DETAILED ACTION
This communication is responsive to Amendment filed 09/04/2026.
Claims 1-6 and 8-20 are pending in this application. In the Amendment, claims 1, 5, 8, 12-15, and 19 are amended and claim 7 is cancelled. This action is made Final.
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 .
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claims amended 09/04/2026 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.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The rejection has been withdrawn as necessitated by the amendment.
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.
Claims 1-3, 5-6, 9, 11-17 and 19-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Landowski et al. (“Landowski”, US 2018/0300339) in view of Goldberg et al. (“Goldberg”, US 2017/0295114).
As per claim 1, Landowski teaches a method for session menu processing, comprising:
in response to a predetermined operation triggered by a first user on a user interface of a target session, creating a session menu in the target session (Landowski, Fig.3A, para.72, 78-79, detection of relevant context triggers display of bot menu 315);
in response to a triggering operation on the created session menu by a second user, performing an execution step corresponding to the session menu (Landowski, Fig.3B, para.81, 84-86, 91, selection of bot invocation control 315); and
wherein the first and second users are both session members of the target session, and the second user and the first user are different users or the same user (Landowski, para.82-83, 91, multi-user message thread).
Although Landowski teaches modifying configuration information (Landowski, Fig.3B, para.88-89, bot menu configured based on customization options 345), Landowski does not explicitly teach in response to determining that configuration information of the session menu is modified, updating the session menu based on the modified configuration information and causing a client device logged in by a session member of the target session to update the session menu. Goldberg teaches a method of configuring bots wherein in response to determining that configuration information of the session menu is modified, updating the session menu based on the modified configuration information and causing a client device logged in by a session member of the target session to update the session menu (Goldberg, Fig.3C-3D, para.81-87, updated options 370 and updated menu 360). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to include Goldberg’s teaching with Landowski’s method in order to customize and update options to user preferences.
As per claim 2, the method of Landowski and Goldberg teaches the method of claim 1, wherein the predetermined operation comprises:
adding a predetermined application to the target session, the predetermined application associated with the session menu (Landowski, Fig.3A, para.78-79, predetermined apps TableFinder, MenuPro, Ryde displayed in bot menu 315); or
triggering a predetermined control in the target session, the predetermined control associated with the session menu (Landowski, Fig.3A-3B, para.78-79, bot invocation controls 315).
As per claim 3, the method of Landowski and Goldberg teaches the method of claim 2, wherein in response to the predetermined operation comprising adding a predetermined application to the target session,
the predetermined application is a predetermined chatbot (Landowski, Fig.3A, para.78-79, chatbots TableFinder, MenuPro, Ryde); and
the adding a predetermined application to the target session comprises adding the predetermined chatbot as a member of the target session (Landowski, Fig.3A, para.78-79, chatbots TableFinder, MenuPro, Ryde added to thread).
As per claim 5, the method of Landowski and Goldberg teaches the method of claim 1, wherein the predetermined operation has a corresponding object, and different corresponding objects correspond to different session menus (Landowski, Fig.3A, para.78-79, chatbots TableFinder, MenuPro, Ryde with different menus),
in response to the predetermined operation corresponding to a first object, a first session menu corresponding to the first object is created in the target session (Landowski, Fig.3B, para.81, 84-86, 91, selection of bot invocation control 315 displays menu); and
in response to the predetermined operation corresponding to a second object, a second session menu corresponding to the second object is created in the target session (Landowski, Fig.3B, para.81, 84-86, 91, selection of bot invocation control 315 displays menu).
As per claim 6, the method of Landowski and Goldberg teaches the method of claim 1, wherein creating a session menu in the target session comprises:
obtaining the configuration information of the session menu (Landowski, Fig.3B, para.88-89, customization options 345); and
creating the session menu in the target session according to the configuration information (Landowski, Fig.3B, para.88-89, customization options 345).
As per claim 9, the method of Landowski and Goldberg teaches the method of claim 6, wherein after creating the session menu, the method further comprises: in response to a configuration operation by the first user, setting at least one configuration item in the configuration information corresponding to the session menu (Landowski, Fig.3B, para.88-89, customization options 345).
As per claim 11, the method of Landowski and Goldberg teaches the method of claim 9, wherein the configuration operation by the first user is an operation triggered by the first user for the created session menu in the target session (Landowski, Fig.3B, para.88-89, customization options 345).
As per claim 12, the method of Landowski and Goldberg teaches the method of claim 3, further comprising:
in response to a third user adding the predetermined chatbot as a member of a further session, creating a session menu in the further session, the further session being a session other than the target session (Landowski, para.83, side-conversation); and
in response to a triggering operation by a fourth user on the created session menu, performing an execution step corresponding to the session menu, wherein the third and fourth users are both session members of the further session, the third and fourth users are different or same, the session menu created in the further session being different from the session menu created in the target session (Landowski, para.83, side-conversation).
As per claim 13, the method of Landowski and Goldberg teaches the method of claim 1, wherein the predetermined operation has a corresponding object, the corresponding object associated with a first information set, the first information set includes correspondence between a plurality of sessions and a plurality of pieces of session menu configuration information (Landowski, Fig.3B, para.88-89, bot menu configured based on customization options 345);
wherein the method further comprises: in response to the predetermined operation being triggered in a user interface of any of the plurality of sessions, determining the first information set according to the corresponding object of the predetermined operation, and creating a session menu in the any one of the plurality of sessions according to the session menu configuration information corresponding to the any one of the plurality of sessions in the first information set (Landowski, Fig.3B, para.88-89, bot menu configured based on customization options 345).
Claims 14-15 are similar in scope to claim 1, and are therefore rejected under similar rationale.
Claim 16 is similar in scope to claim 2, and is therefore rejected under similar rationale.
Claim 17 is similar in scope to claim 3, and is therefore rejected under similar rationale.
Claim 19 is similar in scope to claim 5, and is therefore rejected under similar rationale.
Claim 20 is similar in scope to claim 6, and is therefore rejected under similar rationale.
Claims 4 and 18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Landowski et al. (“Landowski”, US 2018/0300339) and Goldberg et al. (“Goldberg”, US 2017/0295114) in view of Kang (US 2023/0128488).
As per claim 4, the method of Landowski and Goldberg teaches the method of claim 3, however does not teach wherein after creating the session menu, the method further comprises: in response to removing the predetermined chatbot from the target session, deleting the session menu from the target session. Kang teaches a method of recommending chatbots wherein after creating the session menu, the method further comprises: in response to removing the predetermined chatbot from the target session, deleting the session menu from the target session (Kang, Fig.1, para.60, select an OFF button cancels applying search bot). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to include Kang’s teaching with the method of Landowski and Goldberg in order to remove unnecessary chatbots.
Claim 18 is similar in scope to claim 4, and is therefore rejected under similar rationale.
Claims 8 and 10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Landowski et al. (“Landowski”, US 2018/0300339) and Goldberg et al. (“Goldberg”, US 2017/0295114) in view of Brown et al. (“Brown”, US 2015/0186156).
As per claim 8, the method of Landowski and Goldberg teaches the method of claim 6, however does not teach wherein the configuration information is stored in an online datasheet associated with an object corresponding to the predetermined operation. Brown teaches a method of configuring virtual assistant objects wherein configuration information is stored in a database (Brown, Fig.10, para.138-139, customization information stored for virtual assistant object). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to include Brown’s teaching with the method of Landowski and Goldberg in order to utilize virtual assistants remotely.
As per claim 10, the method of Landowski and Goldberg teaches the method of claim 9, however does not teach wherein setting at least one configuration item in the configuration information corresponding to the session menu comprises: setting at least one configuration item in the configuration information corresponding to the session menu with a pre-created configuration record corresponding to the target session in an online datasheet. Brown teaches a method of configuring virtual assistant objects wherein setting at least one configuration item in the configuration information corresponding to the session menu comprises: setting at least one configuration item in the configuration information corresponding to the session menu with a pre-created configuration record corresponding to the target session in a database (Brown, Fig.10, para.138-139, customization information stored for virtual assistant object). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to include Brown’s teaching with the method of Landowski and Goldberg in order to utilize virtual assistants remotely.
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.
Inquiries
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to SAJEDA MUHEBBULLAH whose telephone number is (571)272-4065. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Tue/Thur-Fri 10am-8pm.
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, William L Bashore can be reached at 571-272-4088. 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.
/S.M./
Sajeda MuhebbullahExaminer, Art Unit 2174
/WILLIAM L BASHORE/ Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2174
Prosecution Insights