DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Priority
This application filed on November 4, 2024 discloses and claims only subject matter disclosed in the prior Application No. 18/389,993, filed December 20, 2023, currently U.S. Patent No. 12,355,581, and names the inventor or at least one joint inventor named in the prior application. Accordingly, this application constitutes a continuation. The benefit of the filing date, December 20, 2023, of the prior application is acknowledged, pursuant to 35 U.S.C. 120, 37 CFR 1.78, and MPEP § 211 et seq.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on June 18, 2025 was filed before the mailing of a first Office Action on the merits. Since the submission complies with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97, the IDS has been considered by the Examiner.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
The factual inquiries 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 non-obviousness.
Claims 1-4, 6, 8-11, 13, 15-17, and 19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Cohen (US 2019/0238489 A1, hereinafter referred to as Cohen) in view of Jain et al. (US 2024/0256582 A1, hereinafter referred to as Jain).
Regarding Claims 1, 8, and 15,
Cohen teaches:
“receiving, from a client device associated with a first member of a plurality of members of a chat channel, a user request to create a subchannel …” (paragraphs [0031], [0035], [0347]). [A system is provided as a system of record for an organization, work group, or social group, using various combinations of communication techniques, including chat room communications ([0031]). The client device transmits a request for the computer program product over a network, and users are able to initiate a Sidebar, as a 1:1 private conversation between two members or more of a larger group conversation from within a group channel, where messages in the Sidebar are only visible to the parties to the Sidebar ([0035]).] (NOTE: The sidebar is equivalent to the “subchannel” and members of the group conversation to the “members of a chat channel.”)
“establishing the subchannel based on the user request, wherein subchannel members of the subchannel comprise at least the first member” (paragraph [0347]). [A text entry bar is provided to user Elizabeth in order for her to type a response to Sarah's personalized message, and by entering text into the text entry bar and pressing return, messages will be posted into this private “Sidebar” or “Subchannel” between Sarah and Elizabeth that are visible only to Elizabeth and Sarah ([0347]).] (NOTE: Elizabeth is equivalent to the “first member” and a “member of the subchannel.”)
“providing the chat summary in the subchannel” (paragraph [0054]). [Some or all of the private chat session conducted in the Sidebar can be integrated into the larger group session channel for display to other participants ([0054]).
“A system comprising: a communications interface; a non-transitory computer-readable medium; and one or more processors communicatively coupled to the communications interface and the non-transitory computer-readable medium, the one or more processors configured to execute processor-executable instructions stored in the non-transitory computer-readable medium” as recited in Claim 8, and “A non-transitory computer-readable medium comprising processor-executable instructions configured to cause one or more processors” as recited in Claim 15 (paragraph [0040]).
Cohen does not teach:
“related to a topic”
“generating a chat summary of prior chat messages related to the topic of the subchannel from the chat channel using a generative artificial intelligence (AI) model”
Jain teaches:
“related to a topic” (paragraph [0032]). [The electronic messaging applications provide persistent chat channels that are organized by topics or groups ([0032]).]
“generating a chat summary of prior chat messages related to the topic of the subchannel from the chat channel using a generative artificial intelligence (AI) model” (paragraph [0074]). [A summary of a chat channel conversation and a summary of emails received within a past threshold period of time are automatically generated using a generative AI model and the summary of the chat channel conversation is displayed ([0074]).]
Both Cohen and Jain teach systems that manage network communications and those systems are comparable to that of the instant application. Because the two cited references are analogous to the instant application, it 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, to include in the Cohen disclosure, the use of generative AI to automatically generate chat summaries and to organize chat channels by topic, as taught by Jain. Such inclusion would have added more capabilities to improve the sophistication of the communication system, and would have been consistent with the rationale of using known techniques to improve similar devices (methods, or products) in the same way to show a prima facie case of obviousness (MPEP 2143(I)(C)) under KSR International Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 127 S. Ct. 1727, 82 USPQ2d 1385, 1395-97 (2007).
Regarding Claims 2, 9, and 16,
Cohen in view of Jain teaches all the limitations of parent Claims 1, 8, and 15.
Cohen teaches:
“enabling the client device to transmit an invitation message to a subset of the plurality of members for joining the subchannel” (paragraphs [0350], [0351]). [Use of Direct Message or other Group channels could be utilized to facilitate private conversations between a card sender and a card recipient ([0350)]). The private message ("Thanks! See you at dinner”) is sent by Elizabeth to Sarah in response to Sarah's personalized note ("Beth, I love you [to] have an awesome birthday") associated with the birthday card; Elizabeth's response is visible in the base channel "Office" only to herself and to Sarah, and other channel members do not see Elizabeth's private response ([0351)]).] (NOTE: The message “See you at dinner” sent by Elizabeth is equivalent to the “invitation message” and Sarah to the “subset of the plurality of members.”)
Regarding Claims 3, 10, and 16,
Cohen in view of Jain teaches all the limitations of parent Claims 2, 9, and 15.
Cohen teaches:
“wherein the invitation message comprises one or more names corresponding to the subset of the plurality of members” (paragraphs [0350], [0055]; fig. 3A, elements 520, 525, 531). [The private message ("Thanks! See you at dinner”) is sent by Elizabeth to Sarah in response to Sarah's personalized note ("Beth, I love you [to] have an awesome birthday") associated with the birthday card ([0351)]). When a first chat participant clicks on and/or hovers over the display name for a second chat participant in the main window 520, a sidebar session 531 opens; the sidebar session 531 allows the first chat participant to interact directly with the second chat participant outside of larger group session channel 525 that includes the other participants ([0055)]).]
Regarding Claims 4, 11, and 17,
Cohen in view of Jain teaches all the limitations of parent Claims 1, 8, and 15.
Cohen teaches:
“for the subchannel” (paragraph [0350]). [Private messages between users can occur in a sidebar or subchannel ([0350]).]
Cohen does not teach:
“wherein the user request comprises a description of the topic ....”
Jain teaches:
“wherein the user request comprises a description of the topic …” (paragraph [0032]). [The electronic messaging applications provide persistent chat channels that are organized by topics or groups; The electronic files comprise text files, audio files, image files, video files, and electronic documents that allow text and images to be displayed ([0032]).] (NOTE: The text files, audio files, image files, video files, and electronic documents are equivalent to the “description of the topic.”)
Both Cohen and Jain teach systems that manage network communications and those systems are comparable to that of the instant application. Because the two cited references are analogous to the instant application, it 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, to include in the Cohen disclosure, organizing chat channels by topic, as taught by Jain. Such inclusion would have added more capabilities to improve the sophistication of the communication system, and would have been consistent with the rationale of using known techniques to improve similar devices (methods, or products) in the same way to show a prima facie case of obviousness (MPEP 2143(I)(C)) under KSR International Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 127 S. Ct. 1727, 82 USPQ2d 1385, 1395-97 (2007).
Regarding Claims 6, 13, and 19,
Cohen in view of Jain teaches all the limitations of parent Claims 1, 8, and 15.
Cohen teaches:
“a/the subchannel” (paragraph [0350]). [Private messages between users can occur in a sidebar or subchannel ([0350]).]
Cohen does not teach:
“generating a … chat summary based on chat messages in the … using the generative AI model”
Jain teaches:
“generating a … chat summary based on chat messages in the … using the generative AI model” (paragraph [0074]). [A summary of a chat channel conversation and a summary of emails received within a past threshold period of time are automatically generated using a generative AI model and the summary of the chat channel conversation is displayed ([0074]).]
Both Cohen and Jain teach systems that manage network communications and those systems are comparable to that of the instant application. Because the two cited references are analogous to the instant application, it 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, to include in the Cohen disclosure, the use of generative AI to automatically generate chat summaries, as taught by Jain. Such inclusion would have added more capabilities to improve the sophistication of the communication system, and would have been consistent with the rationale of using known techniques to improve similar devices (methods, or products) in the same way to show a prima facie case of obviousness (MPEP 2143(I)(C)) under KSR International Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 127 S. Ct. 1727, 82 USPQ2d 1385, 1395-97 (2007).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 5, 7, 12, 14, 18, and 20 are objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
The following subject matter recited in Claims 5, 12, and 18 was not found in the prior art:
transmitting a request from a second member of the plurality of members for joining the subchannel to the client device associated with the first member; and
in response to receiving an acceptance message from the client device associated with the first member, adding the second member to the subchannel.
The following subject matter recited in Claims 7, 14, and 20 was not found in the prior art:
transmitting a request to the subchannel members for consent to share the subchannel chat summary in the chat channel; and
providing the subchannel chat summary to the chat channel.
However, it should be noted that Claims 7, 14, and 20 depend on Claims 6, 13, and 19, respectively, and that subject matter, “generating a subchannel chat summary based on chat messages in the subchannel using the generative AI model,” although rejected by prior art, is part of Claims 7, 14, and 20.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. The additional prior art references listed on Form PTO-892 and not used in the prior art rejections are also relevant to this application.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to PHYLLIS A BOOK whose telephone number is (571)272-0698. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 10:00 am - 7:00 pm.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, GLENTON BURGESS can be reached at 571-272-3949. 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.
/PHYLLIS A BOOK/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2454
Prosecution Insights