DETAILED ACTION
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
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 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.
Applicant’s amendment/response filed 11/24/2025 has been entered and made of record. Claim 1 was amended. Claims 1-20 are pending in the application.
Claim Interpretation
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(f):
(f) Element in Claim for a Combination. – An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The claims in this application are given their broadest reasonable interpretation using the plain meaning of the claim language in light of the specification as it would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art. The broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim element (also commonly referred to as a claim limitation) is limited by the description in the specification when 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is invoked. As explained in MPEP § 2181, subsection I, claim limitations that meet the following three-prong test will be interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
(A) the claim limitation uses the term “means” or “step” or a term used as a substitute for “means” that is a generic placeholder (also called a nonce term or a non-structural term having no specific structural meaning) for performing the claimed function;
(B) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is modified by functional language, typically, but not always linked by the transition word “for” (e.g., “means for”) or another linking word or phrase, such as “configured to” or “so that”; and
(C) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function.
Use of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim with functional language creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites sufficient structure, material, or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Absence of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is not to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is not interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites function without reciting sufficient structure, material or acts to entirely perform the recited function. Claim limitations in this application that use the word “means” (or “step”) are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action. Conversely, claim limitations in this application that do not use the word “means” (or “step”) are not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action.
This application includes one or more claim limitations that do not use the word “means,” but are nonetheless being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, because the claim limitation(s) uses a generic placeholder that is coupled with functional language without reciting sufficient structure to perform the recited function and the generic placeholder is not preceded by a structural modifier. Such claim limitation(s) is/are: “an edit operation module,” “an action identifier module,” “an element identifier module,” “an edit region detection module,” and “a candidate event generation module” in claim 11; and “a delta computation module” in claims 12.
Because this/these claim limitation(s) is/are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, it/they is/are being interpreted to cover the corresponding structure described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof. If applicant does not intend to have this/these limitation(s) interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, applicant may: (1) amend the claim limitation(s) to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph (e.g., by reciting sufficient structure to perform the claimed function); or (2) present a sufficient showing that the claim limitation(s) recite(s) sufficient structure to perform the claimed function so as to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph.
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.
Claim(s) 1 and 5-7 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lemonik et al. (US 2011/0252339) in view of Pai et al. (US 2017/0185687), Gandhi (US 2014/0123076), and Newman et al. (US 2015/0199319).
Regarding claim 1, Lemonik teaches/suggests: A method comprising:
receiving, by a client device via a network, an edit to an element of digital content (Lemonik [0081]-[0082] “the server system identifies the document as being edited by the particular user … and transmits change data to the respective clients … the clients receive the change data from the central server system”);
comparing, by the client device, the previous edit made to the element to a previous edit made to the element for a local version of the digital content (Lemonik [0082] “identify potential collisions created by the edits from the other client when compared to the edits made on the local client”);
determining, by the client device, based on the comparing (Lemonik [0082] “identify potential collisions created by the edits from the other client when compared to the edits made on the local client” [The identifying meets the determining.]);
applying, by the client device, the edit to the local version of the digital content based on the determining (Lemonik [0082] “the client devices update their respective models”); and
displaying, by the client device, the local version of the digital content as having the edit in a user interface (Lemonik [0082] “render them to the respective DOMs on browsers running on the clients” [0104] “a client computer having a graphical user interface or a Web browser”).
Lemonik does not teach/suggest:
receiving a broadcast edit event identifying an edit to an element of digital content, an element identifier of the element;
Pai, however, teaches/suggests an edit event (Pai [0029] “Each event comprises event data such as an event type (e.g., comment, view, revision, message, retrieve/open, save/close), a user ID, a content item ID (e.g., a unique ID, file name, pathname, or the like), a content item version, a time stamp, an event content (e.g., texts and/or images of the comments, the specifics of the revision), and/or an associated event ID”). Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the change data of Lemonik to include the event data of Pai for identification. As such, Lemonik as modified by Pai teaches/suggests:
receiving a broadcast edit event identifying an edit to an element of digital content, an element identifier of the element (Lemonik [0082] “the clients receive the change data from the central server system” Pai [0029] “Each event comprises event data such as an event type (e.g., comment, view, revision, message, retrieve/open, save/close), a user ID, a content item ID (e.g., a unique ID, file name, pathname, or the like), a content item version, a time stamp, an event content (e.g., texts and/or images of the comments, the specifics of the revision), and/or an associated event ID” [The content item ID meets the element ID.]);
Lemonik as modified by Pai does not teach/suggest a previous action identifier identifying a previous edit made to the element. Gandhi, however, teaches/suggests a previous action identifier identifying a previous edit made to the element (Ghandhi [0030] “If a UI element already existed and had a sequence identifier in a previous edit instance, a new instance of the same element is created and given the new sequence identifier. In this way, it is even possible to track changes within the same given UI element”). Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the event data of Lemonik as modified by Pai to include the previous action ID as taught/suggested by Gandhi to track changes.
Lemonik as modified by Pai and Ghandhi does not teach/suggest:
comparing a first pair of the element identifier of the element and the previous action identifier identifying the previous edit made to the element in the broadcast edit event to a second pair of an element identifier of the element and an action identifier identifying a previous edit made to the element for a local version of the digital content;
determining based on the comparing that the element identifier and the previous action identifier of the broadcast edit event correspond to the element identifier and the previous action identifier of the local version of the digital content;
Newman, however, teaches/suggests comparing identifiers (Newman [0028] “The application 106 compares (208) the document identifiers, the version identifiers, and the change content to determine if a change conflict exists”). Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the comparing of Lemonik as modified by Pai and Gandhi to compare the identifiers as taught/suggested by Newman to determine if a change conflict exists. As such, Lemonik as modified by Pai, Gandhi, and Newman teaches/suggests:
comparing a first pair of the element identifier of the element and the previous action identifier identifying the previous edit made to the element in the broadcast edit event to a second pair of an element identifier of the element and an action identifier identifying a previous edit made to the element for a local version of the digital content (Lemonik [0082] “identify potential collisions created by the edits from the other client when compared to the edits made on the local client” Pai [0029] “Each event comprises event data such as an event type (e.g., comment, view, revision, message, retrieve/open, save/close), a user ID, a content item ID (e.g., a unique ID, file name, pathname, or the like), a content item version, a time stamp, an event content (e.g., texts and/or images of the comments, the specifics of the revision), and/or an associated event ID” Ghandhi [0030] “If a UI element already existed and had a sequence identifier in a previous edit instance, a new instance of the same element is created and given the new sequence identifier” Newman [0028] “The application 106 compares (208) the document identifiers, the version identifiers, and the change content to determine if a change conflict exists” [In view of Lemonik, Pai, Gandhi, and Newman, it would have been obvious to try comparing the previous action ID to determine if a change conflict exists.]);
determining based on the comparing that the element identifier and the previous action identifier of the broadcast edit event correspond to the element identifier and the previous action identifier of the local version of the digital content (Lemonik [0082] “identify potential collisions created by the edits from the other client when compared to the edits made on the local client” Pai [0029] “Each event comprises event data such as an event type (e.g., comment, view, revision, message, retrieve/open, save/close), a user ID, a content item ID (e.g., a unique ID, file name, pathname, or the like), a content item version, a time stamp, an event content (e.g., texts and/or images of the comments, the specifics of the revision), and/or an associated event ID” Ghandhi [0030] “If a UI element already existed and had a sequence identifier in a previous edit instance, a new instance of the same element is created and given the new sequence identifier” Newman [0028] “If the document identifiers do not match, then the changes are made to different documents and no change conflict exists. If the document identifiers match...”);
Regarding claim 5, Lemonik as modified by Pai, Gandhi, and Newman teaches/suggests: The method as described in claim 1, wherein the broadcast edit event is received in a broadcast from a service provider system, the service provider system imposing an ordering of broadcast edit events as candidate edit events are received by the service provider system from respective client devices that edit the digital content (Lemonik [0076] “The changes may also include a revision number so that the central server system may track the order in which changes have arrived” [0082] “the clients receive the change data from the central server system” Pai [0029] “Each event comprises event data such as an event type (e.g., comment, view, revision, message, retrieve/open, save/close), a user ID, a content item ID (e.g., a unique ID, file name, pathname, or the like), a content item version, a time stamp, an event content (e.g., texts and/or images of the comments, the specifics of the revision), and/or an associated event ID”). In view of Lemonik and Pai, the edit events arriving at the central server meet the candidate edit events. The same rationale to combine as set forth in the rejection of claim 1 above is incorporated herein.
Regarding claim 6, Lemonik as modified by Pai, Gandhi, and Newman teaches/suggests: The method as described in claim 1, wherein the broadcast edit event is:
received in a broadcast from a service provider system (Lemonik [0082] “the clients receive the change data from the central server system”); and
generated from a candidate edit event received by a service provider system from a first client device (Lemonik [0081] “each of the client devices may transmit those changes to the server system” Pai [0029] “Each event comprises event data such as an event type (e.g., comment, view, revision, message, retrieve/open, save/close), a user ID, a content item ID (e.g., a unique ID, file name, pathname, or the like), a content item version, a time stamp, an event content (e.g., texts and/or images of the comments, the specifics of the revision), and/or an associated event ID” [In view of Lemonik and Pai, the edit events arriving at the central server meet the candidate edit event.]).
The same rationale to combine as set forth in the rejection of claim 1 above is incorporated herein.
Regarding claim 7, Lemonik as modified by Pai, Gandhi, and Newman teaches/suggests: The method as described in claim 6, wherein the previous action identifier identifying the previous edit made to the element in the broadcast edit event is included in the candidate edit event received by the service provider system from the first client device (Lemonik [0081] “each of the client devices may transmit those changes to the server system” Pai [0029] “Each event comprises event data such as an event type (e.g., comment, view, revision, message, retrieve/open, save/close), a user ID, a content item ID (e.g., a unique ID, file name, pathname, or the like), a content item version, a time stamp, an event content (e.g., texts and/or images of the comments, the specifics of the revision), and/or an associated event ID” Ghandhi [0030] “If a UI element already existed and had a sequence identifier in a previous edit instance, a new instance of the same element is created and given the new sequence identifier”). The same rationale to combine as set forth in the rejection of claim 1 above is incorporated herein.
Claim(s) 2-4 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lemonik et al. (US 2011/0252339) in view of Pai et al. (US 2017/0185687), Gandhi (US 2014/0123076), and Newman et al. (US 2015/0199319) as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Coldham et al. (US 2019/0250800).
Regarding claim 2, Lemonik as modified by Pai, Gandhi, and Newman does not teach/suggest: The method as described in claim 1, wherein the broadcast edit event includes a patch that describes the edit and the applying includes obtaining binary data based on the patch to apply the edit to the local version of the digital content. Coldham, however, teaches/suggests a patch that describes the edit (Coldham [0061] “Change data 414 may refer to data that is usable to determine how to apply a remote operation to a local canvas of the computing device that receives a patch”). Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the change data of Lemonik as modified by Pai, Gandhi, and Newman to include the patch of Coldham to edit digital images.
As such, Lemonik as modified by Pai, Gandhi, Newman, and Coldham teaches/suggests the applying includes obtaining binary data based on the patch to apply the edit to the local version of the digital content (Lemonik [0082] “the client devices update their respective models” Coldham [0061] “Change data 414 may refer to data that is usable to determine how to apply a remote operation to a local canvas of the computing device that receives a patch” [0087] “the operations are received in a binary data format”).
Regarding claim 3, Lemonik as modified by Pai, Gandhi, Newman, and Coldham teaches/suggests: The method as described in claim 2, wherein the obtaining of the binary data is performed subsequent and responsive to the determining the element identifier and the previous action identifier of the broadcast edit event corresponds to the element identifier and the previous action identifier of the local version of the digital content (Lemonik [0082] “identify potential collisions created by the edits from the other client when compared to the edits made on the local client” Pai [0029] “Each event comprises event data such as an event type (e.g., comment, view, revision, message, retrieve/open, save/close), a user ID, a content item ID (e.g., a unique ID, file name, pathname, or the like), a content item version, a time stamp, an event content (e.g., texts and/or images of the comments, the specifics of the revision), and/or an associated event ID” Ghandhi [0030] “If a UI element already existed and had a sequence identifier in a previous edit instance, a new instance of the same element is created and given the new sequence identifier” Newman [0028] “If the document identifiers do not match, then the changes are made to different documents and no change conflict exists. If the document identifiers match...” Coldham [0061] “Change data 414 may refer to data that is usable to determine how to apply a remote operation to a local canvas of the computing device that receives a patch” [0087] “the operations are received in a binary data format”). The same rationales to combine as set forth in the rejection of claims 1 and 2 above are incorporated herein.
Regarding claim 4, Lemonik as modified by Pai, Gandhi, Newman, and Coldham teaches/suggests: The method as described in claim 2, wherein the patch and the binary data are computed as a delta between a before-state of an in-memory representation of the digital content before the edit and an after-state of the in- memory representation of the digital content after the edit (Lemonik [0081] “each of the client devices may transmit those changes to the server system” Coldham [0061] “Change data 414 may refer to data that is usable to determine how to apply a remote operation to a local canvas of the computing device that receives a patch” [0087] “the operations are received in a binary data format”). In view of Lemonik and Coldham, the change data meet the delta. The same rationale to combine as set forth in the rejection of claim 2 above is incorporated herein.
Claim(s) 8 and 9 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lemonik et al. (US 2011/0252339) in view of Pai et al. (US 2017/0185687), Gandhi (US 2014/0123076), and Newman et al. (US 2015/0199319) as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Eisley et al. (US 2021/0142541).
Regarding claim 8, Lemonik as modified by Pai, Gandhi, and Newman does not teach/suggest: The method as described in claim 1, wherein the displaying includes displaying a menu in the user interface including representations of a status of edits made to the local version of the digital content. Eisley, however, teaches/suggests displaying a menu in the user interface including representations of a status of edits made to the local version of the digital content (Eisley [0093] “FIG. 4E illustrates the client device 402 presenting a set of locked layer properties 426b associated with attributes of the editable layer 418a within a graphical user interface of the feature-restricted image application 420 ... the layering system 102 can indicate the limits on the edit operations by graying out or otherwise modifying an appearance of the locked layer properties 426b”). Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the GUI of Lemonik as modified by Pai, Gandhi, and Newman to include the menu of Eisley to facilitate the editing.
Regarding claim 9, Lemonik as modified by Pai, Gandhi, Newman, and Eisley teaches/suggests: The method as described in claim 8, wherein the representations indicate whether a respective said edit is locked, a download status of a respective said edit, or whether an undo operation to reverse application of a respective said edit is supported (Eisley [0093] “the layering system 102 can indicate the limits on the edit operations by graying out or otherwise modifying an appearance of the locked layer properties 426b”). The same rationale to combine as set forth in the rejection of claim 8 above is incorporated herein.
Claim(s) 10 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lemonik et al. (US 2011/0252339) in view of Pai et al. (US 2017/0185687), Gandhi (US 2014/0123076), Newman et al. (US 2015/0199319), and Eisley et al. (US 2021/0142541) as applied to claim 8 above, and further in view of Vik (US 2011/0106776).
Regarding claim 10, Lemonik as modified by Pai, Gandhi, Newman, and Eisley does not teach/suggest: The method as described in claim 8, wherein the displaying includes a representation indicating invalidation of an undo/redo operation caused by an edit made to a respective said element by another entity. Vik, however, teaches/suggests invalidation of an undo/redo operation (Vik [0047] “If the application data set has changed in such a manner that the operation cannot be undone/redone, then the undo/redo instructions for that operation are discarded and the undo/redo action is invalidated”). Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the menu of Lemonik as modified by Pai, Gandhi, Newman, and Eisley to include an indicator for invalidation of the undo/redo operation as taught/suggested by Vik to indicate that it cannot be undone/redone.
As such, Lemonik as modified by Pai, Gandhi, Newman, Eisley and Vik teaches/suggests a representation indicating invalidation of an undo/redo operation caused by an edit made to a respective said element by another entity (Eisley [0093] “FIG. 4E illustrates the client device 402 presenting a set of locked layer properties 426b associated with attributes of the editable layer 418a within a graphical user interface of the feature-restricted image application 420” Vik [0047] “If the application data set has changed in such a manner that the operation cannot be undone/redone, then the undo/redo instructions for that operation are discarded and the undo/redo action is invalidated”).
Claim(s) 11 and 12 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lemonik et al. (US 2011/0252339) in view of Pai et al. (US 2017/0185687) and Gandhi (US 2014/0123076).
Regarding claim 11, Lemonik teaches/suggests: A system (Lemonik [0088] “Computing device 600 includes a processor 602, memory 604”) comprising:
an edit operation module implemented by a client device to receive an edit input specifying an edit to digital content (Lemonik [0081] “where each of the users at the two client devices begins editing a shared document nearly simultaneously”);
an edit region detection module implemented by the client device to detect an edited content region of the digital content corresponding to the edit (Lemonik [0081] “each of the client devices may transmit those changes to the server system”);
Lemonik does not teach/suggest:
an element identifier module implemented by the client device to obtain an element identifier of an element of the digital content that is a subject of the edit of the element;
a candidate event generation module implemented by the client device to generate a candidate edit event including the element identifier, and the edited content region.
Pai, however, teaches/suggests:
an element identifier module implemented by the client device to obtain an element identifier of an element of the digital content that is a subject of the edit of the element (Pai [0029] “Each event comprises event data such as an event type (e.g., comment, view, revision, message, retrieve/open, save/close), a user ID, a content item ID (e.g., a unique ID, file name, pathname, or the like), a content item version, a time stamp, an event content (e.g., texts and/or images of the comments, the specifics of the revision), and/or an associated event ID” [The content item ID meets the element ID.]);
a candidate event generation module implemented by the client device to generate a candidate edit event including the element identifier, and the edited content region (Pai [0029] “Each event comprises event data such as an event type (e.g., comment, view, revision, message, retrieve/open, save/close), a user ID, a content item ID (e.g., a unique ID, file name, pathname, or the like), a content item version, a time stamp, an event content (e.g., texts and/or images of the comments, the specifics of the revision), and/or an associated event ID”).
Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the change data of Lemonik to include the event data of Pai for identification.
Lemonik as modified by Pai does not teach/suggest a previous action identifier identifying a previous edit associated with the element. Nor does Lemonik as modified by Pai teach/suggest:
an action identifier module implemented by the client device to assign an action identifier to the edit;
a candidate edit event including the action identifier, the element identifier, the previous action identifier, and the edited content region.
Gandhi, however, teaches/suggests a previous action identifier identifying a previous edit associated with the element (Ghandhi [0030] “If a UI element already existed and had a sequence identifier in a previous edit instance, a new instance of the same element is created and given the new sequence identifier. In this way, it is even possible to track changes within the same given UI element”). Gandhi further teaches/suggests:
an action identifier module implemented by the client device to assign an action identifier to the edit (Ghandhi [0030] “If a UI element already existed and had a sequence identifier in a previous edit instance, a new instance of the same element is created and given the new sequence identifier”);
Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the event data of Lemonik as modified by Pai to include the previous action ID as taught/suggested by Gandhi to track changes. As such, Lemonik as modified by Pai and Gandhi teaches/suggests:
a candidate edit event including the action identifier, the element identifier, the previous action identifier, and the edited content region (Lemonik [0081] “each of the client devices may transmit those changes to the server system” Pai [0029] “Each event comprises event data such as an event type (e.g., comment, view, revision, message, retrieve/open, save/close), a user ID, a content item ID (e.g., a unique ID, file name, pathname, or the like), a content item version, a time stamp, an event content (e.g., texts and/or images of the comments, the specifics of the revision), and/or an associated event ID” Ghandhi [0030] “If a UI element already existed and had a sequence identifier in a previous edit instance, a new instance of the same element is created and given the new sequence identifier”).
Regarding claim 12, Lemonik as modified by Pai and Gandhi teaches/suggests: The system as described in claim 11, wherein the candidate event generation module includes a delta computation module configured to generate a delta between a before-state of an in-memory representation of the digital content before the edit and an after-state of the in-memory representation of the digital content after the edit (Lemonik [0081] “each of the client devices may transmit those changes to the server system”). The change data meet the delta.
Claim(s) 13 and 14 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lemonik et al. (US 2011/0252339) in view of Pai et al. (US 2017/0185687) and Gandhi (US 2014/0123076) as applied to claim 12 above, and further in view of Coldham et al. (US 2019/0250800).
Regarding claim 13, Lemonik as modified by Pai and Gandhi does not teach/suggest: The system as described in claim 12, wherein the delta computation module is configured to split the delta into:
a patch that describes the edit; and
binary data corresponding to the patch to apply the edit.
Coldham, however, teaches/suggests:
a patch that describes the edit (Coldham [0061] “Change data 414 may refer to data that is usable to determine how to apply a remote operation to a local canvas of the computing device that receives a patch”); and
binary data corresponding to the patch to apply the edit (Coldham [0061] “Change data 414 may refer to data that is usable to determine how to apply a remote operation to a local canvas of the computing device that receives a patch” [0087] “the operations are received in a binary data format”).
Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the change data of Lemonik as modified by Pai and Gandhi to include the patch of Coldham to edit digital images.
Regarding claim 14, Lemonik as modified by Pai, Gandhi, and Coldham teaches/suggests: The system as described in claim 13, wherein the candidate edit event is communicated to a service provider system that includes the patch and the binary data (Lemonik [0081] “each of the client devices may transmit those changes to the server system” Coldham [0061] “Change data 414 may refer to data that is usable to determine how to apply a remote operation to a local canvas of the computing device that receives a patch” [0087] “the operations are received in a binary data format”). The same rationale to combine as set forth in the rejection of claim 13 above is incorporated herein.
Claim(s) 16 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lemonik et al. (US 2011/0252339) in view of Pai et al. (US 2017/0185687) and Gandhi (US 2014/0123076) as applied to claim 11 above, and further in view of Eisley et al. (US 2021/0142541).
Regarding claim 16, Lemonik as modified by Pai and Gandhi does not teach/suggest: The system as described in claim 11, wherein the edit region detection module supports a validation technique configured to restrict communication of an unsupported edit. Eisley, however, teaches/suggests the edit region detection module supports a validation technique configured to restrict communication of an unsupported edit (Eisley [0093] “FIG. 4E illustrates the client device 402 presenting a set of locked layer properties 426b associated with attributes of the editable layer 418a within a graphical user interface of the feature-restricted image application 420 ... the layering system 102 may limit, or prevent, the feature-restricted image application 420 from modifying the locked layer properties 426b of the edit-restricted layer 418b”). Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art to modify an element of Lemonik as modified by Pai, Gandhi, and Newman to be locked as taught/suggested by Eisley to prevent it from being edited.
Claim(s) 17-18 and 20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lemonik et al. (US 2011/0252339) in view of Pai et al. (US 2017/0185687), Gandhi (US 2014/0123076), and Eisley et al. (US 2021/0142541).
Regarding claim 17, Lemonik as modified by Pai and Gandhi teaches/suggests: One or more computer-readable storage media storing instruction that, responsive to execution by a processing device, causes the processing device to perform operations (Lemonik [0088] “Computing device 600 includes a processor 602, memory 604”) comprising:
receiving an edit input specifying an edit to a digital
assigning an action identifier to the edit (Ghandhi [0030] “If a UI element already existed and had a sequence identifier in a previous edit instance, a new instance of the same element is created and given the new sequence identifier”);
identifying an element of the digital
obtaining an element identifier (Pai [0029] “Each event comprises event data such as an event type (e.g., comment, view, revision, message, retrieve/open, save/close), a user ID, a content item ID (e.g., a unique ID, file name, pathname, or the like), a content item version, a time stamp, an event content (e.g., texts and/or images of the comments, the specifics of the revision), and/or an associated event ID”) and a previous action identifier identifying a previous edit associated with the element (Ghandhi [0030] “If a UI element already existed and had a sequence identifier in a previous edit instance, a new instance of the same element is created and given the new sequence identifier”);
detecting a portion
generating a candidate edit event to control coediting of the digital
The same rationale to combine as set forth in the rejection of claim 11 above is incorporated herein.
Lemonik as modified by Pai and Gandhi does not teach/suggest a digital image. Nor does Lemonik as modified by Pai and Gandhi teach/suggest a layer. Eisley, however, teaches/suggests a digital image and a layer (Eisley [0001] “many digital image editing systems allow users to create and edit separate image layers to modify corresponding visual characteristics or positions of components of digital images”). Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the change data of Lemonik as modified by Pai and Gandhi to include the digital images of Eisley for editing.
Regarding claim 18, Lemonik as modified by Pai, Gandhi, and Eisley teaches/suggests: The one or more computer-readable storage media as described in claim 17, wherein the operations further comprise generating a delta between a before-state of an in-memory representation of the digital image before the edit and an after-state of the in-memory representation of the digital image after the edit (Lemonik [0081] “each of the client devices may transmit those changes to the server system” Eisley [0001] “many digital image editing systems allow users to create and edit separate image layers to modify corresponding visual characteristics or positions of components of digital images”). In view of Lemonik and Eisley, the change data meet the delta. The same rationale to combine as set forth in the rejection of claim 17 above is incorporated herein.
Regarding claim 20, Lemonik as modified by Pai, Gandhi, and Eisley teaches/suggests: The one or more computer-readable storage media as described in claim 19, further comprising receiving a edit event in a broadcast (Lemonik [0082] “the clients receive the change data from the central server system” Pai [0029] “Each event comprises event data such as an event type (e.g., comment, view, revision, message, retrieve/open, save/close), a user ID, a content item ID (e.g., a unique ID, file name, pathname, or the like), a content item version, a time stamp, an event content (e.g., texts and/or images of the comments, the specifics of the revision), and/or an associated event ID”) and removing a conflicting candidate edit from a local version of the digital image (Lemonik [0072] “Chris, as the document creator, for example, may be able to apply his changes over changes made by either Tina or Spike in cases of conflict”). The same rationale to combine as set forth in the rejection of claim 11 above is incorporated herein.
Claim(s) 19 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lemonik et al. (US 2011/0252339) in view of Pai et al. (US 2017/0185687), Gandhi (US 2014/0123076), and Eisley et al. (US 2021/0142541) as applied to claim 18 above, and further in view of Coldham et al. (US 2019/0250800).
Regarding claim 19, Lemonik as modified by Pai, Gandhi, and Eisley does not teach/suggest: The one or more computer-readable storage media as described in claim 18, wherein generating includes splitting the delta into:
a patch that describes the edit; and
binary data corresponding to the patch to apply the edit.
Coldham, however, teaches/suggests:
a patch that describes the edit (Coldham [0061] “Change data 414 may refer to data that is usable to determine how to apply a remote operation to a local canvas of the computing device that receives a patch”); and
binary data corresponding to the patch to apply the edit (Coldham [0061] “Change data 414 may refer to data that is usable to determine how to apply a remote operation to a local canvas of the computing device that receives a patch” [0087] “the operations are received in a binary data format”).
Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the change data of Lemonik as modified by Pai, Gandhi, and Eisley to include the patch of Coldham for editing.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claim 15 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.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter: Stutzenberger (US 2017/0212750) discloses receiving patch initialization data and patch data separately (paras. 0020-0021). However, the limitation “the patch is configured for inclusion in a broadcast edit event by the service provider system, the broadcast edit event referencing the binary data as stored at the service provider system and obtainable separately from the patch,” taken as a whole, renders the claim patentably distinct over the prior art.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 11/24/2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant argues “Pai is silent with respect to a 'broadcast.' None of the other asserted references, alone or in combination, correct this defect.” See Remarks, p. 10.
Examiner respectfully disagrees. Lemonik transmits change data to respective clients that did not make the change. In view of Lemonik and Pai, an edit event would be transmitted (the claimed broadcast) to such clients.
Applicant further argues “Newman teaches away from the 'comparing, by the client device,' of the pairs of element and previous action identifiers ... the 'document' and 'version' identifiers of Newman are not analogous to the 'element identifier' and 'previous action identifier' of the subject Application and, because of the differences between identifiers, Newman teaches away from the 'comparing, by the client device,' of the subject Application.” See Remarks, pp. 10-11.
Examiner respectfully disagrees. Newman was cited to teach/suggest comparing different types of identifiers, not the document and version identifiers specifically. In view of Lemonik, Pai, Ghandhi, and Newman, the respective content item IDs (the claimed element IDs) and the respective previous edit IDs (the claimed previous action IDs) would be compared to determine if a change conflict exists.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure:
US 2011/0150412 – broadcast event
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. 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 ANH-TUAN V NGUYEN whose telephone number is 571-270-7513. The examiner can normally be reached on M-F 9AM-5PM ET. 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, JASON CHAN can be reached on 571-272-3022. 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 the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/ANH-TUAN V NGUYEN/
Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2619