DETAILED ACTION
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 .
Specification
The abstract of the disclosure is objected to because it should avoid using phrases which can be implied, such as “ … are disclosed,” “this disclosure concerns,” “the disclosure describes.” Here, the abstract uses the term “provided …” The abstract is further objected because, it is a copy of claim 1. Pursuant to MPEP 608.01(b), an abstract must be a narrative summary of the invention. A corrected abstract of the disclosure is required and must be presented on a separate sheet, apart from any other text. See MPEP § 608.01(b).
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.
Claims 1, 9, 11, 12, 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Tian et al. (US 20210273894), in view of Pu et al. (US 20150326522).
With regards to claims 1, Tian teaches, an information processing method, comprising:
displaying a first message in a conversation detail page of a first conversation in response to an operation of sending the first message in the first conversation, wherein the first conversation is not a topic group (Tian teaches displaying a message window of a first message group, where the message window displays messages exchanged between multiple user accounts. Thus, Tian teaches displaying messages in a session detail page of a first session. Tian further distinguishes between the original chat message window and the newly created topic/grouped message window. The original chat message window therefore corresponds to a first session that is not a topic group; [0262-0263], Tian);
creating a first topic including the first message in response to a topic creation operation for the first message in the first conversation (Tian teaches receiving a topic creation operation triggered for a first chat message displayed in a chat message window and, in response, displaying the first chat message under a new topic in grouped/concatenated message window; [0263], Tian);
and notifying members in the first conversation according to a preset notification policy when a new message appears in the first topic (Tian teaches a messaging system having a first chat group (i.e., claimed first conversation) where chat messages exchanged between user accounts are displayed. Tian further teaches creating a topic associated with a first chat message, where messages under the topic are displayed in a topic-based message window. Tian further teaches performing notification (according to present notification policy) of an interaction message; [0253, 0263], Tian),
Tian does not teach wherein in the preset notification policy, different notification policies are adopted according to different degrees to which different members participate.
However, in the same field of endeavor, Pu teaches wherein in the preset notification policy, different notification policies are adopted according to different degrees to which different members participate (Pu teaches configuring notification preference for users, including settings for silencing, blocking, or alarming on incoming notifications. Pu further teaches that notification and communication preferences may be determined based on user’s participation level, activity level, acti type or user characteristics. Accordingly, different users may receive different notification handling based on their degree of participation; [0067, 0068], Pu).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date, to modify Tian’s topic-based messaging system to apply Pu’s participation-based notification techniques so that users participating in a topic receive notification handling appropriate to their level of involvement, thereby improving communication efficiency and avoiding unnecessary notifications.
With regards to claim 9, Tian teaches, the method of claim 1, further comprising one or more of: displaying a subscribe topic control in a first topic-related interface of a second user not subscribed to the first topic, wherein the subscribe topic control, when triggered, causes the second user to subscribe to the first topic (Tian teaches trigger operation, including tap operation, for a viewing a topic. This corresponds to claimed subscribe control; [0072-0074], Tian);
displaying an unsubscribe control in a first topic-related interface of a third user subscribed to the first topic, wherein the unsubscribe control, when triggered, causes the third user to unsubscribe to the first topic (Tian teaches trigger operation, including tap operation, for a viewing/not viewing a topic. This corresponds to claimed unsubscribe control; [0072-0074], Tian).
With regards to claims 11 and 12, the claim limitations are identical and/or equivalent in scope to claim 1, therefore, claims 11 and 12 are rejected under the same rationale as claim 1.
With regards to claim 20, the claim limitations are identical and/or equivalent in scope to claim 9, therefore, claim 20 is rejected under the same rationale as claim 9.
Claims 2-4, 6-7, 13-15, 17-18, 21 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Tian in view of Pu and further in view of Ertmann et al. (US 20170351385).
With regards to claim 2,
Tian in view of Pu teaches the limitations of claim 1 as applied to claim 2 except for adopting a first notification policy for a member participating in the first topic in the first conversation and adopting a second notification policy for a member not participating in the first topic in the second conversation when a new message appears in the first topic, wherein a notification strength of the first notification policy is higher than a notification strength of the second notification policy.
However, in the same field of endeavor, Ertmann teaches adopting a first notification policy for a member participating in the first topic in the first conversation and adopting a second notification policy for a member not participating in the first topic in the second conversation when a new message appears in the first topic (Ertmann teaches determining whether a user is actively engaging with a thread before issuing notifications. Ertmann provides notifications to users actively interacting with a thread and suppresses or reduces notifications for users who are not actively interacting with the thread; [0070-0071], Ertmann),
wherein a notification strength of the first notification policy is higher than a notification strength of the second notification policy (Ertmann teaches different notification strength, where actively engaged users may receive notifications for every new message, while users without recent interaction receive reduced frequency notifications or suppressed notifications; [0071], Ertmann).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date, to modify the teachings of Tian and Pu, with Ertmann’s thread engagement-based notification techniques so that users participating in a topic receive higher strength notifications while users not participating in the topic receive reduced strength notifications, thereby reducing distracting notifications and improving messaging efficiency.
With regards to claims 3,
Tian, Pu, and Ertmann discloses the limitations of claim 2, including
the member participating in the first topic in the first conversation comprising:
a member who has replied to the first topic;
or a member who has replied to the first topic and a member who has subscribed to the first topic through a topic subscription operation;
or a member who has replied to the first topic and a member mentioned in the new message;
or a member who has replied to the first topic, a member who has subscribed to the first topic through a topic subscription operation, and a member mentioned in the new message (Ertmann disclosed active engagement may be determined, for example, by determining whether the user has sent a message on the thread, or brought the thread into focus on their messaging application, within a predetermined amount of time (e.g., in the past 20 minutes). If the user has not recently engaged with the thread and a new message is received, then the messaging system may refrain from issuing a notification, or may suppress a notification that would otherwise be issued; [0071], Ertmann). Motivation to combine is similar to that of claim 2.
With regards to claim 4,
Tian, Pu, and Ertmann discloses the limitations of claim 2, including
displaying first information of the first topic in a conversation list of the member participating in the first topic in a first conversation when the new message appears in the first topic (Ertmann teaches that, in a messaging system having threads, a summary view of threads may display information associated with each thread, including parent messages, highlights, and an indication of new or unread messages in the thread; [0073-0075], Ertmann);
pushing a voice alert notification or a visual alert notification to the member participating in the first topic in the first conversation when the new message appears in the first topic (Ertmann teaches providing notifications or alerts to participants when new messages are generated in a group conversation; [0070], Ertmann).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date, to combine the teachings of Tian and Pu, with the teachings of Ertmann to improve awareness of relevant conversations and reducing the difficulty of tracking active discussions.
With regards to claim 6, Tian teaches through Pu and Ertmann, the method of claim 4, further comprising: displaying content of the first topic in a conversation detail page display area of a client interface of the member in response to triggering an operation of the first information of the first topic displayed in the conversation list (Tian teaches responding to user operation by double taping a chat message to display concatenated message interface associated with the selected topic. Tian further teaches displaying the concatenated message interface on the right side of the chat message interface, thereby presenting the topic contents in a separate display area of the client interface; [0084], Tian).
With regards to claim 7,
Tian, Pu, and Ertmann discloses the limitations of claim 2, including
not notifying, in a conversation list of the member, the member not participating in the first topic in the first conversation when the new message appears in the first topic (Ertmann teaches users not actively engaging with the thread may have notifications withheld or suppressed; [0070-0071], Ertmann);
not pushing audio alert notification or visual alert notification to the member not participating in the first topic in the first conversation when the new message appears in the first topic (Ertman teaches suppressing notifications for users who are not actively engaged with a thread. Suppressing the notification corresponds to not pushing audible or visual notification alerts to those users; [0071], Ertmann).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date, to combine the teachings of Tian and Pu, with the teachings of Ertmann so that users not participating in a topic, are not provided notification alerts for new topic messages, thereby reducing unnecessary interruptions and improving the user experience.
With regards to claims 13 and 21, the claim limitations are identical and/or equivalent in scope to claim 2, therefore, claims 13 and 21 are rejected under the same rationale as claim 2.
With regards to claim 14, the claim limitations are identical and/or equivalent in scope to claim 3, therefore, claim 14 is rejected under the same rationale as claim 3.
With regards to claim 15, the claim limitations are identical and/or equivalent in scope to claim 4, therefore, claim 15 is rejected under the same rationale as claim 4.
With regards to claim 17, the claim limitations are identical and/or equivalent in scope to claim 6, therefore, claim 17 is rejected under the same rationale as claim 6.
With regards to claim 18, the claim limitations are identical and/or equivalent in scope to claim 7, therefore, claim 18 is rejected under the same rationale as claim 7.
Claims 5 and 16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Tian in view of Pu, further in view of Ertmann, and further in view of Chen et al. (US 20150052070).
With regards to claims 5, Tian teaches through Pu and Ertmann, the first information of the first topic comprising: identification information of the first topic (Tian teaches displaying topic name (i.e., topic identification information); [0084], Tian)
Tian in view of Pu and Ertmann does not teach preview information of the new message.
However, in the same field of endeavor Chen teaches preview information of the new message (…display a new message preview…; [0066], Chen).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date, to have combined the teachings of Tian, Pu, and Ertmann with the teachings of Chen to provide users with a preview of newly received messages, thereby allowing users to quickly assess the message content and determine whether an immediate attention is needed.
With regards to claim 16, the claim limitations are identical and/or equivalent in scope to claim 5, therefore, claim 16 is rejected under the same rationale as claim 5.
Claims 8 and 19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Tian in view of Pu and further in view of Cary et al. (US 20150350146).
With regards to claim 8,
Tian in view of Pu teaches the limitations of claim 1 as applied to claim 8 except for moving the first topic into a do-not-disturb conversation group of a first user in response to an operation of closing notification performed on the first topic by the first user participating in the first topic.
However, in the same field of endeavor, Cary teaches, moving the first topic into a do-not-disturb conversation group of a first user in response to an operation of closing notification performed on the first topic by the first user participating in the first topic (Cary teaches, moving the message (i.e., first topic) into a one or more other devices (i.e., do-not-disturb conversation group) of a first user in response to an operation of suppressing (i.e., closing) alert (i.e., notification) performed on the message (i.e., first topic) by the first user participating in the first topic; [0138], Cary. (Note: In paragraph 138, Cary teaches that when the coordinating device suppresses an alert of a message, the device sends a signal to all other devices of the user to suppress an alert of the message. It clearly means that, in order to let other devices to suppress the alert, the device must move the message information to the other devices such that the other devices can suppress the alert. This message is the claimed “first topic”)).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date, to have combined the teachings of Tian and Pu with the teachings of Cary to allow users to suppress notifications for selected topics, thereby reducing unwanted interruptions and improving the user experience.
With regards to claim 19, the claim limitations are identical and/or equivalent in scope to claim 8, therefore, claim 19 is rejected under the same rationale as claim 8.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to SAYEEM KAZI whose telephone number is (571)397-2559. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Fri 8:00-5:00 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, Emmanuel Moise can be reached at 571-272-3865. 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.
/S.K./Examiner, Art Unit 2455
/EMMANUEL L MOISE/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2455
Prosecution Insights