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 have been examined in this application. This communication is the first action on the merits.
Priority
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.
Acknowledgment is made of applicant's claim for foreign priority based on the application filed in China on January 20, 2023. Receipt is acknowledged of certified copies of papers required by 37 CFR 1.55.
Information Disclosure Statement
The Information Disclosure Statement filed 2/21/2025 has been considered.
Claim Objections
Claims 3-9, 14-15, and 18-19 are objected to because of the following informalities:
Claims 3 and 18 recite “displaying a candidate online state…” but appear they should recite “displaying the at least one candidate online state…”
Claims 4 and 19 recite “in response to that the candidate online state displayed in the first area is not consistent with the online state of the current social user…” but appears it should recite “in response to [[that]] the candidate online state displayed in the first area not being consistent with the online state of the current social user…” or some other equivalent.
Claims 4 and 19 also recite two instances of “the candidate online state” but should recite “the at least one candidate online state”
Claim 5 recites “a virtual image of the at least one first social object” but should recite “the virtual image of the at least one first social object”
Claim 6 recites “in response to that an online state corresponding to the operated object screening sub-control is consistent with the online state” and “in response to that the online state corresponding to the operated object screening sub-control is inconsistent with the online state” – however, it appears these limitations should recite “in response to an online state corresponding to the operated object screening sub-control being consistent with the online state” and “in response to the online state corresponding to the operated object screening sub-control being inconsistent with the online state” to improve clarity.
Claim 7 recites “in response to that the online state of the current social user is an interaction-type online state” and “in response to that the online state of the current social user is a content-type online state” – but appears it should recite “in response to the online state of the current social user being an interaction-type online state” and “in response to the online state of the current social user being a content-type online state”
Claim 8 recites “displaying a virtual image of the at least one first social object” but should recite “displaying the virtual image of the at least one first social object”
Claim 9 recites “after the displaying a social application interface,” but appears it should recite “after displaying the social application interface” to improve clarity.
Claim 14 recites “in response to that a chat scene that the current social user is in is currently displayed…” but appears it should recite something along the lines of “in response to a chat scene that the current social user is in being currently displayed…”
Claim 14 recites “jumping from the chat scene…” but appears it should recite “jumping from the chat scene that the current social user is in…” to improve clarity.
Claim 15 recites “the current social user is not in the chat scene” but appears it should recite “the current social user is not in the chat scene of the social user performing invitation…”
Claim 15 further recites “performing invitation in response to that the chat scene state indicates that the current social user is not in the chat scene; and in response to that chat scene states of the current social user and the social user performing invitation indicate that…” but should recite “performing invitation in response to the chat scene state indicating that the current social user is not in the chat scene; and in response to the chat scene states of the current social user and the social user performing invitation indicating that…”
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 2-4, 7, 11-13, and 17-19 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.
Claims 2, 7, 11, 13, and 17 recite the limitation “the social object…” – however, it is unclear whether “the social object” is intended to refer to one of the “a plurality of social objects” or “at least one first social object” (as recited in claim 1), rendering claim 2 indefinite. 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 purpose of further examination, “the social object” may refer to any one of either the plurality of social objects or the at least one first social object.
Claim 11 further recites the limitations “the virtual image,” and “a social object corresponding to the virtual image.” However, it is unclear if “the virtual image” is intended to refer to, from claim 1, “a virtual image of the current social user…” or “a virtual image of the at least one first social object.” Furthermore, it is unclear whether “a social object corresponding to the virtual image” is intended to refer to “the at least one first social object” of claim 1, or instead refers to a different social object corresponding to “the virtual image.” See Ex Parte Miyazaki as per above. For the purposes of further examination, the examiner interprets “the virtual image” to refer to any virtual image and “a social object corresponding to the virtual image” to refer to any social object corresponding to any virtual image.
Claim 13 further recites “a virtual image corresponding to a social object” – which renders claim 13 indefinite as it is unclear whether “a virtual image” was intended to refer to any previously recited virtual image from claims 1 or 11, or a different virtual image, and similarly, it is unclear whether “a social object” refers to any previously recited virtual image from claims 1 or 11, or a different social object. For the purpose of further examination, the examiner interprets claim 13 as referring to any virtual image corresponding to any social object.
Claim 13 further recites “the current chat scene,” however, the claims lack sufficient antecedent basis for “the current chat scene” and additionally recite 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.
Claims 3-4, 12, and 18-19 are also rejected as they depend from claims 2, 11, and 17.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101
35 U.S.C. 101 reads as follows:
Whoever invents or discovers any new and useful process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter, or any new and useful improvement thereof, may obtain a patent therefor, subject to the conditions and requirements of this title.
Claims 1-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to a judicial exception (i.e. an abstract idea) without significantly more.
Step 1:
Claims 1-15 recite “A method…” (i.e. a process); claims 16-19 recite “A non-transitory computer-readable storage medium…” (i.e. an article of manufacture); and claim 20 recites “A terminal device, comprising a processor and a memory…” (i.e. a machine). These claims fall under one of the four categories of statutory subject matter and as a result, pass Step 1 of the subject matter eligibility test. However, “Determining that a claim falls within one of the four enumerated categories of patentable subject matter recited in 35 U.S.C. 101 (i.e., process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter) in Step 1 does not end the eligibility analysis, because claims directed to nothing more than abstract ideas (such as a mathematical formula or equation), natural phenomena, and laws of nature are not eligible for patent protection.” See MPEP 2106.04. Accordingly, the examiner continues the subject matter eligibility analysis below.
Step 2A Prong One:
Independent claims 1, 16 and 20 (using claim 1 as representative) recite limitations for social networking based on a virtual image, including:
displaying images of a plurality of social objects
determining, in response to an operation performed on an object screening control…at least one first social object related to an online state of the current social user...
displaying an image of the at least one first social object
The limitations of independent claims 1, 16, and 20 above are determined to recite an abstract idea (i.e. displaying social objects and determining and displaying a social object representing a state of a social user) for the reasons discussed in the following continued Step 2A Prong One analysis. Note that “An abstract idea can generally be described at different levels of abstraction.” Apple, Inc. v. Ameranth, Inc., 842 F.3d 1229, 1240-41 (Fed. Cir. 2016).
As per MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(II), claim limitations which recite commercial or legal interactions (including agreements in the form of contracts, legal obligations, advertising, marketing or sales activities or behaviors, and business relations) or managing personal behavior or relationships or interactions between people (including social activities, teaching, and following rules or instructions) fall into the “certain methods of organizing human activity” category of judicial exceptions. Therefore, since the processes described by the limitations above amount to managing personal behavior or relationships or interactions between people (i.e. displaying social objects and determining and displaying a social object representing a state of a social user – which describes managing the display of social activity within a social network/application), the claims fall into the “certain methods of organizing human activity” grouping of abstract ideas.
Step 2A Prong Two:
The judicial exception (i.e. abstract idea) recited in claims 1, 16, and 20 is not integrated into a practical application because the claims recite mere instructions to apply the abstract idea (i.e. displaying social objects and determining and displaying a social object representing a state of a social user) using generic computers/computer components (i.e. a terminal device, a social application interface comprising an object screening control and virtual images, and a social application of claim 1; “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…,” a social application interface, comprising an object screening control and virtual images, and a social application of claim 16; and “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…,” a social application interface, comprising an object screening control and virtual images, and a social application of claim 20). See MPEP 2106.05(f), showing “[C]laims that amount to nothing more than an instruction to apply the abstract idea using a generic computer do not render an abstract idea eligible. Alice Corp.”
That the display of social networking information includes “displaying a social application interface, the social application interface comprising an object screening control and virtual images of a plurality of social objects in a social application,” and wherein the social objects or online state of the user is represented as a virtual image merely describes generic computer implementation to perform an abstract idea within a computer environment. The display of the various types of information above (e.g. an object screening control and virtual images of a plurality of social objects) in a social application interface and the limitation for “collapsing the object screening control in the social application interface and displaying a virtual image of the at least one first social object” does not add anything that indicates an improvement to the functioning of user interfaces themselves, but instead merely describes the use of generic user interface functionality in its ordinary capacity. The use of a computer or other machinery in its ordinary capacity for economic or other tasks (e.g., to receive, store, or transmit data) or simply adding a general purpose computer or computer components after the fact to an abstract idea does not integrate a judicial exception into a practical application or provide significantly more, but instead also indicates that the claims recite mere instructions apply the abstract idea using a generic computer or computer components. Applicant’s specification also makes clear in ¶ 0054 (see spec. filed 2/21/2025) that “The ‘collapsing’ operation herein may include: canceling displaying, hiding, or the like” – which clearly adds no more than basic user interface functionality rather than indicating any type of technological improvement.
The limitation “the social application on the terminal device being logged in by a current social user” also generally links the performance of the abstract idea to a particular technological environment, but does not add anything that would provide an inventive concept.
Thus, while the claims recite a number of additional elements linking the performance of the abstract idea (i.e. displaying social objects and determining and displaying a social object representing a state of a social user) to a particular technological environment, they do not add anything that goes beyond generic computer implementation (generic computers and computer-based user interfaces being used in their ordinary capacity). Therefore, because the claims, considered as a whole, do not recite anything that integrates the abstract idea into a practical application, the claims are directed to an abstract idea.
Step 2B:
Claims 1, 16, and 20 do not include additional elements, whether considered alone or as an ordered combination, that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception (i.e. abstract idea) because as mentioned above, the claims recite mere instructions to apply the abstract idea (i.e. displaying social objects and determining and displaying a social object representing a state of a social user) using generic computers/computer components (i.e. a terminal device, a social application interface comprising an object screening control and virtual images, and a social application of claim 1; “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…,” a social application interface, comprising an object screening control and virtual images, and a social application of claim 16; and “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…,” a social application interface, comprising an object screening control and virtual images, and a social application of claim 20). See MPEP 2106.05(f), showing “[C]laims that amount to nothing more than an instruction to apply the abstract idea using a generic computer do not render an abstract idea eligible. Alice Corp.”
The display of social networking information including “displaying a social application interface, the social application interface comprising an object screening control and virtual images of a plurality of social objects in a social application,” and wherein the social objects or online state of the user is represented as a virtual image merely describes generic computer implementation to perform an abstract idea within a computer environment. The display of the various types of information above (e.g. an object screening control and virtual images of a plurality of social objects) in a social application interface and the limitation for “collapsing the object screening control in the social application interface and displaying a virtual image of the at least one first social object” does not add anything that indicates an improvement to the functioning of user interfaces themselves, but instead merely describes the use of generic user interface functionality in its ordinary capacity. The use of a computer or other machinery in its ordinary capacity for economic or other tasks (e.g., to receive, store, or transmit data) or simply adding a general purpose computer or computer components after the fact to an abstract idea does not integrate a judicial exception into a practical application or provide significantly more, but instead also indicates that the claims recite mere instructions apply the abstract idea using a generic computer or computer components. Applicant’s specification also makes clear in ¶ 0054 (see spec. filed 2/21/2025) that “The ‘collapsing’ operation herein may include: canceling displaying, hiding, or the like” – which clearly adds no more than basic user interface functionality rather than indicating any type of technological improvement.
The limitation “the social application on the terminal device being logged in by a current social user” also generally links the performance of the abstract idea to a particular technological environment, but does not add anything that would provide an inventive concept.
Thus, while the claims recite a number of additional elements linking the performance of the abstract idea (i.e. displaying social objects and determining and displaying a social object representing a state of a social user) to a particular technological environment, they do not add anything that goes beyond generic computer implementation (generic computers and computer-based user interfaces being used in their ordinary capacity) or otherwise adds significantly more than the abstract idea. Considering the additional elements as an ordered combination does not add anything beyond generic computer implementation, and does not add significantly more than the abstract idea.
Dependent Claims 2-15 and 17-19:
Dependent claims 2-15 and 17-19 are directed to the same abstract idea as independent claims 1 and 16 above as they do not recite anything that integrates the abstract idea into a practical application or amounts to significantly more than the abstract idea.
Claim 2 (and similar claim 17) further recites “wherein the social object comprises a social user, and the method further comprises: displaying the online state of the current social user in a first area of the social application interface; and after the displaying of the online state in the first area has reached a preset time, replacing the online state in the first area with a matching control, 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” – however, these limitations further describe the abstract idea above (“wherein the social object comprises a social user, and the method further comprises: displaying the online state…after the displaying of the online state in the first area has reached a preset time…find, based on a set condition, a social user to interact with the current social user from the social application”) using generic computer implementation for displaying the online state in a first area, and replacing the displayed online state with a matching control element after a preset time. This merely describes how information is displayed at a high level of generality, and does not go beyond generic user interface functionality being used in its ordinary capacity.
Claim 3 (and similar claim 18) further recites limitations further describing the abstract idea (“wherein at least one candidate online state is displayed in a second area…determining a related second social object based on the displayed at least one candidate online state… displaying a 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...displaying….the second social object”), being performed using generic computer implementation and/or using generic user interface functionality in its ordinary capacity (“of the social application interface, the first area and the second area being adjacent areas…displaying a virtual image of the second social object in the social application interface”).
Claim 4 (and similar claim 19) recites “in response to that the candidate online state displayed in the first area is not consistent with the online state of the current social user, replacing the online state of the current social user with the candidate online state displayed in the first area” which merely describes replacing information displayed in the interface with other information, and thus describes abstract functions for displaying the candidate online state being performed via generic computer implementation.
Claim 5 recites various limitations for collapsing the object screening control and displaying information – however, these functions describe generic user interface controls and functionality, rather than anything that improves the functioning of a user interface.
Claim 6 further recites limitations that describe the abstract idea (displaying information related to a plurality of online states, in response to that an online state corresponding to the operated object screening sub-control is consistent with the online state of the current social user, performing the operation of determining the first social object; or in response to that the online state corresponding to the operated object screening sub-control is inconsistent with the online state of the current social user, determining a third social object, and displaying an image of the third social object) while reciting various additional elements related to user interface functions (“in response to the operation performed on the object screening control…jumping to an object screening sub-control panel…displaying, on the object screening sub-control panel, object screening sub-controls…collapsing the object screening sub-control panel in response to an operation performed on an object screening sub-control, and related to the online state corresponding to the operated object screening sub-control, and displaying…in the social application interface”). However, the additional elements for jumping to and using controls/sub-controls, collapsing elements, and displaying information describe generic functions associated with any user interface being used in its ordinary capacity, and do not indicate that the claims recite a technological improvement/solve a technological problem specific to user interfaces.
Claim 7 recites limitations further describing the abstract idea (“wherein the social object comprises a social user, a topic, and a chat scene; in response to that the online state of the current social user is an interaction-type 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, or a chat scene related to the online state of the current social user; and in response to that the online state of the current social user is a content-type 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, or a topic related to the online state of the current social user”). At most, claim 7 generally links the performance of the abstract idea to a particular technological environment (online social networks/communications) but does not change that the claim at its core is directed to managing and displaying information pertaining to social interactions.
Claim 8 recites further limitations describing the abstract idea (displaying a two-dimensional image of the first social object and rendering a three-dimensional view based on the two-dimensional image) and recites further additional elements (“loading a three-dimensional model of the first social object based on the two-dimensional image of the first social object; 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”) – however, loading a three dimensional model and interacting with it via control/input, when recited at such a high level of generality, does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application or add significantly more – under the broadest reasonable interpretation, this covers the use of generic computers in their ordinary capacity and does not require any specific improvement to computer functionality of 3D rendering/interaction. Instead, the claims describe abstract concepts for displaying and manipulating image data without a specific technical improvement to how it is done.
Claim 9 recites “wherein after the displaying a social application interface, the social application interface comprises a background space, 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” – however, these limitations merely further describe the abstract by performing an operation to refresh a view and display new information, and the additional elements describing the controls and the displayed information in the social application interface does not go beyond generally linking the performance of the abstract idea to a particular technological environment (within a social application interface) or the use of generic computers and user interfaces in their ordinary capacity.
Claim 10 recites further limitations describing the abstract idea (performing a state setting control, and selecting an online state, determining an online state as the online state of the current social user and displaying an online state selected from a plurality of candidate online states) being performed using generic computer implementation and/or the use of a computer interface in its ordinary capacity to apply the abstract idea (“wherein the social application interface further comprises a state setting control, jumping to a state setting interface … the state setting interface comprising a state control; displaying an online state selecting interface in response to an operation performed on the state control…”).
Claim 11 recites limitations further describing the abstract idea (“wherein the social object comprises a social user,” creating and displaying a chat scene and images of social users, and an invite control in response to an operation for the chat establishing control, and inviting at least one social object to join the chat scene via the inviting control), and further recites additional elements (displaying a chat establishing control…configured to trigger real-time interaction with a social object corresponding to the virtual image… displaying the virtual image corresponding to the current social user and a virtual image corresponding to a social object to interact with the current social user in the first chat scene). However, similar to claim 1 above, the claims require basic user interface functionality for carrying out the abstract idea on computers, and do not improve user interfaces or any other technology.
Claim 12 recites further limitations describing the abstract idea (determining, in response to an operation for a 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). The limitations “wherein the social application interface further comprises a matching control” and performing them “after displaying of the social application interface” merely generally links the performance of the abstract idea to a particular technological environment.
Claim 13 recites further limitations describing the abstract idea for “before displaying a virtual image corresponding to a social object in the chat scene…creating a second chat scene in response to that a chat scene state of the current social user indicates that the current social user is not in the chat scene and a chat scene state of the social object indicates that the social object is not in the chat scene; adding the current social user and the social object to the second chat scene, and establishing a chat session to the social object; and in response to that the chat scene state of the social object indicates that the current social user is in the chat scene and the chat scene state of the current social user indicates that the social object is not in the chat scene, instructing the social object to exit the current chat scene, and in response to that the social object agrees to exit the current chat scene, 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 to the current social user.” At most, the claims generally link the performance of the abstract idea for managing and displaying social information (in the case of claim 13, managing chat scenes) to a particular technological environment (within a social application/using computers) and/or carry out the abstract idea using generic computer implementation.
Claim 14 recites further limitations describing the abstract idea (“the invitation selecting control is configured to agree to or refuse to join a chat scene of a social user performing invitation; and in response to that a chat scene that the current social user is in is currently displayed, jumping from the chat scene to the chat scene of the social user performing invitation when information about agreeing to join the chat scene of the social user performing invitation is received”). The additional elements for “popping up an invitation selecting control, the invitation selecting control is configured to…” and “jumping” to another chat scene (to the extent it is performed on a user interface) does not add anything more than the use of generic computers and/or the use of generic user interface functionality to apply the abstract idea.
Claim 15 recites limitations further describing the abstract idea (“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 that the chat scene state indicates that the current social user is not in the chat scene; and in response to that chat scene states of the current social user and the social user performing invitation indicate 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”).
Considering any of the additional elements above as an ordered combination (with the respective independent/dependent claims) does not add anything that amounts to significantly more than the abstract idea.
Therefore, claims 1-20 are ineligible under § 101.
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).
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), 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 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 users currently online and/or present within specific virtual areas);
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, ¶ 0062-0063 showing virtual images of at least one user currently present in the current zone of presence, e.g. Ed, Art, Beth, Carl, Dan)
Claim 2: Van Wie/Li teach claim 1. Van Wie, as modified above, further teaches:
wherein the social object comprises a social user (Van Wie: ¶ 0062-0065, Fig. 2 showing 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 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 teach claim 1. Van Wie, as modified above, further teaches:
wherein the collapsing the object screening control in the social application interface and displaying a 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 a 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), and further in view of US 20070233850 A1 to Szeto.
Claim 3: Van Wie/Li teach claim 2. With respect to the following limitation, Van Wie/Li 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 a 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 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/Szeto teach claim 3. With respect to the following limitations, Van Wie/Li do not explicitly teach, however, Szeto teaches:
further comprising: in response to that the candidate online state displayed in the first area is not consistent with the online state of the current social user, replacing the online state of the current social user with the 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/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), and further in view of US 20230121307 A1 to Benchetrit et al. (Benchetrit).
Claim 7: Van Wie/Li 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 do not explicitly teach all of the following. However, Benchetrit teaches:
wherein the social object 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 that the online state of the current social user is 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 that the online state of the current social user is 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 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 teach claim 1. With respect to the following limitations, Van Wie/Li 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 that a chat scene that the current social user is in is 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 of 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, a private chat 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 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/Benchetrit teach claim 14. With respect to the following limitations, Van Wie/Li 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 that the chat scene state indicates that the current social user is not in the chat scene (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 that chat scene states of the current social user and the social user performing invitation indicate 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 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), and further in view of US 20090254843 A1 to Van Wie et al. (referred to by second inventor “Brody” for clarity).
Claim 8: Van Wie/Li teach claim 1. Van Wie, as modified above, further teaches:
wherein the displaying a 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/Li do not explicitly teach the following, however, Brody 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),
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 immersive 3D visualization and user interactions of Brody in the virtual communications system of Van Wie/Li 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).
Also note that the content of “Brody” (which is a publication of U.S. Application No. 12/418,243) is nonetheless incorporated by reference into the primary reference (US 20130283169 A1).
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), and further in view of US 20220385710 A1 to Chen et al. (Chen).
Claim 9: Van Wie/Li teach claim 1. With respect to the following limitations, Van Wie/Li do not explicitly teach, however, Chen teaches:
wherein after the displaying a 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 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), 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 teach claim 1. With respect to the following limitations, Van Wie/Li 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 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), and further in view of US 20090254842 A1 to Leacock et al. (Leacock).
Claim 11: Van Wie/Li teach claim 1. Van Wie, as modified above, further teaches:
wherein the social object 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 does not explicitly discuss the following limitations. However, Leacock teaches:
and the method further comprises: displaying a chat establishing control in response to an operation for the virtual image (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 a 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 a virtual image corresponding to a social object to interact with the current social user 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),
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 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).
Also note that Van Wie (US 20130283169 A1) incorporates the subject matter of “Leacock” by reference.
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 20090254842 A1 to Leacock et al. (Leacock), and further in view of US 20230121307 A1 to Benchetrit et al. (Benchetrit).
Claim 12: Van Wie/Li/Leacock teach claim 11. With respect to the following limitations, Van Wie/Li/Leacock 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 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.
Novelty/Non-Obviousness
Claims 6 and 13 are novel and nonobvious as no combination of the prior art identified by the examiner teaches the respective limitations of claims 6 and 13, considered in the context of the claims as a whole including the limitations from the preceding claims from which they depend.
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” and “Li” 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 that an online state corresponding to the operated object screening sub-control is consistent with the online state of the current social user, performing the operation of determining the first social object; or in response to that the online state corresponding to the operated object screening sub-control is 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.
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,” and “Leacock” in the rejection of claim 11) still does not teach all of the limitations of claim 13, considered together, for: before displaying a virtual image corresponding to a social object in the chat scene, further comprising: creating a second chat scene in response to that a chat scene state of the current social user indicates that the current social user is not in the chat scene and a chat scene state of the social object indicates that the social object is not in the chat scene; adding the current social user and the social object to the second chat scene, and establishing a chat session to the social object; and in response to that the chat scene state of the social object indicates that the current social user is in the chat scene and the chat scene state of the current social user indicates that the social object is not in the chat scene, instructing the social object to exit the current chat scene, and in response to that the social object agrees to exit the current chat scene, 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 to the current social user.
Other 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
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, Shannon Campbell can be reached at (571) 272-5587. 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