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 .
In view of preliminary amendments, claims 1-5, 8-20, 23, and 24 are pending where claims 1-5, 8-20, 23, and 24 were previously presented and claims 6, 7, 21, 22, and 25 were cancelled.
Specification
The title of the invention is not descriptive. A new title is required that is clearly indicative of the invention to which the claims are directed.
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 1-5, 8-20, 23, and 24 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
With regard to claim 1:
Step 2A, Prong One:
The claim recites the following limitations which are drawn towards an abstract idea:
An information synchronization processing method, comprising: determining a serving module from which the first business synchronization request comes (recites mental process step of evaluating a request to determine where it came from, similar to how someone would receive a message/memo/email/letter and be able to discern the source from which it came from);
and at least one of the following synchronization steps: if the first business synchronization request comes from an online document serving module, determining a business synchronization type of the first business synchronization request,
As seen from above, the identified limitations recite concepts associated with an abstract idea and thus the respective claim recites a judicial exception (see 2106.04(a)) and thus requires further analysis as discussed below.
Step 2A, Prong Two:
The following limitations have been identified as being additional elements as discussed below.
receiving a first business synchronization request (recites insignificant extrasolution activity of receiving information, see MPEP 2106.05(g));
and at least one of the following synchronization steps: if the first business synchronization request comes from an online document serving module, and synchronizing first business information in a first business information serving module on the basis of the determined business synchronization type; or if the first business synchronization request comes from the first business information serving module, synchronizing a record about the first business information in a target online document in the online document serving module on the basis of the first business synchronization request (recites insignificant extrasolution activity of transmitting and receiving information, see MPEP 2106.05(g); if the synchronization is about records in a table, this concept is also similar to insignificant extrasolution activity of electronic recordkeeping such as keeping records consistent across different logs/databases similar to how someone synchronizes their checkbook transaction register (log) records with their bank records, see MPEP 2106.05(g)).
As seen from the above discussion, the identified limitations did not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application (see MPEP 2106.04(d)). This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application because the additional elements related to high-level descriptions of transmitting and receiving information including requests/commands and respective synchronizing data/electronic recordkeeping.
Step 2B:
Below is the analysis of the claims:
receiving a first business synchronization request (recites well-understood, routine, and conventional activity of receiving information, see MPEP 2106.05(d));
and at least one of the following synchronization steps: if the first business synchronization request comes from an online document serving module, and synchronizing first business information in a first business information serving module on the basis of the determined business synchronization type; or if the first business synchronization request comes from the first business information serving module, synchronizing a record about the first business information in a target online document in the online document serving module on the basis of the first business synchronization request (recites well-understood, routine, and conventional activity of transmitting and receiving information, see MPEP 2106.05(d); if the synchronization is about records in a table, this concept is also similar to well-understood, routine, and conventional activity of electronic recordkeeping such as keeping records consistent across different logs/databases similar to how someone synchronizes their checkbook transaction register (log) records with their bank records, see MPEP 2106.05(d)).
As seen from above, the respective claim elements taken individually do not amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. When taken as a whole (in combination), the claim also does not amount to significantly more than the abstract idea because the additional elements are related to high-level descriptions of transmitting and receiving information including requests/commands and respective synchronizing data/electronic recordkeeping.
With regard to claim 2, this claim recites wherein the first business information comprises task information or an instant messaging message (recites field of use limitation describing the intended meaning or data type of the received data, see MPEP 2106.05(h)).
With regard to claim 3, this claim recites wherein the first business information serving module comprises an instant messaging serving module (recites field of use limitation describing the intended software/device name that is used by the claim and adds no meaningful limitation beyond that of the abstract idea, see MPEP 2106.05(h)).
With regard to claim 4, this claim recites wherein the first business synchronization request comprises at least one of: a request for creating, updating, or deleting the first business information in another serving module other than the serving module sending the first business synchronization request, a request for creating, updating, or deleting associated information of the first business information in another serving module other than the serving module sending the first business synchronization request, or a request for updating a preset state of the first business information in another serving module other than the serving module sending the first business synchronization request (recites field of use limitations describing the intended meaning of the request and its respective intended operation, see MPEP 2106.05(h)).
With regard to claim 5, this claim recites wherein the first business synchronization request is triggered by the online document serving module in response to a first preset operation of a user in the target online document, optionally, the first preset operation of the user in the online document comprising: entering, by the user, a preset type of data in a first preset task field in the online document; or the first business synchronization request is triggered by the first business information serving module in response to monitoring a synchronization event of the first business information, optionally, the synchronization event of the first business information comprising at least one of: the user creating, updating, or deleting the first business information, the user creating, updating, or deleting the associated information of the first business information, or the user updating a preset state of the first business information (recites various optional limitations with BRI including at least the first limitation which recites a user indicating that they want a synchronization request via transmitting information (preset operation) to start the request).
With regard to claim 8, this claim recites wherein the associated information comprises comment information (recites field of use limitation describing the intended meaning of the stored data, see MPEP 2106.05(h)).
With regard to claim 9, this claim recites wherein if the first business information is task information, the preset state of the first business information comprises a state of whether a task is completed (recites field of use limitation describing the intended meaning or data type of the underlying data, see MPEP 2106.05(h)).
With regard to claim 10, this claim recites wherein the target online document comprises an online table associated with a set of the first business information, a field of the online table being associated with a parameter of the first business information, and one row or column of records in the online table being associated with one piece of first business information (recites field of use limitation describing the intended meaning or data type of the underlying data, see MPEP 2106.05(h)).
With regard to claim 11, wherein the synchronizing first business information on the basis of the determined business synchronization type comprises: determining whether the first business information exists (recites mental process steps of evaluating whether a record/entry has already occurred, e.g., the steps a person takes when comparing/evaluating bank records to checkbook register, seeing if a transaction in the bank records has already been recorded in the checkbook register);
if the first business synchronization request is not a request for creating the first business information and the first business information does not exist, returning, to the online document serving module, first prompt information about a request failure; or if the first business synchronization request is a request for creating the first business information and the first business information exists, returning, to the online document serving module, second prompt information about a request failure (recites insignificant extrasolution activity of transmitting information which amounts to well-understood, routine, and conventional activity of transmitting information, see MPEP 2106.05(d)).
With regard to claim 12, this claim recites wherein the synchronizing first business information on the basis of the determined business synchronization type comprises: if the first business synchronization request comprises a request for creating or updating the first business information, determining whether content of the first business information to be created or updated meets a first preset condition (recites mental process steps of evaluating information to form a judgement/decision);
and if the first preset condition is not met, returning, to the online document serving module, third prompt information about a request failure (recites insignificant extrasolution activity of transmitting information which amounts to well-understood, routine, and conventional activity of transmitting information, see MPEP 2106.05(d)).
With regard to claim 13, this claim recites wherein the synchronizing first business information on the basis of the determined business synchronization type comprises: if the first business synchronization request comprises a request for creating or updating the first business information (recites mental process step of evaluating and determining intent/command of the received request), creating a reminder time on the basis of the first business information to be created or updated (recites mental process step of forming a judgement on when to do a task or revisit a decision associated with the task/activity), such that the first business information serving module sends preset reminder information to a target user at the reminder time (recites insignificant extrasolution activity of transmitting information at a particular time which amounts to well-understood, routine, and conventional activity of transmitting information at a particular time, see MPEP 2106.05(d)).
With regard to claim 14, this claim recites wherein the synchronizing first business information on the basis of the determined business synchronization type comprises: after the synchronization of the first business information is completed, updating a record about a synchronization state of the first business synchronization request in the target online document (recites insignificant extrasolution activity of electronic recordkeeping which amounts to well-understood, routine, and conventional activity of electronic recordkeeping, see MPEP 2106.05(d)).
With regard to claim 15, this claim recites pre-acquiring an address of the target online document entered by the user (recites insignificant extrasolution activity of data gathering/receiving information at a high-level of generality and amounts to well-understood, routine, and conventional activity of data gathering/receiving information, see MPEP 2106.05(d));
and determining the target online document on the basis of the address of the target online document (recites mental process steps of evaluating/analyzing information to make a determination/judgement, similar to how a user uses an address or unit/store number to determine the building/door/room they want, e.g. room number 555 would allow a user to know that the room/door they are looking for is on the 5th floor and is labeled 555; also similar to library Dewey Decimal system or other library categorization scheme that allows users to determine where in the building a desired document/book is located).
With regard to claim 16, this claim recites acquiring a collaborator permission of the target online document (recites insignificant extrasolution activity of receiving information which amounts to well-understood, routine, and conventional activity of receiving information, see MPEP 2106.05(d)),
the collaborator permission comprising a permission for reading and editing content of the target online document (recites at a high-level of generality technological environment limitations describing access rights/permissions of files and their intended meaning, see MPEP 2106.05(h)), and adds no meaningful limitation beyond that of the abstract idea).
With regard to claim 17, this claim recites wherein the acquiring a collaborator permission of the target online document comprises: acquiring preset application identity information (recites insignificant extrasolution activity of receiving information which amounts to well-understood, routine, and conventional activity of receiving information, see MPEP 2106.05(d));
and configuring, for a preset application corresponding to the preset application identity information, the collaborator permission of the target online document (recites at a high-level of generality technological environment limitations describing access rights/permissions of files and their intended meaning including a default user permission which the Examiner notes can differ from an Administrative User permission (or Super User in Linux), see MPEP 2106.05(h)), and adds no meaningful limitation beyond that of the abstract idea).
With regard to claim 18, this claim recites wherein the synchronizing a record about the first business information in a target online document in the online document serving module comprises: updating the record about the first business information in the target online document by the preset application (recites insignificant extrasolution activity of electronic recordkeeping or storing information in memory which amounts to well-understood, routine, and conventional activity of electronic recordkeeping or storing information, see MPEP 2106.05(d)).
With regard to claim 19, this claim recites wherein the updating a record about a synchronization state of the first business synchronization request in the target online document comprises: updating the record about the synchronization state of the first business synchronization request in the target online document by a preset application (recites insignificant extrasolution activity of electronic recordkeeping or storing information in memory which amounts to well-understood, routine, and conventional activity of electronic recordkeeping or storing information, see MPEP 2106.05(d)),
the preset application being pre-configured with a collaborator permission of the target online document (recites at a high-level of generality, technological environment limitations describing access rights/permissions of files and their intended meaning including a default user permission which the Examiner notes can differ from an Administrative User permission (or Super User in Linux), see MPEP 2106.05(h)), and adds no meaningful limitation beyond that of the abstract idea).
With regard to claim 20, this claim recites presetting a template document for synchronizing the first business information (recites field of use limitations describing the document type to be a template document or blank form with defined but blank fields, similar to creating documents that will be printed (distributed) to others to fill out such as surveys or permission slips, see MPEP 2106.05(h); the presetting relates to data gathering of the particular template document which recites insignificant extrasolution activity of mere data gathering/receiving information which amounts to well-understood, routine, and conventional activity of data gathering/receiving information, see MPEP 2106.05(d));
determining whether the target online document is the template document (recites mental process step of evaluation/analysis and forming a decision/judgement);
and if determining that the target online document is not the template document, newly adding the template document in the target online document (recites insignificant extrasolution activity of storing information in memory which amounts to well-understood, routine, and conventional activity of storing information in memory, see MPEP 2106.05(d)).
With regard to claims 23 and 24, these claims are substantially similar to claim 1 and are rejected for similar reasons as discussed above.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (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 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.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claims 1-5, 14, 23, and 24 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wu et al [CN 114500570 A] (from IDS) in view of Lee et al [US 2004/0068516 A1].
With regard to claim 1, Wu teaches an information synchronization processing method, comprising: receiving a first business synchronization request (see page 13, first and second paragraphs; the system can receive information that is to be synchronized including edits/updates;
“S204, responding to the editing operation of the task content data corresponding to the index information the target task of the client of the second service type, sending the data updating request to the task server.”, page 13, first paragraph;
“The data update request includes: updating the content corresponding to the editing operation, so that the task server updates the task content data corresponding to the index information the target task.”, page 13, second paragraph);
and at least one of the following synchronization steps: if the first business synchronization request comes from an online document serving module, determining a business synchronization type of the first business synchronization request, and synchronizing first business information in a first business information serving module on the basis of the determined business synchronization type; or if the first business synchronization request comes from the first business information serving module, synchronizing a record about the first business information in a target online document in the online document serving module on the basis of the first business synchronization request (see page 13, last paragraph on page 13 through top of page 14; the system allows for first business serving modules (service type clients) to be the source of a synchronizing operation where the server or online document serving module makes the appropriate changes to the respective task records/indexes;
“In this embodiment, by responding to the second service type client end of the target task index information to the task content data editing operation, sending the data updating request to the task server, the data updating request comprises: editing the updated content corresponding to the operation, so that the task server updates the task content data corresponding to the index information the target task, so it can update the task content data stored in the task server by editing the task content data in the task panel, Therefore, the task content data displayed in the online document can be synchronized with the task content data in the task panel.”; last paragraph on page 13).
Wu does not appear to explicitly teach:
determining a serving module from which the first business synchronization request comes.
Lee teaches determining a serving module from which the first business synchronization request comes (see paragraphs [0016], [0033], [0046], and [0052]-[0053]; the system has means to determine which way the synchronization is going in order to update the appropriate endpoint accordingly;
“The file transport module 1023 serves as a middle layer between the proxy module 1021 and the local file server 103 or the central file server 123. The file transport module 1023 is used for downloading copies of files from the its local file server 103, or for downloading latest editions of files from the central file server 123 and uploading said latest editions of files to the local file server 103.”, paragraph 46).
It would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to modify the task processing system of Wu by including means for being able to determine whether to be sending information from the database/online document serving module storage to a business information serving module/client or vice versa and updating the respective database/online document serving module storage as taught by Lee in order to be able to have an automated module be able to handle incoming and outgoing requests and be able to discern if an update actually needs to occur based on whether the receiving device has the latest updated version already thus saving network bandwidth and processing time of having to retrieve and transmit data that the receiving device already has.
With regard to claim 2, Wu in view of Lee teach wherein the first business information comprises task information or an instant messaging message (see Wu, third from last paragraph on page 14; the information is task information;
“The user can edit the task content data in the task type document block the display interface of the document 1, for example, it can edit the task name, task executor, task attention, task cut-off time and so on.”, third from last paragraph on page 14).
With regard to claim 3, Wu in view of Lee teach wherein the first business information serving module comprises an instant messaging serving module (see Wu, page 6, second to last paragraph; instant messaging module can be used;
“The technical solution of the present disclosure can be applied to the instant communication application program as a cooperative working platform, the instant communication application program comprises a plurality of application clients, such as, instant messaging application client and online document application client, in the instant communication application program can be built online document,”, second to last paragraph on page 6).
With regard to claim 4, Wu in view of Lee teach wherein the first business synchronization request comprises at least one of: a request for creating, updating, or deleting the first business information in another serving module other than the serving module sending the first business synchronization request, a request for creating, updating, or deleting associated information of the first business information in another serving module other than the serving module sending the first business synchronization request, or a request for updating a preset state of the first business information in another serving module other than the serving module sending the first business synchronization request (see Wu, see last paragraph on page 12 through first paragraph on page 13; the system can do updating information that allows for updating information at another module/device).
With regard to claim 5, Wu in view of Lee teach wherein the first business synchronization request is triggered by the online document serving module in response to a first preset operation of a user in the target online document, optionally, the first preset operation of the user in the online document comprising: entering, by the user, a preset type of data in a first preset task field in the online document; or the first business synchronization request is triggered by the first business information serving module in response to monitoring a synchronization event of the first business information, optionally, the synchronization event of the first business information comprises comprising at least one of: the user creating, updating, or deleting the first business information, the user creating, updating, or deleting the associated information of the first business information, or the user updating a preset state of the first business information (see Wu, second whole paragraph on page 13 through second to last paragraph on page 13; the user is able to edit information for online document including task information and the system can automatically have means to propagate that information, i.e. synchronization, with another device).
With regard to claim 14, Wu in view of Lee teach wherein the synchronizing first business information on the basis of the determined business synchronization type comprises: after the synchronization of the first business information is completed, updating a record about a synchronization state of the first business synchronization request in the target online document (see Lee, paragraph [0040]; the system can record and update information about the synchronization state such as time of last update).
With regard to claims 23 and 24, these claims are substantially similar to claim 1 and are rejected for similar reasons as discussed above.
Claims 8-10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wu et al [CN 114500570 A] (from IDS) in view of Lee et al [US 2004/0068516 A1] in further view of Silk et al [US 2019/0138587 A1].
With regard to claim 8, Wu in view of Lee teach all the claim limitations of claims 1 and 4 as discussed above.
Wu in view of Lee do not appear to explicitly teach: wherein the associated information comprises comment information.
Silk teaches wherein the associated information comprises comment information (see paragraph [0133]; the business data can have comments associated with it).
It would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to modify the task processing system of Wu in view of Lee by including means for comments to be associated with the respective data as taught by Silk in order to be able to not only have information and data associated with tasks but also comments that can be provided by users to provide notes, suggestions, or context about various portions of the data for the tasks thereby increasing the flexibility of the system to be able to handle both underlying data and associated comments.
With regard to claim 9, Wu in view of Lee teach all the claim limitations of claims 1 and 4 as discussed above.
Wu in view of Lee do not appear to explicitly teach: wherein if the first business information is task information, the preset state of the first business information comprises a state of whether a task is completed.
Silk teaches wherein if the first business information is task information, the preset state of the first business information comprises a state of whether a task is completed (see paragraph [0117]; the system includes information about the state of a task and whether it is completed).
It would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to modify the task processing system of Wu in view of Lee by including information about the status of the tasks as taught by Silk in order to allow users to be able to provide status updates on the task thus allowing the system to not only have task information including cut-off/due date but also various status indicators for various tasks to unequivocally inform users of the system reviewing the data what the status of the task is.
With regard to claim 10, Wu in view of Lee teach all the claim limitations of claim 1 as discussed above.
Wu in view of Lee teach discuss tables (see Wu, last paragraph on page 6 through top paragraph on page 7) but do not appear to explicitly teach: wherein the target online document comprises an online table associated with a set of the first business information, a field of the online table being associated with a parameter of the first business information, and one row or column of records in the online table being associated with one piece of first business information.
Silk teaches wherein the target online document comprises an online table associated with a set of the first business information, a field of the online table being associated with a parameter of the first business information, and one row or column of records in the online table being associated with one piece of first business information (see Figure 7; the document/file can be a table with business information including fields and rows/columns for records).
It would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to modify the task processing system of Wu in view of Lee by utilizing tables with various fields and rows for business information as taught by Silk in order to for information to be stored in a logically structured format that allows for easy understanding of the underlying data while still having the flexibility to discern and perform other functionality/calculations with the data including totals/summations thus saving the user from having to do any of the analysis calculations manually.
Claim 11 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wu et al [CN 114500570 A] (from IDS) in view of Lee et al [US 2004/0068516 A1] in further view of Guturu et al [US 6,581,075].
With regard to claim 11, Wu in view of Lee teach all the claim limitations of claim 1 as discussed above.
Wu in view of Lee teach do not appear to explicitly teach:
wherein the synchronizing first business information on the basis of the determined business synchronization type comprises:
determining whether the first business information exists;
if the first business synchronization request is not a request for creating the first business information and the first business information does not exist, returning, to the online document serving module, first prompt information about a request failure;
or if the first business synchronization request is a request for creating the first business information and the first business information exists, returning, to the online document serving module, second prompt information about a request failure.
Guturu teaches wherein the synchronizing first business information on the basis of the determined business synchronization type comprises: determining whether the first business information exists; if the first business synchronization request is not a request for creating the first business information and the first business information does not exist, returning, to the online document serving module, first prompt information about a request failure; or if the first business synchronization request is a request for creating the first business information and the first business information exists, returning, to the online document serving module, second prompt information about a request failure (see col 4, lines 54-59 and col 4, lines 14-32; the system can determine whether the information exists already and depending on the type of action/request, the system will be able to provide a respective notification of failure).
It would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to modify the task processing system of Wu in view of Lee by being able to evaluate whether the corresponding data already exists as taught by Guturu in order to determine if the respective action/operation will cause data integrity issues such as trying to create a new record while an existing record exists or updating information in a record that doesn’t exist thereby helping to prevent any unexpected system errors by preventing those actions from occurring and informing the respective user of the operations/actions failure.
Claim 12 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wu et al [CN 114500570 A] (from IDS) in view of Lee et al [US 2004/0068516 A1] in further view of Griffin et al [US 6,442,714].
With regard to claim 12, Wu in view of Lee teach all the claim limitations of claim 1 as discussed above.
Wu in view of Lee teach do not appear to explicitly teach:
wherein the synchronizing first business information on the basis of the determined business synchronization type comprises: if the first business synchronization request comprises a request for creating or updating the first business information, determining whether content of the first business information to be created or updated meets a first preset condition; and if the first preset condition is not met, returning, to the online document serving module, third prompt information about a request failure.
Griffin wherein the synchronizing first business information on the basis of the determined business synchronization type comprises: if the first business synchronization request comprises a request for creating or updating the first business information, determining whether content of the first business information to be created or updated meets a first preset condition; and if the first preset condition is not met, returning, to the online document serving module, third prompt information about a request failure (see col 3, line 64 through col 4, line 5; the system analyze new records or business information to see if it meets a preset condition such as filling in mandatory fields so the record is complete).
It would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to modify the task processing system of Wu in view of Lee by being able to evaluate the respective data according to various rules/conditions as taught by Griffin in order to help maintain data integrity by ensuring that all data that is added/inserted into the system is in compliance with various rules/conditions including having mandatory information/fields filled.
Claim 13 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wu et al [CN 114500570 A] (from IDS) in view of Lee et al [US 2004/0068516 A1] in further view of Soni [US 2018/0152407 A1].
With regard to claim 13, Wu in view of Lee teach all the claim limitations of claim 1 as discussed above.
Wu in view of Lee teach do not appear to explicitly teach:
wherein the synchronizing first business information on the basis of the determined business synchronization type comprises: if the first business synchronization request comprises a request for creating or updating the first business information, creating a reminder time on the basis of the first business information to be created or updated, such that the first business information serving module sends preset reminder information to a target user at the reminder time.
Soni teaches wherein the synchronizing first business information on the basis of the determined business synchronization type comprises: if the first business synchronization request comprises a request for creating or updating the first business information, creating a reminder time on the basis of the first business information to be created or updated, such that the first business information serving module sends preset reminder information to a target user at the reminder time (see paragraph [0038]; the user is able to set up a reminder time about the task where the system will send out a reminder at the designated time).
It would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to modify the task processing system of Wu in view of Lee by being able to setup a reminder time as taught by Soni in order to save collaborating users time and effort of having to keep track of all the different tasks/sub-tasks and to have to know or remember when to follow-up with other users on the progress of various tasks/sub-tasks by, at creation time, be able to set an automatic reminder to the target/recipient user.
Claim 15 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wu et al [CN 114500570 A] (from IDS) in view of Lee et al [US 2004/0068516 A1] in further view of Chapweske et al [US 8,395,652].
With regard to claim 15, Wu in view of Lee teach all the claim limitations of claim 1 as discussed above.
Wu in view of Lee teach do not appear to explicitly teach:
pre-acquiring an address of the target online document entered by the user; and determining the target online document on the basis of the address of the target online document.
Chapweske teaches pre-acquiring an address of the target online document entered by the user; and determining the target online document on the basis of the address of the target online document (see col 11, lines 14-44; the system can allow a user to enter a request for a document including with an address or URL where the system can utilize that information to identify and retrieve the file).
It would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to modify the task processing system of Wu in view of Lee by being able to use file/document address or location with a request to retrieve/access the file/document as taught by Chapweske in order to provide greater clarity and non-ambiguousness to the system with respect to being able to know not only the file name but also the location/address for locating the desired file thus helping to ensure that systems with the same file name (but in different directories/folders) can easily identify which file the user is requesting.
Claims 16-18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wu et al [CN 114500570 A] (from IDS) in view of Lee et al [US 2004/0068516 A1] in further view of Chapweske et al [US 8,395,652] and in further view of Savage et al [US 2016/0065672 A1].
With regard to claim 16, Wu in view of Lee in further view of Chapweske teach all the claim limitations of claims 1 and 15 as discussed above.
Wu in view of Lee in further view of Chapweske do not appear to explicitly teach:
acquiring a collaborator permission of the target online document, the collaborator permission comprising a permission for reading and editing content of the target online document.
Savage teaches acquiring a collaborator permission of the target online document, the collaborator permission comprising a permission for reading and editing content of the target online document (see paragraphs [0042]-[0043]; the system can set permissions for various users and for respective documents/files).
It would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to modify the task processing system of Wu in view of Lee in further view of Chapweske by being able to set permissions for users and files as taught by Savage in order to help ensure document/file integrity and security by ensuring that only particular users are able to edit/change content and also making sure that unauthorized users cannot access the files/documents.
With regard to claim 17, Wu in view of Lee in further view of Chapweske in further view of Savage teach wherein the acquiring a collaborator permission of the target online document comprises: acquiring preset application identity information; and configuring, for a preset application corresponding to the preset application identity information, the collaborator permission of the target online document (see paragraph [0073] and Table 1; the system can also set permissions for the applications that a user can use to access the file/document).
With regard to claim 18, Wu in view of Lee in further view of Chapweske in further view of Savage teach wherein the synchronizing a record about the first business information in a target online document in the online document serving module comprises: updating the record about the first business information in the target online document by the preset application (see Savage, paragraph [0073] and Table 1; see Wu, see last paragraph on page 12 through first paragraph on page 13; the system can do updating information that allows for updating information at another module/device) .
Claim 19 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wu et al [CN 114500570 A] (from IDS) in view of Lee et al [US 2004/0068516 A1] in further view of Savage et al [US 2016/0065672 A1].
With regard to claim 19, Wu in view of Lee teach all the claim limitations of claims 1 and 14 as discussed above.
Wu in view of Lee teach do not appear to explicitly teach:
wherein the updating a record about a synchronization state of the first business synchronization request in the target online document comprises: updating the record about the synchronization state of the first business synchronization request in the target online document by a preset application, the preset application being pre-configured with a collaborator permission of the target online document.
Savage teaches a preset application, the preset application being pre-configured with a collaborator permission of the target online document (see paragraph [0073] and Table 1; the system can also set permissions for the applications that a user can use to access the file/document).
It would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to modify the task processing system of Wu in view of Lee by being able to set permissions for users and files as taught by Savage in order to help ensure document/file integrity and security by ensuring that only particular users are able to edit/change content and also making sure that unauthorized users cannot access the files/documents as well as provide greater security to the system based on permissions being utilized on what applications users are allowed to use.
Wu in view of Lee in further view of Savage teach wherein the updating a record about a synchronization state of the first business synchronization request in the target online document comprises: updating the record about the synchronization state of the first business synchronization request in the target online document by a preset application, the preset application being pre-configured with a collaborator permission of the target online document (see Savage, paragraph [0073] and Table 1; see Wu, see last paragraph on page 12 through first paragraph on page 13; the system can do updating information that allows for updating information at another module/device).
Claim 20 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wu et al [CN 114500570 A] (from IDS) in view of Lee et al [US 2004/0068516 A1] in further view of Chapweske et al [US 8,395,652] in further view of Zheng et al [US 2017/0351655 A1].
With regard to claim 20, Wu in view of Lee in further view of Chapweske teach all the claim limitations of claims 1 and 15 as discussed above.
Wu in view of Lee in further view of Chapweske do not appear to explicitly teach:
presetting a template document for synchronizing the first business information;
determining whether the target online document is the template document;
and if determining that the target online document is not the template document, newly adding the template document in the target online document.
Zheng teaches presetting a template document for synchronizing the first business information (see paragraphs [0014]-[0016]; the system can preset or generate templates ahead of time that can be used for the creation of documents).
It would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to modify the task processing system of Wu in view of Lee in further view of Chapweske by being able to create and use templates as taught by Zheng in order to provide greater flexibility and adaptability to the system to be able to create templates or defined reusable components that users of the system can use to add or create their documents with thus helping to speed up (i.e. reduce) the time users spend creating documents since they don’t have to create documents from scratch every single time.
Wu in view of Lee in further view of Chapweske in further view of Zheng teach determining whether the target online document is the template document; and if determining that the target online document is not the template document, newly adding the template document in the target online document (see Zhen, paragraphs [0014]-[0016]; see Wu, second to last paragraph on page 6 through top paragraph on page 7; the system allows users to be able to create documents, document templates, and also respective editing of templates or documents where the system can determine that a selection of a template can be used to create a respective document).
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure:
Jakobson [US 2008/0209417 A1] teaches Instant Messenger task records and synchronization including task status as illustrated in Figures 4A-4D and paragraphs [0028] and [0056].
Goetz et al [US 2012/0042003 A1] teaches an illustrative task table at Figure 5A that shows various information about tasks including priority, status, due date and task title/name, identifier and description.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MARC S SOMERS whose telephone number is (571)270-3567. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 11-8 EST.
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, Ann Lo can be reached at 5712729767. 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.
/MARC S SOMERS/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2159 9/4/2026
