DETAILED ACTION
This action is in response to the amendment filed 4/30/2026.
Claims 1, 2, 4-6, 8-10, and 12-14 are currently pending.
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 Arguments
Applicant’s arguments, see pages 6 and 7 of amendment, filed 1/2/2026, with respect to the rejection(s) of claim(s) 1 under 35 U.S.C. 103 have been fully considered and are persuasive. Therefore, the rejection has been withdrawn. However, upon further consideration, a new ground(s) of rejection is made in view of Lininger (US 2012/0331061).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
Claim(s) 1, 3-5, 7-9, 11, and 12 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Stringham et al. (US 2022/0108276), hereinafter Stringham, in view of Kodali et al. (US 2017/0102833), hereinafter Kodali, in view of Lininger.
As per claim 1, Stringham teaches the following:
an information processing device comprising
a processor configured to execute processing of:
generating an object arrangement screen which is a screen shareable among a plurality of users corresponding to a plurality of accounts and on which a plurality of objects is arranged. As Stringham teaches in paragraph [0033], collaboration space 112 is hosted by server 102 and shared between client devices 104, 106, and 108. Stringham shows in Fig. 3 that a plurality of objects may be on the collaboration space;
displaying the object arrangement screen on a display screen of a display device operated by each of the plurality of users. As Stringham teaches in paragraph [0033], the server 102 hosts a collaboration space and each client device may access said space simultaneously;
;
detecting that a first user among the plurality of users is in an editing state having an edit authority for the first object. As Stringham teaches in paragraph [0045], a user may enable an “author ID mode”. Stringham teaches in paragraph [0174], that “breakout rooms” may be created and may only be accessible by a subset of users, i.e., the subset of users would have edit authority for a corresponding breakout; and
displaying, in response to detecting that the first user is in the editing state
While, Stringham teaches in paragraph [0084], an object may be “locked” to prevent editing, Stringham does not explicitly teach of displaying objects in editing states on other user’s displays. In a similar field of endeavor, Kodali teaches of a collaborative design system (see abstract). Kodali further teaches in the abstract that upon entering an editing state of an object, a notification is sent to each collaborative system to prevent simultaneous editing (similar to the locking of Stringham) and present the object as shaded to represent the editor or changes being made.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of applicant’s claimed invention to have modified the editing state presentation of Stringham with the shading on other devices of Kodali. One of ordinary skill would have been motivated to have made such modification because as Kodali teaches in paragraph [0005], such displays benefit users where multiple users desire to change graphical displays simultaneously.
Furthermore, while Stringham teaches of grouping of graphical objects into containers (see Fig. 4A), Stringham does not explicitly entering an editing state of all objects in the group when a first object within said group enters an editing state. In a similar field of endeavor, Lininger teaches of allowing a plurality of users to collaboratively develop a model (see abstract). As Lininger teaches in paragraph [0032], as a 3D model is designed multiple shapes (objects) may be grouped to form components. Lininger teaches in paragraph [0033], and corresponding Fig. 3, that components may be given a hierarchical relationship based upon how the components relate to one another. Lininger further teaches in paragraph [0045] that branches may be locked by a user for editing. The examiner interprets these teaching to encompass Applicant’s limitations in that the system of Lininger allows a user to lock a component for editing (for example “House” 154 of Fig. 3). The system of Lininger then determines any child nodes, i.e. components to which the selected component is grouped, and locks those nodes for editing as well (for example “Doors, Roof, and Walls” 160 of Fig. 3).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of applicant’s claimed invention to have further modified the editing locks of Stringham in view of Kodali with the component grouping of Lininger. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to have made such further modification because the component grouping of Lininger benefits users of collaboration systems where an overall component may contain multiple sub-components, wherein modifications to said overall component may effect said sub-components. Therefore, it would be beneficial to lock said sub-components while the overall component is edited. For example, utilizing Fig. 3 of Lininger, upon a first user wishing to edit “House” 154 by changing the size of walls, it would be beneficial to block a second user from changing the size of “Roof” 160 as the overall size of the structure may change in response to edits by the first user.
Regarding claim 4, Stringham teaches the device of claim 1 as described above. Stringham further teaches the following:
the object is an electronic sticky note, and the editing state is a state where connection processing from a first electronic sticky note corresponding to the first object to a plurality of electronic sticky notes is executed. Stringham teaches of sticky not button 222 in paragraph [0063] for creating a sticky note.
As per claim 5, Stringham teaches the following:
an information processing method executed by an information processing device, (see Fig. 1), that generates an object arrangement screen which is a screen shareable among a plurality of users corresponding to a plurality of accounts and on which a plurality of objects is arranged, displays the object arrangement screen on a display screen of a display device operated by each of the plurality of users. As Stringham teaches in paragraph [0033], collaboration space 112 is hosted by server 102 and shared between client devices 104, 106, and 108. Stringham shows in Fig. 3 that a plurality of objects may be on the collaboration space, the information processing method comprising steps of:
detecting that a first user among the plurality of users is in an editing state having an edit authority for the first object. As Stringham teaches in paragraph [0045], a user may enable an “author ID mode”. Stringham teaches in paragraph [0174], that “breakout rooms” may be created and may only be accessible by a subset of users, i.e., the subset of users would have edit authority for a corresponding breakout; and
displaying, in response to detecting that the first user is in the editing state As Stringham teaches in paragraph [0056], in response to a given object being selected or is being edited, one or more contextual formatting bars may be presented which is interpreted as encompassing making the object “distinguishable” (see Fig. 2, 207). Further see paragraph [0084], where an object may be “locked” to prevent editing.
Furthermore, while Stringham teaches of grouping of graphical objects into containers (see Fig. 4A), Stringham does not explicitly entering an editing state of all objects in the group when a first object within said group enters an editing state. In a similar field of endeavor, Lininger teaches of allowing a plurality of users to collaboratively develop a model (see abstract). As Lininger teaches in paragraph [0032], as a 3D model is designed multiple shapes (objects) may be grouped to form components. Lininger teaches in paragraph [0033], and corresponding Fig. 3, that components may be given a hierarchical relationship based upon how the components relate to one another. Lininger further teaches in paragraph [0045] that branches may be locked by a user for editing. The examiner interprets these teaching to encompass Applicant’s limitations in that the system of Lininger allows a user to lock a component for editing (for example “House” 154 of Fig. 3). The system of Lininger then determines any child nodes, i.e. components to which the selected component is grouped, and locks those nodes for editing as well (for example “Doors, Roof, and Walls” 160 of Fig. 3).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of applicant’s claimed invention to have further modified the editing locks of Stringham in view of Kodali with the component grouping of Lininger. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to have made such further modification because the component grouping of Lininger benefits users of collaboration systems where an overall component may contain multiple sub-components, wherein modifications to said overall component may effect said sub-components. Therefore, it would be beneficial to lock said sub-components while the overall component is edited. For example, utilizing Fig. 3 of Lininger, upon a first user wishing to edit “House” 154 by changing the size of walls, it would be beneficial to block a second user from changing the size of “Roof” 160 as the overall size of the structure may change in response to edits by the first user.
Regarding claim 8, Stringham teaches the method of claim 5 as described above. The remaining limitations of claim 8 are substantially similar to those of claim 4, and are rejected using the same reasoning.
As per claim 9, Stringham teaches the following:
a non-transitory computer-readable recording medium storing a program included in an information processing device, (see Fig. 1), that generates an object arrangement screen which is a screen shareable among a plurality of users corresponding to a plurality of accounts and on which a plurality of objects is arranged, displays the object arrangement screen on a display screen of a display device operated by each of the plurality of users. As Stringham teaches in paragraph [0033], collaboration space 112 is hosted by server 102 and shared between client devices 104, 106, and 108. Stringham shows in Fig. 3 that a plurality of objects may be on the collaboration space, the program for causing the computer to execute procedures of:
detecting that a first user among the plurality of users is in an editing state having an edit authority for the first object. As Stringham teaches in paragraph [0045], a user may enable an “author ID mode”. Stringham teaches in paragraph [0174], that “breakout rooms” may be created and may only be accessible by a subset of users, i.e., the subset of users would have edit authority for a corresponding breakout; and
displaying, in response to detecting that the first user is in the editing state As Stringham teaches in paragraph [0056], in response to a given object being selected or is being edited, one or more contextual formatting bars may be presented which is interpreted as encompassing making the object “distinguishable” (see Fig. 2, 207). Further see paragraph [0084], where an object may be “locked” to prevent editing.
While, Stringham teaches in paragraph [0084], an object may be “locked” to prevent editing, Stringham does not explicitly teach of displaying objects in editing states on other user’s displays. In a similar field of endeavor, Kodali teaches of a collaborative design system (see abstract). Kodali further teaches in the abstract that upon entering an editing state of an object, a notification is sent to each collaborative system to prevent simultaneous editing (similar to the locking of Stringham) and present the object as shaded to represent the editor or changes being made.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of applicant’s claimed invention to have modified the editing state presentation of Stringham with the shading on other devices of Kodali. One of ordinary skill would have been motivated to have made such modification because as Kodali teaches in paragraph [0005], such displays benefit users where multiple users desire to change graphical displays simultaneously.
Furthermore, while Stringham teaches of grouping of graphical objects into containers (see Fig. 4A), Stringham does not explicitly entering an editing state of all objects in the group when a first object within said group enters an editing state. In a similar field of endeavor, Lininger teaches of allowing a plurality of users to collaboratively develop a model (see abstract). As Lininger teaches in paragraph [0032], as a 3D model is designed multiple shapes (objects) may be grouped to form components. Lininger teaches in paragraph [0033], and corresponding Fig. 3, that components may be given a hierarchical relationship based upon how the components relate to one another. Lininger further teaches in paragraph [0045] that branches may be locked by a user for editing. The examiner interprets these teaching to encompass Applicant’s limitations in that the system of Lininger allows a user to lock a component for editing (for example “House” 154 of Fig. 3). The system of Lininger then determines any child nodes, i.e. components to which the selected component is grouped, and locks those nodes for editing as well (for example “Doors, Roof, and Walls” 160 of Fig. 3).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of applicant’s claimed invention to have further modified the editing locks of Stringham in view of Kodali with the component grouping of Lininger. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to have made such further modification because the component grouping of Lininger benefits users of collaboration systems where an overall component may contain multiple sub-components, wherein modifications to said overall component may effect said sub-components. Therefore, it would be beneficial to lock said sub-components while the overall component is edited. For example, utilizing Fig. 3 of Lininger, upon a first user wishing to edit “House” 154 by changing the size of walls, it would be beneficial to block a second user from changing the size of “Roof” 160 as the overall size of the structure may change in response to edits by the first user.
Regarding claim 12, Stringham teaches the medium of claim 9 as described above. The remaining limitations of claim 12 are substantially similar to those of claim 4 respectively, and are rejected using the same reasoning.
Regarding claim 13, Stringham teaches the device of claim 1 as described above. However, as described above, Stringham does not explicitly teach of grouping objects for locking. Lininger further teaches the following:
wherein the detecting that the first object is grouped with the at least one other object comprises detecting that the first user has grouped the first object with the at least one other object. As Lininger teaches in paragraph [0032], a user may create groups of objects
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of applicant’s claimed invention to have further modified the editing locks of Stringham in view of Kodali with the component grouping of Lininger. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to have made such further modification because the component grouping of Lininger benefits users of collaboration systems where an overall component may contain multiple sub-components, wherein modifications to said overall component may effect said sub-components. Therefore, it would be beneficial to lock said sub-components while the overall component is edited. For example, utilizing Fig. 3 of Lininger, upon a first user wishing to edit “House” 154 by changing the size of walls, it would be beneficial to block a second user from changing the size of “Roof” 160 as the overall size of the structure may change in response to edits by the first user.
Regarding claim 14, Stringham teaches the device of claim 2 as described above. However, as described above, Stringham does not explicitly teach of grouping objects for locking. Lininger further teaches the following:
wherein, in response to detecting that the first user is in the editing state of the first object, the processor is further configured to execute processing of limiting editing of the at least one other object by the user other than the first user. As Lininger teaches in paragraph [0032], as a 3D model is designed multiple shapes (objects) may be grouped to form components. Lininger teaches in paragraph [0033], and corresponding Fig. 3, that components may be given a hierarchical relationship based upon how the components relate to one another. Lininger further teaches in paragraph [0045] that branches may be locked by a user for editing.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of applicant’s claimed invention to have further modified the editing locks of Stringham in view of Kodali with the component grouping of Lininger. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to have made such further modification because the component grouping of Lininger benefits users of collaboration systems where an overall component may contain multiple sub-components, wherein modifications to said overall component may effect said sub-components. Therefore, it would be beneficial to lock said sub-components while the overall component is edited. For example, utilizing Fig. 3 of Lininger, upon a first user wishing to edit “House” 154 by changing the size of walls, it would be beneficial to block a second user from changing the size of “Roof” 160 as the overall size of the structure may change in response to edits by the first user.
Claim(s) 2, 6, and 10 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Stringham in view of Kodali in view of Lininger as applied to claims 1, 5, and 9, and further in view of Pak (US 2016/0321223).
As per claim 2, Stringham teaches the device of claim 1 as described above. While Stringham teaches of locking objects in paragraph [0084], Stringham does not explicitly teach of locking objects in response to an editing state. In a similar field of endeavor, Pak teaches of visualizations in a collaboration environment (see abstract). Pak further teaches the following:
in response to detecting that the first user is in the editing state of the first object, the control unit executes processing of limiting editing of the first object by the user other than the first user. As Pak teaches in paragraph [0066], and corresponding Fig. 5, upon a user selecting an object for editing 506, the server 113 locks the object 516 and enables editing of the object 519. Pak teaches in paragraph [0053] that locking the object “prevents the information object from being modified by other users”.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of applicant’s claimed invention to have modified the object editing of Stringham with the object locking of Pak. One of ordinary skill would have been motivated to have made such modification because the locking of Pak benefits users in avoiding conflicts of editing, e.g., when two different users may be editing a same object at a same time.
Regarding claim 6, Stringham teaches the method of claim 5 as described above. The remaining limitations of claim 6 are substantially similar to those of claim 2 and are rejected using the same reasoning.
Regarding claim 10, Stringham teaches the medium of claim 9 as described above. The remaining limitations of claim 10 are substantially similar to those of claim 2 and are rejected using the same reasoning.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Mourachov et al. (US 2024/0195847), see para [0124] where locks are displayed on sections currently being edited by other users.
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 GREGORY A DISTEFANO whose telephone number is (571)270-1644. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday: 9 am - 5 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, William Bashore can be reached at 5712424088. 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.
/GREGORY A. DISTEFANO/
Examiner
Art Unit 2174
/WILLIAM L BASHORE/ Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2174
Prosecution Insights