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 .
1. This communication is in response to claims 1-13 filed on 02/21/2025.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claim 6 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention. Specifically, for the following reason:
2. Claim 6 recites “the reaction requested by the user” at the end of the claim. The only antecedent basis for “the user” is previously in claim 6 reciting, “a user terminal of a user who has made the post”, however it is unclear from the claims whether it is the same user who has made the post introduced in the first limitation of claim 1, from which claim 6 depends, and who requests an addressee for the reaction. It is therefore unclear whether “the user” at the end of claim 6 is intended to refer to the user who has made the post, a different user who requested the reaction, or whether these are intended to refer to the same user.
For purposes of examination, the reaction requested by “the user” in claim 6 is interpreted as referring to any user who requested the reaction.
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.
3. Claims 1-13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more. The independent claims 1, 12, and 13 recite steps for acquiring data, determining, based on the data, whether a mention designates an addressee and reaction information and, if so, requesting the addressee to perform the reaction. This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application because these steps could be performed by a human presented with posted data who analyzes the posted data to make a request to another user when appropriate. Although claims 5, 6, 9 and 11 disclose displaying on a user terminal, these limitations do not include any features or functionalities specific to execution of computer operations or interactions with a computer terminal, and therefore are broad enough to include displaying a drawing illustrated by a human being. The other dependent claims merely expand on which addressees are notified of a request or additional information included in the request. The claims do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because they are broad enough to be a human activity and do not identify technical improvements in a computing collaboration system.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
4. Claims 1-13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Chi et al. (US 2013/0179515).
Regarding claim 1, Chi teaches a work support system (collaboration environment server system 102 includes a collaboration environment 111, [0019]), comprising at least one processor configured to:
acquire posted data relating to a post in the work support system (receive, from a user, a first message associated with a collaborative task, [0020]; the collaboration environment 111 supports the role of a coordinator or lead author, who can insert tags in a wiki page to specify co-authoring tasks, [0023]; The collaborative environment 111 receives the email message from the user, at step 1014, [0071]);
determine, based on the posted data, whether a mention designating an addressee (The collaboration environment 111 allows users to specify participants' names or email addresses, [0029]) and reaction information relating to a reaction the addressee is requested to perform (The first message includes at least an identification of the collaborative task, a set of participants for the collaborative task, and a request by the user for each of the participants to provide a set of content for at least one portion of the collaborative task, [0020]) has been made (The collaborative environment 111 extracts information from the identified template fields within the message, at step 1018. The collaborative environment 111 uses the information extracted from the email message to automatically create a collaborative environment wiki page 114, at step 1020, [0071]); and
request the addressee to perform the reaction when it is determined that the mention has been made (The collaboration environment 111 automatically generates a second message for each of the participants in response to receiving the first message. The second message includes at least a notification of the collaborative task and the request from the user for the participant to provide the set of content for the portion of the collaborative task. The collaboration environment 111 sends the second message to each of the participants, [0020]; the collaborative environment 111 sends a notification email to each of the participants (co-authors), at step 1024, [0071]).
Regarding claim 2, Chi teaches the work support system according to claim 1, wherein the at least one processor is configured to request, when the mention designating a plurality of addressees (the collaboration environment manager 112 identifies the set of co-authoring tasks within the message and each co-author associated with each of the co-authoring tasks, [0035]) and mutually different pieces of reaction information for the plurality of addressees has been made (FIG. 3 shows that Coordinator defines two co-authoring tasks 318 and 320, [0043]), each of the plurality of addressees to perform a mutually different reaction (The message generator 118 of the collaboration environment 111 generates and sends an email message, via the messaging client 122, to each of the identified co-authors. This email message notifies the co-authors about their respective tasks, [0035]).
Regarding claim 3, Chi teaches the work support system according to claim 1, wherein the at least one processor is configured to request the addressee to perform a work-related task in the work support system as the reaction (In a business setting, collaborative authoring often requires coordination, including assigning authors to specific sections and managing their progresses, [0022]; A co-author can be invited by a coordinator to write designated sections of a document, [0024]).
Regarding claim 4, Chi teaches the work support system according to claim 1, wherein the at least one processor is configured to request all addressees to perform the reaction when the mention requests that the all addressees perform the reaction (the second task 320 ("Project 2") has two authors assigned, [0043]; email message notifies the co-authors about their respective tasks, [0035]), and request some addressees to perform the reaction when the mention requests that the some addressees perform the reaction (The first task 318 ("Project 1") has one author assigned, [0043]; email message notifies the co-authors about their respective tasks, [0035]).
Regarding claim 5, Chi teaches the work support system according to claim 1, wherein the at least one processor is configured to request the addressee to perform the reaction by displaying, on a user terminal of a user corresponding to the addressee (FIG. 5 shows an exemplary email message 500 generated by the message generator 118 and sent to one of the co-authors, Team_Member_1, [0056]), a post screen showing the post (This assignment email message 500 also includes a message 506 from the coordinator that was extracted from the first section 302 of the message 300 received from the coordinator, [0057]) and the reaction the user is requested to perform (This message provides the participant with some context about the assignment. The message 500 also includes instructions 508 that indicate how the co-author can provide the requested information, [0057]; The message 500 indicates the actual assignment defined by the coordinator (e.g., section 304 of the email message 300 in FIG. 3). For example, the message 500 includes a content field 510, due date/time field 512, and instructions field 514, [0057]).
Regarding claim 6, Chi teaches the work support system according to claim 1, wherein the at least one processor is configured to display, on a user terminal of a user who has made the post, a post screen showing the post and the reaction requested by the user (FIG. 4 shows an exemplary wiki page 400 created by the collaboration environment manager 112 based on the information in the email message shown in FIG. 3. As can be seen, the wiki page 400 includes a message 402 from the coordinator from the first section 302 of the email message 300, the task, such as the content 318 and 320, to be performed/authored by a co-author, the co-author 404 and 406 designated to author the specified content, the due date/time, and any instructions 408 and 410 from the coordinator to the co-author, [0055]).
Regarding claim 7, Chi teaches the work support system according to claim 1, wherein the at least one processor is configured to:
determine whether the mention which additionally designates a complete-by time of the reaction has been made (the collaboration environment 11 is configured to extract task parameters (e.g., author name and due time) to drive the collaboration process, [0027]; The due date/time field 314 specifies the due time of the task, [0043]); and
request the addressee to complete the reaction by the complete-by time (The due date/time field 512 indicates when the content to be provided by the co-author is to be submitted to the collaboration environment 111, [0057]; Once the notification email message has been created, the collaboration environment 111 sends the email message to the given user via the messaging client 112 and the messaging server 104, [0058]).
Regarding claim 8, Chi teaches the work support system according to claim 1, wherein the at least one processor is configured to:
determine whether the reaction has been completed (status information can include content heading information 806, designated co-author information 808, due date/time information 810, and status information 812 (e.g., completed, not started, in progress, etc.), [0067]; the collaborative environment 111 can determine if any other participant has failed to provide their content by a given date that is set by the user, [0072]); and
issue a reminder to the addressee when it is determined that the reaction has not been completed (reminders are automatically sent by the collaboration environment 111, [0029]; Here the timer defines when the reminder should be sent to one or more target authors. In this embodiment, the target authors are those who have not finished their assigned tasks when the timer expires, [0050]; the collaborative environment 111 can send a reminder email message to the participants who have not provided content, [0072]).
Regarding claim 9, Chi teaches the work support system according to 1,
wherein at least one of a plurality of pieces of the reaction information is designated in the mention (A first set of fields can be user-defined fields such as a participants field, a due date/time field, and a task description field, [0028]; defining a co-authoring task includes at least one or more of the following elements: content 310, author 312, due time 314, and instructions 316, [0041]), and
wherein the at least one processor is configured to request the addressee to perform the reaction by displaying, on a user terminal of a user corresponding to the addressee (FIG. 5 shows an exemplary email message 500 generated by the message generator 118 and sent to one of the co-authors, Team_Member_1, [0056]), for each reaction the user is requested to perform (The first task 318 ("Project 1") has one author assigned, [0043]), a notification screen showing a notification relating to the post in which the each reaction is requested (This assignment email message 500 also includes a message 506 from the coordinator that was extracted from the first section 302 of the message 300 received from the coordinator. This message provides the participant with some context about the assignment, [0057]; The message 500 indicates the actual assignment defined by the coordinator (e.g., section 304 of the email message 300 in FIG. 3). For example, the message 500 includes a content field 510, due date/time field 512, and instructions field 514, [0057]).
Regarding claim 10, Chi teaches the work support system according to claim 1, wherein the at least one processor is configured to determine whether the mention has been made based on a predetermined notation relating to designation of the reaction information (the task tags have simple and unambiguous semantics. This allows tags to be easily defined and understood by intended recipients (e.g., users and the collaboration environment 111). In this embodiment, the collaboration environment 11 is configured to extract task parameters (e.g., author name and due time) to drive the collaboration process (e.g., notifying participants about their tasks), [0027]; the collaboration environment 111 supports a semi-structured email input. This provides a set of semi-structured messaging templates for users to specify their intended tasks. Following these templates, the collaboration environment 111 can interpret a user's email message and use it to drive the collaboration authoring process, [0039]).
Regarding claim 11, Chi teaches the work support system according to claim 1, wherein the at least one processor is configured to:
display, on a user terminal of a user who is to make the post, a post screen for receiving a selection of at least one of a plurality of pieces of the reaction information (FIG. 3 shows an exemplary email message that includes co-authoring information created by a coordinator using a messaging template. The messaging template can be automatically loaded when the user creates a new message or can be loaded after a user creates a new message to automatically format the message according to the messaging template, [0040]; defining a co-authoring task includes at least one or more of the following elements: content 310, author 312, due time 314, and instructions 316, [0041]; the messaging templates discussed above allow a coordinator to easily specify a set of co-authoring tasks and/or management actions in an email message, [0053]); and
determine whether the mention which designates the at least one of the plurality of pieces of the reaction information selected by the user on the post screen has been made (The format of the messaging templates discussed above allows the messaging manager 116 of the collaboration environment 111 to easily parse the email messages received from users. For example, the template formats allow the message processor 120 to extract co-authoring tasks from the message, [0054]; Upon receiving the email message, the collaborative environment 111 processes the message and acts upon it, at step 1016. The collaborative environment 111 extracts information from the identified template fields within the message, at step 1018. The collaborative environment 111 uses the information extracted from the email message to automatically create a collaborative environment wiki page 114, at step 1020. The generated wiki page includes the user's authored content and the skeleton of the sections to be authored by the participants designated by the user, respectively. The collaborative environment 111 tags each section of the page with various meta-information, including its author, due time, the user's (coordinator) instruction, and the task status, at step 1022, [0071]).
Regarding claim 12, the work support method claim comprises limitations equivalent to those of the work support system of claim 1, and is therefore rejected in view of the same rationale.
Regarding claim 13, the non-transitory information storage medium claim comprises limitations equivalent to those of the work support system of claim 1, and is therefore rejected in view of the same rationale.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Braun et al. US 7,360,156 – workspace with smart tags including names and associated actions.
Novak et al. US 11,341,337 – a collaboration system with action tags for users.
Nayar et al. US 11,829,332 – shared documents including mentions of users in group posts and users’ reactions.
DeSouza Sana et al. US 2016/0269334 – collaboration among users by provision tags including instructions for actions to be performed.
Brasket et al. US 2018/0260366 – a collaborative workspace in which a user my tag another individual to direct their attention to a particular subsection of a document.
Huang US 2019/0066051 – object actions in a collaborative environment including one or more mentioned users and an objection action.
Madisetti et al. US 2021/0081366 – user mentioning and hashtags supported with task notes and messages.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MADHU WOOLCOCK whose telephone number is (571)270-3629. The examiner can normally be reached Tuesday, Thursday 9-6 ET.
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, Chris Parry can be reached at 571-272-8328. 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.
MADHU WOOLCOCK
Examiner
Art Unit 2451
/MADHU WOOLCOCK/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2451
Prosecution Insights