Prosecution Insights
Last updated: April 19, 2026
Application No. 19/094,622

COMMENT PROCESSING METHOD, ELECTRONIC DEVICE, AND STORAGE MEDIUM

Non-Final OA §103
Filed
Mar 28, 2025
Examiner
KELLS, ASHER
Art Unit
2171
Tech Center
2100 — Computer Architecture & Software
Assignee
BEIJING ZITIAO NETWORK TECHNOLOGY CO., LTD.
OA Round
3 (Non-Final)
78%
Grant Probability
Favorable
3-4
OA Rounds
2y 5m
To Grant
89%
With Interview

Examiner Intelligence

Grants 78% — above average
78%
Career Allow Rate
490 granted / 625 resolved
+23.4% vs TC avg
Moderate +11% lift
Without
With
+10.9%
Interview Lift
resolved cases with interview
Typical timeline
2y 5m
Avg Prosecution
22 currently pending
Career history
647
Total Applications
across all art units

Statute-Specific Performance

§101
12.8%
-27.2% vs TC avg
§103
37.7%
-2.3% vs TC avg
§102
20.7%
-19.3% vs TC avg
§112
22.7%
-17.3% vs TC avg
Black line = Tech Center average estimate • Based on career data from 625 resolved cases

Office Action

§103
DETAILED ACTION Continued Examination under 37 CFR § 1.114 A request for continued examination under 37 C.F.R. § 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 C.F.R. § 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 C.F.R. § 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 C.F.R. § 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 C.F.R. § 1.114. Applicant’s submission filed 15 October 2025 (hereinafter “Reply”) has been entered. Status of the Claims Claims 1, 11, and 19-20 are currently amended. Claims 3, 13, 15, and 17 have been canceled. Claims 1-2, 4-12, 14, 16, and 18-20 are pending. Notice of AIA Status The present application, filed on or after 16 March 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA . 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. Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103 The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. § 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action: A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102 of this title, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made. Claims 1, 4-7, 11, 16, and 19-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over Khurana et al., US 2023/0412653 A1, in view of Desai et al., US 2017/0147547 A1. Regarding claim 1, the combination of Khurana with Desai renders obvious a comment processing method, comprising: In response to a selection operation triggered by a user, obtaining comment content that is selected in a document. Khurana teaches monitoring for and detecting a comment made to a portion of a document. Khurana ¶ 45, fig. 4 (step 402). Khurana does not teach obtaining comment content that is selected. However, Desai teaches a user selecting a prepared comment in a document. Desai ¶ 27. Khurana discloses: Sending the comment content to an instant messaging chat. Khurana teaches synchronizing the comment with a chat. Khurana ¶ 46, fig. 4 (step 406). Generating and displaying a corresponding preview of the comment content in the instant messaging chat in a form of a chat message, wherein the preview comprises an avatar of the user, an identifier of the user and the comment content. Khurana teaches posting a copy of the comment as a “message” to the chat. Khurana ¶¶ 46, 54, fig. 4 (step 406), fig. 5B (comment 520). The comment may include a user identifier. Id. ¶ 54, fig. 5B (user identifier 518). The user identifier may include a username and/or image (i.e., avatar). Id. ¶ 29. Khurana does not disclose, but Desai discloses: Wherein the sending the comment content to an instant messaging chat comprises: sending the comment content to the instant messaging chat in response to a forward operation triggered by a user on the comment content, or sending the comment content to the instant messaging chat in response to a copy- and-paste link operation triggered by the user on the comment content. Desai teaches that user actions (i.e., operations) may cause a comment to be sent (i.e., forwarded) to another person. Desai ¶¶ 27, 29. The comment may be sent via text messaging. Id. ¶ 29. It would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person with ordinary skill in the art to modify Khurana’s process of sending comment content to a chat with Desai’s process of sharing prepared comment content in response to an operation triggered by user. Such a modification would facilitate the sharing of comments, especially in small form factor devices. See Desai ¶ 27. Regarding claim 4, which depends on claim 1, Khurana discloses wherein an account for the document and an instant messaging account are accounts set up by the same user in an application suite. Khurana teaches that a username may be shared across for the document and the chat. Khurana ¶ 14. Accounts are managed by the system. Id. ¶ 23. Regarding claim 5, which depends on claim 1, Khurana discloses wherein the preview comprises the comment content and body content in the document corresponding to the comment content. Khurana teaches a preview comprising the comment content and corresponding body content (e.g., “Summary”). Khurana ¶ 54, fig. 5B. Regarding claim 6, which depends on claim 1, the limitation wherein the sending the comment content to the instant messaging chat in response to a copy-and-paste link operation on the comment content comprises: generating a copied link to the comment content in response to a copy link operation on the comment content; and sending the comment content to the instant messaging chat in response to a forward operation on the copied link merely serves to further limit sending in response to a copy-and-paste link operation. As explained above, Desai discloses sending comment content in response to a forward operation. Accordingly, Desai also renders obvious the present claim, as the present claim merely limits an alternative that is not relied upon in rejecting the parent claim. Regarding claim 7, which depends on claim 1, Khurana discloses: obtaining, in response to the forward operation on the comment content, an instant messaging account that matches an account for the document, and displaying an instant messaging interface corresponding to the instant messaging account; and sending, in response to a trigger operation on a target chat in the instant messaging interface, the comment content to the target chat. Khurana ¶¶ 45-46. Regarding claim 11, which depends on claim 1, Khurana discloses wherein the preview comprises at least one of a user avatar, a user identifier, a comment editing status, a comment time, and an emoji reaction to the comment. Khurana teaches at least a preview comprising a comment time. Khurana ¶ 54, fig. 5B (comment 520). Claim 16, which depends on claim 4, is rejected for substantially the same reasons given above for corresponding claim 5. Claim 19 is drawn to an apparatus that implements the method recited in claim 1. Accordingly, this claim is rejected for substantially the same reasons as indicated in the above rejection of the corresponding claim. Claim 20 is drawn to instructions stored in a medium that implement the method recited in claim 1. Accordingly, this claim is rejected for substantially the same reasons as indicated in the above rejection of the corresponding claim. Claims 2, 8, 12, 14, and 18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over Khurana et al., US 2023/0412653 A1, in view of Desai et al., US 2017/0147547 A1, further in view of Jang et al., US 2024/0039969 A1. Regarding claim 2, which depends on claim 1, Khurana does not explicitly disclose, but Jang discloses wherein the sending the comment content to an instant messaging chat comprises: sending a link to the comment content to the instant messaging chat in the form of a chat message. Jang teaches a chat message comprising a link to a comment within a document. Jang ¶¶ 81, 84, figs. 4E-4F. It would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person with ordinary skill in the art to modify Khurana’s process of generating a preview of a comment in a chat with Jang’s process of generating a chat message with a link to a comment within a document. Such a modification would enable a user to easily navigate between a chat and an associated document in order to collaborate in editing the document. See Jang ¶ 84. Regarding claim 8, which depends on claim 1, Khurana does not explicitly disclose, but Jang discloses wherein the preview comprises a document link to the document; and in response to a trigger operation on the document link, the document is displayed and a position of the comment content is jumped to. Jang teaches a chat message comprising a link to a document. Jang ¶ 81, fig. 4E. Selection of the link may case navigation to an associated comment. comment within a document. Jang ¶ 84, fig. 4F. It would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person with ordinary skill in the art to modify Khurana’s process of generating a preview of a comment in a chat with Jang’s process of generating a chat message with a link to a document. Such a modification would enable a user to easily navigate between a chat and an associated portion of a document in order to collaborate in editing the document. See Jang ¶ 84. Claim 12, which depends on claim 2, is rejected for substantially the same reasons given above for corresponding claim 4. Claim 14, which depends on claim 2, is rejected for substantially the same reasons given above for corresponding claim 5. Claim 18, which depends on claim 2, is rejected for substantially the same reasons given above for corresponding claim 8. Claim 9 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over Khurana et al., US 2023/0412653 A1, in view of Desai et al., US 2017/0147547 A1, further in view of Soni, US 2018/0165260 A1. Regarding claim 9, which depends on claim 6, Khurana does not explicitly disclose, but Soni discloses wherein after the generating a copied link to the comment content, the method further comprises: displaying copy result prompt information at a preset position of the document. Soni teaches displaying a user interface display element containing prompt information within the document. Soni ¶¶ 39-40, fig. 4C. It would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person with ordinary skill in the art to modify Khurana’s process of copying a comment to a chat with Soni’s process of displaying a user interface display element containing prompt information within a document. Such a modification would provide a user with an option to save linked content to a cloud-based document store, thus facilitating collaboration amongst multiple parties. See Soni ¶ 29. Claim 10 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over Khurana et al., US 2023/0412653 A1, in view of Desai et al., US 2017/0147547 A1, further in view of Paul et al., US 2023/0205905 A1. Regarding claim 10, which depends on claim 1, Khurana does not explicitly disclose, but Paul discloses wherein the preview comprises user permission information; read permission information is displayed at a preset position of the preview in response to that a user has a read permission for the document; edit permission information is displayed at a preset position of the preview in response to that the user has an edit permission for the document; and manage permission information is displayed at a preset position of the preview in response to that the user has a manage permission for the document. Paul teaches presenting a preview of document content. Paul ¶ 48. User interface elements indicating permissions associated with a shared document may be displayed and modified. Id. ¶¶ 94, 105, figs. 3-4. It would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person with ordinary skill in the art to modify Khurana’s process of generating a preview of a comment in a chat with Paul’s process of displaying a user interface display element containing modifiable permissions. Such a modification would “improve collaborative workflow and computing efficiency by more quickly notifying a first user when a second user has limited permissions with the respect to a shared document and reducing the likelihood that the users may need to exchange back and forth messages to enable the second user to gain desired permissions.” Paul ¶ 94. Response to Arguments Applicant argues that Khurana and Sun does not teach the newly amended limitation “in response to a selection operation triggered by a user, obtaining comment content that is selected in a document.” Reply 7-10. Applicant’s argument is moot because the argument does not apply to the combination of references being used in the current rejection to teach this limitation. Specifically, the combination of Khurana with Desai renders obvious the argued limitation. Applicant is referred to the above detailed rejections for further explanation. Conclusion Although particular portions of the prior art may have been cited in support of the rejections, the specified citations are merely representative of the teachings. Other passages and figures in the cited prior art may apply. Accordingly, Applicant should consider the entirety of the cited prior art for potentially teaching all or part of the claims. Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Asher D Kells whose telephone number is (571)270-7729. The examiner can normally be reached Mon. - Fri., 8 a.m. - 4 p.m.. 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, Kieu Vu can be reached at 571-272-4057. 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. Asher D. Kells Primary Examiner Art Unit 2171 /Asher D Kells/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2171
Read full office action

Prosecution Timeline

Mar 28, 2025
Application Filed
Apr 30, 2025
Non-Final Rejection — §103
Aug 05, 2025
Response Filed
Aug 13, 2025
Final Rejection — §103
Oct 15, 2025
Response after Non-Final Action
Nov 14, 2025
Request for Continued Examination
Nov 14, 2025
Interview Requested
Nov 20, 2025
Response after Non-Final Action
Dec 02, 2025
Examiner Interview Summary
Dec 02, 2025
Applicant Interview (Telephonic)
Jan 13, 2026
Non-Final Rejection — §103 (current)

Precedent Cases

Applications granted by this same examiner with similar technology

Patent 12591763
PROCESSING DEVICE, PROCESSING METHOD, AND NON-TRANSITORY COMPUTER READABLE MEDIUM STORING PROGRAM
2y 5m to grant Granted Mar 31, 2026
Patent 12585373
INTERFACE TO DISPLAY SHARED USER GROUPS
2y 5m to grant Granted Mar 24, 2026
Patent 12567066
MODIFYING CONTROL SCOPES OF CONTROLS ACROSS A PLURALITY OF DATA PROCESSES VIA DATA OBJECTS
2y 5m to grant Granted Mar 03, 2026
Patent 12566918
DOCUMENT MANAGEMENT SYSTEM FOR ADDING APPENDED INFORMATION INDICATING CHANGES MADE TO THE DOCUMENT TO THE REVISED DOCUMENT
2y 5m to grant Granted Mar 03, 2026
Patent 12561514
METHOD AND SYSTEM FOR CLASSIFYING ONE OR MORE HYPERLINKS IN A DOCUMENT
2y 5m to grant Granted Feb 24, 2026
Study what changed to get past this examiner. Based on 5 most recent grants.

AI Strategy Recommendation

Get an AI-powered prosecution strategy using examiner precedents, rejection analysis, and claim mapping.
Powered by AI — typically takes 5-10 seconds

Prosecution Projections

3-4
Expected OA Rounds
78%
Grant Probability
89%
With Interview (+10.9%)
2y 5m
Median Time to Grant
High
PTA Risk
Based on 625 resolved cases by this examiner. Grant probability derived from career allow rate.

Sign in with your work email

Enter your email to receive a magic link. No password needed.

Personal email addresses (Gmail, Yahoo, etc.) are not accepted.

Free tier: 3 strategy analyses per month