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 . This action is made non-final.
Claims 1-20 are pending in the case. Claims 1 and 15-17 are independent claims.
Priority
Acknowledgement is made of Applicant’s claim to foreign priority of Chinese application CN202111333504.1 filed 11/11/2021. The instant application is a 371 of PCT/CN2022/130811 filed 11/09/2022.
Specification
The title of the invention is not descriptive. A new title is required that is clearly indicative of the invention to which the claims are directed.
Claim Objections
Claim 7 is objected to because of the following informalities:
Claim 7 recites “the control currently displayed” but “the control” should be more clearly recited as “the target control” as referenced in parent claim 1.
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Interpretation
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(f):
(f) Element in Claim for a Combination. – An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The claims in this application are given their broadest reasonable interpretation using the plain meaning of the claim language in light of the specification as it would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art. The broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim element (also commonly referred to as a claim limitation) is limited by the description in the specification when 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is invoked.
As explained in MPEP § 2181, subsection I, claim limitations that meet the following three-prong test will be interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
(A) the claim limitation uses the term “means” or “step” or a term used as a substitute for “means” that is a generic placeholder (also called a nonce term or a non-structural term having no specific structural meaning) for performing the claimed function;
(B) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is modified by functional language, typically, but not always linked by the transition word “for” (e.g., “means for”) or another linking word or phrase, such as “configured to” or “so that”; and
(C) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function.
Use of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim with functional language creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites sufficient structure, material, or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Absence of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is not to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is not interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites function without reciting sufficient structure, material or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Claim limitations in this application that use the word “means” (or “step”) are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action. Conversely, claim limitations in this application that do not use the word “means” (or “step”) are not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action.
This application includes one or more claim limitations that do not use the word “means,” but are nonetheless being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, because the claim limitation(s) uses a generic placeholder that is coupled with functional language without reciting sufficient structure to perform the recited function and the generic placeholder is not preceded by a structural modifier. Such claim limitation(s) is/are:
“control unit” of claim 15 which is interpreted as a processor performing the corresponding claimed function
“display unit” of claim 15 which is interpreted as a processor performing the corresponding claimed function
Because this/these claim limitation(s) is/are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, it/they is/are being interpreted to cover the corresponding structure described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof.
If applicant does not intend to have this/these limitation(s) interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, applicant may: (1) amend the claim limitation(s) to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph (e.g., by reciting sufficient structure to perform the claimed function); or (2) present a sufficient showing that the claim limitation(s) recite(s) sufficient structure to perform the claimed function so as to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101
35 U.S.C. 101 reads as follows:
Whoever invents or discovers any new and useful process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter, or any new and useful improvement thereof, may obtain a patent therefor, subject to the conditions and requirements of this title.
Claim 17 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to non-statutory subject matter.
Claim 17 does not fall within at least one of the four categories of patent eligible subject matter because it is directed to signals per se. The claim recites a “computer-readable storage medium” which encompasses transitory signals. While Applicant’s disclosure provides non-transitory examples of machine-readable storage mediums ([0075]), the Specification does not define the computer-readable storage medium as non-transitory or otherwise set forth a clear disavowal of the claimed computer-readable storage medium being transitory.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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.
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)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
(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.
Claim(s) 1-8 and 14-20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Pham (US 2018/0083898 A1).
Regarding claim 1, Pham teaches a display control method, comprising:
determining a target control associated with a target trigger rule in response to at least one trigger rule being hit, wherein the target trigger rule is the hit trigger rule (FIG. 2 and [0067-0075] and blocks 416-420 of FIG. 4 and [0119-0137]: sticker suggestion module 212 works in tandem with at least response suggestion generator 216 to determine a target control/a message sticker associated with a target trigger rule. A trigger rule is hit when response suggestion generator 216 determines a response suggestion as being relevant and the response suggestions is ranked at a certain level by the sticker suggestion module 212; FIG. 10 and [0193-0199]: for example, a target control “Show location”/element 1010 is determined in response to at least one trigger rule being hit. Note that a target control may be any one of elements 1010, 1012, or 1014); and
displaying the target control in an input box of a chat interface or an associated area of the input box, wherein the target control is configured to perform a corresponding function after being triggered (block 420 of FIG. 4 and [0137], FIG. 10 and [0195-0199], and FIG. 11 and [0200]: target control is displayed in an associated area of the input box. For example, target control “Show location”/element 1010 is displayed in an area above the input box. Selection of element 1010 causes execution of a corresponding function, as seen in FIG. 11).
Regarding claim 2, Pham further teaches the display method according to claim 1, wherein in response to at least one trigger rule being hit comprises:
in response to the at least one trigger rule being hit by received information; or
in response to the at least one trigger rule being hit by a detected operation; or
in response to the at least one trigger rule being hit by historical information from an associated user of the chat interface (FIG. 2 and [0067-0075] and blocks 416-420 of FIG. 4 and [0119-0137]; FIG. 10 and [0193-0195]: for example, the at least one trigger rule is hit by historical information from an associated user of the chat interface).
Regarding claim 3, Pham further teaches the method according to claim 1, wherein the target control comprises at least one of the following:
a time zone information control, an information reply control, a page jump control, an information forwarding control, a target type information display control, or an application control (FIG. 10 and [0193-0199], FIG. 11 and [0200]: the target control comprises a target type information display control. For example, element 1010 comprises control for displaying an image showing a map indicating the location of the first user device, as evident in FIG. 11. As another example, element 1012 comprises control for displaying a formatted card with information about XYZ Coffee).
Regarding claim 4, Pham further teaches the method according to claim 1, wherein
the trigger rule comprises at least one of a priority of an associated control, an appearance rule of the associated control, and a hiding rule of the associated control ([0180]: “the type of response may be selected or prioritized based on context”; blocks 416-420 of FIG. 4 and [0119-0137]: an associated control is suggested based on its priority, or ranking).
Regarding claim 5, Pham further teaches the method according to claim 4, further comprising:
determining, based on a priority of the target control, a display position of the target control in the input box or the associated area ([0075], FIG. 4 and [0128-0129], [0134-0137]).
Regarding claim 6, Pham further teaches the method according to claim 1, wherein if no trigger rule is hit, a suggested control is displayed in the input box of the chat interface or the associated area of the input box, wherein the suggested control is determined based on a behavior of a current user ([0057]: for example, based on behavior indicated by a current user’s prior activity via earlier messages in the conversation, a suggested control may be displayed to reflect a playful or a formal response).
Regarding claim 7, Pham further teaches the method according to claim 1, wherein
if at least two target controls are mutually exclusive, a control that needs to be displayed is determined from the mutually exclusive target controls based on the control currently displayed in the input box or the associated area of the input box ([0075], FIG. 4 and [0128-0129], [0134-0137], FIG. 10 and [0193-0199]: a particular number of top-ranked message stickers/target controls are to be displayed. A control that is top-ranked is determined based on a control displayed in the associated area. For example, a control may be message 1006).
Regarding claim 8, Pham further teaches the method according to claim 1, wherein
the trigger rule and the control associated with the trigger rule are customizable ([0057], [0061]: trigger rule and associated control are customizable).
Regarding claim 14, Pham further teaches the method according to claim 1, wherein
the target control has displayed content, and the displayed content comprises at least one of a text and an icon ([0035-0037], FIG. 10 and [0195]: a target control has displayed content comprising at least text).
Regarding claim 15, the claim recites a display control apparatus (FIG. 12 and [0255-0256]), comprising operations corresponding to claim 1 and is therefore rejected on the same premise.
Regarding claims 16 and 18-20, the claims recite an electronic device, comprising: at least one memory and at least one processor, wherein the at least one memory is configured to store program code, and the at least one processor is configured to call the program code stored in the at least one memory to perform operations (FIG. 12 and [0255-0256]) comprising those corresponding to claims 1-4, respectively, and are therefore rejected on the same premises.
Regarding claim 17, the claim recites a computer-readable storage medium configured to store program code that, when executed by a processor (FIG. 12 and [0255-0256]), causes the processor to perform the method according to claim 1 and is therefore rejected on the same premise.
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) 11 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Pham (US 2018/0083898 A1), in view of Gordon et al. (US 10440169 B1).
Regarding claim 11, Pham teaches the method according to claim 8.
Pham does not explicitly teach wherein user types comprise a first type of user and a second type of user belonging to the first type of user; and a user with a first permission in the first type of user is able to set whether the second type of user is permitted to customize the trigger rule and the control associated with the trigger rule.
Gordon teaches wherein user types comprise a first type of user and a second type of user belonging to the first type of user; and a user with a first permission in the first type of user is able to set whether the second type of user is permitted to customize the trigger rule and the control associated with the trigger rule (FIG. 17 and Col. 51, line 50 to Col. 54, line 46: a first type of user may be all users which interact with online instruction database 1702, and a second type of user may be a user receiving an instruction from another user via the online instruction database 1702. A user with a first permission, or designated permission level, in the first type of user is able to set whether the second type of user is permitted to customize the trigger rule and the control associated with the trigger rule, as illustrated in instruction interface 1712 by the receiving user’s ability to modify the instruction).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Pham by incorporating the teachings of Gordon so as to include wherein user types comprise a first type of user and a second type of user belonging to the first type of user; and a user with a first permission in the first type of user is able to set whether the second type of user is permitted to customize the trigger rule and the control associated with the trigger rule. Doing so would allow other users to benefit from applicable, custom trigger rules and their associated controls. In this way, individual users do not need to manually set instructions, anew, themselves. Rather, a user with permission, and thus authorized, may send a preset instruction to another user for use and/or customization of its trigger rule and associated control, increasing efficacy and convenience for the receiving user.
Claim(s) 12 and 13 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Pham (US 2018/0083898 A1), in view of Choi (US 2017/0308292 A1).
Regarding claim 12, Pham further teaches the method according to claim 1.
Pham does not explicitly teach further comprising: in response to customization of at least one control as a fixed control, fixedly displaying the fixed control in the input box of the chat interface or the associated area of the input box.
Choi teaches in response to customization of at least one control as a fixed control,
fixedly displaying the fixed control in the input box of the chat interface or the associated area of the input box (FIGS. 4B-D and [0093-0103]: as seen in FIG. 4C, selection of suggested query 406 customizes the control as a fixed control. This causes the fixed control to be fixedly displayed in the associated area of the input box as seen in FIG. 4D).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Pham by incorporating the teachings of Choi so as to include further comprising: in response to customization of at least one control as a fixed control, fixedly displaying the fixed control in the input box of the chat interface or the associated area of the input box. Doing so would allow the user to remember a particular, important context of the conversation to guide the user in continuing the conversation.
Regarding claim 13, Pham further teaches the method according to claim 1, wherein n controls are displayable in the input box or the associated area ([0075]: “A particular number of the top ranking message sticker suggestions can be sent via the server interface 210 to one or more user devices 204 and/or 208 to be displayed or otherwise output on the user devices.”).
Pham does not explicitly teach if a number of target controls exceeds n, (n-1) target controls and an extended control are displayed in the input box or the associated area, wherein the extended control is configured to: after being triggered, display a target control that is not displayed in the input box or the associated area.
Choi teaches if a number of target controls exceeds n, (n-1) target controls and an extended control are displayed in the input box or the associated area, wherein the extended control is configured to: after being triggered, display a target control that is not displayed in the input box or the associated area (FIGS. 4B-D and [0093-0103]: as seen in FIG. 4B, n = 2 control are displayable in the associated area. If a number of target controls exceeds 2, then 1 target control “Burrito Land” and an extended control succeeding “Burrito Land” is displayed as seen in FIG. 4D. After the extended control is triggered within the carousel, by the user swiping left for example, a target control to the right of “Burrito Land” is displayed in the associated area).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Pham by incorporating the teachings of Choi so as to include if a number of target controls exceeds n, (n-1) target controls and an extended control are displayed in the input box or the associated area, wherein the extended control is configured to: after being triggered, display a target control that is not displayed in the input box or the associated area. Doing so would allow the user to access a greater number of target controls in case the initially presented target controls are unsatisfactory. In this way, the user would be more likely to access the most applicable target control for a more efficient or impactful conversation.
Allowable Subject Matter
As allowable subject matter has been indicated, applicant's reply must either comply with all formal requirements or specifically traverse each requirement not complied with. See 37 CFR 1.111(b) and MPEP § 707.07(a).
Claims 9 and 10 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.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure, including:
US 2019/0124019 A1: recommending responses based on historical message data
US 2017/0187654 A1: candidate response options based on context
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to KENNY NGUYEN whose telephone number is (571)272-4980. The examiner can normally be reached M-Th 7AM to 5PM.
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, KIEU D VU can be reached on (571)272-4057. 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.
/KENNY NGUYEN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2171