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 .
Status of Claims
Applicant filed a Preliminary Amendment on 11/26/2024. Claim 8 is amended. Claims 15-21 are cancelled. Claims 22-27 are newly introduced. Claims 1-14, 22-27 are pending.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101
35 U.S.C. 101 reads as follows:
Whoever invents or discovers any new and useful process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter, or any new and useful improvement thereof, may obtain a patent therefor, subject to the conditions and requirements of this title.
Claims 1-14, 22-27 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to non-statutory subject matter. Specifically, claims 1-14, 22-27 are directed to an abstract idea without additional elements amounting to significantly more than the abstract idea.
With respect to Step 2A Prong One of the framework, claim 1 recites an abstract idea. Claim 1 includes elements for “receiving a target message, the target message comprising: an invitation message for indicating that a second client invites the first client to join a live interaction”; “acquiring a remaining valid duration corresponding to the invitation message based on time information carried in the target message”; “in response that the remaining valid duration is greater than or equal to a first duration threshold, displaying the invitation message to send a reply message based on the invitation message, wherein the reply message indicates whether to agree to join a live interaction with the second client”; “in response that the remaining valid duration is less than the first duration threshold, ignoring the invitation message.”
The limitations above recite an abstract idea. More particularly, the elements above recite certain methods of organizing human activity for managing personal behavior or relationships or interactions between people because the elements describe a process for human live interaction. Further, the elements recite mental processes because the elements describe observations or evaluations that can be practically performed in the mind or by a human using pen and paper. As a result, claim 1 recites an abstract idea under Step 2A Prong One.
Claims 10, 12, and 22-27 include substantially similar limitations to those included with respect to claim 1. As a result, claims 10, 12, and 22-27 recite an abstract idea under Step 2A Prong One for the same reasons as stated above with respect to claim 1.
Claims 2–9, 11, 13, 14 further describe the process for determining expiration duration of live interaction invitation and further recite certain methods of organizing human activity and/or mental processes for the same reasons as stated above. As a result, claims 2–9, 11, 13, 14 recite an abstract idea under Step 2A Prong One.
With respect to Step 2A Prong Two of the framework, claim 1 does not include additional elements that integrate the abstract idea into a practical application. Claim 1 includes additional elements that do not recite an abstract idea under Step 2A Prong One. The additional element includes a server. When considered in view of the claim as a whole, the additional element does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because the additional server element is a generic computer component that is merely used to perform the recited abstract idea. As a result, claim 1 does not include any additional elements that integrate the abstract idea into a practical application under Step 2A Prong Two.
As noted above, claims 10, 12, and 22-27 include substantially similar limitations to those included with respect to claim 1. Although claims 22-24 further includes a communication device, memory, and a processor, and claims 25-27 further includes a non-transitory computer-readable storage medium, and a processor, the additional elements, when considered in view of the claim as a whole, do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because the additional computer elements are generic computer components that are merely used to perform the recited abstract idea. As a result, claims 10, 12, and 22-27 do not include any additional elements that integrate the abstract idea into a practical application under Step 2A Prong Two.
Claims 2–9, 11, 13, 14 do not include any additional elements beyond those included with respect to the claims from which claims 2–9, 11, 13, 14 depend. As a result, claims 2–9, 11, 13, 14 do not include any additional elements that integrate the abstract idea into a practical application under Step 2A Prong Two for the same reasons as stated above.
With respect to Step 2B of the framework, claim 1 does not include additional elements amounting to significantly more than the abstract idea. As noted above, claim 1 includes additional elements that do not recite an abstract idea under Step 2A Prong One. The additional element includes a server. The additional element does not amount to significantly more than the recited abstract idea because the additional server element is a generic computer component that is merely used to perform the recited abstract idea. Further, looking at the additional elements as an ordered combination adds nothing that is not already present when considering the additional elements individually. As a result, claim 1 does not include any additional elements that amount to significantly more than the recited abstract idea under Step 2B.
As noted above, claims 10, 12, and 22-27 include substantially similar limitations to those included with respect to claim 1. Although claims 22-24 further includes a communication device, memory, and a processor, and claims 25-27 further includes a non-transitory computer-readable storage medium, and a processor, the additional element does not amount to significantly more than the recited abstract idea because the additional computer elements are generic computer components that are merely used to perform the recited abstract idea. As a result, claims 10, 12, and 22-27 do not include any additional elements that amount to significantly more than the recited abstract idea under Step 2B.
Claims 2–9, 11, 13, 14 do not include any additional elements beyond those included with respect to the claims from which claims 2–9, 11, 13, 14 depend. As a result, claims 2–9, 11, 13, 14 do not include any additional elements that amount to significantly more than the recited abstract idea under Step 2B for the same reasons as stated above.
Therefore, the claims are directed to an abstract idea without additional elements amounting to significantly more than the abstract idea. Accordingly, claims 1–14, 22-27 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 as being directed to non-statutory subject matter.
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.
Claim(s) 1-3, 8-13, 22-27 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by U.S. Pub. No. 2013/0013701 to Cherukuri et al.
Regarding Claims 1, 22, 25:
A message processing method applicable to a first client, comprising:
receiving a target message sent by a server, the target message comprising: an invitation message for indicating that a second client invites the first client to join a live interaction; [0023], [0026], [0027]
acquiring a remaining valid duration corresponding to the invitation message based on time information carried in the target message; [0028]
in response that the remaining valid duration is greater than or equal to a first duration threshold, displaying the invitation message to send a reply message based on the invitation message, wherein the reply message indicates whether to agree to join a live interaction with the second client; [0028] and
in response that the remaining valid duration is less than the first duration threshold, ignoring the invitation message. [0030]
Regarding Claim 2:
The message processing method according to claim 1, wherein the time information includes an expiration time of the invitation message and a first sending time at which the target message is sent by the server; [0023]
the acquiring a remaining valid duration corresponding to the invitation message based on time information carried in the target message comprises; [0023]
determining the remaining valid duration based on the expiration time and the first sending time; [0023]
wherein the expiration time is obtained by the server based on a total valid duration of the invitation message and a first receiving time at which the invitation message is received by the server. [0023], [0027]
Regarding Claim 3:
The message processing method according to claim 1, wherein the remaining valid duration is a first difference between the expiration time and the first sending time. [0023]
Regarding Claim 8:
The message processing method according to claim 1, further comprising:
In response that the remaining valid duration is greater than or equal to the first duration threshold, display an expiration reminder message, the expiration reminder message being used to indicate that the invitation message will expire after a target duration that is less than or equal to the remaining valid duration. [0023]
Regarding Claim 9:
The message processing method according to claim 8, wherein in response that the remaining valid duration is greater than or equal to a second duration threshold, the target duration is the second duration threshold, the first duration threshold being less than the second duration threshold; or
in response that the remaining valid duration is greater than or equal to the first duration threshold and less than the second duration threshold, the target duration is the remaining valid duration.[0023]
Regarding Claims 10, 23, 26:
A message processing method applicable to a second client, comprising:
sending an invitation message to a server, wherein the invitation message indicates that the second client invites a first client to join a live interaction; [0023], [0026], [0027]
wherein the invitation message is used by the server to send a target message to the first client based on the invitation message, the target message being used to enable the first client to acquire a remaining valid duration corresponding to the invitation message based on time information carried in the target message; in response that the remaining valid duration is greater than or equal to a first duration threshold, the invitation message is displayed; and in response that the remaining valid duration is less than the first duration threshold, the invitation message is ignored.[0027]-[0030]
Regarding Claim 11:
The message processing method according to claim10, wherein a total valid duration of the invitation message is carried in the invitation message. [0027]
Regarding Claims 12, 24, 27:
A message processing method applicable to a server, comprising:
receiving an invitation message sent by a second client, wherein the invitation message indicates that the second client invites a first client to join a live interaction; [0023], [0026], [0027]
sending a target message to the first client based on the invitation message, the target message being used to enable the first client to acquire a remaining valid duration corresponding to the invitation message based on time information carried in the target message; in response that the remaining valid duration is greater than or equal to a first duration threshold, the invitation message is displayed; and in response that the remaining valid duration is less than the first duration threshold, the invitation message is ignored. [0026]-[0030]
Regarding Claim 13:
The message processing method according to claim 12, wherein the time information includes an expiration time of the invitation message and a first sending time at which the target message is sent by the server; [0027]
sending a target message to the first client based on the invitation message comprises:
determining the expiration time based on a total valid duration of the invitation message and a first receiving time at which the invitation message is received; [0023], [0027] and
sending the target message to the first client based on the invitation message, the expiration time, and the first sending time.[0023], [0029], [0030]
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 4, 5, 7 and 14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Cherukuri et al in view of U.S. Pub. No. 2008/0049633 to Edwards et al.
Regarding Claims 4, 7 and 14:
Cherukuri et al disclose a system for sending invitations for live interaction video calling, where the invitations comprise an expiration time, and a remaining valid duration of the invitation is determined based on the expiration time, and a sending time. [[0027]-[0030]
Cherukuri et al do not expressly disclose that the remaining valid duration determination includes a first or second preset duration where the first or second preset duration is based on a statistically average of duration of the time the server takes to send the message or the time the server takes to receive the message. Edwards et al disclose a system for measuring network latency for the purpose of “measuring various aspects of network performance such as latency is often important to ensure that messages and data are appropriately processed and address. Such measurements allow network users to compensate for latency when implementing services of programs.” [0002] Edwards et al further disclose “For example, latency measurements may be conducted as part of a network diagnostic system and/or reliability testing. Specifically, latency may be measured to determine if one or more nodes in a network is producing unreasonable delays in message delivery. Similarly, the latency measurement techniques described herein may also be used to compensate for network delays in time sensitive applications.” [0031] Therefore, it would have been obvious to one ordinary skilled in the arts at the time of the invention for Cherukuri et al’s invite messages to take into account network latencies when determining remining expiration time of the invite messages. Cherukuri et al would have been motivated to perform such combination to compensate for network delays in time sensitive applications as disclosed by Edwards et al.
Regarding Claim 5:
Cherukuri et al disclose wherein the remaining valid duration is a difference between a first difference and the first preset duration, wherein the first difference is a difference between the expiration time and the first sending time.[0028]-[0030]
Allowable Subject Matter
Claim 6 is objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims, and further overcoming the U.S. 101 subject matter eligibility rejection.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Rutao Wu whose telephone number is (571)272-6045. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Fri 8-5.
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, Tariq Hafiz can be reached at 571-272-5350. 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.
/RUTAO WU/ Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3623
Prosecution Insights