Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
DETAILED ACTION
Claims 1-19 and 21 are pending in this office action.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 1, 7-9, 14, 15, 19, and 21 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Zhong et al. (U.S. Patent Pub. No. 2022/0171871).
Regarding claims 1 and 15, Zhong et al. teaches a device, comprising: a memory (fig. 4, ref. num 406); and at least one processor coupled with the memory and configured to cause the device to (fig. 4, ref. num 404): receive access instructions that indicate a first portion of a file is accessible by a first user account and a second portion of the file is accessible by a second user account, the first portion and the second portion being discrete segments of the file (paragraph 0040); generate, based at least in part on the access instructions, a portioned file by granting a first level of access of the portioned file to the first user account, and by granting a second level of access of the portioned file to the second user account, the first level of access being different from the second level of access (paragraph 0041); and transmit, over a network, the portioned file to the second user account (paragraph 0043).
Regarding claims 7 and 19, Zhong et al. teaches wherein the first level of access includes access to the first portion of the file and restricts access to the second portion of the file, while the second level of access includes access to the second portion of the file and restricts access to the first portion of the file (paragraph 0005).
Regarding claim 8, Zhong et al. teaches wherein the first level of access includes one or more of a view access, a comment access, and an edit access to the first portion and one or more of the view access, the comment access, and the edit access to the second portion, and the second level of access includes one or more of the view access, the comment access, and the edit access to the first portion and one or more of the view access, the comment access, and the edit access to the second portion (paragraph 0002).
Regarding claim 9, Zhong et al. teaches a device, comprising: a memory (fig. 4, ref. num 406); and at least one processor coupled with the memory and configured to cause the device to (fig. 4, ref. num 404): receive a portioned file from a first user account, the portioned file comprising at least a first portion of the portioned file, a second portion of the portioned file, and access instructions indicating the second portion is accessible by a second user account associated with the device, the first portion and the second portion being discrete segments of the portioned file (paragraph 0040); display, via a graphical user interface of the device, the portioned file (paragraph 0032); and receive user input, via the graphical user interface and based at least in part on the access instructions, to access the second portion indicated to be accessible by the second user account (paragraph 0043).
Regarding claim 14, Zhong et al. teaches wherein to access the second portion includes at least one of view access, comment access, and edit access to the second portion (paragraph 0002).
Regarding claim 21, Zhong et al. teaches wherein the second level of access restricts access to the first portion of the file by hiding the first portion from the second user account (paragraph 0043, removing parts).
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.
Claims 2-6, 10-13, and 16-18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Zhong et al. (U.S. Patent Pub. No. 2022/0171871) in view of Yu et al. (U.S. Patent No. 9,319,390).
Regarding claims 2 and 16, Zhong et al. teaches the limitations of claims 1 and 15 above. However, Zhong et al. does not teach wherein the access instructions are generated by an artificial intelligence algorithm based at least partially on a received agenda.
Yu et al. teaches wherein the access instructions are generated by an artificial intelligence algorithm based at least partially on a received agenda (col. 12, lines 4-19).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to combine AI for instructions, as taught by Yu et al., with the method of Zhong et al. It would have been obvious for such modifications because artificial intelligence provides advanced options and ease of use for the end user.
Regarding claims 3 and 17, Zhong et al. as modified by Yu et al. teaches wherein the received agenda is an email received by the first user account (see col. 11, lines 43-66 of Yu et al.).
Regarding claims 4 and 18, Zhong et al. teaches wherein the received agenda specifies the first level of access and the second level of access (paragraph 0021).
Regarding claim 5, Zhong et al. as modified by Yu et al. teaches wherein the received agenda includes a template of the file specifying a type of the file (see col. 10, lines 38-45 of Yu et al.).
Regarding claim 6, Zhong et al. teaches wherein the received agenda specifies a number of portions to be included in the portioned file (paragraph 0038).
Regarding claim 10, Zhong et al. teaches the limitations of claim 9 above. However, Zhong et al. does not teach wherein the access instructions are generated by an artificial intelligence algorithm based at least partially on an agenda.
Yu et al. teaches wherein the access instructions are generated by an artificial intelligence algorithm based at least partially on an agenda (col. 12, lines 4-19).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to combine AI for instructions, as taught by Yu et al., with the method of Zhong et al. It would have been obvious for such modifications because artificial intelligence provides advanced options and ease of use for the end user.
Regarding claim 11, Zhong et al. as modified by Yu et al. teaches wherein the agenda is an email received on a device associated with the first user account (see col. 11, lines 43-66 of Yu et al.).
Regarding claim 12, Zhong et al. teaches wherein the agenda grants a level of access of the second portion to the second user account (paragraph 0021).
Regarding claim 13, Zhong et al. teaches wherein the level of access includes access to the second portion of the portioned file and restricts access to the first portion of the portioned file (paragraph 0043, removing parts).
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 BRANDON HOFFMAN whose telephone number is (571)272-3863. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 8:30AM-5:00PM.
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, Jeffrey Pwu can be reached at (571)272-6798. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of published or unpublished applications may be obtained from Patent Center. Unpublished application information in Patent Center is available to registered users. To file and manage patent submissions in Patent Center, visit: https://patentcenter.uspto.gov. Visit https://www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/patent-center for more information about Patent Center and https://www.uspto.gov/patents/docx for information about filing in DOCX format. For additional questions, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/BRANDON HOFFMAN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2433
Prosecution Insights