Detailed Action
This action is in response to amendments filed on 03/04/2026.
This application was filed on 08/31/2021, claiming priority to provisional application no. 63/078812 filed 09/15/2020.
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Claims 1, 4, 6-12, 14-16, 18-25 are pending.
Claims 1, 4, 6-12, 14-16, 18-25 are rejected.
Applicant' s Response
In Applicant' s Response dated 03/04/2026, Applicant amended claims 1, 8, 12,15, 16, and 19, added new claims 21-25, and claims 2-3, 5, 13, and 17 were previously canceled. Applicant argued against various rejections previously set forth in the Office Action mailed on 12/30/2025.
In light of applicant’s amendments/remarks, all rejection of claims under 35 U.S.C. 103 set forth previously are withdrawn.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112:
The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor of carrying out his invention.
Claim 1 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention. For instance, claim 1 recites:
providing a lookup table to identify a suggestion that corresponds to one or more preprogrammed parameters comprising: a readability score, a target audience, and a communication type
the content readability server providing input information to an artificial intelligence engine, the input information including the initial textual content, the generated content readability index and content target readability level information indicating a communication type for the use of the content, wherein the content target readability level information additionally indicates a target audience from a plurality of target audiences, wherein the target audience has a reading level that differs from other reading levels of the remaining target audiences of the plurality of target audiences; the artificial intelligence engine analyzing the received input information and, based on the input information, generating a content recommendation corresponding to the initial textual content, wherein the content recommendation is generated based on the received input information to improve the readability of the initial textual content for the target readability level information to tailor the readability of the initial textual content according to the reading level of the target audience, wherein the content recommendation is generated based on the received input information, and returning the content recommendation to the content readability server; the content readability server on the server computer providing the content recommendation to the content readability plug-in of the authoring tool on the client computer; and the content readability plug-in displaying to a user of the authoring tool the generated content readability index and the content recommendation with the initial textual content, as the initial textual content is being provided to the authoring tool, without further user input.
The specification of present application discloses:
“[0052] AI engine 150 can be any suitable AI engine. For example, in one embodiment, AI engine 150 may use OpenText Magellan, which is an artificial intelligence data analytics platform that has machine learning and predictive analytics capabilities that allow it to analyze content stored on an enterprise data management platform and generate the desired readability suggestions. Alternative embodiments could, of course, use other AI engines. Alternative embodiments could also use systems that might be able to provide the desired suggestions without strictly being considered AI engines. For instance, this component of the system could employ databases or lookup tables to identify suggestions that correspond to preprogrammed combinations of readability score, target audience, communication type, and potentially other input parameters.”
As noted in the specification reproduced above, the generation of suggestions/recommendation can be done via AI engine or in the alternative embodiment via lookup table. However, the specification does not covey or disclose to one of ordinary skill in the art that both embodiment (e.g. AI and lookup table) can be used within same workflow/method as claimed in claim 1. In other words, the specification describes these two embodiments as distinct alternative.
Accordingly, appropriate amendments/remarks required.
Independent claims 12, and 16 include similar offending language and are therefore rejected under the same rational as forth above for claim 1.
At least due to dependency, claims 4, 6, 7-12, 14-15, and 18-25 are rejected under the same rational as forth for claims 1, 12, and 16.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 1, 4, 6-12, 14-16, 18-25 would be allowable if above noted rejections are overcome via amendments and/or arguments. Reasons for allowance will be held in abeyance until all matters in the prosecution are closed.
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated any new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). 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 extension fee 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 date of this final action.
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant’s disclosure.
NETWORK-BASED CUSTOMIZED BROWSING NOTIFICATIONS
DOCUMENT ID
US 20220253509 A1
DATE PUBLISHED
2022-08-11
Abstract
A method may include accessing, using a web browsing application, content from a URL; categorizing, using a plugin to the web browsing application, the content from the URL; retrieving an impact score with respect to a data set of a user based on the categorization; determining that the impact score is above a threshold value; and presenting by the plugin, an impact user interface in response to the determining, the impact user interface comprising an indication of a potential impact to the data set of the user based on the impact score
See form 892.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MUSTAFA A AMIN whose telephone number is (571)270-3181. The examiner can normally be reached on Monday-Friday from 8:00 AM to 5:00 PM.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Kevin Young, can be reached on 571-270-3180. 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 Patent Center. Status information for published applications may be obtained from Patent Center. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Patent Center for authorized users only. Should you have questions about access to Patent Center, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free).
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) Form at https://www.uspto.gov/patents/uspto-automated- interview-request-air-form.
/MUSTAFA A AMIN/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2194