DETAILED ACTION
This is the initial Office action based on the application filed on July 24, 2024.
Claims 1-20 are pending.
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 .
Drawings
The drawings are objected to as failing to comply with 37 CFR 1.84(p)(5) because they do not include the following reference sign(s) mentioned in the description: 518, 520, 544, 524, 526, 528, 540, 542, 543, 548, 546, 600, 616, 610, 630, 650, 602, 612, 614, 632, 634, 636, 652, 654, 656, 658, 660, 662, 664, 680, 670, 682, 672. The specification also mentions a Figure 6, but there isn’t a Figure 6 included in the drawings. Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance.
The drawings are objected to as failing to comply with 37 CFR 1.84(p)(5) because they include the following reference character(s) not mentioned in the description: 560, 562, 564, 570, 572, 580, 582 in Figure 5 and all of the reference characters in Figure 4. Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d), or amendment to the specification to add the reference character(s) in the description in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(b) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance.
Specification
The disclosure is objected to because of the following informalities:
Paragraphs [0084-0091] are stated to be describing Figure 5 from the drawings; however, these paragraphs seem to actually be describing Figure 4 except with incorrect reference characters.
Paragraphs [0092-0099] are stated to be describing Figure 6; however, there isn’t a Figure 6 included in the drawings and these paragraphs seem to actually be describing Figure 5 from the drawings except with incorrect reference characters.
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Objections
Claim 6 is objected to because of the following informalities:
Claim 6, in line 5, recites “the first binary.” It should read – the first binary asset --.
Appropriate correction is required.
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, 4-7, 9-12, 15-17, and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US 11,023,094 (hereinafter “Dacosta”) in view of “Forking Workflow | Atlassian Git Tutorial” (Provided by Applicant’s IDS, hereinafter “Atlassian”) and US 10,855,619 (hereinafter “Andrews”).
As per Claim 1, Dacosta discloses:
A non-transitory computer-readable storage medium (col. 16 lines 46-51, “Embodiments of the disclosed subject matter may be implemented using a variety of computer languages, including high-level or object-oriented languages, and these programs may be stored in hark-disks, non-volatile RAM, or any other computer-readable medium.”) storing a set of instructions that, when executed by one or more computer processors (col. 16 lines 56-62, “Moreover, the embodiments, or portions thereof, described above can also be implemented using integrated circuit blocks referred to as main memory, cache memory, or other types of memory that store electronic instructions to be executed by a microprocessor or store data that may be used in arithmetic operations.”; col. 16 lines 66-67 to col. 17 lines 1-2, “For example, the embodiments, or portions thereof, may be implemented using circuitry, such as one or more of programmable logic (e.g., an ASIC), logic gates, a processor, and a memory.”), causes the one or more computer processors to perform operations, the operations comprising:
saving a first version of the first binary asset on […] (col. 6 lines 37-42, “Both the underlying asset and all “deltas” associated with that asset are stored efficiently (using, e.g., the geometry compression and move protocol methods described below). This method of global and local asset modifications allows the system to efficiently accommodate multiple variations [first and second versions] of a single underlying asset (emphasis added).”; col. 1 lines 64-67 & col. 2 lines 2-3, “[…] these methods including: modifying a 3-D project using a graphical user interface running on a first end-user client device by creating or changing 3-D assets belonging to the 3-D project; […] displaying said modifications using graphical user interfaces running on said additional end-user client devices […] (emphasis added).”; col. 3 lines 46-50, “A project includes various types of assets (e.g., 3-D models, 3-D scenes, images, animations, simulations, etc.) that may be created and edited simultaneously by multiple members of the project team.”; col. 3 lines 42-43, “The application server is also connected to a database server 107 for storing and retrieving project data.”) [Examiner’s Remarks: Note that Dacosta discloses modifying 3-D assets (binary assets) and displaying the modifications. Dacosta also discloses the system accommodating multiple variations of a single underlying asset as well as an application server connected to a database server for storing project data. One of ordinary skill in the art would readily comprehend that each edit of the binary asset corresponds to a new saved version of the binary asset. For instance, the accommodated multiple variations are the first and second versions of the binary asset.];
receiving a modification to the first binary asset (col. 8 lines 26-30, “When project data is modified or added by a client, the client's updates are transmitted to the application server, the application server processes and distributes the updates to the other clients in the session, and each client adjusts its copy of the project state to reflect the changes (emphasis added).”; col. 6 lines 37-42, “Both the underlying asset and all “deltas” associated with that asset are stored efficiently (using, e.g., the geometry compression and move protocol methods described below). This method of global and local asset modifications allows the system to efficiently accommodate multiple variations of a single underlying asset (emphasis added).”; col. 5 lines 5-10, “Using interface controls (e.g., buttons and menu items), a mouse, a keyboard, and other input devices, the user may modify various properties of the 3D object (e.g., its position, size, orientation, color, texture, etc.) and the biased overlay will be updated accordingly, in real-time.”);
saving a second version of the first binary asset with the modification on […] (col. 6 lines 37-42, “Both the underlying asset and all “deltas” associated with that asset are stored efficiently (using, e.g., the geometry compression and move protocol methods described below). This method of global and local asset modifications allows the system to efficiently accommodate multiple variations [first and second versions] of a single underlying asset (emphasis added).”; col. 5 lines 5-10, “Using interface controls (e.g., buttons and menu items), a mouse, a keyboard, and other input devices, the user may modify various properties of the 3D object (e.g., its position, size, orientation, color, texture, etc.) and the biased overlay will be updated accordingly, in real-time.”; col. 1 lines 64-67 & col. 2 lines 2-3, “[…] these methods including: modifying a 3-D project using a graphical user interface running on a first end-user client device by creating or changing 3-D assets belonging to the 3-D project; […] displaying said modifications using graphical user interfaces running on said additional end-user client devices […] (emphasis added).”; col. 3 lines 46-50, “A project includes various types of assets (e.g., 3-D models, 3-D scenes, images, animations, simulations, etc.) that may be created and edited simultaneously by multiple members of the project team.”; col. 3 lines 42-43, “The application server is also connected to a database server 107 for storing and retrieving project data.”);
rendering the first version of the first binary asset and the second version of the first binary asset based on a selected platform (Figure 3; col. 6 lines 37-42, “Both the underlying asset and all “deltas” associated with that asset are stored efficiently (using, e.g., the geometry compression and move protocol methods described below). This method of global and local asset modifications allows the system to efficiently accommodate multiple variations [first and second versions] of a single underlying asset (emphasis added).”; col. 1 lines 64-67 & col. 2 lines 2-3, “[…] these methods including: modifying a 3-D project using a graphical user interface running on a first end-user client device by creating or changing 3-D assets belonging to the 3-D project; […] displaying [rendering] said modifications using graphical user interfaces running on said additional end-user client devices […] (emphasis added).”; col. 5 lines 4-12, “FIG. 3 shows a biased overlay 31 superimposed on a 3D object that has been selected by the user. Using interface controls (e.g., buttons and menu items), a mouse, a keyboard, and other input devices, the user may modify various properties of the 3D object (e.g., its position, size, orientation, color, texture, etc.) and the biased overlay will be updated accordingly, in real-time. Other objects in the scene, such as perfume bottle 33, are rendered using unbiased techniques as described above (emphasis added).”; col. 3 lines 51-54, “In some embodiments, the user interface runs inside a web browser and is implemented using standards and libraries that are widely available (e.g., HTML5, JavaScript, WebGL).”) [Examiner’s Remarks: Note that Dacosta discloses accommodating multiple variations (first and second versions) of a single asset. Dacosta also discloses updating the display when the user modifies an asset. One of ordinary skill in the art would readily comprehend that as users make changes to a binary asset, each change/variation (version) of the binary asset is rendered in the interface (platform).];
saving the second version of the first binary asset to a [server] (col. 6 lines 37-42, “Both the underlying asset and all “deltas” associated with that asset are stored efficiently (using, e.g., the geometry compression and move protocol methods described below). This method of global and local asset modifications allows the system to efficiently accommodate multiple variations [first and second versions] of a single underlying asset (emphasis added).”; col. 5 lines 5-10, “Using interface controls (e.g., buttons and menu items), a mouse, a keyboard, and other input devices, the user may modify various properties of the 3D object (e.g., its position, size, orientation, color, texture, etc.) and the biased overlay will be updated accordingly, in real-time.”; col. 3 lines 46-50, “A project includes various types of assets (e.g., 3-D models, 3-D scenes, images, animations, simulations, etc.) that may be created and edited simultaneously by multiple members of the project team.”; col. 3 lines 42-43, “The application server is also connected to a database server 107 for storing and retrieving project data (emphasis added).”).
Dacosta discloses “a first binary asset” and “saving the second version of the first binary asset to a [server]” but does not explicitly disclose:
generating a first workspace for a first binary asset;
[…] on the first workspace;
saving the second version of the first binary asset to a repository.
However, Atlassian discloses:
generating a first workspace for a [user] (page 2, “But when a new developer wants to start working on the project, they do not directly clone the official repository. Instead, they fork the official repository to create a copy of it on the server. This new copy serves as their personal public repository—no other developers are allowed to push to it, but they can pull changes from it (we’ll see why this is important in a moment). After they have created their server-side copy, the developer performs a git clone to get a copy of it onto their local machine. This serves as their private development environment, just like in the other workflows (emphasis added).”);
[…] on the first workspace (page 2, “But when a new developer wants to start working on the project, they do not directly clone the official repository. Instead, they fork the official repository to create a copy of it on the server. This new copy serves as their personal public repository—no other developers are allowed to push to it, but they can pull changes from it (we’ll see why this is important in a moment). After they have created their server-side copy, the developer performs a git clone to get a copy of it onto their local machine. This serves as their private development environment, just like in the other workflows (emphasis added).”);
saving to a repository (pages 2 & 3, “When they're ready to publish a local commit, they push the commit to their own public repository—not the official one. Then, they file a pull request with the main repository, which lets the project maintainer know that an update is ready to be integrated […] To integrate the feature into the official codebase, the maintainer pulls the contributor’s changes into their local repository, checks to make sure it doesn’t break the project, merges it into their local main branch, then pushes the main branch to the official repository on the server. The contribution is now part of the project, and other developers should pull from the official repository to synchronize their local repositories (emphasis added).”).
Dacosta is within the same field of endeavor as the claimed invention regarding the modification of binary assets. Atlassian is also within the same field of endeavor as the claimed invention regarding the generation of workspaces.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate the teaching of Atlassian into the teaching of Dacosta to include “generating a first workspace for a first binary asset; […] on the first workspace; saving the second version of the first binary asset to a repository.” The modification would be obvious because one of ordinary skill in the art would be motivated to generate a workspace for each developer for the advantage that contributions can be integrated without the need for everyone to push to a single central repository and allows a maintainer to accept commits without giving developers write access to the official codebase which can help prevent integrating code that breaks the project (Atlassian, pages 1 & 3). One of ordinary skill in the art would also be motivated to save to a repository for more effective control over what changes get approved to be incorporated in the project and to efficiently track changes (Atlassian, pages 2 & 3).
The combination of Dacosta and Atlassian discloses “the first workspace,” but does not explicitly disclose:
deleting the first workspace.
However, Andrews discloses:
deleting the first workspace (col. 5 lines 19-24, “In some embodiments, IHS 100 may be employed to instantiate, manage, and/or terminate a workspace that may be a secure environment that provides the user of IHS 100 with access to managed resources while isolating protected data from the operating system (OS) and other applications executed by IHS 100 (emphasis added).”).
Andrews is within the same field of endeavor as the claimed invention regarding the creation and deletion of workspaces.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate the teaching of Andrews into the combined teachings of Dacosta and Atlassian to include “deleting the first workspace.” The modification would be obvious because one of ordinary skill in the art would be motivated to delete a workspace when it is no longer needed to prevent unnecessarily wasting resources used for the workspace (Andrews, col. 5 lines 19-24 & col. 15 lines 20-22).
As per Claim 4, the rejection of Claim 1 is incorporated; and Dacosta discloses “rendering the second version of the first binary asset with a plurality of binary assets on the [project] based on the selected platform (Figure 3; col. 5 lines 4-12, “FIG. 3 shows a biased overlay 31 superimposed on a 3D object that has been selected by the user. Using interface controls (e.g., buttons and menu items), a mouse, a keyboard, and other input devices, the user may modify various properties of the 3D object [second version of the first binary asset] (e.g., its position, size, orientation, color, texture, etc.) and the biased overlay will be updated accordingly, in real-time. Other objects [plurality of binary assets] in the scene, such as perfume bottle 33, are rendered using unbiased techniques as described above (emphasis added).”),” but the combination of Dacosta and Andrews does not explicitly disclose:
rendering the second version of the first binary asset with a plurality of binary assets on the repository based on the selected platform.
However, Atlassian discloses:
[…] on the repository (pages 2 & 3, “When they're ready to publish a local commit, they push the commit to their own public repository—not the official one. Then, they file a pull request with the main repository, which lets the project maintainer know that an update is ready to be integrated […] To integrate the feature into the official codebase, the maintainer pulls the contributor’s changes into their local repository, checks to make sure it doesn’t break the project, merges it into their local main branch, then pushes the main branch to the official repository on the server. The contribution is now part of the project, and other developers should pull from the official repository to synchronize their local repositories.”).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate the teaching of Atlassian into the combined teachings of Dacosta and Andrews to include “rendering the second version of the first binary asset with a plurality of binary assets on the repository based on the selected platform.” The modification would be obvious because one of ordinary skill in the art would be motivated to utilize a repository for more effective control over what changes get approved to be incorporated in the project and to efficiently track changes (Atlassian, pages 2 & 3).
As per Claim 5, the rejection of Claim 1 is incorporated; and Dacosta discloses “a second binary asset (Figure 3; col. 5 lines 4-12, “FIG. 3 shows a biased overlay 31 superimposed on a 3D object that has been selected by the user. Using interface controls (e.g., buttons and menu items), a mouse, a keyboard, and other input devices, the user may modify various properties of the 3D object (e.g., its position, size, orientation, color, texture, etc.) and the biased overlay will be updated accordingly, in real-time. Other objects in the scene, such as perfume bottle 33, are rendered using unbiased techniques as described above (emphasis added).”)” and “the first binary asset (Figure 3; col. 5 lines 4-12, “FIG. 3 shows a biased overlay 31 superimposed on a 3D object that has been selected by the user. Using interface controls (e.g., buttons and menu items), a mouse, a keyboard, and other input devices, the user may modify various properties of the 3D object (e.g., its position, size, orientation, color, texture, etc.) and the biased overlay will be updated accordingly, in real-time. Other objects in the scene, such as perfume bottle 33, are rendered using unbiased techniques as described above (emphasis added).”),” but the combination of Dacosta and Andrews does not explicitly disclose:
generating a second workspace for a second binary asset, wherein access to the first workspace for the first binary asset is allowed for a first user device and denied for a second user device, and wherein access to the second workspace for the second binary asset is denied for the first user device and allowed for the second user device.
However, Atlassian discloses:
generating a second workspace for a [second user], wherein access to the first workspace for the [first user] is allowed for a first user device and denied for a second user device, and wherein access to the second workspace for the [second user] is denied for the first user device and allowed for the second user device (page 1, “Instead of using a single server-side repository to act as the “central” codebase, it gives every developer their own server-side repository (emphasis added).”; page 2, “But when a new developer wants to start working on the project, they do not directly clone the official repository. Instead, they fork the official repository to create a copy of it on the server. This new copy serves as their personal public repository—no other developers are allowed to push to it, but they can pull changes from it (we’ll see why this is important in a moment). After they have created their server-side copy, the developer performs a git clone to get a copy of it onto their local machine. This serves as their private development environment, just like in the other workflows (emphasis added).”).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate the teaching of Atlassian into the combined teachings of Dacosta and Andrews to include “generating a second workspace for a second binary asset, wherein access to the first workspace for the first binary asset is allowed for a first user device and denied for a second user device, and wherein access to the second workspace for the second binary asset is denied for the first user device and allowed for the second user device.” The modification would be obvious because one of ordinary skill in the art would be motivated to deny access to a workspace to other users in order to effectively maintain control and increase privacy over the workspace while a user is working or performing edits (Atlassian, pages 1 & 2).
As per Claim 6, the rejection of Claim 5 is incorporated; and Dacosta discloses “subsequent to the saving the second version of the first binary asset to the [server], rendering the second binary asset with the second version of the first binary based on the selected platform (Figure 3; col. 5 lines 4-12, “FIG. 3 shows a biased overlay 31 superimposed on a 3D object that has been selected by the user. Using interface controls (e.g., buttons and menu items), a mouse, a keyboard, and other input devices, the user may modify various properties of the 3D object [second version of the first binary asset] (e.g., its position, size, orientation, color, texture, etc.) and the biased overlay will be updated [saved] accordingly, in real-time. Other objects in the scene, such as perfume bottle 33 [second binary asset], are rendered using unbiased techniques as described above (emphasis added).”; col. 3 lines 42-43, “The application server is also connected to a database server 107 for storing and retrieving project data (emphasis added).”; col. 8 lines 26-30 & lines 35-37, “When project data is modified or added by a client, the client's updates are transmitted to the application server, the application server processes and distributes the updates to the other clients in the session, and each client adjusts its copy of the project state to reflect the changes […] When it receives the updates, the rendering client updates its copy of the project's state and begins to render the scene according to the new geometry (emphasis added).”; col. 3 lines 51-54, “In some embodiments, the user interface runs inside a web browser and is implemented using standards and libraries that are widely available (e.g., HTML5, JavaScript, WebGL).”),” but the combination of Dacosta and Andrews does not explicitly disclose:
the repository.
However, Atlassian discloses:
the repository (pages 2 & 3, “When they're ready to publish a local commit, they push the commit to their own public repository—not the official one. Then, they file a pull request with the main repository, which lets the project maintainer know that an update is ready to be integrated […] To integrate the feature into the official codebase, the maintainer pulls the contributor’s changes into their local repository, checks to make sure it doesn’t break the project, merges it into their local main branch, then pushes the main branch to the official repository on the server. The contribution is now part of the project, and other developers should pull from the official repository to synchronize their local repositories.”).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate the teaching of Atlassian into the combined teachings of Dacosta and Andrews to include “the repository.” The modification would be obvious because one of ordinary skill in the art would be motivated to utilize a repository for more effective control over what changes get approved to be incorporated in the project and to efficiently track changes (Atlassian, pages 2 & 3).
As per Claim 7, the rejection of Claim 1 is incorporated; and Dacosta discloses “binary assets of the project (Figure 3; col. 3 lines 46-50, “A project includes various types of assets (e.g., 3-D models, 3-D scenes, images, animations, simulations, etc.) that may be created and edited simultaneously by multiple members of the project team.”),” but the combination of Dacosta and Andrews does not explicitly disclose:
providing a progress of a project based on an identification of workspaces generated for binary assets of the project.
However, Atlassian discloses:
providing a progress of a project based on an identification of workspaces generated for […] the project (page 2, “When they're ready to publish a local commit, they push the commit to their own public repository—not the official one. Then, they file a pull request with the main repository, which lets the project maintainer know that an update is ready to be integrated.”).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate the teaching of Atlassian into the combined teachings of Dacosta and Andrews to include “providing a progress of a project based on an identification of workspaces generated for binary assets of the project.” The modification would be obvious because one of ordinary skill in the art would be motivated to utilize a forking workflow where a project maintainer accepts commits (updates/progress) from developers (individual server-side repositories) without giving them write access to the official codebase in order to integrate contributions without the need for everyone to push to a single central repository which helps prevent integrating unauthorized/problematic changes (Atlassian, page 1).
As per Claim 9, the rejection of Claim 1 is incorporated; and Dacosta further discloses:
generating a notification in response to the receiving the modification to the first binary asset (col. 7 lines 66-67 to col. 8 lines 1-2 & lines 5-9 “When data is changed, a message is sent to all clients in the channel containing the GUID of the changed object, along with any parameters and properties of the object that have been changed […] Each client consumes the data, and applies the changes according to its role in the system. Upon receiving such a message, a rendering client, for example, might start producing new rendered images based on the updated lens properties of the identified CAMERA object (emphasis added).”; col. 8 lines 26-30, “When project data is modified or added by a client, the client's updates are transmitted to the application server, the application server processes and distributes the updates to the other clients in the session, and each client adjusts its copy of the project state to reflect the changes (emphasis added).”).
As per Claim 10, the rejection of Claim 1 is incorporated; and Dacosta discloses “providing the first version of the first binary asset […] to a first user device based on a request to undo the modification to the first binary asset (col. 8 lines 44-47, “Each end-user client has a local “undo stack” that tracks the user's recent changes. When an end-user presses the “Undo” button, the most recent change in the user's local undo stack is reversed.”),” but the combination of Dacosta and Andrews does not explicitly disclose:
maintaining a history of modifications to the first binary asset; and
providing the first version of the first binary asset on the first workspace to a first user device based on a request to undo the modification to the first binary asset.
However, Atlassian discloses:
maintaining a history of modifications to the [repository] (page 3, “A clone operation is essentially a copy of a repository and its history.”); and
[…] on the first workspace (page 2, “But when a new developer wants to start working on the project, they do not directly clone the official repository. Instead, they fork the official repository to create a copy of it on the server. This new copy serves as their personal public repository—no other developers are allowed to push to it, but they can pull changes from it (we’ll see why this is important in a moment). After they have created their server-side copy, the developer performs a git clone to get a copy of it onto their local machine. This serves as their private development environment, just like in the other workflows (emphasis added).”).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate the teaching of Atlassian into the combined teachings of Dacosta and Andrews to include “maintaining a history of modifications to the first binary asset; and providing the first version of the first binary asset on the first workspace to a first user device based on a request to undo the modification to the first binary asset.” The modification would be obvious because one of ordinary skill in the art would be motivated to maintain a history of modifications in order to effectively compare against versions and track changes making it easier to revert to a past version (Atlassian, page 3).
As per Claim 11, the rejection of Claim 1 is incorporated; and Dacosta discloses “rendering the second version of the first binary asset using the selected platform for review (Figure 3; col. 5 lines 4-12, “FIG. 3 shows a biased overlay 31 superimposed on a 3D object that has been selected by the user. Using interface controls (e.g., buttons and menu items), a mouse, a keyboard, and other input devices, the user may modify various properties of the 3D object [second version of the first binary asset] (e.g., its position, size, orientation, color, texture, etc.) and the biased overlay will be updated accordingly, in real-time. Other objects in the scene, such as perfume bottle 33, are rendered using unbiased techniques as described above (emphasis added).”; col. 1 lines 64-67 & col. 2 lines 2-3, “[…] these methods including: modifying a 3-D project using a graphical user interface running on a first end-user client device by creating or changing 3-D assets belonging to the 3-D project; […] displaying [rendering] said modifications using graphical user interfaces running on said additional end-user client devices […] (emphasis added).”), wherein the selected platform provides a web interface (col. 3 lines 51-54, “In some embodiments, the user interface runs inside a web browser and is implemented using standards and libraries that are widely available (e.g., HTML5, JavaScript, WebGL).”),” but the combination of Dacosta and Andrews does not explicitly disclose:
rendering the second version of the first binary asset using the selected platform for review, wherein the selected platform provides a web interface, and wherein the second version of the first binary asset is checked in to a repository based on an approval of the second version of the first binary asset;
rendering a first preview of the first version of the first binary asset and a second preview of the second version of the first binary asset, wherein the first preview and the second preview are provided for a side-by-side comparison to facilitate an approval of the second version of the first binary asset; or
rendering the second version of the first binary asset using the selected platform for review, wherein the selected platform is a mobile, a windows, a macOS, a console, or a webGL platform, wherein the second version of the first binary asset is rendered in context of a target platform with one or more binary assets stored in a repository, and wherein the second version of the first binary asset is checked in to a repository based on an approval of the second version of the first binary asset.
However, Atlassian discloses:
wherein the [change] is checked in to a repository based on an approval of the [change] (pages 2 & 3, “When they're ready to publish a local commit, they push the commit to their own public repository—not the official one. Then, they file a pull request with the main repository, which lets the project maintainer know that an update is ready to be integrated […] To integrate the feature into the official codebase, the maintainer pulls the contributor’s changes into their local repository, checks to make sure it doesn’t break the project, merges it into their local main branch, then pushes the main branch to the official repository on the server. The contribution is now part of the project, and other developers should pull from the official repository to synchronize their local repositories (emphasis added).”).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate the teaching of Atlassian into the combined teachings of Dacosta and Andrews to include “wherein the second version of the first binary asset is checked in to a repository based on an approval of the second version of the first binary asset.” The modification would be obvious because one of ordinary skill in the art would be motivated to integrate a change into a repository based on an approval of the change to ensure the changes do not break the project (Atlassian, page 3).
As per Claim 12, Dacosta discloses:
A system comprising:
one or more computer processors (col. 16 lines 56-62, “Moreover, the embodiments, or portions thereof, described above can also be implemented using integrated circuit blocks referred to as main memory, cache memory, or other types of memory that store electronic instructions to be executed by a microprocessor or store data that may be used in arithmetic operations.”);
one or more computer memories (col. 16 lines 56-62, “Moreover, the embodiments, or portions thereof, described above can also be implemented using integrated circuit blocks referred to as main memory, cache memory, or other types of memory that store electronic instructions to be executed by a microprocessor or store data that may be used in arithmetic operations.”);
a set of instructions incorporated into the one or more computer memories (col. 16 lines 56-62, “Moreover, the embodiments, or portions thereof, described above can also be implemented using integrated circuit blocks referred to as main memory, cache memory, or other types of memory that store electronic instructions to be executed by a microprocessor or store data that may be used in arithmetic operations.”; col. 16 lines 66-67 to col. 17 lines 1-2, “For example, the embodiments, or portions thereof, may be implemented using circuitry, such as one or more of programmable logic (e.g., an ASIC), logic gates, a processor, and a memory.”), the set of instructions configuring the one or more computer processors to perform operations, the operations comprising: […].
Claim 12 is a system claim corresponding to non-transitory computer-readable storage medium Claim 1 and the remainder of Claim 12 is rejected for the same reasons as given in the rejection of Claim 1.
Claims 15 and 16 are system claims corresponding to non-transitory computer-readable storage medium Claims 4 and 5 respectively and are rejected for the same reasons as given in the rejections of those claims.
Claims 17 and 20 are method claims corresponding to non-transitory computer-readable storage medium Claims 1 and 4 respectively and are rejected for the same reasons as given in the rejections of those claims.
Claims 2, 13, and 18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Dacosta in view of Atlassian and Andrews as applied to Claims 1, 12, and 17 above, and further in view of US 2013/0218829 (hereinafter “Martinez”) and US 2019/0129583 (hereinafter “Yamada”).
As per Claim 2, the rejection of Claim 1 is incorporated; and Dacosta discloses “wherein receiving the modification to the first binary asset is based on a saved change to a first [stored version] of the first binary asset on the […] first user device (col. 8 lines 26-30, “When project data is modified or added by a client, the client's updates are transmitted to the application server, the application server processes and distributes the updates to the other clients in the session, and each client adjusts its copy of the project state to reflect the changes.”; col. 3 lines 42-43, “The application server is also connected to a database server 107 for storing and retrieving project data.”),” but the combination of Dacosta and Andrews does not explicitly disclose:
providing a first invitation to a first user device to access the first workspace;
synchronizing the first workspace with a first local storage of the first user device, wherein the first workspace appears as a first folder on the first local storage of the first user device, wherein receiving the modification to the first binary asset is based on a saved change to a first locally stored version of the first binary asset on the first local storage of the first user device.
However, Atlassian discloses:
synchronizing the first workspace with a first local storage of the first user device (page 2, “But when a new developer wants to start working on the project, they do not directly clone the official repository. Instead, they fork the official repository to create a copy of it on the server. This new copy serves as their personal public repository—no other developers are allowed to push to it, but they can pull changes from it (we’ll see why this is important in a moment). After they have created their server-side copy, the developer performs a git clone to get a copy of it onto their local machine. This serves as their private development environment, just like in the other workflows.”);
a first locally stored version (page 2, “But when a new developer wants to start working on the project, they do not directly clone the official repository. Instead, they fork the official repository to create a copy of it on the server. This new copy serves as their personal public repository—no other developers are allowed to push to it, but they can pull changes from it (we’ll see why this is important in a moment). After they have created their server-side copy, the developer performs a git clone to get a copy of it onto their local machine. This serves as their private development environment, just like in the other workflows.”).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate the teaching of Atlassian into the combined teachings of Dacosta and Andrews to include “synchronizing the first workspace with a first local storage of the first user device, […] wherein receiving the modification to the first binary asset is based on a saved change to a first locally stored version of the first binary asset on the first local storage of the first user device.” The modification would be obvious because one of ordinary skill in the art would be motivated to synchronize a workspace locally in order to have complete control/privacy over a locally stored version of a project and work on it offline (Atlassian, page 2).
The combination of Dacosta, Atlassian, and Andrews discloses “the first workspace” and “the first local storage of the first user device,” but does not explicitly disclose:
wherein the first workspace appears as a first folder on the first local storage of the first user device.
However, Yamada discloses:
wherein the first workspace appears as a first folder on the [device] (Figure 25; paragraph [0046], “The workspace 114 is a folder that stores documents for work currently in progress by a user.”).
Yamada is within the same field of endeavor as the claimed invention regarding the utilization of icons to indicate a workspace.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate the teaching of Yamada into the combined teachings of Dacosta, Atlassian, and Andrews to include “wherein the first workspace appears as a first folder on the first local storage of the first user device.” The modification would be obvious because one of ordinary skill in the art would be motivated to utilize an icon for a workspace in order to allow users to easily identify and organize the workspace and its contents (Yamada, Figure 25).
The combination of Dacosta, Atlassian, Andrews, and Yamada discloses “a first user device” and “the first workspace,” but does not explicitly disclose:
providing a first invitation to a first user device to access the first workspace.
However, Martinez discloses:
providing a first invitation to a first user device to access the first workspace (paragraph [0131], “The content owners sends an email invitation which contains a link to the workspace in the Content Collaboration Platform to gain access to the document or project folder is sent from the Agent Server to the intended reviewers (emphasis added).”).
Martinez is within the same field of endeavor as the claimed invention regarding inviting users to access a workspace.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate the teaching of Martinez into the combined teachings of Dacosta, Atlassian, Andrews, and Yamada to include “providing a first invitation to a first user device to access the first workspace.” The modification would be obvious because one of ordinary skill in the art would be motivated to send invitations to users to access a workspace in order to improve security by ensuring only intended users are able to access the workspace (Martinez, paragraph [0131]).
Claim 13 is a system claim corresponding to non-transitory computer-readable storage medium Claim 2 and is rejected for the same reasons as given in the rejection of that claim.
Claim 18 is a method claim corresponding to non-transitory computer-readable storage medium Claim 2 and is rejected for the same reasons as given in the rejection of that claim.
Claims 3, 14, and 19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Dacosta in view of Atlassian, Andrews, Yamada, and Martinez as applied to Claims 2, 13, and 18 above, and further in view of US 2009/0327302 (hereinafter “Richardson”).
As per Claim 3, the rejection of Claim 2 is incorporated; and Dacosta discloses “wherein the modification to the first binary asset is applied to a second [stored version] of the first binary asset on the […] second user device (col. 8 lines 26-30, “When project data is modified or added by a client, the client's updates are transmitted to the application server, the application server processes and distributes the updates to the other clients in the session, and each client adjusts its copy of the project state to reflect the changes.”; col. 3 lines 42-43, “The application server is also connected to a database server 107 for storing and retrieving project data.”),” but the combination of Dacosta, Atlassian, and Andrews does not explicitly disclose:
providing a second invitation to a second user device to access the first workspace;
synchronizing the first workspace with a second local storage of the second user device, wherein the first workspace appears as a second folder on the second local storage of the second user device, wherein the modification to the first binary asset is applied to a second locally stored version of the first binary asset on the second local storage of the second user device.
However, Richardson discloses:
synchronizing the first workspace with a second local storage of the second user device (abstract, “The client systems may participate in peer-to-peer synchronization flows with one another, with the synchronization flows representing updates made local to the shared workspaces of the client systems.”; paragraph [0003], “These tools may provide methods that include establishing peer-to-peer relationships between two or more client systems. These relationships enable the client systems to create respective local instances of data, shared between the client systems to allow them to collaborate with one another. The client systems may participate in peer-to-peer synchronization flows with one another, with the synchronization flows representing updates made locally to the data shared between the client systems (emphasis added).”; paragraph [0024], “Although the client systems 102 maintain respective local instances of the shared workspaces 116 and storage elements 118, the peer-to-peer flows 114 enable these local instances of the shared workspaces 116 and storage elements 118 to be synchronized with one another. More specifically, actions performed locally at the client system 102a may be synchronized over to the client system 102n, and vice versa (emphasis added).”);
a second locally stored version (paragraph [0024], “Although the client systems 102 maintain respective local instances of the shared workspaces 116 and storage elements 118, the peer-to-peer flows 114 enable these local instances of the shared workspaces 116 and storage elements 118 to be synchronized with one another. More specifically, actions performed locally at the client system 102a may be synchronized over to the client system 102n, and vice versa (emphasis added).”).
Richardson is within the same field of endeavor as the claimed invention regarding workspace synchronization.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate the teaching of Richardson into the combined teachings of Dacosta, Atlassian, and Andrews to include “synchronizing the first workspace with a second local storage of the second user device, […] wherein the modification to the first binary asset is applied to a second locally stored version of the first binary asset on the second local storage of the second user device.” The modification would be obvious because one of ordinary skill in the art would be motivated to synchronize a workspace among client devices representing updates made local to the shared workspaces of the client systems for enhanced synchronization and collaboration within peer-to-peer and client/server environments (Richardson, abstract & paragraph [0015]).
The combination of Dacosta, Atlassian, Andrews, and Richardson discloses “the first workspace” and “the second local storage of the second user device,” but does not explicitly disclose:
wherein the first workspace appears as a second folder on the second local storage of the second user device.
However, Yamada discloses:
wherein the first workspace appears as a second folder on the [device] (Figure 25; paragraph [0046], “The workspace 114 is a folder that stores documents for work currently in progress by a user.”).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate the teaching of Yamada into the combined teachings of Dacosta, Atlassian, Andrews, and Richardson to include “wherein the first workspace appears as a second folder on the second local storage of the second user device.” The modification would be obvious because one of ordinary skill in the art would be motivated to utilize an icon for a workspace in order to allow users to easily identify and organize the workspace and its contents (Yamada, Figure 25).
The combination of Dacosta, Atlassian, Andrews, Yamada, and Richardson discloses “a second user device” and “the first workspace,” but does not explicitly disclose:
providing a second invitation to a second user device to access the first workspace.
However, Martinez discloses:
providing a second invitation to a second user device to access the first workspace (paragraph [0131], “The content owners sends an email invitation which contains a link to the workspace in the Content Collaboration Platform to gain access to the document or project folder is sent from the Agent Server to the intended reviewers (emphasis added).”).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate the teaching of Martinez into the combined teachings of Dacosta, Atlassian, Andrews, Yamada, and Richardson to include “providing a second invitation to a second user device to access the first workspace.” The modification would be obvious because one of ordinary skill in the art would be motivated to send invitations to users to access a workspace in order to improve security by ensuring only intended users are able to access the workspace (Martinez, paragraph [0131]).
Claim 14 is a system claim corresponding to non-transitory computer-readable storage medium Claim 3 and is rejected for the same reasons as given in the rejection of that claim.
Claim 19 is a method claim corresponding to non-transitory computer-readable storage medium Claim 3 and is rejected for the same reasons as given in the rejection of that claim.
Claim 8 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Dacosta in view of Atlassian and Andrews as applied to Claim 1 above, and further in view of US 2020/0142549 (hereinafter “Kaplan”).
As per Claim 8, the rejection of Claim 1 is incorporated; and Dacosta discloses “the rendering the first version of the first binary asset and the second version of the first binary asset on the selected platform (Figure 3; col. 6 lines 37-42, “Both the underlying asset and all “deltas” associated with that asset are stored efficiently (using, e.g., the geometry compression and move protocol methods described below). This method of global and local asset modifications allows the system to efficiently accommodate multiple variations [first and second versions] of a single underlying asset (emphasis added).”; col. 1 lines 64-67 & col. 2 lines 2-3, “[…] these methods including: modifying a 3-D project using a graphical user interface running on a first end-user client device by creating or changing 3-D assets belonging to the 3-D project; […] displaying [rendering] said modifications using graphical user interfaces running on said additional end-user client devices […] (emphasis added).”; col. 5 lines 4-12, “FIG. 3 shows a biased overlay 31 superimposed on a 3D object that has been selected by the user. Using interface controls (e.g., buttons and menu items), a mouse, a keyboard, and other input devices, the user may modify various properties of the 3D object (e.g., its position, size, orientation, color, texture, etc.) and the biased overlay will be updated accordingly, in real-time. Other objects in the scene, such as perfume bottle 33, are rendered using unbiased techniques as described above (emphasis added).”; col. 3 lines 51-54, “In some embodiments, the user interface runs inside a web browser and is implemented using standards and libraries that are widely available (e.g., HTML5, JavaScript, WebGL).”),” but the combination of Dacosta, Atlassian, and Andrews does not explicitly disclose:
receiving a comment in response to the rendering the first version of the first binary asset and the second version of the first binary asset on the selected platform; and
generating a notification including the comment.
However, Kaplan discloses:
receiving a comment in response to the rendering [of the content item] (paragraph [0217], “Moreover, the comment can be presented within the rendered instance of the canonical content item, within a separate user interface or application, or within a message or notification to the user of the local application. Thus, a user viewing or working on the rendered instance of the canonical content item can receive or view comments added to the cloud-based content item by other users and thereby obtain a collaborative experience when accessing or working on the rendered instance of the canonical content item.”); and
generating a notification including the comment (paragraph [0217], “Moreover, the comment can be presented within the rendered instance of the canonical content item, within a separate user interface or application, or within a message or notification to the user of the local application. Thus, a user viewing or working on the rendered instance of the canonical content item can receive or view comments added to the cloud-based content item by other users and thereby obtain a collaborative experience when accessing or working on the rendered instance of the canonical content item.”).
Kaplan is within the same field of endeavor as the claimed invention regarding notification generation that includes comments.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate the teaching of Kaplan into the combined teachings of Dacosta, Atlassian, and Andrews to include “receiving a comment in response to the rendering the first version of the first binary asset and the second version of the first binary asset on the selected platform; and generating a notification including the comment.” The modification would be obvious because one of ordinary skill in the art would be motivated to receive comments from other users in order to effectively obtain a more collaborative experience when accessing or working on an asset by viewing the thoughts/ideas (comments) of others (Kaplan, paragraph [0217]).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Feven Huruy whose telephone number is (571) 272-3826. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Fri. 7:30am-3:30pm.
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, Wei Mui can be reached at (571) 272-3708. 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.
/F.H.H./Examiner, Art Unit 2191 /WEI Y MUI/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2191
Prosecution Insights