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 .
Authorization for Internet Communication
In the interest of compact prosecution, the Examiner recommends filing a written authorization for Internet communication. Doing so would permit the USPTO to communicate using Internet e-mail to schedule interviews or discuss other aspects of the application. Without a written authorization in place, the USPTO cannot respond to Internet e-mail correspondence. The preferred method of providing authorization is by filing form PTO/SB/439, available at: https://www.uspto.gov/patent/forms/forms. See MPEP § 502.03. Authorizations in an Internet e-mail do not have the same effect as filing the form in the record.
Status
Claims 1, 3, 8-10, 16, 18 and 20-30 are pending.
Specification
The lengthy specification has not been checked to the extent necessary to determine the presence of all possible minor errors. Cooperation is requested in correcting any errors of which the applicant(s) may become aware.
.
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.
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, 3, 8, 16, 18, 21, 20, 24, 25, and 29-30 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US 20190339822 (Devine) in view of CN 111756917 (Yu) further in view of WO 2016101717 (Xie).
Regarding claim 16, Devine teaches or suggests an electronic device, comprising: at least one processor; and a memory configured to store at least one program, wherein when executed by the at least one processor, the at least one program causes the at least one processor to (¶¶ 8, 13):
displaying an interaction picture sending control in a current session interface in response to receiving a target first session message comprising interaction picture from at least one second user, wherein the first session message is an interaction picture sent by the at least one second user and the interaction picture sending control is displayed at an associated position associated with the display position of the first session message in the current session interface (¶ 210);
receive an interaction picture sending operation acting on the interaction picture sending control displayed in the current session interface (¶ 213);
determine at least one preset picture from the first picture set as a first interaction picture based on the interaction picture sending operation, wherein the first picture set is obtained by matching based on a correlation with the first session message (¶¶ 213-16).
Devine does not expressly disclose but Yu teaches or suggests send the first interaction picture as a session message to at least one second user, and displaying the first interaction picture on the current session interface (¶ 54, fig. 3B).
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 Devine’s device and Yu’s sending to share pictures.
Devine does not expressly disclose but Xie teaches or suggests a floating control located in a message display area in the current session interface (description of Fig. 2). 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 Devine’s device, Yu’s sending, and Xie’s position to allow more room for messages.
Regarding claims 1 and 20, the combination teaches or suggests the claimed limitations as explained supra, mutatis mutandis.
Regarding claims 3, 18, and 24, the combination teaches or suggests the at least one program that causes the at least one processor to display the interaction picture sending control in the current session interface further causes the at least one processor to: display the interaction picture sending control at a first associated position of a display position of the first message (Devine, fig. 6E; Yu, fig. 3, ¶ 59). A rationale to combine teachings and suggestions of the references would have been for the same reason as for claim 16.
Regarding claims 8, 21, and 25, the combination teaches or suggests at least one of the following: the first session message being a last interaction picture sent by the at least one second user in the currently displayed session interface; or the first session displayed at a preset position in the currently displayed session interface (Devine, ¶ 210; Yu, figs. 3A-3B, ¶ 59). A rationale to combine teachings and suggestions of the references would have been for the same reason as for claim 16.
Regarding claims 28-30, the combination teaches or suggests the associated position is located at an upper side, a lower side, a left side or a right side of the display position of the first session message (Devine, fig. 6E).
Claims 9, 22, and 26 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US 20190339822 (Devine) in view of CN 111756917 (Yu) further in view of WO 2016101717 (Xie) and US 9311683 (Saylor).
Yu does not expressly disclose but Saylor teaches or suggests the correlation with the first message greater than or equal to a preset correlation threshold (42:24-31). 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 Devine’s device, Yu’s sending, Xie’s position, and Saylor’s threshold to reduce false positives.
Claims 10, 23, and 27 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US 20190339822 (Devine) in view of CN 111756917 (Yu) further in view of WO 2016101717 (Xie) and US 20030229670 (Beydar).
Devine does not expressly disclose but Beydar teaches or the interaction picture sending control is displayed in the current session interface further in response to determining that a first user and the at least one second user being online within a preset time (¶ 2). 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 Devine’s device, Yu’s sending, Xie’s position, and Beydar’s condition to facilitate real-time communication.
Response to Arguments
The arguments have been fully considered. The applicant argues that “Devine does not disclose or suggest ‘in a message display area . . . .’” (Resp. 9.) Xie, however, has been added Devine to teach or suggest the limitations as aforementioned.
The applicant argues that “Devine provides a reverse teaching of automatically sending pictures after receiving the input suggestion 606C.” (Id.) No automatic sending, however, is claimed.
Other Art
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to the instant disclosure. For example, US 20090204894 provides an image editing application that allows users to quickly preview images and to edit images.
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
Prosecution Insights