DETAILED ACTION
This action is responsive to the following communication: The amendment filed on 06/23/2026. This action is made final.
Claims 1-16, 19-22 are pending in the case. Claims 1, 8, and 16 are independent claims.
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 .
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.
Claims 1-5, 7-10, 12-16, 19-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Chasen (US 2025/0252400 A1; hereinafter Chasen) in view of Zionpour et al. (US 2022/0222426 A1; hereinafter Zionpour).
As to claim 1, Chasen discloses:
A method (see fig. 3 and ¶ 0040-0042), comprising:
receiving, by a device connected to a conference, an indication of collaborative editing of a document by conference participants of the conference (see Fig. 3 and ¶ 0047; receives through the user interface a selection input from a particular user. See Figs. 4A-4B and ¶ 0041-0042; a user interface for a real-time communication session between a group of participating users);
generating, by the device, a user interface associated with the conference (see Fig. 4G-4K and ¶ 0057; in response to the selection input, display an editing interface that is shown to all the users participating in the session, and that enables real-time simultaneous editing of the file by all the users);
facilitating, by the device, opening of the document in the user interface through interaction with a document service that manages the document (see Figs. 4C-4F and ¶ 0049-0053; i.e., a file browser 445 allowing the particular user to select a file from a folder labeled “My Files” that the user has access to. ¶ 0050; the storage location is not limited to one of a local storage, a network-attached storage, and a cloud storage);
creating a container object within the user interface associated with a client conferencing software; and rendering, in the container object, the document as provided by the document service (see Fig. 4G and ¶ 0057; sub-panel 457. See Fig. 4H and ¶ 0059; sub-panel 467 which can be expanded to occupy the entire main panel 420)
receiving, by the device, an indication to terminate the collaborative editing (see ¶ 0070; the particular user may end the collaboration of the file by selecting a termination input. For example, the termination input may be the same collaborate control 435, as a toggle to activate and de-activate the collaboration mode); and
in response to the indication to terminate the collaborative editing, closing, by the device, the user interface (see ¶ 0070; Ending the collaboration mode reverts the user interface to the grid of the thumbnails 410 for all users. The modified file is returned to the particular user {~editing interface 455 is closed}).
Chasen does not teach: wherein the document is stored in and accessible from the document service, and wherein facilitating the opening of the document comprises:
interfacing with an application programming interface of the document service to enable selection of the document from the document service for collaborative editing within the conference.
Zionpour is relied upon for teaching the deficient limitations. Specifically, Zionpour teaches: wherein the document is stored in and accessible from the document service (see Fig. 2 and ¶ 0053; an electronic collaborative word processing document may be stored in repository 230-1 as shown in FIG. 2. Repository 230-1 may be configured to store software, files, or code, such as electronic collaborative word processing documents developed using computing device 100 or user device 220-1. Repository 230-1 may further be accessed by computing device 100, user device 220-1, or other components of system 200 for downloading, receiving, processing, editing, or viewing, the electronic collaborative word processing document; repository 230-1 may be employed as a cloud service, such as a Software as a Service (SaaS) system, a Platform as a Service (PaaS), or Infrastructure as a Service (IaaS) system. For example, repository 230-1 may be based on infrastructure of services of Amazon Web Services™ (AWS), Microsoft Azure™, Google Cloud Platform™, Cisco Metapod™, Joyent™, vmWare™, or other cloud computing providers. Repository 230-1 may include other commercial file sharing services, such as Dropbox™, Google Docs™, or iCloud™), and wherein facilitating the opening of the document comprises:
interfacing with an application programming interface of the document service to enable selection of the document from the document service for collaborative editing within the conference (see ¶ 0026, 0052-0054; An electronic collaborative word processing document may be stored in one or more data repositories and the document may be retrieved by one or more users for downloading, receiving, processing, editing, or viewing, the electronic collaborative word processing document. accessing the electronic word processing document may include connecting with a live data stream of the electronic word processing document from a remote source. In some embodiments, accessing the electronic word processing document may include logging into an account having a permission to access the document. For example, accessing the electronic word processing document may be achieved by interacting with an indication associated with the electronic word processing document, such as an icon or file name, which may cause the system to retrieve (e.g., from a storage medium) a particular electronic word processing document associated with the indication)
The references, each discloses a user interface for document collaboration. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to combine the teaching of Chasen and the teaching of Zionpour together to provide a collaboration user interface that is configured to allow a user to select a document for collaboration in one of the provided document services as claimed. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make such a combination because of the overlapping subject matter, and the advantages described in Zionpour that make it easier for the user to select and/or access a collaborative document; thus, enhance user experience with a collaboration platform (Zionpour: see ¶ 0047).
As to claim 2, the rejection of claim 1 is incorporated. Chasen/Zionpour further teaches: wherein the indication of the collaborative editing includes data specifying the document (Chasen: see ¶ 0047; the process 300 receives through the user interface a selection input from a particular user. The selection input includes a selection of a file for collaboration and may also include a selection of a collaboration command. Various types of files may be selected by the particular user for collaboration, including but not limited to a document, a spreadsheet, a presentation, a web page, a video, a program, a form, a poll, and a whiteboard).
As to claim 3, the rejection of claim 1 is incorporated. Chasen/Zionpour further teach: presenting, by the device, the user interface within a tab of a conferencing software (Chasen: see Figs. 4G-4K and ¶ 0054; in response to the selection input, displays in the user interface 400 an editing interface (e.g., editing interfaces 455, 465, 475, 485, and 495 described with reference to FIGS. 4G, 4H, 4I, 4J, and 4K below, respectively) that is shown to all the users participating in the session, and that enables real-time simultaneous editing of the file by all the users. ¶ 0031; tabbed interface to access multiple users sharing their screen during an online meeting. The tabbed interface provides direct visual indication of which users and/or how many users are sharing their screen and provides for one-click switching between shared presentations and files, as well as one-click return to the meeting as a whole. ¶ 0055; the editing interface includes navigation controls that are shown to all the users participating in the session, and that enables real-time simultaneous navigation within the file by all the users. The navigation controls permit each user to independently navigate the file, including but not limited to scroll bars, tabs, thumbnail previews, and filters).
As to claim 4, the rejection of claim 1 is incorporated. Chasen/Zionpour further teach:
receiving, by the device, a first input to associate an editing permission with one of the conference participants (Chasen: see ¶ 0052-0053; permissions parameter comprising different levels of permissions including edit permission);
receiving, by the device, a second input to associate a reviewing permission with another conference participant of the conference participants (Chasen: see ¶ 0052-0053; permissions parameter comprising different levels of permissions including view permission); and
transmitting one or more requests to the document service to associate the editing permission with the of the conference participants and the reviewing permission with the another conference participant of the conference participants (Chasen: see Fig. 4F and ¶ 0052-0053; set Share Permissions).
As to claim 5, the rejection of claim 1 is incorporated. Chasen/Zionpour further teach:
retrieving, by the device, a list of available documents for the collaborative editing from the document service, wherein the list of the available documents includes the document (Chasen: see Figs. 4C-4D and ¶ 0049-0050; file type selection menu 440 as well as “My Files” list available documents that can be selected for collaboration); and
receiving, by the device, a selection of the document from the list of the available documents (Chasen: See Figs. 4C-4D and ¶ 0049-0050; select a file for collaboration).
As to claim 7, the rejection of claim 1 is incorporated. Chasen/Zionpour further teach: wherein the document service is a cloud-based platform (Chasen: see ¶ 0033, 0048, 0050; This collaborative process allows users to concurrently edit, view, navigate, and/or contribute to the content, fostering efficient communication and teamwork. The system typically involves a cloud-based platform or server that hosts the file, enabling seamless synchronization of changes made by different collaborators).
As to claim 8, claim 8 is directed to a device, comprising: a memory; and a processor, the processor configured to execute instructions stored in the memory to implement the method steps as claimed in claim 1; therefore, is rejected under similar rationale (Chasen: see Figs. 1-2 and ¶ 0034-0039).
As to claim 9, the rejection of claim 8 is incorporated. Chasen/Zionpour further teach:
retrieve from the document service a list of available documents; and output, on a display of the device, the list of the available documents (Chasen: see Figs. 4C-4D and ¶ 0049-0050; file type selection menu 440 as well as “My Files” list available documents that can be selected for collaboration).
As to claim 10, the rejection of claim 8 is incorporated. Chasen/Zionpour further teach:
display a list of document services including the document service; and receive a selection of the document service from the list of the document services (Chasen: see Figs. 4C-4D and ¶ 0049-0050; file type selection menu 440).
As to claim 12, the rejection of claim 8 is incorporated. Chasen/Zionpour further teach: alternate, in response to user interface inputs, between a first user interface displaying a list of the conference participants and a second user interface associated with the collaborative editing of the document (Chasen: see ¶ 0070; toggle to activate and de-activate the collaboration mode; Ending the collaboration mode reverts the user interface to the grid of the thumbnails 410 for all users. The modified file is returned to the particular user).
As to claim 13, the rejection of claim 8 is incorporated. Chasen/Zionpour further teach: provide a go-to-window user interface control, wherein the go-to-window user interface control, when invoked, causes the processor to bring forward an application window corresponding to a shared document on a display of the device (Chasen: see Fig. 4C and ¶ 0049; “collaborate” control 435 causes a file type selection menu for selecting a shared document to be displayed on an editing interface/window).
As to claim 14, the rejection of claim 8 is incorporated. Chasen/Zionpour further teach:
receive a first input to associate an editing permission with one of the conference participants (Chasen: see ¶ 0052-0053; permissions parameter comprising different levels of permissions including edit permission); and
transmit a request to the document service to associate the editing permission with the one of the conference participants (Chasen: see Fig. 4F and ¶ 0052-0053; set Share Permissions).
As to claim 15, claim 8 recite features that implement similar method steps as claimed in claim 7; therefore, is rejected under similar rationale.
As to claim 16, claim 16 is directed to A non-transitory computer-readable storage medium, comprising executable instructions that, when executed by a processor, facilitate performance of operations similar to the method steps as claimed in claim 1; therefore, is rejected under similar rationale (Chasen: see ¶ 0007, 0093-0094).
As to claim 19, the rejection of claim 16 is incorporated. Chasen/Zionpour further teach: wherein the operations further comprise: providing a first user interface control that, when invoked, causes a display of a list of the conference participants; and providing a second user interface control that, when invoked, causes a display of the document (Chasen: see ¶ 0070; toggle to activate and de-activate the collaboration mode; Ending the collaboration mode reverts the user interface to the grid of the thumbnails 410 for all users. The modified file is returned to the particular user).
As to claim 20, the rejection of claim 16 is incorporated. Chasen/Zionpour further teach:
displaying a shared document within a tab of a tabbed user interface associated with the conference (Chasen: see Figs. 4G-4K and ¶ 0054; in response to the selection input, displays in the user interface 400 an editing interface (e.g., editing interfaces 455, 465, 475, 485, and 495 described with reference to FIGS. 4G, 4H, 4I, 4J, and 4K below, respectively) that is shown to all the users participating in the session, and that enables real-time simultaneous editing of the file by all the users. ¶ 0031; tabbed interface to access multiple users sharing their screen during an online meeting. The tabbed interface provides direct visual indication of which users and/or how many users are sharing their screen and provides for one-click switching between shared presentations and files, as well as one-click return to the meeting as a whole. ¶ 0055; the editing interface includes navigation controls that are shown to all the users participating in the session, and that enables real-time simultaneous navigation within the file by all the users. The navigation controls permit each user to independently navigate the file, including but not limited to scroll bars, tabs, thumbnail previews, and filters).
Claims 6 and 11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Chasen/Zionpour in view of Berger et al. (US 2015/0082196 A1; hereinafter Berger).
As to claim 6, the rejection of claim 1 is incorporated. Chasen/Zionpour further teach: a real-time communication session between the participating users (Chasen: see Fig. 4A and ¶ 0041-0042). Thus, it appears that Chasen discloses the feature of authenticating an identity of at least one of the conference participants associated with the device (Chasen; see Fig. 4A and ¶ 0042; thumbnails within a first region of the user interface to the participating users. Each individual thumbnail corresponds to a unique user that is participating in the communication session). However, Chasen/Zionpour does not expressly teach: the authenticating step that comprises: authenticating an identity of at least one of the conference participants associated with the device prior to facilitating to the opening of the document.
This deficient limitation is disclosed by Berger. Specifically, Berger teaches a method for collaborative document editing (see ¶ 0021) comprises authenticating an identity of at least one of the conference participants associated with the device prior to facilitating to the opening of the document (see ¶ 0038; the collaboration platform allows multiple users or collaborators to access or collaborate on work items such that each user can remotely see edits, revisions, comments, or annotations being made to specific work items through their own user devices. For example, a user can upload a document to a workspace for other users to access (e.g., for viewing, editing, commenting, signing-off, or otherwise manipulating). The user can login to the online platform and upload the document (or any other type of work item) to an existing workspace or to a new workspace. The document can be shared with existing users or collaborators in a workspace).
The references, each discloses a user interface for document collaboration. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to combine the teaching of Chasen/Zionpour and the teaching of Berger together to provide a collaboration user interface that is configured to allow a user to select a document for collaboration as claimed. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make such a combination because of the overlapping subject matter, and the advantages described in Berger that allows the user to login to the online platform and upload document to an existing workspace so that the document can be shared with existing users or collaborators in a workspace; thus, allows multiple users to access or collaborate on the uploaded document and enhance user experience with the collaboration platform (Berger: see ¶ 0038).
As to claim 11, the rejection of claim 8 is incorporated. Chasen/Zionpour does not appear to teach, but Berger is relied upon to disclose: wherein the user interface provides respective indications of the conference participants editing the document (Berger: see Fig. 9 and ¶ 0060-0062; As the GUI module 1206 allows more than one user to work on the same work item or specifically the same note at the same time, in one embodiment, it indicates which user is working on which portion of the note in the GUI for the note. Each user can be represented by several graphical elements, including a string and a thumbnail coupled with a color). Combining Chasen, Zionpour, and Berger would meet the claimed limitations for the same reasons as set forth in claim 6.
Claim 21 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Chasen/Zionpour in view of Lee et al. (US 2018/0189250 A1; hereinafter Lee).
As to claim 21, the rejection of claim 1 is incorporated. Chasen/Zionpour does not appear to teach, but Lee is relied upon for teaching the limitations: wherein the container object comprises an inline frame (Lee: see ¶ 0076; the user interface 406 of the content item editing application comprises an inline user interface element 407 (e.g., a web browser iframe, DIV, etc.) that displays content obtained from a third party server 412 capable of providing a response to the custom command).
The references, each discloses a user interface for document collaboration. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skills in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to combine the teaching of Chasen/Zionpour and the teaching of Lee together to provide an inline frame user interface that is configured to allow a user to select a document for collaboration as claimed. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make such a combination because of the overlapping subject matter, and the advantages described in Lee that allows the user to edit the document without having to change input modes or input areas; thereby, saving the user time and effort editing the content item (Lee: see ¶ 0022).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claim 22 is objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claim 1 have been considered but are moot in view of new ground of rejection. The disputed feature is rejected based on the combination of Chasen and Zionpour as rejected supra.
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.
The prior art made of record on form PTO-892 and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Applicant is required under 37 C.F.R. § 1.111(c) to consider these references fully when responding to this action.
It is noted that any citation to specific, pages, columns, lines, or figures in the prior art references and any interpretation of the references should not be considered to be limiting in any way. A reference is relevant for all it contains and may be relied upon for all that it would have reasonably suggested to one having ordinary skill in the art. In re Heck, 699 F.2d 1331, 1332-33,216 USPQ 1038, 1039 (Fed. Cir. 1983) (quoting In re Lemelson, 397 F.2d 1006,1009, 158 USPQ 275,277 (CCPA 1968)).
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to TUYETLIEN T TRAN whose telephone number is (571)270-1033. The examiner can normally be reached M-F: 8:00 AM - 8:00 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, Irete (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.
/TUYETLIEN T TRAN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2179
Prosecution Insights