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 .
DETAILED ACTION
This action is responsive to the amendment filed on 7/1/2025 to the Application filed on 9/5/2023.
This application is a National Stage of PCT international application Ser. No. PCT/CN2022/077334 filed on2/22/2022 and claims the benefit of priority from Chinese Patent Application No. CN20110247186.0 filed on 3/5/2021.
Claims 34-53 are pending in the case. Claims 1-33 have been canceled. Claims 34 and 44 are independent claims.
Claim Interpretation
Claims 41 and 51 recite the limitation “social application”. The specification does not attribute any particular definition to the limitation “social application”. During patent examination, the pending claims must be "given their broadest reasonable interpretation consistent with the specification." The Federal Circuit’s en banc decision in Phillips v. AWH Corp., 415 F.3d 1303, 1316, 75 USPQ2d 1321, 1329 (Fed. Cir. 2005). As such, the limitation “social application” will be interpreted to possibly mean application that enables social interactions.
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.
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 34-35, 37-39, 44-45, and 47-49 are rejected under AIA 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Pearson et al., U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 20060179466 filed on 2/4/2005 (hereinafter Pearson) in view of Chipman et al., U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 20140282745 filed on 3/14/2013 (hereinafter Chipman).
As for independent claim 34, Pearson discloses device and method implemented by an electronic device, wherein the method comprises:
(Pearson paragraph [0022], [0024]-[0025] discloses electronic device 104 including a processor 122 and memory storing program)
displaying a first user interface comprising a message list and video content being played;
(Pearson paragraph [0037]-[0039] discloses displaying a first user interface displaying message list 1102 and video content 902 as shown in fig. 11)
receiving, from a user on a first message box in the message list, a first trigger operation triggering a reply to a first contact corresponding to the first message box;
(Pearson paragraph [0037]-[0039] discloses selecting reply button 108 to trigger a reply to the sender as shown in fig. 13)
obtaining, based on the first trigger operation, a reply message to the first contact while displaying the first user interface, wherein the reply message comprises an audio message or a video message; and
(Pearson paragraph [0037]-[0041], [0048] discloses obtaining reply message to the first contact, the sender, by recording an audio message using the microphone of the remote device)
sending, to the first contact, the reply message
(Pearson paragraph [0037]-[0041] discloses reply message can be sent using the send button 1306 as shown in fig. 13).
Pearson does not appear to explicitly disclose device and method comprising identifying that the user has selected the first message box; in response to identifying that the user has selected the first message box, displaying the message list comprising a scaled-up fist message box and the video content being played, wherein the scaled-up first message box comprises a plurality of chat messages. However, Chipman discloses device and method comprising
identifying that the user has selected the first message box; in response to identifying that the user has selected the first message box, displaying the message list comprising a scaled-up fist message box and the video content being played,
(Chipman paragraph [0040], [0042], [0049], [0052] discloses user selects first message box 425 overlaid on video content 422 and in response additional message are displayed as shown in fig. 4C and 4F, Chipman further discloses selected message 415 shown in fig.15 can be expanded to show entire message)
wherein the scaled-up first message box comprises a plurality of chat messages;
(Chipman paragraph [0040], [0042], [0049], [0052] discloses user selects first message box 425 overlaid on video content 422 and in response additional message are displayed as shown in fig. 4C and 4F, Chipman further discloses selected message 415 shown in fig.15 can be expanded to show entire message).
Accordingly, it would have been obvious to person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine Chipman with Pearson for the benefit of being able to “provide more useful tools to viewers so that they may be presented with information”, (Chipman [0003]).
As for claim 35, limitations of parent claim 34 have been discussed above. Pearson discloses device and method comprising
obtaining, based on the first trigger operation and either using a remote control or the electronic device, an audio or a video to generate the reply message
(Pearson paragraph [0037]-[0041], [0048] discloses obtaining reply message to the first contact, the sender, by recording an audio reply message using the microphone of the remote device).
As for claim 37, limitations of parent claim 34 have been discussed above. Chipman discloses device and method comprising
displaying the message list above the video content in a floating manner
(Chipman paragraph [0040], [0042], [0049], [0052] discloses messages are displayed overlaid on video content in a floating manner as shown in fig. 4F).
Accordingly, it would have been obvious to person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine Chipman with Pearson for the benefit of being able to “provide more useful tools to viewers so that they may be presented with information”, (Chipman [0003]).
As for claim 38, limitations of parent claim 34 have been discussed above. Pearson discloses device and method comprising
further receiving, through a remote control, from the user, and on the first contact in the message list, the first trigger operation
(Pearson paragraph [0037]-[0041], [0048] discloses the first trigger operation to reply to email from the first contact is received using remote control device 802).
As for claim 39, limitations of parent claim 38 have been discussed above. Pearson discloses device and method wherein
before displaying the first user interface, the method further comprises: displaying a second user interface comprising a control for displaying the message list and the video content being played; and
(Pearson paragraph [0037]-[0041], [0048] discloses displaying a popup notification 804 shown in fig. 8 for the user to select to check email while display video content on television 800 before displaying a email list 1102 as shown in fig. 11)
receiving a second trigger operation on the control
(Pearson paragraph [0037]-[0041], [0048] discloses user can select to view the list of emails using remote control 802).
As for claim 44, claim 44 reflects article of manufacture comprising computer executable instructions for implementing method in claim 34 and is rejected along the same rationale (Pearson paragraph [0022], [0024]-[0025] discloses electronic device 104 including a processor 122 and memory storing program).
As for claim 45, limitations of parent claim 44 have been discussed above. Claim 45 reflects article of manufacture comprising computer executable instructions for implementing method in claim 35 and is rejected along the same rationale.
As for claim 47, limitations of parent claim 44 have been discussed above. Claim 47 reflects article of manufacture comprising computer executable instructions for implementing method in claim 37 and is rejected along the same rationale.
As for claim 48, limitations of parent claim 44 have been discussed above. Claim 48 reflects article of manufacture comprising computer executable instructions for implementing method in claim 38 and is rejected along the same rationale.
As for claim 49, limitations of parent claim 48 have been discussed above. Claim 49 reflects article of manufacture comprising computer executable instructions for implementing method in claim 39 and is rejected along the same rationale.
Claims 36 and 46 are rejected under AIA 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Pearson in view of Chipman in view of Gruber et al., U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 20190095050 filed on 11/26/2018 (hereinafter Gruber) in view of Mullen, U.S. Patent No. 11128745, filed on 3/27/2007 (hereinafter Mullen).
As for claim 36, limitations of parent claim 34 have been discussed above. Gruber discloses device and method comprising
displaying, after obtaining the audio or the video, a first control for canceling sending of the reply message, a second control for confirming sending of the reply message, and
(Gruber paragraph [0193]-[0198] discloses displaying cancel button 578 and send button 579 after obtaining audio reply from user as shown in fig. 5C)
convert the reply message into at least one word for sending
(Gruber paragraph [0217]-[0218] discloses converting recorded reply message to text, producing (838) text corresponding to the voice input, for sending).
Accordingly, it would have been obvious to person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine Gruber with Pearson and Chipman for the benefit of being able to provide an “electronic multifunction device that can determine whether it is or is not being operated in a limited-distraction context, and provide an appropriate user interface”, (Gruber [0005]).
Pearson does not appear to explicitly disclose device and method of displaying a third control for prompting to convert message into at least one word. However, Mullen discloses device and method comprising
display a third control for prompting to convert the voice message into at least one word
(Mullen Col 6 Lines 30-45 discloses displaying a third control, conversion button 131, as prompt to covert voice message to text).
Accordingly, it would have been obvious to person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine Mullen with Pearson, Chipman and Gruber for the benefit of being able provide a device with addition functionality of having an option before using the audio to text conversion feature.
As for claim 46, limitations of parent claim 45 have been discussed above. Claim 46 reflects article of manufacture comprising computer executable instructions for implementing method in claim 36 and is rejected along the same rationale.
Claims 40 and 50 are rejected under AIA 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Pearson in view of Chipman in view of Ghafourifar et al., U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 20160119274, filed on 12/31/2015 (hereinafter Ghafourifar).
As for claim 40, limitations of parent claim 38 have been discussed above. Gharourifar discloses device and method wherein
the scaled-up first message box comprises a picture thumbnail of the first contact
(Ghafourifar paragraph [0040]-[0042] discloses displaying scaled-up first message box with picture thumbnail 324 as shown in fig. 3B for selected user message from plurality of message 308 shown in fig. 3A).
Accordingly, it would have been obvious to person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine Ghafourifar with Pearson and Chipman for the benefit of being able to provide additional information to user regarding the messages the user is viewing.
As for claim 50, limitations of parent claim 48 have been discussed above. Claim 50 reflects article of manufacture comprising computer executable instructions for implementing method in claim 40 and is rejected along the same rationale.
Claims 41 and 51 are rejected under AIA 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Pearson in view of Chipman in view of Paglia et al., U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 20200404039, filed on 8/31/2020 (hereinafter Paglia) in view of in view of Faulkner et al., U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 20180359293, filed on 6/7/2017 (hereinafter Faulkner).
As for claim 41, limitations of parent claim 34 have been discussed above. Paglia discloses device and method wherein
the message list is of a social application and displayed a leftmost screen
(Paglia paragraph [0023]-[0025] discloses the first user interface is a social networking application with the messages shown on left side of the screen as shown in fig 1A).
Accordingly, it would have been obvious to person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine Paglia with Pearson and Chipman for the benefit of being able to “present received messages in the chat while a user is simultaneously viewing media content on the screen”, (Paglia [0003]) such that users can interact in real time.
Pearson does not appear to explicitly disclose device and method wherein the video content is displayed larger than the message list. However, Faulkner discloses device and method wherein the video content is displayed larger than the message list
(Faulkner paragraph [0058] discloses video content 302 is displayed larger than the message list 304 as shown in fig. 3A).
Accordingly, it would have been obvious to person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine Faulkner with Pearson, Chipman, and Paglia for the benefit of being able to display additional information such as messages to a user without distracting user while user is viewing the video content by presenting small amount of information.
As for claim 51, limitations of parent claim 44 have been discussed above. Claim 51 reflects article of manufacture comprising computer executable instructions for implementing method in claim 41 and is rejected along the same rationale.
Claims 42-43 and 52-53 are rejected under AIA 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Pearson in view of Chipman in view of Johnson et al., U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 20200044996, filed on 5/6/2014 (hereinafter Johnson).
As for claim 42, limitations of parent claim 34 have been discussed above. Johnson discloses device and method wherein
the message list comprises a plurality of message boxes for displaying one or more messages between different contacts and the user, and wherein the different contacts comprise a group or an individual
(Johnson paragraph [0061]-[0063] discloses plurality of message boxes 314 and 322 with different contacts comprising groups and individual as shown in fig. 3; Johnson paragraph [0065]-[0066] discloses message list of boxes from different users as shown in fig. 4).
Accordingly, it would have been obvious to person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine Johnson with Pearson and Chipman for the benefit of being able to “enable real-time communications on various topics by two or more participants of similar or divergent interests or backgrounds”, (Johnson [0002]).
As for claim 43, limitations of parent claim 42 have been discussed above. Johnson discloses device and method wherein
the message boxes have a same size, a size of each corresponding message box is scaled down or scaled up based on content in the corresponding message box, or each of the message boxes displays a thumbnail of a picture
(Johnson paragraph [0041], [0061]-[0063] disclose each message boxes 314 and 322 displaying thumbnails next to user name as shown in figs. 3; Johnson paragraph [0041], [0065]-[0066] discloses each message box are same size and displays thumbnails as shown in figs. 3 and 4).
Accordingly, it would have been obvious to person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine Johnson with Pearson and Chipman for the benefit of being able to “enable real-time communications on various topics by two or more participants of similar or divergent interests or backgrounds”, (Johnson [0002]).
As for claim 52, limitations of parent claim 44 have been discussed above. Claim 52 reflects article of manufacture comprising computer executable instructions for implementing method in claim 42 and is rejected along the same rationale.
As for claim 53, limitations of parent claim 44 have been discussed above. Claim 53 reflects article of manufacture comprising computer executable instructions for implementing method in claim 43 and is rejected along the same rationale.
Response to Arguments
Claim Objections
All claim objections are withdrawn in view of the amendment submitted by the applicant.
35 U.S.C. §102 Rejection
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claims 34, 35, 38, 39, 44, 45, and 49 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.
35 U.S.C. §103 Rejections
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claims 36, 37, 40-43, 46, 47, and 50-53 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.
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
It is noted that any citation to specific pages, columns, lines, or figures in the prior art references and any interpretation of the references should not be considered to be limiting in any way. A reference is relevant for all it contains and may be relied upon for all that it would have reasonably suggested to one having ordinary skill in the art. In re Heck, 699 F.2d 1331, 1332-33, 216 U.S.P.Q. 1038, 1039 (Fed. Cir. 1983) (quoting In re Lemelson, 397 F.2d 1006, 1009, 158 U.S.P.Q. 275, 277 (C.C.P.A. 1968)).
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JEANETTE J PARKER whose telephone number is (571)270-3647. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Fri 9-5.
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, Fred Ehichioya can be reached at 571-272-4034. 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.
/JEANETTE J PARKER/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2179
Prosecution Insights