DETAILED ACTION
This action is made in response to the claims filed on 07/05/2024. This action is made non-final.
Claims 1-19 are pending. Claims 1, 7 and 14 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 Objections
Claims 1-19 are objected to because of the following informalities:
Regarding claim 1, claim 1 recites “from the from the” in lines 13 and 20 of the claim which should be corrected to recite “from the”.
Regarding claim 7, claim 7 recites similar limitation “from the from the” in lines 15 and 22 of the claim.
Regarding claim 14, claim 14 also recites limitation “from the from the” in lines 15 and 22 of the claim.
Dependent claims 2-6, 8-13, 15-19 are objected as incorporating the deficiencies of the claim upon which they depend.
Appropriate correction is required.
Double Patenting
The nonstatutory double patenting rejection is based on a judicially created doctrine grounded in public policy (a policy reflected in the statute) so as to prevent the unjustified or improper timewise extension of the “right to exclude” granted by a patent and to prevent possible harassment by multiple assignees. A nonstatutory double patenting rejection is appropriate where the conflicting claims are not identical, but at least one examined application claim is not patentably distinct from the reference claim(s) because the examined application claim is either anticipated by, or would have been obvious over, the reference claim(s). See, e.g., In re Berg, 140 F.3d 1428, 46 USPQ2d 1226 (Fed. Cir. 1998); In re Goodman, 11 F.3d 1046, 29 USPQ2d 2010 (Fed. Cir. 1993); In re Longi, 759 F.2d 887, 225 USPQ 645 (Fed. Cir. 1985); In re Van Ornum, 686 F.2d 937, 214 USPQ 761 (CCPA 1982); In re Vogel, 422 F.2d 438, 164 USPQ 619 (CCPA 1970); In re Thorington, 418 F.2d 528, 163 USPQ 644 (CCPA 1969).
A timely filed terminal disclaimer in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(c) or 1.321(d) may be used to overcome an actual or provisional rejection based on nonstatutory double patenting provided the reference application or patent either is shown to be commonly owned with the examined application, or claims an invention made as a result of activities undertaken within the scope of a joint research agreement. See MPEP § 717.02 for applications subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA as explained in MPEP § 2159. See MPEP § 2146 et seq. for applications not subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA . A terminal disclaimer must be signed in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(b).
The filing of a terminal disclaimer by itself is not a complete reply to a nonstatutory double patenting (NSDP) rejection. A complete reply requires that the terminal disclaimer be accompanied by a reply requesting reconsideration of the prior Office action. Even where the NSDP rejection is provisional the reply must be complete. See MPEP § 804, subsection I.B.1. For a reply to a non-final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.111(a). For a reply to final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.113(c). A request for reconsideration while not provided for in 37 CFR 1.113(c) may be filed after final for consideration. See MPEP §§ 706.07(e) and 714.13.
The USPTO Internet website contains terminal disclaimer forms which may be used. Please visit www.uspto.gov/patent/patents-forms. The actual filing date of the application in which the form is filed determines what form (e.g., PTO/SB/25, PTO/SB/26, PTO/AIA /25, or PTO/AIA /26) should be used. A web-based eTerminal Disclaimer may be filled out completely online using web-screens. An eTerminal Disclaimer that meets all requirements is auto-processed and approved immediately upon submission. For more information about eTerminal Disclaimers, refer to www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/applying-online/eterminal-disclaimer.
Claims 1-19 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims as listed in the table below of U.S. Patent No. 12093219 (hereinafter ‘219).
Instant Application 18/765,196
U.S. Patent ‘219
Claim 1. A method, executed by a data processing system, for initiating a communication session between a first computing device and a second computing device and causing a rendering of a file on the first computing device and the second computing device in response to a single input, the method comprising:
Claim 1. A method comprising:
- receiving, at the first computing device associated with a first user, the single input to associate a second user with the file, wherein the single input is received prior to an establishment of a communication session involving the first computing device;
- receiving, at a first computing device associated with a first user, a single input of a drag and drop gesture for moving a graphical element representing a second user from a first position to a representation of a file at a second position to associate the second user with the file, wherein the single input is received prior to an establishment of a communication session involving the first computing device;
- in response to receiving the single input without requiring additional input from the first computing device associated with the first user:
- in response to receiving the single input without requiring additional input from the first computing device associated with the first user;
- initiating a communication session between the first computing device and the second computing device respectively associated with the first user and the second user wherein the communication session between the first computing device and the second computing device is initiated by the single input without additional input from the from the first computing device associated with the first user associating that second user with the file; and
- initiating a communication session between the first computing device and the second computing device respectively associated with the first user and the second user wherein the communication session between the first computing device and the second computing device is initiated by the single input of the drag and drop gesture for moving the graphical element representing the second user from the first position to the representation of the file at the second position, the single input of the drag and drop gesture for moving the graphical element representing the second user from the first position to the representation of the file associating that second user with the file; and
- causing a display of the rendering of the file to display contents of the file at the first computing device and the second computing device respectively associated with the first user and the second user concurrently with a rendering of a graphical element representing the first user and the graphical element representing the second user, wherein the display of the rendering of the file at the first computing device and the second computing device is in response to the single input without additional input from the from the first computing device associated with the first user.
- causing a display of a rendering of the file to display contents of the file at the first computing device and the second computing device respectively associated with the first user and the second user concurrently with a rendering of a graphical element representing the first user and the graphical element representing the second user, wherein the display of the rendering of the file at the first computing device and the second computing device is in response to the single input without additional input from the first computing device associated with the first user
Claims 2-6
Claims 2-6, respectively
Independent system Claim 7
Claim 14
Claim 8
Claim 15
Claim 9
Claim 3 (system claim implementing the method of claim 3)
Claim 10
Claim 4 (system claim implementing the method of claim 4)
Claim 11
Claim 19 (readable storage medium claim implementing the method of claim 19)
Claim 12
Claim 5 (system claim implementing the method of claim 5)
Claim 13
Claim 6 (system claim implementing the method of claim 6)
Independent storage medium Claim 14
Claim 17
Claim 15
Claim 18
Claim 16
Claim 3 (readable media claim implementing the method of claim 3)
Claim 17
Claim 19
Claim 18
Claim 5 (readable media claim implementing the method of claim 5)
Claim 19
Claim 20
Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because the patented claims as listed on the table above contain every element of claims 1-19, respectively of the instant application. Therefore, the instant claims are being unpatentable over the patented claims.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 3, 6, 9, 11, 13, 16, 17, and 19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Claims 3, 6, 9, 11, 13, 16, 17, and 19, each recites the limitation “the gesture input”. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
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, 14-16, 18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Schneider et al. (US 2006/0053194 A1; hereinafter Schneider) in view of Sutton et al (US 2011/0296043 A1; hereinafter Sutton).
As to claim 1, Schneider teaches:
A method, executed by a data processing system, for initiating a communication session between a first computing device and a second computing device and causing a rendering of a file on the first computing device and the second computing device in response to a single input (see ¶ 0013), the method comprising:
receiving, at the first computing device associated with a first user, the single input to associate a second user with the file, wherein the single input is received prior to an establishment of a communication session involving the first computing device (see Fig. 12B and ¶ 0176; To initiate collaboration, the user drags an icon or other identifier for an individual into the application space of the word processor. In response, a collaborative space for live collaboration is created that includes a chat session and a view of a document in the word processor application);
in response to receiving the single input without requiring additional input from the first computing device associated with the first user (see Fig. 12B and ¶ 0176; To initiate collaboration, the user drags an icon or other identifier for an individual into the application space of the word processor. In response, a collaborative space for live collaboration is created that includes a chat session and a view of a document in the word processor application):
initiating a communication session between the first computing device and the second computing device respectively associated with the first user and the second user wherein the communication session between the first computing device and the second computing device is initiated by the single input without additional input from the from the first computing device associated with the first user associating that second user with the file (see Fig. 12B and ¶ 0176; To initiate collaboration, the user drags an icon or other identifier for an individual into the application space of the word processor. In response, a collaborative space for live collaboration is created that includes a chat session and a view of a document in the word processor application); and
causing a display of the rendering of the file to display contents of the file at the first computing device and the second computing device respectively associated with the first user and the second user [concurrently with a rendering of a graphical element representing the first user and the graphical element representing the second user,] wherein the display of the rendering of the file at the first computing device and the second computing device is in response to the single input without additional input from the from the first computing device associated with the first user (see Fig. 12B and ¶ 0176; To initiate collaboration, the user drags an icon or other identifier for an individual into the application space of the word processor. In response, a collaborative space for live collaboration is created that includes a chat session and a view of a document in the word processor application. A further level of escalation can be to provide a repository for the collaborative space that is triggered automatically).
Schneider does not appear to teach causing a display of the rendering of the file to display contents of the file at the first computing device and the second computing device respectively associated with the first user and the second user concurrently with a rendering of a graphical element representing the first user and the graphical element representing the second user. However, these deficient limitations are disclosed by Sutton.
Specifically, Sutton teaches causing a display of the rendering of the file to display contents of the file at the first computing device and the second computing device respectively associated with the first user and the second user concurrently with a rendering of a graphical element representing the first user and the graphical element representing the second user, wherein the display of the rendering of the file at the first computing device and the second computing device is in response to user input (see Figs. 4-5 and ¶ 0054-0055, 0065-0066; a session 402 may be associated to (shared by) users 108B and 108C, with both users having equal permissions to access, read, or write to the session 402. In one embodiment, both users 108B and 108C may have the session 402 open (maximized) on their respective peripheral devices 104B and 104C. At that time, both users may make changes to the session 402, or make changes to applications operational on the session 402. ¶ 0022; sharing a session between devices on a SRC system allows multiple users to share in, or contribute to, the unique experience of a single session. For example, multiple users may give input to the development of a project residing in a particular session, or an instructor may share an experience with a number of students, such that the experience is presented to each of the students in the same manner substantially simultaneously).
Both references each discloses a mechanism for initiating communication session in response to a gesture input; therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify the user interface of Schneider to include the features of concurrently displaying the rendering of the file and a rendering of a graphical element representing the first user and the graphical element representing the second user as suggested by Sutton to allow the users to communicate with each other as claimed. One would be motivated to make such a combination is to allow users to share information or collaborate effectively (Sutton: see ¶ 0004).
As to claim 2, the rejection of claim 1 is incorporated. Schneider and Sutton further teach: receiving a user input from the first user modifying the permission data associated with the second user to grant the second user permission to edit the file (Schneider: see Fig. 3D and ¶ 0108); and in response to the modification of the permission data associated with the second user, causing a display of one or more graphical elements at the second computing device to enable the second user to edit the file (Schneider: see Fig. 3D and ¶ 0108; permission to edit and/or otherwise write to of the shared content).
As to claim 3, the rejection of claim 1 is incorporated. Schneider and Sutton further teach: wherein the first user and the second user are part of a separate communication session that occurred prior to the communication session that is initiated in response to receiving the gesture input (Sutton: e.g., see Figs. 2, 5 and ¶ 0049 wherein multiple users can be in multiple/separate communication sessions). Thus, combining Schneider and Sutton would meet the claimed limitations for the same reasons as set forth in claim 1.
As to claim 4, the rejection of claim 1 is incorporated. Schneider and Sutton further teach: wherein the graphical element representing the second user comprises a rendering of a digital appearance generated by the second user (Sutton: e.g., see Fig. 5 and ¶ 0046 wherein the avatar is digital rendering of the user). Thus, combining Schneider and Sutton would meet the claimed limitations for the same reasons as set forth in claim 1.
As to claim 5, the rejection of claim 1 is incorporated. Schneider and Sutton further teach: wherein the graphical element representing the second user further comprises a graphical icon indicating a current status of the second user (Sutton: e.g., see Fig. 5, ¶ 0063 wherein the avatars can have different indicators including whether or not the user is the owner of the shared session (i.e., status)). Thus, combining Schneider and Sutton would meet the claimed limitations for the same reasons as set forth in claim 1.
As to claims 7-10, 12, claims 7-10, 12 are directed to a system for performing the method steps as claimed in claims 1-5, respectively; therefore, are rejected under similar rationale (Schneider: see Fig. 1A and ¶ 0062-0073).
As to claims 14-16, 18, claims 14-16, 18 are directed to a computer-readable storage medium for performing the method steps as claimed in claims 1-3, 5, respectively; therefore, are rejected under similar rationale (Schneider: see Fig. 1A and ¶ 0062-0073).
Claims 6, 13, 19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Schneider and Sutton further in view of Toomey et al. (USPN: 6,119,147; hereinafter Toomey).
As to claim 6, the rejection of claim 1 is incorporated. Schneider and Sutton further teach: concurrently displaying the graphical element representing the second user and the rendering of the file selected by the gesture input (Sutton: e.g., see Figs. 4-5). Schneider and Sutton fail to teach wherein a rendering of communication data generated by the second user is displayed concurrently with the graphical element representing the second user and the rendering of the file selected.
However, in the same field of endeavor of graphical user interfaces in collaborative environments, Toomey teaches wherein a rendering of communication data generated by the second user is displayed concurrently with the graphical element representing the second user and the rendering of the file selected (e.g., see Figs. 4, 5, 16, 21 teaching concurrently displaying communication data generated by a plurality of users along with their avatar and other shared documents).
The references each discloses a mechanism for communication; therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the invention, to modify the user interface of Schneider and Sutton to include the features of rendering the communication as suggested by Toomey to allow the users to communicate with each other as claimed. One would be motivated to make such a combination is to create a more versatile, user friendly, comprehensive and productive collaborative tool (e.g., see 3:37-43 of Toomey).
As to claim 13, claim 13 is directed to a system for implementing the method steps as claimed in claim 6; therefore, is rejected under similar rationale (Schneider: see Fig. 1A and ¶ 0062-0073).
As to claim 19, claim 19 is directed to a computer-readable storage medium having encoded thereon computer-readable instructions that when executed by one or more processing units for implementing the method steps of claim 6; therefore, is rejected under similar rationale (Schneider: see Fig. 1A and ¶ 0114, 0329-0332).
Claims 11 and 17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Schneider and Sutton further in view of Chavez (US 2015/0256883 A1; hereinafter Chavez).
As to claim 11, the rejection of claim 7 is incorporated. Schneider and Sutton do not appear to teach, but Chavez is relied upon for teaching the limitations: wherein the gesture input indicates a selection and a movement of two or more graphical user interface elements representing two or more respective users (Chavez: see ¶ 0013; The sharing of content with selected other users can be performed by dragging and dropping selected content in a spotlight area, and by dragging and dropping one or more contacts or a group of contacts into the spotlight area).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the invention, to modify the user interface of Schneider as modified by Sutton to include the features of initiating a communication session between a first computing device and a second computing device in response to a drag and drop gesture input as suggested by Chavez to allow the users to communicate with each other as claimed. One would be motivated to make such a combination is to facilitate the sharing of content with other users (Chavez: see ¶ 0011).
As to claim 17, claim 17 is directed to a computer-readable storage medium having encoded thereon computer-readable instructions that when executed by one or more processing units for implementing the method steps of claim 11; therefore, is rejected under similar rationale (Schneider: see Fig. 1A and ¶ 0114, 0329-0332).
Conclusion
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