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 . Claims 1-18 have been reviewed and are under consideration by this office action.
Notice to Applicant
The following is a Final Office action. Applicant, on 01/30/2026, amended claims. Claims 1-18 are pending in this application and have been rejected below.
Response to Amendment
Applicant’s amendments are received and acknowledged.
Applicant amended Claim 9 to recite “module” the 112(b) rejection is overcome and therefore withdrawn.
Response to Arguments - 35 USC § 101
Applicant’s arguments with respect to the 35 USC 101 rejections have been fully considered, but they are not persuasive.
Applicant contends that a user interface configured to enable a user to define one or more parameters…. and a drop-down menu is not a concept capable of being performed in the human mind.
Examiner finds the arguments unpersuasive. The act of defining parameters is a concept capable being performed in the human mind, while being applied to a general purpose computing device (i.e. a user interface), and/or amounts to no more than generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use – see MPEP 2106.05(h). Examiner notes that even if the claims were not directed, the claims are also directed towards certain methods of organizing human activity.
Applicant further contends with respect to BASCOM… that the claims were directed towards patent eligible material as the claims recite a non-generic arrangement of filtering and the present application makes similar claims.
Examiner respectfully disagrees. The present claims are not analogous to those of Bascom… as they recite generating network access requests, remote ISP servers associating network accounts, filtering schemes, and filtering elements. The present claims merely recite filtering at a high level of generality.
Applicant contends that the claims recite a technical improvement with respect to the filtering aspects.
Examiner respectfully disagrees. The filtering aspects merely improve upon the abstract idea itself and do not constitute an improvement to the technology or technological field.
The 101 Rejection is updated and maintained below.
Response to Arguments - 35 USC § 103
Applicant’s arguments with respect to the 35 USC 103 rejections have been fully considered, but are moot in view of the new line of 103 Rejections seen below.
Claim Interpretation
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(f):
(f) Element in Claim for a Combination. – An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The claims in this application are given their broadest reasonable interpretation using the plain meaning of the claim language in light of the specification as it would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art. The broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim element (also commonly referred to as a claim limitation) is limited by the description in the specification when 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is invoked.
As explained in MPEP § 2181, subsection I, claim limitations that meet the following three-prong test will be interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
(A) the claim limitation uses the term “means” or “step” or a term used as a substitute for “means” that is a generic placeholder (also called a nonce term or a non-structural term having no specific structural meaning) for performing the claimed function;
(B) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is modified by functional language, typically, but not always linked by the transition word “for” (e.g., “means for”) or another linking word or phrase, such as “configured to” or “so that”; and
(C) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function.
Use of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim with functional language creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites sufficient structure, material, or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Absence of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is not to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is not interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites function without reciting sufficient structure, material or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Claim limitations in this application that use the word “means” (or “step”) are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action. Conversely, claim limitations in this application that do not use the word “means” (or “step”) are not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action.
This application includes one or more claim limitations that use the word “means” or “step” but are nonetheless not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph because the claim limitation(s) recite(s) sufficient structure, materials, or acts to entirely perform the recited function. Such claim limitation(s) is/are:
a clustering module coupled to… - (Claims 1-3 and 5-7)
a feedback module coupled to… (Claim 6)
The specification does provide corresponding structure of the modules in at least Specification, [49]; “In this description, including the definitions mentioned earlier, the term 'module' may be replaced with the term 'circuit.' The term 'module' may refer to, be part of, or include processor hardware (shared, dedicated, or group) that executes code and memory hardware (shared, dedicated, or group) that stores code executed by the processor hardware. The term code, as used above, may include software, firmware, and/or microcode, and may refer to programs, routines, functions, classes, data structures, and/or objects”
Because this/these claim limitation(s) is/are not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, it/they is/are not being interpreted to cover only the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof.
If applicant intends to have this/these limitation(s) interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, applicant may: (1) amend the claim limitation(s) to remove the structure, materials, or acts that performs the claimed function; or (2) present a sufficient showing that the claim limitation(s) does/do not recite sufficient structure, materials, or acts to perform the claimed function.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101
35 U.S.C. 101 reads as follows:
Whoever invents or discovers any new and useful process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter, or any new and useful improvement thereof, may obtain a patent therefor, subject to the conditions and requirements of this title.
Claims 1-18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to a judicial exception (i.e., a law of nature, a natural phenomenon, or an abstract idea) without significantly more.
Step One - First, pursuant to step 1 in the January 2019 Guidance on 84 Fed. Reg. 53, the claim(s) is/are directed to statutory categories.
Step 2A, Prong One – The claims are found to recite limitations that set forth the abstract idea(s), namely in independent claims recite a series of steps for the abstract idea recited below.
Regarding the independent claims, (additional elements bolded);
Regarding Claim(s) 1, 10, and 18, teaches: A clustering system for synchronously clustering work items; the clustering system comprising/ A method for synchronously clustering a plurality of data items; the method comprising/ A computer program product embodied on a computer readable medium, the computer readable medium having stored thereon a sequence of instructions which, when executed by a processor, executes at least:
a user interface configured to enable a user to define one or more parameters;
wherein the user interface comprises a drop-down menu for selection of a specific parameter to perform filtering;
a clustering module communicatively coupled to the user interface and configured to: retrieve a plurality of work items based on the one or more parameters;
wherein filtering is applied to the plurality of work items;
retrieve a plurality of embeddings corresponding to the plurality of work items;
generate a plurality of work groups by clustering embeddings with vector similarities;
wherein each work group comprises a set of homogenous work items,
wherein the set of homogenous work items comprises a subset of the plurality of work items: and
wherein the user interface displays a work group having the subset of the plurality of work items.
As drafted, this is, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, within the Abstract idea groupings of “Mental processes—concepts performed in the human mind” (observation, evaluation, judgment, opinion) as the claims are directed towards defining parameters, retrieve work items, generate a plurality of work groups all of which are concepts capable of being performed in the human mind (i.e. via pen and paper).
Further the claims are directed towards the abstract idea grouping of “Certain methods of organizing human activity” — commercial or legal interactions (including agreements in the form of contracts; legal obligations; advertising, marketing or sales activities or behaviors; business relations) and/or managing personal behavior or relationships or interactions between people (including social activities, teaching, and following rules or instructions) as the claims are directed towards clustering work items and generating work groups (See Specification, [08-09 ]).
Step 2A, Prong Two - This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. The independent claims utilize at least an A clustering system for synchronously clustering work items; the clustering system comprising/ A method for synchronously clustering a plurality of data items; the method comprising/ A computer program product embodied on a computer readable medium, the computer readable medium having stored thereon a sequence of instructions which, when executed by a processor, executes at least; a user interface; a clustering module communicatively coupled to the user interface; embeddings; user interface displays. The additional elements are performing the steps would be no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component. See MPEP 2106.05(f) and/or amounts to no more than generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use – see MPEP 2106.05(h).
Step 2B - The claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. As discussed above with respect to integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, the additional elements are just “apply it” on a computer. (See MPEP 2106.05(f) – Mere Instructions to Apply an Exception – “Thus, for example, claims that amount to nothing more than an instruction to apply the abstract idea using a generic computer do not render an abstract idea eligible.” Alice Corp., 134 S. Ct. at 235) and/or amounts to no more than generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use – see MPEP 2106.05(h).
Regarding Claim(s) 2-3, 5, 9, 11-13, 15, and 16 the claim further narrows the abstract idea or recite additional elements previously addressed in the independent claims.
Regarding Claim(s) 4 and 14, the claim further recite the additional element(s) of displayed to the one or more users via the user interface and displaying…. This element(s) is performing the steps would be no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component. See MPEP 2106.05(f) and/or amounts to no more than generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use – see MPEP 2106.05(h) in Steps 2A-Prong 2 and 2B.
Regarding Claim(s) 6, the claim further recite the additional element(s) of a feedback module. This element(s) is performing the steps would be no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component. See MPEP 2106.05(f) and/or amounts to no more than generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use – see MPEP 2106.05(h) in Steps 2A-Prong 2 and 2B.
Regarding Claim(s) 7 and 17, the claim further recite the additional element(s) of a work database coupled to the clustering module and a database. This element(s) is performing the steps would be no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component. See MPEP 2106.05(f) and/or amounts to no more than generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use – see MPEP 2106.05(h) in Steps 2A-Prong 2 and 2B.
Regarding Claim(s) 8, the claim further recite the additional element(s) of an embedding database. This element(s) is performing the steps would be no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component. See MPEP 2106.05(f) and/or amounts to no more than generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use – see MPEP 2106.05(h) in Steps 2A-Prong 2 and 2B.
Accordingly, the claim fails to recite any improvements to another technology or technical field, improvements to the functioning of the computer itself, use of a particular machine, effecting a transformation or reduction of a particular article to a different state or thing, adding unconventional steps that confine the claim to a particular useful application, and/or meaningful limitations beyond generally linking the use of an abstract idea to a particular environment. See 84 Fed. Reg. 55. Viewed individually or as a whole, these additional claim element(s) do not provide meaningful limitation(s) to transform the abstract idea into a patent eligible application of the abstract idea such that the claim(s) amounts to significantly more than the abstract idea itself.
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 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, 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.
The factual inquiries set forth in Graham v. John Deere Co., 383 U.S. 1, 148 USPQ 459 (1966), that are applied for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
Claim(s) 1, 8, 10-11, and 17-18 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Chen et al. (US 20140208325 A1) in view of Lei et al. (CN 117992575 A), and Kakaire et al. (US 11755197 B1).
Regarding Claim(s) 1, 10, and 18, Chen teaches: A clustering system for synchronously clustering work items; the clustering system comprising/ A method for synchronously clustering a plurality of data items; the method comprising/ A computer program product embodied on a computer readable medium, the computer readable medium having stored thereon a sequence of instructions which, when executed by a processor, executes at least: (Chen, [11-13]; In another embodiment, a system for sharing content over one or more networks is disclosed. The system can include… In yet another embodiment, a non-transitory computer-readable medium is disclosed. The non-transitory computer-readable medium can have stored thereon code that when executed performs a method comprising… In one embodiment, a system programmed to support one or more networked networks is disclosed. The system can comprise a task management module programmed to).
a user interface configured to enable a user to define one or more parameters; (Chen, [171]; User 1 can sort the objects listed in the interface 1200 according to various parameters. For example, User 1 can sort the objects by the status field 1215 such that objects that are pending with User 1 (e.g., those objects that are awaiting action from User 1) are listed first, whereas objects pending with other users are listed later. In the example of FIG. 12, therefore, if sorted by status field 1215, in some embodiments, Document 3 and Message 2 may be listed first since they are pending action by User 1 (e.g., "You" in FIG. 12). In some arrangements, Tasks 4 and 5 would then be listed next, since these are objects that are awaiting action by another user. Task 1 may be listed last when sorted by status field 1215 since it has already been completed.
a clustering module communicatively coupled to the user interface and configured to: retrieve a plurality of work items based on the one or more parameters; (Chen, [81]; the server 215 may process multiple tasks from multiple users, it can be important to ensure that the tasks 204 are accurately sorted such that each task 204 received by the server 215 is accurately assigned to the correct users and that each task 204 includes the correct information for the task 204 and Chen, [93]; The user interface module 341 can include various modules for processing, sorting, and displaying task information. In some implementations, for example, the task information, e.g., information about the task and task assignments, can be shared among the task participants using the user interface module 341 and Chen, [107-108]; one or more tasks are directed to related subject matter, the user management module 359 may group the tasks into a task group…. , tasks may be grouped into one or more projects. A project may be, for example, a complex or long-term endeavor that includes multiple tasks that may or may not be directed to related subject matter and Chen, [147]; the task analytics module 374 can present a task analytics dashboard 1000 (e.g., a user interface) to a system user, such as a company manager or executive. The dashboard can organize, analyze, and clearly present the information that the task analytics module 374 and/or the user management module 359 aggregate regarding the tasks performed by employees or users associated with the particular company or organization).
retrieve a plurality of … to the plurality of work items; (Chen, [54]; a task analytics dashboard, or user interface, can be presented to company- or organization-level executives or managers. The dashboard can include various pages that illustrate user productivity and user relationships, as well as project data and topic data. The dashboard can analyze task data that is aggregated by the task management system and can be presented to a decision-maker to assist in making decisions and Chen, [126]; a calendar 598 and/or a schedule of tasks can be presented in the user interface 590. The calendar 598 can list the portions of a task that are assigned to the user and can enforce accountability for timely performance of the task. In some embodiments, the user can check off assignments that have been completed and may prioritize the remaining assignments and Chen, [147]; the task analytics module 374 can present a task analytics dashboard 1000 (e.g., a user interface) to a system user, such as a company manager or executive. The dashboard can organize, analyze, and clearly present the information that the task analytics module 374 and/or the user management module 359 aggregate regarding the tasks performed by employees or users associated with the particular company or organization).
generate a plurality of work groups…; (Chen, [51]; the task management system can monitor the e-mail and/or network IDs of the users that utilize the system, the task management system can sort the system users and task participants according to organizations and/or companies with which they are affiliated and Chen, [105]; In addition, the user management module 359 may organize the processed tasks and task participants into one or more user groups. For example, the user management module 359 can recognize when groups of users, e.g., task participants, are affiliated with one another, such as by being employees of the same company or members of the same organization).
wherein each work group comprises a set of homogenous work items. (Chen, [107]; when one or more tasks are directed to related subject matter, the user management module 359 may group the tasks into a task group and Chen, [108]; tasks may be grouped into one or more projects. A project may be, for example, a complex or long-term endeavor that includes multiple tasks that may or may not be directed to related subject matter. For example, if a project's objective is to roll out a new product design, then a company may assign disparate tasks to its multiple divisions. Executives may assign product development to the engineering department, product sales to its sales or marketing department, and product manufacturing to its manufacturing arm or to a third-party contractor and Chen, [127]; The multi-layered infrastructure can facilitate interactions among tasks and users within a department or group (e.g., networks), and can further organize departments and groups within larger companies, organizations, or affiliates (e.g., clouds).
wherein the set of homogenous work items comprises a subset of the plurality of work items; and (Chen, [106, 107]; the user management module 359 can associate a word processing document containing an action item list, a spreadsheet listing cash flow projections, and engineering drawings with a project (e.g., group of tasks) related to a new product design and roll-out…. when one or more tasks are directed to related subject matter, the user management module 359 may group the tasks into a task group). Examiner interprets the term homogenous in view of the Applicant’s Specification, [25]; “the homogenous work items are related to a similar problem or request.”
While Chen teaches sorting by parameters, Chen does not appear to explicitly teach filtering. However, Chen in view of the analogous art of Kakaire (i.e. task management) does teach: wherein the user interface comprises a drop-down menu for selection of a specific parameter to perform filtering; (Kakaire, [co. 4, li. 21-30]; The interface relates to providing a method of restricting workers on projects that involves filtering workers, documenting workers and restricting workers via interfaces with dropdown menus, text fields and text areas. The bottom part of the interface relates to selecting a company name or selecting a company utilizing its id such as EIN and a client editing the company information including address, account number, phone numbers and emails).
wherein filtering is applied to the plurality of work items; (Kakaire, [co. 9, li. 40-46]; To create a project team that involves workers of another group such as the moving company, the client presses the button link labeled “Generate Project Communication Team”. This internally selects the project number, execution date and time and sends queries to the scheduling database to extract names of people scheduled to work on that project at that time). Examiner notes the system of Kakaire filters by at least projects by project number and execution date
wherein the user interface displays a work group having the subset of the plurality of work items. (Kakaire, [co. 5, li. 30-48]; FIG. 9 relates to an interface for tracking project progress including but not limited to office identification move color, name of office owner being moved, move status which is showed by two button links one for a origin office and another for a destination office. It provides a more data entry button link which opens new interfaces that generates button links by embedding data from the database. A home button link utilized by moving company workers namely packers, pc techs, installers, movers and any other category returns to a home page. When the origin office is completed and data is saved, the origin button automatically changes color and label from origin-open to O-View Team, and when both origin and destination offices are completed and recorded, the two button links that identifies a moved office are replaced by one button link labeled View-Team and highlighted with a bright color. Pressing the view-team button link displays the moving employees that worked in the office by type of work. That is, PC Tech, Modular Installer, Packer, Mover and any other type and Kakaire, [Fig. 9]; visual representation of work group (i.e. PC Tech) having a subset of work items).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the disclosed invention to have combined the teachings of Chen including sorting by parameters, with the teachings of Kakaire including filtering via drop-down menus and displaying work items in order to allow a user a plurality of options to analyze data and provide progress updates (Kakaire, [co. 4, li. 19-29]; The interface relates to providing a method of restricting workers on projects that involves filtering workers, documenting workers and restricting workers via interfaces with dropdown menus, text fields and text areas. The bottom part of the interface relates to selecting a company name or selecting a company utilizing its id such as EIN and a client editing the company information including address, account number, phone numbers and emails and Kakaire, [co. 5, li. 30-34]; FIG. 9 relates to an interface for tracking project progress including but not limited to office identification move color, name of office owner being moved, move status which is showed by two button links one for a origin office and another for a destination office).
While Chen teaches users inputting parameter, retrieving work items (i.e. tasks), and generating work groups, Chen does not appear to explicitly teach the use of embeddings. However Chen in view of the analogous art of Lei (i.e. content clustering) does teach: embeddings; (Lei, [pg. 6, para. 12]; utilizing the vector similarity between the sample embedding vector and the cluster center, each sample embedding vector in the same vector clustering result is sorted, and stored in sequence according to the sorting results to form a corresponding vector clustering cluster, which can record the similarity between the sample embedding vectors, thereby facilitating improving the efficiency of subsequent similarity matching in the vector database.).
by clustering embeddings with vector similarities (Lei, [pg. 2, para. 3]; Based on the vector similarity and a preset clustering threshold, clustering each of the sample embedding vectors to obtain a corresponding vector clustering result and Lei, [pg. 6, para. 12]; utilizing the vector similarity between the sample embedding vector and the cluster center, each sample embedding vector in the same vector clustering result is sorted, and stored in sequence according to the sorting results to form a corresponding vector clustering cluster, which can record the similarity between the sample embedding vectors, thereby facilitating improving the efficiency of subsequent similarity matching in the vector database).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the disclosed invention to have combined the teachings of Chen including users inputting parameter, retrieving work items (i.e. tasks), and generating work groups with the teachings of Lei including embeddings and clustering by vector similarities in order to promote efficient in subsequent similarity matching. (Lei, [pg. 6, para. 12]; utilizing the vector similarity between the sample embedding vector and the cluster center, each sample embedding vector in the same vector clustering result is sorted, and stored in sequence according to the sorting results to form a corresponding vector clustering cluster, which can record the similarity between the sample embedding vectors, thereby facilitating improving the efficiency of subsequent similarity matching in the vector database).
Regarding Claim(s) 8 and 17, teaches: The system of claim 1, further comprising an embedding database configured to stores the plurality of embeddings. (Lei, [pg. 5, para. 10]; Optionally, in some embodiments, the server may cluster the sample embedding vectors first when storing the sample embedding vectors in the vector database, and then store the sample embedding vectors and a plurality of vector clusters obtained by clustering in the vector database).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the disclosed invention to have combined the teachings of Chen including users inputting parameter, retrieving work items (i.e. tasks), and generating work groups with the teachings of Lei including embeddings and clustering by vector similarities in order to promote efficient in subsequent similarity matching. (Lei, [pg. 6, para. 12]; utilizing the vector similarity between the sample embedding vector and the cluster center, each sample embedding vector in the same vector clustering result is sorted, and stored in sequence according to the sorting results to form a corresponding vector clustering cluster, which can record the similarity between the sample embedding vectors, thereby facilitating improving the efficiency of subsequent similarity matching in the vector database).
Regarding Claim(s) 11, Chen/Lei teaches: The method of claim 10; wherein the plurality of work groups is generated by implementing a clustering model. (Chen, [51]; the task management system can monitor the e-mail and/or network IDs of the users that utilize the system, the task management system can sort the system users and task participants according to organizations and/or companies with which they are affiliated and Chen, [105]; In addition, the user management module 359 may organize the processed tasks and task participants into one or more user groups. For example, the user management module 359 can recognize when groups of users, e.g., task participants, are affiliated with one another, such as by being employees of the same company or members of the same organization).
Claim(s) 2-4 and 12-14 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Chen et al. (US 20140208325 A1) in view of Lei et al. (CN 117992575 A), Kakaire et al. (US 11755197 B1), and Panzer et al. (US 9269081 B1).
Regarding Claim(s) 2 and 12, While Chen/Kakaire/Lei teaches users inputting parameter, retrieving work items (i.e. tasks), generating work groups, and a clustering module, but Chen/Lei does not appear to teach generating titles. However, Chen/Lei in view of the analogous art of Panzer (i.e. data clustering) does teach: The system of claim 1, wherein the clustering module is further configured to generate a title for each work group based on a topic present in the identified set of homogenous work items. (Panzer, [col. 16-17, lines 60-2]; the cluster processor 204 may use one or more keywords, a topic, an organization name, etc., to generate the suggestions for a group name. As a further example, the cluster processor 204 may suggest a group name of “Close Friends” for one or more social clusters because they had exchanged electronic messages about going on vacations together, dining together, planning get-togethers, etc., and the group creator 212 may correspondingly name the group being created “Close Friends” and tag the group with attributes including “vacation,” “food,” “social events,” etc.).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the disclosed invention to have combined the teachings of Chen including users inputting parameter, retrieving work items (i.e. tasks),clustering module, and generating work groups with the teachings of Panzer including generating title in order to assist in the naming process by providing relevant titles. (Panzer, [col. 16-17, lines 60-2]; the cluster processor 204 may use one or more keywords, a topic, an organization name, etc., to generate the suggestions for a group name. As a further example, the cluster processor 204 may suggest a group name of “Close Friends” for one or more social clusters because they had exchanged electronic messages about going on vacations together, dining together, planning get-togethers, etc., and the group creator 212 may correspondingly name the group being created “Close Friends” and tag the group with attributes including “vacation,” “food,” “social events,” etc.).
Regarding Claim(s) 3 and 13, Chen/Kakaire/Lei/Panzer teaches: The system of claim 2, wherein the clustering module is further configured to generate a summary for each work group. (Panzer, [col. 17, lines 21-29]; the interface module 208 to generate and transmit a summary of the social clusters to a client device of the requestor for display. In some implementations, the summary of social clusters includes a description of the one or more social clusters identified by the cluster processor 204 and the users of each social cluster. The summary may also include information describing how the users of the social cluster are related).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the disclosed invention to have combined the teachings of Chen including users inputting parameter, retrieving work items (i.e. tasks),clustering module, and generating work groups with the teachings of Panzer including summarizing the work groups in order to provide information on how the groups are related. (Panzer, [col. 17, lines 21-29]; the interface module 208 to generate and transmit a summary of the social clusters to a client device of the requestor for display. In some implementations, the summary of social clusters includes a description of the one or more social clusters identified by the cluster processor 204 and the users of each social cluster. The summary may also include information describing how the users of the social cluster are related).
Regarding Claim(s) 4 and 14, Chen/Kakaire/Lei/Panzer teaches: The system of claim 2; wherein each work group and the corresponding work group title and the summary are displayed to the one or more users via the user interface. (Panzer, [col. 17, lines 21-29]; the interface module 208 to generate and transmit a summary of the social clusters to a client device of the requestor for display. In some implementations, the summary of social clusters includes a description of the one or more social clusters identified by the cluster processor 204 and the users of each social cluster. The summary may also include information describing how the users of the social cluster are related and Panzer, [col. 22, lines 40-45]; the cluster processor 204 can determine how the users associated with one or more social clusters are connected based on the attributes it identifies and provide group name suggestions in the cluster summary presented to the requestor).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the disclosed invention to have combined the teachings of Chen including users inputting parameter, retrieving work items (i.e. tasks),clustering module, and generating work groups with the teachings of Panzer including summarizing the work groups in order to provide information on how the groups are related. (Panzer, [col. 17, lines 21-29]; the interface module 208 to generate and transmit a summary of the social clusters to a client device of the requestor for display. In some implementations, the summary of social clusters includes a description of the one or more social clusters identified by the cluster processor 204 and the users of each social cluster. The summary may also include information describing how the users of the social cluster are related).
Claim(s) 5-6 and 15-16 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Chen et al. (US 20140208325 A1) in view of Lei et al. (CN 117992575 A), Kakaire et al. (US 11755197 B1), Panzer (US 9269081 B1), and Panzer (US 20140108562 A1) herein after referred to as “P2”.
Regarding Claim(s) 5 and 15, While Chen/Kakaire/Lei/Panzer teach users inputting parameter, retrieving work items (i.e. tasks),clustering module, receiving feedback (Chen, [48]) and generating work groups, the group does not appear to teach feedback for the accuracy of groups. However, Chen/Lei/Panzer in view of the analogous art of P2 (i.e. data clustering) does teach: The system of claim 2, wherein the clustering module is further configured to enable the one or more users to interactively provide feedback to evaluate an accuracy of the work groups. (P2, [103]; the method 500 processes 520 any revisions included in the suggestion response to improve the accuracy of future suggestions. For example, the method 500 can process the user input included in the suggestion response from the user providing it for one or more revisions to the group suggestion, can generate accuracy improvement data based at least in part on the one or more revisions, and based on the message-related information and the accuracy improvement data, may generate one or more subsequent group suggestions having improved suggestions for group members, names, group scope (e.g., private vs. shared), etc.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the disclosed invention to have combined the teachings of Chen including users inputting parameter, retrieving work items (i.e. tasks),clustering module, and generating work groups with the teachings of P2 including feedback relating to the accuracy of groups in order to generate improvement data. (P2, [103]; the method 500 processes 520 any revisions included in the suggestion response to improve the accuracy of future suggestions. For example, the method 500 can process the user input included in the suggestion response from the user providing it for one or more revisions to the group suggestion, can generate accuracy improvement data based at least in part on the one or more revisions, and based on the message-related information and the accuracy improvement data, may generate one or more subsequent group suggestions having improved suggestions for group members, names, group scope (e.g., private vs. shared), etc.).
Regarding Claim(s) 6 and 16, Chen/Lei/Panzer/P2 teaches: The system of claim 5, further comprising a feedback module coupled to the clustering module and configured to receive and store the feedback provided by the one or more users. (P2, [81]; A suggestion response may include information describing the group suggestion and any revisions thereto as input by the user who submitted the response. For example, the suggestion response may include an identifier by which the group suggestion is indexed in the data store 224 and information describing what the name of the group to be created by the group creator 214 should be).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the disclosed invention to have combined the teachings of Chen including users inputting parameter, retrieving work items (i.e. tasks),clustering module, and generating work groups with the teachings of P2 including feedback relating to the accuracy of groups in order to generate improvement data. (P2, [103]; the method 500 processes 520 any revisions included in the suggestion response to improve the accuracy of future suggestions. For example, the method 500 can process the user input included in the suggestion response from the user providing it for one or more revisions to the group suggestion, can generate accuracy improvement data based at least in part on the one or more revisions, and based on the message-related information and the accuracy improvement data, may generate one or more subsequent group suggestions having improved suggestions for group members, names, group scope (e.g., private vs. shared), etc.).
Claim(s) 7 and 9 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Chen et al. (US 20140208325 A1) in view of Lei et al. (CN 117992575 A), Kakaire et al. (US 11755197 B1), and Broomall et al. (US 10469275 B1).
Regarding Claim(s) 7, While Chen/Kakaire/Lei teach storing work items in a database coupled to a clustering module, neither appear to teach a plurality of sources. However Chen/Lei in view of the analogous art of Broomall (i.e. data clustering) does teach: The system of claim 1, further comprising a work database coupled to the clustering module and configured to store a plurality of work items received from a plurality of sources. (Broomall, [col. 6, lines 13-19]; The retail server 304 may obtain information on available items from one or more data stores, such as item data store 312, as is done in conventional electronic commerce systems. In certain embodiments, the retail server 304 may also access item data from other data sources, either internal or external to catalog system 300).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the disclosed invention to have combined the teachings of Chen/Lei including storing work items in a database coupled to a clustering module with the teachings of Broomall including a plurality of data sources in order to allow for both internal and external data sources. (Broomall, [col. 6, lines 13-19]; The retail server 304 may obtain information on available items from one or more data stores, such as item data store 312, as is done in conventional electronic commerce systems. In certain embodiments, the retail server 304 may also access item data from other data sources, either internal or external to catalog system 300).
Regarding Claim(s) 9, While Chen/Kakaire/Lei teach storing work items in a database coupled to a clustering module, neither appear to teach a plurality of sources. However Chen/Lei in view of the analogous art of Broomall (i.e. data clustering) does teach: The system of claim 1, wherein a size of the work group is based on the clustering module. (Broomall, [col. 7, lines 44-55]; the users may already belong to a discussion group that is larger than optimal (such as larger than a target group size) and that the discussion service 310 has determined should be split into subgroups. For example, the discussion service may have determined a target group size by analyzing response latency within groups of varying sizes, where determining response latency within an individual discussion group).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the disclosed invention to have combined the teachings of Chen/Lei including storing work items in a database coupled to a clustering module with the teachings of Broomall including a determining cluster sizes in order to allow for generation of optimal group sizes (Broomall, [col. 7, lines 44-55]; the users may already belong to a discussion group that is larger than optimal (such as larger than a target group size) and that the discussion service 310 has determined should be split into subgroups. For example, the discussion service may have determined a target group size by analyzing response latency within groups of varying sizes, where determining response latency within an individual discussion group).
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). 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 JEREMY L GUNN whose telephone number is (571)270-1728. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 6:30-4:30.
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, Jerry O'Connor can be reached on (571) 272-6787. 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.
/JEREMY L GUNN/ Examiner, Art Unit 3624
Prosecution Insights