CTNF 18/933,498 CTNF 89553 Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status 07-03-aia AIA 15-10-aia 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 Claims 41-60 are presented for examination. This is a first action on the merits based on Applicant’s claims submitted 11/25/2025. Applicant submitted a second preliminary amendment in which claims 1-40 were cancelled and claims 41-60 were added. Currently, claims 41-60 are pending for examination. Information Disclosure Statement The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 7/11/2025 is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement is being considered by the examiner. Applicant is respectfully reminded of the duty to disclose 37 C.F.R. 1.56 all pertinent information and material pertaining to the patentability of applicant’s claimed invention, by continuing to submitting in a timely manner PTO-1449, Information Disclosure Statement (IDS) with the filing of applicant’s application or thereafter. 07-30-03-h AIA CLAIM INTERPRETATION 07-30-03 AIA The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(f): (f) Element in Claim for a Combination. – An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof. The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph: An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof. ============ FP 7.30.05 USE OF BRI EXPLANATION 07-30-05 The claims in this application are given their broadest reasonable interpretation using the plain meaning of the claim language in light of the specification as it would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art. The broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim element (also commonly referred to as a claim limitation) is limited by the description in the specification when 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is invoked. As explained in MPEP § 2181, subsection I, claim limitations that meet the following three-prong test will be interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph: (A) the claim limitation uses the term “means” or “step” or a term used as a substitute for “means” that is a generic placeholder (also called a nonce term or a non-structural term having no specific structural meaning) for performing the claimed function; (B) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is modified by functional language, typically, but not always linked by the transition word “for” (e.g., “means for”) or another linking word or phrase, such as “configured to” or “so that”; and (C) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function. Use of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim with functional language creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites sufficient structure, material, or acts to entirely perform the recited function. Absence of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is not to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is not interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites function without reciting sufficient structure, material or acts to entirely perform the recited function. Claim limitations in this application that use the word “means” (or “step”) are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action. Conversely, claim limitations in this application that do not use the word “means” (or “step”) are not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action. 07-30-07 This application includes one or more claim limitations that use the word “means” or “step” but are nonetheless not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph because the claim limitation(s) recite(s) sufficient structure, materials, or acts to entirely perform the recited function. Such claim limitation(s) is/are: “interface means to” in claim 55 . Because this/these claim limitation(s) is/are not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, it/they is/are not being interpreted to cover only the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof. If applicant intends to have this/these limitation(s) interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, applicant may: (1) amend the claim limitation(s) to remove the structure, materials, or acts that performs the claimed function; or (2) present a sufficient showing that the claim limitation(s) does/do not recite sufficient structure, materials, or acts to perform the claimed function. Double Patenting 08-33 AIA 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 obviousness-type 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); and 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 a nonstatutory double patenting ground provided the conflicting application or patent either is shown to be commonly owned with this application, or claims an invention made as a result of activities undertaken within the scope of a joint research agreement. The USPTO internet Web site contains terminal disclaimer forms which may be used. Please visit http://www.uspto.gov/forms/. The filing date of the application will determine what form 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 http://www.uspto.gov/patents/process/file/efs/guidance/eTD-info-I.jsp Effective January 1, 1994, a registered attorney or agent of record may sign a terminal disclaimer. A terminal disclaimer signed by the assignee must fully comply with 37 CFR 3.73(b). 08-34 AIA Claim s 41, 48, and 55 rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim s 1, 8, 15 of US Patent No. 11,461,491 . Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because they are each drawn towards cloud computing file sharing environment allowing users in a group to access files based on the configured access . Instant Application US 11,461,491 B2 Comments 48. An apparatus comprising: interface circuitry; computer readable instructions; and at least one processor circuit to: interface with a plurality of cloud services to determine files to be managed with a user interface; determine at least one of users or groups that are to access the files; obtain input information based on the user interface, the input information associated with group access to at least one file of the files; and configure the group access to the at least one file based on the input information and an application program interface associated with one of the cloud services. 1. An apparatus comprising: at least one memory; computer readable instructions; and processor circuitry to execute the instructions to at least: construct a first data store that identifies files controlled by a user, the files maintained in a plurality of cloud content sharing services; construct a second data store that identifies access permissions associated with respective ones of the files; implement a user interface to (i) display the first data store and the second data store to the user, and (ii) accept an input from the user to perform an action to change one or more of the access permissions to grant a first party access to a first one of the files via a first one of the cloud content sharing services, the user interface to display first graphical elements representative of the files maintained in the cloud content sharing services, second graphical elements representative of the cloud content sharing services, and third graphical elements representative of parties permitted to access the respective ones of the files, ones of the second graphical elements to also indicate whether at least one of file read access or file write access is provided by corresponding ones of the cloud content sharing services; in response to a determination that the action is valid, cause the user interface to display a first one of the first graphical elements, a first one of the second graphical elements and a first one of the third graphical elements in a linked arrangement to indicate the first party has at least one of read access or write access to the first one of the files via the first one of the cloud content sharing services; and instruct one or more of the plurality of cloud content sharing services to implement the change. Claim language used in conflicting patent uses narrower language than that of the instant application, therefore the conflicting patent anticipates the claims in the instant application . ----------------------------------------------------- 08-34 AIA Claim s 41, 48, and 55 rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim s 1, 10, 16 of US Patent No. 10,796,012 B2 . Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because they are each drawn towards cloud computing file sharing environment allowing users in a group to access files based on the configured access . Instant Application US 10,796,012 B2 Comments 55. A system comprising: user interface means for interfacing with a user, the user interface means to: determine at least one of users or groups that are to access files maintained by a plurality of cloud services; and obtain input information associated with group access to at least one file of the files; and cloud interface means for interfacing with the plurality of cloud services, the cloud interface means to: Interface with the plurality of cloud services to determine the files to be managed with the user interface means; and configure the group access to the at least one file based on the input information and an application program interface associated with one of the cloud services. 10. A cloud content sharing system, comprising: a user device, wherein the user device includes a processor and memory configured to: display an user interface (UI) to a user, wherein the UI displays at least a first graphic element to indicate a first object, a second graphic element to indicate a second object, a third graphic element to indicate a first party, a fourth graphic element to indicate a second party, a fifth graphic element to indicate a first cloud content sharing service provided by a first service provider, and a sixth graphic element to indicate a second cloud content sharing service provided by a second service provider different than the first service provider, wherein each of the first, second, third, fourth, fifth, and sixth graphic elements includes one or more of image data or text data, wherein the first object is stored in the first cloud content sharing service with a first access permission graphically represented by relative positions of the first graphic element with respect to the third graphic element and the fifth graphic element, the first access permission including a first read permission or a first write permission being graphically represented, and the second object is stored in the second cloud content sharing service with a second access permission including a second read permission or a second write permission graphically represented by relative positions of the second graphic element with respect to the fourth graphic element and the sixth graphic element that are visible at a same time as the relative positions of the first graphic element with respect to the third graphic element and the fifth graphic element, the second cloud content sharing service is different from the first cloud content sharing service, and the second party is different from the first party; receive an input from the user, wherein the input is associated with a change of a selected one of the first access permission to the first object or the second access permission to the second object; determine the user is authorized to make the change of the selected one of the first access permission to the first object or the second access permission to the second object; and in response to receipt of the input and determination the user is authorized to make the change, cause the change to the selected one of the first access permission to the first object or the second access permission to the second object, and graphically represent the change to the first access permission or the second access permission in the UI by displaying of new relative positions of the first graphic element with respect to the third graphic element and the fifth graphic element, or by displaying of new relative positions of the second graphic element with respect to the fourth graphic element and the sixth graphic element. Claim language used in conflicting patent uses narrower language than that of the instant application, therefore the conflicting patent anticipates the claims in the instant application . ----------------------------------------------------- 08-34 AIA Claim s 41, 48, and 55 rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim s 1, 7, 13 of US Patent No. 12,158,966 B2 . Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because they are each drawn towards cloud computing file sharing environment allowing users in a group to access files based on the configured access . Instant Application US 12,158,966 B2 Comments 55. A system comprising: user interface means for interfacing with a user, the user interface means to: determine at least one of users or groups that are to access files maintained by a plurality of cloud services; and obtain input information associated with group access to at least one file of the files; and cloud interface means for interfacing with the plurality of cloud services, the cloud interface means to: Interface with the plurality of cloud services to determine the files to be managed with the user interface means; and configure the group access to the at least one file based on the input information and an application program interface associated with one of the cloud services. 1. A system comprising: memory; computer readable instructions; and at least one processor circuit to execute the computer readable instructions to: cause display of first user interface elements in a graphical user interface, the first user interface elements to identify files and directories maintained by a plurality of cloud services; cause display of a second user interface element with the first user interface elements in the graphical user interface, the second user interface element to identify a name of a first one of the cloud services that maintains a first one of the files or directories; cause display of a third user interface element with the first user interface elements and the second user interface element in the graphical user interface, the third user interface element representative of a group permitted to access the first one of the files or directories; cause display of a fourth user interface element with the first user interface elements, the second user interface element and the third user interface element in the graphical user interface, the fourth user interface element to indicate an access level associated with the first one of the files or directories; update information displayed in the graphical user interface based on a manipulation of the fourth user interface element; and invoke an application program interface associated with the first one of the cloud services to control access to the first one of the files or directories. Claim language used in conflicting patent uses narrower language than that of the instant application, therefore the conflicting patent anticipates the claims in the instant application . Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102 07-07-aia AIA 07-07 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 – 07-08-aia AIA (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. 07-12-aia AIA (a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention. 07-15 AIA Claim s 41-60 rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102( a)(1 ) as being anticipated by Sharma et al. (US 203/0219456 A1, hereinafter “Sharma”) . Regarding claim 41, Sharma teaches: 41. At least one non-transitory computer readable medium comprising computer readable instructions to cause at least one processor circuit to at least: interface with a plurality of cloud services to determine files to be managed with a user interface (Sharma: Fig. 6) ; determine at least one of users or groups that are to access the files (Sharma: par 49, the ACXS SVFM enable users to access documents) ; obtain input information based on the user interface, the input information associated with group access to at least one file of the files (Sharma: par 91: “The Averail CloudXchange service enables service administrator to define a set of permissions and associate/grant those with groups and users”) ; and configure the group access to the at least one file based on the input information (Sharma: par 91: “For example, inherited permissions from SharePoint include but are not limited to "Full Control"--users can view, add, update, delete, share, approve and customize; "Contribute"--users can view, add, update, delete and download documents;”) and an application program interface associated with one of the cloud services (Sharma: par 86: “ Dropbox APIs from the ACXS cloud based service”) . Regarding claim 42, Sharma teaches: 42. The at least one non-transitory computer readable medium of claim 41, wherein the group access is one of a plurality of types of access (Sharma: par 91: “For example, inherited permissions from SharePoint include but are not limited to "Full Control"--users can view, add, update, delete, share, approve and customize; "Contribute"--users can view, add, update, delete and download documents;”) . Regarding claim 43, Sharma teaches: 43. The at least one non-transitory computer readable medium of claim 41, wherein the group access includes read access (Sharma: par 91: “For example, inherited permissions from SharePoint include but are not limited to "Full Control"--users can view, add, update, delete, share, approve and customize; "Contribute"--users can view, add, update, delete and download documents) . Regarding claim 44, Sharma teaches: 44. The at least one non-transitory computer readable medium of claim 41, wherein the computer readable instructions are to cause one or more of the at least one processor circuit to determine whether the input information is associated with an authorized user (Sharma: par 91: “The Averail CloudXchange service enables service administrator to define a set of permissions and associate/grant those with groups and users”) . Regarding claim 45, Sharma teaches: 45. The at least one non-transitory computer readable medium of claim 41, wherein the computer readable instructions are to cause one or more of the at least one processor circuit to block access to a second file based on second input information and a second application program interface associated with a second one of the cloud services (Sharma: par 145: “Sites and folders pre-configured on the Averail Mobile application for access based on user's identity, groups, permissions and policies.”, see also fig. 6) . Regarding claim 46, Sharma teaches: 46. The at least one non-transitory computer readable medium of claim 41, wherein the one of the cloud services is a first one of the cloud services, the application program interface is a first application program interface, the at least one file is maintained by the first one of the cloud services, a second file of the files is maintained by a second one of the cloud services, the second one of the cloud services is associated with a second application program interface different from the first application program interface, and the computer readable instructions are to cause one or more of the at least one processor circuit to configure group access to the second file based on the second application program interface (Sharma: par 226: “The SVFM system uses public interfaces (REST, SOAP or proprietary API) or protocols (WebDAV, CIFS, NFS) to access these underlying federated systems. ”; Examiner interprets this claim limitation as each cloud service has its own associated API) . Regarding claim 47, Sharma teaches: 47. The at least one non-transitory computer readable medium of claim 41, wherein the computer readable instructions are to cause one or more of the at least one processor circuit to access the at least one file based on a cloud application associated with the one of the cloud services, the cloud application different from the application program interface (Sharma: fig. 6) . Regarding claim 48 and claim 55, the claim limitations are set forth and rejected as it has been discussed in claim 41. Regarding claim 49 and claim 56, the claim limitations are set forth and rejected as it has been discussed in claim 42. Regarding claim 50 and claim 57, the claim limitations are set forth and rejected as it has been discussed in claim 43. Regarding claim 51 and claim 58, the claim limitations are set forth and rejected as it has been discussed in claim 44. Regarding claim 52 and claim 59, the claim limitations are set forth and rejected as it has been discussed in claim 45. Regarding claim 53 and claim 60, the claim limitations are set forth and rejected as it has been discussed in claim 46. Regarding claim 54, the claim limitations are set forth and rejected as it has been discussed in claim 47 . Conclusion 07-96 AIA The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant’s disclosure. (1) Chen (US 9,325,571 B2) teaches access permission for shared content. (2) Davis et al. (US 2014/0006465 A1) teaches managing a global namespace for a distributed filesystem. (3) DeLorme et al. (US 2002/0107874 A1) teaches management of multiple links to a file in a file system. (4) Fang (US 2013/0179898 A1) teaches systems and methods for remote storage management. (5) Gauda (US 2013/0305039 A1) teaches a cloud file system. (6) Giles et al. (US 2009/0307604 A1) teaches managing permissions in a collaborative workspace. (7) Graham (US 2007/0143398 A1) teaches central work product management system for coordinated collaboration with remote users. (8) Kruger et al. (US 2012/0167197 A1) teaches enabling granular discretionary access control for data stored in a cloud computing environment. (9) Noll et al. (US 2009/0327447 A1) teaches extending sharing options of local computing resources. (10) Savage et al. (US 2014/0101310 A1) teaches seamless access, editing, and creation of files in a web interface or mobile interface to a collaborative cloud platform. (11) Taing (KUS 7,958,453 B1) teaches system and method for real-time, multi-user, interactive and collaborative environments on the web. (12) Vijayan et al. (US 2013/0263289 A1) teaches information management of data associated with multiple cloud services . Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to LIZBETH TORRES-DIAZ whose telephone number is (571)272-1787. The examiner can normally be reached on 9:00a-4:30p. 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, Linglan Edwards, can be reached on (571)270-5440. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300. Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000. /LIZBETH TORRES-DIAZ/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2408 /May 16, 2026/ /ltd/ Application/Control Number: 18/933,498 Page 2 Art Unit: 2408 Application/Control Number: 18/933,498 Page 3 Art Unit: 2408 Application/Control Number: 18/933,498 Page 4 Art Unit: 2408 Application/Control Number: 18/933,498 Page 5 Art Unit: 2408 Application/Control Number: 18/933,498 Page 6 Art Unit: 2408 Application/Control Number: 18/933,498 Page 7 Art Unit: 2408 Application/Control Number: 18/933,498 Page 8 Art Unit: 2408 Application/Control Number: 18/933,498 Page 9 Art Unit: 2408 Application/Control Number: 18/933,498 Page 10 Art Unit: 2408 Application/Control Number: 18/933,498 Page 11 Art Unit: 2408 Application/Control Number: 18/933,498 Page 12 Art Unit: 2408 Application/Control Number: 18/933,498 Page 13 Art Unit: 2408 Application/Control Number: 18/933,498 Page 14 Art Unit: 2408 Application/Control Number: 18/933,498 Page 15 Art Unit: 2408 Application/Control Number: 18/933,498 Page 16 Art Unit: 2408 Application/Control Number: 18/933,498 Page 17 Art Unit: 2408 Application/Control Number: 18/933,498 Page 18 Art Unit: 2408 Application/Control Number: 18/933,498 Page 19 Art Unit: 2408
Prosecution Insights