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 Amendment
The amendment filed on 9/18/2025 is entered and acknowledged by the Examiner. Claims 1-10 and 12-19 have been amended. Claims 1-20 are currently pending in the instant application.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed on 9/18/2025 with respect to pending claims above have been fully considered but they are not persuasive for the following reasons:
In response to the applicant’s remark: “First, Kim merely teaches displaying notifications of new messages. Thus, Kim fails to specifically disclose or fairly suggest “the content being created based on one or more selected messages includes in a chatroom of the another openchat, “ as required by claim 1” Page 8 Lines 11-14.
In response to argument, examiner respectfully disagrees with the applicant’s argument.
During patent examination, the pending claims must be “given their broadest reasonable interpretation consistent with the specification.” The Federal Circuit’s en banc decision in Phillips v. AWH Corp., 415 F.3d 1303, 75 USPQ2d 1321 (Fed. Cir. 2005) expressly recognized that the USPTO employs the “broadest reasonable interpretation” standard.
Although claims of issued patents are interpreted in light of the specification, prosecution history, prior art and other claims, this is not the mode of claim interpretation to be applied during examination. During examination, the claims must be interpreted as broadly as their terms reasonably allow. In re American Academy of Science Tech Center, 367 F.3d 1359, 1369, 70 USPQ2d 1827, 1834 (Fed. Cir. 2004) (The USPTO uses a different standard for construing claims than that used by district courts; during examination the USPTO must give claims their broadest reasonable interpretation in light of the specification). This means that the words of the claim must be given their plain meaning unless; the plain meaning is inconsistent with the specification. In re Zletz, 893 F.2d 319, 321, 13 USPQ2d 1320, 1322 (Fed. Cir. 1989) (discussed below); Chef America, Inc. v. Lamb-Weston, Inc., 358 F.3d 1371, 1372, 69 USPQ2d 1857 (Fed. Cir. 2004).
Based on the broadest reasonable interpretation of “…the content being created based on one or more selected messages…”, the examiner interprets such that “the content being created based on one or more selected messages” as displaying any content, such as messages, videos, audios, etc. on the screen of the first chatroom, based on a message from another chatroom.
Specifically, Kim discloses a chat system may display a preview screen containing the content of the new message received from the second chatroom on the screen of the current chatroom [0126-0130]. Therefore, the content based on the message of the second chatroom are displayed on the screen of the first chatroom.
(ii) In response to the applicant’s remark: “Second, Kim merely teaches automatically generating notifications without any user or administrator setting to control whether such notifications are received. Thus, Kim fails to specifically disclose or fairly suggest “receiving, by at least one processor in accordance with a setting of an openchat,” as required by claim 1” Page 8 Lines 15-18.
In response to argument, examiner respectfully disagrees with the applicant’s argument.
Specifically, Kim discloses determining which content of the second chatroom to display or not display in the first chatroom may be set/filtered in advance by the users [0066], [0131-0137]. Therefore, users have the ability filter out contents to not be displayed, in which non-filter contents will be displayed on the screen of the first chatroom.
(iii) In response to the applicant’s remark: “Third, Kim merely teaches automatically generating notifications relying on client-side notifications. Thus, Kim fails to specifically disclose or fairly suggest “the content being manages by a server communicatively connected to the computer device so as to be associated with the other open chat,” as required by claims 1” Page 8 Lines 11-14.
In response to argument, examiner respectfully disagrees with the applicant’s argument.
Specifically, Kim discloses The chat system may include a chat service server, the chat service server collects new messages generated in multiple chatrooms for display to multiple user terminals [0049-0050]).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
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 1-2, 8-9, 11-13 and 19-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Kim et al Pub. No.: (US 2024/0143140 A1) (hereinafter “Kim”).
With respect to claim 1. Kim discloses a content sharing method executed by a computer device, wherein:
the computer device comprises at least one processor configured to execute computer-readable instructions included in a memory (computing device includes processor and memory [0187[);
the content sharing method comprises (displaying content of second chatroom on first chatroom [0016]):
receiving, by the at least one processor in accordance with a setting of an openchat, content of another openchat, the content being created based on one or more selected messages included in a chatroom of the another openchat, the content being managed by a server communicatively connected to the computer device so as to be associated with the another openchat (new messages/content of the second chatroom are displayed in the first chatroom, while the first chatroom is currently displayed on the terminal device [0122], [0124-0126], [0128-0130], [0053-0055], [0077]. Displaying contents from the second chatroom on the display of the first chatroom based on message from the second chatroom [0055-0056], [0124-0126]. Displaying content of the second chatroom on the display of the first chatroom may be set in advance by the users [0066], [0131-0137]. The chat system may include a chat service server [0049-0050]);
providing, by the at least one processor, the content of the another openchat through at least one page of the openchat (new messages/content of the second chatroom are displayed on the first chatroom, while the first chatroom is currently displayed on the terminal device [0122], [0124-0126], [0128-0130], [0053-0055], [0077]).
With respect to claim 2. Kim discloses the content sharing method of claim 1 as set forth above.
wherein the providing comprises displaying the content of the another openchat on at least one page of a chatroom and a main screen of the openchat (new messages/content of the second chatroom are displayed in the first chatroom [0122], [0126], [0128], [0053-0055], [0077]).
With respect to claim 8. Kim discloses the content sharing method of claim 1 as set forth above.
wherein the content of the another openchat is created using a main message selected from among the messages included in the chatroom of the another openchat (using the first message of the second chat room to display in the first chatroom that satisfies a predefined condition [0019], [0132]).
With respect to claim 9. Kim discloses the content sharing method of claim 8 as set forth above.
wherein the main message is selected based on at least one of a number of concurrent participants and a number of messages a same time zone in the chatroom of the another openchat, an average stay time, and a keyword included in a message (filtering and displaying only essential messages of the second chatroom to the user on the first chatroom [0008], [0132]).
With respect to claims 11, they do not teach or further define over the limitations in claims 1, respectively. Therefore claim 11 is rejected for the same reasons as set forth in claim 1.
With respect to claims 12-13, and 19-20 they do not teach or further define over the limitations in claims 1-2 and 8-9 respectively. Therefore claims 12-13 and 19-20 are rejected for the same reasons as set forth in claims 1-2 and 8-9.
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 of this title, 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.
The factual inquiries set forth in Graham v. John Deere Co., 383 U.S. 1, 148 USPQ 459 (1966), that are applied for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
Claims 3-4, and 14-15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kim et al Pub. No.: (US 2024/0143140 A1) (hereinafter “Kim”) as applied to claims 1-2, 8-9, 11-13 and 19-20 above, in view of Harper et al Pub. No.: (US 2020/0192743 A1) (hereinafter "Harper”).
With respect to claim 3. Kim discloses the content sharing method of claim 1 as set forth above.
Kim discloses receiving the content of the another openchat (new messages/content of the second chatroom are displayed in the first chatroom [0122], [0126], [0128], [0053-0055], [0077]);
However, Kim does not explicitly disclose wherein the receiving comprises receiving the content of the another openchat through a content bot invited by an administrator of the openchat;
Harper discloses receiving the content of another openchat through a content bot invited by an administrator of the openchat (a bot being used in a chatroom to determined when approval is made from chat participants, and the approval is communicated by the bot to other services [0041-0042]. Bot may be used to investigate incident and relay the results to the personnel, owners, vendors, etc. [0018], [0034], [0084-0085]);
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Kim in view of Harper in order to receive content from a content bot;
One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated because it would automatically identify relevant message or automate approval process [Harper: 0042].
With respect to claim 4. Kim-Harper discloses The content sharing method of claim 3 as set forth above.
Kim discloses wherein the providing comprises displaying the content of the another openchat in the form of a conversation message through the chatroom of the openchat (new messages/content of the second chatroom are displayed in the first chatroom [0122], [0126], [0128], [0053-0055], [0077]);
However, Kim does not explicitly wherein the providing comprises displaying the content of the another openchat in the form of a conversation message of the content bot through the chatroom of the openchat
Harper discloses disclose wherein the providing comprises displaying the content of the another openchat in the form of a conversation message of the content bot through the chatroom of the openchat (using content bot to identify incidents or approval and relaying it to the personnel, owners, vendors, etc. workspace [0018], [0034], [0084-0085], [0041-0042]);
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Kim in view of Harper in order to receive content from a content bot;
One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated because it would automatically identify relevant message or automate approval process [Harper: 0042].
With respect to claims 14-15, they do not teach or further define over the limitations in claims 3-4, respectively. Therefore claims 14-15 are rejected for the same reasons as set forth in claims 3-4.
Claims 5-7 and 16-18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kim et al Pub. No.: (US 2024/0143140 A1) (hereinafter “Kim”) as applied to claims 1-2, 8-9, 11-13 and 19-20 above, in view of Yamamoto et al Pub. No.: (US 2003/0037110 A1) (hereinafter "Yamamoto”).
With respect to claim 5. Kim discloses the content sharing method of claim 1 as set forth above.
Kim does not explicitly disclose wherein the receiving comprises receiving the content of the another openchat (new messages/content of the second chatroom are displayed in the first chatroom [0122], [0126], [0128], [0053-0055], [0077]);
However, Kim does not explicitly disclose wherein the receiving comprises receiving the content of the another openchat for which a subscription is set by an administrator;
Yamamoto discloses receiving the content of the another openchat for which a subscription is set by an administrator (subscription for subscribers who wants to be notified if a chatroom is created that agrees with the subscribers [Claim 17]);
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Kim in view of Yamamoto in order to receive content of the other open chat in which a subscription is set by administrator;
One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated because it would provide content of interest for the subscribed users [Yamamoto: 0183].
With respect to claim 6. Kim-Yamamoto discloses the content sharing method of claim 5 as set forth above.
Kim discloses wherein the providing comprises providing the content of the another openchat as a list view or a grid view in a specific space on a main screen of the openchat (providing the content of the second chatroom in the first chatroom as a list (providing the content from other chat room as a list view [0154-0158], [0163]).
With respect to claim 7. Kim-Yamamoto discloses the content sharing method of claim 6 as set forth above.
Kim discloses wherein the providing comprises displaying the content of the another openchat included in the list view or the grid view in a sequential and continuous browsing form (providing the content from other chat room as a list view based on the priority list of a frequency of new messages in the chatrooms [0154-0158], [0163]).
With respect to claims 16-18, they do not teach or further define over the limitations in claims 5-7, respectively. Therefore claims 16-18 are rejected for the same reasons as set forth in claims 5-7.
Claim 10 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kim et al Pub. No.: (US 2024/0143140 A1) (hereinafter “Kim”) as applied to claims 1-2, 8-9, 11-13 and 19-20 above, in view of Gupta et al Pat. No.: (US 10,721,513 A1) (hereinafter "Gupta”).
With respect to claim 10. Kim discloses the content sharing method of claim 8 as set forth above.
Kim discloses main message is selected based on predefined filter of the another openchat (filtering and displaying only essential messages of the second chatroom to the user on the first chatroom [0008], [0132]).
However, Kim does not explicitly disclose main message is selected based on an average view time of users participating in the chatroom of the another openchat;
Gupta discloses main message is selected based on an average view time of users participating (determining the average view time of the promotional message to determine whether to select that message to provide to subsequent users [Col 2 lines 36-57], [Col 1 lines 25-39]);
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Kim in view of Gupta in order to selected the message based on the average time view of the user’s participation in the openchat;
One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated because it would provide content of interest to the users [Gupta: Col 1 lines 11-21].
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 extension fee 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.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to THAO DUC DUONG whose telephone number is (571)272-2350. The examiner can normally be reached on M-F 9-5.
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, Brian Gillis can be reached on 571-272-7952. 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.
/T. D./
Examiner, Art Unit 2446
/AUSTIN J MOREAU/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2446