DETAILED ACTION
1. 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 § 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.
2. Claims 1-2, 7-9, and 14-16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kumar et al. (US 2008/0147810 A1) in view of Lee et al. (US 20170054664 A1) and further in view of Jamison, Britton (US 11729228 B2).
As in Claim 1, Kumar teaches a communication system providing command-based communication (FIGS. 3A-3B, a collaboration system), the communication system comprising:
one or more processors (FIG. 3A, par. 62, a processor); and
a memory storing computer-executable instructions that, when executed by the one or more processors, cause the communication system to perform operations comprising (FIG. 3A, a computing device for the collaboration system includes a memory storing instructions for execution by the processor to perform operations):
detecting an action command input within a compose field of a group communication thread of a first user (FIGS. 17-18, pars. 104-116, a user can select a reply button or a forward button within a group discussion);
subsequent to detecting the action command in the compose field, activating a fork mode to create a fork communication thread that is separate from the group communication thread (FIGS. 17-18, pars. 104-116, the user can send a private message to an individual recipient or recipients which is separate from the group communication thread; further see pars. 108-109, 115).
Kumar does not appear to explicitly teach causing presentation of a user interface via a display of a computing device of the first user, the user interface enabling a selection of specific content from the group communication thread to include in the fork communication thread, the specific content comprising one or more of messages and attachments from the group communication thread; and upon receiving a selection of the specific content, packaging the selected specific content into the fork communication thread and transmitting the fork communication thread to a computing device of a second user.
However, in the same filed of the invention, Lee teaches causing presentation of a user interface via a display of a computing device of the first user, the user interface enabling a selection of specific content from the group communication thread to include in the fork communication thread, the specific content comprising one or more of messages (FIGS. 8-11, pars. 96, 105-107, the system can display individual conversations with each recipient in the group message, and the user can select one of those message to send to an individual chatroom); and
upon receiving a selection of the specific content, packaging the selected specific content into the fork communication thread and transmitting the fork communication thread to a computing device of a second user (FIGS. 8-11, pars. 96, 105-107, the system can send the selected message and add to the individual chatroom for that recipient).
Therefore, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to modify the system and method for activating individual communication in the group-based communication, as taught by Kumar, and to provide the way to select the content (message) to add to the individual chatroom, as taught by Lee. The reason is to maintain context within individual chatrooms, ensuring conversations flow seamlessly and participants can follow and respond naturally.
Kumar and Lee do not teach that content includes attachments from the group communication thread.
However, in the same filed of the invention, Jamison teaches that content includes attachments from the group communication thread (col. 18, line 62 to col. 19, line 28 and col. 19, lines 37-59, the user can share content, including attachments, such as a video from a channel (group), which can be shared or sent to an individual ).
Therefore, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to modify the system and method for activating individual communication in the group-based communication, as taught by Kumar, in view of Lee’s teachings, and to provide the way to send attachments from the group message to the individual recipient, as taught by Jamison. The motivation is to allow content from a channel to be shared directly with an individual.
As in Claim 2, Kumar-Lee-Jamison teaches all the limitations of Claim 1. Kumar-Lee- Jamison teaches that the user interface enabling the selection of specific content from the group communication thread to include in the fork communication thread includes a graphical representation of the group communication thread that facilitates the selection of the specific content through one or more of clicking, tapping, or dragging over a graphical representation of desired content (Lee, FIGS. 8-11, pars. 96, 105-107, the user can select or click the message to add it to the individual chartroom).
As in Claim 7, Kumar-Lee-Jamison teaches all the limitations of Claim 1. Kumar-Lee-Jamison further teaches that the fork communication thread is viewable only by the first user and the second user (Kumar, FIGS. 17-18, pars. 104-116).
Claims 8 and 15 are substantially similar to Claim 1 and rejected under the same rationale.
Claims 9 and 16 are substantially similar to Claim 2 and rejected under the same rationale.
Claim 14 is substantially similar to Claim 7 and rejected under the same rationale.
3. Claims 4-5, 11-12, and 18-19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kumar et al. (US 2008/0147810 A1) in view of Lee et al. (US 20170054664 A1) in view of Jamison, Britton (US 11729228 B2) and further in view of Guzman Suarez et al. (US 20130204947 A1, hereinafter Guzman).
As in Claim 4, Kumar-Lee-Jamison teaches all the limitations of Claim 1. Kumar-Lee-Jamison does not teach that the operations further comprise: subsequent to detecting the action command in the compose field, parsing entries from the compose field following the action command to identify an identifier of the second user, wherein the parsing includes accessing a user database to match the identifier with corresponding user data to determine the second user with whom the fork communication thread is to be initiated.
However, in the same filed of the invention, Guzman teaches that the operations further comprise: subsequent to detecting the action command in the compose field, parsing entries from the compose field following the action command to identify an identifier of the second user, wherein the parsing includes accessing a user database to match the identifier with corresponding user data to determine the second user with whom the fork communication thread is to be initiated (FIGS. 3 and 7, pars. 45-47, 50, 81-83, the user can indicate a recipient or recipients by entering a partial identifier. The system searches a database of user contacts to determine whether a match exists, and provides a list of candidate contacts for communication).
Therefore, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to modify the system and method for activating individual communication in the group-based communication, as taught by Kumar, in view of Lee’s and Jamison’ teachings, and to provide the way to indicate recipients from the list stored in the database, as taught by Guzman. The motivation is easily indicate recipients from contacts stored in the database for easily communicate with the recipients.
As in Claim 5, Kumar-Lee-Jamison and Guzman teach all the limitations of Claim 4. Kumar-Lee-Jamison and Guzman further teach that he operations further comprise: presenting via the user interface a selection mechanism to facilitate a selection of one or more additional users from a list of users, the list of users generated based on the parsing of the compose field and the user database, wherein a selection of the one or more users from the list of users will result in the selected one or more users being added to the fork communication thread (Guzman, FIGS. 3 and 7, pars. 45-47, 50, 81-83).
Claims 11 and 18 are substantially similar to Claim 4 and rejected under the same rationale.
Claims 12 and 19 are substantially similar to Claim 5 and rejected under the same rationale.
Allowable Subject Matter
4. Claims 3 and 6 are objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in an independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
Claims 10 and 17 are substantially similar to claim 3 and objected to under the same rationale.
Claims 13 and 20 are substantially similar to claim 6 and objected to under the same rationale.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Rinna Yi whose telephone number is (571) 270-7752 and fax number is (571) 270-8752. The examiner can normally be reached on M-F 8:30am-5:00pm.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner's supervisor, Fred Ehichioya can be reached on (571) 272-4034.
Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from Patent Center and the Private Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from Patent Center or Private PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Patent Center or Private PAIR to authorized users only. Should you have questions about access to Patent Center or the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free).
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) Form at https://www.uspto.gov/patents/uspto-automated- interview-request-air-form.
/RINNA YI/
Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2179