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 .
DETAILED ACTION
This non-final office action is in response to the Application filed on 11/27/2023, which is a 371 of PCT/CN2021/102208 file on 06/24/2021.
Claim(s) 1-8, 12-23 are pending for examination. Claim(s) 1, 12, 21 is/are independent claim(s).
Election/Restrictions
Applicant’s election without traverse of group I drawn to claims 1-8, 12-20 in the reply filed on 2/13/2026 is acknowledged.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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 (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
The following is a quotation of 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.
Claim(s) 1, 4, 6-8, 12, 15, 17-23 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Upadhyay; Mrityunjay et al. US Pub. No. 2017/0124038 (Upadhyay).
Claim 1:
Upadhyay teaches:
A computer system, comprising:
a user interface display mechanism that displays a source document on a source document display portion of a user interface display and a summarization actuator on a control display portion of the user interface display [¶ 0286-287] (receiving user input such as a selection of a date-time from a menu or a selection of a user who is part of a thread);
a trigger detector that detects a user input indicative of user actuation of the summarization actuator [¶ 0138, 196, 207, 209] (triggering event);
a source text extraction system extracting textual content from the source document based on the detected user actuation of the summarization actuator [¶ 0359, 379-382] (unique sentences are extracted from the superset of sentences in the email thread, designated here SS);
a sequence-to-sequence summarizer that transforms the textual content extracted from the source document to a summary of the textual content extracted from the source document [¶ 0005, 256, 392, 636] (distinctive content summary disclosed herein comprises certain sentences that are automatically gleaned from the email thread, analyzed relative to other sentences, and presented in a chronological sequence); and
a user experience generation system that displays the summary with the source document [¶ 0013, 315-316, 387, 440, 626] (summary of the email-thread to be displayed to a user).
Claim 4:
Upadhyay teaches:
The computer system of claim 1 wherein the source document comprises a thread of electronic mail (email) messages and wherein the source text extraction system comprises:
an email thread processor configured to extract a body of each message in the thread of email messages [¶ 0317, 340] (body of email); and
a text extractor configured to extract metadata indicative of a sender of each message in the thread of email messages [¶ 0191-193, 208, 219-229, 242, 251, 253-254, 260] (metadata (e.g., email metadata such as “to,” “from,” “cc,” “bcc,” attachment name, received time, etc.)).
Claim 6:
Upadhyay teaches:
The computer system of claim 1 wherein the source document comprises a list of documents and wherein the source text extraction system comprises:
an email thread processor configured to access each document in the list of documents [¶ 0004-08, 286-294] (thread or conversation comprises emails that are related by mutual replies, e.g., at least one reply to one or more messages in the thread),
extract the textual content from each document in the list of documents [¶ 0317, 340] (body of email) [¶ 0359, 379-382] (unique sentences are extracted from the superset of sentences in the email thread, designated here SS), and extract metadata identifying each of the documents in the list of documents [¶ 0191-193, 208, 219-229, 242, 251, 253-254, 260] (metadata (e.g., email metadata such as “to,” “from,” “cc,” “bcc,” attachment name, received time, etc.)).
Claim 7:
Upadhyay teaches:
The computer system of claim 1 further comprising:
a correlation suggestion generator configured to generate a correlation indicator indicative of an insertion point in the source document for the summary and output the correlation indicator [¶ 0010, 287, 293-294, 314-316] (hyperlinking each sentence therein to a number of information sources and/or content. For example, sentences in the thread summary are hyperlinked to the original email, to detailed information about the sender (e.g., name, title, organization, contact information, etc.), and/or to detailed customer information referenced in the source email (e.g., customer account number and contact, storage operation cell information, geographic location, configuration data, etc.). The thread content summary is further enhanced by gleaning deadlines or other operative dates from the emails and presenting a selection of date-times for the user to choose from).
Claim 8:
Upadhyay teaches:
The computer system of claim 7 wherein the user experience generation system is configured to conduct a user experience enabling user interaction with the summary and the correlation indicator [¶ 0010, 287, 293-294, 314-316] (hyperlinking each sentence therein to a number of information sources and/or content. For example, sentences in the thread summary are hyperlinked to the original email, to detailed information about the sender (e.g., name, title, organization, contact information, etc.), and/or to detailed customer information referenced in the source email (e.g., customer account number and contact, storage operation cell information, geographic location, configuration data, etc.). The thread content summary is further enhanced by gleaning deadlines or other operative dates from the emails and presenting a selection of date-times for the user to choose from).
Claim 20:
Upadhyay teaches:
The computer implemented method of claim 18 wherein displaying the summary comprises:
displaying the summary at the insertion point in the source document [¶ 0010, 287, 293-294, 314-316] (hyperlinking each sentence therein to a number of information sources and/or content. For example, sentences in the thread summary are hyperlinked to the original email, to detailed information about the sender (e.g., name, title, organization, contact information, etc.), and/or to detailed customer information referenced in the source email (e.g., customer account number and contact, storage operation cell information, geographic location, configuration data, etc.). The thread content summary is further enhanced by gleaning deadlines or other operative dates from the emails and presenting a selection of date-times for the user to choose from).
Claim 21:
Upadhyay teaches:
A summary generation computing system comprising:
a processor; and
a memory storing executable instructions that, when executed, cause the processor alone or in combination with other processors to perform operations of:
displaying, on a user interface display, a source document and a summarization actuator [¶ 0286-287] (receiving user input such as a selection of a date-time from a menu or a selection of a user who is part of a thread);
detecting a user input indicative of user actuation of the summarization actuator [¶ 0138, 196, 207, 209] (triggering event);
extracting, by a source text extraction system, textual content from the source document based on the detected user actuation of the summarization actuator [¶ 0359, 379-382] (unique sentences are extracted from the superset of sentences in the email thread, designated here SS);
transforming, by a sequence-to-sequence summarizer, the textual content extracted from the source document to a summary of the textual content extracted from the source document [¶ 0005, 256, 392, 636] (distinctive content summary disclosed herein comprises certain sentences that are automatically gleaned from the email thread, analyzed relative to other sentences, and presented in a chronological sequence);
generating, by a correlation suggestion generator, a correlation suggestion including a correlation indicator indicative of an insertion point in the source document for the summary [¶ 0010, 287, 293-294, 314-316] (hyperlinking each sentence therein to a number of information sources and/or content. For example, sentences in the thread summary are hyperlinked to the original email, to detailed information about the sender (e.g., name, title, organization, contact information, etc.), and/or to detailed customer information referenced in the source email (e.g., customer account number and contact, storage operation cell information, geographic location, configuration data, etc.). The thread content summary is further enhanced by gleaning deadlines or other operative dates from the emails and presenting a selection of date-times for the user to choose from); and
displaying the summary of the textual content with the correlation suggestion [¶ 0013, 315-316, 387, 440, 626] (summary of the email-thread to be displayed to a user).
Claim 22:
Upadhyay teaches:
The summary generation computing system of claim 21, wherein the source document comprises a thread of electronic mail (email) messages and wherein extracting the textual content comprises:
extracting a body of each message in the thread of email messages [¶ 0317, 340] (body of email); and
extracting metadata indicative of a sender of each message in the thread of email messages [¶ 0191-193, 208, 219-229, 242, 251, 253-254, 260] (metadata (e.g., email metadata such as “to,” “from,” “cc,” “bcc,” attachment name, received time, etc.)).
Claim 23:
Upadhyay teaches:
The summary generation computing system of claim 21, wherein the source document comprises a list of documents and wherein extracting the textual content comprises:
accessing each document in the list of documents [¶ 0359, 379-382] (unique sentences are extracted from the superset of sentences in the email thread, designated here SS);
extracting the textual content from each document in the list of documents [¶ 0317, 340] (body of email); and
extracting metadata identifying each of the documents in the list of documents [¶ 0191-193, 208, 219-229, 242, 251, 253-254, 260] (metadata (e.g., email metadata such as “to,” “from,” “cc,” “bcc,” attachment name, received time, etc.)).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
Claim(s) 2, 3, 13, 14 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Upadhyay; Mrityunjay et al. US Pub. No. 2017/0124038 (Upadhyay) in view of Bax; Eric Theodore US Pub. No. 2019/0087491 (Bax).
Claim 2:
Upadhyay does not appear to explicitly disclose “segment the textual content into a plurality of different sections”.
However, the disclosure of Bax teaches:
The computer system of claim 1 and further comprising:
a text dividing system configured to segment the textual content into a plurality of different sections, and wherein the sequence-to-sequence summarizer is configured to generate a different summary corresponding to each of the plurality of different sections [¶ 0050] (first message and second message could be “dividing”) [¶ 0049-52] (combine the first summary part and the second summary part to generate the abstractive summary).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the method of email summarization in Upadhyay and the method of conversation summary in Bax, with a reasonable expectation of success.
The motivation for doing so would have been the use of known technique to improve similar devices (methods, or products) in the same way; (See KSR Int’l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 US 398, 82 USPQ2d 1385, 1396 (U.S. 2007) and MPEP § 2143(D)).
The know technique of abstractive summaries in Bax could be applied to the email summarization in Upadhyay. Upadhyay and Bax are similar devices because each summarize text. One of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that applying the known technique would improve the similar devices and resulted in an improved system, with a reasonable expectation of success, for “reduction in screen space and/or an improved usability of a display” [Bax: ¶ 0036].
Claim 3:
The combination of Upadhyay and Bax discloses the limitations recited in the parent claim(s) for the reasons discussed above. In addition, the present claim would be further obvious using the same reason, rationale and/or motivation as used above, over the disclosure of Bax, which teaches:
The computer system of claim 2 and further comprising:
a summary merging system configured to merge the different summaries corresponding to each of the plurality of different sections into the summary of the textual content extracted from the source document [¶ 0049-52] (combine the first summary part and the second summary part to generate the abstractive summary).
Claim(s) 5, 16 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Upadhyay; Mrityunjay et al. US Pub. No. 2017/0124038 (Upadhyay) in view of Sachidanandam; Vignesh et al. US Pub. No. 2016/0182430 (Sachidanandam).
Claim 5:
Upadhyay does not appear to explicitly disclose “generate a separate summary of messages sent by each sender”.
However, the disclosure of Sachidanandam teaches:
The computer system of claim 4 wherein the sequence-to-sequence summarizer is configured to generate a separate summary of messages sent by each sender in the thread of email messages [¶ 0033, 64] (summaries displayed on the summary pane 305 may be sorted based on a chronological order, a sender name, or a message subject).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the method of email summarization in Upadhyay and the method of summarization in Sachidanandam, with a reasonable expectation of success.
The motivation for doing so would have been the use of known technique to improve similar devices (methods, or products) in the same way; (See KSR Int’l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 US 398, 82 USPQ2d 1385, 1396 (U.S. 2007) and MPEP § 2143(D)).
The know technique of sender summarization in Sachidanandam could be applied to the email summarizaiton in Upadhyay. Upadhyay and Sachidanandam are similar devices because each summarize text. One of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that applying the known technique would improve the similar devices and resulted in an improved system, with a reasonable expectation of success, for “improved usability of user interfaces” [Sachidanandam: ¶ 0044].
Claims 12-19, 21-23:
Claim(s) 12 is/are substantially similar to claim 1 and is/are rejected using the same prior art and the same reason, rationale and/or motivation as used above.
Claim 12 is a “method” claim, claim 1 is a “system” claim, but the steps or elements of each claim are essentially the same.
Claim(s) 13 is/are substantially similar to claim 2 and is/are rejected using the same prior art and the same reason, rationale and/or motivation as used above.
Claim(s) 14 is/are substantially similar to claim 3 and is/are rejected using the same prior art and the same reason, rationale and/or motivation as used above.
Claim(s) 15 is/are substantially similar to claim 4 and is/are rejected using the same prior art and the same reason, rationale and/or motivation as used above.
Claim(s) 16 is/are substantially similar to claim 5 and is/are rejected using the same prior art and the same reason, rationale and/or motivation as used above.
Claim(s) 17 is/are substantially similar to claim 6 and is/are rejected using the same prior art and the same reason, rationale and/or motivation as used above.
Claim(s) 18 is/are substantially similar to claim and is/are rejected using the same prior art and the same reason, rationale and/or motivation as used above.
Claim(s) 19 is/are substantially similar to claim and is/are rejected using the same prior art and the same reason, rationale and/or motivation as used above.
Claim(s) 21 contains elements of claims 1, 7, 8 and is/are rejected using the same prior art and the same reason, rationale and/or motivation as used above.
Claim(s) 22 is/are substantially similar to claim 4 and is/are rejected using the same prior art and the same reason, rationale and/or motivation as used above.
Claim(s) 23 is/are substantially similar to claim 6 and is/are rejected using the same prior art and the same reason, rationale and/or motivation as used above.
Prior Art
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Please See PTO-892: Notice of References Cited.
Evidence of the level skill of an ordinary person in the art for Claim 3:
Hewitt; Trudy L. et al. US Pub. No. 2021/0383799 (Hewitt)
Evidence of the level skill of an ordinary person in the art for Claim 5:
Sharifi; Matthew et al. US Pub. No. 2018/0239495 (Sharifi)
Citations to Prior Art
A reference to specific paragraphs, columns, pages, or figures in a cited prior art reference is not limited to preferred embodiments or any specific examples. It is well settled that a prior art reference, in its entirety, must be considered for all that it expressly teaches and fairly suggests to one having ordinary skill in the art. Stated differently, a prior art disclosure reading on a limitation of Applicant's claim cannot be ignored on the ground that other embodiments disclosed were instead cited. Therefore, the Examiner's citation to a specific portion of a single prior art reference is not intended to exclusively dictate, but rather, to demonstrate an exemplary disclosure commensurate with the specific limitations being addressed. In re Heck, 699 F.2d 1331, 1332-33,216 USPQ 1038, 1039 (Fed. Cir. 1983) (quoting In re Lemelson, 397 F.2d 1006, 1009, 158 USPQ 275, 277 (CCPA 1968". In re: Upsher-Smith Labs. v. Pamlab, LLC, 412 F.3d 1319, 1323,75 USPQ2d 1213,1215 (Fed. Cir. 2005); In re Fritch, 972 F.2d 1260, 1264,23 USPQ2d 1780, 1782 (Fed. Cir. 1992); Merck & Co. v. Biocraft Labs., Inc., 874 F.2d 804, 807,10 USPQ2d 1843, 1846 (Fed. Cir. 1989); In re Fracalossi, 681 F.2d 792,794 n.1, 215 USPQ 569, 570 n.1 (CCPA 1982); In re Lamberti, 545 F.2d 747, 750, 192 USPQ 278, 280 (CCPA 1976); In re Bozek, 416 F.2d 1385,1390,163 USPQ 545, 549 (CCPA 1969).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to BENJAMIN J SMITH whose telephone number is (571)270-3825. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 11:00 - 7:30 EST.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, ADAM QUELER can be reached at (571) 272-4140. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of published or unpublished applications may be obtained from Patent Center. Unpublished application information in Patent Center is available to registered users. To file and manage patent submissions in Patent Center, visit: https://patentcenter.uspto.gov. Visit https://www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/patent-center for more information about Patent Center and https://www.uspto.gov/patents/docx for information about filing in DOCX format. For additional questions, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/Benjamin Smith/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2172 Direct Phone: 571-270-3825
Direct Fax: 571-270-4825
Email: benjamin.smith@uspto.gov
Prosecution Insights