CTNF 18/537,585 CTNF 84589 Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status 07-03-aia AIA 15-10-aia 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 07-04-01 AIA 07-04 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. Applicants arguments and amendments filed 4/6/26 suffice to obviate the rejection of claims 1-20 rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the instant claims are considered to reify an improvement with regard to summarizing open documents, windows, browser tabs, etc. Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103 07-20-aia AIA 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. 07-06 AIA 15-10-15 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. 07-23-aia AIA 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. 07-21-aia AIA Claims 1, 3-8, 14-1 9, 21-27 rejecte d under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kothari : 20170075528 hereinafter Ko further in view of Li: 20220366153 and further in view of Singh: 20080005686 hereinafter Sin. Regardi ng claim 1 Ko 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 (Ko: Abstract; ¶ 64; Fig 1: tab pane information data extracted from open tabs including data corresponding to a summary thereof); 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 (Ko: Abstract; ¶ 64; Fig 1, 7: such as by determination of two or more open tab panes, summaries thereof sufficient to meet predetermined criteria and provide extracted data; determining display of two or more summaries based on determination of two or more open tab panes, summaries thereof): selecting, based on which of the one or more triggering criteria that are satisfied (Ko: Abstract: such as upon the detection of multiple open tabs), a plurality of sources of the content to be utilized in generating the summary of the content, the plurality of sources of the content including a subset of two or more open tabs of a web browser (Ko: Abstract; ¶ 64; Fig 1, 7: display of two or more summaries based on determination of two or more open tab panes, summaries thereof); that are selected from among a superset of open tabs of the web browser Ko: open tabs are reified against predetermined criteria which are used to determine to display a summary, such that a subset of open tabs meeting the criteria have displayed or displayable summaries and the remaining member of the superset do not) , and the summary of the content being a singular summary for corresponding content from each of the two or more open tabs of the web browser plurality of sources that are selected from among the superset of open tabs of the web browser (Ko: ¶ 78, 91, 128; Figs 8, 21, 26A, 26B: cohesive summaries of the selected two or more open tabs displayed such as by unification in a summary window, tab pane window, etc.) ; determining, based on one or more summarization criteria, a degree of summarization for the content (Ko: ¶ 87, 91; Fig 6, 8: such as by limiting a number of extracted words which determines a word count limit and used as a basis for displayed summary thereof); 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 an input to be processed, using language processing, to generate a language processing based output (Ko: ¶ 91), wherein the input thereto includes at least the plurality of sources of the content and an indication of the degree of summarization for the content and other metadata (Ko: ¶ 77, 89-91: system processes content associated with a plurality of sources represented, displayed, etc. as tabs based on a degree of summarization and other criteria in a manner sufficient to generate a summary output thereof); and causing, based on the language processing output, the summary of the content to be generated (Ko: ¶ 77, 89-91: criteria, degree of summarization, and tab content processed to generate a summary); and causing the summary of the content to be visibly rendered for presentation to the user via the client device or an additional client device of the user (Ko: Abstract: “A tab pane is created and the tab pane information thus extracted is displayed,”). Ko renders a singular summary of each summarized tab in a tab pane but does not discuss generating a singular summary which concatenates data for all open tabs or a set thereof, nor the summary resultant form LLM analysis of input to generate output nor voice output of the summary. In a related field of endeavor Li teaches a system and method for using a large language model (LLM) (Li: ¶ 20: the recited generative pretrained transformer is considered to be substantially similar to an LLM; please see ¶ 48 of the specification as filed GPT is considered exemplary of an LLM); to receive a one or more inputs (Li: ¶ 19, 20, 34; Fig 3, 9: LLM receives a selected document as input) and a user input (Li: ¶ 34, 45, etc.; Fig 3, 9: selection and modification component enables user selection and modification of outputs to thereby generate a final output) for generation of an output in the form of a distillation of the input content based on user input (Li: 19, 20, 34, 45; Fig 3, 9: such as by winnowing a plurality of candidate scripts to generate a final or presentation script based thereon) for audio output of the generated distillation (Li: ¶ 34: such as by input of the script to a TTS component to generate an spoken audio presentation based thereon); such as on a user device, based upon user input to a device, etc. (Li: ¶ 40; Fig 8: such as by user input to the device operable to select an audio for output). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the instant application to utilize the Li taught LLM to generate the Li taught audio output by a user device to thereby generate and output spoken versions of the Ko taught or suggested tab summaries for at least the purpose of allowing a user to step away or look away from a computer monitor or screen while continuing to perform productive work; one of ordinary skill in the art would have expected only predictable results therefrom. It may be that the broadest reasonable interpretation of the recited singular summary is met by the generation of a singular summary for each member of the set of tabs which bear summaries within the superset of open tabs as taught or suggested by Ko in view of Li. Should Applicant prefer a narrower interpretation concatenation or condensation of the available summaries should be clearly claimed. Nevertheless, 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. 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 Ko in view of Li taught or suggest tabbing dynamics to realize a tab environment comprising the Sin taught multiple tab levels and to thereby provide con summaries based on the Sin taught groupings to thereby realize a summary for the parent tab with respect to the child tabs, groups of tabs, etc. such as by instructing the LLM of the Ko in view of Li 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 relevant summaries; one of ordinary skill in the art would have expected only predictable results therefrom. Regarding claim 3 Ko in view of Li in view of Sin teaches or suggests: The method of claim 1, wherein the one or more triggering criteria (Sin: ¶ 51-54, Figs 4-6: grouping two or more open tab by determining relations therebetween sufficient to create multi-level nested tab groups) 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 (Ko: ¶ 72: such as a user interest value of one or more tabs which indicates a quantity of times a user has viewed, interacted, etc. with the tab and an elapsed time thereof); Zin: ¶ 23-25: a quantity of keystrokes determined to resolve a measure of user interaction with a tab), 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, 46; claims 12, 13, 29, 30: tabs grouped with additional tabs based on a highest, second highest, etc. level of content relationship, interaction, etc.), 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). The claim is considered obvious over Ko as modified by Li and Sin as addressed in the base claim as it would have been obvious to apply the further teaching of Ko, Li, and/or Sin to the modified device of Ko, Li, and Sin; one of ordinary skill in the art would have expected only predictable results therefrom. Regarding claim 4 Ko in view of Li 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 (Ko: Abstract; ¶ 64; Fig 1, 7: such as by determination of two or more open tab panes, summaries thereof sufficient to meet predetermined criteria and provide extracted data; determining display of two or more summaries based on determination of two or more open tab panes, summaries thereof); (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; such determinations determine to display or cease displaying a particular tab; resolving a particular tab to a group, etc.); comprises: in response to determining the quantity criterion that indicates the two or more open tabs of the web browser satisfies the quantity threshold (Ko: Abstract; ¶ 64; Fig 1, 7: such as by each matching a predetermined criteria); (Sin: ¶ 5, 44-46; 54-58, etc.; fig 6, 7, etc.: such as by comparison with a 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 (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 or remove from a grouped tabs determined to have a less than sufficient amount of interaction, etc.). The claim is considered obvious over Ko as modified by Li and Sin as addressed in the base claim as it would have been obvious to apply the further teaching of Ko, Li, and/or Sin to the modified device of Ko, Li, and Sin; one of ordinary skill in the art would have expected only predictable results therefrom. Regarding claim 5 Ko in view of Li 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 (Ko: Abstract; ¶ 64; Fig 1, 7: such as by determination of two or more open tab panes, summaries thereof sufficient to meet predetermined criteria and provide extracted data; determining display of two or more summaries based on determination of two or more open tab panes, summaries thereof); (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 Ko as modified by Li and Sin as addressed in the base claim as it would have been obvious to apply the further teaching of Ko, Li, and/or Sin to the modified device of Ko, Li, and Sin; one of ordinary skill in the art would have expected only predictable results therefrom. Regarding claim 6 Ko in view of Li 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 (Ko: Abstract; ¶ 64; Fig 1, 7: such as by determination of two or more open tab panes, summaries thereof sufficient to meet predetermined criteria and provide extracted data; determining display of two or more summaries based on determination of two or more open tab panes, summaries thereof); (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 Ko as modified by Li and Sin as addressed in the base claim as it would have been obvious to apply the further teaching of Ko, Li, and/or Sin to the modified device of Ko, Li, and Sin; one of ordinary skill in the art would have expected only predictable results therefrom. Regarding claim 7 Ko in view of Li 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 (Ko: Abstract; ¶ 64; Fig 1, 7: such as by determination of two or more open tab panes, summaries thereof sufficient to meet predetermined criteria and provide extracted data; determining display of two or more summaries based on determination of two or more open tab panes, summaries thereof); (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 Ko as modified by Li and Sin as addressed in the base claim as it would have been obvious to apply the further teaching of Ko, Li, and/or Sin to the modified device of Ko, Li, and Sin; one of ordinary skill in the art would have expected only predictable results therefrom. Regarding claim 8 Ko in view of Li 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 (Ko: Abstract; ¶ 64; Fig 1, 7: such as by determination of two or more open tab panes, summaries thereof sufficient to meet predetermined criteria and provide extracted data; determining display of two or more summaries based on determination of two or more open tab panes, summaries thereof); (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 Ko as modified by Li and Sin as addressed in the base claim as it would have been obvious to apply the further teaching of Ko, Li, and/or Sin to the modified device of Ko, Li, and Sin; one of ordinary skill in the art would have expected only predictable results therefrom. Regarding claim 14 Ko in view of Li in view of Sin 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; or a level of expertise of the user of the client device with respect to a topic of the summary of the content (Ko: ¶ 91: a number of extracted words is considered a stand in for expertise as an expertise would operate to drive a greater or lesser amount of words of a summary based on the expectations thereof). Further, Examiner takes official notice that rendering an audio summary based on temporal duration over which the summary of the content is to be rendered for presentation to the user was well known in the art before the effective filing date of the instant application and would have comprised an obvious inclusion for at least the purpose of allowing a user to control or determine the length of an expected output based thereon; one of ordinary skill in the art would have expected only predictable results therefrom. Regarding claim 15 Ko in view of Li in view of Sin teaches or suggests: The method of claim 14, wherein the one or more summarization criteria are inferred based on 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 further duration of navigation based on temporal dynamics of use and persists a tab or no further duration of navigation based on temporal dynamics of use and eliminates a tab). The claim is considered obvious over Ko as modified by Li and Sin as addressed in the base claim as it would have been obvious to apply the further teaching of Ko, Li, and/or Sin to the modified device of Ko, Li, and Sin; one of ordinary skill in the art would have expected only predictable results therefrom. Regarding claim 16 Ko in view of Li in view of Sin 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 to determine that the presentation of information, particularly summary information, should be 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 Ko as modified by Li and Sin as addressed in the base claim as it would have been obvious to apply the further teaching of Ko, Li, and/or Sin to the modified device of Ko, Li, and Sin; one of ordinary skill in the art would have expected only predictable results therefrom. Regarding claim 17, 21—The claims are considered to recite substantially similar subject matter to that of claim 1 and are similarly rejected. Regarding claim 18 Ko in view of Li in view of Sin 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 (Ko: ¶ 4, 5; Fig 9: such as by user input to a search bar, web browser; a user clicking upon or otherwise following links to diverse URLs, etc.). ). The claim is considered obvious over Ko as modified by Li and Sin as addressed in the base claim as it would have been obvious to apply the further teaching of Ko, Li, and/or Sin to the modified device of Ko, Li, and Sin; one of ordinary skill in the art would have expected only predictable results therefrom. Regarding claim 19 Ko in view of Li in view of Sin 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 (Ko: ¶ 91: a number of extracted words is considered a stand in for expertise as an expertise would operate to drive a greater or lesser amount of words of a summary based on the expectations thereof). Please see additionally claim 16 supra as this can also be considered an obvious design choice based on a variety of parameters. The claim is considered obvious over Ko as modified by Li and Sin as addressed in the base claim as it would have been obvious to apply the further teaching of Ko, Li, and/or Sin to the modified device of Ko, Li, and Sin; one of ordinary skill in the art would have expected only predictable results therefrom. Regarding claim 22—The claim is considered to recite substantially similar subject matter to that of claim 3 and is similarly rejected. Regarding claim 23—The claim is considered to recite substantially similar subject matter to that of claim 4 and is similarly rejected. Regarding claim 24—The claim is considered to recite substantially similar subject matter to that of claim 5 and is similarly rejected. Regarding claim 25—The claim is considered to recite substantially similar subject matter to that of claim 6 and is similarly rejected. Regarding claim 26—The claim is considered to recite substantially similar subject matter to that of claim 7 and is similarly rejected. Regarding claim 27—The claim is considered to recite substantially similar subject matter to that of claim 8 and is similarly rejected. 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 133 over Shin, McKeown, and Zhang and claim(s) 3-8, 10-13, 15, 16 over Shin, McKeown, Zhang, 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 Kothari, Li, and Singh. Conclusion 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 Application/Control Number: 18/537,585 Page 2 Art Unit: 2692 Application/Control Number: 18/537,585 Page 4 Art Unit: 2692 Application/Control Number: 18/537,585 Page 5 Art Unit: 2692 Application/Control Number: 18/537,585 Page 6 Art Unit: 2692 Application/Control Number: 18/537,585 Page 7 Art Unit: 2692 Application/Control Number: 18/537,585 Page 8 Art Unit: 2692 Application/Control Number: 18/537,585 Page 9 Art Unit: 2692 Application/Control Number: 18/537,585 Page 10 Art Unit: 2692 Application/Control Number: 18/537,585 Page 11 Art Unit: 2692 Application/Control Number: 18/537,585 Page 12 Art Unit: 2692 Application/Control Number: 18/537,585 Page 13 Art Unit: 2692 Application/Control Number: 18/537,585 Page 14 Art Unit: 2692 Application/Control Number: 18/537,585 Page 16 Art Unit: 2692
Prosecution Insights