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
Acknowledgment is made of applicant's claim for foreign priority based on an application filed in EP on 25 July 2022. It is noted, however, that applicant has not filed a certified copy of the EP22186753.4 application as required by 37 CFR 1.55.
Claim Interpretation
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.
This application includes one or more claim limitations that do not use the word “means,” but are nonetheless being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, because the claim limitation(s) uses a generic placeholder that is coupled with functional language without reciting sufficient structure to perform the recited function and the generic placeholder is not preceded by a structural modifier. Such claim limitation(s) is/are:
“the computing device configured to import…”
Because this/these claim limitation(s) is/are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, it/they is/are being interpreted to cover the corresponding structure described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof. However, it is unclear from the specification what corresponding structure makes up the ‘computing device’ and is performing the claimed functionality.
If applicant does not intend 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 avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph (e.g., by reciting sufficient structure to perform the claimed function); or (2) present a sufficient showing that the claim limitation(s) recite(s) sufficient structure to perform the claimed function so as to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 9 and 11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Regarding claims 9 and 11, the recitation of “computing device”, in light of the above claim interpretation, renders the claim ambiguous. It is unclear from the specification what is actually performing the claimed functionality of the ‘computing device’. Clarification is required.
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, 6, 8-9, and 11 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Patterson (Patterson, Jennifer "Office 2076 Tips: Simultaneously Edit a Document with Other Authors", , 30 June 2017 (2017-06-30), pages 1-10, AP093011407, Retrieved from the Internet: URL: https://www.knowledgewave.com/blog/office-2016-tipssimultanoausly-edit-a-document-with-other-authors provided by applicant in the UDS).
Regarding claim 1, Patterson disclose:
A method for processing graphically representable object by at least two users, the method comprising: importing a file containing graphically displayable object using a computing device; (see pg. 4; computer using Microsoft word application; sharing document in real time)
displaying a respective region of the object on two separate display devices (see pg. 4; co-authoring shared file)
detecting a first user input performed by a first of said two users via a first input device, where a portion of the object is selected by a first user (see pg. 1, 3, 5; keyboard for user input to edit in word processing program; portion of object selected for editing (e.g., Jon Hood))
coloring the part and/or surroundings for the part in a color associated with the first user in the second of the two display device (see pg. 3; ‘Jon Hood’ colored portion associated with first user as shown on shared document in second device)
blocking the portion of the object against processing by the second user (see pg. 2; blocking (locked down) and un-editable for second user when first user is editing document)
removing the color and blocking upon a predetermined time elapses or based on second first user input (see pg. 2; predetermined time is the time in which the user is done editing, thus the color/blocking will be removed from the display and the other user may edit).
Regarding claim 6, the rejection of claim 1 is incorporated herein. Patterson further disclose:
The object comprises at least one of : a graph, a knowledge graph, a mind map/, and/or the object is written in the Unified Modelling Language and/or can be represented by at least two alternative representational forms (see pg. 2; Microsoft word includes graph/chart creation functionality).
Regarding claim 8, the rejection of claim 1 is incorporated herein. Patterson further disclose:
wherein the second user can mark the part colored by the first user, to transmit a request signal to the first user (see pg. 5; collaboration between identified users)
Regarding claims 9 and 11, claims 9 and 11 are rejected under the same rationale as claim 1.
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.
Claim(s) 3-5 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Patterson in view of Goodman (US 2021.0034318).
Regarding claim 3, the rejection of claim 1 is incorporated herein. Patterson is not explicit as to, but Goodman disclose:
the two display devices comprise a VR headset and/or AR headset; and the object is displayed in a virtual space in multiple spaces and/or in an environment of the display devices (see [0044]; where word processing can be done in VR headset)
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, prior to the effective filing date of applicant’s invention, to combine the known techniques of Goodman to that of Patterson to predictably provide a VR environment for word processing, increasing device versatility by incorporating gestures to perform device functionality ([0047]).
Regarding claim 4, the rejection of claim 3 is incorporated herein. Goodman further disclose:
the first input device comprises a controller or a data glove; and/or a second input device associated with the second user comprises a controller or a data glove (see [0045-0047]; glove for manipulation in VR work space)
Regarding claim 5, the rejection of claim 4 is incorporated herein. Goodman further disclose:
wherein selecting the part includes a gesture of the respective user with the respective input device (see [0045-0047]; glove for manipulation in VR work space)
Claim(s) 7 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Patterson in view of Handy (US 2021.0216705).
Regarding claim 7, the rejection of claim 6 is incorporated herein. Patterson is not explicit as to, but Handy disclose:
the representation form and/or the color and/or a blocking time and/or an avatar and/or a virtual space for one of the users are selected by an AI method (see [0032]; where a collaborative content editing can utilize an ‘AI method’).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, prior to the effective filing date of applicant’s invention, to combine the known techniques of Handy to that of Patterson to predictably improve performance of the system ([0032]).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to KENNETH BUKOWSKI whose telephone number is (571)270-7913. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday // 0730-1530.
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, Amr Awad can be reached at 571.272.7764. 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.
/kenneth bukowski/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2621