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 .
Status of Claims
The following is a final office action.
Claims [1-20] are currently pending and have been examined based on their merits.
Claims 1, 8, and 15 are currently amended see REMARKS March 19, 2026.
Double Patenting (Statutory)
A rejection based on double patenting of the “same invention” type finds its support in the language of 35 U.S.C. 101 which states that “whoever invents or discovers any new and useful process... may obtain a patent therefor...” (Emphasis added). Thus, the term “same invention,” in this context, means an invention drawn to identical subject matter. See Miller v. Eagle Mfg. Co., 151 U.S. 186 (1894); In re Vogel, 422 F.2d 438, 164 USPQ 619 (CCPA 1970); In re Ockert, 245 F.2d 467, 114 USPQ 330 (CCPA 1957).
A statutory type (35 U.S.C. 101) double patenting rejection can be overcome by canceling or amending the claims that are directed to the same invention so they are no longer coextensive in scope. The filing of a terminal disclaimer cannot overcome a double patenting rejection based upon 35 U.S.C. 101.
Claims 1-20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 as claiming the same invention as that of claims 1-20 of prior U.S. Patent No. 17/162282. This is a statutory double patenting rejection.
Claims 1-20 of the current application recite identical claims as those of the parent application 17/162282. Both claims recite an identical method, a cloud-based collaboration environment server, and a non-transitory, computer readable medium. The claims of a continuation must be directed to patentably distinct subject matter from the parent.
Therefore, claims 1-20 are rejected under Double patenting.
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 1-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to a judicial exception that is an abstract idea without a practical application or significantly more.
Step 1: Claims 1-7 recite a method (i.e. a process such as an act or series of steps), claims 8-14 recite a cloud-based collaboration environment server, and claim 15-20 recites a non-transitory computer-readable medium and therefore each claim falls within one of the four statutory categories.
Step 2A prong 1 (Is a judicial exception recited?):
The representative claims 1, 8, and 15 recite: A method for requesting and obtaining one or more content items, the method comprising: generating, a content request identifying the one or more content items and metadata for the one or more content items requested from and to be provided by a submitter, wherein the one or more content items and metadata for the one or more content items are not available when the content request is generated; providing, the generated content request to the submitter; determining, whether the one or more content items may be submitted anonymously; and in response to determining the one or more content items may be submitted anonymously, obtaining, the one or more content items and the requested metadata for the one or more content items in response to the provided request while maintaining the anonymity of the submitter.
The claims recite a certain method of organizing human activity. The claims recite a certain method of organizing human activity as the disclosure recites managing personal behavior or relationships or interactions between people. The claims simply recite a series of steps to request content items from other users based on a user input. Therefore, the claims recite a method of managing the personal behavior of an individual by managing a request for content from a user based on inputted user preferences and allowing a submitter to provide the requested content.
Alternatively, the claims recite a mental process. The claims merely recite a method for allowing a user to generate a content request by identifying one or more content items and metadata for the one or more content items from a submitter, providing the content request, determining whether the content items may be submitted anonymously, and in response to determining that the content items may be submitted anonymously obtaining the one or more content items. The claims are found to merely recite a series of steps that can be performed in the human mind or with the use of a simple tool such as pen and paper. The claimed invention allowing a user to request desired content with desired metadata or characteristics from a submitter or another user is found to be similar to concepts the courts have defined as a mental process including observations, evaluations, judgements, and opinions. As a person would be capable of mentally request content with predefined characteristics from another user such as a submitter and a submitter would be capable of providing the desired content.
Therefore, the claims are found to recite an abstract idea.
Step 2A Prong 2 (Is the exception integrated into a practical application?): The claims additionally recite additional elements, including;
Claim 1: a workspace of a collaboration environment, a server of a cloud-based collaboration environment, a submitter system, and wherein the one or more content items and metadata for the one or more content items are requested to be uploaded to the server of the cloud-based collaboration environment from submitter system.
Claim 8: A cloud-based collaboration environment server comprising: a processor; and a memory coupled with and readable by the processor and storing therein a set of instructions, a workspace of a collaboration environment, a server of a cloud-based collaboration environment, a submitter system, and wherein the one or more content items and metadata for the one or more content items are requested to be uploaded to the server of the cloud-based collaboration environment from submitter system.
Claim 15: A non-transitory, computer-readable medium comprising a set of instructions stored therein which, when executed by a processor, causes the processor to request and obtain content for a collaboration environment, a workspace of a collaboration environment, a server of a cloud-based collaboration environment, a submitter system, and wherein the one or more content items and metadata for the one or more content items are requested to be uploaded to the server of the cloud-based collaboration environment from submitter system.
The additional elements of a system of a generic computer elements performing the abstract idea are directed to merely reciting instructions to apply a generic computer and technology to execute the method in the recited claim limitations.
The claim limitations recite mere instructions to implement the abstract idea of allowing a user to request content items and metadata and allowing a submitter to provide the requested content by using generic computer elements such as a cloud-based collaborative environment.
Therefore, the limitations merely amount to adding the words “apply it” (or an equivalent) to the judicial exception, or mere instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer, or merely uses a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea, as discussed in MPEP 2106.05(f). Furthermore, a method for transmitting, receiving, and processing information does not amount to improvements to the functioning of a computer, or to any other technology or technical field, as discussed in MPEP 2106.05(a), applying the judicial exception with, or by use of, a particular machine, as discussed in MPEP 2106.05(b), effecting a transformation or reduction of a particular article to a different state or thing, as discussed in MPEP 2106.05(c), or applying or using the judicial exception in some other meaningful way beyond generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment, such that the claim as a whole is more than a drafting effort designed to monopolize the exception, as discussed in MPEP 2106.05(e).
Accordingly, the additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because they do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. As the claims are merely directed to utilizing a computer to perform the steps of storing, determining, and outputting information which are not significant improvements to the functionality of a generic computer and are directed to merely “apply it” or applying the abstract idea on a computer.
Step 2B (Does the claim recite additional elements that amount to significantly more than the judicial exception?):
As discussed above, the additional imitations amount to adding the words “apply it” (or an equivalent) with the judicial exception, or mere instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer, and merely uses a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea, as discussed in MPEP 2106.05(f). The additional elements of a system comprising generic computer elements to allow a user to request and provide content items are not directed to an improvement in a technology or technical field but are merely used to perform the abstract idea of generating a request and obtaining the one or more requested content items. Therefore, the additional elements do not amount to significantly more than the judicial exception.
The dependent claims 2-7, 9-14, and 16-20 further narrow the abstract idea of requesting content items and metadata and providing the requested content items and metadata from a submitter as recited in the independent claims 1, 8, and 15.
The dependent claims recite the following additional elements:
Claims 3, 10, and 17: generating a link to a saved form definition.
However, the additional elements are directed to merely “apply it” or applying generic computer elements to perform the abstract idea.
Therefore, claims 1-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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 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.
The factual inquiries set forth in Graham v. John Deere Co., 383 U.S. 1, 148 USPQ 459 (1966), that are applied for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
Claims 1-20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Gill (US 2017/0337287) in view of Brown (US 2021/0377052).
Claims 1, 8, and 15: Gill discloses (Claim 1) A method for requesting and obtaining one or more content items for a workspace of a collaboration environment, the method comprising: (Claim 8) A cloud-based collaboration environment server comprising: a processor; and a memory coupled with and readable by the processor and storing therein a set of instructions which, when executed by the processor, causes the processor to request and obtain one or more content items for a collaboration environment by: (Claim 15) A non-transitory, computer-readable medium comprising a set of instructions stored therein which, when executed by a processor, causes the processor to request and obtain content for a collaboration environment by: generating, by a server of a cloud-based collaboration environment, a content request identifying the one or more content items and metadata for the one or more content items requested from and to be provided by a submitter system, wherein the one or more content items and metadata for the one or more content items are not available on the cloud-based collaboration environment when the content request is generated, and wherein the one or more content items and metadata for the one or more content items are requested to be uploaded to the server of the cloud-based collaboration environment from the submitter system (Paragraph [0009-0011]; [0026]; [0036]; Fig. 5, supporting tasks, projects, programs, and distributed team or crowd-sourcing challenges, product and service networks, the subject invention serves multiple categories of users. Task requests can be crowd-sourced to multiple responders meeting the required credentials. The server describes one or more computers configured with server functionality, including capacity to receive and process requests, route responses, tag, and manage data. In a preferred embodiment, a reconfigurable crowd-sourcing requester-responder system and knowledge platform to respond to requests or crowd sourced challenges comprises a processor, wherein the system is configured to receive a request form a task requestor; tag said request into at least one category; apply query forwarding rules; track usage of requesters and responders);
providing, by the server of the cloud-based collaboration environment, the generated content request to the submitter system (Paragraph [0037]; [0074-0075]; Fig. 12, a crowd-sourcing requestor-responder system and knowledge platform to respond to requests or crowd-sourced challenges. Publish responder’s entry for at least one of commenting, rating, and or voting or maintaining anonymity of the responder. In one embodiment of the present invention the system dynamically distributes task form task requesters with diverse needs to task responder with different skills);
and in response to determining the one or more content items may be submitted anonymously, obtaining, by the server of the cloud-based collaboration environment, the one or more content items and the requested metadata for the one or more content items from the submitter system in response to the provided request while maintaining the anonymity of the submitter system (Paragraph [0073]; [0081] the subject invention provides for different levels of authorship, permissions, content filtering, and access. Entitlement permissions are adjustable as the problem-solving process requires, ranging from confidential and anonymous to readable, anonymous or credited to the contributor).
Gill discloses a system for crowdsourcing a task or query by defining desired information. However, Gill does not disclose the following claim limitations: determining, by the server of the cloud-based collaboration environment, whether the one or more content items may be submitted anonymously.
In the same field of endeavor of providing content in a management system Brown teaches determining, by the server of the cloud-based collaboration environment, whether the one or more content items may be submitted anonymously (Paragraph [0005-0006]; [0048]; Fig. 10, in some embodiments, there is a provided computer-implemented method for content distribution including: processing an anonymous to non-anonymous authorship change of previously-posted social media content. An item of content may be uploaded/posted to a social media system. In some cases, the art may be uploaded/posted anonymously).
Before the effective filing date of the invention it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the system of providing a collaborative work environment where a user can submit content in response to a request as disclosed by Gill with the system of determining, by the server of the cloud-based collaboration environment, whether the one or more content items may be submitted anonymously as taught by Brown (Brown [0005]). With the motivation of helping to share content amongst users while maintaining anonymity of the poster (Brown [0003]).
Claims 2, 9, and 16: Modified Gill discloses the method as per claim 1, the cloud-based collaboration environment server as per claim 8, and the non-transitory, computer readable medium as per claim 15. Gill further discloses further comprising: in response to determining the one or more content items may not be submitted anonymously, initiating, by the server of the cloud-based collaboration environment, an authorization process with the submitter system; determining, by the server of the cloud-based collaboration environment, whether the authorization process has been completed successfully (Paragraph [0009-0011]; [0026]; [0036]; Fig. 5, supporting tasks, projects, programs, and distributed team or crowd-sourcing challenges, product and service networks, the subject invention serves multiple categories of users. Task requests can be crowd-sourced to multiple responders meeting the required credentials. The server describes one or more computers configured with server functionality, including capacity to receive and process requests, route responses, tag, and manage data. In a preferred embodiment, a reconfigurable crowd-sourcing requester-responder system and knowledge platform to respond to requests or crowd sourced challenges comprises a processor, wherein the system is configured to receive a request form a task requestor; tag said request into at least one category; apply query forwarding rules; track usage of requesters and responders);
and in response to determining the authorization process has completed successfully, obtaining, by the server of the cloud-based collaboration environment, the one or more content items and the requested metadata for the one or more content items from the submitter system in response to the provided request (Paragraph [0073]; [0081] the subject invention provides for different levels of authorship, permissions, content filtering, and access. Entitlement permissions are adjustable as the problem-solving process requires, ranging from confidential and anonymous to readable, anonymous or credited to the contributor).
Claims 3, 10, and 17: Modified Gill discloses the method as per claim 2, the cloud-based collaboration environment server as per claim 9, and the non-transitory, computer readable medium as per claim 16. Gill further discloses wherein generating the content request further comprises generating a link to a saved form definition, wherein, in response to determining the one or more content items may not be submitted anonymously, the link initiates the authorization process, and wherein providing the generated content request to the submitter system comprises providing the generated link to the saved form definition (Paragraph [0036]; Fig. 11, the system attaches a project ID to the query or request, opening the portal identified as the bast match to the category and linking to sub-portals in the system. The system recommends links for the requester to closely matched user groups).
Claims 4, 11, and 18: Modified Gill discloses the method as per claim 1, the cloud-based collaboration environment server as per claim 8, and the non-transitory, computer readable medium as per claim 15. Gill further discloses wherein generating the content request identifying the one or more content items and metadata for the one or more content items requested from the submitter comprises copying a form defining a previous content request (Paragraph [0036]; [0071] the main portal is matched to the requester’s query, which includes topic channels and templates for existing categories in the system. In one embodiment, the first-round contributions, and each subsequent round of entries, serve as the basis for automated generation of future queries based upon previous query responses).
Claims 5, 12, and 19: Modified Gill discloses the method as per claim 1, the cloud-based collaboration environment server as per claim 8, and the non-transitory, computer readable medium as per claim 15. Gill further discloses wherein generating the content request identifying the one or more content items and metadata for the one or more content items requested from the submitter comprises copying a form defining a template content request (Paragraph [0036] the main portal is matched to the requester’s query, which includes topic channels and templates for existing categories in the system).
Claims 6 and 13: Modified Gill discloses the method as per claim 1, and the cloud-based collaboration environment server as per claim 8. Gill further discloses further comprising initiating, by the server of the cloud-based collaboration environment, a workflow based on the obtained one or more content items or the obtained metadata for the obtained content item (Paragraph [0009-0011]; [0026]; [0036]; Fig. 5, supporting tasks, projects, programs, and distributed team or crowd-sourcing challenges, product and service networks, the subject invention serves multiple categories of users. Task requests can be crowd-sourced to multiple responders meeting the required credentials. The server describes one or more computers configured with server functionality, including capacity to receive and process requests, route responses, tag, and manage data. In a preferred embodiment, a reconfigurable crowd-sourcing requester-responder system and knowledge platform to respond to requests or crowd sourced challenges comprises a processor, wherein the system is configured to receive a request form a task requestor; tag said request into at least one category; apply query forwarding rules; track usage of requesters and responders).
Claims 7 and 14: Modified Gill discloses the method as per claim 6, and the cloud-based collaboration environment server as per claim 13. Gill further discloses wherein the obtained one or more content items comprise a plurality of content items and wherein the workflow is applied to the plurality of content items as a whole package (Paragraph [0009-0011]; [0026]; [0036]; Fig. 5, supporting tasks, projects, programs, and distributed team or crowd-sourcing challenges, product and service networks, the subject invention serves multiple categories of users. Task requests can be crowd-sourced to multiple responders meeting the required credentials. The server describes one or more computers configured with server functionality, including capacity to receive and process requests, route responses, tag, and manage data. In a preferred embodiment, a reconfigurable crowd-sourcing requester-responder system and knowledge platform to respond to requests or crowd sourced challenges comprises a processor, wherein the system is configured to receive a request form a task requestor; tag said request into at least one category; apply query forwarding rules; track usage of requesters and responders).
Claim 20: Modified Gill discloses the computer readable medium as per claim 15. Gill further discloses wherein the instructions further cause the processor to initiate, by the server of the cloud-based collaboration environment, a workflow based on the obtained one or more content items or the obtained metadata for the obtained content item, wherein the obtained one or more content items comprise a plurality of content items, and wherein the workflow is applied to the plurality of content items as a whole package (Paragraph [0009-0011]; [0026]; [0036]; Fig. 5, supporting tasks, projects, programs, and distributed team or crowd-sourcing challenges, product and service networks, the subject invention serves multiple categories of users. Task requests can be crowd-sourced to multiple responders meeting the required credentials. The server describes one or more computers configured with server functionality, including capacity to receive and process requests, route responses, tag, and manage data. In a preferred embodiment, a reconfigurable crowd-sourcing requester-responder system and knowledge platform to respond to requests or crowd sourced challenges comprises a processor, wherein the system is configured to receive a request form a task requestor; tag said request into at least one category; apply query forwarding rules; track usage of requesters and responders).
Therefore, claim 1-20 are rejected under U.S.C. 103.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments, see REMARKS, filed March 19, 2026, with respect to the rejections of claims 1-20 under U.S.C. 101 have been fully considered but are not persuasive.
The applicant argues that the amended claims do not recite an abstract idea. However, the examiner respectfully disagrees as the claims recite generating a content request identifying one or more content items and metadata for the one or ore content items requested, providing the generated content request; determining whether the one or more content items may be submitted anonymously; and obtaining the one or more content items and the requested metadata in response. The claims recite a mental process as they recite concepts the courts have identified as being mental processes such as observation, evaluation, judgement, and opinion. The claims merely recite a method of receiving a request for content and respective metadata, determining if the content item may be submitted anonymously, and obtaining the information. As such the method relates to evaluating the information pertaining to a request and observing or determining if the information follows a rule such as being capable of being submitted anonymously. Therefore, the claims are found to be capable of being performed in the human mind as a person is capable of making such determinations. Alternatively, the claims recite a certain method of organizing human activity as they pertain to managing personal behavior or relationships or interactions between people. As the claims recite a method for following a series of rules when processing a request for content from a user to another user.
Therefore, the examiner maintains the current 101 rejection.
Applicant argues that claims 2-7, 9-14, and 16-20 are allowable as being dependent on claims 1, 8, and 15 and therefore are rejected under the same rejection.
Applicant’s arguments, see REMARKS, filed March 19, 2026, with respect to the rejections of Claims 1-20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Gill (US 2017/0337287) in view of Brown (US 2021/0377052) are not persuasive as the claims were amended requiring further search and consideration.
Claims 1, 8, and 15: Applicant argues that the current prior art does not disclose the claim limitations. However, the examine respectfully disagrees as Gill discloses a system of a collaborative network environment where users can request information and metadata. Gill further discloses allowing the system to determine permissions or rules pertaining to the shared content such as what information or metadata form the contributor can be anonymous. While Brown teaches a system of managing distributed content in a shared network such as a social media network. Brown further teaches a system of receiving metadata pertaining to the author or submitter of shared content and determining the authorship metadata of the content while also allowing for users to submit content anonymously to the network.
The examiner finds that the combination of prior art is capable of teaching the current claimed limitations. Therefore, claims 1, 8, and 15 are rejected under U.S.C. 103.
Claims 2-6, 9-14, and 16-20 were argued as being allowable only as being dependent on claims 1, 8, and 15. Therefore, they are also rejected under the same rejection as above.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant’s disclosure.
Bagley (US 11343080) System and method for data privacy and authentication.
Amiri (US 2016/0065363) Enhanced remote key management for an enterprise in a cloud-based environment.
Ford (US 2013/0318589) Computerized method and system for managing secure content sharing in a networked secure collaborative exchange environment.
Tene (US 2018/0191660) Comment management in shared documents.
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to COREY RUSS whose telephone number is (571)270-5902. The examiner can normally be reached on M-F 7:30-4:30.
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, Lynda Jasmin can be reached on 5712726782. 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.
/COREY RUSS/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3629
Prosecution Insights