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 .
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on 02/19/2026 has been entered. Claims 1-20 are pending. Claims 1, 9 and 17 have been amended.
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.
Claims 1, 9 and 17 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 8, 15 and 1, respectively of U.S. Patent No. 11/875,081 in view of Lebaredian et al. (Lebaredian), US Patent No. 12,211,005 B2.
Claims 8, 15, and 1 of US Patent No. 11/875,081 teach every limitation of claims 1, 9, and 17, respectively except “wherein users of the group-based communication system that are non-members of the communication channel at least one of have limited access to the communication channel or have access to a reduced amount of functionality of the communication channel”.
In the same field of endeavor, Lebaredian discloses a cloud-centric platform for generating virtual three-dimensional (3D) content, that allows users to collaborate online, and using the platform, virtual environments (e.g., scenes, worlds, universes) can be created, accessed, and interact with simultaneously by multiple collaborative content creators using varying content creation or development applications (Abstract). Lebaredian further discloses a database that stores assets, and also includes a synchronizer, which can synchronize a change made by a client coupled to the server and data of the assets to include the change in the database, and can also synchronize changes in the database and data of clients coupled to the server (col. 1, lines 47-54). Lebaredian further discloses the platform thus allow collaborative, Web-based real-time editing through a published interface so that clients that are subscribers to an asset can work together on that asset or object (col. 1, line 66 – col. 2, line 6). Lebaredian further discloses each asset in the database can be accessed and optionally change by one or more clients 102a-n, wherein the clients 102a-n are connected to the database, and access to an asset is limited to clients that subscribe to that asset, and a change to an asset can only be made by a subscriber that has permission to do so (col. 5, line 66 – col. 6, line 11). Lebaredian further discloses in col. 6, lines 16-22 that one or more of the clients 102a-n can make changes to an asset, the synchronizer 108 synchronizes those changes with the data of the asset, and also synchronizes the data of the changed (updated) asset with other clients interested in that asset (e.g., other subscribers (members) to the asset. Thus, non-subscribers (non-members) will not receive the updated the data of the asset.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify the collaboration system of US Patent No. 11/875,081 to include “wherein users of the group-based communication system that are non-members of the communication channel at least one of have limited access to the communication channel or have access to a reduced amount of functionality of the communication channel” as taught by Lebaredian for the purpose of preventing non-subscribers/non-members to have access to updated assets in collaboration network.
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 text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office action.
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.
Claims 1-5, 8-13, 16-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lansing et al. (Lansing), US Patent Application Publication No. US 2022/0086200, and further in view of Lebaredian et al. (Lebaredian), US Patent No. 12,211,005 B2.
As to independent claim 1, Lansing discloses a method comprising:
causing display of a shared screen within a synchronous multimedia collaboration session that is initiated from within a communication channel of a group-based communication system, the shared screen being presented via a first device of a first user and a second device of a second user, the first user and the second user each being members of the communication channel and the synchronous multimedia collaboration session (paragraph [0026]: during a web conferencing session, a user may choose to share their screen or may choose to share images that derive from files available to the user; the first user can discuss the spreadsheet, possibly moving the mouse cursor or other pointing cursor over regions of the spreadsheet while providing a voiceover for all web conference participants to see and hear);
receiving, during the synchronous multimedia collaboration session, an annotation on the shared screen from at least one of the first user or the second user (paragraph [0027]:: (e.g., Some web conferencing facilities provide a set of annotation tools (e.g., line drawing tools, curve drawing tools, text box tools, erasers, etc.) for users of the web conferencing facility to annotate over whatever is being displayed on the web conference display area);
causing display of the annotation on the shared screen to create an annotated screen share (paragraph [0027]: (e.g., each individual participant can make user-specific annotations, and can freely use the annotation tools, including erasers to make and change annotations over whatever is being displayed on the web conference display area) ;
receiving, from one of the members of the synchronous multimedia collaboration session, a request to save a copy of the annotated screen share (paragraph [[0041]: (e.g., the participants may choose to close the previewing activity (operation 116). This can happen automatically, for example at the end of a web conferencing session, or this can happen in response to operation of close function 130); and
saving, in response to receiving the request, the copy of the annotated screen share (paragraphs [0041], [0005], [0006]) (e.g., the annotation is saved within documents 103; however, in other embodiments, the annotations can be saved and merely associated with the selected document 103.sub.SELECTED; When the conference ends, a video file (e.g., an MP4 file), an audio file (e.g., an MP3 file), any chat activity, including document annotation, that might have occurred during the web conference, and other assets of the web conference are saved).
Lansing, however, does not disclose the communication channel being inaccessible to wherein users of the group-based communication system that are non-members of the communication channel at least one of have limited access to the communication channel or have access to a reduced amount of functionality of the communication channel.
In the same field of endeavor, Lebaredian discloses a cloud-centric platform for generating virtual three-dimensional (3D) content, that allows users to collaborate online, and using the platform, virtual environments (e.g., scenes, worlds, universes) can be created, accessed, and interact with simultaneously by multiple collaborative content creators using varying content creation or development applications (Abstract). Lebaredian further discloses a database that stores assets, and also includes a synchronizer, which can synchronize a change made by a client coupled to the server and data of the assets to include the change in the database, and can also synchronize changes in the database and data of clients coupled to the server (col. 1, lines 47-54). Lebaredian further discloses the platform thus allow collaborative, Web-based real-time editing through a published interface so that clients that are subscribers to an asset can work together on that asset or object (col. 1, line 66 – col. 2, line 6). Lebaredian further discloses each asset in the database can be accessed and optionally change by one or more clients 102a-n, wherein the clients 102a-n are connected to the database, and access to an asset is limited to clients that subscribe to that asset, and a change to an asset can only be made by a subscriber that has permission to do so (col. 5, line 66 – col. 6, line 11). Lebaredian further discloses in col. 6, lines 16-22 that one or more of the clients 102a-n can make changes to an asset, the synchronizer 108 synchronizes those changes with the data of the asset, and also synchronizes the data of the changed (updated) asset with other clients interested in that asset (e.g., other subscribers (members) to the asset. Thus, non-subscribers (non-members) will not receive the updated the data of the asset.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify the collaboration system Lansing to include “wherein users of the group-based communication system that are non-members of the communication channel at least one of have limited access to the communication channel or have access to a reduced amount of functionality of the communication channel” as taught by Lebaredian for the purpose of preventing non-subscribers/non-members to have access to updated assets in collaboration network.
As to dependent claim 2, Lansing discloses saving, in response to receiving the request, the copy of the annotated screen share in association with the communication channel such that the copy of the annotated screen share is accessible from within the communication channel (paragraph [0042]: (e.g., an email can be sent to the participants in the web conference with a link that indicates where the particular version(s) and annotation(s) are persistently stored. A third-party storage service can be used for storing the version or versions that were previewed in the web conferencing setting, together with associated annotations; Computer-executable code and/or scripts that comprise a previewer module can be stored for download and use by any user on any user device.)
As to dependent claim 3, Lansing discloses receiving, via the communication channel and from a member of the communication channel, a second request to view the copy of the annotated screen share (paragraph [0042] (e.g., an email can be sent
to the participants in the web conference with a link that indicates where the particular version(s) and annotation(s) are persistently stored); and
causing display of the copy of the annotated screen share via the communication channel (paragraphs [0005], [0006]) (e.g., When the conference ends, a video file (e.g., an MP4 file), an audio file (e.g., an MP3 file), any chat activity, including document annotation, that might have occurred during the web conference, and other assets of the web conference are saved; NOTE: Lansing shows that an email with a link can be sent to play back an MP3 file of the conference).
As to dependent claim 4, Lansing discloses receiving a share request for the shared screen from the first device of the first user within the synchronous multimedia collaboration session; and in response to receiving the share request, displaying the shared screen via the second device of the second user (paragraphs [0005], [0006] (e.g., During a web conferencing session, a user may choose to share their screen or may choose to share images that derive from files available to the user. For example, a first user might share images of a spreadsheet as it is rendered in a spreadsheet application (e.g., in Microsoft Excel) that is running on the first user's computer).
As to dependent claim 5, Lansing discloses wherein the annotation is modifiable by other members of the synchronous multimedia collaboration session, including the first user and the second user (paragraph [0027]) (e.g., Some web conferencing facilities provide a set of annotation tools (e.g., line drawing tools, curve drawing tools, text box tools, erasers, etc.) for users of the web conferencing facility to annotate over whatever is being displayed on the web conference display area).
As to dependent claim 8, Lansing discloses wherein: the synchronous multimedia collaboration session is unscheduled (paragraph [0047]) (e.g., Once two or more of the user devices have installed or otherwise configured the web conferencing
code, a web conference can be initiated. This can happen when two or more of the user devices launch the web conferencing code. More specifically, once two or more of the user devices have installed or otherwise configured in the web conferencing code that is interfaced with the integration code, a web conference that supports user annotations over content management object can be initiated (step 214);
the synchronous multimedia collaboration session facilitates at least one of video
communications or audio communications between the members of the synchronous multimedia collaboration session (paragraph [0051]) (e.g., The shown canvas 373 has an area for audio/video controls, an area for a chat controls, and an area for other controls.); and
the members of the synchronous multimedia collaboration session have access permissions to the communication channel (paragraph [0027]) (e.g., each individual participant can make user-specific annotations, and can freely use the annotation tools, including erasers to make and change annotations over whatever is being displayed on the web conference display area).
As to dependent claim 18, Lansing discloses wherein the operations further comprise saving, in response to receiving the request, the copy of the annotated screen share in association with the communication channel (paragraph [0042]) (e.g., an email
can be sent to the participants in the web conference with a link that indicates where the particular version(s) and annotation(s) are persistently stored. A third-party storage service can be used for storing the version or versions that were previewed in the web conferencing setting, together with associated annotations; Computer-executable code and/or scripts that comprise a previewer module can be stored for download and use by any user on any user device), and wherein
the synchronous multimedia collaboration session is unscheduled (paragraph [0047]) (e.g., Once two or more of the user devices have installed or otherwise configured the web conferencing code, a web conference can be initiated. This can happen when two or more of the user devices launch the web conferencing code. More specifically, once two or more of the user devices have installed or otherwise configured in the web conferencing code that is interfaced with the integration code, a web conference that supports user annotations over content management object can be initiated (step 214);
the synchronous multimedia collaboration session facilitates at least one of video
communications or audio communications between the members of the synchronous multimedia collaboration session (paragraph [0051]) (e.g., The shown canvas 373 has an area for audio/video controls, an area for a chat controls, and an area for other controls.); and
the members of the synchronous multimedia collaboration session have access permissions to the communication channel (paragraph [0027]) (e.g., each individual participant can make user-specific annotations, and can freely use the annotation tools, including erasers to make and change annotations over whatever is being displayed on the web conference display area).
Claims 9-13 and 16 are system claims that contain similar limitations of claims 1-5 and 8, respectively. Therefore, claims 9-13 and 16 are rejected under the same rationale.
Claims 17, 19 and 20 are media claims that contain similar limitations of claims 1, 3, and 4, respectively. Therefore, claims 17, 19 and 20 are rejected under the same rationale.
Claims 6-7 and 14-15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lansing and Lebaredian as applied to claims 1-5, 8-13, and 16-20 above, and further in view of Gould et al. (Gould), US Patent Application Publication No. US 20080183819.
As to dependent claim 6, Lansing and Lebaredian, however, do not disclose providing, in the shared screen displayed to the second device of the second user, a shared cursor for at least one of the first user or the second user, the shared cursor allowing both the first user and the second user to concurrently interact with elements of the shared screen.
In the same field of invention, Gould teaches: method and system for collaborative and private sessions. Gould further teaches: in the shared screen displayed to the second device of the second user, a shared cursor for at least one of the first user or the second user, the shared cursor allowing both the first user and the second user to concurrently interact with elements of the shared screen (paragraphs [0026], [0044], [0094]) (e.g., When each of the participants of the session share a cursor, each of the participants may be limited to providing indications (or a certain type of indications such as markings) only when the participant has shared cursor control (e.g., control of a shared cursor) during the collaborative session; A collaborative shopping session may include sharing of a common interface for shopping by the plurality of users; A browse application may allow users to browse various category,
catalogue, or system inventory structures according to which listings may be classified within the networked system 102.).
Thus, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, having the teachings of Lansing, Lebaredian and Gould before the effective filing date of the invention, to have combined the teachings of Gould with the method, and corresponding system, as taught by Lansing, Lebaredian. One would have been motivated to make such combination because a way to associate a plurality of users with a collaborative shopping session would have been obtained and desired, as expressly taught by Gould (9 [0026]).
As to dependent claim 7, Lansing and Lebaredian, however, do not disclose wherein the shared cursor is provided by the group-based communication system to enable a collaboration functionality allowing both the first user and the second user to interact with the shared cursor of an application.
In the same field of invention, Gould teaches: method and system for collaborative and private sessions. Gould further teaches: wherein the shared cursor is provided by the group-based communication system to enable a collaboration functionality allowing both the first user and the second user to interact with the shared cursor of an application (paragraphs [0026], [0044], [0094]) (e.g., When each of the participants of the session share a cursor, each of the participants may be limited to providing indications (or a certain type of indications such as markings) only when the participant has shared cursor control (e.g., control of a shared cursor) during the collaborative session; A collaborative shopping session may include sharing of a common interface for shopping by the plurality of users; A browse application may allow users to browse various category, catalogue, or system inventory structures according to which listings may be classified within the networked system 102.).
Thus, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, having the teachings of Lansing, Lebaredian and Gould before the effective filing date of the invention, to have combined the teachings of Gould with the method, and corresponding system, as taught by Lansing, Lebaredian. One would have been motivated to make such combination because a way to associate a plurality of users with a collaborative shopping session would have been obtained and desired, as expressly taught by Gould (9 [0026]).
It is noted that any citation to specific, pages, columns, lines, or figures in the prior art references and any interpretation of the references should not be considered to be limiting in any way. A reference is relevant for all it contains and may be relied upon for all that it would have reasonably suggested to one having ordinary skill in the art. In re Heck, 699 F.2d 1331, 1332-33,216 USPQ 1038, 1039 (Fed. Cir. 1983) (quoting In re Lemelson, 397 F.2d 1006,1009, 158 USPQ 275, 277 (CCPA 1968)).
Response to Arguments
In the Remarks, Applicant argues in substance that
Applicant requests that the obviousness-type double patenting rejection be
withdrawn.
In reply to this argument, in light of the claim amendments, Examiner has made a new ground of nonstatutory double patenting for claims 1, 9 and 17 as being unpatentable over claims 8, 15 and 1, respectively of U.S. Patent No. 11/875,081 in view of Lebaredian et al. (Lebaredian), US Patent No. 12,211,055 B2. Please see the rejection above.
Applicant argues that Lansing does not disclose “causing display of a shared screen within a synchronous multimedia collaboration session that is initiated from within a communication channel of a group-based communication system.”
In reply to this argument, Lansing discloses in paragraph [0026]: during a web conferencing session, a user may choose to share their screen or may choose to share images that derive from files available to the user; the first user can discuss the spreadsheet, possibly moving the mouse cursor or other pointing cursor over regions of the spreadsheet while providing a voiceover for all web conference participants to see and hear. Thus, Lansing discloses “causing display of a shared screen within a synchronous multimedia collaboration session that is initiated from within a communication channel of a group-based communication system.”
The prior art does not teach “the communication channel being inaccessible to wherein users of the group-based communication system that are non-members of the communication channel at least one of have limited access to the communication channel or have access to a reduced amount of functionality of the communication channel.”
Applicant’s arguments with respect to the above limitations have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument. Please see the new ground of the rejection above with newly cited prior art Lebaredian.
The cited prior art does not disclose “saving, in response to receiving the request, the copy of the annotated screen share in association with the-communication channel such that the copy of the annotated screen share is accessible from within the communication channel.”
In reply to this argument, Lansing discloses in paragraphs [0041], [0005], [0006]: the annotation is saved within documents 103; however, in other embodiments, the annotations can be saved and merely associated with the selected document 103.sub.SELECTED; When the conference ends, a video file (e.g., an MP4 file), an audio file (e.g., an MP3 file), any chat activity, including document annotation, that might have occurred during the web conference, and other assets of the web conference are saved.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication should be directed to CHAU T NGUYEN at telephone number (571)272-4092. The examiner can normally be reached on M-F from 8am to 5pm (PT).
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) Form at https://www.uspto.gov/patents/uspto-automated-interview-request-air-form.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Cesar Paula, can be reached at telephone number 5712724128. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from Patent Center and the Private Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from Patent Center or Private PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Patent Center and Private PAIR for authorized users only. Should you have questions about access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free).
/CHAU T NGUYEN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2145
Prosecution Insights