Patent Application 17731576 - AUTONOMOUS SHARABLE PROJECT WORKSPACES

Title: AUTONOMOUS SHARABLE PROJECT WORKSPACES
Application Information

Invention Title: AUTONOMOUS SHARABLE PROJECT WORKSPACES
Application Number: 17731576
Submission Date: 2025-05-16T00:00:00.000Z
Effective Filing Date: 2022-04-28T00:00:00.000Z
Filing Date: 2022-04-28T00:00:00.000Z
National Class: 705
National Sub-Class: 301000
Examiner Employee Number: 93287
Art Unit: 3619
Tech Center: 3600
Rejection Summary

102 Rejections: 0
103 Rejections: 2
Cited Patents

No patents were cited in this rejection.
Office Action Text


    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 .
Status of Claims
	This Office action is in response to correspondence received March 20, 2025.
	Claim 1 has been amended.  Claims 2-8 are canceled.  Claims 9-27 are newly added.  Claims 1 and 9-27 are pending and have been examined. 
Claim Objections
Claims 1, 26, and 27 are objected to because of the following informalities: the limitation beginning “processing the data elements” states “comprising” but should state “comprise” (“the identifying elements comprise keywords, expressions,…”).  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 and 9-27 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more. Claim(s) 1, 26, and 27, which are similar in scope, recite:
A method comprising  generating a project workspace by incorporating data elements, wherein the data elements comprise at least one of email conversations, productivity files, collaborator contacts, files, folders, URLs in browser tabs, meeting information, collaboration chat messages, and messages directed to specific individuals or groups that are pertinent to a project in which a user is working on
processing the data elements to parse a content, a context, and a metadata of the data elements
 extracting identifying elements from the data elements
 and associating the identifying elements with the project workspace, wherein the identifying elements comprising keywords, expressions, contacts, dates, and links
  [searching for] additional data elements to identify and associate the additional data elements with the project workspace
storing relevant data about the project comprising at least one of relationships between the project workspace and the data elements, associations with a master project and artifacts, extracted identifying elements from the data elements, ownership and permissions, a timeline of changes, and configuration data defining application inclusions within the project workspace and notification preferences
 presenting the project workspace  and 
 [presenting] only the data elements associated with the project
 and associating the project workspace with the master project to inherit the identifying elements and the data elements from the master project while allowing the additional data elements to be added to the project workspace, enabling differentiation from the master project.

The abstract idea is a certain method of organizing human activity – managing personal behavior or relationships or interactions between people.  The limitations here identify data elements including metadata which is data about data (file name, date saved) and create project spaces by linking different data elements together, and then presenting the results.  This is similar to filtering content; considering historical usage information while inputting data; or storing user-selected pre-set limits on spending in a database, and when one of the limits is reached, communicating a notification to the user via a device.  MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(II)(C).  Alternatively the steps are those of a mental process as each step is an observation (gathering data) or judgment (linking or otherwise evaluating data), then presenting the results which could be done with pen and paper.  MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(III).  Therefore, for these reasons the independent claims recite an abstract idea.  
 This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application.  The additional elements listed below are apply it elements because they are high level ordinary computer elements that when combined amount to instructions to apply the abstract idea to a computer.  See MPEP 2106.05(f)(2).  Therefore, as they are apply it elements the combination or any element alone does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application.  
Claim 1 recites:
executing a computer application on an operating system, wherein the computer application is configured for
scanning (searching on a computer)
additional data elements available on the operating system and cloud-based applications
rendering a user interface through a display module for
by modifying a graphical user interface (GUI) of the operating system,
displaying the project workspace within a browser, within the computer application, or using a combination thereof
displaying

Claim 26 recites similar elements to claim 1 plus:
A system comprising: a computer application that is configured for.
Claim 27 recites similar elements to claim 1 plus:
A non-transitory computer readable storage medium for storing a sequence of instructions which when executed by a processor causes.
The claim(s) does/do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because for the same reason that the elements do not alone or in combination integrate the abstract idea into a practical application, they also do not recite significantly more than the abstract idea.  Instructions to apply the abstract idea to a computer are not significantly more than the abstract idea.  
Per the dependent claims:
Per claim 9, executing a computer application is a further apply it limitation analyzed the same as the ordinary computer elements above.
Per claim 10, the enabling limitation simply recites what a user can do with the ordinary computer elements and this is therefore a further apply it limitation.
Per claim 11, a limitation depicting a search bar that enables an act is a further apply it limitation, an ordinary computer element.
Per claim 12, the enablement of a user to configure is claiming that configuration is possible in a software app which is an apply it element 
Per claim 13,  reciting notifications that can be configured is like claim 12 claiming that configuration is possible, that a software app can be applied and therefore is an apply it element.
Per claim 14, claiming functional components that is part of an operating system is reciting that a software app is being used, a further apply it element.
Per claim 15, further recitations about enablement in something akin to a word processor or program similar to OneNote is a further apply it element.  
Per claim 16, the software prompting for confirmation and reevaluation which is merely doing a claimed step again is a further apply it element.  
Per claim 17, performing steps automatically is something ordinary software does and then re-organizing is like claim 16 simply re performing steps claimed before, further apply it and abstract idea elements.
Per claim 18, further limits the abstract idea with scanning steps in other words making connections between data, a part of the abstract idea.
Per claim 19, depicting time based relationships is simply showing analysis or results which is a part of the abstract idea, could be done with pen and paper, like writing a timeline.
Per claim 20, similar to claim 19 is simply showing the results, which is a part of the abstract idea.
Per claim 21, associating workspaces is a part of the abstract idea where under a broadest reasonable interpretation the workspaces are the projects identified in the abstract idea.  Alternatively the workspaces are applied software elements with no detail and only their desired outcome or result.  See MPEP 2106.05(f)(1). 
Per claim 22, identifying “identifying” elements is a part of the abstract idea.  
Per claim 23, monitoring and synchronizing based on inheritance is simply connecting data together which is a part of the abstract idea.  (collecting, comparing, presenting the result – Electric Power Group).  
Per claim 24, enabling someone to remove relationships is a further abstract idea element because it is stating that the user can change the relationships between information and data.  
Per claim 25, creating a shareable template is an apply it limitation of using a software output that can be copy pasted.  
Therefore, claims 1 and 9-27 are rejected under 35 USC 101.
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.

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.
Claim(s) 1, 9-18, and 21-27 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Zionpour et al., US PGPUB 20220222431 A1 (“Zionpour”) in view of Prakash et al., US PGPUB 20160110313 (“Prakash”).
Per claims 1, 26, and 27, which are similar in scope, Zionpour teaches A method comprising executing a computer application on an operating system, wherein the computer application is configured for generating a project workspace by incorporating data elements, wherein the data elements comprise at least one of email conversations, productivity files, collaborator contacts, files, folders, URLs in browser tabs, meeting information, collaboration chat messages, and messages directed to specific individuals or groups that are pertinent to a project in which a user is working on in Fig 6, pars 068-069.
Then, Zionpour teaches processing the data elements to parse a content, a context, and a metadata of the data elements in par 118: "Pulling data may include accessing data, copying data, associating a timestamp with data, crawling data, downloading data, parsing data (e.g., transforming data from one data format to another), condensing data (e.g., through data compression or selective extraction of data elements, such as according to a condition parameter for an electronic rule), or any action that makes data suitable for use in performing a conditional instruction. Data may include text (e.g., displayed on a web page), HTML, text (which may or may not be displayed on a web page), metadata, a graphic, an image, an animation, a video, audio information, a data structure (e.g., a data structure define in HTML code), API code, application code (e.g., a method defined in code), or any other material that may be represented in a digital format. An internet web page may include a document, file, application, dataset (e.g., combination of data, discussed above), any other information displayable within a web browser, or any combination thereof. For example, an internet web page may include a hypertext document, which may be provided by a web site and/or displayable within a web browser. Inserting the data into the electronic word processing document may include adding text, metadata, a graphic, an image, an animation, a video, audio information, a data structure (e.g., a block), any other digital information, or any combination thereof, to the electronic word processing document (e.g., within the content data represented and/or displayed by the electronic word processing document) such that the data is stored or otherwise associated with the electronic word processing document. Inserting the data into the electronic word processing document may include performing an operation represented by an instruction to edit the information contained in the electronic word processing document, consistent with disclosed embodiments. In some embodiments, editing the electronic word processing document may involve adding information to the electronic word processing document that is associated with a condition of an electronic rule. For example, a condition of an electronic rule may be a condition that text information on a web page has changed in some manner (e.g., a flight time) and the changed text information and/or associated information may be added to the word processing document. As another example, a condition of an electronic rule may be a condition that a user account identifier has been added to a list, and the user account identifier may be added to the word processing document (e.g., as in-document text)."  Pulling teaches parsing. Accessing data teaches parsing content where data is further explained along with metadata.  
See also par 0120: “Consistent with some disclosed embodiments, the at least one processor may be configured to detect an external network-based occurrence. Detecting the external network-based occurrence may include requesting information (continuously or periodically) from a remote data source (e.g., through an API), accessing a web page, accessing a document, parsing data (e.g., information on a web page, HTML text, document text), receiving an alert (e.g., from an event listener), or otherwise determining information associated with a condition of an electronic rule. For example, the at least one processor may parse HTML, text of a web page for keywords or other data pertaining to a condition for an electronic rule. In some embodiments, the at least one process may compare HTML text to a version of the HTML text associated with an earlier point in time, to determine if a change corresponding to an electronic rule condition has occurred. Additionally or alternatively, an event listener may cause transmission of an indication of the external network-based occurrence to the at least one processor. Additionally or alternatively, an event API, which may be configured to communicate with one or more APIs, for example a third-party API and an API associated with editing electronic word processing documents.”  
See also par 0147: “Consistent with some disclosed embodiments, a URL-based rule may be configured to select an internet located data based on context. Context may include at least one of a time of day, geographical area, history of actions (e.g., times and/or types of data changes, possibly associated with a URL or web page), web page layout, data structure, data structure configuration, data format, file, filetype, data type (e.g., text, an image, a video, a link, an advertisement banner), content (e.g., information conveyed by text, such as an identifier of a person, group, place, or object), entity associated with information (e.g., an ultimate and/or intermediate source of information, such as a URL, company, web page identifier, web site identifier, service identifier, application identifier, type of web browser), user accessing data, device accessing data, electronic rule parameter (e.g., URL-based rule parameter), any other information relevant to a selection of internet located data, or any combination thereof.”  Here context content and metadata (URL, identifier, user accessing data) is taught.
Then, Zionpour teaches extracting identifying elements from the data elements in par 124: "For example, the particular block may be associated with (e.g., may include metadata relating to) at least one account identifier, device identifier, network identifier, group identifier, user identifier, or other information delineating at least one criterion, which, when satisfied, causes access to information within the particular block (e.g., an instance of the electronic non-word processing application). "  
See also par 0147: “As another example, at least one processor may determine that a portion of a web page displaying an image is irrelevant to a URL-based rule having a conditional instruction to source text from a web page, and may exclude the image from possible selection. Additionally or alternatively, at least one processor may determine (e.g., by parsing data according to a URL-based rule) an identifier that satisfies a parameter of a URL-based rule, such as an identifier of an individual (e.g., a name); an identifier of an activity (e.g., a flight number, tracking number, receipt number, project name, service name), a location identifier (zip code, physical address, latitude-longitude coordinates), an identifier of a physical object (e.g., a product identification number, a vehicle identifier), or an identifier of an intangible object (e.g., stock ticker symbol, HTML element).”
Then, Zionpour teaches and associating the identifying elements with the project workspace, wherein the identifying elements comprising keywords, expressions, contacts, dates, and links in par 124: "Possessing permission for access to the particular block may include being associated with a permission through a data structure (e.g., a permission table), having a user account associated with a permission value (e.g., a Boolean value that activates or deactivates a permission), or otherwise being associated with a value that enables an action with respect to a block. For example, only a user account (or other entity) possessing permission for access to the particular block may be permitted to view a change made to the block based on an electronic rule, consistent with disclosed embodiments. As another example, only a device (or other entity) possessing permission for access to the particular block may be permitted to add a condition (or other electronic rule parameter) to an electronic rule associated with the particular block."   User account is a contact.
See also par 0146: “For example, information about a structure of data may include an identification of a portion of a web page (e.g., a first half of a web page, an upper left quadrant of a web page), an HTML element identifier (e.g., an HTML <body> indicator), a column identifier (e.g., a third column), a row identifier (e.g., a fourth row), a container name, or an identification of a portion of a web site (e.g., a group of web pages, a portion of a site map). Data at an address associated with the URL in the URL-based rule may include at least one text segment (e.g., displayed at a web page), dynamic display element (e.g., indicating a current time, sensor reading, location of a movable object (e.g., an object in transit), stock price, predicted (e.g., machine predicted) value, video, image, file, graphic, chart, graph, or any data derived from a source external to the electronic word processing document stored in a repository identifiable by a locating indicator (e.g., an address), discussed above. For example, a web address may be associated with a URL, which may direct a web browser (or other application) to a web page that displays or otherwise provides access to data.”  A container name is a keyword.  Link also taught. 
See also par 0103: “Additionally or alternatively, a cloud-stored file may be stored at a repository located remotely. In some embodiments, cloud-stored files may be indexed according to a file identifier, document identifier, permission identifier, account identifier, user identifier, group identifier, network identifier, project identifier, date of creation, date of last edit, or combination thereof.”  Dates teach dates.
Then, Zionpour teaches scanning additional data elements available on the operating system and cloud-based applications to identify and associate the additional data elements with the project workspace in par 147: " Selecting the internet located data based on context may include using context to determine relevance (e.g., to an electronic rule, such as a URL-based rule) of data content stored in a repository accessible on the internet, determine relevance (e.g., to an electronic rule) of a source of data, determine relevance (e.g., to an electronic rule) of a time associated with data (e.g., determining a last update time, determining a timestamp, determining if data is stale), determine a portion of a web page displaying data relevant to an electronic rule, determine a portion of web page HTML, source code expressing data relevant to an electronic rule, determine a portion of a web page displaying data within a similarity threshold of an electronic rule parameter, determine a constraint of an electronic rule associated with a web page or URL, or otherwise applying context to direct analysis of internet located data. "  Selecting internet located data teaches identify and associate additional data elements with the project workspace on the cloud (internet).
Then, Zionpour teaches storing relevant data about the project comprising at least one of relationships between the project workspace and the data elements, associations with a master project and artifacts, extracted identifying elements from the data elements, ownership and permissions, a timeline of changes, and configuration data defining application inclusions within the project workspace and notification preferences in par 122: " one or more blocks and/or one or more non-block instances of data, which may include unstructured data (e.g., raw text). One or more of the blocks may have at least one separately adjustable permission setting. A separately adjustable permission setting may be set with respect to one block independent from (e.g., without influencing) a separately adjustable permission setting for another block. For example, a permission setting may include a parameter that may control the ability of a user, user account, device, system, or combination thereof to access a block, view a block, use a function associated with a block, edit a block, delete a block, move a block, re-size a block, influence a block, or perform any other operation relative to a block. Permission settings for a particular block in a document may be independent from the permission settings for other blocks located in the same document. For example, a first block may have restrictive permission settings that enable only the author of the document to edit the first block while a second block may have public permission settings that enable any user to edit the second block. "
Then, Zionpour teaches rendering a user interface through a display module for presenting the project workspace by modifying a graphical user interface (GUI) of the operating system, and displaying the project workspace within a browser, within the computer application, or using a combination thereof in Fig 14:
Then, Zionpour teaches displaying only the data elements associated with the project in par 67: " In some embodiments, when the electronic non-word processing application is embedded with a particular block, access to the electronic non-word processing application may be restricted to entities possessing permission for access to the particular block. Restricting access to entities possessing permission for access to a particular block may include performing a lookup of authorized entities in a repository with respect to the particular block and enabling the authorized entities to view and/or interact with the information contained in the particular block. In response to determining that an entity lacks authorization to access the particular block, the system may omit display of information in the particular block from the unauthorized entity or otherwise prevent the unauthorized entity from interacting with the information in the particular block. For example, the particular block may be associated with (e.g., may include metadata relating to) at least one account identifier, device identifier, network identifier, group identifier, user identifier, or other information delineating at least one criterion, which, when satisfied, causes access to information within the particular block (e.g., an instance of the electronic non-word processing application)."  The block allows only certain information such as an instance of the processing application to be shown.  
Zionpour does not teach and associating the project workspace with the master project to inherit the identifying elements and the data elements from the master project while allowing the additional data elements to be added to the project workspace, enabling differentiation from the master project.
Prakash teaches a collaboration system and method from master objects.  See Abstract.
Prakash teaches and associating the project workspace with the master project to inherit the identifying elements and the data elements from the master project while allowing the additional data elements to be added to the project workspace, enabling differentiation from the master project in pars 0125-0125: “"The user can then modify or edit any of the content items, for example the user may modify content item 1501a via a streams enabled interface 1504. The back-end stream engine creates a version content item for the old, unmodified version of content item 1501a and copies all current context into the version content item 1505. The stream engine updates the master content item 1506 with the new modification data received and associates the master content item with the older version content item, creating a parent-child relationship between the version content item and the master content item.
The user then may create a document 1507 called “Sample Doc” and add content items 1501a and 1501b to the document via the streams enabled interface. Using the Share function of the streams enabled interface, the user can send a PDF version of the “Sample Doc” to another user 1508. The back-end streams engine captures the metadata 1509 associated with “Sample Doc” and records pointers to the specific content items versions of 1501a and 1501b used in creating the PDF of the document, thereby identifying a static document dependent on versions of content items. A link to the static document can be created 1510 in the streams enabled interface which shows the Document History, or versions of the document within the stream."
It would have been obvious to one ordinarily skilled in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the project workspace teaching of Zionpour with the master inheritance teaching of Prakash because Prakash teaches in par 015 that “[t]here is a need for more granular definition of the content creation process as documents for reading or presenting are not assembled at once but over time. This granular process needs to define a unit of content creation which can then be utilized as a means of constructing sophisticated documents for reading, printing and presenting. In this time-oriented process definition, there is a need for versioning controls that can track and manage the activity of a typical computer user in creating and assembling units of content into structured documents and presentations.”  Because Prakash’s teaching enables content creation over time one would be motivated to modify Zionpour with Prakash to facilitate collaborative creation.  For these reasons one would be motivated to combine Zionpour with Prakash.  
Per claim 9, Zionpour and Prakash teach the limitations of claim 1, above.  Zionpour further teaches wherein the method further comprises executing the computer application as one of a local application and a cloud-based service accessible  in par 103:  "A cloud-stored file may include a file stored at a storage medium accessible to other devices across an internet connection, cellular network connection, satellite connection, or any other WAN communication connection. For example, a cloud-stored file may be stored at a storage medium associated with an entity that hosts (e.g., stores, displays, implements) one or more electronic rules, which may be associated with one or more files, documents, accounts, users, groups, networks, projects, or combination thereof. Additionally or alternatively, a cloud-stored file may be stored at a repository located remotely. In some embodiments, cloud-stored files may be indexed according to a file identifier, document identifier, permission identifier, account identifier, user identifier, group identifier, network identifier, project identifier, date of creation, date of last edit, or combination thereof. A file or portion of a file (e.g., one or more blocks), whether locally-stored, cloud-stored, or otherwise, may be encrypted prior to, during, or after storage. A file or portion of a file (e.g., one or more blocks) may also be decrypted to permit access, editing, or other operations, by a particular device, user, account, group, network, or any other entity. Additionally or alternatively, a file or portion of a file (e.g., one or more blocks) may be decrypted to permit implementation of an electronic rule, such as performing an edit to the file, or other conditional instruction, consistent with disclosed embodiments."
Per claim 10, Zionpour and Prakash teach the limitations of claim 1, above.  Zionpour further teaches wherein the method further comprises enabling the user to manage properties and information about the project workspace  in par 100:  "Enabling an author of the electronic word processing document to define an electronic rule may include generating an interactable interface element, detecting an input (e.g., to an interactable interface element), configuring an interface, configuring a set of code (e.g., an electronic rule framework, electronic rule, application), opening a document (e.g., within a web browser), retrieving data (e.g., associated with a user, a user account, a document, a system, a device, an application, an information source), and/or any other operation to facilitate determination or preservation of a parameter for an electronic rule. An author of the electronic word processing document may include an originator of, owner of, editor of, or other entity with access permission to, the electronic word processing document."
Per claim 11, Zionpour and Prakash teach the limitations of claim 1, above.  Zionpour further teaches wherein the method further comprises depicting a search bar that enables the user to search and show the data elements based on whether a searched item has an association with the data elements in par 105:  " For example, the logical template may include at least one configuration of electronic rule parameters, electronic rule parameter (e.g., a condition, a conditional instruction, output action), electronic rule parameter constraint (e.g., a time window or other condition), relationship between electronic rule parameters, chart, expandable tree (e.g., of electronic rule parameters), interactable (e.g., clickable) user interface area (e.g., a button), menu (e.g., drop-down menu) search bar, field, graph (e.g., graphical depiction of an electronic rule), text, graphic, animation, line, web, cluster, any other visual representation of at least a portion of an electronic rule, or any combination thereof. "
Per claim 12, Zionpour and Prakash teach the limitations of claim 1, above.  Zionpour further teaches wherein the method further comprises enabling the user to configure an application that is to be displayed within the project workspace in par 98:  "An electronic word processing document may be configurable to be displayed (e.g., by an electronic word processing application) in a visual form, for example within an interface, consistent with disclosed embodiments. An electronic word processing document may also include any characteristic of an electronic document, discussed above. Consistent with some disclosed embodiments, the at least one processor may be configured to access an electronic word processing document."
Per claim 13, Zionpour and Prakash teach the limitations of claim 1, above.  Zionpour further teaches wherein the method further comprises enabling the user to configure one or more notifications that is to be displayed within the project workspace in par 102:  "An electronic rule being triggered by an external network-based occurrence may include executing (e.g., by a processing device) an operation (e.g., a conditional instruction) in response to a condition meeting a threshold. An operation of an electronic rule may include any functionality such as transmitting a communication (e.g., an API call), receiving a communication (e.g., data to use for updating an electronic file), constructing an API call, translating data (e.g., translating data from one API format to another API format, such as according to a data mapping), parsing data, pulling data, re-arranging data, changing data (e.g., data associated with an electronic word processing document), displaying data (e.g., an alert notification), or any other function that can influence data displayable at a device. "
Per claim 14, Zionpour and Prakash teach the limitations of claim 1, above.  Zionpour further teaches wherein the computer application, is part of the operating system, that comprises functional components on a device operating with assistance of the operating system in par 103:  "A cloud-stored file may include a file stored at a storage medium accessible to other devices across an internet connection, cellular network connection, satellite connection, or any other WAN communication connection. For example, a cloud-stored file may be stored at a storage medium associated with an entity that hosts (e.g., stores, displays, implements) one or more electronic rules, which may be associated with one or more files, documents, accounts, users, groups, networks, projects, or combination thereof. Additionally or alternatively, a cloud-stored file may be stored at a repository located remotely. In some embodiments, cloud-stored files may be indexed according to a file identifier, document identifier, permission identifier, account identifier, user identifier, group identifier, network identifier, project identifier, date of creation, date of last edit, or combination thereof. A file or portion of a file (e.g., one or more blocks), whether locally-stored, cloud-stored, or otherwise, may be encrypted prior to, during, or after storage. A file or portion of a file (e.g., one or more blocks) may also be decrypted to permit access, editing, or other operations, by a particular device, user, account, group, network, or any other entity. "
Per claim 15, Zionpour and Prakash teach the limitations of claim 1, above.  Zionpour further teaches wherein the method further comprises: executing the computer application that enables the user to manage information stored about the project and add, modify, filter, or remove various elements of the information in par 96:  " Automatically altering information within an electronic document may include inserting, removing, changing the content of, re-positioning, re-formatting, or otherwise changing the visual appearance of at least one of: text, a graphic, a background, a link, a data structure, a video, metadata, block, a margin, or any other information displayable by the electronic document. In some embodiments, altering information within the electronic document may be implemented by at least one processor without manual intervention. For example, at least one processor may determine that one or more parameters are satisfied and may automatically cause the altering of information within the electronic document. Additionally or alternatively, automatically altering information within the electronic document may include altering information embedded in the electronic document that influences information displayed within the electronic document."
Per claim 16, Zionpour and Prakash teach the limitations of claim 1, above.  Zionpour further teaches wherein the method further comprises reevaluating the identifying elements and associations with other data elements by prompting the user for confirmation in par 141:  "Additionally or alternatively, a processing device may cause the display of a confirmation interface, which may prompt a user to input confirmation of insertion of an in-line object (e.g., in response to input of a particular alphanumeric character string entered within the electronic word processing document followed by an input of a carriage return or tab keystroke)."
Per claim 17, Zionpour and Prakash teach the limitations of claim 1, above.  Zionpour further teaches wherein the method further comprises: automatically monitoring for changes to the data elements and re-organize the project workspace to align with the changes in par 153:  "Retrieving internet located data may include accessing data, copying data, associating a timestamp with data, crawling data, downloading data, parsing data (e.g., transforming data from one data format to another), condensing data (e.g., through data compression or selective extraction of data elements, such as according to a condition parameter for an electronic rule), or any action that makes data suitable for use in performing a conditional instruction. Executing the URL-based rule to retrieve internet located data may include carrying out the underling logical rule of the URL-based rule to carry out the action of accessing and transmitting internet located data for at least one processor to further manipulate or store in a repository. Executing the URL-based rule may be carried out manually (e.g., initiated by a user) or may be carried out automatically in response to a condition meeting a threshold, such as a detection of an update or at a defined time interval as discussed above."
Per claim 18, Zionpour and Prakash teach the limitations of claim 1, above.  Zionpour further teaches wherein the method further comprises: scanning the data elements for content and context that allow association with existing projects using the identifying elements upon receiving confirmation from the user in par 118:  ""For example, a condition of an electronic rule may be a condition that text information on a web page has changed in some manner (e.g., a flight time) and the changed text information and/or associated information may be added to the word processing document. As another example, a condition of an electronic rule may be a condition that a user account identifier has been added to a list, and the user account identifier may be added to the word processing document (e.g., as in-document text)."  See also par 135: “Data derived from a source external to the electronic word processing document may include static data, dynamic data, textual information, visual information, a file, a data structure, content data extracted from a data structure, a calculation result (e.g., a predictive value), a sensor reading, an identifier (e.g., of a user, device, project, system, data source, or network), or any other digital information conveyable by a web page or any other source of information. For example, a web page may convey (e.g., by displaying within a web browser) textual and/or visual information related to a number of physical objects (e.g., products), intangible objects (e.g., stocks, stock prices), or actions (e.g., services, projects). Additionally or alternatively, a web page may display a map identifying one or more locations of a person, group, object, building, or other thing.”

Per claim 21, Zionpour and Prakash teach the limitations of claim 1, above.  Zionpour does not teach wherein the method further comprises: associating the project workspace with one of a master project workspace and a child project workspace. 
Prakash teaches wherein the method further comprises: associating the project workspace with one of a master project workspace and a child project workspace in par 129:  "Using the Share function of the streams enabled interface, the user can send a PDF version of the “Sample Doc” to another user 1508. The back-end streams engine captures the metadata 1509 associated with “Sample Doc” and records pointers to the specific content items versions of 1501a and 1501b used in creating the PDF of the document, thereby identifying a static document dependent on versions of content items. A link to the static document can be created 1510 in the streams enabled interface which shows the Document History, or versions of the document within the stream.”
It would have been obvious to one ordinarily skilled in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the project workspace teaching of Zionpour with the master inheritance teaching of Prakash because Prakash teaches in par 015 that “[t]here is a need for more granular definition of the content creation process as documents for reading or presenting are not assembled at once but over time. This granular process needs to define a unit of content creation which can then be utilized as a means of constructing sophisticated documents for reading, printing and presenting. In this time-oriented process definition, there is a need for versioning controls that can track and manage the activity of a typical computer user in creating and assembling units of content into structured documents and presentations.”  Because Prakash’s teaching enables content creation over time one would be motivated to modify Zionpour with Prakash to facilitate collaborative creation.  For these reasons one would be motivated to combine Zionpour with Prakash.  
Per claim 22, Zionpour and Prakash teach the limitations of claim 21, above.  Zionpour does not teach wherein the method further comprises: inheriting a configured subset of identifying elements from the master project workspace.  
Prakash teaches wherein the method further comprises: inheriting a configured subset of identifying elements from the master project workspace in par 130:  ""Should the user then modify content item 1501a via the streams interface 1511, the stream engine creates a version content item for the old version of content item 1501a and copies all current context into the version content item 1512. The stream engine updates the master content item 1513 with the new modification data received and associates the master content item with the newer version content item, creating a parent-child relationship between the version content item and the master content item.”
It would have been obvious to one ordinarily skilled in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the project workspace teaching of Zionpour with the master inheritance teaching of Prakash because Prakash teaches in par 015 that “[t]here is a need for more granular definition of the content creation process as documents for reading or presenting are not assembled at once but over time. This granular process needs to define a unit of content creation which can then be utilized as a means of constructing sophisticated documents for reading, printing and presenting. In this time-oriented process definition, there is a need for versioning controls that can track and manage the activity of a typical computer user in creating and assembling units of content into structured documents and presentations.”  Because Prakash’s teaching enables content creation over time one would be motivated to modify Zionpour with Prakash to facilitate collaborative creation.  For these reasons one would be motivated to combine Zionpour with Prakash.  
Per claim 23, Zionpour and Prakash teach the limitations of claim 22, above.  Zionpour does not teach wherein the method further comprises: monitoring for changes in the project workspace based on the inheritance; and synchronizing the changes over time in the project workspace.  
Prakash teaches wherein the method further comprises: monitoring for changes in the project workspace based on the inheritance; and synchronizing the changes over time in the project workspace in par 133:  "In this manner, the streams engine records when content items and documents are created, edited or modified, maintains a history of versions of content items and documents, and who shared, viewed or had access to the content items or documents.”
It would have been obvious to one ordinarily skilled in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the project workspace teaching of Zionpour with the master inheritance teaching of Prakash because Prakash teaches in par 015 that “[t]here is a need for more granular definition of the content creation process as documents for reading or presenting are not assembled at once but over time. This granular process needs to define a unit of content creation which can then be utilized as a means of constructing sophisticated documents for reading, printing and presenting. In this time-oriented process definition, there is a need for versioning controls that can track and manage the activity of a typical computer user in creating and assembling units of content into structured documents and presentations.”  Because Prakash’s teaching enables content creation over time one would be motivated to modify Zionpour with Prakash to facilitate collaborative creation.  For these reasons one would be motivated to combine Zionpour with Prakash.  
Per claim 24, Zionpour and Prakash teach the limitations of claim 21, above.  Zionpour does not teach wherein the method further comprises: enabling the user to remove master child relationships between the project and a subsequent project. 
Prakash teaches wherein the method further comprises: enabling the user to remove master child relationships between the project and a subsequent project in par 171:  "The Stream Cloud presents a unique option to publish the contents of an activity, document view or even just an individual content item. Publishing pushes an immutable copy of the content to the Stream Cloud for permanent storage and also makes a unique hash signature of that content available publicly with the globally unique identifier(s) of the content item(s) involved—this is to ensure that the content signature can be verified by anyone and can be used to prove that the particular combination of characters in the content was published by a verified user, company or government entity. In our example, Stream_MainUser chooses to publish the proposal prior to having it signed off by the Customer Lead to ensure that an independently verifiable copy is available from Citta.
It would have been obvious to one ordinarily skilled in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the project workspace teaching of Zionpour with the master inheritance teaching of Prakash because Prakash teaches in par 015 that “[t]here is a need for more granular definition of the content creation process as documents for reading or presenting are not assembled at once but over time. This granular process needs to define a unit of content creation which can then be utilized as a means of constructing sophisticated documents for reading, printing and presenting. In this time-oriented process definition, there is a need for versioning controls that can track and manage the activity of a typical computer user in creating and assembling units of content into structured documents and presentations.”  Because Prakash’s teaching enables content creation over time one would be motivated to modify Zionpour with Prakash to facilitate collaborative creation.  For these reasons one would be motivated to combine Zionpour with Prakash.  
Per claim 25, Zionpour and Prakash teach the limitations of claim 1, above.  Zionpour further teaches wherein the method further comprises: creating a shareable template of the project workspace and updating the shareable template over time with updated information in par 105:  "Aspects of this disclosure may include, in displaying at least one interface, at least one processor being configured to present a logical template for constructing an electronic rule. Presenting a logical template for constructing the electronic rule may include causing the system to visually display a logical sentence structure (e.g., automation) for further configuration of an underlying logical rule, consistent with the description herein. For example, the logical template may include at least one configuration of electronic rule parameters, electronic rule parameter (e.g., a condition, a conditional instruction, output action), electronic rule parameter constraint (e.g., a time window or other condition), relationship between electronic rule parameters, chart, expandable tree (e.g., of electronic rule parameters), interactable (e.g., clickable) user interface area (e.g., a button), menu (e.g., drop-down menu) search bar, field, graph (e.g., graphical depiction of an electronic rule), text, graphic, animation, line, web, cluster, any other visual representation of at least a portion of an electronic rule, or any combination thereof. In some embodiments, a logical template may include a data structure representing and/or configured to implement an electronic rule. Additionally or alternatively, a logical template may include a visual representation of an electronic rule and/or at least one tool for constructing an electronic rule. For example, a logical template may include a layout of at least one condition, at least one computerized action, and at least one relationship between the two. In some embodiments, a logical template may include a button, which, upon receiving an input (e.g., mouse click), may add a field to the logical template (e.g., a field to associate with a particular electronic rule parameter). Additionally or alternatively, a logical template may include a drop-down menu, search bar, other input area, or combination thereof, which may use one or more inputs (e.g., keyboard entries) to search and/or display options for an electronic rule template. For example, based on one or more characters entered to an interface (e.g., a displayed representation of a field), a drop-down menu may display electronic rule parameters (e.g., conditions, conditional instructions) associated with (e.g., including overlapping characters with) the one or more characters. A selection of (e.g., mouse click on) one of the electronic rule parameters may cause the electronic rule parameter to be added to an electronic rule (e.g., adding segment of logic to an electronic rule being constructed). Based on at least one interaction with the logical template, an electronic rule (discussed above) may be constructed. For example, an electronic rule may be constructed to include one or more parameters (e.g., conditions and conditional instructions, discussed further below) corresponding to inputs made within an interface, consistent with disclosed embodiments."
Claim(s) 19 and 20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Zionpour et al., US PGPUB 20220222431 A1 (“Zionpour”) in view of Prakash et al., US PGPUB 20160110313 (“Prakash”), further in view of Goldstein et al., US PGPUB 20170123932 ("Goldstein").
Per claim 19, Zionpour and Prakash teach the limitations of claim 1, above.  Zionpour does not teach wherein the method further comprises: depicting time-based relationships of the data elements and the identifying elements in a visual representation for the project or group of projects.
Goldstein teaches methods for tracking changes in documents. See abstract.
Goldstein teaches  wherein the method further comprises: depicting time-based relationships of the data elements and the identifying elements in a visual representation for the project or group of projects in pars 048-049, see also Fig 3.  Pars  048-049: “"In particular, the metadata record 240 for document 210a (i.e., document version 5) indicates in time field 260a a last modified time of Jan. 5, 2016 at 9:00 am. Change record 220c is the last change record 220 to have been generated at that time or earlier. The metadata record 240 for document 210a also indicates in time field 260b a first modified time of Jan. 1, 2016 at 5:00 am. Change record 220a is the first change record to have been generated at that time or later. Thus, the time fields 260a-b establish a time window in which modifications to the tracked metadata field 250 have occurred. The change management system 110 may thus use this time window to select change records 220 relevant to modifications of the tracked metadata field 250. For example, in this example, change records 220a-c are within the time window established by the time fields 260a-b in the metadata record of document 210a, and are therefore selected to be in the subset 410, whereas change record 220d is not selected to be in the subset. Further, consistent with the modifications counter 270 (which indicates three modifications), three change records 220a-c are selected to be in the subset 410.
Of course, the example of FIGS. 3 and 4 is a very simple example in which selection of the subset 410 excludes only a single change record 220d. However, a change management system 110 may be tracking massive numbers of other documents 210, and there may be myriad changes to those documents 210 that are unrelated to the predefined type of change that would cause the tracked metadata fields 250 associated therewith to be updated. Thus, according to various embodiments, the selection of subset 410 may be include selection of a very small number of change records 220 as compared to the total number of change records 220 in storage 120 by excluding numerous change records 220 that were generated either before or after the time window and which are not relevant to modifications of the tracked metadata field 250. Such a dramatic reduction in the number of change records 220 requiring consideration may be of significant assistance toward identifying the problem change record (which in this example is change record 220c)."  Fig 3 teaches identifiers (names), time based elements (when changes happened) and identifying elements.  
It would have been obvious to one ordinarily skilled in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the workspaces teaching of Zionpour with the track changes teaching of Goldstein because of the motivation taught in pars 02-03: “One way that change management systems may track documents and record changes is by generating change records that record differences between an earlier and a later version of a document. This change document may then be applied to the later version in order to recreate the earlier version. If several changes are made to the document, resulting in several versions, multiple change records may be generated. To revert back to the earliest version of a tracked document, according to some change management systems, each of the many change records that may have been generated for that document must be applied, as each change record only records the differences between a particular document version and the version immediately previous thereto.  Deployed broadly, e.g., in support of an entire business or massive software project involving thousands of tracked documents, a massive number of change records may result. When a problem arises that requires rolling back documents, it may not be clear what change (or changes) to the tracked documents was responsible for the problem. With so many documents and associated change records, identifying the appropriate change record(s) to apply in order to alleviate the problem is often onerous and time-consuming.”  Because Goldstein teaches a way to trace changes to find problems, one would be motivated to modify Zionpour with Goldstein so that problems can be resolved.
Per claim 20, Zionpour, Prakash, and Goldstein teach the limitations of claim 19, above.  Zionpour does not teach wherein the visual representation comprises one of a timeline view and a graphical view.  
Goldstein teaches wherein the visual representation comprises one of a timeline view and a graphical view in Fig 3 as it is a timeline view a list of times in order of time.
It would have been obvious to one ordinarily skilled in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the workspaces teaching of Zionpour with the track changes teaching of Goldstein because of the motivation taught in pars 02-03: “One way that change management systems may track documents and record changes is by generating change records that record differences between an earlier and a later version of a document. This change document may then be applied to the later version in order to recreate the earlier version. If several changes are made to the document, resulting in several versions, multiple change records may be generated. To revert back to the earliest version of a tracked document, according to some change management systems, each of the many change records that may have been generated for that document must be applied, as each change record only records the differences between a particular document version and the version immediately previous thereto.  Deployed broadly, e.g., in support of an entire business or massive software project involving thousands of tracked documents, a massive number of change records may result. When a problem arises that requires rolling back documents, it may not be clear what change (or changes) to the tracked documents was responsible for the problem. With so many documents and associated change records, identifying the appropriate change record(s) to apply in order to alleviate the problem is often onerous and time-consuming.”  Because Goldstein teaches a way to trace changes to find problems, one would be motivated to modify Zionpour with Goldstein so that problems can be resolved.
Therefore, claims 1 and 9-27 are rejected under 35 US 103.
Prior art made of record and not relied upon
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. 
Zhang et al., US PGPUB 20200311055 (“Zhang”) in pars 074 and 077 where hierarchy and a base level is taught which teaches a master that is differentiated from a child.  
Response to remarks:
35 USC 112
Rejection overcome through amendment
35 USC 103
Because of the amendments to the claims, search and consideration was required, and Examiner found and applied new art to the amended claims.  This renders the arguments moot.  
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to RICHARD W. CRANDALL whose telephone number is (313)446-6562. The examiner can normally be reached M - F, 8:00 AM - 5:00 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, Anita Coupe can be reached at (571) 270-3614. 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.
/RICHARD W. CRANDALL/           Examiner, Art Unit 3619