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 .
Double Patenting
The nonstatutory double patenting rejection is based on a judicially created doctrine grounded in public policy (a policy reflected in the statute) so as to prevent the unjustified or improper timewise extension of the “right to exclude” granted by a patent and to prevent possible harassment by multiple assignees. A nonstatutory double patenting rejection is appropriate where the conflicting claims are not identical, but at least one examined application claim is not patentably distinct from the reference claim(s) because the examined application claim is either anticipated by, or would have been obvious over, the reference claim(s). See, e.g., In re Berg, 140 F.3d 1428, 46 USPQ2d 1226 (Fed. Cir. 1998); In re Goodman, 11 F.3d 1046, 29 USPQ2d 2010 (Fed. Cir. 1993); In re Longi, 759 F.2d 887, 225 USPQ 645 (Fed. Cir. 1985); In re Van Ornum, 686 F.2d 937, 214 USPQ 761 (CCPA 1982); In re Vogel, 422 F.2d 438, 164 USPQ 619 (CCPA 1970); In re Thorington, 418 F.2d 528, 163 USPQ 644 (CCPA 1969).
A timely filed terminal disclaimer in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(c) or 1.321(d) may be used to overcome an actual or provisional rejection based on nonstatutory double patenting provided the reference application or patent either is shown to be commonly owned with the examined application, or claims an invention made as a result of activities undertaken within the scope of a joint research agreement. See MPEP § 717.02 for applications subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA as explained in MPEP § 2159. See MPEP § 2146 et seq. for applications not subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA . A terminal disclaimer must be signed in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(b).
The filing of a terminal disclaimer by itself is not a complete reply to a nonstatutory double patenting (NSDP) rejection. A complete reply requires that the terminal disclaimer be accompanied by a reply requesting reconsideration of the prior Office action. Even where the NSDP rejection is provisional the reply must be complete. See MPEP § 804, subsection I.B.1. For a reply to a non-final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.111(a). For a reply to final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.113(c). A request for reconsideration while not provided for in 37 CFR 1.113(c) may be filed after final for consideration. See MPEP §§ 706.07(e) and 714.13.
The USPTO Internet website contains terminal disclaimer forms which may be used. Please visit www.uspto.gov/patent/patents-forms. The actual filing date of the application in which the form is filed determines what form (e.g., PTO/SB/25, PTO/SB/26, PTO/AIA /25, or PTO/AIA /26) should be used. A web-based eTerminal Disclaimer may be filled out completely online using web-screens. An eTerminal Disclaimer that meets all requirements is auto-processed and approved immediately upon submission. For more information about eTerminal Disclaimers, refer to www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/applying-online/eterminal-disclaimer.
Claims 1, 3-5, 8-10, 12-17 and 20 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-20 of U.S. Patent No. 12095716. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because claims 1-20 of U.S. Patent No. 12095716 anticipate the claims 1, 3-5, 8-10, 12-17 and 20 of the instant application.
Claims 2 and 11 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-20 of U.S. Patent No. 12095716 in view of Pina et al. (US PAT 11115363), hereinafter "Pina".
Claims 1-20 of U.S. Patent No. 12095716 describe all the features with respect to independent claims of the instant application.
However, Claims 1-20 of U.S. Patent No. 12095716 does not explicitly disclose:
wherein: the time is prior to an expiration of the first amount of time; and the action is to display the message to the user via the user interface.
On the other hand, in the same field of endeavor, Pina teaches:
wherein: the time is prior to an expiration of the first amount of time; and the action is to display the message to the user via the user interface (i.e. if the user accesses the message prior to the expiration time [i.e. the time is prior to an expiration of the first amount of time], the message may be displayed [i.e. and the action is to display the message] via the user interface) (628 & 630 - Fig. 6C).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the method/system/computer-readable-medium of Claims 1-20 of U.S. Patent No. 12095716 to include the features wherein: the time is prior to an expiration of the first amount of time; and the action is to display the message to the user via the user interface as taught by Pina so that expired message that has not been purged by the system may be deleted in response to the user’s request to view the message (Column 14 Line # 63 – 67 and Column 15 Line # 1 - 20).
Claims 6, 7, 18 and 19 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-20 of U.S. Patent No. U.S. Patent No. 12095716 in view of Dhanasekaran et al. (US PG PUB 20180276223), hereinafter "Dhanasekaran".
Regarding Claims 6 and 18, claims 1-20 of U.S. Patent No. U.S. Patent No. 12095716 described all the features with respect to independent claims of the instant application as described.
However, Claims 1-20 of U.S. Patent No. 12095716 does not explicitly disclose:
wherein the first group of the users is included in a first team of an entity and the second group of the users is included in a second team, different than the first team, of the entity.
On the other hand, in the same field of endeavor, Dhanasekaran teaches:
wherein the first group of the users is included in a first team of an entity and the second group of the users is included in a second team, different than the first team, of the entity (i.e. the first group of users may be from accounting team of an organization [i.e. an entity] and the second group of users may be from legal team of the organization [i.e. the entity]) (¶ 0049).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the method/system/computer-readable-medium of Claims 1-20 of U.S. Patent No. 12095716 to include the features wherein the first group of the users is included in a first team of an entity and the second group of the users is included in a second team, different than the first team, of the entity as taught by Dhanasekaran so that retention policies may be assigned on the basis of groups/teams (¶ 0049).
Regarding Claims 7 and 19, claims 1-20 of U.S. Patent No. U.S. Patent No. 12095716 described all the features with respect to independent claims of the instant application as described.
However, Claims 1-20 of U.S. Patent No. 12095716 does not explicitly disclose:
wherein the first group of the users is associated with a first entity and the second group of the users is associated with a second entity that is different than the first entity.
On the other hand, in the same field of endeavor, Dhanasekaran teaches:
wherein the first group of the users is associated with a first entity and the second group of the users is associated with a second entity that is different than the first entity (i.e. the first group of users may be from accounting team [i.e. a first entity] and the second group of users may be from legal team [i.e. a second entity that is different than the first entity]) (¶ 0049).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the method/system/computer-readable-medium of Claims 1-20 of U.S. Patent No. 12095716 to include the features wherein the first group of the users is included in a first team of an entity and the second group of the users is included in a second team, different than the first team, of the entity as taught by Dhanasekaran so that retention policies may be assigned on the basis of groups/teams (¶ 0049).
Claim Objections
Claims 10 and 16 are objected to because of the following informalities: On line 5 of claim 10 and line 2 of claim 16, “the one more processors” should be --the one or more processors--. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101
Analysis
Claim reproduced and parsed into limitations.
Independent claim 1 (method): Under the broadest reasonable interpretation (BRI), claim 1 recites operations implemented by computing devices of a group-based communication system:
L1: Maintaining a plurality of virtual spaces that facilitate communication between users.
L2: Assigning a first data retention policy to a first group of users; the policy identifies a first amount of time in which first messages associated with the first group are maintained prior to deletion.
L3: Assigning a second data retention policy to a second, different group of users; the policy identifies a second amount of time, different than the first, in which second messages associated with the second group are maintained prior to deletion.
L4: Receiving, from a user in the first group and via a user interface, a request to view a message of the first messages.
L5: Determining a time at which the request was received.
L6: Performing, based at least in part on the request and the time, an action with respect to the user and the message.
Representative dependent claims:
Claim 2: If the time is prior to expiration of the first amount of time, the action is to display the message.
Claim 3: If the time is at or subsequent to expiration, the action is to refrain from displaying.
Claim 4: Storing data associated with the message; deleting the data at or subsequent to expiration; presenting a notification of non-viewability or deletion according to the policy.
Claim 5: Virtual spaces include chat rooms, public channels, private channels.
Claims 6–9: Grouping by teams/entities/virtual space membership; defining the beginning of the first amount of time relative to message posting or an event.
Independent claim 10 (system):
A memory and one or more processors executing instructions to perform operations mirroring L1–L6 of claim 1, with similar dependent claims.
Independent claim 16 (non-transitory computer-executable instructions):
Instructions that cause processors to perform operations mirroring L1–L6 of claim 1, with similar dependent claims specifying outcomes and grouping contexts.
Step 1: Statutory category determination.
Claim 1: Process (method). Statutory category under 35 U.S.C. § 101.
Claim 10: Machine/system (memory and processors executing instructions). Statutory category under § 101.
Claim 16: Manufacture (non-transitory computer-readable instructions). Statutory category under § 101.
Step 2A, Prong 1: Identify judicial exception(s) with citations to PEG groupings; quote offending clauses. Under the 2019 PEG, the claims “recite” abstract ideas in the following groupings:
Certain methods of organizing human activity (policy management, records retention, compliance; managing personal behavior/relationships in a business context):
Offending clauses:
“assigning a first data retention policy to a first group of the users, the first data retention policy identifying a first amount of time in which first messages … are maintained … prior to deletion” (claim 1).
“assigning a second data retention policy to a second group … the second amount of time being different than the first amount of time” (claim 1).
“performing, based at least in part on the request and the time, an action with respect to the user and the message” (claim 1).
“presenting, to the user via the user interface, a notification indicating … the message is no longer viewable or … has been deleted according to the first data retention policy” (claim 4).
Mental processes (observations/evaluations/decisions that can be performed in the human mind or by pen-and-paper):
Offending clauses:
“determining a time at which the request was received” (claim 1).
“performing … an action … based at least in part on the request and the time” (claim 1). These are rule-based decisions grounded in policy/time comparisons.
The remaining recitations (maintaining virtual spaces; receiving requests via a UI; storing/deleting data) are generic computer context and data manipulation.
Step 2A, Prong 2: Analyze integration into a practical application; discuss any claimed technological improvement; address whether extra-solution activity or field-of-use limitations are present. The claims, viewed as a whole, do not integrate the abstract ideas into a practical application:
No recited improvement to computer functionality or another technology. The claims do not specify a particular storage engine, data structure, indexing scheme, secure deletion protocol, or UI/rendering mechanism that improves system performance, reliability, or security (e.g., no cache optimization, compaction strategy, hardware-backed erasure, concurrency control). The “action” outcome (display/refrain/notify) is recited at a high, results-oriented level.
No “particular machine” tie-in or transformation. The group-based communication system, processors/memory, and UI are generic. Deleting “data associated with the message” and presenting notifications is information handling within conventional systems; there is no transformation of an article to a different state or thing in the § 101 sense (e.g., no hardware-level secure erase or device state reconfiguration).
Insignificant extra-solution activity. Storing the message, deleting it upon expiration, and presenting a notification are post-solution or ancillary activities surrounding the abstract decision and do not meaningfully limit the claim.
Accordingly, the claims fail to integrate the judicial exceptions into a practical application under Prong 2.
Step 2B: Assess whether additional elements are significantly more; discuss WURC with evidentiary considerations. Because the claims do not integrate the abstract ideas, assess whether the additional elements provide an “inventive concept”:
Additional elements: generic computing devices of a group-based system; maintaining virtual spaces (chat rooms/channels); receiving view requests via a UI; determining request time; storing and deleting message data; presenting notifications.
WURC analysis: These elements and their combination appear well-understood, routine, and conventional in collaboration/messaging platforms and enterprise compliance tooling:
Group-based communication systems with multiple channels/rooms are conventional.
Assigning and enforcing different message retention policies by group/team/entity is standard records management/compliance practice.
Allow/refrain display based on expiration timestamps, deleting stored message data, and notifying users of deletion are routine system behaviors. Under Berkheimer, a WURC finding should be supported by evidence (e.g., references on records retention in messaging systems, standard UI-based access controls and policy enforcement). On this record, the claims lack recited unconventional technical mechanisms or architectures that would supply “significantly more.”
Conclusion: Eligible/ineligible under § 101.
Claims 1–20 are ineligible under § 101. They recite abstract ideas (policy assignment and enforcement in a communication system—certain methods of organizing human activity—and mental-process decisions based on time/policy), do not integrate those ideas into a practical application, and the additional elements are well-understood, routine, and conventional, failing to provide an inventive concept.
Offending clauses (representative):
“assigning a first data retention policy to a first group of the users … prior to deletion.”
“assigning a second data retention policy … the second amount of time being different than the first amount of time.”
“determining a time at which the request was received.”
“performing, based at least in part on the request and the time, an action with respect to the user and the message.”
“deleting, at or subsequent to the expiration of the first amount of time, the data; and presenting … a notification …” (claim 4).
Rejection
Claims 1-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more. The claim recites maintaining virtual spaces, assigning different data retention policies to different user groups, receiving a user request to view a message, determining the request time relative to a retention period, and performing an action (display or refrain from display/delete/notify) based on that timing.
The limitations of maintaining virtual spaces and assigning different data retention policies to user groups, as drafted, are processes that, under their broadest reasonable interpretation, cover organizing human activity and administrative policy management—tasks that can be carried out by people or paper-based procedures. For example, an administrator could, without any computer, list different retention durations for different groups and instruct members on the rules for viewing messages. Likewise, the limitation of receiving a request to view a message, determining the time of the request, and deciding whether to display the message based on comparison to a retention period are logical determinations and conditional steps that can be performed mentally or on paper. If a claim limitation, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers steps that can be performed in the human mind or via pen-and-paper, but for the recitation of generic computer components, then it falls within the “Mental Processes” and/or “Certain Methods of Organizing Human Activity” groupings of abstract ideas. Accordingly, claim 1 recites an abstract idea.
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. In particular, the claim only recites additional elements that amount to routine data-processing and user-interface steps carried out on a generic computer platform—maintaining virtual spaces, storing messages, assigning policy values, receiving user input via a user interface, checking timestamps, displaying or withholding content, deleting data, and presenting notifications. The claim does not recite any specific, unconventional technological means for implementing the retention policies, nor does it recite specialized hardware, novel data structures, or algorithmic steps that improve the functioning of the computer or network. The recited steps are high-level functional operations (e.g., “maintaining,” “assigning,” “determining,” “performing an action”) that do not meaningfully limit the abstract idea. Consequently, the recited generic computing components and conventional UI/storage operations amount to no more than instructions to implement the abstract idea using a generic computer system and do not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application.
The claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. As discussed above, the claimed elements reflect routine, conventional features of messaging or group-communication systems—different retention periods per group, timestamp comparisons, deletion at expiration, and UI notifications. There is no recitation of an inventive concept such as a novel technical mechanism for enforcing retention with provable tamper-resistance, a specialized storage architecture that achieves improved performance for timed deletion, a non-conventional timestamping or access control technique, or any other unconventional implementation detail that would transform the abstract idea into patent-eligible subject matter. Mere implementation on generic processors, memory, and a user interface cannot supply the necessary “significantly more.” Therefore, claim 1 is not patent eligible under 35 U.S.C. 101.
Claims 2–9 recite particular conditional outcomes and contextual features of claim 1 and are rejected for the same reasons as claim 1 under 35 U.S.C. 101. Claims 10–15 recite the same subject matter in system form, and claims 16–20 recite the same subject matter in computer-executable-instruction form; these claims are likewise rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 for the same reasons as claim 1.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
Claim(s) 1-3, 5-12 and 14-20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Dhanasekaran et al. (US PG PUB 20180276223), hereinafter "Dhanasekaran", in views of Pina et al. (US PAT 11115363), hereinafter "Pina".
Regarding Claims 1, 10 and 16, Dhanasekaran discloses:
(Claim 1) A method, implemented by one or more computing devices of a group-based communication system (i.e. a method/system that deploys a unified retention policy across multiple productivity platforms [i.e. one or more computing devices] being used by individual and/or groups of information workers [i.e. a group-based communication system]) (Fig. 1A, Fig. 1B, ¶ 0026 and ¶ 0028), comprising:
(Claim 10) A system (i.e. system 100) (Fig. 1A and ¶ 0026) comprising: memory (i.e. a system memory 604) (Fig. 6 and ¶ 0069); one or more processors (i.e. CPU 602) (Fig. 6 and ¶ 0069); and one or more computer-executable instructions that are stored in the memory and that are executable by the one more processors (i.e. computer readable instructions stored in memory 604 executable by CPU 603) (Fig. 6, ¶ 0069 and ¶ 0071) to perform operations comprising:
(Claim 16) One or more non-transitory computer-executable instructions that, when executed by one or more processors, cause the one more processors (i.e. computer readable instructions stored in memory 604 executable by CPU 603) (Fig. 6, ¶ 0069 and ¶ 0071) to perform operations comprising:
maintaining a plurality of virtual spaces that facilitate communication between users of a/the group-based communication system (i.e. the method/system may maintain a plurality of communication platforms/services, e.g. email services, instant messaging services, on-line video chat services, etc. [i.e. a plurality of virtual spaces] that facilitate communication between the groups of information workers [i.e. users of the group-based communication system]) (¶ 0026 and ¶ 0028);
assigning a first data retention policy to a first group of the users (i.e. the method/system may enable the retention policy administrator 144 to selectively prescribe/assign a unified retention policy 110 [i.e. a first data retention policy], in whole or in part, to user accounts on an individual and/or group basis [i.e. to a first group of users]. For example, a version of the unified retention policy 110 may be created with respect to an accounting team of an organization) (¶ 0037),
the first data retention policy identifying a first amount of time in which first messages associated with the first group of the users are maintained by the group-based communication system prior to deletion (i.e. the unified retention policy 110 [i.e. the first data retention policy] may include one or more retention rules that identify retention age threshold [i.e. a first amount time] with respect to emails/files [i.e. first message] associated with a particular group of users, e.g. accounting team [i.e. the first group of the users]; The retention age threshold [i.e. a first amount of time], as measured from a date that a particular file was last modified, indicates the amount of time the messages/files [i.e. first messages associated with the first group of the users] will be maintained within the productivity platforms [i.e. the group-based communication system] prior to automatically being purged [i.e. deletion]; Exemplary data retention rules include, but are not limited to, automatically purging files from storage associated with the productivity platforms 104 based on the particular file reaching or exceeding the retention age threshold) (¶ 0034, ¶ 0037 and ¶ 0051);
assigning a second data retention policy to a second group of the users that is different than the first group of the users (i.e. the method/system may enable the retention policy administrator 144 to selectively prescribe/assign a unified retention policy 110 [i.e. a second data retention policy], in whole or in part, to user accounts on an individual and/or group basis [i.e. a second group of the users that is different than the first group of the users]. For example, a version of the unified retention policy 110 may be created with respect to legal team [i.e. a second group of the users] of an organization) (¶ 0037 and ¶ 0049),
the second data retention policy identifying a second amount of time in which second messages associated with the second group of the users are maintained by the group-based communication system prior to deletion (i.e. the unified retention policy 110 [i.e. the second data retention policy] may include one or more retention rules that identify retention age threshold [i.e. a second amount time] with respect to emails/files [i.e. second message] associated with a particular group of users, e.g. legal team or executive level organization employees [i.e. the second group of the users]; The retention age threshold [i.e. a second amount of time] indicates the amount of time the messages/files [i.e. second messages associated with the second group of the users] will be maintained within the productivity platforms [i.e. the group-based communication system] prior to automatically being purged [i.e. deletion]) (¶ 0034, ¶ 0037 and ¶ 0051),
the second amount of time being different than the first amount of time (i.e. the method/system may prescribe/assign different retention policies with different retention age thresholds to different groups of users [i.e. the second amount of time being different than the first amount of time]) (Fig. 2, ¶ 0003 and ¶ 0034);
receiving, from a user included in the first group of the users and via a user interface of the group-based communication system, a request to view a message of the first messages (i.e. a particular productivity platform may receive, from information workers [i.e. a user included in the first group of the users] via user devices [i.e. comprised of a user interface of the group-based communication system], requests to open, view, edit, create, save, copy, or otherwise manipulate files such as, email files, text documents, spreadsheet documents, and/or presentation documents [i.e. a message of the first messages]) (¶ 0006 - 0007 and ¶ 0026).
However, Dhanasekaran does not explicitly disclose:
determining a time at which the request was received; and performing, based at least in part on the request and the time, an action with respect to the user and the message.
On the other hand, in the same field of endeavor, Pina teaches:
determining a time at which the request was received (i.e. the method/system may determine that digital communications system 104 receives a request to view the ephemeral message at 3:30 pm [i.e. a time at which the request was received]) (Column 14 Line # 63 – 67 and Column 15 Line # 1 - 20); and
performing, based at least in part on the request and the time, an action with respect to the user and the message (i.e. the digital communications system 104 determines that the ephemeral message has expired at the current time at which the request to view the ephemeral message is received [i.e. the request and the time], and based on the determination [i.e. based at least in part on the request and the time], deletes the ephemeral message [i.e. performing an action] in response to the user’s request to view the ephemeral message [i.e. with respect to the user and the message]) (Column 15 Line # 1 - 20).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the method/system/computer-readable-medium of Dhanasekaran to include the features for determining a time at which the request was received; and performing, based at least in part on the request and the time, an action with respect to the user and the message as taught by Pina so that expired message that has not been purged by the system may be deleted in response to the user’s request to view the message (Column 14 Line # 63 – 67 and Column 15 Line # 1 - 20).
Regarding Claims 2 and 11, Dhanasekaran and Pina disclose, in particular Pina teaches:
wherein: the time is prior to an expiration of the first amount of time; and the action is to display the message to the user via the user interface (i.e. if the user accesses the message prior to the expiration time [i.e. the time is prior to an expiration of the first amount of time], the message may be displayed [i.e. and the action is to display the message] via the user interface) (628 & 630 - Fig. 6C).
The prior art used in the rejection of the current claim is combined using the same motivations as was applied in claims 1 and 10.
Regarding Claims 3 and 12, Dhanasekaran and Pina disclose, in particular Pina teaches:
wherein: the time is at or subsequent to an expiration of the first amount of time; and the action is to refrain from displaying the message to the user via the user interface (i.e. if the request is received after the expiration time [i.e. the time is at or subsequent to an expiration of the first amount of time], the method/system may first hide the message [i.e. the action is to refrain from displaying the message to the user via the user interface] and then remove the message) (Column 14 Line # 44 – 48 and Column 15 Line # 11 - 20).
The prior art used in the rejection of the current claim is combined using the same motivations as was applied in claims 1 and 10.
Regarding Claims 5 and 14, Dhanasekaran and Pina disclose, in particular Dhanasekaran teaches:
wherein the plurality of virtual spaces include chat rooms, public channels, and private channels (i.e. productivity platforms may include, email, live chat sessions [i.e. the plurality of virtual spaces include chat rooms]) (¶ 0026).
Regarding Claim 6, Dhanasekaran and Pina disclose, in particular Dhanasekaran teaches:
wherein the first group of the users is included in a first team of an entity and the second group of the users is included in a second team, different than the first team, of the entity (i.e. the first group of users may be from accounting team of an organization [i.e. an entity] and the second group of users may be from legal team of the organization [i.e. the entity]) (¶ 0049).
Regarding Claim 7, Dhanasekaran and Pina disclose, in particular Dhanasekaran teaches:
wherein the first group of the users is associated with a first entity and the second group of the users is associated with a second entity that is different than the first entity (i.e. the first group of users may be from accounting team [i.e. a first entity] and the second group of users may be from legal team [i.e. a second entity that is different than the first entity]) (¶ 0049).
Regarding Claims 8 and 20, Dhanasekaran and Pina disclose, in particular Dhanasekaran teaches:
wherein the first group of the users are first members of a first virtual space of the plurality of virtual spaces and the second group of the users are second members of a second virtual space, different than the first virtual space, of the plurality of virtual spaces (i.e. one user may have multiple communication services, e.g. instant messaging service, video chat services, etc. [i.e. the plurality of virtual spaces]; Therefore both of the first group of users and the second group of users may be members of a first type of communication service, e.g. instant messaging service [i.e. a first virtual space]; Similarly, both of the first group of users and the second group of users may be also members of a second type of communication service, e.g. video chat services [i.e. a second virtual space, different than the first virtual space]; As a result, the first group of users are members of the first type of communication service, e.g. instant messaging service [i.e. a first virtual space], and the second group of users are members of the second type of communication service, e.g. video chat services [i.e. a second virtual space, different than the first virtual space])(Fig. 1A, ¶ 0005 and ¶ 0026).
Regarding Claims 9 and 15, Dhanasekaran and Pina disclose, in particular Dhanasekaran teaches:
wherein: a beginning of the first amount of time occurs at a second time at which the message was posted within the group-based communication system; or the beginning of the first amount of time occurs at a third time associated with an occurrence of an event associated with at least one of the message or one or more users included in the first group of the users (i.e. Exemplary conditions include, but are not limited to, reaching and/or exceeding a retention age threshold as measured from [i.e. beginning of the first amount of time occurs] a date of creation of a particular file, reaching and/or exceeding a retention age threshold as measured from a date that a particular file was last modified [i.e. a second time at which the message was posted; or a third time associated with an occurrence of an event associated with at least one of the message or one or more users included in the first group of the users]) (¶ 0034).
Regarding Claim 17, Dhanasekaran and Pina disclose, in particular Pina teaches:
wherein one of: the time is prior to an expiration of the first amount of time; and the action is to display the message to the user via the user interface (i.e. if the user accesses the message prior to the expiration time [i.e. the time is prior to an expiration of the first amount of time], the message may be displayed [i.e. and the action is to display the message] via the user interface) (628 & 630 - Fig. 6C); or
the time is at or subsequent to an expiration of the first amount of time; and the action is to refrain from displaying the message to the user via the user interface (i.e. if the request is received after the expiration time [i.e. the time is at or subsequent to an expiration of the first amount of time], the method/system may first hide the message [i.e. the action is to refrain from displaying the message to the user via the user interface] and then remove the message) (Column 14 Line # 44 – 48 and Column 15 Line # 11 - 20).
The prior art used in the rejection of the current claim is combined using the same motivations as was applied in claim 16.
Regarding Claim 18, Dhanasekaran and Pina disclose, in particular Dhanasekaran teaches:
wherein the first group of the users is included in a first team of an entity and the second group of the users is included in a second team, different than the first team, of the entity (i.e. the first group of users may be from accounting team of an organization [i.e. an entity] and the second group of users may be from legal team of the organization [i.e. the entity]) (¶ 0049).
Regarding Claim 19, Dhanasekaran and Pina disclose, in particular Dhanasekaran teaches:
wherein the first group of the users is associated with a first entity and the second group of the users is associated with a second entity that is different than the first entity (i.e. the first group of users may be from accounting team [i.e. a first entity] and the second group of users may be from legal team [i.e. a second entity that is different than the first entity]) (¶ 0049).
Claim(s) 4 and 13 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Dhanasekaran in views of Pina as applied to claims 3 and 12 above, and further in view of Prado et al. (US PG PUB 20180227262), hereinafter "Prado".
Regarding Claims 4 and 13, Dhanasekaran and Pina disclose all the features with respect to Claims 3 and 12 as described above.
In addition, Dhanasekaran and Pina disclose:
storing, at or after the message being posted within the group-based communication system, data associated with the message in storage maintained by the group-based communication system (Dhanasekaran – i.e. the method/system may retain/store, once files, e.g. tax related documents, are shared [i.e. at or after the message being posted] within the productivity platforms [i.e. the group-based communication system], tax related documents files [i.e. data associated with the message] within the productivity platforms [i.e. the group-based communication system]) (Dhanasekaran – Abstract, ¶ 0005 and ¶ 0034),
wherein refraining from displaying the message comprises: deleting, at or subsequent to the expiration of the first amount of time, the data (Pina - i.e. if the request is received after the expiration [i.e. at or subsequent to the expiration of the first amount of time], the method/system may first hide the message [i.e. refraining from displaying the message] and then remove/delete the message) (Pina - Column 14 Line # 44 – 48 and Column 15 Line # 11 - 20).
However, the combination of Dhanasekaran and Pina does not explicitly disclose:
presenting, to the user via the user interface, a notification indicating at least one of that the message is no longer viewable or that the message has been deleted according to the first data retention policy.
On the other hand, in the same field of endeavor, Prado teaches:
presenting, to the user via the user interface, a notification indicating that the message is no longer viewable (i.e. the method/system may display a notification indicating that the message has expired [i.e. no longer viewable] to the user via GUI 165 [i.e. the user interface]) (Fig. 5B and ¶ 0072).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the method/system/computer-readable-medium of Dhanasekaran and Pina to include the features for presenting, to the user via the user interface, a notification indicating at least one of that the message is no longer viewable or that the message has been deleted according to the first data retention policy as taught by Prado so that the user may be informed of the time expiration status with respect to the message (¶ 0072).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to SOE MIN HLAING whose telephone number is (303)297-4282. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 9AM - 5PM.
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, Christopher Parry can be reached at 571-272-8328. 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.
/Soe Hlaing/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2451