DETAILED ACTION
Claims 1, 13 and 19 have been amended.
Claims 6, 18 and 25 have been cancelled.
Claims 7-12 were previously cancelled.
Claims 1-5, 13-17 and 19-24 are pending.
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 .
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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114.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 05/01/26 has been entered.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to the 103 rejection of claim 1 (see applicant’s remarks; pages 10-15) have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument.
In particular, the examiner no longer relies upon Elsner as a prior art reference, and does not rely upon Li or Huxley to disclose the amended limitations. Instead, the examiner introduces Vembu to disclose the amended limitations “displaying the additional description information and the first instant messaging information in combination in a case that the additional description information is generated within a preset time period after sending the first instant messaging information; wherein a display position of the additional description information and the first instant messaging information in combination is a display position of the corresponding first instant messaging information originally displayed; and wherein in a case that the additional description information is generated outside the preset time period after sending the first instant messaging information, the additional description information is not displayed in combination with the first instant messaging information originally displayed, and a regenerated first instant messaging information with the additional description information is displayed”, as shown in the rejection below.
Further, the applicant states that independent claims 13 and 19 recite similar features as claim 1, and that dependent claims 2-5, 14-17 and 20-24 depend either directly or indirectly from claims 1, 13 and 19 (see applicant’s remarks; pages 15-16). As such, the rationale discussed above applies equally as well to claims 13 and 19, and the corresponding dependent claims.
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.
Claims 1, 13, 19 and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Li et al. (CN 110061900A; Applicant submitted prior art; see IDS filed 05/20/24) (English machine translation has been attached) in view of Huxley (U.S. 2013/0013699 A1), and further in view of Vembu et al. (U.S. 2020/0302107 A1).
Regarding claims 1 and 13, Li discloses an information display method, comprising:
receiving a first input for a target interface, wherein the target interface displays first instant messaging information (see Li; paragraphs 0074, 0075 and 0114; Li discloses a first conversation message, i.e. “first instant messaging information”, on a conversation interface, i.e. “a target interface displays first instant messaging information”, and a comment trigger option displayed on the conversation interface. A second terminal, which includes the conversation interface, receives a comment instruction, i.e. “a first input”, of a second user based on the comment trigger option triggered by the second user);
obtaining, in response to the first input, additional description information corresponding to the first instant messaging information (see Li; paragraphs 0104 and 0114; Li discloses when receiving the comment instruction, i.e. “in response to the first input”, obtaining comment information, i.e. “additional description information”, of the first conversation message, i.e. “corresponding to the first instant messaging information”); and
displaying the additional description information and the first instant messaging information in combination in the target interface (see Li; paragraphs 0115 and 0124; Li discloses after the second terminal obtains the comment information, i.e. “additional description information”, of the second user on the first conversation message, i.e. “first instant messaging information”, the second terminal, which includes the conversation interface, i.e. “target interface”, displays the first conversation message and the comment information, i.e. “displaying the additional description information and the first instant messaging information in combination”. Further, a first terminal also displays the first conversation message and the comment information).
While Li discloses “displaying the additional description information and the first instant messaging information in combination in the target interface”, as discussed above, Li does explicitly disclose wherein the additional description information and the first instant messaging information are sent by the same user.
In analogous art, Huxley discloses wherein the additional description information and the first instant messaging information are sent by the same user (see Huxley; paragraphs 0040, 0046 and 0048; Huxley discloses a sharing user is able to upload a photo, i.e. “first instant messaging information”, or a group of photos residing on the user’s mobile device for an online photo session to share with other users. The sharing user may comment/annotate, i.e. “additional description”, on a particular photo and the comment/annotation is overlayed on the photo. In other words, the sharing user shares a photo and a comment, i.e. “additional description information and the first instant messaging information are sent by the same user”, with the other users. The examiner notes that according to the applicant’s specification, the first instant messaging information is a picture; see applicant’s specification as filed, paragraph 0030).
One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to combine Li and Huxley because they both disclose the feature of a user leaving comments corresponding to content, and as such, are within the same environment.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to incorporate Huxley’s comment/annotation feature into the system of Li in order to provide a more efficient user experience by the comment trigger option (see Li; paragraph 0074) being implemented using an editing tool that allows a user to pause a session, e.g. a photo session, to comment on a particular photo out of a group of photos (see Huxley; paragraph 0048).
While Li discloses “displaying the additional description information and the first instant messaging information in combination in the target interface”, as discussed above, the combination of Li and Huxley does not explicitly disclose displaying the additional description information and the first instant messaging information in combination in a case that the additional description information is generated within a preset time period after sending the first instant messaging information; wherein a display position of the additional description information and the first instant messaging information in combination is a display position of the corresponding first instant messaging information originally displayed; and wherein in a case that the additional description information is generated outside the preset time period after sending the first instant messaging information, the additional description information is not displayed in combination with the first instant messaging information originally displayed, and a regenerated first instant messaging information with the additional description information is displayed.
In analogous art, Vembu discloses displaying the additional description information and the first instant messaging information in combination in a case that the additional description information is generated within a preset time period after sending the first instant messaging information (see Vembu; paragraphs 0049-0051 and Figure 7C; Vembu discloses a comment message, i.e. “additional description information”, corresponding to a slide1, i.e. “first instant messaging information”. The comment message is displayed with the slide1, i.e. “displaying additional description information and the first instant messaging information in combination…”, while, i.e. “within a preset time period…”, the slide1 is being displayed during a presentation. In other words, the comment message, i.e. “additional description information”, is added by the user after the display of the slide1, i.e. “a preset time period after sending the first instant messaging information”. The examiner notes the claim does not specify what is considered the preset time period. The claim limitation merely recites that the "preset time period" is "after sending the first instant messaging information". Therefore, any set period of time after the first instant message is sent, e.g. as soon as the user receives the display of the slide, can be considered the "preset time period");
wherein a display position of the additional description information and the first instant messaging information in combination is a display position of the corresponding first instant messaging information originally displayed (see Vembu; paragraphs 0050-0051 and Figure 7C; Vembu discloses the comment message, i.e. “the additional description information”, and slide1 “the first instant messaging information”, are displayed together in the same display portion as part of the presentation session information, i.e. “a display position of the corresponding first instant messaging information originally displayed”); and
wherein in a case that the additional description information is generated outside the preset time period after sending the first instant messaging information, the additional description information is not displayed in combination with the first instant messaging information originally displayed, and a regenerated first instant messaging information with the additional description information is displayed (see Vembu; paragraphs 0052-0056 and Figures 7D, 7E and 7F; Vembu discloses a presenter can advance to the next slide during the presentation, i.e. “outside the preset time period after sending the first instant messaging information”, in which the users receive a second slide, e.g. slide2. Further, the user may disable commands from the presenter and independently scroll through the presentation. For example, the user can add a comment, i.e. “additional description information”, for slide1, i.e. “the first instant messaging information”, while independently scrolling through the presentation. A second instance of slide1 is displayed with the user’s comment, i.e. “a regenerated first instant messaging information with the additional description information is displayed”. In other words, the user’s comment is added after a second slide is received, and therefore “outside the preset time period after sending the first instant messaging”, since slide2 is displayed and the slide1 is no longer “originally displayed”. That is, there is a second instance, i.e. “regenerated…”, of slide1, i.e. “first instant messaging information”, with the user’s added comment, and as such, the comment is not displayed with the initial display of slide1, i.e. “not displayed in combination with the first instant messaging information originally displayed”).
One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to combine Li, Huxley and Vembu because they all disclose the feature of a user leaving comments corresponding to content, and as such, are within the same environment.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to incorporate the feature of commenting on images delivered during a presentation as taught by Vembu into the combined system of Li and Huxley in order to provide a comment for a picture that was sent (see Li; paragraph 0074) previously, that is, presented earlier using a second instance of the image (see Vembu; paragraphs 0053 and 0056).
Further, Li discloses the additional limitations of claim 13, an electronic device, comprising a processor, a memory, and a program or an instruction stored in the memory and executable on the processor, wherein when the program or the instruction is executed by the processor (see Li; paragraph 0212; Li discloses a memory including instructions, and the instructions can be executed by a processor).
Regarding claim 19, the limitations are similar to the limitations recited in claim 1. Further, Li discloses the additional limitations of a non-transitory readable storage medium, wherein the non-transitory readable storage medium stores a program or an instruction, wherein the program or the instruction, when executed by a processor, of an electronic device, causes the electronic device to perform (see Li; paragraph 0034; Li discloses a computer-readable storage medium is provided, wherein at least one instruction is stored in the storage medium, and the instruction is loaded and executed by a processor to implement the operations performed by the message display method).
Regarding claim 20, Li, Huxley and Vembu disclose all the limitations of claim 1, and further the combination of Li, Huxley and Vembu clearly discloses a chip, comprising a processor and a communications interface, wherein the communications interface is coupled to the processor, and the processor is configured to run a program or an instruction to implement steps of the information display method according to claim 1 (see Li; paragraphs 0034, 0195 and 0196; Li discloses an instruction is loaded and executed by the processor, in which the processor and an interface are connected and integrated on the same chip).
Claims 2, 14 and 21 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Li et al. (CN 110061900A; Applicant submitted prior art; see IDS filed 05/20/24) (English machine translation has been attached) in view of Huxley (U.S. 2013/0013699 A1) and Vembu et al. (U.S. 2020/0302107 A1), as applied to claims 1, 13 and 19 above, and further in view of Matsumura et al. (U.S. 2014/0150015 A1).
Regarding claims 2, 14 and 21, Li, Huxley and Vembu discloses all the limitations of claims 1, 13 and 19, as discussed above, and further while Li discloses “obtaining, in response to the first input, additional description information corresponding to the first instant messaging information”, as discussed above, the combination of Li, Huxley and Vembu does not explicitly disclose wherein a first application identifier is displayed in the target interface, and the first input is an input for the first application identifier; and obtaining, in response to the first input, additional description information related to an application program corresponding to the first application identifier.
In analogous art, Matsumura discloses wherein a first application identifier is displayed in the target interface, and the first input is an input for the first application identifier (see Matsumura; paragraph 0140 and Figure 7; Matsumura discloses a comment option for a comment application is displayed, i.e. “a first application identifier is displayed”, in an application execution menu screen, i.e. “target interface”, and a selection, i.e. “the first input”, of the comment option for the comment application, i.e. “the first input is an input for the first application identifier”); and
obtaining, in response to the first input, additional description information related to an application program corresponding to the first application identifier (see Matsumura; paragraph 0140 and Figures 7 and 8; Matsumura discloses executing the comment application, i.e. “an application program”, based on the selection, i.e. “in response to the first input”, of the comment option, i.e. “first application identifier”, in the application execution menu and displaying comments, i.e. “obtaining…additional description information”, in the comment application, i.e. “related to an application program corresponding to the first application identifier”, in combination with the program content).
One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to combine Li, Huxley, Vembu and Matsumura because they all disclose the feature of a user leaving comments corresponding to content, and as such, are within the same environment.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to incorporate Matsumura’s application execution menu into the combined system of Li, Huxley and Vembu in order to provide the comment trigger option (see Li; paragraph 0074) to be implemented inside a menu screen for display efficiency in the case other options are displayed to the user, such as comment trigger options for both audio and video (see Li; paragraph 0154).
Claims 3, 15 and 22 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Li et al. (CN 110061900A; Applicant submitted prior art; see IDS filed 05/20/24) (English machine translation has been attached) in view of Huxley (U.S. 2013/0013699 A1), Vembu et al. (U.S. 2020/0302107 A1) and Matsumura et al. (U.S. 2014/0150015 A1), as applied to claims 2, 14 and 21 above, and further in view of Cornell (U.S. 2019/0141402 A1).
Regarding claims 3, 15 and 22, Li, Huxley, Vembu and Matsumura disclose all the limitations of claims 2, 14 and 21, as discussed above, and further while Li discloses “obtaining, in response to the first input, additional description information corresponding to the first instant messaging information”, as discussed above, the combination of Li, Huxley, Vembu and Matsumura does not disclose wherein a floating identifier is displayed in the target interface; receiving a second input for the floating identifier; and displaying, in response to the second input, an application identifier corresponding to at least one application program, wherein the application program is an application program running in the background, and the first application identifier is an application identifier in at least one application identifier.
In analogous art, Cornell discloses wherein a floating identifier is displayed in the target interface (see Cornell; paragraphs 0043 and 0044; Cornell discloses a social interaction toolbar, i.e. “floating identifier”, is displayed in a small rectangular region that covers a small portion of the screen. The social interaction toolbar may be partially transparent);
receiving a second input for the floating identifier (see Cornell; paragraphs 0041 and 0046; Cornell discloses upon receiving a suitable user input, i.e. “a second input”, the social interaction toolbar, i.e. “the floating identifier”, is displayed while displaying a full screen video. Further, the user may hide the social interaction toolbar via an explicit input, e.g. a downward swipe in the area of the toolbar. In other words, when a user hides the social interaction toolbar via a downward swipe, the user would be able to unhide the social interaction toolbar via a suitable user input, i.e. “receiving a second input for the floating identifier”, such as, an upward swipe); and
displaying, in response to the second input, an application identifier corresponding to at least one application program, wherein the application program is an application program running in the background, and the first application identifier is an application identifier in at least one application identifier (see Cornell; paragraphs 0041, 0042, 0051-0053 and Figure 6; Cornell discloses upon receiving a suitable user input, i.e. “in response to the second input”, the social interaction toolbar is displayed, which includes UI buttons, such as for group commenting, i.e. “displaying…application identifier”, when the UI button is selected a comment interface, i.e. “an application program”, is displayed as an overlay. In other words, the comment interface runs in the background, i.e. “an application program running in the background”, until the user selects the UI button, i.e. “the first application identifier is an application identifier in at least one application identifier”).
One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to combine Li, Huxley, Vembu, Matsumura and Cornell because they all disclose the feature of a user leaving comments corresponding to content, and as such, are within the same environment.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to incorporate Cornell’s social interaction toolbar into the combined system of Li, Huxley, Vembu and Matsumura in order to provide the comment trigger option (see Li; paragraph 0074) to be implemented inside a menu screen for display efficiency in the case other options are displayed to the user, such as comment trigger options for both audio and video (see Li; paragraph 0154), and allowing the user to hide the menu based on an amount of time that passes or by an explicit user input (see Cornell; paragraph 0061).
Claims 4, 5, 16, 17, 23 and 24 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Li et al. (CN 110061900A; Applicant submitted prior art; see IDS filed 05/20/24) (English machine translation has been attached) in view of Huxley (U.S. 2013/0013699 A1) and Vembu et al. (U.S. 2020/0302107 A1), as applied to claims 1, 13 and 23 above, and further in view of Cornell (U.S. 2019/0141402 A1).
Regarding claims 4, 16 and 23, Li, Huxley and Vembu discloses all the limitations of claims 1, 13 and 23, as discussed above, and further Li discloses wherein the first input is an input for the first instant messaging information (see Li; paragraph 0074 and 0075; Li discloses the user triggering, i.e. “the first input”, the comment trigger option for the first conversation message, i.e. “first instant messaging information”); and the obtaining, in response to the first input, additional description information corresponding to the first instant messaging information comprises (see Li; paragraphs 0104 and 0114; Li discloses when receiving the comment instruction, i.e. “in response to the first input”, obtaining comment information, i.e. “additional description information”, of the first conversation message, i.e. “corresponding to the first instant messaging information”), the combination of Li, Huxley and Vembu does not explicitly disclose displaying, in response to the first input, an information editing box in a display area corresponding to the first instant messaging information, and obtaining additional description information that is input through the information editing box.
In analogous art, Cornell discloses displaying, in response to the first input, an information editing box in a display area corresponding to the first instant messaging information, and obtaining additional description information that is input through the information editing box (see Cornell; paragraph 0051; Cornell discloses displaying a comment prompt, i.e. “information editing box”, and receiving a new comment, i.e. “obtaining additional description information that is input”).
One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to combine Li, Huxley, Vembu and Cornell because they all disclose the feature of a user leaving comments corresponding to content, and as such, are within the same environment.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to incorporate Cornell’s social interaction toolbar into the combined system of Li, Huxley and Vembu in order to provide the comment trigger option (see Li; paragraph 0074) to be implemented inside a menu screen for display efficiency in the case other options are displayed to the user, such as comment trigger options for both audio and video (see Li; paragraph 0154), and allowing the comment interface to be displayed as an overlay over the full screen (see Cornell; paragraph 0052), thereby providing for the video to be visible (see Cornell; paragraph 0053).
Regarding claims 5, 17 and 24, Li, Huxley, Vembu and Cornell disclose all the limitations of claims 4, 16 and 23, as discussed above, and further the combination of Li, Huxley, Vembu and Cornell clearly discloses in a process of obtaining the additional description information, sending prompt information to an information receiver, wherein the prompt information comprises content of description information that the other party adds to the instant messaging information (see Cornell; paragraphs 0051-0053; Cornell discloses displaying a comment prompt, i.e. “information editing box”, and receiving comments, i.e. “obtaining additional description information that is input”, from a user related, i.e. “content of description information that the other party adds” to a displayed video).
The prior art used in the rejection of the current claim is combined using the same motivation as was applied in claims 4, 16 and 23.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure:
Cronan (U.S. 11,343,470 B1) discloses a collaboration system may annotate assets that are presented at different times during a conference.
Piira et al. (U.S. 2018/0041457 A1) discloses a determination may be made that a comment was added to a document, e.g. a group chat message, within a predetermined time period.
Koizuka (U.S. 2012/0233254 A1) discloses comments displayed during a particular time period and other time periods no comments are displayed.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ADAM A COONEY whose telephone number is (571)270-5653. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 7:30am-5:00pm (every other Fri off).
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, Umar Cheema can be reached at 571-270-3037. 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.
/A.A.C/Examiner, Art Unit 2458 05/14/26
/UMAR CHEEMA/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2458
Prosecution Insights