DETAILED ACTION
This Office action is in response to the original application filed on 08/26/2024. Claims 1-16 are pending.
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application is being examined under the pre-AIA first to invent provisions.
Claim Rejections - Double Patenting
The nonstatutory double patenting rejection is based on a judicially created doctrine grounded in public policy (a policy reflected in the statute) so as to prevent the unjustified or improper timewise extension of the “right to exclude” granted by a patent and to prevent possible harassment by multiple assignees. A nonstatutory double patenting rejection is appropriate where the claims at issue are not identical, but at least one examined application claim is not patentably distinct from the reference claim(s) because the examined application claim is either anticipated by, or would have been obvious over, the reference claim(s). See, e.g., In re Berg, 140 F.3d 1428, 46 USPQ2d 1226 (Fed. Cir. 1998); In re Goodman, 11 F.3d 1046, 29 USPQ2d 2010 (Fed. Cir. 1993); In re Longi, 759 F.2d 887, 225 USPQ 645 (Fed. Cir. 1985); In re Van Ornum, 686 F.2d 937, 214 USPQ 761 (CCPA 1982); In re Vogel, 422 F.2d 438, 164 USPQ 619 (CCPA 1970); In re Thorington, 418 F.2d 528, 163 USPQ 644 (CCPA 1969).
A timely filed terminal disclaimer in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(c) or 1.321(d) may be used to overcome an actual or provisional rejection based on nonstatutory double patenting provided the reference application or patent either is shown to be commonly owned with the examined application, or claims an invention made as a result of activities undertaken within the scope of a joint research agreement. See MPEP § 717.02 for applications subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA as explained in MPEP § 2159. See MPEP §§ 706.02(l)(1)-706.02(l)(3) for applications not subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA . A terminal disclaimer must be signed in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(b).
The USPTO Internet website contains terminal disclaimer forms which may be used. Please visit www.uspto.gov/patent/patents-forms. The filing date of the application in which the form is filed determines what form (e.g., PTO/SB/25, PTO/SB/26, PTO/AIA /25, or PTO/AIA /26) should be used. A web-based eTerminal Disclaimer may be filled out completely online using web-screens. An eTerminal Disclaimer that meets all requirements is auto-processed and approved immediately upon submission. For more information about eTerminal Disclaimers, refer to www.uspto.gov/patents/process/file/efs/guidance/eTD-info-I.jsp.
Claims 1-20 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-20 of U.S. Patent No. 12,074,836 (US 12074836 B2, hereinafter “Patent 1”), claims 1-15 of U.S. Patent No. 11,563,703 (US 11563703 B2, hereinafter “Patent 2”), and claims 1-18 of U.S. Patent No. 9,154,456 (US 9154456 B2, hereinafter “Patent 3”). Although the conflicting claims are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because claims 1-20 of the instant application are broader in every aspect than the corresponding claims of Patent 1 (US 12074836 B2), Patent 2 (US 11563703 B2), and Patent 3 (US 9154456 B2) and are therefore anticipated by claims 1-20 of Patent 1 (US 12074836 B2), claims 1-15 of Patent 2 (US 11563703 B2), and claims 1-18 of Patent 3 (US 9154456 B2).
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 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 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.
The factual inquiries set forth in Graham v. John Deere Co., 383 U.S. 1, 148 USPQ 459 (1966), that are applied for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
Claims 1-16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Linder et al. (US 2008/0039124 A1, hereinafter “Linder”) in view of Andrus et al. (US 8447361 B1, hereinafter “Andrus”).
Regarding claim 1 (and similarly claim 9), Linder discloses:
A messaging system, comprising:
a first client computing device configured to generate and transmit an electronic generating electronic message with selection of animation sequences and sending to receiving terminal, Linder: [0093], [0100]).
Linder does not explicitly disclose:
an electronic polling message having integrated digital content that includes a polling inquiry;
the first client computing device configured to transmit the electronic polling message to a selected set of client computing devices that are selected from an electronic contacts record stored within a storage module of the first client computing device.
However, in the same field of endeavor, Andrus teaches:
an electronic polling message having integrated digital content that includes a polling inquiry (message including interactive voting with media attachments, Andrus: Col. 8 lines 12-60);
the first client computing device configured to transmit the electronic polling message to a selected set of client computing devices that are selected from an electronic contacts record stored within a storage module of the first client computing device (sending interactive voting message to selected recipients, Andrus: Col. 8 lines 12-60, FIG. 4-7).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Linder in view of Andrus in order to further modify the system for generating and sending electronic message with integrated digital content from the teachings of Linder with the system for generating and sending interactive voting message with media attachments to selected recipients from the teachings of Andrus.
One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated because it would have enabled dynamic interface for easily accessible and fun messaging system (Andrus: Col. 1 lines 37-50).
Regarding claim 2, Linder in view of Andrus teaches all the claimed limitations as set forth in the rejection of claim 1 above.
Linder in view of Andrus further discloses:
the selected set of client computing devices receive the electronic polling message and display the electronic polling message as an electronic ballot; the selected set of client computing devices transmit a polling response input through the electronic ballot to the first client computing device (receiving interactive voting message and sending voting response, Andrus: FIG. 9-11).
Regarding claim 3, Linder in view of Andrus teaches all the claimed limitations as set forth in the rejection of claim 2 above.
Linder in view of Andrus further discloses:
t wherein results of one or more polling response is transmitted to the selected client computing devices based on criteria set by the first client computing device (sending voting results to selected recipients, Andrus: Col. 6 lines 29-41).
Regarding claim 4, Linder in view of Andrus teaches all the claimed limitations as set forth in the rejection of claim 1 above.
Linder in view of Andrus further discloses:
wherein the integrated digital content further includes one or more electronic media components, and wherein an electronic media component is comprised of one or more electronic media elements, and the one or more electronic media elements is comprised of one or more data (message including interactive voting with media attachments, Andrus: Col. 8 lines 12-60).
Regarding claim 5, Linder in view of Andrus teaches all the claimed limitations as set forth in the rejection of claim 1 above.
Linder in view of Andrus further discloses:
wherein the integrated digital content is scripted by seamless linking of a multiplicity of electronic media components without changing original media component types of the electronic media components, an electronic media component is comprised of one or more electronic media elements, and wherein the one or more electronic media elements is comprised of one or more data (sending electronic message with selected animation sequences encoded as respective animation tags including timing sub-tag indicating order of animation tags, Linder: [0081], [0105], [0108]).
Regarding claim 6, Linder in view of Andrus teaches all the claimed limitations as set forth in the rejection of claim 5 above.
Linder in view of Andrus further discloses:
wherein the electronic message includes one or more electronic media components that is not predefined for and is not common to the source computing device and a receiver computing device (message including interactive voting with media attachments, Andrus: Col. 8 lines 12-60).
Regarding claim 7, Linder in view of Andrus teaches all the claimed limitations as set forth in the rejection of claim 5 above.
Linder in view of Andrus further discloses:
wherein the first and the set of client devices communicate with each other via a server device, wherein the server device generates a set of data values that define the received client records, the set of data values enable client devices and the server computing device to track and account for the electronic polling message, including an order of play of the multiplicity of the electronic media components, prior to actual transmission to the set of client devices (encoding selected animation sequences as respective animation tags of unique values based on expression matching table, including timing sub-tag indicating order of animation tags, Linder: [0081], [0102]).
Regarding claim 8, Linder in view of Andrus teaches all the claimed limitations as set forth in the rejection of claim 5 above.
Linder in view of Andrus further discloses:
wherein delivery and receipt of the electronic polling message, with the multiplicity of electronic media components, received at the set of client devices is seamlessly executed in at least one of a spatial and a temporal order defined by the scripted digital content (sending electronic message with selected animation sequences encoded as respective animation tags including timing sub-tag indicating order of animation tags, Linder: [0081], [0105], [0108]).
Regarding claims 10-16, they do not teach or further define over the limitations in claims 2-8. Therefore, claims 10-16 are rejected for the same reasons as set forth in the rejections of claims 2-8 above.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant’s disclosure: Rakoff et al. (US 2013/0239132 A1: Method and Apparatus for Enabling Interactive Dynamic Movies), Marriott et al. (US 2005/0266884 A1: Methods and Systems for Conducting Remote Communications), Newson et al. (US 2006/0092942 A1: System and Method for Multi-Layered Network Communications), Huynh et al. (US 2006/0168064 A1: Electronic Message Management), and Maaniitty et al. (US 8065616 B2: Multimedia Presentation Editor for a Small-Display Communication Terminal or Computing Device).
In the case of amendments, applicant is respectfully requested to indicate the portion(s) of the specification which dictate(s) the structure relied on for proper interpretation and support, for ascertaining the metes and bounds of the claimed invention.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to GIL H. LEE whose telephone number is 571-272-3408. The examiner can normally be reached on Mon-Fri: 9am-6pm EST.
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, Brian J. Gillis can be reached on 571-272-7952. 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.
/GIL H. LEE/
Primary Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2446