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 communication is in response to: Application filed on September 19th, 2024
Claims 1-20 are pending claims.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claim(s) 1, 13, 20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1)as being anticipated by Vagell et al., US PG PUB 2012/0233543 A1.
As for independent claim 1:
Vagell discloses user device comprising:
a user device data store (UDDS) (Vagell discloses computer and memory in 0054);
wherein the UDDS non-transitorily stores first computer instructions which, when executed, instantiate a format settings engine (FSE) (Vagell discloses that computer program instructions are stored in data storage device and a storage device for execution by a programmable processor 0051-0052, Vagell discloses processor operatively coupled to data storage device and memory);
a user device processor (UDP) coupled to the UDDS; and wherein the UDP, when executing the first computer instructions, instantiates the FSE which configures the user device to perform format locking operations (FLO) comprising: locking at least one format style setting option for editing of a given digital content by a first user of the user device (Vagell discloses a collaborative editing system where the user can contribute and made edits and displayed in a format styled locked to that user, see locked font and user editing content in 0012, 0018-0020, 0027. User A is assigned locked to an Arial font having a white fill with black dots, and User B is assigned and locked to an Arial font having a white fill with black diagonal lines, user’s format style setting option is locked for that specific user. Vagell further discloses locked format styles include differences in color, text size, and various effects including shadowing, highlighting in 0021.
As for independent claims 13, 20:Claims 13, 20 contain substantial subject matter as claimed in claim 1 and are respectfully rejected along the same rationale.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
The following is a quotation of 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 2-12, 14-19 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Vagell et al., US PG PUB 2012/0233543 A1 in view of Marks et al., US 9,239,820 B1.
As for dependent claim 2:
Vagell discloses the user device claim 1, further comprising: a user interface coupled to the UDP;
wherein the user interface presents multiple format style setting options to the first user; and wherein the locking of the at least one format style setting option comprises (0020-0021, 0028-0029):
Vagell does not disclose receiving a first selection, by the first user, of at least one of the multiple format style setting options; and wherein upon the first selection of the at least one of the multiple format style setting options, edits made by the first user to the given digital content are distinguishable from other edits made to the given digital content by a second user or another user. Marks discloses receiving a first selection, by the first user, of at least one of the multiple format style setting options; and wherein upon the first selection of the at least one of the multiple format style setting options, edits made by the first user to the given digital content are distinguishable from other edits made to the given digital content by a second user or another user in 6:1-38 and 6:39-53. In the cited sections, Marks discloses user interface allowing user to select multiple style elements and lock/unlock document settings. Accordingly it would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a skilled artisan to modify the device of Vagell to incorporate the teaching of the style user interface, thus allow the user to select style elements and editing lock function (Marks, 6:39-53).
As for dependent claim 3:
Vagell – Marks discloses the user device of claim 2, further comprising: a communications interface coupling the user device with a second user device utilized by the second user; and wherein the FLO further comprise: communicating, substantially contemporaneously with an entry of the edits by the first user and in accordance with the at least one of the multiple format style setting options selected by the first user, the edits to the given digital content to the second user device (Vagell, 0012, 0014, 0018, see format style setting options and locked style. Also see Marks, 5:9-37). Accordingly it would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a skilled artisan to modify the device of Vagell to incorporate the teaching of the style user interface, thus allow the user to select style elements and editing lock function (Marks, 6:39-53).
As for dependent claim 4:
Vagell – Marks discloses the user device of claim 3, wherein the multiple format style setting options include at least one of a font setting option, a style setting option, a size setting option, and a color setting option (Vagell 0020-0022 and Marks, 5:9-37, discloses style setting options). Accordingly it would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a skilled artisan to modify the device of Vagell to incorporate the teaching of the style user interface, thus allow the user to select style elements and editing lock function (Marks, 6:39-53).
As for dependent claim 5:
Vagell – Marks discloses the user device of claim 4, wherein the multiple format style setting options are provided by an application program facilitates editing of the given digital content. (Vagell, 0012-0014, Marks, 5:22-48, see editing and stye options). Accordingly it would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a skilled artisan to modify the device of Vagell to incorporate the teaching of the style user interface, thus allow the user to select style elements and editing lock function (Marks, 6:39-53).
As for dependent claim 6:
Vagell – Marks discloses the user device of claim 5, wherein the application program is at least one of a document editor, a spreadsheet editor, a photo editor, and a video editor (see Vagell editor in 0013-0014 and Marks, 5:9-37). Accordingly it would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a skilled artisan to modify the device of Vagell to incorporate the teaching of the style user interface, thus allow the user to select style elements and editing lock function (Marks, 6:39-53).
As for dependent claim 7:
Vagell – Marks discloses the user device of claim 5,wherein the FLO further comprise: determining whether at least one of the multiple format style setting options selected by the first user in the first selection are reserved for use by another user; and informing the first user when at least one of the multiple format style setting options selected in the first selection are reserved; and receiving a second selection of another of at least one of multiple format style setting options that are not reserved for use by another user (Marks, 5:50-62 and 8:45-9:3). Accordingly it would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a skilled artisan to modify the device of Vagell to incorporate the teaching of the style user interface, thus allow the user to select style elements and editing lock function (Marks, 6:39-53).
As for dependent claim 8:
Vagell – Marks discloses the user device of claim 7, wherein the UDDS non-transitorily stores second computer instructions which, when executed by the UDP, instantiate an application settings module (ASM); wherein the UDP, when executing the second computer instructions, instantiates the ASM which configures the user device to perform application settings operations (ASO) comprising:
presenting a format locking mode on the user device (Marks, 8:13-44, see locked and unlocked style element on the device). Accordingly it would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a skilled artisan to modify the device of Vagell to incorporate the teaching of the style user interface, thus allow the user to select style elements and editing lock function (Marks, 6:39-53).
As for dependent claim 9:
Vagell – Marks discloses the user device of claim 8, wherein the format locking mode include a menu bar extension mode; and wherein the menu bar extension mode include a format lock plug-in which facilitates the locking of the first selection of the at least one format style setting option during editing of the given digital content by the first user of the user device (Marks, 8:45-9:3). Accordingly it would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a skilled artisan to modify the device of Vagell to incorporate the teaching of the style user interface, thus allow the user to select style elements and editing lock function (Marks, 6:39-53).
As for dependent claim 10:
Vagell – Marks discloses the user device of claim 9, wherein the format lock plug-in, when selected by the first user, presents format lock control options including at least one of a lock option, a save option, a recall option, and a clear option (Marks, 6:60-7:9). Accordingly it would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a skilled artisan to modify the device of Vagell to incorporate the teaching of the style user interface, thus allow the user to select style elements and editing lock function (Marks, 6:39-53).
As for dependent claim 11:
Vagell – Marks discloses the user device of claim 10, wherein the lock option, when selected by the first user, locks the first selection of the at least one of the multiple format style setting option (Marks, 3:28-62, see visual style and selections). Accordingly it would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a skilled artisan to modify the device of Vagell to incorporate the teaching of the style user interface, thus allow the user to select style elements and editing lock function (Marks, 6:39-53).
As for dependent claim 12:
Vagell – Marks discloses the user device of claim 11, wherein the UDDS non-transitorily stores third computer instructions which, when executed by the UDP, instantiate a format preferences module (FPM);
wherein the UDP, when executing the third computer instructions, instantiates the FPM which configures the user device to perform format preferencing operations (FPO) comprising: determining whether the first user has previously stored the first selection in the UDDS; and when previously stored, retrieving the first selection from the UDDS; and providing the first selection to the FSE; and wherein the first selection of the at least one format style setting is utilized by the application program during editing of the digital content by the first user (Marks, 7:11-35, see format and style module and selection). Accordingly it would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a skilled artisan to modify the device of Vagell to incorporate the teaching of the style user interface, thus allow the user to select style elements and editing lock function (Marks, 6:39-53).
As for dependent claim 14:
Vagell – Marks discloses the system of claim 13, wherein the first format style setting option locked by the 1FSE is different than the second format style setting option locked by the 2FSE (Vagell, 0020-0022). Accordingly it would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a skilled artisan to modify the device of Vagell to incorporate the teaching of the style user interface, thus allow the user to select style elements and editing lock function (Marks, 6:39-53).
As for dependent claim 15:
Vagell – Marks discloses the system of claim 14, wherein the SFLO further comprise: communicating, to the 2UD and a third user device, edits by the first user to the given digital content in accordance with the first format style setting option; and communicating, to the 1UD and the third user device, edits by the second user to the given digital content in accordance with the second format style setting option (Vagell, 0014, 0018). Accordingly it would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a skilled artisan to modify the device of Vagell to incorporate the teaching of the style user interface, thus allow the user to select style elements and editing lock function (Marks, 6:39-53).
As for dependent claims 16-19:Claims 16-19 contains substantial subject matter as claimed in claims 1, 8, 9 and is respectfully rejected along the same rationale.
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)).
The Examiner notes MPEP § 2144.01, that quotes In re Preda, 401 F.2d 825,159 USPQ 342, 344 (CCPA 1968) as stating “in considering the disclosure of a reference, it is proper to take into account not only specific teachings of the reference but also the inferences which one skilled in the art would reasonably be expected to draw therefrom.” Further MPEP 2123, states that “a reference may be relied upon for all that it would have reasonably suggested to one having ordinary skill the art, including nonpreferred embodiments. Merck & Co. v. Biocraft Laboratories, 874 F.2d 804, 10 USPQ2d 1843 (Fed. Cir.), cert. denied, 493 U.S. 975 (1989).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to DAVID PHANTANA ANGKOOL whose telephone number is (571) 272-2673. The examiner can normally be reached M-F, 7:00-3:30 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, can Adam Queler be reached on 571-272-4140. 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.
/David Phantana-angkool/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2172
Prosecution Insights