DETAILED ACTION
This office action is in response to the correspondence filed on 11/18/2024. This application has an earliest continuation of 15423521 filed 02/02/2017. Claims 1-10 and 19-20 are pending and are examined. Claims 11-18 are withdrawn.
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 .
Priority
Applicant's claim for the benefit of a prior-filed application under 35 U.S.C. 119(e) or under 35 U.S.C. 120, 121, 365(c), or 386(c) is acknowledged.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) was submitted on 11/18/2024. 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
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.
Claims 1-6, 10, and 19-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over McHenry et al. (US Pub No. 2016/0306812 A1, referred to as McHenry), in view of Vanacker (US Pub No. 2019/0310999 A1, referred to as Vanacker).
Regarding claims 1 and 19, taking claim 1 as exemplary, McHenry discloses,
1. (Original) A computer-implemented web content management service comprising one or more hardware processors configured to execute logic code, the execution of the logic code causing the computer-implemented web content management service to: (McHenry: [0107])
provide a list of content items managed by the web content management service from which a first content item is selectable, the first content item being associated with metadata representing at least one of a creation date of the first content item, identification of a person creating the first content item, or a restriction mark; (McHenry: Fig. 2; [0047]; FIG. 2 illustrates a screenshot 200 (user interface) that may be generated by the document management system 100 (web content management service) showing various emails 202 (list of content items) received by a client computer 106, 108. As shown in FIG. 2, all of the emails 202 received by the client may be listed chronologically (creation date metadata) or sequentially (sender is also an identification of a person creating the email). The screenshot 200 shows a number of different icons 204 assigned to the emails 202, wherein each icon illustrates a classification of an email. The screenshot 200 also shows a button for mail management 206 that can be used by a user to select various display options. [0018]; receive an input from a user regarding the classification of the electronic document; and update the classification rule based on the user input (user can selectively update the classification of the electronic document).)
provide an option to assign or update a classification for the first content item; and (McHenry: Fig. 2; [0018]; display the classified electronic document in the one or more categories; receive an input from a user regarding the classification of the electronic document; and update the classification rule based on the user input (an option is provided to the user so the user can selectively update the classification of the electronic document).)
…wherein the web content management service supports delivery and deployment of content from an enterprise to users. (McHenry: [0014]; developing the classification rule based on a personal knowledge base of a recipient of the electronic document and a collective knowledge base of an organization (enterprise), wherein the recipient (delivery) is a member of the organization (users).)
McHenry does not explicitly disclose, however Vanacker teaches,
assign a first classification to the first content item, in response to selection of the first classification from a classification list including a plurality of classifications applicable to the first content item, (Vanacker: [0024]; a user selects at least one of said entries (classification) in at least one of said hierarchical classification structures (classifications applicable).) wherein classifications in the classification list are ranked in a hierarchical order such that the first classification is associated with a first rank and a second classification in the classification list is associated with a second rank lower than the first rank; (Vanacker: [0019]; each of said hierarchical classification structure comprises a plurality of classification levels, wherein each of said classification levels comprises a plurality of classification entries, wherein each of said hierarchical classification structure is different. [0036]; the use of hierarchical classification structures makes the classification much more effective, since a single step of associating a document with one sublevel of the hierarchy (such as "cat" for example) is sufficient for cataloguing this document in all corresponding higher levels of the hierarchy (such as "mammals" and "animals" for example). Therefore, the user does not need to save one document simultaneously in all three categories "cats", "mammals" and "animals" (multiple levels of classifications, e.g. cats classification is lower than mammals.).)
It would have been obvious to one ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to implement the teachings of Vanacker into the teachings of McHenry with a motivation to make classification much more effective by avoiding users having to save documents in multiple classifications by using hierarchical classification structures (Vanacker: [0036]).
Regarding claim 2, the combination of McHenry and Vanacker discloses,
2. (Original) The computer-implemented web content management service of claim 1, McHenry further discloses,
wherein the content item is a document. (McHenry: [0007]; electronic document)
Regarding claim 3, the combination of McHenry and Vanacker discloses,
3. (Original) The computer-implemented web content management service of claim 1,
McHenry further discloses,
wherein the computer-implemented web content management service provides access to the first content item and second content item via a cloud portal. (McHenry: Fig. 3)
Regarding claim 4, the combination of McHenry and Vanacker discloses,
4. (Original) The computer-implemented web content management service of claim 1, wherein the web content management service provides at least one of an
McHenry further discloses,
update schedule option, a downgrade schedule option, and a declassification schedule option. (McHenry: Fig. 8; [0085]; the detailed listing 800 shows that there are fourteen emails to be deleted tonight and those fourteen (only twelve shown in the window) emails are listed above. Such a detailed listing allows that user to determine if there are any emails in this category that the user wants to review, save, move to a different category, etc. The user may take such an action by selecting a particular email and right-clicking on it, by selecting a particular email and selecting an option from the options listed on top of the detailed listing 800, etc (schedule can be changed by moving the selected email to a different category). In one embodiment, the user may select the mail management option 802 (displayed herein a "Mail Mgt").)
Regarding claim 5, the combination of McHenry and Vanacker discloses,
5. (Original) The computer-implemented web content management service of claim 4,
McHenry further discloses,
wherein the update schedule option is associated with the first content item, the downgrade schedule option is associated with the first content item, and the declassification schedule option is associated with the first content item. (McHenry: Fig. 8; [0085]; the detailed listing 800 shows that there are fourteen emails to be deleted tonight and those fourteen (only twelve shown in the window) emails are listed above. Such a detailed listing allows that user to determine if there are any emails in this category that the user wants to review, save, move to a different category, etc. The user may take such an action by selecting a particular email and right-clicking on it, by selecting a particular email and selecting an option from the options listed on top of the detailed listing 800, etc (option is associated with the selected email). In one embodiment, the user may select the mail management option 802 (displayed herein a "Mail Mgt").)
Regarding claim 6, the combination of McHenry and Vanacker discloses,
6. (Original) The computer-implemented web content management service of claim 5,
McHenry further discloses,
wherein the computer-implemented web content management service supports collaborative development of the first content item and/or second content item. (McHenry: [0091]; a records manager 1104 may contribute in developing the distributed expert knowledge base 1118. The record manager 1104 is generally a domain expert in the field of records management and as such, in one embodiment, they play an important role in providing a tuned expert knowledge base as a starting point in developing appropriate classification rules of the various knowledge bases 446, 432, 454.)
Regarding claim 10, the combination of McHenry and Vanacker discloses,
10. (Original) The computer-implemented web content management service of claim 1,
McHenry further discloses,
wherein the computer-implemented web content management service supports the delivery and deployment of content from an enterprise to customers of the enterprise over the Internet. (McHenry: Fig. 3; [0014]; developing the classification rule based on a personal knowledge base of a recipient of the electronic document and a collective knowledge base of an organization (enterprise), wherein the recipient (delivery) is a member of the organization (users).)
Regarding claim 20, the combination of McHenry and Vanacker discloses,
20. (Original) The method of claim 19,
McHenry further discloses,
further comprising providing access to the first content item and second content item via a cloud portal; and (McHenry: Fig. 3)
providing at least one of an update schedule option, a downgrade schedule option, and a declassification schedule option. (McHenry: Fig. 8; [0085]; the detailed listing 800 shows that there are fourteen emails to be deleted tonight and those fourteen (only twelve shown in the window) emails are listed above. Such a detailed listing allows that user to determine if there are any emails in this category that the user wants to review, save, move to a different category, etc. The user may take such an action by selecting a particular email and right-clicking on it, by selecting a particular email and selecting an option from the options listed on top of the detailed listing 800, etc (schedule can be changed by moving the selected email to a different category). In one embodiment, the user may select the mail management option 802 (displayed herein a "Mail Mgt").)
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 7-9 are objected to as being dependent upon rejected base claims, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
The following is an examiner’s statement of reasons for allowance:
Although prior arts McHenry and Vanacker above disclose all the limitations of the prior claims (see rejections above), none of the prior arts of record alone or in combination discloses providing a user option to select or provide a downgrade date in response to the user selecting the update schedule option or the first content item is reclassified from the first classification to a third classification on a predetermined date and access settings to the first content item are updated to prevent access to the first content item by a group that is assigned to have authorized access to content items associated with the first classification but not to content items associated with the third classification as described in the claims.
At the effective filing date of the application, the above limitations would not have been obvious over the prior arts of record.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
SRINIVASAN V US-PGPUB US 20150120738 A1 Method for classifying document, involves identifying first concept from multiple concepts of cluster such that first concept represents portion of content disclosed in cluster and determining category for document
Motoyoama; Tetsuro US-PGPUB US 20150248419 A1 Approach for managing access to electronic documents on network devices using document analysis, document retention policies and document security policies
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to KA SHAN CHOY whose telephone number is (571) 272-1569. The examiner can normally be reached on MON - FRI: 9AM-5:30PM EST Alternate Fridays.
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, Amir Mehrmanesh can be reached at (571) 270-3351. 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.
/KA SHAN CHOY/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2435
Prosecution Insights