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 .
DETAILED ACTION
This action is responsive to claims filed on November 21, 2024. Claims 1-32 are pending and presented for examination.
Authorization for Internet Communication
To expedite prosecution, filing a written authorization for internet communication is recommended. Doing so permits the USPTO to communicate using email to schedule interviews and/or discuss other aspects of the application. Without a written authorization in place, the USPTO cannot respond to email communications. The preferred method of providing authorization is by filing form PTO/SB/439, available at: https://www.uspto.gov/patent/forms/forms. See MPEP § 502.03.
Title
The title of the invention is not descriptive. A new title is required that is clearly indicative of the invention to which the claims are directed.
Abstract
Applicant is reminded of the proper language and format for an abstract of the disclosure.
The abstract should be in narrative form and generally limited to a single paragraph on a separate sheet within the range of 50 to 150 words. It is important that the abstract not exceed 150 words in length since the space provided for the abstract on the computer tape used by the printer is limited. The form and legal phraseology often used in patent claims, such as "means" and "said," should be avoided. The abstract should describe the disclosure sufficiently to assist readers in deciding whether there is a need for consulting the full patent text for details.
The language should be clear and concise and should not repeat information given in the title. It should avoid using phrases which can be implied, such as, "The disclosure concerns," "The disclosure defined by this invention," "The disclosure describes," etc.
Examiner's note: It is recommended to amend the abstract to briefly describe the claimed invention according to the above guidelines.
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 1-32 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to a judicial exception (i.e., a law of nature, a natural phenomenon, or an abstract idea) without significantly more. Said claims are directed to an abstract idea, and the claims do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception, for the reasons set forth below.
Step 1:
In applying the decision in Alice Corp. v. CLS Bank, Int'l, 134 S. Ct. 2347 (2014) to make a determination of patent eligibility, the examiner must apply a three-part test (MPEP 2106.01(II)). First, a determination must be made as to whether the claims are directed to one of the four statutory categories defined under 35 USC § 101, i.e., process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter. Here the claims are all directed to statutory subject matter categories. claims 1, 21, 24, 27 and 30 are directed to systems, claims 8, 22, 25, 28 and 31 are directed to methods, claim 15 is directed to a computer program product and claims 23, 26, 29 and 32 are directed to non-transitory computer readable storage medium. Said claims fall within the four statutory categories defined under 35 USC § 101.
Step 2A – Abstract idea:
Second, a determination must be made as to whether the claims are directed to one of the judicially recognized exceptions: a law of nature, a natural phenomenon, or an abstract idea. Here it appears that the claims are directed to an abstract idea, which will be further discussed in the next paragraph. Examples of abstract ideas include fundamental economic practices; certain methods of organizing human activities; an idea itself; and mathematical relationships/formulas. Alice Corp. v. CLS Bank, Int'l, 134 S. Ct. 2347 (2014).
In determining that claims 1, 8, 15 and 21-32 are directed to an abstract idea, Examiner referred to the list of abstract ideas identified by the courts (see Fed. Reg., vol. 79, No. 241, Dec. 16, 2014). One particular abstract idea which is applicable to the present claims is “using categories to organize, store and transmit information,” as defined in Cyberfone Sys., LLC v. CNN Interactive Group, Inc. (Fed. Cir. 2014). In Cyberfone, the court found that using categories to organize, store, and transmit information is well-established, and that the idea of “collecting information in classified form, then separating and transmitting that information according to its classification,” is an abstract idea; thus, the claim was found to be ineligible. Examiner believes that the instant claims are analogous to the claims recited in Cyberfone, because said claims are directed to managing one of more group membership information, which is a form of organizing human activity (managing user membership in groups), and collecting, storing, and using data (group name, group identifier, user joining). The steps could be performed mentally or with pen and paper in principle (e.g., recording a group name and ID and noting a user as a member).
Step 2A – Integration into a practical application:
Said claims merely recite generic computer elements “one or more storage devices” and functional result of “allowing a user to join a group”. There is no recitation of a specific technological problem in a computer system, a particular data structure or storage mechanism, a specific access-control or authentication technique or any improvement to computer functionality itself. The computer elements are used only as tools to implement the abstract idea, not to improve them.
Step 2B – inventive concept:
Third, after a determination is made that the invention represents an abstract idea, a determination must be made as to whether the claims recite additional elements that amount to "significantly more" than the judicial exception. In the instant claims, the only additional limitations involve devices and systems, including processors and storage, which are not sufficient to ensure that the claims amount to significantly more than an abstract idea, because a processor merely provides the needed computing structure for implementing the abstract idea, and because the claims do not recite an improvement to another technology or technical field, an improvement to the functioning of the computer itself, or provide meaningful limitations, beyond generally linking an abstract idea to a particular technological environment. The claims require no more than a generic computer to perform generic computer functions that are well-understood, routine and conventional activities previously known to the industry. The specification does not describe any special-purpose or improved processors to carry out the functions described in the claims, and thus, do not amount to “significantly more” than the abstract idea.
Conclusion:
Said claims are directed to an abstract idea of managing group membership information, such as organizing human activity and data management. Said claims do not recite additional elements that integrate the abstract idea into a practical application, as the recited storage devices are generic computer elements merely store information. Furthermore, said claims do not include an inventive concept, as storing data and allowing a user to join one or more groups are well-understood, routine, and conventional computer activities. Therefore, as a result of analyzing the claims under the three-step process, which is referred to as the Mayo test, the Office has determined that claims 1, 8, 15, and 21-32 are directed to non-statutory subject matter pursuant to Alice Corp. v. CLS Bank.
Since claims 2-7, 9-14 and 16-20 recite additional elements associated with the abstract idea, they are also rejected under the same rationale.
For further information regarding rejections under Alice Corp. v. CLS Bank, Int'l please refer to the USPTO website: http://www.uspto.gov/patent/laws-and-regulations/examination-policy/2014-interim-guidance-subject-matter-eligibility-0.
Claims 15-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C 101 because the claimed invention is directed to non-statutory subject matter.
Claims 15-20 are directed to “A computer program product comprising a computer readable storage medium having instructions…” which does not fall within the four statutory classes of 101. Upon further review of the instant application disclosure (Page 91 lines 1-7), the term “computer storage medium” is not clearly defined to encompass only storage media (volatile and non-volatile) and thus said term may be broadly interpreted to be directed to transmission media (signal or transitory state). Applicant is advised to direct the claim language to “A computer program product comprising a non-transitory computer readable storage medium having instructions…” to overcome the 101 rejection. Examiner notes that such an amendment as suggested by the Examiner will not raise an issue of new matter, even when the specification is silent because the broadest reasonable interpretation relies on the ordinary and customary meaning that includes signals per se. Appropriate corrections are required where applicable.
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 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 pre-AIA 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.
Claims 1-32 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Jamison et al “Jamison”, US-PGPub. No. 20220141271.
As per claims 1, 8, 15 and 21-32, Jamison teaches a method, a computer program product, a non-transitory computer readable storage medium and a system (Fig. 2, Paragraph(s) [0104], [0108-0109]) comprising:
one or more storage devices comprising one or more databases , data stores, memory components, computer readable media, and/or non-transitory computer readable media (Fig. 2, Paragraph(s) [0106-0109]);
one or more processors (Fig. 2 – processor 202) in communication with the one or more storage devices (Fig. 2 – repository 107 & memory 201 are both storage devices, Paragraph(s) [0106]);
the system configured for:
storing first group data in one or more storage devices (Paragraph(s) [0126]; the workspace list associated with a group-based communication user identifier is stored in a group-based communication repository 107. In addition, Jamison teaches users are organized into organization groups (e.g., employees of each company may be a separate organization group) and each organization group may have one or more group-based communication channels to which users may be assigned or which the users may join (e.g., group-based communication channels may represent departments, geographic locations such as offices, product lines, user interests, topics, issues, and/or the like) (see Paragraph(s) [0048]). Furthermore, Jamison teaches the plurality of group-based communication channels are organized among a plurality of group-based communication workspaces (see Paragraph(s) [0029])), the first group data comprising:
a first group name (Paragraph(s) [0042], [0048]; group-based communication channel “marketing channel” has been equated as “first group name”);
a first unique group identifier (Paragraph(s) [0047]; the terms “group identifier” or “team identifier” refer to one or more items of data by which a group-based communication interface within a group-based communication system may be uniquely identified);
allowing a first user to join the first group (Paragraph(s) [0049], [0075]; users may join group-based communication channels. Jamison further teaches allowing new users to join workspaces (Paragraph(s) [0034])).
storing second group data in the one or more storage devices ((Paragraph(s) [0126]), the second group data comprising:
a second group name (Paragraph(s) [0009-0010], [0042]; group-based communication channel “sales channel” has been equated as “second group name”. Jamison further teaches users are organized into organization groups such as channels representing offices, product lines, topics and/or the like (Paragraph [0048]));
a second unique group identifier (Paragraph(s) [0047]; the terms “group identifier” or “team identifier” refer to one or more items of data by which a group-based communication interface within a group-based communication system may be uniquely identified).
As per claims 2, 9 and 16, Jamison teaches determining the first user has joined the first group (Paragraph(s) [0048-0049]).
As per claims 3, 10 and 17, Jamison teaches in response to determining the first user has joined the first group, adding the first user to a set of first group members (Paragraph(s) [0013], [0034], [0065]).
As per claims 4, 11 and 18, Jamison teaches in response to determining that the set of first group members comprises the first user, allowing the first user to upload a first story to the first group (Paragraph(s) [0064], [0097]; posting a message to the group-based communication channel).
As per claims 5, 12 and 19, Jamison teaches storing the first story in association with the first group data and in association with the first unique group identifier (Paragraph(s) [0045]).
As per claims 6, 13 and 20 , Jamison teaches
storing second group data in the one or more storage devices (Paragraph(s) [0126]), the second group data comprising:
a second group name (Paragraph(s) [0009-0010], [0042], [0048]);
a second unique group identifier(Paragraph(s) [0047]).
As per claims 7, 14 and 21, Jamison teaches determining the first user has joined the second group and in response to determining the first user has joined the second group, adding the first user to a set of second group members (Paragraph(s) [0034], [0045], [0065]).
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Please refer to form PTO-892 (Notice of Reference Cited) for a list of relevant prior art.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MOHAMED A WASEL whose telephone number is (571) 272-2669. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Fri (8:00 am – 4:30 pm).
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Glenton Burgess can be reached on (571)272-3949. 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.
/MOHAMED A. WASEL/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2454