DETAILED ACTION
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 amendment filed 16 January 2026.
Claims 1-20 are pending in this Office Action.
Response to Amendment
The objection to the specification regarding the title was addressed and is withdrawn.
Applicant’s amendments and arguments with respect to claims 1-20 filed on 16 January 2026 have been fully considered but they are deemed to be moot in view of the new grounds of rejection.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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 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 1-3, 5, 6, 8, 10-12, 14, 15, 17, 19, and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Collins et al. (U.S. 9,560,001) in view of Boyd et al. (U.S. 11,411,900) and further in view of Narayanswamy et al. (U.S. 11,178,087).
With respect to claim 1, Collins teaches a message processing method, applied to an electronic device, wherein the method comprises: receiving a first message (Collins, Fig. 1, element 1102; col. 10, lines 16-41) and related information of the first message, wherein the related information comprises identification information of a sender of the first message (Collins, Fig. 2, element 1423, User 1441; col. 12, lines 21-26); and prompting the first message (Collins, Fig. 1, element 1102; col. 10, lines 16-41).
Collins does not explicitly teach group identification information of a target instant messaging group; and in the target instant messaging group.
However, Boyd teaches group identification information of a target instant messaging group (Boyd, col. 8, lines 15-22); and in the target instant messaging group (Boyd, col. 8, lines 15-22).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Collins in view of Boyd in order to enable group identification information of a target instant messaging group; and in the target instant messaging group. One would be motivated to do so in order to enable the use of a group invitation system that supports a convenient way to involve people in a discussion regarding an event without requiring the immediate commitment of attending the event. By facilitating social engagement within the context of a group chat relating to an event, users can decide about whether to attend the event in a less pressured and more natural manner (Boyd, col. 2, lines 57-62).
The combination of Collins and Boyd does not explicitly teach in a case that the first message matches a second message, wherein the second message is a historical message.
However, Narayanswamy teaches in a case that the first message (Narayanswamy, Fig. 2A, User 1: No audio; col. 5, lines 30-33) matches (Narayanswamy, Fig. 3B, elements 358-368; col. 10, lines 16-67) a second message, wherein the second message is a historical message (Narayanswamy, Fig. 2A, User 2: No voice; col. 5, lines 33-35).
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 combination of Collins and Boyd in view of Narayanswamy in order to enable in a case that the first message matches a second message, wherein the second message is a historical message. One would be motivated to do so in order to mitigate the fact that redundant messages may be distracting and an important message submitted between redundant messages may not be noticed (Narayanswamy, col. 1, lines 19-21).
With respect to claim 2, the combination of Collins, Boyd, and Narayanswamy teaches the invention described in claim 1, including the method wherein the prompting the first message (Collins, Fig. 1, element 1102; col. 10, lines 16-41) in a case that the first message (Narayanswamy, Fig. 2A, User 1: No audio; col. 5, lines 30-33) matches (Narayanswamy, Fig. 3B, elements 358-368; col. 10, lines 16-67) a second message (Narayanswamy, Fig. 2A, User 2: No voice; col. 5, lines 33-35) comprises: prompting the first message (Collins, Fig. 1, element 1102; col. 10, lines 16-41) in a case that the first message (Narayanswamy, Fig. 2A, User 1: No audio; col. 5, lines 30-33) matches (Narayanswamy, Fig. 3B, elements 358-368; col. 10, lines 16-67) the second message (Narayanswamy, Fig. 2A, User 2: No voice; col. 5, lines 33-35) and the second message is not processed (Collins, col. 10, line 42 – col. 11, line 30).
The combination of references is made under the same rationale as claim 1 above.
With respect to claim 3, the combination of Collins, Boyd, and Narayanswamy teaches the invention described in claim 2, including the method wherein before the prompting the first message (Collins, col. 9, line 60 – col. 10, line 29) in a case that the first message (Narayanswamy, Fig. 2A, User 1: No audio; col. 5, lines 30-33) matches (Narayanswamy, Fig. 3B, elements 358-368; col. 10, lines 16-67) the second message (Narayanswamy, Fig. 2A, User 2: No voice; col. 5, lines 33-35) and the second message is not processed (Collins, col. 10, line 42 – col. 11, line 30), the method further comprises: monitoring whether the second message satisfies a processed condition, wherein the processed condition comprises at least one of the following: the second message is clicked (Collins, col. 9, line 60 – col. 10, line 29), a processing status corresponding to the second message is processed, or display duration of the second message reaches preset duration; and determining that the second message is not processed in a case that the second message does not satisfy the processed condition (Collins, col. 10, line 42 – col. 11, line 30).
The combination of references is made under the same rationale as claim 1 above.
With respect to claim 5, the combination of Collins, Boyd, and Narayanswamy teaches the invention described in claim 1, including the method wherein the prompting the first message comprises: displaying the first message in an instant messaging interface (Collins, col. 7, lines 17-27) corresponding to the target instant messaging group (Boyd, col. 8, lines 15-22).
The combination of references is made under the same rationale as claim 1 above.
With respect to claim 6, Collins teaches a message processing method, applied to a cloud (Collins, Fig. 3B; col. 14, lines 8-12), wherein the method comprises: obtaining a first message (Collins, Fig. 1, element 1102; col. 10, lines 16-41); determining identification information that is of a first user (Collins, col. 6, lines 52-63) and that satisfies a preset condition (Collins, col. 10, line 42 – col. 11, line 30); and sending the first message to (Collins, Fig. 2, element 1423, User 1441; col. 12, lines 21-26) an electronic device corresponding to the first user (Collins, Fig. 1, element 102; col. 5, line 36 – col. 6, line 43) based on the identification information of the first user (Collins, col. 6, lines 52-63).
Collins does not explicitly teach in a target instant messaging group; and in the target instant messaging group.
However, Boyd teaches in a target instant messaging group (Boyd, col. 8, lines 15-22); and in the target instant messaging group (Boyd, col. 8, lines 15-22).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Collins in view of Boyd in order to enable in a target instant messaging group; and in the target instant messaging group. One would be motivated to do so in order to enable the use of a group invitation system that supports a convenient way to involve people in a discussion regarding an event without requiring the immediate commitment of attending the event. By facilitating social engagement within the context of a group chat relating to an event, users can decide about whether to attend the event in a less pressured and more natural manner (Boyd, col. 2, lines 57-62).
The combination of Collins and Boyd does not explicitly teach in a case that the first message matches a second message, wherein the second message is a historical message.
However, Narayanswamy teaches in a case that the first message (Narayanswamy, Fig. 2A, User 1: No audio; col. 5, lines 30-33) matches (Narayanswamy, Fig. 3B, elements 358-368; col. 10, lines 16-67) a second message, wherein the second message is a historical message (Narayanswamy, Fig. 2A, User 2: No voice; col. 5, lines 33-35).
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 combination of Collins and Boyd in view of Narayanswamy in order to enable in a case that the first message matches a second message, wherein the second message is a historical message. One would be motivated to do so in order to mitigate the fact that redundant messages may be distracting and an important message submitted between redundant messages may not be noticed (Narayanswamy, col. 1, lines 19-21).
With respect to claim 8, the combination of Collins, Boyd, and Narayanswamy teaches the invention described in claim 6, including the method wherein the sending the first message to (Collins, Fig. 2, element 1423, User 1441; col. 12, lines 21-26) an electronic device corresponding to the first user (Collins, Fig. 1, element 102; col. 5, line 36 – col. 6, line 43) based on the identification information of the first user (Collins, col. 6, lines 52-63) comprises: sending the first message, identification information of a sender of the first message, and group identification information of the target instant messaging group (Boyd, col. 8, lines 15-22) to the electronic device corresponding to the first user; or sending the first message (Collins, Fig. 2, element 1423, User 1441; col. 12, lines 21-26) and identification information of a sender (Collins, Fig. 2, element 1423, User 1441; col. 12, lines 21-26) to the electronic device corresponding to the first user (Collins, Fig. 1, element 102; col. 5, line 36 – col. 6, line 43).
The combination of references is made under the same rationale as claim 8 above.
With respect to claim 10, Collins teaches an electronic device, comprising a processor, a memory, and a program or an instruction that is stored in the memory and that can be run on the processor, wherein the program or the instruction, when executed by the processor, causes the electronic device to perform: receiving a first message (Collins, Fig. 1, element 1102; col. 10, lines 16-41) and related information of the first message, wherein the related information comprises identification information of a sender of the first message (Collins, Fig. 2, element 1423, User 1441; col. 12, lines 21-26); and prompting the first message (Collins, Fig. 1, element 1102; col. 10, lines 16-41).
Collins does not explicitly teach group identification information of a target instant messaging group; and in the target instant messaging group.
However, Boyd teaches group identification information of a target instant messaging group (Boyd, col. 8, lines 15-22); and in the target instant messaging group (Boyd, col. 8, lines 15-22).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Collins in view of Boyd in order to enable group identification information of a target instant messaging group; and in the target instant messaging group. One would be motivated to do so in order to enable the use of a group invitation system that supports a convenient way to involve people in a discussion regarding an event without requiring the immediate commitment of attending the event. By facilitating social engagement within the context of a group chat relating to an event, users can decide about whether to attend the event in a less pressured and more natural manner (Boyd, col. 2, lines 57-62).
The combination of Collins and Boyd does not explicitly teach in a case that the first message matches a second message, wherein the second message is a historical message.
However, Narayanswamy teaches in a case that (Narayanswamy, Fig. 3B, elements 358-368; col. 10, lines 16-67) the first message (Narayanswamy, Fig. 2A, User 1: No audio; col. 5, lines 30-33) matches (Narayanswamy, Fig. 3B, elements 358-368; col. 10, lines 16-67) a second message, wherein the second message is a historical message (Narayanswamy, Fig. 2A, User 2: No voice; col. 5, lines 33-35).
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 combination of Collins and Boyd in view of Narayanswamy in order to enable in a case that the first message matches a second message, wherein the second message is a historical message. One would be motivated to do so in order to mitigate the fact that redundant messages may be distracting and an important message submitted between redundant messages may not be noticed (Narayanswamy, col. 1, lines 19-21).
With respect to claim 15, the combination of Collins, Boyd, and Narayanswamy teaches an electronic device, comprising a processor, a memory, and a program or an instruction that is stored in the memory and that can be run on the processor, wherein the program or the instruction, when executed by the processor, causes the electronic device to perform the steps of the message processing method according to claim 6 (Collins, Fig. 3B; col. 14, lines 8-12; Fig. 1, element 1102; col. 10, lines 16-41; col. 6, lines 52-63; col. 10, line 42 – col. 11, line 30; Fig. 2, element 1423, User 1441; col. 12, lines 21-26; Fig. 1, element 102; col. 5, line 36 – col. 6, line 43; col. 6, lines 52-63; Boyd, col. 8, lines 15-22; and Narayanswamy, Fig. 2A, User 1: No audio; col. 5, lines 30-33; Fig. 3B, elements 358-368; col. 10, lines 16-67; Fig. 2A, User 2: No voice; col. 5, lines 33-35).
The combination of references is made under the same rationale as claim 6 above.
With respect to claim 19, the combination of Collins, Boyd, and Narayanswamy teaches a non-transitory readable storage medium, wherein the non-transitory readable storage medium stores a program or an instruction, and when the program or the instruction is executed by a processor, steps of the message processing method according to claim 1 are implemented (Collins, Fig. 1, element 1102; col. 10, lines 16-41; Fig. 2, element 1423, User 1441; col. 12, lines 21-26; Fig. 1, element 1102; col. 10, lines 16-41; Boyd, col. 8, lines 15-22; and Narayanswamy, Fig. 2A, User 1: No audio; col. 5, lines 30-33; Fig. 3B, elements 358-368; col. 10, lines 16-67; Fig. 2A, User 2: No voice; col. 5, lines 33-35).
The combination of references is made under the same rationale as claim 1 above.
With respect to claim 20, the combination of Collins, Boyd, and Narayanswamy teaches a non-transitory readable storage medium, wherein the non-transitory readable storage medium stores a program or an instruction, and when the program or the instruction is executed by a processor, steps of the message processing method according to claim 6 are implemented (Collins, Fig. 3B; col. 14, lines 8-12; Fig. 1, element 1102; col. 10, lines 16-41; col. 6, lines 52-63; col. 10, line 42 – col. 11, line 30; Fig. 2, element 1423, User 1441; col. 12, lines 21-26; Fig. 1, element 102; col. 5, line 36 – col. 6, line 43; col. 6, lines 52-63; Boyd, col. 8, lines 15-22; and Narayanswamy, Fig. 2A, User 1: No audio; col. 5, lines 30-33; Fig. 3B, elements 358-368; col. 10, lines 16-67; Fig. 2A, User 2: No voice; col. 5, lines 33-35).
The combination of references is made under the same rationale as claim 6 above.
Claims 11, 12, 14, and 17 do not teach or define any new limitations above claims 2, 3, 5, and 8 and therefore are rejected for similar reasons.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 4, 7, 9, 13, 16, and 18 are objected to as being dependent upon rejected base claims, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Alicia Baturay whose telephone number is (571) 272-3981. The examiner can normally be reached at 7am – 4pm, Mondays – Thursdays, Eastern Time.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in person, or video conferencing using a USPTO-supplied, web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, Applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) form at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Kamal Divecha can be reached at (571) 272-5863. The fax 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.
/Alicia Baturay/
Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2441
February 19, 2026
Prosecution Insights