DETAILED ACTION
Claims 1-20 are presented for examination.
This office action is in response to submission of application on 15-JUNE-2023.
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 .
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 14-MAY-2024 is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement is being considered by the examiner.
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 20-AUGUST-2025 is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement is being considered by the examiner.
Double Patenting
The nonstatutory double patenting rejection is based on a judicially created doctrine grounded in public policy (a policy reflected in the statute) so as to prevent the unjustified or improper timewise extension of the “right to exclude” granted by a patent and to prevent possible harassment by multiple assignees. A nonstatutory double patenting rejection is appropriate where the conflicting claims are not identical, but at least one examined application claim is not patentably distinct from the reference claim(s) because the examined application claim is either anticipated by, or would have been obvious over, the reference claim(s). See, e.g., In re Berg, 140 F.3d 1428, 46 USPQ2d 1226 (Fed. Cir. 1998); In re Goodman, 11 F.3d 1046, 29 USPQ2d 2010 (Fed. Cir. 1993); In re Longi, 759 F.2d 887, 225 USPQ 645 (Fed. Cir. 1985); In re Van Ornum, 686 F.2d 937, 214 USPQ 761 (CCPA 1982); In re Vogel, 422 F.2d 438, 164 USPQ 619 (CCPA 1970); In re Thorington, 418 F.2d 528, 163 USPQ 644 (CCPA 1969).
A timely filed terminal disclaimer in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(c) or 1.321(d) may be used to overcome an actual or provisional rejection based on nonstatutory double patenting provided the reference application or patent either is shown to be commonly owned with the examined application, or claims an invention made as a result of activities undertaken within the scope of a joint research agreement. See MPEP § 717.02 for applications subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA as explained in MPEP § 2159. See MPEP § 2146 et seq. for applications not subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA . A terminal disclaimer must be signed in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(b).
The filing of a terminal disclaimer by itself is not a complete reply to a nonstatutory double patenting (NSDP) rejection. A complete reply requires that the terminal disclaimer be accompanied by a reply requesting reconsideration of the prior Office action. Even where the NSDP rejection is provisional the reply must be complete. See MPEP § 804, subsection I.B.1. For a reply to a non-final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.111(a). For a reply to final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.113(c). A request for reconsideration while not provided for in 37 CFR 1.113(c) may be filed after final for consideration. See MPEP §§ 706.07(e) and 714.13.
The USPTO Internet website contains terminal disclaimer forms which may be used. Please visit www.uspto.gov/patent/patents-forms. The actual filing date of the application in which the form is filed determines what form (e.g., PTO/SB/25, PTO/SB/26, PTO/AIA /25, or PTO/AIA /26) should be used. A web-based eTerminal Disclaimer may be filled out completely online using web-screens. An eTerminal Disclaimer that meets all requirements is auto-processed and approved immediately upon submission. For more information about eTerminal Disclaimers, refer to www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/applying-online/eterminal-disclaimer.
Claims 1-14 provisionally rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-14 of copending Application No. PCTUS2410966 (reference application). Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because the claim language is identical in each claim save for the reference application’s multiple dependencies in claims 3, 5, 7, 10, 12, and 14. However, in each of these cases, the present application only picks one of the multiple possible parent claims in reference application, meaning that the reference application still teaches the same claims as the present application. For example, in claim 3 the reference application may depend upon claim 1 or claim 2, meaning that it contains the scenario of the present application, wherein claim 3 depends upon claim 1. Claims 5, 7, 10, 12, and 14 all likewise reflect this relationship.
Below is a table reflecting the comparisons of the present application to the reference application. Bolded are the addressed multiple dependencies above:
Present application
Reference application
[Claim 1] A computing system comprising: a processor; and memory storing instructions that, when executed by the processor, cause the processor to perform acts comprising:
[Claim 1] A computing system comprising: a processor; and memory storing instructions that, when executed by the processor, cause the processor to perform acts comprising:
[Claim 1] generating a prompt that is to be input to a generative model, where the prompt includes content of a webpage being presented to the user by way of a web browser;
[Claim 1] generating a prompt that is to be input to a generative model, where the prompt includes content of a webpage being presented to the user by way of a web browser;
[Claim 1] providing the prompt as input to the generative model;
[Claim 1] providing the prompt as input to the generative model;
[Claim 1] receiving output from the generative model, where the generative model generated the output based upon the prompt;
[Claim 1] receiving output from the generative model, where the generative model generated the output based upon the prompt;
[Claim 1] and causing the output to be presented to the user by way of a client computing device concurrently with the webpage being presented to the user
[Claim 1] and causing the output to be presented to the user by way of a client computing device concurrently with the webpage being presented to the user.
[Claim 2] The computing system of claim 1, where the output is displayed in a side panel of the web browser concurrently with the web browser displaying the content of the webpage.
[Claim 2] The computing system of claim 1, where the output is displayed in a side panel of the web browser concurrently with the web browser displaying the content of the webpage.
[Claim 3] The computing system of claim 1, where the output is a summary of the content of the webpage.
[Claim 3] The computing system of at least one of claims 1-2, where the output is a summary of the content of the webpage.
[Claim 4] The computing system of claim 3, where the summary of the webpage is automatically generated by the generative model in response to the web browser loading the webpage.
[Claim 4] The computing system of claim 3, where the summary of the webpage is automatically generated by the generative model in response to the web browser loading the webpage.
[Claim 5] The computing system of claim 1, the acts further comprising: prior to generating the prompt, receiving input from the user, where the input from the user is set forth by way of an input field in a sidebar displayed in the web browser, wherein generating the prompt comprises including the input from the user in the prompt.
[Claim 5] The computing system of at least one of claims 1-4, the acts further comprising: prior to generating the prompt, receiving input from the user, where the input from the user is set forth by way of an input field in a sidebar displayed in the web browser, wherein generating the prompt comprises including the input from the user in the prompt.
[Claim 6] The computing system of claim 5, the acts further comprising: providing the input from the user to the generative model, where the generative model generates a query based upon the input from the user; and providing the query generated by the generative model to a search engine, where the search engine identifies a search result based upon the query, where the prompt includes at least a portion of the search result identified by the search engine.
[Claim 6] The computing system of claim 5, the acts further comprising: providing the input from the user to the generative model, where the generative model generates a query based upon the input from the user; and providing the query generated by the generative model to a search engine, where the search engine identifies a search result based upon the query, where the prompt includes at least a portion of the search result identified by the search engine.
[Claim 7] The computing system of claim 1, the acts further comprising: prior to generating the prompt: identifying that the webpage is not represented in a search engine index; and upon identifying that the webpage is not represented in the search engine index, causing a request for consent to be presented concurrently on the webpage with the content, where the request for consent is configured to receive user consent to provide the content on the webpage to the generative model, where the prompt is generated subsequent to receiving the user consent
[Claim 7] The computing system of at least one of claims 1-6, the acts further comprising: prior to generating the prompt: identifying that the webpage is not represented in a search engine index; and upon identifying that the webpage is not represented in the search engine index, causing a request for consent to be presented concurrently on the webpage with the content, where the request for consent is configured to receive user consent to provide the content on the webpage to the generative model, where the prompt is generated subsequent to receiving the user consent.
[Claim 8] A method performed by a computing system, the method comprising: generating a prompt that is to be input to a generative model, where the prompt includes content of a webpage being presented to the user by way of a web browser;
[Claim 8] A method performed by a computing system, the method comprising: generating a prompt that is to be input to a generative model, where the prompt includes content of a webpage being presented to the user by way of a web browser;
[Claim 8] providing the prompt as input to the generative model;
[Claim 8] providing the prompt as input to the generative model;
[Claim 8] receiving output from the generative model, where the generative model generated the output based upon the prompt;
[Claim 8] receiving output from the generative model, where the generative model generated the output based upon the prompt;
[Claim 8] and causing the output to be presented to the user by way of a client computing device concurrently with the webpage being presented to the user.
[Claim 8] and causing the output to be presented to the user by way of a client computing device concurrently with the webpage being presented to the user.
[Claim 9] The method of claim 8, where the output is displayed in a side panel of the web browser concurrently with the web browser displaying the content of the webpage.
[Claim 9] The method of claim 8, where the output is displayed in a side panel of the web browser concurrently with the web browser displaying the content of the webpage.
[Claim 10] The method of claim 8, where the output is a summary of the content of the webpage.
[Claim 10] The method of at least one of claims 8-9, where the output is a summary of the content of the webpage.
[Claim 11] The method of claim 10, where the summary of the webpage is automatically generated by the generative model in response to the web browser loading the webpage.
[Claim 11] The method of claim 10, where the summary of the webpage is automatically generated by the generative model in response to the web browser loading the webpage.
[Claim 12] The method of claim 8, further comprising: prior to generating the prompt, receiving input from the user, where the input from the user is set forth by way of an input field in a sidebar displayed in the web browser, wherein generating the prompt comprises including the input from the user in the prompt.
[Claim 12] The method of at least one of claims 8-11, further comprising: prior to generating the prompt, receiving input from the user, where the input from the user is set forth by way of an input field in a sidebar displayed in the web browser, wherein generating the prompt comprises including the input from the user in the prompt.
[Claim 13] The method of claim 12, further comprising: providing the input from the user to the generative model, where the generative model generates a query based upon the input from the user; and providing the query generated by the generative model to a search engine, where the search engine identifies a search result based upon the query, where the prompt includes at least a portion of the search result identified by the search engine.
[Claim 13] The method of claim 12, further comprising: providing the input from the user to the generative model, where the generative model generates a query based upon the input from the user; and providing the query generated by the generative model to a search engine, where the search engine identifies a search result based upon the query, where the prompt includes at least a portion of the search result identified by the search engine.
[Claim 14] The method of claim 8, further comprising: prior to generating the prompt: identifying that the webpage is not represented in a search engine index; and upon identifying that the webpage is not represented in the search engine index, causing a request for consent to be presented concurrently on the webpage with the content, where the request for consent is configured to receive user consent to provide the content on the webpage to the generative model, where the prompt is generated subsequent to receiving the user consent.
[Claim 14] The method of at least one of claims 8-13, further comprising: prior to generating the prompt: identifying that the webpage is not represented in a search engine index; and upon identifying that the webpage is not represented in the search engine index, causing a request for consent to be presented concurrently on the webpage with the content, where the request for consent is configured to receive user consent to provide the content on the webpage to the generative model, where the prompt is generated subsequent to receiving the user consent.
This is a provisional nonstatutory double patenting rejection because the patentably indistinct claims have not in fact been patented.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101
35 U.S.C. 101 reads as follows:
Whoever invents or discovers any new and useful process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter, or any new and useful improvement thereof, may obtain a patent therefor, subject to the conditions and requirements of this title.
Claims 15-20 rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to non-statutory subject matter. The claims do not fall within at least one of the four categories of patent eligible subject matter because they recite a computer storage medium, which may be considered signals per se in the absence of further specification. MPEP 2106.03 (II): For example, the BRI of machine-readable media can encompass non-statutory transitory forms of signal transmission, such as a propagating electrical or electromagnetic signal per se. See In re Nuijten, 500 F.3d 1346, 84 USPQ2d 1495 (Fed. Cir. 2007). When the BRI encompasses transitory forms of signal transmission, a rejection under 35 U.S.C. 101 as failing to claim statutory subject matter would be appropriate. There is no indication in the specification that the computer storage medium could not encompass the above meaning.
Claims 1-20 rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is direction to an abstract idea without significantly more.
MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(Ill) “Accordingly, the "mental processes" abstract idea grouping is defined as concepts performed in the human mind, and examples of mental processes include observations, evaluations, Judgments, and opinions.
Further, the MPEP recites “The courts do not distinguish between mental processes that are performed entirely in the human mind and mental processes that require a human to use a physical aid (e.g., pen and paper or a slide run) to perform the claim limitation.
MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(I) “The mathematical concepts grouping is defined as mathematical
relationships, mathematical formulas or equations, and mathematical calculations.”
Regarding claim 1:
Step 2A, Prong 1 will now be evaluated for this claim:
A judicial exception is recited in this claim as it recites a mental process:
generating a prompt that is to be input to a generative model, where the prompt includes content of a webpage being presented to the user by way of a web browser
Generating a prompt may be writing the prompt as a human would, which would be accomplishable in the human mind.
A judicial exception is recited in this claim as it recites a mathematical concept:
Step 2A, Prong 2 will now be evaluated for this claim:
Furthermore, the additional elements:
computing system comprising: a processor; and memory storing instructions that, when executed by the processor, cause the processor to perform acts comprising
receiving output from the generative model, where the generative model generated the output based upon the prompt;
Processing an input to receive an output is a functional of a general machine learning model.
are interpreted as a general-purpose computer under MPEP 2106.05(f)
Furthermore, MPEP 2106.05(g) Insignificant Extra-Solution Activity has found mere data gathering and post-solution activity to be insignificant extra-solution activity.
The following steps are mere data gathering:
providing the prompt as input to the generative model
This is data gathering for the generative model.
The following steps are merely post solution activity:
causing the output to be presented to the user by way of a client computing device concurrently with the webpage being presented to the user
This a form of displaying results, as printing the results would be, and is therefore considered post-solution activity.
The additional elements have been considered both individually and as an ordered combination in order to determine whether they integrate the exception into a practical application. Therefore, no meaningful limits are imposed practicing the abstract idea.
Therefore, the claim is related to an abstract idea.
Step 2B will now be discussed with regards to this claim:
The claim does not provide an inventive concept. There is no additional Insignificant Extra- Solution Activity, as identified in Step 2A Prong Two, that provides an inventive concept.
Adding insignificant extra-solution activity to the judicial exception, e.g., mere data gathering in conjunction with a law of nature or abstract idea such as a step of obtaining information about credit card transactions so that the information can be analyzed by an abstract mental process, as discussed in CyberSource v. Retail Decisions, Inc., 654 F.3d 1366, 1375, 99 USPQ2d 1690, 1694 (Fed. Cir. 2011) (see MPEP § 2106.05(g)) does not overcome a rejection.
Generally linking the use of the judicial exception to computer environments, e.g., a claim describing how the abstract idea of creating a contractual relationship that guarantees performance of a transaction be performed using a computer that receives and sends information over a network, as discussed in buySAFE Inc. v. Google, Inc., 765 F.3d 1350, 1354, 112 USPQ2d 1093, 1095-96 (Fed. Cir. 2014). (MPEP § 2106.05(h)) does not overcome a rejection.
The additional elements have been considered both individually and as an ordered combination as to whether they whether they warrant significantly more consideration.
The claim is ineligible.
Regarding claim 2, which depends upon claim 1:
This claim further limits the display of the output of claim 1. Further specifying the display of the output does not overcome the parent claim’s rejection as displaying it as a sidebar would still be a form of post-solution activity, since it is insignificant application of the results.
This claim is rejected for incorporating the parent claim in full.
This claim is ineligible.
Regarding claim 3, which depends upon claim 1:
This claim further limits the output of claim 1. Further specifying the output does not overcome the parent claim’s rejection.
This claim is rejected for incorporating the parent claim in full.
This claim is ineligible.
Regarding claim 4, which depends upon claim 3:
The following would be considered a generic computer function:
The computing system of claim 3, where the summary of the webpage is automatically generated by the generative model in response to the web browser loading the webpage.
Performing an automated action in response to a particular criterion is a generic function of a computer.
This claim is rejected for incorporating the parent claim in full.
This claim is ineligible.
Regarding claim 5, which depends upon claim 1:
The following would be considered data gathering:
prior to generating the prompt, receiving input from the user, where the input from the user is set forth by way of an input field in a sidebar displayed in the web browser, wherein generating the prompt comprises including the input from the user in the prompt
This merely describes the mechanism of gathering data from the user.
This claim is rejected for incorporating the parent claim in full.
This claim is ineligible.
Regarding claim 6, which depends upon claim 5:
The following would be considered a generic computer function:
providing the input from the user to the generative model, where the generative model generates a query based upon the input from the user; and providing the query generated by the generative model to a search engine, where the search engine identifies a search result based upon the query, where the prompt includes at least a portion of the search result identified by the search engine
Processing an input to receive an output is a functional of a general machine learning model, as is searching through a search engine.
This claim is rejected for incorporating the parent claim in full.
This claim is ineligible.
Regarding claim 7, which depends upon claim 1:
The following would be considered a mental process:
identifying that the webpage is not represented in a search engine index
This would be an observation accomplishable in the human mind with access to the search engine index.
The following would data gathering:
upon identifying that the webpage is not represented in the search engine index, causing a request for consent to be presented concurrently on the webpage with the content, where the request for consent is configured to receive user consent to provide the content on the webpage to the generative model, where the prompt is generated subsequent to receiving the user consent
This describe a method for obtaining data representing user consent.
This claim is rejected for incorporating the parent claim in full.
This claim is ineligible.
Claims 8-14 recite a method that parallels the system of claims 1-7 respectively. Therefore, the analysis discussed above with respect to claims 1-7 also applies to claims 8-14 respectively. Accordingly, claims 8-14 are rejected based on substantially the same rationale as set forth above with respect to claims 1-7 respectively.
Claims 15-20 recite a method that parallels the system of claims 1-6 respectively. Therefore, the analysis discussed above with respect to claims 1-6 also applies to claims 15-20 respectively. Accordingly, claims 15-20 are rejected based on substantially the same rationale as set forth above with respect to claims 1-6 respectively.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 1-3, 8-11, and 15-17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Pauli-Haack (“Chatting with a Bot and Browser Extension for ChatGPT”, published December 16th 2022, hereinafter Pauli-Haack).
Regarding claim 1:
Claim 1 recites:
A computing system comprising: a processor; and memory storing instructions that, when executed by the processor, cause the processor to perform acts comprising: generating a prompt that is to be input to a generative model, where the prompt includes content of a webpage being presented to the user by way of a web browser; providing the prompt as input to the generative model; receiving output from the generative model, where the generative model generated the output based upon the prompt; and causing the output to be presented to the user by way of a client computing device concurrently with the webpage being presented to the user.
Pauli-Haack anticipates a computing system comprising: a processor; and memory storing instructions that, when executed by the processor, cause the processor to perform acts comprising: generating a prompt that is to be input to a generative model, where the prompt includes content of a webpage being presented to the user by way of a web browser; providing the prompt as input to the generative model; receiving output from the generative model, where the generative model generated the output based upon the prompt:
Pauli-Haack states: “Another browser extension is Summarizer, pointed at a website and returns a summary from ChatGPT.”
Pauli-Haack teaches a browser extension that takes a website, or the contents of a webpage, and returns an output from ChatGPT, wherein the output being returned indicates the generating and providing a prompt as input to a generative model. Furthermore, this being in the context of a browser extension demonstrates that the webpage is being provided to the user by way of a web browser. The returning of an output would be receiving the output from the generative model wherein the summary is the generated output based on the prompt.
Pauli-Haack anticipates causing the output to be presented to the user by way of a client computing device concurrently with the webpage being presented to the user
Paul-Haack includes the following image:
PNG
media_image1.png
530
975
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Pauli-Haack teaches that while using the above-described browser extension, a popup window may be presented to user by way of the client computing device i.e. the user’s computer, concurrently with the webpage being presented to the user, wherein the window contains output from the model.
Regarding claim 2, which depends upon claim 1:
Claim 2 recites:
The computing system of claim 1, where the output is displayed in a side panel of the web browser concurrently with the web browser displaying the content of the webpage.
Pauli-Haack anticipates claim 1 upon which claim 2 depends. Furthermore, Pauli-Haack discloses the limitations of claim 2:
Pauli-Haack includes the following image:
PNG
media_image2.png
498
1024
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Pauli-Haack teaches a generative model output that is displayed in a side panel of a web browser, as seen above, wherein the side bar is displayed concurrently. This output would be resulting from the webpage as the search engine results is a type of webpage.
Regarding claim 3, which depends upon claim 1:
Claim 3 recites:
The computing system of claim 1, where the output is a summary of the content of the webpage.
Pauli-Haack anticipates claim 1 upon which claim 3 depends. Furthermore, Pauli-Haack discloses the limitations of claim 3:
Pauli-Haack states: “Another browser extension is Summarizer, pointed at a website and returns a summary from ChatGPT.”
Pauli-Haack teaches that the returned output from ChatGPT, a generative model, is a summary of a website i.e. a webpage.
Claims 8-10 recite a method that parallels the system of claims 1-3 respectively. Therefore, the analysis discussed above with respect to claims 1-3 also applies to claims 8-10 respectively. Accordingly, claims 8-10 are rejected based on substantially the same rationale as set forth above with respect to claims 1-3 respectively.
Claims 15-17 recite a method that parallels the system of claims 1-3 respectively. Therefore, the analysis discussed above with respect to claims 1-3 also applies to claims 15-17 respectively. Accordingly, claims 15-17 are rejected based on substantially the same rationale as set forth above with respect to claims 1-3 respectively.
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.
Claims 4-6, 12-14, and 18-20 rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Pauli-Haack in view of Cambre et al. (“Firefox Voice: An Open and Extensible Voice Assistant Built Upon the Web”, published 2021).
Regarding claim 4, which depends upon claim 3:
Claim 4 recites:
The computing system of claim 3, where the summary of the webpage is automatically generated by the generative model in response to the web browser loading the webpage.
Pauli-Haack anticipates the system of claim 3 upon which claim 4 depends. Furthermore, Cambre in the same field of endeavor of search engine querying discloses the limitations of claim 4:
Cambre recites “If the search result contains a card (such as a Wikipedia snippet, calculator result, or weather card), Firefox Voice extracts a screenshot of that card, and renders it within the popover user interface.” (Page 11).
Cambre teaches that upon reaching a search results page that contains a card (i.e., a summary of the search results page) the card may be automatically generated in a popup for the user (Page 11). Reaching the search results page would be an example of a web browser loading a web page.
Pauli-Haack has previously taught generation by a generative model, which may be integrated with Cambre for reasons of the advantage described below.
Cambre and the present application are analogous art because they are in the same field of endeavor of search engine querying.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the present application to implement a system that utilized the teachings of Pauli-Haack and Cambre. This would have provided the improvement of additional convenience and multitasking for an end user while searching (Cambre, page 4, section 2.1).
Regarding claim 5, which depends upon claim 1:
Claim 5 recites:
The computing system of claim 1, the acts further comprising: prior to generating the prompt, receiving input from the user, where the input from the user is set forth by way of an input field in a sidebar displayed in the web browser, wherein generating the prompt comprises including the input from the user in the prompt.
Pauli-Haack anticipates the system of claim 1 upon which claim 5 depends. Furthermore, regarding the limitation of claim 5:
Cambre recites: “Firefox Voice also allows users to type their commands rather than speaking them. If the user begins typing after Firefox Voice has been invoked, the microphone will close, and the popup window instead displays a text box with the user’s typed input” (Page 10).
Cambre teaches typing commands i.e. for a search query, which would be a method of receiving input from a user, wherein the input is set forth by way of an input field i.e. a text box. The commands as seen previously in Cambre may include searching in a search engine, where the typed command therefore becomes the prompt that includes user input.
Furthermore, Pauli-Haack has previously taught a sidebar that may be incorporated with the teachings of Cambre to produce a sidebar displaying in the web browser with an input field.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the present application to implement a system that utilized the teachings of Pauli-Haack and Cambre. This would have provided the improvement of additional convenience and multitasking for an end user while searching (Cambre, page 4, section 2.1).
Regarding claim 6, which depends upon claim 5:
Claim 6 recites:
The computing system of claim 5, the acts further comprising: providing the input from the user to the generative model, where the generative model generates a query based upon the input from the user; and providing the query generated by the generative model to a search engine, where the search engine identifies a search result based upon the query, where the prompt includes at least a portion of the search result identified by the search engine.
Pauli-Haack in view of Cambre discloses the system of claim 5 upon which claim 6 depends. Furthermore, Cambre discloses the limitations of claim 6:
Cambre teaches taking a voice command or a user input to provide to a browser-based assistant, wherein the assistant searches for the query via a providing it to a search engine, and the query is generated based upon input from the user in the form of the voice command. Furthermore, the search engine shows search results, which would be identifying search results, and in respond the assistant may take a portion of the search results identified by the search engine i.e. a card-based search result (Cambre, Table 2, “Search”).
Furthermore, this may be combined with the generative model of Pauli-Haack that uses the generative model as the browser-based assistant for reasons of the advantage provided below. Additionally, the portion of the search resulted may be used as part of the prompt of Pauli-Haack.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the present application to implement a system that utilized the teachings of Pauli-Haack and Cambre. This would have provided the improvement of additional convenience and multitasking for an end user while searching (Cambre, page 4, section 2.1).
Claims 11-13 recite a method that parallels the system of claims 4-6 respectively. Therefore, the analysis discussed above with respect to claims 4-6 also applies to claims 11-13 respectively. Accordingly, claims 11-13 are rejected based on substantially the same rationale as set forth above with respect to claims 4-6 respectively.
Claims 18-20 recite a method that parallels the system of claims 4-6 respectively. Therefore, the analysis discussed above with respect to claims 4-6 also applies to claims 18-20 respectively. Accordingly, claims 18-20 are rejected based on substantially the same rationale as set forth above with respect to claims 4-6 respectively.
Claims 7 and 14 rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Pauli-Haack in view of Winn et al. (Pub. No. US 20130159408 A1, filed January 27th 2012, hereinafter Winn).
Regarding claim 7, which depends upon claim 1:
Claim 7 recites:
The computing system of claim 1, the acts further comprising: prior to generating the prompt: identifying that the webpage is not represented in a search engine index; and upon identifying that the webpage is not represented in the search engine index, causing a request for consent to be presented concurrently on the webpage with the content, where the request for consent is configured to receive user consent to provide the content on the webpage to the generative model, where the prompt is generated subsequent to receiving the user consent.
Pauli-Haack anticipates the system of claim 1 upon which claim 7 depends. Furthermore, Winn in the same field of endeavor of machine learning discloses the limitations of claim 7:
Winn teaches the collection of private user data following consent being obtained from the user by means of a request, wherein the collection of user data would be analogous to providing content on the webpage to the generative model and therefore the prompt being generated in subsequent to receiving the user consent as previously seen in Pauli-Haack, which may be combined for purposes of the improvement presented below. Furthermore, the identification of the user data being private would indicate that the data is not represented in a search engine index, which prompts the request for consent (Paragraph 43).
Winn and the present application are analogous art because they are in the same field of endeavor of machine learning.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the present application to implement a system that utilized the teachings of Pauli-Haack and Winn. This would have provided the improvement of simplifying actions that the user must take (Winn, Paragraph 3).
Claim 14 recite a method that parallels the system of claim 7. Therefore, the analysis discussed above with respect to claim 7 also applies to claim 14. Accordingly, claim 14 is rejected based on substantially the same rationale as set forth above with respect to claim 7.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ALEXANDRIA JOSEPHINE MILLER whose telephone number is (703)756-5684. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Thursday: 7:30 - 5:00 pm, every other Friday 7:30 - 4:00.
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, Mariela Reyes can be reached at (571) 270-1006. 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.
/A.J.M./Examiner, Art Unit 2142 /Mariela Reyes/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2142