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 .
Response to Remarks
This communication is considered fully responsive to the Amendment filed on 08/13/26.
Double patenting rejection withdrawn since terminal disclaimer approved (see DIST 8/13/26 & DISQ 8/24/26).
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 08/13/26 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
1] applicant argues (summary Remarks 8/13/26, pg 6-7)(emphasis added)
...
Original independent claim 1 recites:
"modifying, by one or more processors, a display attribute of textual content based on a quantity of users in a set of users from which a request to preserve one or more content items was received;
and
incrementing a displayed value each time a request to preserve the one or more content items is received from the set of users."
The present specification explains the recited relationship at paragraph [0024] by stating that "all message entries will be deleted after the transitory display parameter time expires and therefore message entries are transitory, unless an individual opts-in for message entry permanence" and provides an example at paragraph [0027] that "[i]f the recipient does not provide an indication to save the entry, then the indicia of the entry on the sending side thread will be altered to indicate that only one of the two parties (the sender) has saved the entry. If the recipient provides an indication to save the entry, then the indicia of the entry on the sending side and the receiving side is altered to indicate that both of the parties have saved the entry."
In rejecting original claim 1, the Examiner cited FIGS. 1-10 and paragraphs [0026], [0027], [0030]-[0033], and [0035] of Rubinstein for the claim element "modifying, by one or more processors, a display attribute of textual content based on a quantity of users in a set of users from which a request to preserve one or more content items was received" and FIGS. 1-10 and paragraphs [0024], [0037]-[0039], and [0142] of Halliday for the claim element "incrementing a displayed value each time a request to preserve the one or more content items is received from the set of users." Applicant respectfully disagrees.
At best, Rubinstein describes, at paragraph [0026], that "[t]he ephemeral variable may be a time duration" or "an interaction count." Rubinstein describes, at paragraph [0027], that "[i]nteraction counts can be based on a variety of interactions such as user clicks, views, shares, comments, promoting a post, forwarding, 'likes', and etc." and "by associating one or more ephemeral variables to a post, the user controls availability of his/her posted post on a social networking system."
These passages merely describe interaction counts, expiration thresholds, and control over the availability or duration of a post. Notably, the interactions enumerated in paragraph [0027] clicks, views, shares, comments, promotions, forwards, and likes-do not include any act of saving or preserving a post, and Rubinstein discloses no such act elsewhere in the reference; the reference's general "etc." does not supply the missing disclosure of a specific, unstated interaction type. However, they do not describe "modifying, by one or more processors, a display attribute of textual content based on a quantity of users in a set of users from which a request to preserve one or more content items was received, as recited in the original claim 1. ( emphases added)
...
The examiner respectfully disagrees.
Rubenstein [0026] further discloses that the ephemeral variable may be an interaction count (modifying, by one or more processors, a display attribute of textual content based on a quantity of users in a set of users ...) in another embodiment, indicating an intent to have the post expire after the post is viewed, commented on, liked, etc (... from which a request to preserve one or more content items was received).
Therefore, the prior art rejection is maintained.
2] applicant argues (summary Remarks 8/13/26, pg 8-9)(emphasis added)
...
Halliday cannot cure the deficiencies of Rubinstein. Halliday does not describe selection of its like button as a request to preserve a content item. Instead, Halliday states, at paragraph [0024 ], that the number of responses or comments indicates "the popularity of that post and how much activity it has generated." Halliday also states, at paragraph [0142], that its system is "a curated streamer" in which "well-liked content stays around, and dis-liked content disappears quickly." The fact that Halliday's system assigns a duration-related effect to a like does not transform the like itself into a request to preserve the post. As explained above, the present specification defines a request to preserve as an affirmative, content-specific opt-in for permanence, not a general indication of engagement or popularity; a like, by contrast, reflects only aggregate audience reaction untethered to any individual content item's permanence.
Accordingly, Halliday does not disclose "incrementing a displayed value each time a request to preserve the one or more content items is received from the set of users" or "modifying, by one or more processors, a display attribute of textual content based on a quantity of users in a set of users from which a request to preserve one or more content items was received."
...
The examiner respectfully disagrees.
Specifically, per office action (5/13/26 non-final, pg 10-11) Halliday discloses computing system of the present disclosure provides users with a "like" action on a post, a message posted in the system and viewer(s) of the post may optionally activate the "like" action to increase (incrementing) the count of likes of the post by different users (incrementing a displayed value ...) [0037] .... likes given (incrementing a displayed value (of likes) ...) by different users to a post (... each time ... is received from the set of users) extend viewable range and duration of the post (incrementing a displayed value each time a request to preserve the one or more content items is received from the set of users) (Halliday: [0038])
More completely, per office action (5/13/26 non-final, pg 9-11):
Rubinstein did not explicitly disclose incrementing a displayed value each time a request to preserve the one or more content items is received from the set of users (emphasis added).
Specifically, Rubinstein discloses interaction counts as a displayed value each time a request to preserve the one or more content items is received from the set of users (emphasis added) (Rubinstein: fig 1-10, [0004-62]: fig 3 & 5 ... …. If collected data shows that more users select the maximum interaction count allowed, the system may make the maximum interaction count higher in the future (i.e. incrementing) [0032] ... … a third party may be interested in sponsoring a modification of a counting ephemeral variable associated with certain ephemeral posts, for example, a studio may be willing to ask a user (... is received from the set of users) to extend duration of ephemeral post if the post contains a favorable view of a TV show the studio is trying to promote, the user accepting a suggested revision of the ephemeral variable and associated threshold event (incrementing a displayed value each time a request to preserve the one or more content items ...) [0033]).
Nonetheless, Rubinstein did not explicitly disclose incrementing a displayed value each time a request to preserve the one or more content items is received from the set of users (emphasis added).
For clarity, Halliday discloses incrementing a displayed value each time a request to preserve the one or more content items is received from the set of users (emphasis added) (Halliday: fig 1-10, [0005-186]: fig 1-5 & 7-8 ... the computing system of the present disclosure provides users with a "like" action on a post, a message posted in the system and viewer(s) of the post may optionally activate the "like" action to increase (increment) the count of likes of the post by different users (incrementing a displayed value ...) [0037] .... likes given by different users to a post extend viewable range and duration of the post (i.e. “likes” act as request to preserve post(s) thus - ... each time a request to preserve the one or more content items is received from the set of users) [0038] ... for example, posts with many likes from one campus can grow in viewable range across the country and persist (preserve) for up to predetermined number of days e.g., 10 days (see with [0037-38] above - incrementing a displayed value each time a request to preserve the one or more content items is received from the set of users) [0039] ... the computing system is configured to display the number of responses/comments to a post to any user of the system, as an indication of the popularity of that post and how much activity it has generated (see with [0037-39] above - incrementing a displayed value each time a request to preserve the one or more content items is received from the set of users) [0024] ... lots of likes on a "No Limit" post can keep (persist) the post stay around for up to 10 days in the Most Liked sort of the streamer, and expand in viewable range across the country (see with [0037-39] above - incrementing a displayed value each time a request to preserve the one or more content items is received from the set of users) [0142]).
Therefore, the prior art rejection is maintained.
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.
Claims 1 and 19-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over U.S. Patent Publication No. 2014/0282096 to Rubinstein et al. (“Rubinstein”) [IDS 12/20/24] in view of U.S. Patent Publication No. 2015/0058957 to Halliday et al. (“Halliday”).
As to claim 1, Rubinstein discloses a method (Rubinstein: fig 1-10) comprising:
modifying, by one or more processors (Rubinstein: fig 10, [0063-73]: microprocessor(s) 1005 memory 1010 ... computer-implemented methods may be carried out in a computer system or other data processing system in response to its processor or processing system executing sequences of instructions contained in a memory [0071]), a display attribute of textual content based on a quantity of users in a set of users from which a request to preserve one or more content items was received (Rubinstein: fig 1-10, [0004-62]: fig 3 & 5 … the ephemeral variable may be a time duration or interaction count indicating an intent to block the post from being viewed i.e. expired after the post is viewed, commented on, liked etc (modifying a display attribute of textual content based on a quantity of users in a set of users from which a request to preserve one or more content items was received) and, alternatively, a user may indicate that a post is to expire if the post is not viewed, commented on, liked etc for the specified number of times (modifying a display attribute of textual content based on a quantity of users in a set of users from which a request to preserve one or more content items was received) [0026] and the ephemeral variable may be a combination of both time duration and interaction counts and the threshold event is that a time duration and/or interaction count reaches the defined setting(s) … the number of selections of ephemeral variables and combinations/permutation of ephemeral variables containing a threshold event is nearly limitless and the principle is simple: by associating one or more ephemeral variables to a post, a user controls availability of his/her post (modifying a display attribute of textual content based on a quantity of users in a set of users from which a request to preserve one or more content items was received) [0027] … the levels of blocking may be numerous, for example, an expired ephemeral post may be moved to a less visible place or only searchable for certain group of users [0030] … blocking may not be permanent and a viewer may ask the user to revive the expired ephemeral post under certain circumstances … an ephemeral post may become a regular post after certain event, for example, user may specify an ephemeral post to be converted to a regular post if it receives a number of interaction data (modifying a display attribute of textual content based on a quantity of users in a set of users from which a request to preserve one or more content items was received) [0031] …. If collected data shows that more users select the maximum interaction count allowed, the system may make the maximum interaction count higher in the future (modifying a display attribute of textual content based on a quantity of users in a set of users from which a request to preserve one or more content items was received) [0032] … a third party may be interested in sponsoring a modification of a counting ephemeral variable associated with certain ephemeral posts, for example, a studio may be willing to ask a user to extend duration of ephemeral post if the post contains a favorable view of a TV show the studio is trying to promote, the user accepting a suggested revision of the ephemeral variable and associated threshold event (see with [0026-27;30-32] above - modifying a display attribute of textual content based on a quantity of users in a set of users from which a request to preserve one or more content items was received) [0033] … interaction counts can be based on a variety of interactions such as user clicks, views, shares, comments, promoting a post, forwarding, likes etc and, additionally, starting counting time for any type of ephemeral variables may be delayed by a selectable amount of time (see with [0026-27;30-33] - modifying a display attribute of textual content based on a quantity of users in a set of users from which a request to preserve one or more content items was received) [0035])).
Rubinstein did not explicitly disclose incrementing a displayed value each time a request to preserve the one or more content items is received from the set of users (emphasis added).
Specifically, Rubinstein discloses interaction counts as a displayed value each time a request to preserve the one or more content items is received from the set of users (emphasis added) (Rubinstein: fig 1-10, [0004-62]: fig 3 & 5 ... …. If collected data shows that more users select the maximum interaction count allowed, the system may make the maximum interaction count higher in the future (i.e. incrementing) [0032] ... … a third party may be interested in sponsoring a modification of a counting ephemeral variable associated with certain ephemeral posts, for example, a studio may be willing to ask a user (... is received from the set of users) to extend duration of ephemeral post if the post contains a favorable view of a TV show the studio is trying to promote, the user accepting a suggested revision of the ephemeral variable and associated threshold event (incrementing a displayed value each time a request to preserve the one or more content items ...) [0033]).
Nonetheless, Rubinstein did not explicitly disclose incrementing a displayed value each time a request to preserve the one or more content items is received from the set of users (emphasis added).
For clarity, Halliday discloses incrementing a displayed value each time a request to preserve the one or more content items is received from the set of users (emphasis added) (Halliday: fig 1-10, [0005-186]: fig 1-5 & 7-8 ... the computing system of the present disclosure provides users with a "like" action on a post, a message posted in the system and viewer(s) of the post may optionally activate the "like" action to increase (increment) the count of likes of the post by different users (incrementing a displayed value ...) [0037] .... likes given by different users to a post extend viewable range and duration of the post (i.e. “likes” act as request to preserve post(s) thus - ... each time a request to preserve the one or more content items is received from the set of users) [0038] ... for example, posts with many likes from one campus can grow in viewable range across the country and persist (preserve) for up to predetermined number of days e.g., 10 days (see with [0037-38] above - incrementing a displayed value each time a request to preserve the one or more content items is received from the set of users) [0039] ... the computing system is configured to display the number of responses/comments to a post to any user of the system, as an indication of the popularity of that post and how much activity it has generated (see with [0037-39] above - incrementing a displayed value each time a request to preserve the one or more content items is received from the set of users) [0024] ... lots of likes on a "No Limit" post can keep (persist) the post stay around for up to 10 days in the Most Liked sort of the streamer, and expand in viewable range across the country (see with [0037-39] above - incrementing a displayed value each time a request to preserve the one or more content items is received from the set of users) [0142]).
Rubinstein and Halliday are analogous art because they are from the same field of endeavor with respect to social networking.
Before the effective filing date, for AIA , it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to incorporate the strategies by Halliday into the method by Rubinstein. The suggestion/motivation would have been to provide control of access to messages provided in a system for social networking (Halliday: [0002]).
Furthermore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to increment (or decrement) displayed count values by Rubinstein and Halliday each time a request to preserve the one or more content items is received from the set of users since increasing count values leads to a predictable result of incrementing count values to track changing count values being used to persist posts (see Halliday [0037-39;142] above). See KSR v. Teleflex, 550 U.S., 127 S. Ct. 1727 (2007) ("Common sense teaches, however, that familiar items may have obvious uses beyond their primary purposes, and in many cases a person of ordinary skill will be able to fit the teachings of multiple patents together like pieces of a puzzle...When there is a design need or market pressure to solve a problem and there are a finite number of identified, predictable solutions, a person of ordinary skill has good reason to pursue the known options within his or her technical grasp. If this leads to the anticipated success, it is likely the product not of innovation but of ordinary skill and common sense.").
As to claims 19 and 20, see similar rejection to claim 1 where the system and the medium, respectively, is/are taught by the method.
Claims 2, 4-10, 15 and 18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over U.S. Patent Publication No. 2014/0282096 to Rubinstein et al. (“Rubinstein”) [IDS 12/20/24] in view of U.S. Patent Publication No. 2015/0058957 to Halliday et al. (“Halliday”) and further in view of U.S. Patent Publication No. 2002/0026487 A1 to Ogilvie et al. (“Ogilvie”) [IDS 12/20/24].
As to claim 2, Rubinstein and Halliday disclose the method of claim 1.
For motivation, see rejection of claim 1.
Rubinstein did not explicitly disclose receiving, from a first device, the one or more content items exchanged in a communication session, the textual content being displayed by the first device according to a given display attribute, wherein as a result of modifying the display attribute, the textual content being displayed by the first device changes from being displayed according to the given display attribute to being displayed according to a different display attribute.
Ogilvie discloses receiving, from a first device, the one or more content items exchanged in a communication session, the textual content being displayed by the first device according to a given display attribute (Ogilvie: fig 1-3, [0011-108]: fig 2 … methods associated message content 212 with self-removal enhancements such as one or more self-removal message indicators 210 … performed by placing one or more removal indicators 210 in the message e.g. in header or subject line (… textual content of the message being displayed by the first client device according to a given display attribute) with content 212 (receiving, from a first client device, a message exchanged in a communication session …) … in alternative … association may be made by sending message contents 212 in one partial transmission 218 to recipient and sending self-removal enhancement in separate partial transmission 218 before or after content 212 is sent (receiving, from a first client device, a message exchanged in a communication session …) and ensuring enhancement portion permits identification of intended content 212 … instruction indicates any subsequent message subject to automatic removal … and recipient warned of this when such message is opened (… textual content of the message being displayed by the first client device according to a given display attribute) [0079-80] fig 3 … four sample categories 210 which control automatic message 206 removal according to whether message has been opened by recipient 202 … for instance, indicator 300 may specify that the message is to be deleted automatically by removal code 208 from each recipient’s mailbox/inbox within one to seven days of when recipient 202 opens the message 206 to read it (see with [0079] above - receiving, from a first client device, a message exchanged in a communication session, textual content of the message being displayed by the first client device according to a given display attribute …) … indicator 302 may specify message 206 is to be deleted automatically by removal code 208 from each recipient’s mailbox/inbox on Dec 31, 2001 (see with [0079] above - receiving, from a first client device, a message exchanged in a communication session, textual content of the message being displayed by the first client device according to a given another display attribute …) … a third category of indicators 304 include indicators 210 which control automatic message 206 removal according to conditions involving a replacement message replacing a prior message so prior message is deleted (see with [0079] above - receiving, from a first client device, a message exchanged in a communication session, textual content of the message being displayed by the first client device according to a given yet another display attribute …) [0072-74] …),
wherein as a result of modifying the display attribute, the textual content being displayed by the first device changes from being displayed according to the given display attribute to being displayed according to a different display attribute Ogilvie: fig 1-3, [0011-108]: fig 3 … a third category of indicators 304 include indicators 210 which control automatic message 206 removal according to conditions involving a replacement message replacing a prior message so prior message is deleted (see with [0079] above - wherein as a result of modifying the display attribute, the textual content of the message being displayed by the first client device changes from being displayed according to the given display attribute …) … for instance, indicator 304 specifies message 206 is to be deleted automatically by removal code 208 from recipient’s mailbox/inbox after recipient receives next message with “update’ in subject (see with [0079] above - … the textual content of the message being displayed by the first client device changes from being displayed according to the given display attribute to being displayed according to a different display attribute) [0074]).
Rubinstein, Halliday and Ogilvie are analogous art because they are from the same field of endeavor with respect to targeted transmission mechanisms.
Before the effective filing date, for AIA , it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to incorporate the strategies by Ogilvie into the method by Rubinstein and Halliday. The suggestion/motivation would have been to provide increased convenience to recipients through automatic removal of messages (Ogilvie: [0071]).
As to claim 4, Rubinstein, Halliday and Ogilvie disclose receiving from the first device the request to preserve the one or more content items (Ogilvie: fig 1-3, [0011-108]: fig 2 … the displaying step 232 may limit message contents 212 … may disable screen save, may overwrite message contents shortly after display, may give recipient 202 option of overriding some or all of these default settings (receiving from the first client device the request to preserve the one or more content items) … recipient may be warned message is subject to removal [0060]),
wherein the request to preserve the one or more content items is received from the first device in response to a first gesture applied to a first display screen of the first device (Ogilvie: fig 1-3, [0011-108]: fig 1 … system 100 … input device(s) may include … touch screen (… in response to a first gesture applied to a first display screen of the first client device) … tablet (… in response to a first gesture applied to a first display screen of the first client device) (see with [0060] - wherein the request to preserve the one or more content items is received from the first client device in response to a first gesture applied to a first display screen of the first client device) [0022]).
For motivation, see rejection of claim 2.
As to claim 5, Rubinstein, Halliday and Ogilvie disclose automatically deleting the one or more content items displayed by a second device after duration of a display period unless the request to preserve the one or more content items is received from the second device during the display period (Ogilvie: fig 1-3, [0011-108]: fig 2 … indicator 210 will cause message 206 to be automatically removed from recipient’s inbox after recipient member 202 (second client) opens it unless recipient 202 overrides that removal to save the message contents 212 [0057]).
For motivation, see rejection of claim 2.
As to claim 6, Rubinstein, Halliday and Ogilvie disclose receiving the request to preserve the one or more content items from the second device during the display period (Ogilvie: fig 1-3, [0011-108]: fig 2 … indicator 210 will cause message 206 to be automatically removed from recipient’s inbox after recipient member 202 (second client) opens it (receiving the request to preserve the one or more content items from the second client device during the display period) unless recipient 202 overrides that removal to save the message contents 212 [0057]); and
in response to receiving the request to preserve the one or more content items: generating an altered text indicia (Rubinstein: fig 1, 3-9 [00004-61]: … modification of a counting ephemeral variable associated with ephemeral posts … may ask ephemeral post-creating user to extend duration of ephemeral post (in response to receiving the request to preserve the one or more content items) … user may accept suggested revision of ephemeral variable and associated threshold event e.g. instead of expiring in 24 hours, change expiration to 7 days [0033] … ephemeral post includes one or more audio/ visual indications that may change as ongoing post gets closer to threshold (see with [0031-34] above – or may change by user extending/ revising to extend duration of ephemeral post) for example … traffic light attached to post, ephemeral post may have colored border or it may wiggle on screen (generating an altered text indicia) [0036]);
maintaining the one or more content items displayed on the second device with the altered text indicia (Rubinstein: fig 1, 3-9 [00004-61]: … ephemeral variables may not be identical for all users and variety depending on number of factors [0037] … ephemeral post includes one or more audio/ visual indications that may change as ongoing post gets closer to threshold (maintaining the one or more content items displayed on the second client device …) for example … traffic light attached to post, ephemeral post may have colored border or it may wiggle on screen (… with the altered text indicia) [0036]); and
providing feedback to a first device indicating that the request to preserve the one or more content items was received from the second device (Rubinstein: fig 1, 3-9 [00004-61]: fig 9 … user interface may indicate (providing feedback to the first client device) when receiving user has taken a screenshot of the ephemeral post in 905 (indicating that the request to preserve the one or more content items was received from the second client device) [0061]).
For motivation, see rejection of claim 2.
As to claim 7, Rubinstein, Halliday and Ogilvie disclose causing a first device to display simultaneously the first and second textual entries with different display attributes (Rubinstein: fig 1, 3-9 [00004-61]: fig 4 … post displayer coordinates display and otherwise makes accessible ephemeral post (causing the first client device to display simultaneously the first and second textual entries) … may block an ephemeral post from being viewed by one group of users but allow access to another group (simultaneously the first and second textual entries with different display attributes) … it may allow the post-creating use to see an expired ephemeral post while others are blocked (simultaneously the first and second textual entries with different display attributes) [0045]),
wherein the first textual entry is displayed with a given display attribute modified in a first manner to indicate that the request to preserve the one or more content items was received from either the first device or a second device (Rubinstein: fig 1, 3-9 [00004-61]: … the ephemeral variable may be a combination of both time duration and interaction counts … a threshold event that is a time duration and/or interaction counts reaching defined setting(s) … the number of selections of ephemeral variables and combinations/ permutations of ephemeral variables containing threshold event is nearly limitless (first second … n manners) [0027] … a range of ephemeral variables depending on a number of factors, for example, content, activity count or others (first second … n manners) [0038] … default ephemeral variable may be based on audience of post e.g. a close friend with a high coefficient or affinity may have longer time than other users (from either or both the first or second client device) [0037] … third party sponsor may store/ revise to prolong or shorten an ephemeral variable associated with ephemeral post (request to preserve the one or more content items was received from either the first or second client device) [0047] … modification of a counting ephemeral variable associated with ephemeral posts … may ask ephemeral post-creating user to extend duration of ephemeral post (request to preserve the one or more content items was received from either the first or second client device) … user may accept suggested revision of ephemeral variable (request to preserve the one or more content items was received from either the first or second client device) and associated threshold event e.g. instead of expiring in 24 hours, change expiration to 7 days [0033] … ephemeral post includes one or more audio/ visual indications that may change as ongoing post gets closer to threshold (see with [0031-34; 47] above – first textual entry is displayed with the given display attribute modified in any number of permutation and/or combination of these first second … n manner(s) to indicate that the request to preserve the one or more content items was received) for example … traffic light attached to post, ephemeral post may have colored border or it may wiggle on screen (see with [0031-34; 47] above – first textual entry is displayed with the given display attribute modified in any number of permutation and/or combination of these first second … n manner(s) to indicate that the request to preserve the one or more content items was received) [0036]),
and wherein the second textual entry is displayed with the given display attribute modified in a second manner to indicate that the request to preserve the one or more content items was received from both the first and second devices (Rubinstein: fig 1, 3-9 [00004-61]: … the ephemeral variable may be a combination of both time duration and interaction counts … a threshold event that is a time duration and/or interaction counts reaching defined setting(s) … the number of selections of ephemeral variables and combinations/ permutations of ephemeral variables containing threshold event is nearly limitless (first second … n manners) [0027] … a range of ephemeral variables depending on a number of factors, for example, content, activity count or others (first second … n manners) [0038] … default ephemeral variable may be based on audience of post e.g. a close friend with a high coefficient or affinity may have longer time than other users (from either or both the first or second client device) [0037] … modification of a counting ephemeral variable associated with ephemeral posts … may ask ephemeral post-creating user to extend duration of ephemeral post (in response to receiving the request to preserve the one or more content items) … user may accept suggested revision of ephemeral variable and associated threshold event e.g. instead of expiring in 24 hours, change expiration to 7 days [0033] … ephemeral post includes one or more audio/ visual indications that may change as ongoing post gets closer to threshold (see with [0031-34; 47] above – first textual entry is displayed with the given display attribute modified in any number of permutation and/or combination of these first second … n manner(s) to indicate that the request to preserve the one or more content items was received) for example … traffic light attached to post, ephemeral post may have colored border or it may wiggle on screen (see with [0031-34; 47] above – first textual entry is displayed with the given display attribute modified in any number of permutation and/or combination of these first second … n manner(s) to indicate that the request to preserve the one or more content items was received) [0036]).
For motivation, see rejection of claim 2.
As to claim 8, Rubinstein, Halliday and Ogilvie disclose wherein the first textual entry was received from the first device and the second textual entry was received from the second device (Rubinstein: fig 1, 3-9 [00004-61]: fig 8B … GUI for viewing ephemeral reply (second textual entry) to posted post (first textual entry) [0058]).
For motivation, see rejection of claim 2.
As to claim 9, Rubinstein, Halliday and Ogilvie disclose further comprising providing first indicia indicating that only a first device requested to preserve the one or more content items and that there was no request to preserve the one or more content items received from a second device (Rubinstein: fig 1-10, [0004-62]: fig 3 … a studio may be willing to ask an ephemeral post-creating user (first client device) to extend duration of ephemeral post … user may accept a suggested revision of ephemeral variable and associated threshold event e.g. instead of favorable ephemeral post expiring in 24 hours, system changes expiration to 7 days with user’s consent (providing first indicia indicating that only a first client device requested to preserve the one or more content items and that there was no request to preserve the one or more content items received from a second client device i.e. extension not override) [0033]).
For motivation, see rejection of claim 2.
As to claim 10, Rubinstein, Halliday and Ogilvie disclose further comprising providing a second indicia to indicate that both the first device and the second device requested to preserve the one or more content items (Ogilvie: fig 1-3, [0011-108]: fig 2 … self-removing property can be expressly overridden (requested to preserve the one or more content items) by sender 200, by recipient 20220 an intervening authority 222 such as ISP (first second …n client device(s)) … and sender, recipient or both automatically notified of override [0091]).
For motivation, see rejection of claim 2.
As to claim 15, see similar rejection to claim 7 where the method is taught by the method.
As to claim 18, Rubinstein, Halliday and Ogilvie disclose automatically deleting the one or more content items when a user scrolls past the one or more content items without requesting to preserve the one or more content items (Ogilvie: fig 1-3, [0011-108]: fig 2 … indicators 210 … needed to detail information such as how long to display message contents to recipient(s), whether to allow recipient(s) to scroll back through previously display portion of message content and so on [0030] … messages are ephemeral at recipient’s station … because they often scroll off the visible display screen until they are beyond recipient’s reach [0052]).
For motivation, see rejection of claim 2.
Claims 3 and 14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over U.S. Patent Publication No. 2014/0282096 to Rubinstein et al. (“Rubinstein”) [IDS 12/20/24] in view of U.S. Patent Publication No. 2015/0058957 to Halliday et al. (“Halliday”), U.S. Patent Publication No. 2002/0026487 A1 to Ogilvie et al. (“Ogilvie”) [IDS 12/20/24] and further in view of U.S. Patent Publication No. 2012/0304080 A1 to Wormald et al. (“Wormald”) [IDS 12/20/24].
As to claim 3, Rubinstein, Halliday and Ogilvie disclose wherein the one or more content items are directed to a second device (Ogilvie: fig 1-3, [0011-108]: fig 2 … during displaying step 232 message content 212 is displayed to recipient 202 (second client device) [0060]).
For motivation, see rejection of claim 1.
Rubinstein did not explicitly disclose determining that the request to preserve the one or more content items was received from (1) either the first device or the second device or (2) from both the first and second devices.
Wormald discloses determining that the request to preserve the one or more content items was received from (1) either the first device or the second device or (2) from both the first and second devices (Wormald: fig 5-8, [0058-76]: … IM conversation between first and second users (or more users) (first and/or second … and/or n users) can be secured by either/any of the users before the IM conversation begins, or at any time during IM conversation so that content of IM conversation is automatically deleted or “self-destructs” after designated expiry period and this may be selected (determining that the request to preserve the one or more content items was received) through object 196 191 presented on each user’s display screen 141 122 (from (1) either the first or second client device or (2) from both the first and second client devices) of fig 1 & 4 [0061; 63]).
Rubinstein, Halliday, Ogilvie and Wormald are analogous art because they are from the same field of endeavor with respect to messages.
Before the effective filing date, for AIA , it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to incorporate the strategies by Wormald into the method by Rubinstein, Halliday and Ogilvie. The suggestion/motivation would have been to provide for securing IM content exchanged between users (Wormald; [0001]).
Rubinstein, Halliday, Ogilvie and Wormald further disclose modifying the given display attribute according to which of the one or more content items are being displayed by the second device in a first manner, in response to determining that the request to preserve the one or more content items is received from either the first device or the second device (Rubinstein: fig 1, 3-9 [00004-61] ephemeral post includes one or more audio/visual indications (display attribute in a first second … n manner(s)) such that when viewer(s) see posted ephemeral post, s/he knows it is ephemeral and attached one or more audio/visual indications may change as post gets closer to threshold event [0036] … user may accept a suggested revision of the ephemeral variable and associated threshold event (modifying the given display attribute in a first manner), e.g. instead of favorable (popular) ephemeral post expiring in 24 hours, may change expiration to 7 days (see with [0061;63; 36-37;33; 27]- in response to determining that the request to preserve the one or more content items is received from either the first or second client device) [0033] … the ephemeral variable may be a combination of both time duration and interaction counts … a threshold event that is a time duration and/or interaction counts reaching defined setting(s) … the number of selections of ephemeral variables and combinations/ permutations of ephemeral variables containing threshold event is nearly limitless (first second … n manners) [0027] … a range of ephemeral variables depending on a number of factors, for example, content, activity count or others (first second … n manners) [0038] … default ephemeral variable may be based on audience of post e.g. a close friend with a high coefficient or affinity may have longer time than other users (from either the first or second client device) [0037]); and
modifying the given display attribute according to which of the one or more content items are being displayed by the second device in a second manner, in response to determining that the request to preserve the one or more content items is received from both the first and second devices (Rubinstein: fig 1, 3-9 [00004-61]: ephemeral post includes one or more audio/visual indications such that when viewer(s) see posted ephemeral post, s/he knows it is ephemeral and attached one or more audio/visual indications may change as post gets closer to threshold event … for example, a traffic light may be attached to post that goes from green to red (modifying the given display attribute in a second manner) [0036] … default ephemeral variable may be based on audience of post e.g. a close friend with a high coefficient or affinity (from both the first and second client devices) may have longer time than other users (see with [0061;63; 36-37;33; 27]- modifying the given display attribute according to which one or more content items are being displayed by the second client device in a second manner in response to determining that the request to preserve the one or more content items is received from both the first and second client devices, such that as a result of modifying the given display attribute in the second manner) [0037]).
Same motivation applies as mentioned above to make the proposed modification.
As to claim 14, Rubinstein, Halliday, Ogilvie and Wormald disclose further comprising preventing a portion of the set of users from performing a copy/paste operation in relation to the one or more content items (Wormald: fig 5-8, [0058-76]: ... the IM conversation between the first and second users 731, 732 or more users can be secured by locking i.e., preventing copying, cutting, and/or pasting the content of the IM conversation and locking in this embodiment is thus a default setting for the IM conversation and in order for a first user to copy, cut, and/or paste all or a portion of the content of the IM conversation, that user must receive explicit permission from the second user to unlock the IM conversation to allow for copying, cutting, and/or pasting [0064]).
For motivation, see rejection of claim 3.
Claims 11-13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over U.S. Patent Publication No. 2014/0282096 to Rubinstein et al. (“Rubinstein”) [IDS 12/20/24] in view of U.S. Patent Publication No. 2015/0058957 to Halliday et al. (“Halliday”) and further in view of U.S. Patent Publication No. 2011/0126126 A1 to Blair et al. (“Blair”) [IDS 12/20/24].
As to claim 11, Rubinstein and Halliday disclose the method of claim 2.
For motivation, see rejection of claim 1.
Rubinstein did not explicitly disclose wherein modifying the display attribute comprises italicizing text included in the one or more content items.
Blair discloses wherein modifying the display attribute comprises italicizing text included in the one or more content items (Blair: fig 1-2, [0050-106]: … unnecessary labels replaced by graphical conventions font style, size, weight and/or color of display text … bold … italics … enclosing boxes … specific positioning … shape, texture, fill gradient …. Graphical icons and/or pop-ups explaining graphical icons … the above non-exhaustive list of means for distinguishing and displaying fields within display to suit viewer’s or viewer’s company of working applicable features and display elements [0052-58] …).
Rubinstein, Halliday and Blair are analogous art because they are from the same field of endeavor with respect to messages.
Before the effective filing date, for AIA , it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to incorporate the strategies by Blair into the method by Rubinstein and Halliday. The suggestion/motivation would have been to provide presenting messages, whether sent or received, so reader can more quickly identify course of the discussion to date and more rapidly respond (Blair: [0009]).
As to claim 12, Rubinstein, Halliday and Blair disclose wherein modifying the display attribute comprises displaying text included in the one or more content items in bold (Blair: fig 1-2, [0050-106]: … unnecessary labels replaced by graphical conventions font style, size, weight and/or color of display text … bold … italics … enclosing boxes … specific positioning … shape, texture, fill gradient …. Graphical icons and/or pop-ups explaining graphical icons … the above non-exhaustive list of means for distinguishing and displaying fields within display to suit viewer’s or viewer’s company of working applicable features and display elements [0052-58] …).
For motivation, see rejection of claim 11.
As to claim 13, Rubinstein, Halliday and Blair disclose wherein modifying the display attribute comprises presenting text included in the one or more content items in a first color or with a first number (Blair: fig 1-2, [0050-106]: … unnecessary labels replaced by graphical conventions font style, size, weight and/or color of display text … bold … italics … enclosing boxes … specific positioning … shape, texture, fill gradient …. Graphical icons and/or pop-ups explaining graphical icons … the above non-exhaustive list of means for distinguishing and displaying fields within display to suit viewer’s or viewer’s company of working applicable features and display elements [0052-58]).
For motivation, see rejection of claim 11.
Claim 16 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over U.S. Patent Publication No. 2014/0282096 to Rubinstein et al. (“Rubinstein”) [IDS 12/20/24] in view of U.S. Patent Publication No. 2015/0058957 to Halliday et al. (“Halliday”) and further in view of U.S. Patent Publication No. 2009/0248751 to Myman et al. (“Myman”).
As to claim 16, Rubinstein and Halliday disclose the method of claim 2.
For motivation, see rejection of claim 1.
Rubinstein did not explicitly disclose wherein the one or more content items are automatically deleted after a transitory display period, wherein the transitory display period is a single digit number of seconds
Myman discloses wherein the one or more content items are automatically deleted after a transitory display period, wherein the transitory display period is a single digit number of seconds (Myman: fig 1-12, [0007-77]: fig 2-3 ... message is in compliance with an XMPP protocol, also known as Jabber, which is an open, XML-inspired protocol for near real time, extensible instant messaging (IM) and presence information also known as "buddy list" ... XML field 201 between tags <expire_time> and <lexpire_time> shows the number 5 (the one or more content items are automatically deleted after a transitory display period ...) and this means that the displayed instant message will stop being displayed after 5 seconds on the recipient's client display and that the application at the recipient client will remove or destroy the traces of this instant message from the recipient's client (wherein the transitory display period is a single digit number of seconds) and after 5 seconds no details of the instant message will be available for viewing or retrieval (wherein the transitory display period is a single digit number of seconds) [0043]).
Rubinstein , Halliday and Myman are analogous art because they are from the same field of endeavor with respect to messages.
Before the effective filing date, for AIA , it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to incorporate the strategies by Myman into the method by Rubinstein and Halliday. The suggestion/motivation would have been to provide instructions including time after which an instant message will be destructed (Myman: [0008]).
Claim 17 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over U.S. Patent Publication No. 2014/0282096 to Rubinstein et al. (“Rubinstein”) [IDS 12/20/24] in view of U.S. Patent Publication No. 2015/0058957 to Halliday et al. (“Halliday”), U.S. Patent Publication No. 2002/0026487 to Ogilvie et al. (“Ogilvie”) [IDS 12/20/24] and further in view of U.S. Patent Publication No. 2007/0073823 to Cohen et al. (“Cohen”) [IDS 12/20/24].
As to claim 17, Rubinstein, Halliday and Ogilvie disclose wherein the first device previously declined to preserve the one or more content items (Ogilvie: fig 1-3, [0011-108]: fig 2 … indicator 210 will cause message 206 to be automatically removed from recipient’s inbox after recipient member 202 (1st 2nd ... n devices) opens it unless recipient 202 overrides that removal to save the message contents 212 (wherein the first device previously declined to preserve the one or more content items) [0057]),
and displaying feedback within the first device's message thread indicating that the one or more content items were preserved by the second device (Ogilvie: fig 1-3, [0011-108]: fig 2 … self-removing property can be expressly overridden by sender 200, by recipient(s) 202 (1st 2nd ... n devices) an intervening authority 222 such as ISP … and sender (... the one or more content items were preserved by the second device), recipient(s) or both automatically notified of override (displaying feedback within the first device's message thread indicating that the one or more content items were preserved by the second device) [0091]).
For motivation, see rejection of claim 2.
Rubinstein did not explicitly disclose restoring the one or more content items in a first device's message thread in response to receiving a request to preserve the one or more content items from a second device.
Cohen discloses restoring the one or more content items in a first device's message thread in response to receiving a request to preserve the one or more content items from a second device (Cohen: fig 1-19, [0007-89]: ... different aspects of the present invention allow recipient to be prompted to retrieve the message if the recipient has not responded to that message within the self-destruct time limit ... retrieval of self-destructed messages also may be initiated by selecting or clicking on a status information message displayed in dialog windows 404 and, for example, a status information message "the message has self-destructed" may replace the self-destructed message and by selecting the status message (... in response to receiving a request to preserve the one or more content items from a second device) the retrieval or reconstruction (restoring) of self-destructed messages may occur (restoring the one or more content items in a first device's message thread ...) [0055]).
Rubinstein, Halliday, Ogilvie and Cohen are analogous art because they are from the same field of endeavor with respect to messages.
Before the effective filing date, for AIA , it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to incorporate the strategies by Cohen into the method by Rubinstein, Halliday and Ogilvie. The suggestion/motivation would have been to provide for a user retrieving or reconstructing a self-destructed message (Cohen: [0054]).
Conclusion
The following prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant’s disclosure.
A) US 20170353416 – Brooks
Techniques for ephemeral messaging with remote ephemeral mode configuration are described. In one embodiment, an apparatus may comprise a messaging component operative to receive a messaging update at a messaging client on the client device from a messaging system; determine a message thread associated with the messaging update; and determine that the messaging update indicates a transition to an ephemeral mode for the message thread; and a user interface component operative to configure a user interface for the message thread to an ephemeral mode interface based on the transition to the ephemeral mode for the message thread. Other embodiments are described and claimed.
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JUNE SISON whose telephone number is (571)270-5693. The examiner can normally be reached 9:00 am - 5:00 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, Emmanuel Moise can be reached at 571-272-3865. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of published or unpublished applications may be obtained from Patent Center. Unpublished application information in Patent Center is available to registered users. To file and manage patent submissions in Patent Center, visit: https://patentcenter.uspto.gov. Visit https://www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/patent-center for more information about Patent Center and https://www.uspto.gov/patents/docx for information about filing in DOCX format. For additional questions, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/JUNE SISON/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2455
Prosecution Insights