DETAILED ACTION
Introduction
1. This office action is in response to Applicant’s submission filed on 5/27/2026. Claims 1-20 are pending in the application and have been examined.
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
2. The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Response to Amendment
3. The Amendment submitted on 5/27/2026 has been entered and fully considered. With respect to the rejection under 35 USC 103, the arguments presented are not found persuasive.
The Amendment argues that the cited reference “FIG. 5 of Riscutia ‘illustrates an operational scenario of a collaborative prompt object for LLM integration in an application environment in an implementation’ (Riscutia, [0013]) and does not depict, in any sense, a navigational region configured to display a hierarchical tree of elements. For convenient reference, FIG. 5 is reproduced on the following page, showing ‘a document’ ([0073]) with a single column of buttons each associated with different functions and not, in any sense, operationally related to one another (as would be required for any hierarchical understanding to be inferred from the illustration).
However, the broadest reasonable interpretation of “a document” includes the files illustrated in Figure 5 of Riscuita. Further, the broadest reasonable interpretation of “a hierarchical tree of elements” is that a group of elements are shown in a particular order, i.e. hierarchy. The Amendment arguing that “hierarchical” requires buttons “operationally related to one another” is narrower than the broadest reasonable interpretation of the claims. If the claims are amended to include such features, the outstanding rejection may be overcome.
It is noted that Claims 9 and 15 are asserted to allowable for the same reasons as Claim 1. However, Claims 9 and 15 do not recite “a navigational region positioned at a first side of the content region and configured to display a hierarchical navigational tree of elements corresponding to pages in a document space” as argued with respect to Claim 1. That feature is included only in dependent Claims 14 and 20.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
4. 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.
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.
5. Claims 1-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as unpatentable over US Pat. App. Pub. No. 20240419465 (Riscutia et al., hereinafter “Riscutia”).
With regard to Claim 1, Riscutia describes:
“A computer-implemented method for providing page content of a collaboration platform, the method comprising:
cause display of a graphical user interface of a frontend of the collaboration platform on a client device (Figure 5 shows the GUI), the frontend of the collaboration platform operably coupled to a backend of the collaboration platform (Paragraph 34 describes the front end and back end.), the graphical user interface comprising:
a content region configured to display page content of a current page; (Beneath the Copilot in Figure 5 is the page content.)
a navigational region positioned at a first side of the content region and configured to display a hierarchical navigational tree of elements corresponding to pages in a document space; (Further pages being viewed by users 2 and 3 in the document space are shown in Figure 5. The documents are listed in a particular order, and thus are “hierarchical.”) and
a summary region positioned at a second side of the content region and configured to display summary content generated using the page content of the current page; (Paragraph 36 describes that a summary is generated. Figure 5 shows a “summarize announcements” section.)
in response to a user selection of a particular element of the navigational tree of elements, cause display of particular page content of a particular page associated with the particular element, the particular page content displayed within the content region of the graphical user interface; (Beneath the Copilot in Figure 5 is the page content selected by each user.)
generate a prompt comprising: (Paragraph 39 describes that a prompt is generated.)
predefined query prompt text selected in accordance with a content type of the particular page; and (Paragraph 39 describes that the prompt includes the context, which is cited as “a content type”)
content extracted from the particular page content of the particular page; (Paragraph 39 describes that the prompt also includes the particular content.)
providing the prompt to an external generative output engine using an application program interface call; (Paragraph 39 describes that the prompt is provided to LLM service 150.)
obtaining a generative response from the external generative output engine, (Paragraph 40 describes that a response is received.) the generative response comprising:
a content summary generated by the external generative output engine using the particular page content and the predefined query prompt text; (Paragraph 36 describes that the response can include summaries of the content.)
a list of task summary items generated by the external generative output engine using the particular page content and the predefined query prompt text and corresponding to one or more actions proposed within the particular page content; (Paragraph 40 describes that the response includes a list of suggestions. Figure 5 shows that these suggestions can be tasks.) and
causing display of the generative response in the [[summary]] region of the graphical user interface. (Figure 5 shows that the summary and the task list can be shown on the display.)
Riscutia does not explicitly describe 3 display regions as claimed, but does describe and show that all of the information would be shown on the display. Thus, it would have been obvious to rearrange the portions of the display shown in Figure 5 as claimed, as rearranging portions of a graphical display is combining known elements to achieve predictable results. See MPEP 2141(III).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to include the rearranged display sections into the device of Riscutia as it rearranges known elements with predictable results.
With regard to Claim 2, Riscutia describes:
in response to a user selection of an edit control, enable an editor of the collaboration platform within the content region of the graphical user interface; (Paragraph 20 describes the users can edit the content.)
in response to user input provided to the content region, generate user content in-line with the particular page content displayed within the content region; (Paragraph 19 describes the edits will be displayed for that user and other users.)
in response to user selection of a publish control, save an updated particular page including the user content; (Paragraph 19 describes that the user content is synched between devices, so it is saved in its current form for each device.)
subsequent to the user selection of the publish control, generate an updated prompt using the updated particular page; (Paragraph 20 describes that the prompts may be edited and will be updated for each edit.)
obtain an updated generative response from the external generative output engine in response to transmitting the updated prompt to the external generative output engine; and (Paragraph 40 describes that a response is generated for each prompt.)
cause display of the updated generative response in the summary region of the graphical user interface. (Figure 5 shows the response is displayed for the user.)
With regard to Claim 3, Riscutia describes “the particular page has a content type corresponding to a project documentation page type; and in accordance with the content type of the particular page being the project documentation page type, the predefined query prompt text includes decision prompt text.” (Paragraph 39 describes that the prompt includes the context, which is cited as including “a page type.” The context included can be “decision prompt text.”)
With regard to Claim 4, Riscutia describes “the particular page has a content type corresponding to a meeting summary page type; and in accordance with the content type of the particular page being the meeting summary page type a project documentation page type, the predefined query prompt text includes task prompt text.” (Paragraph 39 describes that the prompt includes the context, which is cited as including “a page type.” The context included can be “task prompt text.”)
With regard to Claim 5, Riscutia describes “the particular page has a content type corresponding to a meeting summary page type; in accordance with the content type of the particular page being the meeting summary page type a project documentation page type, the predefined query prompt text includes decision prompt text; and the generative response further comprises an entry for one or more decisions based on content of the particular page.” (Paragraph 39 describes that the prompt includes the context, which is cited as including “a page type.” The context included can be “task prompt text.” Paragraph 40 describes that multiple suggestions are included in the response, which can be “decisions.”)
With regard to Claim 6, Riscutia describes “the generative response displayed in the summary region is editable within the summary region using an editor of the collaboration platform; and subsequent to a user modification of the generative response within the summary region, causing a summary entry to be saved on the collaboration platform.” (Figure 5 shows that the user can edit the response with the “insert” link. Paragraph 19 describes that the edits by the user are save and synched with other users.)
With regard to Claim 7, Riscutia describes “in response to a user request to view the particular page, the collaboration platform is configured to check for a corresponding summary entry saved on the collaboration platform; in accordance with the summary entry being saved on the collaboration platform, using the summary entry to display the content in the summary region; and in accordance with the summary entry not being saved on the collaboration platform, using the generative response received from the external generative output engine to display content in the summary region.” (Paragraph 36 describes that the LLM can generate summaries of content that have not yet been summarized.)
With regard to Claim 8, Riscutia describes “the graphical user interface further comprises a region display control; and in response to a user selection of the region display control, one or both of the navigational region and the summary region are removed from display within the graphical user interface.” (Figure 5 shows a region display control with an “X” in the upper right corner that closes that particular window, removing it from the display.)
With respect to Claim 9, method Claim 1 and system Claim 9 are related as a system programmed to perform the same method, with each claimed system function corresponding to each claimed method step. Accordingly, Claim 9 is similarly rejected under the same rationale as applied above with respect to Claim 1.
With regard to Claim 10, Riscutia describes “the predefined query prompt text is selected in response to a determination of a page type of the particular page; and the page type is selected from a group of page types including: a project documentation page type; a meeting summary page type; and a knowledge base documentation page type.” (Paragraph 39 describes that the prompt includes the context, which is cited as including “a page type.” The page types could include a project documentation page type; a meeting summary page type; and a knowledge base documentation page type, as no details are recited to the definition of these types.)
With regard to Claim 11, Riscutia describes “the predefined query prompt text for each page type is unique to a respective page type.” (Paragraph 39 describes that the prompt includes the context of the page which would be unique.)
With regard to Claim 12, Riscutia describes “the generative response displayed in the summary region of the graphical user interface is user editable within the summary region.” (Figure 5 shows that the user can edit the response with the “insert” link.)
With regard to Claim 13, Riscutia describes “the graphical user interface further comprises a region display control; and in response to a user selection of the region display control, the summary region is removed from display within the graphical user interface.” (Figure 5 shows a region display control with an “X” in the upper right corner that closes that particular window, removing it from the display.)
With regard to Claim 14, Riscutia describes “the graphical user interface further comprises a navigational region; the navigational region is configured to display a hierarchical navigational tree of elements corresponding to pages in a document space; and each element is selectable to cause display of respective page content of a respective page in the document space.” (Further pages being viewed by users 2 and 3 in the document space are shown in Figure 5. The documents are listed in a particular order, and thus are “hierarchical.”)
With regard to Claim 15, Riscutia describes:
“A computer-implemented method for providing page content of a collaboration platform, the method comprising:
cause display of a graphical user interface of a frontend of the collaboration platform on a client device (Figure 5 shows the GUI), the frontend of the collaboration platform operably coupled to a backend of the collaboration platform (Paragraph 34 describes the front end and back end.), the graphical user interface comprising:
a content region configured to display page content of a current page; (Beneath the Copilot in Figure 5 is the page content.) and
a summary region positioned at a second side of the content region and configured to display summary content generated using the page content of the current page; (Paragraph 36 describes that a summary is generated. Figure 5 shows a “summarize announcements” section.)
in response to user input, generate user content in the content region of the graphical user interface using an editor of the frontend of the collaboration platform; (Beneath the Copilot in Figure 5 is the page content selected by each user.)
in response to a user selection of a publish control, cause the user content to be saved as a particular page of the collaboration platform; (Paragraph 19 describes the edits of a user will be saved and displayed for that user and other users.)
subsequent to the saving of the particular page, generate a prompt comprising: (Paragraph 39 describes that a prompt is generated.)
predefined query prompt text; (Paragraph 39 describes that the prompt includes the context, which is cited as “predefined query prompt text”) and
content extracted from the particular page; (Paragraph 39 describes that the prompt also includes the particular content.)
providing the prompt to an external generative output engine using an application program interface call; (Paragraph 39 describes that the prompt is provided to LLM service 150.)
obtaining a generative response from the external generative output engine (Paragraph 40 describes that a response is received.), the generative response comprising a content summary generated by the external generative output engine using the particular page and the predefined query prompt text; (Paragraph 36 describes that page summaries can be generated by LLM 150 based on the prompts.) and
causing display of the generative response in the [[summary]] region of the graphical user interface. (Paragraph 40 describes that the response is displayed on the display.)
Riscutia does not explicitly describe 2 display regions as claimed, but does describe and show that all of the information would be shown on the display. Thus, it would have been obvious to rearrange the portions of the display shown in Figure 5 as claimed, as rearranging portions of a graphical display is combining known elements to achieve predictable results. See MPEP 2141(III).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to include the rearranged display sections into the device of Riscutia as it rearranges known elements with predictable results.
With regard to Claim 16, Riscutia describes:
“in response to a user selection of an edit control, enable an editor of the collaboration platform within the content region of the graphical user interface; (Paragraph 20 describes the users can edit the content.)
in response to user input provided to the content region, generate user content in-line with the particular page content displayed within the content region; (Paragraph 19 describes the edits will be displayed for that user and other users.)
in response to user selection of a publish control, save an updated particular page including the user content; (Paragraph 19 describes that the user content is synched between devices, so it is saved in its current form for each device.)
subsequent to the user selection of the publish control, generate an updated prompt using the updated particular page; (Paragraph 20 describes that the prompts may be edited and will be updated for each edit.)
obtain an updated generative response from the external generative output engine in response to transmitting the updated prompt to the external generative output engine; and (Paragraph 40 describes that a response is generated for each prompt.)
cause display of the updated generative response in the summary region of the graphical user interface. (Figure 5 shows the response is displayed for the user.)
With regard to Claim 17, Riscutia describes “the generative response displayed in the summary region of the graphical user interface is user editable within the summary region.” (Figure 5 shows that the user can edit the response with the “insert” link.)
With regard to Claim 18, Riscutia describes “the particular page has a page type corresponding to a meeting summary page type; in accordance with the particular page type being the meeting summary page type a project documentation page type, the predefined query prompt text includes decision prompt text; and the generative response further comprises an entry for one or more decisions based on content of the particular page.” (Paragraph 39 describes that the prompt includes the context, which is cited as including “a page type.” The context included can be “decision prompt text.” Paragraph 40 describes that multiple suggestions are included in the response, which can be “decisions.”)
With regard to Claim 19, Riscutia describes “the graphical user interface further comprises a region display control; and in response to a user selection of the region display control, the summary region is removed from display within the graphical user interface.” (Figure 5 shows a region display control with an “X” in the upper right corner that closes that particular window, removing it from the display.)
With regard to Claim 20, Riscutia describes “the graphical user interface further comprises a navigational region; the navigational region is configured to display a hierarchical navigational tree of elements corresponding to pages in a document space; and each element is selectable to cause display of respective page content of a respective page in the document space.” (Further pages being viewed by users 2 and 3 in the document space are shown in Figure 5. The documents are listed in a particular order, and thus are “hierarchical.”)
Conclusion
6. The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
U.S. Pat. No. 20160314169 (Wenzler) also describes a hierarchical document tree where the hierarchy is defined by the levels of the documents.
7. 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.
8. Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to EDWARD TRACY whose telephone number is (571)272-8332. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 9 AM- 5PM.
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 on 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.
/EDWARD TRACY JR./Examiner, Art Unit 2656
/EDGAR X GUERRA-ERAZO/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2656
Prosecution Insights