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 .
DETAILED ACTION
This Office Action is in response to the application 18/80,250 filed on 07/22/2024.
Claims 1-20 have been examined and are pending.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statements (IDS) submitted on 08/23/2024 is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement is being considered by the examiner.
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 18-20 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 pre-AIA the applicant regards as the invention.
Regarding claims 18-20; Claim 18-20 recite the limitation “[t]he system of claim 17.” However, claim 17 is directed to an electronic device; there is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. For the purpose of applying art, the Examiner interpreted aforementioned limitation to mean “the electronic device of claim 17;” (emphasis added).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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.
Claims 1-4, 7-12, and 15-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Dorai et al., (“Dorai,” US 2018/0314680).
Regarding claim 1, Dorai discloses a method comprising:
displaying, by a computing system, a user input component associated with one or more digital files (pars. 0023, 0026, 0056-0057, Figs. 1 and 3; electronic document is presented on a display);
receiving user input via the user input component (pars. 0023, 0053-0058; Fig. 3; an end user computer receives user inputs); and
in response to receiving the user input, displaying an update activity panel associated with the one or more digital files (pars. 0061; Fig. 3; an activity pane 370), wherein the update activity panel provides a first indication of a first activity and a second activity for the one or more digital files, wherein the first activity is attributed to a first user identifier, and wherein the second activity is attributed to a second user identifier (par. 0047, 0057-0062; Fig. 3; John Doe edited @11:20am today and Jane Doe edited @ 9:44am, yesterday).
Regarding claim 2, Dorai discloses the method of claim 1, wherein the update activity panel presents the first indication and the second indication in accordance with a determination that the first indication and the second indication have not been previously presented by the computing system (pars. 0057-0062; Fig. 3; Jane Doe, John Doe and User 3 made changes to the file).
Regarding claim 3 , Dorai discloses the method of claim 1, wherein the user input component is configured to be presented in a first presentation style in accordance with the one or more digital files having activity not previously presented in the update activity panel by the computing system, and in a second presentation style in accordance with the one or more digital files not having activity not previously presented in the update activity panel (pars. 0056-0062; Fig. 3).
Regarding claim 4, Dorai discloses the method of claim 1, wherein the update activity panel presents a demarcation adjacent to the first indication in accordance with a determination that the first indication has not been previously presented by the computing system, and wherein the update activity panel presents the second indication without a demarcation in accordance with a determination that the first indication has been previously presented by the computing system (pars. 0056-0062; Fig. 3; the changed text indicated at 312 is underline; a change summary pane 350).
Regarding claim 8, Dorai discloses the method of claim 1, wherein the first indication in the update activity panel is selectable, and wherein selection of the first indication causes a change in presentation to the corresponding first activity (pars. 0056-0061; Fig. 3).
Regarding claim 7, Dorai discloses the method of claim 5, wherein the method of claim 1, wherein the first indication in the update activity panel is selectable, and wherein selection of the first indication causes the first file to be opened for display by the computing system (Dorai: pars. 0056-0061; Fig. 3).
Regarding claims 9-12; claims 9-12 are directed to non-transitory computer-readable storage medium product associated with the system claimed in claims 1-4 respectively; Claims 9-12 are similar in scope to claims 1-4respectively, and are therefore rejected under similar rationale.
Regarding claims 15-16; claims 15-16 are directed to non-transitory computer-readable storage medium product associated with the system claimed in claims 7-8 respectively; Claims 15-16 are similar in scope to claims 7-8 respectively, and are therefore rejected under similar rationale.
Regarding claims 17-20; claims 17-20 are directed system associated with the system claimed in claims 1-4 respectively; Claims 17-20 are similar in scope to claims 1-4 respectively, and are therefore rejected under similar rationale.
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 of this title, 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 5-7 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Dorai et al., (“Dorai,” US 2010/0037149), in view of Chandra et al., (“Chandra,” US 2017/0264618), and further in view of Vagell et al., (“Vagell,” US 2014/0149857)
Regarding claim 5, Dorai discloses the method of claim 1, but does not explicitly disclose wherein the first indication corresponds to a first digital file and the second indication corresponds to a second digital file, and wherein the update activity panel further comprises a third indication of a third activity for the first file in the digital file folder.
However, Chandra discloses the method for providing share permissions and organization of content with multiple levels of organizational hierarchy, wherein the first indication corresponds to a first digital file and the second indication corresponds to a second digital file (pars. 0041-0043; Figs. 4A-4B; the indicators 432, 434, 436, and 438.).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to combine the teachings of Chandra with the method/system of Dorai. One would have been motivated to a user to share different levels of content with other users, see the sharing status, define/manage sharing parameters for different levels.
Dorai and Chandra do not explicitly disclose the update activity panel further comprises a third indication of a third activity for the first file in the digital file folder.
However, Vagell discloses a method for detecting compounding and conflicting suggested edits in a collaborative document editing environment, wherein the update activity panel further comprises a third indication of a third activity for the first file in the digital file folder (pars. 0070-0073, Figs. 5-17; reviewer C)
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to combine the teachings of Vagell with the method/system of Dorai and Chandra. One would have been motivated to a user to allow a user to review indirect changes that were automatically made in response to direct changes received.
Regarding claim 6, Dorai, Chandra, and Vagell disclose the method of claim 5, Dorai further discloses wherein the first indication corresponds to a first modification to a first digital file by a first user profile, and wherein the second activity corresponds to a second modification to the first digital file by a second user profile (Dorai: pars. 0056-0061; Fig. 3; the activity pane 370 and a pane 350).
Regarding claims 13-14; claims 13-14 are directed to non-transitory computer-readable storage medium product associated with the system claimed in claims 5-6 respectively; Claims 13-14 are similar in scope to claims 5-6 respectively, and are therefore rejected under similar rationale.
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))
Inquiries
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to LINH K PHAM whose telephone number is (571)270-3230. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Thursday from 8:00 AM to 6:00 PM (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, William L Bashore can be reached on (571) 272-4088. 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.
/LINH K PHAM/
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 2174
Prosecution Insights