Prosecution Insights
Last updated: April 19, 2026
Application No. 18/597,256

METHOD AND APPARATUS FOR POSTING GROUP VOTING AND RELATED PRODUCT

Non-Final OA §112
Filed
Mar 06, 2024
Examiner
RODRIGUEZ, DANIEL
Art Unit
2178
Tech Center
2100 — Computer Architecture & Software
Assignee
Tencent Technology (Shenzhen) Company Limited
OA Round
1 (Non-Final)
62%
Grant Probability
Moderate
1-2
OA Rounds
2y 3m
To Grant
85%
With Interview

Examiner Intelligence

Grants 62% of resolved cases
62%
Career Allow Rate
317 granted / 510 resolved
+7.2% vs TC avg
Strong +22% interview lift
Without
With
+22.4%
Interview Lift
resolved cases with interview
Typical timeline
2y 3m
Avg Prosecution
23 currently pending
Career history
533
Total Applications
across all art units

Statute-Specific Performance

§101
6.6%
-33.4% vs TC avg
§103
56.3%
+16.3% vs TC avg
§102
12.7%
-27.3% vs TC avg
§112
16.9%
-23.1% vs TC avg
Black line = Tech Center average estimate • Based on career data from 510 resolved cases

Office Action

§112
DETAILED ACTION The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA . This action is responsive to the Application filed on 03/06/2024. Claims 1-20 are pending in the case. Claims 1, 15 and 20 are independent claims. Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112 The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b): (b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention. The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph: The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention. Claims 1-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention. Independent Claims 1, 15 and 20: Claim 1 recites the limitation "the determined target group session" in line 4. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. In particular there is no previously recited determination of a target group. Claim 1 also recites “the group session message” in line 7. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. In particular the limitation references a particular “message,” however the claim only recites “a plurality of to-be-parsed group session messages.” There is no previous recitation of a particular message. Claims 15 and 20 are rejected under the same rationale. Claims 2-14 and 16-19: Claims 2-14 and 16-19 are rejected for fully incorporating the deficiency of their respective base claims. Claim 9: Claim 9 recites the limitation "the plain text web page link" in line 3. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. Allowable Subject Matter Claims 1-20 would be allowable if rewritten or amended to overcome the rejection(s) under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), 2nd paragraph, set forth in this Office action. The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter: Hong et al. (US 2022/0113847 A1, hereinafter “Hong”) teaches a method for generating a vote creation interface within an online collaborative document in response to a voting trigger event (voting entrance in a document editing tool), Hong: Figs. 2 and 3, ¶ [0056]-[0061]. The vote creation interface allows the user to input voting options, Hong: Figs. 3-5, ¶ [0062]-[0067]. Atamel et al. (US 2016/0034162 A1, hereinafter “Atamel”) teaches that voting options can be automatically generated by selecting an option via the voting creation interface, Atamel: Figs. 3-4E, ¶ [0037]-[0053]. Faulkner (US 2019/0068477 A1, hereinafter “Faulkner”) teaches that voting options can be automatically generated by analyzing the transcript of a communication session, Faulkner: Figs. 3-4, ¶ [0041]-[0044]. However, none of the prior art teaches that the voting option is generated based on group session messages from a target group session determined from a group session displayed in a session list that is displayed based on a trigger operation on a voting entrance in a document editing tool. Accordingly, claims 1, 15 and 20 comprise allowable subject matter. Conclusion Examiner has cited particular columns and line and/or paragraph numbers in the references applied to the claims above for the convenience of the applicant. Although the specified citations are representative of the teachings of the art and are applied to specific limitations within the individual claim, other passages and figures may apply as well. It is respectfully requested from the applicant in preparing responses, to fully consider the references in entirety as potentially teaching all or part of the claimed invention, as well as the context of the passage as taught by the prior art or disclosed by the examiner. The examiner requests, in response to this Office action, support be shown for language added to any original claims on amendment and any new claims. That is, indicate support for newly added claim language by specifically pointing to page(s) and line number(s) in the specification and/or drawing figure(s). This will assist the examiner in prosecuting the application. When responding to this office action, Applicant is advised to clearly point out the patentable novelty which he or she thinks the claims present, in view of the state of the art disclosed by the references cited or the objections made. He or she must also show how the amendments avoid such references or objections See 37 CFR 1.111(c). The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to Applicants’ disclosure. Weiss et al., US 2023/0244857 A1 (teaches that polling options can automatically be generated based on analyzing the content of a communication session, ¶ [0034]) Banerjee et al., US 2017/0063745 A1 (A poll can be automatically generated based on analyzing the messages of a chat session, ¶ [0036]) Rubinstein et al., US 2020/0371663 A1 (The user can insert a voting interface within a collaborative document, Fig. 8C, abstract, ¶ [0098]-[0099]) Tzonis et al., US 2012/0110429 A1 (The user can insert a voting interface within a multimedia document, Fig. 6, ¶ [0048]) Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to DANIEL RODRIGUEZ whose telephone number is (571)272-3633. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 5:30 am - 2:30 pm. 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, Stephen Hong can be reached at (571) 272-4124. 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. /DANIEL RODRIGUEZ/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2178
Read full office action

Prosecution Timeline

Mar 06, 2024
Application Filed
Mar 06, 2026
Non-Final Rejection — §112 (current)

Precedent Cases

Applications granted by this same examiner with similar technology

Patent 12602141
INFORMATION PROCESSING APPARATUS INFORMATION PROCESSING METHOD, AND NON-TRANSITORY COMPUTER READABLE MEDIUM
2y 5m to grant Granted Apr 14, 2026
Patent 12603961
HIGHLIGHT INDICATOR-BASED SCREEN TRANSITIONS
2y 5m to grant Granted Apr 14, 2026
Patent 12602156
INFORMATION HANDLING SYSTEM TOUCH DETECTION PALM REST TO SUPPORT TOUCH FUNCTION ROW
2y 5m to grant Granted Apr 14, 2026
Patent 12596774
USER INTERFACES FOR ACCOUNT MANAGEMENT
2y 5m to grant Granted Apr 07, 2026
Patent 12596379
RENDERING MISSION ACTIONS IN INDUSTRIAL ENVIRONMENT MAP
2y 5m to grant Granted Apr 07, 2026
Study what changed to get past this examiner. Based on 5 most recent grants.

AI Strategy Recommendation

Get an AI-powered prosecution strategy using examiner precedents, rejection analysis, and claim mapping.
Powered by AI — typically takes 5-10 seconds

Prosecution Projections

1-2
Expected OA Rounds
62%
Grant Probability
85%
With Interview (+22.4%)
2y 3m
Median Time to Grant
Low
PTA Risk
Based on 510 resolved cases by this examiner. Grant probability derived from career allow rate.

Sign in with your work email

Enter your email to receive a magic link. No password needed.

Personal email addresses (Gmail, Yahoo, etc.) are not accepted.

Free tier: 3 strategy analyses per month