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 .
This action is in response to Application filed on 03/26/2025 and made Special based on Age (see Petition Decision on 04/15/2025).
Claims 1-20 are pending.
Priority
This application is claimed as a continuation in part of U.S. Patent Application No. 18/635,650 filed on 04/15/2024. However, the disclosure of the previous application does not provide sufficient support for the claimed invention of this application as requirements under 35 U.S.C. § 112(a) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. § 112, first paragraph. In particular, the previous application does not teach or suggest at least a limitation “assigning the first document to a first document sub-folder of one or more document sub-folders, wherein the assignment is based on the at least one of the document type or the file path of the first document” as recited in independent claims 1, 10 and 15. Therefore, the claimed invention of this application does not entitle to the earlier filling date of the previous application.
Information Disclosure Statement
The Information Disclosure Statement (IDS) filed by Applicant on 03/26/2025 has been considered. A copy of the considered IDS is enclosed with this Office action.
Claim Objections
Claims 1-20 are objected to because of the following informalities:
Regarding claim 1, the term “one or more document” in line 11 should be “one or more documents”.
Regarding claim 2, the term “reference” in line 2 should be “a reference”.
Regarding claim 6, the term “the at least data field” in line 2 should be “the at least one data field”.
Regarding claim 10, the term “one or more document” in line 14 should be “one or more documents”.
Regarding claim 11, the term “reference” in line 3 should be “a reference”.
Regarding claim 15, the term “one or more document” in line 14 should be “one or more documents”.
Regarding claim 16, the term “reference” in line 4 should be “a reference”.
Other dependent claims are objected as incorporating the informality of the objected independent claims 1, 10 and 15 upon which they depend correspondingly.
Appropriate correction is required.
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 an abstract idea of classifying data (e.g., a document) based on document type or file path.
The claims recite an abstract idea of classifying a document based on broadly recited steps of determining and assigning that can be performed in the human mind or with the aid of pencil and paper and directed to mental processes grouping of abstract ideas . This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application because other additional elements including genetic computer components and common computer functionality (e.g., accessing, storing, displaying, etc.) and/or insignificant extra-solution activity (e.g., mere data gathering and displaying) for implementing the abstract idea are not sufficient to integrate the abstract idea into a practical application. The claims do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because additional elements include only generic/common computer components (e.g., memory, processor, program instructions, etc.) and generic/common computer functions (e.g., accessing, storing, displaying, etc.) and/or insignificant extra-solution activity (e.g., mere data gathering and displaying), which are not sufficient to amount to significantly more than the recited abstract idea.
Abstract idea analysis as follows:
Step 1:
According to the first part of the analysis, in the instant claims, claims 1-9 are directed to a method (i.e. a process), claims 10-14 are directed to a system comprising at least one non-transitory storage device and at least one processing device (i.e., a machine), and claims 15-20 are directed to a computer program product comprising at least one non-transitory computer-readable medium having one or more computer-readable program code portions embodied therein (i.e., an article of manufacture). Thus, each of the claims falls within one of the four statutory categories (i.e. process, machine, manufacture or composition of matter).
Step 2a Prong 1 (claims 1, 10 and 15):
The following limitations recited in claims 1, 10 and 15 are abstract ideas that fall under mental processes:
determining/determine at least one of a document type or a file path associated with the first document (the step of determining as broadly recited can be mentally performed in the human mind or with the aid of pencil and paper, through mental processes such as observation, evaluation, judgment and opinion), and
assigning/assign the first document to a first document sub-folder of one or more document sub- folders, wherein the assignment is based on the at least one of the document type or the file path of the first document (the step of assigning as broadly recited can be mentally performed in the human mind or with the aid of pencil and paper, through mental processes such as observation, evaluation, judgment and opinion).
All the limitations above are mental steps that can be performed in the human mind or with the aid of pencil and paper.
Step 2a Prong 2 (Claims 1, 10 and 15):
The following limitations in claims 1, 10 and 15 are additional elements:
receiving/receive a first data packet, wherein a first document is referenced in at least one data field of the first data packet, and wherein the first data packet and the first document are associated with a first identification record (the step of receiving as broadly recited is directed to mere data gathering recited at high level of generality, or being insignificant extra-solution activity),
store the first document in the first document sub-folder, wherein each of the one or more document sub-folders contains one or more document that have a same file path and are associated with the first identification record (the step of storing as broadly recited is directed to a routine function performed by a generic computer or being insignificant extra-solution activity),
a system (this element is directed to generic computer),
at least one non-transitory storage device (this element is directed to generic computer component),
at least one processing device coupled to the at least one non-transitory storage device, wherein the at least one processing device is configured to (these element are directed to generic computer components), and
A computer program product for associating precipitated data, the computer program product comprising at least one non-transitory computer-readable medium having one or more computer-readable program code portions embodied therein, the one or more computer-readable program code portions comprising at least one executable portion configured to (these elements are directed to generic computer components or mere instructions for implementing or applying the abstract idea).
These are insignificant extra-solution activity and/or a generic computer and/or generic computer components used to perform generic computer functions for implementing or applying the abstract. Accordingly, these additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea(s) into a practical application because they do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea(s).
Step 2b (Claims 1, 19 and 20):
The following limitations in claims 1, 19 and 20 are additional elements:
receiving/receive a first data packet, wherein a first document is referenced in at least one data field of the first data packet, and wherein the first data packet and the first document are associated with a first identification record (the step of receiving as broadly recited is directed to mere data gathering recited at high level of generality, or being insignificant extra-solution activity or well-understood, routine, conventional activity),
store the first document in the first document sub-folder, wherein each of the one or more document sub-folders contains one or more document that have a same file path and are associated with the first identification record (the step of storing as broadly recited is directed to a routine function performed by a generic computer or being insignificant extra-solution activity or well-understood, routine, conventional activity),
a system (this element is directed to generic computer),
at least one non-transitory storage device (this element is directed to generic computer component),
at least one processing device coupled to the at least one non-transitory storage device, wherein the at least one processing device is configured to (these element are directed to generic computer components), and
A computer program product for associating precipitated data, the computer program product comprising at least one non-transitory computer-readable medium having one or more computer-readable program code portions embodied therein, the one or more computer-readable program code portions comprising at least one executable portion configured to (these elements are directed to generic computer components or mere instructions for implementing or applying the abstract idea).
These are a generic computer and/or generic computer components used to perform generic computer functions or well-understood, routine, conventional activity, and do not amount to significantly more, see MPEP 2106.05(d)(II).
Regarding claims 2, 11 and 16, claims 2, 11 and 16 depend on claims 1, 10 and 15 respectively. As such, claims 2, 11 and 16 recite the abstract idea as presented in claims 1, 10 and 15.
In addition, claims 2, 11 and 16 include additional elements:
converting/convert the first data packet into a readable textual format, wherein the readable textual format includes reference to the first document sub-folder in the at least one data field that references the first document (the step of converting as broadly recited can be mentally performed in the human mind or with the aid of pencil and paper, through mental processes such observation, evaluation, judgment and opinion)
These are additional elements directed to mental process or abstract idea, which do not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application and do not amount to significantly more, see MPEP 2106.05(d)(II).
Regarding claims 3, 12 and 17, claims 3, 12 and 17 depend on claims 2, 11 and 16 respectively. As such, claims 3, 12 and 17 recite the abstract idea as presented in claims 2, 11 and 16.
In addition, claims 3, 12 and 17 include additional elements:
wherein the readable textual format of the first data packet is stored as at least one of a detailed file or a summary file, wherein the at least one of the detailed file or the summary file references the first document sub-folder (these elements specifying the readable textual format without any functionality, which is directed to mere data/structure).
These are additional elements directed to mere additional data/structure, which do not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application and do not amount to significantly more, see MPEP 2106.05(d)(II).
Regarding claims 4, 13 and 18, claims 4, 13 and 18 depend on claims 3, 12 and 17 respectively. As such, claims 4, 13 and 18 recite the abstract idea as presented in claims 3, 12 and 17.
In addition, claims 4, 13 and 18 include additional elements:
wherein the at least one of the detailed file or the summary file comprises a hyperlink to the first document stored in the first document sub-folder (these elements specifying the detailed file or the summary file without any functionality, which is directed to mere data/structure).
These are additional elements directed to mere additional data/structure, which do not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application and do not amount to significantly more, see MPEP 2106.05(d)(II).
Regarding claims 5 and 19, claims 5 and 19 depend on claims 1 and 15 respectively. As such, claims 5 and 19 recite the abstract idea as presented in claims 1 and 15.
In addition, claims 5 and 19 include additional elements:
wherein the first document sub-folder is stored within a folder associated with the first identification record (these elements specifying the first document sub-folder without any functionality, which is directed to mere data/structure).
These are additional elements directed to mere additional data/structure, which do not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application and do not amount to significantly more, see MPEP 2106.05(d)(II).
Regarding claim 6, claim 6 depends on claim 1. As such, claim 6 recite the abstract idea as presented in claim 1.
In addition, claim 6 includes additional elements:
wherein the first data packet references one or more additional documents in the at least data field, wherein each of the one or more additional documents are assigned to one of the one or more document sub-folders (these elements specifying the first data packet without any functionality, which is directed to mere data/structure).
These are additional elements directed to mere additional data/structure, which do not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application and do not amount to significantly more, see MPEP 2106.05(d)(II).
Regarding claims 7, 14 and 20, claims 7, 14 and 20 depend on claims 1, 10 and 15 respectively. As such, claims 7, 14 and 20 recite the abstract idea as presented in claims 1, 10 and 15.
In addition, claims 7, 14 and 20 include additional elements:
wherein determining the file path of the first document is based on an API endpoint from which the document is received (these elements specifying the determining step recited at high level of generality, which can be mentally performed in the human mind or with the aid of pencil and paper).
These are additional elements directed to additional information and mental process, which do not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application and do not amount to significantly more, see MPEP 2106.05(d)(II).
Regarding claim 8, claim 8 depends on claim 1. As such, claim 8 recite the abstract idea as presented in claim 1.
In addition, claim 8 includes additional elements:
wherein each of the one or more documents sub-folders are stored within a folder associated with the first identification record (these elements specifying relation between one or more sub-folder and a folder, which is directed to mere data/structure).
These are additional elements directed to mere additional data/structure, which do not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application and do not amount to significantly more, see MPEP 2106.05(d)(II).
Regarding claim 9, claim 9 depends on claim 1. As such, claim 9 recite the abstract idea as presented in claim 1.
In addition, claim 9 includes additional elements:
generating metadata associated with the file path for the first document (this step of generating metadata as broadly recited can be mentally performed in the human mind or with the aid of pencil and paper, through mental processes such as observation, evaluation, judgment and opinion).
These are additional elements directed to metal process or abstract idea, which do not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application and do not amount to significantly more, see MPEP 2106.05(d)(II).
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.
Claims 1-6, 8-13 and 15-19 (effective filing date 03/26/2025) are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Butterfield et al. (U.S. Publication No. 2024/0177159, Publication date 09/09/2004).
As to claim 1, Butterfield et al. teaches:
“A method for associating precipitated data” (see Butterfield et al., Abstract), the method comprising:
“receiving a first data packet, wherein a first document is referenced in at least one data field of the first data packet, and wherein the first data packet and the first document are associated with a first identification record” (see Butterfield et al., [0043] for receiving e-mail messages, wherein each email message can be interpreted as a data packet as recited; and see [0036] and [0050] for determining the source of an e-mail message and document(s) attached to the e-mail message based on the e-mail address to which the e-mail carrying the document was sent, wherein each email message and its file/document attachment(s) are associated with a predetermined email address that is unique to a user or an e-mail account, wherein an e-mail account represented by the predetermined email address and associated with a user can be interpreted as equivalent to an identification record as recited);
“determining at least one of a document type or a file path associated with the first document” (see Butterfield et al., [0044] for determining file types of any documents attached to the e-mail message; also see [0049]-[0050]);
“assigning the first document to a first document sub-folder of one or more document sub- folders, wherein the assignment is based on the at least one of the document type or the file path of the first document” (see Butterfield et al., [0047] and [0051] for identifying folders/directories and/or sub-folders for storing files/documents based on the file types and the source of e-mail (i.e., a user or e-mail account)); and
“storing the first document in the first document sub-folder, wherein each of the one or more document sub-folders contains one or more document that have a same file path and are associated with the first identification record” (see Butterfield et al., [0051] for storing files/documents into subfolders within a folder identified by the source of e-mail (i.e., a folder associated with a user or an e-mail account or an identification record), wherein the sub-folder in which each document is stored is selected according to the file type for that document; it should be noted that files/documents stored in a folder or subfolder would include a same file path as the file path of the folder or the sub-folder; also see [0056]).
As to claim 2, this claim is rejected based on the same arguments as above to reject claim 1 and is similarly rejected including the following:
Butterfield et al. teaches:
“converting the first data packet into a readable textual format, wherein the readable textual format includes reference to the first document sub-folder in the at least one data field that references the first document” (see Butterfield et al., [0048]-[0049] for storing the text of the e-mail message in a resulting text file, wherein the e-mail message includes attached files/documents, which are associated with file types (i.e., references to sub-folder) and identified in the attachment data field of the e-mail message).
As to claim 3, this claim is rejected based on the same arguments as above to reject claim 2 and is similarly rejected including the following:
Butterfield et al. teaches:
“wherein the readable textual format of the first data packet is stored as at least one of a detailed file or a summary file, wherein the at least one of the detailed file or the summary file references the first document sub-folder” (see Butterfield et al., [0048]-[0049] for storing the text of the e-mail message in a resulting text file, wherein the e-mail message includes attached files/documents, which are associated with file types (i.e., references to sub-folder) and identified in the attachment data field of the e-mail message, and wherein the result text file can be interpreted as a summary file as recited).
As to claim 4, this claim is rejected based on the same arguments as above to reject claim 3 and is similarly rejected including the following:
Butterfield et al. teaches:
“wherein the at least one of the detailed file or the summary file comprises a hyperlink to the first document stored in the first document sub-folder” (see Butterfield et al., [0060] for including hyperlinks in a document to access stored original documents).
As to claim 5, this claim is rejected based on the same arguments as above to reject claim 1 and is similarly rejected including the following:
Butterfield et al. teaches:
“wherein the first document sub-folder is stored within a folder associated with the first identification record” (see Butterfield et al., [0051] for storing documents in sub-folders within a folder associated with the source of e-mail (i.e., a user or e-mail account or identification record); also see [0056] and Fig. 4).
As to claim 6, this claim is rejected based on the same arguments as above to reject claim 1 and is similarly rejected including the following:
Butterfield et al. teaches:
“wherein the first data packet references one or more additional documents in the at least data field, wherein each of the one or more additional documents are assigned to one of the one or more document sub-folders” (see Butterfield et al., [0051] wherein the e-mail message includes more than one document attached to the e-mail message, each of the documents is stored in corresponding sub-folder according to its file type; also see [0056] and Fig. 4).
As to claim 8, this claim is rejected based on the same arguments as above to reject claim 1 and is similarly rejected including the following:
Butterfield et al. teaches:
“wherein each of the one or more documents sub-folders are stored within a folder associated with the first identification record” (see Butterfield et al., [0051] for storing documents in sub-folders within a folder associated with the source of e-mail (i.e., a user or e-mail account or identification record); also see [0056] and Fig. 4)
As to claim 9, this claim is rejected based on the same arguments as above to reject claim 1 and is similarly rejected including the following:
Butterfield et al. teaches:
“generating metadata associated with the file path for the first document” (see Butterfield et al., (see Butterfield et al., [0056]-[0057] for generating and storing metadata associated with each stored file/document; also see [0067] for a URL or file path associated with a web page).
As to claim 10, Butterfield et al. teaches:
“A system for associating precipitated data” (see Butterfield et al., Abstract), the system comprising:
“at least one non-transitory storage device” (see Butterfield et al., [0090] for a program memory or physical storage media (e.g., hard disk drive, ROMs, etc.)); and
“at least one processing device coupled to the at least one non-transitory storage device, wherein the at least one processing device is configured to” (see Butterfield et al., [0090] for one or more processors):
“receive a first data packet, wherein a first document is referenced in at least one data field of the first data packet, and wherein the first data packet and the first document are associated with a first identification record” (see Butterfield et al., [0043] for receiving e-mail messages, wherein each email message can be interpreted as a data packet as recited; and see [0036] and [0050] for determining the source of an e-mail message and document(s) attached to the e-mail message based on the e-mail address to which the e-mail carrying the document was sent, wherein each email message and its file/document attachment(s) are associated with a predetermined email address that is unique to a user or an e-mail account, wherein an e-mail account represented by the predetermined email address and associated with a user can be interpreted as equivalent to an identification record as recited);
“determine at least one of a document type or a file path associated with the first document” (see Butterfield et al., [0044] for determining file types of any documents attached to the e-mail message; also see [0049]-[0050]);
“assign the first document to a first document sub-folder of one or more document sub- folders, wherein the assignment is based on the at least one of the document type or the file path of the first document” (see Butterfield et al., [0047] and [0051] for identifying folders/directories and/or sub-folders for storing files/documents based on the file types and the source of e-mail (i.e., a user or e-mail account)); and
“store the first document in the first document sub-folder, wherein each of the one or more document sub-folders contains one or more document that have a same file path and are associated with the first identification record” (see Butterfield et al., [0051] for storing files/documents into subfolders within a folder identified by the source of e-mail (i.e., a folder associated with a user or an e-mail account or an identification record), wherein the sub-folder in which each document is stored is selected according to the file type for that document; it should be noted that files/documents stored in a folder or subfolder would include a same file path as the file path of the folder or the sub-folder; also see [0056]).
As to claim 11, this claim is rejected based on the same arguments as above to reject claim 10 and is similarly rejected including the following:
Butterfield et al. teaches:
“wherein the at least one processing device is further configured to convert the first data packet into a readable textual format, wherein the readable textual format includes reference to the first document sub-folder in the at least one data field that references the first document” (see Butterfield et al., [0048]-[0049] for storing the text of the e-mail message in a resulting text file, wherein the e-mail message includes attached files/documents, which are associated with file types (i.e., references to sub-folder) and identified in the attachment data field of the e-mail message).
As to claim 12, this claim is rejected based on the same arguments as above to reject claim 11 and is similarly rejected including the following:
Butterfield et al. teaches:
“wherein the readable textual format of the first data packet is stored as at least one of a detailed file or a summary file, wherein the at least one of the detailed file or the summary file references the first document sub-folder” (see Butterfield et al., [0048]-[0049] for storing the text of the e-mail message in a resulting text file, wherein the e-mail message includes attached files/documents, which are associated with file types (i.e., references to sub-folder) and identified in the attachment data field of the e-mail message, and wherein the result text file can be interpreted as a summary file as recited).
As to claim 13, this claim is rejected based on the same arguments as above to reject claim 12 and is similarly rejected including the following:
Butterfield et al. teaches:
“wherein the at least one of the detailed file or the summary file comprises a hyperlink to the first document stored in the first document sub-folder” (see Butterfield et al., [0060] for including hyperlinks in a document to access stored original documents).
As to claim 15, Butterfield et al. teaches:
“A computer program product for associating precipitated data, the computer program product comprising at least one non-transitory computer-readable medium having one or more computer-readable program code portions embodied therein, the one or more computer-readable program code portions comprising at least one executable portion configured to” (see Butterfield et al., Abstract and [0090]):
“receive a first data packet, wherein a first document is referenced in at least one data field of the first data packet, and wherein the first data packet and the first document are associated with a first identification record” (see Butterfield et al., [0043] for receiving e-mail messages, wherein each email message can be interpreted as a data packet as recited; and see [0036] and [0050] for determining the source of an e-mail message and document(s) attached to the e-mail message based on the e-mail address to which the e-mail carrying the document was sent, wherein each email message and its file/document attachment(s) are associated with a predetermined email address that is unique to a user or an e-mail account, wherein an e-mail account represented by the predetermined email address and associated with a user can be interpreted as equivalent to an identification record as recited);
“determine at least one of a document type or a file path associated with the first document” (see Butterfield et al., [0044] for determining file types of any documents attached to the e-mail message; also see [0049]-[0050]);
“assign the first document to a first document sub-folder of one or more document sub- folders, wherein the assignment is based on the at least one of the document type or the file path of the first document” (see Butterfield et al., [0047] and [0051] for identifying folders/directories and/or sub-folders for storing files/documents based on the file types and the source of e-mail (i.e., a user or e-mail account)); and
“store the first document in the first document sub-folder, wherein each of the one or more document sub-folders contains one or more document that have a same file path and are associated with the first identification record” (see Butterfield et al., [0051] for storing files/documents into subfolders within a folder identified by the source of e-mail (i.e., a folder associated with a user or an e-mail account or an identification record), wherein the sub-folder in which each document is stored is selected according to the file type for that document; it should be noted that files/documents stored in a folder or subfolder would include a same file path as the file path of the folder or the sub-folder; also see [0056]).
As to claim 16, this claim is rejected based on the same arguments as above to reject claim 15 and is similarly rejected including the following:
Butterfield et al. teaches:
“wherein the one or more computer-readable program code portions comprise at least one executable portion further configured to convert the first data packet into a readable textual format, wherein the readable textual format includes reference to the first document sub-folder in the at least one data field that references the first document” (see Butterfield et al., [0048]-[0049] for storing the text of the e-mail message in a resulting text file, wherein the e-mail message includes attached files/documents, which are associated with file types (i.e., references to sub-folder) and identified in the attachment data field of the e-mail message).
As to claim 17, this claim is rejected based on the same arguments as above to reject claim 16 and is similarly rejected including the following:
Butterfield et al. teaches:
“wherein the readable textual format of the first data packet is stored as at least one of a detailed file or a summary file, wherein the at least one of the detailed file or the summary file references the first document sub-folder” (see Butterfield et al., [0048]-[0049] for storing the text of the e-mail message in a resulting text file, wherein the e-mail message includes attached files/documents, which are associated with file types (i.e., references to sub-folder) and identified in the attachment data field of the e-mail message, and wherein the result text file can be interpreted as a summary file as recited).
As to claim 18, this claim is rejected based on the same arguments as above to reject claim 17 and is similarly rejected including the following:
Butterfield et al. teaches:
“wherein the at least one of the detailed file or the summary file comprises a hyperlink to the first document stored in the first document sub- folder” (see Butterfield et al., [0060] for including hyperlinks in a document to access stored original documents).
As to claim 19, this claim is rejected based on the same arguments as above to reject claim 15 and is similarly rejected including the following:
Butterfield et al. teaches:
“wherein the first document sub-folder is stored within a folder associated with the first identification record” (see Butterfield et al., [0051] for storing documents in sub-folders within a folder associated with the source of e-mail (i.e., a user or e-mail account or identification record); also see [0056] and Fig. 4).
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 7, 14 and 20 (effective filing date 03/26/2025) are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Butterfield et al. (U.S. Publication No. 2004/0177159, Publication date 09/09/2004), and further in view of Hill (U.S. Publication No. 2025/0006191, Publication date 01/02/2025).
As to claims 7, 14 and 20, Butterfield et al. teaches all limitations as recited in claims 1, 10 and 15 respectively, including a URL or file path of a document (see Butterfield et al., [0067] for a URL or file path associated with a web page).
However, Butterfield et al. does not explicitly teach a feature of determining a file path based on an API endpoint as recited as follows:
“wherein determining the file path of the first document is based on an API endpoint from which the first document is received.”
On the other hand, Hill explicitly teaches a feature of determining a file path based on an API endpoint as recited as follows:
“wherein determining the file path of the first document is based on an API endpoint from which the first document is received” (see Hill, [0080]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate Hill's teaching to Butterfield et al.’s system by implementing a feature of determining a file path of content (e.g., a file/document) based on an API endpoint. Ordinarily skilled artisan would have been motivated to do so to provide Butterfield et al.’s system with an effective way to identify, locate and access a file/document through an application programming interface (API). In addition, both of the references (Butterfield et al. and Hill) teach features that are directed to analogous art and they are directed to the same field of endeavor, such as, identifying and accessing files/documents using URLs or file paths. This close relation between both of the references highly suggests an expectation of success when combined.
The prior art made of record and not replied upon is considered pertinent to Applicant’s disclosure.
Enko et al. (U.S. Publication No. 2004/0210583) teach a file migration system in a network system in which clients and file servers are connected by networks and communicate through message packets each comprising a plurality of fields including a field for file path name (see [0003], [0020] and Figs. 2A-D, [0059]-[0062], [0091] and [0154]).
Man et al. (CN-115905120-B) teaches a file management method/system, which comprises obtaining a plurality of files corresponding to each user, obtaining multiple file parameters of each file, determining the storage directory of each file according to the user identifier/identification in the file parameter corresponding to each file, and respectively storing each file according to the storage directory, wherein a storage directory can include a first-level storage directory and/or a secondary or second-level storage directory (see Abstract, [page 2, lines 24-25], [page 3, lines 10-21], and [page 11, lines 22-35]).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to PHUONG THAO CAO whose telephone number is (571)272-2735. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday: 9:00 am - 6:00 pm.
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, Amy Ng can be reached at 571-270-1698. 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.
/Phuong Thao Cao/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2164
Prosecution Insights