DETAILED ACTION
1. Claims 1-14 are pending.
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
2. The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Information Disclosure Statement
3. The IDS filed 7/18/2024 is considered.
Specification
4. The disclosure is objected to because of the following informalities:
The title of the invention is not descriptive. A new title is required that is clearly indicative of the invention to which the claims are directed.
Appropriate correction is required.
5. The abstract of the disclosure is objected to because it is not a concise statement of the technical disclosure of the patent. The abstract is merely a copy of claim 1. A corrected abstract of the disclosure is required and must be presented on a separate sheet, apart from any other text. See MPEP § 608.01(b).
Applicant is reminded of the proper content of an abstract of the disclosure.
A patent abstract is a concise statement of the technical disclosure of the patent and should include that which is new in the art to which the invention pertains. The abstract should not refer to purported merits or speculative applications of the invention and should not compare the invention with the prior art.
If the patent is of a basic nature, the entire technical disclosure may be new in the art, and the abstract should be directed to the entire disclosure. If the patent is in the nature of an improvement in an old apparatus, process, product, or composition, the abstract should include the technical disclosure of the improvement. The abstract should also mention by way of example any preferred modifications or alternatives.
Where applicable, the abstract should include the following: (1) if a machine or apparatus, its organization and operation; (2) if an article, its method of making; (3) if a chemical compound, its identity and use; (4) if a mixture, its ingredients; (5) if a process, the steps.
Extensive mechanical and design details of an apparatus should not be included in the abstract. The abstract should be in narrative form and generally limited to a single paragraph within the range of 50 to 150 words in length.
See MPEP § 608.01(b) for guidelines for the preparation of patent abstracts.
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.
6. Claim(s) 1, 3-8, and 12-14 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Rotenberg (US 2023/0077173 A1) and further in view of Nadendla et al. (US 2024/0129269 A1).
In regard to claim 1, Rotenberg discloses a groupware system, comprising at least one processor configured to (Fig. 1):
a shared e-mail system, which manages shared e-mails, for a shared e-mail portion, which is a portion for the shared e-mails on a shared e-mail screen of groupware (Paragraph 0007, Paragraph 0008, Paragraph 0018, Paragraph 0036 lines 3-6, Paragraph 0060, Paragraph 0073 lines 1-4, and Paragraph 0091: an email integration module that integrated emails from a group of users to allow emails to be shared and interacted with by the group of users displayed on a user dashboard for collaboration between users);
and display the shared e-mail screen including a groupware portion, which is a portion for the groupware, and the shared e-mail portion on a user terminal (Fig. 4, Paragraph 0077, and Paragraph 0091: the dashboard display with portion for shared emails).
While Rotenberg teaches a shared e-mail system, which manages shared e-mails, for a shared e-mail portion, which is a portion for the shared e-mails on a shared e-mail screen of groupware; and display the shared e-mail screen including a groupware portion, which is a portion for the groupware, and the shared e-mail portion on a user terminal they fail to show the request a shared e-mail system, which manages shared e-mails, for partial data indicating a shared e-mail portion; acquire the partial data from the shared e-mail system; and display the shared e-mail screen including a groupware portion, which is a portion for the groupware, and the shared e-mail portion on a user terminal based on the partial data, as recited in the claims. Nadendla teaches a shared e-mail system similar to that of Rotenberg. In addition, Nadendla further teaches
request a shared e-mail system, which manages shared e-mails, for partial data indicating a shared e-mail portion and acquire the partial data from the shared e-mail system for display to a user (Paragraph 0063 and Paragraphs 0070-0073: request and acquire subset of shared emails that are mapped to the user accessing the emails for display to the user).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, having the teachings of Rotenberg and Nadendla before him before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify the a shared e-mail system, which manages shared e-mails, for a shared e-mail portion, which is a portion for the shared e-mails on a shared e-mail screen of groupware; and display the shared e-mail screen including a groupware portion, which is a portion for the groupware, and the shared e-mail portion on a user terminal taught by Rotenberg to include the request a shared e-mail system, which manages shared e-mails, for partial data indicating a shared e-mail portion and acquire the partial data from the shared e-mail system for display to a user of Nadendla, in order to obtain request a shared e-mail system, which manages shared e-mails, for partial data indicating a shared e-mail portion, which is a portion for the shared e-mails on a shared e-mail screen of groupware; acquire the partial data from the shared e-mail system; and display the shared e-mail screen including a groupware portion, which is a portion for the groupware, and the shared e-mail portion on a user terminal based on the partial data. It would have been advantageous for one to utilize such a combination as providing targeted notifications would have been obtained, as suggested by Nadendla (Paragraph 0058).
In regard to claim 3, Rotenberg discloses wherein the at least one processor is configured to add a plug-in for the shared e-mails for the groupware when a user who uses the groupware performs a predetermined plug-in addition operation, and wherein processing of the at least one processor is executed based on the plug-in (Paragraph 0018 and Paragraph 0059).
In regard to claim 4, Nadendla further discloses receive designation of an HTML tag indicating the shared e-mails performed by a user (Paragraph 0023 lines 1-8, Paragraph 0031, Paragraph 0035 lines 1-7, and Paragraph 0058). Accordingly, the combination further teaches wherein the at least one processor is configured to receive designation of an HTML tag indicating the shared e-mails performed by a user who uses the groupware, and wherein processing of the at least one processor is executed on condition that the HTML tag has been designated.
In regard to claim 5, Rotenberg discloses wherein the at least one processor is configured to display, on the user terminal, the shared e-mail screen including the groupware portion from which the groupware is identifiable to a user who uses the groupware and the shared e-mail portion from which the shared e-mail system is unidentifiable to the user (Fig. 4, Paragraph 0077, and Paragraph 0091).
In regard to claim 6, Nadendla further discloses request the shared e-mail system to acquire the shared e-mails based on an e-mail address registered in a customer management app, which manages customer information on a users; acquire acquisition result data indicating acquisition results of the shared e-mails from the shared e-mail system; and display a customer management screen including the customer information and the acquisition results indicated by the acquisition result data on based on the customer management app (Paragraph 0028 lines 7-13, Paragraph 0033 lines 3-5, Paragraph 0034, and Paragraph 0035). Accordingly, the combination further teaches wherein the at least one processor is configured to: request the shared e-mail system to acquire the shared e-mails based on an e-mail address registered in a customer management app, which manages customer information on a user who uses the groupware; acquire acquisition result data indicating acquisition results of the shared e-mails from the shared e-mail system; and display a customer management screen including the customer information and the acquisition results indicated by the acquisition result data on the user terminal based on the customer management app.
In regard to claim 7, Rotenberg discloses wherein the at least one processor is configured to register, when a predetermined registration operation is performed on the shared e-mail screen, new customer information in a customer management app, which manages customer information on a user who uses the groupware, based on each of the shared e-mails displayed in the shared e-mail portion (Paragraph 0068).
In regard to claim 8, Rotenberg discloses wherein the at least one processor is configured to display a customer management screen of a customer management app, which manages customer information on a user who uses the groupware, on the user terminal based on each of the shared e-mails displayed in the shared e-mail portion when a predetermined display operation is performed on the shared e-mail screen (Paragraph 0039, Paragraph 0061, and Paragraph 0077).
In regard to claim 12, Rotenberg discloses wherein the at least one processor is configured to register pieces of information included in each of the shared e-mails in an app based on associations between fields of the app, which are set for each app in the groupware, and items included in the each of the shared e-mails (Paragraph 0074 and Paragraph 0076).
In regard to claim 13, method claim 13 corresponds generally to system claim 1 and recites similar features in method form and therefore is rejected under the same rationale.
In regard to claim 14, medium claim 14 corresponds generally to system claim 1 and recites similar features in medium form and therefore is rejected under the same rationale.
Allowable Subject Matter
7. Claims 2 and 9-11 are objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
In regard to claim 2, the prior art of record, alone or in combination, fails to disclose the recited “wherein a link to each of the shared e-mails displayed in the shared e-mail portion includes a domain of the groupware and shared e-mail identification information on the each of shared e-mails, wherein the at least one processor is configured to receive, when the link is selected on the user terminal, a display request for the shared e-mail screen from the user terminal, and wherein processing of the at least one processor is executed each time the at least one processor receives the display request” in combination with the other elements recited.
In regard to claims 9-11, the prior art of record, alone or in combination, fails to disclose the recited “wherein the at least one processor is configured to: register an e-mail thread of the shared e-mails in a project management app, which manages projects of a user who uses the groupware; and display a project management screen including the e-mail thread on the user terminal based on the project management app, and wherein processing of the at least one processor is executed when the e-mail thread is selected on the project management screen” in combination with the other elements recited.
Conclusion
8. The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Tripepi (US 2017/0201551 A1), see at least Paragraph 0030 and Paragraph 0031.
Kikin-Gil et al. (US 2017/0083490 A1), see at least the abstract, Fig. 1 and Paragraph 0022.
Schultz et al. (US 2012/0151377 A1), see at least the abstract.
Gaffga (US 2008/0155014 A1), see at least the abstract and Paragraph 0024.
Dauer et al. (US 2006/0095476 A1), see at least the abstract.
Haug et al. (US 2006/0004720 A1), see at least the abstract.
9. Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to NICHOLAS S ULRICH whose telephone number is (571)270-1397. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8-4.
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.
10. 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.
/Nicholas Ulrich/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2179
Prosecution Insights