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
1. This Office Action is responsive to the communication filed 11/15/2024.
Information Disclosure Statement
2. The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 1/9/2026 was filed after the mailing date of the instant application. The submission is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement is being considered by the examiner.
Claim Rejections – 35 USC 103
6. 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.
7. Claims 1-3, 5-9, 11-15, and 17-18 are rejected under 35 USC 103 as being unpatentable over Mutha et al (US 2015/0301903) in view of Crockett et al (US 2010/0082548).
Regarding claim 1, Mutha et al teaches a method for retention of a digital file associated with a message (par [0083], line 6, “data retention”) in a group-based communication system (fig. 1A, ‘102 & par [0069], lines 1-5), the method comprising:
associating a digital content retention policy with digital content in the group-based communication system (par [0083], lines 6-11, “implementing data retention policies”);
receiving, from a client device, the message with the digital file as an attachment to the message (par [0199], lines 7-9, which discloses that the transmitted content may include e-mail metadata including an attachment);
displaying the message with an indication of the digital file in one or more group-based communication channels (par [0077] & par [0273], lines 1-5, which disclose providing metadata associated with each transmitted e-mail message transmitted over the communication channels); and
identifying the digital file as retention-flagged (par [0346-0347], which disclose the data being transmitted to end-users being flagged for retention).
Mutha et al does not explicitly teach identifying the digital file as retention-flagged based on one or more retention parameters associated with the one or more group-based communication channels; wherein the one or more retention parameters indicate that the digital file is to be retained as a version that cannot be edited; and retaining the digital file associated with the message as the version that cannot be edited.
However, Crockett et al teaches identifying the digital file as retention-flagged based on one or more retention parameters associated with the one or more group-based communication channels (fig. 1, par [0019], & par [0024], which discloses retention policies corresponding to electronic documents transmitted to client devices communicating over wireless communication links);
wherein the one or more retention parameters indicate that the digital file is to be retained as a version that cannot be edited (par [0034], lines 6-11, which discloses a retention and record behavior policy assigned to an electronic document that prevents the electronic document from being deleted); and
retaining the digital file associated with the message as the version that cannot be edited (par [0031], lines 8-11 & par [0089], lines 60-70, which discloses enforcing a retention policy for the electronic document to prevent the document from being edited based on which repository the document is stored in).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective date of the claimed invention to be motivated to combine the teachings of Crockett et al with the teachings of Mutha et al in order to provide the predictive result of improving implementing retention policies in a communication environment by preserving documents with assigned retention policies to specific, preestablished times periods (as disclosed in par [0003], lines 13-18 of Crockett et al) because this feature provides specificity and more clarity to when a document is to be retained or when the document is to be deleted for preservation and space concerns.
Regarding claim 2, Mutha et al does not explicitly teach associating, based at least in part on identifying the digital file as retention-flagged, a do not edit (DNE) flag, a do not delete (DND) flag, or any combination thereof, with the digital file.
However, Crockett et al teaches associating, based at least in part on identifying the digital file as retention-flagged, a do not edit (DNE) flag (par [0031], lines 8-11, “not be able to edit”), a do not delete (DND) flag (par [0031], lines 8-11, “not be able to edit or delete”), or any combination thereof, with the digital file.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective date of the claimed invention to be motivated to combine the teachings of Crockett et al with the teachings of Mutha et al according to the motivation disclosed regarding claim 1.
Regarding claim 3, Mutha et al teaches receiving a request to edit or delete the digital file (par [0302], lines 8-10, “deletion requests”).
Mutha et al does not explicitly teach prohibiting editing or deleting of the digital file based at least in part on retaining the digital file associated with the message as a version that cannot be edited.
However, Crockett et al teaches prohibiting editing or deleting of the digital file based at least in part on retaining the digital file associated with the message as a version that cannot be edited (par [0031], lines 8-11, which discloses enforcing a retention policy for the electronic document to prevent the document from being edited based on which repository version the document is stored in).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective date of the claimed invention to be motivated to combine the teachings of Crockett et al with the teachings of Mutha et al according to the motivation disclosed regarding claim 1.
Regarding claim 5, Mutha et al does not explicitly teach receiving a request to retrieve the digital file in accordance with one or more retrieval parameters; determining, based at least in part on a comparison between one or more attributes of the digital file and the one or more retrieval parameters, that the digital file is to be retrieved; and providing the digital file in response to the request.
However, Crockett et al teaches receiving a request to retrieve the digital file in accordance with one or more retrieval parameters (fig. 4, ’72, “request for document access interface”);
determining, based at least in part on a comparison between one or more attributes of the digital file and the one or more retrieval parameters, that the digital file is to be retrieved (par [0030-0031], which discloses providing requested document retrieval based on the plurality of document policies being determined); and
providing the digital file in response to the request (par [0030], lines 22-25, “provides the electronic record to the client device”).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective date of the claimed invention to be motivated to combine the teachings of Crockett et al with the teachings of Mutha et al in order to provide the predictive result of improving implementing retention policies in a communication environment by preserving documents with assigned retention policies to specific, preestablished times periods (as disclosed in par [0003], lines 13-18 of Crockett et al) because this feature provides specificity and more clarity to when a document is to be retained or when the document is to be deleted for preservation and space concerns.
Regarding claim 6, Mutha et al does not explicitly teach wherein the one or more attributes of the digital file comprise a group-based communication channel identifier, a group-based communication group identifier, a date, a timestamp, a file flag, a do not edit (DNE) flag, a do not delete (DND) flag, or any combination thereof.
However, Crockett et al teaches wherein the one or more attributes of the digital file comprise a group-based communication channel identifier, a group-based communication group identifier, a date, a timestamp, a file flag, a do not edit (DNE) flag (par [0031], lines 8-11, “not be able to edit”), a do not delete (DND) flag (par [0031], lines 8-11, “not be able to edit or delete”), or any combination thereof, with the digital file.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective date of the claimed invention to be motivated to combine the teachings of Crockett et al with the teachings of Mutha et al according to the motivation disclosed regarding claim 5.
Regarding claim 7, Mutha et al teaches an apparatus for retention of a digital file associated with a message (par [0083], line 6, “data retention”) in a group-based communication system (fig. 1A, ‘102 & par [0069], lines 1-5), comprising:
one or more memories storing processor-executable code (par [0618], lines 1-6); and
one or more processors coupled with the one or more memories (par [0617], lines 13-14) and individually or collectively operable to execute the code to cause the apparatus to:
associate a digital content retention policy with digital content in the group-based communication system (par [0083], lines 6-11, “implementing data retention policies”);
receive, from a client device, the message with the digital file as an attachment to the message (par [0199], lines 7-9, which discloses that the transmitted content may include e-mail metadata including an attachment);
display the message with an indication of the digital file in one or more group-based communication channels (par [0077] & par [0273], lines 1-5, which disclose providing metadata associated with each transmitted e-mail message transmitted over the communication channels); and
identify the digital file as retention-flagged (par [0346-0347], which disclose the data being transmitted to end-users being flagged for retention).
Mutha et al does not explicitly teach identifying the digital file as retention-flagged based on one or more retention parameters associated with the one or more group-based communication channels; wherein the one or more retention parameters indicate that the digital file is to be retained as a version that cannot be edited; and retaining the digital file associated with the message as the version that cannot be edited.
However, Crockett et al teaches identifying the digital file as retention-flagged based on one or more retention parameters associated with the one or more group-based communication channels (fig. 1, par [0019], & par [0024], which discloses retention policies corresponding to electronic documents transmitted to client devices communicating over wireless communication links);
wherein the one or more retention parameters indicate that the digital file is to be retained as a version that cannot be edited (par [0034], lines 6-11, which discloses a retention and record behavior policy assigned to an electronic document that prevents the electronic document from being deleted); and
retaining the digital file associated with the message as the version that cannot be edited (par [0031], lines 8-11 & par [0089], lines 60-70, which discloses enforcing a retention policy for the electronic document to prevent the document from being edited based on which repository the document is stored in).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective date of the claimed invention to be motivated to combine the teachings of Crockett et al with the teachings of Mutha et al in order to provide the predictive result of improving implementing retention policies in a communication environment by preserving documents with assigned retention policies to specific, preestablished times periods (as disclosed in par [0003], lines 13-18 of Crockett et al) because this feature provides specificity and more clarity to when a document is to be retained or when the document is to be deleted for preservation and space concerns.
Regarding claim 8, Mutha et al does not explicitly teach associating, based at least in part on identifying the digital file as retention-flagged, a do not edit (DNE) flag, a do not delete (DND) flag, or any combination thereof, with the digital file.
However, Crockett et al teaches wherein the one or more processors are individually or collectively further operable to execute the code to cause the apparatus to:
associate, based at least in part on identifying the digital file as retention-flagged, a do not edit (DNE) flag (par [0031], lines 8-11, “not be able to edit”), a do not delete (DND) flag (par [0031], lines 8-11, “not be able to edit or delete”), or any combination thereof, with the digital file.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective date of the claimed invention to be motivated to combine the teachings of Crockett et al with the teachings of Mutha et al according to the motivation disclosed regarding claim 7.
Regarding claim 9, Mutha et al teaches wherein the one or more processors are individually or collectively further operable to execute the code to cause the apparatus to: receive a request to edit or delete the digital file (par [0302], lines 8-10, “deletion requests”).
Mutha et al does not explicitly teach prohibiting editing or deleting of the digital file based at least in part on retaining the digital file associated with the message as a version that cannot be edited.
However, Crockett et al teaches prohibiting editing or deleting of the digital file based at least in part on retaining the digital file associated with the message as a version that cannot be edited (par [0031], lines 8-11, which discloses enforcing a retention policy for the electronic document to prevent the document from being edited based on which repository version the document is stored in).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective date of the claimed invention to be motivated to combine the teachings of Crockett et al with the teachings of Mutha et al according to the motivation disclosed regarding claim 1.
Regarding claim 11, Mutha et al does not explicitly teach receiving a request to retrieve the digital file in accordance with one or more retrieval parameters; determining, based at least in part on a comparison between one or more attributes of the digital file and the one or more retrieval parameters, that the digital file is to be retrieved; and providing the digital file in response to the request.
However, Crockett et al teaches receiving a request to retrieve the digital file in accordance with one or more retrieval parameters (fig. 4, ’72, “request for document access interface”);
determining, based at least in part on a comparison between one or more attributes of the digital file and the one or more retrieval parameters, that the digital file is to be retrieved (par [0030-0031], which discloses providing requested document retrieval based on the plurality of document policies being determined); and
providing the digital file in response to the request (par [0030], lines 22-25, “provides the electronic record to the client device”).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective date of the claimed invention to be motivated to combine the teachings of Crockett et al with the teachings of Mutha et al in order to provide the predictive result of improving implementing retention policies in a communication environment by preserving documents with assigned retention policies to specific, preestablished times periods (as disclosed in par [0003], lines 13-18 of Crockett et al) because this feature provides specificity and more clarity to when a document is to be retained or when the document is to be deleted for preservation and space concerns.
Regarding claim 12, Mutha et al does not explicitly teach wherein the one or more attributes of the digital file comprise a group-based communication channel identifier, a group-based communication group identifier, a date, a timestamp, a file flag, a do not edit (DNE) flag, a do not delete (DND) flag, or any combination thereof.
However, Crockett et al teaches wherein the one or more attributes of the digital file comprise a group-based communication channel identifier, a group-based communication group identifier, a date, a timestamp, a file flag, a do not edit (DNE) flag (par [0031], lines 8-11, “not be able to edit”), a do not delete (DND) flag (par [0031], lines 8-11, “not be able to edit or delete”), or any combination thereof, with the digital file.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective date of the claimed invention to be motivated to combine the teachings of Crockett et al with the teachings of Mutha et al according to the motivation disclosed regarding claim 11.
Regarding claim 13, Mutha et al teaches a non-transitory computer-readable medium (par [0392]) storing code for retention of a digital file associated with a message (par [0083], line 6, “data retention”) in a group-based communication system (fig. 1A, ‘102 & par [0069], lines 1-5), the code comprising instructions executable by one or more processors to:
associate a digital content retention policy with digital content in the group-based communication system (par [0083], lines 6-11, “implementing data retention policies”);
receive, from a client device, the message with the digital file as an attachment to the message (par [0199], lines 7-9, which discloses that the transmitted content may include e-mail metadata including an attachment);
display the message with an indication of the digital file in one or more group-based communication channels (par [0077] & par [0273], lines 1-5, which disclose providing metadata associated with each transmitted e-mail message transmitted over the communication channels); and
identify the digital file as retention-flagged (par [0346-0347], which disclose the data being transmitted to end-users being flagged for retention).
Mutha et al does not explicitly teach identifying the digital file as retention-flagged based on one or more retention parameters associated with the one or more group-based communication channels; wherein the one or more retention parameters indicate that the digital file is to be retained as a version that cannot be edited; and retaining the digital file associated with the message as the version that cannot be edited.
However, Crockett et al teaches identifying the digital file as retention-flagged based on one or more retention parameters associated with the one or more group-based communication channels (fig. 1, par [0019], & par [0024], which discloses retention policies corresponding to electronic documents transmitted to client devices communicating over wireless communication links);
wherein the one or more retention parameters indicate that the digital file is to be retained as a version that cannot be edited (par [0034], lines 6-11, which discloses a retention and record behavior policy assigned to an electronic document that prevents the electronic document from being deleted); and
retaining the digital file associated with the message as the version that cannot be edited (par [0031], lines 8-11 & par [0089], lines 60-70, which discloses enforcing a retention policy for the electronic document to prevent the document from being edited based on which repository the document is stored in).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective date of the claimed invention to be motivated to combine the teachings of Crockett et al with the teachings of Mutha et al in order to provide the predictive result of improving implementing retention policies in a communication environment by preserving documents with assigned retention policies to specific, preestablished times periods (as disclosed in par [0003], lines 13-18 of Crockett et al) because this feature provides specificity and more clarity to when a document is to be retained or when the document is to be deleted for preservation and space concerns.
Regarding claim 14, Mutha et al does not explicitly teach the non-transitory computer-readable medium of claim 13, wherein the instructions are further executable by the one or more processors to: associate, based at least in part on identifying the digital file as retention-flagged, a do not edit (DNE) flag, a do not delete (DND) flag, or any combination thereof, with the digital file.
However, Crockett et al teaches the non-transitory computer-readable medium of claim 13, wherein the instructions are further executable by the one or more processors to:
associate, based at least in part on identifying the digital file as retention-flagged, a do not edit (DNE) flag (par [0031], lines 8-11, “not be able to edit”), a do not delete (DND) flag (par [0031], lines 8-11, “not be able to edit or delete”), or any combination thereof, with the digital file.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective date of the claimed invention to be motivated to combine the teachings of Crockett et al with the teachings of Mutha et al according to the motivation disclosed regarding claim 13.
Regarding claim 15, Mutha et al teaches wherein the instructions are further executable by the one or more processors to: receive a request to edit or delete the digital file (par [0302], lines 8-10, “deletion requests”).
Mutha et al does not explicitly teach prohibiting editing or deleting of the digital file based at least in part on retaining the digital file associated with the message as a version that cannot be edited.
However, Crockett et al teaches prohibiting editing or deleting of the digital file based at least in part on retaining the digital file associated with the message as a version that cannot be edited (par [0031], lines 8-11, which discloses enforcing a retention policy for the electronic document to prevent the document from being edited based on which repository version the document is stored in).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective date of the claimed invention to be motivated to combine the teachings of Crockett et al with the teachings of Mutha et al according to the motivation disclosed regarding claim 13.
Regarding claim 17, Mutha et al does not explicitly teach receiving a request to retrieve the digital file in accordance with one or more retrieval parameters; determining, based at least in part on a comparison between one or more attributes of the digital file and the one or more retrieval parameters, that the digital file is to be retrieved; and providing the digital file in response to the request.
However, Crockett et al teaches receiving a request to retrieve the digital file in accordance with one or more retrieval parameters (fig. 4, ’72, “request for document access interface”);
determining, based at least in part on a comparison between one or more attributes of the digital file and the one or more retrieval parameters, that the digital file is to be retrieved (par [0030-0031], which discloses providing requested document retrieval based on the plurality of document policies being determined); and
providing the digital file in response to the request (par [0030], lines 22-25, “provides the electronic record to the client device”).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective date of the claimed invention to be motivated to combine the teachings of Crockett et al with the teachings of Mutha et al in order to provide the predictive result of improving implementing retention policies in a communication environment by preserving documents with assigned retention policies to specific, preestablished times periods (as disclosed in par [0003], lines 13-18 of Crockett et al) because this feature provides specificity and more clarity to when a document is to be retained or when the document is to be deleted for preservation and space concerns.
Regarding claim 18, Mutha et al does not explicitly teach wherein the one or more attributes of the digital file comprise a group-based communication channel identifier, a group-based communication group identifier, a date, a timestamp, a file flag, a do not edit (DNE) flag, a do not delete (DND) flag, or any combination thereof.
However, Crockett et al teaches wherein the one or more attributes of the digital file comprise a group-based communication channel identifier, a group-based communication group identifier, a date, a timestamp, a file flag, a do not edit (DNE) flag (par [0031], lines 8-11, “not be able to edit”), a do not delete (DND) flag (par [0031], lines 8-11, “not be able to edit or delete”), or any combination thereof, with the digital file.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective date of the claimed invention to be motivated to combine the teachings of Crockett et al with the teachings of Mutha et al according to the motivation disclosed regarding claim 17.
8. Claims 4, 10, and 16 are rejected under 35 USC 103 as being unpatentable over Mutha et al (US 2015/0301903) , hereinafter Mutha(a) et al in view of Crockett et al (US 2010/0082548), further in view of Mutha et al (US 10,673,793), hereinafter Mutha(b) et al.
Regarding claim 4, Mutha et al and Crockett et al do not explicitly teach selecting the one or more retention parameters from among first retention parameters for messages and second retention parameters for attachments to messages that are included in a plurality of retention parameters, wherein the first retention parameters for messages at least partially differ from the second retention parameters for attachments to messages.
However, Mutha(b) et al further teaches selecting the one or more retention parameters from among first retention parameters for messages and second retention parameters for attachments to messages that are included in a plurality of retention parameters (col. 59, lines 44-49, “second retention policy tag to the tagged copy of the at least one mail attachments”), wherein the first retention parameters for messages at least partially differ from the second retention parameters for attachments to messages (col. 59, lines 4-14, “wherein the first retention length is different from a second retention length specified by a second retention policy”).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective date of the claimed invention to be motivated to combine the teachings of Mutha(b) et al with the teachings of Mutha et al(a) and Crockett in order to provide the predictive result of improving user access to data files across multiple computing devices and data retention policies (as disclosed in col. 9, lines 50-55 of Mutha(b) et al) by choosing the most optimal retention policy based on each particular document parameter in order to assign retention term for each document corresponding to favorable time periods in which each user will need to access the document.
Regarding claim 10, Mutha et al and Crockett et al do not explicitly teach selecting the one or more retention parameters from among first retention parameters for messages and second retention parameters for attachments to messages that are included in a plurality of retention parameters, wherein the first retention parameters for messages at least partially differ from the second retention parameters for attachments to messages.
However, Mutha(b) et al further teaches selecting the one or more retention parameters from among first retention parameters for messages and second retention parameters for attachments to messages that are included in a plurality of retention parameters (col. 59, lines 44-49, “second retention policy tag to the tagged copy of the at least one mail attachments”), wherein the first retention parameters for messages at least partially differ from the second retention parameters for attachments to messages (col. 59, lines 4-14, “wherein the first retention length is different from a second retention length specified by a second retention policy”).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective date of the claimed invention to be motivated to combine the teachings of Mutha(b) et al with the teachings of Mutha et al(a) and Crockett in order to provide the predictive result of improving user access to data files across multiple computing devices and data retention policies (as disclosed in col. 9, lines 50-55 of Mutha(b) et al) by choosing the most optimal retention policy based on each particular document parameter in order to assign retention term for each document corresponding to favorable time periods in which each user will need to access the document.
Regarding claim 16, Mutha et al and Crockett et al do not explicitly teach selecting the one or more retention parameters from among first retention parameters for messages and second retention parameters for attachments to messages that are included in a plurality of retention parameters, wherein the first retention parameters for messages at least partially differ from the second retention parameters for attachments to messages.
However, Mutha(b) et al further teaches selecting the one or more retention parameters from among first retention parameters for messages and second retention parameters for attachments to messages that are included in a plurality of retention parameters (col. 59, lines 44-49, “second retention policy tag to the tagged copy of the at least one mail attachments”), wherein the first retention parameters for messages at least partially differ from the second retention parameters for attachments to messages (col. 59, lines 4-14, “wherein the first retention length is different from a second retention length specified by a second retention policy”).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective date of the claimed invention to be motivated to combine the teachings of Mutha(b) et al with the teachings of Mutha et al(a) and Crockett in order to provide the predictive result of improving user access to data files across multiple computing devices and data retention policies (as disclosed in col. 9, lines 50-55 of Mutha(b) et al) by choosing the most optimal retention policy based on each particular document parameter in order to assign retention term for each document corresponding to favorable time periods in which each user will need to access the document.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Randy A. Scott whose telephone number is (571) 272-3797. The examiner can normally be reached on Monday-Thursday 7:30 am-5:00 pm, second Fridays 7:30 am-4pm.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner's supervisor, Luu Pham can be reached on (571) 270-5002. 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.
/RANDY A SCOTT/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2439 20260430
Prosecution Insights