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 .
Continuity/reexam data
Parent data
19193504 filed 04/29/2025 is a Continuation of 18239077 , filed 08/28/2023 ,now U.S. Patent # 12287799
18239077 is a Continuation of 17568526 , filed 01/04/2022 ,now U.S. Patent # 11741115
17568526 is a Continuation of 17510349 , filed 10/25/2021 ,now U.S. Patent # 11442950
17510349 is a Continuation of 17127872 , filed 12/18/2020 ,now U.S. Patent # 11157505
17127872 Claims Priority from Provisional Application 62951748 , filed 12/20/2019
17127872 is a Continuation in Part of 16889409 , filed 06/01/2020 ,now U.S. Patent # 10970349
16889409 Claims Priority from Provisional Application 62854682 , filed 05/30/2019
16889409 is a Continuation in Part of 16164465 , filed 10/18/2018 ,now U.S. Patent # 10762060
16164465 Claims Priority from Provisional Application 62573914 , filed 10/18/2017
Child data
None
Foreign data
No foreign data information
(*) - Request to retrieve electronic copy of foreign priority from participating receiving offices.
Examiner notes: The server in claim 17 as defined in paragraph 0016 including hardware and memory.
1. Claims presented for examination: 1-20
Information Disclosure Statement
2. The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 04/29/2025. The submission is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement is being considered by the examiner.
Priority
3. No Foreign priority was filed.
Drawings
4. The drawing was accepted for examination.
Double Patenting
The nonstatutory double patenting rejection is based on a judicially created doctrine grounded in public policy (a policy reflected in the statute) so as to prevent the unjustified or improper timewise extension of the “right to exclude” granted by a patent and to prevent possible harassment by multiple assignees. A nonstatutory double patenting rejection is appropriate where the conflicting claims are not identical, but at least one examined application claim is not patentably distinct from the reference claim(s) because the examined application claim is either anticipated by, or would have been obvious over, the reference claim(s). See, e.g., In re Berg, 140 F.3d 1428, 46 USPQ2d 1226 (Fed. Cir. 1998); In re Goodman, 11 F.3d 1046, 29 USPQ2d 2010 (Fed. Cir. 1993); In re Longi, 759 F.2d 887, 225 USPQ 645 (Fed. Cir. 1985); In re Van Ornum, 686 F.2d 937, 214 USPQ 761 (CCPA 1982); In re Vogel, 422 F.2d 438, 164 USPQ 619 (CCPA 1970); In re Thorington, 418 F.2d 528, 163 USPQ 644 (CCPA 1969).
A timely filed terminal disclaimer in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(c) or 1.321(d) may be used to overcome an actual or provisional rejection based on nonstatutory double patenting provided the reference application or patent either is shown to be commonly owned with the examined application, or claims an invention made as a result of activities undertaken within the scope of a joint research agreement. See MPEP § 717.02 for applications subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA as explained in MPEP § 2159. See MPEP § 2146 et seq. for applications not subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA . A terminal disclaimer must be signed in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(b).
The filing of a terminal disclaimer by itself is not a complete reply to a nonstatutory double patenting (NSDP) rejection. A complete reply requires that the terminal disclaimer be accompanied by a reply requesting reconsideration of the prior Office action. Even where the NSDP rejection is provisional the reply must be complete. See MPEP § 804, subsection I.B.1. For a reply to a non-final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.111(a). For a reply to final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.113(c). A request for reconsideration while not provided for in 37 CFR 1.113(c) may be filed after final for consideration. See MPEP §§ 706.07(e) and 714.13.
The USPTO Internet website contains terminal disclaimer forms which may be used. Please visit www.uspto.gov/patent/patents-forms. The actual filing date of the application in which the form is filed determines what form (e.g., PTO/SB/25, PTO/SB/26, PTO/AIA /25, or PTO/AIA /26) should be used. A web-based eTerminal Disclaimer may be filled out completely online using web-screens. An eTerminal Disclaimer that meets all requirements is auto-processed and approved immediately upon submission. For more information about eTerminal Disclaimers, refer to www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/applying-online/eterminal-disclaimer.
5. Claims 1-20 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-20 of U.S. Patent No. 10,097,349 B1. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because both application claim language direct to similar which include nodal data structure which each of the node include subset of file and linking the node to each other nodes. The 349 includes other limitation such as scanning and retrieving set of file, generating the identifier for files, access history and generating score for each messages and output the set of notification according to scores. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one ordinary skill in the art to remove the additional limitation to arrive the same invention as claimed.
6. Claims 1-20 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-20 of U.S. Patent No. 11,115,505 B2. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because both application claim language direct to similar which include nodal data structure which each of the node include subset of file and linking the node to each other nodes. The 505 includes other limitation such as scanning the repositories to identify set of data include subset of data which performed by a device, generating identification for subset of data, retrieving the node include the content and presenting the document including context data. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one ordinary skill in the art to remove the additional limitation to arrive the same invention as claimed.
7. Claims 1-20 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-20 of U.S. Patent No. 11,442,950 B2. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because both application claim language direct to similar which include nodal data structure which each of the node include subset of file and linking the node to each other nodes. The 950 includes other limitations such as a uniform resource locator or at least one action performed using at least one computing device, determining using an identification of electronic document, at least one node within a set of nodes of nodal data structure, a notification include context data associated with other linked node, the presented context data indicating . Therefore, it would have been obvious to one ordinary skill in the art to remove the additional limitation to arrive the same invention as claimed.
8. Claims 1-20 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-20 of U.S. Patent No. 11/741115 B2. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because both application claim language direct to similar which include nodal data structure which each of the node include subset of file and linking the node to each other nodes. The 349 includes other limitation such as each subset of the set of data representing at least one file, a uniform resource locator, or an action performed using computer device, determining at least one node within the set of nodes of the nodal data structure the corresponds to query term and displaying context data associated with one node linked to other node. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one ordinary skill in the art to remove the additional limitation to arrive the same invention as claimed.
9. Claims 1-20 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-20 of U.S. Patent No. 12,287,799 B2. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because both application claim language direct to similar which include nodal data structure which each of the node include subset of file and linking the node to each other nodes. The 799 includes other limitation such executing a computer model using a nodal data structure by inputting the indication that the user has interacted with the presentation of the subset of the set of data. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one ordinary skill in the art to remove the additional limitation to arrive the same invention as claimed.
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.
10. Claims 9-16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to non-statutory subject matter. The claim(s) 9 does/do not fall within at least one of the four categories of patent eligible subject matter because in specification paragraph 00506 does not exclude the computer readable medium from signal or wave. Therefore, the computer readable medium encompasses signal and/or wave. Signal is not one of the statutory subject matter. Applicant specification Applicant(s) is advises to use the acceptable term “non-transitory computer readable storage medium”.
Claim 10-16 are rejected under the same reason as to claim 9.
11. Claims 1-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to abstract idea without significantly more.
Step 1 (See MPEP 2106)
Claims 1-20 are directed to a method, a system and one or more non-transitory computer readable storage media which belongs to a statutory class.
Step 2A, Prong One:
Claims 1, 9 and 16 recites “identifying, by at least one processor, a nodal data structure associated with at least one of the computing device, the first user of users, or the set of data and wherein each pair of nodes that comprises two nodes relevant to each other based on a relevancy threshold are associated together within the modal data structure and identifying, by the at least one processor using the nodal data structure, at least one node corresponding the subset of the set of data and at least one second user within a second set of users associated with the subset of the set of data” which is a process that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation by Mental Process, but for the recitation of generic computer components. Nothing in the claim element precludes the steps from practically being performed in the human mind. If a claim limitation, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation by mental process, but for the recitation of generic computer components, then it falls within the “Mental Processes” grouping of abstract ideas. Accordingly, the claim recites an abstract idea.
Step 2A, Prong Two:
Claims 1, 9 and 17, the method processed by process, the system including memory and instructions, the one or more non-transitory media are computer or computer components. These are generic computer components and program which use to perform abstract ideas.
"receiving, by at least one processor, an indication that a first user within a first set of users has accessed a digital representation of subset of a set of data outputted by a computing device" is insignificant extra-solution activity. This limitation recited as retrieval/receiving of data (i.e. mere data gathering) or at most selecting a particular data source (i.e. the record) to be manipulate (i.e. by a transaction). This does not provide integration into a practical application.
“presenting, by the at least one processor to the computing device, data corresponding to the at least one node within the nodal data structure” is insignificant extra-solution activity. This limitation recited as to check whether the request is in compliance with set format. This does not provide integration into a practical application.
The limitation is thus insignificant extra-solution activity. Limitations that the courts have found not to be enough to qualify as "significantly more” when recited in a claim with a judicial exception include: i. Adding the words "apply it” (or an equivalent) with the judicial exception, or mere instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer, e.g., a limitation indicating that a particular function such as creating and maintaining electronic records is performed by a computer, as discussed in Alice Corp., 134 S. Ct. at 2360, 110 USPQ2d at 1984 (see MPEP § 2106.05(f)). 2106.05(g)--Insignificant Extra-Solution Activity.
Step 2B:
The conclusions for the mere implementation using a computer are carried over and do not provide significantly more.
With respect to the "receivings” and “presenting” are identified as insignificant extra-solution activity in Step 2A Prong 2, when re-evaluated at Step 2B this limitation is well-understood, routine, and conventional and remains insignificant extra-solution activity. See MPEP 2106.05(d)(II) "i. Receiving or transmitting data over a network, e.g., using the Internet to gather data, Symantec, 838 F.3d at 1321, 120 USPQ2d at 1362 (utilizing an intermediary computer to forward information); OIP Techs., Inc., v. Amazon.com, Inc., 788 F.3d 1359, 1363, 115 USPQ2d 1090, 1093 (Fed. Cir. 2015) (sending messages over a network); buySAFE, Inc. v. Google, Inc., 765 F.3d 1350, 1355, 112 USPQ2d 1093, 1096 (Fed. Cir. 2014) (computer receives and sends information over a network)." To the extent this is a request for "transactions" on records that is also well-understood, routine and conventional. See MPEP 2106.05(d)(II) "ii. Electronic recordkeeping, …Ultramercial, 772 F.3d at 716, 112 USPQ2d at 1755 (updating an activity log)". This limitation does not provide significantly more.
Looking at the claim as a whole does not change this conclusion and the claim is ineligible.
As to claims 2, 10 and 18, the limitation “wherein the first set of users is the same the second set of users” is only further define what data is and insignificant to amount significantly more.
As to claims 3, 11 and 19, the limitation “wherein the data corresponding toe the at least one node within the nodal structure comprises an image of the user” is only further define what data is and insignificant to amount significantly more.
As to claim 4, 12 and 20, the limitation “wherein the data corresponding to the at least one node within nodal data structure comprises contact information of the second user” is only further define what data is and insignificant to amount significantly more.
As to claims 5 and 13, the limitation “wherein the data corresponding to the at least one node within the nodal data structure comprises an indication of a projected associated with the second user” is only defined what the data is and insignificant to amount significantly more.
As to claims 6 and 14, the limitation “wherein the data corresponding to the least one node within the nodal data structure comprises an indication of a document associated with the second user or the subset of the set of data” is only defined what the data is and insignificant to amount significantly more.
As to claims 7 and 15 the limitation “wherein the data corresponding to the at least one node within the nodal data structure comprises an indication of a time period of association between the second user and the subset of the set of data” is only defined what the data is and insignificant to amount significantly more.
As to claims 8 and 16, the limitation “wherein the presented data further comprises an action can be taken corresponding to at least one of sending, sharing, accessing, downloading, printing, copying, transmitting, revising, creatin, opening, saving, seeing related nodes, or getting directions” is additional element which only presenting data to the user and is insignificant to amount significantly more.
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.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
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.
12. Claim(s) 1-20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Zhou et al. (Pub. No. US 2012/0047149 A1) in view of Cambron (Pub. No. US 2003/0198180A1).
As to claim 1, discloses a method comprising:
receiving, by at least one processor, an indication that a first user within a first set of users has accessed a digital representation of a subset of a set of data outputted by a computing device (users accessing the electronic document can quickly jumb to the related subject) (paragraph 0003);
identifying, by the at least one processor, a nodal data structure associated with at least one of the computing device, the first user, the first set of users, or the set of data, wherein each node within the set of nodes corresponds to a respective subset of the set of data, and
wherein each pair of nodes that comprises two nodes relevant to each other based on a relevancy threshold are associated together within the nodal data structure (hence, as will be apparent from the above example, in case it is determine the category distance between a pair of link nodes 110 falls within the defined threshold…) (paragraph 0028);
identifying, by the at least one processor using the nodal data structure, at least one node corresponding to the subset of the set of data and at least one second user within a second set of users associated with the subset of the set of data (a node is kept in the graph if it is matched a phrase in the document 300 or it is directly linked to a node that is match to a phase in the electronic document 300) (paragraph 0032); and
Hughes does not discloses presenting, by the at least one processor to the computing device, data corresponding to the at least one node within the nodal data structure. However, Cambron discloses presenting, by the at least one processor to the computing device, data corresponding to the at least one node within the nodal data structure this is accomplished by selecting the node in the network view with the mouse, causing the pop-up context menu to appear which allows the use to display a close-up view of the node in the lower left or right quadrant as indicated in FIG. 5.5) (paragraph 0062). This suggests the claimed language presenting, by the at least one processor to the computing device, data corresponding to the at least one node within the nodal data structure. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the instant application to modify teaching of
As to claim 2, discloses the method of claim 1, wherein the first set of users is the same as the second set of users (users) (paragraph 0003).
As to claim 3, discloses the method of claim 1, wherein the data corresponding to the at least one node within the nodal data structure comprises an image of the second user (document is both text and image) (paragraph 0003).
As to claim 4, Zhou discloses the method of claim 1, wherein the data corresponding to the at least one node within the nodal data structure comprises contact information of the second user (document include profile which include contact information) (paragraph 0003).
As to claim 5, Zhou discloses the method of claim 1, wherein the data corresponding to the at least one node within the nodal data structure comprises an indication of a project associated with the second user (graph include document which is related to people) (paragraph 0028).
As to claim 6, Zhou discloses the method of claim 1, wherein the data corresponding to the at least one node within the nodal data structure comprises an indication of a document associated with the second user or the subset of the set of data (each document associated with user such as author, writer and/or people who upload or post document) (paragraph 0003).
As to claim 7, Zhou discloses the method of claim 1, wherein the data corresponding to the at least one node within the nodal data structure comprises an indication of a time period of association between the second user and the subset of the set of data (the time the document is upload the document) (paragraph 0003).
As to claim 8, Zhou discloses the method of claim 1, wherein the presented data further comprises an action can be taken corresponding to at least one of sending, sharing, accessing (accessing document) (paragraph 0003), downloading, printing, copying, transmitting, revising, creating, opening, saving, seeing related nodes, or getting directions.
Claim 9 is rejected under the same reason as to claim 1, Zhou discloses a computer-readable medium storing a set of instructions that when executed (a computer program stored on a suitable computer readable media storage device…) (paragraph 0045), cause at least one processor (executed on a computer) (paragraph 0045).
Claim 10 is rejected under the same reason as to claim 2.
Claim 11 is rejected under the same reason as to claim 3.
Claim 12 is rejected under the same reason as to claim 4.
Claim 13 is rejected under the same reason as to claim 5.
Claim 14 is rejected under the same reason as to claim 6.
Claim 15 is rejected under the same reason as to claim 7.
Claim 16 is rejected under the same reason as to claim 8.
Claim 16 is rejected under the same reason as to claim 1, Zhou discloses a system comprising: a server (server) (paragraph 0045).
Claim 17 is rejected under the same reason as to claim 2.
Claim 18 is rejected under the same reason as to claim 3.
Claim 19 is rejected under the same reason as to claim 4.
Claim 20 is rejected under the same reason as to claim 5.
Conclusion
13. Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to BAOQUOC N TO whose telephone number is (571)272-4041. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Fri 9AM - 6PM.
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, Boris Gorney can be reached at 571-270-5626. 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.
BAOQUOC N. TO
Examiner
Art Unit 2154
/BAOQUOC N TO/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2154