Detailed Action
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on February 11, 2026 has been entered.
Response to Amendment
This Non-Final Office action is responsive to the request for continued examination filed on February 11, 2026 (hereafter “Response”). The amendments to the claims are acknowledged and have been entered.
Claims 1–6 and 8–17 are now amended.
Claims 1–20 are pending in the application.
Response to Arguments
Discussion of Applicant’s Interview Summary
The Examiner wishes to clarify two points in the Applicant’s summary of the January 21, 2026 interview, (Response 14) based on the Examiner’s own recollection of the interview and review of the Examiner’s summary of the interview, which was drafted contemporaneously with the interview. The Applicant’s summary reads as follows:
During the interview, the Examiner and the Applicant's undersigned attorney discussed proposed amendments to the claims. The Examiner indicated that the proposed amendments discussed during the interview appeared to overcome the rejections of record pending an updated search and consideration.
(Response 14).
The Examiner and Applicant’s representative discussed three proposed amendments: one was presented in writing (and reproduced in this file wrapper with a January 23, 2026 mailing date), while the other two were presented orally by the Applicant’s representative during the telephone call.
The Examiner did not agree that the amendment presented in writing overcame the rejections of record. With respect to the two amendments presented orally, the Examiner cautioned that while the general concept of those two options seemed likely to overcome the rejections of record, he was unable to make firm commitment to withdrawing any particular rejection, given (1) the Examiner did not have a chance to review the orally-presented amendments ahead of time (since they were presented live on the call), and (2) the two amendments were discussed at a conceptual level, rather than with any particular claim language the Examiner could evaluate against the prior art. Additionally, for one of the two amendments, the Examiner found language in the Fagans reference after the call that would make such an amendment much less likely to overcome the rejection. The Examiner provided a citation to this paragraph in the Examiner’s interview summary, which the Office mailed a few weeks prior to the Applicant filing the present amendment.
Now that the Examiner has had a chance to see the full text of the amendment and given the full time to deliberate over Fagans’s disclosure of the claim language, the Examiner finds that Fagans continues to anticipate
The Examiner apologizes for any inconvenience this causes, and is taking the following steps in an effort to offset any loss in compact prosecution: (1) this Office Action will be made Non-Final, even though it is eligible for a first action final after request for continued examination, see MPEP § 706.07(b), and (2) allowable subject matter is informally proposed below. No formal claim amendments are proposed because there are many different ways to describe the allowable concept, and therefore, the Applicant is in the best position to draft claim language that suits its preferences.
If the Applicant is interested in working together to find acceptable language for the allowable subject matter, the Examiner strongly encourages the Applicant to file form PTO/SB/439, Authorization for Internet Communications in a Patent Application,1 so that the Examiner may comment and provide suggestions via email.
Prior Art Rejections
Claim(s) 1–5, 7, 8, 10–17, 19, and 20 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2008/0225153 A1 (“Fagans”). The Applicant’s arguments have been considered in light of the amendment, but a fulsome review of the reference necessitates that the rejection be maintained.
The Applicant contends that Fagans fails to teach or disclose one or more elements of claims 1 and 11, see Response 14–15, because “Fagans is limited to selecting and displaying different images from an image-based container in response to cursor movement and does not disclose generating preview tile icons that display hotspot frames reflecting content derived from content items of different types.” (Response 16).
The Examiner respectfully disagrees for a few reasons. For one, Fagans expressly contemplates that, in addition to or instead of folders, the same technique disclosed for folders may be used to preview contents of a “text document,” pages of a “PDF file,” slides in a “Microsoft Power Point file,” and respective sheets in a “Microsoft Excel file.” Fagans ¶ 104.
But even assuming for the sake of argument that Fagans was limited to only images (and, in fairness, all of the examples cited in the rejection involve images), Fagans would still anticipate the Applicant’s invention as claimed for a few reasons.
First, claims 1 and 11 never say that the first and second content types are different. Claims 1 and 11 merely refer to each file’s type using the ordinals “first” and “second.” A reasonable interpretation of “a first content item of a first content item type and a second content item of a second content item type,” because “[t]he use of the terms ‘first’ and ‘second’ is a common patent-law convention to distinguish between repeated instances of an element or limitation,” 3M Innovative Properties Co. v. Avery Dennison Corp., 350 F.3d 1365, 1371 (Fed. Cir. 2003) (emphasis added). Since claims 1 and 11 do not explicitly say the first and second types need to be different, and since the specification contemplates having multiple files each with their own respective types (both the same and different), one could reasonably read “a first content item of a first content item type and a second content item of a second content item type” to include two content items with first and second repeated instances of an “image” being the content type for the first and second content item. Fagans’s disclosure of multiple files, each being an image, falls within the scope of the claim language.
Second, even setting aside the above claim construction, and assuming “first” and “second” require different file types, Fagans explicitly discloses that the images selected from within the container to represent the container in the poster frame 110 by identifying which of the files in the folder are eligible, “based on the file type, e.g., JPG, TIFF, GIF, DWG, and the like.” Fagans ¶ 38 (emphasis added). Thus, in at least one instance, user interface 100 is programmed to select two different content items (different images) of two different content types—e.g., one JPG and another TIFF.
Notably, in the parlance of computer software, a content item’s “type” designates its structural characteristics and identified by its filename extension (i.e., JPG, TIFF, GIF, or DWG).2 The claim language and the specification do say that different content item types need to be different at a high-conceptual level in a human mind, as in images versus text documents. Furthermore, the contents of all four of these image formats are structured completely differently, and interpreted by a computer in different ways. A JPG uses a variable, lossy compression algorithm and supports millions of colors.3 TIFFs can arrange images into multiple different layers, color spaces (RGB/CMYK), and alpha channels, and do not apply any compression.4 GIFs use a lossless compression algorithm, and only support up to 256 colors. The DWG format is the most distinct from the other three, DWG files do not record any pixels; they consist of vectors instead, and use complex mathematical expressions to draw lines, arcs, and polygons.5
Consequently, even if Fagans was limited to selecting and displaying different images from an image-based container in response to cursor movement, such a disclosure would still fall within the broadest reasonable interpretation of the claims. The 35 U.S.C. § 102 rejection of claims 1 and 11 must therefore be maintained.
Regarding independent claim 16, the Applicant contends that Fagans is deficient with respect to one or more claim elements because “a preview tile icon as recited in currently amended claim 16 displays content item segments corresponding to a single content item, where Fagans teaches displaying individual and distinct images in a frame based on cursor location.” (Response 18).
The Examiner agrees with the Applicant’s characterization of Fagans, but respectfully, this argument is not persuasive because it begs the question about the broadest reasonable interpretation of a single “content item.” The Applicant’s specification instructs us to include folders as part of the scope of the claimed “content item,” and further ascribes a special meaning for the words “segments” and “portions” in cases where the content item is a folder. In the sections that discuss using folders as the content item, the specification is very clear that each of the “segments” of a folder may include each entire file of that folder, rather than merely the sub-portions of each file: “when the content item is a folder, the preview tile generation system 102 selects content item segments by selecting a single content item segment from each content item stored within the folder.” (Spec. ¶ 86). The specification echoes this sentiment throughout. See, e.g., (Spec. ¶ 44) (“the preview tile generation system identifies that a content item is a folder and selects content item segments to reflect content items stored within the folder”) and (Spec. ¶ 64) (explaining that when the content item is a “folder,” its “length” is “the number of content items in the folder”).
Given this context of the specification, the broadest reasonable interpretation of a “content item” includes a folder, and the broadest reasonable interpretation of a folder’s “segments” and “portions” includes each individual file stored therein. See MPEP § 2111 (“During patent examination, the pending claims must be ‘given their broadest reasonable interpretation consistent with the specification.’”). Fagans’s containers and the preview images of the contents of those containers therefore falls within the broadest reasonable interpretation of claim 16, necessitating a rejection under 35 U.S.C. § 102.
Accordingly, claims 1, 11, and 16 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 102. The Applicant does not separately address the rejections of the dependent claims, so those rejections stand as well, in view of the findings and rationale provided in the rejections thereof.
Allowable Subject Matter
An amendment to the independent claims that requires at least one single preview tile icon with a heterogenous6 set of hotspot frames would bring the application into condition for allowance.
By “heterogenous,” the Examiner means that an allowable invention would use at least two different disclosed methods for determining the hotspot frames. For example, an allowable claim would read on (but not necessarily limited to) a folder that stores both a text document and a video file, whose set of hotspot frames includes both a hotspot frame for a page of the text document and another hotspot frame for a frame/moment of the video file.
As understood by the Examiner, the present application discloses at least four different methods for determining a content item’s hotspot frames: for documents with pages, the hotspots frames are respective pages; for files with moving image (e.g. videos), the hotspots frames are individual frames of the moving image; for files that do not fit into either of the foregoing categories (e.g., audio), a visual icon or other graphical representation of file type may be used; and for folders (or subfolders), the hotspot frames are the hotspot frames of files within the folder, as obtained in the manner discussed in the previous three examples. An allowable claim would require at least one content item whose set of hotspot frames are obtained using at least two out of these four.
Claim Rejections – 35 U.S.C. § 102
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. § 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claim(s) 1–5, 7, 8, 10–17, 19, and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2008/0225153 A1 (“Fagans”).
Claim 1
Fagans discloses a computer system that, during the course of its normal operation, performs a computer-implemented method comprising:
selecting, from a first content item of a first content item type and a second content item of a second content item type stored within a folder for a user account within a content management system, a set of content item segments to include within a preview for the folder;
User interface 100 is programmed to select, for a “container” that stores a plurality of image files, “one or more images” that should be used to represent the container in a “poster frame 110.” Fagans ¶ 44 (emphasis added to show that Fagans discloses more than one image, hence, a first and second content item).
Regarding the claimed first and second “content item types,” Fagans explicitly discloses that the images selected from within the container to represent the container in the poster frame 110 by identifying which of the files in the folder are eligible, “based on the file type, e.g., JPG, TIFF, GIF, DWG, and the like.” Fagans ¶ 38 (emphasis added). Thus, in at least one instance, user interface 100 is programmed to select two different content items (different images) of two different content types—e.g., one JPG and another TIFF.
Fagans’s disclosure of selecting different images of different image file types falls within the broadest reasonable interpretation of first and second “content item types” for multiple reasons. For one, a content item’s “type,” in the parlance of computer software, designates its structural characteristics and identified by its filename extension (i.e., JPG, TIFF, GIF, or DWG).7
Second, the contents of all four of these image formats are structured completely differently, and interpreted by a computer in different ways. A JPG uses a variable, lossy compression algorithm and supports millions of colors.8 TIFFs can arrange images into multiple different layers, color spaces (RGB/CMYK), and alpha channels, and do not apply any compression.9 GIFs use a lossless compression algorithm, and only support up to 256 colors. The DWG format is the most distinct from the other three, DWG files do not record any pixels; they consist of vectors instead, and use complex mathematical expressions to draw lines, arcs, and polygons.10
Finally, not withstanding the first two points above, the Examiner observes that claim 1 never says that the first and second content types are different, and that “[t]he use of the terms ‘first’ and ‘second’ is a common patent-law convention to distinguish between repeated instances of an element or limitation,” 3M Innovative Properties Co. v. Avery Dennison Corp., 350 F.3d 1365, 1371 (Fed. Cir. 2003). It therefore follows that the broadest reasonable interpretation of “a first content item of a first content item type and a second content item of a second content item type” includes two content items with first and second repeated instances of an “image” being the content type for the first and second content item.
Regarding the claimed “folder” (and the content items stored therein), Fagans’s “container” holding the image files within exactly matches both the customary meaning of “folder,”11 and the Applicant’s own usage of that term in the specification.12
Regarding the claimed “user account” within a “content management system,” Fagans further discloses that the container and its contents may be created and/or stored by a first user in a system that manages content for multiple users. See Fagans ¶ 105.
Regarding the claimed set of content item segments, the Applicant’s specification is very clear that each of the “segments” of a folder may include each entire file of that folder, rather than merely the sub-portions of each file.13
Finally, to be clear, the claimed “preview” for the folder corresponds to Fagans’s “poster frame 110,” the details of which will be discussed later in this rejection in juxtaposition with its corresponding claim limitations.
In sum, the elements of the above claim language correspond to the elements of Fagans’s disclosure as follows:
Claim Element
Fagans
first content item
a first image file in the container
first content item type
the file type of the first image, which may be any one of “JPG, TIFF, GIF, DWG”
second content item
a second image file in the container
second content item type
the file type of the second image, which may be any other one of “JPG, TIFF, GIF, DWG”
folder
container
user account within a content management system
The container and its contents may be created and/or stored by a first user, in the context of a system that manages content for multiple users. See Fagans ¶ 105.
set of content item segments
the plurality of image representations selected for display in poster frame 110
a preview for the folder
poster frame 110
generating a preview tile icon for the folder by: generating a set of hotspot frames to reflect digital content within each content item segment of the set of content item segments;
“A poster frame 110 that corresponds to a container can include one or more images.” Fagans ¶ 44.
and associating hotspot frames from the set of hotspot frames to hotspot frame locations within the preview tile icon;
For containers with more than one image, user interface 100 divides the poster frame 110 into regions of physical space, and assigns the different images to different corresponding regions. Fagans ¶ 50; see also Fagans ¶ 74 (“In some implementations, the images can be arranged such that either a horizontal motion, a horizontal component of motion, or both, of a cursor cause the images in the container to be updated.”).
For example, if a container has two images, the first image may be assigned to the left half of the poster frame, while the second image is assigned to the right half of the poster frame. Fagans ¶ 50. To be clear, user interface 100 is not limited to two images per poster frame, in fact, “[t]he number of images that each poster frame 110 can contain is limited only by available storage space.” Fagans ¶ 50. FIGS. 1B–1F illustrate an example where the container has five images, and thus, the five images are assigned to five separate portions of the poster frame 110.
providing the preview tile icon for display
Reference is now made to the flow chart of FIG. 4, which illustrates how the user interface 100 responds to user interactions with “a poster frame 110 displayed in a view pane 105” via “a display device.” Fagans ¶ 71.
on a client device associated with the user account;
As previously mentioned, some embodiments of Fagans’s user interface may be provided by a remote system to multiple users, including a first user accessing the remote system via a local system. Fagans ¶ 105.
receiving, from a client device, a first input location relative to the preview tile icon;
“The position of the cursor within the poster frame 110 can be determined at 400.” Fagans ¶ 71.
based on determining a first hotspot frame location corresponding to the first input location, providing for display within the preview tile icon, a first hotspot frame associated with the first hotspot frame location, where the first hotspot frame reflects content from the first content item of the first content item type;
“An image corresponding to the cursor position within the poster frame can be displayed in the bounded region of the poster frame 110 at 405.” Fagans ¶ 71.
receiving, from the client device a second input location relative to the preview tile icon;
“Subsequently, the position of the cursor may be altered.” Fagans ¶ 71.
and based on determining a second hotspot frame location corresponding to the second input location, providing, for display within the preview tile icon, a second hotspot frame associated with the second hotspot frame location, where the second hotspot frame reflects content of the second content item of the second content item type.
“If it is determined that a cursor has moved to a new position (410), the poster frame can be updated to display a new image corresponding to the new position at 415.” Fagans ¶ 71.
Claim 2
Fagans discloses the computer-implemented method of claim 1, further comprising:
selecting, from the set of hotspot frames, an initial hotspot frame for the preview tile icon;
“In some implementations, a poster frame 110 can be represented by one of the images contained in the poster frame 110,” chosen based on any number of criteria, such as highest rated, greatest view count, largest resolution, or simply whichever image is “first” in the container. Fagans ¶ 34. Please note, this top image is different from the set of images that user interface 100 chooses for the cursor mechanism discussed in the rejection of claim 1. See Fagans ¶¶ 45–46 (distinguishing the images displayed while the cursor is inside the poster frame 110 from the image that is displayed when the cursor is outside of the poster frame).
and prior to receiving the first input location relative to the preview tile icon, providing the initial hotspot frame for display within the preview tile icon.
The image that was chosen to represent the poster frame 110 is displayed prior to when the user places the cursor on the poster frame 110. See Fagans ¶ 45 (“when the user places the cursor on a poster frame 110, an image contained in the poster frame 110 can be displayed in place of the image assigned to represent the poster frame 110”).
Claim 3
Fagans discloses the computer-implemented method of claim 1, further comprising:
identifying that the folder stores a set of content items comprising at least the first content item and the second content item;
User interface 100 is programmed to select, for the container, “one or more images” that will be used to represent the container in the poster frame 110. Fagans ¶ 44 (emphasis added to show that Fagans discloses more than one image, hence, a first and second content item).
and associating each hotspot frame location to a hotspot frame corresponding to a distinct content item from the set of content items.
User interface 100 is programmed to divide the poster frame 110 into regions of physical space, and assign all of the container’s images to different corresponding regions. Fagans ¶ 50;
Claim 4
Fagans teaches the computer-implemented method of claim 1, wherein generating the preview tile icon further comprises:
identifying that the folder stores a set of content items comprising at least the first content item and the second content item;
User interface 100 is programmed to select, for the container, “one or more images” that will be used to represent the container in the poster frame 110. Fagans ¶ 44 (emphasis added to show that Fagans discloses more than one image, hence, a first and second content item).
determining an access frequency associated with content items of the set of content items reflecting a number of times the client device accessed the content items of the set of content items; and
“[T]he user interactions with a container can be tracked. For example, a user may view one or more images in a container more often than other images in the container.” Fagans ¶ 34.
selecting the set of content item segments by selecting content item segments from the set of content items to include within the preview tile icon for the folder based on the access frequency.
“An image viewed more often than the others can be used to represent the poster frame 110.” Fagans ¶ 34.
Claim 5
Fagans discloses the computer-implemented method of claim 4, further comprising:
identifying access timestamps for content items of the set of content items reflecting when the client device accessed each content item of the set of content items; and generating the preview tile icon by associating hotspot frames of the set of hotspot frames to hotspot frame locations within the preview tile icon based on the access timestamps.
“In some implementations, when the cursor is scanned across a poster frame 110 and moved away from the poster frame 110, the display of the poster frame 110 can be restored to . . . the most recent image in the poster frame 110 that was previewed by scanning.” Fagans ¶ 46.
Claim 7
Fagans discloses the computer-implemented method of claim 1, further comprising:
determining a number of hotspot frames to display within the preview tile icon; and
The number of images that can be previewed within a poster frame depends on the resolution of the cursor and the “physical space (e.g., one or more pixels) in the horizontal dimension of the poster frame 110.” Fagans ¶ 50. For example, if this number is greater than or equal to the number of images in the container, then all of the images will be selected for assignment to the physical spaces of the poster frame, whereas, “if the resolution of the cursor is greater than the physical space representing an image . . . it may not be possible to preview all the images in the container when the cursor is scanned horizontally across the poster frame 110 representing the container,” Fagans ¶ 50, and instead, “certain images in a container can be skipped if the resolution of the cursor is greater than the physical space representing each image in the container.” Fagans ¶ 51.
selecting the set of content item segments based on the number of hotspot frames.
Due to the above constraint, the user interface 100 selects only a subset of the container’s images for preview, rather than previewing all of them. For example, “as the cursor is moved from the left edge to the right edge of the poster frame 110, the first, fourth, seventh image, and so on, may be displayed in place of the image assigned to represent the poster frame 110.” Fagans ¶ 51. The images may be chosen according to predetermined criteria, e.g., “based on the order in which the images are stored,” or “the size of the images,” or the “rating” assigned to the images, or “a rounding algorithm can be used to choose photos that can either be included or excluded from the preview.” Fagans ¶ 51.
Claim 8
Fagans discloses the computer-implemented method of claim 7, further comprising
selecting the set of content item segments by selecting digital content from the first content item and the second content item at interval points corresponding to the number of hotspot frames.
“In some implementations, one or more images can be skipped based on the order in which the images are stored. For example, when the cursor is moved by a distance equal to the resolution of the cursor (e.g., 1 pixel), two images may be skipped.” Fagans ¶ 51.
Claim 10
Fagans discloses the computer-implemented method of claim 1, further comprising:
receiving, within the preview tile icon, a selection of the hotspot frame at the input location;
“In some implementations, the magnifying frame 610 can be displayed in response to a user clicking the mouse after positioning the cursor 615 over the poster frame 605.” Fagans ¶ 73.
and accessing the first content item based on a content item segment for the first content item associated with the first hotspot frame at the first input location.
“In addition, the image displayed in the poster frame 605 can also be displayed in the magnifying frame 610.” Fagans ¶ 73.
Claim 11
Fagans discloses:
A non-transitory computer-readable medium storing instructions that, when executed by at least one processor, cause a computer system to:
Fagans discloses a memory with computer-stored instructions that perform the operations discussed below. See Fagans ¶¶ 8 and 86.
select, from a first content item of a first content item type stored for a user account within a content management system, a first set of content item segments to include within a first preview for the first content item;
User interface 100 is programmed to select, for a first “container” that stores a plurality of image files, “one or more images” that should be used to represent the container in a “poster frame 110.” Fagans ¶ 44 (emphasis added to show that Fagans discloses more than one image, hence, a first and second content item).
Regarding the claimed “user account” within a “content management system,” Fagans further discloses that the container and its contents may be created and/or stored by a first user in a system that manages content for multiple users. See Fagans ¶ 105.
Regarding the claimed “first set of content item segments,” the Applicant’s specification is very clear that for embodiments where the content item is a folder, each of the “segments” of a folder may include each entire file of that folder, rather than merely the sub-portions of each file. For example, paragraph 44 says that the invention “identifies that a content item is a folder and selects content item segments to reflect content items stored within the folder.” (Spec. ¶ 44) (emphasis added). In other words, the specification contemplates that the scope of a “content item” and its “segments” can include an entire folder, with each file within the folder being a respective “segment” of the folder/content item. Indeed, the specification is quite consistent with this usage of content item and folder. See, e.g., (Spec. ¶¶ 63–64) (re-defining the word “length” in this disclosure to means different things depending on the type of content item, such that even when the content item is a “folder,” its “length” simply means “the number of content items in the folder”); (Spec. ¶ 86) (“when the content item is a folder, the preview tile generation system 102 selects content item segments by selecting a single content item segment from each content item stored within the folder.”).
Accordingly, the elements of this step correspond to Fagans as follows:
Claim 11
Fagans
first content item
a first container
first content item type
the first container is a “container” (rather than other types of filesystem sturctures described in Fagans, e.g., images, slideshows, etc.)
first set of content item segments
the plurality of image representations selected for display in poster frame 110
a preview for the first content item
poster frame 110
user account within a content management system
The container and its contents may be created and/or stored by a first user, in the context of a system that manages content for multiple users. See Fagans ¶ 105.
generate a first preview tile icon for the first content item by: generating a first set of hotspot frames to reflect digital content within the first set of content item segments; and
“A poster frame 110 that corresponds to a container can include one or more images.” Fagans ¶ 44.
associating hotspot frames from the first set of hotspot frames to hotspot frame locations within the first preview tile icon;
For containers with more than one image, user interface 100 divides the poster frame 110 into regions of physical space, and assigns the different images to different corresponding regions. Fagans ¶ 50; see also Fagans ¶ 74 (“In some implementations, the images can be arranged such that either a horizontal motion, a horizontal component of motion, or both, of a cursor cause the images in the container to be updated.”).
select, from a second content item of a second content item type stored for the user account within the content management system, a second set of content item segments to include within a second preview for the second content item;
As shown in FIGS. 1A and 1B, there are several poster frames 110 provided for several (and thus at least a second) respective container, “where each poster frame 110 represents a container containing one or more images.” Fagans ¶ 31. Consequently, the program instructions for user interface 100 perform the same task for another (second) container that stores another plurality of image files as it performs for the first container. See Fagans ¶ 44.
generate a second preview tile icon for the second content item by: generating a second set of hotspot frames to reflect digital content within each content item segment of the second set of content item segments; and
“A poster frame 110 that corresponds to a container can include one or more images.” Fagans ¶ 44.
associating hotspot frames from the second set of hotspot frames to hotspot frame locations within the second preview tile icon;
For containers with more than one image, user interface 100 divides the poster frame 110 into regions of physical space, and assigns the different images to different corresponding regions. Fagans ¶ 50; see also Fagans ¶ 74 (“In some implementations, the images can be arranged such that either a horizontal motion, a horizontal component of motion, or both, of a cursor cause the images in the container to be updated.”).
provide the first preview tile icon and the second preview tile icon for display on a client device associated with the user account;
Reference is now made to the flow chart of FIG. 4, which illustrates how the user interface 100 responds to user interactions with each “poster frame 110 displayed in a view pane 105” via “a display device.” Fagans ¶ 71.
on a client device associated with the user account;
As previously mentioned, some embodiments of Fagans’s user interface may be provided by a remote system to multiple users, and thus a first user accessing the remote system via a local system. Fagans ¶ 105.
receive, from a client device, a first input location relative to the first preview tile icon; and
“The position of the cursor within the poster frame 110 can be determined at 400.” Fagans ¶ 71.
based on determining a first hotspot frame location corresponding to the first input location, provide, for display within the first preview tile icon, a first hotspot frame from the first set of hotspot frames that is associated with the first hotspot frame location, where the first hotspot frame reflects content from the first content item of the first content item type.
“An image corresponding to the cursor position within the poster frame can be displayed in the bounded region of the poster frame 110 at 405.” Fagans ¶ 71.
Claim 12
Fagans discloses the non-transitory computer-readable medium of claim 11, further comprising instructions that, when executed by the at least one processor, cause the computer system to:
receive a second input location relative to the second preview tile icon; and
“In implementations where several containers are displayed in a user interface,” the user interface determines “when the user re-positions the cursor from over a first poster frame to over a second poster frame.” Fagans ¶ 74.
based on determining a second hotspot frame location corresponding to the second input location, provide, for display within the second preview tile icon, a second hotspot frame from the second set of hotspot frames that is associated with the second hotspot frame location, where the second hotspot frame reflects content from the second content item of the second content item type.
With the cursor now re-positioned to a second poster frame, user interface 100 executes exactly the same instructions on the second poster frame as it executed on the first poster frame. That is, “the position of the cursor may be altered,” and, “[i]f it is determined that a cursor has moved to a new position (410), the poster frame can be updated to display a new image corresponding to the new position at 415.” Fagans ¶ 71.
Claim 13
Fagans discloses the non-transitory computer-readable medium of claim 11, further comprising instructions that, when executed by the at least one processor, cause the computer system to:
identify that the client device associated with the user account modified a portion of the first content item;
“In some implementations, a user can rate the images in a container,” and “[t]he ratings of the images can be tracked.” Fagans ¶ 34.
based on identifying that the client device associated with the user account modified the portion of the first content item, select the first set of content item segments from the portion of the first content item; and generate the first set of hotspot frames to reflect digital content within the set of content item segments from the portion of the first content item.
Under certain conditions, the user interface 100 selects only a subset of the container’s images for preview, rather than previewing all of them. For example, “as the cursor is moved from the left edge to the right edge of the poster frame 110, the first, fourth, seventh image, and so on, may be displayed in place of the image assigned to represent the poster frame 110.” Fagans ¶ 51. The images may be chosen according to predetermined criteria, and in particular, “the previewed images can be those images that have a higher rating than other images in the container.” Fagans ¶ 51.
Claim 14
Fagans discloses the non-transitory computer-readable medium of claim 11, further comprising instructions that, when executed by the at least one processor, cause the computer system to:
determine an initial hotspot frame for the first preview tile icon; and
“In some implementations, a poster frame 110 can be represented by one of the images contained in the poster frame 110,” chosen based on any number of criteria, such as highest rated, greatest view count, largest resolution, or simply whichever image is “first” in the container. Fagans ¶ 34. Please note, this top image is different from the set of images that user interface 100 chooses for the cursor mechanism discussed in the rejection of claim 1. See Fagans ¶¶ 45–46 (distinguishing the images displayed while the cursor is inside the poster frame 110 from the image that is displayed when the cursor is outside of the poster frame).
prior to receiving the first input location relative to the first preview tile icon, displaying the first preview tile icon on the client device with the initial hotspot frame displaying the initial hotspot frame.
The image that was chosen to represent the poster frame 110 is displayed prior to when the user places the cursor on the poster frame 110. See Fagans ¶ 45 (“when the user places the cursor on a poster frame 110, an image contained in the poster frame 110 can be displayed in place of the image assigned to represent the poster frame 110”).
Claim 15 – First Ground of Rejection
Fagans discloses the non-transitory computer-readable medium of claim 11, further comprising instructions that, when executed by the at least one processor, cause the computer system to:
determine that the first content item corresponds to a requested user action from the client device associated with the user account;
As shown in FIG. 7, the user interface 100 may detect the following sequence of user actions: “The user can position a cursor 710 over the poster frame 705 and select the poster frame 705” to reveal a magnifying frame 715 for previewing one or more images in the container, and then “mark one or more of the previewed images by selecting the selection tool 720.” Fagans ¶ 75.
select the first set of content item segments by selecting one or more content item segments comprising the requested user action;
“In this manner, the user can mark several images.” Fagans ¶ 75.
generate the first preview tile icon by generating the first set of hotspot frames to reflect content item segments comprising the requested user action and an indication of the requested user action;
“Subsequently, the user can filter the images in the container to group only the images marked using the selection tool 720.” Fagans ¶ 75.
and provide the first preview tile icon for display on the client device with the indication of the requested user action.
“Subsequent to grouping images 205 into containers, when the poster frames 110 representing containers are displayed on the view pane 105, each group that was created in a container can be displayed by a new poster frame 110.” Fagans ¶ 69.
Claim 15 – Second Ground of Rejection
The broadest reasonable interpretation of “requested user action” in claim 15, by its plain language, includes the act of receiving “an input location relative to the preview tile icon” recited in parent claim 11, because that input is a request, by the user, to display a hotspot frame corresponding to the input location. Likewise, under that interpretation, the “indication of the requested user action” in claim 15 encompasses the display in claim 11 of the hotspot frame associated with the hotspot frame location (since it indicates that the user requested the hotspot frame associated with the input location that he/she provided).
Consequently, any prior art reference that discloses claim 11 necessarily discloses everything in claim 15:
determine that the first content item corresponds to a requested user action from the client device associated with the user account;
“A cursor, operated on a display device on which the view pane 105 is displayed, can be positioned on the poster frame 110. The position of the cursor within the poster frame 110 can be determined at 400,” and likewise, “the position of the cursor may be altered.” Fagans ¶ 71.
select the first set of content item segments by selecting one or more content item segments from the first content item comprising the requested user action;
“An image corresponding to the cursor position within the poster frame” can be determined, both for the first position of the cursor, and the subsequently altered position of the cursor.” Fagans ¶ 71.
generate the first preview tile icon by generating the first set of hotspot frames to reflect content item segments comprising the requested user action and an indication of the requested user action; and provide the first preview tile icon for display on the client device with the indication of the requested user action.
“An image corresponding to the cursor position within the poster frame can be displayed in the bounded region of the poster frame 110 at 405,” and likewise, when the cursor position is altered, “the poster frame can be updated to display a new image corresponding to the new position at 415.” Fagans ¶ 71.
Claim 16
Fagans discloses
A system comprising: at least one processor; and at least one non-transitory computer-readable storage medium storing instructions that, when executed by the at least one processor, cause the system to:
“Implementations of the subject matter and the functional operations described in this specification can be implemented in digital electronic circuitry, or in computer software, firmware, or hardware, including the structures disclosed in this specification and their structural equivalents, or in combinations of one or more of them. Implementations of the subject matter described in this specification can be implemented as one or more computer program products, i.e., one or more modules of computer program instructions encoded on a computer-readable medium for execution by, or to control the operation of, data processing apparatus.” Fagans ¶ 86.
select, from a content item stored for a user account within a content management system, set of content item segments to include within a preview for the content item, wherein each content item segment of the set of content item segments corresponds to a distinct portion of the content item;
Before addressing this claim element, it is important to understand that the Applicant’s specification instructs us to include folders as part of the scope of the claimed “content item,” and further contemplates a special meaning for the words “segments” and “portions” in cases where the content item is a folder. In these cases, the specification is very clear that each of the “segments” of a folder may include each entire file of that folder, rather than merely the sub-portions of each file. Specifically, the specification says that “when the content item is a folder, the preview tile generation system 102 selects content item segments by selecting a single content item segment from each content item stored within the folder.” (Spec. ¶ 86). The specification echoes this sentiment throughout. See, e.g., (Spec. ¶ 44) (“the preview tile generation system identifies that a content item is a folder and selects content item segments to reflect content items stored within the folder”) and (Spec. ¶ 64) (explaining that when the content item is a “folder,” its “length” is “the number of content items in the folder”).
With that in mind, Fagans discloses this element by disclosing that user interface 100 is programmed to select, for a “container” that stores a plurality of image files, “one or more images” that should be used to represent the container in a “poster frame 110.” Fagans ¶ 44. Each image within the container is indeed a portion of that container, given the Applicant’s expansive definition.
Regarding the claimed “user account” within a “content management system,” Fagans further discloses that the container and its contents may be created and/or stored by a first user in a system that manages content for multiple users. See Fagans ¶ 105.
generate a preview tile icon for the content item by:
generating set of hotspot frames to reflect digital content within the set of content item segments; and
“A poster frame 110 that corresponds to a container can include one or more images.” Fagans ¶ 44.
associating hotspot frames from the set of hotspot frames to hotspot frame locations within the preview tile icon;
For containers with more than one image, user interface 100 divides the poster frame 110 into regions of physical space, and assigns the different images to different corresponding regions. Fagans ¶ 50; see also Fagans ¶ 74 (“In some implementations, the images can be arranged such that either a horizontal motion, a horizontal component of motion, or both, of a cursor cause the images in the container to be updated.”).
For example, if a container has two images, the first image may be assigned to the left half of the poster frame, while the second image is assigned to the right half of the poster frame. Fagans ¶ 50. To be clear, user interface 100 is not limited to two images per poster frame, in fact, “[t]he number of images that each poster frame 110 can contain is limited only by available storage space.” Fagans ¶ 50. FIGS. 1B–1F illustrate an example where the container has five images, and thus, the five images are assigned to five separate portions of the poster frame 110.
provide the preview tile icon for display
Reference is now made to the flow chart of FIG. 4, which illustrates how the user interface 100 responds to user interactions with “a poster frame 110 displayed in a view pane 105” via “a display device.” Fagans ¶ 71.
on a client device associated with the user account;
As previously mentioned, some embodiments of Fagans’s user interface may be provided by a remote system to multiple users, including a first user accessing the remote system via a local system. Fagans ¶ 105.
receive, from a client device, a first input location relative to the preview tile icon;
“The position of the cursor within the poster frame 110 can be determined at 400.” Fagans ¶ 71.
based on determining a first hotspot frame location corresponding to the first input location, provide, for display within the preview tile icon, a first hotspot frame associated with the first hotspot frame location that reflects content from a first content item segment of the content item;
“An image corresponding to the cursor position within the poster frame can be displayed in the bounded region of the poster frame 110 at 405.” Fagans ¶ 71.
receive, from the client device, a second input location relative to the preview tile icon; and
“Subsequently, the position of the cursor may be altered.” Fagans ¶ 71.
based on determining a second hotspot frame location corresponding to the second input location, provide, for display within the preview tile icon, a second hotspot frame associated with the second hotspot frame location that reflects content from a second content item segment of the content item.
“If it is determined that a cursor has moved to a new position (410), the poster frame can be updated to display a new image corresponding to the new position at 415.” Fagans ¶ 71.
Claim 17
Fagans discloses the system of claim 16, further comprising instructions that, when executed by the at least one processor, cause the system to associate the hotspot frames of the set of hotspot frames to hotspot frame locations within the preview tile icon by:
associating the first hotspot frame to the first hotspot frame location within the preview tile icon based on a first location within the content item for the first content item segment; and
The broadest reasonable interpretation of “a first location” within the content item for the first content item segment includes a first file being the “first location” when the content item is a folder. This interpretation is reasonable because it is consistent with the language in the specification, which says “when the content item is a folder, the preview tile generation system 102 selects content item segments by selecting a single content item segment from each content item stored within the folder.” (Spec. ¶ 86).
For containers with more than one image, user interface 100 divides the poster frame 110 into regions of physical space, and assigns the different images to different corresponding regions. Fagans ¶ 50; see also Fagans ¶ 74 (“In some implementations, the images can be arranged such that either a horizontal motion, a horizontal component of motion, or both, of a cursor cause the images in the container to be updated.”).
For example, if a container has two images, the first image may be assigned to the left half of the poster frame, while the second image is assigned to the right half of the poster frame. Fagans ¶ 50. To be clear, user interface 100 is not limited to two images per poster frame, in fact, “[t]he number of images that each poster frame 110 can contain is limited only by available storage space.” Fagans ¶ 50. FIGS. 1B–1F illustrate an example where the container has five images, and thus, the five images are assigned to five separate portions of the poster frame 110.
associating the second hotspot frame to the second hotspot frame location within the preview tile icon based on a second location within the content item for the second content item segment.
Per the above discussed claim interpretation and disclosure from Fagans, this element is anticipated for the same reasons. That is, the broadest reasonable interpretation of “a second location” within the content item for the second content item segment includes a second file being the “second location” within the content item when the content item is a folder, based on paragraph 86 of the Applicant’s disclosure.
Likewise, according to Fagans, user interface 100 divides the poster frame 110 into regions of physical space, and assigns the different images to different corresponding regions. Fagans ¶ 50.
Claim 19
Fagans discloses the system of claim 16, further comprising instructions that, when executed by the at least one processor, cause the system to:
determine a number of hotspot frames to display within the preview tile icon based on a size of the content item; and select the set of content item segments based on the number of hotspot frames.
The number of images selected for preview is the lesser of (1) the number of images in the container, or (2) the amount of “physical space (e.g., one or more pixels) in the horizontal dimension of the poster frame 110” that the cursor can travel given its resolution. Fagans ¶ 50. “For example, if a container contains only two images, the first image can be previewed if the cursor is placed at any location on the left half of the poster frame 110 representing the container,” and likewise for the right half and second image. Fagans ¶ 50.
Claim 20
Fagans discloses the system of claim 16, further comprising instructions that, when executed by the at least one processor, cause the system to:
identify an access timestamp for the content item reflecting when the client device accessed the content item; and provide the set of hotspot frames for display within the preview tile icon by arranging the set of hotspot frames corresponding to content item according to the access timestamp.
“In some implementations, when the cursor is scanned across a poster frame 110 and moved away from the poster frame 110, the display of the poster frame 110 can be restored to . . . the most recent image in the poster frame 110 that was previewed by scanning.” Fagans ¶ 46.
Claim Rejections – 35 U.S.C. § 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 of this title, 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.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned at the time any inventions covered therein were effectively filed absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 C.F.R. § 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned at the time a later invention was effectively filed in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. § 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. § 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
I. Fagans and Acharya teach claim 6.
Claim 6 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over Fagans as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2019/0213342 A1 (“Acharya”).
Claim 6
Fagans teaches the computer-implemented method of claim 1, further comprising:
identifying that the user account within the content management system is associated with a collaborating
“In some implementations, a first user at a first remote location can perform operations including previewing images in the local or first remote system, creating containers of images, and the like, and subsequently transmit the containers with images to the local system. Subsequently, a second user wishing to view the images created by the first user can establish a connection with the local system.” Fagans ¶ 105.
selecting the set of content item segments based on identifying that a client device associated with the user account accessed the first content item and the second content item
User interface 100 is programmed to select, for a “container” that stores a plurality of images, which one(s) of the images should represent the container within user interface 100, based on any number of factors, including access. Fagans ¶ 34.
and selecting an additional set of content item segments based on identifying that an additional client device associated with the additional user account accessed an additional content item;
Both the first user and the second user receive a copy of and/or remotely access the same user interface. See Fagans ¶ 105 (“The local system can be a server where the images can be stored and the user interface and other features of the user interface can be installed,” and in response to a request from the first user, “the local system can present the remote system with the user interface.” Likewise, “[t]he local system can transmit the user interface to the second user,” so that “the second user at the second remote location can view the contents of the containers created by the first user.”). Consequently, since user interface 100 includes programming to select a plurality of images to represent the container within user interface 100, Fagans ¶ 34, each computer executing user interface 100 performs this operation, including the instance of user interface 100 executed at the second user’s device.
generating the preview tile icon by generating hotspot frames utilizing the set of content item segments
User interface 100 is programmed such that “[a] poster frame 110 that corresponds to a container can include one or more images.” Fagans ¶ 44. For containers with more than one image, user interface 100 divides the poster frame 110 into regions of physical space, and assigns the different images to different corresponding regions. Fagans ¶ 50; see also Fagans ¶ 74 (“In some implementations, the images can be arranged such that either a horizontal motion, a horizontal component of motion, or both, of a cursor cause the images in the container to be updated.”).
and generating an additional preview tile icon by generating additional hotspot frames for the additional set of content item segments; and
As previously mentioned, “[t]he local system can transmit the user interface to the second user,” Fagans ¶ 105, meaning the second user’s instance of user interface 100 executes the same steps as the first user’s instance of user interface 100—they are each running the same computer program. Consequently, much like the first user’s run of user interface 100, the second user’s machine selects and assigns a plurality of images in the container to the poster frame 110 as described in paragraphs 44, 50, and 74 of Fagan’s disclosure.
providing the preview tile icon for display on the client device and the additional preview tile for display on the additional client device.
For each of the instances of user interface 100 running on the first and second user’s devices, the software is programmed to determine the position of the users’ respective cursors within their respective poster frames 110, and display an image corresponding to the cursor positions within the poster frame 110. Fagans ¶ 71.
Thus, the only difference between the claimed invention and Fagan’s disclosure is that Fagan does not explicitly anticipate the concept of the two users belonging to the same “collaborating user account group” as a first user accessing the additional content item and receiving an additional preview tile for the same.
Acharya, however, teaches a method comprising:
identifying that the user account within the content management system is associated with a collaborating user account group comprising at least an additional user account;
“Content management system 110 can store content items in association with accounts,” Acharya ¶ 28, and further store “groups of accounts associated with an entity,” who “have permissions based on group policies and/or access control lists, and members of the groups can inherit the permissions.” Acharya ¶ 30; see also Acharya ¶ 39 (“a content entry in content directory 144 can also include a user account identifier that identifies the user account that has access to the content item and/or a group identifier that identifies a group with access to the content item.”).
selecting the set of content item segments based on identifying that a client device associated with the user account accessed the content item
Content management system 110 performs the method shown in FIG. 6 for each request of each file in the content management system 110 from each client device 150 that requests it. In this method, whenever one of the client devices 150 provides a password to access a password-protected file in the content management system 110, a record of that user’s password authorization to view the file is maintained. See Acharya ¶¶ 150–151.
and selecting an additional set of content item segments based on identifying that an additional client device associated with the additional user account accessed an additional content item;
Content management system 110 stores multiple content items, and a plurality of user accounts have access to multiple content items via their respective client devices 150. See Acharya ¶¶ 28–29 and 48. Accordingly, content management system 110 is understood to perform the method of FIG. 6 for each request for access of each password-protected file from each respective additional client device 150 that requests it/them.
generating the preview tile icon by generating hotspot frames utilizing the set of content item segments and generating an additional preview tile icon by generating additional hotspot frames for the additional set of content item segments; and
“At step 610, in response to receiving the password from client device 150, content management system 110 generates a preview (e.g., preview 222) of the password-protected file based on the password. The preview can include at least a portion of the data or content in the password-protected file, rendered for the client application at client device 150.” Acharya ¶ 150. Again, this step occurs for each request for each password-protected file, and originating from each respective client device 150.
providing the preview tile icon for display on the client device and the additional preview tile icon for display on the additional client device.
“If content management system 110 receives a subsequent request for the password-protected file, content management system 110 can perform a lookup in cache and provide the preview from cache if the preview is available in cache and the request includes the proper authentication (e.g., the password).” Acharya ¶ 153.
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to improve Fagans’s file system by making it accessible to a group of users, rather than merely a single user, as taught by Acharya. One would have been motivated to improve Fagons’s file system as such, because the ability to distinguish and/or associate users as a whole group is a more natural and convenient way to organize permissions for accessing content. See Acharya ¶ 30.
II Fagans and Allen teach claims 9 and 18.
Claims 9 and 18 rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over Fagans as applied to claims 1 and 16 above, and further in view of U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2018/0239500 A1 (“Allen”).
Claim 9
Fagans teaches the computer-implemented method of claim 1, further comprising:
determining, utilizing a content-prioritization
“[T]he user interactions with a container can be tracked. For example, a user may view one or more images in a container more often than other images in the container.” Fagans ¶ 34.
and selecting the set of content item segments based on the likelihood that the client device associated with the user account will access the digital content within the first content item and the second content item.
“An image viewed more often than the others can be used to represent the poster frame 110.” Fagans ¶ 34.
Thus, the only difference between Fagans and the invention of claim 9 is that Fagans uses a simplistic rules-based model for determining the likelihood a client device will access the images in its container, rather than using a “machine learning model.”
Allen, however, teaches a method comprising:
determining, utilizing a content-prioritization machine learning model, a likelihood that the client device will access digital content within the content item;
“[O]ne or more content streams from the system the user is attempting to access may be received,” which “may be analyzed (e.g., in real-time) to extract information associated with the identity of the user, time, date, and the like, and the extracted information may be further analyzed, based on one or more machine learning datasets, to predict one or more features or functions the user is likely to access, or select, or may find of interest.” Allen ¶¶ 69–70; see also Allen ¶¶ 41 and 46.
and selecting the set of content item segments based on the likelihood that the client device associated with the user account will access the digital content within the content item.
“In step 308, access to the predicted one or more functions or features may be enabled. In some examples, access to other features (e.g., features not predicted to be selected) may be disabled.” Allen ¶ 71. “In step 310, a customized user interface may be generated. The customized user interface may include the feature or features for which access was enabled. In some examples, the interface may include only the feature or feature for which access was enabled.” Allen ¶ 72.
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to improve Barnett’s system with the machine learning techniques taught by Allen. One would have been motivated to improve Barnett with Allen because the machine learning techniques would make the user interface “more efficient [and] streamlined to particular users.” Allen ¶ 2.
Claim 18
Claim 18 recites the same additional elements that claim 9 recites, and therefore, is rejected over the same findings and rationale as provided above in the rejections of claims 9 and 16.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Justin R. Blaufeld whose telephone number is (571)272-4372. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 9:00am - 4:00pm 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, James K Trujillo can be reached at (571) 272-3677. 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.
Justin R. Blaufeld
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 2151
/Justin R. Blaufeld/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2151
1 Available at https://www.uspto.gov/sites/default/files/documents/sb0439.pdf
2 File type, Microsoft Computer Dictionary 213 (5th Ed. 2002) and tiff, Microsoft Computer Dictionary at 520 (acknowledging in the definition for TIFF that TIFF, GIF, and JPG are considered different file formats).
3 Jpeg, Microsoft Computer Dictionary at 297
4 Adobe, Inc., What is a TIFF File, available at https://www.adobe.com/creativecloud/file-types/image/raster/tiff-file.html
5 Innerscene, Understanding the DWG File Format — Structure, Entity Types & Versions, available at https://www.innerscene.com/tools/dwg-file-format
6 This word does not appear anywhere in the disclosure, and should not be used as the actual claim language in the amendment. It is merely meant as shorthand for the concept that follows.
7 File type, Microsoft Computer Dictionary 213 and TIFF, Microsoft Computer Dictionary at 520 (acknowledging in the definition for TIFF that TIFF, GIF, and JPG are considered different file formats).
8 File type, Microsoft Computer Dictionary 213 (5th Ed. 2002)
9 Adobe, Inc., What is a TIFF File, available at https://www.adobe.com/creativecloud/file-types/image/raster/tiff-file.html
10 Innerscene, Understanding the DWG File Format — Structure, Entity Types & Versions, available at https://www.innerscene.com/tools/dwg-file-format
11 Folder, Microsoft Computer Dictionary at 225; Folder, definition 3b, Merriam-Webster.com Dictionary, https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/folder
12 Spec. ¶¶ 44, 46, 68 (explaining that a “folder” is something that “stores” or “comprises” content items within it)
13 See Spec. ¶ 44 (“the preview tile generation system identifies that a content item is a folder and selects content item segments to reflect content items stored within the folder”); ¶¶ 63–64 (explaining that the number of segments chosen for a content item is based on its length, and that when the content item is a “folder,” its “length” is “the number of content items in the folder”); ¶ 86 (“when the content item is a folder, the preview tile generation system 102 selects content item segments by selecting a single content item segment from each content item stored within the folder.”)
Prosecution Insights