2Notice 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 .
DETAILED ACTION
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 1-20 rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to a judicial exception (i.e., a law of nature, a natural phenomenon, or an abstract idea) without significantly more. Claim(s) 1, 17, 20 is/are directed to a system, method, etc. for generating a summary of a content using a large language model. The claims rely on well understood, routine, and conventional structures such as a processor, memory, data structure, etc. to instruct the system along methods by which previous a piece of content is summarized. The claims are considered a manner by which data resolves more data, in this case a data driven or data informed summarization of a specific data; the claims are also considered a stand in for human behavior as the claims steps are substantially similar to the manner in which a human being would arrive at a summarization of content, such as by providing a request for a summarization and the content to be summarized. As such the claims cannot be considered to integrate the judicial exceptions of an abstract idea such as data per se or programs per se nor the judicial exception of human activity and/or mental processes such as operations performed in the human mind, human activity, human behavior; etc. as the claims do not include substantially more than the performance of such exceptions upon a computer claimed at a high level of generality and based on models intended to mimic or replicate human cognitive processes. The claim(s) does/do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. Dependent claims 2-16, 18, 19 further address additional subject matter which do not remedy as the claimed functionality may be seen as a stand in human behavior such as a human generating a summary, asking for help in generating a summary, and/or human application of agency in concert with assistive instructions, mathematic concepts, AI models, etc. to generate a summary. As such claims 2-16, 18, 19 do not remedy and are similarly rejected. Applicants amendments filed 12/17/25 are not considered to recite significantly more as the recited grouping and audible output are considered routine user interface operations providing well known, routine and conventional functionality of a computing device.
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 of this title, 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.
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.
John Deere Co., 383 U.S. 1, 148 USPQ 459 (1966), that are applied for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
Claims 1, 2, 9, 14, 17-20 rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over “Pop-up Display of Browser Tab Summary Generated by a Large Language Model,” by Shin (copy provided by Applicant in IDS filed 2/6/25; copyright 8/24/23 and hereinafter Shi) further in view of McKeown: 20050203970 hereinafter McK and further in view of Zhang: 20050004690 hereinafter Zha.
Regarding claim 1
Shi teaches:
A method implemented by one or more processors, the method comprising:
determining whether one or more triggering criteria are satisfied to generate a summary of content that is to be rendered for presentation to a user via a client device of the user (Shi: Abstract; p 3 § 2, p 4 §2-3; Fig 1: an LLM generates a page summary such as upon triggering by a user selection to open a new page, new tab, etc. such as for presentation to the user; and/or by a user or automatic refresh of a particular page; in Shi triggering criteria for generating a display of a determined summary to a user include opening a new page or tab, refreshing a page or tab, state change of a page or tab; in concert with a user cursor or pointer position and a user hovering time);
in response to determining the one or more triggering criteria are satisfied to generate the summary of the content that is to be rendered for presentation to the user via the client device of the user:
selecting, based on which of the one or more triggering criteria that are satisfied, a plurality of sources of the content to be utilized in generating the summary of the content (id.: such as by the appending of summarization commands to selected, etc. web addresses, such as opened in one or more tabs; in such a case the system responds to the selection by determining to generate the summary to be rendered based on the page source);
determining, based on one or more summarization criteria, a degree of summarization for the content (id: such as by user direction of a degree of summarization; i.e. 30 words or less; one paragraph; etc.; in keeping with summarization criteria of the user, such as entered, etc. by the user);
causing the summary of the content to be generated using a large language model (LLM), wherein causing the summary of the content to be generated using the LLM comprises:
causing LLM input to be processed, using the LLM, to generate LLM output, wherein the LLM input includes at least the plurality of sources of the content and an indication of the degree of summarization for the content (id.: such as by the appending of summarization commands to the plural, selected, etc. web content, addresses, etc.; such as opened in one or more tabs); and
causing, based on the LLM output, the summary of the content to be generated (id.: such as when a user hovers over a tab and receives a summary); and
causing the summary of the content to be rendered for presentation to the user via the client device or an additional client device of the user (id.: such as by display of a popup window in response to user hovering).
Shi does not explicitly teach a system operable for selecting among a plurality of choices, such as available tabs, based on which of the one or more triggering criteria that are satisfied, a plurality of sources of the content to be utilized in generating the summary wherein the summary of the content comprises a singular summary for corresponding content from each of the plurality of sources that are selected, nor does Shin teach causing the summary of the content to be audibly rendered for presentation to the user via the client device or an additional client device of the user.
In a related field of endeavor McK teaches a system and method for grouping and summarization of documents wherein plural documents are selected, clustered, and routed to a summarizer which provides a singular or selected summary for the selected documents (McK: Abstract; ¶ 13, 29, 51; Fig 1, 5: a collection of articles are gathered and analyzed to determine relations thereamong and forwarded to a summarizer and the summary output to a user such as upon an interface). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the instant application to select or allow user selection of summary parameters as taught or suggested by McK to thereby create a unified summary of one or more selected tabs of the Shin user interface tabs for at least the purpose of organizing user content for easier digestion, use, etc. of a user; one of ordinary skill in the art would have expected only predictable results therefrom.
Shin in view of McK does not explicitly teach the user interface comprising a voice user interface for audible rendering of user interface parameters such as a summary.
In a related field of endeavor Zha teaches a system and method for generating an audio summary wherein the system clusters a plurality of media content and renders audio summaries thereof to a user (Zha: Abstract; ¶ 30, 34; Fig 2, 3). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the instant application to present the summaries of Shin in view of McK audibly to a user as taught or suggested by Zha for at least the purpose of providing the summary content in a more accessible manner; one of ordinary skill in the art would have expected only predictable results therefrom.
Regarding claim 2
Shi in view of McK in view of Zha teaches or suggests:
The method of claim 1, wherein the plurality of sources of the content include two or more open tabs of a web browser (Shi: Abstract; p 3 § 2, p 4 §2-3; Fig 1: summaries for plurality of open tabs generated and buffered for display; said display rendered to a user based on and/or in response to user hovering). The claim is considered obvious over Shi as modified by McK, and Zha as addressed in the base claim as it would have been obvious to apply the further teaching of Shi, McK, and/or Zha to the modified device of Shi, McK, and Zha; one of ordinary skill in the art would have expected only predictable results therefrom.
Regarding claim 9
Shi in view of McK in view of Zha teaches or suggests:
The method of claim 1, wherein the plurality of sources of the content include two or more news articles from one or more news outlets (Shi: Abstract; p 3 § 2, p 4 §2-3; Fig 1: the blogs, bulletin and news are considered two or more news articles from one or more outlets; additionally the intended use of Shi embraces the totality of websites realizable by resolving a URL of which news sites are a subset; the intended use of the Shi system embraces use for news articles upon new outlets). The claim is considered obvious over Shi as modified by McK, and Zha as addressed in the base claim as it would have been obvious to apply the further teaching of Shi, McK, and/or Zha to the modified device of Shi, McK, and Zha; one of ordinary skill in the art would have expected only predictable results therefrom.
Regarding claim 14
Shi in view of McK in view of Zha teaches or suggests:
The method of claim 1, wherein the one or more summarization criteria comprise one or more of:
a temporal duration over which the summary of the content is to be rendered for presentation to the user (Shi: Abstract; p 3 § 2, p 4 §2-3; Fig 1: a summary is acquired for each/any tab and when interacted upon, hovered upon, etc. for a threshold amount of time within a threshold physical hovering boundary which each/any of the tabs has a summary rendered), a textual length of which the summary of the content is to be rendered for presentation to the user (Shi: Abstract; p 3 § 2, p 4 §2-3; Fig 1: such as by user direction of a degree of summarization; i.e. 30 words or less; one paragraph; etc.; in keeping with summarization criteria of the user, such as, entered, etc. by the user), or a level of expertise of the user of the client device with respect to a topic of the summary of the content. The claim is considered obvious over Shi as modified by McK, and Zha as addressed in the base claim as it would have been obvious to apply the further teaching of Shi, McK, and/or Zha to the modified device of Shi, McK, and Zha; one of ordinary skill in the art would have expected only predictable results therefrom.
Regarding claim 17—The claim is considered to recite substantially similar subject matter to that of claim 1 and is similarly rejected.
Regarding claim 18
Shi in view of McK in view of Zha teaches or suggests:
The method of claim 17, wherein the user input includes an indication of the plurality of sources of the content to be utilized in generating the summary of the content (Shi: Abstract; p 3 § 2, p 4 §2-3; Fig 1: an LLM generates a page summary such as upon triggering by a user selection to open a new page, new tab, etc. such as for presentation to the user; and/or by a user or automatic refresh of a particular page; please see additionally claim 1 supra). The claim is considered obvious over Shi as modified by McK, and Zha as addressed in the base claim as it would have been obvious to apply the further teaching of Shi, McK, and/or Zha to the modified device of Shi, McK, and Zha; one of ordinary skill in the art would have expected only predictable results therefrom.
Regarding claim 19
Shi in view of McK in view of Zha teaches or suggests:
The method of claim 17, wherein the one or more summarization criteria are included in the user input or additional user input that is received via the client device (Shi: Abstract; p 3 § 2, p 4 §2-3; Fig 1: such as by user direction of a degree of summarization; i.e. 30 words or less; one paragraph; etc.; in keeping with summarization criteria of the user, such as entered, etc. by the user). The claim is considered obvious over Shi as modified by McK, and Zha as addressed in the base claim as it would have been obvious to apply the further teaching of Shi, McK, and/or Zha to the modified device of Shi, McK, and Zha; one of ordinary skill in the art would have expected only predictable results therefrom.
Regarding claim 20
Shi teaches:
A method implemented by one or more processors, the method comprising:
selecting a plurality of sources of content to be utilized in generating a summary of content that is to be rendered for presentation to a user of a client device thereby causing the summary of the content to be generated using a large language model (LLM) (Shi: Abstract; p 3 § 2, p 4 §2-3; Fig 1: an LLM generates a page summary such as upon triggering by a user selection to open a new page, new tab, etc. such as for presentation to the user; and/or by a user or automatic refresh of a particular page), wherein causing the summary of the content to be generated using the LLM comprises:
causing LLM input to be processed, using the LLM, to generate LLM output, wherein the LLM input includes at least the plurality of sources of the content (Shi: Abstract; p 3 § 2, p 4 §2-3; Fig 1: such as by the appending of summarization commands to selected, etc. web addresses, such as opened in one or more tabs); and
causing, based on the LLM output, the summary of the content to be generated (Shi: Abstract; p 3 § 2, p 4 §2-3; Fig 1: such as when a user hovers over a tab and receives a summary);
causing the summary of the content to be rendered for presentation to the user via the client device (Shi: Abstract; p 3 § 2, p 4 §2-3; Fig 1: such as by display of a popup window in response to user hovering); and
while the summary of the content is being rendered for presentation to the user via the client device:
receiving user input that interrupts the summary of the content being rendered, wherein the user input is received via the client device of the user (Shi: Abstract; p 3 § 2, p 4 §2-3; Fig 1: such as when a user ceases to hover or utilizes a quick preview feature allowing summary of other tabs to be presented, such as by a user choosing to hover over an additional tab);
causing the rendering of the summary of the content to be halted (Shi: Abstract; p 3 § 2, p 4 §2-3; Fig 1: such as by initiating of a state change or by opening, loading, refreshing a tab, page, etc.);
causing, a response that is responsive to the user input to be generated using the LLM (Shi: Abstract; p 3 § 2, p 4 §2-3; Fig 1), wherein causing the response that is responsive to the user input to be generated using the LLM comprises:
causing additional LLM input to be processed, using the LLM, to generate additional LLM output, wherein the additional LLM input includes at least the user input (Shi: Abstract; p 3 § 2, p 4 §2-3; Fig 1: such as by the user loading a new page or new tab and/or in response to user hovering over a new, subsequent, etc. page, tab, etc.); and
causing, based on the additional LLM output, the response to be generated (Shi: Abstract; p 3 § 2, p 4 §2-3; Fig 1: such as by creating a summary for the new page or tab and by display of a summary of a page, tab, etc. I a subsequent popup window in response to user hovering)
causing the response to be rendered for presentation to the user via the client device (Shi: Abstract; p 3 § 2, p 4 §2-3; Fig 1: such as when a user hovers over the new page or tab and system receives a subsequent summary, outputs same, etc.); and
causing the rendering of the summary of the content to be resumed (Shi: Abstract; p 3 § 2, p 4 §2-3; Fig 1: such as by display of a popup window in response to user hovering over the original tab, such as for comparison among the tabs by a user).
Shi does not explicitly teach a system operable for selecting among a plurality of choices, such as available tabs, based on which of the one or more triggering criteria that are satisfied, a plurality of sources of the content to be utilized in generating the summary wherein the summary of the content comprises a singular summary for corresponding content from each of the plurality of sources that are selected, nor does Shin teach causing the summary of the content to be audibly rendered for presentation to the user via the client device or an additional client device of the user.
In a related field of endeavor McK teaches a system and method for grouping and summarization of documents wherein plural documents are selected, clustered, and routed to a summarizer which provides a singular or selected summary for the selected documents (McK: Abstract; ¶ 13, 29, 51; Fig 1, 5: a collection of articles are gathered and analyzed to determine relations thereamong and forwarded to a summarizer and the summary output to a user such as upon an interface). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the instant application to select or allow user selection of summary parameters as taught or suggested by McK to thereby create a unified summary of one or more selected tabs of the Shin user interface tabs for at least the purpose of organizing user content for easier digestion, use, etc. of a user; one of ordinary skill in the art would have expected only predictable results therefrom.
Shin in view of McK does not explicitly teach the user interface comprising a voice user interface for audible rendering of user interface parameters such as a summary.
In a related field of endeavor Zha teaches a system and method for generating an audio summary wherein the system clusters a plurality of media content and renders audio summaries thereof to a user (Zha: Abstract; ¶ 30, 34; Fig 2, 3). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the instant application to present the summaries of Shin in view of McK audibly to a user as taught or suggested by Zha for at least the purpose of providing the summary content in a more accessible manner; one of ordinary skill in the art would have expected only predictable results therefrom.
Claims 3-8, 10-13, 15, 16 rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over “Pop-up Display of Browser Tab Summary Generated by a Large Language Model,” by Shin (copy provided by Applicant in IDS filed 2/6/25; copyright 8/24/23 and hereinafter Shi) further in view of McKeown: 20050203970 hereinafter McK and further in view of Zhang: 20050004690 hereinafter Zha as applied to claims 1, 2, 9, 14, 17-20 supra and further in view of Singh: 20080005686 hereinafter Sin.
Regarding claim 3
Shi in view of McK in view of Zha teaches or suggests:
The method of claim 2, wherein the one or more triggering criteria comprise one or more of:
a quantity criterion that indicates a quantity of the two or more open tabs of the web browser satisfies a quantity threshold (Shi: Abstract; p 3 § 2, p 4 §2-3; Fig 1: the existence of more than one tab, that is a window with plural tabs, is considered to satisfy a quantity threshold of interaction, otherwise the system would be expected to either render a summary upon the window being activated or in front or upon the cursor being within the window or within a determined portion(s) of the window; or in the alternate, a window with tabs below the threshold of two may not require summarization),
an interaction criterion that indicates interaction with the two or more open tabs of the web browser satisfies an interaction threshold (Shi: Abstract; p 3 § 2, p 4 §2-3; Fig 1: such as by display of a popup window in response to user interaction with an open tab, i.e. user hovering; in this case the interaction threshold is met or surpassed when a user hovers over a browser tab as a hover is considered a pause for a sufficient, or threshold, time or when the presence of a cursor or mouse pointer is a sufficiently over a boundary threshold of a tab; the meeting of these thresholds generates a summary from a determined one of one or more open tabs and interactions upon a window comprising plural tabs is considered an interaction with two or more tabs such as tabs of news sources).
Broadly reasonable interpretations of the claims exist which require determination of relations among, between, etc. the two or more open tabs. Shi does not explicitly discuss criteria related to two or more open tabs wherein the criteria determine relations among the two or more open tabs nor does Shi discuss the recited a temporal, topical, and situational criterion as recited however in the context of the claim these additional criterion are presented as optional.
In a related field of endeavor Sin teaches a system and method for grouping two or more open tab by determining relations therebetween sufficient to create multi-level nested tab groups (Sin: ¶ 51-54, Figs 4-6) wherein content relationships, interaction relationships, and timewise relationships determine parent-child type relationships for grouping of tabs in hierarchical display. Sin additionally teaches an interaction criterion that indicates interaction with the two or more open tabs of the web browser satisfies an interaction threshold (Sin: Abstract; ¶ 5, 25; claims 12, 13, 29, 30: tabs grouped with additional tabs based on a level of user interaction exceeding a threshold, second highest, etc. level of content relationship), a temporal criterion that indicates a time the two or more open tabs in the web browser have been open satisfies a temporal threshold (Sin: ¶ 5, 44-46; 54-58; Fig 6, 7: system maintains a-total time spent on a particular tab which is considered a time spent while the tab is open said time spent on a particular tab maintained with respect to total time spent on all tabs, time spent below a threshold operates to winnow unused tabs),
a topic criterion that indicates a given topic of the two or more open tabs of the web browser satisfies a similarity threshold (Sin: Abstract; ¶ 5, 25; claims 12, 13, 29, 30: tabs grouped with additional tabs based on a highest, second highest, etc. level of content relationship), or
a situational criterion associated with a time of day or predicted activity of the user indicates a likelihood that the user will consume the two or more open tabs in the web browser satisfies a likelihood threshold (Sin: ¶ 5, 44-46; 54-58, etc.; fig 6, 7, etc.: various temporal and situational criterion operate to determine rankings for a tab and thereby predict the absence of user interest and close the tab when it is judged unlikely to receive significant future interaction).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the instant application to create a browser tab system comprising the in view of McK in view of Zha and Sin tabbing dynamics to realize a tab environment comprising the Sin taught multiple tab levels and to including summaries such as taught or suggested by in view of McK in view of Zha for each of the Sin tab levels and tabs therein to thereby realize a summary for the parent tab with respect to the child tabs, such as by instructing the Shi in view of McK in view of Zha system to “incorporate child tab summaries in a parent tab summary,” and for at least the purpose of managing tab information to make navigation among tabs less cumbersome and thereby assist user focus by providing quick scannable, digestible information; one of ordinary skill in the art would have expected only predictable results therefrom.
Regarding claim 4
Shi in view of McK in view of Zha in view of Sin teaches or suggests:
The method of claim 3, wherein selecting the plurality of sources of the content to be utilized in generating the summary of the content based on which of the one or more triggering criteria that are satisfied comprises: in response to determining the quantity criterion that indicates the two or more open tabs of the web browser satisfies the quantity threshold: selecting, based on the quantity criterion being satisfied, the two or more open tabs of the web browser that satisfy the quantity threshold as the plurality of sources of the content to be utilized in generating the summary of the content (Shi: Abstract; p 3 § 2, p 4 §2-3; Fig 1: a window with two or more tabs satisfies a quantity threshold to operate the method such that a summary is acquired for the present tabs and when hovered upon each/any of the tabs has a summary rendered); (Sin: ¶ 5, 44-46; 54-58, etc.; fig 4-7, etc.: temporal, topical and situational criterion operate to determine rankings and thereby presence, grouping, etc. of two or more tabs such as from news outlets). The claim is considered obvious over Shi, McK, and Zha as modified by Sin as addressed in the base claim as it would have been obvious to apply the further teaching of Shi, McK, Zha, and/or Sin to the modified device of Shi, McK, Zha, and Sin; one of ordinary skill in the art would have expected only predictable results therefrom.
Regarding claim 5
Shi in view of McK in view of Zha in view of Sin teaches or suggests:
The method of claim 3, wherein selecting the plurality of sources of the content to be utilized in generating the summary of the content based on which of the one or more triggering criteria that are satisfied comprises: in response to determining the interaction criterion that indicates the interaction with the two or more open tabs of the web browser satisfies the interaction threshold: selecting, based on the interaction criterion being satisfied, the two or more open tabs of the web browser associated with the interaction that satisfy the interaction threshold as the plurality of sources of the content to be utilized in generating the summary of the content (Shi: Abstract; p 3 § 2, p 4 §2-3; Fig 1: a summary is acquired for each/any tab and when interacted upon, hovered upon, etc. for a threshold amount of time within a threshold boundary each/any of the tabs has a summary rendered); (Sin: ¶ 5, 44-46; 54-58, etc.; fig 4-7, etc.: temporal, topical and situational criterion operate to determine rankings and thereby select two or more tabs for grouping based thereon). The claim is considered obvious over Shi, McK, and Zha as modified by Sin as addressed in the base claim as it would have been obvious to apply the further teaching of Shi, McK, Zha, and/or Sin to the modified device of Shi, McK, Zha, and Sin; one of ordinary skill in the art would have expected only predictable results therefrom.
Regarding claim 6
Shi in view of McK in view of Zha in view of Sin teaches or suggests:
The method of claim 3, wherein selecting the plurality of sources of the content to be utilized in generating the summary of the content based on which of the one or more triggering criteria that are satisfied comprises: in response to determining the temporal criterion that indicates the time the two or more open tabs in the web browser have been open satisfies the temporal threshold: selecting, based on the quantity criterion being satisfied, the two or more open tabs of the web browser associated with the time that satisfy the temporal threshold as the plurality of sources of the content to be utilized in generating the summary of the content (Sin: ¶ 5, 44-46; 54-58, etc.; fig 4-7, etc.: temporal, topical and situational criterion operate to determine rankings and thereby select two or more tabs for grouping based thereon). The claim is considered obvious over Shi, McK, and Zha as modified by Sin as addressed in the base claim as it would have been obvious to apply the further teaching of Shi, McK, Zha, and/or Sin to the modified device of Shi, McK, Zha, and Sin; one of ordinary skill in the art would have expected only predictable results therefrom.
Regarding claim 7
Shi in view of McK in view of Zha in view of Sin teaches or suggests:
The method of claim 3, wherein selecting the plurality of sources of the content to be utilized in generating the summary of the content based on which of the one or more triggering criteria that are satisfied comprises: in response to determining the topic criterion that indicates the given topic of the two or more open tabs of the web browser satisfies the similarity threshold: selecting, based on the quantity criterion being satisfied, the two or more open tabs of the web browser associated with the given topic that satisfy the similarity threshold as the plurality of sources of the content to be utilized in generating the summary of the content (Sin: ¶ 5, 44-46; 54-58, fig 4-7, etc.: temporal, topical and situational criterion operate to determine rankings and thereby select two or more tabs for grouping based thereon). The claim is considered obvious over Shi, McK, and Zha as modified by Sin as addressed in the base claim as it would have been obvious to apply the further teaching of Shi, McK, Zha, and/or Sin to the modified device of Shi, McK, Zha, and Sin; one of ordinary skill in the art would have expected only predictable results therefrom.
Regarding claim 8
Shi in view of McK in view of Zha in view of Sin teaches or suggests:
The method of claim 3, wherein selecting the plurality of sources of the content to be utilized in generating the summary of the content based on which of the one or more triggering criteria that are satisfied comprises: in response to determining the situational criterion associated with the time of day or the predicted activity of the user indicates the likelihood that the user will consume the two or more open tabs in the web browser satisfies the likelihood threshold: selecting, based on the quantity criterion being satisfied, the two or more open tabs of the web browser associated with the likelihood that satisfy the likelihood threshold as the plurality of sources of the content to be utilized in generating the summary of the content (Sin: ¶ 5, 44-46; 54-58, fig 4-7, etc.: temporal, topical and situational criterion operate to determine rankings and thereby select two or more tabs for grouping based thereon). The claim is considered obvious over Shi, McK, and Zha as modified by Sin as addressed in the base claim as it would have been obvious to apply the further teaching of Shi, McK, Zha, and/or Sin to the modified device of Shi, McK, Zha, and Sin; one of ordinary skill in the art would have expected only predictable results therefrom.
Regarding claim 10
Shi in view of McK in view of Zha in view of Sin teaches or suggests:
The method of claim 9, wherein the one or more triggering criteria comprise one or more of: a quantity criterion that indicates a quantity of the two or more new articles from the one or more news outlets satisfies a quantity threshold (Shi: Abstract; p 3 § 2, p 4 §2-3; Fig 1: the existence of more than one tab, that is a window with plural tabs, is considered to satisfy a quantity threshold of interaction, otherwise the system would be expected to either render a summary upon the window being activated or in front or upon the cursor being within the window or within a determined portion(s) of the window; or in the alternate, a window with tabs below the threshold of two may not require summarization), and an interaction criterion that indicates interaction with the two or more open tabs of the web browser satisfies an interaction threshold (Shi: Abstract; p 3 § 2, p 4 §2-3; Fig 1: such as by display of a popup window in response to user interaction with an open tab, i.e. user hovering; in this case the interaction threshold is met or surpassed when a user hovers over a browser tab as a hover is considered a pause for a sufficient, or threshold, time or when the presence of a cursor or mouse pointer is a sufficiently over a boundary threshold of a tab; the meeting of these thresholds generates a summary from a determined one of one or more open tabs and interactions upon a window comprising plural tabs is considered an interaction with two or more tabs such as tabs of news sources).
Broadly reasonable interpretations of the claims exist which require determination of relations among, between, etc. the two or more open tabs. Shi in view of McK in view of Zha does not explicitly discuss criteria related to two or more open tabs wherein the criteria determine relations among the two or more open tabs nor does Shi in view of McK in view of Zha discuss the recited a temporal, topical, and situational criterion as recited however in the context of the claim these additional criterion are presented as optional.
In a related field of endeavor Sin teaches a system and method for grouping two or more open tab by determining relations therebetween sufficient to create multi-level nested tab groups (Sin: ¶ 51-54, Figs 4-6) wherein content relationships, interaction relationships, and timewise relationships determine parent-child type relationships for grouping of tabs in hierarchical display. Sin additionally teaches an interaction criterion that indicates interaction with the two or more open tabs of the web browser satisfies an interaction threshold (Sin: Abstract; ¶ 5, 25; claims 12, 13, 29, 30: tabs grouped with additional tabs based on a level of user interaction exceeding a threshold, second highest, etc. level of content relationship), a temporal criterion that indicates a time the two or more open tabs in the web browser have been open satisfies a temporal threshold (Sin: ¶ 5, 44-46; 54-58; Fig 6, 7: system maintains a-total time spent on a particular tab which is considered a time spent while the tab is open said time spent on a particular tab maintained with respect to total time spent on all tabs, time spent below a threshold operates to winnow unused tabs),
a topic criterion that indicates a given topic of the two or more open tabs of the web browser satisfies a similarity threshold (Sin: Abstract; ¶ 5, 25; claims 12, 13, 29, 30: tabs grouped with additional tabs based on a highest, second highest, etc. level of content relationship), or
a situational criterion associated with a time of day or predicted activity of the user indicates a likelihood that the user will consume the two or more open tabs in the web browser satisfies a likelihood threshold (Sin: ¶ 5, 44-46; 54-58, etc.; fig 6, 7, etc.: various temporal and situational criterion operate to determine rankings for a tab and thereby predict the absence of user interest and close the tab when it is judged unlikely to receive significant future interaction).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the instant application to create a browser tab system comprising the in view of McK in view of Zha and Sin tabbing dynamics to realize a tab environment comprising the Sin taught multiple tab levels and to including summaries such as taught or suggested by Shi in view of McK in view of Zha for each of the Sin tab levels and tabs therein to thereby realize a summary for the parent tab with respect to the child tabs, such as by instructing the Shi in view of McK in view of Zha system to “incorporate child tab summaries in a parent tab summary,” and for at least the purpose of managing tab information to make navigation among tabs less cumbersome and thereby assist user focus by providing quick scannable, digestible information; one of ordinary skill in the art would have expected only predictable results therefrom.
Regarding claim 11—the claim is considered to recite substantially similar subject matter to that of claim 4 and is similarly rejected.
Regarding claim 12—the claim is considered to recite substantially similar subject matter to that of claim 5 and is similarly rejected.
Regarding claim 13—the claim is considered to recite substantially similar subject matter to that of claim 6 and is similarly rejected.
Regarding claim 15
Shi view of McK in view of Zha teaches or suggests:
The method of claim 14, wherein the one or more summarization criteria are inferred. Shi does not explicitly teach the inference based on navigation content determined based on a navigation duration of the user (Shi: Abstract; p 3 § 2, p 4 §2-3; Fig 1: a user hover implies and the system infers the desire of a user to be provided a summary). Shi in view of McK in view of Zha does not explicitly teach the inference based on one or more of: a quantity of the sources of the content included in the plurality of sources of the content, availability content determined based on a calendar of the user, or navigation content determined based on a predicted navigation duration of the user.
In a related field of endeavor Sin teaches a system and method for grouping two or more open tab by determining relations therebetween sufficient to create multi-level nested tab groups (Sin: ¶ 51-54, Figs 4-6) wherein content relationships, interaction relationships, and timewise relationships determine parent-child type relationships for grouping of tabs in hierarchical display (Sin: ¶ 5, 44-46; 54-58, etc.; fig 4-7, etc.: temporal, topical and situational criterion operate to determine rankings and thereby select two or more tabs for grouping based thereon) and wherein the display of particular tabs is determined based on one or more of: a quantity of the sources of the content included in the plurality of sources of the content, availability content determined based on a calendar of the user, or navigation content determined based on a predicted navigation duration of the user (Sin: ¶ 5, 44-46; 54-58, etc.; fig 4-7, etc.: system predicts no further duration of navigation based on temporal dynamics of use and eliminates a tab from a list).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the instant application to create a browser tab system comprising the Shi in view of McK in view of Zha and Sin tabbing dynamics to realize a tab environment comprising the Shi in view of McK in view of Zha taught multiple tab levels and to including summaries such as taught or suggested by Shi in view of McK in view of Zha for each of the Sin tab levels and tabs therein to thereby realize a summary for the parent tab with respect to the child tabs, and further obvious to combine the in view of McK in view of Zha taught method for predictively determining a low future navigation time of a user based on established time durations with the Shi browser tab environment, system, method, etc. and thereby winnow a list of displayed tabs and for at least the purpose of managing tab information to make navigation among tabs less cumbersome and thereby assist user focus by providing quick scannable, digestible information; one of ordinary skill in the art would have expected only predictable results therefrom.
Regarding claim 16
Shi in view of McK in view of Zha teaches or suggests:
The method of claim 14, wherein the degree of summarization varies based on a quantity of the sources of the content included in the plurality of sources of the content. The claim recitations would have been obvious as a matter of design choice. As shown in the figures of both Shi and Sin as the quantity of tabs increases the screen real estate available to impart information related to the tabs decreases (please see Shi; Fig 1; Sin; Fig 3). Accordingly it would be advantageous to and incumbent upon a designer of such environments as those of Shi in view of McK in view of Zha, and/or Sin; and Shi in view of McK in view of Zha in view of Sin to arrive at the presentation of information, particularly summary information, in as clearly communicated a manner as possible, such as by amending to the prompt to include statements limiting or reducing the level of summarization based on the amount of tabs. The claim is thus considered obvious over Shi as modified by Sin as addressed in the base claim as it would have been obvious to apply user design choices to teachings of Shi and/or Sin to the modified device of Shi and Sin; one of ordinary skill in the art would have expected only predictable results therefrom.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments in concert with claim amendments, see Remarks and Claims, filed 12/3/25, with respect to the rejection(s) of claim(s) 1-5, 9, 14, 17-20 under 35 USC 102 over Shin and claims 3-8, 10-13, 15, 16 under 35 USC 013 over Shin and Singh have been fully considered and are persuasive. Therefore, the rejection has been withdrawn. However, upon further consideration, a new ground(s) of rejection is made in view of Shin, McKeown, and Zhang and/or Shin, McKeown, Zhang, and Singh.
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any 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.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to PAUL C MCCORD whose telephone number is (571)270-3701. The examiner can normally be reached 730-630 M-F.
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, CAROLYN EDWARDS can be reached at (571) 270-7136. 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.
/PAUL C MCCORD/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2692