DETAILED ACTION
This office action is responsive to communication(s) filed on 8/7/2024.
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 .
Claims Status
Claims 1-20 are pending and are currently being examined.
Claims 1, 12 and 16 are independent.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112(b) or 112(2nd)
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.
Claim(s) 9-10 is/are 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 pre-AIA the applicant regards as the invention.
Claim 9 recites that “wherein the message indicates the message is from a management of a third application”. Here it is unclear whether the message is from a managing user, the computing device, or from a third application itself. For purposes of compact prosecution only, the examiner interprets the limitation(s) as including, but not limited to, a message displaying a system’s or application’s name as the sender of the message, instead of the name of an actual user, as exemplified in Instant Specification ¶ 98 and fig. 8 (as published), with sender “Team Application”. Correction required.
Claim 10 is rejected as it depends on claim(s) above.
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 of this title, 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 and 11-20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Li; Chundong (hereinafter Li – US 20240354128 A1) in view of Yang; Huiying et al. (hereinafter Yang – US 20230199086 A1).
Independent Claim 1:
Li teaches:
A computing device comprising:
one or more processors;
and one or more memories storing instructions that, when executed by the one or more processors, configure the one or more processors to perform operations comprising:
causing a first application to display a first content item, the first content item being content of the first application; (at terminal device, including processor, memory and instructions, displaying chat messages, e.g., textual chat messages [first content item] of a chat application [first content item being content of the first application] from the users, e.g., as represented my X’s and messages including URIs in text form, and Abstract and ¶¶ 51 and 86 and 88, and figs. 1 and 6)
causing the first application to display a second content item, the second content item being content of a second application; (terminal device displaying a short video [second content item] of a short video application, ¶¶ 87 and 150 and fig. 13)
in response to a [open command] associated with the first content item, (a user can send an open command for input keyboard to enter chat text, ¶¶ 93, 174 and 176 and fig. 19. Herein, because the command is associated with the first content item [the textual content], because it is a command associated with the chat interface containing the textual content, and it is for the purpose of entering textual content)
determining, by the first application, a first user intent and a first action associated with the first user intent based on a first user interface, the first user interface associated with the first application; (the chat application interprets the user’s intent for opening a keyboard [a first user intent and a first action] open command for input keyboard to enter chat text in the chat interface of the chat application [associated with the first user intent based on a first user interface, the first user interface associated with the first application], ¶¶ 93 and 174 and fig. 19)
and in response to a second selection of a second user interface item associated with the second content item, causing the first application to determine a second user intent and a second action associated with the second user intent based on a second user interface, the second user interface associated with the second application. (the terminal initiates a video application method to access the video URI and display the video content [causing the first application to determine a second user intent and a second action associated with the second user intent based on a second user interface, the second user interface associated with the second application] upon the user tapping the “open” button [second selection of a second user interface item], ¶¶ 144 and 148 and figs. 12-13. in response to interaction with an open button of a message in the thread, an access page of another application is displayed embedded in the conversation thread, ¶¶ 142-144 and figs. 2 and 12)
Li does not appear to expressly teach, but Yang teaches:
that the command to open a keyboard is according to a first selection of a first user interface item (Display of a keyboard is triggered when a user selects [a first selection] a text input box [of a first user interface item] on a tablet's instant messaging app, ¶¶ 73-75 and 77 and figs. 6A-6B).
Accordingly, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify the device of Li to include that the command to open a keyboard is according to a first selection of a first user interface item, as taught by Yang.
One would have been motivated to make such a combination in order to command the opening of a keyboard, Li ¶¶ 93, 174 and 176, in a known and effective manner, Yang ¶¶ 73-75 and 77 and figs. 6A-6B.
Claim 2:
The rejection of claim 1 is incorporated. Li further teaches:
wherein the first content item is a text message and the second content item is a video short. (textual chat messages [a text message] from the users, e.g., as represented my X’s and messages including a URI in text form, and ¶ 88 fig. 1. Textual messages in a chat interface are considered text messages because they consist of written alphanumeric characters sent electronically between users in real time. A portrait-mode short video [video short], ¶ 162, is indicative of a video short because it is described dynamically adjusting the display layout so the vertical size is greater than the horizontal size, which matches the classic tall, vertical screen orientation used by modern short-form video platforms.)
Claim 3:
The rejection of claim 2 is incorporated. Li further teaches:
wherein the second selection is a touch to a static image of a video short and the second action is to play the video short. (the terminal initiates a video application method to access the video URI and display the video content [and the second action is to play the video short] upon the user tapping a thumbnail [static image of a video short] including the “open” button, ¶¶ 144 and 148 and figs. 12-13)
Claim 4:
The rejection of claim 3 is incorporated. Li, as modified, further teaches:
wherein the first selection is a touch to a text box and the first action is to cause an alpha-numeric keyboard to be displayed on a screen of the computing device. (Display of a keyboard [an alpha-numeric keyboard] is triggered when a user selects a text input box on a tablet's instant messaging app, Yang ¶¶ 73-75 and 77 and Yang figs. 6A-6B).
Claim 11:
The rejection of claim 1 is incorporated. Li, as modified, further teaches:
wherein the first selection of the first user interface item is performed by a user of an interaction platform and the first content item and the second content item are associated with the interaction platform. (Li teaches that the open command is submitted by a user of the interaction platform, Li ¶¶ 93, 174 and 176 and fig. 19, and Yang teach that the command is a selection of the first user interface item, Yang ¶¶ 73-75 and 77 and figs. 6A-6B. the chat interface, Li ¶ 98 and figs. 2 and 12, displays list of messages to a user of the computing device from other users of an interaction platform, not limited to two users, ¶¶ 83-84 and figs. 2 and 12. A chat interface functions as a conversational interaction platform.)
Independent Claims 12 and 16:
Claim(s) 12 and 16 is/are directed to a storage medium and method for accomplishing the functions of the device in claim 1, and are rejected using similar rationale(s).
Further concerning claim 16, it recites: “in response to a first selection of a first user interface item associated with the first content item, the first application, determining a first user intent and a first action associated with the first user intent based on a first user interface, the first user interface associated with the first application; and in response to a second selection of a second user interface item associated with the second content item, the first application, determining a second user intent and a second action associated with the second user intent based on a second user interface, the second user interface associated with the second application”. Claim analysis is highly fact-dependent. A claim is only limited by positively recited elements. See MPEP § 2115. Here, these “in response to” clause(s) raise questions as to the limiting effect of the clauses’ language upon the claim. See MPEP § 2111.04.I. Specifically, these “in response to” clause(s) include conditions “a first selection of a first user interface item associated with the first content item” and a “a second selection of a second user interface item associated with the second content item”. However, none of the positively steps/functions include any steps/functions of receiving the first or second selections. Therefore, the "in response to" clause(s) is/are not found to limit the claim because the clauses do not give "meaning and purpose to the manipulative steps” of the claimed invention. See MPEP § 2111.04.I and/or Griffin v. Bertina, 283 F.3d 1029, 1034, 62 USPQ2d 1431 (Fed. Cir. 2002).
Claims 13 and 17:
The rejection of claims 12 and 16 are incorporated. Claim(s) 13 and 17 is/are directed to a storage medium and method for accomplishing the functions of the device in claim 2, and are rejected using similar rationale(s).
Claims 14 and 18:
The rejection of claims 13 and 17 are incorporated. Claim(s) 14 and 18 is/are directed to a storage medium and method for accomplishing the functions of the device in claim 3, and are rejected using similar rationale(s).
Claims 15 and 19:
The rejection of claims 14 and 18 are incorporated. Claim(s) 15 and 19 is/are directed to a storage medium and method for accomplishing the functions of the device in claim 4, and are rejected using similar rationale(s).
Claim 20:
The rejection of claim 18 is incorporated. The rejection of claim 18 is also sufficient to teach the limitations of 20, because the added limitation(s) of 20 is/are optional. Claim 20 recites: “in response to a third selection of a third user interface item associated with the second content item, the first application, invoking the second application with the second content item”. Similar to the “in response” clauses in claim 16, here the “in response to” clause(s) is/are not found to limit the claim because the clauses do not give “meaning and purpose to the manipulative steps” of the claimed invention. See MPEP § 2111.04.I and/or Griffin v. Bertina, 283 F.3d 1029, 1034, 62 USPQ2d 1431 (Fed. Cir. 2002).
Even if claimed to positively recite the step receiving a third selection, claim(s) 20 would be rejected similarly to claim 5 below, because claim 20 would be directed to a method for accomplishing the functions of the device in claim 5.
Claim(s) 5-7 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Li (US 20240354128 A1) and Yang (US 20230199086 A1), as applied to claims 3 and 18 above, and further in view of Rodriguez; Adam et al. (hereinafter Rodriguez – US 20180367483 A1).
Claim 5:
The rejection of claim 3 is incorporated. Li, as modified, does not appear to expressly teach, but Rodriguez teaches:
wherein the operations further comprise: in response to a third selection of a third user interface item associated with the second content item, causing the first application, to invoke the second application with the second content item (an embedded application provides controls [third user interface item] to attached comments to specific time periods in media messages, e.g., including video [associated with the second content item, causing the first application, to invoke the second application with the second content item], ¶¶ 219, 221, 341 and 376 and fig. 8E).
Accordingly, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to further modify the device of Li to include wherein the operations further comprise: in response to a third selection of a third user interface item associated with the second content item, causing the first application, to invoke the second application with the second content item, as taught by Rodriguez.
One would have been motivated to make such a combination to improve the functions and contextual relevance of social interactions/data output associated with the device, e.g., by inserting comments within the media itself, Rodriguez ¶¶ 111 and 219 and fig. 8E.
Claim 6:
The rejection of claim 5 is incorporated. Rodriguez further teaches:
wherein the third user interface item is at least one of:
another touch to the displayed second content item, a touch to an icon indicating comments regarding the second content item, or an icon indicating a user would like to forward the second content item to another user. (an embedded application [second content item] provides controls to attached comments to specific time periods in media messages, e.g., including video [icon indicating comments regarding the second content item], Rodriguez ¶¶ 219, 221, 341 and 376 and Rodriguez fig. 8E. e.g., the controls are controls of touchscreen [another touch to the displayed second content item], Rodriguez ¶¶ 72, 108 and 403).
Claim 7:
The rejection of claim 3 is incorporated. Li, as modified, does not appear to expressly teach, but Rodriguez teaches:
wherein the operations further comprise: before causing the second content item to be displayed, downloading the second content item onto the computing device (when necessarily, embedded applications for displaying content can be seamlessly downloaded when a selection made on the chat interface, ¶¶ 31 and 36).
Accordingly, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to further modify the device of Li to include wherein the operations further comprise: before causing the second content item to be displayed, downloading the second content item onto the computing device, as taught by Rodriguez.
One would have been motivated to make such a combination in order to improve the usability and compatibility of the device by ensuring the user devices have the required applications for viewing different types of content, in a seamless way that reduces consumption, bandwidth and storage resources, Rodriguez ¶¶ 31 and 36.
Claim(s) 8 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Li (US 20240354128 A1) and Yang (US 20230199086 A1), as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Chang; William et al. (hereinafter Chang – US 20200082023 A1).
Claim 8:
The rejection of claim 1 is incorporated. Li further teaches:
wherein the operations further comprise: […] causing to be displayed a list of messages to a user of the computing device from other users of an interaction platform, (the first application is an application such as a chat interface, ¶ 98 and figs. 2 and 12, which as reflected in fig. 2 displays list of messages to a user of the computing device from other users of an interaction platform, not limited to two users, ¶¶ 83-84. A chat interface functions as a conversational interaction platform)
the list of messages including a message that when selected by the user, causes the [access page of a first application] to be displayed. (in response to interaction with an open button of a message in the thread, an access page of another application is displayed embedded in the conversation thread, ¶¶ 142-144 and figs. 2 and 12)
Li further teaches that the first and second applications are not limited to chat and video applications, ¶ 98.
Li, as modified, does not appear to expressly teach, but Chang teaches:
that the display of the list is “before causing to be displayed the first content item”, (an embedded application instance includes a messaging application, ¶ 14 and fig. 2. It was well within the capabilities of a person having ordinary skill in the art to have realized that in implementing the concept of Chang to the device of Li would result in the embedded application of Li being implemented as an embedding messaging interface.)
and that access page of displays the “first content item and the second content item” (Furthermore, it was well within the capabilities of a person having ordinary skill in the art to have realized that the embedded messaging interface would display a first and second content items of the chat interface of Li in similar way to the chat interface of the first application, as described above for claim 1).
Accordingly, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to further modify the device of Li to include that the display of the list is “before causing to be displayed the first content item”, and that access page of displays the “first content item and the second content item”, as taught by Chang.
One would have been motivated to make such a combination to improve the versatility and flexibility of the device by expanding the types of embedded applications displayed in the chat interface, Chang ¶ 14 and Li ¶ 98.
Claim(s) 9-10 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Li (US 20240354128 A1), Yang (US 20230199086 A1), and Chang (US 20200082023 A1) as applied to claim 8 above, and further in view of Rodriguez (US 20180367483 A1) and Chen; Li-Ju et al. (hereinafter – Chen US 20160364368 A1).
Claim 9:
The rejection of claim 8 is incorporated. Li, as modified, does not appear to expressly teach, but Rodriguez teaches:
wherein the message indicates the message is from a management of a third application (chat messages, e.g., messages 808 can be from an application/bot, e.g., and can be displayed as being from the bot/application, e.g., one provided by a server, e.g., a response message from “Bot-helper”, as if it were from a user, ¶¶ 84 and 362 and fig. 8A. For purposes of compact prosecution only, the examiner interprets the limitation(s) as including, but not limited to, a message displaying a system’s or application’s name as the sender of the message, instead of the name of an actual user, as exemplified in Instant Specification ¶ 98 and fig. 8 (as published), with sender “Team Application”.).
Accordingly, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to further modify the device of Li to include wherein the message indicates the message is from a management of a third application, as taught by Rodriguez.
One would have been motivated to make such a combination to improve the usability of the device by seamless way to accomplish tasks without having to open a related application, Rodriguez ¶ 453, and automatically provide answers to users’ questions, Rodriguez ¶ 419.
Li, as modified, does not appear to expressly teach, but Chen teaches:
the third application providing third user interface items for the user to select the second application or the first application. (a message in a main chat room, can include options of replying to a message using a main chat room [“reply in Stack”] or a sub chat room. As explained for claim 1, the chat room can display embedded applications. As reflected in the discussion of claim 8, Li, as modified, reflects a main chat room and a sub-chat room because the outer application's room acts as the primary space containing the nested application, while the inner application's room functions as a focused, secondary channel within that broader container.)
Accordingly, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to further modify the device of Li to include the third application providing third user interface items for the user to select the second application or the first application, as taught by Chen.
One would have been motivated to make such a combination to improve the flexibility and organizing effectiveness of the device, by providing the user with options on where the conversation happens, Chen ¶¶ 1 and 30-32.
Claim 10:
The rejection of claim 9 is incorporated. Li further teaches:
wherein the message indicates a content type based on the second content item. (that a video message may include identifiers such as “Video 1” [indicates a content type], indicating that the message is a video, ¶ 89 and fig. 2, and the message may include a thumbnail image that is indicative of a video and/or playable content [indicates a content type], ¶ 145 and fig. 12.)
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Below is a list of these references, including why they are pertinent:
Tal; Iddo et al. US 20180234373 A1, is pertinent to claim 1 for disclosing embedding rich media, such as video, within texting/chat application, Abstract and ¶¶ 6-10 and figs. 6-10.
Jeong; Jinhong et al. US 20130179800 A1, is pertinent to claim 8 for disclosing listing including group of messages and displaying items of that message in response to interaction with that message item, ¶¶ 112-114 and fig. 10.
Chang; Minkyoung et al. US 20130069969 A1, is pertinent to claim 8 for disclosing an embedded application instance may include a messaging application, e.g., ¶¶ 146-152 and 193-195 and figs. 6, 8, 10 and 15.
Kajimoto; Masahiro et al. US 20240073326 A1, is pertinent to claim 9 for disclosing messages received from an application, e.g., of a MFP, ¶¶ 120-121 and fig. 11.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to GABRIEL S MERCADO whose telephone number is (408)918-7537. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Fri 8am-5pm (Eastern Time).
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, Kieu Vu can be reached at (571) 272-4057. 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.
/Gabriel Mercado/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2171
Prosecution Insights