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 .
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 conflicting claims 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 § 2146 et seq. 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 filing of a terminal disclaimer by itself is not a complete reply to a nonstatutory double patenting (NSDP) rejection. A complete reply requires that the terminal disclaimer be accompanied by a reply requesting reconsideration of the prior Office action. Even where the NSDP rejection is provisional the reply must be complete. See MPEP § 804, subsection I.B.1. For a reply to a non-final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.111(a). For a reply to final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.113(c). A request for reconsideration while not provided for in 37 CFR 1.113(c) may be filed after final for consideration. See MPEP §§ 706.07(e) and 714.13.
The USPTO Internet website contains terminal disclaimer forms which may be used. Please visit www.uspto.gov/patent/patents-forms. The actual 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/apply/applying-online/eterminal-disclaimer.
Claims 1-20 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-20 of U.S. Patent No. 12,107,804.
With regard to claims 1-2, 7-12, 17-1 20, the instant claims are fully within the scope of claims 1, 3, 11, 19, and 20 of ‘804, and are thus deemed to be an obvious variation.
With regard to claims 5 and 15, the claims of ‘849 fail to disclose, but knowledge possessed by one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing teaches wherein the first section and the second section are different tabs of messaging application (More specifically, Official Notice is taken the use of tabs with windows was well-known to one of ordinary skill in the art.). Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to have the first and second sections being different tabs of the messaging application to ensure that the different sections can be organized more to the preferences of the user. As a note, different tabs do not require that the tabs are of the same window/portion, but may be different tabs of the different parts of ‘849. For instance, in an operating system interface, if two windows are presented, with each window having tabs, having the content in one window and the content in the other window would still have these being in different tabs, even if they are not the same window (Note that the operating system interface is not being relied upon for the rejection, but is instead provided as an illustrative example of having different portions with tabs and how the tabs of each portion would be different, even if the content is simultaneously displayed.).).
With regard to claims 3 and 13, the instant claims are obvious over ‘804 in view of "Is it possible to specify apps in Dynamic URLs in Unified Interface (v91)" posted at <https://community.dynamics.com/forum/thread/detalk/7threadide7b9d7a60-2309-4669-3554-d2a6c2f21532> on 4/5/2019 (Landolt).
With regard to claims 3 and 13, the claims of ‘849 fail to disclose but Landolt teaches that the application identifier enables the messaging application to forego displaying the content in a web browser application that is different from the messaging application (Landolt: Pages 1-2, First response. In the combination, the identifier would specify the application to be used, where the application of ‘849 has the same window displaying different sections for the chat and the content, meaning that the messaging application is enabled to display the content in this manner.). Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to have the identifier enable the messaging application to forego displaying the content in a web browser application different from the messaging application to allow the operators of the system to control how the content is displayed, such as ensuring that the messaging application handles the content.
With regard to claims 4, 6, 14, and 16, the instant claims are obvious over ‘804 in view of US 2019/0278431 (Dunning).
With regard to claims 4 and 14, the claims of ‘849 fail to disclose but Dunning teaches that display of the content in the second section of the user interface of the messaging application is concurrent with display of separate content in a user interface of the web browser application (Dunning: Paragraph [0034]). Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to have the display be concurrent to allow the user to view the different content items in a more efficient manner.
With regard to claims 6 and 16, the claims of ‘849 fail to disclose but Dunning teaches the first section and the second section are different window portions of messaging application (Dunning: Paragraph [0034]). Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to have the display be in different windows to allow the user to view the different content items in a more efficient manner.
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.
Claim(s) 1-20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US 2017/0250930 (Ben-Itzhak) in view of US 2019/0278431 (Dunning) and "Is it possible to specify apps in Dynamic URLs in Unified Interface (v91)" posted at <https://community.dynamics.com/forum/thread/detalk/7threadide7b9d7a60-2309-4669-3554-d2a6c2f21532> on 4/5/2019 (Landolt).
With regard to claim 1, Ben-Itzhak discloses a method, comprising:
directing an agent to engage in a chat session with a party via a messaging application, wherein the chat session is within a first section of a user interface of the messaging application (Ben-Itzhak: Paragraph [0018]. A conversation agent is provided to chat with a user.);
while the agent is engaged in the chat session with the party, generating a web reference to content (Ben-Itzhak: Paragraph [0018]. A URL may be provided by the conversation agent.); and
in response to receiving a request for the web reference including the application identifier, causing the content to be displayed (Ben-Itzhak: Paragraph [0018] and Figure 6. When the URL is activated, the content is displayed.).
Ben-Itzhak fails to disclose, but Dunning teaches that the content is to be displayed in a second section of the user interface of the messaging application that is different from the first section of the user interface (Dunning: Paragraph [0034]. Dunning provides the concept of a Picture-in-Picture (PiP) window, where a single window would include multiple windows (sections of the user interface of the application that are different from each other).).
Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to provide a PiP functionality for the chat of Ben-Itzhak to provide for a better user experience, such as allowing more efficient access to the content of the different sections and to simplify interaction between the sections (Dunning: Paragraphs [0002] to [0003]).
Ben-Itzhak fails to teach, but Landolt teaches wherein the web reference includes an application identifier associated with the messaging application (Landolt: Pages 1-2, First Response. A parameter can be included to instruct a specific application to open the document.).
Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to provide an application identifier to ensure that the content is opened in the specified manner using the appropriate application. As a note, how the application identifier is used is not actually claimed. Rather, content is opened in response to receiving a request for the web reference with no mention of how the information of the web reference is used, let alone a requirement to select or otherwise alter how the content is displayed based on the application identifier.
With regard to claim 2, Ben-Itzhak teaches that the web reference is generated in response to determining the agent is to provide, via the messaging application, the content to the party (Ben-Itzhak: Paragraph [0018]. The reference is inserted in the chat, meaning that it was generated, then inserted into the chat, responsive to determining that it should be provided to the user.).
With regard to claim 3, Ben-Itzhak in view of Dunning and Landolt teaches that the application identifier enables the messaging application to forego displaying the content in a web browser application that is different from the messaging application (Landolt: Pages 1-2, First response. In the combination, the identifier would specify the application to be used, where the application of Dunning has the same window displaying different sections for the chat and the content, meaning that the messaging application is enabled to display the content in this manner.).
With regard to claim 4, Ben-Itzhak in view of Dunning and Landolt teaches that display of the content in the second section of the user interface of the messaging application is concurrent with display of separate content in a user interface of the web browser application (Dunning: Paragraph [0034]).
With regard to claim 5, Ben-Itzhak fails to teach, but knowledge possessed by one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing teaches wherein the first section and the second section are different tabs of messaging application (More specifically, Official Notice is taken the use of tabs with windows was well-known to one of ordinary skill in the art.). Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to have the first and second sections being different tabs of the messaging application to ensure that the different sections can be organized more to the preferences of the user. As a note, different tabs does not require that the tabs are of the same window/portion, but may be different tabs of the different parts of Dunning. For instance, in an operating system interface, if two windows are presented, with each window having tabs, having the content in one window and the content in the other window would still have these being in different tabs, even if they are not the same window (Note that the operating system interface is not being relied upon for the rejection, but is instead provided as an illustrative example of having different portions with tabs and how the tabs of each portion would be different, even if the content is simultaneously displayed.).).
With regard to claim 6, Ben-Itzhak in view of Dunning and Landolt teaches the first section and the second section are different window portions of messaging application (Dunning: Paragraph [0034]).
With regard to claim 7, Ben-Itzhak in view of Dunning and Landolt teaches that the first section of the user interface of the messaging application dedicated to providing the chat session (Ben-Itzhak: Paragraph [0018] and Dunning: Paragraph [0034]. As applied, Dunning would have the different PiP sections of the window dedicated to the different functions, such as the chat of Ben-Itzhak.).
With regard to claim 8, Ben-Itzhak in view of Dunning and Landolt teaches wherein the web reference includes a Uniform Resource Locator (URL) indicating an address of an interface component (Ben-Itzhak: Paragraph [0018]).
With regard to claim 9, Ben-Itzhak in view of Dunning and Landolt teaches wherein the web reference includes an identifier of a type of database, table, or other data storage structure corresponding to the content to be displayed (Ben-Itzhak: Paragraph [0018]. The language “data storage structure” is broad enough to encompass any content that is accessible via a URL. Further, “an identifier of a type of” does not provide that the type, itself, is identified in a manner that is separate from the content, but instead may have content identified that is one of the listed types.).
With regard to claim 10, Ben-Itzhak in view of Dunning and Landolt teaches that the web reference includes an identifier of the second section where the content is to be displayed (Landolt: Pages 1-2, First response. Lacking detail of how the identifier is used, this language allows for the overall application to be identified, with the application determining to place the content in the second window based on the content itself. Providing language to clarify that the identifier is used to determine which of the sections to display the web content would overcome this interpretation.).
With regard to claims 11-20, the instant claims are similar to claims 1-10, and are rejected for similar reasons.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to SCOTT B CHRISTENSEN whose telephone number is (571)270-1144. The examiner can normally be reached Monday through Friday, 6AM to 2PM.
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, John Follansbee can be reached at (571) 272-3964. 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.
SCOTT B. CHRISTENSEN
Examiner
Art Unit 2444
/SCOTT B CHRISTENSEN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2444