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 .
Priority
The examiner acknowledges the present application claims priority to Provisional Application 63/549,106, filed 2/2/2024.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 5, 10-11, and 14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Claim 5 recites “wherein receiving the selection input comprises receiving a selection of a particular options parameter…” However, the receiving of the selection input already comprises a different action in claim 1: “the selection input comprising a selection of a particular file…” Now in claim 5, the selection input comprises a different selection action. It is unclear whether “the selection input comprises” the limitation of claim 1, or the limitation of claim 5, or both, or if this is a second different selection input. If it is the same selection input, how can the same selection input perform the different functions of claims 1 and 5? E.g. how can 1 selection input select both a file and an options parameter? Clarification is required. Claims 10 and 14 recite similar “the selection input comprises” limitations comprising a different action than from claim 1.
Claim 11 is a dependent claim, and inherits the 35 U.S.C. §112(b) issues from claim 10.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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 (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) 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.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
Claims 1-3, 6-9, 12-13, 15-17, and 19-20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Chew et al., Patent Application Publication number US 20140019882 A1, (hereinafter “Chew”), in view of Cupala et al., Patent Application Publication number US 20220263675 A1 (hereinafter “Cupala”).
Claim 1: Chew teaches “A method for online collaboration, comprising:
displaying to a plurality of users, a user interface for a real-time communication session between the plurality of users (i.e. hangout user interface 500-A includes content panel 501 and thumbnails 502 of video streams (e.g., live or real-time webcam feeds, video clips, screencasts, etc.) streaming from client systems 104 corresponding to participants in the hangout [Chew 0068, Fig. 5A]);
displaying a plurality of thumbnails within a first region of the user interface to the plurality of users, each thumbnail in the plurality of thumbnails corresponding to a user in the plurality of users (i.e. thumbnails 502 represent respective participants in the hangout… streaming from client systems 104 corresponding to participants in the hangout [Chew 0068, Fig. 5A] note: these participant thumbnails are also displayed to the plurality of users that are using the user interface on their respective device), the first region of the user interface comprising a second region of the user interface (Chew Fig. 5A whole screen as a first region, and middle region 501 as a second region);
receiving through the user interface a selection input from a particular user of the plurality of users, the selection input comprising a selection of a particular file (i.e. whiteboard area 528 is displayed in response to selection of the shared whiteboard link 522-4 by the participant user [Chew 0080, Fig. 5E] note: dependent claim 13 specifically says the file can be a whiteboard);
in response to the selection input, displaying an editing interface within the second region of the user interface to the plurality of users (i.e. whiteboard area 528 is a shared content area whose content is viewable and modifiable by any participant in the hangout [Chew 0080, Fig. 5E] note: editing interface in the second/middle region 501), the editing interface adapted for real-time editing of files by the plurality of users (i.e. the hangout participants can all view, add, and modify content in the whiteboard area 528 [Chew 0106]… a game area 550 being displayed in the content panel 501… a game is being played between some or all of the participants in the hangout [Chew 0092, Fig. 5K] note: data in the middle region can be changed in real time, because games are played in real time);
displaying the particular file within the editing interface to the plurality of users (i.e. whiteboard area 528 is a shared content area whose content is viewable and modifiable by any participant in the hangout [Chew 0080, Fig. 5E]);
receiving… through the editing interface, a first editing input from a first user and a second editing input from a second user (i.e. whiteboard area 528 is a shared content area whose content is viewable and modifiable by any participant in the hangout [Chew 0080, Fig. 5E]);
modifying the particular file in response to the first editing input and the second editing input, resulting in a modified file (i.e. whiteboard area 528 is a shared content area whose content is viewable and modifiable by any participant in the hangout [Chew 0080, Fig. 5E]); and
displaying the modified file within the editing interface to the plurality of users (i.e. whiteboard area 528 is a shared content area whose content is viewable and modifiable by any participant in the hangout [Chew 0080, Fig. 5E]).”
Chew is silent regarding receiving “simultaneously” through the editing interface… editing input.
Cupala teaches “displaying an editing interface within the second region of the user interface to the plurality of users, the editing interface adapted for real-time editing of files by the plurality of users (i.e. dynamic content refers to content enabled to support concurrent multi-user interactions (e.g., adding, editing, deleting, and the like) that are synchronized across applications and/or user systems in near real-time [Cupala 0079, Fig. 4B]);…
receiving simultaneously through the editing interface, a first editing input from a first user and a second editing input from a second user (i.e. dynamic content 416 is enabled for concurrent multi-user interaction… first user 432A (“DM”), corresponding to attendee 412A (“Dan Mandera”), is in the process of editing dynamic content 416 to add a first note 438A to the note category during meeting 408; and third user 432B (“KT”), corresponding to attendee 412B (“Karen Lee”), is accessing a first agenda item 440 of the agenda category [Cupala 0081, Fig. 4B]);”
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the invention/combination of Chew to include the feature of having the ability to simultaneously edit as disclosed by Cupala.
One would have been motivated to do so, before the effective filing date of the invention because it provides the benefit to perform collaborative work on the same document at the same time, increasing efficiency and increasing cooperation.
Claim 2: Chew and Cupala teach all the limitations of claim 1, above. Chew teaches “wherein displaying the plurality of thumbnails within the first region of the user interface comprises displaying at least one thumbnail within the second region of the user interface (Chew Fig. 5A shows plurality of thumbnails 502 in a first region (whole screen). And at least one thumbnail 518 of John Smith in the second region (middle section)), and displaying the editing interface within the second region of the user interface to the plurality of users comprises replacing, for all the users in the plurality of users, the at least one thumbnail with the editing interface (Chew Fig. 5F shows that a whiteboard editing interface replacing the thumbnail that was in the second/middle region).” Cupala teaches “displaying at least one thumbnail within the second region of the user interface (Cupala Fig. 4C shows thumbnail 402 in a middle region), and displaying the editing interface within the second region of the user interface to the plurality of users comprises replacing, for all the users in the plurality of users, the at least one thumbnail with the editing interface (i.e. fourth user 432C (“EK”) is in the process of adding a second note 438B to the note category [Cupala 0085, Fig. 4D] Cupala Fig. 4D shows editing interface 434 replacing thumbnail 402 of Fig. 4C).”
One would have been motivated to combine Chew and Cupala, before the effective filing date of the invention because it provides the benefit to replace thumbnails with the editing interface, which provides more viewable, editable, working space for users to perform collaboration and editing.
Claim 3: Chew and Cupala teach all the limitations of claim 2, above. Cupala teaches “further comprising: receiving through the user interface a termination input from the particular user; and in response to the termination input, replacing, for all the users in the plurality of users, the editing interface with the at least one thumbnail (i.e. FIG. 4D depicts a user interface 444 of a notebook application displaying collaborative notebook document 414 overlaying user interface 410 of the collaborative platform [Cupala 0086, Fig. 4C-4D] note: notebook editing interface is an overlay. Termination input of the “x” in the upper right corner would dismiss the overlay, and the underlying interface of Fig. 4C would be viewable again).”
One would have been motivated to combine Chew and Cupala, before the effective filing date of the invention because it provides the benefit where returning the interface to its previous state, which preserves interface consistency, which increases user familiarity, which promotes efficiency.
Claim 6: Chew and Cupala teach all the limitations of claim 1, above. Chew teaches “wherein the editing interface comprises a navigation interface adapted for real-time navigation of files by the plurality of users, and displaying the particular file within the editing interface to the plurality of users comprises displaying a first portion of the particular file within the editing interface to the plurality of users (i.e. In some examples, each participant in the hangout that is viewing the photos in the album 556 can independently scroll through the photos; each viewing participant can view them at his own pace. The participant user can use arrows 558-A and 588-B to scroll through the photos in the album 556. In some other examples, the presenter of the album 556 controls the scrolling through the photos in the album [Chew 0094, Fig. 5L]), the method further comprising:
receiving through the navigation interface, a navigation input from a third user; and in response to receiving the navigation input, displaying a second portion of the particular file within the editing interface only to the third user (i.e. In some examples, each participant in the hangout that is viewing the photos in the album 556 can independently scroll through the photos; each viewing participant can view them at his own pace [Chew 0094, Fig. 5L]).”
Claim 7: Chew and Cupala teach all the limitations of claim 6, above. Chew teaches “wherein the navigation input is a first navigation input, the method further comprising:
receiving, through the navigation interface, a second navigation input from the particular user;
in response to receiving the second navigation input, displaying a third portion of the particular file within the editing interface only to the particular user (i.e. In some examples, each participant in the hangout that is viewing the photos in the album 556 can independently scroll through the photos; each viewing participant can view them at his own pace. The participant user can use arrows 558-A and 588-B to scroll through the photos in the album 556. [Chew 0094, Fig. 5L]);
receiving through the user interface, a share command (i.e. the participant user… hangout can initiate a process to present… one or more photos/images… by selecting present photo album link 522-9 [Chew 0095, Fig. 5L]; and
in response to receiving the share command, displaying the third portion of the particular file within the editing interface to all the users in the plurality of users (i.e. In response to selection of the present photo album link 522-9, the participant is shown a user interface (not shown) where the participant can select one or more photos/images to present to the other hangout participants [Chew 0095] note: the presented photo may be the third portion the participant user independently viewed).”
Claim 8: Chew and Cupala teach all the limitations of claim 6, above. Chew teaches “wherein the third user is the first user (Chew 0094-0095, and Fig. 5L shows the interface displayed to the third user who can independently scroll the photos. The Third user can also access the left side of the interface, to access whiteboard, notes, etc., to edit files, similar to the first user of claim 1).”
Claim 9: Chew and Cupala teach all the limitations of claim 6, above. Chew teaches “ wherein the navigation interface comprises at least one of scroll bars, tabs, and filters (Chew Fig. 5A-5L left bar has tab functionality).”
Claim 12: Chew and Cupala teach all the limitations of claim 1, above. Chew teaches “wherein the plurality of thumbnails are a first plurality of thumbnails (i.e. thumbnails 502 represent respective participants in the hangout [Chew 0068, Fig. 5A]), the first plurality of thumbnails comprising a second plurality of thumbnails, each thumbnail in the second plurality of thumbnails corresponding to a file-sharing user (i.e. whiteboard area 528 is a shared content area whose content is viewable and modifiable by any participant in the hangout [Chew 0080, Fig. 5E] note: all participants (502-1, 502-2, and 502-3) are also capable of being a file-sharing (or whiteboard sharing) user), the method further comprising:
while displaying the editing interface within the second region of the user interface, displaying the second plurality of thumbnails within the first region of the user interface and outside the second region of the user interface (Chew Fig. 5E shows all participants (who are also capable of being file/whiteboard sharing users), are displayed in the first region (on the full screen), and outside of the second (middle) region).”
Claim 13: Chew and Cupala teach all the limitations of claim 1, above. Chew teaches “wherein the particular file is one of a document (Chew Fig. 5A shows “Shared notes” option), a spreadsheet, a presentation (Chew Fig. 5A shows “Shared notes,” “shared whiteboard,” “screencast,” “play video,” “present photo album,” option), a web page, a video (Chew Fig. 5A shows “play video” option), a program (Chew Fig. 5A shows “Play game” option), a form (Chew Fig. 5A shows “Shared notes” option), a poll, and a whiteboard (Chew Fig. 5A shows “Shared whiteboard” option).”
Claim 15: Chew and Cupala teach all the limitations of claim 1, above. Chew teaches “wherein the particular user is the first user (i.e. whiteboard area 528 is a shared content area whose content is viewable and modifiable by any participant in the hangout [Chew 0080, Fig. 5E] note: a participant (particular) user who selects what to edit, can also be the (first) user who is capable of editing).”
Claim 16: Chew and Cupala teach all the limitations of claim 1, above. Chew teaches “wherein the editing interface comprises input controls and formatting controls (i.e. Using the tools corresponding to buttons 530, participants in the hangout can draw graphical objects and add text onto the whiteboard area 528, such as objects 532-1 and 532-2 [Chew 0080, Fig. 5E] note: button are input controls, and the text and shape buttons are formatting controls).”
Claim 17: Chew and Cupala teach all the limitations of claim 1, above. Chew teaches “wherein each thumbnail in the plurality of thumbnails is one of a user avatar, a user image, a user video, a live user video feed, and a user text identifier (i.e. thumbnails 502 of video streams (e.g., live or real-time webcam feeds, video clips, screencasts, etc.) streaming from client systems 104 corresponding to participants in the hangout… in FIG. 5A [Chew 0068, Fig. 5A]).”
Claim 19: Chew and Cupala teach a non-transitory computer-readable medium storing a program for online collaboration, which when executed by a computer (i.e. a system that includes one or more processing units; memory storing one or more programs to be executed by the one or more processing units [Chew 0006]), configures the computer to perform operations corresponding to the method of claim 1; therefore, it is rejected under the same rationale.
Claim 20: Chew and Cupala teach a system for online collaboration, comprising: a processor; and a non-transitory computer-readable medium storing a set of instructions, which when executed by the processor (i.e. a system that includes one or more processing units; memory storing one or more programs to be executed by the one or more processing units [Chew 0006]), configure the processor to perform operations corresponding to the method of claim 1; therefore, it is rejected under the same rationale.
Claim 4 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Chew, in view of Cupala, in view of Lo et al., Patent Application Publication number US 20090164521 A1 (hereinafter “Lo”).
Claim 4: Chew and Cupala teach all the limitations of claim 3, above. Chew and Cupala are silent regarding “further comprising: further in response to the termination input, providing the modified file to a storage location associated with the particular user.”
Lo teaches “further comprising: further in response to the termination input, providing the modified file to a storage location associated with the particular user (i.e. the modified data may be received in response to a "save" or "update" command in the authoring application, or in response to a user exiting the authoring application [Lo 0036] note: save performed by a user, so the storage location is also accessible (and thus associated) to the user).”
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the invention/combination of Chew and Cupala to include the feature of having the ability to save data upon exit as disclosed by Lo.
One would have been motivated to do so, before the effective filing date of the invention because it provides the benefit to ensure data is not lost when exiting the program.
Claim 5 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Chew, in view of Cupala, in view of White, Patent Application Publication number US 20170140161 A1, (hereinafter “White”), in view of Liao, Patent Application Publication number US 20220394002 A1 (hereinafter “Liao”), in view of Crevier et al., Patent Application Publication number US 20110276897 A1 (hereinafter “Crevier”).
Claim 5: Chew and Cupala teach all the limitations of claim 3, above. Chew and Cupala are silent regarding “wherein receiving the selection input comprises receiving a selection of a particular options parameter from a plurality of options parameters, the plurality of options parameters comprising a first option to remove all permissions from the plurality of users other than the particular user.”
White teaches “wherein receiving the selection input comprises receiving a selection of a particular options parameter from a plurality of options parameters, the plurality of options parameters comprising a first option to remove all permissions from the plurality of users other than the particular user (i.e. if the client wants to share one or more documents with a professional for a limited time, because there is a specific type of a transaction or other reason, such as there is a real estate deal and the client wants to remove the documents after it closes… limitations in time can be, for example, until a certain date, no access after a certain date, and/or access only for a certain amount of time… When the client chooses to share for a limited amount of time, an option to choose when the sharing will end [White 0141]).”
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the invention/combination of Chew and Cupala to include the feature of having the ability to select options as disclosed by White.
One would have been motivated to do so, before the effective filing date of the invention because it provides the benefit to be able to change permissions, allowing access control, increasing data security and tracking of which user changes which files.
Chew and Cupala and White are silent regarding remove all permissions from the plurality of users other than the particular user “once the termination input is received.”
Liao teaches “a first option to remove all permissions from the plurality of users other than the particular user once the termination input is received (i.e. in response to detecting a discussion group exit trigger operation of a current user, generating a permission cancellation instruction and sending the permission cancellation instruction to a mail server to allow the mail server to cancel the current users attachment edit permission of the current mail according to the permission cancellation instruction, where a discussion group is created synchronously by a sharer with regard to a sharing trigger operation of the current mail [Liao 0283]).”
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the invention/combination of Chew and Cupala and White to include the feature of having the ability to add the option to remove all permissions upon exit as disclosed by Liao.
One would have been motivated to do so, before the effective filing date of the invention because it provides the benefit to be able to change permissions, allowing access control, increasing data security and tracking of which user changes which files.
Chew and Cupala and White and Liao are silent regarding “the plurality of options parameters comprising a second option to provide a copy of the modified file to the plurality of users other than the particular user once the termination input is received.”
Crevier teaches “the plurality of options parameters comprising a second option to provide a copy of the modified file to the plurality of users other than the particular user once the termination input is received (i.e. When the user clicks the close button, the user may be presented with a user interface such as that represented by block 114. That user interface contains a dialog box 116, which asks the user if he or she wants to reply to the original e-mail with the changes made to the document. The user can respond by clicking the "yes" or "no" buttons in the dialog box [Crevier 0029, Fig. 2]).”
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the invention/combination of Chew and Cupala and White and Liao to include the feature of having the ability to distribute the edited file upon exit as disclosed by Crevier.
One would have been motivated to do so, before the effective filing date of the invention because it provides the benefit to notify and distribute the collaborated file to the participants, so each user can continue review the edited file after the meeting.
Claims 10-11 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Chew, in view of Cupala, in view of Crevier.
Claim 10: Chew and Cupala teach all the limitations of claim 1, above. Chew and Cupala are silent regarding “wherein receiving the selection input comprises selecting a storage location associated with the particular user, and displaying the particular file comprises copying the particular file from the storage location associated with the particular user to a remote storage that is not associated with any user in the plurality of users.”
Crevier teaches “wherein receiving the selection input comprises selecting a storage location associated with the particular user (i.e. a person creates the initial version of the document and e-mails it to other collaborators [Crevier 0004]… the initial version of the document is not in the online document repository [Crevier 0006] note: selecting the initial version selects it from the local storage location of the user), and
displaying the particular file comprises copying the particular file from the storage location associated with the particular user to a remote storage that is not associated with any user in the plurality of users (i.e. the initial version of the document is not in the online document repository, but rather is attached to the e-mail. In this case, if one of the recipients uses the online e-mail and document system to open the document, the system may import the attachment into the document system (while giving other people listed on the e-mail permission to edit the document) and may give the recipient the online version to edit [Crevier 0006] note: the copy of the document in the online document repository is not associated with any user because it is not stored on any user’s computer).”
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the invention/combination of Chew and Cupala to include the feature of having the ability to move files to the cloud as disclosed by Crevier.
One would have been motivated to do so, before the effective filing date of the invention because it provides the benefit to have a central repository to save collaborative documents, so that they can be accessible to all participants.
Claim 11: Chew and Cupala and Crevier teach all the limitations of claim 10, above. Crevier teaches “wherein the storage location associated with the particular user is one of a local storage, a network-attached storage, and a cloud storage (i.e. a person creates the initial version of the document and e-mails it to other collaborators [Crevier 0004]… the initial version of the document is not in the online document repository [Crevier 0006] note: selecting the initial version selects it from the local storage location of the user).”
One would have been motivated to do so, before the effective filing date of the invention because it provides the benefit to move data from a local repository to a central repository to save collaborative documents, so that they can be accessible to all participants.
Claim 14 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Chew, in view of Cupala, in view of Massand, Patent Application Publication number US 20150271117 A1, (hereinafter “Massand”).
Claim 14: Chew and Cupala teach all the limitations of claim 1, above. Chew and Cupala are silent regarding “wherein receiving the selection input comprises receiving a selection of a particular permissions parameter from a plurality of permissions parameters, wherein the particular permissions parameter is applicable to the plurality of users other than the particular user, the plurality of permissions parameters comprising view-only permission, comment permission, and edit permission.”
Massand teaches “wherein receiving the selection input comprises receiving a selection of a particular permissions parameter from a plurality of permissions parameters (i.e. a sender may apply access rights to an attachment within interface 230 by selecting a options in a check box [Massand 0065]),
wherein the particular permissions parameter is applicable to the plurality of users other than the particular user, the plurality of permissions parameters comprising view-only permission, comment permission, and edit permission (i.e. access rights may include restrictive rights such read-only, edit-only, comment-only [Massand 0065]).”
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the invention/combination of Chew and Cupala to include the feature of having the ability to provide access rights as disclosed by Massand.
One would have been motivated to do so, before the effective filing date of the invention because it provides the benefit to control access to the file, which allows only certain approved participants to modify the file, which prevents unwanted edits from unauthorized users.
Claim 18 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Chew, in view of Cupala, in view of Beckmann et al., Patent Application Publication number US 20240205035 A1, (hereinafter “Beckmann”), in view of Bran, Patent Application Publication number US 20230341989 A1 (hereinafter “Bran”).
Claim 18: Chew and Cupala teach all the limitations of claim 1, above. Chew and Cupala are silent regarding “wherein the plurality of thumbnails are sortable according to a plurality of user criteria, the plurality of user criteria comprising user first name, user last name,”
Beckmann teaches “wherein the plurality of thumbnails are sortable according to a plurality of user criteria, the plurality of user criteria comprising user first name, user last name (i.e. sections 432, 434 may be sorted in various ways in example systems. For example, they may be sorted by response, such as accepted, may be, declined, and no response. They may be further sorted by other attributes of the video conference participants, such by name [Beckmann 0075]),”
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the invention/combination of Chew and Cupala to include the feature of having the ability to sort participants by name as disclosed by Beckmann.
One would have been motivated to do so, before the effective filing date of the invention because it provides the benefit to provide organization by alphabetical order, in order to more easily find the participant the user is looking for.
Chew and Cupala and Beckmann are silent regarding wherein the plurality of thumbnails are sortable according to a plurality of user criteria, the plurality of user criteria comprising… “user sharing, and user reactions.”
Bran teaches “wherein the plurality of thumbnails are sortable according to a plurality of user criteria, the plurality of user criteria comprising… user sharing, and user reactions (i.e. the visual elements may include… a virtual hand being raised [a user reaction]… the video feed of the participant [user sharing] arriving to the conference to move (e.g., to the front…) [Bran 0064, Fig. 8]… visual elements may include video feeds of individual participants (e.g., user tiles) [Bran 0060]… the visual element may move during the video conference [Bran 0063]… visual element may move to a location in the GUI which may be configured by the participant, such as a top [Bran 0063, Fig. 8] note: user tiles are sorted to the top, when a user shares a video feed and when a user reacts by raising a virtual hand).”
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the invention/combination of Chew and Cupala and Beckmann to include the feature of having the ability to sort by user actions as disclosed by Bran.
One would have been motivated to do so, before the effective filing date of the invention because it provides the benefit to more easily identify which participants is actively or currently sharing or reacting in a collaborative meeting.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Chasen (US 20220013027 A1) listed on 892 is related to virtual classroom meeting platforms.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to SAMUEL SHEN whose telephone number is (469)295-9169 and email address is samuel.shen@uspto.gov. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Thursday, 7:00 am - 5:00 pm CT.
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, Fred Ehichioya can be reached on (571) 272-4034. 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.
/S.S./Examiner, Art Unit 2179
/IRETE F EHICHIOYA/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2179