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 .
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) was filed on 5/22/2024. The submission is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement is being considered by the examiner.
Drawings
The drawings filed on 5/22/2024 were accepted.
Claim Objections
Claim 20 is objected to because of the following informalities: “the collaborator is not aware of existence of the non-shared project section” has improper grammar. A suggested correction is “the collaborator is not made aware of the existence of the non-shared project section.” Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101
35 U.S.C. 101 reads as follows:
Whoever invents or discovers any new and useful process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter, or any new and useful improvement thereof, may obtain a patent therefor, subject to the conditions and requirements of this title.
Claims 1-20 are rejected under 35 USC 101.
Claim 1 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to non-statutory subject matter. The claims do not fall within at least one of the four categories of patent eligible subject matter because they are directed to an abstract idea without significantly more. The claims recite the abstract idea of sharing a project.
Step 2A, Prong 1
The limitations that describe the sharing a project are processes that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind but for the recitation of generic computer components. The claims also include elements of displaying the project with user interfaces, however nothing in the claims precludes the steps from practically being performed in the mind.
Step 2A, Prong 2
The judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application because the additional elements regarding displaying the project with user interfaces are considered insignificant extra-solution activity. These limitations are not considered improvements to the functioning of a technology or technical field. The claims do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because the extrasolutionary elements are not considered significantly more than just applying the steps of sharing a project.
Step 2B
In addition to the abstract idea, the claims have the displaying the project with user interfaces, but they represent only well-understood, routine, conventional activity that can be performed on generic computers. Edson et al (US20170200122A1; filed 8/16/2016) discloses how well-understood, routine, and conventional the displaying of shared documents is: paragraph 4: “prior art applications such as box.com, Google Drive, dropbox.com, hightail.com and all other similar cloud file sharing applications… the other users may access the file(s) and/or folder(s);” (Google drive and Dropbox have their own user interfaces for accessing shared documents). Mere instructions to apply an exception using generic computer components cannot provide an inventive concept. The claims are not patent eligible.
As per claim 2, this claim has similar displaying of a view and is rejected similarly to claim 1.
As per claim 3, this claim has similar displaying of a view and is rejected similarly to claim 1.
As per claim 4, this claim has similar displaying of a view and is rejected similarly to claim 1.
As per claim 5, this claim has similar displaying of a view and is rejected similarly to claim 1.
As per claim 6, this claim has similar displaying of a view and is rejected similarly to claim 1.
As per claim 7, this claim has similar displaying of a view and is rejected similarly to claim 1.
As per claim 8, this claim has similar displaying of a view and is rejected similarly to claim 1.
As per claim 9, this claim has similar displaying of a view and is rejected similarly to claim 1. The “productivity enhancing tool” is merely considered part of a standard user interface that can be displayed to a user, such as the UI from claim 1.
As per claim 10, this claim has similar displaying of a tool of a user interface and is rejected similarly to claim 9.
As per claim 11, this claim has similar displaying of a view, but with a text format, and is rejected similarly to claim 1.
Claim 12 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to non-statutory subject matter. As per claim 12, this claim recites an additional abstract idea of assigning rights to collaborators. The assigning of rights is a process that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind. There are no other additional elements.
As per claim 13, this claim has similar displaying of a view as claim 1, and assigning rights as claim 12, and is rejected similarly to claims 1 and 12.
As per claim 14, this claim has similar displaying of a view as claim 1, and assigning rights as claim 12, and is rejected similarly to claims 1 and 12.
As per claim 15, this claim has similar assigning rights as claim 12, and is rejected similarly to claim 12.
Claim 16 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to non-statutory subject matter. As per claim 16, this claim recites an additional element of synchronizing content. Claim 16 also has similar displaying as claim 1, and these limitations are treated similarly.
(Step 2A, prong 2) The judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application because the additional elements regarding synchronizing content are considered insignificant extra-solution activity. These limitations are not considered improvements to the functioning of a technology or technical field.
(Step 2B) The claims do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because the synchronization of content is not considered significantly more than the judicial exception. The additional elements represent only well-understood, routine, conventional activity that can be performed on generic computer systems. Edson et al (US20170200122A1; filed 8/16/2016) discloses how well-understood, routine, and conventional the synchronization is: paragraph 4: “prior art applications such as box.com, Google Drive, dropbox.com, hightail.com and all other similar cloud file sharing applications… the other users may access the file(s) and/or folder(s).” The claims are not patent eligible.
Claim 17 recites substantially similar limitations to claim 1 and is thus rejected along the same rationale. Claim 17 further recites additional elements of a processor, a non-transitory computer readable medium, and providing signals over a network.
(Step 2A, prong 2) The judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application because the additional elements regarding a processor, a non-transitory computer readable medium, and providing signals over a network are considered insignificant extra-solution activity. These limitations are not considered improvements to the functioning of a technology or technical field.
(Step 2B) The claims do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because the processor, non-transitory computer readable medium, and providing signals over a network are not considered significantly more than the judicial exception. The additional elements represent only well-understood, routine, conventional activity that can be performed on generic computer systems. The processor and non-transitory computer readable medium are generic computer components, and mere instructions to apply an exception using generic computer components cannot provide an inventive concept. The sending and receiving of data has been recognized by the courts as being well-understood, routine, and conventional functions when they are claimed in a merely generic manner (e.g., at a high level of generality) or as insignificant extra-solution activity. See buySAFE, Inc. v. Google, Inc., 765 F.3d 1350, 1355, 112 USPQ2d 1093, 1096 (Fed. Cir. 2014) and MPEP 2106.05(d), subsection II. The claims are not patent eligible.
As per claim 18, this claim has similar displaying of a view and is rejected similarly to claim 17.
As per claim 19, this claim has similar sharing of content (the setting that alters the content is merely determining which content is being shared) and is rejected similarly to claim 1.
As per claim 20, this claim has similar displaying and sharing (the setting that alters the permissions is merely determining which content is being shared) and is rejected similarly to claim 1.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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 the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claim(s) 1-20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Edson et al (US20170200122A1; filed 8/16/2016).
With regards to claim 1, Edson et al discloses A method, comprising: displaying on a user interface an electronic project having a first project view containing a first project content section and a second project view containing a second project content section, each of the first project view and second project view is accessible via the user interface (Edson et al, Fig. 46: Multiple sets of content are shown under the section labeled “All uploaded files.” Paragraph 106: “In one example, to select content to which access is granted, the owner can select one or more visual content (any Mini- and/or Macro-object) or hierarchical Visual Folder in the owner's workspace or any of the owner's connected workspaces.” The first and second project views can be interpreted as any arbitrarily selected file objects, since each can be selected and have their user permissions edited individually by the user);
sharing the electronic project with at least one collaborator via a collaborator interface (Edson et al, paragraph 107: “to grant access to selected content, the owner can grant “view” and “can edit” permissions to one or more users.” Fig. 46: the “View” and “Can Edit” options are displayed in the right menu. The “collaborator interface” is interpreted as the view that the collaborator has from their device, when a file is shared with them. The interface is described in fig. 66A-66B); and,
displaying the electronic project on the collaborator interface such that the first project view is accessible via the collaborator interface and the second project view is inaccessible via the collaborator interface (Edson et al, paragraph 56-57: “6. The users corresponding to the UserIDs are notified of their permission to access the new content… Once accepted, the owner's workspace will be loaded into the user's workspace and will include only content to which access has been granted, based on privacy rules defined in the Smart Security Block 204;” The content without the permission (no access granted) is inaccessible).
With regards to claim 2, which depends on claim 1, Edson et al discloses wherein the first project view contains the first project content section and a third project content section (Edson et al, Fig. 46: Multiple sets of content are shown under the section labeled “All uploaded files.” Paragraph 106: “In one example, to select content to which access is granted, the owner can select one or more visual content (any Mini- and/or Macro-object) or hierarchical Visual Folder in the owner's workspace or any of the owner's connected workspaces.” As described in the rejection to claim 1 above, the user can select which files are to be shared and what permissions to give the recipients of the shared documents. Thus the first project content section could be “Presentation 2.ppt” and the third project content section could be “One” in the “Images” section, after which the user could select which content is viewable or editable by the recipients).
With regards to claim 3, which depends on claim 2, Edson et al discloses wherein the third project content section is accessible via the user interface and inaccessible via the collaborator interface (Edson et al, Fig. 46: Multiple sets of content are shown under the section labeled “All uploaded files.” Paragraph 106: “In one example, to select content to which access is granted, the owner can select one or more visual content (any Mini- and/or Macro-object) or hierarchical Visual Folder in the owner's workspace or any of the owner's connected workspaces.” As described in the rejection to claim 1 above, the user can select which files are to be shared and what permissions to give the recipients of the shared documents. Limiting the permissions of another user for a file would make it accessible to the user but not to the sharing recipient).
With regards to claim 4, which depends on claim 1, Edson et al discloses wherein the first project view is rendered in a browser window (Edson et al, paragraph 47: “In one example, the client device 104 may be provisioned with a user agent 104 a, e.g., a browser, whereby the client device 104 may access the document processing engine 108 a.”).
With regards to claim 5, which depends on claim 1, Edson et al discloses wherein the first project view is rendered in a desktop user interface (Edson et al, paragraph 6: “enable a user to access, control, share, protect, track, and use connected workspaces from the cloud or from his/her desktop directly from within the corresponding application”).
With regards to claim 6, which depends on claim 1, Edson et al discloses wherein the first project view includes the first project content section rendered as a first user interface panel and a third project content section rendered as a second user interface panel (Edson et al, Fig. 4, 46: Left panel (first UI panel) includes tree of files, middle panel (second UI panel) includes presentation 2 with slides; paragraph 91: “In the left area, display the tree of Visual Folders and content thumbnails/documents underneath the tree”).
With regards to claim 7, which depends on claim 6, Edson et al discloses wherein the first user interface panel and the second user interface panel are configured to be re-arrangeable and re-sizeable within the first project view (Edson et al, paragraph 651: “Note that the user can expand trees not only by selecting the expand/collapse arrow (same arrow as on the Coleo Cloud), but also selecting the tree name will result in the same action. For example, if the user selects on the “My Files” tree, if it was collapsed, selecting on the name will expand it and vice versa.” Fig. 4: the file sections in the left pane have selectable arrows for expanding/collapsing, and there is a zoom in/out control at the top of the middle (second UI panel) panel).
With regards to claim 8, which depends on claim 6, Edson et al discloses wherein the first project content section is configured to provide at least one textual document for viewing (Edson et al, paragraph 482-483: “the user may select and open slides and presentations from his/her Connected Workspaces in PowerPoint® using the Kahani for 3rd Party Authoring Applications Block 220… 1. “My Files” includes file types;” file types such as Powerpoints and “presentations” are interpreted as being “textual”).
With regards to claim 9, which depends on claim 6, Edson et al discloses wherein the first project content section is configured to provide at least one productivity enhancing tool (Edson et al, Fig. 46: two search bars are shown at the top and bottom of the left pane (“Enter keywords” and “Find Workspaces”); the search bars are interpreted as productivity enhancing tools).
With regards to claim 10, which depends on claim 9, Edson et al discloses wherein the at least one productivity enhancing tool is a search engine (Edson et al, Fig. 46: two search bars are shown at the top and bottom of the left pane (“Enter keywords” and “Find Workspaces”)).
With regards to claim 11, which depends on claim 6, Edson et al discloses wherein the first project content section is configured to provide data in textual format (Edson et al, Fig. 4, 46: Left panel (first UI panel) includes tree of files; paragraph 91: “In the left area, display the tree of Visual Folders and content thumbnails/documents underneath the tree;” the tree of files list file names using text).
With regards to claim 12, which depends on claim 1, Edson et al discloses assigning a first collaborator right to at least one collaborator, wherein the second project view is inaccessible via the collaborator interface based on the first collaborator right (Edson et al, paragraph 56-57: “6. The users corresponding to the UserIDs are notified of their permission to access the new content… Once accepted, the owner's workspace will be loaded into the user's workspace and will include only content to which access has been granted, based on privacy rules defined in the Smart Security Block 204;” The content without the permission (no access granted) is inaccessible).
With regards to claim 13, which depends on claim 1, Edson et al discloses wherein the first project view includes the first project content section and a third project content section (Edson et al, Fig. 46: Multiple sets of content are shown under the header labeled “All uploaded files.”), and wherein the method further comprises the step of assigning a first collaborator right and a second collaborator right to at least one collaborator (Edson et al, fig. 46: user permissions “view” and “can edit” are shown under collaborators; paragraph 107: “to grant access to selected content, the owner can grant “view” and “can edit” permissions to one or more users”), wherein the first collaborator right defines editing rights on the first project view for the at least one collaborator and the second collaborator right defines viewing rights on the second project view for the at least one collaborator (Edson et al, paragraph 106: “to select content to which access is granted, the owner can select one or more visual content;” the user can select any owned piece of content, two of which are interpreted as the first and second project views; paragraph 107: “the owner can grant “view” and “can edit” permissions to one or more users;” the view and editing permissions can be granted individually to whatever content is selected at any moment).
With regards to claim 14, which depends on claim 1, Edson et al discloses wherein the first project view includes the first project content section and a third project content section (Edson et al, Fig. 46: Multiple sets of content are shown under the label, “All uploaded files.”), and wherein the method further comprises the step of assigning a first collaborator right to at least one collaborator, wherein the first collaborator right defines editing rights on the first project content section for the at least one collaborator (Edson et al, paragraph 106: “to select content to which access is granted, the owner can select one or more visual content (any Mini- and/or Macro-object) or hierarchical Visual Folder in the owner's workspace or any of the owner's connected workspaces;” paragraph 107: “to grant access to selected content, the owner can grant “view” and “can edit” permissions to one or more users”).
With regards to claim 15, which depends on claim 14, Edson et al discloses assigning a second collaborator right to the at least one collaborator, wherein the second collaborator right defines viewing rights to the second project content section (Edson et al, paragraph 106: “to select content to which access is granted, the owner can select one or more visual content (any Mini- and/or Macro-object) or hierarchical Visual Folder in the owner's workspace or any of the owner's connected workspaces;” paragraph 107: “to grant access to selected content, the owner can grant “view” and “can edit” permissions to one or more users;” the user can select any content, and can grant selected permissions (“view” or “can edit”) to any user or group of users as shown in Fig. 46).
With regards to claim 16, which depends on claim 1, Edson et al discloses displaying the first project section of the electronic project in the first project view within the user interface, the first project section displaying a first content to the project owner (Edson et al, paragraph 43: “Coleo tree Pane: A pane added to PowerPoint to display the Owner’s workspace tree.” Fig. 4, 46: The leftmost pane displays the workspaces of the owner/user);
display the second project section of the electronic project in the second project view on the user interface, the second project section displaying the first content to at least the project owner (Edson et al, paragraph 43: “Coleo Objects Pane: A pane directly to the right of the Coleo Tree Pane… to display the Coleo objects within the Visual Folders in the Coleo Tree Pane;” Fig. 4, 46: The middle pane, which also displays the objects listed in the Tree Pane),
synchronize the first content between the first project section and the second project section (Edson et al, paragraph 43: “Coleo Objects Pane: A pane directly to the right of the Coleo Tree Pane… to display the Coleo objects within the Visual Folders in the Coleo Tree Pane;” The Coleo Tree Pane and Coleo Objects Pane display the same objects, so they are synchronized and would both change upon editing).
Claim 17 recites substantially similar limitations to claim 1 and is thus rejected along the same rationale. Claim 17 additionally recites a processor and a non-transitory computer readable medium (Edson et al, paragraph 1177: “In general, the routines executed to implement the examples of the present invention may be implemented as part of an operating system or a specific application, component, program, object, module, or sequence of instructions referred to as “computer programs.” The computer programs typically comprise one or more instructions set at various times in various memory and storage devices in a computer, and that, when read and executed by one or more processors in a computer, cause the computer to perform operations necessary to execute elements involving the various aspects of the present invention”).
With regards to claim 18, which depends on claim 17, Edson et al discloses wherein the third signals provide solely for the first project view of the electronic project to be displayed based on at least one stored permission setting (Edson et al, fig. 46: user permissions “view” are shown under collaborators; paragraph 107: “to grant access to selected content, the owner can grant “view” and “can edit” permissions to one or more users”).
With regards to claim 19, which depends on claim 18, Edson et al discloses wherein a second stored permission setting enables the collaborator to alter content of the first project view of the electronic project (Edson et al, fig. 46: user permissions “can edit” are shown under collaborators; paragraph 107: “to grant access to selected content, the owner can grant “view” and “can edit” permissions to one or more users”).
With regards to claim 20, Edson et al discloses A method for reviewing an electronic project by at least one project owner, the method comprising the steps of: displaying at least a first project section of the electronic project in a project view, the first project section displays a first content to at least the project owner; displaying at least a second project section of the electronic project in the project view (Edson et al, Fig. 46: Multiple sets of content are shown under the section labeled “All uploaded files.” Paragraph 106: “In one example, to select content to which access is granted, the owner can select one or more visual content (any Mini- and/or Macro-object) or hierarchical Visual Folder in the owner's workspace or any of the owner's connected workspaces.”);
controlling sharing permissions such that the collaborator is only shown one of the first and second project sections, sharing the electronic project comprising the project view with at least one collaborator; and, (Edson et al, paragraph 107: “to grant access to selected content, the owner can grant “view” and “can edit” permissions to one or more users.” Fig. 46: the “View” and “Can Edit” options are displayed in the right menu.)
displaying to the collaborator only one of the first and second project sections of the shared project view such that the collaborator is not aware of existence of the non-shared project section of the project view (Edson et al, paragraph 56-57: “6. The users corresponding to the UserIDs are notified of their permission to access the new content… Once accepted, the owner's workspace will be loaded into the user's workspace and will include only content to which access has been granted, based on privacy rules defined in the Smart Security Block 204;” The content without the permission (no access granted) is not shared).
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Martinez (US20130218829A1): Teaches a collaboration user interface for synchronized modifications.
Muller et al (US20050138566A1): Teaches managing collaboration data that is edited in real time.
Kochhar et al (US20170076101A1): Teaches modular document sharing and editing.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to BRODERICK C ANDERSON whose telephone number is (313)446-6566. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Tuesday, Thursday-Saturday 9-5 PST.
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, Stephen Hong can be reached at 5712724124. 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.
/B.C.A/Examiner, Art Unit 2178
/STEPHEN S HONG/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2178