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 .
Response to Amendment
This Final Rejection is filed in response to Applicant Arguments/Remarks Made in an Amendment filed 09/18/2025.
Claim 1 is amended.
Claims 1-17 remain pending.
Response to Arguments
Argument I, Applicant argues in Applicant Arguments/Remarks Made in an Amendment filed 09/18/2025 pg. 4-10, that the currently amended claim 1 has met the requirements of 35 USC 101 as a terminal is a necessary condition and any of arguments 2 to 4 would enable claim 1 to meet the requirements of U.S.C. 101.
Response to Argument 1, The examiner disagrees as the terminal device is a generic hardware that does add significantly more to the abstract idea of a user performing a mental process of monitoring messages over a network, adding, and then displaying messages by use of a pen and paper.
Argument 2a-c, the step of “monitoring messages coming from the network” is very similar to example in MPEP 2106.04(a)(2).III.A [a claim to detecting suspicious activity by using network monitors and analyzing network packets, SRI Int’l, 930 F.3d at 1304; ]
a). There are some obvious differences between "monitor" and "reading". Compared with "reading" in the Office Action or "acquiring" in the claim 1, "monitoring" includes the additional meanings of continuous detecting, analyzing and identifying an infrequent state from a frequent state according to the existing technology.
b). If the both steps of "receiving electronic contents from a network" and "monitoring messages" are simulated as human activity, it would be like monitoring a letter while reading a magazine. In fact, this is not a conventional human activity, and one reason is that a human cannot do two things at the same time. It is not a routine or conventional human activity to mentally dwell on the arrival of a letter while reading a magazine.
c). In fact in the claim 1 the recitation of "when receiving electronic contents from a network and displaying the electronic contents", describes a background condition of the problem to be solved by the claim 1. The claim1 is about an improvement of a computer under the background condition. So the background condition is fixed and cannot be simulated as a human activity. Under this condition a human cannot get any message from a network because the human cannot feel the weak electrical signal from the network, nor translate the binary signal from the network to text-based message even if the human can feel it.
Response to Arguments 2a-c, Firstly the limitation found in the claims when read in light of the specification does not have a BRI as narrow as the argued example for detecting suspicious activity by using network monitors and analyzing network packets. Applicant’s Fig. 16 and specification filed 05/20/22 pg. 20 merely recites, “Referring to FIG. 16 , the following method can be adopted. An SMS reception monitor (S1601) is set in the client of the target application to monitor SMS messages received by the terminal device where the client is located, which belongs to the prior art. When monitoring that the terminal device receives an SMS message (S1602), the monitor issues an instruction to add a list item to the electronic content list of the client so as to display the content of the SMS message (S1603).” The specification fails to describe what a “An SMS reception monitor” is and only describes it as a method with no additional hardware to perform the method. As such the BRI for receiving and monitoring would encompass a user receiving and reading a message on a generic electronic device. In this case, the claim not a claim where a user must simultaneously do two things at once but rather a method that is a series of steps for "collecting information, analyzing it, and displaying certain results of the collection and analysis," where the data analysis steps are recited at a high level of generality such that they could practically be performed in the human mind. Reading the claims in light of the specification leads to a BRI where a human may performing the mental process of evaluation within a generic computer, computing environment, or even merely using a computer as a tool to perform the mental process.
Argument 3, Applicant argues that MPEP 2106.04(a)(2). III. A recites that, "Examples of claims that do not recite mental processes because they cannot be practically performed in the human mind include: - a claim to a method for rendering a halftone image of a digital image by comparing, pixel by pixel, the digital image against a blue noise mask, where the method required the manipulation of computer data structures (e.g., the pixels of a digital image and a two-dimensional array known as a mask) and the output of a modified computer data structure (a halftoned digital image), Research Corp. Techs., 627 F.3d at 868, 97 USPQ2d at 1280."
Response to Argument 3, the examiner disagrees as the claim read in light of the specification is not limited to the manipulation of computer data structures and the output of modified computer data structures.
Argument 4, Applicant argues the applicant amends related step in the claim 1 as "when receiving electronic contents from a network and displaying the electronic contents" to make clear the "dual-source” improvement in computer functionality.
Response to Argument 4, the examiner disagrees and notes that the phrase “dual source” is used nowhere in the specification nor the claims. The claims as written show no limitations requiring the manipulation of computer data structures. The examiner notes that displaying things on a screen is not the manipulation of computer data structures.
Argument 5, Applicant argues that steps such as "monitoring messages" and "adding and displaying list items of the messages in the electronic content list", which make the amended claim 1 to be patent eligible according to the above arguments 2 to 4.
Response to Argument 4, the examiner disagrees and notes the above arguments 2 to 4 are refuted above and steps such as "monitoring messages" and "adding and displaying list items of the messages in the electronic content list" do not render claim 1 patent eligible.
Arguments 6-10, Applicant argues that the claims when considered as a whole are patent eligible.
Response to Arguments 6-10, the examiner notes the terminal and display device are merely computers used as tools to perform the mental process and do not add significantly more to the abstract idea.
Argument 11, Applicant argues that “The contents on the paper of the catalogue of the magazine are fixed, so even using a pen and paper a human cannot update it. The activities were not previously known before the emergence of a computer.”
Response to Argument 11, the examiner disagrees. Simply appending well-understood, routine, conventional activities previously known to the industry, specified at a high level of generality, to the judicial exception, e.g., a claim to an abstract idea requiring no more than a generic computer to perform generic computer functions that are well-understood, routine and conventional activities previously known to the industry.
Argument 12, Applicant argues the application describes an improvement to a computer
Response to Argument 12, the examiner disagrees. There is not sufficient detail in the claims or specification. such that one of ordinary skill in the art would recognize the claimed invention as providing an improvement. Indeed this is a bare assertion of an improvement without the detail necessary to be apparent to a person of ordinary skill in the art, and as such the examiner should not determine the claim improves technology. The step of "adding and displaying list items of the messages in the electronic content list on the display device" is not sufficient detail to improving computer technology.
Argument 13, Applicant argues the steps of, "displaying electronic contents in an electronic list", "monitoring messages coming a network and acquiring them", and "adding and displaying list items of the messages in the electronic content list" are activities that are not only not well-understood, routine, conventional human activities before the emergence of a computer, but also could not be accomplished even now. Thus the step cannot be performed in the human mind or using a pen and paper by a human.
Response to Argument 13, the examiner disagrees as the computer and network in the claims are merely generic hardware used to perform the abstract idea.
Argument 14, applicant argues that if the both steps of "receiving electronic contents from a network" and "monitoring messages" are simulated as human activity, it would be like monitoring a letter while reading a magazine. In fact, this is not a conventional human activity, and one reason is that a human cannot do two things at the same time. It is not a routine or conventional human activity to mentally dwell on the arrival of a letter while reading a magazine while.
Response to Argument 14, see response to arguments 2.
Argument 15, applicant argues that he example of the Electric Power Group is not about dual-source and only about single source.
Response to Argument 14, see response to arguments 4.
Argument II, Applicant argues on page. 11-20 that the currently amended claim 1 has met the requirements of 35 USC 102 .
Argument II. 1-6, Applicant argues that their specification para. [0003], distinguishes the message and electronic content. Applicant argues that only messages are displayed in an instant communication app such as WhatsApp and that applicant’s specification clearly states that the electronic content is not message and message is not electronic content.
Response to Arguments II. 1-6 the examiner disagrees and notes that applicants specification merely lists potential examples of electronic contents and open ended language such as “can be” and “such as” fail to limit the claims to applicants narrow interpretation.
Argument II. 7-9, Applicant argues confusion about the quote “Fig. 4 is not a chart page of message”, that the specification distinguishes the message and electronic content as independent, and that all of WhatsApp media are messages.
Response to Argument II. 7-9, the examiner notes that the quote, “Fig. 4 is not a chart page of message” is a direct quote from applicant found in Applicant Arguments filed 12/13/2024, pages, 8-10 . The examiner further notes that for the purposes of examination “a chart” was interpreted as “a chat”. See response to argument II, 1-6, regarding brining the specification into the claims and applicant’s open ended specification language. The examiner further disagrees and notes that messages and content can clearly be seen in Fig. 2, wherein Fig. 3-4 show that other types of content may be part of the content list, such as Media, Document, and Links, which may be different than SMS messages.
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 1-17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
Claim 1 is a process type claim (The term ‘process’ means process, art, or method, and includes a new use of a known process, machine, manufacture, composition of matter, or material). Therefore Claims 1-17 are directed to either a process, machine, manufacture or composition of matter.
As to Claim 1, the claim recites the mental steps of:
“displaying the electronic contents in an electronic list”
“monitoring messages from the network and acquiring them”, and
“adding and displaying list items of the messages in the electronic content list”.
These steps are capable of being performed in the human mind, or by a human using a pen and paper to look at a letters written between users, collecting said messages, and moving certain items of letters onto a single and separate sheet of paper, thus above is directed to an abstract ideas. The additional steps do not integrate the abstract ideas into a practical application. The “processor”, “terminal device” and “display device” are merely generic computer components performing generic routine functions.
The limitation of “when displaying an electronic content list on the display device” is insignificant extra-solution activity using generic computer components.
The limitation of “monitoring messages coming a network and acquiring them” is a process that under broadest reasonable interpretation, falls under mental processes. The claim does not recite any computer structures that preclude a user from practically monitoring and acquiring messages in a manual way. The recitation of a generic computer network for receiving the messages is an element the courts have recognized as well-understood, routine, conventional activity recited at a high level of generality. See MPEP 2106305(d)(II) i. Receiving or transmitting data over a network, e.g., using the Internet to gather data, Symantec, 838 F.3d at 1321, 120 USPQ2d at 1362 (utilizing an intermediary computer to forward information).
Similarly, the step of adding and displaying list items of the messages in the electronic content list, is a method that, under broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of a user from either mentally or using generic computer components to add and display message content in the list, which is also similar to activities the courts have found to be insignificant extra solution activity (e.g., selecting information, based on types of information and availability of information for collection, analysis and display, Electric Power Group). If a claim limitation, under its broadest reasonable interpretation covers performance of the limitation in the mind but for the recitation of generic computer components, then it falls within the “Mental Processes” grouping of abstract ideas. Accordingly, the claim recites an abstract idea.
The mental processes judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. The claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. The claim is not patent eligible.
Claim 2 depends on Claim 1 and thus recites similar limitations of acquiring messages and adding and displaying list items of the messages in an electronic content list. For the reasons discussed for Claim 1, these limitations recite an abstract idea. The step of, “adding and displaying list items of the messages in the current display area of the list”, do not integrate the recited judicial exception into a practical application. The limitations of “displaying” merely represent instructions to apply the judicial exception on a computer, thus Claim 2 is directed to an abstract idea.
Claim 3 depends on Claim 1 and thus recites similar limitations of acquiring messages and adding and displaying list items of the messages in an electronic content list. For the reasons discussed for Claim 1, these limitations recite an abstract idea. The step of, “wherein the list items of the messages are displayed in a notable mode different from the list items of electronic contents”, do not integrate the recited judicial exception into a practical application. The limitations of “displaying” merely represent instructions to apply the judicial exception on a computer, thus Claim 3 is directed to an abstract idea.
Claim 4 depends on Claim 1 and thus recites similar limitations of acquiring messages and adding and displaying list items of the messages in an electronic content list. For the reasons discussed for Claim 1, these limitations recite an abstract idea. The step of, “wherein the messages comprise at least one type of instant communication messages, email messages and SMS messages”, do not integrate the recited judicial exception into a practical application, thus Claim 4 is directed to an abstract idea.
Claim 5 depends on Claim 1 and thus recites similar limitations of acquiring messages and adding and displaying list items of the messages in an electronic content list. For the reasons discussed for Claim 1, these limitations recite an abstract idea. The step of, “wherein the messages comprise messages from other applications”, do not integrate the recited judicial exception into a practical application, thus Claim 5 is directed to an abstract idea.
Claim 6 depends on Claim 1 and thus recites similar limitations of acquiring messages and adding and displaying list items of the messages in an electronic content list. For the reasons discussed for Claim 1, these limitations recite an abstract idea. The step of, “adding and displaying list items of the messages meeting the display conditions in the electronic content list”, do not integrate the recited judicial exception into a practical application, thus Claim 6 is directed to an abstract idea.
Claim 7 depends on Claim 1 and thus recites similar limitations of acquiring messages and adding and displaying list items of the messages in an electronic content list. For the reasons discussed for Claim 1, these limitations recite an abstract idea. The step of, “providing a composite message list”, do not integrate the recited judicial exception into a practical application, thus Claim 7 is directed to an abstract idea.
Claims 8-9 depend on Claim 1 and thus recites similar limitations of acquiring messages and adding and displaying list items of the messages in an electronic content list. For the reasons discussed for Claim 1, these limitations recite an abstract idea. The step of, “opening an interface corresponding to the messages in response to the operation of opening the list items of the messages” and “opening an interface corresponding to the messages in response to the operation of opening the list items of the composite message list”, do not integrate the recited judicial exception into a practical application, thus Claims 8-9 are directed to an abstract idea.
Claim 10 depends on Claim 1 and thus recites similar limitations of acquiring messages and adding and displaying list items of the messages in an electronic content list. For the reasons discussed for Claim 1, these limitations recite an abstract idea. The step of, “displaying shared contents in the case that the instant messages contain the shared contents in response to the operation of opening the list items of the instant messages”, do not integrate the recited judicial exception into a practical application, thus Claim 10 is directed to an abstract idea.
Claim 11 depends on Claim 1 and thus recites similar limitations of acquiring messages and adding and displaying list items of the messages in an electronic content list. For the reasons discussed for Claim 1, these limitations recite an abstract idea. The steps of, “loading the shared contents… opening the website to display the corresponding shared contents… requesting the corresponding application to display the shared contents”, do not integrate the recited judicial exception into a practical application, thus Claim 10 is directed to an abstract idea. The limitations of “loading” and “displaying” merely represent instructions to apply the judicial exception on a computer, thus Claim 11 is directed to an abstract idea.
Claims 12-13 depend on Claim 1 and thus recites similar limitations of acquiring messages and adding and displaying list items of the messages in an electronic content list. For the reasons discussed for Claim 1, these limitations recite an abstract idea. The step of, “displaying a prompt”, and “opening an interface corresponding to the messages in response to an instruction triggered on the detail interface for viewing the messages”, do not integrate the recited judicial exception into a practical application, thus Claim s 12-13 are directed to an abstract idea.
Claims 14-15 depend on Claim 1 and thus recites similar limitations of acquiring messages and adding and displaying list items of the messages in an electronic content list. For the reasons discussed for Claim 1, these limitations recite an abstract idea. The step of, “opening an instant message interface… configuring an operation interface”, and “displaying an operation interface for replying… or configuring an operation interface for switching messages”, do not integrate the recited judicial exception into a practical application, thus Claims 14-15 are directed to an abstract idea.
Claim 16-17 depends on Claim 1 and thus recites similar limitations of acquiring messages and adding and displaying list items of the messages in an electronic content list. For the reasons discussed for Claim 1, these limitations recite an abstract idea. The addition of generic computer structures such as, “a memory… a processor”, and “a computer readable storage medium”, do not integrate the recited judicial exception into a practical application, thus Claims 16-17 are directed to an abstract idea.
Claim Objections
Claim 1 objected to because of the following informalities:
Claim 1 recites the limitation “monitoring messages coming a network and acquiring them”, in line 4. The examiner recommends changing the limitation to read, “monitoring messages from a network and acquiring them”. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claim(s) 1-4, 6-10, 12-17 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Wikitechy. (2019, March 11). Tech tips: How to find messages, photos, links from old chats on WhatsApp. India Today. Retrieved May 1, 2023, from https://www.indiatoday.in/technology/tech-tips/story/tech-tips-how-to-find-messages-photos-links-from-old-chats-on-whatsapp-1744681-2020-11-27, hereinafter “Wikitechy”.
Claim 1:
Wikitechy teaches a data processing method in which a processor is applied to execute instructions to perform, applied to a terminal device, comprising:
When receiving electronic contents from a network and displaying the electronic contents in an electronic content list on a display device (i.e. it is noted in Figs. 1-4, that the WhatsApp application operating on a device displays an electronic content list of messages, Media, Documents, and Links in a group titled “Dshss Legacy”), monitoring messages from the network and acquiring them (i.e. it is noted in Figs. 1-4 that the phone is connected to a Vodafone LTE network and is monitoring for incoming WhatsApp messages to be displayed in the WhatsApp application); acquiring messages which were from a message application and transmitted in a network (i.e. it is noted in Fig. 1 that WhatsApp acquires messages from a plurality of users using the WhatsApp message application, wherein the messages may be sent and received between users of a group chat “Dshss Legacy” and wherein the messages textual, media, document, or link type messages. The examiner notes that the BRI for messages from a message application is quite broad.);
adding and displaying list items of the messages in the electronic content list (i.e. it is noted in Fig. 2-4, that a WhatsApp user may add list items of messages for the group title “Dshss Legacy” by sending messages which may be textual, media, document, or link type messages).
Claim 2:
Wikitechy teaches the method of claim 1, wherein the step of adding and displaying list items of the messages in an electronic content list comprises: adding and displaying list items of the messages in the current display area of the list (i.e. it is noted in Fig. 3-4, that WhatsApp user has added and displayed the list of media items from the group in the current display).
Claim 3:
Wikitechy teaches the method of claim 2,
wherein the list items of the messages are displayed in a notable mode different from the list items of electronic contents (i.e. it is noted in Fig. 1 and 4 that the list of media items of the messages are displayed between the three Media, Document, and Links tabs, whereas the list of message items of electronic contents are displayed in a notably different manner in Fig. 1).
Claim 4:
Wikitechy teaches the method of claim 1, wherein the messages comprise at least one type of instant communication messages, email messages and SMS messages (i.e. it is noted in Fig. 1, that the list of message comprise at least instant messages).
Claim 6:
Wikitechy teaches the method of claim 1, further comprising: acquiring the display conditions of the messages set by a user (i.e. it is noted in Fig. 3-4, that a user may set the display conditions of the messages by attaching either media, documents, or links to a message); adding and displaying list items of the messages meeting the display conditions in the electronic content list (i.e. it is noted in Fig. 4, that the use may navigate to the Group media section in order to display listed items of the messages that meet a media, documents, or links category display condition).
Claim 7:
Wikitechy teaches the method of claim 1,
further comprising: providing a composite message list, wherein the composite message list comprises list items of various types of messages (i.e. it is noted in Fig. 4, that WhatsApp provides a composite message list that comprises message list item types of media, documents, or links) .
Claim 8:
Wikitechy teaches the method of claim 2, further comprising: opening an interface corresponding to the messages in response to the operation of opening the list items of the messages (i.e. it is noted in Figs. 3-4 that a user may select the Group media option to open an interface to view the various types of list items of the messages).
Claim 9:
Wikitechy teaches the method of claim 7, further comprising: opening an interface corresponding to the messages in response to the operation of opening the list items of the composite message list (i.e. it is noted in Figs. 3-4, that a composite list with various types of media, documents, or links is opened in response to selecting the Group media operation).
Claim 10:
Wikitechy teaches the method of claim 1, wherein the messages comprise instant messages (i.e. it is noted in Fig. 1, that the list of message comprise at least instant messages), and the method further comprises: displaying shared contents in the case that the instant messages contain the shared contents in response to the operation of opening the list items of the instant messages (i.e. it is noted in Fig. 4, that the media, documents, or links displayed in response to opening the list items are the media, documents, or links that were shared in the group instant message).
Claim 12:
Wikitechy teaches the method of claim 1, further comprising: displaying a prompt for the arrival of a new message on an electronic content detail interface (i.e. it is noted in Fig. 1 that a prompt is displayed on a chats interface for the user “Mani intern” indicating a new message).
Claim 13:
Wikitechy teaches the method of claim 12, further comprising: opening an interface corresponding to the messages in response to an instruction triggered on the detail interface for viewing the messages (i.e. it is noted in Fig. 1-2 that a user may open an interface corresponding to messages upon user selection, therefore a user may select “Mani intern” and view the new messages).
Claim 14:
Wikitechy teaches the method of claim 1, wherein the messages comprise instant messages, and the method further comprises: opening an instant message interface corresponding to the instant messages in response to the operation of opening the list items of the instant messages on the interface of the electronic content list (i.e. it is noted in in Figs. 2-4 that an instant message interface for the conversation “Dshss Legacy” may be opened in response to a user selecting a back arrow operation from Fig. 4, which displays a list of items of the instant messages in “Dshss Legacy”) or in response to an instruction triggered on the detail interface for viewing the instant messages on the electronic content detail interface; configuring an operation interface for triggering return instructions on the instant communication dialog interface; returning to an electronic content interface before entering the instant communication dialog interface in response to a return instruction triggered through the operation interface (i.e. it is noted that in Fig. 4, that a user may select the back arrow key to return to the instant message screen where a user may reply in “Dshss Legacy”).
Claim 15:
Wikitechy teaches the method of claim 1, further comprising: displaying an operation interface for replying to messages in the list items of the messages (i.e. it is noted in Fig. 2 that a reply bar is displayed for the operation of replying to messages); or, configuring an operation interface for switching messages in the list items of the messages (i.e. it is noted in Fig. 4 that a user may select the back arrow to switch the interface back to the messages for the list items of the messages).
Claim 16:
Wikitechy teaches a terminal device, comprising: a memory, used for storing executable instructions; a processor, used for executing the instructions to implement the method of claim 1 (i.e. it is noted in Fig. 1 that a user’s phone with a memory and processor is used to execute the WhatsApp operations shown in Figs. 1-6).
Claim 17:
Wikitechy teaches a computer readable storage medium, storing computer program instructions, wherein the computer program instructions are used for implementing the method of claim 1 when being read and run by the computer (i.e. it is noted in Fig. 1 that a user’s phone with a computer readable storage medium, storing computer program instructions is used to execute the WhatsApp instructions shown in Figs. 1-6).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
Claim(s) 5 & 11 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wikitechy. (2019, March 11). Tech tips: How to find messages, photos, links from old chats on WhatsApp. India Today. Retrieved May 1, 2023, from https://www.indiatoday.in/technology/tech-tips/story/tech-tips-how-to-find-messages-photos-links-from-old-chats-on-whatsapp-1744681-2020-11-27, hereinafter “Wikitechy”, as applied to Claim 1 above, and further in light of U.S. Patent Application Publication NO. 20170293414 “Pierce”.
Claim 5:
Wikitechy teaches the method of claim 1.
Wikitechy may not explicitly teach
wherein the messages comprise messages from other applications.
However, Pierce teaches
wherein the messages comprise messages from other applications (i.e. para. [0107], Fig. 8, “View 800 is displayed on display device 124. As pictured, view 800 includes a plurality of updates 802, 804, 806, 808, and 810…updates may be from different applications”, wherein it is noted that messages may be in the form of texts, comments, emails, and updates from applications A-E).
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to add wherein the messages comprise messages from other applications, to Wikitechy’s display a list of messages, with a list display wherein the messages comprise messages from other applications, as taught by Pierce. One would have been motivated to combine Pierce with Frost as the combination would help save user’s time from having to view each application individually.
Claim 11:
Wikitechy teaches the method of claim 10, wherein the step of displaying shared contents comprises: loading the shared contents of the identifier of the shared contents (i.e. it is noted in Fig. 4-6, that shared content is loaded when a user selects a media, documents, or links tab), comprising: in the case that the identifier is a website, opening the website to display the corresponding shared contents (i.e. it is noted in Fig. 6 that a user after a user has selected the tab for identifying Links attached to a message, the user may select a link to display the contents); and/or, in the case that the identifier contains an application identifier, requesting the corresponding application to display the shared contents (i.e. it is noted in Fig. 6 that a user after a user has selected the tab for identifying document attached to message, the user may select a PDF name to open a PDF application and display the contents).
While Wikitechy implies that a user may open a corresponding website or application to display shared contents, it should be noted that this concept is known in the art.
Pierce also teaches
in the case that the identifier contains an application identifier, requesting the corresponding application to display the shared contents (i.e. para. [0127], Fig. 14,“Users may select an individual update to open the relevant application and view the new content corresponding to that update”, wherein it is noted that tiles 1405-1425 each correspond to identifiers for a type of update that may be selected to open a corresponding application).
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to add in the case that the identifier contains an application identifier, requesting the corresponding application to display the shared contents, to Wikitechy’s display of a list of messages, wherein an identifier contains an application identifier, requesting the corresponding application to display the shared contents, as taught by Pierce. One would have been motivated to combine Pierce with Frost as the combination would help save user’s time by providing a streamlined means to access shared information.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
U.S. Patent Application Publication NO. 20150177970 “Choi” teaches in para. [0123], Referring to FIG. 11, upon receiving a sliding input on one side of the touch screen 151, the controller 180 can display a notification bar NB along the sliding trajectory (see (a) of FIG. 11). The controller 180 can indicate at least one indicator Ia to Ie of categories of notification messages in a specific area S of the notification bar NB.
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 DAVID H TAN whose telephone number is (571)272-7433. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 7:30-4:30.
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, Cesar Paula can be reached on (571) 272-4128. 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.
/D.T./Examiner, Art Unit 2145
/CHAU T NGUYEN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2145