DETAILED ACTION
This Office Action is in response to application 18/924444 filed on 10/23/2024. Claims 1-20 are pending.
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 .
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 10/23/2024 has been acknowledged and is being considered by the examiner.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 1-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Claims 1, 2, 4, 16, 17, include wording that is unclear. Specifically, claim 1 recites “a corresponding chatroom for each chatroom” and then later recites “the chatroom.” The later recitation of “the chatroom” can refer to either the “corresponding chatroom” or the “each chatroom” that was previously mentioned. The examiner suggests amending the claims to say either “a corresponding chatroom for one or more chatrooms” or “a corresponding chatroom for each of a plurality of chatrooms” and then further specifying which chatroom the user is attempting to enter, either the “corresponding chatroom” or the “one or more” or “plurality of chatrooms.”
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 1-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
The claims recite generating message summaries from chatroom messages and displaying those summaries differently depending on a user’s message read status, together with related steps such as selecting messages, setting thresholds or cycles for summary generation, modifying order of messages based on relationships, using meta information, classifying users (target vs general) based on unread counts or last visit time, highlighting summaries for certain users, generating recommendation content, and matching summaries to user tags of interest. The essence of the claimed subject matter is collecting and analyzing information (chat messages and associated metadata) and presenting results (summaries, highlighted displays, recommendations) tailored to a user’s status or preferences. Under the broadest reasonable interpretation, these activities are abstract because they fall squarely within the courts’ and USPTO’s categories of (i) mental processes (e.g., reading messages, summarizing content, deciding presentation based on read-status), and (ii) methods of organizing human activity / information processing — namely, collecting, analyzing, selecting, and presenting information.
Individually, several claim limitations, absent the recitation of generic computer components, cover processes that can be performed mentally or by human decision. For example:
“Generating a message summary using at least one message included in a corresponding chatroom” — under its broadest reasonable interpretation, merely encompasses a human reading messages and preparing a short summary.
“Determining the chatroom as a chatroom subject to summary when a number of messages … is greater than or equal to a threshold” — encompasses simple counting and comparison that a person can perform mentally or with pen and paper.
“Selecting messages … as messages subject to summary” and “modifying an order of the messages … based on relationships between the messages” — encompass human selection and reordering based on perceived relevance or reply relationships.
“Classifying the user as a target user or a general user based on … a number of unread messages or a last visit time” — is a straightforward application of rules that a human moderator could apply.
“Displaying the message summary through a different interface depending on a message read status” and “highlighting and displaying the message summary for the target user” — are forms of presenting information differently depending on status.
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application because the claims add only conventional computer components (e.g., “computer device,” “by the at least one processor,” “memory,” “computer-readable medium”) and high-level functional language describing generic computation and display. The processor, memory and generic computer device are recited at a high level of generality and perform routine data processing/display functions. Nothing in the claims recites a specific, unconventional computer implementation (e.g., a specialized data structure, a novel network protocol, a non-trivial improvement in computing performance, latency reduction, reduced bandwidth consumption demonstrated by specific limiting steps, or other technical solutions to a technical problem) that meaningfully limits the abstract idea. Because the additional elements are recited only at a high level of generality and do not impose meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea, they do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application.
The claims do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. As discussed above, the only additional elements are generic computer hardware and routine implementation steps for executing the abstract idea on a computer. Mere instructions to perform the abstract idea on a generic computer — for example, “generate the summary by the processor” and “display the summary” — do not supply an inventive concept. The claimed combination of data collection, selection, simple rule-based determination (thresholds, cycles), ordering, classification, and presentation, implemented with conventional computing components, is well within routine, conventional computer activity and therefore cannot render the claims patent eligible.
Accordingly, claims 1–20 are directed to an abstract idea and, for the reasons stated above, do not recite additional elements that transform the abstract idea into patent eligible subject matter. Therefore, claims 1–20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 as being directed to non-statutory subject matter.
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 1, 2, 4, 9-11, 13-17, 19, 20, are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Oh et al. (US 2025/0126086) in view of Lovitt et al. (US 2024/0297863).
Regarding claim 1, Oh disclosed:
A message summary providing method executed by a computer device (Figure 1, server 20) including at least one processor (Figure 1, processor 21) configured to execute computer-readable instructions included in a memory (Figure 1, memory 22), the message summary providing method comprising (Paragraph 7, receiving information about a chat room comprising at least one chat message and requesting the server summarize a target message and display the summary):
generating, by the at least one processor, a message summary using at least one message included in a corresponding chatroom for each chatroom (Paragraphs 81-82, the user requests the server to summarize a summary target message which is at least part of the at least one chat message. The user specifies a chat room and requests the summary where the summary request interface is displayed corresponding to the specific chat room. Figure 4, showing a plurality of chat rooms); and
displaying, by the at least one processor, the message summary through a different interface (Figure 7, 720) depending on a message read status (Paragraph 131, unread status) of a user (Paragraph 131, Figures 6-7, showing that the chats Nationwide Branches TF and Peter both have unread messages. Allowing the user to initiate a summary of the unread messages that opens in another interface, see Figure 7, 720).
While Oh discloses a user entering a chat room (Paragraph 77, user entering the chatroom and displaying at least one chat message), Oh did not explicitly disclose that the message summary is displayed when a user requests entry into the chatroom.
However, in an analogous art, Lovitt disclosed the message summary is displayed when a user requests entry into the chatroom (Abstract, Paragraph 11, to allow an additional user to more easily join and participate in an ongoing conversation, when the communication system determines a client device of the additional user satisfies one or more conditions for joining the conversation, the system generates a summary of the conversation that is transmitted to the client device for presentation to the additional user. The summary includes audio or text that describes topics or subjects address by messages exchanged in conversation before the additional user joined the conversation).
One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to combine the teachings of Oh with Lovitt because the references involve summarizing chat rooms for users, and as such, are within the same environment.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate the summary when a user requests entry of Lovitt with the teachings of Oh in order to allow a user to more easily join and participate in an ongoing conversation (Lovitt, Paragraph 11).
Regarding claims 15, 16, the claims are substantially similar to claim 1. Claim 15 recites a non-transitory computer readable record medium (Oh, Paragraph 52, storage medium). Therefore, the claims are rejected under the same rationale.
Regarding claims 2, 17, the limitations of claims 1, 16, have been addressed. Oh and Lovitt disclosed:
further comprising: determining a message summary generation status according to a condition related to a message of the chatroom for each chatroom (Oh, Paragraph 85, the summary target message is determined based on the number of unread messages (i.e., condition related to the message) and if they exceed a predetermined value (e.g., 20). Figure 6, showing a plurality of chatrooms with the ability to generate a summary).
Regarding claim 4, the limitations of claim 2 have been addressed. Oh and Lovitt disclosed:
wherein the determining the message summary generation status comprises: setting a cycle or a time for determining the condition and the message summary generation status based on traffic analysis results of the chatroom for each chatroom (Oh, Paragraph 112, based on predetermined conditions, the user terminal can display a summary request interface for the chat room. Paragraph 113, among predetermined conditions, the number of unread messages corresponds to a number of unread messages equal to or greater than a predetermined value (i.e., cycle)).
Regarding claim 9, the limitations of claim 1 have been addressed. Oh and Lovitt disclosed:
wherein the displaying the message summary comprises: classifying the user as a target user or a general user based on a condition associated with at least one of a number of unread messages or a last visit time in the chatroom (Oh, Paragraph 23, the predetermined condition includes a number of unread messages among the at least one chat message and a specific user mention in the chat message (i.e., target user)).
Regarding claim 10, the limitations of claim 9 have been addressed. Oh and Lovitt disclosed:
wherein the displaying the message summary further comprises: highlighting and displaying the message summary for the target user through an interface different from that of the general user (Oh, Figure 11, 1122, showing that messages from specific users (i.e., target user) can be summarized with Figure 13 showing the summary interface).
Regarding claim 11, the limitations of claim 1 have been addressed. Oh and Lovitt disclosed:
wherein the displaying the message summary comprises: generating summary content that summarizes at least one message included in the chatroom and a main keyword that represents the summary content (Oh, Paragraph 183, the user is able to set a specific keyword through the content specifying interface for summary generation).
Regarding claims 13, 20, the limitations of claims 1, 16, have been addressed. Oh and Lovitt disclosed:
further comprising: generating, by the at least one processor, at least one of the message summary or recommendation content related to the message summary for the chatroom as content that introduces the chatroom (Oh, Paragraphs 138-140, Figure 8, showing a user has read up to a certain point of the chat and that the summary can contain only messages after that point).
Regarding claim 14, the limitations of claim 1 have been addressed. Oh and Lovitt disclosed:
wherein the generating the message summary comprises: generating, by the at least one processor, the message summary such that the message summary matches a tag of interest of the user among message summaries generated based on the chatroom as a personal recommendation feed of the user (Oh, Paragraphs 22-23, requesting the server to summarize the target messages is automatically performed when the chat room and the chat message satisfies a predetermined condition. This predetermined condition can include if a specific user is mentioned in the chat messages (i.e., tag of interest). Figure 9 showing the summary shown to the user (i.e., personal recommendation feed)).
Regarding claim 19, the limitations of claim 16 have been addressed. Oh and Lovitt disclosed:
wherein the at least one processor is configured to cause the computer device to, classify the user as a target user or a general user based on a condition for at least one of a number of unread messages and a last visit time in the chatroom, and highlight and display the message summary for the target user through an interface different from that of the general user (Oh, Paragraph 23, the predetermined condition includes a number of unread messages among the at least one chat message and a specific user mention in the chat message (i.e., target user). Figure 11, 1122, showing that messages from specific users (i.e., target user) can be summarized with Figure 13 showing the summary interface).
Claims 3, 5-8, 18, are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Oh et al. (US 2025/0126086) in view of Lovitt et al. (US 2024/0297863) in view of Haeupler (US 2016/0028679).
Regarding claim 3, the limitations of claim 1 have been addressed. Oh and Lovitt did not explicitly disclose:
wherein the determining the message summary generation status comprises: determining the chatroom as a chatroom subject to summary when a number of messages exchanged through the chatroom after a previous message summary is greater than or equal to a threshold.
However, in an analogous art, Haeupler disclosed wherein the determining the message summary generation status comprises: determining the chatroom as a chatroom subject to summary when a number of messages exchanged through the chatroom after a previous message summary is greater than or equal to a threshold (Paragraph 3, in a conversation between two computing devices over a communication channel, after an agreed upon threshold of messages have been sent and received, each device transmits a summary of its current transcript. If there are no errors, the devices continue with the conversation until the threshold number of messages is reached again and another check for correctness is performed by having another summary generation. Paragraph 19, the exchanged summaries can include all messages exchanged since a previous summary was last exchanged or may only include the most recently exchanged messages).
One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to combine the teachings of Oh and Lovitt with Haeupler because the references involve summarizing chats for users, and as such, are within the same environment.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate the summary when over a threshold of Haeupler with the teachings of Oh and Lovitt in order reduce overhead due to summaries (Haeupler, Paragraph 19).
Regarding claim 5, the limitations of claim 1 have been addressed. Oh and Lovitt disclosed:
wherein the generating the message summary comprises: selecting messages exchanged through the chatroom (Oh, Paragraph 87, the user may select a range of summary target messages by specifying the starting and ending messages in the chat messages displayed).
Oh and Lovitt did not explicitly disclose after a previous message summary as messages subject to summary.
However, in an analogous art, Haeupler disclosed after a previous message summary as messages subject to summary (Paragraph 3, the devices continue with the conversation until the threshold number of messages is reached again and another check for correctness is performed by having another summary generation).
For motivation, please refer to claim 3.
Regarding claim 6, the limitations of claim 1 have been addressed. Oh and Lovitt disclosed:
wherein the generating the message summary comprises: selecting a message corresponding to a text type among messages exchanged through the chatroom (Oh, Paragraph 88, the predetermined condition can be a type of the chatroom).
Oh and Lovitt did not explicitly disclose after a previous message summary as a message subject to summary.
However, in an analogous art, Haeupler disclosed after a previous message summary as a message subject to summary (Paragraph 3, the devices continue with the conversation until the threshold number of messages is reached again and another check for correctness is performed by having another summary generation).
For motivation, please refer to claim 3.
Regarding claim 7, the limitations of claim 5 have been addressed. Oh, Lovitt, and Haeupler disclosed:
wherein the generating the message summary comprises: modifying an order of the messages subject to summary based on relationships between the messages (Haeupler, Paragraph 37, the transcript that is used for summary generation orders the messages based on the time associated with each message).
For motivation, please refer to claim 3.
Regarding claim 8, the limitations of claim 5 have been addressed. Oh, Lovitt, and Haeupler disclosed:
wherein the generating the message summary further comprises: generating the message summary based on meta information associated with the chatroom with the messages subject to summary, the meta information including at least one of a title, a description, a topic, or a category of the chatroom (Oh, Paragraph 23, the predetermined condition includes a type of the chatroom).
Regarding claim 18, the limitations of claim 16 have been addressed. Oh and Lovitt disclosed:
select messages exchanged through the chatroom (Oh, Paragraph 87, the user may select a range of summary target messages by specifying the starting and ending messages in the chat messages displayed); and
generate the message summary using meta information of the chatroom with the messages subject to summary (Oh, Paragraph 23, the predetermined condition includes a type of the chatroom (i.e., meta information)).
Oh and Lovitt did not explicitly disclose after a previous message summary as messages subject to summary and modify an order of the messages subject to summary based on relationships between the messages.
However, in an analogous art, Haeupler disclosed after a previous message summary as messages subject to summary (Paragraph 3, the devices continue with the conversation until the threshold number of messages is reached again and another check for correctness is performed by having another summary generation); and
modify an order of the messages subject to summary based on relationships between the messages (Paragraph 37, the transcript that is used for summary generation orders the messages based on the time associated with each message).
For motivation, please refer to claim 3.
Claim 12 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Oh et al. (US 2025/0126086) in view of Lovitt et al. (US 2024/0297863) in view of Lee et al. (US 2021/0297371).
Regarding claim 12, the limitations of claim 1 have been addressed. Oh and Lovitt did not explicitly disclose:
further comprising: generating, by the at least one processor, recommendation content related to the message summary for the message summary.
However, in an analogous art, Lee disclosed further comprising: generating, by the at least one processor, recommendation content related to the message summary for the message summary (Paragraph 42, the user device displays summary information. Paragraph 46, when the user device returns to the chatroom, recommended content related to the content from the content providing server is displayed).
One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to combine the teachings of Oh and Lovitt with Lee because the references involve summarizing chats for users, and as such, are within the same environment.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate the recommendation content of Lee with the teachings of Oh and Lovitt in order to omit a separate process where the user performs their own separate search through a search site (Lee, Paragraph 108).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Steven C. Nguyen whose telephone number is (571)270-5663. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 7AM - 3PM and alternatively, through e-mail at Steven.Nguyen2@USPTO.gov.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Christopher Parry can be reached at 571-272-8328. 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.C.N/Examiner, Art Unit 2451
/Chris Parry/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2451