DETAILED ACTION
This action is responsive to the following communication: Response to Election / Restriction filed 01/20/26. This action is made non-final.
Claims 1-4 are withdrawn from consideration due to un-elected Species. Claims 5-20 are elected for examination. Claims 5 and 14 are independent claims.
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Notice as to Grounds of Rejection and Pre-AIA or AIA Status
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
Election/Restrictions
Applicant’s election without traverse of 5-20 in the reply filed on 01/20/26 is acknowledged.
Claims 1-4 are withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b) as being drawn to a nonelected Species, there being no allowable generic or linking claim. Election was made without traverse in the reply filed on 01/20/26.
The restriction is hereby made FINAL.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 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.
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 5-11, 14-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Kohnen et al. (U.S. Patent Application Publication 2015/0326620 A1 hereinafter Kohnen)
With regard to claims 5, 14, Kohnen teaches a system, a method respectively, comprising:
one or more processors <fig 9A para 0069>; and
one or more computer-readable recording media having stored thereon executable instructions that are executable by the one or more processors to configure the system to <para 0071>:
receive an indication through a first communication interface of a first user device to share digital content with a second user device <a user can share the slide show, images, photo album by selecting icon fig 3B item 316, para 0029, communication between devices para 0044-0045>;
cause the digital content to be presented on the first user device via the first communication interface and on the second user device via a second communication interface <slide show can be presented on sharing devices, para 0027-0029, 0070>;
when a synchronization mode is determined to be inactive, enable independent user interaction with the digital content via the first communication interface and via the second communication interface such that the second communication interface is configurable to present the digital content on the second user device differently than the first communication interface on the first user device <user can interact and modify digital content that is stored on a locally and diverges from each other until the synchronization occurs as determined by the background process para 0039-0040, 0054-0055>; and
after the synchronization mode is determined to be activated, cause presentation of the digital content on the second user device via the second communication interface to be synchronized with presentation of the digital content on the first user device via the first communication interface <content can be synchronized among devices after the background process determines changes which can be synchronized para 0054-0055, fig 8>.
With regard to claims 6, 15, these claims depend upon claims 5 and 14 which are rejected above. In addition, Kohnen teaches wherein the indication through the first communication interface of the first user device to share the digital content with the second user device is based on selection of a share command through the first communication interface or based on selection of the digital content through the first communication interface <a user can share the slide show, images, photo album by selecting icon fig 3B item 316, para 0029, 0046>.
With regard to claims 7, 16, these claims depend upon claims 5 and 14 which are rejected above. In addition, Kohnen teaches wherein the digital content comprises one or more images, one or more videos, one or more audio signals, one or more documents, one or more web pages, or one or more project pages <shared documents can be images, videos, documents para 0004>.
With regard to claims 8, 17, these claims depend upon claims 5 and 14 which are rejected above. In addition, Kohnen teaches wherein user interaction with the digital content comprises zooming, scrolling, panning, playing, pausing, scrubbing, skipping, controlling volume, page navigation, of the digital content or of one or more components of the digital content <user can perform a zoom operation on an image para 0033, see fig 4E>.
With regard to claims 9, 18, these claims depend upon claims 5 and 14 which are rejected above. In addition, Kohnen teaches wherein the executable instructions are executable by the one or more processors to configure the system to receive the indication and cause the digital content to be presented on the first user device and on the second user device in conjunction with an interactive session in which the first user device and the second user device participate <shared spaces can be created for users to participate para 0028-0028, figs 3A-3E>.
With regard to claims 10, 19, these claims depend upon claims 9 and 18 which are rejected above. In addition, Kohnen teaches wherein the interactive session facilitates near- real-time voice, video, or text communications between users of at least the first user device and the second user device <text communication can be use between users <figs 1B, 2A para 0025-0026>.
With regard to claims 11, 20, these claims depend upon claims 5 and 14 which are rejected above. In addition, Kohnen teaches wherein, after the synchronization mode is determined to be activated, the presentation of the digital content on the second user device via the second communication interface is based on user interaction with the digital content via the first communication interface on the first user device <a user can share the slide show, images, photo album by selecting icon fig 3B item 316, para 0029, communication between devices para 0044-0045>.
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 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.
Claim 12 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kohnen in view of Kabbes (US Patent Application Publication 2015/0304264 A1 hereinafter Kabbes).
With regard to claim 12, this claim depends upon claims 5 which is rejected above. Kohnen does not appear to explicitly disclose limitations of this claim.
In the same field of endeavor, Kabbes teaches wherein the executable instructions are executable by the one or more processors to configure the system to, after the synchronization mode is determined to be activated, prevent independent user interaction with the digital content via the second communication interface of the second user device <user actions can be prevented during synchronization para 0034>.
Accordingly, it would have been obvious before the effective filing date to one of ordinary skill in the art, having the teachings of Kohnen, Kabbes before him/her before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify the teachings of Kohnen to include the teachings of Kabbes, in order to perform accurate synchronization of content. One would have been motivated to make such a combination because helps guarantee successful synchronization by not allowing any interaction with the content during synchronization.
Claim 13 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kohnen in view of VALLOPPILLIL et al (US Patent Application Publication 2019/0102369 A1 hereinafter Valloppillil).
With regard to claim 13, this claim depends upon claims 5 which is rejected above. Kohnen does not appear to explicitly disclose limitations of this claim.
In the same field of endeavor, Valloppillil teaches wherein the synchronization mode is determined to be activated based on selection of a sync function through the first communication interface <synchronization can be triggered by selecting a sync function para 0079, see fig 5>.
Accordingly, it would have been obvious before the effective filing date to one of ordinary skill in the art, having the teachings of Kohnen, Valloppillil before him/her before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify the teachings of Kohnen to include the teachings of Valloppillil, in order to initiate a sync function using a user interface. One would have been motivated to make such a combination because it enables a user to invoke a sync function when desired.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record (see PTO-892) and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure:
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ANIL K BHARGAVA whose telephone number is (571)270-3278. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 8:30 am - 5:00 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, Adam Queler can be reached at 571-272-4140. 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.
/ANIL K BHARGAVA/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2172