DETAILED ACTION
Remarks
This communication is in response to the amendment/arguments filed on January 27, 2026 has been fully considered. The rejection is made final. Claims 1-20 are pending for examination.
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
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.
Examiner Notes
Examiner cites particular columns and line numbers in the references as applied to the claims below for the convenience of the applicant. Although the specified citations are representative of the teachings in the art and are applied to the specific limitations within the individual claim, other passages and figures may apply as well. It is respectfully requested that, in preparing responses, the applicant fully consider the references in entirety as potentially teaching all or part of the claimed invention, as well as the context of the passage as taught by the prior art or disclosed by the examiner.
The examiner requests, in response to this Office action, supports are shown for language added to any original claims on amendment and any new claims. That is, indicate support for newly added claim language by specifically pointing to page(s) and line no(s) in the specification and/or drawing figure(s). This will assist the examiner in prosecuting the application.
When responding to this office action, Applicant is advised to clearly point out the patentable novelty which he or she thinks the claims present, in view of the state of the art disclosed by the references cited or the objections made. He or she must also show how the amendments avoid such references or objections See 37 CFR 1.111(c).
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed January 27, 2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
In response to Applicant’s argument on page 2 that “The Examiner has identified the signed legal document in Chan as the communications between the external users and the internal users recited in Applicant’s claims. Applicant amended Claims 1 and 14 to clarify that the stored communications involve discussions between any of the external users and each of the internal users. Neither Chan nor Manolescu stores such data”, is acknowledged but not deemed to be persuasive.
Chan [0041] discloses that a repository for all project activities, communications, and documents created throughout the implementation process, making them easily accessible to all stakeholders (i.e., internal and external users) regardless of location and organization. It allows a common view of the project status, thereby eliminating misunderstandings (i.e., complaints) and reducing time spent on communication (i.e., discussion between internal and external users). Communication with the disclosed system is no longer a one-way process--it becomes multilateral. Team collaboration can be encouraged via an online forum that can include third parties, such as client vendors (i.e., external users). This dynamic implementation work flow allows the right information to be captured and passed from one party to another based on their assigned roles, thus enhancing information flow and ensuring the job is done accurately in the first attempt. Therefore, Chan discloses discussion between any of the external users and each of the internal users.
In response to applicant’s argument that there is no teaching, suggestion, or motivation to combine the references, the examiner recognizes that obviousness may be established by combining or modifying the teachings of the prior art to produce the claimed invention where there is some teaching, suggestion, or motivation to do so found either in the references themselves or in the knowledge generally available to one of ordinary skill in the art. See In re Fine, 837 F.2d 1071, 5 USPQ2d 1596 (Fed. Cir. 1988), In re Jones, 958 F.2d 347, 21 USPQ2d 1941 (Fed. Cir. 1992), and KSR International Co. v. Teleflex, Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 82 USPQ2d 1385 (2007). In this case, Manolescu and Chan are in the same field of endeavor of user interaction, communication and organizing information. While Manolescu discloses user interaction, monitoring user while Chan discloses interaction between internal and external users. Chan [0041], [0049], [0051-0057], [0062] discloses identifying and communicating with external user by the internal user to organize the legal document. The communication and discussion between internal and external user an efficient information exchange and resolve issues.
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 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.
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.
Claims 1-2, 4, 6, 9-10, 13, 14-15, 17 and 19-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Manolescu et al. (US Patent Publication No. 2010/0223212 A1, ‘Manolescu’, hereafter) in view of Chan et al. (US Patent Publication No. 2010/0280962 A1).
Regarding claim 1. Manolescu teaches system for data structure and file management by selecting datatypes and integrating data from stored data (Manolescu [0033-0034], [0042], Fig. 1), the system comprising:
a non-transitory storage device; an application stored in the storage device and including executable code that (while the claimed subject matter described above can be suitable for application in the general context of computer-executable instructions that can run on one or more computers, Manolescu [0085]. computer-readable media provide nonvolatile storage of data, data structures, computer-executable instructions … and further, that any such media can contain computer-executable instructions for performing the methods of the claimed subject matter, Manolescu [0093], [0106]), when executed causes the processor to:
execute a machine learning algorithm that processes the stored data and generate a performance data set for each of the users (machine learning and optimization component can utilize a set of models (e.g., interaction-result model, user use history models, feedback-result loop model, user statistics model, etc.) in connection with determining or inferring user task performance, constructing a user performance model, and providing suggestive feedback to improve user performance, Manolescu [0059]);
respond to identifying one of the users by generating an integrated data set based upon a portion of the stored data and the performance data set associated with the one user (corresponding benchmark interactions can be provided to enable a user to visualize differences in their activities versus the benchmark model. Furthermore, suggested of modified actions, interactions, activities, etc., can be integrated into the user performance model to enable the user to visualize a suggested performance of the task. Furthermore, predictive analysis can be employed to map predicted results to the integrated user performance model to illustrate results that can potentially be achieved by the suggestions/modifications, Manolescu [0033], [0067]); and
generate on a display device a display of information based upon the integrated data set, the display including links to files in the stored data (Output component 214 obtains an analysis of user performance versus the benchmark performance from analysis component 204, and provides suggestive feedback calculated to improve user performance relative to the benchmark performance. … The modified or additional interactions can be output to a user feedback file 216, and provided to a user interface application for user consumption, Manolescu [0053]. A ask-related performance benchmark can also be depicted at user interface display … user interactions can be integrated into the user interaction-result display, Manolescu [0067]).
Manolescu does not teach
a computing system being operatively connected to the storage device and adapted to communicate with multiple users, the computing system including a processor;
store, over a predetermined time period, data related to the users, the data being generated by the computing system, by inputs to the computing system from the users, by complaints from the external users, and by communications involving discussions between any of the external users and each of the internal users;
However, Chan teaches
a computing system being operatively connected to the storage device and adapted to communicate with multiple users through user devices connected to the computing system, the users including internal users and external users, the computing system including a processor (Chan Fig. 2 discloses a computing system the portal that includes user interface 220, processes 230, databases 240 and outputs 250 and is connected to client vision 210. The portal 200 is the entrance to the system through which the user is able to access the various system functions, Chan [0047]. web-based portal provides, a repository for all project activities, communications, and documents created throughout the implementation process, making them easily accessible to all stakeholders regardless of location and organization (i.e., communication between internal and external users using the computing system). It allows a common view of the project status, thereby eliminating misunderstandings and reducing time spent on communication, Chan [0041]. The client database 241 can include, for example, information about clients, including company information, client contact details, solution details, account lists, and estimated business vale (EBV) spreadsheets, Chan [0062]);
store, over a predetermined time period, data related to the users, the data being generated by the computing system, by inputs to the computing system from the users, by complaints from the external users, and by communications involving discussions between any of the external users and each of the internal users (a repository for all project activities, communications, and documents created throughout the implementation process, making them easily accessible to all stakeholders (i.e., internal and external users) regardless of location and organization. It allows a common view of the project status, thereby eliminating misunderstandings (i.e., complaints) and reducing time spent on communication (i.e., discussion between internal and external users). Communication with the disclosed system is no longer a one-way process--it becomes multilateral. Team collaboration can be encouraged via an online forum that can include third parties, such as client vendors (i.e., external users). This dynamic implementation work flow allows the right information to be captured and passed from one party to another based on their assigned roles, thus enhancing information flow and ensuring the job is done accurately in the first attempt, Chan [0041]. The user interface 220 is the interface by which, for example, in some embodiments, both internal and external users can access the portal. For example, bank employees and agents are referred to as internal users, customers and clients are referred to as external users, Chan [0049]. During a cash management mandate, the bank may have to ask an external customer to sign different legal documents. After the documents are executed, they need to be stored in a single repository for future retrieval. … the scanned image of the signed legal document is stored in the system for future retrieval (i.e., store, over a predetermined time period) and also to provide a single database of all the signed documents for clients, Chan [0057]);
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention was made having the teachings of Manolescu and Chan before him/her, to modify Manolescu with the teaching of Chan’s automation system and method for a web-based implementation portal. One would have been motivated to do so for the benefit of efficient information exchange among all parties involved in the end-to-end implementation process. Parties such as, a client or customer (i.e., external users) and company (e.g., bank) personnel (i.e., internal users) (Chan, Abstract and [0005]).
Regarding claim 2. Manolescu as modified teaches wherein the files include audio and video files of communications between the one user and another of the users, and digital records of non-recorded communications between the one user and the another of the users (Manolescu [0056-0057]).
Regarding claim 4. Manolescu as modified teaches wherein the computing system is operated by an entity and the users include external users who are external to the entity (Chan [0049]).
Regarding claim 6. Manolescu as modified teaches wherein when the one user is one of the external users the displayed information includes a product to be introduced to the one user (Chan [0049], [0074]).
Regarding claim 9. Manolescu as modified teaches wherein the computing system is operated by an entity and the users include internal users who are managed by the entity (Chan [0049]).
Regarding claim 10. Manolescu as modified teaches wherein when the one user is one of the internal users the displayed information includes at least one product to be introduced to ones of the users external to the entity (Chan [0049], [0074]).
Regarding claim 13. Manolescu as modified teaches wherein when the one user is one of the internal users the displayed information includes key performance indicators for the one user (Manolescu [0059]).
Regarding claims 14-15, 17 and 19-20, the system steps of claims 1-2, 4 and 9 -10 substantially encompass the method recited in claims 14-15, 17 and 19-20. Therefore, claims 14-15, 17 and 19-20 are rejected for at least the same reason as claims 1-2, 4 and 9-10 above.
Claims 3, 7, 11 and 16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Manolescu et al. (US Patent Publication No. 2010/0223212 A1, ‘Manolescu’, hereafter) in view of Chan et al. (US Patent Publication No. 2010/0280962 A1) and further in view of Thakkar et al. (US Patent Publication No. 2021/0027316 A1, ‘Thakkar’, hereafter).
Regarding claim 3. Manolescu and Chan do not teach wherein the information includes a potential for retention score associated with the one user.
However, Thakkar teaches wherein the information includes a potential for retention score associated with the one user (Thakkar [0025-0028]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention was made having the teachings of Manolescu, Chan and Thakkar before him/her, to further modify Manolescu with the teaching of Thakkar’s determining user retention values using machine learning and heuristic techniques. One would have been motivated to do so for the benefit of providing a user retention score within a given range triggers one or more automated user-support actions (e.g., to be performed in associated with an enterprise remediation entity). Such user-support actions can include, migration actions related to improving user retention (Thakkar, Abstract, [0003]).
Regarding claim 7. Manolescu as modified teaches wherein when the one user is one of the external users the displayed information includes a potential for retention score of the one user (Thakkar [0025-0028]).
Regarding claim 11. Manolescu as modified teaches wherein when the one user is one of the internal users the displayed information includes a potential for retention score of the one user (Thakkar [0025-0028]).
Regarding claim 16, the system steps of claim 3 substantially encompass the method recited in claim 16. Therefore, claim 16 is rejected for at least the same reason as claim 3 above.
Claims 5, 8, 12 and 18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Manolescu et al. (US Patent Publication No. 2010/0223212 A1, ‘Manolescu’, hereafter) in view of Chan et al. (US Patent Publication No. 2010/0280962 A1) and further in view of Wilson (US Patent Publication No. 2023/0316178 A1).
Regarding claim 5. Manolescu and Chan do not teach wherein when the one user is one of the external users the displayed information includes a chronological list for the one user.
However, Wilson teaches wherein when the one user is one of the external users the displayed information includes a chronological list for the one user (Wilson [0046]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention was made having the teachings of Manolescu, Chan and Wilson before him/her, to further modify Manolescu with the teaching of Wilson’s system for synchronizing contextual notification for event feed items. One would have been motivated to do so for the benefit of providing issue data for the selected card can be displayed and a view flag can be modified to indicate that the updates summary for the card has been viewed and help to ensure the accuracy of the information that is displayed on the limited area available in some event feed graphical elements (Wilson, Abstract, [0003]).
Regarding claim 8. Manolescu as modified teaches wherein when the one user is one of the external users the displayed information includes a list of issues by the one user (Wilson [0046]).
Regarding claim 12. Manolescu as modified teaches wherein when the one user is one of the internal users the displayed information includes a list of issues against the one user (Wilson [0046]).
Regarding claim 18, the system steps of claim 5 substantially encompass the method recited in claim 18. Therefore, claim 18 is rejected for at least the same reason as claim 5 above.
Conclusion
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to HASANUL MOBIN whose telephone number is (571)270-1289. The examiner can normally be reached on 9:30AM to 6:00PM EST M-F.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor is Charles Rones can be reached at 571-272-4085. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300. Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/HASANUL MOBIN/
Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2168