DETAILED ACTION
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
This Office Action is sent in response to Applicant's Communication received on September 12, 2025 for application number 19/327,012. This Office hereby acknowledges receipt of the following and placed of record in file: Specification, Drawings, Abstract, Oath/Declaration, and Claims.
Priority
This application discloses and claims only subject matter disclosed in prior application no 17/411,282, filed August 25, 2021, and names the inventor or at least one joint inventor named in the prior application. Accordingly, this application may constitute a continuation or division. Should applicant desire to claim the benefit of the filing date of the prior application, attention is directed to 35 U.S.C. 120, 37 CFR 1.78, and MPEP § 211 et seq.
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 Judicial Exceptions without significantly more. The claims recite mathematical relationships, mathematical formulas or equations, mathematical calculation and a mental process. This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application because the recitation of generic computer and generic computer components does not sufficient to integrate the recited judicial exception into a practical application. The claim(s) does/do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because the claims only recites generic computer components, which are well-understood, routine, and conventional.
Revised Patent Subject Matter Eligibility Guidance
The USPTO has published revised guidance on the application of § 101. USPTO’s 2019 Revised Patent Subject Matter Eligibility Guidance, 84 Fed. Reg. 50 (Jan. 7, 2019) (“Guidance”). Under the Guidance, the Examiner first look to whether the claim recites:
(1) any judicial exceptions, including certain groupings of abstract ideas (i.e., mathematical concepts, certain methods of organizing human activity such as a fundamental economic practice, or mental processes) (Guidance, Step 2A, prong 1); and
(2) additional elements that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application (see Manual of Patent Examining Procedure (MPEP) § 2106.05(a)-(c), (e)-(h) (9th Ed., Rev. 08.2017, 2018)) (Guidance, Step 2A, prong 2).
Only if a claim (1) recites a judicial exception and (2) does not integrate that exception into a practical application, do the Examiner then look to whether the claim:
(3) adds a specific limitation beyond the judicial exception that is not “well-understood, routine, conventional” in the field (see MPEP § 2106.05(d)); or
(4) simply appends well-understood, routine, conventional activities previously known to the industry, specified at a high level of generality, to the judicial exception. (Guidance (Step 2B)).
Evaluate Step 2A Prong One
(a) identify the specific limitation(s) in the claim that recites an abstract idea;
(b) determine whether the identified limitation(s) falls within at least one of the groupings of abstract ideas enumerated in the 2019 Revised Patent Subject Matter Eligibility Guidance.
In TABLE 1 below, the Examiner identifies in italics the specific claim limitations that recite an abstract idea.
TABLE 1
Independent Claim 1
Analysis Under Revised Guidance
(a) A method comprising: receiving, by a processing device, a first request to perform a first content editing operation to an item of digital content followed by a second request to perform a second content editing operation to the item of digital content; identifying, by the processing device, the first and second content editing operations conflict; determining, by the processing device based on the conflict, a temporal order indicating that the second request is made before the first request; and causing, by the processing device, performance of the second content editing operation and a delay involving performance of the first content editing operation.
(b) identifying, by the processing device, the first and second content editing operations conflict
“identifying….content editing operations conflict” is an abstract idea, i.e., “Mental Processes” to identify conflict in editing operations between a first and second edit operation.
(c) determining, by the processing device based on the conflict, a temporal order indicating that the second request is made before the first request
“determining …a temporal order…of request …” is an abstract idea, i.e., “Mental Processes”, to determine ordering of request in which a second request was made before a first request.
(d) and causing, by the processing device, performance of the second content editing operation and a delay involving performance of the first content editing operation
“performance of the second content editing operation and a delay involving performance …” is an abstract idea, i.e., a “Mathematical concepts” which performing content editing and delaying the performance of the content editing.
In view of the above analysis, Claim 1 recites an abstract idea under the Revised Guidance because the limitations (b) – (d) each recite mathematical relationship, mathematical calculation and/or a mental process. Dependent claims 2-9 also recite abstract idea because they include limitations (b) – (d) by virtue of their dependencies to claim 1.
Dependent claims 2-9 further recites additional limitations. However, these limitations also recite abstract idea, i.e., “mathematical concept – mathematical formulas or equations, mathematical calculations” and i.e., a “mental process” similar to the limitations of claims 1, discussed above.
Evaluate Step 2A Prong Two:
Evaluate whether the claim as a whole integrated the recited Judicial exception into a Practical Application of the exception.
Having determined that the claims recites a judicial exception, the analysis under the Guidance turns now to determining whether there are “additional element that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application”. The examiner determines whether the recited judicial exception is integrated into a practical application that exception by: (1) identifying whether there are any additional elements recited in the claim beyond the judicial exceptions; and (2) evaluating those additional elements individually and in combination to determine whether they integrate the exception into a practical application”.
Independent claim 1 further recite “processing device”, which is a generic/conventional computer storage. Claim 1 does not recite any additional element that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application. The recitation of generic computer and generic computer components does not sufficient to integrate the recited judicial exception into a practical application. Guidance at MPEP 2106.04 (“Performance of a claim limitation using generic computer components does not necessarily preclude the claim limitation from being in the mathematical concepts or mental processes grouping.”)
As discussed above, independent claim 1 recites the mental processes and mathematical concepts steps to identifying content editing operation conflicts and determining a temporal order of request and performing content editing operations and delaying the performance of the content editing operations. These limitations are processes that, under broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind, but for the recitations of generic computer components. That is, other than reciting a “processing device”, nothing in the claim element precludes the step from practically being performed in a human mind or with the aid of pen and paper. 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 (concepts performed in the human mind including an observation, evaluation, judgment, and opinion) and “Mathematical Concepts” grouping of abstract ideas (mathematical relationships, mathematical formulas or equations, mathematical calculations).
Evaluate Step 2B:
Evaluate whether the claim provide an inventive concept, i.e., does the claim recite additional element(s) or a combination of elements that amount to significantly more than the judicial exception in the claim?
At Step 2B, the evaluation of the insignificant extra-solution activity consideration takes into account whether or not the extra-solution activity is well-known. See MPEP 2106.05(g). The claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. The claim does not add any specific limitations beyond what is well-understood, routine, and conventional. Here, claim 1 recite “processing device”, which are mere generic computer components that are recited at a high level of generality, and, as disclosed in the specification, is also well-understood, routine, conventional activity when expressed at this high level of generality. Mere instructions to apply an exception using a generic computer component cannot integrate a judicial exception into a practical application at Step 2A or provide an inventive concept in Step 2B. Therefore, the claims do not provide an inventive concept (significantly more than the abstract idea) and is not eligible.
These additional elements are recited at a high-level of generality such that they amount to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer components. Further, the claim recitations of receiving data.
Receiving is mere data gathering and output recited at a high level of generality, and thus are insignificant extra-solution activity to the judicial exception with no evidence of improvement. Accordingly, the additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because it does not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea, thus fail to integrate the abstract idea into a practical application. See MPEP 2106.05(g).
The claim does not include 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, the additional elements of receiving data (receiving or transmitting over a network), are well-understood, routine and conventional activity according to MPEP 2106.05(d)(II)(i), thus, cannot provide an inventive concept.
As a result, representative claim(s) 1 does not recite any elements, or ordered combination of elements, which transforms the abstract idea into a patent-eligible subject matter. In addition, the claim(s) does not recite (i) an improvement to the functionality of a computer or other technology or technical field (see MPEP 2106.05(a); (ii) a “particular machine” to apply or use the judicial exception (see MPEP 2106.05(b); (iii) a particular transformation of an article to a different state or thing (see 2106.05(c). Further, the claim does not recite any improvement to computer functionality or specify how the one or more processors are used to improve functionality of a computing device. Considering the claim(s) as a whole, the additional elements fail to apply or use the abstract idea in a meaningful way and the additional limitations recited beyond the judicial exception itself fail to integrate the exception into a practical application. Accordingly, the claims 1-9 of this application are rejected.
Claims 2-4 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more. The claim(s) recite(s) the abstract idea of a mathematical concepts, for example the claims are directed toward performance and network latency based on a threshold amount of time, under broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind but for the recitation of generic computer components. The limitations associated with a threshold amount of time are considered to be an abstract idea that falls in the “Mathematical Concepts” grouping of abstract ideas.
The claim(s) do not include 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, the additional element of using a processing device to perform the identifying, determining, performance and delaying steps amounts to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component. The limitations related to receiving are considered by the examiner to be well-understood, routine and conventional activity according to MPEP 2106.05(d)(II)(i), because the inventive subject matter is directed toward collaborative editing of digital content. Mere instructions to apply an exception using a generic computer component cannot provide an inventive concept. Because of these reasons the claim(s) does/do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. The claim(s) 1-9 are rejected.
In TABLE 2 below, the Examiner identifies in italics the specific claim limitations that recite an abstract idea.
TABLE 2
Independent Claim 10
Analysis Under Revised Guidance
(a) A system comprising: a memory component; and a processing device coupled to the memory component, the processing d vice to perform operations comprising: receiving a first content editing operation to an item of digital content followed by a second content editing operation to the item of digital content; determining that the second content editing operation is performed before the first content editing operation; generating instructions for performing a third content editing operation to do the first content editing operation and to perform the second content editing operation; and applying the third content editing operation to the item of digital content.
(b) determining that the second content editing operation is performed before the first content editing operation
“determining …. content editing operation is performed before the first content editing operation” is an abstract idea, i.e., “Mental Processes” to determine to perform a second content editing operation before performing a first content editing operation.
(c) generating instructions for performing a third content editing operation to do the first content editing operation and to perform the second content editing operation
“generating … a third content editing operation to do the first content editing operation and …second content editing operation …” is an abstract idea, i.e., “Mathematical concepts”, to generate content editing operation to perform other content editing operations.
In view of the above analysis, Claim 10 and 17 recites an abstract idea under the Revised Guidance because the limitations (b) – (c) each recite mathematical relationship, mathematical calculation and/or a mental process. Dependent claims 11-16 and 18-20 also recite abstract idea because they include limitations (b) – (c) by virtue of their dependencies to claims 10 and 17.
Dependent claims 11-16 and 18-20 further recites additional limitations. However, these limitations also recite abstract idea, i.e., “mathematical concept – mathematical formulas or equations, mathematical calculations” and i.e., a “mental process” similar to the limitations of claims 10 and 17, discussed above.
Evaluate Step 2A Prong Two:
Evaluate whether the claim as a whole integrated the recited Judicial exception into a Practical Application of the exception.
Having determined that the claims recites a judicial exception, the analysis under the Guidance turns now to determining whether there are “additional element that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application”. The examiner determines whether the recited judicial exception is integrated into a practical application that exception by: (1) identifying whether there are any additional elements recited in the claim beyond the judicial exceptions; and (2) evaluating those additional elements individually and in combination to determine whether they integrate the exception into a practical application”.
Independent claims 10 and 17 further recite “processing device” and “memory component”, which is a generic/conventional computer storage. Claims 10 and 17 do not recite any additional element that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application. The recitation of generic computer and generic computer components does not sufficient to integrate the recited judicial exception into a practical application. Guidance at MPEP 2106.04 (“Performance of a claim limitation using generic computer components does not necessarily preclude the claim limitation from being in the mathematical concepts or mental processes grouping.”)
As discussed above, independent claims 10 and 17 recites the mental processes and mathematical concepts steps to determining order in which content editing operations are performed and generating a content editing operation that can perform other content editing operations. These limitations are processes that, under broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind, but for the recitations of generic computer components. That is, other than reciting a “processing device” and “memory component”, nothing in the claim element precludes the step from practically being performed in a human mind or with the aid of pen and paper. 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 (concepts performed in the human mind including an observation, evaluation, judgment, and opinion) and “Mathematical Concepts” grouping of abstract ideas (mathematical relationships, mathematical formulas or equations, mathematical calculations).
Evaluate Step 2B:
Evaluate whether the claim provide an inventive concept, i.e., does the claim recite additional element(s) or a combination of elements that amount to significantly more than the judicial exception in the claim?
At Step 2B, the evaluation of the insignificant extra-solution activity consideration takes into account whether or not the extra-solution activity is well-known. See MPEP 2106.05(g). The claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. The claim does not add any specific limitations beyond what is well-understood, routine, and conventional. Here, claims 10 and 17 recite “processing device” and “memory component”, which are mere generic computer components that are recited at a high level of generality, and, as disclosed in the specification, is also well-understood, routine, conventional activity when expressed at this high level of generality. Mere instructions to apply an exception using a generic computer component cannot integrate a judicial exception into a practical application at Step 2A or provide an inventive concept in Step 2B. Therefore, the claims do not provide an inventive concept (significantly more than the abstract idea) and is not eligible.
These additional elements are recited at a high-level of generality such that they amount to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer components. Further, the claim recitations of receiving and applying data.
Receiving and applying are mere data gathering and output recited at a high level of generality, and thus are insignificant extra-solution activity to the judicial exception with no evidence of improvement. Accordingly, the additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because it does not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea, thus fail to integrate the abstract idea into a practical application. See MPEP 2106.05(g).
The claim does not include 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, the additional elements of receiving and applying data (receiving or transmitting over a network), are well-understood, routine and conventional activity according to MPEP 2106.05(d)(II)(i), thus, cannot provide an inventive concept.
As a result, representative claim(s) 10 and 17 do not recite any elements, or ordered combination of elements, which transforms the abstract idea into a patent-eligible subject matter. In addition, the claim(s) does not recite (i) an improvement to the functionality of a computer or other technology or technical field (see MPEP 2106.05(a); (ii) a “particular machine” to apply or use the judicial exception (see MPEP 2106.05(b); (iii) a particular transformation of an article to a different state or thing (see 2106.05(c). Further, the claim does not recite any improvement to computer functionality or specify how the one or more processors are used to improve functionality of a computing device. Considering the claim(s) as a whole, the additional elements fail to apply or use the abstract idea in a meaningful way and the additional limitations recited beyond the judicial exception itself fail to integrate the exception into a practical application. Accordingly, the claims 10-20 of this application are rejected.
Claims 11-13 and 18-20 and are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more. The claim(s) recite(s) the abstract idea of a mathematical concepts, for example the claims are directed toward reversing content editing operations on client devices, under broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind but for the recitation of generic computer components. The limitations associated with reversing content editing operations are considered to be an abstract idea that falls in the “Mathematical Concepts” grouping of abstract ideas.
Claims 14-16 and are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more. The claim(s) recite(s) the abstract idea of a mathematical concepts, for example the claims are directed toward deleting digital content items in content editing operations on client devices, under broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind but for the recitation of generic computer components. The limitations associated with deleting digital content items in content editing operations are considered to be an abstract idea that falls in the “Mathematical Concepts” grouping of abstract ideas.
The claim(s) do not include 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, the additional element of using a processing device to perform the determining and generating steps amounts to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component. The limitations related to receiving are considered by the examiner to be well-understood, routine and conventional activity according to MPEP 2106.05(d)(II)(i), because the inventive subject matter is directed toward collaborative editing of digital content. Mere instructions to apply an exception using a generic computer component cannot provide an inventive concept. Because of these reasons the claim(s) does/do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. The claim(s) 10-20 are rejected.
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 of this title, 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 set forth in Graham v. John Deere Co., 383 U.S. 1, 148 USPQ 459 (1966), that are applied 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.
Claims 1-3 and 5-9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Camery (US 2021/0056233)(hereinafter Camery) in view of Vagell et al. (US 2014/0149857)(hereinafter Vagell).
Regarding claim 1, Camery teaches a method comprising: receiving, by a processing device, a first request to perform a first content editing operation to an item of digital content followed by a second request to perform a second content editing operation to the item of digital content (see Fig. 1, Fig. 3A, para [0055-0056], discloses receiving an edit (editing operation) for editing of a portion of a document (digital content) in online collaborative editing for respective first and second editing operations on respective first and second client devices); and causing, by the processing device, performance of the second content editing operation and a delay involving performance of the first content editing operation (see para [0086], para [0088], discloses second editing done by a collaboration manager user and reassigning the collaboration manager role to another collaborator when a threshold condition for response time has not been met by the collaboration manger user).
Camery does not explicitly teach identifying, by the processing device, the first and second content editing operations conflict; determining, by the processing device based on the conflict, a temporal order indicating that the second request is made before the first request.
Vagell teaches identifying, by the processing device, the first and second content editing operations conflict (see para [0004], para [0036], discloses identifying conflicting relationships between suggested edits of an electronic document, identifying a shared position of a first and second edit in the electronic document); determining, by the processing device based on the conflict, a temporal order indicating that the second request is made before the first request (see Fig. 3, para [0036], discloses determining that the second suggested edit was accepted before the first suggested edit, automatically rejecting the first suggested edit based on the two suggested edits having a conflicting relationship).
Camery/Vagell are analogous arts as they are each from the same field of endeavor of database systems.
Before the effective filing date of the invention it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to modify the system of Camery to identify content editing operations conflict from disclosure of Vagell. The motivation to combine these arts is disclosed by Vagell as “edits allows for efficient development of a document” (para [0022]) and identify content editing operations conflict is well known to persons of ordinary skill in the art, and therefore one of ordinary skill would have good reason to pursue the known options within his or her technical grasp that would lead to anticipated success.
Regarding claim 2, Camery/Vagell teach a method of claim 1.
Camery further teaches wherein the first request is made by a first client device and the second request is made by a second client device (see Fig. 1, para [0055-0056], discloses receiving respective first and second edits from respective first and second client devices).
Regarding claim 3, Camery/Vagell teach a method of claim 1.
Camery further teaches wherein the delay involving the performance of the first content editing operation is based on a threshold amount of time (see para [0088], discloses no response provided in more than 2 seconds (threshold amount of time)).
Regarding claim 5, Camery/Vagell teach a method of claim 1.
Camery further teaches wherein the first content editing operation and the second content editing operation occur as part of a collaborative digital content editing session (see para [0027], discloses environment for online collaborative editing of documents that enables client devices to perform collaborative editing actions).
Regarding claim 6, Camery/Vagell teach a method of claim 1.
Camery does not explicitly teach generating instructions to cancel the performance of the first content editing operation.
Vagell teaches generating instructions to cancel the performance of the first content editing operation (see para [0030], discloses deletion edits).
Regarding claim 7, Camery/Vagell teach a method of claim 1.
Camery does not explicitly teach determining whether the first content editing operation as invalid based on the performance of the second content editing operation.
Vagell teaches determining whether the first content editing operation as invalid based on the performance of the second content editing operation (see Fig. 4, para [0108], discloses rejecting a first content edit in a tree diagram based on conflicting content edits in the tree diagram).
Regarding claim 8, Camery/Vagell teach a method of claim 1.
Camery further teaches maintaining a stack of editing operations that indicates the temporal order (see para [0057-0058], discloses logging edits in chronological order and time stamp).
Regarding claim 9, Camery/Vagell teach a method of claim 1.
Camery further teaches recording the second content editing operation followed by the first content editing operation at the stack of editing operations (see para [0057-0058], discloses recording log edit entries with timestamps).
Claim 4 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Camery (US 2021/0056233)(hereinafter Camery) in view of Vagell et al. (US 2014/0149857)(hereinafter Vagell) as applied to claim 1, and in further view of Khatib et al. (US 2014/0033042)(hereinafter Khatib).
Regarding claim 4, Camery/Vagell teach a method of claim 1.
Camery/Vagell do not explicitly teach dynamically changing the threshold amount of time based on network latency.
Khatib teaches dynamically changing the threshold amount of time based on network latency (see para [0030-0031], discloses automatic threshold determination for latency based on system configuration and user preferences).
Camery/Vagell/Khatib are analogous arts as they are each from the same field of endeavor of database systems.
Before the effective filing date of the invention it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to modify the system of Camery/Vagell to dynamically change threshold amount of time from disclosure of Khatib. The motivation to combine these arts is disclosed by Khatib as “optimize the overall utilization of the server, while maintaining an acceptable level of latency and real-time playback capability for each of the connected users” (para [0031]) and dynamically changing threshold amount of time is well known to persons of ordinary skill in the art, and therefore one of ordinary skill would have good reason to pursue the known options within his or her technical grasp that would lead to anticipated success.
Claims 10-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Camery (US 2021/0056233)(hereinafter Camery) in view of Khatib et al. (US 2014/0033042)(hereinafter Khatib).
Regarding claim 10, Camery teaches system comprising: a memory component; and a processing device coupled to the memory component (see Fig. 5, discloses memory and processor), the processing device to perform operations comprising: receiving a first content editing operation to an item of digital content followed by a second content editing operation to the item of digital content (see Fig. 1, Fig. 3A, para [0055-0056], discloses receiving an edit (editing operation) for editing of a portion of a document (digital content) in online collaborative editing for respective first and second editing operations on respective first and second client devices).
Camery does not explicitly teach determining that the second content editing operation is performed before the first content editing operation; generating instructions for performing a third content editing operation to do the first content editing operation and to perform the second content editing operation; and applying the third content editing operation to the item of digital content.
Khatib teaches determining that the second content editing operation is performed before the first content editing operation (see para [0034], para [0039], discloses determining regions of a timeline where user’s cursor is currently active is given higher priority in which a user can evaluate their edits (second content editing operation ); generating instructions for performing a third content editing operation to do the first content editing operation and to perform the second content editing operation (see Fig. 5, para [0034], para [0042, 0044], discloses performing a third edit in a timeline region based on parameters and validity of respective edits of respective regions in the timeline); and applying the third content editing operation to the item of digital content (see Fig. 5, para [0044], discloses apply a third edit to a region of a timeline after determining validity of a region in the timeline).
Camery/Khatib are analogous arts as they are each from the same field of endeavor of database systems.
Before the effective filing date of the invention it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to modify the system of Camery to determine a second content editing operation is performed before the first content editing operation from disclosure of Khatib. The motivation to combine these arts is disclosed by Khatib as “improve the performance of video-editing tasks” (para [0046]) and determining a second content editing operation is performed before the first content editing operation is well known to persons of ordinary skill in the art, and therefore one of ordinary skill would have good reason to pursue the known options within his or her technical grasp that would lead to anticipated success.
Regarding claim 17, Camery teaches a method comprising: receiving, by a processing device, a first content editing operation to an item of digital content followed by a second content editing operation to the item of digital content (see Fig. 1, Fig. 3A, para [0055-0056], discloses receiving an edit (editing operation) for editing of a portion of a document (digital content) in online collaborative editing for respective first and second editing operations on respective first and second client devices).
Camery does not explicitly teach determining by the processing device, that the second content editing operation is performed before the first content editing operation; generating, by the processing device, instructions for performing a third content editing operation to undo the first content editing operation and to perform the second content editing operation; and applying, by the processing device, the third content editing operation to the item of digital content.
Khatib teaches determining, by the processing device, that the second content editing operation is performed before the first content editing operation (see para [0034], para [0039], discloses determining regions of a timeline where user’s cursor is currently active is given higher priority in which a user can evaluate their edits (second content editing operation ); generating, by the processing device, instructions for performing a third content editing operation to undo the first content editing operation and to perform the second content editing operation (see Fig. 5, para [0034], para [0042, 0044], discloses performing a third edit in a timeline region based on parameters and validity of respective edits of respective regions in the timeline); and applying, by the processing device, the third content editing operation to the item of digital content (see Fig. 5, para [0044], discloses apply a third edit to a region of a timeline after determining validity of a region in the timeline).
Camery/Khatib are analogous arts as they are each from the same field of endeavor of database systems.
Before the effective filing date of the invention it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to modify the system of Camery to determine a second content editing operation is performed before the first content editing operation from disclosure of Khatib. The motivation to combine these arts is disclosed by Khatib as “improve the performance of video-editing tasks” (para [0046]) and determining a second content editing operation is performed before the first content editing operation is well known to persons of ordinary skill in the art, and therefore one of ordinary skill would have good reason to pursue the known options within his or her technical grasp that would lead to anticipated success.
Regarding claims 11 and 18, Camery/Khatib teaches a system of claim 10 and method 17.
Camery further teaches wherein the first content editing operation is received from a first client device and the second content editing operation is received from a second client device (see Fig. 1, para [0055-0056], discloses receiving respective first and second edits from respective first and second client devices).
Regarding claims 12 and 19, Camery/Khatib teaches a system of claim 10 and method 17.
Camery further teaches wherein the third content editing operation includes a transaction inversion and instructions to reverse the first content editing operation on the first client device (see para [0077], discloses undo or removal of already applied edits and applying a decrypted edit when updating version of a document).
Regarding claims 13 and 20, Camery/Khatib teaches a system of claim 10 and method 17.
Camery further teaches wherein the first content editing operation and the second content editing operation are received during a collaborative digital content editing session (see para [0027], discloses environment for online collaborative editing of documents that enables client devices to perform collaborative editing actions).
Regarding claim 14, Camery/Khatib teaches a system of claim 10.
Camery further teaches wherein the first content editing operation involves deletion of the item of digital content, and the third content editing operation involves regenerating the item of digital content (see para [0077], discloses client devices editing at same time in which one client device is adding a word to a sentence and another client device deleting the sentence at same time).
Regarding claim 15, Camery/Khatib teaches a system of claim 10.
Camery further teaches wherein the second content editing operation involves deletion of the item of digital content, and the third content editing operation involves deletion of the item of digital content (see para [0074], discloses deleting sentence\ in edits from client devices by applying a deletion rule to remove sentence).
Regarding claim 16, Camery/Khatib teaches a system of claim 10.
Camery further teaches recording the second content editing operation followed by the first content editing operation at a stack of editing operations (see para [0057], para [0077], discloses log entries of editing with timestamps).
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. See Bailor et al. Publication No. 2009/0271696.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to COURTNEY HARMON whose telephone number is (571)270-5861. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 9am - 5pm.
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, Ann Lo can be reached at 571-272-9767. 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.
/Courtney Harmon/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2159
Prosecution Insights