DETAILED ACTION
Summary and Status of Claims
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
This Office Action is in response to Applicant’s reply filed 6/16/2025.
Claims 2, 9, and 16 are cancelled.
Claims 1, 4-8, 11-15, 18-22, and 24 are pending.
Claims 1, 8, 15, 21, 22, and 24 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Denholm et al. (US Patent Pub 2021/0176308) of record, in view of Mukherjee (US Patent Pub 2018/0373688), further in view of Hewitt et al. (US Patent Pub 2021/0174188).
Claims 4, 11, and 18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Denholm et al. (US Patent Pub 2021/0176308) of record, in view of Mukherjee (US Patent Pub 2018/0373688) and Hewitt et al. (US Patent Pub 2021/0174188), further in view of Rao et al. (US Patent 10,783,208) of record.
Claims 5, 6, 12, 13, 19, and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Denholm et al. (US Patent Pub 2021/0176308) of record, in view of Mukherjee (US Patent Pub 2018/0373688) and Hewitt et al. (US Patent Pub 2021/0174188), further in view of Porter (US Patent Pub 2019/0057143) of record.
Claims 7 and 14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Denholm et al. (US Patent Pub 2021/0176308) of record, in view of Mukherjee (US Patent Pub 2018/0373688), Hewitt et al. (US Patent Pub 2021/0174188), and Porter (US Patent Pub 2019/0057143) of record, further in view of Datar et al. (US Patent 8,538,989) of record.
The text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office action.
Note on Prior Art Rejections
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102 of this title, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
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 the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
This application 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 37 CFR 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, 8, 15, 21, 22, and 24 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Denholm et al. (US Patent Pub 2021/0176308) (Denholm) of record, in view of Mukherjee (US Patent Pub 2018/0373688), further in view of Hewitt et al. (US Patent Pub 2021/0174188) (Hewitt).
In regards to claim 1, Denholm discloses a method for providing smart web links to user devices, including first and second user devices, each of which is managed by a device management system through a management agent running therein (Denholm at Fig. 1; paras. 0017, 0037)1, comprising:
a. in response to receiving a uniform resource locator (“URL”) for a web page that is detected by the management agent running in the first user device, in a message transmitted to the second user on a communication channel which operates through a communication service on a communication server (Denholm at paras. 0013, 0051)2;
b. receiving a data file of the web page using the URL (Denholm at Fig. 3; para. 0052)3;
c. identifying a plurality of sections of the web page in the data file (Denholm at paras. 0052, 0066)4;
d. comparing content on the communication channel with content in each of the plurality of web page sections (Denholm at para. 0026, 0055, 0063, 0067-68)5;
e. determining a matching score for each of the plurality of web page sections based on the comparison (Denholm at paras. 0068-69)6;
f. generating a custom preview of the highest rated section of the web page, such that the highest rated section of the web page most closely matches the content in the communication channel is displayed. Denholm at para. 0069.
Denholm does not expressly disclose modifying the data file of the web page, including adding a highlight to content in a highest scoring section of the plurality of web page sections in the modified data file, creating a separate copy of the modified data file containing the added highlight, storing the separate copy of the modified data file on a web server and includes a named anchor that points to the highest scoring section of the web page, and selection of a modified URL in the message on the second user device causes a modified web page to be displayed that automatically scrolls to the content in the highest scoring section of the web page that most closely matches the content on the communication channel based on the named anchor. As set forth above, Denholm discloses determining the contextually relevant section of the webpage and provides a preview summary of the highest rated section to the user (i.e., highest scoring section of the web page that most closely matches the content on the communication channel). What is not expressly disclosed is modifying the web page to add a highlight to the highest scoring section, creating a modified URL that includes a named anchor that points to the highlighted section, and automatically scrolling to the highlighted section when the modified URL is selected.
Mukherjee discloses a system and method for sharing webpages that have annotations in the form of highlights to portions of interest in the webpage. A copy of the highlighted webpage (i.e., modified data file) is stored on the server and the server provides a special URL that is used to access the stored copy of the highlighted webpage. This special URL can be shared with other users to access the stored copy of the highlighted webpage (i.e., selection of the modified URL … causes a modified web page to be displayed …). Mukherjee at paras. 0023, 0058. The special URL is a URL that has been modified with tags to point to specific sections identified by the tag identifiers (i.e., named anchors). Mukherjee at paras. 0023, 0027. Mukherjee further discloses selecting the modified URL results in the highlighted web page being presented and the web page is scrolled to the highlighted section (i.e., automatically scrolls …). Mukherjee at para. 0063.
Denholm and Mukherjee are analogous art because they are both directed to the same field of endeavor of identifying relevant portions of a web page and bringing the user’s attention to them.
At the time before the effective filing date of the instant application, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify Denholm by adding the feature of modifying the data file of the web page, including adding a highlight to content in a highest scoring section of the plurality of web page sections in the modified data file, creating a separate copy of the modified data file containing the added highlight, storing the separate copy of the modified data file on a web server and includes a named anchor that points to the highest scoring section of the web page, and selection of a modified URL in the message on the second user device causes a modified web page to be displayed that automatically scrolls to the content in the highest scoring section of the web page that most closely matches the content on the communication channel based on the named anchor, as disclosed by Mukherjee.
The motivation for doing so would have been to save resources and reducing latency by utilizing the server to share highlighted webpages between users. Mukherjee at para. 0029. Furthermore, highlighting the relevant section would ensure the user reviews it and does not dismiss the webpage as not being relevant. Denholm at para. 0015.
Denholm in view of Mukherjee does not expressly disclose instructing the management agent on the second user device to replace the URL in the message transmitted to the second user device with a modified URL that references the modified data file of the web page. It is noted that Denholm does disclose selection of the shared link by the receiving user (i.e., selection of the URL in the message on the second user device) causes the linked resource to be displayed (i.e., causes the web page to be displayed). Denholm at paras. 0013-14. It is further noted that Mukherjee discloses the server provides a special URL (i.e., modified URL) for accessing the highlighted web page that is stored on the server (i.e., wherein selection of the modified URL … causes the modified web page to be displayed that includes the highlight …), where the special URL can be shared with users. Mukherjee at para. 0023. What is not disclosed is the agent on the second user device replaces the shared URL in the message with a modified URL.
Hewitt discloses a system and method for analyzing discourse history (chat history) and its associated data attachments to determine relevant and/or most up to date attachments to provide for the users involved in the discourse. Hewitt at paras. 0017-19. The system can also analyze links to documents shared during a discourse to determine whether it is pointing to the correct document and if necessary, dynamically redirects the link or recommends an alternate link, to the correct document. Hewitt at para. 0056. In this way, Hewitt discloses the discourse application (agent on the second user device) replaces the shared link with a modified link to the most up to date or relevant document (i.e., replace the URL in the message … with a modified URL that references the modified data file …).
Denholm, Mukherjee, and Hewitt are analogous art because they are all directed to the same field of endeavor of improving communications and data sharing.
At the time before the effective filing date of the instant application, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify Denholm in view of Mukherjee by adding the features of instructing the management agent on the second user device to replace the URL in the message transmitted to the second user device with a modified URL that references the modified data file of the web page, as disclosed by Hewitt. In doing so, the functionality disclosed by Denholm in view of Mukherjee of sharing a URL to a webpage with the highest scoring, relevant section being highlighted, is modified to replace the shared URL to the modified webpage, which has the highlighted section.
The motivation for doing so would have been to eliminate or minimize the issue of having to locate a specific or distinct version of a file referred to during the discourse. Hewitt at para. 0018.
In regards to claim 8, Denholm disclose a non-transitory, computer-readable medium containing instructions that when executed by a hardware-based processor (Denholm at paras. 0072-73), performs stages for providing smart web links to user devices, including first and second user devices, each of which is managed by a device management system through a management agent running therein, the stages being performed in a management server of the device management system having a hardware based processor (Denholm at Fig. 1; paras. 0017, 0037)7 and comprising:
a. in response to receiving a uniform resource locator (“URL”) for a web page that is detected by the management agent running in the first user device, in a message transmitted to the second user device on a communication channel which operates through a communication service on a communication server (Denholm at paras. 0013, 0051)8;
b. receiving a data file of the web page using the URL (Denholm at Fig. 3; para. 0052)9;
c. identifying a plurality of sections of the web page in the data file (Denholm at paras. 0052, 0066)10;
d. comparing content on the communication channel with content in each of the plurality of web page sections (Denholm at para. 0026, 0055, 0063, 0067-68)11;
e. determining a matching score for each of the plurality of web page sections based on the comparison (Denholm at paras. 0068-69)12;
f. providing a preview summary of the highest rated section of the web page, such that the highest rated section of the web page most closely matches the content in the communication channel is displayed. Denholm at para. 0069.
Denholm does not expressly disclose modifying the data file of the web page, including adding a highlight to content in a highest scoring section of the plurality of web page sections in the modified data file, creating a separate copy of the modified data file containing the added highlight, storing the separate copy of the modified data file on a web server and includes a named anchor that points to the highest scoring section of the web page, and selection of a modified URL in the message on the second user device causes a modified web page to be displayed that automatically scrolls to the content in the highest scoring section of the web page that most closely matches the content on the communication channel based on the named anchor. As set forth above, Denholm discloses determining the contextually relevant section of the webpage and provides a preview summary of the highest rated section to the user (i.e., highest scoring section of the web page that most closely matches the content on the communication channel). What is not expressly disclosed is modifying the web page to add a highlight to the highest scoring section, creating a modified URL that includes a named anchor that points to the highlighted section, and automatically scrolling to the highlighted section when the modified URL is selected.
Mukherjee discloses a system and method for sharing webpages that have annotations in the form of highlights to portions of interest in the webpage. A copy of the highlighted webpage (i.e., modified data file) is stored on the server and the server provides a special URL that is used to access the stored copy of the highlighted webpage. This special URL can be shared with other users to access the stored copy of the highlighted webpage (i.e., selection of the modified URL … causes a modified web page to be displayed …). Mukherjee at paras. 0023, 0058. The special URL is a URL that has been modified with tags to point to specific sections identified by the tag identifiers (i.e., named anchors). Mukherjee at paras. 0023, 0027. Mukherjee further discloses selecting the modified URL results in the highlighted web page being presented and the web page is scrolled to the highlighted section (i.e., automatically scrolls …). Mukherjee at para. 0063.
Denholm and Mukherjee are analogous art because they are both directed to the same field of endeavor of identifying relevant portions of a web page and bringing the user’s attention to them.
At the time before the effective filing date of the instant application, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify Denholm by adding the feature of modifying the data file of the web page, including adding a highlight to content in a highest scoring section of the plurality of web page sections in the modified data file, creating a separate copy of the modified data file containing the added highlight, storing the separate copy of the modified data file on a web server and includes a named anchor that points to the highest scoring section of the web page, and selection of a modified URL in the message on the second user device causes a modified web page to be displayed that automatically scrolls to the content in the highest scoring section of the web page that most closely matches the content on the communication channel based on the named anchor, as disclosed by Mukherjee.
The motivation for doing so would have been to save resources and reducing latency by utilizing the server to share highlighted webpages between users. Mukherjee at para. 0029. Furthermore, highlighting the relevant section would ensure the user reviews it and does not dismiss the webpage as not being relevant. Denholm at para. 0015.
Denholm in view of Mukherjee does not expressly disclose instructing the management agent on the second user device to replace the URL in the message transmitted to the second user device with a modified URL that references the modified data file of the web page. It is noted that Denholm does disclose selection of the shared link by the receiving user (i.e., selection of the URL in the message on the second user device) causes the linked resource to be displayed (i.e., causes the web page to be displayed). Denholm at paras. 0013-14. It is further noted that Mukherjee discloses the server provides a special URL (i.e., modified URL) for accessing the highlighted web page that is stored on the server (i.e., wherein selection of the modified URL … causes the modified web page to be displayed that includes the highlight …), where the special URL can be shared with users. Mukherjee at para. 0023. What is not disclosed is the agent on the second user device replaces the shared URL in the message with a modified URL.
Hewitt discloses a system and method for analyzing discourse history (chat history) and its associated data attachments to determine relevant and/or most up to date attachments to provide for the users involved in the discourse. Hewitt at paras. 0017-19. The system can also analyze links to documents shared during a discourse to determine whether it is pointing to the correct document and if necessary, dynamically redirects the link or recommends an alternate link, to the correct document. Hewitt at para. 0056. In this way, Hewitt discloses the discourse application (agent on the second user device) replaces the shared link with a modified link to the most up to date or relevant document (i.e., replace the URL in the message … with a modified URL that references the modified data file …).
Denholm, Mukherjee, and Hewitt are analogous art because they are all directed to the same field of endeavor of improving communications and data sharing.
At the time before the effective filing date of the instant application, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify Denholm in view of Mukherjee by adding the features of instructing the management agent on the second user device to replace the URL in the message transmitted to the second user device with a modified URL that references the modified data file of the web page, as disclosed by Hewitt. In doing so, the functionality disclosed by Denholm in view of Mukherjee of sharing a URL to a webpage with the highest scoring, relevant section being highlighted, is modified to replace the shared URL to the modified webpage, which has the highlighted section.
The motivation for doing so would have been to eliminate or minimize the issue of having to locate a specific or distinct version of a file referred to during the discourse. Hewitt at para. 0018.
In regards to claim 15, Denholm discloses a system for providing smart web links to user devices, including first and second user devices, each of which is managed by a device management system through a management agent running therein (Denholm at Fig. 1; paras. 0017, 0037)13, comprising:
a. a memory storage including a non-transitory, computer-readable medium comprising instructions (Denholm at paras. 0072-73); and
b. a computing device of the device management system, including a hardware-based processor that executes the instructions (Denholm at paras. 0072-73) to carry out stages comprising:
i. in response to receiving a uniform resource locator (“URL”) for a web page that is detected by the management agent running in the first user device, in a message transmitted to the second user device on a communication channel which operates through a communication device on a communication server (Denholm at paras. 0013, 0051)14;
ii. receiving a data file of the web page using the URL (Denholm at Fig. 3; para. 0052)15;
iii. identifying a plurality of sections of the web page in the data file (Denholm at paras. 0052, 0066)16;
iv. comparing content on the communication channel with content in each of the plurality of web page sections (Denholm at para. 0026, 0055, 0063, 0067-68)17;
v. determining a matching score for each of the plurality of web page sections based on the comparison (Denholm at paras. 0068-69)18;
vi. providing a preview summary of the highest rated section of the web page, such that the highest rated section of the web page most closely matches the content in the communication channel is displayed. Denholm at para. 0069.
Denholm does not expressly disclose modifying the data file of the web page, including adding a highlight to content in a highest scoring section of the plurality of web page sections in the modified data file, creating a separate copy of the modified data file containing the added highlight, storing the separate copy of the modified data file on a web server and includes a named anchor that points to the highest scoring section of the web page, and selection of a modified URL in the message on the second user device causes a modified web page to be displayed that automatically scrolls to the content in the highest scoring section of the web page that most closely matches the content on the communication channel based on the named anchor. As set forth above, Denholm discloses determining the contextually relevant section of the webpage and provides a preview summary of the highest rated section to the user (i.e., highest scoring section of the web page that most closely matches the content on the communication channel). What is not expressly disclosed is modifying the web page to add a highlight to the highest scoring section, creating a modified URL that includes a named anchor that points to the highlighted section, and automatically scrolling to the highlighted section when the modified URL is selected.
Mukherjee discloses a system and method for sharing webpages that have annotations in the form of highlights to portions of interest in the webpage. A copy of the highlighted webpage (i.e., modified data file) is stored on the server and the server provides a special URL that is used to access the stored copy of the highlighted webpage. This special URL can be shared with other users to access the stored copy of the highlighted webpage (i.e., selection of the modified URL … causes a modified web page to be displayed …). Mukherjee at paras. 0023, 0058. The special URL is a URL that has been modified with tags to point to specific sections identified by the tag identifiers (i.e., named anchors). Mukherjee at paras. 0023, 0027. Mukherjee further discloses selecting the modified URL results in the highlighted web page being presented and the web page is scrolled to the highlighted section (i.e., automatically scrolls …). Mukherjee at para. 0063.
Denholm and Mukherjee are analogous art because they are both directed to the same field of endeavor of identifying relevant portions of a web page and bringing the user’s attention to them.
At the time before the effective filing date of the instant application, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify Denholm by adding the feature of modifying the data file of the web page, including adding a highlight to content in a highest scoring section of the plurality of web page sections in the modified data file, creating a separate copy of the modified data file containing the added highlight, storing the separate copy of the modified data file on a web server and includes a named anchor that points to the highest scoring section of the web page, and selection of a modified URL in the message on the second user device causes a modified web page to be displayed that automatically scrolls to the content in the highest scoring section of the web page that most closely matches the content on the communication channel based on the named anchor, as disclosed by Mukherjee.
The motivation for doing so would have been to save resources and reducing latency by utilizing the server to share highlighted webpages between users. Mukherjee at para. 0029. Furthermore, highlighting the relevant section would ensure the user reviews it and does not dismiss the webpage as not being relevant. Denholm at para. 0015.
Denholm in view of Mukherjee does not expressly disclose instructing the management agent on the second user device to replace the URL in the message transmitted to the second user device with a modified URL that references the modified data file of the web page. It is noted that Denholm does disclose selection of the shared link by the receiving user (i.e., selection of the URL in the message on the second user device) causes the linked resource to be displayed (i.e., causes the web page to be displayed). Denholm at paras. 0013-14. It is further noted that Mukherjee discloses the server provides a special URL (i.e., modified URL) for accessing the highlighted web page that is stored on the server (i.e., wherein selection of the modified URL … causes the modified web page to be displayed that includes the highlight …), where the special URL can be shared with users. Mukherjee at para. 0023. What is not disclosed is the agent on the second user device replaces the shared URL in the message with a modified URL.
Hewitt discloses a system and method for analyzing discourse history (chat history) and its associated data attachments to determine relevant and/or most up to date attachments to provide for the users involved in the discourse. Hewitt at paras. 0017-19. The system can also analyze links to documents shared during a discourse to determine whether it is pointing to the correct document and if necessary, dynamically redirects the link or recommends an alternate link, to the correct document. Hewitt at para. 0056. In this way, Hewitt discloses the discourse application (agent on the second user device) replaces the shared link with a modified link to the most up to date or relevant document (i.e., replace the URL in the message … with a modified URL that references the modified data file …).
Denholm, Mukherjee, and Hewitt are analogous art because they are all directed to the same field of endeavor of improving communications and data sharing.
At the time before the effective filing date of the instant application, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify Denholm in view of Mukherjee by adding the features of instructing the management agent on the second user device to replace the URL in the message transmitted to the second user device with a modified URL that references the modified data file of the web page, as disclosed by Hewitt. In doing so, the functionality disclosed by Denholm in view of Mukherjee of sharing a URL to a webpage with the highest scoring, relevant section being highlighted, is modified to replace the shared URL to the modified webpage, which has the highlighted section.
The motivation for doing so would have been to eliminate or minimize the issue of having to locate a specific or distinct version of a file referred to during the discourse. Hewitt at para. 0018.
In regards to claim 21, Denholm in view of Mukherjee, and Hewitt discloses the method of claim 1, further comprising: generating a custom preview of the modified data file and sending the custom preview of the modified data file to the first user device and the second user device for display in the message as a preview of the web page. Denholm at paras. 0019-20, 0064-69.19
Claim 22 is essentially the same as claim 21 in the form of a non-transitory computer readable medium. Therefore, they are rejected for the same reasons.
In regards to claim 24, Denholm in view of Mukherjee and Hewitt discloses the method of claim 1, further comprising:
a. receiving a request to retrieve the web page from the second user device (Mukherjee at para. 0023); and
b. loading the modified separate copy of the data file of the web page containing the added highlight. Mukherjee at para. 0023.20
Claims 4, 11, and 18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Denholm et al. (US Patent Pub 2021/0176308) (Denholm) of record, in view of Mukherjee (US Patent Pub 2018/0373688) and Hewitt et al. (US Patent Pub 2021/0174188) (Hewitt), further in view of Rao et al. (US Patent 10,783,208) (Rao) of record.
In regards to claim 4, Denholm in view of Mukherjee and Hewitt discloses the method of claim 3, further comprising generating a custom preview (Denholm at paras. 0019-20, 0064-69) but does not expressly disclose wherein the custom preview is generated by inserting Open Graph meta tags corresponding to the highest scoring section.
Rao discloses a system and method for unfurling shared URLs to generate a preview of the shared URL to present to the user. Rao at abstract; col. 2, lines 1-24. Rao discloses extracted using tags, such as Open Graph meta tags. Rao at col. 11, lines 10-15.
Denholm, Mukherjee, Hewitt, and Rao are analogous art because they are all directed to the same field of endeavor of present content that is relevant to the user.
At the time before the effective filing date of the instant application, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify Denholm in view of Mukherjee and Hewitt by adding the feature of wherein the custom preview is generated by inserting Open Graph meta tags corresponding to the highest scoring section, as disclosed by Rao.
The motivation for doing so would have been because Open Graph meta tags are prior art technology, which allow extracting URL content and showing how they are displayed when they are shared. Therefore, one of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to utilize known technologies.
Claims 11 and 18 are essentially the same as claim 4 in the form of a non-transitory computer readable medium containing instructions and system, respectively. Therefore, they are rejected for the same reasons.
Claims 5, 6, 12, 13, 19, and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Denholm et al. (US Patent Pub 2021/0176308) (Denholm) of record, in view of Mukherjee (US Patent Pub 2018/0373688) and Hewitt et al. (US Patent Pub 2021/0174188) (Hewitt), further in view of Porter (US Patent Pub 2019/0057143) of record.
In regards to claim 5, Denholm in view of Mukherjee and Hewitt discloses the method of claim 1, does not expressly disclose wherein comparing content on the communication channel with content in each of the plurality of web page sections comprises: (1) creating embeddings by applying a word-embedding algorithm to the content on the communication channel and the content in each of the plurality of web page sections, wherein each embedding encodes a meaning of a corresponding word and (2) comparing embeddings for the content on the communication channel to embeddings for content in each of the plurality of web page sections.
Note that Denholm applies a natural language processing (NLP) algorithm to the content of the chat and the resource (i.e., web page) to determine the subject, topic, or context of the respective content. Denholm at paras. 0024-25. Denholm also discloses comparing keywords between the content of the chat (i.e., communication channel) and the content of the web page. Denholm at para. 0068. Thus, Denholm in view of Mukherjee and Hewitt discloses comparing content of a communication channel to content of each of the plurality of web page sections as explained here and in the rejection of claim 1, above. What is not expressly disclosed is the creation of word embeddings for the content to perform the comparison.
Porter discloses a system and method for a self-maintaining automated chat response generator. Porter at abstract. The system provides the ability to determine and identify sections of a digital content body, such as a webpage, that are relevant to a submitted chat question (i.e., content of a communication channel). Porter at paras. 0031, 0038-40. The content of the chat question and the content of the digital content body are analyzed using a word-to-vector algorithm to determine how each term relates to each other term (i.e., meaning) by creating word embeddings. Porter at para. 0091. Embeddings from the chat are compared against the embeddings of the digital content to determine whether they are similar enough to be deemed relevant. Porter at para. 0095. Thus, Porter discloses creating embeddings by applying a word embedding algorithm to the content of the communication channel and the content of sections of a web page, where each embedding encodes a meaning of a corresponding word and further discloses comparing the embeddings to each other.
Denholm, Mukherjee, Hewitt, and Porter are analogous art because they are all directed to the same field of endeavor of present content that is relevant to the user.
At the time before the effective filing date of the instant application, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify Denholm in view of Mukherjee and Hewitt by adding the feature of creating embeddings by applying a word-embedding algorithm to the content on the communication channel and the content in each of the plurality of web page sections, wherein each embedding encodes a meaning of a corresponding word and comparing embeddings for the content on the communication channel to embeddings for content in each of the plurality of web page sections, as disclosed by Porter.
The motivation for doing so would have been because it allows the system to take advantage of a word2vec space representation and determine similarity by calculating a distance between terms. Porter at para. 0093.
In regards to claim 6, Denholm in view of Mukherjee and Hewitt discloses the method of claim 1, wherein determining the matching score for each of the plurality of web page sections comprises calculating a number of matches for each of the plurality of web page sections, wherein the matching score for each web page section in the plurality of web page sections corresponds to the number of matches for the web page section. Denholm at para. 0069.21
Denholm in view of Mukherjee and Hewitt does not expressly disclose matching, based on the comparison, embeddings for the content on the communication channel with embeddings for content in each of the plurality of web page sections.
Porter discloses a system and method for a self-maintaining automated chat response generator. Porter at abstract. The system provides the ability to determine and identify sections of a digital content body, such as a webpage, that are relevant to a submitted chat question (i.e., content of a communication channel). Porter at paras. 0031, 0038-40. The content of the chat question and the content of the digital content body are analyzed using a word-to-vector algorithm to determine how each term relates to each other term (i.e., meaning) by creating word embeddings. Porter at para. 0091. Embeddings from the chat are compared against the embeddings of the digital content to determine whether they are similar enough to be deemed relevant. Porter at para. 0095. Thus, Porter discloses creating embeddings by applying a word embedding algorithm to the content of the communication channel and the content of sections of a web page, where each embedding encodes a meaning of a corresponding word and further discloses comparing the embeddings to each other.
At the time before the effective filing date of the instant application, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify Denholm in view of Mukherjee and Hewitt by adding the feature of matching, based on the comparison, embeddings for the content on the communication channel with embeddings for content in each of the plurality of web page sections, as disclosed by Porter.
The motivation for doing so would have been because it allows the system to take advantage of a word2vec space representation and determine similarity by calculating a distance between terms. Porter at para. 0093.
Claims 12 and 13 are essentially the same as claims 5 and 6, respectively, in the form of a non-transitory computer readable medium containing instructions. Therefore, it is rejected for the same reasons.
Claims 19 and 20 are essentially the same as claim 5 and 6, respectively, in the form of a system. Therefore, it is rejected for the same reasons.
Claims 7 and 14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Denholm et al. (US Patent Pub 2021/0176308) (Denholm) of record, in view of Mukherjee (US Patent Pub 2018/0373688), Hewitt et al. (US Patent Pub 2021/0174188) (Hewitt), and Porter (US Patent Pub 2019/0057143) of record, further in view of Datar et al. (US Patent 8,538,989) (Datar) of record.
In regards to claim 7, Denholm in view of Mukherjee, Hewitt, and Porter discloses the method of claim 6, but does not expressly disclose wherein calculating the number of matches of the plurality of web page sections further comprises: (1) assigning a weight to each of the plurality of web page sections and (2) multiplying, for each of the plurality of web page sections, the number of matches by the assigned weight of the web page section.
Datar discloses a system and method for assigning weights to parts of a document, such as a webpage (i.e., assigning a weight to each of the plurality of web page sections). Datar at abstract; col. 2, lines 64-67. Using the weights, a weighted score can be determined to identify semantically relevant documents. Datar at col. 2, lines 60-64. Terms submitted by the user during a search are matched to sections of a webpage to provide a retrieval score, which is combined with a section weight to determine the weighted score of a section. Datar at col. 3, lines 31-38; col. 7, lines 57-67; col. 8, lines 1-38.
Denholm, Mukherjee, Hewitt, Porter, and Datar are analogous art because they are all directed to the same field of endeavor of present web content that is relevant to the user.
At the time before the effective filing date of the instant application, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify Denholm in view of Mukherjee, Hewitt, and Porter by adding the feature of (1) assigning a weight to each of the plurality of web page sections and (2) multiplying, for each of the plurality of web page sections, the number of matches by the assigned weight of the web page section, as disclosed by Datar.
The motivation for doing so would have been to provide the user with the most semantically relevant results. Datar at col. 2, lines 17-25.
Claim 14 is essentially the same as claim 7 in the form of a non-transitory computer readable medium containing instructions. Therefore, it is rejected for the same reasons.
Response to Arguments
Rejection of claims 1, 2, 8, 9, 15, 16, 21, 22, and 24 under 35 U.S.C. 103
Claims 2, 9, and 16 are cancelled rendering their rejections moot.
Applicant’s arguments in regards to the rejections to claims 1, 8, 15, 21, 22, and 24 under 35 U.S.C. 103, have been fully considered and they are not persuasive.
Applicant alleges the cited prior art does not disclose (1) “modifying the data file of the web page including … adding a highlight to content in a highest scoring section of the plurality of web page sections such that the highest scoring section of the web page that most closely matches the content on the communication channel is displayed with the highlight in the modified data file,” (2) “instructing the management agent on the second user device to replace the URL in the message transmitted to the second user device with a modified URL that references the separate copy of the modified data file stored on the web server and includes a named anchor that points to the highest scoring section of the web page,” and (3) “wherein a selection of the modified URL in the message on the second user device causes a modified web page to be displayed that automatically scrolls to the content in the highest scoring section of the web page that most closely matches the content on the communication channel based on the named anchor.” Remarks at 9.
Examiner is required to give claim limitations their broadest reasonable interpretation in light of the specification. However, limitations form the specification are not read into the claims. MPEP 2111.
In response to applicant's arguments against the references individually, one cannot show nonobviousness by attacking references individually where the rejections are based on combinations of references. See In re Keller, 642 F.2d 413, 208 USPQ 871 (CCPA 1981); In re Merck & Co., 800 F.2d 1091, 231 USPQ 375 (Fed. Cir. 1986).
In regards to limitation (1), Applicant argues while Denholm discloses analyzing electronic content in order to generate a summary of a resource, Denholm does not disclose determining any section of the web page that most closely matches the content on the communication channel being displayed with a highlight in a modified file. Remarks at 10. Examiner respectfully disagrees. Denholm discloses identifying a plurality of sections of the web page and comparing the content/context of the communications with the content of each of the plurality of sections in order to determine the highest rated section of the webpage. Denholm at paras. 0022, 0026, 0055, 0063, 0067-69. As set forth in the rejection above, Denholm does not expressly disclose modifying the data file of the webpage by adding a highlight to the content of the highest scoring section. Mukherjee discloses highlighting portions of interest in a webpage. Mukherjee at para. 0023. When combined with Denholm, the result is highlighting the highest scoring sections, which are identified as disclosed in Denholm. Mukherjee further discloses storing the highlighted webpage on the server and providing a special URL to the modified webpage, which can be shared with other users in order to access the stored modified webpage on the server. Mukherjee at para. 0023. Accordingly, Denholm modified by Mukherjee results in modifying a data file of the web page including adding a highlight to content in a highest scoring section of the plurality of page sections such that the highest scoring section of the web page that most closely matches the content on the communication channel is displayed with the highlight in the modified data file.
In regards to limitation (2), as discussed above in regards to limitation (1), Mukherjee discloses the server providing a shareable special URL that points to the modified web page stored on the server. The special URL is a URL that is modified with a specific tag that identifies the section that has been highlighted (i.e., a named anchor). Mukherjee at para. 0066. Hewitt discloses analyzing chat history and its associated data attachments (i.e., a shared URL) to determine relevant and/or most up to date attachments are provided to users involved in the chat. Hewitt at paras. 0017-19. The system further determines whether a shared URL is pointing to the correct document (such as the most up to date document) and if necessary, dynamically redirects the link or recommends an alternative link, to the correct document. Hewitt at para. 0056. In this way, Hewitt discloses replacing the shared link with a modified link. Hewitt in combination with Denholm and Mukherjee, as discussed above, results in a method that determines a highest scoring section of a webpage based on conversation content, highlighting the highest scoring section of the web page, storing the highlighted webpage on the server, providing a named anchor to the stored copy, and replacing the shared link with the provided named anchor for participants of the chat (i.e., management agent on the second user device). The special URL can be used to access the stored, highlighted webpage.
In regards to limitation (3), Applicant does not present specific arguments but addresses the limitation with reference to Hewitt. As explained in regards to limitations (1) and (2) above, Denholm in view of Mukherjee and Hewitt discloses replacing a shared URL with a modified URL that includes a named anchor, which when clicked by a user (Denholm at paras. 0013-14), presents the stored, highlighted (i.e., modified) web page, where the highest scoring section that most closely matches the content/context of the conversation, is highlighted. The limitation now further recites the “modified web page to be displayed that automatically scrolls to the content.” Mukherjee discloses a user can use the modified URL to access the highlighted version of the web page. Mukherjee at para. 0023, 0058. Selecting on the modified URL results in the highlighted web page being presented and the web page is scrolled to the highlighted section (i.e., automatically scrolls …). Mukherjee at para. 0063. Thus, the combination of Denholm in view of Mukherjee and Hewitt discloses limitation (3).
For at least these reasons, Examiner asserts Denholm in view of Mukherjee and Hewitt discloses limitations (1) through (3). Consequently, the rejection of claims 1, 8, 15, 21, 22, and 24 under 35 U.S.C. 103 is maintained.
Rejection of claims 4-7, 11-14, and 18-20 under 35 U.S.C. 103
Applicant does not present arguments in regards to the rejections to claims 4-7, 11-14, and 18-20 under 35 U.S.C. 103. Therefore, they remain rejected for at least the same reasons explained above.
Additional Prior Art
Additional relevant prior art are listed on the attached PTO-892 form. Some examples are:
Singer et al. (US Patent Pub 2002/0198859) discloses a system and method for providing web links to web pages with highlighted sections.
Conclusion
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Examiner Michael Le whose telephone number is 571-272-7970 and fax number is 571-273-7970. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Fri 9:30 AM – 6 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, Tony Mahmoudi can be reached on 571-272-4078. 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.
/MICHAEL LE/Examiner, Art Unit 2163
/TONY