DETAILED ACTION
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 .
This office action is responsive to communication filed on 08/26/2021.
Specification
The disclosure is objected to because of the following informalities: It is suggested to delete the extra pages on the claimed sheets.
Appropriate correction is required.
For purpose of examination, the Examiner claims 1 – 9 are being examined.
Claim Objections
Claim 1 is objected to because of the following informalities: It is suggested to delete the “.” (after to halt a message (line 28) and insert --- ; ---. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim 3 is objected to because of the following informalities: It is suggested to end the claim with a period.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claims 1 – 9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over GEORGE et al (US 2014/0180788; hereinafter GEORGE) in view of Mark Meister (US 2012/0089686; hereinafter Meister).
Regarding claim 1, GEORGE discloses a method for providing a multi-feed mobile chat platform for separate business and personal uses between a web server and a plurality of client devices communicatively connected over the Internet (paragraph [0102]; GEORGE discloses that the clients 906 interact with the SRM 901 using one or more computing devices 912 (such as cell phones, PDAs, desktops, laptops, tablets, and notebooks), the method comprising:
receiving user message data, wherein the user message data comprises user message content data, user specified message type data, user specified message modification data, and user specified message time data (paragraphs [0032], [0059], [0061], [0063]; GEORGE discloses that in some embodiments, monitoring server 302 obtains content from the sources whenever it detects a change at the sources (e.g., monitoring server 302 can periodically check the sources for any changes such as newly posted content or updates made to existing content). In some embodiments, monitoring server 302 obtains content from the sources at a request by a user);
generating a draft message using the user message data (paragraphs [0054 – 0055], [0057]);
when user specified message modification data contains predefined chat sticker template or face filter instruction data, applying a predefined chat sticker template or face filter to all images associated with the user contained in the draft message (paragraphs [0040], [0043], [0046], [0054]; GEORGE discloses that the data that is received for processing includes non-social data. Such data may include, for example, enterprise data (e.g., email, chats, transcribed phone conversations, transcribed videos));
when user specified message modification data contains predefined chat sticker template and face filter instruction data, applying a background to all images associated with the user contained in the draft message (paragraphs [0032], [0040], [0043], [0046], [0054]);
when user specified message time data contains message deletion instruction data, inserting a deletion time instruction into the draft message to cause the web server to delete the message at the data and time specified in the deletion time instruction (paragraphs [0122], [0146]);
when user specified message time data contains message schedule instruction data, inserting a scheduled posting time instruction into the draft message to cause the web server to preschedule a posting and/or delete the message or posting at the data and time specified in the deletion time instruction (paragraph [0146]); and
sending the draft message data, including any modifications to the draft message to the web server for inclusion in one of a plurality of message feeds (paragraphs [0054 – 0055], [0057]).
GEORGE discloses all the limitations, but fails to specifically disclose that a user is automatically reminded, alerted, or prevented from sending a text, chat, or message to the wrong recipient; responsive to an input for a user to an “unsend”, “alert”, “abort”, ”cancel”, ”retract” or “stop” command from the sender device, to halt a message; revealing an input for a user to “unsend”, “alert”, “abort”, ”cancel”, ”retract” or “stop” the transmitted message after transmitting the message but pending dispatch to the recipient device.
Meister, in an analogous art, discloses that a user is automatically reminded, alerted, or prevented from sending a text, chat, or message to the wrong recipient (fig. 3; paragraphs [0021], [0032], [0035]; Meister discloses that the alert 501 may be provided as a "Confirmation Request" to an email sender in order to prevent inadvertent transmission to an unintended recipient); responsive to an input for a user to an “unsend”, “alert”, “abort”, ”cancel”, ”retract” or “stop” command from the sender device, to halt a message (paragraphs [0031 – 0032]; Meister discloses that the alert 501 may be provided as a "Confirmation Request" to an email sender in order to prevent inadvertent transmission to an unintended recipient); revealing an input for a user to “unsend”, “alert”, “abort”, ”cancel”, ”retract” or “stop” the transmitted message after transmitting the message but pending dispatch to the recipient device (paragraphs [0021], [0031 – 0032],, [0043]; Meister discloses that if destination data of a recipient such as the recipient's email address or internet domain appears on the sender's outgoing blacklist, the sender is alerted and asked to confirm whether the sender would like the transmission to continue).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the teaching of GEORGE by showing that a user is automatically reminded, alerted, or prevented from sending a text, chat, or message to the wrong recipient; responsive to an input for a user to an “unsend”, “alert”, “abort”, ”cancel”, ”retract” or “stop” command from the sender device, to halt a message; revealing an input for a user to “unsend”, “alert”, “abort”, ”cancel”, ”retract” or “stop” the transmitted message after transmitting the message but pending dispatch to the recipient device as evidenced by Meister for the purpose of preventing the inadvertent transmission of sensitive information to a known but unintended recipient; thereby reducing confusion and avoiding mistakes in communications when send/replying to a message with multiple recipients.
Regarding claim 2, GEORGE and Meister disclose the method according to claim 1, wherein the draft message further comprises message type data indicating the feed and recipient users of the draft message (GEORGE: paragraphs [0054 - 0055], [0057]).
Regarding claim 3, GEORGE and Meister disclose the method according to claim 1, wherein message type data comprises a user business message feed, a user personal feed, a dual user messaging and chat feeds, a live streaming feed, a marketplace feed, and a billboard feed (GEORGE: paragraph [0054]).
Regarding claim 4, GEORGE and Meister disclose the method according to claim 1, wherein a user that is using SMS and Chat Messaging platforms is allowed to stop or cancel a message even after pressing the send button when the sent message reveals the wrong recipient(s), pending dispatch (Meister: paragraphs [0031 – 0032]; Meister discloses that after the sender "presses" the "send" button to thereby initiate the email send 301 and before a client email application may make a network connection 306 to its email server 102, for example, the system 100 detects the send button activation and compares 303 the addressee(s) to the user's outbound blacklist database (e.g. FIG. 4). The outbound blacklist is one that the user maintains with specific email addresses or domain names for which the user would like to be alerted before sending email to). Same motivation as in claim 1.
Regarding claim 5, GEORGE and Meister disclose the method according to claim 1, wherein a pop-up reveals to the user that is using SMS and Chat Messaging platforms who the “sent message” is going to and wherein the user is enabled to “See” the wrong or unintended recipient(s) after the message is sent pending dispatch, and abort or cancel the message (Meister: paragraphs [0021], [0035]). Same motivation as in claim 1.
Regarding claim 6, GEORGE and Meister disclose the method according to claim 1, wherein if the user using a SMS or Chat Messaging platforms decides they don't want to send a message that reveals the wrong recipient(s), the sender can stop or cancel the message, correct the recipient(s) and resend the message (Meister: paragraphs [0031 – 0032]; Meister discloses that if the user wishes to cancel or abort the transmission at 305, control is returned to the user allowing the user an opportunity to readdress, revise, delete, etc.). Same motivation as in claim 1.
Regarding claim 7, GEORGE and Meister disclose the method according to claim 1, wherein a user using an email via web browser or app is allowed to recall, stop or retract a sent message when the sent message reveals the wrong recipient(s)( Meister: paragraphs [0021], [0035]).
Regarding claim 8, GEORGE and Meister disclose the method according to claim 1, wherein a pop-up reveals to the user using a web browser or app who the “sent message” is going to and wherein the user is enable to “Undo Send” or “Retract the message.”(Meister: paragraphs [0021], [0031], [0035]). Same motivation as in claim 1.
Regarding claim 9, GEORGE and Meister disclose the method according to claim 1, wherein if the user using a web browser or app decides they don't want to send an email message that reveals the wrong recipient(s), the sender has a short time afterward to stop or cancel the message, correct the recipient(s) and resend the message (Meister: paragraphs [0021], [0031 – 0032], [0035]; Meister discloses that after displaying the blacklist alert and transmit confirm request 307, process 300 awaits 305 user input to indicate either approval to continue to transmit the message or to cancel its transmission). Same motivation as in claim 1.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Zhang et al (US 9,674,132) discloses system, methods, and user interface for effectively managing message communications.
Roman TYVYAN (US 2011/0055334) discloses a system and method for evaluating outbound messages.
Contact Information
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to YVES DALENCOURT whose telephone number is (571)272-3998. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8AM-5:30PM.
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, Ario Etienne can be reached at 571-272-4001. 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.
/YVES DALENCOURT/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2457