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 .
Detailed Action
Claims 1, 7, 9, 13, and 17-20 are amended
The objection to the drawings has been overcome due to Applicant’s amendments
The objection to the abstract has been overcome due to Applicant’s amendments
With respect to the Double patenting rejection for claims 1-20 to U.S. Patent No. US 12235991 B2. The rejection has been overcome due to Applicant filing an approved terminal disclaimer. However, no terminal disclaimer has been filed for the rejection with respect to application No. 17/810,984. Therefore, the double patenting rejection with respect to application No. 17/810,984 is being maintained.
With respect to the claim objections. The objections to claims 1 and 17-20 have been overcome due to Applicant’s amendments. However, the objection to claim 13 is maintained.
With respect to the USC 112(b) rejection for claim 9. The rejection has been overcome due to Applicant’s filed amendments.
Claims 1-20 are pending
Priority
This application is a continuation of U.S. patent application Ser. No. 17/810,973, filed Jul. 6, 2022. Therefore, the effective filing date of this application is 07/06/2022.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments filed on 07/09/2026 have been fully considered.
The objection to the drawings has been overcome due to Applicant’s amendments
The objection to the abstract has been overcome due to Applicant’s amendments
With respect to the Double patenting rejection for claims 1-20 to U.S. Patent No. US 12235991 B2. The rejection has been overcome due to Applicant filing an approved terminal disclaimer. However, no terminal disclaimer has been filed for the rejection with respect to application No. 17/810,984. Therefore, the double patenting rejection with respect to application No. 17/810,984 is being maintained.
With respect to the claim objections. The objection for claims 1 and 17-20 have been overcome due to Applicant’s amendments. However, the objection to claim 13 is maintained.
With respect to the USC 112(b) rejection for claim 9. The rejection has been overcome due to Applicant’s filed amendments.
With respect to the USC 103 rejection for claim 1. Applicant has argued that HAMZY-GAMALEY fails to teach of the amended limitation of a focus status indicates that a window has lost focus based on the window being minimized … determining that the duration that the focus status of the window has been lost based on the window being minimized”. Examiner is now relying on a new third reference GADDE to teach this limitation. GADDE teaches “a focus status indicates that a window has lost focus based on the window being minimized … determining that the duration that the focus status of the window has been lost based on the window being minimized” ([GADDE, para. 0026] “the SSO manager component may maintain the validity status of the authentication information based on a time duration of inactivity associated with each respective application of the plurality of applications on the client device (i.e., App 1 may have its own time duration of inactivity, App 2 may have its own time duration of inactivity, and so on). In some implementations, a time duration of inactivity associated with a respective application may be based on an amount of time the respective application is minimized, closed, and/or running in a background of the client device's operating system (OS). For example, App 1 may be launched and running on the client device, but the user may be interacting with App 2, and thus App 1 may be minimized, closed, and/or running in the background of the client device's OS while the user is interacting with App 2 in the foreground of the client device's OS. The amount of time App 1 is minimized, closed, and/or running in the background of the client device's OS may be App 1's time duration of inactivity.”) ([GADDE, para. 0027] “The SSO manager component may maintain a threshold time duration of inactivity (e.g., 15 minutes, 30 minutes, etc.) and may compare the time duration of inactivity associated with each respective application of the plurality of applications on the client device and the threshold time duration of inactivity.”). As can be seen from these citations GADDE teaches of determining if a window is minimized and calculating a duration the window has been minimized. Therefore, the combination of HAMZY-GAMALEY-GADDE teaches all limitations of amended claim 1. Independent claims 17 and 20 recite of similar limitations. The same rejection applies.
Additional arguments are moot in view of new grounds of rejection necessitated by the claim amendments.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 07/09/2026. The submissions are in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement has been considered by the examiner.
Claim Objections
Claim 13 is objected to because of the following informalities: claim 13 recites the limitation “message indicating that a user of is no longer present.” For the purpose of examination Examiner is omitting “of” Examiner is interpreting this limitation as “message indicating that a user is no longer present.”. Appropriate correction is required.
Double Patenting
The nonstatutory double patenting rejection is based on a judicially created doctrine grounded in public policy (a policy reflected in the statute) so as to prevent the unjustified or improper timewise extension of the “right to exclude” granted by a patent and to prevent possible harassment by multiple assignees. A nonstatutory double patenting rejection is appropriate where the conflicting claims are not identical, but at least one examined application claim is not patentably distinct from the reference claim(s) because the examined application claim is either anticipated by, or would have been obvious over, the reference claim(s). See, e.g., In re Berg, 140 F.3d 1428, 46 USPQ2d 1226 (Fed. Cir. 1998); In re Goodman, 11 F.3d 1046, 29 USPQ2d 2010 (Fed. Cir. 1993); In re Longi, 759 F.2d 887, 225 USPQ 645 (Fed. Cir. 1985); In re Van Ornum, 686 F.2d 937, 214 USPQ 761 (CCPA 1982); In re Vogel, 422 F.2d 438, 164 USPQ 619 (CCPA 1970); In re Thorington, 418 F.2d 528, 163 USPQ 644 (CCPA 1969).
A timely filed terminal disclaimer in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(c) or 1.321(d) may be used to overcome an actual or provisional rejection based on nonstatutory double patenting provided the reference application or patent either is shown to be commonly owned with the examined application, or claims an invention made as a result of activities undertaken within the scope of a joint research agreement. See MPEP § 717.02 for applications subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA as explained in MPEP § 2159. See MPEP § 2146 et seq. for applications not subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA . A terminal disclaimer must be signed in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(b).
The filing of a terminal disclaimer by itself is not a complete reply to a nonstatutory double patenting (NSDP) rejection. A complete reply requires that the terminal disclaimer be accompanied by a reply requesting reconsideration of the prior Office action. Even where the NSDP rejection is provisional the reply must be complete. See MPEP § 804, subsection I.B.1. For a reply to a non-final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.111(a). For a reply to final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.113(c). A request for reconsideration while not provided for in 37 CFR 1.113(c) may be filed after final for consideration. See MPEP §§ 706.07(e) and 714.13.
The USPTO Internet website contains terminal disclaimer forms which may be used. Please visit www.uspto.gov/patent/patents-forms. The actual filing date of the application in which the form is filed determines what form (e.g., PTO/SB/25, PTO/SB/26, PTO/AIA /25, or PTO/AIA /26) should be used. A web-based eTerminal Disclaimer may be filled out completely online using web-screens. An eTerminal Disclaimer that meets all requirements is auto-processed and approved immediately upon submission. For more information about eTerminal Disclaimers, refer to www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/applying-online/eterminal-disclaimer.
Claims 1, 3, 9-12, 14, 16, 17-20 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1, 3, 9-12, and 14-16 of U.S. Application No. 17/810,984. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because the corresponding claims further recite similar/same limitation of the same subject matter.
A notice of Allowance has been issued for application no. 17/810,984. However, a patent number has not been issued yet.
Current application No. 19/033,828
Application No. 17/810,984
1.) A method comprising:
in response to determining that focus status indicates that a window has lost focus based on the window being minimized, obscuring a first subset of a plurality of elements;
computing a duration of the lost focus;
comparing the duration to a threshold duration; and
in response to determining that the duration that the focus status of the window has been lost based on the window being minimized, transgresses the threshold duration, presenting an option to re-open an interface, wherein the first subset of the plurality of elements is revealed in response to selection of the option.
1.) A method comprising: accessing a conversation interface of a messaging application on a web browser; presenting the conversation interface in a window associated with the web browser, the conversation interface comprising a plurality of conversation elements of a conversation session; storing a database that lists various types of combinations of user inputs with a restricted operation; determining that one or more inputs received from one or more input devices correspond to a specified combination of inputs that is stored in the database; determining that a device used to access the conversation interface corresponds to a specified type; and in response to determining that the one or more inputs correspond to a specified combination of inputs corresponding to the restricted operation and in response to determining that the device used to access the conversation interface corresponds to the specified type: obscuring a first subset of the plurality of conversation elements of the conversation session; and modifying an opacity of a second subset of the plurality of conversation elements of the conversation session, the modifying the opacity of the second subset of the plurality of conversation elements of the conversation session comprising increasing or reducing the opacity of the second subset by a predetermined amount, the modified opacity of the second subset being different from an opacity of the first subset and causing the second subset to remain at least partially visible, wherein the predetermined amount is 50% of the opacity of the second subset.
2. The method of claim 1, further comprising:
accessing a conversation interface of a messaging application;
presenting the conversation interface in the window, the conversation interface comprising a plurality of conversation elements; and
accessing the focus status of the window.
16. A system comprising: at least one hardware processor, coupled to a non-transitory machine-readable storage medium, configured to perform operations comprising: accessing a conversation interface of a messaging application on a web browser; presenting the conversation interface in a window associated with the web browser, the conversation interface comprising a plurality of conversation elements of a conversation session …
3. The method of claim 1, further comprising:
retrieving a universal resource locator (URL) of a messaging application;
downloading a markup language document corresponding to the messaging application; and
processing the markup language document to display a conversation interface.
3. The method of claim 1, wherein the accessing comprises: retrieving a universal resource locator (URL) of the messaging application downloading a markup language document corresponding to the messaging application; processing the markup language document by the web browser to display the conversation interface; and in response to processing the markup language document by the web browser to display the conversation interface, monitoring the one or more inputs to condition display of the first subset of the plurality of conversation elements and a manner at which information is displayed in the conversation interface.
9. The method of claim 1, wherein the plurality of elements include a chat region that includes one or more messages exchanged in a conversation, a chat input region for enabling a user to compose a message, a presence region that indicates an activity state of each of a plurality of friends, a friends region that lists a plurality of friends with whom the user has previously engaged in a conversation, and a phone call region for placing a phone call to a given friend.
9. The method of claim 1, wherein the plurality of conversation elements include a chat region that includes one or more messages exchanged in a conversation, a chat input region for enabling a user to compose a message, a presence region that indicates an activity state of each of a plurality of friends, a friends region that lists the plurality of friends with whom the user has previously engaged in a conversation, and a phone call region for placing a phone call to a given friend.
10. The method of claim 9, wherein the first subset of the plurality of elements includes the chat region and the presence region.
10. The method of claim 9, wherein the first subset of the plurality of conversation elements includes the chat region and the presence region.
11. The method of claim 10, further comprising modifying a display attribute of the chat input region.
11. The method of claim 9,wherein the second subset of the conversation elements includes the chat input region.
12. The method of claim 11, wherein modifying the display attribute comprises reducing an opacity of the chat input region by a specified amount.
12. The method of claim 11, wherein modifying the opacity of the second subset of the conversation elements comprises reducing an opacity of the chat input region by the predetermined amount.
14. The method of claim 13, wherein the overlay comprises an avatar of the user.
14. The method of claim 13, wherein the overlay comprises an avatar of the user.
16. The method of claim 15, further comprising:
in response to determining that the focus status of the window is in focus, detecting an interaction with a conversation interface; and
revealing the first subset of the plurality of elements in response to detecting the interaction with the conversation interface.
15. The method of claim 13, further comprising: after obscuring the first subset of the plurality of conversation elements, detecting an interaction with the conversation interface; and revealing the first subset of the plurality of conversation elements in response to detecting the interaction with the conversation interface.
Claims 17-20 are parallel claims to claims 1-3. Therefore, claims 17-20 are rejected in a similar manner.
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, 2, 4-7, 13, 15, 17, 19, and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over HAMZY (US-20060129948-A1) in view of GAMALEY (US-20090241031-A1), and further in view of GADDE (US-20180314817-A1), hereinafter HAMZY-GAMALEY-GADDE.
Regarding claim 1, HAMZY teaches “A method comprising: in response to determining that a focus status indicates that a window has lost focus … , obscuring a first subset of a plurality of elements; ([HAMZY, abstract] “A windows security module monitors the windows displayed by the computer to detect when a window becomes inactive in the display, for example by the user clicking and working within another window in the display. Upon becoming inactive, the windows security module overrides the application data being sent to a secured window and displays a predetermined screensaver-type image in its place, thereby hiding sensitive information from being displayed by the window during periods of inactivity.”) ([HAMZY, para. 0033] “Upon detecting a window in the display becoming inactive and dropping from the top level in the z-order specified in table 400 … Methods of securing an inactivated window by WSM 309 in accordance with alternative preferred embodiments of the present invention include (1) displaying a screen-saver-type static or dynamic image in place of the application data of the inactive window or within a viewable sector of the inactive window, (2) blanking the display within the inactive window, or (3) automatically minimizing an inactivated window.”) ([HAMZY, para. 0041] “At step 1012, WSM 309 determines if a window has become inactive (out-of-focus) in the display, as detected by a window changing from a level 1 to a greater level display.”)
However, HAMZY does not teach “a window has lost focus based on the window being minimized,… computing a duration of the lost focus; comparing the duration to a threshold duration; and in response to determining that the duration that the focus status of the window has been lost based on the window being minimized, transgresses the threshold duration, presenting an option to re-open an interface, wherein the first subset of the plurality of elements is revealed in response to selection of the option.”
In analogous teaching GAMALEY teaches “… computing a duration of the lost focus; ([GAMALEY, para. 0029] “A chat window may be deemed as active if content (e.g., text, audio, video or other type of media) has been inputted to or viewed in the chat window by either a remote or local user within a predefined time threshold. A chat window may be deemed as inactive, if either one or both the remote and the local users have been inactive with respect to inputting or viewing content to or from the chat window. The activity status for a chat window may be determined, in one or more embodiments, with respect to status information”) ([GAMALEY, para. 0030] “If a chat window for an inactive user is open on a computing system, the length of inactivity for that chat window may be monitored by a monitoring agent, and if the length of inactivity exceeds a certain predetermined threshold (e.g., 10 minutes) as defined for the profile to which the user belongs, then the respective chat window would be considered inactive”) comparing the duration to a threshold duration; and ([GAMALEY, para. 0030] “the length of inactivity for that chat window may be monitored by a monitoring agent, and if the length of inactivity exceeds a certain predetermined threshold (e.g., 10 minutes) as defined for the profile to which the user belongs”) in response to determining that the duration … transgresses the threshold duration, presenting an option to re-open an interface, wherein the first subset of the plurality of elements is revealed in response to selection of the option. ([GAMALEY, para. 0030] “if the length of inactivity exceeds a certain predetermined threshold (e.g., 10 minutes) as defined for the profile to which the user belongs, then the respective chat window would be considered inactive and possibly a candidate for closure (i.e., termination).”) ([GAMALEY, para. 0035] “Referring to FIG. 3B, in one embodiment, a closure window may be implemented and displayed in response to detecting a period of inactivity for one or more windows. The closure window may show a list of one or more chat windows that are candidates to be closed. The closure window, for each candidate chat window, may for example provide information comprising the user's logical name, the start time of the chat and the inactivity time for the respective window.”) ([GAMALEY, para. 0036] “more fields can be added that provide information about a user's profile group and time D(i) providing information for example, for the length of time a chat window exceeded a predetermined time threshold. As shown in FIG. 3B, in some embodiments, the following example options may be provided in the closure window: … 5) “Show Chats”—may popup all the selected chat windows. 6) “OK/Cancel”—may close the closure window, or in some embodiment may snooze the closure window for a predefine snooze time S.”)
Thus, given the teaching of GAMALEY, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to combine the teaching of computing a duration between the focus status indicating that the window has lost focus and the focus status being in focus, comparing the duration to a threshold duration, and presenting an option to re-open an interface by GAMALEY into the method of determining focus status indicating that a window has lost by HAMZY. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to do so because GAMALEY recognizes the need to improve computing resource utilizing by determining active and inactive chat windows ([GAMALEY, para. 0006] “Current chat applications open a separate chat window for every user that engaged in a chat session. … each open and inactive chat session consumes computing resources that could be utilized otherwise.”) ([GAMALEY, para. 0007] “methods and systems are needed that can overcome the aforementioned shortcomings by providing a solution to manage inactive chat session or windows that may be no longer needed.”) ([GAMALEY, para. 0008] “present disclosure is directed to systems, methods and corresponding products that facilitate managing graphical user interface objects in a computing environment.”)
In analogous teaching GADDE teaches “a focus status indicates that a window has lost focus based on the window being minimized … determining that the duration that the focus status of the window has been lost based on the window being minimized, transgresses the threshold duration” ([GADDE, para. 0026] “the SSO manager component may maintain the validity status of the authentication information based on a time duration of inactivity associated with each respective application of the plurality of applications on the client device (i.e., App 1 may have its own time duration of inactivity, App 2 may have its own time duration of inactivity, and so on). In some implementations, a time duration of inactivity associated with a respective application may be based on an amount of time the respective application is minimized, closed, and/or running in a background of the client device's operating system (OS). For example, App 1 may be launched and running on the client device, but the user may be interacting with App 2, and thus App 1 may be minimized, closed, and/or running in the background of the client device's OS while the user is interacting with App 2 in the foreground of the client device's OS. The amount of time App 1 is minimized, closed, and/or running in the background of the client device's OS may be App 1's time duration of inactivity.”) ([GADDE, para. 0027] “The SSO manager component may maintain a threshold time duration of inactivity (e.g., 15 minutes, 30 minutes, etc.) and may compare the time duration of inactivity associated with each respective application of the plurality of applications on the client device and the threshold time duration of inactivity. … if an application, of the plurality of applications on the client device, has an associated time duration of inactivity that satisfies the threshold time duration of inactivity (e.g., the application has been inactive for 30 minutes or more), then the SSO manager component may set the validity status of the authentication information to not valid”).
Thus, given the teaching of GADDE, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to combine the teaching of duration a window has been minimized by GADDE into the method of determining focus status indicating that a window has lost by HAMZY-GAMALEY. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to do so because GADDE recognizes the benefits of utilizing window states for improved security ([GADDE, para. 0014] “Some implementations, described herein, provide a device that has biometric-based security on the device at the application level. The device may be configured with a single sign-on capability that prompts a user to provide biometric information instead of, or in addition to, other login credentials. In this way, the security of the device is increased by the use of biometric information to limit access to the applications to certain users. ”) ([GADDE, para. 0027] “The SSO manager component may maintain a threshold time duration of inactivity (e.g., 15 minutes, 30 minutes, etc.) and may compare the time duration of inactivity associated with each respective application of the plurality of applications on the client device and the threshold time duration of inactivity. The SSO manager component may set the validity status of the authentication information based on the result of the comparison.”)
Regarding claim 17, this claim recites of a system comprising a processor that performs the method of claim 1. Therefore, claim 17 is rejected in a similar manner as in the rejection of claim 1.
Regarding claim 20, this claim recites of a non-transitory machine-readable storage medium that includes instructions that, when executed by one or more processors cause the processors to perform the method of claim 1. Therefore, claim 20 is rejected in a similar manner as in the rejection of claim 1.
Regarding claims 2 and 19, HAMZY-GAMALEY-GADDE teach all limitations of claims 1 and 17. HAMZY further teaches “… accessing the focus status of the window. ([HAMZY, abstract] “A windows security module monitors the windows displayed by the computer to detect when a window becomes inactive in the display, for example by the user clicking and working within another window in the display.”) ([HAMZY, para. 0041] “At step 1012, WSM 309 determines if a window has become inactive (out-of-focus) in the display, as detected by a window changing from a level 1 to a greater level display.”) ([HAMZY, para. 0027] “WMM 311 must serve as the window manager for the system and handle window creation, window movement, window iconization, window resizing, window z-ordering and “bring-window-into-focus” (i.e., make it active), amongst many other functions.”)
GAMALEY further teaches “accessing a conversation interface of a messaging application; ([GAMALEY, para. 0022] “Referring to FIG. 1, an exemplary network environment is illustrated in which two computing systems 3, 7 are configured to execute client software (hereafter clients) 4, 8 in communication with a remote server 1 over network 2. Each client may instantiate one or more graphical user interface objects (e.g., chat windows) for the purpose of display on the respective computing system. The graphical user interface objects may be configured to allow a user to input content into an edit area, and to view content received from another user in a view pane.”) presenting the conversation interface in the window, the conversation interface comprising a plurality of conversation elements; and … ([GAMALEY, para. 0024] “For example, chat window managers 5, 9 may manage the instantiation, opening and closing of chat windows, show the list of open chat windows 5, 9 and the respective timing information associated therewith. Chat window managers 5, 9 may also monitor the number and calculate the length of time each chat window or chat session remains inactive”) ([GAMALEY, para. 0029] “A chat window may be deemed as active if content (e.g., text, audio, video or other type of media) has been inputted to or viewed in the chat window by either a remote or local user within a predefined time threshold. “) ([GAMALEY, para. 0036] “5) “Show Chats”—may popup all the selected chat windows.”)
The same motivation to modify HAMZY with GAMALEY as in the rejection of claim 1 applies.
Regarding claim 4, HAMZY-GAMALEY-GADDE teach all limitations of claim 1. HAMZY further teaches “further comprising modifying a display attribute of a second subset of the plurality of elements, the second subset being different than the first subset.” ([HAMZY, para. 0029] “The table entries in FIG. 4 would result in the exemplary screen display shown in FIG. 5. As the highest level z-order (i.e. “1” in the exemplary table 400), the “Fax” window 509 is displayed on top of all other windows. The order of display for the other windows is also determined by their z-order”) ([HAMZY, para. 0029] “When windows are being displayed in the display 501 (FIG. 5), WSM 309 continuously monitors the list of windows in table 400 (FIG. 4) for a change in the z-ordering of the windows. … as seen in FIG. 5, window 509 containing the “fax” is set at the top level and its content is actively displayed on display 501 without any screensaver function. All displayed windows set at level 2 and greater in table 400, for example windows 503, 505, 507 in FIG. 5, are not currently in focus or active on the display 105.”) ([HAMZY, para. 0033] “Upon detecting a window in the display becoming inactive and dropping from the top level in the z-order specified in table 400 … displaying a screen-saver-type static or dynamic image in place of the application data of the inactive window or within a viewable sector of the inactive window, (2) blanking the display within the inactive window”) ([HAMZY, para. 0036] “FIG. 8 shows an exemplary screen shot of display 501 implementing the security function for an inactive window, in accordance with a preferred embodiment of the present invention. As seen in the example of FIG. 8, fax window 809 is in focus (active) and displays the fax content … window 807 has been set to the “standard” obscure style, in accordance with the options set at column 708 in table 700. In this example, the “standard” style displays text stating “THIS WINDOW IS OBSCURED”.”)
Regarding claim 5, HAMZY-GAMALEY-GADDE teach all limitations of claim 1. HAMZY further teaches “wherein the focus status changes from being in focus to losing focus in response to determining that a different window is being viewed. ([HAMZY, abstract] “A windows security module monitors the windows displayed by the computer to detect when a window becomes inactive in the display, for example by the user clicking and working within another window in the display. Upon becoming inactive, the windows security module overrides the application data being sent to a secured window and displays a predetermined screensaver-type image in its place, thereby hiding sensitive information from being displayed by the window during periods of inactivity.”) ([HAMZY, para. 0041] “At step 1012, WSM 309 determines if a window has become inactive (out-of-focus) in the display, as detected by a window changing from a level 1 to a greater level display.”)
Regarding claim 6, HAMZY-GAMALEY-GADDE teach all limitations of claim 1. HAMZY further teaches “wherein the focus status changes from being in focus to losing focus in response to detecting user interaction with a portion of a display that excludes the window. ([HAMZY, abstract] “A windows security module monitors the windows displayed by the computer to detect when a window becomes inactive in the display, for example by the user clicking and working within another window in the display. Upon becoming inactive, the windows security module overrides the application data being sent to a secured window and displays a predetermined screensaver-type image in its place, thereby hiding sensitive information from being displayed by the window during periods of inactivity.”) ([HAMZY, para. 0041] “At step 1012, WSM 309 determines if a window has become inactive (out-of-focus) in the display, as detected by a window changing from a level 1 to a greater level display.”)
Regarding claim 7, HAMZY-GAMALEY-GADDE teach all limitations of claim 1. HAMZY further teaches “wherein the focus status changes from being in focus to losing focus in response to determining that the window has been obscured by a different window. ([HAMZY, para. 0033] “Upon detecting a window in the display becoming inactive and dropping from the top level in the z-order specified in table 400”) ([HAMZY, para. 0041] “At step 1012, WSM 309 determines if a window has become inactive (out-of-focus) in the display, as detected by a window changing from a level 1 to a greater level display.”) ([HAMZY, para. 0029] “The table entries in FIG. 4 would result in the exemplary screen display shown in FIG. 5. As the highest level z-order (i.e. “1” in the exemplary table 400), the “Fax” window 509 is displayed on top of all other windows. The order of display for the other windows is also determined by their z-order, except for minimized applications (for example, the email application is currently minimized) and is shown as an Icon or other graphic element (not shown) instead of as a separate window in the display. The user can change the z-ordering and the X-Y coordinates of any entry by taking actions like mouse clicking or window “drag” and “resize” functions.”)
Regarding claim 13, HAMZY-GAMALEY-GADDE teach all limitations of claim 1. HAMZY further teaches “obscuring the first subset of the plurality of elements comprises presenting an overlay on top of a … region …” ([HAMZY, para. 0035] “In response, WMM 311 requires the display device driver 321 to generate a predetermined content at the pixels of the display identified in table 400 for the inactive window, instead of the content being driven by the window's application 319. The security style 708 sets the predetermined content that will be specified by WSM 309 for display on display 105. For example, the “standard” security style specified in table 700 could be a standard printed text message (“THIS WINDOW IS OBSCURED”) indicating that the content of that window has been obscured ”).
GAMALEY further teaches “… on top of a chat region that includes one or more messages exchanged in a conversation, the overlay comprising a message indicating that a user of is no longer present.” ([GAMALEY, para. 0005] “Most chat windows have a view area in which the message is displayed and an edit area in which a user can input a reply to a received message.”) ([GAMALEY, para. 0006] “Current chat applications open a separate chat window for every user that engaged in a chat session. “) ([GAMALEY, para. 0035] “Referring to FIG. 3B, in one embodiment, a closure window may be implemented and displayed in response to detecting a period of inactivity for one or more windows. The closure window may show a list of one or more chat windows that are candidates to be closed. The closure window, for each candidate chat window, may for example provide information comprising the user's logical name, the start time of the chat and the inactivity time for the respective window. In some embodiments, a title may be also added to identify the chat window.”) ([GAMALEY, para. 0036] ““OK/Cancel”—may close the closure window, or in some embodiment may snooze the closure window for a predefine snooze time S.”)
The same motivation to modify HAMZY with GAMALEY as in the rejection of claim 1 applies.
Regarding claim 15, HAMZY-GAMALEY-GADDE teaches all limitations of claim 13. HAMZY further teaches “further comprising: after obscuring the first subset of the plurality of elements, determining that the focus status of the window is in focus. ([HAMZY, para. 0029] “The table entries in FIG. 4 would result in the exemplary screen display shown in FIG. 5. As the highest level z-order (i.e. “1” in the exemplary table 400), the “Fax” window 509 is displayed on top of all other windows. The order of display for the other windows is also determined by their z-order, except for minimized applications (for example, the email application is currently minimized) and is shown as an Icon or other graphic element (not shown) instead of as a separate window in the display. The user can change the z-ordering and the X-Y coordinates of any entry by taking actions like mouse clicking or window “drag” and “resize” functions. … All active windows are displayed above the background”) ([HAMZY, para. 0032] “WSM 309 continuously monitors the list of windows in table 400 (FIG. 4) for a change in the z-ordering of the windows. WSM 309 implements the options set in table 700 for each displayed window's obscure options by issuing instructions to WMM 311. If a new window comes into focus by user action (for example, clicking in the window), it is set at the top level of the z-ordering (level 1) by WMM 311, and WSM 309 issues instructions to WMM 311 to turn off any security function specified by windows security options 700 that is obscuring the display of the new top level window.”)
Claims 3 and 18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over HAMZY-GAMALEY-GADDE, in view of WEISBERG (US-20070245249-A1).
Regarding claims 3 and 18, HAMZY-GAMALEY-GADDE teach all limitations of claims 1 and 17. However, HAMZY-GAMALEY-GADDE does not teach “further comprising: retrieving a universal resource locator (URL) of a messaging application; downloading a markup language document corresponding to the messaging application; and processing the markup language document to display a conversation interface.”.
In analogous teaching WEISBERG teaches “retrieving a universal resource locator (URL) of a messaging application; ([WEISBERG, para. 0036] “In an example embodiment, the agent can click on a control (e.g., in the form of a URL link) within the agent chat application user interface that will move the client chat from a popup chat into a continuously visible chat”) downloading a markup language document corresponding to the messaging application; and ([WEISBERG, para. 0036] “Clicking on the control causes a message (e.g., an XML message), to be transmitted to the visitor's chat client. The message contains information needed to preserve the chat as well as a signal to make it continuously visible as the visitor navigates the website.”) processing the markup language document to display a conversation interface. ([WEISBERG, para. 0036] “The message contains information needed to preserve the chat as well as a signal to make it continuously visible as the visitor navigates the website.”) ([WEISBERG, para. 0030] “popup client optionally is provided within a frame, such as an inline frame (iFrame) or using an xFrame. An iFrame is an HTML element which makes it possible to embed another HTML document (e.g., accessed using a tag, including a URL (Universal Resource Locator)) inside the main document (e.g., within the HTML of the actual client page).”).
Thus, given the teaching of WEISBERG, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to combine the teaching of downloading a markup language by WEISBERG into the method of determining focus status indicating that a window has lost by HAMZY-GAMALEY-GADDE. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to do so because WEISBERG recognizes the need to improve online chats ([WEISBERG, para. 0009] “using many conventional systems, navigation from one web page to another can interfere with the chat user interface”) ([WEISBERG, para. 0010] “Methods and systems are described for online chat. Certain example embodiments enable a chat client user interface to be continuously displayed as a user navigates among different web pages.”).
Claim 8 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over HAMZY-GAMALEY-GADDE, in view of BUCKLEY (US-20180129396-A1).
Regarding claim 8, HAMZY-GAMALEY-GADDE teach all limitations of claim 1. However, HAMZY-GAMALEY-GADDE does not teach “wherein the focus status is received from a web browser.”.
In analogous teaching BUCKLEY teaches “wherein the focus status is received from a web browser.” ([BUCKLEY, para. 0059] “A focused application may also be referred to as an active application. For example, if a web browser application is the focused application, the graphical element 720, when pressed, may cause navigation from a currently visited web page to a web page visited immediately prior to the currently visited web page. If there is no web page that was visited immediately prior to the currently visited web page, cause closing of the web browser application and/or returning to a previously opened application.”).
Thus, given the teaching of BUCKLEY, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to combine the teaching of focus status is received from a web browser by BUCKLEY into the method of determining focus status indicating that a window has lost by HAMZY-GAMALEY-GADDE. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to do so because BUCKLEY recognizes the need to improve user efficiency ([BUCKLEY, para. 0002] “the user's efficiency and experience with respect to using the operating system or the application may be improved.”) ([BUCKLEY, para. 0027] “The subject systems and methods provide shortcut assistance to a user. A shortcut may include a keyboard shortcut and/or a gesture (e.g., performed on a touchscreen) that a user can perform in order to cause execution of an action corresponding to the performed shortcut.”)
Claims 9 and 10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over HAMZY-GAMALEY-GADDE, in view of XU (US-20220391059-A1), based on its priority to foreign application Chinese Patent Application No. 202010868841.X filed on Aug. 25, 2020, hereinafter HAMZY-GAMALEY-GADDE-XU.
Regarding claim 9, HAMZY-GAMALEY-GADDE teach all limitations of claim 1. GAMALEY further teaches of “wherein the plurality of elements include a chat region that includes one or more messages exchanged in a conversation, a chat input region for enabling a user to compose a message” ([GAMALEY, para. 0005] “The transmitted message is typically displayed in what is commonly referred to as a chat window. Most chat windows have a view area in which the message is displayed and an edit area in which a user can input a reply to a received message.”) ([GAMALEY, para. 0005] “For example, if user A is chatting with users B, C, D and E, then four chat windows are displayed on user's A display screen.”) ([GAMALEY, para. 0022] “Each client may instantiate one or more graphical user interface objects (e.g., chat windows) for the purpose of display on the respective computing system. The graphical user interface objects may be configured to allow a user to input content into an edit area, and to view content received from another user in a view pane.”)
The same motivation to modify HAMZY with GAMALEY as in the rejection of claim 1 applies.
However, HAMZY-GAMALEY-GADDE does not teach “…. a presence region that indicates an activity state of each of a plurality of friends, a friends region that lists a plurality of friends with whom the user has previously engaged in a conversation, and a phone call region for placing a phone call to a given friend.”.
In analogous teaching XU teaches “a presence region that indicates an activity state of each of a plurality of friends, a friends region that lists a plurality of friends with whom the user has previously engaged in a conversation, ([XU, para. 0009] “An active friend list is displayed, where the active friend list displays activity information of an active friend of the user, and the active friend is a friend who is online in a recent preset time period.”) and a phone call region for placing a phone call to a given friend. ([XU, para. 0053] “after the active friend list is displayed, the method further includes receiving a call instruction, where the call instruction is generated when the user triggers a target call control in the active friend list, where the target call control is located in a first target display region corresponding to a first active friend, and the target call control is a video call control or a voice call control”).
Thus, given the teaching of XU, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to combine the teaching of presence and phone call region by XU into the method of determining focus status indicating that a window has lost by HAMZY-GAMALEY-GADDE. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to do so because XU recognizes the need to improve the efficiency of messaging ([XU, para. 0090] “not only the user can timely and accurately check the activity of the friend, but also the user is provided with a convenient and efficient manner of interaction, thereby reducing the time the user spends on interacting with the active friend, promoting interaction and communication between friends”).
Regarding claim 10, HAMZY-GAMALEY-GADDE-XU teach all limitations of claim 9. XU further teaches “wherein the first subset of the plurality of elements includes the chat region and the presence region.” ([XU, para. 0038] “the electronic device may display a friend list 20 and an entry control 21 on the message page. The friend list 20 may display friend information of each friend of the user, such as the name and avatar of each friend, the last chat message sent by each friend when chatting with the user, and the sending time of the last message. … the electronic device may display the entry control 21 of the active friend list at the bottom of the message page (as shown in FIG. 2 ), or may display the entry control 21 of the active friend list at the top of the friend list 20 displayed on the message page”).
The same motivation to modify HAMZY-GAMALEY-GADDE with XU as in the rejection of claim 9 applies.
Claims 11 and 12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over HAMZY-GAMALEY-GADDE-XU in view of CHAUDHRI (US-20170336960-A1), hereinafter HAMZY-GAMALEY-GADDE-XU-CHAUDHRI.
Regarding claim 11, HAMZY-GAMALEY-GADDE-XU teaches all limitations of claim 10. However, HAMZY-GAMALEY-GADDE-XU does not teach “further comprising modifying a display attribute of the chat input region.”
In analogous teaching CHAUDHRI teaches “further comprising modifying a display attribute of the chat input region.” ([CHAUDHRI, para. 1157] “where the interactive application user interface is displayed over a portion of the messaging user interface, the messaging user interface is blurred, faded, or otherwise obscured to emphasize display of the interactive application user interface.”).
Thus, given the teaching of CHAUDHRI, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to combine the teaching of modifying display attribute by CHAUDHRI into the method of determining focus status indicating that a window has lost by HAMZY-GAMALEY-GADDE-XU. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to do so because CHAUDHRI recognizes the need to improve messaging ([CHAUDHRI, para. 0005] “there is a need for electronic devices with improved methods and interfaces for messaging. Such methods and interfaces optionally complement or replace conventional methods for messaging.”).
Regarding claim 12, HAMZY-GAMALEY-GADDE-XU-CHAUDHRI teaches all limitations of claim 11. CHAUDHRI further teaches “wherein modifying the display attribute comprises reducing an opacity of the chat input region by a specified amount.” ([CHAUDHRI, para. 1157] “where the interactive application user interface is displayed over a portion of the messaging user interface, the messaging user interface is blurred, faded, or otherwise obscured to emphasize display of the interactive application user interface.”).
The same motivation to modify HAMZY-GAMALEY-GADDE-XU with CHAUDHRI as in the rejection of claim 11 applies.
Claim 14 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over HAMZY-GAMALEY-GADDE, in view of CHAUDHRI (US-20170336960-A1)
Regarding claim 14, HAMZY-GAMALEY-GADDE teaches all limitations of claim 13. However, HAMZY-GAMALEY-GADDE does not teach “wherein the overlay comprises an avatar of the user.”.
In analogous teaching CHAUDHRI teaches “wherein the overlay comprises an avatar of the user.” ([CHAUDHRI, para. 0107] “the device displays a menu that contains activatable menu items associated with the first avatar overlaid on the messaging user interface.”).
Thus, given the teaching of CHAUDHRI, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to combine the teaching of overlay comprises an avatar of the user by CHAUDHRI into the method of determining focus status indicating that a window has lost by HAMZY-GAMALEY-GADDE. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to do so because CHAUDHRI recognizes the need to improve messaging ([CHAUDHRI, para. 0005] “there is a need for electronic devices with improved methods and interfaces for messaging. Such methods and interfaces optionally complement or replace conventional methods for messaging.”).
Claim 16 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over HAMZY-GAMALEY-GADDE, in view of HAYNES (US-20110145744-A1)
Regarding claim 16, HAMZY-GAMALEY-GADDE teach all limitations of claim 15. However, HAMZY-GAMALEY-GADDE does not teach “in response to determining that the focus status of the window is in focus, detecting an interaction with a conversation interface; and revealing the first subset of the plurality of elements in response to detecting the interaction with the conversation interface.”
In analogous teaching HAYNES teaches “in response to determining that the focus status of the window is in focus, detecting an interaction with a conversation interface; ([HAYNES, para. 0020] “The abbreviated interface permits a user to view and/or reply to a short communication (e.g., an IM entry) without changing focus to a primary window 113 associated with the communication application.”) and revealing the first subset of the plurality of elements in response to detecting the interaction with the conversation interface.” ([HAYNES, para. 0032] “Embodiment 220 shows an abbreviated interface 221 that presents new (unread) messages 224, as well as old (read) messages 226. A visually distinct presentation of the two types of messages 224, 226 can optionally exist.”) [HAYNES, para. 0037] “For instance, when a user hovers a pointer over a task element 272 for N seconds, an incoming abbreviated interface (embodiment 210) can be presented; when a user depresses CONTROL when a pointer hovers over a task element for N seconds—an outgoing abbreviated interface (embodiment 270) can be presented;”)
Thus, given the teaching of HAYNES, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to combine the teaching of the focus status of the window is in focus, detecting an interaction with a conversation interface by HAYNES into the method of determining focus status indicating that a window has lost by HAMZY-GAMALEY-GADDE. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to do so because HAYNES recognizes the need to improve messaging experience ([HAYNES, para. 0003] “Another option is to minimize an IM window when working within a different application and restoring the IM window to read and respond to an IM message. A constant process requiring minimizing/restoring or toggling can be distracting to users and can decrease the overall user experience.”) ([HAYNES, para. 0020] “The abbreviated interface 118 can be an abbreviated (light-weight) interface (implemented as a fly-over popup in one embodiment) of a communication application (an instant messaging (IM) or chat application in one embodiment). … The abbreviated interface permits a user to view and/or reply to a short communication (e.g., an IM entry) without changing focus to a primary window 113 associated with the communication application.”)
Pertinent Art
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant’s disclosure
DESSERREY (US-20210392096-A1): This prior art teaches of a conversation interface in a messaging application is displayed, the conversation interface being presented to participants in a conversation that is being conducted on the messaging application. The conversation interface is constructed by determining statuses of at least two external resources that have been launched, within the context of the messaging application, by one or more of the conversation participants. An external resource notification interface (or “dock”) is displayed in the conversation interface, the external resource notification interface including icons corresponding to the at least two external resources. Upon user selection of the external resource notification interface, a list interface (or “drawer”) including user-selectable cells corresponding to the at least two external resources is displayed.
UMAPATHY (US-10680988-B2): This prior art teaches of a method of postponing an electronic message is performed at a computing device having one or more processors and memory. The memory stores one or more programs configured for execution by the one or more processors. The device displays a first electronic message for a user of the computing device and receives user input to postpone the first electronic message. In response to the user input, the device displays a plurality of postponement locations in a user interface window and receives user selection of a postponement location from the displayed plurality of postponement locations. The device then inhibits display of the first electronic message at the computing device. When it is subsequently determined that the computing device is at the first postponement location, the device redisplays the first electronic message.
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 AFAQ ALI whose telephone number is (571)272-1571. The examiner can normally be reached Mon - Fri 7:30am - 5:30pm EST.
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, ALI SHAYANFAR can be reached at (571) 270-1050. 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.
/A.A./
08/20/2026
/AFAQ ALI/Examiner, Art Unit 2434
/NOURA ZOUBAIR/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2434
Prosecution Insights