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 .
Response to Arguments
The rejection of claims under 35 USC 112 is withdrawn based on the claim amendments.
Applicant's arguments filed 9/3/25 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. A new grounds of rejection is presented including a new reference US 2017/0220235 by Jayaraman to address the claims as amended.
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.
Claim(s) 1-3, 7-10, 13 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US 2018/0292964 by Snyder (Snyder) in view of US 2017/0220235 by Jayaraman (Jayaraman).
With respect to claim 1, Snyder teaches a method to manage a virtual team space, the method comprising: creating a new time period of a canvas-based space that follows an immediately prior time period of the canvas-based space, the immediately prior time period of the canvas-based space including structure, relevant content; and following and in response to creation of the new time period: persisting the structure in the new time period of the canvas-based space; and persisting the relevant content in the new time period of the canvas-based space. (Paragraph 3-4, Fig. 5-6 – Snyder teaches whiteboard sessions that can be archived/stored and subsequently bookmarked to form a timeline for a given whiteboard canvas. Archiving may occur, for example at the transition to a new calendar or joining of a new participant, thus creating a new time period that follows an immediately prior time period. In such a situation, the existing structure and relevant content would be dynamically saved as a session up until the point of archiving, then a new session would occur persisting the current structure and relevant content for the session starting the next time period (new day, new participant))
Snyder does not explicitly disclose the canvas-based space including non-relevant content and wiping the non-relevant content from the new time period of the canvas-based space. Jayaraman teaches a workspace where assets of the workspace can be marked for deletion (i.e. non-relevant content). The actually deletion of such assets marked for deletion does not occur until the end of the project session (i.e. non relevant content is wiped at transition point). (Paragraphs 29-31 - The actual deletion of the asset may be delayed and marked for deletion such that deletion occurs when the workspace is closed or otherwise terminated. When a new project is created in a workspace or another project is loaded from the saved projects into the workspace, any assets marked for deletion of the active project are then deleted.).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have the canvas-based space of Snyder include non-relevant content that is wiped at transition to a new session as in Jayaraman. One would be motivated to have this as it improves performance in relation to undo and redo actions in the workspace (Jayaraman Paragraph 30).
With respect to claim 2, Snyder as modified teaches the method of claim 1, further comprising at least one of: creating multiple time periods of the canvas-based space over time and providing access to each of the multiple time periods to one or more users; saving at least some of a revision history of the new time period of the canvas-based space or wiping non-persistent structure of the immediately prior time period of the canvas-based space from the new time period of the canvas-based space. (Snyder Paragraphs 31-37 – multiple whiteboards sessions (time periods) may be created and archived over time, these sessions can be accessed through controls such as bookmarks and further can be edited)
With respect to claim 3, Snyder as modified teaches the method of claim 1, wherein: the relevant content has a default state of persistent; or the non-relevant content has a default state of non-persistent. . (Synder Paragraphs 31-35, 67 – users determine what is relevant and persists and what is non-relevant and is removed. As this is the information’s base state when archived, it can be considered default to the original saved session – Jayaraman Paragraphs 29-31 user marks non-relevant content for deletion)
With respect to claim 7, Snyder as modified teaches the method of claim 1, further comprising: providing access to the virtual team space to each team member of a team that includes multiple team members; and receiving input to designate at least one of the following as the relevant content to be persisted: one or more decisions to be made by the team collectively or by one or more of the team members; tasks to be completed by one or more of the team members; a project timeline; a set of one or more goals of the team collectively or of one or more of the team members; or a set of one or more documents used or expected to be used on a recurring basis by the team. (Paragraph 29-34 – one or more users for any setting and topic, input of content without erasure is indicative of indicating such content to be persistent for the current session archive. The examiner notes the type content is descriptive in nature as it does not change the functionality of the claimed. Thus any of the content added by a user in Snyder would be within the scope of the claim.)
With respect to claim 8, Snyder as modified teaches the method of claim 1, wherein the persisted structure includes at least one of: a container graphical object; or a purpose-dedicated section. (Paragraph 32-33, Fig. 1A-1B, Fig. 5A – structure of the whiteboard includes at least the equivalent of a container for graphical objects)
With respect to claim 9, Snyder as modified teaches the method of claim 1, wherein the persisted relevant content includes at least one of: a sticky note graphical object; a task graphical object; a text box graphical object; a graphical diagram; a calendar; a project timeline; an organization chart; an embedded document; an embedded external website; or team resources. (Paragraph 67, Fig. 5A featured text and graphical objects that are retained )
With respect to claim 10, Snyder as modified teaches the method of claim 1, wherein the non-relevant content includes at least one of: a sticky note graphical object; a task graphical object; a text box graphical object; a graphical diagram; a calendar; meeting notes; standup notes; or completed task graphical objects. Paragraph 67, (Paragraph 67 Fig. 5A featured text and graphical objects that are deleted in some form )
Claim 13 is rejected based on the same rationale as claim 1.
Claim(s) 5, 6 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Snyder and Jayaraman and in further view of US 2024/0184989 by Mann et al. (Mann).
With respect to claim 5, Snyder as modified teaches the method of claim 1, but does not explicitly disclose further comprising: displaying a team roster that represents a team including multiple team members, the team roster including multiple user icons that each represents a different one of the team members, the user icons including a given user icon that represents a given team member of the team members; receiving input to associate the given user icon with a graphical object in the canvas-based space; and associating the given team member represented by the given user icon with the graphical object.
Mann teaches displaying a team roster that represents a team including multiple team members, the team roster including multiple user icons that each represents a different one of the team members, the user icons including a given user icon that represents a given team member of the team members; receiving input to associate the given user icon with a graphical object in the canvas-based space; and associating the given team member represented by the given user icon with the graphical object. (Fig. 6, 7 Paragraph 364-368 – Fig. 6 shows rosters of assignable persons A, B, C each with icon and an associated Project Item Graphical object)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have the canvas space of Snyder include the displaying of a team roster as in Mann. One would be motivated to have this as it is desirable to improve upon management of tasks in businesses and similar group dynamics (Snyder Paragraphs 3-9) which is of interest in Snyder (Paragraphs 33 and 34).
With respect to claim 6, Snyder as modified teaches the method of claim 5, wherein at least one of: receiving input to associate the given user icon with the graphical object comprises receiving input to drag the given user icon from the team roster and drop the given user icon on the graphical object in the canvas-based space; associating the given team member represented by the given user icon with the graphical object comprises assigning a task associated with the graphical object to the given team member; or the method further includes adding an identifier of the given team member to the graphical object to indicate the association of the given team member with the graphical object. (Based on the same logic in the combination of claim 5, Mann teaches through Fig. 5 Paragraph 368 the actions for associating an object and identifier to the given team member)
Claim(s) 11, 12 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Snyder and Jayaraman and in further view of US 2021/0397585 by Seward (Seward).
With respect to claim 11, Snyder as modified teaches the method of claim 1, further comprising: receiving input to select a set of one or more graphical objects; (Paragraph 33-34, 66-67, various selection inputs to allow for selection of one or more of graphical objects) but does not explicitly disclose receiving input to create an embedded document of a specified type with the selected set of one or more graphical objects; and creating, in the canvas-based space, the embedded document of the specified type, the embedded document including the selected set of one or more graphical objects.
Seward teaches in a canvas space, receiving input to create an embedded document of a specified type with the selected set of one or more graphical objects; and creating, in the canvas-based space, the embedded document of the specified type, the embedded document including the selected set of one or more graphical objects. (Paragraph 78, object can be interacted with to create a snapshot of the current object to be embedded as a referenced graphical object in a workspace)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have the selected objects of Snyder be embedded objects as in Seward. One would be motivated to have this as there is desire to improve upon the creation and sharing of information in a collaboration environment (Seward Paragraph 1, 10).
With respect to claim 12, Snyder as modified teaches the method of claim 11, further comprising adding contextual content to a document preview graphical object in the canvas-based space in response to input to add the contextual content, the document preview graphical object representing the embedded document. (Based on the same logic in the combination of claim 11, Seward further teaches Fig. 6, paragraph 78-76 items 620, 630 of object 680)
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 14-20 are allowed.
Claim 4 is objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
Conclusion
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.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to DAVID R LAZARO whose telephone number is (571)272-3986. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8-4:30.
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, Emmanuel Moise can be reached at 571-272-3865. 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.
/DAVID R LAZARO/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2455