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 4, 6, 7, 11, 12, 16, and 17 have been amended. Claims 1-17 are pending and rejected in the application.
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 1-17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claims are directed to non-statutory subject matter.
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 1-17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claims are directed to non-statutory subject matter.
Claims 1-7 are ineligible:
As to step one, claim 1 recites a computing device and, therefore, is a machine which is a statutory category.
As to step 2A-prong one, claim 1 recites a computing device comprising:
upon completion of the document, performing:
calculating a first hash of the completed document,
calculating a second hash of contents of the record log. 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 computing device”, “at least one first processor”, “a first main memory”, “a first communication interface”, and “a first bus” amounts to mere generic computer components. That is other than reciting “a computing device”, “at least one first processor”, “a first main memory”, “a first communication interface”, and “a first bus” nothing in the claim element precludes the steps from practically being performed in the mind. Thus, claim 1 is not patentable eligible under 35 U.S.C. 101.
For example, “upon completion of the document, performing:
calculating a first hash of the completed document” encompasses mentally a person calculating a first hash of the completed document.
Next, “calculating a second hash of contents of the record log” encompasses mentally a person calculating a second hash of contents of the record log. 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 1 recites
at least one first processor;
a first main 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:
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 date of creation of the document;
storing the first hash to the record log,
and
providing the second hash for storage to a blockchain residing in a hub executing on a different computing device.
Here, “at least one first processor;”, “a first main 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:” amounts to mere generic computer components which does not amount to an inventive concept.
Next, “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 date of creation of the document;” encompasses insignificant extra-solution activity and amounts to mere data gathering (see MPEP 2106.05(g)).
Next, “storing the first hash to the record log,
and
providing the second hash for storage to a blockchain residing in a hub executing on a different 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 1 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 document evaluations and calculating a hash cannot provide an inventive concept. Thus, claim 1 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 “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 date of creation of the document;” and “storing the first hash to the record log,
and
providing the second hash for storage to a blockchain residing in a hub executing on a different 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, “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 date of creation of the document;” and ‘storing the first hash to the record log,
and
providing the second hash for storage to a blockchain residing in a hub executing on a different 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 “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 date of creation of the document;” and “storing the first hash to the record log,
and
providing the second hash for storage to a blockchain residing in a hub executing on a different 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 at least one processor to perform: upon completion of the document, storing to the record log a time and a date at which the document is completed.” of dependent claim 2 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 2 is not patent eligible under 35 USC 101.
The limitation “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.” of dependent claim 3 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 3 is not patent eligible under 35 USC 101.
The limitation “wherein the instructions further configure the at least one processor to perform: sending a connection request to the hub responsive to a user initiation of the connection request;” of dependent claim 4 is abstract because the claim encompasses insignificant extra-solution activity and amounts to mere data gathering (see MPEP 2106.05(g)). Next, the limitation “receiving, in response to the sending of the connection request to the hub, an acceptance of the connection request;” of dependent claim 4 is abstract because the claim encompasses insignificant extra-solution activity and amounts to mere data gathering (see MPEP 2106.05(g)). Further, the limitation “receiving suggested resources from the hub after receiving the acceptance of the connection request, the received suggested resources being based on each subject being considered by a knowledge process executing on the computing device.” of dependent claim 4 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 4 is not patent eligible under 35 USC 101.
The limitation “wherein the knowledge process is a comprehension engine.” of dependent claim 5 is abstract because the claim encompasses mere generic computer components which does not amount to an inventive concept. 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 5 is not patent eligible under 35 USC 101.
The limitation “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.” of dependent claim 6 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 6 is not patent eligible under 35 USC 101.
The limitation “wherein the instructions further configure the at least one processor to perform: communicating to the hub a topic being worked on by the user;” of dependent claim 7 is abstract because the claim encompasses insignificant extra-solution activity and amounts to mere data gathering (see MPEP 2106.05(g)). Next, the limitation “receiving, from the hub responsive to the communicating to the hub, information including one or more respective links to one or more documents on the topic and suggested contacts who are knowledgeable on the topic;” of dependent claim 7 is abstract because the claim encompasses insignificant extra-solution activity and amounts to mere data gathering (see MPEP 2106.05(g)). Further, the limitation “adding the received information to a frame of reference on the computing device.” of dependent claim 7 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 7 is not patent eligible under 35 USC 101.
Claims 8-13 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 for second information related to the topic. 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 for second information related to the topic;” encompasses mentally a person scavenging available databases for second information related to the topic. 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 topic that a user was working on at the user computing device;
providing the second information to the user computing device for inclusion in a frame of reference of the user.
Next, “receiving, from a user computing device, first information including a topic that a user was working on at the user computing device;” encompasses insignificant extra-solution activity and amounts to mere data gathering (see MPEP 2106.05(g)).
Next, “providing the second information to the user computing device for inclusion in a frame of reference of the user.” 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 topic that a user was working on at the user computing device;” and
“providing the second information to the user computing device for inclusion in a frame of reference of the user.” 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 topic that a user was working on at the user computing device;” and
“providing the second information to the user computing device for inclusion in a frame of reference of the user.” 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 topic that a user was working on at the user computing device;” and
“providing the second information to the user computing device for inclusion in a frame of reference of the user.” 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.
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:
including the second information in a frame of reference of the user, the frame of reference including one or more topics of interest to the user, and one or more references to content associated with the one or more topics of interest. 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, “including the second information in a frame of reference of the user, the frame of reference including one or more topics of interest to the user, and one or more references to content associated with the one or more topics of interest” encompasses mentally a person including the second information in a frame of reference of the user, the frame of reference including one or more topics of interest to the user, and one or more references to content associated with the one or more topics of interest. 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 that a user was working on at the user computing device;
receiving from the hub second information, at least some of the second information being related to the first information 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 that a user was working on at the user computing device;” encompasses insignificant extra-solution activity and amounts to mere data gathering (see MPEP 2106.05(g)).
Next, “receiving from the hub second information, at least some of the second information being related to the first information 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 “receiving from the hub second information, at least some of the second information being related to the first information 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 that a user was working on at 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 “receiving from the hub second information, at least some of the second information being related to the first information 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 included in the frame of reference 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 “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.” 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, are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wilson U.S. Patent Publication (2018/0302417; hereinafter: Wilson) in view of Jin et al. U.S. Patent Publication (2019/0384895; hereinafter: Jin)
Claim 1
As to claim 1, Wilson discloses a computing device comprising:
at least one first processor (paragraph[0100]], the reference describes processors.);
a first main memory (paragraph[0128], 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[0134], the reference describes an graphical user interface implementing instructions.):
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 date of creation of the document (Figure 28, paragraph[0060] and paragraph[0069], the reference describes creating a record that includes publisher (i.e., user, as claimed), times stamp, and date.);
upon completion of the document, performing:
calculating a first hash of the completed document (Figure 28, paragraph[0010], the reference describes calculated a hash.),
storing the first hash to the record log (paragraph[0011] and paragraph[0060], the reference describes the system storing the hash),
calculating a second hash of contents of the record log (paragraph[0011] and paragraph[0060], the reference describes creating a second hash.)
Wilson does not appear to explicitly disclose providing the second hash for storage to a blockchain residing in a hub executing on a different computing device.
However, Jin discloses providing the second hash for storage to a blockchain residing in a hub executing on a different computing device (paragraph[0132], the reference describes creating hash and inserting it into a blockchain.). 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 Wilson with the teachings of Jin to store hash into a blockchain which would result in the claim invention. The skilled artisan would have been motivated to improve the teachings of Wilson with the teachings of Jin to efficiently proving an enterprise software system designed for documentation and certification management in business systems (Jin: paragraph[0002]).
Claim 2 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wilson U.S. Patent Publication (2018/0302417; hereinafter: Wilson) in view of Jin et al. U.S. Patent Publication (2019/0384895; hereinafter: Jin) and further in view of Cheng-Shorland et al. U.S. Patent Publication (2022/0405409; hereinafter: Cheng)
Claim 2
As to claim 2, the combination of Wilson and Jin 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:
upon completion of the document, storing to the record log a time and a date at which the document is completed.
However, Cheng discloses wherein the instructions further configure the at least one processor to perform:
upon completion of the document, storing to the record log a time and a date at which the document is completed (paragraph[0140], the reference describes recording creation dates and times.). 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 Wilson with the teachings of Jin and Cheng to store creation dates and time which would result in the claim invention. The skilled artisan would have been motivated to improve the teachings of Wilson with the teachings of Jin and Cheng to efficiently encrypt and preserve a record of views or modification (Cheng: paragraph[0002]).
Claim 3 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wilson U.S. Patent Publication (2018/0302417; hereinafter: Wilson) in view of Jin et al. U.S. Patent Publication (2019/0384895; hereinafter: Jin) 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 Wilson and Jin 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 Wilson with the teachings of Jin 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 Wilson with the teachings of Jin and Chari to efficiently generate a communities of users on the resources (Chari: paragraph[0005]).
Claim 4 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wilson U.S. Patent Publication (2018/0302417; hereinafter: Wilson) in view of Jin et al. U.S. Patent Publication (2019/0384895; hereinafter: Jin) and further in view of Goldfarb et al. U.S. Patent Publication (2017/0346830; hereinafter: Goldfarb)
Claim 4
As to claim 4, the combination of Wilson and Jin 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:
sending a connection request to the hub responsive to a user initiation of the connection request;
receiving, in response to the sending of the connection request to the hub, an acceptance of the connection request; and
receiving suggested resources from the hub after receiving the acceptance of the connection request, the received suggested resources being based on each subject being considered by a knowledge process executing on the computing device.
However, Goldfarb discloses wherein the instructions further configure the at least one processor to perform:
sending a connection request to the hub responsive to a user initiation of the connection request (paragraph[0041], the reference describes sending a request.);
receiving, in response to the sending of the connection request to the hub, an acceptance of the connection request (paragraph[0041]-paragraph[0042], the reference describes determining to accept the request.); and
receiving suggested resources from the hub after receiving the acceptance of the connection request, the received suggested resources being based on each subject being considered by a knowledge process executing on the computing device (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 Wilson with the teachings of Jin 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 Wilson with the teachings of Jin and Goldfarb to efficiently exercise control over permissions granted to users to access various native applications (Goldfarb: paragraph[0022]).
Claim 5 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wilson U.S. Patent Publication (2018/0302417; hereinafter: Wilson) in view of Jin et al. U.S. Patent Publication (2019/0384895; hereinafter: Jin) and further in view of Goldfarb et al. U.S. Patent Publication (2017/0346830; hereinafter: Goldfarb) 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 Wilson, Jin, and Goldfarb discloses all the elements in claim 4, as noted above, and Wilson further 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 Wilson with the teachings of Jin, Goldfarb, 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 Wilson with the teachings of Jin, Goldfarb, 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 Wilson U.S. Patent Publication (2018/0302417; hereinafter: Wilson) in view of Jin et al. U.S. Patent Publication (2019/0384895; hereinafter: Jin) 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 Wilson and Jin 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 Wilson with the teachings of Jin 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 Wilson with the teachings of Jin 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 Wilson U.S. Patent Publication (2018/0302417; hereinafter: Wilson) in view of Jin et al. U.S. Patent Publication (2019/0384895; hereinafter: Jin) 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 Wilson and Jin 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:
communicating to the hub a topic being worked on by the user;
receiving, from the hub responsive to the communicating to the hub, information including one or more respective links to one or more documents on the topic and suggested contacts who are knowledgeable on the topic; and
adding the received information to a frame of reference on the computing device.
However, Fine discloses wherein the instructions further configure the at least one processor to perform:
communicating to the hub a topic being worked on by the user (paragraph[0037], the reference describes looking up topics.);
receiving, from the hub responsive to the communicating to the hub, information including one or more respective links to one or more documents on the topic and suggested contacts who are knowledgeable on the topic (paragraph[0037], the reference describes linking experts to topics.); and
adding the received information to a frame of reference on the computing device (paragraph[0037], the reference describes creating a list of experts based on the 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 Wilson with the teachings of Jin and Fine 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 Wilson with the teachings of Jin and Fine 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)
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:
receiving, from a user computing device, first information including a topic that a user was working on at the user computing device user (paragraph[0037], the reference describes looking up topics.);
providing the second information to the user computing device for inclusion in a frame of reference of the user(paragraph[0037], the reference describes creating a list of experts based on the topics.).
Fine does not appear to explicitly disclose scavenging available databases for second information related to the topic;
However, Robb discloses scavenging available databases for second information related to the topic (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).
Claim 12
As to claim 12, the combination of Fine and Robb 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 and Robb 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:
providing, to the hub, first information including one or more topics that a user was working on at the user computing device(paragraph[0037], the reference describes looking up topics.);
including the second information in a frame of reference of the user, the frame of reference including one or more topics of interest to the user, and one or more references to content associated with the one or more topics of interest(paragraph[0037], the reference describes creating a list of experts based on the topics.).
Fine does not appear to explicitly disclose receiving from the hub second information, at least some of the second information being related to the first information provided to the hub;
However, Robb discloses receiving from the hub second information, at least some of the second information being related to the first information 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).
Claim 15
As to claim 15, the combination of Fine and Robb discloses all the elements in claim 14, as noted above, and Fine further disclose wherein the second information included in the frame of reference 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 of Goldfarb et al. U.S. Patent Publication (2017/0346830; hereinafter: Goldfarb)
Claim 9
As to claim 9, the combination of Fine and Robb 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 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 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, 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, 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 and Robb 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 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 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 of Wilson U.S. Patent Publication (2018/0302417; hereinafter: Wilson) and further in view of Jin et al. U.S. Patent Publication (2019/0384895; hereinafter: Jin)
Claim 17
As to claim 17, the combination of Fine and Robb discloses all the elements in claim 14, as noted above, but do not appear to explicitly disclose
However, Wilson discloses 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(Figure 28, paragraph[0060] and paragraph[0069], the reference describes creating a record that includes publisher (i.e., user, as claimed), times stamp, and date.);
upon completion of the document, performing:
calculating a first hash of the completed document(Figure 28, paragraph[0010], the reference describes calculated a hash.),
storing the first hash to the record log(paragraph[0011] and paragraph[0060], the reference describes the system storing the hash),
calculating a second hash of contents of the record log (paragraph[0011] and paragraph[0060], the reference describes creating a second hash.). 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 Wilson 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 and Wilson to efficiently determine tampering detection using cryptography (Wilson: paragraph[0022]).
The combination of Fine, Robb, and Wilson do not appear to explicitly disclose and providing the second hash for storage to a blockchain residing in the hub.
However, Jin discloses providing the second hash for storage to a blockchain residing in the hub (paragraph[0132], the reference describes creating hash and inserting it into a blockchain.). 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, Wilson, and Jin to store hash into a blockchain 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, Wilson, and Jin to efficiently proving an enterprise software system designed for documentation and certification management in business systems (Jin: paragraph[0002]).
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, Neveen Abel-Jalil can be reached on (571) 270-0474. 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 2152 April 4, 2026
/DAWAUNE A CONYERS/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2152 February 24, 2024
Prosecution Insights