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 .
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 9/27/2024 was filed before the first office action. The submission is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement is being considered by the examiner.
Claim Objections
Claim 4 is objected to because of the following informalities: Claim 4 is grammatically objected to for the lack of period, which is required for all US submitted claims. Appropriate correction is required.
Claims 7 and 17 are objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
Claim Rejection Notes
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.
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.
Claim(s) 1, 4, 5, 8, 11, 15, and 18, are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sacks et al. (US 20100064015 A1, published: 3/11/2010), in view of Liao (US 20180270177 A1, published: 9/20/2018).
Claim 1: Sacks teaches a method, applied to a first electronic device, wherein the first electronic device comprises a first processor and a second processor, and wherein the method comprises:
receiving, by the first electronic device, a message from a second electronic device (messages are received via web server 120, email server 180, and/or SMS server 190 [Sacks, 0024]; Examiner's Note: received from other devices);
controlling, using the second processor, a display of the first electronic device to display the message (users connected to the system for collaborative short messaging and discussion through the web client interface can view a number of pages with message feeds including messages with a particular tag, a user's "updates" (their non-replies), a user's "replies" (their replies to others), a user's own "following" tab or any of their custom following tabs, a user sent tab, a user's received tab (all messages that mention or are in reply to that user), or all messages in the client network [Sacks, 0064]);
identifying, using the second processor, whether a tag in the message indicates that replying is supported (once the message is screened for tags, it is determined whether the message is a reply to another message (450). As a result of the determination (450), if the message is a reply, the message receives the message ID of the original message (460) and inherits the original message's thread ID (470), this allows for message threading [Sacks, 0042]. It is then determined whether a user is the sender of the message and if the message is a reply (730). If a user is the sender of the message and the message is a reply (730) then messages are written to the relevant feed caches for all participants in the message thread (740) [Sacks, 0061]; Examiner's Note: wherein a message thread includes messages from at least two parties, and each successive message is a reply to the last);
obtaining an operation performed on the message; and processing, using the second processor, the operation when the operation is a first operation type comprising a shortcut operation (threading is accomplished by giving users a reply feature which tags the new message with the ID of the original, as well as inheriting the original message's thread ID [Sacks, 0052]. The second verity of subscription occurs when a user selects a particular delivery method (e.g. email, SMS, IM) for a feed [Sacks, 0060]; Examiner's Note: Instant 0013 does not make clear what the applicant is intending a shortcut to be. The examiner is interpreting the shortcut is being interpreted as a selection to reply).
Sacks does not explicitly teach obtaining an operation performed on the message; a first operation type comprising a shortcut operation.
However, Liao teaches obtaining an operation performed on the message; a first operation type comprising a shortcut operation (as shown in FIG. 8a, in addition, the client provides a shortcut “Reply” button for group messages having an attribute tag. The user taps the “Reply” button, and the client automatically selects, for the user, a group sending message having an attribute tag the same as that carried in the group messages [Liao, 0084]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art, before the invention was filed, to modify the message interface invention of Sacks to include the reply button/icon feature of Liao.
One would have been motivated to make this modification to display a reply button shortcut to users, so that they can easily and quickly select an option to reply to their received messages.
Claim 11, having similar elements to claim 1, is likewise rejected.
Claim 4: The combination of Sacks and Liao, teaches the method of claim 1. Sacks further teaches wherein the controlling comprises: identifying the tag in the message that indicates that replying is supported; or determining that the message is capable of being relied to when the tag does not exist in the message and when the message matches a pre-stored message that is capable of being replied to (once the message is screened for tags, it is determined whether the message is a reply to another message (450). As a result of the determination (450), if the message is a reply, the message receives the message ID of the original message (460) and inherits the original message's thread ID (470), this allows for message threading [Sacks, 0042])
Claim 5: The combination of Sacks and Liao, teaches the method of claim 4. Sacks further teaches wherein processing, by the second processor, the operation when the operation is the first operation type comprises: obtaining content of a shortcut reply when the message is capable of being replied to and when the operation is a shortcut reply; and sending the content of the shortcut reply to the second electronic device through a channel between the second processor and the second electronic device (once the message is screened for tags, it is determined whether the message is a reply to another message (450). As a result of the determination (450), if the message is a reply, the message receives the message ID of the original message (460) and inherits the original message's thread ID (470), this allows for message threading [Sacks, 0042]).
Claim 15, having similar elements to claim 5, is likewise rejected.
Claim 8: The combination of Sacks and Liao, teaches the method of claim 4. Sacks further teaches wherein the tag indicating that replying is supported comprises a package name of an application that is in the second electronic device and that sends the message, a user-level identifier in the application, and a process number of running the application (once the message is screened for tags, it is determined whether the message is a reply to another message (450). As a result of the determination (450), if the message is a reply, the message receives the message ID of the original message (460) and inherits the original message's thread ID (470), this allows for message threading [Sacks, 0042]. It is then determined whether a user is the sender of the message and if the message is a reply (730). If a user is the sender of the message and the message is a reply (730) then messages are written to the relevant feed caches for all participants in the message thread (740) [Sacks, 0061]).
Claim 18, having similar elements to claim 8, is likewise rejected.
Claim(s) 2 and 12, are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sacks et al. (US 20100064015 A1, published: 3/11/2010) and Liao (US 20180270177 A1, published: 9/20/2018), and in further view of Park et al. (US 20150172584 A1, published 6/18/2015).
Claim 2: The combination of Sacks and Liao, teaches the method of claim 1. The combination of Sacks and Liao, does not teach wherein the controlling comprises: controlling, using the second processor, the display to display the message in half screen; and controlling, thereafter, using the second processor, the display to display the message in full screen when the first electronic device detects, within a predetermined duration after receiving the message, an operation indicating that the message has been viewed.
However, Park teaches wherein the controlling comprises: controlling, using the second processor, the display to display the message in half screen; and controlling, thereafter, using the second processor, the display to display the message in full screen when the first electronic device detects, within a predetermined duration after receiving the message, an operation indicating that the message has been viewed (the electronic device 100 can split a screen region in which a message transmission/reception history is displayed into at least two regions and then, store and transmit a corresponding image depending on which screen region among the split screen regions a drag sensed for an image makes progress to [Park, 0112]. The graphical user interface program 114 can display the preview screen in a full screen region in which a message transmission/reception history is displayed. [Park, 0048]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art, before the invention was filed, to modify the message interface invention of the combination of Sacks and Liao, to include the split or full screen display features of Park.
One would have been motivated to make this modification to offer different views that may be helpful for displaying different functions and different layouts of displayed functions, to assist user's in understanding what is being presented to them.
Claim 12, having similar elements to claim 2, is likewise rejected.
Claim(s) 3 and 13, are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sacks et al. (US 20100064015 A1, published: 3/11/2010) and Liao (US 20180270177 A1, published: 9/20/2018), and in further view of Li et al. (US 20160110059 A1, published: 4/21/2016).
Claim 3: The combination of Sacks and Liao, teaches the method of claim 1. The combination of Sacks and Liao, does not teach wherein the message comprises a notification message from a notification bar of the second electronic device.
However, Li teaches wherein the message comprises a notification message from a notification bar of the second electronic device (a message notification bar is displayed at the top of a screen of a smartphone, and is used to display a notification message for a user in a form of a small icon [Li, 0003]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art, before the invention was filed, to modify the message interface invention of the combination of Sacks and Liao, to include the notification bar features of Li.
One would have been motivated to make this modification to provide users with a display setup similar to those they have been using on their phones and PCs over the last 20 years. The notification bar provides notifications to help users keep track of alerts.
Claim 13, having similar elements to claim 3, is likewise rejected.
Claim(s) 6 and 16, are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sacks et al. (US 20100064015 A1, published: 3/11/2010) and Liao (US 20180270177 A1, published: 9/20/2018), and in further view of Flowers et al. (US 20150277545 A1, published: 10/1/2015).
Claim 6: The combination of Sacks and Liao, teaches the method of claim 4. The combination of Sacks and Liao, does not teach wherein after obtaining an operation performed on the message, the method further comprises: waking up, using the second processor, the first processor; and processing, using the first processor, the operation when the operation is a second operation type comprising a customized operation.
However, Flowers teaches wherein after obtaining an operation performed on the message, the method further comprises: waking up, using the second processor, the first processor; and processing, using the first processor, the operation when the operation is a second operation type comprising a customized operation (the secondary processor is operative to wake the primary processor from sleep mode in response to detecting a state change and to perform a hardware operation on the peripheral hardware component [Flowers, 0020]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art, before the invention was filed, to modify the message interface invention of the combination of Sacks and Liao, to include the processor activation of Flowers.
One would have been motivated to make this modification to wake up the appropriate processor when needed. Such manages and saves power by only awaking processors when needed.
Claim 16, having similar elements to claim 6, is likewise rejected.
Claim(s) 9, 10, 19, and 20, are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sacks et al. (US 20100064015 A1, published: 3/11/2010) and Liao (US 20180270177 A1, published: 9/20/2018), and in further view of Karunamuni et al. (US 20180352071 A1, published: 12/6/2018).
Claim 9: The combination of Sacks and Liao, teaches the method of claim 1. The combination of Sacks and Liao, does not teach wherein before obtaining an operation performed on the message, the method further comprises: displaying prompt information indicating that the message is processed by the second electronic device; sending, based on a response to the prompt information, the determining indication to the second electronic device through a channel between the second processor and the second electronic device; receiving a processing result from the second electronic device; and controlling, using the second processor, the display to display the processing result.
However, Karunamuni teaches wherein before obtaining an operation performed on the message, the method further comprises: displaying prompt information indicating that the message is processed by the second electronic device; sending, based on a response to the prompt information, the determining indication to the second electronic device through a channel between the second processor and the second electronic device; receiving a processing result from the second electronic device; and controlling, using the second processor, the display to display the processing result (the delivery receipt can be displayed below the transmitted message in the conversation view. In response to the transmitted message or media item being read by one or more recipients, a read receipt is displayed below the transmitted message or, if a delivery receipt is displayed, the delivery receipt is replaced or morphs into a read receipt only for the most recent message in the conversation view (906) [Karunamuni, 0023]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art, before the invention was filed, to modify the message interface invention of the combination of Sacks and Liao, to include the read receipt function of Karunamuni.
One would have been motivated to make this modification to alert users when their messages have been read by their intended recipient. Such will ease the minds of the senders, so they will know their messages have been sent successfully.
Claim 19, having similar elements to claim 9, is likewise rejected.
Claim 10: The combination of Sacks and Liao, teaches the method of claim 1. The combination of Sacks and Liao, does not teach wherein the first processor is an application processor (AP), and wherein the second processor is a microcontroller unit (MCU).
However, Karunamuni teaches wherein the first processor is an application processor (AP), and wherein the second processor is a microcontroller unit (MCU) (architecture 1100 can include memory interface 1102, data processor(s), image processor(s) or central processing unit(s) 1104, and peripherals interface 1106. Memory interface 1102, processor(s) 1104 or peripherals interface 1106 can be separate components or can be integrated in one or more integrated circuits [Karunamuni, 0030]; Examiner's Note: wherein processors may have different labels but have equivalent functions).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art, before the invention was filed, to modify the message interface invention of the combination of Sacks and Liao, to include the read receipt function of Karunamuni.
One would have been motivated to make this modification to alert users when their messages have been read by their intended recipient. Such will ease the minds of the senders, so they will know their messages have been sent successfully.
Claim 20, having similar elements to claim 10, is likewise rejected.
Additional References
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. The following reference also deals with message interfaces:
Dalonzo et al. (US 11153235 B1, published: 10/19/2021)
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to SETH A SILVERMAN whose telephone number is (571)272-9783. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Thur, 8AM-4PM MST.
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, Adam Queler can be reached at (571)272-4140. 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.
/Seth A Silverman/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2172