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 .
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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.
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, 7, and 13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US 20240333507 (Spires) in view of US 6549937 (Auerbach) further in view of US 20180212905 (Seol) and WO 2007023494 (Rosen).
Spires teaches or suggests an electronic device, wherein the electronic device comprises a processor, a memory, and a program or instructions stored in the memory and capable of running on the processor, wherein the program or instructions, when executed by the processor cause the processor to perform operations (claim 8), comprising:
displaying a first screen of a first application, wherein the first screen of the first application comprises X first to-be-quoted messages, wherein X is a positive integer. (¶ 43 display of a messaging interface that comprises a plurality of messages, some of which are to be quoted);
receiving a first input from a user, wherein the first input is used for a target to-be-quoted message, and the target to-be-quoted message comprises a target session message in an application (¶ 90 selects a message from among the plurality of messages);
sending target information to a target object, wherein the target information comprises at least one to-be-quoted message in the target to-be-quoted message (¶¶ 2, 17 people most often communicate with one other in online environments by sending and receiving messages), wherein the target information comprises at least one to-be-quoted message in the target to-be-quoted message; wherein X is a positive integer (¶ 18 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).
Spires does not expressly disclose but Seol teaches or suggests messages originated from at least a second application (¶ 10 second message application). It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to combine Spires’ system and Seol’s second application in order to facilitate grasping context.
Spires does not expressly disclose but Auerbach teaches or suggests the first screen of the first application comprises Y first session objects originated in the first application, wherein Y is a positive integer (6:6-12 contacts list); and
receiving a second input from the user, wherein the second input is used to instruct sending information to the target object (1:52-56 enter button, send icon).
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to combine Spires’ system, Seol’s second application, and Auerbach’s session objects in order to monitor individuals with whom a user communicates on a regular basis or whose presence on the Internet the user may wish to monitor.
Spires does not expressly disclose but Rosen teaches or suggests receiving a first input from a user, wherein the first input is used to associate a target message with a target object originated (p. 33 drag-and-drop). It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to combine Spires’ system, Seol’s second application, Auerbach’s session objects, and Rosen’s input in order to make sending more intuitive.
Claims 2, 8, and 14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US 20240333507 (Spires) in view of US 6549937 (Auerbach) further in view of US 20180212905 (Seol), WO 2007023494 (Rosen), WO 2020134744 (Liu), and WO 2015089767 (Feng).
Spires teaches or suggests quoting, according to a fourth input, the target session message in N target applications corresponding to the N target application icons (abs.).
Spires does not expressly disclose but Liu teaches or suggests before the displaying a first screen of a first application, the program or instructions, when executed by the processor, cause the processor to further perform: displaying M application icons according to the third input, wherein the M application icons are used to indicate icons of applications different from the second application; receiving a fourth input from the user, wherein the fourth input is used to select N target application icons from the M application icons, and the N target application icons comprise an icon of the first application wherein N is less than or equal to M, and N and M are positive integers (abs.).
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to combine Spires’ system, Seol’s second application, Auerbach’s session objects, Rosen’s input, and Liu’s icons in order to save screen real estate.
Spires does not expressly disclose but Feng teaches or suggests receiving a third input from the user in response to the target session message in the second application (fig. 5 description).
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to combine Spires’ system, Seol’s second application, Auerbach’s session objects, Rosen’s input , Liu’s icons and Feng’s input order to manually select and trigger the operation.
Claims 3, 9, and 15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US 20240333507 (Spires) in view of US 6549937 (Auerbach) further in view of US 20180212905 (Seol), WO 2007023494 (Rosen), US 20200274844 (Zhao), and US-20240241614 (Xu).
Spires does not expressly disclose but Zhao teaches or suggests the target to-be-quoted message comprises K to-be-quoted messages, wherein K is a positive integer greater than or equal to 2 and K is less than or equal to X (¶¶ 12, 49).
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to combine Spires’ system, Seol’s second application, Auerbach’s session objects, Rosen’s input, and Zhao’s multiplicity because more than one message may be relevant.
Spires does not expressly disclose but Xu teaches or suggests the target to-be-quoted message comprises K to-be-quoted messages, wherein K is a positive integer greater than or equal to 2 and K is less than or equal to X; before the receiving a second input from the user, the program or instructions, when executed by the processor, cause the processor to further perform: displaying a second screen, wherein the second screen comprises the K to-be-quoted messages; or receiving a fifth input, wherein the fifth input is used to adjust a positional relationship among the K to-be-quoted messages; the sending target information to the target object according to the second input comprises: sending the target information to the target object according to the second input, wherein the target information comprises K to-be-quoted messages whose positional relationship has been adjusted (¶¶ 45, 78).
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to combine Spires’ system, Seol’s second application, Auerbach’s session objects, Rosen’s input, Zhao’s multiplicity, and Xu’s adjusting to efficiently customize a display.
Claims 4, 10, and 16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US 20240333507 (Spires) in view of US 6549937 (Auerbach) further in view of US 20180212905 (Seol), WO 2007023494 (Rosen), US 20200274844 (Zhao), and US 20100048178 (Song).
Spires does not expressly disclose but Zhao teaches or suggests the target to-be-quoted message comprises K to-be-quoted messages, wherein K is a positive integer greater than or equal to 2 and K is less than or equal to X (¶¶ 12, 49).
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to combine Spires’ system, Seol’s second application, Auerbach’s session objects, Rosen’s input, and Zhao’s multiplicity because more than one message may be relevant.
Spires does not expressly disclose but Song teaches or suggests before the receiving a second input from the user, the program or instructions, when executed by the processor, cause the processor to further perform: displaying a second screen, wherein the second screen comprises the K to-be-quoted messages; or receiving a fifth input, wherein the fifth input is used to adjust a positional relationship among the K to-be-quoted messages; the sending target information to the target object according to the second input comprises: sending the target information to the target object according to the second input, wherein the target information comprises K to-be-quoted messages whose positional relationship has been adjusted (¶¶ 45, 78).
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to combine Spires’ system, Seol’s second application, Auerbach’s session objects, Rosen’s input, Zhao’s multiplicity, and Song’s deleting to free up space.
Claims 5, 11, and 17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US 20240333507 (Spires) in view of US 6549937 (Auerbach) further in view of US 20180212905 (Seol), WO 2007023494 (Rosen), WO 2018227899 (Dong) and US 20090106375 (Carmel).
Spires does not expressly disclose but Dong teaches or suggests displaying a fourth screen, wherein the fourth screen comprises the at least one to-be-quoted message in the target to-be-quoted message; and receiving a seventh input for a specified to-be-quoted message in the at least one to-be-quoted message, wherein the seventh input is used to trigger a jump to a specified application corresponding to the specified to-be-quoted message (description of 6-6).
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to combine Spires’ system, Seol’s second application, Auerbach’s session objects, Rosen’s input, and Dong’s jump to facilitate navigating messages.
Spires does not expressly disclose but Carmel teaches or suggests displaying a fifth screen according to the seventh input, wherein the fifth screen is a screen of the specified application comprising the specified to-be-quoted message and a context of the specified to-be-quoted message; wherein the specified to-be-quoted message on the fifth screen is marked with a mark (¶ 53). It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to combine Spires’ system, Seol’s second application, Auerbach’s session objects, Rosen’s input, Dong’s jump, and Carmel’s marking to distinguish parts of a message.
Claims 6, 12, and 18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US 20240333507 (Spires) in view of US 6549937 (Auerbach) further in view of US 20180212905 (Seol), WO 2007023494 (Rosen), WO 2018227899 (Dong), US 20090106375 (Carmel), and US 5953010 (Kampe).
Spires does not expressly disclose but Kampe teaches or suggests receiving an eighth input, wherein the eighth input is used to view the context of the specified to-be-quoted message; displaying a sixth screen according to the eighth input, wherein the sixth screen is a screen on which the content of the specified to-be-quoted message is replaced with an icon of the specified to-be-quoted message; receiving a ninth input for the icon of the specified to-be-quoted message on the sixth screen; and displaying the fifth screen according to the ninth input (3:15-20).
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to combine Spires’ system, Seol’s second application, Auerbach’s session objects, Rosen’s input, Dong’s jump, and Carmel’s marking, and Kampe’s icons in order to save screen real estate.
Response to Arguments
The arguments have been fully considered. The applicant argues that claim 1 is allowable over Spires, Szeto, and Chang (Resp. 12-14.) Auerbach, Seol, and Rosen have replaced Szeto and Chang to teach or suggest the argued limitations as aforementioned.
Other Art
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to the instant disclosure. For example, CN 106789547 discloses communicating via different application programs.
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Lance Leonard Barry whose telephone number is (571)272-5856. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 700-430 ET 730-1630.
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 email the Examiner.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Ario Etienne can be reached on 571-272-4001. 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.
/LANCE LEONARD BARRY/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2457