DETAILED ACTION
Claims 1-20 are pending in this 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 .
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 8/27/2024 is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement is being considered by the examiner.
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.
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 1-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Newhouse (US PGPUB No. 2017/0109370).
As per claim 1, Newhouse teaches a computer-implemented method comprising: receiving, from a user account registered with a content management system, a request to access a content item managed by the content management system for the user account ([0022], executing a client application for a user to request access to content in a local or shared directory using a user account of the content management system see [0046]); determining that the content item is associated with an attribute that is stored as respective node metadata of a tree data structure at the content management system (Abstract, metadata is stored with the content item in a local or shared directory, i.e. tree structure see [0045]); based on the attribute in the respective node metadata for the content item, handling the content item based on one or more behaviors defined by the attribute ([0023], In Newhouse, one example attribute is the size of the content, which is used to determine whether to allow certain user and system behaviors like adding or deleting to the local directory) see also ([0049], other system behaviors include retention of content items, transferring content items and preventing access attempts to content items while storage space is exceeded), wherein the one or more behaviors include whether one or more actions are to be suppressed or allowed ([0024] and [0046], allowing adding to the local directory if the file size does not increase the allotted storage capacity past a threshold – as long as the storage capacity is exceeded adding of the content is not allowed, i.e. it is suppressed); and initiating the one or more behaviors in response to the request to access the content item ([0024] and [0046], adding the requested new content after managing storage capacity).
As per claim 2, Newhouse teaches the computer-implemented method of claim 1, wherein the one or more behaviors include displaying a particular interface when the content item is accessed or redirecting a respective user to a specific destination ([0132], presenting a pop-up menu which asks user to authorize download of content item).
As per claim 3, Newhouse teaches the computer-implemented method of claim 1, wherein the one or more behaviors include moving the content item ([0132], downloading content item into local directory from shared directory), renaming the content item (Examiner Note: optional feature – could potentially overcome the current rejection if included as a required feature), or modifying the content item in a particular manner (Examiner Note: optional feature – possible citation provided to expedite prosecution) ([0045], user is also able to request modification of file in local directory).
As per claim 4, Newhouse teaches the computer-implemented method of claim 1, wherein the one or more behaviors include displaying custom icons ([0094]-[0095], content type, modifications or access times can be represented using icons that are specific to file type and its status) (Examiner Note: a specific definition for “custom icon” was not clearly provided in the specification, see [0101] of the specification, and thus a “custom icon” will be interpreted to include an icon that has been designed to represent a particular type of content item) or modifying a respective menu associated with the content item (Examiner Note: this is an optional and may potentially overcome the current rejection if included as a required feature).
As per claim 5, Newhouse teaches the computer-implemented method of claim 1, wherein the one or more behaviors include synchronizing content changes across one or more devices ([0073], synchronizing changes to files and metadata across shared directory and file system).
As per claim 6, Newhouse teaches the computer-implemented method of claim 1, wherein the attribute is a type-based custom attribute, wherein the one or more behaviors are determined by a respective type of the content item matching a type associated with the type-based custom attribute ([0058], access frequency attribute can be “customized” based on certain content attributes including type, domain and namespace – ex. Measuring access frequency for a type of content across a particular domain is considered a “custom” attribute).
As per claim 7, Newhouse teaches the computer-implemented method of claim 1, further comprising: receiving a customization that changes the one or more behaviors ([0024], One example of customization in Newhouse is selection of the basis for the access frequency and subsequently how the frequency is calculated, see [0058]-[0059] and [0111], the selection can include content item type, name space, domain or any other content attribute) also (See id. This “changes” which content items are determined to be high/low frequency which “changes” which content items are moved and which ones are deleted when the storage space threshold is exceeded).
As per claim 8, Newhouse teaches the computer-implemented method of claim 6, wherein the one or more behaviors are initiated in response to a confirmation that the type of the content item matches the type-based custom attribute ([0027] and [0111], “Retention” is interpreted by the Examiner to be a behavior. Newhouse describes how the retention score may be calculated based on many different attributes including “type” of the content item. This means that the content item’s type is first determined, and then the operation of calculating the retention score will be performed based on this “type” determination.) see also ([0112], access frequency attribute and retention criteria for a content item is a custom combination of access attributes determined by its type and other content items with similar attributes).
As per claim 9, Newhouse teaches the computer-implemented method of claim 1, wherein the one or more behaviors are initiated in response to a request to modify the content item ([0049], System behaviors such as retention, transferring content items and preventing access attempts, while storage space is exceeded, are triggered when a client/user makes an access attempt which includes modification of a content item – this modification triggers various operations that determine which content items to retain, transfer or delete.).
As per claim 10, the substance of the claimed invention is identical or substantially similar to that of claim 1. Accordingly, this claim is rejected under the same rationale.
As per claim 11, the substance of the claimed invention is identical or substantially similar to that of claim 9. Accordingly, this claim is rejected under the same rationale.
As per claim 12, the substance of the claimed invention is identical or substantially to that of claim 2. Accordingly, this claim is rejected under the same rationale.
As per claim 13, the substance of the claimed invention is identical or substantially to that of claim 3. Accordingly, this claim is rejected under the same rationale.
As per claim 14, the substance of the claimed invention is identical or substantially to that of claim 4. Accordingly, this claim is rejected under the same rationale.
As per claim 15, the substance of the claimed invention is identical or substantially to that of claim 5. Accordingly, this claim is rejected under the same rationale.
As per claim 16, the substance of the claimed invention is identical or substantially to that of claim 6. Accordingly, this claim is rejected under the same rationale.
As per claim 17, the substance of the claimed invention is identical or substantially to that of claim 7. Accordingly, this claim is rejected under the same rationale.
As per claim 18, the substance of the claimed invention is identical or substantially to that of claim 8. Accordingly, this claim is rejected under the same rationale.
As per claim 19, the substance of the claimed invention is identical or substantially to that of claim 1. Accordingly, this claim is rejected under the same rationale.
As per claim 20, the substance of the claimed invention is identical or substantially to that of claim 9. Accordingly, this claim is rejected under the same rationale.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Joseph et al. (US PGPUB No. 2017/0277739), Wehterall et al. (US PGPUB No. 2020/0293669), Beaverson et al. (US PGPUB No. 2021/0286720), Scrivano et al. (US PGPUB No. 2024/0256699), Guo (CN-109657499-A), Vasilescu ("Architectural model for a high performance content management system," 2009 International Conference for Internet Technology and Secured Transactions, (ICITST), London, UK, 2009, pp. 1-6, doi: 10.1109/ICITST.2009.5402570), Mao et al, ("A Distributed Storage and Management Method for Hypertext Files and Metadata Based on Consortium Chain," 2024 Conference (ISPCEM), Montreal, QC, Canada, 2024, pp. 460-464, doi: 10.1109/ISPCEM64498.2024.00083), Andric et al. ("Using Metadata for Information Retrieval in Document Management Systems," EUROCON 2005 - The International Conference on "Computer as a Tool", Belgrade, Serbia, 2005, pp. 1093-1096, doi: 10.1109/EURCON.2005.1630141) and Zhu et al. ("Research on Integrated Metadata for Distributed CAS Appliance System," 2009 International Conference on Management and Service Science, Beijing, China, 2009, pp. 1-4, doi: 10.1109/ICMSS.2009.5305475) all disclose various aspects of the claimed invention including use of metadata in a content management system that can be customized to fit specific behaviors and actions required by an entity or organization.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to PETER C SHAW whose telephone number is (571)270-7179. The examiner can normally be reached Max Flex.
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, Carl Colin can be reached at 571-272-3862. 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.
/PETER C SHAW/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2493 April 21, 2026
Prosecution Insights