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.
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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114.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 04/27/2026 has been entered. Claims 1, 7, 11, and 17 were amended. Claims 1-20 are pending in the application.
Claim Objections
Claim 20 is objected to because of the following informalities: Claim 20 recites “receiving a edit event in a broadcast” instead of “receiving an edit event in a broadcast.” Appropriate correction is required.
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 § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
Claims 1-10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention. Claims 1-10 recite “a broadcast edit event identifying an edit to an element of digital content, an element identifier of the element, and a previous action identifier identifying a most recent previous edit made to the element.” It’s unclear whether the edit refers to the current edit being made to the element or the most recent previous edit already made to the element. (For examination, the edit is interpreted to refer to the current edit being made to the element.)
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) 11-14 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 Coldham et al. (US 2019/0250800).
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 [0076] “Content management system 110 receives 908 events related to content item 302 from devices 100” [0029] “a content item ID (e.g., a unique ID, file name, pathname, or the like)”);
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 ... a content item ID (e.g., a unique ID, file name, pathname, or the like) ... an event content (e.g., texts and/or images of the comments, the specifics of the revision)”).
Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, the substitution of one known element (the events of Pai) for another (the changes of Lemonik) would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art because such substitutions would have yielded predictable results, namely to identify the changes.
Nor does Lemonik teach/suggest:
an action identifier module implemented by the client device to assign an action identifier to the edit;
a previous action identifier identifying a most recent previous edit associated with the element;
a candidate edit event including the action identifier, the element identifier, the previous action identifier, and the edited content region.
Coldham, however, teaches/suggests:
an action identifier module implemented by the client device to assign an action identifier to the edit (Coldham [0053] “a patch comprises one or more operations 404, and each operation includes various attributes, such as the attributes 406-414” [0060] “A change type 412 may refer to the type of change that was applied by the local command”);
a previous action identifier identifying a most recent previous edit associated with the element (Coldham [0053] “a patch comprises one or more operations 404, and each operation includes various attributes, such as the attributes 406-414” [The operations meet the most recent previous edit.] [0060] “A change type 412 may refer to the type of change that was applied by the local command”);
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 events of Lemonik as modified by Pai to include the operations of Coldham to identify the changes. As such, Lemonik as modified by Pai and Coldham teaches/suggests:
a candidate edit event including the action identifier, the element identifier, the previous action identifier, and the edited content region (Pai [0029] “Each event comprises ... a content item ID (e.g., a unique ID, file name, pathname, or the like) ... an event content (e.g., texts and/or images of the comments, the specifics of the revision)” Coldham [0053] “a patch comprises one or more operations 404, and each operation includes various attributes, such as the attributes 406-414” [0060] “A change type 412 may refer to the type of change that was applied by the local command”).
Regarding claim 12, Lemonik as modified by Pai and Coldham 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” Pai [0076] “Content management system 110 receives 908 events related to content item 302 from devices 100”). The change data meet the delta. The same rationale to combine as set forth in the rejection of claim 11 is incorporated herein.
Regarding claim 13, Lemonik as modified by Pai and Coldham teaches/suggests: 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 (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”).
The same rationale to combine as set forth in the rejection of claim 11 is incorporated herein.
Regarding claim 14, Lemonik as modified by Pai 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” Pai [0076] “Content management system 110 receives 908 events related to content item 302 from devices 100” 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 11 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 Coldham et al. (US 2019/0250800) 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 Coldham 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/object of Lemonik as modified by Pai and Coldham to be locked as taught/suggested by Eisley to prevent it from being edited.
Claim(s) 17-19 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), Coldham et al. (US 2019/0250800), and Eisley et al. (US 2021/0142541).
Regarding claim 17, Lemonik as modified by Pai and Coldham 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 (Coldham [0053] “a patch comprises one or more operations 404, and each operation includes various attributes, such as the attributes 406-414” [0060] “A change type 412 may refer to the type of change that was applied by the local command”);
identifying an element of the digital
obtaining an element identifier
detecting a portion that is a subject of the edit (Lemonik [0081] “each of the client devices may transmit those changes to the server system”); and
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 is incorporated herein.
Lemonik as modified by Pai and Coldham does not teach/suggest a digital image. Nor does Lemonik as modified by Pai and Coldham 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 shared document of Lemonik as modified by Pai and Coldham to include the digital images of Eisley for editing.
Regarding claim 18, Lemonik as modified by Pai, Coldham, 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 is incorporated herein.
Regarding claim 19, Lemonik as modified by Pai and Coldham teaches/suggests: 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 (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”).
The same rationale to combine as set forth in the rejection of claim 17 is incorporated herein.
Claim(s) 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), Coldham et al. (US 2019/0250800), and Eisley et al. (US 2021/0142541) as applied to claim 19 above, and further in view of Karande et al. (US 2019/0014160).
Regarding claim 20, Lemonik as modified by Pai, Coldham, and Eisley teaches/suggests: The one or more computer-readable storage media as described in claim 19, further comprising receiving [an] edit event and removing a conflicting candidate edit from a local version of the digital image (Lemonik [0082] “the clients receive the change data from the central server system and identify potential collisions” Pai [0029] “Each event comprises ... a content item ID (e.g., a unique ID, file name, pathname, or the like) ... an event content (e.g., texts and/or images of the comments, the specifics of the revision)”). The same rationale to combine as set forth in the rejection of claim 17 is incorporated herein.
Lemonik, Pai, Coldham, and Eisley are silent regarding receiving [an] edit event in a broadcast. Karande, however, teaches/suggests receiving [an] edit event in a broadcast (Karande [0040] “Event objects are broadcast to user devices”). 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 changes of Lemonik as modified by Pai, Coldham, and Eisley to be broadcast as taught/suggested by Karande to transmit to all users.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 1-10 would be allowable if rewritten or amended to overcome the rejection(s) under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) set forth in this Office action.
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: The limitations “comparing, by the client device, a first pair of the element identifier of the element and the previous action identifier identifying the most recent previous edit made to the element in the broadcast edit event to a second pair of an element identifier of the element and a previous action identifier identifying a most recent previous edit made to the element for a local version of the digital content,” “determining, by the client device, 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,” and “applying, by the client device, the edit to the local version of the digital content based on the determining” in claims 1-10; and “wherein 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” in claim 15, taken as a whole, render the respective claims patentably distinct over the prior art.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed on 04/27/2026 have been fully considered but they are moot in view of the new ground(s) of rejection set forth in this Office action.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure:
US 2015/0378972 – multiuser document editing
US 2017/0357738 – multiuser collaboration
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
Prosecution Insights