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 .
DETAILED ACTION
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
1. This action is responsive to communications: Application filed on September 4, 2024, and Drawings filed on September 4, 2024.
2. Claims 1–20 are pending in this case. Claim 1, 8, 15 are independent claims.
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.
Double Patenting
1. 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, 2, 4, 6, 7, 8, 9, 11, 13, 14,15, 16, 18, 20 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over and anticipated by claims 1, 2, 3, 4 of U.S. Patent 17703604A1. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because claims 1, 2, 4, 6, 7, 8, 9, 11, 13, 14,15, 16, 18, 20 under examination are anticipated, respectively, by claims 1, 2, 3, 4 of the reference patent. Every limitation in the application under examination claims is recited in the conflicting reference patent claims, and the differences between the claims are highlighted below by bolding all limitations that differ, italicizing additional limitations, and underlining limitations that will be addressed below.
Instant Application
17703604A1
1. A method comprising: causing display of a message at a client device, the message including first content;
identifying at least a second content from among a collection of content based on a content pair association between the first content and the second content;
determining a ranking of the content pair association based on a usage metric;
and causing display of a presentation of the second content among a set of content based on the ranking at the client device.
1. A method comprising: causing display of a first message at a client device, the first message including first content;
identifying at least a second content from among a collection of content based on a usage metric of the second content, the usage metric indicating a number of times that the second content is selected subsequent to receiving the graphical avatar of the first content within a message;
determining a ranking of the second content among the collection of content based on the usage metric of the second content;
and causing display of a presentation of the collection of content within the interface element at the client device, the presentation of the collection of content including a display of the second content at a position among the collection of content based on the ranking.
2. The method of claim 1, wherein the usage metric includes a number of time that the second content is included in a response to the first content.
1. identifying at least a second content from among a collection of content based on a usage metric of the second content, the usage metric indicating a number of times that the second content is selected subsequent to receiving the graphical avatar of the first content within a message;
4. The method of claim 3, wherein a sort order of the top ranked portion is randomized.
2. The method of claim 1, wherein a sorting of at least a portion of the collection of content of the presentation is randomized.
6. The method of claim 1, wherein the first content of the first message comprises a graphical avatar.
3. The method of claim 1, wherein the first content of the first message comprises a graphical avatar.
7. The method of claim 1, wherein the first content of the first message comprises a text string.
4. The method of claim 1, wherein the first content of the first message comprises a text string.
Claims 8, 9, 11, 13,14 are the system claims and are rejected for the same reason as claims 1, 2, 4, 6, 7.
Claims 15, 16, 18, 20 are the system claims and are rejected for the same reason as claims 1, 2, 4, 6, 7.
As shown in the mapping above, claim 1, 2, 3, 4 the reference patent includes all the limitations of claims 1, 2, 4, 6, 7, 8, 9, 11, 13, 14,15, 16, 18, 20 of the instant application, while also reciting further limitations. Claims 1 of the reference while have more content and more limitations teach all limitations of claim 1 in the current application.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claim(s) 1, 2, 3, 5, 7, 8, 9, 10, 12, 14, 15, 16, 17, 19 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Beach, Pub. No.: 2017/0222961A1,
With regard to claim 1:
Beach discloses a method comprising: causing display of a message at a client device, the message including first content (See paragraph 24 wherein the first content is the incoming message which include text (e.g., any combination of letters, words, numbers, punctuation, etc.), emoji, images, video, audio. The received text message may include the information “Are you coming to the pub?””); identifying at least a second content from among a collection of content based on a content pair association between the first content and the second content (See paragraph 52 The system determines content pairs between messages and responses, for a particular message, aggregation module 52 may identify responses having the same normalized contents, the aggregation module 52 of response suggestion system 14 determines a number of instances of each response for each message from the plurality of message and response pairs.); determining a ranking of the content pair association based on a usage metric (See paragraph 67 and 68 and figure 3 wherein the candidate response message are ranked based on the number times the responses to the incoming message. ); and causing display of a presentation of the second content among a set of content based on the ranking at the client device (see figure 1 and paragraph 83 for the display a presentation of the collection of content”).
With regard to claims 2 and 9 and 16:
Beach discloses the method of claim 1, wherein the usage metric includes a number of time that the second content is included in a response to the first content (see figure 3 and paragraph 67 and 68: wherein the candidate response message are ranked based on the number times the responses to the incoming message.”).
With regard to claims 3 and 10 and 17:
Beach discloses The method of claim 1, wherein the method further comprises: determining the second content is among a top ranked portion among a plurality of media content associated with the collection of content based on the ranking (See paragraph 67 and 68 and figure 3 wherein the candidate response message are ranked based on the number times the responses to the incoming message. ); and causing display of the presentation of the set of content within an interface element at the client device, the presentation of the set of content including a display of the top ranked portion of the set of media content that includes the second content (See paragraph 83 where if the candidate response includes information of type TIME, computing device 2A may display the most popular candidate response in a time picker user interface. See fig. 1 for displaying the candidate responses.).
With regard to claim 5 and 12 and 19:
Beach discloses the method of claim 1, wherein the identifying the second content further comprises: determining a tag based on the first content of the message, the tag corresponding with a category associated with the first content (See paragraph 69 wherein Categorization module 54 may categorize the information included in the messages and responses as having a particular information type and store the message and response type in addition to the number of response having that particular response type,); identifying the second content from among a collection of content associated with the tag, based on a content pair association between the first content and the second content (See paragraph 58, the second content is returned based on the identified tag or type information).
With regard to claim 7 and 14:
Beach discloses the method of claim 1, wherein the first content of the first message comprises a text string (Beach see also paragraph 24 and figure 3 wherein the incoming message is a question in text, The received text message may include the information “Are you coming to the pub?”).
Claim 8 is rejected for the same reason as claim 1.
Claim 15 is rejected for the same reason as claim 1.
Claims 4 and 11 and 18 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Beach, Pub. No.: 2018/0359199A1, in view of Horling et al., patent No.: 10/157615.
With regard to claim 4 and 11 and 18.
Beach does not disclose the method of claim 3, wherein a sort order of the top ranked portion is randomized
However Horling discloses wherein a sort order of the top ranked portion is randomized (See paragraph 46 wherein in some implementations, if two or more candidate statements are equally applicable to a user's last-known sentiment, the chatbot may randomly select from the two or more statements.”). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, at the time the filing was made to apply HOrling to Beach so the responses is not always the same which would avoid annoyance and provide more diversity with regard to the generated responses.
Claims 6 and 13 and 20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Beach, Pub. No.: 2018/0359199A1, in view of Baldwin, Pub. No.: 2018/0025219A1.
With regard to claims 6 and 13 and 20:
Beach and Shetty do not disclose the aspect wherein the first content of the first message comprises a graphical avatar.
However Baldwin disclose the aspect wherein the first content of the first message comprises a graphical avatar (Baldwin see paragrpah 44 and fig. 5 wherein the incoming message is a avatar). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, at the time the filing was made to apply Baldwin to Beach to allow users to communicate through media content such as user’s personal avatar for a more personal interaction between users wherein user can communicate more effectively history or her emotions using personalized avatar.
Pertinent Arts
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
MCGREGOR, Pub. No.: 20180083901 A1 teaches automatic suggested responses based on message stickers provided in a messaging application.
Pham, Pub. No.: US 20180083898 A1, published on May 27, 2004 discloses the aspect of identifying one or more message stickers based at least in part on the semantic concept, and transmitting instructions to cause the one or more message stickers to be displayed in a user interface displayed on the second user device.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to DI XIAO whose telephone number is (571)270-1758. The examiner can normally be reached 9Am-5Pm est M-F.
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, Stephen Hong can be reached at (571) 272-4124. 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.
/DI XIAO/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2178
Prosecution Insights