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 .
Response to Amendment
This office action is written in response to an amendment filed on 4/29/2026. As directed by amendment: Claims 1 and 19-20 were amended. No new claims were added and no claims were cancelled. Thus, Claims 1-20 are presently pending in this application.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to Claims 1-20 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.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
The test for obviousness is not whether the features of a secondary reference may be bodily incorporated into the structure of the primary reference; nor is it that the claimed invention must be expressly suggested in any one or all of the references. Rather, the test is what the combined teachings of the references would have suggested to those of ordinary skill in the art. See In re Keller, 642 F.2d 413, 208 USPQ 871 (CCPA 1981).
Claims 1-2, 15, and 19-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Pettay et al (“Pettay”, US 9601117) in view of Davuluri et al (“Davuluri”, US 20210365896).
Regarding Claim 1, Pettay teaches a file sharing system comprising: one or a plurality of processors, wherein the one or plurality of processors are configured to (Col. 2 lines 1-12):
acquire conference time information indicating time at which a remote conference is conducted (Col. 4 lines 41-67; Col. 5 lines 1-14; The time information is the timestamps created while actions were performed on the document during the conference.);
acquire participant information that is information related to a plurality of participants who participate in the remote conference (Col. 4 lines 41-67; Col. 5 lines 1-14);
and share a file including at least the usage file with each of the plurality of participants (Col. 4 lines 41-67; Col. 5 lines 1-14; The time information is the timestamps created while actions were performed on the document during the conference. The usage file is the transcription. The file is the shared document. The shared document may be updated (shared) for all users to observe and access. The corresponding transcription (usage file) may also be referenced.).
Pettay does not explicitly teach specify a usage file that is used in the remote conference from among files held by a file management server based on the conference time information.
Davuluri teaches specify a usage file that is used in the remote conference from among files held by a file management server based on the conference time information (par 47; The usage file is the transcript. The file management server is the central server.).
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 invention of Pettay with the meeting information of Davuluri because it allows for the generating meeting recommendations meetings (Davuluri; par 4). The transcripts further provide more context such as information from video content (Davuluri; par 47).
Regarding Claim 2, Pettay and Davuluri teach the file sharing system according to claim 1.
Pettay further teaches wherein the one or plurality of processors are configured to: share the usage file that is designated by the participant from among specified usage files with the plurality of participants (Col. 4 lines 41-67; Col. 5 lines 1-14; The time information is the timestamps created while actions were performed on the document during the conference. The usage file is the transcription. The file is the shared document. The shared document may be updated (shared) for all users to observe and access. The corresponding transcription (usage file) may also be referenced.).
Regarding Claim 15, Pettay and Davuluri teach the file sharing system according to claim 1.
Pettay further teaches wherein the one or plurality of processors are configured to: in a case in which a condition related to sharing is satisfied, share the file including at least the usage file with each of the plurality of participants (Col. 4 lines 41-67; Col. 5 lines 1-14; The time information is the timestamps created while actions were performed on the document during the conference. The usage file is the transcription. The file is the shared document. The shared document may be updated (shared) for all users to observe and access. The corresponding transcription (usage file) may also be referenced. The condition is the electing to share a particular document.).
Regarding Claim 19, Claim 19 is rejected with the same reasoning as Claim 1.
Regarding Claim 20, Claim 20 is rejected with the same reasoning as Claim 1.
Claims 3-4 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Pettay and Davuluri in view of Kowal et al (“Kowal”, US 20180109570).
Regarding Claim 3, Pettay and Davuluri teach the file sharing system according to claim 2.
Pettay does not explicitly teach wherein the participant who designates the usage file is a participant who uses the usage file during the remote conference.
Kowal teaches wherein the participant who designates the usage file is a participant who uses the usage file during the remote conference (par 23).
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 invention of Pettay and Davuluri with the document sharing of Kowal because it allows for real-time conferencing and confidentiality levels to shared content, thereby improving performance and privacy.
Regarding Claim 4, Pettay and Davuluri teach the file sharing system according to claim 2.
Pettay does not explicitly teach wherein the participant who designates the usage file is another participant being different from a participant who uses the usage file during the remote conference and having authority to designate the usage file.
Kowal teaches wherein the participant who designates the usage file is another participant being different from a participant who uses the usage file during the remote conference and having authority to designate the usage file (par 23).
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 invention of Pettay and Davuluri with the document sharing of Kowal because it allows for real-time conferencing and confidentiality levels to shared content, thereby improving performance and privacy.
Claims 5-7 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Pettay and Davuluri in view of Eden et al (“Eden”, US 20230135071).
Regarding Claim 5, Pettay and Davuluri teach the file sharing system according to claim 1.
Pettay does not explicitly teach wherein the file includes the usage file and a non-usage file that is not used in the remote conference.
Eden teaches wherein the file includes the usage file and a non-usage file that is not used in the remote conference (par 22; The usage file is the portion of the meeting transcript. The non-usage file is the full meeting transcript.).
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 invention of Pettay and Davuluri with the recording functionality of Eden because it allows for video recording capabilities, allowing users to catch up and watch portions of a conference that they may have missed after the conference concludes.
Regarding Claim 6, Pettay, Davuluri, and Eden teach the file sharing system according to claim 5.
Pettay further teaches wherein the non-usage file is a related file that is related to the usage file (Col. 4 lines 41-67; Col. 5 lines 1-14; The time information is the timestamps created while actions were performed on the document during the conference. The usage file is the transcription. The file is the shared document. The shared document may be updated (shared) for all users to observe and access. The corresponding transcription (usage file) may also be referenced. The non-usage file is the shared document.).
Regarding Claim 7, Pettay, Davuluri, and Eden teach the file sharing system according to claim 6.
Pettay further teaches wherein the one or plurality of processors are configured to: display the specified usage file and the related file to be identifiable in a case in which the participant designates a file to be shared (Col. 4 lines 41-67; Col. 5 lines 1-14; The time information is the timestamps created while actions were performed on the document during the conference. The usage file is the transcription. The file is the shared document. The shared document may be updated (shared) for all users to observe and access. The corresponding transcription (usage file) may also be referenced. The non-usage file is the shared document.).
Claim 8 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Pettay, Davuluri, and Eden in view of Bradley et al (“Bradley”, US 20220115020).
Regarding Claim 8, Pettay, Davuluri, and Eden teach the file sharing system according to claim 7.
Pettay and Eden do not explicitly teach wherein the one or plurality of processors are configured to: make a display format different between the usage file and the related file.
Bradley teaches wherein the one or plurality of processors are configured to: make a display format different between the usage file and the related file (par 6).
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 invention of Pettay, Davuluri, and Eden with the metadata of Bradley because metadata provides a structured way for communicating information about content.
Claims 9-10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Pettay and Davuluri in view of Vendrow et al (“Vendrow”, US 20220103603).
Regarding Claim 9, Pettay and Davuluri teach the file sharing system according to claim 1.
Pettay does not explicitly teach wherein the one or plurality of processors are configured to: receive designation of a file that is not shared with each of the plurality of participants; and not share the file that is designated not to be shared by the participant, with each of the plurality of participants.
Vendrow teaches wherein the one or plurality of processors are configured to: receive designation of a file that is not shared with each of the plurality of participants (par 60);
and not share the file that is designated not to be shared by the participant, with each of the plurality of participants (par 60).
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 invention of Pettay and Davuluri with the sharing permissions of Vendrow because it prevents sensitive or confidential documents from being accessed, thereby improving security and privacy.
Regarding Claim 10, Pettay, Davuluri, and Vendrow teach the file sharing system according to claim 9.
Pettay does not explicitly teach wherein the one or plurality of processors are configured to: not share a file that is designated not to be shared even in a case in which the file is the specified usage file, with each of the plurality of participants.
Vendrow teaches wherein the one or plurality of processors are configured to: not share a file that is designated not to be shared even in a case in which the file is the specified usage file, with each of the plurality of participants (par 60).
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 invention of Pettay and Davuluri with the sharing permissions of Vendrow because it prevents sensitive or confidential documents from being accessed, thereby improving security and privacy.
Claim 11 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Pettay, Davuluri, and Vendrow in view of Silverstein et al (“Silverstein”, US 20230273720).
Regarding Claim 11, Pettay, Davuluri, and Vendrow teach the file sharing system according to claim 9.
Pettay does not explicitly teach wherein the one or plurality of processors are configured to: not share a page of a file that is designated not to be shared even in a case in which the file is a file to be shared or a part of the page that is designated not to be shared, with each of the plurality of participants.
Vendrow teaches wherein the one or plurality of processors are configured to: not share a file with each of the plurality of participants (par 60).
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 invention of Pettay and Davuluri with the sharing permissions of Vendrow because it prevents sensitive or confidential documents from being accessed, thereby improving security and privacy.
Pettay, Davuluri, and Vendrow do not explicitly teach not share a page of a file that is designated not to be shared even in a case in which the file is a file to be shared or a part of the page that is designated not to be shared.
Silverstein teaches not share a page of a file that is designated not to be shared even in a case in which the file is a file to be shared or a part of the page that is designated not to be shared (par 85).
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 invention of Pettay, Davuluri, and Vendrow with the screensharing of Silverstein because it improves collaboration between users.
Claims 12 and 14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Pettay and Davuluri in view of Reyes (“Reyes”, US 20160373387).
Regarding Claim 12, Pettay and Davuluri teach the file sharing system according to claim 1.
Pettay does not explicitly teach wherein the one or plurality of processors are configured to: make a display mode different between the usage file and a non-usage file that is not used in the remote conference among files that are shared.
Reyes teaches wherein the one or plurality of processors are configured to: make a display mode different between the usage file and a non-usage file that is not used in the remote conference among files that are shared (Fig. 2A, elements {204, 224}, par 42-44; The usage file is the document currently being shared. The non-usage file is one of the shared documents.).
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 invention of Pettay and Davuluri with the screensharing of Reyes because it improves collaboration between conference participants.
Regarding Claim 14, Pettay and Davuluri teach the file sharing system according to claim 1.
Pettay does not explicitly teach wherein the one or plurality of processors are configured to: in a case in which a plurality of shared files that are shared are displayed on a display unit, display attribute information indicating an attribute of a shared file on the display unit in correspondence with each of the shared files.
Reyes teaches wherein the one or plurality of processors are configured to: in a case in which a plurality of shared files that are shared are displayed on a display unit, display attribute information indicating an attribute of a shared file on the display unit in correspondence with each of the shared files (Fig. 2C, element 270, par 58-60).
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 invention of Pettay and Davuluri with the screensharing of Reyes because it improves collaboration between conference participants.
Claim 13 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Pettay and Davuluri in view of LiveOnlineMeeting LOM (“LOM”, LOMPresent Slides - Live Online Meeting, 5/18/2016, YouTube, retrieved on 2/21/2026 from <URL:https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4tzzJxvfg7w> (Year: 2016)).
Regarding Claim 13, Pettay and Davuluri teach the file sharing system according to claim 1.
Pettay does not explicitly teach wherein the one or plurality of processors are configured to: make a display mode different between a page that is used during the remote conference and a page that is not used during the remote conference among files that are shared.
LOM teaches wherein the one or plurality of processors are configured to: make a display mode different between a page that is used during the remote conference and a page that is not used during the remote conference among files that are shared (Pg. 1, time duration 0:50-1:23 of the video; The page/slide that is used is displayed larger and is highlighted with a red border in the thumbnail view. The page/slide that is not used is displayed in the thumbnail view at the top without any highlighted border.).
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 invention of Pettay and Davuluri with the document sharing of LOM because it allows for the sharing of additional file formats such as PowerPoint and PDF in real-time.
Claim 16 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Pettay and Davuluri in view of Mahmoudian-Bidgoly et al (“Mahmoudian”, US 20150346937).
Regarding Claim 16, Pettay and Davuluri teach the file sharing system according to claim 15.
Pettay does not explicitly teach wherein the condition related to the sharing is that all the participants of the remote conference have completed a setting related to the sharing.
Mahmoudian teaches wherein the condition related to the sharing is that all the participants of the remote conference have completed a setting related to the sharing (par 115).
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 invention of Pettay and Davuluri with the permission sharing of Mahmoudian because it provides anonymity for users and improves privacy.
Claims 17-18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Pettay, Davuluri, and Mahmoudian in view of Kowal.
Regarding Claim 17, Pettay, Davuluri, and Mahmoudian teach the file sharing system according to claim 16.
Pettay does not explicitly teach wherein the one or plurality of processors are configured to: in a case in which another participant being different from a participant who uses the usage file during the remote conference and having authority to designate the usage file has completed the setting, specify that all the participants of the remote conference have completed the setting.
Mahmoudian teaches specify that all the participants of the remote conference have completed the setting (par 115).
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 invention of Pettay and Davuluri with the permission sharing of Mahmoudian because it provides anonymity for users and improves privacy.
Pettay, Davuluri, and Mahmoudian do not explicitly teach wherein the one or plurality of processors are configured to: in a case in which another participant being different from a participant who uses the usage file during the remote conference and having authority to designate the usage file has completed the setting, specify that a participant of the remote conference have completed the setting.
Kowal teaches wherein the one or plurality of processors are configured to: in a case in which another participant being different from a participant who uses the usage file during the remote conference and having authority to designate the usage file has completed the setting, specify that a participant of the remote conference have completed the setting (par 23).
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 invention of Pettay, Davuluri, and Mahmoudian with the document sharing of Kowal because it allows for real-time conferencing and confidentiality levels to shared content, thereby improving performance and privacy.
Regarding Claim 18, Pettay, Davuluri, and Mahmoudian teach the file sharing system according to claim 17.
Pettay, Davuluri, and Mahmoudian do not explicitly teach wherein the one or plurality of processors are configured to: in a case in which a predetermined condition is satisfied, notify the other participant of the setting of the usage file before the sharing with each of the plurality of participants.
Kowal teaches wherein the one or plurality of processors are configured to: in a case in which a predetermined condition is satisfied, notify the other participant of the setting of the usage file before the sharing with each of the plurality of participants (par 23).
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 invention of Pettay, Davuluri, and Mahmoudian with the document sharing of Kowal because it allows for real-time conferencing and confidentiality levels to shared content, thereby improving performance and privacy.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure:
Ito (US 20140095615), Abstract - A communication terminal is configured to execute detecting a first quality value indicating a quality of connection with a first conference server which communicates media data relating to a remote conference with the communication terminal, determining whether the quality of connection is lower than a predetermined quality based on the first quality value, when it is determined that the quality of connection is lower than the predetermined quality, outputting a conference state storing instruction to store a state of an ongoing remote conference, disconnecting a network connection with the first conference server after conference state information indicating the state of the ongoing remote conference is stored, reconnecting the network connection with the first conference server after the network connection is disconnected, and when the network connection is reconnected with the first conference server, resuming the ongoing remote conference based on the stored conference state information.
Allen et al (US 20240137235), Abstract - A conference schedule system that implements automated privacy controls for a schedule view of a shared conference space digital calendar. The conference schedule system determines an identity of a person viewing a display screen configured to display a schedule view of a digital calendar associated with a shared conference space, accesses event permissions associated with an event schedule for the shared conference space, and modifies a selective output of information associated with the event in the schedule view displayed at the display screen based on the event permissions and the identity of the person.
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 RAQIUL AMIN CHOUDHURY whose telephone number is (571)272-2482. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 7:30 AM - 5:30 PM.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, John Follansbee can be reached at 571-272-3964. 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.
/RAQIUL A CHOUDHURY/Examiner, Art Unit 2444
Prosecution Insights