DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on 01/15/2026 has been entered.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claim(s) 1-20 have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument.
A new search was made and art was found to Krause which teaches an apparatus, method and article of manufacture of the present invention provide an enhanced user interface for a computer system that maximizes a reader's ability to rapidly comprehend a text. The invention provides simplified, interactive means for assigning values to parameters associated with the display of text, and for displaying the electronic text in accordance with the parameter values selected, see abstract. Elements of the reading display that the computer program permits the user to control include: the speed of presentation, the screen location of presentation, the mode of display for information associated with the text, including linked objects, outlines, and the results of searches, see col. 4 lines 38-43. The create concordance dialog box 700 depicted in FIG. 7 prompts the user to select a wordlist corresponding to the user's schema (i.e. the knowledge that the user brings to the text), either as determined by the computer in an interview, as described above, or as approximated by the reader on a scale of 1 to 10), see col;. 14 lines 3-8.
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, 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.
Claim(s) 1-5, 7-13, 15-19 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wriber WO 2015/051450 A1, in view of Peterson U.S. Patent no. 11,599,250 B1 further in view of Krause U.S. Patent No. 6,154,757.
Regarding claim 1 Wriber teaches a method for generating new outline item suggestions for generating an outline to be used to create a document (a method and system for content creation, more particularly it relates to a method and system for aiding in creating content by providing automatic content suggestions and engagement suggestions, see par. [0001]), the method comprising:
receiving an initial text from a user in a text panel (receiving at least one keyword related to said content, see par. [0005]);
detecting an intent to generate a new outline item (creating a first query associated with said at least one keyword, see par. [0005]);
responsive to detecting the intent, generating a plurality of new outline item suggestions based on the initial text and any existing outline item using one or more semantic language models (providing said first query to at least one resource to discover information related to said at least one keyword to automatically provide at least one content suggestion based on said discovered information to aid said user create content, see par. [0005]);
providing the plurality of new outline item suggestions to the user in an outline panel (cross-referencing the discovered information to said created content to automatically provide at least another content suggestion, see par. [0005]),
receiving the user selection of one of the plurality of new outline item suggestions (the user selects the automatically suggested topic or subject, see par. [0032]);
and updating the outline to add the new outline item from the selected new outline item suggestion (the topic or subject is inserted into the written work, and the suggestion engine module 20 generates an outline for the written work corresponding to the suggestions, see par. [0032]).
However Wriber does not teach detecting an intent to generate a new outline item for an outline associated with a document, wherein each outline item of the outline has an associated text block in the document; and in response to the user selection of the selected new outline item suggestion, modifying the outline to add the new outline item from the selected new outline item suggestion, thereby generating an updated outline.
In the same field of endeavor Peterson teaches a document tool that is designed to facilitate computationally efficient electronic document preparation and revision. The tool is designed to generate a graphical user interface (GUI) that displays both a text editor and an editing tool that is linked to the text editor, see col. 1, lines 34-42. Peterson teaches detecting an intent to generate a new outline item for an outline associated with a document (tool 114a in response to user 104 interacting with button 310 to generate anew outline topic, see col. 21 lines 12-26), wherein each outline item of the outline has an associated text block in the document (in response to user 104 interacting with button 310, document tool 102 is configured to create a new outline topic element 302e and to display the new outline topic element in outline tool 114a. Document tool 102 is also configured to create a new part 305e within document 120 that is linked to the new outline topic element, and to display the new part in text editor 112. The new part 305e includes the new outline topic 304e, see col. 21 lines 12-26);
and in response to the user selection of the selected new outline item suggestion, modifying the outline to add the new outline item from the selected new outline item suggestion, thereby generating an updated outline (a new outline topic 304e may be added to document 120, in certain embodiments user 104 may add a new outline topic 304e to document 120 by entering text associated with the new outline topic 304e into text editor 112. User 104 may then enter text corresponding to the name of the new outline topic 304e (e.g., “Conclusion”) into text editor 112. In response to user 104 creating a new outline topic 304e by entering text corresponding to the new outline topic into text editor 112, document tool 102 is configured to generate a corresponding outline topic element 302e that is linked to the new outline topic 304e, and to display the new outline topic element 302e within outline tool 114a. the newly added outline topic 304e is associated with a new part 305e of document 120, to which user 104 may add content, see col. 21 lines 47-65).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to combine the Wriber invention with the teachings of Peterson for the benefit of facilitating computationally efficient electronic document preparation and revision, see abstract.
However Wriber in view of Peterson does not teach and prompting a user selection of one of the plurality of new outline item suggestions.
In similar field of endeavor Krause teaches an apparatus, method and article of manufacture of the present invention provide an enhanced user interface for a computer system that maximizes a reader's ability to rapidly comprehend a text. The invention provides simplified, interactive means for assigning values to parameters associated with the display of text, and for displaying the electronic text in accordance with the parameter values selected, see abstract. Elements of the reading display that the computer program permits the user to control include: the speed of presentation, the screen location of presentation, the mode of display for information associated with the text, including linked objects, outlines, and the results of searches, see col. 4 lines 38-43. The create concordance dialog box 700 depicted in FIG. 7 prompts the user to select a wordlist corresponding to the user's schema (i.e. the knowledge that the user brings to the text), either as determined by the computer in an interview, as described above, or as approximated by the reader on a scale of 1 to 10), see col;. 14 lines 3-8.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to combine the Wriber in view of Peterson invention with the teachings of Krause for the benefit of maximizing a users ability to rapidly comprehend text, see abstract.
Regarding claim 2 Wriber teaches the method of claim 1, further comprising: automatically generating next outline item suggestions for a next new outline item succeeding the new outline item based on the updated outline and any existing outline item ( steps are executed in a recursive manner as said content is created, see par. [0005]).
Regarding claim 3 Wriber teaches the method of claim 1, further comprising:
determining if there is an existing outline item preceding or succeeding the new outline item ( a topic or subject has already been chosen, or the title was previously entered from a previous writing session, see par. [0030]);
in response to determining that there is the existing outline item, generating one or more suggested modifications for the existing outline item based on the updated outline using the one or more semantic language models (the analysis engine module 19 ranks the structured data based on popularity and relevancy and produces a list of trending topics and subjects (step 124) corresponding to the chosen title, topic or subject, see par. [0031]);
providing the one or more suggested modifications for the existing outline item in a corresponding place in the updated outline (the initial topics and subjects are presented to the user, and the user then decides whether or not to approve the topics or subjects suggestions, see par. [0032]);
receiving a user acceptance of the one or more suggested modifications ( the user approves the topics or subjects suggestions, see par. [0032]);
and in response to receiving the user acceptance, updating the updated outline to reflect the accepted one or more suggested modifications to the existing outline item (the user approves the topics or subjects suggestions, then those topics or subjects suggestions are incorporated into the written work, see par. [0032]).
Regarding claim 4 Wriber teaches the method of claim 3, wherein generating one or more suggested modifications for the existing outline item based on the updated outline includes:
in response to determining that there is the existing outline item, determining if there are suggested modifications to the existing outline item based on the updated outline (the analysis engine module 19 then performs an analysis of the user's inputted text content in content frame 40 to detect patterns, keywords in order to reformulate further meaningful queries, see par. [0033]);
and in response to determining that there are suggested modifications to the existing outline item, generating one or more suggested modifications for the existing outline item based on the updated outline ( when the user approves the suggestions then the suggestions are incorporated into the created content or written work, see par. [0033]).
Regarding claim 5 Wriber teaches the method of claim 5, wherein the suggested modifications include deletion of the existing outline item, rearrangement of the existing outline item, one or more edits to the existing outline item, and/or addition of one or more new outline items (Suggestions may also include a summary of the page where the suggestion was found on, facts from that page, quotes found on that page, additional information about the suggestion, metrics about the importance/relevance of the suggestion, see par. [0034]).
Regarding claim 7 Wriber teaches the method of claim 1, wherein detecting the intent to generate the new outline item includes: detecting a receipt of an associated short-key, or extracting the intent from speech or voice of the user (the content is created via speech using speech recognition methods and systems, with text-to-speech processing capabilities, rather than typing in content frame, see par. [0047]).
Regarding claim 8 Wriber teaches the method of claim 1, further comprising: receiving context data, the context data including information related to the document, and training the one or more semantic language models using the context data (analysis engine module 19 may provide suggestions 71 to set an appropriate tone for the target audience, such as: "The tone of your document is too serious for your audience. Consider being more playful with your words. ", among others. With respect to vocabulary, the suggestions module 20 may provide suggestions 71 such as: "You are not using enough power words. Power words will make your content more interesting, see par. [0039]; Database 17a with current trending topics and subjects is updated to include the most recent trending topics and subjects; and previous trending topics and subjects are removed, see par. [0031]).
Regarding claim 9 Wriber teaches a method for generating one or more text blocks of a document based on one or more outline items of an outline (suitable or appropriate suggestions can be provided for a plethora of content, including, but not limited to, legal documents (agreements, patents, facta, etc.), public policy papers, speeches, advertisements, essays, blogs, reviews, stories, personal stories, written content, tweets, scripts, grant proposals, theses and so forth, see par. [0045]), the method comprising:
detecting an intent to generate a new text block of the document that corresponds to one or more outline items selected in the outline ( the user can continue writing the saved written work in the content frame 40 (step 104), otherwise the user selects a topic or subject to write about from the available list, see par. [0030]);
responsive to detecting the intent, generating, based on the one or more selected outline items and using one or more semantic language models a plurality of suggestions for a text block of the document (The title text is provided to the analysis engine module 19 which performs at least one of a lexical, syntactic and semantic analysis of the title, see par. [0030]);
providing the textual content to the user in a corresponding place in the document ( the initial topics and subjects are presented to the user, and the user then decides whether or not to approve the topics or subjects suggestions, see par. [0032]);
receiving an indication that the user accepts the text suggestion (When the user approves the topics or subjects suggestions, then those topics or subjects suggestions are incorporated into the written work, see par. [0032]);
and updating the document to include the new text block comprising the one or more of the plurality of text suggestions (When the user approves the topics or subjects suggestions, then those topics or subjects suggestions are incorporated into the written work, see par. [0032]).
However Wriber does not teach wherein the place in the document corresponds to a place of the one or more outline items in the outline; receiving an indication that the user approves the textual content for inclusion in the document.
In the same field of endeavor Peterson teaches a document tool that is designed to facilitate computationally efficient electronic document preparation and revision. The tool is designed to generate a graphical user interface (GUI) that displays both a text editor and an editing tool that is linked to the text editor, see col. 1, lines 34-42. Peterson teaches detecting an intent to generate a new outline item for an outline associated with a document (tool 114a in response to user 104 interacting with button 310 to generate anew outline topic, see col. 21 lines 12-26), wherein the place in the document corresponds to a place of the one or more outline items in the outline (in response to user 104 interacting with button 310, document tool 102 is configured to create a new outline topic element 302e and to display the new outline topic element in outline tool 114a. Document tool 102 is also configured to create a new part 305e within document 120 that is linked to the new outline topic element, and to display the new part in text editor 112. The new part 305e includes the new outline topic 304e, see col. 21 lines 12-26);
receiving the indication that the user approves the one or more of the plurality of text suggestions for inclusion in the document (a new outline topic 304e may be added to document 120, in certain embodiments user 104 may add a new outline topic 304e to document 120 by entering text associated with the new outline topic 304e into text editor 112. User 104 may then enter text corresponding to the name of the new outline topic 304e (e.g., “Conclusion”) into text editor 112. In response to user 104 creating a new outline topic 304e by entering text corresponding to the new outline topic into text editor 112, document tool 102 is configured to generate a corresponding outline topic element 302e that is linked to the new outline topic 304e, and to display the new outline topic element 302e within outline tool 114a. the newly added outline topic 304e is associated with a new part 305e of document 120, to which user 104 may add content, see col. 21 lines 47-65).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to combine the Wriber invention with the teachings of Peterson for the benefit of facilitating computationally efficient electronic document preparation and revision, see abstract.
However Wriber in view of Peterson does not teach and prompting an indication that the user approves one or more of the plurality of text suggestions for inclusion in the document.
In similar field of endeavor Krause teaches an apparatus, method and article of manufacture of the present invention provide an enhanced user interface for a computer system that maximizes a reader's ability to rapidly comprehend a text. The invention provides simplified, interactive means for assigning values to parameters associated with the display of text, and for displaying the electronic text in accordance with the parameter values selected, see abstract. Elements of the reading display that the computer program permits the user to control include: the speed of presentation, the screen location of presentation, the mode of display for information associated with the text, including linked objects, outlines, and the results of searches, see col. 4 lines 38-43. The create concordance dialog box 700 depicted in FIG. 7 prompts the user to select a wordlist corresponding to the user's schema (i.e. the knowledge that the user brings to the text), either as determined by the computer in an interview, as described above, or as approximated by the reader on a scale of 1 to 10), see col;. 14 lines 3-8.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to combine the Wriber in view of Peterson invention with the teachings of Krause for the benefit of maximizing a users ability to rapidly comprehend text, see abstract.
Regarding claim 10 Wriber teaches the method of claim 9, further comprising: automatically generating a next text suggestion for a next new text block succeeding the new text block based on the updated document and the outline ( steps are executed in a recursive manner as said content is created, see par. [0005]).
Regarding claim 11 Wriber teaches the method of claim 9, further comprising:
determining if there is an existing text block preceding or succeeding the new text block (a topic or subject has already been chosen, or the title was previously entered from a previous writing session, see par. [0030]);
in response to determining that there is the existing text block, generating one or more suggested modifications for the existing text block based on the updated document using the one or more semantic language models (the analysis engine module 19 ranks the structured data based on popularity and relevancy and produces a list of trending topics and subjects (step 124) corresponding to the chosen title, topic or subject, see par. [0031]);
providing the one or more suggested modifications for the existing text block in the corresponding place in the updated document (the initial topics and subjects are presented to the user, and the user then decides whether or not to approve the topics or subjects suggestions, see par. [0032]);
receiving a user acceptance of the one or more suggested modifications ( the user approves the topics or subjects suggestions, see par. [0032]);
and in response to receiving the user acceptance, updating the updated document to reflect the accepted one or more suggested modifications to the existing text block (the user approves the topics or subjects suggestions, then those topics or subjects suggestions are incorporated into the written work, see par. [0032]).
Regarding claim 12 Wriber teaches the method of claim 11, wherein generating one or more suggested modifications for the existing text block based on the updated document includes:
in response to determining that there is the existing text block, determining if there are any suggested modifications to the existing text block based on the updated document(the analysis engine module 19 then performs an analysis of the user's inputted text content in content frame 40 to detect patterns, keywords in order to reformulate further meaningful queries, see par. [0033]);
and in response to determining that there are suggested modifications to the existing text block, generating one or more suggested modifications for the existing text block based on the updated document ( when the user approves the suggestions then the suggestions are incorporated into the created content or written work, see par. [0033]).
Regarding claim 13 Wriber teaches the method of claim 11, wherein the suggested modifications include deletion of the existing text blocks, rearrangement of the existing text blocks, one or more edits to the existing text blocks, and/or addition of one or more new text blocks (Suggestions may also include a summary of the page where the suggestion was found on, facts from that page, quotes found on that page, additional information about the suggestion, metrics about the importance/relevance of the suggestion, see par. [0034]).
Regarding claim 15 Wriber teaches a method for generating new outline item generating one or more suggestions in natural language for improving an existing content, the method comprising:
receiving a user request to improve the existing content (the system 10 allows users to either select from a list of topic and subject suggestions based on a pre-defined topic and subject criteria, or select from a list of topic and subject suggestions in database 17c, based on previously authored work by the user, see par. [0051]);
responsive to receiving the user request, generating the one or more suggestions in natural language describing how to improve the existing content using one or more semantic language models ( system 10 provides targeted content that is consistent with the user or organization by customizing the content according to the brand guidelines and audiences, and verifying that the content meets the user or the organization's standards before publishing, see par. [0046]);
providing the one or more suggestions to the user (cross-referencing the discovered information to said created content to automatically provide at least another content suggestion, see par. [0005]);
receiving the selection from the one or more suggestions (the user selects the automatically suggested topic or subject, see par. [0032]);
generating a preview of suggested modifications applied to the existing content associated with the selected suggestion (content suggestion frame 44 may include alerts 71 pertaining to the user's writing style, which allow the user to tweak his or her content for improved engagement with the target audience, or stickiness by encouraging the audience to continue reading the content, see par. [0039]);
receiving an indication that the user accepts the suggested modifications ( the user approves the topics or subjects suggestions, see par. [0032]);
and updating the existing content to implement the suggested modifications (the topic or subject is inserted into the written work, and the suggestion engine module 20 generates an outline for the written work corresponding to the suggestions, see par. [0032]).
However Wriber does not teach wherein each suggestion of the one or more suggestions corresponds to a respective portion of the existing content; receiving a selection of a suggested modification from the one or more suggestions; generating a preview of the suggested modifications applied to the corresponding portion of the existing content associated with the selected suggested modification.
In the same field of endeavor Peterson teaches a document tool that is designed to facilitate computationally efficient electronic document preparation and revision. The tool is designed to generate a graphical user interface (GUI) that displays both a text editor and an editing tool that is linked to the text editor, see col. 1, lines 34-42. Peterson teaches herein each suggestion of the one or more suggestions corresponds to a respective portion of the existing content (tool 114a in response to user 104 interacting with button 310 to generate a new outline topic, see col. 21 lines 12-26); receiving a selection of a suggested modification from the one or more suggestions (in response to user 104 interacting with button 310, document tool 102 is configured to create a new outline topic element 302e and to display the new outline topic element in outline tool 114a. Document tool 102 is also configured to create a new part 305e within document 120 that is linked to the new outline topic element, and to display the new part in text editor 112. The new part 305e includes the new outline topic 304e, see col. 21 lines 12-26);
generating a preview of the suggested modifications applied to the corresponding portion of the existing content associated with the selected suggested modification. (a new outline topic 304e may be added to document 120, in certain embodiments user 104 may add a new outline topic 304e to document 120 by entering text associated with the new outline topic 304e into text editor 112. User 104 may then enter text corresponding to the name of the new outline topic 304e (e.g., “Conclusion”) into text editor 112. In response to user 104 creating a new outline topic 304e by entering text corresponding to the new outline topic into text editor 112, document tool 102 is configured to generate a corresponding outline topic element 302e that is linked to the new outline topic 304e, and to display the new outline topic element 302e within outline tool 114a. the newly added outline topic 304e is associated with a new part 305e of document 120, to which user 104 may add content, see col. 21 lines 47-65).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to combine the Wriber invention with the teachings of Peterson for the benefit of facilitating computationally efficient electronic document preparation and revision, see abstract.
However Wriber in view of Peterson does not teach and prompting a selection of a suggested modification from the one or more suggestions.
In similar field of endeavor Krause teaches an apparatus, method and article of manufacture of the present invention provide an enhanced user interface for a computer system that maximizes a reader's ability to rapidly comprehend a text. The invention provides simplified, interactive means for assigning values to parameters associated with the display of text, and for displaying the electronic text in accordance with the parameter values selected, see abstract. Elements of the reading display that the computer program permits the user to control include: the speed of presentation, the screen location of presentation, the mode of display for information associated with the text, including linked objects, outlines, and the results of searches, see col. 4 lines 38-43. The create concordance dialog box 700 depicted in FIG. 7 prompts the user to select a wordlist corresponding to the user's schema (i.e. the knowledge that the user brings to the text), either as determined by the computer in an interview, as described above, or as approximated by the reader on a scale of 1 to 10), see col;. 14 lines 3-8.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to combine the Wriber in view of Peterson invention with the teachings of Krause for the benefit of maximizing a users ability to rapidly comprehend text, see abstract.
Regarding claim 16 Wriber teaches the method of claim 15, wherein the content is a document or an outline of a document (suitable or appropriate suggestions can be provided for a plethora of content, including, but not limited to, legal documents (agreements, patents, facta, etc.), public policy papers, speeches, advertisements, essays, blogs, reviews, stories, personal stories, written content, tweets, scripts, grant proposals, theses and so forth, see par. [0045]).
Regarding claim 17 Wriber teaches the method of claim 15, further comprising generating a preview of suggested modifications to an outline of the content to reflect changes to the updated content, wherein the content is a document (content suggestion frame 44 may include alerts 71 pertaining to the user's writing style, which allow the user to tweak his or her content for improved engagement with the target audience, or stickiness by encouraging the audience to continue reading the content, see par. [0039]).
Peterson teaches each outline item of the outline corresponds to a text block of the document (Document tool 102 is also configured to create a new part 305e within document 120 that is linked to the new outline topic element, and to display the new part in text editor 112. The new part 305e includes the new outline topic 304e, see col. 21 lines 12-26)
Regarding claim 18 Wriber teaches the method of claim 15, further comprising generating a preview of the suggested modification to a document related to the content to reflect changes to the updated content, wherein the content is an outline of a document (the analysis engine module 19 analyses the content to determine the tone of the content, based on the subject matter of the content and the target audience, including the vocabulary, grammar and writing style. For example, analysis engine module 19 may provide suggestions 71 to set an appropriate tone for the target audience, such as: "The tone of your document is too serious for your audience, see par. [0039]).
Regarding claim 19 Wriber teaches the method of claim 15, wherein the one or more suggestions include deletion of the existing content, rearrangement of the existing content, one or more edits to the existing content, and/or addition of one or more new content (Suggestions may also include a summary of the page where the suggestion was found on, facts from that page, quotes found on that page, additional information about the suggestion, metrics about the importance/relevance of the suggestion, see par. [0034]).
Claim(s) 6, 14 and 20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wriber WO 2015/051450 A1, in view of Peterson U.S. Patent no. 11,599,250 B1, in view of Krause U.S. Patent No. 6,154,757, further in view of Tiku U.S. PAP 2024/0070390 A1.
Regarding claim 6 Wriber in view of Peterson in view of Krause does not teach the method of claim 1, wherein detecting the intent to generate the new outline item includes: detecting a position of a cursor in an outline panel to determine which outline item the user intent to generate, or detecting a presence of a cursor in an outline panel to trigger generation of one or more new outline item suggestions for the new outline item.
In the same field of endeavor Tiku teaches a user may compose a document having text in a variety of manners. For example, a computing device may run an application that supports creating and editing electronic documents. In both scenarios, the user may formulate the text that should be written in the document, see par. [0009]. The user may spend an inordinate amount of time searching for relevant references. The user may need to look at each reference one-by-one, assess whether a particular reference is of interest, and then further examine that particular reference. When searching for relevant references, computing resources, network resources, and/or battery resources associated with a computing device used by the user may be wasted. In some implementations described herein, to solve the problems described above, as well as the wasting of computing and network resources when searching online for related references, a solution is described herein for generating suggestions, such as predicted text, using extended reality (XR), see par. [0010-0012]. In some implementations, the XR device may detect, from the image, a boundary associated with the electronic document and an orientation associated with the electronic document. For example, the computing device may display multiple electronic documents, but the user may only be actively modifying one of the electronic documents. The XR device may distinguish the electronic document that is being actively modified from other electronic documents based on user hand motions and/or a cursor position (e.g., the cursor may hover over the electronic document that is being modified), see par. [0047].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to combine the Wriber in view of Peterson in view of Krause invention with the teachings of Tiku for the benefit of generating suggestions such as predicted text using extended reality, see par. [0012].
Regarding claim 14 Wriber in view of Peterson in view of Krause does not teach the method of claim 9, wherein the one or more semantic language models comprise a generative large language model (LLM).
In the same field of endeavor Tiku teaches a user may compose a document having text in a variety of manners. For example, a computing device may run an application that supports creating and editing electronic documents. In both scenarios, the user may formulate the text that should be written in the document, see par. [0009]. The user may spend an inordinate amount of time searching for relevant references. The user may need to look at each reference one-by-one, assess whether a particular reference is of interest, and then further examine that particular reference. When searching for relevant references, computing resources, network resources, and/or battery resources associated with a computing device used by the user may be wasted. In some implementations described herein, to solve the problems described above, as well as the wasting of computing and network resources when searching online for related references, a solution is described herein for generating suggestions, such as predicted text, using extended reality (XR), see par. [0010-0012]. In some implementations, the language model may be an attention-based language model deployed on the XR device. The language model may be a transformer-based machine learning model for natural language processing, such as Bidirectional Encoder Representations from Transformers (BERT). The language model may be an autoregressive language model that uses deep learning to produce human-like text, such as Generative Pre-trained Transformer (GPT). The language model that runs on the XR device may take the one or more keywords and the context as an input, and the language model may produce the predicted text as an output, see par. [0025].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to combine the Wriber in view of Peterson in view of Krause invention with the teachings of Tiku for the benefit of generating suggestions such as predicted text using extended reality, see par. [0012].
Regarding claim 20 Wriber in view of Peterson in view of Krause does not teach the method of claim 15, wherein the one or more semantic language models comprise a generative large language model (LLM).
In the same field of endeavor Tiku teaches a user may compose a document having text in a variety of manners. For example, a computing device may run an application that supports creating and editing electronic documents. In both scenarios, the user may formulate the text that should be written in the document, see par. [0009]. The user may spend an inordinate amount of time searching for relevant references. The user may need to look at each reference one-by-one, assess whether a particular reference is of interest, and then further examine that particular reference. When searching for relevant references, computing resources, network resources, and/or battery resources associated with a computing device used by the user may be wasted. In some implementations described herein, to solve the problems described above, as well as the wasting of computing and network resources when searching online for related references, a solution is described herein for generating suggestions, such as predicted text, using extended reality (XR), see par. [0010-0012]. In some implementations, the language model may be an attention-based language model deployed on the XR device. The language model may be a transformer-based machine learning model for natural language processing, such as Bidirectional Encoder Representations from Transformers (BERT). The language model may be an autoregressive language model that uses deep learning to produce human-like text, such as Generative Pre-trained Transformer (GPT). The language model that runs on the XR device may take the one or more keywords and the context as an input, and the language model may produce the predicted text as an output, see par. [0025].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to combine the Wriber in view of Peterson in view of Krause invention with the teachings of Tiku for the benefit of generating suggestions such as predicted text using extended reality, see par. [0012].
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Pertinent prior art available on form 892.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Michael Ortiz-Sanchez whose telephone number is (571)270-3711. The examiner can normally be reached Monday- Friday 9AM-6PM.
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, Bhavesh Mehta can be reached at 571-272-7453. 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 ORTIZ-SANCHEZ/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2656