DETAILED ACTION
This Action is in response to the Amendment for Application Number 18087614 received on 7/22/2025.
Claims 43-62 are presented for examination.
Claims 43, 51, 52, and 55 have been amended.
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on 12/19/2025 has been entered.
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) 43, 45-51, 53-55, 57-62 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Roche et al. (US 8676913) in view of Molina et al. (US 9418117).
Regarding claim 43, Roche disclosed one or more non-transitory computer-readable media storing instructions executable by one or more processors (Roche, col. 41, lines 42-58) that, when executed by the one or more processors, cause the one or more processors to perform acts comprising:
receiving a message in a channel of a plurality of channels of a group-based communication platform (Roche, Fig. 4A, 470, 480, col. 3, lines 6-20, Roche disclosed receiving input naming a first discussion topic as a parent discussion topic, and receiving a plurality of discussion content identified to be associated with the first discussion topic; In Figure 4A, see 480-1 which is a message in a channel of a plurality of channels; Roche’s panel 470 lists super-discussion topics which are interpreted as the plurality of channels, as claimed);
causing a first body of the message to be rendered in a first pane of a plurality of panes of a communication interface of the group-based communication platform (Roche, Fig. 4A, depicts a “discussion page” displays on user’s device, includes main window 402 which has a plurality of panes/portions within, including portion 480 that provides content listing of content relating to a discussion topic; See 480-1, which is the initial content message received from @alex);
causing a list of names of the plurality of channels to be rendered in a second pane of the plurality of panes that is separate from the first pane (Roche, col. 22, lines 41-44, Roche disclosed, “A discussion page 400 may also include listings of sub-discussion topics in a sub-discussion panel 460 and super-discussion topics in a super-discussion panel 470”; col. 20, lines 61-67, “The main discussion window 402 may also include a plurality of panels or windows, some of which may be interactive, that contain information about the discussion topic, e.g., a discussion identifier panel 410, a brief description panel 420, a participant sharing panel 430, a tagging panel 440, an active tag panel 450, a sub-discussion panel 460, and a super-discussion panel 470.”; That is, Roche makes these panels optional, as denoted by the fact that window 402 “may” also include them. As such, Roche allows for embodiments in which only one of these panels may exist; col. 24, lines 17-22, “The discussion topic (e.g., parent or sub-discussion topic) may be selected using a discussion topic panel (e.g., sub-discussion panel 460, super-discussion panel 470, or a panel or list on the discussion page that displays and provides for selection of parent discussion topics and sub-discussion topics).”; Roche, col. 24, lines 32-45, Roche disclosed that a user may select a discussion topic, to which the content of that discussion topic is displayed in 480; As noted above, Roche does not require all panels. Therefore, Roche allows for an embodiment in which the main discussion window 402 includes, for example, only the super-discussion panel 470 without including the sub-discussion panel or any of the other optional panels, in which the super-discussion panel 470 lists parent discussion topics, and allows the user to select a parent discussion topic from a plurality of parent discussion topics by selecting its corresponding super-discussion topic from the panel 470 for display of its corresponding messages in portion 480),
wherein each channel of the plurality of channels is a virtual space that relates to a different topic (Roche, col. 20, lines 61-67 and col 24, lines 17-22, In the embodiment described in the above citation, each super-discussion topic allows for the selection of a parent discussion topic, and therefore each listed super-discussion topic relates to a different discussion topic) and that is associated with a different set of users of the group-based communication platform that are authorized to access the channels (Roche, col. 31, line 65 through col. 32, line 8, Roche disclosed the allowing for access privileges for participants at the discussion topic level, meaning that each discussion topic, such as each parent discussion topic, may include a different set of users that are authorized to access that discussion topic),
wherein selection of a name of the list of names designates the first pane for display of messages of a corresponding channel of the plurality of channels (Roche, col. 22, lines 45-50, “According to some embodiments, the listed sub- and super-discussion-topic identifiers may be active, such that when one or more of the entries is selected by a user the user's device displays a corresponding list of discussion content (e.g., a list of comments, a list of attached content) for the selected topic or topics.”; That is, in the embodiment that only super-discussion topic identifiers is active, selection of one of these super-discussion topic identifiers results in display of the messages corresponding to that super-discussion topic (i.e. its respective parent discussion topic); col. 22, line 65 through col. 23, line 15, “the discussion page 400 may include a content information portion 480. This portion of the discussion page may provide at least one listing of discussion content associated with a selected discussion topic”; That is, upon selection of a super-discussion topic (i.e. parent discussion topic), the listing of content, including messages, associated with that super-discussion topic is displayed in 480.
wherein each message associated with the group-based communication platform is associated with only one channel of the plurality of channels (Roche, col. 1, line 62 through col. 2, line 14, Roche disclosed discussion topics are defined, and “a system component (e.g., a discussion-topic server or user device) may create a discussion data structure for each discussion topic, and organize user-contributed content that is identified as belonging to a particular discussion topic into corresponding discussion data structures. By accessing the discussion data structures, system components may render the content for any selected discussion topic on a visual display”; col. 2, lines 14-25, Roche disclosed, “The system provides for establishing hierarchical relations between discussion topics, e.g. parent topic, sub-topic”. Roche does not define a relationship between messages of different parent discussion topics, and therefore each message is associated with only one super-discussion topic), and
wherein a first name corresponding to the first channel is selected during display of the first body of the message in the first pane (Roche, col. 22, lines 40-50, and Fig. 4A, allows for the user to select names of discussion topics from the discussion lists, and such may occur during the display of any messages that are currently being displayed, as shown in the Figure, including the first message, and hence the first body of the message);
receiving a first request to create a first reply associated with the message (Roche, col. 23, lines 57-62, “replies to the initial postings”; See col. 24, lines 9-31 regarding initiating replies to an initiating comment, including icons that are used to reply to a selected content);
responsive at least in part to receiving the first request, maintaining display of the first body and causing a second body of the first reply to be rendered in the first pane, below the first body of the message (Roche, Fig. 4A, Roche disclosed the system displaying received replies to @alex’s initial message, from 480-2 @kathy, 480-3 @chandra, 480-4 @decker, which are displayed below the first body of the initial message from @alex);
receiving a second request to create a second reply associated with the message (Roche, Fig. 4A, Roche disclosed the system receiving replies to @alex’s initial message, from, for example, 480-2 @kathy, 480-3 @chandra, 480-4 @ decker; See col. 24, lines 9-31 regarding initiating replies to an initiating comment, including icons that are used to reply to a selected content; As shown by Fig. 4A, Roche disclosed receiving multiple replies associated with a single initiating message);
responsive at least in part to receiving the second request, maintaining the display of the first body and at least a portion of the second body and causing a third body of the second reply to be rendered in the first pane, below the second body (Roche, Fig. 4A, Roche disclosed the system displaying received replies to @alex’s initial message, from 480-2 @kathy, 480-3 @chandra, 480-4 @decker, which are displayed below the first body of the initial message from @alex);
causing a selectable user interface element indicating an existence of at least the first reply and the second reply to be rendered in the first pane, near the message (Roche, Fig. 4B, col. 23, line 45 through col. 24, line 9, Roche disclosed presenting the content of Fig 4A in a hierarchical manner as shown in Fig. 4B, in which, “The replies may be collapsed, or hidden, via an interactive collapse icon 481 that a user may activate”; As shown in Fig. 4B, icon 481 is only presented near messages that have replies and is provided to control the displaying/hiding/collapsing of such replies, and therefore the icon 481 indicates the existence of such replies); and
receiving an indication of a selection of the selectable user interface element, wherein the selection causes display of the second body and the third body to cease while maintaining the display of the first body (Roche, Fig. 4B, col. 23, line 45 through col. 24, line 9, Roche disclosed presenting the content of Fig 4A in a hierarchical manner as shown in Fig. 4B, in which, “The replies may be collapsed, or hidden, via an interactive collapse icon 481 that a user may activate”; Roche explicitly disclosed collapsing/hiding the replies).
While Roche disclosed the selectable user interface element located near the initial message, Roche did not explicitly disclose the user interface element to be located “below” the message, as claimed.
However, the mere placement of the selectable user interface element on the GUI does not change the functionality of the icon, and as such, it would have been an obvious matter of design choice for the programmer to place the icon wherever desired for the benefits of optimizing GUI space and/or providing a more user-friendly user interface.
Regardless, in an analogous art, Molina disclosed causing the selectable user interface element to be rendered in the pane below the message (Molina, Fig. 8, 801 “View 7 more replies” which is rendered below the message; See col. 16, lines 40-48).
One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to combine the teachings of Roche with Molina as they both relate to the rendering of conversation messages, and as such they are within similar environments. Furthermore, one of ordinary skill in the art would have combined such teachings because Roche already disclosed an implementation of the GUI with the indication of replies (Fig. 4B). As such the inclusion of the placement of the selectable indicator, as disclosed by Molina, within the teachings of Roche would have been within the level of one of ordinary skill.
Therefore it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to incorporate the placement of the selectable indicator, as disclosed by Molina, within the teachings of Roche as doing so would provide the benefit of indicating to the user the existence of replies to the message in an area proximate to the message, making it easier to recognize, thereby increasing desirability of use of the program by its customers.
Claim 51 recites a method with limitations that are substantially similar to the limitations of claim 43. As shown by the recitations above, Roche and Molina disclosed the steps of the method.
Claim 55 recites a system comprising: one or more processors; and one or more non-transitory computer-readable media storing instructions executable by the one or more processors, wherein the instructions cause the one or more processors to perform limitations that are substantially similar to the limitations of claim 43.
Roche and Molina disclosed a system comprising: one or more processors; and one or more non-transitory computer-readable media storing instructions executable by the one or more processors (Roche, col. 41, lines 42-58).
Therefore claims 51 and 55 are rejected under the same rationale applied above with respect to Roche and Molina.
Regarding claims 45, 53, and 57, Roche and Molina disclosed the one or more non-transitory computer-readable media of claim 43, method of claim 51, and system of claim 55, wherein the plurality of panes includes at least one other pane (Roche, Fig. 4A which provides a messaging pane and multiple other panes along the left side). See motivation above.
Regarding claims 46, 54, and 58, Roche and Molina disclosed the one or more non-transitory computer-readable media of claim 45, method of claim 53, and system of claim 57, wherein causing the selectable user interface element to be rendered below the message comprises causing the selectable user interface element to be rendered between the message and the at least the portion of the second body (Molina, Fig. 8, 801 “View 7 more replies” which is rendered between the message at least the portion of the second body of another reply; col. 16, lines 40-48). See motivation above. See motivation above.
Regarding claims 47 and 59, Roche and Molina disclosed the one or more non-transitory computer-readable media of claim 43, method of claim 51, and system of claim 55, wherein the message is rendered in a first format and at least one of the first reply or the second reply is rendered in a second format that is different than the first format (Roche, col. 23, line 58 through col. 24, line 9). See motivation above.
Regarding claims 48 and 60, Roche and Molina disclosed the one or more non-transitory computer-readable media of claim 43, method of claim 51, and system of claim 55, including wherein the first reply is rendered in a first format and the second reply is rendered in a second format that is different than the first format (Molina, Figure 11, Reply message by Josh Bower is in a visibly different format than the reply message by Ryan Perry in terms of font size as well as image size next to the reply messages.). See motivation above.
Regarding claims 49 and 61, Roche and Molina disclosed the one or more non-transitory computer-readable media of claim 43, method of claim 51, and system of claim 55, wherein at least one of the first reply or the second reply is rendered offset from the message within the first pane (Roche, col. 23, line 58 through col. 24, line 9, Fig 4B). See motivation above.
Regarding claims 50 and 62, Roche and Molina disclosed the one or more non-transitory computer-readable media of claim 43, method of claim 51, and system of claim 55, wherein the selectable user interface element indicates a number of replies to the message (Molina, Fig. 8, 801 “View 7 more replies” which is rendered between the message at least the portion of the second body; col. 16, lines 40-48). See motivation above.
Claim(s) 44, 52, and 56 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Roche et al. (US 8676913) in view of Molina et al. (US 9418117) and further in view of Durazo et al. (US 7716593).
Regarding claims 44, 52, and 56, Roche and Molina disclosed the one or more non-transitory computer-readable media of claim 43, computer-implemented method of claim 51, and system of claim 55, wherein the selection comprises a first selection, and the indication comprises a first indication (Roche, Fig. 4B, col. 23, line 45 through col. 24, line 9, Roche disclosed presenting the content of Fig 4A in a hierarchical manner as shown in Fig. 4B, in which, “The replies may be collapsed, or hidden, via an interactive collapse icon 481 that a user may activate”; Roche explicitly disclosed collapsing/hiding the replies).
While Roche disclosed the utilization of an icon for collapsing the replies, Roche and Molina did not explicitly disclose receiving a second indication of a second selection of the selectable user interface element; and responsive at least in part to receiving the second indication of the second selection, causing rendering of the first reply and the second reply in the first pane.
However, it would have been within the level of one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed for the selectable icon of Roche to allow for toggling between collapsing and expanding of the replies, as doing so would allow the user to be able to hide the replies, and subsequently view the replies after hiding them, when desired. Furthermore, simply expanding what has been collapsed would not require extensive implementation, as such would be accomplished by simply re-generating the display as shown in Fig 4B before hiding the replies. That is, Roche already provides for the implementation of displaying the replies, and therefore simply clicking the icon 481 a second time to arrive at the display of Fig. 4B would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill, for the benefit of providing the user with the ability to better organize the interface according to their desires to view, increasing customer desirability of use.
Regardless, in an analogous art, Durazo disclosed receiving a second indication of a second selection of the selectable user interface element; and responsive at least in part to receiving the second indication of the second selection, causing rendering of the first reply and the second reply in the first pane (Durazo, Fig. 3, col. 8, lines 16-43, Durazo disclosed conversation groupings illustrated in Fig. 3, in which the user may select the button 315 for expanding the conversation grouping to display all electronic mail messages contained in the conversation grouping. Conversely, the user may collapse the record by selection of the button 315 to return the displayed conversation grouping record to the automatic display mode).
One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to combine the teachings of Roche Molina and Durazo as they all relate to the rendering of conversation messages, and as such they are within similar environments. Furthermore, one of ordinary skill in the art would have combined such teachings because Roche already discloses the implementation of the GUI with the ability to view and collapse replies using an icon, and already disclosed the GUI showing an expanded view of such replies, as noted above. As such the inclusion of the implementation of simply selecting the same indicator to interchange between expanded and contracted views of Durazo within the teachings of Roche would have been within the level of one of ordinary skill.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to incorporate the explicit expanding and collapsing functionality disclosed by Durazo within the teachings of Roche as doing so would provide for improved conversation grouping functionality (Durazo, col. 2, lines 43-65) and improving readability, thereby resulting in increased customer desirability of use.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 12/19/2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant asserts, “Fig. 4A does not indicate that the different sections are included in “a list of names” that are each included in a separate “pane,” as recited in amended claim 43. On the contrary, the different content in Fig. 4A are each in their separate section”
Examiner respectfully disagrees.
The limitation in question recites, “causing a list of names of the plurality of channels to be rendered in a second pane of the plurality of panes that is separate from the first pane”.
Roche, at Figure 4A disclosed a super-discussion pane 470 that provides a list of super-discussions selectable by the user. See col. 22, lines 41-44, Roche disclosed “A discussion page 400 may also include listings of sub-discussion topics in a sub-discussion panel 460 and super-discussion topics in a super-discussion panel 470”. See also col. 24, lines 17-22, in which Roche disclosed, “The discussion topic (e.g., parent or sub-discussion topic) may be selected using a discussion topic panel (e.g., sub-discussion panel 460, super-discussion panel 470, or a panel or list on the discussion page that displays and provides for selection of parent discussion topics and sub-discussion topics).” It is evident from this citation that Roche disclosed a list of parent discussion topics in the super-discussion pane.
Applicant asserts, “Furthermore, the different sections within Fig. 4A each relate to the same topic and it cannot be said that each of the different sections correspond to "a virtual space that relates to a different topic and that is associated with a different set of users of the group-based communication platform that are authorized to access the channels," as recited in amended claim 43.”
Examiner respectfully disagrees.
At Fig. 4A, 470, 480, col. 3, lines 6-20, Roche disclosed receiving input naming a first discussion topic as a parent discussion topic, and receiving a plurality of discussion content identified to be associated with the first discussion topic. At col. 20, lines 61-67 and col 24, lines 17-22, Roche disclosed, each super-discussion topic allows for the selection of a parent discussion topic, and therefore each listed super-discussion topic relates to a different discussion topic). Furthermore, at col. 31, line 65 through col. 32, line 8, Roche disclosed allowing for access privileges for participants at the discussion topic level, meaning that each discussion topic, such as each parent discussion topic, may include a different set of users that are authorized to access that discussion topic.
Applicant asserts, “although each of the sections in Fig. 4A of Roche may include messages, Roche fails to teach or suggest that "each message...is associated with only one channel of the plurality of channels," as recited in amended claim 43”.
Examiner respectfully disagrees.
At col. 1, line 62 through col. 2, line 14, Roche disclosed discussion topics are defined, and “a system component (e.g., a discussion-topic server or user device) may create a discussion data structure for each discussion topic, and organize user-contributed content that is identified as belonging to a particular discussion topic into corresponding discussion data structures. By accessing the discussion data structures, system components may render the content for any selected discussion topic on a visual display”; col. 2, lines 14-25, Roche disclosed, “The system provides for establishing hierarchical relations between discussion topics, e.g. parent topic, sub-topic”. Roche does not define a relationship between messages of different parent discussion topics, and therefore each message is associated with only one super-discussion topic. Such is evident by the fact that each parent discussion has its own discussion data structure.
The rejections are therefore respectfully maintained.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Treat (US 11652875) disclosed dynami user integration in group-based communication systems.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JERRY B DENNISON whose telephone number is (571)272-3910. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8:30-5:50.
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, Hadi Armouche can be reached at 571-270-3618. 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.
/JERRY B DENNISON/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2409