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 .
Claims Status
Claims 1, 8 and 15 filed 11/20/2025 have been amended.Claims 1-20 are pending and have been rejected.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 02/12/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. Applicant’s representative asserts that the prior arts of record do not disclose the following limitation of the independent claims “a first user device, associated with the first user and communicatively coupled to the hub, configured to present a first synchronization of the at least one comment and the program content to the first user; and a second user device, associated with the second user and communicatively coupled to the hub, configured to present a second synchronization of the at least one comment and the program content to the second user.” However, the Examiner respectfully disagrees as Pelton et al. (U.S. Publication 2019/0268387) in 0016, changes made in a collaboration space are in real-time (e.g., other users may see changes happening in real-time). See paragraph 0037, shows that collaboration workspace/software uses a group communication, wherein the workspace can launch external services integrated via API. Workspaces have multiple channels and/or communication sessions within a space, wherein the workspace can contain several sessions within the workspace, such as a chat.
Applicant asserts that the motivation to combine the cited references is not supported.
The Examiner respectfully disagrees as MPEP 2143.01 provides:
Where the teachings of two or more prior art references conflict, the examiner must weigh the power of each reference to suggest solutions to one of ordinary skill in the art, considering the degree to which one reference might accurately discredit another. In re Young, 927 F.2d 588, 18 USPQ2d 1089 (Fed. Cir. 1991) (Prior art patent to Carlisle disclosed controlling and minimizing bubble oscillation for chemical explosives used in marine seismic exploration by spacing seismic sources close enough to allow the bubbles to intersect before reaching their maximum radius so the secondary pressure pulse was reduced. An article published several years later by Knudsen opined that the Carlisle technique does not yield appreciable improvement in bubble oscillation suppression. However, the article did not test the Carlisle technique under comparable conditions because Knudsen did not use Carlisle’s spacing or seismic source. Furthermore, where the Knudsen model most closely approximated the patent technique there was a 30% reduction of the secondary pressure pulse. On these facts, the court found that the Knudsen article would not have deterred one of ordinary skill in the art from using the Carlisle patent teachings.) In the examiners opinion the applicant has failed to adequately show how the references would discredit each other. In this case, one of ordinary skill in the art would be motivated to incorporate the teachings of Pelton with the system of Steinberg for the benefit of presenting the content to the users that are in a collaboration workspace by way of synchronization (please see Pelton, Paragraph 0002).
The rationale supporting the combination can be found in KSR Ruling. See KSR International Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. ___,___, 82 USPQ2d 1385, 1395-97 (2007) identified a number of rationales to support a conclusion of obviousness which are consistent with the proper “functional approach” to the determination of obviousness as laid down in Graham. The key to supporting any rejection under 35 U.S.C. 103 is the clear articulation of the reason(s) why the claimed invention would have been obvious. See MPEP 2143.
Exemplary rationales that may support a conclusion of obviousness include:
(A) Combining prior art elements according to known methods to yield predictable results;
(B) Simple substitution of one known element for another to obtain predictable results;
(C) Use of known technique to improve similar devices (methods, or products) in the same way;
(D) Applying a known technique to a known device (method, or product) ready for improvement to yield predictable results;
(E) “Obvious to try” – choosing from a finite number of identified, predictable solutions, with a reasonable expectation of success;
(F) Known work in one field of endeavor may prompt variations of it for use in either the same field or a different one based on design incentives or other market forces if the variations are predictable to one of ordinary skill in the art;
(G) Some teaching, suggestion, or motivation in the prior art that would have led one of ordinary skill to modify the prior art reference or to combine prior art reference teachings to arrive at the claimed invention.
For example, in this case A, B, C, D & G applies.
As it is Applicant's right to claim as broadly as possible their invention, it is also the Examiner's right to interpret the claim language as broadly as possible. It is the Examiner's position that the detailed functionality that allows for Applicant's invention to overcome the prior art used in the rejection, fails to differentiate in detail how these features are unique. It is clear that Applicant must be able to submit claim language to distinguish over the prior arts used in the above rejection sections that discloses distinctive features of Applicant's claimed invention. It is suggested that Applicant compare the original specification and claim language with the cited prior art used in the rejection section above or the remark section below to draw an amended claim set to further the prosecution.
Failure for Applicant to narrow the definition/scope of the claims and supply arguments commensurate in scope with the claims implies the Applicant's intent to broaden claimed invention.
Based on the rationale explained above, the Examiner disagrees with the prior arts being silent to the claimed embodiment.
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.
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 1-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Steinberg et al. (U.S. Publication 2011/0004831), hereinafter ‘Steinberg’ in view of Pelton et al. (U.S. Publication 2019/0268387), hereinafter ‘Pelton’.
As to claim 1, Steinberg discloses a system, for use in synchronizing program content with comments provided in a user circle, comprising: a hub configured to independently perform computer instructions, which form and manage a user circle, (Steinberg, see [0020], social networking service can automatically manage connections between friends) including: establishing, utilizing an instantiated targeting engine, based on the program content, a user circle having members including a first user and a second user (Steinberg, see [0020], connections in social networking services can be based on a common characteristics between users); associating the program content with the user circle (Steinberg, see [0020], users who are alumni of the same educational institution); and facilitating synchronized exchanges of at least one comment with the program content between the members of the user circle (Steinberg, see [0034], the content feed is more deterministic because the content displayed in the content feed reflects exactly what content is being posted on the social networking service in real-time. See [0066], the content feed, updated in real time in one embodiment, presents links that have been posted by friends) Steinberg is silent to a first user device, associated with the first user and communicatively coupled to the hub, configured to present a first synchronization of the at least one comment and the program content to the first user; and a second user device, associated with the second user and communicatively coupled to the hub, configured to present a second synchronization of the at least one comment and the program content to the second user. However, Pelton discloses a first user device, associated with the first user and communicatively coupled to the hub, configured to present a first synchronization of the at least one comment and the program content to the first user (Pelton, see [0091], user A is using communication device to record audio of workspace, and using communication device to review document changes being made to documents posted in workspace while users A and B are participating); and a second user device, associated with the second user and communicatively coupled to the hub, configured to present a second synchronization of the at least one comment and the program content to the second user (Pelton, see [0091], users A and B can be participating in workspace, which is a persistent and real-time collaboration space, using application on communication devices A and B, in order to view and interact with the workspace).
Therefore, 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 Steinberg in view of Pelton in order to further modify the method for a social networking service presents information about the social network using multiple feeds in a user interface and provides mechanisms for filtering the content from the teachings of Steinberg with the method for expanded participation in a collaboration space from the teachings of Pelton. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated because it would allow to improved participation options in an existing collaboration space (Pelton – Abstract).
As to claim 2, Steinberg in view of Pelton discloses everything disclosed in claim 1. Pelton further discloses wherein the first synchronization and the second synchronization occur substantially contemporaneously (Pelton, see [0016], changes and comments to documents can be changed in real-time collaboration).
As to claim 3, Steinberg in view of Pelton discloses everything disclosed in claim 1. Pelton further discloses wherein the first synchronization and the second synchronization occurs non-contemporaneously (Pelton, see [0016], changes and comments to documents can be posted for later viewing using a non-real-time collaboration).
As to claim 4, Steinberg in view of Pelton discloses everything disclosed in claim 1. Pelton further discloses wherein the first synchronization includes computer instructions for a first synch action which, when executed, result in a pause of the at least one comment while the program content is paused (Pelton, see [0016] and [0091], changes and comments to documents are posted for later viewing).
As to claim 5, Steinberg in view of Pelton discloses everything disclosed in claim 4. Pelton further discloses wherein the computer instructions for the first synch action are executed by the first user device (Pelton, see [0080], user can be invited to join a collaboration space in order to add content, consume content, engage in real-time collaboration. See [0091], user A is viewing and interacting with the workspace and making document changes to the documents posted in the workspace).
As to claim 6, Steinberg in view of Pelton discloses everything disclosed in claim 1. Pelton further discloses wherein the first synchronization includes computer instructions for a second synch action which, when executed, result in a pause of the program content while the at least one comment is paused (Pelton, see [0016] and [0091], changes and comments to documents are posted for later viewing).
As to claim 7, Steinberg in view of Pelton discloses everything disclosed in claim 6. Pelton further discloses wherein the computer instructions for the second synch action are executed by the first user device upon receipt of a pause content command from the first user (Pelton, see [0091], user A is using communication device 309A to record audio of workspace, and using communication device 310A to review document changes being made to documents posted in workspace while users A and B are participating).
As to claim 8, Steinberg in view of Pelton discloses everything disclosed in claim 7. Pelton further discloses wherein upon the execution of the computer instructions for the second synch action by the first user device, the second user device substantially simultaneously executes computer instructions for the second synch action such that presentation of the at least one comment and the program content on each of the first user device and the second user device occur substantially contemporaneously (Pelton, see [0016], changes and comments to documents can be changed in real-time collaboration).
As to claim 9, Steinberg discloses a hub device comprising: a storage device non-transitorily storing computer instructions for instantiating a user circle engine (Steinberg, see [0074], apparatus with storage); a processor, coupled to the storage device, which when executing the computer instructions (Steinberg, see [0074], processor), configures the hub to independently perform operations including: establishing, using an instantiated targeting engine, based on a program content, a user circle having members including a first user and a second user (Steinberg, see [0020], connections in social networking services can be based on a common characteristics between users); associating the program content with the user circle (Steinberg, see [0020], users who are alumni of the same educational institution); and receiving comments from at least one of a first user device and a second user device (Steinberg, see [0034], the content feed is more deterministic because the content displayed in the content feed reflects exactly what content is being posted on the social networking service in real-time. See [0066], the content feed, updated in real time in one embodiment, presents links that have been posted by friends); Steingberg is silent to wherein the first user device is associated with the first user; and wherein the second user devices is associated with the second user; synchronizing exchanges of the comments with the program content between the members of the user circle; a network interface coupling the processor with the first user device and the second user device; and wherein the network interface outputs: a first synchronization of the comments and the program content to the first user device, and a second synchronization of the comments and the program content to the second user device.
However, Pelton discloses wherein the first user device is associated with the first user (Pelton, see fig. 1, user 104A uses communication device 108A); and wherein the second user devices is associated with the second user (Pelton, see fig. 2, user 104N uses communication device 108N); synchronizing exchanges of the comments with the program content between the members of the user circle (Pelton, see [0016], changes and comments to documents can be changed in real-time (i.e., synchronized)); a network interface coupling the processor with the first user device and the second user device (Pelton, see fig. 1, communication network that can be packet-switched and/or circuit-switched which provide communication to computers using LAN, WAN, etc.); and wherein the network interface outputs: a first synchronization of the comments and the content program to the first user device (Pelton, see [0091], user A is using communication device to record audio of workspace, and using communication device to review document changes being made to documents posted in workspace while users A and B are participating), and a second synchronization of the comments and the program content to the second user device (Pelton, see [0091], users A and B can be participating in workspace, which is a persistent and real-time collaboration space, using application on communication devices A and B, in order to view and interact with the workspace). Therefore, 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 Steinberg in view of Pelton in order to further modify the method for a social networking service presents information about the social network using multiple feeds in a user interface and provides mechanisms for filtering the content from the teachings of Steinberg with the method for expanded participation in a collaboration space from the teachings of Pelton. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated because it would allow to improved participation options in an existing collaboration space (Pelton – Abstract).
As to claim 10, Steinberg in view of Pelton discloses everything disclosed in claim 9. Pelton further discloses wherein the first synchronization and the second synchronization occur substantially contemporaneously (Pelton, see [0016], changes and comments to documents can be changed in real-time collaboration).
As to claim 11, Steinberg in view of Pelton discloses everything disclosed in claim 9. Pelton further discloses wherein the computer instructions include first synch instructions for a first synch action which, when executed by the first user device, result in a pause the of comments while the program content is paused (Pelton, see [0016] and [0091], changes and comments to documents are posted for later viewing).
As to claim 12, Steinberg in view of Pelton discloses everything disclosed in claim 9. Pelton further discloses wherein the computer instructions include second synch instructions for a second synch action which, when executed by the first user device, result in a pause of the program content while the comments are paused (Pelton, see [0016] and [0091], changes and comments to documents are posted for later viewing).
As to claim 13, Steinberg in view of Pelton discloses everything disclosed in claim 12. Pelton further discloses wherein the second synch instructions are executed by the first user device upon receipt of a pause content command from the first user (Pelton, see [0091], user A is using communication device 309A to record audio of workspace, and using communication device 310A to review document changes being made to documents posted in workspace while users A and B are participating).
As to claim 14, Steinberg in view of Pelton discloses everything disclosed in claim 13. Pelton further discloses wherein upon the execution of the second synch instructions, the processor instructs the second user device to substantially simultaneously execute additional computer instructions for the second synch action such that presentation of the comments and the program content on each of the first user device and the second user device occur substantially contemporaneously (Pelton, see [0016], changes and comments to documents can be changed in real-time collaboration).
As to claim 15, Steinberg a process, for synchronizing presentations of programming content and comments across two or more user devices, comprising: independently inviting, by the hub device, the first user and the second user to join a user circle (Steinberg, see [0020], social networking service can automatically manage connections between friends. See [0052], social networking service application can run on a user device); establishing, by the hub device, utilizing an instantiated targeting engine, based on the programming content, the user circle having members including the first user and the second user (Steinberg, see [0020], connections in social networking services can be based on a common characteristics between users); associating, by the hub device, the programming content with the user circle (Steinberg, see [0020], users who are alumni of the same educational institution); receiving, by the hub device, comments from at least one of the first user device and the second user device (Steinberg, see [0034], the content feed is more deterministic because the content displayed in the content feed reflects exactly what content is being posted on the social networking service in real-time. See [0052], social networking service application can run on a user device.); Steinberg is silent to coupling a hub device with a first user device and a second user device; wherein the first user device is associated with a first user; and wherein the second user devices is associated with a second user; synchronizing exchanges of the comments with the programming content between the members of the user circle by providing a first synchronization of the comments and the programming content to the first user device and by further providing a second synchronization of the comments and the programming content to the second user device. However, Pelton discloses coupling a hub device with a first user device and a second user device (Pelton, see [0064], devices can drag and drop one or more contacts from a list of contacts into a virtual conference room hub, dial a number directly via a physical or on-screen keypad, etc.); wherein the first user device is associated with a first user (Pelton, see fig. 1, user 104A uses communication device 108A); and wherein the second user devices is associated with a second user (Pelton, see fig. 2, user 104N uses communication device 108N); synchronizing exchanges of the comments with the programming content between the members of the user circle by providing a first synchronization of the comments and the programming content to the first user device and by further providing a second synchronization of the comments and the programming content to the second user device (Pelton, see [0091], user A is using communication device to record audio of workspace, and using communication device to review document changes being made to documents posted in workspace while other users are participating). Therefore, 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 Steinberg in view of Pelton in order to further modify the method for a social networking service presents information about the social network using multiple feeds in a user interface and provides mechanisms for filtering the content from the teachings of Steinberg with the method for expanded participation in a collaboration space from the teachings of Pelton. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated because it would allow to improved participation options in an existing collaboration space (Pelton – Abstract).
As to claim 16, Steinberg in view of Pelton discloses everything disclosed in claim 15. Pelton further discloses wherein the first synchronization and the second synchronization occur substantially contemporaneously (Pelton, see [0016], changes and comments to documents can be changed in real-time collaboration).
As to claim 17, Steinberg in view of Pelton discloses everything disclosed in claim 15. Pelton further discloses performing a first synchronizing, by the first user device, of the comments and the programming content (Pelton, see [0016] and [0091], changes and comments to documents are posted for later viewing); and wherein during the first synchronizing, the comments are paused while the programming content is paused (Pelton, see [0091], user A uses communication device to review document changes being made to documents posted in workspace while other users are participating).
As to claim 18, Steinberg in view of Pelton discloses everything disclosed in claim 17. Pelton further discloses performing a second synchronization, by the first user device, of the comments and the programming content; wherein during the second synchronizing, the programming content is paused while the comments are paused (Pelton, see [0016] and [0091], changes and comments to documents are posted for later viewing).
As to claim 19, Steinberg in view of Pelton discloses everything disclosed in claim 18. Pelton further discloses wherein the second synchronization is performed by the first user device upon receipt of a pause content command from the first user (Pelton, see [0091], user A is using communication device 309A to record audio of workspace, and using communication device 310A to review document changes being made to documents posted in workspace while users A and B are participating).
As to claim 20, Steinberg in view of Pelton discloses everything disclosed in claim 19. Pelton further discloses wherein upon the execution of the second synchronization, the second user device substantially simultaneously presents the comments and the programming content on each of the first user device and the second user device (Pelton, see [0091], users A and B can be participating in workspace, which is a persistent and real-time collaboration space, using application on communication devices A and B, in order to view and interact with the workspace).
Conclusion
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. 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 TANIA M PENA-SANTANA whose telephone number is (571)270-0627. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 8am to 4pm EST.
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, Nicholas R Taylor can be reached at 5712723889. 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.
/TANIA M PENA-SANTANA/Examiner, Art Unit 2443
/CHRISTOPHER B ROBINSON/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2443