DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application is being examined under the pre-AIA first to invent provisions.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112:
The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor of carrying out his invention.
Claims 1-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention. Claims 1 and 14 recite “wherein no other separate discussion session can occur between the concurrently connected participants during the first private discussion session” in claims 1 (ln. 7-8) and 14 (ln. 9-11). Applicant did not provide page or line numbers in the original specification supporting “wherein no other separate discussion session can occur between the concurrently connected participants during the first private discussion session” and after a search, Examiner was unable to find any supporting disclosure. Consequently, Examiner considers Applicant was not in possession of the claimed invention at the time of the filing date. Claims 2-13 and 15-20 are also rejected as they do not cure the deficiencies of claims 1 and 14, respectively.
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 pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(a) which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
(a) A patent may not be obtained though the invention is not identically disclosed or described as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the subject matter sought to be patented and the prior art are such that the subject matter as a whole would have been obvious at the time the invention was made to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which said subject matter pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(a), the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned at the time any inventions covered therein were made absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and invention dates of each claim that was not commonly owned at the time a later invention was made in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(c) and potential pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102(e), (f) or (g) prior art under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(a).
Claims 1-4, 6-7, 9-10, and 14-18 are rejected under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(a) as being unpatentable over Covell et al. (U.S. Patent No. 7480259, hereinafter “Covell”) in view of Nakamura et al. (U.S. Patent No. 5012509, hereinafter “Nakamura”); further in view of Salesky et al. (U.S. Patent No. 7836163, hereinafter “Salesky”).
Claims 1 and 14:
Covell discloses a system for online communication comprising:
a memory for storing a plurality of posts (Column 12, Lines 36-45; Computer 500 includes data storage features such as a computer usable volatile memory unit 504);
one or more processors in communication with the memory (Column 12, Lines 32-34; Computer system 500 comprises one or more central processors 501), the one or more processors configured to:
allocate memory space for storing a first private discussion session of non-voice communications between one or more participants (“parallel conversation”) (Column 3, Lines 37-39; The managing entity 120 is used to establish a second communications path referred to herein as a parallel conversation or aside, inferring that memory space of the managing entity 120 is allocated to store information about said second communications path) (Column 3, Lines 35-36; As stated herein, it is an audio, video, or text communications path);
receive one or more posts from the one or more participants for the first private discussion session, wherein each of the one or more participants are concurrently connected to the first private discussion session (Column 3, Lines 45-48; Once the managing entity has established the second communications path 130, the parallel conversation allows the people included in the parallel conversation to discuss their side topic) and wherein the one or more posts includes textual information (Column 3, Lines 35-36; As stated herein, it is an audio, video, or text communications path);
receive a share request (“invitation”) from the one or more participants for the first private discussion session, wherein the share request identifies one or more non-participants to provide access to the one or more posts of the first private discussion session (Column 8, Lines 34-36; The conversation is handled by the managing entity as a closed line and is made available to non-participant members only by invitation (i.e., a share request), which implies the identification of at least one non-participant), and wherein the share request includes access rights for the one or more non-participants to access the one or more posts during the first private discussion session (See citation above. The request for a private aside includes the identities of the initiating and approached participants. By virtue of being invited by the initiator, the approached participants have access to the closed-audience private conversation);
receive, from at least one non-participant of the one or more non-participants, a request to access the one or more posts of the first private discussion session (Column 8, Lines 37-39; If a user wants to join other members of a private discussion, the user contacts the managing entity and requests access to the private-parallel conversation); and
provide access, for the at least one non-participant, to the one or more posts of the first private discussion session (Column 8, Lines 42-45; The initiator or another member then advises the managing entity to either admit the user or deny the user admittance), wherein at least the one or more participants are able to post to the first private discussion session after the at least one non-participant is provided access (Column 8, Lines 45-46; If the (non-participating) user is admitted, the managing entity then informs the other members of the new presence. The private discussion continues as usual with anyone in the first private discussion session able to post when the (non-participating) user is admitted).
Covell does not appear to disclose:
wherein no other separate discussion session can occur between the concurrently connected participants during the first private discussion session;
store, at the memory space the one or more posts for the first private discussion session.
Nakamura discloses wherein no other separate discussion session can occur between the concurrently connected participants during the first private discussion session (Column 6, Lines 47-52; The host enters a conference name and conference partner name (steps 403, 404). The system implements the duplicate registration check (step 405), and if it is detected an error message is displayed (step 406), or otherwise a conference management table is created (step 408)).
At the time the invention was made, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify Covell’s private discussion sessions by not allowing duplicate private discussion sessions, as taught by Nakamura, in order to prevent duplicate conference registrations (Nakamura, Column 6, Lines 48-49).
Salesky discloses:
store, at the memory space the one or more posts for the first private discussion session for later viewing by users of the system who may or may not be participating (“non-participants”) in the session (Column 23, Lines 19-21; Conference sessions are recorded).
At the time the invention was made, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify Covell and Nakamura’s private discussion session by allowing them to be viewed later, as taught by Salesky, in order to brief absentees, evaluate sales personnel, and the like (Salesky, Column 23, Lines 29-32).
The method of claim 1 is implemented by the system of claim 14 and is therefore rejected with the same rationale.
Claim 2:
Covell in view of Nakamura further in view of Salesky further discloses wherein memory space to store the first private discussion session is allocated in response to a request from the one or more participants to enable the first private discussion session (Covell, Column 6, Lines 16-18; A user accesses an explicit GUI for starting/enabling new breakout sessions), and wherein the first private discussion session comprises one of a plurality of private discussion sessions (Covell, Column 6, Lines 5-6; Parallel threads of conversation may be initiated and run simultaneously), each of the plurality of private discussion sessions being identified by a characteristic selected from the group consisting of title, subject, and description (Covell, Column 10, Lines 6-10; The private conversation may be used to discuss items such as personnel in the meeting (e.g., performance, accomplishments, leadership, teamwork, etc.), private ideas that others in the meeting environment have no need to know, or the like).
Claim 3:
Covell in view of Nakamura further in view of Salesky further discloses providing a representation of the one or more posts for display on a device of the one or more participants (Covell, Column 5, Lines 18-19 and 24-25; Remote collaboration 200 includes visual screens 250. The remote collaboration provides audio, video, and text capabilities), and wherein the one or more posts includes information selected from the group consisting of title, subject, text body, associated files, feed items, and links (Covell, Column 10, Lines 6-10; The private conversation (or posts) may be used to discuss items such as personnel in the meeting (e.g., performance, accomplishments, leadership, teamwork, etc.), private ideas that others in the meeting environment have no need to know, or the like).
Claim 4:
Covell in view of Nakamura further in view of Salesky further discloses wherein the at least one non-participant comprises a public user (Salesky, Column 23, Lines 29-32; Archived sessions are used to brief absentees).
The motivation to combine Covell, Nakamura, and Salesky is the same as recited in the rejection of claim 1.
Claim 6:
Covell in view of Nakamura further in view of Salesky further discloses wherein the at least one non-participant is granted access to the history of the posts of the first private discussion session (Salesky, Column 23, Lines 19-21; Conference sessions are recorded when they are primarily intended for later viewing by users of the system who may or may not be participating in the session).
The motivation to combine Covell, Nakamura, and Salesky is the same as recited in the rejection of claim 1.
Claim 7:
Covell in view of Nakamura further in view of Salesky further discloses granting access, for the one or more participants, to the one or more posts of the first private discussion session, wherein the at least one non-participant is granted access to the one or more posts after granting access to the one or more participants (Covell, Column 8, Lines 37-39 and 45-46; If a user wants to join other members of a private discussion, the user contacts the managing entity and requests access to the private-parallel conversation. If the user is admitted, the managing entity then informs the other members of the new presence. The newly admitted user is then granted access to the posts received after being granted access) (Salesky, Column 23, Lines 19-21; Conference sessions are recorded when they are primarily intended for later viewing by users of the system who may or may not be participating in the session).
The motivation to combine Covell, Nakamura, and Salesky is the same as recited in the rejection of claim 1.
Claim 9:
Covell in view of Nakamura further in view of Salesky further discloses wherein the access rights of the at least one non-participant user includes posting information to the first private discussion session (Covell, Column 3, Lines 45-48; Once the managing entity has established the second communications path 130, the parallel conversation allows the people included in the parallel conversation to discuss (or post about) their side topic) (Salesky, Column 3, Lines 62-66 and Column 18, Lines 29-31; Provides real-time transport for data streams including audio, video, shared paint and drawing spaces, and text chat. The server accepts connection requests and verifies that the user is authorized to join the meeting. By posting information to the session, the non-participant effectively becomes a participant).
Claim 10:
Covell in view of Nakamura further in view of Salesky further discloses wherein the access rights comprise permissions granted to the one or more non-participants (Covell, Column 6, Lines 20-23; The users access an explicit GUI for starting new private-side sessions with an explicit request forwarded only to the desired participants in the closed-audience lines of conversation (permission to view and post)) (Salesky, Column 23, Lines 19-21; Conference sessions are recorded when they are primarily intended for later viewing by users of the system who may or may not be participating in the session).
The motivation to combine Covell, Nakamura, and Salesky is the same as recited in the rejection of claim 1.
Claim 15:
Covell in view of Nakamura further in view of Salesky further discloses wherein the one or more participants only have access to the stored one or more posts of the first private discussion session prior to providing access to the at least one non-participant (Covell, Column 8, Lines 33-36; If the conversation thread is initialized as a private-parallel conversation, the conversation is handled by the managing entity as a closed line and is made available to non-participant members only by invitation) (Salesky, Column 23, Lines 19-21; Conference sessions are recorded when they are primarily intended for later viewing by users of the system who may or may not be participating in the session).
The motivation to combine Covell, Nakamura, and Salesky is the same as recited in the rejection of claim 14.
Claim 16:
Covell in view of Nakamura further in view of Salesky further discloses wherein the stored private discussion session is maintained at the memory space of the content node after the one or more participants and the at least one non-participant no longer access the first private discussion session (Salesky, Column 23, Lines 19-21; Conference sessions are recorded) (Salesky, Column 23, Lines 29-32; Archived sessions have uses other than review including briefing absentees, evaluating sales personnel, and the like).
The motivation to combine Covell, Nakamura, and Salesky is the same as recited in the rejection of claim 14.
Claim 17:
Covell in view of Nakamura further in view of Salesky further discloses wherein the at least one non-participant accesses the one or more posts of the first private discussion session without communicating with the non-participants (Covell, Column 6, Lines 48-51; An automatic inference of a new request for a private aside results in a request for a new closed-audience private conversation to the managing entity, including the identities of the initiating and approached participants. Thus, approached participants do not need to communicate with the initiating participant to access the one or more posts) (Salesky, Column 23, Lines 29-32; Archived sessions have uses other than review including briefing absentees, evaluating sales personnel, and the like. Non-participants may access archived sessions without communicating with other non-participants).
The motivation to combine Covell, Nakamura, and Salesky is the same as recited in the rejection of claim 14.
Claim 18:
Covell in view of Nakamura further in view of Salesky further discloses wherein the at least one non-participant accesses the one or more posts of the first private discussion session at the memory space of the content node (Salesky, Column 23, Lines 19-21; Conference sessions are recorded when they are primarily intended for later viewing by users who may or may not be participating in the session).
The motivation to combine Covell, Nakamura, and Salesky is the same as recited in the rejection of claim 14.
Claim 19:
Covell in view of Nakamura further in view of Salesky further discloses wherein the first private discussion session is an active, a primary, or a main private discussion session (Nakamura, Column 6, Lines 47-52; The host enters a conference name and conference partner name (steps 403, 404). The system implements the duplicate registration check (step 405), and if it is detected an error message is displayed (step 406), or otherwise a conference management table is created (step 408). The combination of Covell, Nakamura, and Salesky discloses there are no duplicate private discussion sessions).
Claim 20:
Covell in view of Nakamura further in view of Salesky further discloses wherein the one or more non-participants are able to post to the first private discussion session after the non-participant is provided access (Covell, Column 8, Lines 45-46; If the (non-participating) user is admitted, the managing entity then informs the other members of the new presence. The private discussion continues as usual with anyone in the first private discussion session able to post when the (non-participating) user is admitted. The (non-participating) user becomes a participating user upon admittance).
Claims 5, 8, and 11-13 are rejected under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(a) as being unpatentable over Covell et al. (U.S. Patent No. 7480259, hereinafter “Covell”) in view of Nakamura et al. (U.S. Patent No. 5012509, hereinafter “Nakamura”); further in view of Salesky et al. (U.S. Patent No. 7836163, hereinafter “Salesky”); further in view of Jou (U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2005/0209999, hereinafter “Jou”).
Claim 5:
Covell in view of Nakamura further in view of Salesky discloses the method as recited in claim 1.
Covell in view of Nakamura further in view of Salesky does not appear to disclose wherein the at least one non-participant is granted access to contacts of at least one of the one or more participants listed in a social network.
Jou discloses wherein the at least one non-participant is granted access to contacts of at least one of the one or more participants listed in a social network (§ 0026, Lines 1-2 and 5-8; The present invention is directed to the ability to specify groups of friends in a social networking program. Each of these groups share common resources, such as a bulletin board and the ability to send and receive group-wide messages. For example, with bulletin boards, the members of a group can post to the bulletin board).
At the time the invention was made, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify Covell, Nakamura, and Salesky with the teachings of Jou in order to provide functionality that allows a user to specify groups of friends and to give each such group special access privileges (Jou, § 0006, Lines 16-19).
Claim 8:
Covell in view of Nakamura further in view of Salesky discloses the method as recited in claim 1, wherein the access rights of the least one non-participant comprises controlling access by user-provided keys, access lists, and privilege levels (Salesky, Column 24, Lines 49-53; With Web based retrieval, support could be provided for browsing by content, searching by user-defined keys, controlling access by user-provided keys, access lists, and privilege levels).
Covell in view of Nakamura further in view of Salesky does not appear to disclose wherein the access rights of the at least one non-participant is limited to only viewing the one or more posts or posting content to the first private discussion session.
Jou discloses wherein the at least one individual is limited to only viewing the one or more posts (§ 0051, Lines 1-4; If a user sets an entry in his personal profile as private, then only those users that are granted special personal profile view permission will be able to view such entries).
At the time the invention was made, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify Covell, Nakamura, and Salesky’s system by integrating Jou’s personal profile in order to provide the user with absolute control over his online information (Jou, § 0068, Lines 11-13).
Claim 11:
Covell in view of Nakamura further in view of Salesky discloses the method as recited in claims 1 and 10.
Covell in view of Nakamura further in view of Salesky does not appear to disclose wherein the one or more non-participants include only first-degree friends of the one or more participants on a social network.
Jou discloses wherein the one or more non-participants include only first-degree friends of the one or more participants on a social network (§ 0005, Lines 3-4; Each user’s profile shows the friends of the user) (§ 0026, Lines 1-2; The present invention is directed to the ability to specify groups of friends in a social networking program).
At the time the invention was made, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify Covell, Nakamura, and Salesky’s non-participants to integrate Jou’s specified friends which has the advantage over known social networking paradigms, where the paradigm has been to treat all friends of a given user as a single group (Jou, § 0026, Lines 8-11).
Claim 12:
Covell in view of Nakamura further in view of Salesky discloses the method as recited in claim 1.
Covell in view of Nakamura further in view of Salesky does not appear to disclose wherein the one or more non-participants are connected to the one or more participants, unconnected to the one or more participants, or a combination thereof, and wherein providing access further comprising filtering posts by a particular participant to only be accessible to the one or more non-participants connected to the one or more participants.
Jou discloses wherein the one or more non-participants are connected to the one or more participants, unconnected to the one or more participants, or a combination thereof (§ 0026, Lines 1-2 and 5-7; The present invention is directed to the ability to specify groups of friends in a social networking program. Each of these groups share common resources, such as a bulletin board and the ability to send and receive group-wide messages), and wherein providing access further comprising filtering posts by a particular participant to only be accessible to the one or more non-participants connected to the one or more participants (§ 0068, Lines 9-11; A user can prevent non-members of his personal private group from not only posting, but viewing the bulletin board postings so it follows that members of the personal private group would be able to post new messages and view bulletin board postings).
At the time the invention was made, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify Covell, Nakamura, and Salesky with the teachings of Jou in order to provide functionality that allows a user to specify groups of friends and to give each such group special access privileges (Jou, § 0006, Lines 16-19).
Claim 13:
Covell in view of Nakamura further in view of Salesky discloses the method as recited in claim 1.
Covell in view of Nakamura further in view of Salesky does not appear to disclose:
receiving an edit share request; and
associating the first private discussion session with feed formatted content in accordance with the edit share request, wherein providing access further comprises providing access to the one or more posts of the first private discussion session based on the share request and the edit share request.
Jou discloses:
receiving an edit share request (§ 0068, Lines 5-7; Only people within a respective personal group can post to the respective group’s bulletin board); and
associating the first private discussion session with feed formatted content (“bulletin board postings”) in accordance with the edit share request, wherein providing access (“view”) further comprises providing access to the one or more posts of the first private discussion session based on the share request and the edit share request (§ 0068, Lines 9-11; A user can prevent non-members of his personal private group from not only posting, but viewing the bulletin board postings so it follows that members of the personal private group would be able to post new messages and view bulletin board postings. Additionally, it follows that the combination of Covell, Salesky, and Jou would result in providing access to the private discussion thread (which includes associated post information) based on the share request (as disclosed by Covell) and the edit share request (as disclosed by Jou)).
At the time the invention was made, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify Covell, Nakamura, and Salesky’s method with the teaching of Jou in order to allow people to interact with each other online, posting new topics and replying to someone else’s topics (Jou, § 0068, Lines 1-3) and provide the user with absolute control over his bulletin board (Jou, § 0068, Lines 11-13).
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments, see page 1, filed 11/03/2025, with respect to claim 14 have been fully considered and are persuasive. The objection of claim 14 has been withdrawn.
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claim(s) 1-20 on pages 1-2 have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument. The modification of Covell’s private discussion session with Nakamura’s duplicate registration check predictably results in having no duplicates of Covell’s private discussion sessions.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure:
U.S. Patent No. 6212548 (DeSimone et al.) – Upon creation of a chat room, it is checked if there is an existing chat room. If so, then an error indicating a duplicate chat room is generated.
U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2003/0004791 (Kojima) – Two parties may engage in negotiations in a “negotiation room” corresponding to a single-use conversation application.
U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2013/0246525 (Patil et al.) – An “instagroup” can be created, which is a group of chat participants that has a defined temporal lifespan. Once the lifespan of the group ends, the group is automatically deleted.
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to NAM T TRAN whose telephone number is (408)918-7553. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 7AM-3PM EST.
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, Emmanuel Moise can be reached at 571-272-3865. 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.
/NAM T TRAN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2455