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 .
Priority
Receipt is acknowledged of certified copies of papers required by 37 CFR 1.55.
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, 2, 7-10 and 15 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Berger et al., USPAT Pub 2019/0219923 A1.
Per independent claim 1, Berger et al. disclose the multi-person cooperative input method based on an input method, applied to an input method server, the method comprising:
acquiring, in response to receiving a multi-person simultaneous editing method used in a target program of a target terminal, document content from the target program (Para [0045], “The collaborative editing we browser application is run… [and] a document 195 is received over the network”; [0045] “ A user operating a host platform invokes .. which in turn authenticates with the cloud-based shared content …” shows the triggering step that is required to initiate the collaborative editing session.);
generating a session identifier for connecting to the input method server, and feeding the session identifier back to the target terminal, for the target user to share the session identifier to terminals of other users (Para [0039] “a server … looks up the session from session srorage [and the] access token is retrieved from the session object and used to make the call”);
sending, in response to detecting that a terminal of another user is connected to the input method server by means of the session identifier, the document content to an input method display interface of the terminal of the another user ([0041] “communicates with the client-side real-time editor service”; col.2, [0021]” collaborators … can alunch a native application … [that] facilitates collaborating editing”; “authentication and authorization … provided through persistent or long-lived access tokens” shows the client editors with the authorized session ID’s access the document for editing);
synchronizing, in response to receiving document content updated by any terminal by means of the input method, the updated document content to input method display interfaces of all terminals which are connected to the input method server by means of the session identifier ([0021]”facility interprets the …modification(s) and records the changes … to any other collaborators such that all collaborating users will become in sync.”); and
sending the updated document content to the target terminal, such that the target terminal synchronizes the updated document content to the target program ([0045] “a modified document 197 is stored in persistent storage in the cloud-based shared content storage system”).
Per dependent claim 2, Berger et al discloses the method according to claim 1, wherein the method further comprises: using most recently updated document content, if different terminals conflict with each other in editing the document content ([0022], “retrieve a then-current copy of the document”; also [0091] and [0092] show that when returning from the offline state, i.e., there is a conflict since the user’s terminal was offline, shows applying the edits to make it up to date before the further editing process.).
Claims 7 and 8 are for the method that are substantially similar to claim 1, but claimed as a “recipient” versus “sender”, and are rejected under the similar rationale.
Claims 9 and 15 are for the apparatus (i.e., a generic purpose digital computer) performing the method of claim 1 and are rejected under the similar rationale.
Claim 10 is for the apparatus (i.e., a generic purpose digital computer) performing the method of claim 2 and is rejected under the similar 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 (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 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.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claim(s) 3 and 11 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Berger et al. in view of Nelson et al., USPAT Pub 2019/0102370 A1.
Per dependent claim 3, Berger et al. discloses the method according to claim 1, but fails to discloses:
presetting, by the target user, priorities for other users who participate in editing; and using the document content edited by a user having a highest priority, if different terminals conflict with each other in editing the document content.
Berger et al.’s synchronization is time-based and is interested in ensuring that the editing takes placed in the order in which the collaboration edits are made. Regarding the missing feature, Nelson et al. also teaches the synchronization of the collaborated editing using the similar approach as Berger et al by applying the “time stamp” based conflict resolution for the synchronization ([0117]). In addition Nelson et al. further teaches the preset priorities of the users to resolve the conflicts in the synchronization ([0116], “the server processes the editing instruction with a lower site ID first … prior to processing User B’s editing instructions.”) It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the before the effective filing of the application to have incorporated Nelson et al.’s technology into Berger et al.’s collaborative editing system, since the preset method shown by Nelson et al. would have provided faster and less resource intensive synchronization by not having to track the time-stamp of every editing actions.
Claim 11 is for the apparatus (i.e., a generic purpose digital computer) performing the method of claim 3 and is rejected under the similar rationale.
Claim(s) 4 and 12 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Berger et al. in view of Cahill et al., USPAT 11,972,200 B1.
Per dependent claim 4, Berger et al. discloses the method according to claim 1, as explained above and the rejection incorporated herein, but does not further disclose adding a revision record comprising a user identifier to the updated document content, for the target user to choose to accept or reject a revision. Regarding the missing feature, Cahill et al. teaches a collaborative editing system where the user with the authority can use the approval data structure to record the approval or rejects of the of edits when the user makes the decision (col.4, lines 55-65). It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing of the application to have incorporated the “accept or reject” feature of Cahill et al. into Berger et al.’s collaborative system, since the feature would have allowed more control to the owner of the document to filter out the unwanted edits.
Claim 12 is for the apparatus (i.e., a generic purpose digital computer) performing the method of claim 4 and is rejected under the similar rationale.
Claim(s) 6 and 14 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Berger et al. in view of Gobburu et al., USPAT Pub 2023/0082188.
Per dependent claim 6, Berger et al. discloses the method according to claim 1, as explained with respect to the rejection of claim 1 which is incorporated herein, but does not disclose that the session identifier is a QR code. Regarding the missing feature, Gobburu et al. discloses various ways to activate, access and track the collaboration session including scanning a QR code, an NFC tab, or a link on a web page, smart trigger, etc. (Paragraph [0042]; in Abstract). It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing of the invention have incorporated Gobburu et al.’s QR code for the session ID into Berger et al.’s collaborative method, since it would have provided additional and more flexible ways to access and initiative the collaborative session in addition to the current web communication method.
Claim 14 is for the apparatus (i.e., a generic purpose digital computer) performing the method of claim 6 and is rejected under the similar rationale.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 5 and 13 are objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
* US-20240267312-A1 2024-08-08 BAILEY; John Christopher H04J3/0682 1/1
* US-20230385768-A1 2023-11-30 Akkerman; Jelle G06Q10/101 1/1
* US-20230055241-A1 2023-02-23 ZIONPOUR; Ron G06Q10/101 1/1
* US-20200192736-A1 2020-06-18 BANGALORE; Ramesh G06F11/0778 1/1
* US-20170285895-A1 2017-10-05 Nathwani; Nikhil G06F40/166 1/1
* US-20170185574-A1 2017-06-29 Fern; Kenneth G06F40/117 1/1
* US-20230350971-A1 2023-11-02 Bitdinger; Gustavo Both G06F16/972 1/1
* US-11409706-B2 2022-08-09 Lee; Taeju G06F40/166 1/1
* US-20040085354-A1 2004-05-06 Massand, Deepak H04L67/10 707/E17.008
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Stephen Hong whose telephone number 571-272-4124.
The examiner can normally be reached Monday- Friday 10AM-6PM. 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, a supervisor, William Bashore can be reached on (571) 272-4088. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300. Information regarding the status of published or unpublished applications may be obtained from Patent Center. Unpublished application information in Patent Center is available to registered users. To file and manage patent submissions in Patent Center, visit: https://patentcenter.uspto.gov. Visit https://www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/patent-
center for more information about Patent Center and https://www.uspto.gov/patents/docx for information about filing in DOCX format. For additional questions, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service
Representative, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/STEPHEN S HONG/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2178
Prosecution Insights