DETAILED ACTION
The applicant amended claims 1, 10, 13, and 16-17 in the amendment filed on 6/8/2026.
The 101 rejection is withdrawn.
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 .
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claim(s) 1, 10, and 16 have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
Claim(s) 1-7, 9-13, 16-18 and 20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Bright (US 2019/0012714) in view of Joe et al. (US 2016/0330150).
With respect to claim 1, Bright discloses a method performed by a processor of a user terminal, the method comprising:
acquiring, from a server, an answer to a query input or selected in a chatroom on a user interface screen of the user terminal (Figures 1 and 6; [0101], “FIG. 6 presents a sequence for a chat turn with the user who is typing text. For example, the user types, "I want to buy leather messenger bags." The user wants to know information about the available leather messenger bags and what leather messenger bags are available in inventory, the desired output”; [0103], “The NLU component 206 identifies the intent of the user (e.g., the purpose of the user request), as well as related entities and aspects related to the request, and returns them to the orchestrator 220”; [0104], “The NLU component 206 may provide questions to be asked with reference to the intent and the aspects. For example, the NLU may indicate asking, "I have messenger bags for these four brands, A, B, C, and D; do you have a brand preference?"); and
displaying the query and the answer in a specific space (see citation above, “chat”; and Figure 14; [0080], “Output of the front-end component 502 can be rendered in a display of a client device, such as the client device 110 in FIG. 1, as part of an interface with the intelligent personal assistant”; [0020], “FIG. 14 is a graphical representation of a sequence of dialogue turns, according to an example embodiment of the present disclosure.”),
wherein the specific space is configured to cumulatively display queries and answers input or selected in the chatroom or in the specific space (Figure 14; [0020], “FIG. 14 is a graphical representation of a sequence of dialogue turns, according to an example embodiment of the present disclosure”. It is to be noted that the claim does not require a specific relationship between the chatroom and the specific space therefore Examiner interprets as any relationship).
Bright does not explicitly disclose the following. However, Joe teaches displaying the query and the answer in a specific space on the user interface screen, the specific space being a separate space distinct from the chatroom and in connection with the chatroom (e.g., a template distinct from the speech bubble in a chatroom, a preset region of the message application, or a page view, fig. 8, fig. 10B, sections [0009], [0020], [0064], [0073], [0093]. [0144], [0168], [0175] and [0182]) in order to provide search service through a message application without switching to another application for search service. Therefore, based on Bright in view of Joe, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to utilize the teaching of Joe to the system of Bright in order to provide search service through a message application without switching to another application for search service.
With respect to claim 2, Bright discloses the method of claim 1, wherein a session of the specific space is maintained dependent on a session of the chatroom (Figure 14; [0020], “FIG. 14 is a graphical representation of a sequence of dialogue turns, according to an example embodiment of the present disclosure”).
With respect to claim 3, Bright discloses the method of claim 1, further comprising:
transmitting a sharing request for the query and the answer to the server; and displaying a search result including the query and the answer in the chatroom (see citation in rejection to claim 1, e.g., Figure 14 and [0020], wherein the request/question also serves as a sharing request for the query and the answer to be displayed in the chatroom. It is to be noted that the claim merely requires “a sharing request for the query and the answer” without limiting how to share or which entity to share with.).
With respect to claim 4, Bright discloses the method of claim 3, wherein the search result shared in the chatroom further includes a button configured to perform a follow-up query function in a context of the query and the answer (Figure 14, and Figure 13, “At each step the buyer needs to response/click).
With respect to claim 5, Bright discloses the method of claim 1, wherein the displaying the query and the answer in the specific space comprises:
transmitting the query input or selected in the chatroom switched to a search mode to the server; and displaying the answer to the query in the specific space (see citation in rejection to claim 1, e.g., Figure 14. Also see Figure 13 and [0098], “FIG. 6 is a graphical representation of a service sequence for a chat turn (e.g., search) with input text, according to some example embodiments”. Therefore, each query request in Figure 13 and Figure 14 can be considered a search mode. It is to be noted that the claim merely requires to switch to search mode without limiting the current mode, therefore Examiner interprets as any mode).
With respect to claim 6, Bright discloses the method of claim 1, wherein the displaying the query and the answer in the specific space comprises:
in response to a request for a follow-up query related to a search result shared in the chatroom, switching the chatroom to a search mode (see citation in rejection to claim 1, e.g., Figure 14. Also see Figure 13 and [0098], “FIG. 6 is a graphical representation of a service sequence for a chat turn (e.g., search) with input text, according to some example embodiments”. Therefore, a search response to a further request after the initial answer/response indicates a search mode, e.g., Figure 1);3, in response to further request of “Brand XYZ”, a search mode starts by providing “Here are some shoes”, indicating that the chatroom is switched to a search mode);
transmitting the query input or selected in the chatroom to the server; and displaying the answer to the query in the specific space (Figure 13 and Figure 14).
With respect to claim 7, Bright discloses the method of claim 1, wherein the displaying the query and the answer in the specific space comprises in response to a request for a full view of a search result shared in the chatroom, displaying the entire answer included in the shared search result in the specific space (Figure 13 and Figure 14, the entire query and answer are displayed in response to any query therefore each query can be considered a request for a full view of a search result).
With respect to claim 9, Bright discloses the method of claim 1, further comprising:
displaying a previous query list in the specific space; and displaying an answer to a query selected from the previous query list in the specific space (Figure 13; Figure 14. It is to be noted that the claimed “selected” is not limited to a specific criterion therefore Examiner interprets as any criterion for selection including selecting all).
The limitations of claim 10 are rejected in the analysis of claim 1 above, and the claim is rejected on that basis.
The limitations of claim 11 are rejected in the analysis of claim 3 above, and the claim is rejected on that basis.
The limitations of claim 12 are rejected in the analysis of claim 4 above, and the claim is rejected on that basis.
With respect to claim 13, Bright discloses the method of claim 12, further comprising:
receiving an additional query input from a terminal of a participant within the chatroom, the chatroom being switched to a search mode in response to a selection of the button; generating an answer to the additional query in the context of the query and the answer; and providing the answer to the additional query to a specific space for the participant that is maintained dependent on the session of the chatroom (see citation in rejection to claim 1, and Figures 13 and 14).
The limitations of claim 16 are rejected in the analysis of claim 1 above, and the claim is rejected on that basis.
The limitations of claim 17 are rejected in the analysis of claim 4 above, and the claim is rejected on that basis.
The limitations of claim 18 are rejected in the analysis of claims 5-7 above, and the claim is rejected on that basis.
The limitations of claim 20 are rejected in the analysis of claim 9 above, and the claim is rejected on that basis.
Claims 8, 14-15 and 19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Bright (US 2019/0012714) in view of Joe et al. (US 2016/0330150), and further in view of Natarajan et al (US 7,590,699).
With respect to claim 8, Bright and Joe disclose the claimed invention substantially as discussed in claim 1, but do not expressly disclose folding the specific space in response to a user action and displaying, in the chatroom, an entry point configured to enable entry into the specific space; and unfolding and displaying the specific space in response to a selection of the entry point. Natarajan discloses a concept of folding the specific space in response to a user action and displaying, in the chatroom, an entry point configured to enable entry into the specific space; and unfolding and displaying the specific space in response to a selection of the entry point (Figure 9; col. 9, lines 42-57, “A "more results" 906 indication is also displayed in each of the user interfaces 502(1), 502(N), which may be utilized to obtain additional search results. For example, as previously 45 described the client 104(1) (i.e., Adam), before communicating the search results to client 104(N) (i.e., Bob) may "prune" the results, such as to conserve network bandwidth and conserve resources. Therefore, to obtain these additional results, Bob may select the "more results" 906 indication to cause 50 communication of these additional results from Adam, i.e., client 104(1)”. Here, the “prune” user action is the action to fold the specific space, and the “More Results” clickable link is an entry point, when clicked by a user, to display the specific space. It is to be noted that displaying the specific space is interpreted as displaying the entirety of the specific space, and folding the specific space is interpreted as not displaying the entirety of the specific space).
Before the effective filing date of the invention, it would have been obvious for an ordinary skilled in the art to combine Bright in view of Joe with Natarajan. The suggestion/motivation would have been to display additional search results according to user action (Natarajan, col. 9, lines 42-57).
With respect to claim 14, , Bright and Joe disclose the claimed invention substantially as discussed in claim 10, but do not expressly disclose the following. However, Natarajan further discloses the method of claim 10, further comprising:
in response to a termination of the session of the chatroom, terminating a session of the specific space (see Natarajan, Figure 9, since the search results is in the chat window, terminating the session of the chat window will also terminate the search results); and
storing, in a query list, at least one query recorded in the specific space while the session of the specific space is maintained (see Natarajan, while the session of the search result is maintained, the query list is stored and displayed).
Before the effective filing date of the invention, it would have been obvious for an ordinary skilled in the art to combine Bright in view of Joe with Natarajan. The suggestion/motivation would have been to display additional search results according to user action (Natarajan, col. 9, lines 42-57).
With respect to claim 15, Natarajan further discloses the method of claim 14, further comprising providing the query list to the specific space (Natarajan, Figure 9).
The limitations of claim 19 are rejected in the analysis of claim 8 above, and the claim is rejected on that basis.
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). 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 JOON H HWANG whose telephone number is (571)272-4036. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday, 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.
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.
/JOON H HWANG/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2447
09/14/2026
Prosecution Insights