DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
1. The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
2. Claims 1-20 are pending.
Information Disclosure Statement
3. The information disclosure statements (IDSs) submitted on 9/25/2024, 1/10/2025, 7/3/2025,10/8/2025, and 1/20/2026 are in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement is being considered by the examiner.
Drawings
4. The drawings have been reviewed and are accepted as being in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.121.
Priority
5. Acknowledgment is made of applicant's claim for foreign priority based on an application filed in Korea on 10-17-2023. It is noted, however, applicant has not filed a certified copy of the 10-2023-0139040 application as required by 37 CFR 1.55.
The office has been attempting to electronically retrieve under the priority document exchange program, the foreign application 10-2023-0139040 to which priority is claimed has FAILED on 03/17/2025. It’s mostly applicant responsibility to file a separate document requesting the copy of the foreign application to comply with 37 C.F.R. 1.55, specifically claim for foreign priority i (1-4).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101
6. 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.
7. Claims 1-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 as being directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
Step 1: Claims 1 and 20 recite “A method for…”; the claims recite a series of steps and therefore is a process. Claim 19 recites “user terminal…” therefore the claim is a machine, displaying summary information.
Step 2A Prong One: Claims 1, 19, and 20 recite the limitations “requesting the server to summarize a summary target message, which is at least a part of the at least one chat message” These limitations are processes that, under their broadest reasonable interpretation, cover performance of the limitation in the mind, but for the recitation of generic computer components.
That is, other than reciting a "server", nothing in the claim element precludes the step from practically being performed in a human mind or with the aid of pen and paper. For example, “summarize” in the context of this claim encompasses a user mentally, and with the aid of pen and paper, grouping and evaluating data, reading and evaluating chat information.
If a claim limitation, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind, then it falls within the “Mental Processes” grouping of abstract ideas (concepts performed in the human mind including an observation, evaluation, judgment, and opinion).
Step 2A Prong Two: The judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. The claim recites the “receiving information about a chat room comprising at least one chat message from a server” “displaying summary information about the summary target message from the server” and the “displaying” based on a summary information of the existence of data, this limitation is a mere generic transmission and presentation of collected and analyzed data (MPEP 2106.05(g).
A claim to "collecting information, analyzing it, and displaying certain results of the collection and analysis," where the data analysis steps are recited at a high level of generality such that they are considered insignificant extra-solution activity. Electric Power Group v. Alstom, S.A., 830 F.3d 1350, 1353-54, 119 USPQ2d 1739, 1741-42 (Fed. Cir. 2016).
Step 2B: The claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. The insignificant extra-solution activities listed above, including “displaying” this limitation is a mere generic transmission and presentation of collected and analyzed data. The limitations performed by a “server” being a tool.; generates a combination of data or “output” based on data and update them based on comparison of data ( it is recognized by the courts as well-understood, routine, and conventional activities when they are claimed in a merely generic manner. (see MPEP 2106.04(a)(2). There are no additional elements that amount to significantly more than the above-identified judicial exception (abstract idea).
Koninklijke KPN N.V. v.Gemalto M2M GmbH, 942 F.3d 1143, 1149 (Fed. Cir.2019) (quoting Affinity Labs of Tex., LLC v. DIRECTV, LLC, 838 F.3d 1253, 1257 (Fed. Cir. 2016)). In the context of software patents (which includes machine learning patents), the step-one inquiry determines “whether the claims focus on ‘the specific asserted improvement in computer capabilities . . . or, instead, on a process that qualifies as an abstract idea for which computers are invoked merely as a tool.’” Id. (alteration in original) (quoting Finjan, Inc. v. Blue Coat Sys., Inc., 879 F.3d 1299, 1303 (Fed. Cir. 2018)).
As per Claims 2 and 3 , The claim recites the additional limitations “wherein the summary target message is an unread message.” And “prior to requesting the server to summarize the summary target message, displaying a chat window of the chat room, which comprises the at least one chat message and a summary request interface, wherein, in requesting the server to summarize the summary target message,
a summary request for the summary target message is generated in response to an
interaction with the summary request interface, wherein, in receiving and displaying the summary information, the summary information is included in the chat window or displayed in a form that covers at least a part of the chat window.” The claims do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the abstract idea, these limitations amount to data gathering which is considered to be insignificant extra solution activity (MPEP 2106.05(g); without more . . . [are] mental processes within the abstract-idea category.
As per Claim 4 and 5, The claim recites the additional limitations: “in displaying the chat window, the summary request interface is displayed in an area that separates read messages from unread messages, and wherein the summary target message is an unread message.” And “prior to requesting the server to summarize the summary target message, displaying a chat room list comprising the chat room, wherein, in receiving and displaying the summary information, the summary information is included in the chat room list or displayed in a form that covers at least a part of the chat room list.”
A claim to "collecting information, analyzing it, and displaying certain results of the collection and analysis," where the data analysis steps are recited at a high level of generality such that they are considered insignificant extra-solution activity. Electric Power Group v. Alstom, S.A., 830 F.3d 1350, 1353-54, 119 USPQ2d 1739, 1741-42 (Fed. Cir. 2016); without more . . . [are] mental processes within the abstract-idea category.
As per Claim 6 and 7, The claim recites the additional limitations in response to an interaction with the chat room included in the chat room list, “displaying a summary request interface for the chat room, wherein, in requesting the server to summarize the summary target message, a summary request for the summary target message is generated in response to an interaction with the summary request interface.” And “displaying the chat room list, the user terminal displays a summary request interface for the chat room in the chat room list when the chat room satisfies a predetermined condition, and wherein, in requesting the server to summarize the summary target message, the summary request for the summary target message is generated in response to an interaction with the summary request interface.” A claim to "collecting information, analyzing it, and displaying certain results of the collection and analysis," where the data analysis steps are recited at a high level of generality such that they are considered insignificant extra-solution activity. Electric Power Group v. Alstom, S.A., 830 F.3d 1350, 1353-54, 119 USPQ2d 1739, 1741-42 (Fed. Cir. 2016); without more . . . [are] mental processes within the abstract-idea category.
As per Claim 8 and 9, The claim recites the additional limitations wherein the predetermined condition relates to at least one of the following: “a type of the chat room, a number of unread messages among the at least one chat message, a read status of the at least one chat message, a speaker of the chat messages, contents of the at least one chat message, a reception time of the at least one chat message, and a specific user mention in the at least one chat message.” And “wherein requesting the server to summarize the summary target message comprises receiving selection information for selecting the summary target message among the at least one chat message. A claim to "collecting information, analyzing it, and displaying certain results of the collection and analysis," where the data analysis steps are recited at a high level of generality such that they are considered insignificant extra-solution activity. Electric Power Group v. Alstom, S.A., 830 F.3d 1350, 1353-54, 119 USPQ2d 1739, 1741-42 (Fed. Cir. 2016); without more . . . [are] mental processes within the abstract-idea category.
As per Claim 10 and 11 The claim recites the additional limitations, “selection information relates to at least one of the following: a read status of at least one chat message, a speaker of the at least one chat message, a reception time of the at least one chat message, and a specific user mention in the at least one chat message.” And
“summary information comprises at least one summary item, and wherein the method further comprises: receiving an interaction with any one of the at least one summary item after receiving and displaying the summary information; and in response to the interaction, displaying a message related to the any one of the at least one summary item.” A claim to "collecting information, analyzing it, and displaying certain results of the collection and analysis," where the data analysis steps are recited at a high level of generality such that they are considered insignificant extra-solution activity. Electric Power Group v. Alstom, S.A., 830 F.3d 1350, 1353-54, 119 USPQ2d 1739, 1741-42 (Fed. Cir. 2016); without more . . . [are] mental processes within the abstract-idea category.
As per Claim 11 and 12 The claim recites the additional limitations, in displaying a message related to the any one of the at least one summary item, the message is displayed to be distinguishable from other messages in a chat window of the chat room.” And “wherein the summary information comprises at least one summary item categorized by a speaker of at least one chat message.” A claim to "collecting information, analyzing it, and displaying certain results of the collection and analysis," where the data analysis steps are recited at a high level of generality such that they are considered insignificant extra-solution activity. Electric Power Group v. Alstom, S.A., 830 F.3d 1350, 1353-54, 119 USPQ2d 1739, 1741-42 (Fed. Cir. 2016); without more . . . [are] mental processes within the abstract-idea category.
As per Claim 14 and 15 The claim recites the additional limitations, in the summary information, the speaker of the at least one chat message is displayed with an anonymized name” and “storing the summary information as separate storage information, after receiving and displaying the summary information; and in response to a request to display the stored information, displaying the summary information and information about the chat room.” A claim to "collecting information, analyzing it, and displaying certain results of the collection and analysis," where the data analysis steps are recited at a high level of generality such that they are considered insignificant extra-solution activity. Electric Power Group v. Alstom, S.A., 830 F.3d 1350, 1353-54, 119 USPQ2d 1739, 1741-42 (Fed. Cir. 2016); without more . . . [are] mental processes within the abstract-idea category. are recognized by the courts as well-understood, routine, and conventional activities when they are claimed in a merely generic manner (see MPEP 2106.05(d)(II)(iv) Storing and retrieving information in memory, Versata Dev. Group Inc...
As per Claim 16 and 17-18, The claims recite the additional limitations wherein “requesting the server to summarize the summary target message is automatically performed when at least one of a chat room and the at least one chat message satisfies a predetermined condition.” And “wherein the predetermined condition relates to at least one of the following: a type of the chat room, a number of unread messages among the at least one chat message, a read status of the at least one chat message, a speaker of the at least one chat message, contents of the at least one chat message, a reception time of the at least one chat message, and a specific user mention in the at least one chat message.” And “wherein when the summary target message comprises a predetermined type of message, the summary information comprises details about the predetermined type of message.” where the data analysis steps are recited at a high level of generality such that they are considered insignificant extra-solution activity. Electric Power Group v. Alstom, S.A., 830 F.3d 1350, 1353-54, 119 USPQ2d 1739, 1741-42 (Fed. Cir. 2016); without more . . . [are] mental processes within the abstract-idea category. are recognized by the courts as well-understood, routine, and conventional activities when they are claimed in a merely generic manner (see MPEP 2106.05(d)(II)(iv) Storing and retrieving information in memory, Versata Dev. Group Inc..
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
8. 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.
9. Claim(s) 1-20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lukyanenko, in view of SEO (US 2016/0283052), hereinafter “Lukyanenko” and “SEO” respectively.
As per Claim 1, Lukyanenko discloses:
A method for displaying summary information about a chat message by a user
terminal, the method comprising: (Par [0004], FIG. 2 is an exemplary user interface displaying a summary of a chat dialogue from a live chat service based on keyword extraction and sentence scoring using unsupervised machine learning models” and par [0011], “The summary of the dialogue may also be provided with named entity recognition (NER) and/or regular expression (regex) processing to enrich the summary by providing details with additional key information next to the summary and/or within the sentence of the summary.” and see Figures 2-3B) receiving information about a chat room comprising at least one chat message from a server; (Abstract and Claim 1, “..receiving a dialogue between a user and a live chat service of a service provider associated with the system, wherein the dialogue comprises one or more asynchronous chat sessions between the user and the live chat service, and wherein the one or more asynchronous chat sessions comprise a plurality of sentences”) requesting the server to summarize a summary target message, which is at least a part of the at least one chat message; (Par [0018], “…N may be set and/or tuned by an administrator, the live agent requesting the summary, and/or a data scientist.” Par [0024], “…system 100 may comprise a plurality of devices, servers…” And par [0069], “At step 402 of flowchart 400, a request for a dialogue between a user and one or more live agents or chatbots in a live chat service of a service provider is received…” and see Figures 4-5) and receiving and displaying summary information about the summary target message from the server. (Par [0030], “In this regard, when requesting chat services, application 112 may process, display, and/or output chat 114, which may correspond to a chat session for a dialogue between the user associated with client device 110 and an agent or chatbot using agent device 120. See Figures 1-3B).
Lukyanenko do not specifically discloses referring to a specific “target” recites correspondence and user associated chats.
SEO discloses the target, as recited, as follows: (Par [0011-0012], “In yet another example embodiment, the application is an instant messenger application, and each of the plurality of objects is associated with one or more of a plurality of targets, the instant messenger including a chat room list in which one or more of the plurality of targets with which the user communicates are listed.”).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art at the effective filing date to incorporate the teachings of SEO specifically requiring a specific target into the method of Lukyanenko to take advantage on obtaining respective information from plurality of targets. The modification would have been obvious because one of the ordinary skills in the art would implement having a specific user to communicate with.
As per Claim 2, the rejection of Claim 1 is incorporated and Lukyanenko further discloses: wherein the summary target message is an unread message. (Par [0004], “FIG. 2 is an exemplary user interface displaying a summary of a chat dialogue from a live chat service based on keyword extraction and sentence scoring using unsupervised machine learning models, according to an embodiment…”).
Lukyanenko do not specifically discloses referring to a specific “target” and “unread” message recites correspondence and user associated chats.
SEO discloses the target, as recited, as follows: (Par [0011-0012], “In yet another example embodiment, the application is an instant messenger application, and each of the plurality of objects is associated with one or more of a plurality of targets, the instant messenger including a chat room list in which one or more of the plurality of targets with which the user communicates are listed.” And par [0065], “For example, the case that the user executes the unconfirmed object (e.g., reads the unread messages sent by a particular chat counterpart) may be processed by the processing unit 213 as the user identifies unconfirmed information from the object. As another example, an “auto-confirmation processing” menu may be provided on a screen where the object list is displayed”).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art at the effective filing date to incorporate the teachings of SEO specifically requiring a specific target into the method of Lukyanenko to take advantage on obtaining respective information from plurality of targets. The modification would have been obvious because one of the ordinary skills in the art would implement having a specific user to communicate with and having information regarding the read or unread messages.
As per Claim 3, the rejection of Claim 1 is incorporated and Lukyanenko further discloses: further comprising: prior to requesting the server to summarize the summary target message, displaying a chat window of the chat room, which comprises the at least one chat message and a summary request interface, (Par [0004] and par [0015], “”The keyword level selection by the ML models seeks to identify keywords, such as words of importance that may be specifically targeted for an issue, repeated, identifying a specific issue or entity, and/or providing relevant or important data. In this regard, the ML model pipeline may be unsupervised in that the ML model pipeline” and see Figures 2-4) wherein, in requesting the server to summarize the summary target message, a summary request for the summary target message is generated in response to an interaction with the summary request interface, (Par [0017], “…N may be set and/or tuned by an administrator, the live agent requesting the summary, and/or a data scientist…” Par [0024], “…system 100 may comprise a plurality of devices, servers…” and Par [0030], “In this regard, when requesting chat services, application 112 may process, display, and/or output chat 114, which may correspond to a chat session for a dialogue between the user associated with client device 110 and an agent or chatbot using agent device 120.” See Figures 1-4) wherein, in receiving and displaying the summary information, the summary information is included in the chat window or displayed in a form that covers at least a part of the chat window. (Par [0030], “In this regard, when requesting chat services, application 112 may process, display, and/or output chat 114, which may correspond to a chat session for a dialogue between the user associated with client device 110 and an agent or chatbot using agent device 120.” And see Figures 2, 3B and 4).
Lukyanenko do not specifically discloses referring to a specific “target” recites correspondence and user associated chats.
SEO discloses the target, as recited, as follows: (Par [0011-0012], “In yet another example embodiment, the application is an instant messenger application, and each of the plurality of objects is associated with one or more of a plurality of targets, the instant messenger including a chat room list in which one or more of the plurality of targets with which the user communicates are listed.”).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art at the effective filing date to incorporate the teachings of SEO specifically requiring a specific target into the method of Lukyanenko to take advantage on obtaining respective information from plurality of targets. The modification would have been obvious because one of the ordinary skills in the art would implement having a specific user to communicate with and having information regarding the read or unread messages.
As per Claim 4, the rejection of Claim 3 is incorporated and Lukyanenko further discloses: wherein, in displaying the chat window, the summary request interface is displayed in an area that separates read messages from unread messages, and wherein the summary target message is an unread message. (Par [0030], “In this regard, when requesting chat services, application 112 may process, display, and/or output chat 114, which may correspond to a chat session for a dialogue between the user associated with client device 110 and an agent or chatbot using agent device 120.” And see Figures 2, 3B, and 4).
Lukyanenko do not specifically discloses referring to a specific “target” “read” and “unread” message, recites correspondence and user associated chats.
SEO discloses the target, as recited, as follows: (Par [0011-0012], “In yet another example embodiment, the application is an instant messenger application, and each of the plurality of objects is associated with one or more of a plurality of targets, the instant messenger including a chat room list in which one or more of the plurality of targets with which the user communicates are listed.” And par [0065], “For example, the case that the user executes the unconfirmed object (e.g., reads the unread messages sent by a particular chat counterpart) may be processed by the processing unit 213 as the user identifies unconfirmed information from the object. As another example, an “auto-confirmation processing” menu may be provided on a screen where the object list is displayed”).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art at the effective filing date to incorporate the teachings of SEO specifically requiring a specific target into the method of Lukyanenko to take advantage on obtaining respective information from plurality of targets. The modification would have been obvious because one of the ordinary skills in the art would implement having a specific user to communicate with and having information regarding the read or unread messages.
As per Claim 5, the rejection of Claim 3 is incorporated and Lukyanenko further discloses: further comprising: prior to requesting the server to summarize the summary target message, displaying a chat room list comprising the chat room, wherein, in receiving and displaying the summary information, the summary information is included in the chat room list or displayed in a form that covers at least a part of the chat room list. (Par [0064], “Keyword generation 310 may correspond to a sub-process prior to the display of summary sentences 320 shown in diagram 300b of FIG. 3B. In this regard, keywords 312 may not be visible to an agent, but instead may be processed by the summarizer and utilized for sentence scoring, ranking, and output of summary sentences 320” and see Figures 2, 3B and 4).
Lukyanenko do not specifically discloses referring to a specific “target” recites correspondence and user associated chats.
SEO discloses the target, as recited, as follows: (Par [0011-0012], “In yet another example embodiment, the application is an instant messenger application, and each of the plurality of objects is associated with one or more of a plurality of targets, the instant messenger including a chat room list in which one or more of the plurality of targets with which the user communicates are listed.”).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art at the effective filing date to incorporate the teachings of SEO specifically requiring a specific target into the method of Lukyanenko to take advantage on obtaining respective information from plurality of targets. The modification would have been obvious because one of the ordinary skills in the art would implement having a specific user to communicate with and having information regarding the read or unread messages.
As per Claim 6, the rejection of Claim 5 is incorporated and Lukyanenko further discloses: further comprising: in response to an interaction with the chat room included in the chat room list, displaying a summary request interface for the chat room, wherein, in requesting the server to summarize the summary target message, a summary request for the summary target message is generated in response to an interaction with the summary request interface. (Par [0004], par [0017], “…N may be set and/or tuned by an administrator, the live agent requesting the summary, and/or a data scientist…” Par [0024], “…system 100 may comprise a plurality of devices, servers…” and Par [0030], “In this regard, when requesting chat services, application 112 may process, display, and/or output chat 114, which may correspond to a chat session for a dialogue between the user associated with client device 110 and an agent or chatbot using agent device 120.” See Figures 1-4).
Lukyanenko do not specifically discloses referring to a specific “target” recites correspondence and user associated chats.
SEO discloses the target, as recited, as follows: (Par [0011-0012], “In yet another example embodiment, the application is an instant messenger application, and each of the plurality of objects is associated with one or more of a plurality of targets, the instant messenger including a chat room list in which one or more of the plurality of targets with which the user communicates are listed.”)
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art at the effective filing date to incorporate the teachings of SEO specifically requiring a specific target into the method of Lukyanenko to take advantage on obtaining respective information from plurality of targets. The modification would have been obvious because one of the ordinary skills in the art would implement having a specific user to communicate with and having information regarding the read or unread messages.
As per Claim 7, the rejection of Claim 5 is incorporated and Lukyanenko further discloses: wherein, in displaying the chat room list, the user terminal displays a summary request interface for the chat room in the chat room list when the chat room satisfies a predetermined condition, (Par [0017], “…N may be set and/or tuned by an administrator, the live agent requesting the summary, and/or a data scientist…” Par [0024], “…system 100 may comprise a plurality of devices, servers…” and Par [0030], “In this regard, when requesting chat services, application 112 may process, display, and/or output chat 114, which may correspond to a chat session for a dialogue between the user associated with client device 110 and an agent or chatbot using agent device 120.” See Figures 1-4) and wherein, in requesting the server to summarize the summary target message, the summary request for the summary target message is generated in response to an interaction with the summary request interface. (Paragraphs [0017], [0020], and [0030], and par [0061], “Details 206 allow further interaction and information to be displayed to the agent viewing user interface 200 to interact with chat summary window 202.” See Figures 1-4).
Lukyanenko do not specifically discloses referring to a specific “target” recites correspondence and user associated chats.
SEO discloses the target, as recited, as follows: (Par [0011-0012], “In yet another example embodiment, the application is an instant messenger application, and each of the plurality of objects is associated with one or more of a plurality of targets, the instant messenger including a chat room list in which one or more of the plurality of targets with which the user communicates are listed.” And par [0065], “For example, the case that the user executes the unconfirmed object (e.g., reads the unread messages sent by a particular chat counterpart) may be processed by the processing unit 213 as the user identifies unconfirmed information from the object. As another example, an “auto-confirmation processing” menu may be provided on a screen where the object list is displayed”).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art at the effective filing date to incorporate the teachings of SEO specifically requiring a specific target into the method of Lukyanenko to take advantage on obtaining respective information from plurality of targets. The modification would have been obvious because one of the ordinary skills in the art would implement having a specific user to communicate with and having information regarding the read or unread messages.
As per Claim 8, the rejection of Claim 7 is incorporated and Lukyanenko further discloses: wherein the predetermined condition relates to at least
one of the following: a type of the chat room, a number of unread messages among the at least one chat message, a read status of the at least one chat message, a speaker of the chat messages, contents of the at least one chat message, a reception time of the at least one chat message, and a specific user mention in the at least one chat message. (Par [0011], “When providing these chat services, dialogues, such as chats, conversations, messages, and other communications may occur over different sessions and/or time periods, and asynchronous chat sessions may cause different live agents and/or chatbots to provide assistance to users.”).
Lukyanenko do not specifically discloses referring to a specific “target” and “read” or “unread” recites correspondence and user associated chats.
SEO discloses the target, and read and unread, as recited, as follows: (Par [0011-0012], “In yet another example embodiment, the application is an instant messenger application, and each of the plurality of objects is associated with one or more of a plurality of targets, the instant messenger including a chat room list in which one or more of the plurality of targets with which the user communicates are listed.” And par [0065], “For example, the case that the user executes the unconfirmed object (e.g., reads the unread messages sent by a particular chat counterpart) may be processed by the processing unit 213 as the user identifies unconfirmed information from the object. As another example, an “auto-confirmation processing” menu may be provided on a screen where the object list is displayed”).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art at the effective filing date to incorporate the teachings of SEO specifically requiring a specific target into the method of Lukyanenko to take advantage on obtaining respective information from plurality of targets. The modification would have been obvious because one of the ordinary skills in the art would implement having a specific user to communicate with and having information regarding the read or unread messages.
As per Claim 9, the rejection of Claim 1 is incorporated and Lukyanenko further discloses: wherein requesting the server to summarize the summary target message comprises receiving selection information for selecting the summary target message among the at least one chat message. (Par [0005], “FIG. 3A-3B are exemplary diagrams of a chat dialogue having extracted keywords using unsupervised machine learning models that are used to determine a summary of the chat dialogue, according to an embodiment…” and see Figures 1-4).
Lukyanenko do not specifically discloses referring to a specific “target” recites correspondence and user associated chats.
SEO discloses the target, and read and unread, as recited, as follows: (Par [0011-0012], “In yet another example embodiment, the application is an instant messenger application, and each of the plurality of objects is associated with one or more of a plurality of targets, the instant messenger including a chat room list in which one or more of the plurality of targets with which the user communicates are listed.” And par [0065]”).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art at the effective filing date to incorporate the teachings of SEO specifically requiring a specific target into the method of Lukyanenko to take advantage on obtaining respective information from plurality of targets. The modification would have been obvious because one of the ordinary skills in the art would implement having a specific user to communicate with and having information regarding the read or unread messages.
As per Claim 10, the rejection of Claim 9 is incorporated and Lukyanenko further discloses: wherein the selection information relates to at least one of the following: a read status of at least one chat message, a speaker of the at least one chat message, a reception time of the at least one chat message, and a specific user mention in the at least one chat message. (Par [0013], “…and/or specific groups of words (e.g., for names, items, places, etc.)” and Par [0020], “The summary may select the N sentences, and provide in a user interface, window, selectable drop down or expandable menu, pop-up, or the like. When selecting sentences, utterances determined based on intents may be split so that if the messages have X sentences…” and see Figures 1-4).
As per Claim 11, the rejection of Claim 1 is incorporated and Lukyanenko further discloses: wherein the summary information comprises at least one summary item, and wherein the method further comprises: receiving an interaction with any one of the at least one summary item after receiving and displaying the summary information; and in response to the interaction, displaying a message related to the any one of the at least one summary item. (See Figures 2-4).
As per Claim 12, the rejection of Claim 1 is incorporated and Lukyanenko further discloses: wherein, in displaying a message related to the any
one of the at least one summary item, the message is displayed to be distinguishable from other messages in a chat window of the chat room. (See Figures 2-4, distinguishing summary from chats).
As per Claim 13, the rejection of Claim 1 is incorporated and Lukyanenko further discloses: wherein the summary information comprises at least one summary item categorized by a speaker of at least one chat message. (Par [0013], “ The summary may include N number of sentences based on keyword level selection and ranking, a system configuration, scoring of sentences from the dialogue using keywords, and/or a length of the dialogue.”).
As per Claim 14, the rejection of Claim 1 is incorporated and Lukyanenko further discloses: wherein, in the summary information, the speaker of
the at least one chat message is displayed with an anonymized name. (See Figures 2-3A, identified as “customer” and “agent”).
As per Claim 15, the rejection of Claim 1 is incorporated and Lukyanenko further discloses: further comprising: storing the summary information as separate storage information, after receiving and displaying the summary information; and
in response to a request to display the stored information, displaying the
summary information and information about the chat room. (Par [0054], “data generated and stored by service applications 132. Further, database 134 may include dialogues and other chat data, including text, images, audiovisual content, and the like from chat sessions. In this regard, different text from asynchronous chat sessions may be collected into a dialogue, which may be stored by database 134”).
As per Claim 16, the rejection of Claim 1 is incorporated and Lukyanenko further discloses: wherein requesting the server to summarize the summary target message is automatically performed when at least one of a chat room and the at least one chat message satisfies a predetermined condition. (Par [0050], “Chat summarization application 144 may sort the sentences in descending order and select N number of highest scored sentences for summaries 148. N may be tunable and/or may be automatically selected based on a length of the corresponding dialogue or number of asynchronous chat sessions”).
Lukyanenko do not specifically discloses referring to a specific “target” recites correspondence and user associated chats.
SEO discloses the target, and read and unread, as recited, as follows: (Par [0011-0012], “In yet another example embodiment, the application is an instant messenger application, and each of the plurality of objects is associated with one or more of a plurality of targets, the instant messenger including a chat room list in which one or more of the plurality of targets with which the user communicates are listed.” And par [0065]”).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art at the effective filing date to incorporate the teachings of SEO specifically requiring a specific target into the method of Lukyanenko to take advantage on obtaining respective information from plurality of targets. The modification would have been obvious because one of the ordinary skills in the art would implement having a specific user to communicate with and having information regarding the read or unread messages.
As per Claim 17, the rejection of Claim 16 is incorporated and Lukyanenko further discloses: wherein the predetermined condition relates to at least one of the following: a type of the chat room, a number of unread messages among the at least one chat message, a read status of the at least one chat message, a speaker of the at least one chat message, contents of the at least one chat message, a reception time of the at least one chat message, and a specific user mention in the at least one chat message. (Par [0013], “In some embodiments, the dialogue may be limited to a number or past time period (e.g., a certain amount of time in the past, such as the last day, week, month, year, etc.) so as to limit the amount of asynchronous chat sessions in the dialogue. The summary may include N number of sentences based on keyword level selection and ranking, a system configuration, scoring of sentences from the dialogue using keywords, and/or a length of the dialogue.” And see Figures 2-3A)
Lukyanenko do not specifically discloses referring to a specific “target” and “read” or “unread” recites correspondence and user associated chats.
SEO discloses the target, and read and unread, as recited, as follows: (Par [0011-0012], “In yet another example embodiment, the application is an instant messenger application, and each of the plurality of objects is associated with one or more of a plurality of targets, the instant messenger including a chat room list in which one or more of the plurality of targets with which the user communicates are listed.” And par [0065], “For example, the case that the user executes the unconfirmed object (e.g., reads the unread messages sent by a particular chat counterpart) may be processed by the processing unit 213 as the user identifies unconfirmed information from the object. As another example, an “auto-confirmation processing” menu may be provided on a screen where the object list is displayed”).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art at the effective filing date to incorporate the teachings of SEO specifically requiring a specific target into the method of Lukyanenko to take advantage on obtaining respective information from plurality of targets. The modification would have been obvious because one of the ordinary skills in the art would implement having a specific user to communicate with and having information regarding the read or unread messages.
As per Claim 18, the rejection of Claim 1 is incorporated and Lukyanenko further discloses: wherein when the summary target message comprises
a predetermined type of message, the summary information comprises details about the predetermined type of message. (Par [0013-0014], “which may utilize an intent prediction model. This may include filtering messages for greetings and/or approvals (e.g., those by live agents that may be recognized using intent prediction), filtering salutations, and/or other possible informational noise. Thus, when filtering the conversation in the dialogue, the dialogue may be split based on messages and the predicted intent of each message.” And see Figures 1-3B).
Lukyanenko do not specifically discloses referring to a specific “target” recites correspondence and user associated chats.
SEO discloses the target, and read and unread, as recited, as follows: (Par [0011-0012], “In yet another example embodiment, the application is an instant messenger application, and each of the plurality of objects is associated with one or more of a plurality of targets, the instant messenger including a chat room list in which one or more of the plurality of targets with which the user communicates are listed.” And par [0065]”).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art at the effective filing date to incorporate the teachings of SEO specifically requiring a specific target into the method of Lukyanenko to take advantage on obtaining respective information from plurality of targets. The modification would have been obvious because one of the ordinary skills in the art would implement having a specific user to communicate with and having information regarding the read or unread messages.
As per Claim 19, being the terminal claim corresponding to the method claim 1 respectively and rejected under the same reason set forth in connection of the rejections of Claim 1 and further Lukyanenko discloses: (Figures 1-2).
As per Claim 20, Lukyanenko discloses:
A method for providing a summary of chat messages by a server, the method comprising: providing information about a chat room comprising at least one chat message to a user terminal; (Par [0024], “As shown, system 100 may comprise a plurality of devices, servers…” and see Figures 1-4).receiving a summary request for a summary target message, which is at least a part of the chat messages, from the user terminal; (Paragraphs [0017], [0020], and [0030], and par [0061, “Details 206 allow further interaction and information to be displayed to the agent viewing user interface 200 to interact with chat summary window 202.” See Figures 1-4) generating summary information about the summary target message; (Par [0030], “…Service provider server 130 may collect chat 114 with other chats, communications, or conversations into a dialogue, and may process to generate a summary, as discussed herein…”) and providing the summary information to the user terminal. (Par [0035], “…to provide a convenient interface to permit a user for agent device 120 (e.g., a live agent, although chatbots may also converse with client device 110) to utilize live services of service provider server 130 to communicate with the user of client device 110…” and see Figures 1-4).
Lukyanenko do not specifically discloses referring to a specific “target” recites correspondence and user associated chats.
SEO discloses the target, and read and unread, as recited, as follows: (Par [0011-0012], “In yet another example embodiment, the application is an instant messenger application, and each of the plurality of objects is associated with one or more of a plurality of targets, the instant messenger including a chat room list in which one or more of the plurality of targets with which the user communicates are listed.” And par [0065]”).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art at the effective filing date to incorporate the teachings of SEO specifically requiring a specific target into the method of Lukyanenko to take advantage on obtaining respective information from plurality of targets. The modification would have been obvious because one of the ordinary skills in the art would implement having a specific user to communicate with and having information regarding the read or unread messages.
Conclusion
10. The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant’s disclosure.
KIM; Si On (US-20210218694-A1) relates to display a plurality of messenger applications on one screen in a list form, thus to reduce unnecessary access operations, and integrally manage data on the chats.
HAN; Jongwoo (US-20200059548-A1), relates to generate and display summary information of numerous chats, thereby providing an environment for easily searching for required information, to a user.
KIM; Keumryong (US-20230031018-A1), relates to entering the chat room before receiving the new message, and in response to a dynamic change of the user terminal, after displaying the new message on the display, being not detected, maintaining the new message as an unread message.
Xu; Jing James (US-20230049085-A1), relates to the illustrative embodiments also provide for evaluating conversation data to construct social network information and automatically assign roles to users and provide a summary that displays these roles, allowing a user to identify otherwise ambiguous roles in creating the conversation data.
11. Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ANGELICA RUIZ whose telephone number is (571)270-3158. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 10:00 am to 6:00 pm.
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, Boris Gorney can be reached at (571) 270-5626. 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.
/ANGELICA RUIZ/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2154 January 24, 2026