The claims recite a judicial exception, specifically, an abstract idea. For example, claims 1-4 retrieve data items according to associations of the data item with access settings. Such process is akin to allowing access according to access (or permission) setting. Thus, the analysis moves toward step 2A, prong two.
Prong two: (Do the claim(s) recite “additional element(s) that integrate the “Judicial Exception” into “A Practical Application” ? The additional elements, such as a processor, and memory do not impose any meaningful limits of the abstract idea. Thus, the analysis moves towards step 2B.
Step 2B: MPEP 2106.05 (g) [Whether a Claim Amounts to Significantly More] ? [an "inventive concept" is furnished by an element or combination of elements that is recited in the claim in addition to (beyond) the judicial exception, and is sufficient to ensure that the claim amounts to significantly more than the judicial exception itself. Alice Corp., 573 U.S. at 27-18, 110 USPQ2d at 1981 (citing Mayo, 566 U.S. at 72-73, 101 USPQ2d at 1966).
The claims recite the additional elements, which is “selectively retrieving data objects according to access setting”; which is mere instructions to apply an exception into a practical application. Moreover, only amount to insignificant extra-solution activity of performing a comparison (MPEP 2106.05(g)). Thus, NO, the additional element does not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application.
As to the dependent claim(s) 5, 13, and 26-45, do not include elements that amount to significantly more than the abstract idea (retrieving data items) added to a standard computer or processor. Therefore, they are also rejected under the same rational (i.e., the claims as a whole are directed to an abstract idea of retrieving data items according to access settings.
Accordingly, claims 1-5, 7, 11, 13, and 26-45, fail to recite statutory subject matter, as defined in 35 U.S.C. 101.
Claim Objections
6. Claim 42 is objected to because of the following informalities: The claim is missing a period “.”. Appropriate correction is required.
7. Claims 5, 13, and 26-45 objected to because of the following informalities: These claims are dependent claims however the presented dependent claims start with the article, “An” or “A”. As is typical in American English the second use of a noun would start with the article “The”. The Examiner notes "The" is used to refer to a specific noun that is already known to the speaker or listener. Since the claims are dependent upon independent claims the “information management…” is already known. Therefore, the claims should start with “The”. Appropriate correction is required.
8. Claims 7, 27, 32-33, 35-37, 39-40, 42, and 44, are objected to because of the word “organisation”, the Examiner notes this is a U.S. Patent therefore the proper spelling is “organization”. Appropriate Correction required.
Specification
9. The disclosure is objected to because of the following informalities: The word “organisation”, is utilized throughout the disclosure. The Examiner notes this is a U.S. Patent therefore the proper spelling is “organization”. Appropriate Correction required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
10. The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
11. Claims 1-5, 7, 11, 13, and 26-45, are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, first paragraph, as based on a disclosure which is not enabling. The disclosure does not enable one of ordinary skill in the art to practice the invention without some explanation as to why the data items are selectively retrieved, which is/are critical or essential to the practice of the invention but not included in the claim(s). See In re Mayhew, 527 F.2d 1229, 188 USPQ 356 (CCPA 1976). A review of the Applicant’s disclosure confuses the reader because it seems that the words “selectively retrieving data” are repeated numerous times throughout the disclosure without some linking to the meaning of why the data items are selectively retrieved. Therefore, the claims lack enablement.
The Examiner suggests some details from the disclosure be incorporated into the independent claims to make sense of the “invention”. Some of the details that might be helpful, the data items are managed for a collaboration session, the user requests sharing the data items, a triggering event retrieves some selected data items and provides to user in the organization.
12. The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
13. Claims 1-5, 7, 11, 13, and 26-45, are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention. As indicated above the claims lack enablement, one would not know how to use the “invention”. Therefore, the claims are also indefinite. It is recommended that details be added to the independent claims.
14. Claims 1-5, 7, 11, 13, and 26-45, are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention. In addition to the rejections above, the Examiner notes the phrase “selectively retrieving data item” is repeated throughout the claims. The phrase is not defined in a way that is clear and understandable. Why or what rationale would cause the method/system to selectively retrieve data items? Is the “invention” related to database retrieval or is it a poor translation dealing with “selective information exchange”? It appears that the Applicant is hiding the nature of the invention or steps are missing from the claims. Appropriate Correction is required.
15. To expedite a complete examination of the instant application the claims rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 (nonstatutory) as well as 35 U.S.C. 112 above are further rejected as set forth below in anticipation of applicant amending these claims to overcome the above rejections.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
16. The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
17. Claims 1-5, 7, 11, 13, 26, 28-31, 34, 38, and 41, are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) and (a)(2) as being anticipated by Bailor et al. U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2009/0327294 (hereinafter ‘294).
As to independent claim 1, “An information management method comprising: selectively retrieving data items, in connection with data objects each associated with one or more data items; wherein said selectively retrieving comprises selectively retrieving data items, associated with a selected data object, based on access settings associated with different groups of the data items associated with the data object, when the data object is associated with more than one group of data items” is taught in ‘294 paragraph 4, note “data items” are the sections of the document / “data object” is the document / the selectively retrieving is the displaying of one or more sections to one or more users dependent upon access permisions.
As to independent claim 2, “An information management system comprising: a provider for selectively retrieving data items, in connection with data objects each associated with one or more data items; wherein the provider is configured to selectively retrieve data items, associated with a selected data object, based on access settings associated with different groups of the data items associated with the data object, when the data object is associated with more than one group of data items” is shown in ‘294 paragraph 4.
As to independent claim 3, “An information management method comprising: associating access settings with data items, in connection with data objects each associated with one or more data items; wherein associating access settings comprises associating access settings with different groups of the data items, associated with a selected data object, in a manner permitting each of the groups of the data items to be associated with a different access setting, when the data object is associated with more than one group of data items” is disclosed in ‘294 paragraph 4.
As to independent claim 4, “An information management system comprising: an associator for associating access settings, in connection with data objects each associated with one or more data items; wherein the associator is configured to associate access settings with different groups of the data items, associated with a selected data object, in a manner permitting each of the groups of the data items to be associated with a different access setting, when the data object is associated with more than one group of data items” is taught in ‘294 paragraph 4.
As to independent claim 5, “An information management method according to claim 1 further comprising: providing data items in connection with data objects each associated with one or more data items; said providing comprising providing linked data items; and updating the linked data items in response to linked data item access requests” is shown in ‘294 paragraph 4.
As to independent claim 7, “An information management method comprising: storing groups of identities of users and group relationships, the group relationships defining associations between the groups to define an organisational structure; and providing a selector configured to allow a user within at least one group of the organisational structure to select another group relative to a group within which the user is positioned, wherein the at least one group comprises a single group and the selector is configured to allow a user to select another group relative to the group within which the user is positioned” is disclosed in ‘294 paragraphs 5-6 and 17, note ‘identities of users’ is the “names of users”.
As to independent claim 11, “An information management method comprising: creating data objects having data items, the data items of each data object for visual display; customizing access settings to be specified for different groups of data items” is taught in ‘294 paragraph 28.
As to independent claim 13, “An information management method according to claim 11 further comprising: associating different access settings with different groups of data items associated with a selected data object, when the data object is associated with more than one group of data items” is shown in ‘294 paragraph 4.
As to dependent claim 26, “An information management method according to claim 1, wherein the data items include trigger data items, each configured to execute an action in response to an update of a data item, associated with a data object that is associated with the trigger data item” is disclosed in ‘294 Abstract, paragraphs 4-6.
As to dependent claim 28, “A method according to claim 26, wherein an update is the trigger” is taught in ‘294 Abstract, paragraphs 4-6.
As to dependent claim 29, “A method according to claim 26, wherein the updated data item is compared to a trigger condition, which when met results in the triggering of the execution of the action” is shown in ‘294 paragraphs 28, 37, and 57.
As to dependent claim 30, “A method according to claim 26, wherein the action is a notification action” is disclosed in ‘294 paragraph 36.
As to dependent claim 31, “A method according to claim 26, wherein a trigger data item is configured to execute a share access action” is taught in ‘294 Abstract, paragraphs 4-6, 17, 25, and 38-40.
As to dependent claim 34, “An information management method according to claim 1, wherein the access settings for each data item are associated with different groups of the data items in a manner that permits each of the groups of the data items to be associated with a different access setting” is shown in ‘294 Abstract, paragraphs 4-6, 17, 25, and 38-40.
As to dependent claim 38, “An information management method according to claim 34, wherein the retrieved data items are displayed in a grouping of the data items according to the access settings of the groups of data items” is disclosed in ‘294 Abstract, paragraphs 4-6, 17, 25, and 38-40.
As to dependent claim 41, “An information management method according to claim 38, wherein the access settings determine which data items are displayed to a respective user” is taught in ‘294 Abstract paragraphs 4-5 and 28-31.
Claim Rejections – 35 USC § 103
18. 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.
19. Claims 27, 32-33, 35-37, 40, and 43-45, are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Bailor et al. U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2009/0327294 (hereinafter ‘294) in view of Plummer U.S. Patent No. 11,640,498 (hereinafter ‘498).
As to dependent claim 27, the following is not explicitly taught in ‘294: “A method according to claim 26, wherein the trigger data items include trigger data items configured to execute actions sharing data objects with different organisations” however ‘498 teaches sharing between different organization (i.e. different agencies) page images in col. 2, line 55 through col. 3, line 15.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention of structured coauthoring that involves a server managing a one or more documents with one or more sections that are shared and updated with multiple users based on permissions taught in ‘294 to include a means to share data items with different organizations. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to perform such a modification because document control plays an important role in many organizations see ‘498 col. 1, lines 19-48. In addition, ‘294 was cited as prior art by the Examiner of ‘498 see page, 2.
As to dependent claim 32, “An information management method according to claim 1, wherein the access settings associated with different groups of data items associated with the data object comprise access settings internal to an organisation and access settings external to the organization” is taught in ‘498 col. 2, line 55 through col. 3, line 15, col. 11, line 64 through col. 12, line 25, and col. 16, line 12-35.
As to dependent claim 33, “An information management method according to claim 1, wherein the access settings associated with different groups of data items associated with the data object comprise access settings for each organisation that has access to the data objects” is shown in ‘498 col. 2, line 55 through col. 3, line 15, col. 11, line 64 through col. 12, line 25, and col. 16, line 12-35.
As to dependent claim 35, “An information management method according to claim 34, wherein the access settings associated with different groups of data items associated with the data object comprise access settings internal to an organisation and access settings external to the organization” is disclosed in ‘498 col. 2, line 55 through col. 3, line 15, col. 11, line 64 through col. 12, line 25, and col. 16, line 12-35.
As to dependent claim 36, “An information management method according to claim 34, wherein the access settings associated with different groups of data items associated with the data object comprise access settings for each organisation that has access to the data objects” is taught in ‘498 col. 2, line 55 through col. 3, line 15, col. 11, line 64 through col. 12, line 25, and col. 16, line 12-35.
As to dependent claim 37, “An information management method according to claim 34, wherein the access settings associated with each group are selected according to the user's position within an organisational structure of an organisation to which the user belongs” is shown in ‘498 col. 2, line 55 through col. 3, line 15, col. 11, line 64 through col. 12, line 25, and col. 16, line 12-35.
As to dependent claim 40, “An information management method according to claim 38, wherein the access settings associated with different groups of data items associated with the data object comprise access settings for each organisation that has access to the data objects” is disclosed in ‘498 col. 2, line 55 through col. 3, line 15, col. 11, line 64 through col. 12, line 25, and col. 16, line 12-35.
As to dependent claim 43, “An information management method according to claim 7, wherein the selection of the other group assigns access rights to a data object by members of the other group” is taught in ‘498 col. 2, line 55 through col. 3, line 15, col. 11, line 64 through col. 12, line 25, and col. 16, line 12-35.
As to dependent claim 44, “An information management method according to claim 7, wherein access levels of the users are defined by organisation structure settings based on each user's selected group” is shown in ‘498 col. 2, line 55 through col. 3, line 15, col. 11, line 64 through col. 12, line 25, and col. 16, line 12-35.
As to dependent claim 45, “An information management method according to claim 11, wherein the visual display of the data items in each data object are visually grouped together” is disclosed in ‘498 Abstract, col. 2, lines 39-54 and col. 4, line 24-40.
20. Claim 39 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Bailor et al. U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2009/0327294 (hereinafter ‘294) in view of Sirbu et al. U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2016/0314314 (hereinafter ‘314).
As to dependent claim 39, the following is not explicitly taught in ‘294: “An information management method according to claim 38, wherein the access settings associated with different groups of data items associated with the data object comprise access settings internal to an organisation and access settings external to the organization” however ‘314 teaches setting an information boundary that includes a set of rules how the item may be shared, note … another example scenario, the sharer may may identify in the information boundary an accounting group as an entity within an organization that is allowed to share the item in paragraphs 45, 49, and 52.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention of structured coauthoring that involves a server managing a one or more documents with one or more sections that are shared and updated with multiple users based on permissions taught in ‘294 to include a means to identify groups with different access settings. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to perform such a modification because within organizational environment, friction-free collaboration may need to be balanced see ‘314 paragraphs 3-4.
21. Claim 42 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Bailor et al. U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2009/0327294 (hereinafter ‘294) in view of Ford et al. U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2015/0310188 (hereinafter ‘188).
As to dependent claim 42, the following is not explicitly taught in ‘294: “An information management method according to claim 5 further comprising: receiving a delinking command for a data object, duplicating the data object and the respective linked data items to form a duplicate data item for each linked data item, the duplicate data object being owned by an organisation, delinking the linked data items according to access settings associated with respective different groups of data items, where each duplicated data item is provided with a new access setting according to an organisation policy of the organization” however ‘188 teaches a virtual container environment that may further control how a document is disseminated, that allows for various methods to gather user feedback so that only the original sender has access to the edited version, these method entail copying and restricting user access to protected files, note “ the first user 1502 may remove permission for the second user 1506 to access the protected document 1522 or edited protected document 1524, thus eliminating all access to any version of the document 1504 that the second user may have been previously granted” is interpreted equivalent to delinking according to access setting in paragraphs 238-243.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention of structured coauthoring that involves a server managing a one or more documents with one or more sections that are shared and updated with multiple users based on permissions taught in ‘294 to include a means to delink linked data items according to access settings. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to perform such a modification because despite the availability of the internet, there is still no entirely satisfactory way for people at different companies or other entities to have the benefits of private network security that allows other entities to share securely over the expanding global network environment, see ‘188 paragraphs 3-4.
Conclusion
22. Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ELLEN C TRAN whose telephone number is (571) 272-3842. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone 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, Jeff Pwu can be reached at 571-272-6798. 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.
/ELLEN TRAN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2433 7 November 2025