DETAILED ACTION
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
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.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 10 and 11 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.
Examiner notes that the language recited in this limitation, specifically the word "if," and “in a case” are interpreted as conditional/optional claim language. Language that suggests or makes optional but does not require steps to be performed or does not limit the claim to a particular structure or does not limit the scope of a claim or claim limitation. Therefore, the language following the "if" and “in case” are optional and is not given any patentable weight.
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.
Claim(s) 1-5, 7-8, 10-11, 13, 15-18, 20-22 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Fong et al. (“Fong”, Pub. No. 2023/0214780) and Dasdan et al. (“Dasdan”, Pub. No. US 2023/0217076).
Per claim 1, Fong teaches an information processing method, comprising:
in response to an operation of a first user for viewing first detail information of a task list, displaying a list detail page containing the first detail information, the first detail information comprising a list of tasks contained in the task list (fig. 2B; [0076] … in response to receiving an indication of selection of a particular collaborative document (e.g., an affordance associated therewith) within the document interface 154, the document management component 122 can cause the selected document to be presented in the second section 152. Additional details of the presentation of a particular document are described below with respect to at least FIG. 2B. Additionally or alternatively, the second section 152 can be configured to present data associated with a data feed (or, “feed”) indicating messages posted to and/or actions taken with respect to one or more channels, direct messages, and/or other virtual spaces for facilitating communications (e.g., a virtual space associated with event(s) and/or action(s), etc.) as described herein);
in response to an operation of the first user for subscribing to the task list, displaying a subscription panel, the subscription panel being configured for the first user to set a first subscription with respect to second detail information of the task list, the first subscription comprising a recipient of the second detail information, the recipient comprising a single contact and/or a group (figs. 5A-7B, which show enrollment/assignment of a task list to one or more channel and/or user identifiers (i.e. a subscription); [0130]…FIGS. 5A-5E illustrate example user interfaces for sharing a collaborative document with members of a virtual space and presenting objects in association with the document based on data associated with the members of the virtual space, as described herein. FIG. 5A illustrate an example user interface 500a in which a collaborative document 502 associated with a user account of a user 504 is presented. In the illustrative example, the collaborative document 502 is associated with a first virtual space 505 (e.g., #channel-abc). [0146]…FIGS. 6A and 6B illustrate example user interfaces for sharing a document with another user of a communication platform, as described herein. FIG. 6A illustrates an example user interface 600a in which a drop-down menu 602 associated with a document share window 604 corresponding to a collaborative document 606, which can correspond to drop-down menu 524 associated with the document share window 510, is presented. As discussed above with respect to FIG. 5C, the drop-down menu 602 can be presented in association with a share entry box 610, such as share entry box 512, which can be configured for the user 608 to enter in one or more virtual space identifiers and/or user identifiers associated with a share of a collaborative document 606. [0151] FIGS. 7A-7C illustrate example user interfaces for assigning an object 702 associated with a collaborative document 704 to a user account (of a user 706) that is associated with the collaborative document 704 and presenting an indication of the object 702 in at least a sidebar 708 of a user interface associated with the user account, as described herein. FIG. 7A illustrates an example user interface 700a in which an object assignment window 710 is presented in association with the collaborative document 704. In at least one example, the communication platform can cause the object assignment window 710 to be presented in response to a selection, by the user 706, of an object assignment control 712 associated with the object 702.), and the second detail information comprising progress information of target tasks in the task list (figs. 2B, 5E, 7B-7C; [0145]…in response to receiving the request to share the collaborative document 502 via the second virtual space 526, the communication platform can update a presence indicator 532 associated with the collaborative document 502, which may correspond to presence indicator 238, to include the members of the first virtual space 505 and the second virtual space 526. For an illustrative example, the collaborative document 502, before sharing via the second virtual space 526, included 59 members and after sharing via the second virtual space 526, included 101 members. [0159]…user interface 700b associated with the collaborative document 704 can include a re-assignment affordance 732 that, when selected by a viewing user (e.g., selected user 722, user 706, etc.), enables an associated object 702 to be re-assigned to an additional or alternative user); and
pushing the second detail information to the recipient based on the first subscription rule (figs. 2B, 5E, 7B-7C; [0145]…in response to receiving the request to share the collaborative document 502 via the second virtual space 526, the communication platform can update a presence indicator 532 associated with the collaborative document 502, which may correspond to presence indicator 238, to include the members of the first virtual space 505 and the second virtual space 526. For an illustrative example, the collaborative document 502, before sharing via the second virtual space 526, included 59 members and after sharing via the second virtual space 526, included 101 members. [0159]…user interface 700b associated with the collaborative document 704 can include a re-assignment affordance 732 that, when selected by a viewing user (e.g., selected user 722, user 706, etc.), enables an associated object 702 to be re-assigned to an additional or alternative user). [0160]… the object 702 can be presented in association with the associated collaborative document 704, such as in a location of the collaborative document 704 in which the object is stored and/or presented. In some examples, the object 702 can be presented directly, or independently of the collaborative document 704. In examples in which the object 702 is a third-party object, the communication platform can request data associated with the object 702 from a third-party service provider, such as third party service provider 108, to present the data in association with the user interface 700c. In some examples, in response to receiving the indication of selection of the affordance 726, the communication platform can launch a third-party application or website associated with the object 702, such as to enable the selected user 722 to access the data directly from the third-party service provider.).
Fong does not specifically teach a subscription rule, for example, feed/notification rule.
However, Dasdan teaches a subscription rule ([0034]… when a user subscribes to a feed item source that is an issue ticket, feed items associated with the issue ticket may be, for example, notifications of changes in status of the issue ticket. As another example, when a user subscribes to a feed item source that is another user, feed items associated with the user may be, for example, notifications of activities of the other user (e.g., when the other user comments on or edits a documents or changes a status of an issue ticket, etc.). [0052]…a subscription to content such as a document may result in events that occur with respect to that content (e.g., edits, comments, changes in status, etc.) being included in the event feed of a subscribed user. [0057]… if a user interacts with a feed item relating to an issue ticket and assigns the issue ticket to another user, the event feed service 110 may receive the information (e.g., an identifier of the issue ticket and an identifier of the new user), and provide that information to the event feed service 110 so that the underlying content item (e.g., the issue ticket) can be modified appropriately.)
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to include the teaching of Dasdan in the invention of Fong to include subscription rule such as notification of change in status, activities associated assigned/shared/subscribed task because doing so would enhance user’s experience by providing subscription rule to alert the users of status and/or activity associated with an assigned/shared/subscribed task.
Per claim 2, the modified Fong teaches the method of claim 1, wherein the method further comprises: the first subscription rule for the task list being visible to a first class of users and being editable to a second class of users, or being visible and editable to both the first class of users and the second class of users; or, all subscription rules for the task list being visible to the first class of users and being editable to the second class of users, or being visible and editable to both the first class of users and the second class of users (Fong, [0015]…each collaborative document can be associated with permissions defining which users of the communication platform can view and/or edit the collaborative document. In various examples, the permissions may be defined based on a means by which the collaborative document was created. [0027]…a first user and a second user may be members of a collaborative document. The first user may include sharing permissions while the second user may not include sharing permissions. For another example, a collaborative document may be configured such that all members of the collaborative document can share with additional users of the communication platform. [0030]… The permission settings can include a read or view-only setting, chat-only setting (e.g., enabling messaging but not modification of other text in the document), full editing permissions, and/or the like. In various examples, the communication platform may store the permission settings associated with the additional user(s) in association with the collaborative document. The permission setting associated with the additional user(s) may be the same or different from the permission setting associated with other members of the collaborative document. For example, the first user may create the collaborative document in association with a first virtual space. The members of the first virtual space may be associated with the collaborative document as members thereof, with a first permission setting including full editing permissions. The first user may then share the collaborative document via a second virtual space, and may designate a second permission setting including read-only permissions with the members of the second virtual space. That is, the members of the second virtual space may be authorized to view the collaborative document, while members of the first virtual space edit and contribute to the collaborative document. In some examples, permission settings can be on a section by section basis where a first user may modify a first section of a collaborative document, but not a second section of the collaborative document. In some examples, a first user may view a first section of a collaborative document but not a second section of the collaborative document.)
Per claim 3, the modified Fong teachers the method of claim 1, wherein the method further comprises: all subscription rules for the task list being visible and editable to all collaborators of the task list (Fong, [0015]…each collaborative document can be associated with permissions defining which users of the communication platform can view and/or edit the collaborative document. In various examples, the permissions may be defined based on a means by which the collaborative document was created. [0027]…a first user and a second user may be members of a collaborative document. The first user may include sharing permissions while the second user may not include sharing permissions. For another example, a collaborative document may be configured such that all members of the collaborative document can share with additional users of the communication platform. [0030]… The permission settings can include a read or view-only setting, chat-only setting (e.g., enabling messaging but not modification of other text in the document), full editing permissions, and/or the like. In various examples, the communication platform may store the permission settings associated with the additional user(s) in association with the collaborative document. The permission setting associated with the additional user(s) may be the same or different from the permission setting associated with other members of the collaborative document. For example, the first user may create the collaborative document in association with a first virtual space. The members of the first virtual space may be associated with the collaborative document as members thereof, with a first permission setting including full editing permissions. The first user may then share the collaborative document via a second virtual space, and may designate a second permission setting including read-only permissions with the members of the second virtual space. That is, the members of the second virtual space may be authorized to view the collaborative document, while members of the first virtual space edit and contribute to the collaborative document. In some examples, permission settings can be on a section by section basis where a first user may modify a first section of a collaborative document, but not a second section of the collaborative document. In some examples, a first user may view a first section of a collaborative document but not a second section of the collaborative document.)
Per claim 4, the modified Fong teaches the method of claim 2, wherein an editing operation on a subscription rule comprises at least one of: creating a subscription rule, deleting a subscription rule, modifying a subscription rule (Fong, [0015]…each collaborative document can be associated with permissions defining which users of the communication platform can view and/or edit the collaborative document. In various examples, the permissions may be defined based on a means by which the collaborative document was created. [0027]…a first user and a second user may be members of a collaborative document. The first user may include sharing permissions while the second user may not include sharing permissions. For another example, a collaborative document may be configured such that all members of the collaborative document can share with additional users of the communication platform. [0030]… The permission settings can include a read or view-only setting, chat-only setting (e.g., enabling messaging but not modification of other text in the document), full editing permissions, and/or the like. In various examples, the communication platform may store the permission settings associated with the additional user(s) in association with the collaborative document. The permission setting associated with the additional user(s) may be the same or different from the permission setting associated with other members of the collaborative document. For example, the first user may create the collaborative document in association with a first virtual space. The members of the first virtual space may be associated with the collaborative document as members thereof, with a first permission setting including full editing permissions. The first user may then share the collaborative document via a second virtual space, and may designate a second permission setting including read-only permissions with the members of the second virtual space. That is, the members of the second virtual space may be authorized to view the collaborative document, while members of the first virtual space edit and contribute to the collaborative document. In some examples, permission settings can be on a section by section basis where a first user may modify a first section of a collaborative document, but not a second section of the collaborative document. In some examples, a first user may view a first section of a collaborative document but not a second section of the collaborative document.)
Per claim 5, the modified Fong teaches the method of claim 1, wherein the method further comprises: in response to an operation of a second user for subscribing to the first subscription rule, adding the second user to recipients of the first subscription rule; or, in response to an operation of a third user unsubscribing from the first subscription rule, removing the third user from recipients of the first subscription rule (Fong, [0015]…each collaborative document can be associated with permissions defining which users of the communication platform can view and/or edit the collaborative document. In various examples, the permissions may be defined based on a means by which the collaborative document was created. [0027]…a first user and a second user may be members of a collaborative document. The first user may include sharing permissions while the second user may not include sharing permissions. For another example, a collaborative document may be configured such that all members of the collaborative document can share with additional users of the communication platform. [0030]… The permission settings can include a read or view-only setting, chat-only setting (e.g., enabling messaging but not modification of other text in the document), full editing permissions, and/or the like. In various examples, the communication platform may store the permission settings associated with the additional user(s) in association with the collaborative document. The permission setting associated with the additional user(s) may be the same or different from the permission setting associated with other members of the collaborative document. For example, the first user may create the collaborative document in association with a first virtual space. The members of the first virtual space may be associated with the collaborative document as members thereof, with a first permission setting including full editing permissions. The first user may then share the collaborative document via a second virtual space, and may designate a second permission setting including read-only permissions with the members of the second virtual space. That is, the members of the second virtual space may be authorized to view the collaborative document, while members of the first virtual space edit and contribute to the collaborative document. In some examples, permission settings can be on a section by section basis where a first user may modify a first section of a collaborative document, but not a second section of the collaborative document. In some examples, a first user may view a first section of a collaborative document but not a second section of the collaborative document.)
Per claim 7, the modified Fong teaches the method of claim 1, wherein the method further comprises: displaying an operation record for the subscription rule of the task list in a dynamic information display page for the task list; and/or, displaying an operation record for the subscription rule of the task list in a dynamic information display page of a task center (figs. 2B, 5E, 7B-7C; [0145]…in response to receiving the request to share the collaborative document 502 via the second virtual space 526, the communication platform can update a presence indicator 532 associated with the collaborative document 502, which may correspond to presence indicator 238, to include the members of the first virtual space 505 and the second virtual space 526. For an illustrative example, the collaborative document 502, before sharing via the second virtual space 526, included 59 members and after sharing via the second virtual space 526, included 101 members. [0159]…user interface 700b associated with the collaborative document 704 can include a re-assignment affordance 732 that, when selected by a viewing user (e.g., selected user 722, user 706, etc.), enables an associated object 702 to be re-assigned to an additional or alternative user. [0030]…The permission settings can include a read or view-only setting, chat-only setting (e.g., enabling messaging but not modification of other text in the document), full editing permissions, and/or the like. In various examples, the communication platform may store the permission settings associated with the additional user(s) in association with the collaborative document. The permission setting associated with the additional user(s) may be the same or different from the permission setting associated with other members of the collaborative document. For example, the first user may create the collaborative document in association with a first virtual space. The members of the first virtual space may be associated with the collaborative document as members thereof, with a first permission setting including full editing permissions. The first user may then share the collaborative document via a second virtual space, and may designate a second permission setting including read-only permissions with the members of the second virtual space. That is, the members of the second virtual space may be authorized to view the collaborative document, while members of the first virtual space edit and contribute to the collaborative document. In some examples, permission settings can be on a section by section basis where a first user may modify a first section of a collaborative document, but not a second section of the collaborative document. In some examples, a first user may view a first section of a collaborative document but not a second section of the collaborative document.).
Per claim 8, the modified Fong teaches the method of claim 1, wherein the progress information of the target tasks comprises at least one of the following: a task completion rate of the target tasks, a task number of overdue tasks in the target tasks, a task number of tasks in the target tasks that are due on a current day; and/or, the second detail information further comprises at least one of the following: a list name of the task list; third detail information of overdue tasks in the target tasks (Fong, Figs. 2B and 7B show a list name of a task list such as collaborative Document A).
Per claim 10, the modified Fong the method of claim 1,wherein if a target conversation group is a recipient of the second detail information, in a case that the task list has an association with the target conversation group, when a group member within the target conversation group views the first detail information based on the second detail information, the first detail information is displayed in a display manner different from that for displaying the first detail information when the group member views the first detail information based on the second detail information, in a case that the task list does not has an association with the target conversation group (figs. 2B, 5E, 7B-7C; [0145]…in response to receiving the request to share the collaborative document 502 via the second virtual space 526, the communication platform can update a presence indicator 532 associated with the collaborative document 502, which may correspond to presence indicator 238, to include the members of the first virtual space 505 and the second virtual space 526. For an illustrative example, the collaborative document 502, before sharing via the second virtual space 526, included 59 members and after sharing via the second virtual space 526, included 101 members. [0159]…user interface 700b associated with the collaborative document 704 can include a re-assignment affordance 732 that, when selected by a viewing user (e.g., selected user 722, user 706, etc.), enables an associated object 702 to be re-assigned to an additional or alternative user. [0030]…The permission settings can include a read or view-only setting, chat-only setting (e.g., enabling messaging but not modification of other text in the document), full editing permissions, and/or the like. In various examples, the communication platform may store the permission settings associated with the additional user(s) in association with the collaborative document. The permission setting associated with the additional user(s) may be the same or different from the permission setting associated with other members of the collaborative document. For example, the first user may create the collaborative document in association with a first virtual space. The members of the first virtual space may be associated with the collaborative document as members thereof, with a first permission setting including full editing permissions. The first user may then share the collaborative document via a second virtual space, and may designate a second permission setting including read-only permissions with the members of the second virtual space. That is, the members of the second virtual space may be authorized to view the collaborative document, while members of the first virtual space edit and contribute to the collaborative document. In some examples, permission settings can be on a section by section basis where a first user may modify a first section of a collaborative document, but not a second section of the collaborative document. In some examples, a first user may view a first section of a collaborative document but not a second section of the collaborative document.).
Per claim 11, the modified Fong teaches the method of claim 10, wherein the display manners being different comprises: when the task list has an association with the target conversation group, displaying the first detail information within a conversation window when the group member within the target conversation group views the first detail information based on the second detail information; and when the task list does not has an association with the target conversation group, displaying the first detail information in a separate page other than the conversation window when the group member views the first detail information based on the second detail information (figs. 2B, 5E, 7B-7C; [0145]…in response to receiving the request to share the collaborative document 502 via the second virtual space 526, the communication platform can update a presence indicator 532 associated with the collaborative document 502, which may correspond to presence indicator 238, to include the members of the first virtual space 505 and the second virtual space 526. For an illustrative example, the collaborative document 502, before sharing via the second virtual space 526, included 59 members and after sharing via the second virtual space 526, included 101 members. [0159]…user interface 700b associated with the collaborative document 704 can include a re-assignment affordance 732 that, when selected by a viewing user (e.g., selected user 722, user 706, etc.), enables an associated object 702 to be re-assigned to an additional or alternative user. [0030]…The permission settings can include a read or view-only setting, chat-only setting (e.g., enabling messaging but not modification of other text in the document), full editing permissions, and/or the like. In various examples, the communication platform may store the permission settings associated with the additional user(s) in association with the collaborative document. The permission setting associated with the additional user(s) may be the same or different from the permission setting associated with other members of the collaborative document. For example, the first user may create the collaborative document in association with a first virtual space. The members of the first virtual space may be associated with the collaborative document as members thereof, with a first permission setting including full editing permissions. The first user may then share the collaborative document via a second virtual space, and may designate a second permission setting including read-only permissions with the members of the second virtual space. That is, the members of the second virtual space may be authorized to view the collaborative document, while members of the first virtual space edit and contribute to the collaborative document. In some examples, permission settings can be on a section by section basis where a first user may modify a first section of a collaborative document, but not a second section of the collaborative document. In some examples, a first user may view a first section of a collaborative document but not a second section of the collaborative document.).
Claim 13, 15-18 and 20-21 are rejected under the same rationale as claims 1-5 and 7-8 respectively.
Claim 22 is rejected under the same rationale as claim 1.
Claim(s) 6, 9 and 19 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Fong et al. (“Fong”, Pub. No. 2023/0214780), Dasdan et al. (“Dasdan”, Pub. No. US 2023/0217076), and Chung et al. (“Chung”, Pub. No. US 2013/0179208).
Per claim 6, the modified Fong teaches the method of claim 1, but does not teach wherein the first subscription rule further comprises: time for pushing the second detail information to the recipient.
However, Boyd teaches the first subscription rule further comprises: time for pushing the second detail information to the recipient (fig. 5A, Frequency 534 and Number of times to repeat. [0041]… A user may customize one or more reminder options. For instance, one or more selectable reminder options may include "send reminder e-mail" 532, further including customizable duration selections of frequency 534 and number of times to repeat 536. In one embodiment, if frequency 534 and number of times to repeat 536 have been customized (e.g., daily), workflow design tool 102 may be configured to generate a reminder activity that can "sleep" until a reminder is to be sent again, and may repeat the sleep cycle after sending a reminder until a number of times to repeat 536 has been exhausted). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to include the teaching of Chung in the invention of the modified Fong in order provide the user with a scheduled push scheme, doing so would allow the user to receive task updates on a customizable predetermined schedule.
Per claim 9, the modified Fong teaches the method of claim 1, but does not teach wherein in addition to the first subscription rule, the subscription panel further displays at least one of the following: a switch button for the first user to set whether or not to enable a function of pushing the second detail information to the recipient based on the first subscription rule; a subscription rule other than the first subscription rule.
However, Chung teaches wherein in addition to the first subscription rule, the subscription panel further displays at least one of the following: a switch button for the first user to set whether or not to enable a function of pushing the second detail information to the recipient based on the first subscription rule; a subscription rule other than the first subscription rule (fig. 5A, [0041]…one or more selectable reminder options may include "send reminder e-mail" 532, further including customizable duration selections of frequency 534 and number of times to repeat 536.). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to include the teaching of Chung in the invention of the modified Fong in order provide the user with a scheduled push scheme, doing so would allow the user to receive task updates on a customizable predetermined schedule.
Claim 19 is rejected under the same rationale as claim 6.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Bakshi et al. (Pat. No. 12,099,770) discloses displaying predicted task based on changing devices.
Inquiries
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to THANH T VU whose telephone number is (571)272-4073. The examiner can normally be reached M-F: 7AM - 3:30PM.
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, Fred Ehichioya can be reached at (571) 272-4034. 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.
/THANH T VU/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2179