Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
DETAILED ACTION
This action is in response to the application filed on 09/18/2025.
Claims 1-20 are pending and stand rejected in this Office Action in which claims 1, 8 and 15 are independent claims.
Priority
Acknowledged is that this Application claims the benefit of priority from parent Application 18622628, filed 03/29/2024 now the U.S. Patent 12450300, issued 10/21/2025.
Double Patenting Rejections
The nonstatutory double patenting rejection is based on a judicially created doctrine grounded in public policy (a policy reflected in the statute) to prevent the unjustified or improper timewise extension of the “right to exclude” granted by a patent and to prevent possible harassment by multiple assignees. A non-statutory double patenting rejection is appropriate where the conflicting claims are not identical, but at least one examined application claim is not patentably distinct from the reference claim(s) because the examined application claim is either anticipated by, or would have been obvious over, the reference claim(s). See, e.g., In re Berg, 140 F.3d 1428, 46 USPQ2d 1226 (Fed. Cir. 1998); In re Goodman, 11 F.3d 1046, 29 USPQ2d 2010 (Fed. Cir. 1993); In re Longi, 759 F.2d 887, 225 USPQ 645 (Fed. Cir. 1985); In re Van Ornum, 686 F.2d 937, 214 USPQ 761 (CCPA 1982); In re Vogel, 422 F.2d 438, 164 USPQ 619 (CCPA 1970); In re Thorington, 418 F.2d 528, 163 USPQ 644 (CCPA 1969).
A timely filed terminal disclaimer in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(c) or 1.321(d) may be used to overcome an actual or provisional rejection based on nonstatutory double patenting provided the reference application or patent either is shown to be commonly owned with the examined application, or claims an invention made because of activities undertaken within the scope of a joint research agreement. See MPEP § 717.02 for applications subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA as explained in MPEP § 2159. See MPEP § 2146 et seq. for applications not subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA . A terminal disclaimer must be signed in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(b).
The filing of a terminal disclaimer by itself is not a complete reply to a nonstatutory double patenting (NSDP) rejection. A complete reply requires that the terminal disclaimer be accompanied by a reply requesting reconsideration of the prior Office action. Even where the NSDP rejection is provisional the reply must be complete. See MPEP § 804, subsection I.B.1. For a reply to a non-final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.111(a). For a reply to final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.113(c). A request for reconsideration while not provided for in 37 CFR 1.113(c) may be filed after final for consideration. See MPEP §§ 706.07(e) and 714.13.
The USPTO Internet website contains terminal disclaimer forms which may be used. Please visit www.uspto.gov/patent/patents-forms. The actual filing date of the application in which the form is filed determines what form (e.g., PTO/SB/25, PTO/SB/26, PTO/AIA /25, or PTO/AIA /26) should be used. A web-based eTerminal Disclaimer may be filled out completely online using web-screens. An eTerminal Disclaimer that meets all requirements is auto-processed and approved immediately upon submission. For more information about eTerminal Disclaimers, refer to www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/applying-online/eterminal-disclaimer.
Claims 1-20 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory obviousness-type double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-19 of U.S. Patent 12450300 (issued 09/02/2025 to the parent application 18622628, filed 07/20/2023). Although the conflicting is not patentably distinct from each other because since the claims of the U.S. Patent 12450300 contain elements of the claims of the instant application, and as such, anticipate the claims of the instant application. The conflicting claims between the instant application and the granted U.S. Patent 12450300 are listed in parallel in below table.
Patent 12450300 claims 1-19
Instant Application claims 1-20
12. A computer-implemented method for threading chats with application activity, the method comprising:
receiving, in a chat interface, an input query for a thread;
receiving a response to the input query, wherein the response includes a link to at least one of a web page or an application;
surfacing the response in the chat interface; receiving a selection of the link from the response; and
in response to receiving the selection, storing data associated with the selected link as at least one of web-activity data or application-activity data for the thread;
subsequent to storing the data associated with the selected link, receiving a selection to resume the thread; and
in response to receiving the selection to resume the thread:
populating the chat interface with the input query and the response; and
performing at least one of:
providing, to a web browser, the web-activity data for the thread to cause one or more web pages associated with web addresses in the web-activity data to be opened in the web browser; or
providing, to an operating system, the application-activity data for the thread to cause one or more applications associated with application identifiers in the application-activity data to be launched.
13. The computer-implemented method of claim 12, wherein the link is to a web page having web address, and the web address is stored as web-activity data.
14. The computer-implemented method of claim 13, wherein the web-activity data is provided to the web browser to cause the web page to be opened.
15. The computer-implemented method of claim 12, wherein the link is to an application having an application identifier, and the application identifier is stored as application-activity data.
16. The computer-implemented method of claim 12, wherein the application-activity data is provided to the operating system to cause the application to be launched.
A threading system, comprising:
at least one processor; and
memory storing instructions that when executed by at least one processor, cause the system to perform operations comprising:
receiving, in a chat interface, an input query for a thread;
receiving a response to the input query,
wherein the response includes a link to at least one of a web page or an application;
surfacing the response in the chat interface; receiving a selection of the link from the response;
in response to receiving the selection, storing data associated with the selected link as at least one of web-activity data or application-activity data for the thread;
subsequent to storing the data associated with the selected link, receiving a selection to resume the thread; in response to receiving the selection to resume the thread:
populating the chat interface with the input query and the response; and performing at least one of:
providing, to a web browser, the web-activity data for the thread to cause one or more web pages associated with web addresses in the web-activity data to be opened in the web browser; or
providing, to an operating system, the application-activity data for the thread to cause one or more applications associated with application identifiers in the application-activity data to be launched.
2. The system of claim 1, wherein the link is to a web page having web address, and the web address is stored as web-activity data.
3. The system of claim 2, wherein the web page is a first web page, and the web address is a first web address, and the operations further comprise receiving a navigation indication from a web browser indicating a user-initiated navigation to a second web page having a second web page address.
4. The system of claim 3, wherein the operations further comprise storing the second web page address as part of the web-activity data for the thread.
5. The system of claim 3, wherein the operations further comprise:
comparing content of the second web page with at least one of the input query or response;
based on the comparison, determining that the content of the second web page is relevant to the thread; and in response to determining that the content of the second web page is relevant to the thread, storing the second web page address as part of the web-activity data for the thread.
6. The system of claim 1, wherein the operations further comprise:
in response selection of the link, providing the web address to a web browser to cause the web browser to open the web page; and
based on the web page remaining open for a threshold duration of time, storing the web address as web-activity data for the thread.
7. The system of claim 1, wherein the link is to an application having an application identifier, and the application identifier is stored as application-activity data.
8. The system of claim 7, wherein the operations further comprise, in response selection of the link, providing the application identifier to an operating system to cause the application to launch.
9. The system of claim 7, wherein the application is a first application, and the application identifier is a first application identifier, and the operations further comprise receiving an application-launch indication indicating a user-initiated launch of a second application having a second application identifier.
10. The system of claim 9, wherein the operations further comprise storing the second application identifier as part of the application-activity data for the thread.
11. The system of claim 9, wherein the operations further comprise: comparing content of the second application with at least one of the input query or response; based on the comparison, determining that the content of the second application is relevant to the thread; and in response to determining that the content of the second application is relevant to the thread, storing the second application identifier as part of the application-activity data for the thread.
17. A non-transitory computer-readable medium storing instructions that, when executed by at least one processor, cause operations to be performed, the operations comprising:
receiving, in a chat interface, an input query for a thread;
receiving a response to the input query, wherein the response includes a link to at least one of a web page or an application;
surfacing the response in the chat interface; receiving a selection of the link from the response; and
in response to receiving the selection, storing data associated with the selected link as at least one of web-activity data or application-activity data for the thread;
subsequent to storing the data associated with the selected link, receiving a selection to resume the thread; and
in response to receiving the selection to resume the thread:
populating the chat interface with the input query and the response; and
performing at least one of:
providing, to a web browser, the web-activity data for the thread to cause one or more web pages associated with web addresses in the web-activity data to be opened in the web browser; or providing, to an operating system, the application-activity data for the thread to cause one or more applications associated with application identifiers in the application-activity data to be launched.
18. The computer-readable medium storing instructions of claim 17, wherein the link is to a web page having web address, and the web address is stored as web-activity data.
19. The computer-readable medium storing instructions of claim 18, wherein the web-activity data is provided to the web browser to cause the web page to be opened.
1. A computer-implemented method for restoring context of a thread, the computer implemented method comprising:
receiving a selection of a thread element to resume a prior thread;
in response to receiving the selection of the thread element:
populating a chat interface with one or more queries and responses of the prior thread; and
providing web-activity data associated with the prior thread to a web browser to cause one or more websites to be opened by the web browser.
2. The method of claim 1, wherein:
the prior thread has a thread title;
the web-activity data includes multiple web addresses for multiple web pages;
the multiple web pages are opened by the web browser as a tab group; and
the thread title is used as a title for the tab group.
3. The method of claim 2, further comprising:
receiving a new response in the thread including a new link to a new web address;
receiving a selection of the new link; and
providing the new web address to the web browser to cause the web browser to open the new web address in a new tab that is part of the tab group.
4. The method of claim 3, further comprising storing data associated with the new link as part of the web-activity data associated with the prior thread.
5. The method of claim 1, further comprising displaying a plurality of thread elements corresponding to different prior threads,
wherein the selection of the thread element is received as a selection of one of the plurality of thread elements.
6. The method of claim 5, wherein the plurality of thread elements are displayed within the web browser.
7. The method of claim 6, wherein the web-activity data includes at least one web address.
8. A computer-implemented method for threading chats with application activity, the method comprising:
receiving, in a chat interface, an input query for a thread;
receiving a response to the input query, wherein the response includes a link to at least one of a web page or an application;
surfacing the response in the chat interface;
receiving a selection of the link from the response;
in response to receiving the selection, storing data associated with the selected link as at least one of web-activity data or application-activity data for the thread; and
subsequent to storing the data associated with the selected link, receiving a selection to resume the thread.
9. The method of claim 8, further comprising, in response to receiving the selection to resume the thread:
populating the chat interface with the input query and the response; and
performing at least one of:
providing, to a web browser, the web-activity data for the thread to cause one or more web pages associated with web addresses in the web-activity data to be opened in the web browser; or
providing, to an operating system, the application-activity data for the thread
to cause one or more applications associated with application identifiers in the
application-activity data to be launched.
10. The method of claim 8, wherein the link is to a web page having web address, and the
web address is stored as web-activity data.
11. The method of claim 10, further comprising:
in response to the selection of the link, providing the web address to a web browser to cause the web browser to open the web page; and
based on the web page remaining open for a threshold duration of time, storing the web address as web-activity data for the thread.
12. The method of claim 10, wherein the web page is a first web page and the web address is a first web address, and the method further comprises:
receiving a navigation indication from a web browser indicating a user-initiated navigation to a second web page having a second web page address; and
storing the second web page address as part of the web-activity data for the thread.
13. The method of claim 12, further comprising:
comparing content of the second web page with at least one of the input query or response; and
based on the comparison, determining that the content of the second web page is relevant to the thread.
14. The method of claim 8, wherein the link is to an application having an application identifier, and the application identifier is stored as application-activity data.
15. A computing system comprising:
at least one processor; and
memory storing instructions that, when executed by the at least one processor, cause the system to perform operations comprising:
receiving a selection of a thread element to resume a prior thread;
in response to receiving the selection of the thread element:
populating a chat interface with one or more queries and responses of the prior thread; and
providing web-activity data associated with the prior thread to a web browser to cause one or more websites to be opened by the web browser.
16. The system of claim 15, wherein:
the prior thread has a thread title;
the web-activity data includes multiple web addresses for multiple web pages;
the multiple web pages are opened by the web browser as a tab group; and
the thread title is used as a title for the tab group.
17. The system of claim 16, wherein the operations further comprise:
receiving a new response in the thread including a new link to a new web address;
receiving a selection of the new link; and
providing the new web address to the web browser to cause the web browser to open the new web address in a new tab that is part of the tab group.
18. The system of claim 17, wherein the operations further comprise storing data associated with the new link as part of the web-activity data associated with the prior thread.
19. The system of claim 15, wherein the operations further comprise displaying a plurality of thread elements corresponding to different prior threads,
wherein the selection of the thread element is received as a selection of one of the plurality of thread elements.
20. The system of claim 15, wherein the plurality of thread elements are displayed in a
side pane of the web browser.
“Omission of element and its function in combination is obvious expedient if the remaining elements perform same functions as before.” See In re Karlson (CCPA) 136 USPQ 184, decide Jan 16, 1963, Appl. No. 6857, U.S. Court of Customs and Patent Appeals.
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 therefore, 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 non-statutory subject matter.
Claims 1, and 15, recite similarly and respectively,
a computer-implemented method for restoring context of a thread comprising [below steps]; and
at least one processor; and
memory storing instructions that, when executed by the at least one processor, cause the system to perform operations comprising steps:
receiving a selection of a thread element to resume a prior thread;
in response to receiving the selection of the thread element:
populating a chat interface with one or more queries and responses of the prior thread; and
providing web-activity data associated with the prior thread to a web browser to cause one or more websites to be opened by the web browser.
Claim 8 recites, a computer-implemented method for threading chats with application activity, the method comprising:
receiving, in a chat interface, an input query for a thread;
receiving a response to the input query, wherein the response includes a link to at least one of a web page or an application;
surfacing the response in the chat interface;
receiving a selection of the link from the response;
in response to receiving the selection, storing data associated with the selected link as at least one of web-activity data or application-activity data for the thread; and
subsequent to storing the data associated with the selected link, receiving a selection to resume the thread.
a). In analyzing under step 2A Prong One, Does the claim recite an abstract idea law of nature or natural phenomenon? Yes.
The texts of claims 1 and 15 are drafted by a set of few limitations (or elements) in each of the two claim categories, receiving a selection of a thread element, populating a chat interface, and providing web-activity data. The limitations are merely processes that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, cover mental processes – concepts performed in the human mind (observation, evaluation, judgment and opinion) including:
The limitation “receiving a selection of a thread element to resume a prior thread” is mere data gathering recited at a high level of generality, is thus an insignificant extra-solution activity and is clearly an abstract idea of concepts of observation performed in human mind. The limitation falls into the "mental processes" grouping of abstract ideas.
In the described above, for example, a cooking session on receiving steps in the cooking menu is a similar activity as routine performed in human mind.
The limitation “in response to receiving the selection of the thread element: populating a chat interface with one or more queries and responses of the prior thread” is mere data outputting recited at a high level of generality, is thus an insignificant extra-solution activity and is clearly an abstract idea of concepts of observation and evaluation performed in human mind. The limitation falls into the "mental processes" grouping of abstract ideas.
In the human routines of the above similar operation step as example of preparing ingredients based on cooking menu.
The limitation “subsequent to storing the data associated with the selected link, receiving a selection to resume the thread.” is mere data gathering and outputting recited at a high level of generality, is thus an insignificant extra-solution activity and is clearly an abstract idea of concepts of observation, evaluation and judgment performed in human mind. The limitation falls into the "mental processes" grouping of abstract ideas.
As the above example of human routine activities of cooking session, taking notes of the coking steps or ingredients on paper or in brain is a similar activity.
With respect to the above process of very limited number of operations, there isn’t any qualifying or refining condition(s) to the limitations as included and analyzed in the above descriptions that provides nothing that precludes the steps from practically being conceptually performed in the mind by observation, evaluation, judgement and opinion or from being grouped as mental processes, belonging to the Groupings of Abstract Ideas.
The texts of claim 8 are drafted by a set of limitations (or elements) of receiving an input query, receiving a response to the input query, surfacing the response, receiving a selection of the link, in response to receiving the selection, storing data and receiving a selection to resume the thread, are merely a process that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers mental processes – concepts performed in the human mind (including an observation, evaluation, including:
The limitation “receiving, in a chat interface, an input query for a thread” receiving, in a chat interface, an input query for a thread” is mere a data gathering recited at a high level of generality, is thus an insignificant extra-solution activity and is clearly an abstract idea of concepts of observation performed in human mind. The limitation falls into the "mental processes" grouping of abstract ideas.
As described above, for example, a cooking session receiving and answering question on details about cooking steps in the cooking menu is a similar activity as routine that can be performed in human mind.
The limitation “receiving a response to the input query, wherein the response includes a link to at least one of a web page or an application” is, again, mere data gathering recited at a high level of generality, is thus an insignificant extra-solution activity and is clearly an abstract idea of concepts of observation, evaluation and judgment performed in human mind. The limitation falls into the "mental processes" grouping of abstract ideas.
In the described above, for example, a cooking session on receiving question on details on a cooking step and referring to cooking menu page on a cooking book is a similar activity as routine performed in human mind.
The limitation “surfacing the response in the chat interface” is merely data outputting recited at a high level of generality, is thus an insignificant extra-solution activity and is clearly an abstract idea of concepts of observation, evaluation and judgment performed in human mind. The limitation falls into the "mental processes" grouping of abstract ideas.
In the human routines of the above example of cooking session, a similar operation step is opening a cooking book for menu of cooking steps.
The limitation “receiving a selection of the link from the response” is merely data gathering recited at a high level of generality, is thus an insignificant extra-solution activity and is clearly an abstract idea of concepts of observation, evaluation and judgment performed in human mind. The limitation falls into the "mental processes" grouping of abstract ideas.
In the human routines of the above example of cooking session, a similar operation step is viewing, turning on pages of a cooking book for menu of cooking steps.
The limitation “in response to receiving the selection, storing data associated with the selected link as at least one of web-activity data or application-activity data for the thread” is, again, mere data outputting recited at a high level of generality, is thus an insignificant extra-solution activity and is clearly an abstract idea of concepts of observation, evaluation and judgment performed in human mind. The limitation falls into the "mental processes" grouping of abstract ideas. The limitation falls into the "mental processes" grouping of abstract ideas.
In the described above, for example, taking notes by brain or on paper in the cooking session is a similar activity as routine performed in human mind.
The limitation “subsequent to storing the data associated with the selected link, receiving a selection to resume the thread” is, again, mere a data gathering recited at a high level of generality, is thus an insignificant extra-solution activity and is clearly an abstract idea of concepts of observation, evaluation, judgment and opinion performed in human mind. The limitation falls into the "mental processes" grouping of abstract ideas.
In the described above, for example, a cooking session on repeated reviewing cooking steps and/or ingredients on a cooking book in the cooking session is a similar activity as routine performed in human mind. The limitation falls into the "mental processes" grouping of abstract ideas.
As the above example of human routine activities of cooking session, taking notes of the coking steps or ingredients on paper or in brain is a similar activity.
With respect to the above process of limited number of operations, there isn’t any qualifying or refining condition(s) to the limitations as included and analyzed in the above descriptions that provides nothing that precludes the steps from practically being conceptually performed in the mind by observation, evaluation, judgement and opinion or from being grouped as mental processes, nor precluding the steps from mathematical calculations in the group of mathematical concepts, belonging to the Groupings of Abstract Ideas.
Considering claims 1, 15 and 8 in combination, with respect to all limitations as recited, all can be analogously interpreted similarly to human mental activities such as cooking session above, the limitations clearly belong to a group of abstract ideas as mental process as concepts that can be performed in the human mind, and a group of abstract ideas.
As such, the set of limitations are clearly an abstract idea of mental processes of observation, evaluation, opinion and judgement that can be performed in human mind optionally with or without the help of paper and pencil, also are clearly mental processes falls in the group of abstract ideas.
The claim limitations, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the steps in the mind but for the recitation of generic hardware components, then it falls within the “Mental Processes” (thinking) that “can be performed in the human mind, or by a human” grouping as abstract ideas, as the Examiner utilized the example of cooking session as similar activities.
Therefore, there are the steps that can be performed mentally, or which are the equivalent of human mental work in the group of mental processes are unpatentable abstract ideas that the ‘basic tools of scientific and technological work’ are open to all.
Accordingly, claims 1, 15 and 8 recite an abstract idea.
b) In analyzing under step 2A Prong Two, Does the claim recite additional elements that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application? NO.
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. In particular, the claim only recites additional elements – “computer processor” and “memory”. The additional components are generic even recited as additional limitations, however, do not preclude claims 1, 15 and 8 from reciting an abstract idea. For instance, as the above detailed analysis on the three minimal limitations as abstract ideas that can be performed mentally in mind by human, without reciting any “additional element” to integrate the judicial exception into a practical application.
The processes of receiving necessities for performing an action and providing indication of completed such that it amounts no more than mere instructions to apply the exception even if using a generic computer components, processing unit(s), memory and computer readable medium for the processes. That is, the limitations represent well-understood, routine, conventional activity (See MPEP 2106.05(g) or 2106.05(d) for receiving or transmitting data over a network, e.g. see Intellectual Ventures v. Symantec; Storing and retrieving information in memory: Versata; Analyzing data: Genetic Techs; Determining: OIP Techs; Electronic recordkeeping: Alice Corp). Accordingly, even considering all the elements as additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because it does not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. As such, the claims are directed at abstract ideas.
c) In analyzing under step 2B, does the claim recite additional elements that amount to significantly more than the judicial exception? NO
Claims 1, 15 and 8 do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. As discussed above with respect to integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, there are simply no additional elements adding to the already analyzed some few minimal steps of performing some actions. The action steps represent well-understood, routine, conventional activity previously known to the industry and are specified at a high level of generality, and in the context of the limitations reciting performing action that can be practically performed in the human mind and may be considered to fall within the mental process and mathematical concepts groupings.
As such, the limitations represent well-understood, routine, conventional activity (See MPEP 2106.05(g) or 2106.05(d) for receiving or transmitting data over a network, e.g. see Intellectual Ventures v. Symantec; Storing and retrieving information in memory: Versata; Analyzing data: Genetic Techs; Determining: OIP Techs; Electronic recordkeeping: Alice Corp). The claims are not patent eligible.
Dependent claims 2-7, 9-14 and 16-20 include all the limitations of claims 1, 15 and 8, respectively. Therefore, claims 2-7, 9-14 and 16-20 recite the same abstract idea of concepts of in the human mind by observation, evaluation, opinion and judgement that can practically be performed in the mind grouping as mental processes or recite mathematical calculations in the group of mathematical concepts. As such, the analysis must therefore proceed to Step 2A Prong Two.
Accordingly, dependent claims 2-7, 9-14 and 16-20 recite no additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception as defined in independent claims 1 and 9, respectively.
In particular,
Claims 2 and 16 similarly recite the limitations “the prior thread has a thread title; the web-activity data includes multiple web addresses for multiple web pages; the multiple web pages are opened by the web browser as a tab group; and the thread title is used as a title for the tab group.”.
The claim limitations reciting attributes of the process and the subject matters associated with the process. The associated process and subject matter are analyzed as abstract ideas of concepts that can be performed in the human mind by observation, evaluation, judgment and opinion and, are determined unpatentable. The metadata or attributes of the associated process and subject matters are accordingly abstract ideas of concepts that can be performed in the human mind by observation, evaluation, judgment and opinion and, are determined unpatentable.
Further, the recited “thread title”, “web pages”, “tab group”, “web-activity data” and “prior thread” are mere subject matters associated with data gathering and outputting recited at a high level of generality and thus are insignificant extra-solution activity.
That is, nothing in the claim elements precludes the step from practically being performed in the mind gathering and viewing data, and in the context of the limitations encompasses the user mentally and/or manually viewing and evaluating, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind but for the recitation of generic computer components, then it falls within the “Mental Processes” grouping of abstract ideas. As such, the limitation represents well-understood, routine, conventional activity. Accordingly, the claims recite an abstract idea.
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. The claims are directed at abstract ideas. The claims do not include additional element(s) that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. The claims are not patent eligible.
Claim 3 and 17 similarly recite the limitations “receiving a new response in the thread including a new link to a new web address; receiving a selection of the new link; and providing the new web address to the web browser to cause the web browser to open the new web address in a new tab that is part of the tab group”.
As recited, the claims comprise steps that further refine the steps as recited in the independent claims 1 and 8 on which the instant claims depend.
Therefore, it is the steps of observation, evaluation, judgment and opinion that can be performed mentally and equivalent to human mental processes. The mental processes fall in the mental processes grouping of abstract ideas, belong to the ‘basic tools of scientific and technological work’ are open to all, are unpatentable.
Accordingly, claims 3 and 17 recite abstract ideas.
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. The claims are directed at abstract ideas. The claims do not include additional element(s) that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. The claims are not patent eligible.
Claims 4 and 18 similarly recite the limitation “storing data associated with the new link as part of the web-activity data associated with the prior thread”.
The limitation is mere data output recited at a high level of generality, is thus an insignificant extra-solution activity and is clearly an abstract idea of concepts of observation and evaluation performed in human mind. The limitation falls into the "mental processes" grouping of abstract ideas.
In the human routines of the above similar operation step as example of preparing ingredients based on cooking menu.
As recited as concepts performed in the human mind by evaluation, opinion and judgement of information. That is, nothing in the claim elements precludes the step from practically being performed in the mind gathering and viewing data, and in the context of the limitations encompasses the user mentally and/or manually viewing and evaluating, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitations in the mind, then it falls within the “Mental Processes” grouping of abstract ideas. As such, the limitations represent well-understood, routine, conventional activity. Accordingly, the claims recite an abstract idea.
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. The claims are directed at abstract ideas. The claims do not include additional element(s) that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. The claims are not patent eligible.
Claims 5 and 19 similarly recite the limitation “comprising displaying a plurality of thread elements corresponding to different prior threads, wherein the selection of the thread element is received as a selection of one of the plurality of thread elements.”.
The limitation is mere data output recited at a high level of generality, is thus an insignificant extra-solution activity and is clearly an abstract idea of concepts of observation and evaluation performed in human mind. The limitation falls into the "mental processes" grouping of abstract ideas.
In the human routines of the above similar operation step as example of preparing ingredients based on cooking menu. The claims do not include additional element(s) that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. The claims are not patent eligible. The claims do not include additional elements.
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. The claims are directed at abstract ideas. The claims do not include additional element(s) that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. The claims are not patent eligible.
Claims 6 and 20 similarly recite the limitations “wherein the plurality of thread elements are displayed within the web browser.”.
The limitation is mere data output recited at a high level of generality, is thus an insignificant extra-solution activity and is clearly an abstract idea of concepts of observation and evaluation performed in human mind. The limitation falls into the "mental processes" grouping of abstract ideas.
In the human routines of the above similar operation step as example of showing ingredients based on cooking menu. The claims do not include additional element(s) that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. The claims are not patent eligible. The claims do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception.
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. The claims are directed at abstract ideas. The claims do not include additional element(s) that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. The claims are not patent eligible.
Claim 7 recites the limitation “wherein the web-activity data includes at least one web address”.
The claim limitation reciting an attribute about the web-activity data is data about data, a metadata. The associated activity is analyzed as abstract ideas of concepts that can be performed in the human mind by observation, evaluation, judgment and opinion and determined unpatentable. The associated activity data is accordingly abstract ideas of concepts that can be observed, evaluated, judged and opinion derived, determined unpatentable.
That is, nothing in the claim elements precludes the limitation from practically being performed in the mind gathering and viewing data, and in the context of the limitations encompasses the user mentally and/or manually viewing and evaluating, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind but for the recitation of generic computer components, then it falls within the “Mental Processes” grouping of abstract ideas. As such, the limitation represents well-understood, routine, conventional activity. Accordingly, the claims recite an abstract idea.
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. The claims are directed at abstract ideas. The claim does not include additional element(s) that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. The claims are not patent eligible.
Claim 9 recites the limitations “in response to receiving the selection to resume the thread: populating the chat interface with the input query and the response; and performing at least one of: providing, to a web browser, the web-activity data for the thread to cause one or more web pages associated with web addresses in the web-activity data to be opened in the web browser; or providing, to an operating system, the application-activity data for the thread to cause one or more applications associated with application identifiers in the application-activity data to be launched.” are mere a data gathering and outputting recited at a high level of generality, is thus an insignificant extra-solution activity and is clearly an abstract idea of concepts of observation, evaluation and judgment performed in human mind. The limitation falls into the "mental processes" grouping of abstract ideas.
As recited as concepts performed in the human mind by observation, evaluation, opinion and judgement of data, that is, nothing in the claim elements precludes the step from practically being performed in the mind gathering and viewing data, and in the context of the limitations encompasses the user mentally and/or manually viewing and evaluating, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind, then it falls within the “Mental Processes” grouping of abstract ideas. As such, the limitation represents well-understood, routine, conventional activity. Accordingly, the claims recite an abstract idea.
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. The claims are directed at abstract ideas. The claims do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. The claims are not patent eligible.
Claim 10 recites the limitation “wherein the link is to a web page having web address, and the web address is stored as web-activity data”.
The claim limitation reciting an attribute about the link is to a web page is data about data, a metadata. The claim limitation further recites the metadata is stored.
The claim limitation does not recite any process step or operation. The link to a web page is data abstract ideas of concepts that can be observed, evaluated, judged and opinion derived by mental processes in the grouping of abstract ideas.
As such, the limitation represents well-understood, routine, conventional activity. Accordingly, the claims recite an abstract idea.
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. The claims are directed at abstract ideas. The claims do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. The claims are not patent eligible.
Claim 11 recites the limitations “in response to the selection of the link, providing the web address to a web browser to cause the web browser to open the web page; and based on the web page remaining open for a threshold duration of time, storing the web address as web-activity data for the thread”.
The limitations are data gathering and output recited at a high level of generality, is thus an insignificant extra-solution activity and is clearly an abstract idea of concepts of observation, evaluation and judgment performed in human mind. The limitation falls into the "mental processes" grouping of abstract ideas.
As the above example of human routine activities of cooking session, taking notes of the coking steps or ingredients on paper or in brain is a similar activity.
With respect to the above process of very limited number of operations, there isn’t any qualifying or refining condition(s) to the limitations as included and analyzed in the above descriptions that provides nothing that precludes the steps from practically being conceptually performed in the mind by observation, evaluation, judgement and opinion or from being grouped as mental processes, nor precluding the steps from mathematical calculations in the group of mathematical concepts, belonging to the Groupings of Abstract Ideas.
Claim 12 recites the limitations “wherein the web page is a first web page and the web address is a first web address, and the method further comprises: receiving a navigation indication from a web browser indicating a user-initiated navigation to a second web page having a second web page address; and storing the second web page address as part of the web-activity data for the thread.”.
The limitations are data gathering and output recited at a high level of generality, is thus an insignificant extra-solution activity and is clearly an abstract idea of concepts of observation, evaluation and judgment performed in human mind. The limitation falls into the "mental processes" grouping of abstract ideas.
As the above example of human routine activities of cooking session, taking notes of the coking steps or ingredients on paper or in brain is a similar activity.
With respect to the above process of very limited number of operations, there isn’t any qualifying or refining condition(s) to the limitations as included and analyzed in the above descriptions that provides nothing that precludes the steps from practically being conceptually performed in the mind by observation, evaluation, judgement and opinion or from being grouped as mental processes, nor precluding the steps from mathematical calculations in the group of mathematical concepts, belonging to the Groupings of Abstract Ideas.
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. The claims are directed at abstract ideas. The claims do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. The claim is not patent eligible.
Claim 13 recites the limitations “comparing content of the second web page with at least one of the input query or response; and based on the comparison, determining that the content of the second web page is relevant to the thread.”
This claim limitation “comparing content of the second web page with at least one of the input query or response” compares content with query input or response, which falls into the "mental proc~" grouping of abstract ideas because the evaluation can be practically performed in the human mind.
This claim limitation “determining that the content of the second web page is relevant to the thread” encompasses making determination about content. Such mental observations or evaluations fall within the "mental processes" grouping of abstract ideas.
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. The claims are directed at abstract ideas. The claims do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. The claim is not patent eligible.
Claim 14 recites the limitations “wherein the link is to an application having an application identifier, and the application identifier is stored as application-activity data.”.
The claim limitation reciting an attribute about the link is to an application having an application identifier is data about data, a metadata. The claim limitation further recites the metadata is stored.
The claim limitation does not recite any process step or operation. The link to a web page is data abstract ideas of concepts that can be observed, evaluated, judged and opinion derived by mental processes in the grouping of abstract ideas.
As such, the limitation represents well-understood, routine, conventional activity. Accordingly, the claims recite an abstract idea.
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. The claims are directed at abstract ideas. The claims do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. The claim is not patent eligible.
In conclusion, the limitations of the claims 2-7, 16-20 and 9-14 do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. As discussed above with respect to integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, all the elements of the claims as discussed and analyzed above represent well-understood, routine, conventional activity previously known to the industry and are specified at a high level of generality (See MPEP 2106.05(g) or 2106.05(d) for receiving or transmitting data over a network, e.g. see Intellectual Ventures v. Symantec; Storing and retrieving information in memory: Versata; Analyzing data: Genetic Techs; Determining: OIP Techs; Electronic recordkeeping: Alice Corp). The claims are not patent eligible.
- 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.
The text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office action.
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 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.
This application is currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37CPR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claims 1 and 15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over
LEJDFORS, CARL JOHAN: "SYSTEM FOR LOADING AN ENTITY OR AN ASSET ON A COMPUTER SYSTEM, CORRESPONDING METHOD AND COMPUTER PROGRAM" (WIPO Application Publication WO 2024094297 A1, Date Published 2024-05-10; and Date Filed 2022-11-02, hereafter "LEJDFORS”), in view of
KIM et al.: "METHOD FOR DISPLAYING MOVIE ADVERTISEMENT USING MOUSE EVENT AND RECORDING MEDIUM" (Korea Application Publication KR 20090049726 A, Date Published 2009-05-19; and Date Filed 2007-11-14, hereafter "KIM”).
As per claim 1, LEJDFORS z teaches a computer-implemented method for restoring context of a thread, the computer implemented method comprising:
receiving a selection of a thread element to resume a prior thread (See Page 8, lines 16-19, the worker thread is configured to select one coroutine from the ready queue maintained by the reactor component; move the selected coroutine to the running queue maintained by the reactor component; and resume the selected coroutine on the current thread. Here the ready queue is a prior thread to the running queue, and the selected coroutine teaches the thread element);
in response to receiving the selection of the thread element:
populating a chat interface with one or more queries and responses of the prior thread (See Page 9, lines 26-27, Page 14, line 26 – Page 15, line 5, the future provides a query and object load completion interface or function to the caller, the reactor component 40 is configured to query the IO subsystem, and running queue is queried for completed coroutines. Here the queries provided is implicitly disclosed by the query performed).
LEJDFORS does not explicitly teach providing web-activity data associated with the prior thread to a web browser to cause one or more websites to be opened by the web browser.
However, in addition to explicitly teaching populating a chat interface with one or more queries (See Page 14, providing 110 video search interface that provides, the query receiver (125) from said video playback terminal receives the query information to search for at least one more playback target video input through the video search interface ), KIM teaches providing web-activity data associated with the prior thread to a web browser to cause one or more websites to be opened by the web browser (See Pages 6-7, the mouse input means ensure that the advertisement contents is clicked, the advertisement content, click OK when the When the advertisement providing request information to request the ad link information including the advertisement site address, accessible through the browser provided in the terminal from the step and the advertisement server that transmits to the advertisement server, the advertisement link information is received, provided in the terminal the step of processing to connect to the site corresponding to the advertisement advertising the link information in the browser to be characterized in that said further contained.).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time of the Applicant's invention was made to combine the teaching of KIM with LEJDFORS because KIM is dedicated to using a mouse event that receives the video data from the server on the communication network from a terminal having a mouse input means and LEJDFORS is dedicated to loading an entity or an asset on a computer system and particularly to a high-performance resource scarce application that has high demands for CPU performance and utilization and IO bandwidth, and a combined teaching of the references would have allowed the deep web miner of LEJDFORS to make more advertisements by outputting the overlap to the advertisement output area.
As per claim 15, the claim recites a computing system comprising:
at least one processor (See LEJDFORS: Page 8, the computer system may be a personal desktop computer or a portable laptop computer to which a processor is inherent); and
memory storing instructions that, when executed by the at least one processor, cause the system to perform operations (See Pages 11-12, reclaiming memory when a coroutine completes and a computer program comprising program code means for causing a computer to carry out) comprising the operations recited as the steps of the method of claim 1 and rejected above under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over LEJDFORS in view of KIM.
Accordingly, claim 15 is rejected along the same rationale that rejected claim 1.
Claims 2-7 and 16-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over
LEJDFORS in view of KIM, as applied to claims 1 and 15 above, and further in view of
Simon; Daniel: "SYSTEM FOR PROVIDING AN INTERACTIVE INTELLIGENT INTERNET BASED KNOWLEDGEBASE" (U.S. Application Publication US 20070239760 A1, Date Published 2007-10-11; and Date Filed 2006-04-09, hereafter "Simon”).
As per claim 2, LEJDFORS in view of KIM does not explicitly teach the method of claim 1, wherein: the prior thread has a thread title.
However, Simon teaches the method of claim 1, wherein: the prior thread has a thread title (See [0056], Under the title of each thread in a forum a hyperlink titled "Track Thread" is displayed).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time of the Applicant's invention was made to combine the teaching of Simon with LEJDFORS in view of KIM because Simon is dedicated to internet-based knowledgebase service website, KIM is dedicated to using a mouse event that receives the video data from the server on the communication network from a terminal having a mouse input means and LEJDFORS is dedicated to loading an entity or an asset on a computer system and particularly to a high-performance resource scarce application that has high demands for CPU performance and utilization and IO bandwidth, and a combined teaching of the references would have allowed LEJDFORS in view of KIM to have a back-end user interface for use by the client ("client"), and a front-end interface website for use by the end-user of the client ("user", "end-user") for user-accessible features to provide information to the user and to provide feedback to the client, allowing them to adapt their website to the specific needs of their end-users.
LEJDFORS in view of KIM and further in view of Simon further teaches the following:
the web-activity data includes multiple web addresses for multiple web pages (See Simon: Abstract, the front end is accessed by the end-user via a unique website address, and a website reads on a web page);
the multiple web pages are opened by the web browser as a tab group (See Simon: [0100], Files and document groups may be sorted on file upload and maintenance web page by moving them vertically up and down. Once moved the client must click "Save Layout" to save the sorted configuration.); and
the thread title is used as a title for the tab group (See Simon: [0100], The upload/edit file GUI web page allows the client to specify a file to be uploaded (using a HTML Browse button), enter a file title (in a HTML text box), write a short description of the file (in a HTML text box), a document group to place the file into (selected from a list of existing groups or created within the webpage), and choose to make the file visible on the front-end website (using a HTML select menu). ).
As per claim 3, LEJDFORS in view of KIM and further in view of Simon teaches the method of claim 2, further comprising:
receiving a new response in the thread including a new link to a new web address (See KIM: Page 90, read the mouse button, the event and the coordinate value caused by the mouse input means ensure that the advertisement contents is clicked, the advertisement content, click OK when the containing group to the advertisement content advertising the link information-advertising site address information);
receiving a selection of the new link (See KIM: Page 90, click OK when the containing group to the advertisement content advertising the link information-advertising site address information - in the browser provided in step and the MS to determine characterized in that further comprising the step of processing to connect to the advertisement site corresponding to the advertising link information do); and
providing the new web address to the web browser to cause the web browser to open the new web address in a new tab that is part of the tab group (See KIM: Page 90, click OK when the containing group to the advertisement content advertising the link information-advertising site address information - in the browser provided in step and the MS to determine characterized in that further comprising the step of processing to connect to the advertisement site corresponding to the advertising link information do).
As per claim 4, LEJDFORS in view of KIM and further in view of Simon teaches the method of claim 3, further comprising storing data associated with the new link as part of the web-activity data associated with the prior thread (See Simon: Pages 11-12, claim 14, compile data from (choices may optionally be from FAQs, help pages, discussion forums, custom web pages, query bot, and other optional features) where each module displays details of how many hits were received by each individual element of each selected module, and possibly who viewed the element on a given day where elements include individual FAQs, help pages, discussion forum threads, and individual custom web pages; and KIM: Pages 71-72, video service processes the terminal reproduced movie data to and from the figures provided the illustrated video per server 100 through to the transmission, the user terminal the drawing reproduces through a video player shown in figure 6 or 7 for receiving the reproduced video data transmitted from the server via the video play screen on the video player 800.).
As per claim 5, LEJDFORS in view of KIM and further in view of Simon teaches the method of claim 1, further comprising displaying a plurality of thread elements corresponding to different prior threads (See Simon: Pages 11-12, claim 14, each module displays details of how many hits were received by each individual element of each selected module, and possibly who viewed the element on a given day where elements include individual FAQs, help pages, discussion forum threads, and individual custom web pages.),
wherein the selection of the thread element is received as a selection of one of the plurality of thread elements (See Simon: Pages 11-12, claim 14, each module displays details of how many hits were received by each individual element of each selected module, and possibly who viewed the element on a given day where elements include individual FAQs, help pages, discussion forum threads, and individual custom web pages).
As per claim 6, LEJDFORS in view of KIM and further in view of Simon teaches the method of claim 5, wherein the plurality of thread elements are displayed within the web browser (See Simon: Pages 11-12, claim 14, each module displays details of how many hits were received by each individual element of each selected module, and possibly who viewed the element on a given day where elements include individual FAQs, help pages, discussion forum threads, and individual custom web pages).
As per claim 7, LEJDFORS in view of KIM and further in view of Simon teaches the method of claim 6, wherein the web-activity data includes at least one web address (See Simon: Abstract, the front end is accessed by the end-user via a unique website address).
As per claims 16-20, the claims recite a computing system comprising:
at least one processor (See LEJDFORS: Page 8, the computer system may be a personal desktop computer or a portable laptop computer to which a processor is inherent); and
memory storing instructions that, when executed by the at least one processor, cause the system to perform operations (See Pages 11-12, reclaiming memory when a coroutine completes and a computer program comprising program code means for causing a computer to carry out) comprising the operations recited as the steps of the method of claims 2-6, respectively, and rejected above under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over LEJDFORS in view of KIM and further in view of Simon.
Accordingly, claims 16-20 are rejected along the same rationale that rejected claims 2-6, respectively.
Claims 8-10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over
LIMBERG; JARED: "METHOD FOR CONTEXTUAL INDICATORS IN A SYNCHRONOUS COLLABORATIVE ENVIRONMENT" (U.S. Application Publication US 20080147794 A1, Date Published 2008-06-19; and Date Filed 2006-12-15, hereafter "LIMBERG”), in view of
LEJDFORS, CARL JOHAN: "SYSTEM FOR LOADING AN ENTITY OR AN ASSET ON A COMPUTER SYSTEM, CORRESPONDING METHOD AND COMPUTER PROGRAM" (WIPO Application Publication WO 2024094297 A1, Date Published 2024-05-10; and Date Filed 2022-11-02, hereafter "LEJDFORS”).
As per claim 8, LIMBERG teaches a computer-implemented method for threading chats with application activity, the method comprising:
receiving, in a chat interface, an input query for a thread (See [0067], a user may highlight/select the thread (by right-clicking on a message within the linked messages, for example));
receiving a response to the input query, wherein the response includes a link to at least one of a web page or an application (See [0067], the view new thread is selected, while a linked message is highlighted/selected, the utility opens a child window and displays only the linked messages within the child window. The child window teaches an application);
surfacing the response in the chat interface (See [0067], The display of only the linked messages may be in a thread-format. With this thread separated from the other messages posted during the messaging session, the user is then able to save only the message thread within messages that the wants saved and in a format that links the various responses to the appropriate messages); and
receiving a selection of the link from the response (See [0067], select an option to "view full thread" within a new window. When the view new thread is selected, while a linked message is highlighted/selected,);
in response to receiving the selection, storing data associated with the selected link as at least one of web-activity data or application-activity data for the thread (See [0067], With this thread separated from the other messages posted during the messaging session, the user is then able to save only the message thread within messages that the wants saved and in a format that links the various responses to the appropriate messages).
LIMBERG does not explicitly teach subsequent to storing the data associated with the selected link, receiving a selection to resume the thread.
However, LEJDFORS teaches subsequent to storing the data associated with the selected link, receiving a selection to resume the thread (See Page 8, lines 16-19, the worker thread is configured to select one coroutine from the ready queue maintained by the reactor component; move the selected coroutine to the running queue maintained by the reactor component; and resume the selected coroutine on the current thread.).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time of the Applicant's invention was made to combine the teaching of LEJDFORS with LIMBERG because LIMBERG is dedicated to enhancing the utilization of synchronous messaging applications and LEJDFORS is dedicated to loading an entity or an asset on a computer system and particularly to a high-performance resource scarce application that has high demands for CPU performance and utilization and IO bandwidth, and a combined teaching of the references would have allowed LIMBERG to enhance the utilization of synchronous applications.
As per claim 9, LIMBERG, in view of LEJDFORS teaches the method of claim 8, further comprising, in response to receiving the selection to resume the thread:
populating the chat interface with the input query and the response (See LEJDFORS: Page 11, lines 26-27, provides a query and object load completion interface or function to the caller; and LIMBERG: [0051], messaging interface 415 of FIG. 4B comprises message display 402, message scroll bar 404, client text entry field 406, link affordance 416.); and
performing at least one of:
providing, to a web browser, the web-activity data for the thread to cause one or more web pages associated with web addresses in the web-activity data to be opened in the web browser; or
providing, to an operating system, the application-activity data for the thread to cause one or more applications associated with application identifiers in the application-activity data to be launched (See LIMBERG: [0058] In the flow chart of FIG. 5, the link function may be initiated at steps 506 or 516, either before or after the message is generated. Returning to step 506, assuming the link affordance is selected, MLI utility 140 immediately provides a selection of possible indicators for use in completing the link and enables selected by the user of the specific indicator, as shown at step 508. With the indicator selected, messaging application monitors for entry of a message reply within the text field of messaging interface, at step 510. Similarly, if the link function is activated/detected at step 516, the mechanisms for selecting the indicator of choice is activated at step 518, and user selections are received and the indicator identified and associated with the specific message(s).).
As per claim 10, LIMBERG in view of LEJDFORS teaches the method of claim 8, wherein the link is to a web page having web address (See LIMBERG: [0026] and [0032], Each web page has a unique address, or Uniform Resource Locator (URL) with the Web that is accessible; and complete a series of functional processes, including: (A) Link messages within the messaging interface utilizing indicators; (B) Create, modify, and delete linking indicators; and (C) Send and receive linked messages in a synchronous collaborative environment), and the
web address is stored as web-activity data (See LIMBERG: [0067], With this thread separated from the other messages posted during the messaging session, the user is then able to save only the message thread within messages that the wants saved and in a format that links the various responses to the appropriate messages).
Claim 11-14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over
LIMBERG, in view of LEJDFORS, as applied to claims 8-10 above and further in view of
O'Brien et al.: "INTRODUCING A NEW MESSAGE SOURCE INTO AN ELECTRONIC MESSAGE DELIVERY ENVIRONMENT" (U.S. Application Publication US 20180219830 A1, Date Published 2018-08-02; and Date Filed 2018-01-30, hereafter "O'Brien”).
As per claim 11, LIMBERG, in view of LEJDFORS, does not explicitly teach in response to the selection of the link, providing the web address to a web browser to cause the web browser to open the web page.
However, O'Brien teaches the method of claim 10, further comprising:
in response to the selection of the link, providing the web address to a web browser to cause the web browser to open the web page (See [0093], Electronic message 140 may further contain an embedded page link 144 that directs a user 162 to a page such as a web page identified by a uniform resource locator (URL) associated with the embedded page link 144. For instance, if the link 144 is activated by recipient 162 (e.g., by clicking on the link), a client application such as a web browser would be directed to and open the corresponding page 150.).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time of the Applicant's invention was made to combine the teaching of O'Brien with LIMBERG in view of LEJDFORS because LIMBERG is dedicated to enhancing the utilization of synchronous messaging applications, LEJDFORS is dedicated to loading an entity or an asset on a computer system and particularly to a high-performance resource scarce application that has high demands for CPU performance and utilization and IO bandwidth, and O’Brien is dedicated to automated processing of electronic messages, e.g. electronic mail messages, and other content in a network-connected computing environment and a combined teaching of the references would have allowed LIMBERG in view of LEJDFORS to automatically with concurrent connection to maximize messaging processes.
LIMBERG, in view of LEJDFORS and further in view of O’Brien further teaches the following:
based on the web page remaining open for a threshold duration of time, storing the web address as web-activity data for the thread (See O'Brien: [0059], keeping the email in an active window of the recipient's computer (e.g., the top window, such as for a duration of time), an amount of time that the email remains open, a number of times that the email is opened, whether the user saves the email as unread, whether the user deletes the email, whether the user activates a link in the email (e.g., a URL to a web page or other resource, such as an attached file and the like), whether the user interacts with a web page at the activated link, whether the user downloads an attachment, whether the recipient replies to the email, whether the recipient forwards the email (and optionally to whom) and the like).
As per claim 12, LIMBERG, in view of LEJDFORS and further in view of O’Brien further teaches the method of claim 10, wherein the web page is a first web page and the web address is a first web address, and the method further comprises:
receiving a navigation indication from a web browser indicating a user-initiated navigation to a second web page having a second web page address (See O’Brien: [0065] and [0067], Engagement events may include interactions that a recipient might have with the content of an email, such as clicking a link (e.g., a URL), downloading an attachment, replying to the sender, and the like. Further engagement in response to a recipient selecting a link or downloading an attachment in the email may be captured through a URL resource (e.g., web page and the like) activated in the link, embedded code in an application (such as tracking code); and a short URL may be prepared and inserted that relies on an external URL resolution process that redirects navigation by asserting a longer URL that may include the target URL as well as electronic message management system metadata and the like. Such an external URL resolution system may further facilitate interaction and event tracking and the like.); and
storing the second web page address as part of the web-activity data for the thread (See O’Brien: [0059], keeping the email in an active window of the recipient's computer (e.g., the top window, such as for a duration of time), an amount of time that the email remains open, a number of times that the email is opened, whether the user saves the email as unread, whether the user deletes the email, whether the user activates a link in the email (e.g., a URL to a web page or other resource, such as an attached file and the like), whether the user interacts with a web page at the activated link, whether the user downloads an attachment, whether the recipient replies to the email, whether the recipient forwards the email (and optionally to whom) and the like).
As per claim 13, LIMBERG, in view of LEJDFORS and further in view of O’Brien further teaches the method of claim 12, further comprising:
comparing content of the second web page with at least one of the input query or response (See O’Brien: [0195], updating a recipient contact record based on a comparison of recipient information in the recipient list with a corresponding recipient contact record for each recipient for which a recipient contact record exists.); and
based on the comparison, determining that the content of the second web page is relevant to the thread (See O’Brien: [0195], updating a recipient contact record based on a comparison of recipient information in the recipient list with a corresponding recipient contact record for each recipient for which a recipient contact record exists).
As per claim 14 LIMBERG, in view of LEJDFORS and further in view of O’Brien further teaches the method of claim 8, wherein the link is to an application having an application identifier, and the application identifier is stored as application-activity data (See LEJDFORS: Abstract, provide an associative container between an identifier (32) of an object and a future object (34); a reactor component (40), the reactor component (40) maintaining a queue of coroutines; and at least one worker thread (50, 52, 54, 56).).
Related Prior Arts
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure can be found in the PTO-892 Notice of Reference Cited.
Conclusion
The examiner has cited columns and line numbers in the references applied to the claims above for the convenience of the applicant. Although the specified citations are representative of the teachings of art and are applied to specific limitations within the individual claim, other passages and figures may apply as well. It is respectfully requested by the applicant in preparing responses, to fully consider the references in entirety as potentially teaching all or part of the claimed invention, as well as the context of the passage as taught by prior art or disclosed by the Examiner. SEE MPEP 2141.02 [R-5] VI. PRIOR ART MUST BE CONSIDERED IN ITS ENTIRETY, INCLUDING DISCLOSURES THAT TEACH AWAY FROM THE CLAIMS: A prior art reference must be considered in its entirety, i.e. including portions that would lead away from the claimed invention. W.L. Gore & Associates, Inc. v. Garlock, Inc., 721 F.2d 1540, 220 USPQ 303 (Fed. Cir. 1983), cert. denied, 469 U.S. 851 (1984) In re Fulton, 391 F.3d 1195, 1201, 73 USPQ2d 1141, 1146 (Fed. Cir. 2004). >See also MPEP §2123.
In the case of amending the Claimed invention, Applicant is respectfully requested to indicate the portion(s) of the specification which dictate(s) the structure relied on for proper interpretation and andverify and ascertain the metes and bounds of the claimed invention.
Contact Information
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to KUEN S LU whose telephone number is (571)272-4114. The examiner can normally be reached on M-F, 8-19, Mid-Flex 2 hours.
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, Mr. Aleksandr Kerzhner can be reached on 571-270-1760. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
KUEN S LU /Kuen S Lu/
Art Unit 2165
Primary Patent Examiner
July 25, 2026
Prosecution Insights