EMERGING MIND

§101 §103

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 . Status of Claims Claims 1, 2, 3, 5, 7, 8, 14, 15, and 16 have been amended. Claim 4 has been canceled. Claim 18 has been added. Claims 1-3 and 5-18 are pending and rejected in the application. This action is Final. Claim Objection Claim 2 is objected to because of the following informalities: For claim 2, the limitation “providing the second hash for storage to a blockchain residing in in the hub” needs to be corrected. Appropriate correction is required. Response to Arguments Applicant Argues Applicant submits that amended claim 1 is not directed to a mental process. For example, the steps of sending a connection request and receiving an acceptance of the connection request cannot be performed in the human mind. Similarly, the steps of: providing, to the hub after the acceptance of the connection request, a subject that the user of the computing device worked on that is being considered by a knowledge process executing on the computing device; and automatically receiving, from the hub responsive to the providing of the subject to the hub, information regarding resources related to the subject cannot be performed in the human mind. Examiner Responds: Applicant's 35 USC § 101 arguments with respect to claims 1-7 have been considered and are persuasive. Thus, the 35 U.S.C. §101 rejection has been withdrawn. Applicant Argues Claim 8 is directed to a computer-readable medium having instructions stored thereon for a processor of a computing device to configure the processor to: receive first information including a subject that a user was working on at the user computing device; scavenge available databases for second information related to the subject; and automatically provide the second information to the user computing device, thereby making the second information available to the user of the user computing device. Applicant submits that the steps of: receiving first information, from a user computing device, including a subject that a user was working on at the user computing device; scavenging available databases for second information related to the subject; and automatically providing the second information to the user computing device, thereby making the second information available to the user of the user computing device are steps that cannot be performed in the human mind. Examiner Responds: Applicant's 35 USC § 101 arguments with respect to claims 8-13 and 18 have been considered and are not persuasive. MPEP 2106.04(d)(1) provides: “The courts have not provided an explicit test for this consideration, but have instead illustrated how it is evaluated in numerous decisions. These decisions, and a detailed explanation of how examiners should evaluate this consideration are provided in MPEP § 2106.05(a). In short, first the specification should be evaluated to determine if the disclosure provides sufficient details such that one of ordinary skill in the art would recognize the claimed invention as providing an improvement. The specification need not explicitly set forth the improvement, but it must describe the invention such that the improvement would be apparent to one of ordinary skill in the art. Conversely, if the specification explicitly sets forth an improvement but in a conclusory manner (i.e., a bare assertion of an improvement without the detail necessary to be apparent to a person of ordinary skill in the art), the examiner should not determine the claim improves technology. Second, if the specification sets forth an improvement in technology, the claim must be evaluated to ensure that the claim itself reflects the disclosed improvement. That is, the claim includes the components or steps of the invention that provide the improvement described in the specification. The claim itself does not need to explicitly recite the improvement described in the specification (e.g., "thereby increasing the bandwidth of the channel").” Here, Applicant’s arguments are not persuasive because the claims, when considered as a whole, are directed to the abstract idea of collecting information about a subject, searching available databases for additional information concerning that subject, and providing the resulting information to a user. The recited steps of “receiving” first information, “scavenging” databases for second information, and “automatically providing” the second information merely describe the acquisition, retrieval, and communication of information. These functions represent conventional information-gathering and information-distribution activities that can be performed by a person or by generic computing components. Merely reciting that the information is received from a “user computing device,” that databases are searched by a processor, and that the information is automatically provided to the user does not meaningfully limit the abstract concept to a particular technological implementation. The claim therefore does not recite a specific improvement to computer functionality or to database technology, but instead uses generic computer technology as a tool to perform the underlying information-gathering process. Nor do the additional limitations, individually or in combination, transform the abstract idea into patent-eligible subject matter. The claimed “computer-readable medium,” “processor,” “computing device,” “user computing device,” and databases are recited at a high level of generality and perform their ordinary functions of receiving, searching, storing/accessing, and transmitting information. The claim does not specify a particular database architecture, search technique, data structure, processing algorithm, or other technological mechanism that improves the operation of the computing system itself. Likewise, automatically supplying the identified information to the user is merely the expected result of the claimed information-retrieval process and does not add an inventive concept. Accordingly, under the Alice/Mayo framework, the claim recites an abstract information-gathering and information-providing process implemented using generic computer components, and the additional elements, whether considered individually or as an ordered combination, do not amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. Applicant Argues Amended claim 14 is similar to amended claim 1 and is not directed to an abstract idea and is integrated into a practical application for at least reasons similar to those provided with respect to amended claim 1. Therefore, Applicant respectfully requests that the rejection of claim 14 be withdrawn. Examiner Responds: Applicant's 35 USC § 101 arguments with respect to claims 8-13 and 18 have been considered and are not persuasive. MPEP 2106.04(d)(1) provides: “The courts have not provided an explicit test for this consideration, but have instead illustrated how it is evaluated in numerous decisions. These decisions, and a detailed explanation of how examiners should evaluate this consideration are provided in MPEP § 2106.05(a). In short, first the specification should be evaluated to determine if the disclosure provides sufficient details such that one of ordinary skill in the art would recognize the claimed invention as providing an improvement. The specification need not explicitly set forth the improvement, but it must describe the invention such that the improvement would be apparent to one of ordinary skill in the art. Conversely, if the specification explicitly sets forth an improvement but in a conclusory manner (i.e., a bare assertion of an improvement without the detail necessary to be apparent to a person of ordinary skill in the art), the examiner should not determine the claim improves technology. Second, if the specification sets forth an improvement in technology, the claim must be evaluated to ensure that the claim itself reflects the disclosed improvement. That is, the claim includes the components or steps of the invention that provide the improvement described in the specification. The claim itself does not need to explicitly recite the improvement described in the specification (e.g., "thereby increasing the bandwidth of the channel").” Applicant’s arguments are not persuasive because the claim remains directed to the abstract idea of identifying topics of interest, obtaining information concerning those topics, and providing the information to a user. The limitations of “providing” first information to a hub, “automatically receiving” second information from the hub, and making the second information available to the user merely describe the collection, retrieval, and communication of information. Although the claim characterizes the process as a “machine-implemented method” performed on a user computing device connected to a hub on a second computing device, these limitations merely identify the generic technological environment in which the information-exchange process occurs. The claim does not require a particular technique for identifying the topics, a particular mechanism for obtaining the second information, or a particular technological process for communicating or presenting that information. Thus, the recitation of a user computing device and a second computing device does not change the character of the claimed subject matter from an abstract information-gathering and information-providing process into a technological improvement. The additional limitations also fail to supply an inventive concept sufficient to transform the abstract idea into patent-eligible subject matter. The claimed “hub,” user computing device, and second computing device are recited generically and are used for their ordinary functions of receiving, processing, and transmitting information. Likewise, “automatically receiving” information and making that information available to the user merely automate the conventional human activity of requesting or obtaining information about topics of interest. The claim does not recite a particular improvement to the operation of the user computing device, hub, communications system, or information-retrieval technology, nor does it require a specialized data structure, processing technique, or other unconventional technological mechanism. Considered individually and as an ordered combination, the limitations therefore amount to no more than applying generic computer and communication technology to the abstract concept of identifying topics and obtaining and providing information about those topics. Accordingly, the claim remains directed to an abstract idea under the first step of the Alice/Mayo framework, and the additional elements do not amount to significantly more under the second step. Applicant Argues Wilson discloses systems and methods which use a blockchain to enable establishment of file dates and to prevent tampering. See Wilson at Abstract. However, Wilson fails to disclose or suggest a computing device having a first main memory that includes instructions for configuring at least one processor of the computing device to perform, among other things: providing, to a hub after acceptance of a connection request, a subject that the user of the computing device worked on that is being considered by a knowledge process executing on the computing device; and automatically receiving, from the hub responsive to the providing of the subject to the hub, information regarding resources related to the subject, wherein the received information is made available to a user of the computing device, as required by amended claim 1. Examiner Responds: Applicant's 35 USC § 103 arguments with respect to claims 1-3 and 5-18 have been considered but are moot in view of the new ground(s) of rejection. Claim Rejections – 35 USC § 101 35 U.S.C. 101 reads as follows: Whoever invents or discovers any new and useful process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter, or any new and useful improvement thereof, may obtain a patent therefor, subject to the conditions and requirements of this title. Claims 8-18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claims are directed to non-statutory subject matter. Claims 8-13 and 18 are ineligible: As to step one, claim 8 recites a computer-readable medium and, therefore, is a machine which is a statutory category. As to step 2A-prong one, claim 8 recites a computer-readable medium having instructions stored thereon for a processor of a computing device, wherein the instructions configure the processor to perform: scavenging available databases to look for second information about the subject. The limitations, as drafted, are a process that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitations in the mind but for the recitation of the generic computer components. The “a computer-readable medium”, “a computing device”, and “a database” amounts to mere generic computer components. That is other than reciting “a computer-readable medium”, “a computing device”, and “a database” nothing in the claim element precludes the steps from practically being performed in the mind. Thus, claim 8 is not patentable eligible under 35 U.S.C. 101. For example, “scavenging available databases to look for second information about the subject;” encompasses mentally a person scavenging available databases to look for second information about the subject. The mere nominal recitation of a system does not take the claim limitations out of the mental processes grouping. If claim limitation(s), under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation(s) in the mind but for the recitation of generic computer components, then it falls within the “Mental Processes” grouping of abstract ideas. Accordingly, the claim recites an abstract idea. As to Step 2A-prong two, the judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. Claim 8 recites a computer-readable medium having instructions stored thereon for a processor of a computing device, wherein the instructions configure the processor to perform: receiving, from a user computing device, first information including a subject being considered by a knowledge process at the user computing device; automatically providing the second information to the user computing device, thereby making the second information available to the user of the user computing device. Next, “receiving, from a user computing device, first information including a subject being considered by a knowledge process at the user computing device;” encompasses insignificant extra-solution activity and amounts to mere data gathering (see MPEP 2106.05(g)). Next, “automatically providing the second information to the user computing device, thereby making the second information available to the user of the user computing device.” encompasses insignificant extra-solution activity and amounts to mere data gathering (see MPEP 2106.05(g)). Accordingly, these additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because it does not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. Thus, the claim is directed to an abstract idea. Accordingly, these additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because it does not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. Thus, the claim is directed to an abstract idea. As to step 2B, the claim as a whole does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. As discussed above, claim 8 additional limitation amounts to no more than mere extra solution activity and generic computer components do not amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because the generic computer components are implementing the limitations in a generic manner. Thus, even when viewed as a whole, nothing in the claim adds significantly more (i.e., an inventive concept) to the abstract idea. Mere scavenging databases cannot provide an inventive concept. Thus, claim 8 is not patentable eligible under 35 USC 101. Under the 2019 PEG, a conclusion that an additional element is insignificant extra-solution activity in Step 2A should be re-evaluated in Step 2B. Here, the “receiving, from a user computing device, first information including a subject being considered by a knowledge process at the user computing device;” and “automatically providing the second information to the user computing device, thereby making the second information available to the user of the user computing device.” steps are considered to be extra-solution activity in Step 2A, and thus it is re-evaluated in Step 2B to determine if it is more than what is well-understood, routine, conventional activity in the field. The specification does not provide any indication that the limitations are anything other than extra solution activity. Here, “receiving, from a user computing device, first information including a subject being considered by a knowledge process at the user computing device;” and “automatically providing the second information to the user computing device, thereby making the second information available to the user of the user computing device.” is merely data gathering. OIP Techs court decision cited in MPEP 2106.05(d)(II) indicate that mere retrieving data is a well-understood, routine, and conventional function when it is claimed in a merely generic manner (as it is here). Next, “automatically providing the second information to the user computing device, thereby making the second information available to the user of the user computing device.” is merely data gathering. OIP Techs court decision cited in MPEP 2106.05(d)(II) indicate that mere retrieving data is a well-understood, routine, and conventional function when it is claimed in a merely generic manner (as it is here). Accordingly, a conclusion that the “receiving, from a user computing device, first information including a subject being considered by a knowledge process at the user computing device;” and “automatically providing the second information to the user computing device, thereby making the second information available to the user of the user computing device.” steps are well-understood, routine, conventional activity is supported under Berkheimer Option 2. For these reasons, there is no inventive concept in the claim, and thus it is ineligible. The limitation “wherein the instructions further configure the processor to perform: receiving a connection request from a second user of a second user computing device;” of dependent claim 9 is abstract because the claim encompasses insignificant extra-solution activity and amounts to mere data gathering (see MPEP 2106.05(g)). Next, the limitation “determining whether requirements for accepting the connection request from the second user are satisfied;” of dependent claim 9 is abstract because the claim encompasses mentally a person determining whether requirements for accepting the connection request from the second user are satisfied. Next, the limitation “and accepting the connection request from the second user only if the requirements for accepting the connection request are satisfied.” of dependent claim 9 is abstract because the claim encompasses insignificant extra-solution activity and amounts to mere data gathering (see MPEP 2106.05(g)). The claim does not recite additional limitations to integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because the claims do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. The claim is insignificant extra-solution because 2106.05(d) court decision OIP Techs court states retrieving data is extra solution activity. Thus, claim 9 is not patent eligible under 35 USC 101. The limitation “wherein the determining whether the requirements for accepting the connection request from the user are satisfied further comprise: determining that the requirements for accepting the connection request are satisfied either: when the requirements for accepting the connection request are determined not to exist, or when the requirements for accepting the connection request do exist, and the requirements are satisfied.” of dependent claim 10 is abstract because the claim encompasses mentally a person determining that the requirements for accepting the connection request are satisfied either: when the requirements for accepting the connection request are determined not to exist, or when the requirements for accepting the connection request do exist, and the requirements are satisfied. The claim does not recite additional limitations to integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because the claims do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. Thus, claim 10 is not patent eligible under 35 USC 101. The limitation “wherein the requirements for accepting the connection request are related to an amount of disclosure permitted regarding items from a profile of the second user.” of dependent claim 11 is abstract because the claim encompasses insignificant extra-solution activity and amounts to mere data gathering (see MPEP 2106.05(g)). The claim does not recite additional limitations to integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because the claims do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. The claim is insignificant extra-solution because 2106.05(d) court decision OIP Techs court states retrieving data is extra solution activity. Thus, claim 11 is not patent eligible under 35 USC 101. The limitation “wherein the instructions further configure the processor to perform: providing to one or more certain users a view of workflow of a plurality of users having respective user computing devices connected with a hub executing on the computing device.” of dependent claim 12 is abstract because the claim encompasses insignificant extra-solution activity and amounts to mere data gathering (see MPEP 2106.05(g)). The claim does not recite additional limitations to integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because the claims do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. The claim is insignificant extra-solution because 2106.05(d) court decision OIP Techs court states retrieving data is extra solution activity. Thus, claim 12 is not patent eligible under 35 USC 101. The limitation “wherein the view includes snapshots over a plurality of time slots, the snapshots including at least two items from a group of items consisting of a number of active users, a number of inhouse resources examined, a number of outside resources used, a number of new entries added to a blockchain in a last predefined number of minutes, and one or more most used resources.” of dependent claim 13 is abstract because the claim encompasses insignificant extra-solution activity and amounts to mere data gathering (see MPEP 2106.05(g)). The claim does not recite additional limitations to integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because the claims do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. The claim is insignificant extra-solution because 2106.05(d) court decision OIP Techs court states retrieving data is extra solution activity. Thus, claim 13 is not patent eligible under 35 USC 101. The limitation “wherein: the instructions configure the computing device to perform as a first hub, the first hub solicits a direct connection to a second hub, and after the direct connection between the first hub and the second hub, the user of the user computing device connected to either the first hub or the second hub gains access to resources across a network based on information received from the first hub or the second hub.” of dependent claim 18 is abstract because the claim encompasses insignificant extra-solution activity and amounts to mere data gathering (see MPEP 2106.05(g)). The claim does not recite additional limitations to integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because the claims do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. The claim is insignificant extra-solution because 2106.05(d) court decision OIP Techs court states retrieving data is extra solution activity. Thus, claim 18 is not patent eligible under 35 USC 101. Claims 14-17 are ineligible: As to step one, claim 14 recites a machine-implemented method and, therefore, is a process which is a statutory category. As to step 2A-prong one, claim 14 recites a machine-implemented method executing on a user computing device connected to a hub executing on a second computing device, the method comprising: the second information is made available to the user working on the user computing device. The “a user computing device”, “a second computing device”, and “a hub” amounts to mere generic computer components. That is other than reciting “a user computing device”, “a second computing device”, and “a hub” nothing in the claim element precludes the steps from practically being performed in the mind. Thus, claim 14 is not patentable eligible under 35 U.S.C. 101. For example, “the second information is made available to the user working on the user computing device” encompasses mentally a person determining the second information is made available to the user working on the user computing device. The mere nominal recitation of a system does not take the claim limitations out of the mental processes grouping. If claim limitation(s), under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation(s) in the mind but for the recitation of generic computer components, then it falls within the “Mental Processes” grouping of abstract ideas. Accordingly, the claim recites an abstract idea. As to Step 2A-prong two, the judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. Claim 8 recites a computer-readable medium having instructions stored thereon for a processor of a computing device, wherein the instructions configure the processor to perform: providing, to the hub, first information including one or more topics being considered by a knowledge process on the user computing device; automatically receiving second information from the hub, the second information being about one or more topics provided to the hub Here, “a computer-readable medium having instructions stored thereon for a processor of a computing device, wherein the instructions configure the processor to perform:” amounts to mere generic computer components which does not amount to an inventive concept. Next, “providing, to the hub, first information including one or more topics being considered by a knowledge process on the user computing device;” encompasses insignificant extra-solution activity and amounts to mere data gathering (see MPEP 2106.05(g)). Next, “automatically receiving second information from the hub, the second information being about one or more topics provided to the hub;” encompasses insignificant extra-solution activity and amounts to mere data gathering (see MPEP 2106.05(g)). Accordingly, these additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because it does not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. Thus, the claim is directed to an abstract idea. Accordingly, these additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because it does not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. Thus, the claim is directed to an abstract idea. As to step 2B, the claim as a whole does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. As discussed above, claim 14 additional limitation amounts to no more than mere extra solution activity and generic computer components do not amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because the generic computer components are implementing the limitations in a generic manner. Thus, even when viewed as a whole, nothing in the claim adds significantly more (i.e., an inventive concept) to the abstract idea. Mere providing information cannot provide an inventive concept. Thus, claim 14is not patentable eligible under 35 USC 101. Under the 2019 PEG, a conclusion that an additional element is insignificant extra-solution activity in Step 2A should be re-evaluated in Step 2B. Here, the “providing, to the hub, first information including one or more topics that a user was working on at the user computing device;” and “automatically receiving second information from the hub, the second information being about one or more topics provided to the hub;” steps are considered to be extra-solution activity in Step 2A, and thus it is re-evaluated in Step 2B to determine if it is more than what is well-understood, routine, conventional activity in the field. The specification does not provide any indication that the limitations are anything other than extra solution activity. Here, “providing, to the hub, first information including one or more topics being considered by a knowledge process on the user computing device;” is merely data gathering. OIP Techs court decision cited in MPEP 2106.05(d)(II) indicate that mere retrieving data is a well-understood, routine, and conventional function when it is claimed in a merely generic manner (as it is here). Next, “receiving from the hub second information, at least some of the second information being related to the first information provided to the hub;” is merely data gathering. OIP Techs court decision cited in MPEP 2106.05(d)(II) indicate that mere retrieving data is a well-understood, routine, and conventional function when it is claimed in a merely generic manner (as it is here). Accordingly, a conclusion that the “providing, to the hub, first information including one or more topics that a user was working on at the user computing device;” and “automatically receiving second information from the hub, the second information being about one or more topics provided to the hub;” steps are well-understood, routine, conventional activity is supported under Berkheimer Option 2. For these reasons, there is no inventive concept in the claim, and thus it is ineligible. The limitation “wherein the second information further includes contact information of one or more users who are knowledgeable regarding at least one of the one or more topics.” of dependent claim 15 is abstract because the claim encompasses insignificant extra-solution activity and amounts to mere data gathering (see MPEP 2106.05(g)). The claim does not recite additional limitations to integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because the claims do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. The claim is insignificant extra-solution because 2106.05(d) court decision OIP Techs court states retrieving data is extra solution activity. Thus, claim 15 is not patent eligible under 35 USC 101. The limitation “storing the second information as one or more entries in a frame of reference on the user computing device, wherein at least some of the one or more entries in the frame of reference include an indication regarding whether a respective entry is accessible to others or restricted from being accessed by the others.” of dependent claim 16 is abstract because the claim encompasses insignificant extra-solution activity and amounts to mere data gathering (see MPEP 2106.05(g)). The claim does not recite additional limitations to integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because the claims do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. The claim is insignificant extra-solution because 2106.05(d) court decision OIP Techs court states retrieving data is extra solution activity. Thus, claim 16 is not patent eligible under 35 USC 101. The limitation “further comprising: creating a record log on the user computing device upon creation of a document, the record log including a name of a user who created the document, and a start time indicating a time and date of creation of the document; upon completion of the document, performing: calculating a first hash of the completed document, storing the first hash to the record log, calculating a second hash of contents of the record log, and providing the second hash for storage to a blockchain residing in the hub.” of dependent claim 17 is abstract because the claim encompasses insignificant extra-solution activity and amounts to mere data gathering (see MPEP 2106.05(g)). The claim does not recite additional limitations to integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because the claims do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. The claim is insignificant extra-solution because 2106.05(d) court decision OIP Techs court states retrieving data is extra solution activity. Thus, claim 17 is not patent eligible under 35 USC 101. 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. Claims 1 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Etzioni et al. U.S. Patent Publication (2014/0280195; hereinafter: Etzioni) in view of Gedge et al. U.S. Patent Publication (2023/0111146; hereinafter: Gedge) Claim 1 As to claim 1, Etzioni discloses a computing device comprising: at least one first processor (paragraph[0114]], the reference describes processors.); a first main memory (paragraph[0116], the reference describes memory.); and a first communication interface, the first main memory, and the first communication interface being connected to the at least one first processor via a first bus, wherein the first main memory includes instructions for configuring the at least one processor to perform (paragraph[0116], the reference describes using an interface to execute instructions.): sending a connection request to a hub responsive to a user initiation of the connection request on the computing device (paragraph[0055]-paragraph[0056], the reference describes sending an internet connection to an educational hub.); receiving, in response to the sending of the connection request to the hub, an acceptance of the connection request(paragraph[0055]-paragraph[0056], the reference describes the server establishing a communication path with the client.); providing, to the hub after the acceptance of the connection request, a subject that the user of the computing device worked on that is being considered by a knowledge process executing on the computing device; Etzioni does not appear to explicitly disclose providing, to the hub after the acceptance of the connection request, a subject that the user of the computing device worked on that is being considered by a knowledge process executing on the computing device; and automatically receiving, from the hub responsive to the providing of the subject to the hub, information regarding resources related to the subject, wherein: the received information is made available to the user of the computing device. However, Gedge discloses providing, to the hub after the acceptance of the connection request, a subject that the user of the computing device worked on that is being considered by a knowledge process executing on the computing device (paragraph[0141]-paragraph[0142], the reference describes sending a request for knowledge based on what the user is seeking.); and automatically receiving, from the hub responsive to the providing of the subject to the hub, information regarding resources related to the subject, wherein (paragraph[0142], the reference describe retrieving the knowledge.): the received information is made available to the user of the computing device (paragraph[0149], the reference describes display data.). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing data of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which said subject matter pertains to have modified the teachings of Etzioni with the teachings of Gedge to retrieve knowledge data which would result in the claim invention. The skilled artisan would have been motivated to improve the teachings of Etzioni with the teachings of Gedge to efficiently integrate knowledge from a plurality of data sources (Gedge: paragraph[0002]). Claim 2 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Etzioni et al. U.S. Patent Publication (2014/0280195; hereinafter: Etzioni) in view of Gedge et al. U.S. Patent Publication (2023/0111146; hereinafter: Gedge) and further in view of Kong et al. U.S. Patent Publication (2020/0382277; hereinafter: Kong) Claim 2 As to claim 2, the combination of Etzioni and Gedge discloses all the elements in claim 1, as noted above, but do not appear to explicitly disclose further wherein the instructions further configure the at least one processor to perform: creating a record log on the computing device upon creation of a document on the computing device, the record log including a name of a user who created the document, and a start time indicating a time and a date of the creation of the document; upon completion of the document, performing: storing to the record log a time and a date at which the document is completed, calculating a first hash of the completed document, storing the first hash to the record log, calculating a second hash of contents of the record log, providing the second hash for storage to a blockchain residing in in the hub. However, Kong discloses further wherein the instructions further configure the at least one processor to perform: creating a record log on the computing device upon creation of a document on the computing device, the record log including a name of a user who created the document, and a start time indicating a time and a date of the creation of the document(paragraph[0048], the reference describes creating log a document that was created by a user.); upon completion of the document, performing: storing to the record log a time and a date at which the document is completed, calculating a first hash of the completed document, storing the first hash to the record log, calculating a second hash of contents of the record log (paragraph[0064], the reference describes creating a hashes when a document is created.), providing the second hash for storage to a blockchain residing in in the hub (paragraph[0099], the reference describes creating a blockchain with a hash data.). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing data of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which said subject matter pertains to have modified the teachings of Etzioni with the teachings of Gedge and Kong to create document logs which would result in the claim invention. The skilled artisan would have been motivated to improve the teachings of Etzioni with the teachings of Gedge and Kong to efficiently retrieve evidence of a digital document (Kong: paragraph[0001]). Claim 3 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Etzioni et al. U.S. Patent Publication (2014/0280195; hereinafter: Etzioni) in view of Gedge et al. U.S. Patent Publication (2023/0111146; hereinafter: Gedge) and further in view of Chari et al. U.S. Patent Publication (2015/0242486; hereinafter: Chari) Claim 3 As to claim 3, the combination of Etzioni and Gedge discloses all the elements in claim 1, as noted above, but do not appear to explicitly disclose wherein the instructions further configure the at least one processor to perform: storing, in the record log, resource information indicating one or more resources used while the document is under construction. However, Chari discloses wherein the instructions further configure the at least one processor to perform: storing, in the record log, resource information indicating one or more resources used while the document is under construction (paragraph[0036], the reference describes storing resource data.). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing data of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which said subject matter pertains to have modified the teachings of Etzioni with the teachings of Gedge and Chari to store resource information which would result in the claim invention. The skilled artisan would have been motivated to improve the teachings of Etzioni with the teachings of Gedge and Chari to efficiently generate a communities of users on the resources (Chari: paragraph[0005]). Claim 5 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Etzioni et al. U.S. Patent Publication (2014/0280195; hereinafter: Etzioni) in view of Gedge et al. U.S. Patent Publication (2023/0111146; hereinafter: Gedge) and further in view of Roberts et al. U.S. Patent Publication (2023/0044048; hereinafter: Roberts) Claim 5 As to claim 5, the combination of Etzioni and Gedge discloses all the elements in claim 1, as noted above, but do not appear to explicitly disclose wherein the knowledge process is a comprehension engine. However, Roberts further disclose wherein the knowledge process is a comprehension engine (paragraph[0022], the reference describes using a comprehension model.). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing data of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which said subject matter pertains to have modified the teachings of Etzioni with the teachings of Gedge and Roberts to use a comprehension model which would result in the claim invention. The skilled artisan would have been motivated to improve the teachings of Etzioni with the teachings of Gedge and Roberts to efficiently extract text using a natural language processing engine (Roberts: paragraph[0006]). Claim 6 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Etzioni et al. U.S. Patent Publication (2014/0280195; hereinafter: Etzioni) in view of Gedge et al. U.S. Patent Publication (2023/0111146; hereinafter: Gedge) and further in view of Lavine et al. U.S. Patent Publication (2021/0390196; hereinafter: Lavine) Claim 6 As to claim 6, the combination of Etzioni and Gedge discloses all the elements in claim 1, as noted above, but do not appear to explicitly disclose wherein the instructions further configure the at least one processor to perform: maintaining a user profile on the computing device, the user profile including names of entries, actual entries related to the names of the entries, an indicator for each respective entry which can alternate between being open or restricted, an open indicator allowing access to the respective entry, and a restricted indicator denying access to the respective entry. However, Lavine discloses wherein the instructions further configure the at least one processor to perform: maintaining a user profile on the computing device, the user profile including names of entries, actual entries related to the names of the entries, an indicator for each respective entry which can alternate between being open or restricted, an open indicator allowing access to the respective entry, and a restricted indicator denying access to the respective entry (paragraph[0011], the reference describes a user profile data being stored on a system.). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing data of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which said subject matter pertains to have modified the teachings of Etzioni with the teachings of Gedge and Lavine to store user profile data which would result in the claim invention. The skilled artisan would have been motivated to improve the teachings of Etzioni with the teachings of Gedge and Lavine to efficiently determine whether to identify and track users in a system (Lavine: paragraph[0001]). Claim 7 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Etzioni et al. U.S. Patent Publication (2014/0280195; hereinafter: Etzioni) in view of Gedge et al. U.S. Patent Publication (2023/0111146; hereinafter: Gedge) and further in view of Fine et al. U.S. Patent Publication (2007/0136429; hereinafter: Fine) Claim 7 As to claim 7, the combination of Etzioni and Gedge discloses all the elements in claim 1, as noted above, but do not appear to explicitly disclose wherein received information includes: one or more respective links to one or more documents on the subject and suggested contacts who are knowledgeable on the subject; However, Fine discloses wherein received information includes: one or more respective links to one or more documents on the subject and suggested contacts who are knowledgeable on the subject (paragraph[0037], the reference describes linking experts to topics.). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing data of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which said subject matter pertains to have modified the teachings of Etzioni with the teachings of Jin and Gedge to link experts to a particular topic which would result in the claim invention. The skilled artisan would have been motivated to improve the teachings of Etzioni with the teachings of Jin and Gedge to efficiently conduct information aggregation with a selected group (Fine: paragraph[0009]). Claims 8, 12, 13, 14, and 15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Fine et al. U.S. Patent Publication (2007/0136429; hereinafter: Fine) in view of Robb U.S. Patent (7,890,405; hereinafter: Robb) and further in view Gedge et al. U.S. Patent Publication (2023/0111146; hereinafter: Gedge) Claim 8 As to claim 8, Fine discloses a computer-readable medium having instructions stored thereon for a processor of a computing device, wherein the instructions configure the processor to perform: automatically providing the second information to the user computing device, thereby making the second information available to the user of the user computing device(paragraph[0037], the reference describes creating a list of experts based on the topics.). Fine does not appear to explicitly disclose receiving, from a user computing device, first information including a subject being considered by a knowledge process at the user computing device; scavenging available databased to look for second information about the subject. However, Robb discloses scavenging available databased to look for second information about the subject (column 17, lines 31-52, the reference describes searching various libraries (i.e., second information, as claimed) based on the topic.). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing data of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which said subject matter pertains to have modified the teachings of Fine with the teachings of Robb to determine other sources to search which would result in the claim invention. The skilled artisan would have been motivated to improve the teachings of Fine with the teachings of Robb to efficiently collaborate resources and other information with participants (Robb: column 1, lines 20-26). The combination of Fine and Robb do not appear to explicitly disclose receiving, from a user computing device, first information including a subject being considered by a knowledge process at the user computing device; However, Gedge discloses receiving, from a user computing device, first information including a subject being considered by a knowledge process at the user computing device (paragraph[0141]-paragraph[0142], the reference describes sending a request for knowledge based on what the user is seeking.). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing data of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which said subject matter pertains to have modified the teachings of Fine with the teachings of Robb and Gedge to retrieve knowledge data which would result in the claim invention. The skilled artisan would have been motivated to improve the teachings of Fine with the teachings of Robb and Gedge to efficiently integrate knowledge from a plurality of data sources (Gedge: paragraph[0002]). Claim 12 As to claim 12, the combination of Fine, Robb, and Gedge discloses all the elements in claim 8, as noted above, and Robb further disclose wherein the instructions further configure the processor to perform: providing to one or more certain users a view of workflow of a plurality of users having respective user computing devices connected with a hub executing on the computing device (column 16, lines 39-53, the reference describes workflows of users.). Claim 13 As to claim 13, the combination of Fine, Robb, and Gedge discloses all the elements in claim 12, as noted above, and Fine further disclose wherein the view includes snapshots over a plurality of time slots, the snapshots including at least two items from a group of items consisting of a number of active users, a number of inhouse resources examined, a number of outside resources used, a number of new entries added to a blockchain in a last predefined number of minutes, and one or more most used resources (paragraph[0037]-paragraph[0038], the reference describes a list of pages and matching experts.). Claim 14 As to claim 14, Fine discloses a machine-implemented method executing on a user computing device connected to a hub executing on a second computing device, the method comprising: the second information is made available to the user working on the user computing device (paragraph[0037], the reference describes creating a list of experts based on the topics.). Fine does not appear to explicitly disclose providing, to the hub, first information including one or more topics being considered by a knowledge process on the user computing device; and automatically receiving second information from the hub, second information being bout the one or more topics provided to the hub However, Robb discloses automatically receiving second information from the hub, second information being bout the one or more topics provided to the hub (column 17, lines 31-52, the reference describes searching various libraries (i.e., second information, as claimed) based on the topic.). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing data of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which said subject matter pertains to have modified the teachings of Fine with the teachings of Robb to determine other sources to search which would result in the claim invention. The skilled artisan would have been motivated to improve the teachings of Fine with the teachings of Robb to efficiently collaborate resources and other information with participants (Robb: column 1, lines 20-26). The combination of Fine and Robb do not appear to explicitly disclose providing, to the hub, first information including one or more topics being considered by a knowledge process on the user computing device. However, Gedge discloses providing, to the hub, first information including one or more topics being considered by a knowledge process on the user computing device (paragraph[0141]-paragraph[0142], the reference describes sending a request for knowledge based on what the user is seeking.). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing data of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which said subject matter pertains to have modified the teachings of Fine with the teachings of Robb and Gedge to retrieve knowledge data which would result in the claim invention. The skilled artisan would have been motivated to improve the teachings of Fine with the teachings of Robb and Gedge to efficiently integrate knowledge from a plurality of data sources (Gedge: paragraph[0002]). Claim 15 As to claim 15, the combination of Fine, Robb, and Gedge discloses all the elements in claim 14, as noted above, and Fine further disclose wherein the second information further includes contact information of one or more users who are knowledgeable regarding at least one of the one or more topics (paragraph[0038], the reference describes topics and contact information.). Claims 9-11 and 16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Fine et al. U.S. Patent Publication (2007/0136429; hereinafter: Fine) in view of Robb U.S. Patent (7,890,405; hereinafter: Robb) and further in view Gedge et al. U.S. Patent Publication (2023/0111146; hereinafter: Gedge) and further in view of Goldfarb et al. U.S. Patent Publication (2017/0346830; hereinafter: Goldfarb) Claim 9 As to claim 9, the combination of Fine, Robb, and Gedge discloses all the elements in claim 8, as noted above, but do not appear to explicitly disclose wherein the instructions further configure the processor to perform: receiving a connection request from a second user of a second user computing device; determining whether requirements for accepting the connection request from the second user are satisfied; and accepting the connection request from the second user only if the requirements for accepting the connection request are satisfied. However, Goldfarb discloses wherein the instructions further configure the processor to perform: receiving a connection request from a second user of a second user computing device(paragraph[0041], the reference describes sending a request.; determining whether requirements for accepting the connection request from the second user are satisfied(paragraph[0041]-paragraph[0042], the reference describes determining to accept a request.); and accepting the connection request from the second user only if the requirements for accepting the connection request are satisfied(paragraph[0071]-paragraph[0072], the reference describes accessing resources based on the user credentials.). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing data of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which said subject matter pertains to have modified the teachings of Fine with the teachings of Robb, Gedge, and Goldfarb to request resource data which would result in the claim invention. The skilled artisan would have been motivated to improve the teachings of Fine with the teachings of Robb, Gedge, and Goldfarb to efficiently exercise control over permissions granted to users to access various native applications (Goldfarb: paragraph[0022]). Claim 10 As to claim 10, the combination of Fine, Robb, Gedge, and Goldfarb discloses all the elements in claim 9, as noted above, and Goldfarb further disclose wherein the determining whether the requirements for accepting the connection request from the user are satisfied further comprise: determining that the requirements for accepting the connection request are satisfied either: when the requirements for accepting the connection request are determined not to exist, or when the requirements for accepting the connection request do exist, and the requirements are satisfied(paragraph[0041]-paragraph[0042], the referenc3e describes determining to accept a request.). Claim 11 As to claim 11, the combination of Fine, Robb, Gedge, and Goldfarb discloses all the elements in claim 9, as noted above, and Goldfarb further disclose wherein the requirements for accepting the connection request are related to an amount of disclosure permitted regarding items from a profile of the second user (paragraph[0029], the reference describes setting permissions for user access of records.). Claim 16 As to claim 16, the combination of Fine Robb, and Gedge discloses all the elements in claim 14, as noted above, but do not appear to explicitly disclose wherein at least some entries in the frame of reference include an indication regarding whether a respective entry is accessible to others or restricted from being accessed by the others. However, Goldfarb discloses wherein at least some entries in the frame of reference include an indication regarding whether a respective entry is accessible to others or restricted from being accessed by the others(paragraph[0041]-paragraph[0042], the reference describes determining to accept a request.). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing data of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which said subject matter pertains to have modified the teachings of Fine with the teachings of Robb, Gedge, and Goldfarb to request resource data which would result in the claim invention. The skilled artisan would have been motivated to improve the teachings of Fine with the teachings of Robb, Gedge, and Goldfarb to efficiently exercise control over permissions granted to users to access various native applications (Goldfarb: paragraph[0022]). Claim 17 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Fine et al. U.S. Patent Publication (2007/0136429; hereinafter: Fine) in view of Robb U.S. Patent (7,890,405; hereinafter: Robb) and further in view Gedge et al. U.S. Patent Publication (2023/0111146; hereinafter: Gedge) and further in view of Kong et al. U.S. Patent Publication (2020/0382277; hereinafter: Kong) Claim 17 As to claim 17, the combination of Fine, Robb, and Gedge discloses all the elements in claim 14, as noted above, but do not appear to explicitly disclose creating a record log on the user computing device upon creation of a document, the record log including a name of a user who created the document, and a start time indicating a time and date of creation of the document; upon completion of the document, performing: calculating a first hash of the completed document, storing the first hash to the record log, calculating a second hash of contents of the record log, and providing the second hash for storage to a blockchain residing in the hub. However, Kong discloses creating a record log on the user computing device upon creation of a document, the record log including a name of a user who created the document, and a start time indicating a time and date of creation of the document(paragraph[0048], the reference describes creating log a document that was created by a user.); upon completion of the document, performing: calculating a first hash of the completed document ,storing the first hash to the record log, calculating a second hash of contents of the record log (paragraph[0064], the reference describes creating a hashes when a document is created.), and providing the second hash for storage to a blockchain residing in the hub(paragraph[0099], the reference describes creating a blockchain with a hash data.). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing data of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which said subject matter pertains to have modified the teachings of Fine with the teachings of Robb, Gedge, and Kong to calculate a hash which would result in the claim invention. The skilled artisan would have been motivated to improve the teachings of Fine with the teachings of Robb, Gedge, and Kong to efficiently retrieve evidence of a digital document (Kong: paragraph[0001]). Claim 18 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Fine et al. U.S. Patent Publication (2007/0136429; hereinafter: Fine) in view of Robb U.S. Patent (7,890,405; hereinafter: Robb) and further in view Gedge et al. U.S. Patent Publication (2023/0111146; hereinafter: Gedge) and further in view of Grubb et al. U.S. Patent Publication (2022/0334992; hereinafter: Grubb) Claim 18 As to claim 18, the combination of Fine, Robb, and Gedge discloses all the elements in claim 8, as noted above, but do not appear to explicitly disclose wherein: the instructions configure the computing device to perform as a first hub, the first hub solicits a direct connection to a second hub, and after the direct connection between the first hub and the second hub, the user of the user computing device connected to either the first hub or the second hub gains access to resources across a network based on information received from the first hub or the second hub. However, Grubb discloses wherein: the instructions configure the computing device to perform as a first hub, the first hub solicits a direct connection to a second hub (paragraph[0031], the reference describes connecting a first hub to a second hub.), and after the direct connection between the first hub and the second hub, the user of the user computing device connected to either the first hub or the second hub gains access to resources across a network based on information received from the first hub or the second hub (paragraph[0036], the reference describes the user device connect with a first or second hub to exchange data.). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing data of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which said subject matter pertains to have modified the teachings of Fine with the teachings of Robb, Gedge, and Grubb to connect multiple hubs which would result in the claim invention. The skilled artisan would have been motivated to improve the teachings of Fine with the teachings of Robb, Gedge, and Grubb to efficiently provide load balance management between accessory device and hub devices (Grubb: paragraph[0003]). Final Action 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 extension fee 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 date of this final action. Conclusion Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to DAWAUNE A CONYERS whose telephone number is (571)270-3552. The examiner can normally be reached on M-F 8:00am-4:30pm EST. EST. If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Ann J. Lo can be reached on (571) 272-9767. 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. /DAWAUNE A CONYERS/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2159 /DAWAUNE A CONYERS/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2152 February 24, 2024