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 office action is in response to the Request for Continued Examination filed on 3 December 2025 and the previous non-entered After Final amendment filed on 1 October 2025.
This office action is made Non Final.
Claims 1, 6, 11, 19, and 20 have been amended.
Claims 5 and 7 have been cancelled.
Claims 1-4, 6, 8-20 are pending. Claims 1, 19, and 20 are independent claims.
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on 10/1/25 has been entered.
Specification
The amendment to the abstract filed 10/1/2025 has been entered. However, the abstract of the disclosure is objected to because the amended abstract states the switching of the display is in response to a notification of the event being received. However, Applicant’s specification (see page 11, ll.7-16) discloses that the switching of the display is in response to a selection of the received notification, not when the notification itself is received. Thus, the amended abstract is not an accurate summary of the claim invention A corrected abstract of the disclosure is required and must be presented on a separate sheet, apart from any other text. See MPEP § 608.01(b).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 9-10 are and 11 remains rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Claim 9 recites the term/element “a content template” in line 2 of the claim. However, claim 1 already introduces “a content template”. Therefore, it is unclear to the Examiner if the element “a content template” of claim 9 should depend on the “content template” Claim 11 or viewed as its own element. Therefore, the claim is vague and indefinite. For examining purposes, the Examiner will view this portion of limitation as “the application provides, through the extended content box, the content template comprising information…”
Claim 10 recites the term/element “a content template” in line 2 of the claim. However, claim 1 already introduces “a content template”. Therefore, it is unclear to the Examiner if the element “a content template” of claim 10 should depend on the “content template” Claim 1 or viewed as its own element. Therefore, the claim is vague and indefinite. For examining purposes, the Examiner will view this portion of limitation as “wherein, in the content box, the content template arranged…”
Claim 11 recites the term/element “a content corresponding to a content template” in lines 2-3 of the claim. However, Claim 1 already introduced the element “a content corresponding template to the content”. Therefore, it is unclear to the Examiner if the element “content corresponding to a content template” of Claim 11 or its own element. Therefore, the claim is vague and indefinite. In addition, Claim 11 recites the term/element “...a content template is derived” in lines 2-3 and 3 of the claim. However, claim 1 already introduces “a content template”. Therefore, it is unclear to the Examiner if the repeating element “a content template” of claim 11 should depend on the “content template” Claim 1 or viewed as its own element. Therefore, the claim is vague and indefinite. For examining purposes, the Examiner will view the term "… which the content corresponding to the content template is derived or a source from which the content corresponding to the content template is derived”.
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, 6, 14-20 remain rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over LINE (“Introducing Mini Browser, letting you chat and browse at the same time!”, LINE Official Blog, 6/5/2019, 4 pages + Screenshots (SS) 1-5, 5a-c, 6-7 of the animation presented on page 3) in further view of Marsh et al (US20080059592)
As per independent claim 1, LINE discloses a method comprising:
displaying content through an application; (page 2:item 1; SS1: shared link information (content) is displayed. SS1 shows a chat between user A and user John. The user John sent a link of a web site/page to user A
PNG
media_image1.png
1160
1920
media_image1.png
Greyscale
)
in response to receiving a selection for the shared content, displaying a content execution result corresponding to the content on the user device; (page 2: item 1; SS2-SS3: browser showing webpage appears (SS3) in response to selecting (SS2)
PNG
media_image2.png
1160
1920
media_image2.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image3.png
1160
1920
media_image3.png
Greyscale
)
while the content execution result is being displayed, detecting an occurrence of an event on the user device,…the event is not associated with the content; in response to the occurrence of the event on the user device, switching the display of the content execution result to a display corresponding to the event, (page 1-2: swipes down page/browser causing the display of the chat to return; SS4 shows the user swipes down on the browser. This changes the display by reducing the size of the page/browser and allowing the redisplay of the chat (as shown in SS5) The user swiping down the page/browser is not associated with the link displayed in the chat since the user does not interact with the link in the chat during the event.
PNG
media_image4.png
1160
1920
media_image4.png
Greyscale
)
displaying a content box accessible to the content execution result along with the display corresponding to the event; and (page 2: mini browser (content box) is displayed; SS5 shows the mini browser
PNG
media_image5.png
1160
1920
media_image5.png
Greyscale
)
wherein the content box comprises at least one content template,
(page 2; SS5: Discloses the mini browser comprises web content such as a web page (form of at least one content template) from the browser shown in SS3)
PNG
media_image5.png
1160
1920
media_image5.png
Greyscale
)
in response to a user input through the content box, switching the display corresponding to the event to the display corresponding to the content execution result on the user device; wherein the user input comprises a selection for a content template corresponding to the content, among the at least one content template.
(page 2: through user input, a button, associated mini browser (content box), is displayed that when selected returns the web browser back to the normal size. SS6-7: shows the user selecting the mini browser(a form of a content box which comprise the web content such as a web page (form of a content template)) to display a button that will return the web browser back to the normal size. A skilled artisan would have understand/realized that the button displayed on the mini browser needs to be pressed for the browser to be normal size again based on the functionality explained on page 2. Selecting the button results in not only the web browser returning to its normal size, but also the content/web page within the browser itself, as shown in SS3, returns to normal size. This is a form of a selection for the content template corresponding to the content. )
PNG
media_image6.png
1160
1920
media_image6.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image7.png
1160
1920
media_image7.png
Greyscale
)
However, LINE fails to specifically disclose wherein the event causes at least a portion of the display corresponding to the content execution result to become invisible. However, Marsh et al discloses a web page/browser being displayed when a notification of an incoming message is being received. (0032; FIG 3A) In response to a selection of an input mechanism such as the “Switch” option, at least a portion of the page/browser is no longer displayed and the instant message application/dialog is displayed instead allowing the user to engage in the chat. (0025, 0039; FIG 3B: pressing the button would “close” the browser and display the instant messaging) For example, FIG 3A shows that a user is viewing a webpage in their browser then receives a pop-up notification of a new message. In response to a selection of an input mechanism such as the “Switch” option, the display shown in FIG 3B is shown to the user causing at least a portion of the page/browser to be invisible. (0025, 0032, 0039)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of Applicant’s invention to have modified the cited art with the disclosed features of Marsh et al to further allow the display interface to accept additional input events since it would have provided the benefit of users can easily move back-and-forth between instant messaging and web browsing activities using the user interface without the need to select and open a new program application on their mobile devices.
As per dependent claim 2, LINE discloses displaying the content box in a floating form on the display corresponding to the event of the user device. (page 2; SS5a-c shows that the user can drag/move mini browser/box within the chat, a form of floating. Shows selecting the mini browser from the corner and moving it up to middle right of the screen
PNG
media_image8.png
1160
1920
media_image8.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image9.png
1160
1920
media_image9.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image10.png
1160
1920
media_image10.png
Greyscale
)
As per dependent claim 3, based on the rejection of Claim 2 and the rationale incorporated, LINE discloses wherein the content box is repositioned through a drag on a display of the user device (page 2;SS5a-c: drag functionality)
As per dependent claim 4, LINE discloses comprising at least one of: displaying the content box on the execution display of an application executed on the user device; displaying the content box as a menu of the executed application; and displaying the content box on a main screen of the user device (pg 1-2: displayed within the LINE app chat room; SS5: displayed in the app
PNG
media_image5.png
1160
1920
media_image5.png
Greyscale
)
As per dependent claim 6, LINE discloses wherein the content template comprises at least one of information identifying the content or information representing the content execution result corresponding to the content (page 2;SS5 mini browser contains webpage associated with the link)
As per dependent claim 14, claim 14 recites similar limitations as in claim 1 and is rejected under similar rationale. Furthermore, LINE discloses wherein in response to the user input through the content box, switching the display corresponding to the event to the display corresponding to the content execution result corresponding to the content comprises at least one of: displaying the content execution result on a tab of the application; displaying the content execution result on a channel of the application; displaying the content execution result on a menu of the application; displaying the content execution result on a function of the application; and displaying the content execution result on an in-app browser of the application. (page 1-2: displaying using the browser functionality within the line app; SS3:
PNG
media_image3.png
1160
1920
media_image3.png
Greyscale
)
As per dependent claim 15, LINE discloses displaying the content box only in a service providing area that performs a predetermined function. (page 1-2: displayed in a chat room; SS5:
PNG
media_image5.png
1160
1920
media_image5.png
Greyscale
)
As per dependent claim 16, LINE discloses wherein the display corresponding to the event is a display of chatting application, and wherein the service providing area includes at least one of a friend list tab, a chat room list tab, and a chat room. (page 2: chat room; SS4-5: swiping the browser causes the display of the chat to return and the mini browser to appear on the chat
PNG
media_image4.png
1160
1920
media_image4.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image5.png
1160
1920
media_image5.png
Greyscale
)
As per dependent claim 17, LINE discloses wherein the service providing area is determined by at least one of a service provider or the user. (page 1-2: Only discloses occurring in the chat; therefore, it was predetermined by the application (form of a service provider)
As per dependent claim 18, LINE discloses wherein the display corresponding to the event is a display of chatting application, and wherein the chatting application provides different content box for different chat room in the chatting application. (page 1-2 discloses a particular link being displayed in a chat (room) with a user within a messaging/chat application. When the user clicks on the link, a browser is displayed in which the user can perform an action and a content box/mini browser is displayed on top of the chat (room) in response. Furthermore, it is implicitly known that if the cited art is capable of performing the functionality once, then it is capable of repeating the function again. Thus, a second link can be displayed in a second chat (room) with a second user the messaging/chat application. When the user clicks on the a second link, a browser is displayed in which the user can perform an action and a second content box/mini browser is displayed on top of the second chat (room) in response. The content box/mini browser on top of second chat is associated with the second link. Therefore, the second content box/mini browser is different than the other content box/mini browser because each content box/mini browser is corresponds to different links and different chats.)
As per independent claims 19-20, Claims 19-20 recite similar limitations as in Claim 1 and are rejected under similar rationale. Furthermore, page 1-2 discloses images of a mobile device comprising the LINE app that contains the chat and browser/mini browser functionality. It is inherently known that mobile devices have a memory, a processor and a computer readable media.
Claim(s) 8 remain rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over LINE in further view of Marsh et al in further view of KIM (US20210266275, EFD 2/20/2020)
As per dependent claim 8, the cited art fails to specifically disclose wherein the content box is shared by and provided in different user devices to which the same user information is input. However, KIM discloses a plurality of user accounts interacting within a single chat room. A first user account shares their screen of content (content box) to a plurality of user accounts within the chat room (FIG 1; 0054-0057) Furthermore, each user account is associated with its own user terminal which receives the shared content (content box) (0059, 0062, 0064-0065)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of Applicant’s invention to have modified the cited art with the disclosed features of KIM since it would have provided the benefit of users in the chat room wanting to share a certain content and have the evaluation thereon without the need to exit the chat room in order to share the content.
Claim(s) 9-10 remain rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over LINE in further view of Marsh et al in further view of Yoshioka (US 20030034964, 2003)
As per dependent claims 9-10, the cited art fails to specifically disclose wherein, in response that the content box is extended, the application provides, through the extended content box, a content template comprising information identifying the content or information representing the content execution result corresponding to the content for the content. However, Yoshioka discloses a display having a multi-link button that when press expands/extends to list a number additional link buttons wherein each of the additional link buttons are associated with a category. The additional link button, such as “CONTENT A” is associated with content that when selected, the content associated with “CONTENT A” is retrieved. (FIG 10A-B; 0106-0108, 0165)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of Applicant’s invention to have modified the cited art with the disclosed features of Yoshioka since it would have provided the benefit of displaying necessary information, such as a menu of multiple link addresses, easily and promptly.
Claim(s) 11-12 remain rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over LINE in further view of Marsh et al in further view of Yoshioka in further view of NGO et al (US20140074873, 2014)
As per dependent claim 11, the cited art fails to specifically disclose wherein the category comprises a type of an application from which a content corresponding to a content template is derived or a source from which a content corresponding to a content template is derived. However, NGO et al discloses a display which place-related content being organized, ordered or bundled in groups of sequentially listed items that are related to the same application or to the same type or category of data. In other words, a listing of content in a certain content category (i.e. generally content for one type of application) (0098)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of Applicant’s invention to have modified the cited art with the disclosed features of NGO et al since it would have provided the benefit of presenting a consolidation or collection of place-related content for a plurality of different types of data where the displayed items of content are associated with a plurality of different applications.
As per dependent claim 12, based on the rejection of Claim 11 and the rationale along with the motivation to combine incorporated, NGO et al discloses wherein the category is arranged in at least one of an order that is set in a user device, or an order based on a count of selection of the content template in the content box. (0098: presentation, arrangement and appearance of the panels/categories may be manually configurable by the user or may be automatically adjusted based on usage patterns. Panels/categories that more frequently consulted are displayed more prominently.
Claim(s) 13 remain rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over LINE in further view of Marsh et al in further view of Appllio (“[LINE] How to use the new "Mini Browser" feature, which allows you to overlay small web pages on the chat screen, etc., 6/3/2019, 7 pages)
As per dependent claim 13, LINE fails to disclose in response that the display corresponding to the event is switched to another screen while the content box is being displayed with the display of the user device, maintaining the content box on the another screen. However, Appllio discloses the mini browser will remain displayed even if you leave the chat screen. (pg3-4)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of Applicant’s invention to have modified the cited art with the disclosed features of Appllio l since it would have provided the benefit of allows users to open web pages from the LINE chat screen and keep them displayed on the screen in a small size.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 10/1/25 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
In response to Applicant’s remarks on the objection to the specification/abstract on page 8, Applicant’s amendment to the abstract has overcome the pending issues in the objection to the specification/Abstract that were disclosed in the previous office action. However, the amended Abstract comprises new issues that were not previously presented with the original filed Abstract. The Examiner respectfully points to the Applicant to the “Specification” section of the office action above regarding the matter. Therefore, the objection to the specification/objection remain.
In response to Applicant’s remarks on the 112b rejection of Claim 11 on page 8, Applicant’s amendment has overcome the pending issues of claim that were disclosed in the previous office action. However, the amendments made to independent claim 1 comprises new issues within claim 11 that were not previously presented. The Examiner respectfully points to the Applicant to the “Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112” section of the office action above regarding the matter. Therefore, the 112 rejection(s) to the claims remain.
On pages 8-10, in regards to the independent claims 1, 19, and 20 rejected under 35 USC 103, Applicant argues that LINE and Marsh do not teach the subject matter that the content box includes at least one content template and that the execution result of the content is displayed according to the template selected in correspondence with previously-played content. In other words, Applicant argues that LINE and Marsh do not teach different types and forms of content are distinguished and the displayed execution result is changed based on a user selection of a content template. However, the Examiner disagrees.
Based on the arguments provided by the Applicant in respect to claimed features in LINE and Marsh claim limitation, the Examiner respectfully submits that the Applicant states that LINE and Marsh does not teach the limitation by merely summarizing LINE and Marsh and allegedly concludes that LINE and Marsh does not teach the limitation. Applicant does not disclose how the claim language of the claim limitation is different from the teachings of LINE and Marsh by describing the differences that involve any supporting evidence from the specification stating or describing the limitation, or how LINE and Marsh is specifically different from Applicant's invention. Thus, Applicant's arguments fail to disclose how the cited art is silent or doesn't teach on the limitation since the Applicant does not fully describe the differences that involve any supporting evidence from Applicant's specification stating or describing the limitations, or how the cited art is specifically different from the invention itself. Therefore, the Applicant did not explicitly state how Applicant's invention, other than stating LINE and Marsh, alone, doesn't teach the limitations, is different to prove that the cited art’s functionality does not equivalently teach the limitation.
In response to applicant's argument that the references fail to show certain features of the invention, it is noted that the features upon which applicant relies (i.e., different types and forms of content are distinguished and the displayed execution result is changed based on a user selection of a content template) are not recited in the rejected claim(s). Although the claims are interpreted in light of the specification, limitations from the specification are not read into the claims. See In re Van Geuns, 988 F.2d 1181, 26 USPQ2d 1057 (Fed. Cir. 1993).
Based on the language, the language is broad on a number of elements. The argued limitations/subject matter is completely silent in any regard of different types and forms of content are shown or provided and distinguished. In fact, the current claim itself does not introduce more than one form or type of content in anyway. In addition, the argued limitations/subject matter is completely silent in any regard of the displayed execution result is changed based on a user selection of a content template. The newly added limitation(s)/subject matter merely discloses that the content box that is form comprises at least one content template. The language is completely silent of what exactly a content template is and how exactly it is presented within the content box. The language states the content box could only have one content template wherein the content template corresponds to the content. The language does not prevent the content template from being the same data corresponding to the content that was/is previously displayed in the displayed content execution result. Furthermore, the language is completely silent on what the content box is and no clarification or explanation is provided in the claim on what the content box should be properly interpreted as. In addition, the newly added limitation/subject matter is silent on how exactly the content template in the selected. The language provides no further explanation or clarification on the selection itself. Also, the language does not limit on how exactly the language should be interpreted as. Therefore, the broadest reasonable interpretation is applied.
Furthermore, the Examiner refers the Applicant to MPEP 904.01 (b) that states "All subject matter that is the equivalent of the subject matter as defined in the claim, even though specifically different from the definition in the claim, must be considered unless expressly excluded by the claimed subject matter." In other words, while the prior art cited may not explicitly use the same terminology as disclosed in the claim limitations, it doesn't mean the art doesn't teach it and can't be considered to reject Applicant's claimed invention. Thus, examiner submits that what is taught by the references is considered within the broadest reasonable interpretation to that which is claimed discussed below.
Thus, based on the broadest reasonable interpretation of the language of the limitations, LINE discloses the subject matter of wherein the content box comprises at least one content template. page 2; SS5 of LINE discloses the mini browser comprises web content such as a web page (form of at least one content template) from the browser shown in SS3.
PNG
media_image5.png
1160
1920
media_image5.png
Greyscale
)
Furthermore, LINE discloses the subject matter of in response to a user input through the content box, switching the display corresponding to the event to the display corresponding to the content execution result on the user device; wherein the user input comprises a selection for a content template corresponding to the content, among the at least one content template. page 2 of LINE discloses through user input, a button, associated mini browser (content box), is displayed that when selected returns the web browser back to the normal size. In addition SS6-7 of LINE shows the user selecting the mini browser(a form of a content box which comprise the web content such as a web page (form of a content template)) to display a button that will return the web browser back to the normal size. A skilled artisan would understand that the button displayed on the mini browser needs to be pressed for the browser to be normal size again based on the functionality explained on page 2. Selecting the button results in not only the web browser returning to its normal size, but also the content/web page within the browser itself, as shown in SS3, returns to normal size. This is a form of a selection for the content template corresponding to the content.
PNG
media_image6.png
1160
1920
media_image6.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image7.png
1160
1920
media_image7.png
Greyscale
Therefore, the cited art teaches the limitations.
Conclusion
If the Applicant chooses to amend the claims in future filings, the Examiner kindly states any new limitation(s) added to the claims must be described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art in order to meet the written description requirement of 35 USC 112, first paragraph. To help expedite prosecution, promote compact prosecution and prevent a possible 112(a)/first paragraph rejection, the Examiner respectfully requests for each new limitation added to the claims in a future filing by the Applicant that the Applicant would cite the location within the specification showing support for that new limitation within the remarks. In addition, MPEP 2163.04(I)(B) states that a prima facie under 112(a)/first paragraph may be established if a claim has been added or amended, the support for the added limitation is not apparent, and applicant has not pointed out where added the limitation is supported.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to DAVID FABER whose telephone number is (571)272-2751. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Thursday.
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 5712724140. 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.
/ADAM M QUELER/ Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2172
/D.F/ Examiner, Art Unit 2172