DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on 26 February 2026 has been entered.
Introductory Remarks
In response to communications filed on 26 February 2026, claim(s) 1 and 10 is/are amended per Applicant’s request. Claim(s) 6 is/are cancelled. Therefore, claims 1-5 and 7-10 are presently pending in the application, of which, claim(s) 1 and 10 is/are presented in independent form.
No IDS has been received since the mailing of the last Office action.
The previously raised 112 rejections are withdrawn in view of the amendments to the claims.
Examiner’s Note
The rejections below group claims that may not be identical, but whose language and scope are so substantively similar as to lend themselves to grouping, in the interests of clarity and conciseness. Any citation to the instant specification herein is made to the PGPub version (if applicable).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 1 and 10 (and correspondingly their dependents) are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Independent claim(s) 1 is representative and recites, “generate the folder chat room and determine a chatting participant who participates in the folder chat room, in response to the specific folder being generated by a folder generator, by selecting and designating a user through the folder generator….” There are multiple issues of indefiniteness present here. First, the “realized folder chat room” has already been provided so it is unclear what folder chat room is later generated. Here it is believed that these limitations are merely out of order within the claim and that the generate step should actually be before the providing limitation. Second, the use of the language of “determine a chatting participant who participates in the folder chat room” renders these claim(s) indefinite as it is unclear whether infringement takes place when the folder chat room is generated or once there is a chatting participant that participates in the folder chat room. See generally In re Collier, 397 F.2d 1003 (C.C.P.A. 1968) (“The main fault we observe in claim 17 is indefiniteness in the sense that things which may be done are not required to be done. For example, the ferrule or connector member is crimpable but not required, structurally, to be crimped; the ground wire "means," which we take to be a piece of wire, is for disposition under the ferrule but is not required to be disposed anywhere; it becomes displaced when the ferrule is crimped but that may never be, so far as the language of claim 17 is concerned. These cannot be regarded as structural limitations and therefore not as positive limitations in a claim directed to structure.”). It is believed that the applicant actually intends this to read something like the following:
generate a folder chat room;
in response to the specific folder chat room being generated by a folder generator, determine a user who is permitted to participate in the folder chat room by selecting and designating said user through the folder generator based on an access authority of the chatting participant to access the specific folder; and
provide a realized form of the folder chat room in association with the specific folder in the user terminal.
The dependent claim(s) do nothing to cure these deficiencies, and is/are likewise rejected. The claims are interpreted as laid out above for the purposes of compact prosecution.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claim(s) 1-5, 7, and 10 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Geisler et al., (U.S. PGPub No. 2018/0124129 A1) (hereinafter Geisler).
As per claim 1, Geisler teaches an apparatus for managing a folder (0005), the apparatus comprising:
a memory (0080); and
a processor electrically connected to the memory (0080), wherein the processor is configured to
detect access of a user terminal (0019-20),
display a specific folder permitted for the user terminal to access (Figs. 2A and 3A and corresponding description),
generate a folder chat room (0039),
in response to the specific folder chat room being generated by a folder generator, determine a user who is permitted to participate in the folder chat room by selecting and designating said user through the folder generator based on an access authority of the chatting participant to access the specific folder (0034-35; see also 0042-43),
store a specific file in the specific folder when the specific file is transmitted through the folder chat room (0030), and
provide a realized form of the folder chat room in association with the specific folder in the user terminal (0039).
As per claim 10, Geisler teaches a folder management method performed by a folder management apparatus including a memory and a processor electrically connected to the memory (0080 and claim 1), the method comprising:
For the remaining limitations, see the examiner’s remarks regarding claim 1.
As per claim 2, Geisler teaches the apparatus of claim 1, wherein the processor provides modification or update of the folder chat room to the user terminal through a folder chat room badge for the folder chat room (Figure 3B).
As per claim 3, Geisler teaches the apparatus of claim 1, wherein the processor generates and updates a folder chat room using a chat room modification history, user identification information, and information on a time at which the user terminal accesses the folder chat room (0008).
As per claim 4, Geisler teaches the apparatus of claim 1, wherein when the folder chat room is generated in association with the specific folder, the processor reflects the generation of the folder chat room in a folder modification history (0029) and updates a folder badge value of the specific file according to the generation and update of the folder chat room (0026 – “log user interactions with content items”).
As per claim 5, Geisler teaches the apparatus of claim 1, wherein when the folder chat room is in association with the specific folder (0039, and Figs. 2B and 3B and their corresponding description), the processor updates a file badge value of the specific file by reflecting the update of the folder chat room (0026; see also 0008-09).
As per claim 7, Geisler teaches the apparatus of claim 1, wherein the processor checks an access authority of the user terminal (0042, 0020, and 0030), selects a folder chat room permitted to be accessed by the user terminal (id. and Figs. 2A and 3A), and provides a folder chat room list comprising information about the selected folder chat room and an access path to the selected folder chat room to the user terminal (Figure 3A).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
Claim(s) 8 and 9 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Geisler as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Perrazo et al. (U.S. PGPub No. 2016/0112362 A1) (hereinafter Perrazo).
As per claim 8, Geisler does not appear to disclose: The apparatus of claim 1, wherein the processor detects a task object which satisfies a remind condition from task objects generated through the folder chat room on a basis of task progress states and deadlines and provides a reminder to the user terminal.
Perrazo teaches automatically triggering reminders based on the content of a message. See Perrazo at 0021. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to incorporate the teachings of Perrazo into the invention of Geisler in order to have the processor detect a task object which satisfies a remind condition from task objects generated through the folder chat room on the basis of task progress states and deadlines and provides a reminder to the user terminal. This would have been clearly advantageous as it would allow users in the shared chat of Geisler to have reminders set up to help them in shared tasks and deadlines, thereby making the group more coordinated and efficient. The combination hereinafter GP.
As per claim 9, Geisler does not explicitly disclose the apparatus of claim 1, wherein when a task object is generated through the folder chat room, the processor shares the task object through the folder chat room or a folder memo pad shared by participants of the folder chat room. However, Perrazo teaches sharing tasks with other users and synchronization with their calendars. Perrazo at 0067. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to incorporate the teachings of Perrazo into the invention of Geisler in order to when a task object is generated through the folder chat room, the processor shares the task object through the folder chat room or a folder memo pad shared by participants of the folder chat room. This would have been clearly advantageous as it would allow users in the shared chat of Geisler to have shared tasks set up to help them in achieving joint projects, thereby making the group more coordinated and efficient.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 8 January 2026 and accepted with the applicant’s RCE of 26 February 2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
First, the applicant argues that in Geisler the users in the share group are not determined and the chat inbox is not displayed in response to the content folders being generated. The examiner respectfully disagrees. Geisler describes that a user may share folders privately with other users, and that to do so the sharing module adds a user account identifier to a content entry associated with the content item that grants the added user account access to the content item. Geisler at 0034-35. The list of users in a given share group for the folder is stored (0037), which provides access control for those who may chat with regards to this shared folder (0039). As Geisler describes in their example of selecting the chat link at 0043, the user is allowed to “create a chat group in order to send a group message regarding a content it” and thereafter the CMS identifies the share group. Clearly, the CMS would not be granting access to a private shared folder to those who are not part of the relevant share group as established in 0037 and 0039, and it can only grant access to the specific folder chat room to those in the specific folder chat room once that folder chat room has been generated by the system (i.e., in response to the specific shared folder being generated). Therefore, Geisler does teach the disputed limitation, and the rejection is maintained.
Applicant offers no other arguments beyond arguing allowability for the reasons cited for the independent claim(s) or dependence upon said claims. These arguments are considered met.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to TYLER J TORGRIMSON whose telephone number is (571)270-5550. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 9 am - 5:30 pm.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Aleksander Kerzhner can be reached at 571.270.1760. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of published or unpublished applications may be obtained from Patent Center. Unpublished application information in Patent Center is available to registered users. To file and manage patent submissions in Patent Center, visit: https://patentcenter.uspto.gov. Visit https://www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/patent-center for more information about Patent Center and https://www.uspto.gov/patents/docx for information about filing in DOCX format. For additional questions, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/TYLER J TORGRIMSON/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2165