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 .
This non final rejection is in response to the RCE filed on: 06/24/2026 and also the supplemental amendment filed on 07/10/2026 (which is being entered).
The following rejections are withdrawn in view of applicant’s amendments:
Claim(s) 1-4, 7-11, 14-17 and 20 rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Elassaad (US Application: US 2017/0228239, published: Aug. 10, 2017, filed: Apr. 25, 2017) in view of Salama (US Application: US 2013/0145241, published: Jun . 6, 2013, filed: Dec. 4, 2012).
Claim(s) 5, 12 and 18 rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Elassaad (US Application: US 2017/0228239, published: Aug. 10, 2017, filed: Apr. 25, 2017) in view of Salama (US Application: US 2013/0145241, published: Jun . 6, 2013, filed: Dec. 4, 2012) in view Severn et al (US Application: US 20170230589, published: Aug. 10, 2017, filed: Sep. 29, 2014).
Claim(s) 6, 13 and 19 rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Elassaad (US Application: US 2017/0228239, published: Aug. 10, 2017, filed: Apr. 25, 2017) in view of Salama (US Application: US 2013/0145241, published: Jun . 6, 2013, filed: Dec. 4, 2012) in view of Korn (US Patent: 9558733, issued: Jan. 31, 2017, filed: Sep. 29, 2014).
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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114.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 07/10/2026 has been entered.
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) 1-4, 7-11, 14-17 and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Elassaad (US Application: US 2017/0228239, published: Aug. 10, 2017, filed: Apr. 25, 2017) in view of Salama (US Application: US 2013/0145241, published: Jun . 6, 2013, filed: Dec. 4, 2012) in view of Joshi et al (US Application: US 11055472, issued: Jul. 6, 2021, filed: Apr. 19, 2019) in view of Batti et al (US Application: US 2015/0227276, published: Aug. 13, 2015, filed: Feb. 9, 2015).
With regards to claim 1. Elassaad A computer-implemented method (paragraph
0041: a computer with memory is implemented), comprising:
analyzing, by one or more processors, a … resource comprising textual content (Fig 14, paragraphs 0011, 0026 and 0139: reference content includes text which is analyzed);
extracting, by one or more processors, a plurality of textual content segments from the … resource (paragraphs 0011, 0026: a portion of textual content is parsed (such as a portion selected 920));
obtaining, by the one or more processors for each textual content segment of the plurality of textual content segments, visual content [or] audio content related to each respective textual content segment (paragraphs 0011, 0024, 0026: augmented content is retrieved/obtained based upon features of the reference content (such as in response to user selection/request) and the augmented content can include visual or audio or text data deemed related to the text of reference content);
generating, by the one or more processors, … for an audio [or] visual display of the web-based resource, wherein generating comprises integrating … at least a portion of [a] textual content segment with the visual content [or] the audio content related to the respective textual content segment (Fig. 14, paragraphs 0011, 0024, 0026, 0139: target content is generated by referencing not only the text content segment(s) of the reference content, the retrieved visual or audio content, but also further combined with additional preference layout augmentation data (such as visibility)); and
providing, by the one or more processors, data descriptive of the generated target content to a computing device for presentation of the audio [or] visual display of the web-based resource (Fig 14: the generated content is visually displayed/displayed in the form of a combined display with the obtained and reference content and optionally based on the additional preference rendering/layout data. It is noted that the claimed ‘computing device’ does not specify whether this ‘computing device’ also includes the claimed ‘processors’, and the examiner will make the interpretation that the ‘providing’ step can generate and provide/access the ‘data’ to a computing device also having the claimed ‘processors’).
However although Elassaad teaches analyze … a resource ; and extract … from the resource, Elassaad does not expressly teach analyze … a web-based resource …; and extract … from the web-based resource… . Additionally, Elassaad does not expressly teach … wherein the web-based resource is configured for a singular display of a plurality of textual content segments; … wherein each of the plurality of textual content segments comprises at least one sentence or phrase from the web-based resource; .. obtaining … visual and audio content, … generating … a plurality of display slides for audio and visual content display … wherein generating the plurality of display slides comprises, for each textual content segment of the plurality of textual content segments, generating a respective display slide of the plurality of display slides by integrating into a single user interface , at least a portion of the respective textual content segment with the visual content and the audio content, wherein each display slide in the plurality of display slides includes less than of the plurality of textual content segments; providing … the plurality of display slides for presentation … wherein the plurality of display slides are configured for presentation into a series of corresponding to a series of the plurality of textual content segments from the web-based resource .
Yet Salama teaches analyze … a web-based resource …, … wherein the web-based resource is configured for a singular display of a plurality of textual content segments;; and extract … from the web-based resource… (Abstract, paragraph 0002, 0029, Fig 9: text content from a displayed web resource can be included for analysis and extraction); obtaining … visual and audio content, … generating … target content for audio and visual content display … wherein generating the target content comprises … segments with the visual content and the audio content (Abstract, paragraph 0029 and 0033: multimedia content (audio and video) is combined/generated with analyzed text and displayed to a computing device).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing of the invention to have modified Elassaad’s ability to process text from a resource and obtain audio or video to generate target content including the text and obtained content (of audio or video), such that the resource could be a web based type resource and the obtained content includes both visual and audio (multimedia content) when generating the target content with the text, as taught by Salama. The combination would have allowed Elassaad to have promoted a better understanding of contents without having to manually search the web (Salama, paragraph 0002).
However Salama does not expressly teach … wherein each of the plurality of textual content segments comprises at least one sentence or phrase from the web-based resource; .. … generating … a plurality of display slides… wherein generating the plurality of display slides comprises, for each textual content segment of the plurality of textual content segments, generating a respective display slide of the plurality of display slides by integrating into a single user interface , at least a portion of the respective textual content segment, wherein each display slide in the plurality of display slides includes less than of the plurality of textual content segments; providing … the plurality of display slides for presentation … wherein the plurality of display slides are configured for presentation into a series of corresponding to a series of the plurality of textual content segments from the web-based resource .
Yet Joshi et al teaches … wherein each of the plurality of textual content segments comprises at least one sentence or phrase from the web-based resource ; .. … generating … a plurality of display slides… wherein generating the plurality of display slides comprises, for each textual content segment of the plurality of textual content segments, generating a respective display slide of the plurality of display slides by integrating into a single user interface , at least a portion of the respective textual content segment, wherein each display slide in the plurality of display slides includes less than of the plurality of textual content segments; providing … the plurality of display slides for presentation … wherein the plurality of display slides are configured for presentation (Fig. 9: a plurality of boxes (interpreted as ‘slides’) are generated that each include textual content from content textual segments from an article. The boxes are displayed/presented within an single application interface ).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing of the invention to have modified Elassaad and Salama’s ability to analyze a resource to generate target content that includes audio and video content, such that the target content could have been presented/partitioned as a plurality of displayed slide content, as taught by Joshi et al. The combination would have allowed a user to efficiently browse and grasp information of an article (Joshi et al, column 1, lines 44-57).
However the combination does not expressly teach … wherein the web-based resource is configured for a singular display of a plurality of textual content segments; … for presentation into a series of corresponding to a series of the plurality of textual content segments from the web-based resource.
Yet Batti et al teaches … for presentation into a series of corresponding to a series of the plurality of textual content segments from the web-based resource (paragraph 0004, 0022, 0026: element portions of a web resource can be presented as .
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing of the invention to have modified Elassaad, Salama and Joshi et al’s ability to generate slides/pages as target content from a web resource, such that the slides could have been presented as a sequenced slide presentation, as taught by Batti et al. The combination would have allowed users to have been presented with information about a web page in an interactive and easy to understand format.
With regards to claim 2. (Original) The computer-implemented method of claim 1, Elassaad, Salama, Joshi et al and Batti et al teaches further comprising: obtaining, by the one or more processors, the web-based resource based at least in part on information associated with a request, as explained in the rejection of claim 1 (Elassaad was explained in to teach that the web based resource text is obtained/referenced based upon user selection information to search and further obtain audio/video content to augment with the selected resource text in a provided visual display (visual descriptive augmentation). Additionally as explained in the rejection of claim 1, Elassaad’s resource was modified to be web-based resource via the teachings of Salama), and is rejected under similar rationale.
With regards to claim 3. (Original) The computer-implemented method of claim 2, Elassaad, Salama, Joshi et al and Batti et al teaches wherein the request is a search query received from a computing device , as explained in the rejection of claim 1 (Elassaad was explained in to teach that the web based resource text is obtained/referenced based upon user selection information to search and further obtain audio/video content to augment with the selected resource text in a provided visual display (visual descriptive augmentation). Additionally as explained in the rejection of claim 1, Elassaad’s resource was modified to be web-based resource via the teachings of Salama), and is rejected under similar rationale.
With regards to claim 4. (Original) The computer-implemented method of claim 3, Elassaad and Salama teaches wherein the data descriptive of the generated target content is provided in response to the search query , as explained in the rejection of claim 1 (Elassaad was explained in to teach that the web based resource text is obtained/referenced based upon user selection information to search and further obtain audio/video content to augment with the selected resource text in a provided visual display (visual descriptive augmentation). Additionally as explained in the rejection of claim 1, Elassaad’s resource was modified to be web-based resource via the teachings of Salama, and Elassaad and Salama’s presentation of target content was modified such that the target content could have been presented/partitioned as a plurality of displayed slide content), and is rejected under similar rationale.
With regards to claim 7. (Original) The computer-implemented method of claim 1, the combination of Elassaad, Salama, Joshi et al and Batti et al teaches further comprising: analyzing, by the one or more processors, each of the textual content segments from the web-based resource; and determining, by the one or more processors for each textual content segment of the plurality of textual content segments, a weighting for one or more items identified respectively in each textual content segment (as similarly explained in the rejection of claim 1, Elassaad and Salama was explained to analyze textual content segments from a web resource and further allows a user to emphasize/select a portion of the textual content segments to indicate focus (weight) for obtaining the augmented audio/video content. Additionally, Elassaad in paragraph 0078 further explains the augmented content is generated based upon content inputted/selected by the user (interpreted as weighted/focused upon user selection)), and is rejected under similar rationale.
With regards to claim 8, Elassaad, Salama, Joshi et al and Batti et al teaches A computing system, comprising: a non-transitory computer-readable medium; and one or more processors communicatively coupled to the non-transitory computer- readable medium, wherein the one or more processors execute instructions from the non- transitory computer-readable medium that cause the computing system to: analyze a web-based resource comprising textual content, wherein the web-based resource is configured for a singular display of all of a plurality of textual content segments; extract a plurality of textual content segments from the web-based resource, wherein each of the plurality of textual content segments comprises at least one sentence or phrase from the web-based resource; obtain for each textual content segment of the plurality of textual content segments, visual content and audio content related to each respective textual content segment; generate a plurality of display slides for an audio-visual display of the web-based resource, wherein generating the plurality of display slides comprises, for each textual content segment of the plurality of textual content segments, generating a respective display slide of the plurality of display slides by integrating into a single user interface, at least a portion of the respective textual content segment with the visual content and the audio content related to the respective textual content segment, wherein each display slide in the plurality of display slides includes less than all of the plurality of textual content segments; and provide data descriptive of the plurality of display slides to a computing device for presentation of the audio-visual display of the web-based resource, wherein the plurality of display slides are configured for presentation in a series corresponding to a series of the plurality of textual content segments from the web-based resource, as similarly explained in the rejection of claim 1, and is rejected under similar rationale.
With regards to claim 9. Original) The computing system of claim 8, Elassaad, Salama, Joshi et al and Batti et al teaches wherein the computing system further is to: obtain, by the one or more processors, the web-based resource based at least in part on information associated with a request, as similarly explained in the rejection of claim 2, and is rejected under similar rationale.
With regards to claim 10. (Original) The computing system of claim 9, Elassaad, Salama, Joshi et al and Batti et al teaches wherein the request is a search query received from a computing device, as similarly explained in the rejection of claim 3, and is rejected under similar rationale.
With regards to claim 11. (Original) The computing system of claim 10, Elassaad, Salama, Joshi et al and Batti et al teaches wherein the data descriptive of the generated plurality of display slides is provided in response to the search query, as similarly explained in the rejection of claim 4, and is rejected under similar rationale.
With regards to claim 14. (Original) The computing system of claim 8, Elassaad, Salama, Joshi et al and Batti et al teaches wherein the computing system further is to: analyze each of the textual content segments from the web-based resource; and determine for each textual content segment of the plurality of textual content segments, a weighting for one or more items identified respectively in each textual content segment, as similarly explained in the rejection of claim 7, and is rejected under similar rationale.
With regards to claim 15, Elassaad, Salama, Joshi et al and Batti et al teaches A non-transitory computer-readable medium having instructions that, when executed by one or more processors associated with a computing device, cause the computing device to: analyze a web-based resource comprising textual content, wherein the web-based resource is configured for a singular display of all of a plurality of textual content segments; extract a plurality of textual content segments from the web-based resource, wherein each of the plurality of textual content segments comprises at least one sentence or phrase from the web-based resource; obtain for each textual content segment of the plurality of textual content segments, visual content and audio content related to each respective textual content segment; generate a plurality of display slides for an audio-visual display of the web-based resource, wherein generating the plurality of display slides comprises, for each textual content segment of the plurality of textual content segments, generating a respective display slide of the plurality of display slides by integrating into a single user interface, at least a portion of the respective textual content segment with the visual content and the audio content related to the respective textual content segment, wherein each display slide in the plurality of display slides includes less than all of the plurality of textual content segments; and provide data descriptive of the plurality of display slides to a computing device for presentation of the audio-visual display of the web-based resource, wherein the plurality of display slides are configured for presentation in a series corresponding to a series of the plurality of textual content segments from the web-based resource, as similarly explained in the rejection of claim 1, and is rejected under similar rationale.
With regards to claim 16. (Original) The non-transitory computer-readable medium of claim 15, Elassaad, Salama, Joshi et al and Batti et al teaches wherein the computing device further is to: obtain the web-based resource based at least in part on information associated with a request, as similarly explained in the rejection of claim 2, and is rejected under similar rationale.
With regards to claim 17. (Original) The non-transitory computer-readable medium of claim 16, Elassaad, Salama, Joshi et al and Batti et al teaches wherein the request is a search query received from a computing device (as similarly explained in the rejection of claim 3, and rejected under similar rationale) and the data descriptive of the generated target content is provided in response to the search query (as similarly explained in the rejection of claim 4, and is rejected under similar rationale).
With regards to claim 20. (Original) The non-transitory computer-readable medium of claim 15, Elassaad, Salama, Joshi et al and Batti et al teaches wherein the computing device further is to: analyze each of the textual content segments from the web-based resource; and determine for each textual content segment of the plurality of textual content segments, a weighting for one or more items identified respectively in each textual content segment, as similarly explained in the rejection of claim 7, and is rejected under similar rationale.
Claim(s) 5, 12 and 18 remain rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Elassaad (US Application: US 2017/0228239, published: Aug. 10, 2017, filed: Apr. 25, 2017) in view of Salama (US Application: US 2013/0145241, published: Jun . 6, 2013, filed: Dec. 4, 2012) in view of Joshi et al (US Application: US 11055472, issued: Jul. 6, 2021, filed: Apr. 19, 2019) in view of Batti et al (US Application: US 2015/0227276, published: Aug. 13, 2015, filed: Feb. 9, 2015) in view Severn et al (US Application: US 20170230589, published: Aug. 10, 2017, filed: Sep. 29, 2014).
With regards to claim 5. (Original) The computer-implemented method of claim 1, the combination of Elassaad, Salama, Joshi et al and Batti et al teaches further comprising: determining, by the one or more processors,… generating the plurality of display slides for the audio-visual display of the web based resource. … , as similarly explained in the rejection of claim 1, and is rejected under similar rationale.
However the combination does not expressly determining … a template for generating the plurality of display slides for the audio-visual display of the web-based resource, and wherein the generating of the plurality of display slides for the audio-visual display of the web-based resource is based at least in part on the determined template.
Yet Severn et al teaches determining … a template for generating the target content for the audio-visual display of the web-based resource, and wherein the generating of the target content for the audio-visual display of the web-based resource is based at least in part on the determined template (paragraph 0029: a template can be used as part of the generation to augment content as an overlay for content that can include audio, visual, graphics, animation).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing of the invention to have modified Elassaad, Salama, Joshi et al and Batti et al’s ability to generate target content as a plurality of display slides for the web based resource such that the content could have been generated using a template, as taught by Severn et al. The combination would have allowed an enhanced and targeted augmented experience.
With regards to claim 12. (Original) The computing system of claim 8, the combination of Elassaad, Salama, Joshi et al, Batti et al and Severn et al teaches wherein the computing system further is to: determine a plurality of display slides for generating the target content for the audio-visual display of the web-based resource, and wherein the plurality of display slides for the audio-visual display of the web-based resource is generated based at least in part on the determined template, as similarly explained in the rejection of claim 5, and is rejected under similar rationale.
With regards to claim 18. (Original) The non-transitory computer-readable medium of claim 15, the combination of Elassaad, Salama, Joshi et al, Batti et al and Severn et al teaches wherein the computing device further is to: determine a template for generating the target content for the audio-visual display of the web-based resource, and wherein the target content for the audio-visual display of the web-based resource is generated based at least in part on the determined template, as similarly explained in the rejection of claim 5, and is rejected under similar rationale.
Claim(s) 6, 13 and 19 remain rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Elassaad (US Application: US 2017/0228239, published: Aug. 10, 2017, filed: Apr. 25, 2017) in view of Salama (US Application: US 2013/0145241, published: Jun . 6, 2013, filed: Dec. 4, 2012) in view of Joshi et al (US Application: US 11055472, issued: Jul. 6, 2021, filed: Apr. 19, 2019) in view of Batti et al (US Application: US 2015/0227276, published: Aug. 13, 2015, filed: Feb. 9, 2015) in view of Korn (US Patent: 9558733, issued: Jan. 31, 2017, filed: Sep. 29, 2014).
With regards to claim 6. (Original) The computer-implemented method of claim 1, the combination of Elassaad, Salama, Joshi et al and Batti et al teaches further comprising: generating, by the one or more processors, the audio content, based on … the textual content segments …, as similarly explained in the rejection of claim 1 (Elassaad was explained to teach that the audio content is augmented to correspond to the textual reference content), and is rejected under similar rationale.
However the combination does not expressly teach … audio content .. based on converting one or more of the textual content segments to speech.
Yet Korn teaches … audio content .. based on converting one or more of the textual content segments to speech (column 27, lines 1-17: audio content is generated and inserted to accompany the textual segments, such that the textual content segments can be converted to be augmented with additional speech data).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing of the invention to have modified Elassaad, Salama, Joshi et al and Batti et al’s ability to generate the audio content, such that the audio content in the form of speech can be generated based upon conversion of text content data into a supplemental invocable footnote to access the speech, as taught by Korn. The combination would have allowed Elassaad, Salama, Joshi et al and Batti et al to have enhanced a reader’s experience when consuming electronic media (Korn, column 1, lines 60-65)
With regards to claim 13. (Original) The computing system of claim 8, Elassaad, Salama, Joshi et al, Batti et al and Korn teaches wherein the computing system further is to: generate the audio content based on converting one or more of the textual content segments to speech, as similarly explained in the rejection of claim 6, and is rejected under similar rationale.
With regards to claim 19. (Original) The non-transitory computer-readable medium of claim 15, Elassaad, Salama, Joshi et al, Batti et al and Korn teaches wherein the computing device further is to: generate the audio content based on converting one or more of the textual content segments to speech, as similarly explained in the rejection of claim 6, and is rejected under similar rationale.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 7/10/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
With regards to claim 1, the applicant argues “Elassaad’s system is designed to augment an existing view, not replace it with a new one”. However the examiner notes that the current claim language requiring slides do not require actual replacement of an existing view, thus the applicant is arguing limitations not present in the claim language (the examiner notes integration into a single user interface does not necessitated replacement, and rather includes a scope of a plurality of items of content that can be displayed on a same user interface display area). The applicant further argues Elassaad does not teach other newly amended limitations (such as: a “plurality of display slides”, and ‘each display slide … includes less than all of the plurality of content segments’) for which the examiner respectfully points out these amendments have necessitated a new grounds of rejection and the examiner respectfully directs applicant’s attention to the rejection of claim 1 (which applies a new combination of Elassaad, Salama, Joshi et al and Batti et al), for an explanation for how the limitations are rejected under a new combination of references.
The applicant further argues Salama either individually or in combination with Elassaad does not teach the newly amended claim limitations. However the examiner respectfully points out these amendments have necessitated a new grounds of rejection and the examiner respectfully directs applicant’s attention to the rejection of claim 1 (which applies a new combination of Elassaad, Salama, Joshi et al and Batti et al), for an explanation for how the limitations are rejected under a new combination of references.
The applicant argues independent claims 8 and 15 are allowable for reasons presented by the applicant for claim 1. However this argument is not persuasive since claim 1 has been shown/explained in the rejection and response to arguments. Above.
The applicant argues the dependent claims are allowable due to their dependency upon their corresponding independent claim(s). However this argument is not persuasive since the independent claims have been shown/explained to be rejected above.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to WILSON W TSUI whose telephone number is (571)272-7596. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 9 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, Adam Queler can be reached at (571) 272-4140. 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.
/WILSON W TSUI/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2172
Prosecution Insights