DETAILED ACTION
This action is responsive to the preliminary amendment filed 10/03/2024
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 .
Status of the Claims
Claims 1-2, 15-16, 18, and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1).
Claims 3-14 and 21-22 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103.
Claims 17 and 19 are cancelled.
Specification
The title of the invention is not descriptive. A new title is required that is clearly indicative of the invention to which the claims are directed.
The following title is suggested: Aggregating Messages Meeting Identical-Message Condition
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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 (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) 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 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)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 1-2, 15-16, 18, and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by NARAYANSWAMY (US 2017/0142043 A1).
Regarding Claim 1, NARAYANSWAMY discloses a message processing method, comprising: (Fig. 4: processor 16 and memory 28 that perform a method as illustrated in Fig. 3A.)
in response to messages sent by users in a conversation, (Fig. 3A step 312, ¶ 25, 29: A plurality of messages are sent and received from a plurality of users in a group chat.)
aggregating a plurality of messages meeting an identical-message condition (Fig. 3A steps 316-324, ¶ 30-32: Messages with the same content, namely a “common fact”, are determined to be redundant and aggregated.) among the messages to form an aggregated message; (Fig. 2B, ¶ 25: “the aggregation system 100 aggregates the redundant messages so that the messages from user 1, user 2, user 4, and user 5 are aggregated into a combined message” Also see ¶ 32-33: Messages having a same “common fact” are combined into a single message.)
replacing the messages meeting the identical-message condition with the aggregated message in the conversation and presenting the aggregated message. (¶ 25, 33-36, Fig. 2B: The plurality of messages having the identical-message condition are combined into a single message and displayed with a number indicating the number of redundant messages.)
Claim 16 is directed to an electronic device and Claim 18 is directed to a non-transitory computer-readable storage medium, but they otherwise recite the same limitations as claim 1. Claim 16 and Claim 18 are therefore rejected for the same reasoning discussed above.
Regarding Claim 2, NARAYANSWAMY further discloses wherein the aggregated message comprises one or more of: message content; the number of the plurality of messages; user information of the users who send the plurality of messages. (¶ 25, 33-36, Fig. 2B: The combined message includes the message content, such as “No audio available”, and the number of the plurality of messages.)
Claim 20 recites the same limitations as claim 2 and is rejected for the same reasoning.
Regarding Claim 15, NARAYANSWAMY further discloses wherein the plurality of messages are all text messages; or, the plurality of messages comprise text messages and emojis. (¶ 25, 33, 45, Fig. 2B: The plurality of messages are all text messages.)
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 (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) 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, 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 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 3-7, 12, and 21-22 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over NARAYANSWAMY (US 2017/0142043 A1) in view of VIJITHAKUMARA (US 2022/0210623 A1).
Regarding Claim 3, NARAYANSWAMY teaches all the limitations of claim 1, on which claim 3 depends.
NARAYANSWAMY further teaches wherein… the plurality of messages comprise only text messages, (¶ 25, 33, 45, Fig. 2B: The plurality of messages are all text messages.)
NARAYANSWAMY does not teach wherein if the plurality of messages comprise only text messages, it is judged whether a plurality of text messages exceeding a threshold contain the same text content; if yes, it is determined that the plurality of messages containing the same text content meet the identical-message condition, and the same text content is taken as message content of the aggregated message corresponding to the plurality of text messages.
However, VIJITHAKUMARA, which is similarly directed to consolidating redundant messages, teaches wherein if the plurality of messages comprise only text messages, it is judged whether a plurality of text messages exceeding a threshold contain the same text content; if yes, it is determined that the plurality of messages containing the same text content meet the identical-message condition, (¶ 85, 87: If a message is similar within a certain similarity threshold to a threshold number of other messages, then the messages are considered to be the same, thus meeting an identical-message condition.)
and the same text content is taken as message content of the aggregated message corresponding to the plurality of text messages. (¶ 87: “consolidation at block 506 may include selecting only the content of a single one of the messages that satisfy the first threshold similarity value with respect to one another to include in the consolidated message” Also see ¶ 88, which provides an example of four messages having the same content of “yes”, and a consolidated message with the content “yes” being generated to correspond to the plurality of text messages.)
Before the effective filing date of the invention, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to modify the aggregation of redundant text messages into a single text message taught by NARAYANSWAMY by requiring a threshold number of text messages having the same content in order to consolidate the messages as taught by VIJITHAKUMARA. Since the references are similarly directed to user interfaces for consolidating messages, the combination would have yielded predictable results. VIJITHAKUMARA (¶ 45, 48) teaches consolidation of messages would improve the user experience by reducing disruptions to the user, which is especially important when the user is viewing messages in such environments as driving a vehicle, and reducing the amount of content the user must review without losing context or meaning. Including a threshold for consolidating the messages would have further improved the flexibility of the system for different applications or scenarios, such as those discussed in ¶ 33 of VIJITHAKUMARA.
Claim 21 recites the same limitations as claim 2 and is rejected for the same reasoning.
Regarding Claim 4, NARAYANSWAMY in view of VIJITHAKUMARA further teaches wherein if a first text message meeting the identical-message condition comprises other content in addition to the same text content, the aggregated message is presented and the first text message is presented. (NARAYANSWAMY, ¶ 34: “If a message is associated with more than one extracted fact, and at least one extracted fact has a commonality with an extracted fact associated with another message, the aggregation application 132 may aggregate an entire portion of the redundant message into a combined message, aggregate a portion of the redundant message associated with a common fact into the combined message, separate a portion of the redundant message associated with an uncommon fact” Also see ¶ 46: A message that has the same content as other messages and additional, unique content, is separated into a common portion and uncommon portion. The common, redundant portion is combined with the other messages, and the uncommon portion is presented separately.)
Claim 22 recites the same limitations as claim 4 and is rejected for the same reasoning.
Regarding Claim 12, NARAYANSWAMY in view of VIJITHAKUMARA further teaches wherein the aggregated message is presented and the first text message is presented comprise: increasing the number of times of messages in the aggregated message by 1, and presenting the first text message. (NARAYANSWAMY, ¶ 33-34, 45-46: The combined message is presented with a number of the redundant messages. So if a message is separated into a redundant portion, which is combined with the other redundant messages, and an uncommon portion that is displayed separately, than the number for the aggregated message would be incremented and the uncommon portion would be presented as a separate text message.)
Regarding Claim 5, NARAYANSWAMY teaches all the limitations of claim 1, on which claim 5 depends.
NARAYANSWAMY does not teach wherein if the plurality of messages comprise both text messages and emoji messages, a keyword corresponding to each emoji message is determined; it is judged whether the text messages contain the same text content, and whether the keyword corresponding to the emoji message is the same as the text content; or, a keyword corresponding to the emoji message is determined, and it is judged whether the text messages contain the keyword; if yes, when the number of the text messages and emoji messages exceeds a threshold, it is determined that the text messages and the emoji messages meet the identical-message condition, and at least one of the keyword or a first emoji corresponding to the emoji messages are taken as message content of the corresponding aggregated message.
However, VIJITHAKUMARA, which is similarly directed to consolidating redundant messages, teaches wherein if the plurality of messages comprise both text messages and emoji messages, (¶ 34: “a message may include any combination of text, graphics (e.g., emojis), images, video, or the like”. Also see ¶ 88, which provides an example of a “thumbs up” emoji.)
a keyword corresponding to each emoji message is determined; (¶ 88: “assume that the following responses are received: user 1: “sounds good”; user 2: “yes”; user 3: “cool with me”; user 4: [a graphical element representing a “thumbs up”]. It is clear that each of these responses has essentially an identical semantic meaning… semantic meaning can be ascertained/derived from non-text message content including, without limitation, graphical content”. A keyword of “yes” is associated with a thumbs up emoji.)
it is judged whether the text messages contain the same text content, and whether the keyword corresponding to the emoji message is the same as the text content; or, a keyword corresponding to the emoji message is determined, and it is judged whether the text messages contain the keyword; (¶ 88: Semantic similarity is compared between text content and graphical content, such as emojis.)
if yes, when the number of the text messages and emoji messages exceeds a threshold, it is determined that the text messages and the emoji messages meet the identical-message condition, (¶ 85, 87: If a message is similar within a certain similarity threshold to a threshold number of other messages, then the messages are considered to be the same, thus meeting an identical-message condition.)
and at least one of the keyword or a first emoji corresponding to the emoji messages are taken as message content of the corresponding aggregated message. (¶ 87: “consolidation at block 506 may include selecting only the content of a single one of the messages that satisfy the first threshold similarity value with respect to one another to include in the consolidated message” Also see ¶ 88, which provides an example of four messages, including an emoji, having the same content of “yes”, and a consolidated message with the content “yes” being generated.)
Before the effective filing date of the invention, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to modify the aggregation of redundant text messages into a single text message taught by NARAYANSWAMY by requiring a threshold number of text messages having the same content in order to consolidate the messages and including messages comprising emojis within the consolidated message as taught by VIJITHAKUMARA. Since the references are similarly directed to user interfaces for consolidating messages, the references are analogous. VIJITHAKUMARA (¶ 45, 48) teaches consolidation of messages would improve the user experience by reducing disruptions to the user, which is especially important when the user is viewing messages in such environments as driving a vehicle, and reducing the amount of content the user must review without losing context or meaning. Including a threshold for consolidating the messages would have further improved the flexibility of the system for different applications or scenarios, such as those discussed in ¶ 33 of VIJITHAKUMARA. Furthermore, VIJITHAKUMARA teaches that message content includes graphical content and that semantic similarity can be determined between graphical content and text content (¶ 34, 88), so applying the message consolidation method taught by NARAYANSWAMY to text messages that include emojis would have yielded predictable results.
Regarding Claim 6, NARAYANSWAMY teaches all the limitations of claim 1, on which claim 6 depends.
NARAYANSWAMY does not teach wherein after presenting the aggregated message, if a plurality of messages being identical with the previous aggregated message are further received after it is judged that a message interruption condition is met, the plurality of messages further received are re-aggregated to obtain a new aggregated message.
However, VIJITHAKUMARA, which is similarly directed to consolidating redundant messages, teaches wherein after presenting the aggregated message, if a plurality of messages being identical with the previous aggregated message are further received after it is judged that a message interruption condition is met, the plurality of messages further received are re-aggregated to obtain a new aggregated message. (¶ 65: “the message queue management module 214 may determine that the messages 104(1)-104(N) in the message stream 104 are part of the same communication thread as long as the messages 104(1)-104(N) are received in succession without an intervening delivery event condition being detected and as long as the messages are associated with a same communication session” ¶ 68: “In response to the occurrence of the delivery event condition 116 being detected (a positive determination at block 308), the message digest generation module 218 may consolidate the content of the messages in the message queue 114 that form part of the same communication thread into a consolidated message digest” Also see ¶ 78-81: “delivery event conditions”, such as a threshold number of messages being sent or a waiting time expiring, are used to determine messages forming a same communication thread that are to be consolidated. These event conditions are therefore equivalent to the claimed “message interruption condition”. When a condition is satisfied, the messages are aggerated into a consolidated message digest. Any new messages that are received would then be aggregated separately into a new aggregated message.)
Before the effective filing date of the invention, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to modify the aggregation of redundant text messages into a single text message taught by NARAYANSWAMY by including a condition to determine that messages are part of a same communication thread to be consolidated as taught by VIJITHAKUMARA. Since the references are similarly directed to user interfaces for consolidating messages, the references are analogous. VIJITHAKUMARA (¶ 45, 48) teaches consolidation of messages would improve the user experience by reducing disruptions to the user, which is especially important when the user is viewing messages in such environments as driving a vehicle, and reducing the amount of content the user must review without losing context or meaning. As taught by VIJITHAKUMARA (¶ 68), because of the inclusion of a condition between consolidated messages, “minimal disruption to the message recipient's user experience results because the number of messages and the frequency with which notification of their receipt/presentation of their content occurs is reduced.”
Regarding Claim 7, NARAYANSWAMY teaches all the limitations of claim 1, on which claim 7 depends.
NARAYANSWAMY does not teach wherein after presenting the aggregated message, when messages meeting the identical-message condition are further received, it is judged whether a message interruption condition is met, and if not, the received messages are aggregated into the aggregated message.
However, VIJITHAKUMARA, which is similarly directed to consolidating redundant messages, teaches wherein after presenting the aggregated message, when messages meeting the identical-message condition are further received, it is judged whether a message interruption condition is met, and if not, the received messages are aggregated into the aggregated message. (¶ 65: “the message queue management module 214 may determine that the messages 104(1)-104(N) in the message stream 104 are part of the same communication thread as long as the messages 104(1)-104(N) are received in succession without an intervening delivery event condition being detected and as long as the messages are associated with a same communication session” ¶ 68: “As long as no delivery event condition is detected (a negative determination at block 308), the delivery event condition monitoring module 216 may continue to monitor for an occurrence of the delivery event condition 116. While monitoring for the occurrence of the delivery event condition 116, additional messages forming part of the same communication thread as the message stream 104 may be received, in which case, the message queue management module 214 may also halt delivery/presentation of any such messages and place them in the message queue 114 along with the already received messages. In response to the occurrence of the delivery event condition 116 being detected (a positive determination at block 308), the message digest generation module 218 may consolidate the content of the messages in the message queue 114 that form part of the same communication thread into a consolidated message digest 118, at block 310 of the method 300.” Also see ¶ 78-81: “delivery event conditions”, such as a threshold number of messages being sent or a waiting time expiring, are used to determine messages forming a same communication thread that are to be consolidated. These event conditions are therefore equivalent to the claimed “message interruption condition”. When a condition is not satisfied, any messages that are received are included as part of a same communication thread and they are aggregated together into the consolidated message digest.)
Before the effective filing date of the invention, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to modify the aggregation of redundant text messages into a single text message taught by NARAYANSWAMY by including a condition to determine that messages are part of a same communication thread to be consolidated as taught by VIJITHAKUMARA. Since the references are similarly directed to user interfaces for consolidating messages, the references are analogous. VIJITHAKUMARA (¶ 45, 48) teaches consolidation of messages would improve the user experience by reducing disruptions to the user, which is especially important when the user is viewing messages in such environments as driving a vehicle, and reducing the amount of content the user must review without losing context or meaning. As taught by VIJITHAKUMARA (¶ 68), because of the inclusion of a condition between consolidated messages, “minimal disruption to the message recipient's user experience results because the number of messages and the frequency with which notification of their receipt/presentation of their content occurs is reduced.”
Claims 8-10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over NARAYANSWAMY (US 2017/0142043 A1) in view of LEYDON (US 2016/0283454 A1).
Regarding Claim 8, NARAYANSWAMY teaches all the limitations of claim 1, on which claim 8 depends.
NARAYANSWAMY does not teach wherein the method further comprises: presetting at least one keyword corresponding to respective emojis; if it is detected that the text messages entered by the users comprise a keyword corresponding to a second emoji, taking the second emoji and the text content corresponding to the text messages collectively as sending message options, so that the users select a corresponding message form to send to the conversation.
However, LEYDON, which is directed to providing options of emojis in a chat interface, teaches wherein the method further comprises: presetting at least one keyword corresponding to respective emojis; (¶ 39: “the association between a particular candidate emoticon and a particular subtext or meaning may be based on (past) statistical usage of the particular candidate emoticon with the particular subtext or meaning” Also se ¶ 44: A mapping between emojis and text content is maintain in remote datastore.)
if it is detected that the text messages entered by the users comprise a keyword corresponding to a second emoji, taking the second emoji and the text content corresponding to the text messages collectively as sending message options, so that the users select a corresponding message form to send to the conversation. (¶ 103-105, Fig. 5: Text entered by the user comprises keywords, such as “your city” that are associated with certain emojis. A plurality of message options are displayed for users to select to be sent to the conversation.)
Before the effective filing date of the invention, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to modify the aggregation of redundant text messages into a single text message taught by NARAYANSWAMY by including options in the chat interface for users to send emojis corresponding to the keywords typed by the users involved in the conversation as taught by LEYDON. Since the references are both directed to chat interfaces, the combination would have yielded predictable results. As taught by LEYDON (¶ 5), by providing options for emojis to a user based on the text they have entered, the user experience is improved by saving the user time and reducing the overwhelming number of emojis that are available for selection.
Regarding Claim 9, NARAYANSWAMY in view of LEYDON further teaches wherein detecting that the text messages entered by the users comprise a keyword corresponding to a second emoji comprises: with a mouse cursor positioning point as a search cutoff point, searching for the text content before the cursor in the messages entered by the users, and matching it sequentially with the keywords corresponding to the respective emojis preset in the system; if the matching is successful, determining that the text messages entered by the users comprise the keyword corresponding to the second emoji that is matched successfully. (LEYDON, ¶ 49-52, 79, 103-105, Fig. 5: Text that is entered before a current position of cursor is analyzed for context. Keywords, such as “your city” or “so much fun” are identified based on the position of the cursor. If the text matches an available emoji, then the emoji is presented as an option for selection by a user.)
The same motivation to combine discussed in the rejection of claim 8 applies to claim 9.
Regarding Claim 10, NARAYANSWAMY in view of LEYDON further teaches wherein if it is detected that the text messages entered by the users comprise keywords corresponding to a plurality of second emojis, the plurality of second emojis are provided as sending message options for the users to select. (LEYDON, ¶ 103-105, 110-111, Fig. 5-6: The text messages entered by the user comprise keywords corresponding to a plurality of emojis. The suggested emojis are provided to the user for selection as illustrated in Figs. 5-6.)
The same motivation to combine discussed in the rejection of claim 8 applies to claim 10.
Claims 11 and 14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over NARAYANSWAMY (US 2017/0142043 A1) in view of VIJITHAKUMARA (US 2022/0210623 A1) and further in view of RUAN (CN 113114554 A).
Regarding Claim 11, NARAYANSWAMY in view of VIJITHAKUMARA teaches all the limitations of claim 6, on which claim 11 depends.
NARAYANSWAMY in view of VIJITHAKUMARA does not teach further comprising: in response to a user-triggered aggregated message merging operation, merging the new aggregated message with the previous aggregated message.
However, RUAN, which is similarly directed to combining messages in a messaging interface, teaches further comprising: in response to a user-triggered aggregated message merging operation, merging the new aggregated message with the previous aggregated message. (Page 9: “According to one example, as shown in FIG. 8, in response to the optimized display icon 810 of the click instruction, in the target chat window, for 12 unread message; The 5 unread messages corresponding to the same transmission content "Baby birthday happy!" are combined and displayed as a processed message 820, and the 3 unread messages corresponding to the sender A are combined and displayed as a processed message 830.” In response to an icon clicked by a user, messages with the same content are combined. It would have been obvious in view of NARAYANSWAMY and RUAN for the messages being combined to include aggregated messages which are unread in order to save the user time.)
Before the effective filing date of the invention, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to modify the aggregation of redundant text messages part of a same communication session into combined messages taught by NARAYANSWAMY in view of VIJITHAKUMARA by including a user interface control for merging messages having the same content, as taught by RUAN. If a first aggregated message has the same content as a second aggregated message, it would have been obvious that they could also be merged, and RUAN teaches a method for merging messages responsive to a user interface control. As taught by RUAN (Page 9), such an implementation would have been advantageous to a person of ordinary skill in the art since “combining and displaying the plurality of unread messages, so as to save time and energy of browsing message consumption by the user, [would] improve the user experience.”
Regarding Claim 14, NARAYANSWAMY in view of VIJITHAKUMARA teaches all the limitations of claim 7, on which claim 14 depends.
NARAYANSWAMY in view of VIJITHAKUMARA does not teach further comprising: re-aggregating adjacent aggregated messages.
However, RUAN, which is similarly directed to combining messages in a messaging interface, teaches aggregating adjacent messages. (Page 9: “According to one example, as shown in FIG. 8, in response to the optimized display icon 810 of the click instruction, in the target chat window, for 12 unread message; The 5 unread messages corresponding to the same transmission content "Baby birthday happy!" are combined and displayed as a processed message 820, and the 3 unread messages corresponding to the sender A are combined and displayed as a processed message 830.” See Figure 8: Messages with the same content which are adjacent to each other are combined. In addition, messages from a same user that are adjacent are also combined into a single message.)
The combination of NARAYANSWAMY in view of VIJITHAKUMARA and RUAN therefore teaches further comprising: re-aggregating adjacent aggregated messages. (In view of the teachings of RUAN, if a message interface comprised adjacent aggregated messages with the same content, selection of an affordance to reduce the redundant unread messages on the display would result in those aggregated messages also being combined. It would have been obvious in view of NARAYANSWAMY and RUAN for the messages being combined to include aggregated messages which are unread in order to save the user time.)
Before the effective filing date of the invention, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to modify the aggregation of redundant text messages part of a same communication session into combined messages taught by NARAYANSWAMY in view of VIJITHAKUMARA by including a re-aggregation of adjacent messages, as taught by RUAN. If a first aggregated message has the same content as a second aggregated message, it would have been obvious that they could also be merged, and RUAN teaches a method for merging messages responsive to a user interface control. As taught by RUAN (Page 9), such an implementation would have been advantageous to a person of ordinary skill in the art since “combining and displaying the plurality of unread messages, so as to save time and energy of browsing message consumption by the user, [would] improve the user experience.”
Claim 13 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over NARAYANSWAMY (US 2017/0142043 A1) in view of WANG (US 2023/0171218 A1).
Regarding Claim 13, NARAYANSWAMY teaches all the limitations of claim 2, on which claim 13 depends.
NARAYANSWAMY does not teach further comprising: if the plurality of messages meeting the identical-message condition comprise a plurality of messages sent by one and the same user, the number of times of messages corresponding to the plurality of messages sent by the one and the same user is 1.
However, WANG, which is directed to a chat interface with consolidation of emoji replies (see Fig. 9B), teaches further comprising: if the plurality of messages meeting the identical-message condition comprise a plurality of messages sent by one and the same user, the number of times of messages corresponding to the plurality of messages sent by the one and the same user is 1. (¶ 75-77: “These 5 user accounts perform the emoji-expressive reply operation in turn on the conversation message, such that the second system message 907 is “Lily, Lucy, David and other 2 users respond to your message. As another implementation, the second system message 907 may include the total number of the first user accounts and the different third user accounts, the respective user identifications of the first user accounts and the abbreviated message identification. Therefore, for the above example, the second system message 907 is “5 users including Lily, Lucy, David respond to your message… It is to be noted that, once the same user account continuously performs the emoji-expressive reply operation many times on the same conversation message, when other different third user accounts perform the emoji-expressive reply operation in turn on the same conversation message, the emoji-expressive reply operations performed by the same user account and the emoji-expressive reply operations performed by the different third user accounts on the same conversation message may be aggregated into a second system message, and the second system message is displayed on the chat interface 903 of the second user account.” See Figs. 9B-C: When messages are aggregated into a single message, the users involved are counted/displayed only once. A number displayed represents the total number of users in the consolidated message. So when other users reply after a same user has replied multiple times, all the replies would be aggregated and each user would only be listed once. In the example given, the aggregated message would indicate that “David” responded to a message along with a total number of other users, not that he replied three times. So David’s replies are only counted once.)
Before the effective filing date of the invention, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to modify the aggregation of redundant text messages into a single text message, including an indicator of the number of messages, taught by NARAYANSWAMY by using a number indicator that represents the total number of users in a consolidated message rather than the total number of messages as suggested by WANG. Such an implementation would have merely amounted to the number representing the number of user accounts comprised in the consolidated messages rather than representing the number of messages and would have yielded predictable results. WANG (¶ 30) suggests improving the user experience by presenting information in a clear and concise manner. Having a number that indicates the number of users that are included in a consolidated message rather than the number of messages is a design choice that a person of ordinary skill in the art would have considered in order to present information about the consolidated messages concisely, as in some cases it may be more beneficial to a user to immediately understand how many users replied to them rather than how many messages they have.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Cole (US 2022/0129119 A1) teaches a messaging interface for productivity that includes grouping of emoji replies to messages. (Fig. 4A, ¶ 4, 25)
Abou Mahmoud (US 2016/0380959 A1) teaches consolidation of redundant messages related to software testing. (Fig. 5, ¶ 20)
Zhai (US 2022/0147206 A1) teaches combinations of emoji replies to messages in a chat interface. (¶ 104, Fig. 7)
Goncalves (US 2015/0271119 A1) teaches grouping messages with the same tone, including displaying a number of the messages, under categories represented by different emojis. (¶ 29, Fig. 2)
Jorgenson (US 10,873,556 B2) teaches de-duplicating posts in a social media interface. (Fig. 2, Col. 7:13-28)
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to RAMI RAFAT OKASHA whose telephone number is (571)272-0675. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 10-6 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, SCOTT BADERMAN can be reached at (571) 272-3644. 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.
/RAMI R OKASHA/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2118
Prosecution Insights