DETAILED ACTION
Notice of 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 .
Status of the Application
Claims 1-20 were pending and were rejected in the previous office action.
Claims 1-9, 11, and 13-20 were amended in the response filed 7/15/2026.
Claims 1-20 remain pending and are examined in this office action.
Priority
As previously acknowledged, this application is a continuation application of PCT Patent Application No. PCT/CN2023/133170, filed on November 22, 2023, which claims priority to Chinese Patent Application No. 202310125248X, filed January 20, 2023.
Information Disclosure Statement
The Information Disclosure Statement filed 6/26/2026 has been considered.
Response to Arguments
Claim Objections:
Claims 3-9, 14-15, and 18-19 were objected to for informalities. Claims 3-9, 14-15, and 18-19 were amended to correct the previous issues, and these previous objections are withdrawn. However, please see the newly added objection to claim 15 with a suggestion to further clarify the limitation reciting “the chat scene state.”
35 USC § 112(b) Rejections:
Applicant’s arguments with respect to the previous § 112(b) rejections of claims 2-4, 7, and 17-19 (pgs. 15-16, remarks filed 7/15/2026) have been fully considered and are persuasive. Claims 2, 7, and 17 are amended to clarify the previous issues. Therefore, the previous § 112(b) rejections of claims 2-4, 7, and 17-19 are withdrawn.
However, applicant’s arguments with respect to the § 112(b) rejections of claims 11-13 (pg. 15-16, remarks) have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Claim 11, while amended, is still indefinite because the claim is amenable to a plurality of possible claim constructions such that the intended scope of the claim cannot be determined. For example, claim 11 recites the limitations “trigger real-time interaction with the social object corresponding to the virtual image,” “displaying…the virtual image corresponding to the social object in the first chat scene” – and therefore it is unclear whether “the social object” and “the virtual image” in each limitation are referring to the “a virtual image of a social object…” recited in the preceding limitation of claim 11, or if the broadest reasonable interpretation of the claim may instead include any one of the various instances of social objects and virtual images that are previously recited in claim 1. See Ex Parte Miyazaki, 89 USPQ2d 1207, 1211, (Bd. Pat. App. & Int. 2008), holding “if a claim is amenable to two or more plausible claim constructions” the claim may be rejected as indefinite during prosecution. For the purposes of further examination, the examiner interprets the social object and the virtual image to refer to any of the previously recited virtual image and corresponding social object.
Claim 13, while amended, is still indefinite because the claim is amenable to a plurality of possible claim constructions such that the intended scope of the claim cannot be determined. For example, claim 13 recites the limitations “before displaying the virtual image corresponding to the social object in the first chat scene,” “a chat scene state of the social object indicating that the social object is not in a chat scene,” “adding…the social object to the second chat scene, and establishing a chat session with the social object,” and “in response to the chat scene state of the social object indicating that the current social user is in a chat scene and the chat scene state of the current social user indicating that the social object is not in a chat scene, instructing the social object to exit the current chat scene, and in response to the social object agreeing to exit the chat scene that the social object is in, creating a third chat scene, adding…the social object…and establishing a chat session between the current social user and the social object.” Again, it is unclear whether “the social object” and “the virtual image” in each limitation are referring to the “a virtual image of a social object…” recited in the preceding limitation in preceding claim 11, or if the broadest reasonable interpretation of the claim may instead include any one of the various instances of social objects and virtual images that are previously recited in claim 1. See Ex Parte Miyazaki, 89 USPQ2d 1207, 1211, (Bd. Pat. App. & Int. 2008), holding “if a claim is amenable to two or more plausible claim constructions” the claim may be rejected as indefinite during prosecution. For the purposes of further examination, the examiner interprets the social object and the virtual image to refer to any of the previously recited virtual image and corresponding social object.
The examiner suggests amending all references to virtual images and social objects throughout the affected claims with specific modifiers that delineate exactly which social object(s) and virtual image(s) are being referred to, in any instances where the claims contain several references to various different social objects or virtual images.
In addition, claim 13 still recites “the current chat scene,” - however, the claims lack sufficient antecedent basis for “the current chat scene” and there are multiple previously recited chat scenes, so it is unclear what “the current chat scene” refers to. For the purpose of further examination, “the current chat scene” is interpreted to refer to any of the previously recited chat scenes.
Therefore, claims 11-13 (including claim 12 which depends from claim 11) remain rejected under § 112(b). Please see the current § 112(b) rejections of claims 11-13 below.
35 USC § 101 Rejection:
Applicant’s arguments with respect to the previous § 101 rejection of claims 1-20 (pgs. 16-18, remarks filed 7/15/2026) have been fully considered and are persuasive.
As identified in the remarks (pgs. 16-17), claims 1, 16 and 20 are amended to recite (using claim 1 as representative): wherein the displaying the virtual image of the at least one first social object comprises: determining, based on a size of a display screen for displaying the social application interface, a first plurality of virtual images of a first set of first social objects, among the at least one first social object, that can be accommodated in the display screen at one time, and displaying the determined first plurality of virtual images of the first set of first social objects; and in response to receiving a screen sliding operation in the social application interface, determining and displaying a second plurality of virtual images of a second set of first social objects, among the at least one first social object, that can be accommodated in the display screen at a next time, wherein, unless an additional screen sliding operation in the social application interface is received, additional virtual images of remaining first social objects not in the first set or the second set are not determined. The claims as amended recite a specific user interface implementation that addresses technical issues specific to user interfaces, as reflected in the specification. See ¶ 0061 and ¶ 0062 of the specification (see published application, US20250191080A1), showing that the specific implementation reflected in the claims reduces frame freezing during scrolling. Thus, for similar reasons to the findings in Core Wireless Licensing S.A.R.L. v. LG Electronics, Inc., 880 F.3d 1356 (Fed. Cir. 2018), the claims recite a specific implementation of a user interface to provide improved user interface functionality that reduces frame freezing and integrates any recited abstract into a practical application at Step 2A Prong Two.
See also, USPTO August 4, 2025 memorandum (“Reminders on evaluating subject matter eligibility of claims under 35 U.S.C. 101”) showing that “Examiners are reminded that if it is a “close call” as to whether a claim is eligible, they should only make a rejection when it is more likely than not (i.e., more than 50%) that the claim is ineligible under 35 U.S.C. 101.”
Therefore, the previous § 101 rejection of claims 1-20 is withdrawn.
35 USC § 103 – Prior Art Rejections:
Applicant’s arguments with respect to the previous § 103 rejections of claims 1-5, 7-12, and 14-20 (pgs. 18-21, remarks filed 7/15/2026) have been considered but they are moot, as they do not apply to the current grounds of rejection applied in the current § 103 rejections of claims 1-5, 7-12, and 14-20 below, in response to applicant’s amendments to at least claims 1, 16 and 20. Please see the updated § 103 rejections of claims 1-5, 7-12, and 14-20 below.
In addition, the examiner respectfully disagrees with applicant’s specific argument (with respect to independent claims 1, 16, and 20) that neither of Van Wie or Li teach “the online state of the current social user being set by the current social user” as recited in amended claims 1, 16 and 20 (pgs. 18-21, remarks).
Claims 1, 16 and 20 under the broadest reasonable interpretation, do not specify a particular mechanism or action that the user takes to set the online state (e.g. a user selecting an online state from a list of displayed status options) other than it “being set by the current social user.” US 20130283169 A1 (“Van Wie”) teaches in at least ¶ 0089 that “The Online/Offline state indicates whether or not the communicant currently is available for communication. In the illustrated embodiments, a communicant is in the Online state when the communicant is connected to the network communication environment (e.g., by establishing a presence with respect to one or more of the virtual area applications 46).” Van Wie further teaches in ¶ 0062-0066/Fig. 2 (people panel 265, specifically in the “main” area) that each of the users online states reflect both the user’s having established a presence in a particular area, i.e. set by each user, and further reflects details such as whether the users’ speakers or headphones have been turned on or off, which is also reflected in the graphic representing their online states.
This clearly shows that the online state is set by various activities of each user, such as the user connecting to the network communication environment and/or establishing a presence, or by activation of communication channels by each of the users which is used to indicate the online states. Therefore, the examiner disagrees with applicant’s interpretation of the prior art and maintains that Van Wie still teaches this specific feature. In summary, Van Wie still teaches:
determining, in response to an operation performed on the object screening control, at least one first social object related to an online state of the current social user from the social application (Van Wie: Fig. 5, ¶ 0081-0082 showing the people panel includes toggles for expanding and determining a view of people that are currently present, i.e. online, within a virtual area - ¶ 0081 “Zone of Co-Presence filtering criteria identifies those communicants who are co-present within a particular zone of a virtual area application” and ¶ 0082 “Each of the groups 202-204 are labeled with a respective “Present” or “Not Present” label that is associated with a respective toggle control that can be toggled to selectively collapse and expand the associated group 202-204”), the online state of the current social user being set by the current social user and describing a state of a virtual image of the current social user or a state of the current social user (Van Wie; ¶ 0081 “for each virtual area application, each group of two or more communicants who are present within the same zone of the virtual area application is listed in a separate, selectively expandable and collapsible Zone”; see Figs. 2 and 5 showing people panel 265 showing users currently online and/or present within specific virtual areas; wherein as per ¶ 0089 “The Online/Offline state indicates whether or not the communicant currently is available for communication. In the illustrated embodiments, a communicant is in the Online state when the communicant is connected to the network communication environment (e.g., by establishing a presence with respect to one or more of the virtual area applications 46).” and as per ¶ 0062-0066 that each of the users online states in the people panel reflect both the user’s having established a presence in a particular area, i.e. set by each user, and further reflects details such as whether the users’ speakers or headphones have been turned on or off, which is also reflected in the graphic representing their online states)
Please see the current § 103 rejections of claims 1-5, 7-12, and 14-20 which are updated based on applicant’s amendments.
Claim Objections
Claim 15 is objected to because of the following informalities:
Claim 15 recites “adding the current social user to the chat scene of the social user performing invitation in response to the chat scene state indicating that…” but appears it should be amended to recite “adding the current social user to the chat scene of the social user performing invitation in response to a chat scene state indicating that…” in order to improve the clarity of claim 15.
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Interpretation
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(f):
(f) Element in Claim for a Combination. – An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The claims in this application are given their broadest reasonable interpretation using the plain meaning of the claim language in light of the specification as it would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art. The broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim element (also commonly referred to as a claim limitation) is limited by the description in the specification when 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is invoked.
As explained in MPEP § 2181, subsection I, claim limitations that meet the following three-prong test will be interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
(A) the claim limitation uses the term “means” or “step” or a term used as a substitute for “means” that is a generic placeholder (also called a nonce term or a non-structural term having no specific structural meaning) for performing the claimed function;
(B) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is modified by functional language, typically, but not always linked by the transition word “for” (e.g., “means for”) or another linking word or phrase, such as “configured to” or “so that”; and
(C) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function.
Use of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim with functional language creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites sufficient structure, material, or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Absence of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is not to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is not interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites function without reciting sufficient structure, material or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Claim limitations in this application that use the word “means” (or “step”) are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action. Conversely, claim limitations in this application that do not use the word “means” (or “step”) are not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action.
This application includes one or more claim limitations that do not use the word “means,” but are nonetheless being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, because the claim limitation(s) uses a generic placeholder that is coupled with functional language without reciting sufficient structure to perform the recited function and the generic placeholder is not preceded by a structural modifier. Such claim limitation(s) is/are:
“a matching control, the matching control being configured to find…a social user to interact with…” of claims 2 and 17
“the chat establishing control being configured to trigger real-time interaction…” of claim 11
“the inviting control being configured to invite at least one social object…” of claim 11
“an invitation selecting control, the invitation selecting control is configured to agree to or refuse to join a chat scene…” of claim 14
Because this/these claim limitation(s) is/are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, it/they is/are being interpreted to cover the corresponding structure described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof.
The following portions of the specification (see published application US20250191080A1) appear to describe the corresponding structure for the elements above:
a matching control – Fig. 5, Fig. 8b, ¶ 0075, ¶ 0105, ¶ 0109, ¶ 0142
the chat establishing control - ¶ 0074, ¶ 0076, ¶ 0045, ¶ 0182
the inviting control - ¶ 0142, Fig. 8b, ¶ 0152, ¶ 0182
an invitation selecting control - ¶ 0088, ¶ 0090-0091, ¶ 0186
If applicant does not intend to have this/these limitation(s) interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, applicant may: (1) amend the claim limitation(s) to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph (e.g., by reciting sufficient structure to perform the claimed function); or (2) present a sufficient showing that the claim limitation(s) recite(s) sufficient structure to perform the claimed function so as to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 11-13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor, or for pre-AIA the applicant regards as the invention.
Claim 11 is indefinite because the claim is amenable to a plurality of possible claim constructions such that the intended scope of the claim cannot be determined. For example, claim 11 recites the limitations “trigger real-time interaction with the social object corresponding to the virtual image,” “displaying…the virtual image corresponding to the social object in the first chat scene” – and therefore it is unclear whether “the social object” and “the virtual image” in each limitation are referring to the “a virtual image of a social object…” recited in the preceding limitation of claim 11, or if the broadest reasonable interpretation of the claim may instead include any one of the various instances of social objects and virtual images that are previously recited in claim 1. See Ex Parte Miyazaki, 89 USPQ2d 1207, 1211, (Bd. Pat. App. & Int. 2008), holding “if a claim is amenable to two or more plausible claim constructions” the claim may be rejected as indefinite during prosecution. For the purposes of further examination, the examiner interprets the social object and the virtual image to refer to any of the previously recited virtual image and corresponding social object.
Claim 12 is also rejected as it depends from rejected claim 11.
Claim 13 is indefinite because the claim is amenable to a plurality of possible claim constructions such that the intended scope of the claim cannot be determined. For example, claim 13 recites the limitations “before displaying the virtual image corresponding to the social object in the first chat scene,” “a chat scene state of the social object indicating that the social object is not in a chat scene,” “adding…the social object to the second chat scene, and establishing a chat session with the social object,” and “in response to the chat scene state of the social object indicating that the current social user is in a chat scene and the chat scene state of the current social user indicating that the social object is not in a chat scene, instructing the social object to exit the current chat scene, and in response to the social object agreeing to exit the chat scene that the social object is in, creating a third chat scene, adding…the social object…and establishing a chat session between the current social user and the social object.” Again, it is unclear whether “the social object” and “the virtual image” in each limitation are referring to the “a virtual image of a social object…” recited in the preceding limitation in preceding claim 11, or if the broadest reasonable interpretation of the claim may instead include any one of the various instances of social objects and virtual images that are previously recited in claim 1. See Ex Parte Miyazaki, 89 USPQ2d 1207, 1211, (Bd. Pat. App. & Int. 2008), holding “if a claim is amenable to two or more plausible claim constructions” the claim may be rejected as indefinite during prosecution. For the purposes of further examination, the examiner interprets the social object and the virtual image to refer to any of the previously recited virtual image and corresponding social object.
The examiner suggests amending all references to virtual images and social objects throughout the claims with specific modifiers that delineate exactly which social object(s) and virtual image(s) are being referred to, in instances where the claims contain several references to various different social objects or virtual images.
Claim 13 also further recites “the current chat scene,” however, the claims lack sufficient antecedent basis for “the current chat scene” and previously recite multiple seemingly different chat scenes, so it is unclear what “the current chat scene” refers to. For the purpose of further examination, “the current chat scene” is interpreted to refer to any of the previously recited chat scenes.
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 for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
The factual inquiries set forth in Graham v. John Deere Co., 383 U.S. 1, 148 USPQ 459 (1966), that are applied for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
Claims 1-2, 5, 16-17, and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US 20130283169 A1 to Van Wie in view of US 20180048597 A1 to Li et al. (Li), and further in view of US 20140137013 A1 to Matas.
Claim 1: Van Wie teaches:
A method for social networking based on a virtual image (Van Wie: ¶ 0050 showing methods for social communications in a virtual area), executed by a terminal device (Van Wie: ¶ 0045-0046 showing client network node, which as per ¶ 0033 “is a computer on a network …”), and comprising:
displaying a social application interface (Van Wie: ¶ 0052, ¶ 0062 and Fig. 2 showing client node displaying a graphical user interface 270 of a communications application for interaction between people, i.e. a social application interface),
the social application interface comprising an object screening control (Van Wie: ¶ 0080-0083, Fig. 5 further describing the people panel 265 of the graphical user interface 270 used to screen/group users by their status; also see ¶ 0063) and virtual images of a plurality of social objects in a social application (Van Wie: Fig. 2, ¶ 0062-0064, ¶ 0069-0070 showing a plurality of social objects in people people/interaction toolbar, including objects representing users virtual images of users in the area included in people panel 265 and chat button to interact with any of the users in the virtual area),
With respect to the limitation:
the social application on the terminal device being logged in by a current social user,
While Van Wie highly discusses the current user of a client application “Art” being online via the terminal device (Van Wie: ¶ 0062-0063) which is based on whether the user(s) are connected to the network (Van Wie: ¶ 0083, ¶ 0088-0089), Van Wie does not explicitly discuss whether or not a user is actually “logged in” to the platform.
However, Li teaches an online communications platform, i.e. a social application, wherein a current user logs in to the communications platform (Li: ¶ 0013, ¶ 0028-0030, ¶ 0038, ¶ 0058-0059). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have included the current user logging into an online communications platform of Li in the virtual communication system of Van Wie with a reasonable expectation of success of arriving at the claimed invention, since the claimed invention is merely a combination of old elements, and in the combination each element merely would have performed the same function as it did separately, and one of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that the results of the combination were predictable.
Van Wie, as modified above, further teaches:
and each virtual image being associated with at least one social operation control (Van Wie: Fig. 2, ¶ 0062-0064 as above showing virtual images of present users or user interface elements for performing communications actions; wherein as per Figs. 2, ¶ 0069 showing people panel allows initiation of chat with any users present in a virtual area (e.g the users shown in the virtual area 272 or within people panel 265 generally));
determining, in response to an operation performed on the object screening control, at least one first social object related to an online state of the current social user from the social application (Van Wie: Fig. 5, ¶ 0081-0082 showing the people panel includes toggles for expanding and determining a view of people that are currently present, i.e. online, within a virtual area - ¶ 0081 “Zone of Co-Presence filtering criteria identifies those communicants who are co-present within a particular zone of a virtual area application” and ¶ 0082 “Each of the groups 202-204 are labeled with a respective “Present” or “Not Present” label that is associated with a respective toggle control that can be toggled to selectively collapse and expand the associated group 202-204”),
the online state of the current social user being set by the current social user and describing a state of a virtual image of the current social user or a state of the current social user (Van Wie; ¶ 0081 “for each virtual area application, each group of two or more communicants who are present within the same zone of the virtual area application is listed in a separate, selectively expandable and collapsible Zone”; see Figs. 2 and 5 showing people panel 265 showing users currently online and/or present within specific virtual areas; wherein as per ¶ 0089 “The Online/Offline state indicates whether or not the communicant currently is available for communication. In the illustrated embodiments, a communicant is in the Online state when the communicant is connected to the network communication environment (e.g., by establishing a presence with respect to one or more of the virtual area applications 46).” and as per ¶ 0062-0066 that each of the users online states in the people panel reflect both the user’s having established a presence in a particular area, i.e. set by each user, and further reflects details such as whether the users’ speakers or headphones have been turned on or off, which is also reflected in the graphic representing their online states);
and collapsing the object screening control in the social application interface (Van Wie: Fig. 5 and ¶ 0082 showing within the people panel, “Each of the groups 202-204 are labeled with a respective “Present” or “Not Present” label that is associated with a respective toggle control that can be toggled to selectively collapse and expand the associated group 202-204”) and
displaying a virtual image of the at least one first social object (Van Wie: Fig. 2, ¶ 0062-0066 showing displaying virtual images of at least one user currently present in the current zone of presence, e.g. Ed, Art, Beth, Carl, Dan),
With respect to the following limitations, while Van Wie teaches displaying the virtual image of the at least one social object as per above, Van Wie/Li do not explicitly teach displaying objects within the user interface as described in the following limitations, However, Matas teaches:
wherein the displaying the virtual image of the at least one first social object comprises: determining, based on a size of a display screen for displaying the social application interface, a first plurality of virtual images of a first set of first social objects, among the at least one first social object, that can be accommodated in the display screen at one time, and displaying the determined first plurality of virtual images of the first set of first social objects (Matas: ¶ 0046 showing “a number of content items (e.g., content items belonging to the same content section) may be arranged in a series and displayed on the screen of an electronic device sequentially. Due to the size limit of the screen, not all content items from the series may be displayed on the screen at the same time. Instead, a few content items from the series may be displayed on the screen at one time” and ¶ 0048 “Due to the size limit of the screen of an electronic device 550, not all content items from content-item series 510 may be displayed on the screen of device 550 at the same time. Instead, a few content items from a content-item series may be displayed on a screen at a time”);
and in response to receiving a screen sliding operation in the social application interface, determining and displaying a second plurality of virtual images of a second set of first social objects, among the at least one first social object, that can be accommodated in the display screen at a next time (Matas: ¶ 0046 “To view other content items from the series, a user may scroll back and forth through the series of content items (e.g., by swiping a finger in the left or right direction across the touchscreen of the electronic device)”; ¶ 0048 “To view other content items from the series, the user may scroll back and forth along the series by, for example, swiping a finger on the touchscreen of the electronic device”; and ¶ 0050 further showing when the user swipes right on the screen in the area showing the first set of content items, the second set of content items is subsequently displayed on the screen),
wherein, unless an additional screen sliding operation in the social application interface is received, additional virtual images of remaining first social objects not in the first set or the second set are not determined (Matas: ¶ 0060-0061 specifying that the images of content items are not downloaded until they are needed for display, which in combination with ¶ 0050 above, teaches that additional virtual images of the remaining content items are not downloaded until the user swipes right to display more content items)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to have included the user interface functionality for swiping between sets of user interface elements and only downloading the content items when they are needed for display in response to the user swiping input of Matas in the user interface of the virtual communications system of Van Wie/Li, since the claimed invention is merely a combination of old elements, and in the combination each element merely would have performed the same function as it did separately, and one of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that the results of the combination were predictable. Furthermore, it would have also been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to do so with a reasonable expectation of success of arriving at the claimed invention, with the motivation to address the known issues pertaining to display user interface elements on user devices that “Different mobile electronic devices may have different designs. As a result, the size, shape, or aspect ratios of the touchscreens of different mobile devices may differ” (Matas: ¶ 0023) and “Due to the size limit of the screen, not all content items from the series may be displayed on the screen at the same time” (Matas: ¶ 0046).
Claim 2: Van Wie/Li/Matas teach claim 1. Van Wie, as modified above, further teaches:
wherein the plurality of social objects comprises a social user (Van Wie: ¶ 0062-0065, Fig. 2 showing plurality of objects representing social users), and
the method further comprises: displaying the online state of the current social user in a first area of the social application interface (Van Wie: Fig. 2, ¶ 0062-0065, and Fig. 5, ¶ 0080-0084, with ¶ 0080 showing displaying current status of the current user “Art” and “FIG. 5 shows an example 200 of the people panel 265 of the graphical user interface 270 that depicts the realtime availabilities and activities of some or all of the contacts of a target communicant (“Art” in this example) across the different communication contexts provided by the Sococo HQ virtual area 100 and the Sococo Auditorium virtual area 600”); and
With respect to the following limitations, Van Wie does not explicitly teach, however, Li teaches:
after the displaying of the online state in the first area (Li: ¶ 0055 showing “After the information that a first user is logged into an instant communication interface is obtained, on-line users are displayed, information about an object to follow selected by the first user from the on-line users is received…” in order to place a user in an instant communication room) has reached a preset time (Li: ¶ 0048-0049, ¶ 0106, ¶ 0107-0109, ¶ 0131-0132 showing the instant communication room is full/no vacancy, so the user is placed in a waiting list – and determining that the user time in a waiting list has exceeded a threshold time), replacing the online state in the first area with a matching control (Li: ¶ 0049, ¶ 0107-0109 ¶ 0132-0138, ¶ 0164 showing logged in user on the waiting list for more than a threshold time/staying time is removed and matched to an instant communication room),
the matching control being configured to find, based on a set condition, a social user to interact with the current social user from the social application (Li: ¶ 0164 “a matching unit, configured to match the user to an instant communication room using the preset automatic matching mode if waiting time of the first user is beyond a preset waiting time threshold, and an instruction from the first user to select to enter an instant communication room using an automatic matching mode is received”; – see ¶ 0031-0032 showing the user is matched to a communication room where the user may interact or play a game with one or more other users)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have included the automatic matching of a current user to a communication room with other users upon reaching a threshold period of staying/waiting time while logged in of Li in the virtual communication system of Van Wie/Li/Matas with a reasonable expectation of success of arriving at the claimed invention, with the motivation that “the user does not need to propose a request for instant communication to a determined counterpart, the communication between strangers is facilitated for there is no limitation on the users, and the efficiency of making friends is enhanced” (Li: ¶ 0055). It would have also been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to do so, since the claimed invention is merely a combination of old elements, and in the combination each element merely would have performed the same function as it did separately, and one of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that the results of the combination were predictable.
Claim 5: Van Wie/Li/Matas teach claim 1. Van Wie, as modified above, further teaches:
wherein the collapsing the object screening control in the social application interface and displaying the virtual image of the at least one first social object (Van Wie: Fig. 5 and ¶ 0082 showing within the people panel, “Each of the groups 202-204 are labeled with a respective “Present” or “Not Present” label that is associated with a respective toggle control that can be toggled to selectively collapse and expand the associated group 202-204”) and displaying the virtual image of the current social user and the virtual image of the at least one first social object ((Van Wie: Van Wie: Fig. 2, ¶ 0062-0063 showing virtual images of at least one user currently present in the current zone of presence, including the current user and other users, e.g. Ed, Art, Beth, Carl, Dan – which are still displayed in the main area of the user interface even if the people panel grouping is in the collapsed state) comprises one of the following:
collapsing the virtual image of the current social user and the object screening control in the social application interface and displaying the virtual image of the at least one first social object;
collapsing the object screening control in the social application interface (Van Wie: Fig. 5 and ¶ 0082 showing within the people panel, “Each of the groups 202-204 are labeled with a respective “Present” or “Not Present” label that is associated with a respective toggle control that can be toggled to selectively collapse and expand the associated group 202-204”) and displaying the virtual image of the current social user and the virtual image of the at least one first social object (Van Wie: Van Wie: Fig. 2, ¶ 0062-0063 showing virtual images of at least one user currently present in the current zone of presence, including the current user and other users, e.g. Ed, Art, Beth, Carl, Dan – which are still displayed in the main area of the user interface even if the people panel grouping is in the collapsed state); or
collapsing the object screening control in the social application interface (Van Wie: Fig. 5 and ¶ 0082 showing within the people panel, “Each of the groups 202-204 are labeled with a respective “Present” or “Not Present” label that is associated with a respective toggle control that can be toggled to selectively collapse and expand the associated group 202-204”) and displaying the virtual image of the at least one first social object (Van Wie: Van Wie: Fig. 2, ¶ 0062-0063 showing virtual images of at least one user currently present in the current zone of presence, e.g. Ed, Art, Beth, Carl, Dan – which are still displayed in the main area of the user interface even if the people panel grouping is in the collapsed state)
Claim 16: See the rejection of claim 1 above teaching analogous limitations. Van Wie further teaches A non-transitory computer-readable storage medium, having a plurality of computer programs stored therein, the computer programs being configured to be loaded by a processor to perform… (Van Wie: ¶ 0029-0030, ¶ 0046).
Claim 17: See the rejection of claim 2 above.
Claim 20: See the rejection of claim 1 above teaching analogous limitations. Van Wie further teaches A terminal device, comprising a processor and a memory, the memory being configured to store a plurality of computer programs, and the computer programs being configured to be loaded by the processor to perform… (Van Wie: ¶ 0046, ¶ 0029-0030).
Claims 3-4 and 18-19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US 20130283169 A1 to Van Wie in view of US 20180048597 A1 to Li et al. (Li), further in view of US 20140137013 A1 to Matas, and further in view of US 20070233850 A1 to Szeto.
Claim 3: Van Wie/Li/Matas teach claim 2. With respect to the following limitation, Van Wie/Li/Matas do not explicitly teach the following, however, Szeto teaches:
wherein at least one candidate online state is displayed in a second area of the social application interface, the first area and the second area being adjacent areas (Szeto: Fig. 2, ¶ 0013-0015 showing graphical user interface with plurality of adjacent icons 202, 204, 206 used to select, and adjacent to, a user’s online state/status 208),
the method further comprises: displaying the at least one candidate online state in the first area upon detecting a user operation of moving from the first area to the second area or a trigger operation performed on the second area (Szeto: ¶ 0013-0020, Fig. 2 showing in response to a trigger such as the user selected a new status icon from the status icon options in the GUI – the status 208 is updated with the newly selected “candidate” status);
and the method further comprises: determining a related second social object based on the displayed at least one candidate online state; and displaying a virtual image of the second social object in the social application interface (Szeto: ¶ 0013-0016, Fig. 2 showing the selected icon for changing to the new status is determined based on user input and is modified to indicate that it is selected; see specifically ¶ 0015 “because the user's status is currently “available,” button 202 is in full color and larger than the other two buttons which are both presented in subdued or washed out tones. When, for example, busy button 204 is selected, the corresponding status will be represented by text 208, and button 204 will increase in size and become a brighter red, while button 202 will decrease in size and become a paler shade of yellow”)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have included the GUI mechanism for setting a current online status of Szeto in the virtual communications system of Van Wie/Li/Matas with a reasonable expectation of success of arriving at the claimed invention, with the motivation to solve the problems with prior user interfaces that “ it is not immediately apparent from interface 100 how the user can go about changing his online status. This is particularly problematic for new or infrequent users. In addition, even after a user learns how to change his status, the process for doing so requires at least two “clicks” of the mouse, e.g., accessing the status menu followed by selection of the desired status menu item. This may not seem like much of an issue, but there is ample evidence that users (and particularly experienced users) grow increasingly impatient from being required to perform additional or repetitive steps to access interface functionality, particularly for frequently used interface functions” (Szeto: ¶ 0004), and therefore “enables the user to change his online status with one selection action with an I/O device, e.g., one click of a mouse. Because the control is surfaced to the top level, it makes the corresponding functionality much easier to discover. Instead of navigating menus or having to intuit hidden shortcuts, these controls provide the user with a mechanism for managing his online status which is readily apparent and easy to use. Surfacing the control to the top level of the interface also minimizes the user actions required to manage his online presence” (Szeto: ¶ 0013).
Claim 4: Van Wie/Li/Matas/Szeto teach claim 3. With respect to the following limitations, Van Wie/Li/Matas do not explicitly teach, however, Szeto teaches:
further comprising: in response to the at least one candidate online state displayed in the first area being not consistent with the online state of the current social user, replacing the online state of the current social user with the at least one candidate online state displayed in the first area (Szeto: ¶ 0014-0015 showing in response to selecting a new status different from the previous status, i.e. “not consistent” with the previous online state, the newly selected status is reflected in both the current user’s interface and the interfaces of other users)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have included the GUI mechanism for setting a current online status of Szeto in the virtual communications system of Van Wie/Li/Matas/Szeto with a reasonable expectation of success of arriving at the claimed invention, for the same reasons discussed in the rejection of claim 3 above.
Claim 18: See the rejection of claim 3 above.
Claim 19: See the rejection of claim 4 above.
Claims 7, 14 and 15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US 20130283169 A1 to Van Wie in view of US 20180048597 A1 to Li et al. (Li), further in view of US 20140137013 A1 to Matas, and further in view of US 20230121307 A1 to Benchetrit et al. (Benchetrit).
Claim 7: Van Wie/Li/Matas teach claim 1. With respect to the following limitations Van Wie teaches a social object including at least a social user within a virtual communications system, i.e. chat scene (Van Wie: Fig. 2, ¶ 0062-0063 showing virtual images of at least one user currently present in the current zone of presence, e.g. Ed, Art, Beth, Carl, Dan), but Van Wie/Li/Matas do not explicitly teach all of the following. However, Benchetrit teaches:
wherein the plurality of social objects comprises a social user, a topic, and a chat scene (Benchetrit: see Figs. 3C, 3E, and Fig. 4A showing different GUI interfaces, including Fig. 3C/¶ 0088 showing a chat scene where the topic is speed dating audio and including a plurality of social users, Fig. 3E/¶ 0111-0115 showing a chat scene where the topic is “singles evening” and a plurality of users communicate, and Fig. 4A, 5A, and ¶ 0130, ¶ 0132 showing a virtual chat scene where the topic is a user’s live stream and includes a plurality of social users chatting about the live stream);
in response to the online state of the current social user being an interaction-type online state (Benchetrit: Fig. 3E, ¶ 0111-0115 showing a current social user “user 2” located in a singles evening chat room), the first social object related to the online state of the current social user comprises at least one of the following:
a social user having the same online state as the current social user (Benchetrit: Fig. 3E, ¶ 0111-0115 as above showing plurality of other users also located within the singles evening chat room),
or a chat scene related to the online state of the current social user (Benchetrit: Fig. 3E, ¶ 0111 singles evening chat scene); and
in response to the online state of the current social user being a content-type online state (Benchetrit: Fig. 6A, ¶ 0136-0137 showing user 1 is in a live streaming online state), the first social object related to the online state of the current social user comprises at least one of the following:
a social user having the same online state as the current social user (Benchetrit: Fig. 6A, ¶ 0136-0137 showing users 1 and 2 are both in the same online state in one-to-one live streaming video communications),
or a topic related to the online state of the current social user (Benchetrit: Fig. 6A showing User 1’s video or User 2’s video displayed as a “topic”)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have included the various chat functionalities of Benchetrit discussed above in the virtual communications system of Van Wie/Li/Matas with a reasonable expectation of success of arriving at the claimed invention, with the motivation that it “improves the quality of matches…it would be beneficial if the social media application facilitates matches that reflect the user’s preferences, e.g., suggesting a match between users having shared interests…” and “enabling users to vet their compatibility and establishing better matches” (Benchetrit: ¶ 0047). It would have also been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to do so, since the claimed invention is merely a combination of old elements, and in the combination each element merely would have performed the same function as it did separately, and one of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that the results of the combination were predictable.
Claim 14: Van Wie/Li/Matas teach claim 1. With respect to the following limitations, Van Wie/Li/Matas do not explicitly teach, however, Benchetrit teaches:
popping up an invitation selecting control, the invitation selecting control is configured to agree to or refuse to join a chat scene of a social user performing invitation (Benchetrit: Fig. 3F and ¶ 0121-0124 showing popping up a prompt/notification including an invitation indicating another user would like to chat, and asking whether (“Yes” or “No”) the user would like to accept the invitation); and
in response to a chat scene that the current social user is in being currently displayed (Benchetrit: Fig. 3E, ¶ 0111-0115 showing the users were previously in an open chat room with a plurality of users), jumping from the chat scene to the chat scene that the current social user is in to the social user performing invitation when information about agreeing to join the chat scene of the social user performing invitation is received (Benchetrit: Fig. 3G and ¶ 0124-0129 showing upon acceptance of the invitation, jumping from previous chat to a private chat that is opened between the two users Krista and Chad)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have included the “whisper” functionality to invite a user to a private chat of Benchetrit discussed above in the virtual communications system of Van Wie/Li/Matas with a reasonable expectation of success of arriving at the claimed invention, with the motivation of “enabling users to vet their compatibility and establishing better matches” (Benchetrit: ¶ 0047). It would have also been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to do so, since the claimed invention is merely a combination of old elements, and in the combination each element merely would have performed the same function as it did separately, and one of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that the results of the combination were predictable.
Claim 15: Van Wie/Li/Matas/Benchetrit teach claim 14. With respect to the following limitations, Van Wie/Li/Matas do not explicitly teach, however, Benchetrit teaches
wherein when information about agreeing to join the chat scene of the social user performing invitation is received, the method further comprises: adding the current social user to the chat scene of the social user performing invitation in response to the chat scene state indicating that the current social user is not in the chat scene of the social user performing invitation (Benchetrit: see Fig. 3F-3G and ¶ 0121-0129 showing the two users Krysta and Chad join a private conversation upon invitation being sent from Krysta to Chad, i.e. the current social user is not yet in the private chat scene); and
in response to chat scene states of the current social user and the social user performing invitation indicating that the current social user and the social user performing invitation are in different chat scenes, exiting, by the current social user, a current chat scene, and joining the chat scene of the social user performing invitation (Benchetrit: see Fig. 3F-3G and ¶ 0121-0129 showing the two users Krysta and Chad join a private conversation upon invitation being sent from Krysta to Chad, while also remaining present in the “singles evening” chat, i.e. “different chat scenes”; and upon a timer elapsing in the private chat, both of the users may further elect to exit the chat, and move the conversation to a matched conversation without a timer)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have included the “whisper” functionality to invite a user to a private chat of Benchetrit discussed above in the virtual communications system of Van Wie/Li/Matas/Benchetrit with a reasonable expectation of success of arriving at the claimed invention, for the same reasons described in the rejection of claim 14 above.
Claim 8 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US 20130283169 A1 to Van Wie in view of US 20180048597 A1 to Li et al. (Li), further in view of US 20140137013 A1 to Matas, and further in view of US 20090254843 A1 to Van Wie et al. (referred to by second inventor “Brody” for clarity – and which is a publication of US12/418,243 which is incorporated by reference into the primary reference US 20130283169 A1 to Van Wie).
See MPEP 2163.07(b), showing “Instead of repeating some information contained in another document, an application may attempt to incorporate the content of another document or part thereof by reference to the document in the text of the specification. The information incorporated is as much a part of the application as filed as if the text was repeated in the application, and should be treated as part of the text of the application as filed.” Therefore, because primary reference US 20130283169 A1 to Van Wie incorporates the subject matter contained in US12/418,243 (published as US 20090254843 A1) by reference, the subject matter referencing US 20090254843 A1 to Brody herein should be considered a part of the text of the primary reference US 20130283169 A1 to Van Wie.
Claim 8: Van Wie/Li/Matas teach claim 1. Van Wie, as modified above, further teaches:
wherein the displaying the virtual image of the at least one first social object comprises: displaying a two-dimensional image of the first social object (Van Wie: Fig. 2, ¶ 0062-0063 showing 2d image of the virtual communications area, including virtual images of at least one social user in both the people toolbar 265 and the current zone of presence/ “courtyard”), and
With respect to the following limitations, Van Wie (excluding the subject matter incorporated by reference)/Li/Matas do not explicitly teach the following, however, Brody (which is incorporated by reference in primary reference Van Wie) teaches:
loading a three-dimensional model of the first social object based on the two-dimensional image of the first social object (Brody: Fig. 28, ¶ 0284 showing based on a 2D minimized representation of “Sococo Place” in HUD 340 including a map and locations of users (“sprites”) in the location, the user decides to enter a three dimensional rendering of the Sococo place, where each of the users in the virtual location are represented as 3D avatars; also see Fig. 18/¶ 0246 and Fig. 2/¶ 0118, and Figs. 20-21/¶ 0248-0249); and
binding the three-dimensional model with a social operation control corresponding to the first social object and performing a social interaction operation with the first social object when the social operation control receives a trigger operation (Brody: Figs. 28-29, ¶ 0293-0294; and Figs. 20-21, ¶ 0040-0041, and ¶ 0247-0249 showing the user may control their avatar to perform on screen interactions with other avatars/users or objects within the 3D rendered location, or join other users in social interactions by selecting objects/icons on screen; also see Fig. 2/¶ 0118),
The examiner first notes that the content of “Brody” (which is a publication of U.S. Application No. 12/418,243) is incorporated by reference into the primary reference (US 20130283169 A1). Therefore, as the content cited above is already incorporated by reference into the primary reference “Van Wie,” a statement including a supporting rationale for obviousness would not be required. Nonetheless, to any extent applicant disagrees with this finding, it would have also been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have included the immersive 3D visualization and user interactions of Brody in the virtual communications system of Van Wie/Li/Matas with a reasonable expectation of success of arriving at the claimed invention, with the motivation that it “allows users to have realtime interactions in a two-or three-dimensional immersive experience” (Brody: ¶ 0247).
Claim 9 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US 20130283169 A1 to Van Wie in view of US 20180048597 A1 to Li et al. (Li), further in view of US 20140137013 A1 to Matas, and further in view of US 20220385710 A1 to Chen et al. (Chen).
Claim 9: Van Wie/Li/Matas teach claim 1. With respect to the following limitations, Van Wie/Li/Matas do not explicitly teach, however, Chen teaches:
wherein after the displaying the social application interface, the social application interface comprises a background space (Chen: ¶ 0111-0118 and Figs. 3B-3E, ¶ 0148, ¶ 0153 describing a “blank portion” of the user interface), and the method further comprises:
when user operation information is received in the background space of the social application interface and the user operation information is a preset refresh operation gesture, obtaining a fourth social object based on the user operation information, and displaying a virtual image of the fourth social object on the social application interface (Chen: ¶ 0111-0118 and Figs. 3B-3E showing when a user performs a swipe operation on a blank space 1052 displayed in the user interface and/or selects a control option for refreshing the virtual livestream page displayed on the user interface, the user interface/livestream page will refresh to show new virtual livestream objects on the user interface, i.e. at least obtaining and displaying a virtual image of a fourth object on the social application interface; also see ¶ 0119-0127, ¶ 0152-0157 further showing refresh functions)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have included the refresh operations using a background/blank space area of the user interface in order to display updated social objects of Chen in the virtual communications system of Van Wie/Li/Matas with a reasonable expectation of success of arriving at the claimed invention, with the motivation “to facilitate the timely display of the refreshed virtual livestream room in the livestream page” (Chen: ¶ 0122).
Claim 10 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US 20130283169 A1 to Van Wie in view of US 20180048597 A1 to Li et al. (Li), further in view of US 20140137013 A1 to Matas, and further in view of US 20240223518 A1 to Niess et al. (Niess).
Note: US20240223518A1 is a continuation of and claims priority to U.S. Patent Application 18/092,039 filed on 12/30/2022, which recites the same subject matter relied upon herein.
Claim 10: Van Wie/Li/Matas teach claim 1. With respect to the following limitations, Van Wie/Li/Matas do not explicitly teach, however, Niess teaches:
wherein the social application interface further comprises a state setting control, and the method further comprises: jumping to a state setting interface in response to an operation performed on the state setting control (Niess: ¶ 0140, and Fig. 10 showing user interface 1000 and showing “a user may navigate to the user interface 1000 from within the user interface 200 to set a user status…,” i.e. jumping to user interface 1000 in response to navigation control (state setting control) from user interface 2000),
the state setting interface comprising a state control (Niess: Fig. 10, ¶ 0140-0143 showing interface 1000 includes “edit” button and other user interface buttons to edit and set the user status);
displaying an online state selecting interface in response to an operation performed on the state control, the online state selecting interface comprising at least one of the following: a plurality of candidate online states (Niess: Fig. 10, ¶ 0141-0143 showing responsive to the user editing the status, providing the user with options and suggested online states to select from), an online-state automatic defining control, or an intelligently matched online state; and
determining an online state determined in the online state selecting interface as the online state of the current social user (Niess: ¶ 0140-0143 showing setting and assigning user status for the user)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have included the status setting user interface controls of Niess in the virtual communications system of Van Wie/Li/Matas with a reasonable expectation of success of arriving at the claimed invention, with the motivation to “provide an improved means for conveying additional information using an interactive user status…” and “users are able to seamlessly gain relevant insight and accessibility through the interactive user status such that unnecessary interactions and processes are avoided. Another advantage afforded by incorporating interactive user statuses is that user discovery and engagement with features inside and outside of the group-based communication system are significantly increased because users can directly share access to said features” (Niess: ¶ 0110). It would have also been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to do so, since the claimed invention is merely a combination of old elements, and in the combination each element merely would have performed the same function as it did separately, and one of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that the results of the combination were predictable.
Claim 11 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US 20130283169 A1 to Van Wie in view of US 20180048597 A1 to Li et al. (Li), further in view of US 20140137013 A1 to Matas, and further in view of US 20090254842 A1 to Leacock et al. (which is a publication of US12/354,709 which is incorporated by reference into the primary reference US 20130283169 A1 to Van Wie).
See MPEP 2163.07(b), showing “Instead of repeating some information contained in another document, an application may attempt to incorporate the content of another document or part thereof by reference to the document in the text of the specification. The information incorporated is as much a part of the application as filed as if the text was repeated in the application, and should be treated as part of the text of the application as filed.” Therefore, because primary reference US 20130283169 A1 to Van Wie incorporates the subject matter contained in US12/354,709 (published as US 20090254842 A1) by reference, the subject matter referencing US 20090254842 A1 to Leacock herein should be considered a part of the text of the primary reference US 20130283169 A1 to Van Wie.
Claim 11: Van Wie/Li/Matas teach claim 1. Van Wie, as modified above, further teaches:
wherein the plurality of social objects comprises a social user (Van Wie: Fig. 2, ¶ 0062-0063 showing other users within the same virtual area displayed as social objects),
With respect to the following limitations, while Van Wie discusses a get button for inviting users to their virtual area to chat/communicate (Van Wie: ¶ 0069, ¶ 0158-0159, Fig. 2 and Fig. 5), Van Wie (excluding the subject matter incorporated by reference) does not explicitly discuss the following limitations. However, Leacock (which is incorporated by reference in primary reference Van Wie) teaches:
and the method further comprises: displaying a chat establishing control in response to an operation for a virtual image of a social object of the plurality of social objects (Leacock: ¶ 0139 showing the user may select any of the communicants in a displayed list of members in another virtual area, and click a displayed “get” button), the chat establishing control being configured to trigger real-time interaction with the social object corresponding to the virtual image (Leacock: Fig. 19 and ¶ 0156-0157 showing selection of the get button triggers display of a user interface for inviting a user to a particular virtual area); and
creating and displaying a first chat scene (Leacock: Fig. 19, Fig. 2, ¶ 0139 and ¶ 0156-0157 showing displaying a virtual area for interaction communication between users) and an inviting control in response to an operation for the chat establishing control…the inviting control being configured to invite at least one social object to join the first chat scene (Leacock: Fig. 19 and ¶ 0156-0157 showing the selection of the get button displays a chat scene for inviting another selected user to “Please join me in main.” – i.e. join the current virtual area/chat scene in which the current social user is located),
and displaying the virtual image corresponding to the current social user and the virtual image corresponding to the social object in the first chat scene (Leacock: ¶ 0126, ¶ 0153, ¶ 0160 showing displaying the virtual image of the current user in the zone of presence/virtual area and virtual images corresponding to one or more other communicants present in the same virtual area, i.e. chat scene; Figs. 7-8, 13, 14, 15, 16 all show the virtual area displayed with the virtual images of each user in the virtual area),
The examiner first notes that the content of “Leacock” (which is a publication of US12/354,709) is incorporated by reference into the primary reference (US 20130283169 A1). Therefore, as the content cited above is already incorporated by reference into primary reference Van Wie, a statement including a supporting rationale for obviousness would not be required. Nonetheless, to any extent applicant disagrees with this finding, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have included the interface features for inviting a user to a virtual communications area of Leacock in the virtual communications system of Van Wie/Li/Matas with a reasonable expectation of success of arriving at the claimed invention, with the motivation to “provide improved systems and methods for navigating and interacting in spatial virtual communication environments. These embodiments provide an interface that includes navigation controls that enable a user to navigate virtual areas and interaction controls that enable the user to interact with other communicants in the virtual areas. The navigation controls allow the user to change his or her focus (e.g., the current view of the virtual area or the current zone or zones where the user has presence) using a variety of intuitive point-and-click browsing methods in the context of a hierarchical spatial model of a virtual area” (Leacock: ¶ 0194).
Claim 12 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US 20130283169 A1 to Van Wie in view of US 20180048597 A1 to Li et al. (Li), further in view of US 20140137013 A1 to Matas, further in view of US 20090254842 A1 to Leacock et al. (which is a publication of US12/354,709 which is incorporated by reference into the primary reference US 20130283169 A1 to Van Wie), and further in view of US 20230121307 A1 to Benchetrit et al. (Benchetrit).
Note: As previously discussed above, although Leacock is mentioned separately, Leacock is incorporated by reference into US 20130283169 A1 to Van Wie.
Claim 12: Van Wie/Li/Matas/Leacock teach claim 11. With respect to the following limitations, Van Wie/Li/Matas (incl. Leacock, which is incorporated by ref. into Van Wie) do not explicitly teach, however, Benchetrit teaches:
wherein the social application interface further comprises a matching control (Benchetrit: Fig. 3C, element 312 and ¶ 0092 showing select match button),
and after displaying of the social application interface, the method further comprises: determining, in response to an operation for the matching control, a social object having the same online state as the current social user, and performing the operation of displaying the first chat scene (Benchetrit: ¶ 0092-0105 and Figs. 3C and 3D showing after selecting the option to select a match, the server determines a match between two users who were both present in the speed dating audio session, and displays a chat only between those two matched users)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have included the matching and chat initiation features of Benchetrit in the virtual communications system of Van Wie/Li/Matas/Leacock with a reasonable expectation of success of arriving at the claimed invention, with the motivation that it “improves the quality of matches” and “establishing better matches” (Benchetrit: ¶ 0047). It would have also been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to do so, since the claimed invention is merely a combination of old elements, and in the combination each element merely would have performed the same function as it did separately, and one of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that the results of the combination were predictable.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claim 6 is objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim (claim 1), but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter:
As indicated in the previous office action, no combination of the prior art identified by the examiner teaches the respective limitations of claim 6, considered in the context of the claims as a whole including the limitations from preceding claim 1.
Regarding claim 6: US 20130283169 A1 to Van Wie teaches a virtual communications user interface in which a user is viewing a current virtual area along with a people panel displayed on the side of the user interface, which may be toggled to expand or collapse views of a list of users in the same virtual area and in other virtual areas, or based on the current state of the users (Van Wie: Fig. 2, ¶ 0062-0063, and Fig. 5, ¶ 0081-0082 showing the people panel includes toggles for expanding and determining a view of people that are currently present, i.e. online, within a virtual area - ¶ 0081 “Zone of Co-Presence filtering criteria identifies those communicants who are co-present within a particular zone of a virtual area application” and ¶ 0082 “Each of the groups 202-204 are labeled with a respective “Present” or “Not Present” label that is associated with a respective toggle control that can be toggled to selectively collapse and expand the associated group 202-204”). US 20090254842 A1 to Leacock et al. (Leacock) also teaches displaying a user interface with a control element that allows a user to view a list of members/communicants in virtual areas and a get function, e.g. a sub control, to invite the users to a virtual area or to start a chat with users located in a virtual area (Leacock: ¶ 0139, ¶ 0152-0161, Figs. 12 and 19).
However, the above prior art (considered in combination with “Van Wie,” “Li,” and “Matas” in the rejection of claim 1) still does not teach all of the limitations of claim 6, considered together, for: wherein in response to the operation performed on the object screening control, the method further comprises: jumping to an object screening sub-control panel in response to the operation performed on the object screening control, and displaying, on the object screening sub-control panel, object screening sub-controls respectively corresponding to a plurality of online states; and collapsing the object screening sub-control panel in response to an operation performed on an object screening sub-control, and in response to an online state corresponding to the operated object screening sub-control being consistent with the online state of the current social user, performing the operation of determining the first social object; or in response to the online state corresponding to the operated object screening sub-control being inconsistent with the online state of the current social user, determining a third social object related to the online state corresponding to the operated object screening sub-control, and displaying a virtual image of the third social object in the social application interface.
US 20070186007 A1 to Field et al. (Field) is newly cited as relevant prior art, and teaches a social computing system with a central portal including a main page showing information on a plurality of users, and a plurality widgets which may be configured by the user to filter users according to user defined parameters to discover other users which share their taste and preferences among users currently signed into the system (Field: ¶ 0080-0090; Fig. 6; ¶ 0055-0056). However, Field does not cure the deficiencies of the prior art discussed above.
Novelty/Non-Obviousness
Claim 13 is novel and nonobvious as no combination of the prior art identified by the examiner teaches the respective limitations of claim 13, considered in the context of the claims as a whole including the limitations from the preceding claim from which it depends.
Regarding claim 13: US 20230121307 A1 to Benchetrit et al. (Benchetrit) teaches a virtual lobby in which a plurality of users join a first chat room/lobby for a “Singles evening” (Benchetrit: Fig. 3E, ¶ 0111-0118) and a first user may invite a second user to a second private conversation during the single evening (Benchetrit: Fig. 3F-3G and ¶ 0121-0128), and upon expiration of a timer for the private chat, both users may choose to transition to a match conversation with no timer, i.e. a third chat (Benchetrit: ¶ 0129). US 20210297274 A1 to Kim et al. (Kim) teaches a system for a chat service in which a first user may start a new chat room and invite one or more users from another group that corresponds to another chat room to the current chat room, wherein a user from the group may either be designated to receive the invitation to the new chat room and accept or deny the invitation on behalf of all members in the group, or each member may be separately invited (Kim: Fig. 3, Figs. 5-7, ¶ 0079-0087. ¶ 0093-0108), and where if a participant in the new chat room that was a designated user leaves the new chat room, either all users in the originally invited group may be caused to exit the room, or otherwise only the single participant will leave the room (Kim: see processes in Figs. 11-13, ¶ 0148-0171).
However, the above prior art (considered in combination with “Van Wie,” “Li,” “Matas,” and “Leacock” in the rejection of claim 11) still does not teach all of the limitations of claim 13, considered together, for: before displaying the virtual image corresponding to the social object in the first chat scene, further comprising: creating a second chat scene in response to a chat scene state of the current social user indicating that the current social user is not in a chat scene and a chat scene state of the social object indicating that the social object is not in a chat scene; adding the current social user and the social object to the second chat scene, and establishing a chat session with the social object; and in response to the chat scene state of the social object indicating that the current social user is in a chat scene and the chat scene state of the current social user indicating that the social object is not in a chat scene, instructing the social object to exit the current chat scene, and in response to the social object agreeing to exit the current chat scene that the social object is in, creating a third chat scene, adding the current social user and the social object to the created third chat scene, and establishing a chat session between the current social user and the social object.
Other previously cited relevant prior art: US 20170012950 A1 (switching between secure chat rooms using different electronic devices); US 20070255791 A1 (multiple chat room threads and creating new chat rooms for off topic threads and their participants).
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 Hunter Molnar whose telephone number is (571)272-8271. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday, 7:30 - 4:00 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, Jeffrey Zimmerman can be reached at (571)272-4602. 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.
/HUNTER MOLNAR/Examiner, Art Unit 3628
Prosecution Insights