None of your examples needs a comma before the preposition. All of the following would be nonsense:
I looked, on the other side of me and seen a bird.
I looked on the other side, of me and seen a bird.
I looked, on the other side, of me and seen a bird.
All, of my friends came with me except Ron.
All of my friends came, with me except Ron.
All, of my friends came, with me except Ron.
I want to help all, of the people who have problems like I've had before.
The only possible commas I could see (and they would be optional) are:
- These are the problems that I've struggled with, in my own life.
- All of my friends came with me, except Ron.
They are optional because they serve as a pause before a parenthetical expression.
There a couple of misconceptions here. The first is about reduced participial phrases. Generally this means transforming a clause, which has a finite verb, into a phrase with a non-finite verb. Thus
I came to work today while I was wearing my new suit
becomes
I came to work today, wearing my new suit
Secondly, I don't know what grammar is telling you that participial phrases have to modify adjectives. Participial phrases may act as modifiers for any construct that can take a modifier.
Next, I'm not sure what you think a "participial prepositional phrase" is. One example you give is
- This is good result(,) given how other teams performed
but there isn't a preposition in sight.
Participles by themselves don't really carry tense. You seem to think there's a difference in punctuation based on whether there's a present participle (one that ends in -ing, e.g., "coming home") or a present perfect participle (one that combines having with the plain form of the verb, e.g, "having come home"). There isn't.
Most of your examples may be parsed as nominative absolutes. For example,
I came to work today, wearing my new suit.
These aren't really restrictive or non-restrictive because they are independent of the grammar of the main clause (thus the name absolute). The wearing of the new suit applies not just to the subject, verb, or prepositional complement individually. The style manual I use, the Chicago Manual of Style recommends setting off introductory elements like this with a comma. CMOS also recommends setting off following non-restrictive elements with a comma, so I infer the same for following absolutes.
Punctuation is a matter of style, not grammar. So follow the rules in the manual of style that you've chosen or that has been thrust upon you.
Best Answer
Punctuation is a matter of style, and as such you should be guided by your manual of style. Good punctuation leads your reader to make the right parsing choices, and bad punctuation leads your reader down so-called "garden paths", dead ends of wrong parses. Your reader will recover from a wrong parse by re-reading your text, but that's an unnecessary burden. The rules given by most manuals of style allow for the writer's judgment. Let's examine your sentence in light of the foregoing.
To date means up to now and is probably best followed by a comma. That's because to date is also an infinitive meaning to see socially or to assign an age:
Of course as soon as your readers see "HIV vaccine", they will know that you're not giving social advice or talking about radiometric dating, but the comma makes sure they're not distracted by the possibility. Now let's examine the second half:
English allows adjunct nouns to act as modifiers, so trial protection might mean something judicial:
Or it might mean something being attempted, along the lines of a trial separation. The cure is to place a comma after the introductory prepositional phrase "in this trial".
The question of the comma after response is trickier. Here you have a compound predicate "elicited ... and was". As a general rule, a comma only separates a conjoined clause (e.g., "trial elicited, ... and it was"). Unfortunately, the and could also signal a compound object:
Alas, punctuation can take you only so far, and the over-burdened comma cannot prevent both possibilities for misunderstanding. This is where you rephrase:
This changes the syntax without changing the meaning. The comma now signals a non-restrictive relative clause modifying immune response.