DETAILED ACTION
This action is responsive to the amendments filed 4/27/2026.
Claims 1-12 are pending. Claims 1, 11 and 12 are currently amended.
The claim objections are withdrawn in view of the amendments.
The rejection under 35 U.S.C. § 112 is withdrawn in view of the amendments.
All prior rejections under 35 U.S.C. §§ 102-103 are withdrawn as necessitated by amendment.
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.
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 as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention 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.
Claims 1, 2, 6, 7, 11 and 12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Mikutel, et al., U.S. PGPUB No. 2024/0311576 (“Mikutel”), in view of Mavuduri, U.S. Patent No. 11,949,722 (“Mavuduri”).
With regard to Claim 1, Mikutel teaches a method of collaborating between a first computer associated with a first display at a first location and a second computer associated with a second display at a second location, the method comprising:
establishing a connection between the first and second computers ([0014] describes that client devices are connected to one another via a network);
starting a virtual canvas on the first computer ([0028] describes that a visual collaboration creator opens a template, which will be used in an upcoming meeting);
sending the virtual canvas from the first computer to the second computer ([0025] describes that a collaboration template is sent to client devices to enable users to collaborate with one another);
in response to an artificial intelligence icon being selected on the first computer or the second computer, open a prompt tab to receive a prompt input, and in response to the prompt input and activation of a button, generate a response from an artificial intelligence engine in the prompt tab or in a new window on the canvas ([0029]-[0030] describe that a user can make an entry into an AI text box, which opens an AI response window. Users can then edit prompts within the window and view and interact with the responses generated by AI).
Mikutel does not teach establishing a peer-to-peer connection, or sending the virtual canvas from the first computer to the second computer via the peer-to-peer connection. Mavuduri teaches at Col. 9, lines 1-55 describe a canvas system which uses AI modules, tools, algorithms, and databases. The canvas system allows users to share and dissipate information through their canvas through synchronous, peer-to-peer communication. A first user shares the board with other users, who access and edit the board, and can also save the board shared through peer-to-peer communication for asynchronous, offline use.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time this application was filed to modify Mikutel to enable collaboration and canvas sharing through peer-to-peer communications described in Mavuduri. The background of Mavuduri lists 9 benefits of the tool which is implemented using peer-to-peer communications as described throughout the reference. Therefore, one of skill in the art would have sought to modify Mikutel using teachings of Mavuduri, to improve user experience by providing the many benefits of an all-in-one tool that are described in Mavuduri.
Claim 6 recites a method which is substantially the same as the method of Claim 1, and is similarly rejected.
With regard to Claim 2, Mikutel teaches that the prompt input is a text input. [0029]-[0030] describe that prompts are input and edited as text; this is also shown at Fig. 7.
Claim 7 recites a method which is substantially the same as the method of Claim 2, and is similarly rejected.
With regard to Claim 11, Mikutel teaches a graphical user interface for using an artificial intelligence engine in a virtual canvas running on a computer associated with a display, the graphical user interface being displayed in response to an artificial intelligence icon being selected in an icon window of the virtual canvas, the graphical user interface comprising:
a prompt tab for inputting a single prompt to retrieve a single text result from an artificial intelligence engine (Fig. 7 shows the prompt input along with a single response generated for the prompt by AI);
a notes tab for inputting a single prompt to retrieve more than one text result from the artificial intelligence engine (Figs 10 and 11 show a user selecting an element for suggesting similar ideas, leading to a plurality of responses each showing an additional idea generated by the AI); and
a media tab for inputting a single prompt to retrieve one or more images from the artificial intelligence engine ([0062] describes that a user can enter a prompt and receive an image response from the AI).
With regard to Claim 12, Mikutel teaches that in response to the prompt being input to the prompt tab, display the single text result in the prompt tab, in response to the prompt being input to the notes tab, display reach text result in a separate window on the canvas, and in response to the prompt being input to the media tab, display each image result in a separate window on the canvas.
Mikutel at Figs. 7 and 11 each show that a user can select an option to insert the responses as notes, where the notes are individual tiles, each of which includes one response therein. [0030] describes that selecting this option inserts the response generated by the AI into the canvas as notes. Therefore, the inserting of one or a plurality text responses, or one or more image responses as described at [0062] is in response to the input to the prompt tab, as the response includes the ability to insert the results in the canvas and is selected as a user response to the AI results.
Claims 3 and 8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Mikutel, in view of Mavuduri, and in view of Cho, et al., U.S. PGPUB No. 2021/0263963 (“Cho”).
With regard to Claim 3, Mikutel, in view of Cho teaches that the prompt input is a sketch. Mikutel teaches at [0029] that the prompt input to the AI in the canvas can be is forms other than text, and [0062] describes that the AI can return images as a response to a prompt. Cho teaches at [0088]-[0092] that an interface region for a user to sketch an input can be provided, where the interface also includes a region for output of machine-generated images generated using the sketch, and a user may also execute a search command using the input sketch. [0052] describes that the machine-generated image is generated using artificial intelligence.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time this application was filed to modify Mikutel and Mavuduri to include sketch inputs for use with the AI canvas as described in Cho. One of skill in the art would have sought the modification, to improve user experience by enabling additional types of input and output to an AI engine, thereby enabling the searching and use of additional types of content in collaboration.
Claim 8 recites a method which is substantially the same as the method of Claim 3, and is similarly rejected.
Claims 4, 5, 9 and 10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Mikutel, in view of Mavuduri, and in view of Bull, et al., U.S. Patent No. 11,157,160 (“Bull”).
With regard to Claim 4, Mikutel, in view of Bull teaches that each window on the canvas generated from the artificial intelligence engine includes a ranking metric for selection by a user. Mikutel teaches at [0031] and Fig. 8 that the canvas can display a plurality of AI-generated tiles in the canvas. Bull teaches at Col. 20, lines 21-33 that an AI engine can render a context menu, where Figs. 15A and 15B and Col. 21, lines 36-56 describe the context menu as made up of tiles, where tiles are selectable and user behavior recorded. Col. 21, lines 28-35 describe that each tile is placed and positioned based on a relevance and other information.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time this application was filed to combine Mikutel and Mavuduri with Bull. One of skill in the art would have sought the combination, to improve system functioning by enabling the display of tiles of AI-generated content to be re-arranged, and for more relevant or otherwise highly ranked elements be more prominently displayed, thereby conveying additional, useful information to users.
Claim 9 recites a method which is substantially the same as the method of Claim 4, and is similarly rejected.
With regard to Claim 5, Bull teaches that in response to a user ranking one or more windows on the canvas generated from the artificial intelligence engine, feeding back the ranked windows to the artificial intelligence engine. Col. 21, lines 46-56 describes that user behavior in reordering or removing tiles can be recorded, and used as feedback for the AI algorithm to train the algorithm for tile placement.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time this application was filed to combine Mikutel and Mavuduri with Bull. One of skill in the art would have sought the combination, to improve system functioning by enabling the display of tiles of AI-generated content to be re-arranged, and for more relevant or otherwise highly ranked elements be more prominently displayed, thereby conveying additional, useful information to users.
Claim 10 recites a method which is substantially the same as the method of Claim 5, and is similarly rejected.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments have been considered but are moot, as the newly cited Mavuduri references cures any deficiencies with regard to the previously cited references in teaching or suggesting the elements added to the claims by the amendment.
Conclusion
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 KEITH D BLOOMQUIST whose telephone number is (571)270-7718. The examiner can normally be reached M-F, 8:30-5 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, Kieu Vu can be reached at 571-272-4057. 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.
/KEITH D BLOOMQUIST/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2171
6/11/2026
Prosecution Insights