DETAILED ACTION
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 .
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.
Claims 1, 14 and 15 recite the limitation "the second user" in lines 6, 8 and 9 respectively. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claims.
Claims 5 and 19 recite the limitation "the second object" in lines 8 and 9 respectively. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claims.
Claims 6 and 20 recite the limitation "the configuration information” in lines 3 and 3 respectively. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claims.
Claim 8 recites the limitation “the corresponding object” in line 3. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claims 2-13 and 16-20 are rejected for fully incorporating the deficiencies of their respective base claims. Appropriate corrections are required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 1-3, 5-7, 9, 11-17 and 19-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Landowski et al. (“Landowski”, US 2018/0300339).
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); and
in response to a triggering operation on the created session menu by the 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),
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).
As per claim 2, Landowski 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, Landowski 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, Landowski 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 the 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, Landowski 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 7, Landowski teaches the method of claim 6, further comprising: in response to a determination that the configuration information is modified, updating the session menu in the target session with the modified configuration information (Landowski, Fig.3B, para.88-89, bot menu configured based on customization options 345).
As per claim 9, Landowski 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, Landowski 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, Landowski 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 menu created in the target session (Landowski, para.83, side-conversation).
As per claim 13, Landowski 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 that session according to the session menu configuration information corresponding to that session 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.
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 4 and 18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Landowski et al. (“Landowski”, US 2018/0300339) in view of Kang (US 2023/0128488).
As per claim 4, Landowski 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 Landowski’s method 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) in view of Brown et al. (“Brown”, US 2015/0186156).
As per claim 8, Landowski teaches the method of claim 6, however does not teach wherein the configuration information is stored in an online datasheet associated with the corresponding object of 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 Landowski’s method in order to utilize virtual assistants remotely.
As per claim 10, Landowski 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 Landowski’s method in order to utilize virtual assistants remotely.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Sharifi (US 12,526,247) teaches a method of saving configuration information of bots.
Nakamori (US 2022/0035590) teaches a method of using bots.
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