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
The instant application having Application No. 19/188,893 has claims 1-20 pending filed on 04/24/2025; there are 3 independent claims and 17 dependent claims, all of which are ready for examination by the examiner.
Information Concerning Oath/Declaration
Oath/Declaration
The applicant’s oath/declaration has been reviewed by the examiner and is found to conform to the requirements prescribed in 37 C.F.R. 1.63.
Status Of Claim for Priority In The Application
This instant application is a continuation of U.S. Patent Application Serial No. 15/836,489, filed December 8, 2017, which application claims the benefit of priority to U.S. Provisional Patent Application Serial No. 62/473,735, filed on March 20, 2017, titled "MANAGEMENT OF ELECTRONICALLY PUBLISHED COLLECTIONS OF CONTENT".
Information Concerning Drawings
Drawings
The applicant’s drawings submitted on 04/24/2025 are accepted for examination purposes.
Acknowledgement Of References Cited By Applicant
As required by M.P.E.P. 609(C), the applicant’s submission of the Information Disclosure Statements dated April 24 2025 is acknowledged by the examiner and the cited references have been considered in the examination of the claims now pending. As required by M.P.E.P 609 C (2), copy of the PTOL-1449 initialed and dated by the examiner is attached to the instant office action.
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.
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.
The 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. Such claim limitation(s) is/are: component in claims 15-19.
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.
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 § 101
35 U.S.C. 101 reads as follows:
Whoever invents or discovers any new and useful process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter, or any new and useful improvement thereof, may obtain a patent therefor, subject to the conditions and requirements of this title.
Claims 1-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to a judicial exception (i.e., a law of nature, a natural phenomenon, or an abstract idea) without significantly more.
As per claim 1:
Claim 1 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more. The claim recites a method comprising; receiving, from a first user device of a first user, a request to edit a content collection published by a second user; determining the content collection is not locked for editing by the second user; providing, to the first user device, a first option to edit the content collection based on the content collection not being locked for editing; receiving, from the first user device, an edit to add a content item to the content collection; providing, to a second user device of the second user, a second option to confirm the edit to add the content item to the content collection; and updating the content collection based on a selection of the second option to confirm the edit.
Step 1: Statutory Category:
Yes, the claim recites a method.
Step 2A – Prong 1: Judicial Exception Recited:
The limitations of the claim recites a method comprising; receiving, from a first user device of a first user, a request to edit a content collection published by a second user; determining the content collection is not locked for editing by the second user; providing, to the first user device, a first option to edit the content collection; receiving, from the first user device, an edit to add a content item to the content collection; providing, to a second user device of the second user, a second option to confirm the edit to add the content item to the content collection; and updating the content collection based on a selection of the second option to confirm the edit. If a claim limitation, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind, then it falls within the “Mental Processes” grouping of abstract ideas. As per MPEP 2106,04(a)(2) III “The courts consider a mental process (thinking) that ‘can be performed in the human mind, or by a human using a pen and paper’ to be an abstract idea. CyberSource Corp. v. Retail Decisions, Inc., 654 F.3d 1366, 1372, 99 USPQ2d 1690, 1695 (Fed. Cir. 2011)”. Accordingly, the claim recites an abstract idea.
Step 2A – Prong 2: Integrated into a Practical Application
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. The additional elements of “based on the content collection not being locked for editing” in the claim limitation do not improve the functioning of a computer, or an improvement to other technology and is merely using a computer as a tool to perform the concept. Accordingly, there are no additional elements in the claim limitations that integrate the abstract idea into a practical application. The claim is directed to an abstract idea.
Step 2B: Claims provide an Inventive Concept
The claim 1 does not have additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. As discussed above with respect to integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, there are no additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. The claim 1 is not patent eligible.
The independent claims 15 and 20 have similar limitations as claim 1, thus the independent claims 15 and 20 are also rejected for the reasons specified supra for the independent claim 1.
As per dependent claims 2-14 depend directly or indirectly on the independent claim 1 and these additional claim elements do not provide meaningful limitations to transform the abstract idea into a patent eligible application of the abstract idea such that the claims amount to significantly more than the abstract idea itself. The dependent claim 2 states additional steps for the method of the claim 1 “determining the content collection is locked for editing by the second user; and providing, to the first user device, a third option to take control of editing the content collection from the second user and to unlock the content collection for editing”, the claim 3 states additionally steps of the method of the claim 1, “incrementing a counter of pending edits based on the edit to add the content item to the content collection; and decrementing the counter of pending edits based on a publishing of the edit to the content collection, wherein the counter of pending edits is displayed via a publisher”, the claim 4 states additionally steps of the method of the claim 1, “wherein the second option to confirm the edit is provided based on a determination that the edit is a first edit by the first user”, the claim 5 states additionally steps of the method of the claim 4, “receiving, from the first user device, a second edit to add a second content item to the content collection; and updating the content collection based on a determination that the content collection is not locked for editing by the second user”, the claim 6 states additionally steps of the method of the claim 1, “publishing the content collection with the edit to subscribers of content published by the second user”, the claim 7 states additional steps of the method of the claim 6, “wherein publishing the content collection with the edit is based on temporal constraints set by the second user, the temporal constraints comprising at least one of: a first scheduled time to publish the edit, a second scheduled time to remove the edit from the content collection, or an expiration time for keeping the edit in the content collection”, the claim 8 states additionally steps of the method of the claim 1, “wherein updating the content collection comprises: adding the edit to a publishing queue of edits to be made to the content collection”, the claim 9 states additionally steps of the method of the claim 8, “wherein the publishing queue of edits is accessible by a plurality of users”, the claim 10 states additional steps of the method of the claim 1, “receiving, from the second user device of the second user, a request to lock the content collection; and preventing additional edits to the content collection from a plurality of users including the first user, wherein the second user has permission to edit the content collection”, the claim 11 states additional steps of the method of the claim 1, “wherein the content item is added to the content collection based on an algorithmically determined ordering for the content collection”, the claim 12 states additionally steps of the method of the claim 1, “wherein the content item is added to the content collection based on an ordering for the content collection determined by the second user”, the claim 13 states additional steps of the method of the claim 1, “wherein the second option to confirm the edit is provided via a modal”, the claim 14 states additional steps of the apparatus of the claim 1, “wherein the edit further comprises at least one of: a removal of a second content item from the content collection, a reorganizing of the content collection, or a reordering of the content collection” .
The dependent claims 16-19 which are dependent on the independent claims 15, have similar limitations as the dependent claims 2-5 respectively, thus the dependent claims 16-19 are also rejected for the reasons specified supra for the dependent claims 2-5.
Therefore, the claims 1-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 as being directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
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 1-2, 4-16 and 18-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Staley et al (US PGPUB 20160026815) in view of Keebler et al (US PGPUB 20120284290).
As per claim 1:
Staley teaches:
“A method comprising” (Paragraph [0014] (a method illustrated includes))
“receiving, from a first user device of a first user, a request to edit a content collection published by a second user” (Paragraph [0006] and Paragraph [0007] (a submitting user (a first user) requesting to store a content item in the collection folder (a request to edit a content collection), the folder in a namespace is created and maintained by the system for the collecting user (content collection published by a second user)))
“determining the content collection is not locked for editing by the second user” (Paragraph [0025] (if a submitting user requests via a client device to add a content item to the collection folder, the content management system verifies that adding the content item to the folder satisfies the criteria set (is not locked for editing) by the collecting user (second user) for the folder))
“providing, to the first user device, a first option to edit the content collection” (Paragraph [0044] (the share module creates a message to send to each submitting user inviting the submitting users to store content items in the collection folder))
“receiving, from the first user device, an edit to add a content item to the content collection” (Paragraph [0048] (the item module processes requests from users related to existing collection folder and receives requests from users to add items to collection folders))
“providing, to a second user device of the second user, a second option to confirm the edit to add the content item to the content collection” (Paragraph [0023] (the content management system also receives from the collecting user (second user) information associated with one or more users with whom the user would like to share the collection folder and to allow the users to add content items to the folder))
“and updating the content collection based on a selection of the second option to confirm the edit” (Paragraph [0025] (If the criteria are satisfied, the content management system creates a sub-folder within the collection folder and adds the content item to the sub-folder where the sub-folder is associated with the submitting user any additional items that the user requests be added to the collection folder)).
Staley does not EXPLICITLY teaches: providing, to the first user device, based on the content collection not being locked for editing.
However, in an analogous art, Keebler teaches:
“providing, to the first user device, based on the content collection not being locked for editing” (Paragraph [0226] (some users may be limited to providing input data for new data items, and may be prevented from later editing or deleting data items while other users may have full permission to provide input data for new data items and edit existing data items (the content collection not being locked for editing)))
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to take the teachings of Keebler and apply them on teachings of Staley for the method “providing, to the first user device, based on the content collection not being locked for editing”. One would be motivated as a plurality of users may have access to a user interface for managing and editing the same data items where different users may have differing degrees of access to manage and edit the data items (Keebler, Paragraph [0226]).
As per claim 2:
Staley and Keebler teach the method of claim 1 above.
Staley further teaches:
“determining the content collection is locked for editing by the second user” (Paragraph [0022], Paragraph [0023] and Paragraph [0027] (a user requesting the creation of a collection folder is referred to as a collecting user (second user), the collecting user shares the folder with the submitting users (first user) to allow them to add content items to the sub-folder of the collection folder and the submitting user does not possess these rights to sub-folders (content collection is locked for editing) created for other submitting users))
“and providing, to the first user device, a third option to take control of editing the content collection from the second user and to unlock the content collection for editing” (Paragraph [0029] (at the request of the collecting user (second user), the content management system can share the collection folder with a submitting user (first user), provide the submitting user with administrative rights to the collection folder and having administrative rights to the collection folder allows the submitting user (first) to perform similar actions to those of the collecting user (second user))).
As per claim 4:
Staley and Keebler teach the method of claim 1 above.
Staley further teaches:
“wherein the second option to confirm the edit is provided based on a determination that the edit is a first edit by the first user” (Paragraph [0051], and Paragraph [0052] (the item module determines whether the user (first user) has write rights to the collection folder and whether adding the content item satisfies the folder criteria provided by the collecting user for the folder, If the collection folder does not include a sub-folder for the user (edit is a first edit by the first user), the item module creates the sub-folder within the collection folder in the content storage, associates the sub-folder with the user, adds the content item to the sub-folder associated with the user (first user) and the item module sends a message (confirm) to the user (first user) indicating that the content item has been added to the collection folder)).
As per claim 5:
Staley and Keebler teach the method of claim 4 above.
Staley further teaches:
“receiving, from the first user device, a second edit to add a second content item to the content collection” (Paragraph [0051], and Paragraph [0052] (the item module determines whether the user (first user) has write rights to the collection folder and whether adding the content item satisfies the folder criteria provided by the collecting user for the folder and If the collection folder includes a sub-folder (from the first user device, a second edit) for the user, the item module adds the content item to the sub-folder))
“updating the content collection” (Paragraph [0052] (indicating that the content item has been added to the collection folder)).
Also, Keebler teaches:
“based on a determination that the content collection is not locked for editing by the second user” (Paragraph [0226] (some users may be limited to providing input data for new data items, and may be prevented from later editing or deleting data items while other users may have full permission to provide input data for new data items and edit existing data items (the content collection not being locked for editing))).
As per claim 6:
Staley and Keebler teach the method of claim 1 above.
Keebler further teaches:
“publishing the content collection with the edit to subscribers of content published by the second user” (Paragraph [0114] (when an update or modification (edit) is made to the original syndicated data item then the update or modification (edit) may be automatically propagated to all subscribers publishing the syndicated data item)).
As per claim 7:
Staley and Keebler teach the method of claim 6 above.
Staley further teaches:
“wherein publishing the content collection with the edit is based on temporal constraints set by the second user” (Paragraph [0038] (in requesting that a collection folder be created, the collecting user (second user) provides folder criteria for controlling the storage of content items in the collection folder where the folder criteria provided by the collecting user includes an expiration time (temporal constraints) for the collection folder))
“the temporal constraints comprising at least one of: a first scheduled time to publish the edit, a second scheduled time to remove the edit from the content collection, or an expiration time for keeping the edit in the content collection” (Paragraph [0038] (the folder criteria provided by the collecting user includes an expiration time for the collection folder where the expiration time is a date and time after which collecting users (first user) can no longer add items to the collection folder)).
As per claim 8:
Staley and Keebler teach the method of claim 1 above.
Staley further teaches:
“wherein updating the content collection comprises” (Paragraph [0048] (the item module processes requests from users related to existing collection folder and receives requests from users to add items to collection folders)).
Also, Keebler teaches:
“adding the edit to a publishing queue of edits to be made to the content collection” (Paragraph [0199] (to maintain continuity and orderly presentation, user-generated data items and syndicated data items may be placed in a comment collection, associated with other data items for publication substantially contemporaneously (e.g., in a desired order) and the comment collection may be modeled as a queue)).
As per claim 9:
Staley and Keebler teach the method of claim 8 above.
Keebler further teaches:
“wherein the publishing queue of edits is accessible by a plurality of users” (Paragraph [0193] (user-generated data items originating from the user comments may simply be aggregated with other data items originating from writer devices and other authorized users)).
As per claim 10:
Staley and Keebler teach the method of claim 1 above.
Staley further teaches:
“receiving, from the second user device of the second user, a request to lock the content collection” (Paragraph [0023] (the content management system also receives from the collecting user (second user) information associated with one or more users with whom the collecting user would like to share or not share the collection folder (a request to lock the content collection)
“preventing additional edits to the content collection from a plurality of users including the first user, wherein the second user has permission to edit the content collection” (Paragraph [0027] (the submitting user cannot see or access content items added to the collection folder by other users and the content management system does not even allow the submitting use (first user) r to see that collection folder includes sub-folders for other users)).
As per claim 11:
Staley and Keebler teach the method of claim 1 above.
Keebler further teaches:
“wherein the content item is added to the content collection based on an algorithmically determined ordering for the content collection” (Paragraph [0199] (the user-generated data items and syndicated data items may be placed in a comment collection and associated with other data items for publication in a desired order)).
As per claim 12:
Staley and Keebler teach the method of claim 1 above.
Keebler further teaches:
“wherein the content item is added to the content collection based on an ordering for the content collection” (Paragraph [0199] (the user-generated data items and syndicated data items may be placed in a comment collection and associated with other data items for publication in a desired order)).
Staley further teaches:
“determined by the second user” (Paragraph [0022] (the content management system stores folder criteria provided by the collecting user (second user) to control the content items added by to the collection folder)).
As per claim 13:
Staley and Keebler teach the method of claim 1 above.
Keebler further teaches:
“wherein the second option to confirm the edit is provided via a modal” (Paragraph [0372] (the user interface may generate a pop up window (modal), for each selected publication object and enable a user to select data items and modifiable data collections)).
As per claim 14:
Staley and Keebler teach the method of claim 1 above.
Keebler further teaches:
“wherein the edit further comprises at least one of: a removal of a second content item from the content collection, a reorganizing of the content collection, or a reordering of the content collection” (Paragraph [0233] and Paragraph [0239] (the content management module may maintain a record of the current state of each data item associated with one or more data collections, including syndicated data collections and may also generate an update indication where an update may involve an addition, deletion, change, resize, reformat, reorder etc.)).
As per claim 15:
Staley teaches:
“A system comprising” (Paragraph [0006] (a content management system includes))
“one or more processors” (Paragraph [0066] (any computing systems referred to in the specification may include a single processor or may be architectures employing multiple processor designs))
“memory storing instructions that, when executed by the one or more processors, causes the system to perform operations comprising” (Paragraph [0066] (it may include one or more general-purpose computing devices selectively activated or reconfigured by one or more stored computer programs, where thecomputer program may be stored in a non-transitory, tangible computer readable storage medium, or any type of media (includes memory) suitable for storing electronic instructions, which may be coupled to a computer includes))
“receiving, from a first user device of a first user, a request to edit a content collection published by a second user” (Paragraph [0006] and Paragraph [0007] (a submitting user (a first user) requesting to store a content item in the collection folder (a request to edit a content collection), the folder in a namespace is created and maintained by the system for the collecting user (content collection published by a second user)))
“determining the content collection is not locked for editing by the second user” (Paragraph [0025] (if a submitting user requests via a client device to add a content item to the collection folder, the content management system verifies that adding the content item to the folder satisfies the criteria set (is not locked for editing) by the collecting user (second user) for the folder))
“providing, to the first user device, a first option to edit the content collection” (Paragraph [0044] (the share module creates a message to send to each submitting user inviting the submitting users to store content items in the collection folder))
“receiving, from the first user device, an edit to add a content item to the content collection” (Paragraph [0048] (the item module processes requests from users related to existing collection folder and receives requests from users to add items to collection folders))
“providing, to a second user device of the second user, a second option to confirm the edit to add the content item to the content collection” (Paragraph [0023] (the content management system also receives from the collecting user (second user) information associated with one or more users with whom the user would like to share the collection folder and to allow the users to add content items to the folder))
“and updating the content collection based on a selection of the second option to confirm the edit” (Paragraph [0025] (If the criteria are satisfied, the content management system creates a sub-folder within the collection folder and adds the content item to the sub-folder where the sub-folder is associated with the submitting user any additional items that the user requests be added to the collection folder)).
Staley does not EXPLICITLY teaches: providing, to the first user device, based on the content collection not being locked for editing.
However, in an analogous art, Keebler teaches:
“providing, to the first user device, based on the content collection not being locked for editing” (Paragraph [0226] (some users may be limited to providing input data for new data items, and may be prevented from later editing or deleting data items while other users may have full permission to provide input data for new data items and edit existing data items (the content collection not being locked for editing)))
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to take the teachings of Keebler and apply them on teachings of Staley for the system “providing, to the first user device, based on the content collection not being locked for editing”. One would be motivated as a plurality of users may have access to a user interface for managing and editing the same data items where different users may have differing degrees of access to manage and edit the data items (Keebler, Paragraph [0226]).
As per claim 16, the claim is rejected based upon the same rationale given for the parent claim 15 and the claim 2 above.
As per claim 18, the claim is rejected based upon the same rationale given for the parent claim 15 and the claim 4 above.
As per claim 19, the claim is rejected based upon the same rationale given for the parent claim 18 and the claim 5 above.
As per claim 20:
Staley teaches:
“A non-transitory, computer-readable medium storing instructions that, when executed by a computing system, causes the computing system to perform operations comprising” (Paragraph [0066] (it may include one or more general-purpose computing devices selectively activated or reconfigured by one or more stored computer programs, where the computer program may be stored in a non-transitory, tangible computer readable storage medium, or any type of media suitable for storing electronic instructions, which may be coupled to a computer includes))
“receiving, from a first user device of a first user, a request to edit a content collection published by a second user” (Paragraph [0006] and Paragraph [0007] (a submitting user (a first user) requesting to store a content item in the collection folder (a request to edit a content collection), the folder in a namespace is created and maintained by the system for the collecting user (content collection published by a second user)))
“determining the content collection is not locked for editing by the second user” (Paragraph [0025] (if a submitting user requests via a client device to add a content item to the collection folder, the content management system verifies that adding the content item to the folder satisfies the criteria set (is not locked for editing) by the collecting user (second user) for the folder))
“providing, to the first user device, a first option to edit the content collection” (Paragraph [0044] (the share module creates a message to send to each submitting user inviting the submitting users to store content items in the collection folder))
“receiving, from the first user device, an edit to add a content item to the content collection” (Paragraph [0048] (the item module processes requests from users related to existing collection folder and receives requests from users to add items to collection folders))
“providing, to a second user device of the second user, a second option to confirm the edit to add the content item to the content collection” (Paragraph [0023] (the content management system also receives from the collecting user (second user) information associated with one or more users with whom the user would like to share the collection folder and to allow the users to add content items to the folder))
“and updating the content collection based on a selection of the second option to confirm the edit” (Paragraph [0025] (If the criteria are satisfied, the content management system creates a sub-folder within the collection folder and adds the content item to the sub-folder where the sub-folder is associated with the submitting user any additional items that the user requests be added to the collection folder)).
Staley does not EXPLICITLY teach: providing, to the first user device, based on the content collection not being locked for editing.
However, in an analogous art, Keebler teaches:
“providing, to the first user device, based on the content collection not being locked for editing” (Paragraph [0226] (some users may be limited to providing input data for new data items, and may be prevented from later editing or deleting data items while other users may have full permission to provide input data for new data items and edit existing data items (the content collection not being locked for editing)))
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to take the teachings of Keebler and apply them on teachings of Staley for the non-transitory, computer-readable medium “providing, to the first user device, based on the content collection not being locked for editing”. One would be motivated as a plurality of users may have access to a user interface for managing and editing the same data items where different users may have differing degrees of access to manage and edit the data items (Keebler, Paragraph [0226]).
Claims 3 and 17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Staley et al (US PGPUB 20160026815) in view of Keebler et al (US PGPUB 20120284290) and in further view of Gill et al (US PGPUB 20070192253).
As per claim 3:
Staley and Keebler teach the method of claim 1 above.
Keebler further teaches:
“based on the edit to add the content item to the content collection” (Paragraph [0234] (modifications or edits may comprise the addition, deletion or change or editing of a data item))
“based on a publishing of the edit to the content collection” (Paragraph [0159] (publication module may be used to identify a data collection and the associated one or more data items and create a publication target for publishing the one or more data items))
“wherein the counter of pending edits is displayed via a publisher interface” (Paragraph [0226] (a plurality of users may have access to a user interface for managing and editing the same data items))
Staley and Keebler do not EXPLICITLY teach: incrementing a counter of pending edits; and decrementing the counter of pending edits.
However, in an analogous art, Gill teaches:
“incrementing a counter of pending edits” (Paragraph [0282] (the counter allows for different versions of content and a UDC created by the vendor would increment from the bottom))
“and decrementing the counter of pending edits” (Paragraph [0282] (a UDC created by a registry would decrement from the back)).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to take the teachings of Gill and apply them on teachings of Staley and Keebler for the method “incrementing a counter of pending edits; and decrementing the counter of pending edits”. One would be motivated as an identifier of the entity providing the content identified by the UDC to consumers and the counter allows for different versions of similarly schemed, vended and media typed content (Gill, Paragraph [0282]).
As per claim 17, the claim is rejected based upon the same rationale given for the parent claim 15 and the claim 3 above.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Ellsworth et al, (US PGPUB 20090204885), a content collection and distribution system operates to collect digital data from a client node, and automatically distributes the collected data to predetermined destinations according to parameters designated in advance by authorized clients and/or other users. A mobile application is configured to operate on mobile handsets of a wireless telephone network, which comprise client nodes. A host curator application is configured to automatically classify incoming data from client nodes, re-formats the data as needed into the least common denominator format and pushes each data portion to a destination configured in advance for that data.
Allaire et al, (US PGPUB 20110191163), the publishers of digital content are enabled each to define, for each of one or more digital content items, a style in which the digital content item is to be presented to a user and a condition under which the user may have the digital content item presented. The digital content items are stored in a content library, the styles and conditions associated with the digital content items are stored in a server. Each of the digital content items is enabled to be presented to users within presentation contexts that are accessible to the users and controlled by presentation context providers.
Dare et al, (US PGPUB 20120036552), a managed services platform and method of operation of same are described herein. The platform can include a device management service (DMS) server in which the DMS server can act as a gateway for communications with one or more computing devices, and the computing devices are associated with a first entity. The platform can also include an application service (AS) server in which the AS server is communicatively coupled with the DMS server. When a first computing device contacts the DMS server, the DMS server is operable to provide a bundle to the first computing device.
Kidron Adam, (US PGPUB 20140040416), The Content Delivery Platform apparatuses, methods and systems ("CDP") transform content seed selections and recommendations via CDP components such as discovery and gurus into events and discovery of other contents for users and revenue for right-holders. In one embodiment, the CDP may provide facilities for obtaining a universally resolvable list of content items on a local client and identifying a non-local item from the list that is absent on the local client. The CDP may generate a local cache request for the identified non-local item having an associated universally resolvable content identifier and transmit the generated local cache request to a universally resolvable content server.
Keebler Jonathan, (US PGPUB 20140164382), Methods and systems for managing and publishing online dynamic content. Content can be generated or managed at a publishing server. Content at the publishing server is periodically polled for additions, changes or deletions. Modifications are transmitted to a storage system, which may be further transmitted to a content distribution network, for delivery to a client.
Briere et al, (US PGPUB 20150006582), the apparatus comprises at least one database for storing digital information associated with at least a first user and a second user, at least one links module for the first user and for the second user, at least one manipulations module and at least one display device for respectively displaying at least said linked digital information wherein said linked digital information associated with said first user is automatically updated on at least said display device of said second user when that information is manipulated, and wherein said linked digital information associated with said second user is automatically updated on at least said display device of said first user.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to KAMAL K DEWAN whose telephone number is (571) 272-2196. The examiner can normally be reached on Mon-Fri 8:00 AM – 5:00 PM (EST). If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, TONY MAHMOUDI can be reached on 571-272-4078. 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 Patent Center. Status information for published applications may be obtained from Patent Center. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Patent Center to authorized users only. Should you have questions about access to Patent Center, 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.
/Kamal K Dewan/
Examiner, Art Unit 2163
/ALEX GOFMAN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2163
Prosecution Insights