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 .
Status of Claims
Claims 1, 16 and 17 have been amended and are hereby entered.
Claims 1 – 2 and 4 – 20 are pending and have been examined,
This action is made FINAL.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s argument filed on September 2nd, 2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Regarding the Applicant’s arguments against the 101 rejection of claims 1 – 2 and 4 – 20 on pages 7 – 10: Applicant’s arguments directed to Step 2A Prong 1 and Step 2A Prong 2 analyses were considered. However, these arguments are not persuasive and the examiner respectfully disagrees for the following reasons:
For Step 2A Prong 1 and Prong 2 starting on p. 7: The applicant contends that amended claim 1 no longer falls within the “mental processes” category because it now recites: 1) displaying, on an area of the message writing screen, a recommended chat room list, and 2) sending a message to the selected one or more chat rooms. Applicant asserts that these limitations cannot be performed mentally and therefore the claim is not directed to a judicial exception under Step 2A Prong 1. This argument is not persuasive, as it misconstrues the focus of the claim. Under the 2019 PEG, when evaluating Step 2A Prong 1, the analysis focuses on the claimed advance, not whether some individual limitations could be performed in the human mind. The focus of amended claim 1 remains:
identifying a user referenced in a message,
selecting appropriate communication channels (chat rooms) based on that user, and
routing the message to the chosen communication channels
This is a method of organizing human communications, which falls squarely under the category of certain methods of organizing human activity, a recognized judicial exception. Even if the claim includes computer implementation steps (e.g., displaying UI, sending the message), the underlying concept—deciding where to send a message based on who is referenced—is an abstract idea.
Alternatively, Applicant argues that because a computer performs the display and message sending, the claim does not involve mental processes. However, the mental process grouping does not require that every limitation be mentally performable. It only requires that the underlying steps reflect mental activities, such as:
observing (reading the typed name)
recognizing (identifying the referenced user)
evaluating (determining appropriate chat rooms), and
deciding (selecting where to send the message)
These core steps remain mental processes even if implemented on a computer. A human can readily perform these conceptual steps outside of a computer. For instance, a person sees that “Bob” is typed. The person thinks about which groups include Bob, and then chooses one or more such groups to send the message to. The fact that a computer displays the list or sends the message does not remove the claim from the mental-process category. Thus, Applicant’s assertion that the “display” and “send” steps defeat mental-process characterization is not persuasive.
Further, Applicant argues that the invention solves technical problems and provides technical benefits by reducing steps required to send a message. Applicant relies on paragraph [0059] of the specification to assert that these are “technical benefits.” This argument is also not persuasive for the following reasons. Reducing the number of steps a user must perform to select a chat room is a usability or workflow improvement, not an improvement to a computer technology. Improving user efficiency, reducing clicks, reducing user efforts, or providing more convenient interfaces does not constitute a technological improvement, see MPEP 2106.05(a). The claims do not improve the functioning of a processor, messaging system, the structure of the chat room database, message transmission protocols, or any technical component. They merely improve a user’s experience interacting with the same generic messaging systems.
Therefore, Applicant’s arguments are not persuasive, and the rejection of claims 1 – 2 and 4 – 20 under 35 U.S.C. § 101 is maintained.
Regarding the Applicant’s arguments against the 102/103 rejections of claims 1 – 2 and 4 - 20 on pages 11 – 13: The submitted amendments changed the scope of the invention to render further search and consideration which led to an updated rejection. The claims remain rejected under the same prior art reference and more citations and explanations have been provided to support the rejection. Specifically, Applicant asserts that Sittig does not disclose the element of "displaying, on an area of the message writing screen, a recommended chat room list in which at least one chat room having the user is displayed" and "in response to one or more chat rooms being selected in the displayed recommended chat room, sending a message entered on the message writing screen to the selected one or more chat rooms" of the amended claim 1 in the present application. Examiner respectfully disagrees. With respect to the Sittig reference (US20230032642A1), [¶0036] clearly teaches the user interface having the capabilities of displaying a “scrollable list” of audio room tiles. Furthermore, upon selecting an audio room tile, the user is prompted with icons representing different functions for communicating with said audio room [¶0037].
The claims stand rejected.
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 - 2 and 4 – 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more, and therefore does not recite patent-eligible subject matter. Firstly, it should be stated that claim 1 will be representative of the independent claim set 1, 16 and 17.
However, Step 2A Prong 1:
The claims are directed to collecting, analyzing, and organizing information as well as providing recommendations based on user activity, which falls into the abstract idea category of mental processes and certain methods of organizing human activity, specifically managing interpersonal interactions and information recognition and classification, as identified in the 2019 PEG. For example, claim 1 recites:
identifying a user matching a name entered on a message writing screen;
displaying, on an area of the message writing screen, a recommended chat room list in which at least one chat room having the user is displayed; and
in response to one or more chat rooms being selected in the displayed recommended chat room, sending a message entered on the message writing screen to the selected one or more chat rooms.
These limitations describe a method of recommending the most appropriate chat room for a message based on its content and participant data. The essence of the invention is identifying a user who is mentioned, locating shared spaces between the users, and then suggesting the best place to deliver the message—which is a decision process that resembles human decision-making and judgment about context and audience. Thus, these limitations are directed to the abstract idea of organizing human interaction, in the form of managing relationships and communications between people – a known judicial exception. The claims recite the steps of identifying a user matching a name entered on a message writing screen, as well as providing a recommended chat room list in which at least one chat room having the user is displayed—all of which are conceptual steps that could be performed mentally or with a pen and paper. Such activities—managing interpersonal interactions—are well-known examples of organizing human activities, a recognized judicial exception. The specification (e.g., ¶0002) supports this characterization by disclosing “The disclosure relates to a method for providing a recommended chat room for sending a message, and an apparatus for implementing the same. More particularly, the disclosure relates to a method for providing a recommended chat room for sending a message in order to provide information on a recommended chat room when writing a message, and an apparatus for implementing the same.”
Alternatively, the claim limitation also recites the “mental processes” grouping of abstract ideas as they include identifying a user matching a name entered on a message writing screen as well as providing a recommended chat room list in which at least one chat room having the user is displayed. Each of these steps constitutes mental processes—specifically, identification, analysis, and judgments, which are all capable of being performed in the human mind alone, even if implemented by a computer. For instance, a human could read a message, recognize a user is being referenced, consider which group chat includes both parties, and then recommend sending the message in that context. These limitations recite a mental-process-type abstract idea because they involve observation, evaluation, judgment, and/or opinion to provide a recommended chat room to send a message to a user—all of which can be mentally performed without needing any specific technological implementation. Furthermore, even if a computer system performs this suggestion automatically, the claims do not recite any improvement to how the evaluation is done—it simply automates a mental process.
As stated in SAP America, Inc. v. Investpic, LLC, 898 F.3d 1161, 1167 (Fed. Cir. 2018), “selecting certain information, analyzing it, and reporting or displaying the results of the analysis” is abstract. Likewise, the claims here focus on detecting message mentions, analyzing chat room data, and recommending a context—a clear example of abstract data processing and mental analysis. Accordingly, the limitations as claimed do not recite any technological improvement or solution, but instead recite mental steps of analysis and judgement that are abstract and could be practically performed by a human or with a physical aid.
Step 2A Prong 2: For independent claims 1, 16 and 17: The judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application because the claims and their additional feature element(s) of at least one processor (claims 1, 16 and 17), a memory (claim 17), and a non-transitory computer-readable medium (claim 16), individually and in combination, merely is used as a tool to perform the abstract idea (refer to MPEP 2106.05(f)). Similarly, these elements are generic computing components that are directed to “merely indicating a field of use or technological environment in which to apply a judicial exception do not amount to significantly more than the exception itself, and cannot integrate a judicial exception into a practical application” (MPEP 2106.05(h)). These elements do not impose any meaningful limitations on the claimed process beyond using conventional computer functions.
These additional features are recited at a high level of generality, such as “providing a recommended chat room,” and are implemented with standard hardware, without improving how computers operate or how messaging systems fundamentally work. The components merely apply the abstract idea using a generic computing environment, which is not sufficient to integrate the idea into a practical application (see MPEP 2106.05(f)). Therefore, this is indicative of the fact that the claim set has not integrated the abstract idea into a practical application and therefore, the claims are found to be directed to the abstract idea identified by the examiner.
Step 2B: For independent claims 1, 16 and 17, The claim(s) does/do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. Because the additional element(s) recited of at least one processor (claims 1, 16 and 17), a memory (claim 17), and a non-transitory computer-readable medium (claim 16), are not sufficient to amount significantly more than the judicial exception as these elements are further reciting the abstract idea. As indicated in the Step 2A Prong 2 analysis, the additional element(s) in the claims are merely, using a generic computer device or computing technologies and/or other machinery merely as a tool to a mere instruction to practice the invention. Thus, the claims do not render the claims as being eligible (refer to MPEP 2106.05(f) and 2106.05(h)). This is because the claimed invention must improve “upon conventional functioning of a computer, or upon conventional technology or technological processes a technical explanation as to how to implement the invention should be present in the specification. That is, the disclosure must provide sufficient details such that one of ordinary skill in the art would recognize the claimed invention as providing an improvement. The specification need not explicitly set forth the improvement, but it must describe the invention such that the improvement would be apparent to one of ordinary skill in the art (see MPEP 2106.05(a)). The rationale set forth for the 2nd prong of the eligibility test above is also applicable and re-evaluated in the Step 2B analysis. Therefore, this rationale is sufficient for its rejection basis as it is not patent eligible and no comments are necessary as it is also consistent with MPEP 2106.
For dependent claims 2, 4 – 15 and 18 – 20, these claims cover or fall under the same abstract idea of a method of organizing human activity and mental processes. They describe additional limitation steps of:
Claims 2 – 15 and 18 – 20: further describes the abstract idea of the method for scoring chat rooms based on message content and participant data, ranking or filtering chat rooms, presenting the user interface for selection, creating new chat rooms, as well as handling multi-user mentions. Thus, being directed to the abstract idea group of organizing interpersonal interactions and mental processes as these functions encompass observation, evaluation, judgment, and opinion and can be performed mentally or in pen and paper.
Step 2A Prong 2 and Step 2: For dependent claims, these claims do not include additional elements, but further instruct one to practice the abstract idea by using general computer components that merely are used as a tool. Thus, it amounts no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component (MPEP 2106.05(f)). Therefore, these claim limitations amount to no more than mere instructions to apply the exceptions using generic computer components and or computing technologies (e.g., that are merely deployed to be used as a tool; see MPEP 2106.05(f)).
Additionally, these elements and their limitations are “merely indicating a field of use or technological environment in which to apply a judicial exception do not amount to significantly more than the exception itself, and cannot integrate a judicial exception into a practical application” (MPEP 2106.05(h)). Accordingly, these additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because it does not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea.
Therefore, claims 1 – 2, and 4-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 101 for being directed to an abstract idea without sufficient integration into a practical application, and the additional elements do not add significantly more than the judicial exception.
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.
Claims 1 -2, 4, and 16-19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102 as being unpatentable over Sittig (U.S. Pub No. 20230032642 A1).
Regarding claims 1 and 16:
Sittig discloses:
identify a user matching a name entered on a message writing screen; and (In ¶0004; Fig. 1: teaches “The method includes receiving an indication that a first user is interested in speaking with one or more other users, saving the one or more other users to a first selection list,”)
displaying, on an area of the message writing screen, a recommended chat room list in which at least one chat room having the user is displayed. (In ¶0005; Fig. 1: teaches “In various embodiments, the method includes displaying a first user list to the first user, the first user list including at least one user other than the first user and displaying a second user list to the second user, the second user list including at least one user other than the second user. “) Additionally, [¶0036]: teaches a user interface having the capabilities of displaying a “scrollable list” of audio room tiles.
in response to one or more chat rooms being selected in the displayed recommended chat room, sending a message entered on the message writing screen to the selected one or more chat room (In ¶0045: teaches “As such, the user may use the search box 406 and/or the scrollable list 408 to find/select users to be invited to the audio room 114. While not shown, the new room tab 402 may include additional room settings (e.g., privacy or visibility levels).” Furthermore, upon selecting an audio room tile, the user is prompted with icons representing different functions for communicating with said audio room [¶0037]. [Examiner’s Note: Parameters are set in place and visibility filters are enabled to allow certain users to join a specific chat room.]
Regarding claim 2:
Sittig discloses:
wherein the identifying of the user comprises, based on a determination that a preset symbol is entered on the message writing screen, identifying the user matching the name that is entered consecutively to the preset symbol. (¶0038; Figs. 4A, 10C, 11B: teaches “In one example, the explore function 212 allows the user to search for different users and clubs. The explore function 212 may allow the user to search for other users by name (or username) and clubs by title (i.e., topic).”)
Regarding claim 4:
Sittig discloses:
wherein the providing of the recommended chat room list comprises, based on a determination that the at least one chat room having the user does not exist, displaying a new chat room creation user interface (UI) with the user in the recommended chat room list. (In ¶0048 - 0050; Figs. 4B, 6A – 6D: teaches “FIG. 4B is an example view 410 of the user interface 120. In one example, the view 410 corresponds to the live audio room 104 from the perspective of an audience member. The speaker list 410 indicates the current speakers in the audio room 114. In some examples, an audience list 412 is displayed indicating the audience members who are followed by (or friends with) the speaker(s). As shown in FIG. 4B, the user interface 120 includes a ping user button 418. The user (e.g., speaker or audience member) can select the ping user button 418 to invite or “ping” users to join the audio room 104.”)
Regarding claim 16:
Sittig discloses:
identify a user matching a name entered on a message writing screen; and (In ¶0058; Fig. 6B: teaches “For example, FIG. 6B illustrates an example view 610 of the user interface 120 a including a search tab 612. As shown, the first user 114 a may search for users via the search box 604 and results may appear below in real-time as the user is typing.”)
provide a recommended chat room list in which at least one chat room having the user is displayed. (In ¶0069: teaches “At step 708, the room engine 106 of the application server 102 is configured to generate the audio room 104. For example, the audio room 104 may have a room title 122 corresponding to the names of the user in the chat thread (e.g., “Chat between John and Mike”). “)
Regarding claim 17:
Sittig discloses:
one or more processors; and (In ¶0008: teaches “The system includes at least one memory for storing computer-executable instructions and at least one processor for executing the instructions stored on the memory.”)
a memory configured to load a computer program executable by the one or more processors; (In ¶0008: teaches “The system includes at least one memory for storing computer-executable instructions and at least one processor for executing the instructions stored on the memory.”)
identifying a user matching a name entered on a message writing screen; and (In ¶0004; Fig. 1: teaches “The method includes receiving an indication that a first user is interested in speaking with one or more other users, saving the one or more other users to a first selection list,”)
displaying, on an area of the message writing screen, a recommended chat room list in which at least one chat room having the user is displayed. (In ¶0005; Fig. 1: teaches “In various embodiments, the method includes displaying a first user list to the first user, the first user list including at least one user other than the first user and displaying a second user list to the second user, the second user list including at least one user other than the second user. “)
in response to one or more chat rooms being selected in the displayed recommended chat room, sending a message entered on the message writing screen to the selected one or more chat room (In ¶0045: teaches “As such, the user may use the search box 406 and/or the scrollable list 408 to find/select users to be invited to the audio room 114. While not shown, the new room tab 402 may include additional room settings (e.g., privacy or visibility levels).” [Examiner’s Note: Parameters are set in place and visibility filters are enabled to allow certain users to join a specific chat room.]
Regarding claim 18:
Sittig discloses:
wherein the identifying of the user comprises, based on a determination that a number of users matching the entered name is plural, extracting a user relevant to a writer of the message. (In ¶0045; Fig. 4A: teaches “The user may use the search box 406 to find other users to invite to the audio room 104. In some examples, the new room tab 402 includes a scrollable list 408 of the user’s friends, or a portion of the user’s friends (e.g., top friends). In this context, “friend” corresponds to a second user who follows a first user and/or is followed by the first user (i.e., co-followed). As such, the user may use the search box 406 and/or the scrollable list 408 to find/select users to be invited to the audio room 114. While not shown, the new room tab 402 may include additional room settings (e.g., privacy or visibility levels).” [Examiner’s Note: A first user is able to filter his/her chat room using a plethora of privacy/visibility features, filtering users through degrees of separation.)
Regarding claim 19:
Sittig discloses:
wherein the computer program further comprises an instruction for providing the message writing screen based on a selection of a message writing button displayed in one area of a chat room list. (In ¶0060; Fig. 6C: teaches “In some examples, when a ping button 608 displaying “Message” is selected, a separate messaging tab is displayed to the first user 114 a. For example, FIG. 6C illustrates an example view 620 of the user interface 120 a including a messaging tab 622. “)
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 5-15 and 20 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sittig (U.S. Pub No. 20230032642 A1) in view of Holmes (U.S. Pub No. 20080201434 A1).
Regarding claims 5 and 20:
Although Sittig discloses providing titles/nametags for different chat rooms to differentiate the topics covered by each chat room, Sittig does not explicitly disclose providing a recommended conversation history relevant to a keyword inputted. However, Holmes teaches:
providing a recommended conversation history comprising conversation contents relevant to a keyword extracted from a message entered on the message writing screen among conversation contents of the at least one chat room included in the recommended chat room list. (In ¶0030; Figs. 3 – 4: teaches “Once the keywords and phrases have been identified and highlighted, a user can select a particular keyword or phrase and have a user interface displayed that exposes the user or users in the conversation to various textually-relevant material or functionality that pertains to the selected keyword or phrase.”
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the earliest effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Sittig’s disclosed features for online discussion forums with providing a recommended conversation history comprising conversation contents relevant to a keyword extracted from a message entered on the message writing screen among conversation contents of at least one chat room included in the recommended chat room list, as taught by Holmes, as “individuals who have instant messaging conversations will often find that they have to transition out of, or tab out of the context of their instant messaging application in order to access some other type of information or functionality that is, or may be germane to the topic of their conversation,” thus increasing the efficiency of messaging between users.
Regarding claim 6:
Sittig does not disclose providing the recommended conversation history based on a determination that a conversation history having the user exists as well as displaying the recommended conversation history. However, Holmes teaches:
wherein the providing of the recommended conversation history comprises, based on a determination that a conversation history having the user exists, displaying the recommended conversation history. (In ¶0057; Fig. 9: teaches “FIG. 9 illustrates an exemplary architecture in accordance with one embodiment generally at 800. Here, architecture 800 includes an instant messaging application 802 having a conversation history 804 which maintains a history of conversations that a user may have.”)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the earliest effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Sittig’s disclosed features for online discussion forums with providing the recommended conversation history comprises, based on a determination that a conversation history having the user exists, displaying the recommended conversation history, as taught by Holmes, as “individuals who have instant messaging conversations will often find that they have to transition out of, or tab out of the context of their instant messaging application in order to access some other type of information or functionality that is, or may be germane to the topic of their conversation,” thus increasing the efficiency of messaging between users.
Regarding claim 7:
Sittig discloses:
wherein the providing of the recommended conversation history comprises, based on a determination that a conversation history having the user does not exist, providing a recommendation function of a similar conversation history. (In ¶0030; Figs. 3 – 4: teaches “Once the keywords and phrases have been identified and highlighted, a user can select a particular keyword or phrase and have a user interface displayed that exposes the user or users in the conversation to various textually-relevant material or functionality that pertains to the selected keyword or phrase.”
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the earliest effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Sittig’s disclosed features for online discussion forums with providing of the recommended conversation history comprises, based on a determination that a conversation history having the user does not exist, providing a recommendation function of a similar conversation history, as taught by Holmes, as “individuals who have instant messaging conversations will often find that they have to transition out of, or tab out of the context of their instant messaging application in order to access some other type of information or functionality that is, or may be germane to the topic of their conversation,” thus increasing the efficiency of messaging between users.
Regarding claim 8:
Sittig discloses:
wherein the providing of the recommendation function of the similar conversation history comprises displaying the similar conversation history comprising conversation contents relevant to the keyword extracted from the message entered on the message writing screen among conversation contents of a chat room that does not include the user and comprises only a writer of the message. (In ¶0031; Figs. 3 – 4: teaches “In one or more embodiments, when keywords or phrases are highlighted on a first user's interface, the same keywords or phrases are highlighted in the respective user interfaces of the other users with which the first user is conversing. In addition, in these embodiments, the same search results can be displayed for the other conversation participants as well.”)
Regarding claim 9:
Sittig discloses:
displaying the recommended chat room list in a first area of the message writing screen, and (In ¶0038; Fig. 2: teaches “The explore function 212 may allow the user to search for other users by name (or username) and clubs by title (i.e., topic).”)
Sittig does not disclose displaying the recommended conversation history in a second area of the message writing screen. However, Holmes teaches:
displaying the recommended conversation history in a second area of the message writing screen. (In ¶0030: teaches “Once the keywords and phrases have been identified and highlighted, a user can select a particular keyword or phrase and have a user interface displayed that exposes the user or users in the conversation to various textually-relevant material or functionality that pertains to the selected keyword or phrase.”)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the earliest effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Sittig’s disclosed features for online discussion forums with displaying the recommended conversation history in a second area of the message writing screen, as taught by Holmes, as “individuals who have instant messaging conversations will often find that they have to transition out of, or tab out of the context of their instant messaging application in order to access some other type of information or functionality that is, or may be germane to the topic of their conversation,” thus increasing the efficiency of messaging between users.
Regarding claim 10:
Sittig discloses:
based on a determination that a second symbol is additionally entered on the message writing screen, identifying a second user matching a name that is entered consecutively to the additionally entered second symbol; (In ¶0038; Figs. 1, 2, 4B: teaches “The explore function 212 may allow the user to search for other users by name (or username) and clubs by title (i.e., topic). Likewise, the user may use the explore function 212 to view the clubs that specific users are members of.”
displaying at least one chat room having both the first user and the second user in the recommended chat room list; and (In ¶0063; Fig. 6D: teaches “While the above example describes users being displayed in a list (e.g., user list 602), in other examples the users can be displayed differently. For example, FIG. 6D illustrates an example view 630 of the user interface 120. In one example, the view 630 is substantially similar to the view 600 of FIG. 6A, except the view 630 includes users displayed in a user grid 632.”)
Sittig does not disclose displaying conversation histories that have occurred in at least one chat room having both the first and the second user in a recommended conversation history. However, Holmes teaches:
displaying conversation histories that have occurred in the at least one chat room having both the first user and the second user in a recommended conversation history. (In ¶0057; Fig. 9: teaches “Here, architecture 800 includes an instant messaging application 802 having a conversation history 804 which maintains a history of conversations that a user may have. “
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the earliest effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Sittig’s disclosed features for online discussion forums with displaying conversation histories that have occurred in the at least one chat room having both the first user and the second user in a recommended conversation history, as taught by Holmes, as “individuals who have instant messaging conversations will often find that they have to transition out of, or tab out of the context of their instant messaging application in order to access some other type of information or functionality that is, or may be germane to the topic of their conversation,” thus increasing the efficiency of messaging between users.
Regarding claim 11:
Sittig discloses:
wherein the displaying of the at least one chat room having both the first user and the second user in the recommended chat room list comprises, based on a determination that the at least one chat room having both the first user and the second user does not exist, displaying a new chat room creation user interface (UI) having the first user and the second user in the recommended chat room list. (In ¶0097; Fig. 11A – 11B: teaches “The user 114 may select the room button 1106 next to each active user in the list 1104 to join (or request to join) the same audio room as the active user. If the user is not in an audio room (or inactive), the user 114 may select the room button 1106 next to each user to start (or request to start) a new audio room.”)
Regarding claim 12:
Sittig discloses:
wherein the displaying of the conversation histories that have occurred in the at least one chat room comprising both the first user and the second user in the recommended conversation history comprises providing a user interface (UI) filtering each of conversation histories of the first user and the second user displayed in the recommended conversation history. (In ¶0055; Fig. 1: teaches “The user engine 109 can filter User Sets A, B, and C based on information corresponding to the first user 114 a. In certain examples, the number of users included in User Set A is capped at a certain threshold (e.g., top 8 users), and the user engine 109 may remove any users from User Set A that exceed the threshold. In one example, this filtered User Set A represents a “mutual user set” for the first user 114 a. Likewise, the user engine 109 may filter User Set B such that only contacts associated with the first user 114 a are included (e.g., from the user’s own contact list).”)
Regarding claim 13:
Sittig discloses:
displaying an individual send user interface (UI) to a one-to-one chat room having each of the first user and the second user in the recommended chat room list; (In ¶0035; Fig. 2: teaches “FIG. 2 is an example view 200 of the user interface 120 in accordance with aspects described herein. In one example, view 200 of the user interface 120 corresponds to a homepage of the client application 118.”)
dividing a message entered on the message writing screen into a first message corresponding to the first user and a second message corresponding to the second user and, based on the individual send UI being selected, displaying the divided first message and second message; and (In ¶0060: teaches “As such, the messaging tab 622 allows the first user 114 to ping external users to join the audio room 104 without leaving the client application 118 a. In some examples, when pinging multiple external contacts, a group message can be sent to the external contacts in a group message thread. In certain examples, the messaging tab 622 is configured to leverage features and/or functionality from a native messaging application installed on the client device 116 a (e.g., Apple iMessage).”)
sending the first message to a first one-to-one chat room having the first user and sending the second message to a second one-to-one chat room having the second user. (In ¶0060: teaches “As such, the messaging tab 622 allows the first user 114 to ping external users to join the audio room 104 without leaving the client application 118 a. In some examples, when pinging multiple external contacts, a group message can be sent to the external contacts in a group message thread. In certain examples, the messaging tab 622 is configured to leverage features and/or functionality from a native messaging application installed on the client device 116 a (e.g., Apple iMessage).”)
Regarding claim 14:
Although Sittig discloses a plethora of user interfaces for a variety of the platform’s features, Sittig does not explicitly disclose providing a user interface for displaying a recommended conversation history corresponding to each of the first and second message. However, Holmes teaches:
providing a user interface (UI) for displaying a recommended conversation history corresponding to each of the first message and the second message. (In ¶0057 – 0059: teaches “a conversation history 804 which maintains a history of conversations that a user may have. Further, a keyword extractor 812 is provided and is associated with and s receives keywords or phrases from sources that include a query log component 814, a dynamic data component 816 and/or a shared terms component 818. When a user has a conversation, the conversation history is passed to the add-on manager which, in turn, passes the conversation to one or more of the plug- ins 808, 810.”)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the earliest effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine Sittig’s disclosed features for online discussion forums with providing a user interface (UI) for displaying a recommended conversation history corresponding to each of the first message and the second message, as taught by Holmes, as “individuals who have instant messaging conversations will often find that they have to transition out of, or tab out of the context of their instant messaging application in order to access some other type of information or functionality that is, or may be germane to the topic of their conversation,” thus increasing the efficiency of messaging between users.
Regarding claim 15:
Sittig discloses:
displaying a chat room direct select user interface (UI) in the recommended chat room list; (In ¶0035; Fig. 2: teaches “FIG. 2 is an example view 200 of the user interface 120 in accordance with aspects described herein. In one example, view 200 of the user interface 120 corresponds to a homepage of the client application 118. FIG. 2 and other figures presenting user interfaces in this application include icons and labels and refer to various features displayed by the user interface (e.g., search, schedule, notifications, etc.).”);
based on the chat room direct select UI being selected, displaying a list of all chat room lists; and (In ¶0036; Fig. 2: teaches “As shown, the user interface 120 can display live and/or upcoming audio rooms to the user. For example, home page 200 includes a first audio room tile 204 a corresponding to the first audio room 104 a having a title 122 a named “Your best career advice,” a second audio room tile 204 b corresponding to the second audio room 104 b having a title 222 b named “ERC20 Exchange Showdown,” and a third audio room tile 204 c corresponding to the third audio room 104 c. The audio rooms tiles 204 may be displayed in a scrollable list referred to as a “hallway.””); and
sending the message to at least one chat room selected from the list of all chat rooms. (In ¶0059 – 0060; Fig. 6A – 6D: teaches “In one example, the first user 114 a can select users to ping by selecting (or tapping) the ping button 608 next to each user. In some examples, the ping button 608 may have a specific configuration depending on the type of user (e.g., platform user, external contact, etc.) Likewise, for external users that do not have user accounts on the platform, the ping button 608 may default to display “Message.” In some examples, when a ping button 608 displaying “Message” is selected, a separate messaging tab is displayed to the first user 114 a.”).
Pertinent Art
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant’s disclosure.
Nakajima (J.P. Pub No. JP2024015695 A) is pertinent because it is directly related to “a technique for proposing actions to participants in an exchange group.”
Suh (U.S. Pub No. US20230275857 A1) is pertinent because it is related to “a personalized messaging service system and a personalized messaging service method, and more particularly, it relates to a personalized messaging service system and a personalized messaging service method that converts messages created by artists into personalized messages for each user using user information and provides them.”
Vanasco (U.S. Pub No. US20100274815 A1) is pertinent because it is directed to “methods and systems relate generally to machine readable or interpretable social networks, and more particularly to indexing members of one or more of these networks across their associations and optionally customizing content based on such.”
Frankel (U.S. Pub No. US20130046781 A1) is pertinent because it is directly related to a “computer implemented system and method for retailers, brands, manufacturers, service providers, and resellers to deliver personalized messages based on a script about their products to an end user. The end user data has been collected via end user input, a social media database containing user input, a CRM database query based on end user information, cookies and browser header from the end user net surfing, and second and third party data providers, etc.”)
Jonnalagadda (U.S. Pub No. US20200143265 A1) is pertinent because it is related to “systems and methods for natural language processing and generation of more “human” sounding artificially generated conversations. Such natural language processing techniques may be employed in the context of machine learned conversation systems. “
Zyberk (U.S. Patent No. US11368423 B1) is pertinent because it is directed to “A dense passage retrieval machine learning model having a first encoder for resources and a second encoder for messages can automatically match relevant resources to computers or sessions based on analysis of a series of messages of an online chat conversation.”
Okumura (U.S. Pub No. US20080189367 A1) is pertinent because it is directly related to “technology for facilitating social communication by exchanges of text messages over a network, and in particular to technology for matching communication partners.”
Estrada (U.S. Pub No. US12107803 B2) is pertinent because it is directed to “systems and methods provide a continuous conversation experience for the user whereby a message recipient of one message type (e.g., email, text, etc.) may continue a conversation in a different message type (e.g., a chat session, instant message, etc.) without manually providing message context for communicating via the second message type.”
Millius (U.S. Patent No. US10642830 B2) is pertinent because it is related to “machine learning. More particularly, the present disclosure relates to systems and methods for implementing context aware chat history assistance using machine-learned models.”
Liu (U.S. Patent No. 10142266 B2) is pertinent because it is directly related to “the field of information processing technologies, and in particular, to methods and systems for providing recommendations during a chat session.”
Conclusion
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. 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 Bill Chen whose telephone number is (571)270-0660. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 8:30am - 5:00pm.
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, Nathan Uber can be reached on (571) 270-3923. 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.
/BILL CHEN/Examiner, Art Unit 3626
/NATHAN C UBER/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3626
Prosecution Insights