DETAILED ACTION
This Office Action is with regard to the most recent papers filed 4/29/2026.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments filed 4/29/2026 have been fully considered, but focus on newly amended subject matter, and are thus moot based on the new ground of rejection necessitated by such amendments.
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 1-4, 6-14, and 16-20 of U.S. Patent No. 12,107,804.
With regard to claims 1-2, 7-12, 17-20, the instant claims are substantially within the scope of claims 1, 3-4, 6, 11, 13-14, 6, 19, 20, and 22 of ‘804 in view of US 2019/0278431 (Eykalman), and are thus deemed to be an obvious variation.
With regard to claims 1 and 11, the claims of ‘849 fail to fails to disclose, but Eykalman teaches that the section is a tab and that the content is to be displayed in a second tab of the user interface of the messaging application that is different from the first tab of the user interface, wherein the first tab and the second tab are located within the same instance of the messaging application (Eykalman: Page 1. Eykalman shows the concept of tabs for a messaging application. While Eykalman shows the use of a left section for chat, this would still be within the meaning of tabs, as in the instant claims, as evidenced by claim 6, where the two tabs would clearly be different window portions, especially as Eykalman shows both the sections and tabs.).
Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to provide a tabbed functionality, with one tab for the chat and another tab for the content to allow for the presence of multiple windows of information within a same window instance, thus allowing users to easily look-up and access information (Eykalman: Page 1, Paragraph 2).
With regard to claims 4 and 14, the claims of ‘849 fail to disclose but Eykalman 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 (Eykalman: Page 1). 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 Eykalman teaches the first section and the second section are different window portions of messaging application (Eykalman: Page 1). 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.
With regard to claim 22, the claims of ‘849 in view of Eykelman taches that the messaging application does not function as a general-purpose web browser (Eykelman: Page 1).
With regard to claims 3, 13, and 22, the instant claims are obvious over ‘804 in view of Eykalman, and further in view of Omnichannel & Application Tabs, posted at <https://community.dynamics.com/blogs/post/?postid=488a9e0d-0846-4871-bb7e-b6becddd8e1a> on May 28, 2020.
With regard to claims 3 and 13, the claims of ‘849 fail to disclose but Hahn 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 (Hahn: Paragraph [0007]. The use of the system for displaying information in tabs would be based on authentication, as in Hahn, and thus the identifier (based on its use in authentication) would enable this functionality.). 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 claim 22, the claims of ‘849 fail to teach, but Hahn teaches wherein using the application identifier to authenticate the agent comprises sending, by the messaging application, party and messaging application details as a token to an authentication server for authentication (Eykalman: Paragraph [0007]. The application identifier (e.g. messaging application details) and party details (e.g. user credentials) are transmitted for authentication, where such functionality would constitute an authentication server.). Accordingly, it would have been obvious to utilize the information to send as a token to ensure that the application is properly authenticated for a specific user.
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 Omnichannel & Application Tabs, posted at <https://community.dynamics.com/blogs/post/?postid=488a9e0d-0846-4871-bb7e-b6becddd8e1a> on May 28, 2020 (Eykalman) US 2021/0240460 (Hahn).
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 Eykalman teaches that the section is a tab and that the content is to be displayed in a second tab of the user interface of the messaging application that is different from the first tab of the user interface, wherein the first tab and the second tab are located within the same instance of the messaging application (Eykalman: Page 1. Eykalman shows the concept of tabs for a messaging application. While Eykalman shows the use of a left section for chat, this would still be within the meaning of tabs, as in the instant claims, as evidenced by claim 6, where the two tabs would clearly be different window portions, especially as Eykalman shows both the sections and tabs.).
Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to provide a tabbed functionality, with one tab for the chat and another tab for the content to allow for the presence of multiple windows of information within a same window instance, thus allowing users to easily look-up and access information (Eykalman: Page 1, Paragraph 2).
Ben-Itzhak fails to teach, but Hahn teaches wherein the web reference includes an application identifier associated with the messaging application; authenticating the agent using the application identifier, and that causing the content to be displayed is also in response to authenticating the agent (Hahn: Paragraph [0007. Application identifiers that were used for authentication were known in the art.).
Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to provide an application identifier for authentication purposes to ensure that any interaction with the application is allowed according to any policies.
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 Eykalman and Hahn 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 (Ben-Itzhak: Page 1 and Hahn: Paragraph [0007]. The use of the system for displaying information in tabs would be based on authentication, as in Hahn, and thus the identifier (based on its use in authentication) would enable this functionality.).
With regard to claim 4, Ben-Itzhak in view of Eykalman and Hahn teaches that display of the content in the second tab of the user interface of the messaging application is concurrent with display of separate content in a user interface of the web browser application (Eykalman: Page 1).
With regard to claim 6, Ben-Itzhak in view of Eykalman and Hahn teaches the first tab and the second tab are different window portions of the messaging application (Eykalman: Page 1).
With regard to claim 7, Ben-Itzhak in view of Eykalman and Hahn teaches that the first tab of the user interface of the messaging application dedicated to providing the chat session (Eykalman: Page 1).
With regard to claim 8, Ben-Itzhak in view of Eykalman and Hahn 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 Eykalman and Hahn 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 Eykalman and Hahn teaches that the web reference includes an identifier of the second section where the content is to be displayed (Hahn: Paragraph [0007]. 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 11-14 and 16-20, the instant claims are similar to claims 1-4 and 6-10, and are rejected for similar reasons.
With regard to claim 21, Ben-Itzhak in view of Eykalman and Hahn teaches wherein using the application identifier to authenticate the agent comprises sending, by the messaging application, party and messaging application details as a token to an authentication server for authentication (Eykalman: Paragraph [0007]. The application identifier (e.g. messaging application details) and party details (e.g. user credentials) are transmitted for authentication, where such functionality would constitute an authentication server.).
With regard to claim 22, Ben-Itzhak in view of Eykalman and Hahn teaches that the messaging application does not function as a general-purpose browser (Eykalman: Page 1).
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 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
Prosecution Insights