DETAILED ACTION
This Office Action is in response to application 18/738,810 filed on June 10, 2024.
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 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.
Claims 1-20 are pending and herein considered.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 06/10/2024. 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 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.
Claims 1-20 are rejected under 35 USC § 101 as being directed to non-statutory subject matter.
Claims 1, 8 and 15 are rejected under 35 USC 101 because the claims are/is directed to an abstract idea without being integrated into a practical application nor being significantly more.
Regarding claim 1, the claim recites the limitations “caus[[ing]] display a message interface; “receiv[[ing]] an input that select a message; caus[[ing]] display; of a message interface at a client device; causing display of a text input field based on the selection of the composition option; and causing display of a text input field based on the selection of the composition option, sender identifier; receiving a text input via the text input field; and causing display of a quoted reply within the messaging interface, the quoted reply comprising at least the text input, the message, the sender identifier, and a user identifier associated with the user account are directed to an abstract idea as the claims recite mental processes. Accordingly, the claims recite an abstract idea. This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. It’s noted that the claims recite additional element(s) (i.e., hardware processor, memory). However, said additional elements are recited at a high-level of generality (i.e., as a hardware processing device performing a generic computer function of receiving/displaying) such that it amounts no more than mere instructions to apply to data using a generic computer component. Accordingly, this additional element does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because it does not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. Therefore, the claims are not integrated into a practical application.
The claims do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because the additional elements when considered both individually and as an ordered combination do not amount to significantly more than the abstract idea. As mentioned above, although the claims recite additional elements, said elements taken individually or as a combination, do not result in the claim amounting to significantly more than the abstract idea because as the additional elements perform generic computer content distributing functions routinely used in information technology field receiving, and displaying by the processor using an interface; in view of Berkheimer memo. Generic computer components recited as performing generic computer functions that are well understood, routine and conventional activities amount to no more than implementing the abstract idea with a computerized system. Therefore, the claim is directed to non-statutory subject matter.
Regarding claims 2-7 are also rejected under 35 U.S.C 101 as being directed to non-statutory subject matter for the same reasons addressed above as the claims are directed to abstract idea without being integrated into a practical application nor being significantly more.
Regarding claim 8, the claims recite the limitations “caus[[ing]] display a message interface; “receiv[[ing]] an input that select a message; caus[[ing]] display; of a message interface at a client device; causing display of a text input field based on the selection of the composition option; and causing display of a text input field based on the selection of the composition option, sender identifier; receiving a text input via the text input field; and causing display of a quoted reply within the messaging interface, the quoted reply comprising at least the text input, the message, the sender identifier, and a user identifier associated with the user account are directed to an abstract idea as the claims recite mental processes. Accordingly, the claims recite an abstract idea. This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. It’s noted that the claims recite additional element(s) (i.e., hardware processor, memory). However, said additional elements are recited at a high-level of generality (i.e., as a hardware processing device performing a generic computer function of receiving/displaying) such that it amounts no more than mere instructions to apply to data using a generic computer component. Accordingly, this additional element does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because it does not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. Therefore, the claims are not integrated into a practical application.
The claims do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because the additional elements when considered both individually and as an ordered combination do not amount to significantly more than the abstract idea. As mentioned above, although the claims recite additional elements, said elements taken individually or as a combination, do not result in the claim amounting to significantly more than the abstract idea because as the additional elements perform generic computer content distributing functions routinely used in information technology field receiving, and displaying by the processor using an interface; in view of Berkheimer memo. Generic computer components recited as performing generic computer functions that are well understood, routine and conventional activities amount to no more than implementing the abstract idea with a computerized system. Therefore, the claim is directed to non-statutory subject matter.
Claims 9-14 are also rejected under 35 U.S.C 101 as being directed to non-statutory subject matter for the same reasons addressed above as the claims are directed to abstract idea without being integrated into a practical application nor being significantly more.
Regarding claims 15, the claim recites the limitations “caus[[ing]] display a message interface; “receiv[[ing]] an input that select a message; caus[[ing]] display; of a message interface at a client device; causing display of a text input field based on the selection of the composition option; and causing display of a text input field based on the selection of the composition option, sender identifier; receiving a text input via the text input field; and causing display of a quoted reply within the messaging interface, the quoted reply comprising at least the text input, the message, the sender identifier, and a user identifier associated with the user account are directed to an abstract idea as the claims recite mental processes. Accordingly, the claims recite an abstract idea. This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. It’s noted that the claims recite additional element(s) (i.e., hardware processor, memory). However, said additional elements are recited at a high-level of generality (i.e., as a hardware processing device performing a generic computer function of receiving/displaying) such that it amounts no more than mere instructions to apply to data using a generic computer component. Accordingly, this additional element does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because it does not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. Therefore, the claims are not integrated into a practical application.
The claims do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because the additional elements when considered both individually and as an ordered combination do not amount to significantly more than the abstract idea. As mentioned above, although the claims recite additional elements, said elements taken individually or as a combination, do not result in the claim amounting to significantly more than the abstract idea because as the additional elements perform generic computer content distributing functions routinely used in information technology field receiving, and displaying by the processor using an interface; in view of Berkheimer memo. Generic computer components recited as performing generic computer functions that are well understood, routine and conventional activities amount to no more than implementing the abstract idea with a computerized system. Therefore, the claim is directed to non-statutory subject matter.
Regarding claims 16-20 are also rejected under 35 U.S.C 101 as being directed to non-statutory subject matter for the same reasons addressed above as the claims are directed to abstract idea without being integrated into a practical application nor being significantly more.
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)(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.
Claims 1, 8 and 15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1)/(a)(2) as being anticipated by Chen et al. (Chen) U.S. Pub. Number 2016/0364368.
Regarding claim 1, 8 and 15; Chen discloses a method comprising: causing display of a messaging interface at a client device associated with a user account, the messaging interface comprising a plurality of messages (par. [0003] a computer program product for grouping chat room messages according to a topic. A first message may be displayed within a main chat room. The first message may be associated with a first topic. A second message may be displayed below the first message);
receiving an input that selects a message from among the plurality of messages, the message corresponding with a sender identifier GUIs 204, 208, and 212 may include various mechanisms, such as pointers to allow a user to select different options. For example, according to embodiments, and as described in more detail below, a user may use a pointer to select an option to reply to a message within a main chat room or alternate chat room. The GUIs 204, 208, and 212 may also include various control buttons. According to embodiments, and as described in more detail below, the GUI may include offset reply messages within a main chat room, shortcut control buttons to allow a user to easily transfer from a main chat room to an alternate chat room, and control buttons to display a particular unread message. The GUIs 204, 208, and 212 may also include windows, menus, or any other suitable object for embodiments of the present disclosure;
causing display of a menu element responsive to the input that selects the message, the menu element comprising a display of the message and a set of composition options (par. [0022] various mechanisms, such as pointers to allow a user to select different options. For example, according to embodiments, and as described in more detail below, a user may use a pointer to select an option to reply to a message within a main chat room or alternate chat room. The GUIs 204, 208, and 212 may also include various control buttons. According to embodiments, and as described in more detail below, the GUI may include offset reply messages within a main chat room, shortcut control buttons to allow a user to easily transfer from a main chat room to an alternate chat room, and control buttons to display a particular unread message. The GUIs 204, 208, and 212 may also include windows, menus, or any other suitable object for embodiments of the present disclosure);
receiving a selection of a composition option from among the set of composition options; causing display of a text input field based on the selection of the composition option, the text input field comprising a presentation of the message that includes the sender identifier (par. [0022] various;
receiving a text input via the text input field(figure 1); and
causing display of a quoted reply within the messaging interface, the quoted reply comprising at least the text input, the message, the sender identifier, and a user identifier associated with the user account (figure 1, par. [0030] Main chat room 300B may be an update to the main chat room 300A. For example, at a first time, a computing device may receive a user request to reply to message 302. Message 302 may specify a third discussed topic (e.g., which hotel to stay in at a particular marathon venue). Accordingly, the reply message 318 may be a response to the message 302 (e.g., Hotel X). At the first time, in main chat room 300A, a computing device may receive the request when a user that is associated with message 318 first selects the message 302 within main chat room 300A by using a pointer 304A).
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 2, 9 and 16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being obvious over Chen et al. (Chen) U.S. Pub. Number 2016/0364368 in view of Sarafa et al. (Sarafa) U.S. Pub. Number 2018/0159812.
Regarding claims 2, 9 and 16, Chen disclose the method of claim 1.
Chen does not disclose, which Sarafa discloses, wherein the sender identifier comprises a graphical property that includes a color, and wherein the text input field includes the color of the sender identifier (Sarafa, par. [0071] To visually differentiate the contributions of different users, different colors may be used for different users in the message thread interaction display 330. Each user may be associated with a particular color. In some embodiments, the specific colors associated with specific users may be made consistent across multiple client devices by the messaging system 110. In other embodiments, the assignment of specific colors to specific users may be local to a client device 320. The names of participants in the message thread may each be displayed using the color assigned to each participant). [0071] To visually differentiate the contributions of different users, different colors may be used for different users in the message thread interaction display 330. Each user may be associated with a particular color. In some embodiments, the specific colors associated with specific users may be made consistent across multiple client devices by the messaging system 110. In other embodiments, the assignment of specific colors to specific users may be local to a client device 320. The names of participants in the message thread may each be displayed using the color assigned to each participant. The color assigned to the quotee may be used in the display of the quoted portion 360, such as by coloring the quotee name 365 in the quotee color. The quoted portion 360 may be indicated, at least in part, by a vertical quote bar 365 alongside the extent of the quoted portion 360. This vertical quote bar 365 may be positioned proximate to the quoted portion 360, such as along one edge of it. This vertical quote bar 365 may be displayed in the quotee color to visually communicate that the quoted portion 360 of the message bubble with quote 350 was originally provided by the quotee
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the teaching of Chen to provide sender identifier comprises a graphical property that includes a color, as teaches by Safara. The motivation would be to visually differentiate the contributions of different users; different colors may be used for different users in the message thread interaction display.
Claims 6. 13 and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being obvious over Chen et al. (Chen) U.S. Pub. Number 2016/0364368 in view Verma et al. (Verma) U.S. Pub. Number 20220343705.
Regarding Claims 6. 13 and 20 Chen does not disclose, which Verma discloses, wherein the message comprises an ephemeral message (Verma, [0035] by the peripheral wireless device 202. The owner's static IRK remains secret and is not shared with the service representative's central wireless device 502. The peripheral wireless device 202 can restrict BLE advertisement messages that include the ephemeral RPA based on the ephemeral IRK to only occur during the scheduled sharing time period and to not occur before or after the scheduled sharing time period. That the quoted portion 360 of the message bubble with quote 350 was originally provided by the quotee)
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention modify the teaching of Chen to provide wherein the message comprises an ephemeral message as teaching by Vermon. The motivation would be to provide for protection against privacy and security attacks by unknown, malicious third-party scanning devices as the ephemeral IRK can be limited to use during the scheduled time period and/or for a limited number of access grants.
Related Art
The following prior art made of record and cited on PTO-892, but not relied upon, is considered pertinent to applicant’s disclosure:
U.S. Pat. Number 9 805340 B2 to Chaar teaches a method of managing instant messaging communication over a computer network is provided. One or more instant messaging session windows are organized in an instant messaging session manager. At least one distinguishing session characteristic is attributed to each of the one or more instant messaging session windows.
U.S. Pub. Number 2017/02890806 A1 to Grotto-Grotto teaches a server maintains message status information for a plurality of messages. The status information includes an indicator for each message that indicates if a reply is required. A view is provided on a client device that shows only messages for which a reply is required by the first client device according to the message status information. The view is displayable on a display of the client device.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to VU V TRAN whose telephone number is (571)270-1708. The examiner can normally be reached M-F, 8 AM- 4 PM.
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 Korzuch can be reached on 571-272-7589. 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.
/VU V TRAN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2491