DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
1. The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Remarks
2. Claims 1-20 have been examined and rejected. This Office action is responsive to the amendment filed on May 5, 2026, which has been entered in the above identified application.
Specification
3. The corrections to the specification have been approved, and the objections to the specification are withdrawn.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
4. After further consideration, the rejection of claim 1, clause (a), and claim 2 under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) for lack of written description has been withdrawn. [Figures 10A and 10L] appear to show that the "Description" and "Claims" button above the descriptive text content are associated with and tied to the pane displaying the description. Therefore, when clicking to view claims in a sub-pane simultaneous with the first pane (see [paragraph 313]), both panes would contain the associated buttons "Description" and "Claims". [Paragraph 440] links the “summary” button with the “Description” and “Claims” button by reciting that a "summary" button may be presented similar to how the "Description" and "Claims" buttons are presented, and therefore, a "summary" button would be presented in both the pane displaying the description and the pane displaying the claims. Clicking the "summary" button creates a summary from a patent content that may be inclusively (i.e. simultaneously) displayed with the descriptive text [paragraph 440]. Therefore, it appears there is sufficient support for the second content enabling a summary of the first content to be generated and then presented within the second sub-pane while the first sub-viewing pane presents the first content.
5. The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
6. Claims 1-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claims contain subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention.
6-1 Claim 1, clause (c) recites the limitation “(i) present an address bar and a viewport where the viewport presents a web page, (ii) receive a user request from the user interface after the address bar and the viewport are presented, and (iii) simultaneously present a first viewing pane and a second viewing pane side-by-side and without overlapping each other within the viewport responsive to the user request where the first viewing pane presents the web page and the second viewing pane presents a visual interface enabled to receive a user selection of a data file containing a descriptive text and a user command to create a summary of the descriptive text such that, (iv) a copy of the data file is accessed based on the user selection and the user command” in [lines 26-33] of the claim. Nowhere in Applicant specification discloses going from a single pane displaying first content to a first and second pane displaying the first content in the first pane and a visual interface in the second pane where the visual interface enables a user selection of a data file and a user command to create a summary of descriptive text contained in the data file.
6-2. Claim 8 recites the limitation, “the result as presented depicts the descriptive text recited in the second language” in [lines 3-4] of the claim. Nowhere in Applicant’s specification provides support for presenting results of a search that depicts the descriptive text recited in the second language.
6-3. Claim 14 recites similar limitations as [lines 26-33] of claim 1, clause (c), and is thus, rejected for similar reasons as claim 1.
6-4. Claims 2-20 contain limitations from claim 1, and are thus, rejected for similar reasons as claim 1.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
7. 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.
8. Claims 1-6 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hutchins (U.S. Patent No. 11,720,758), in view of Howes et al (U.S. Patent No. 9,342,208), and further in view of Zhang et al (“PEGASUS: Pre-training with Extracted Gap-sentences for Abstractive Summarization,” December 18, 2019).
8-1. Regarding claim 1, Hutchins teaches the claim comprising: causing a processor to perform at least one of:
(a) generating a user interface of a web browser where the user interface is programmed to (i) present an address bar and a viewport where the viewport presents a first content including a descriptive text, (ii) receive a user request from the user interface after the address bar and the viewport are presented, and (iii) simultaneously present a first viewing pane and a second viewing pane side-by-side… within the viewport responsive to the user request where the first viewing pane presents the first content including the descriptive text and the second viewing pane presents a second content, wherein the second content includes a user input element that is user-activatable to enable a summary of the first content including the descriptive text to be created… and then presented within the second viewing pane while the first viewing pane presents the first content including the descriptive text;
(b) generating a screen of a user interface on a mobile computing device responsive to a user input into the mobile computing device where the screen of the user interface is programmed to (i) receive a gesture consisting of a freeform selection of an area of an image, (ii) request a search of a set of content items for what is depicted in the area responsive to the freeform selection based on the gesture, and (iii) present a result of the search in the user interface responsive to the freeform selection based on the gesture, wherein the freeform selection of the area is a shape enclosing a portion of a content depicted in the image for which the search of the set of content items is performed, wherein the image is a photo, wherein the mobile computing device is a smartphone or a tablet computer, wherein the set of content items is stored external to the mobile computing device, wherein the user input is into the user interface; or
(c) generating a user interface of a web browser where the user interface is programmed to (i) present an address bar and a viewport where the viewport presents a web page, (ii) receive a user request from the user interface after the address bar and the viewport are presented, and (iii) simultaneously present a first viewing pane and a second viewing pane side-by-side and without overlapping each other within the viewport responsive to the user request where the first viewing pane presents the web page and the second viewing pane presents a visual interface enabled to receive a user selection of a data file containing a descriptive text and a user command to create a summary of the descriptive text such that (iv) a copy of the data file is accessed based on the user selection and the user command, (v) an Optical Character Recognition (OCR) process is performed on the copy of the data file such that the descriptive text in the copy of the data file is recognized in its entirety, (vi) the descriptive text as recognized in its entirety is read in its entirety, (vii) the summary of the descriptive text as read in its entirety is created using a neural language model based on a transformer architecture trained for abstractive text summarization, and (viii) the summary of the descriptive text is presented in the visual interface based on the user selection and the user command as the first viewing pane presents the web page, wherein the OCR process is performed remote to the processor,
by disclosing displaying content of an article in a web page of a bowser application [column 4, lines 47-51; column 9, lines 23-25; figure 3A]. In response to invoking summarizer 301 by selecting summarizer 301 from a menu or a list of functions provided by browser application 300 [column 4, lines 47-50; column 9, lines 25-29], displaying a user interface element for adjusting a summarization range 355 and summary 350 in a popup window or page right next to the article within the same web page where the article is displayed [column 8, lines 29-41; column 11, lines 41-47; column 11, line 65 to column 12, line 24; column 17, lines 26-28]. The pane displaying the article (first content) may be considered the first viewing pane, and the popup or page displaying the user interface element (second content) and summary may be considered the second viewing pane. Since the pane displaying the article and the popup or page displaying the user interface element and the summary are displayed right next to each other [column 11, line 65 to column 12, line 24], the panes may be considered as displayed side-by-side. In response to user input on the user interface element to adjust the summarization range, an AI platform is called to process text from a main body of the content so as to produce a summary of the text block for display in the popup or page [column 8, lines 36-43; column 11, lines 45-47; column 17, lines 29-45; figures 3B, 3C].
Although Hutchins discloses that the article and the popup or page displaying the user interface element and the summary are displayed right next to each other [Hutchins, column 11, line 65 to column 12, line 24], Hutchins does not expressly teach that the article and the popup or page are displayed without overlapping each other. That is, Hutchins does not expressly teach simultaneously present the first viewing pane and the second viewing pane side-by-side and without overlapping each other within the viewport. Howes discloses a browser 100 including a primary window 102 and selectable icons 108a-g representing various applications integrated into the browser [column 2, lines 27-30; figure 1]. In response to selection of icons 108a-g, a windows module associated with browser 100 may display a secondary window 104 related to the selected icon 108a-g [column 2, lines 30-33]. The windows module may also display the secondary window 104 in response to selection of an option in a toolbar of the browser 100 [column 2, lines 33-37]. The windows module may display the secondary window 104 adjacent to one of the sides, i.e., edges, of the primary window 102 such that the edges of each of the adjacent windows are separated from each other by a threshold distance [column 2, lines 38-45]. Various other configurations are provided such that the secondary window does not overlap the primary window [column 3, lines 40-45, 51-65; figure 2]. This would allow a user to better focus on information displayed in the primary window. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to display the article and popup or page of Hutchins side-by-side and without overlapping each other, as taught by Howes. This would allow a user to better focus on information displayed in the primary window.
Hutchins-Howes do not expressly teach that the summary is created using a neural language model based on a transformer architecture trained for abstractive text summarization. Zhang discloses using Gap Sentences Generation (GSG) to pre-train a Transformer encoder-decoder on large corpora of documents to generate abstractive summaries [page 2, left column, first paragraph; page 2, right column, paragraphs 2-5; page 8, “6.3 Qualitative observations”]. This would help achieve good abstractive summarization performance across broad domains with very little supervision. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use the PEGASUS model to generate abstractive summaries, a taught by Zhang. This would help achieve good abstractive summarization performance across broad domains with very little supervision.
8-2. Regarding claim 2, Hutchins-Howes-Zhang teach all the limitations of claim 1, wherein the processor performs (a) generating the user interface of the web browser where the user interface is programmed to (i) present the address bar and the viewport where the viewport presents the first content including the descriptive text, by disclosing displaying content of an article in a web page of a bowser application [Hutchins, column 4, lines 47-51; column 9, lines 23-25; figure 3A].
Hutchins-Howes-Zhang teach (ii) receive the user request from the user interface after the address bar and the viewport are presented, and (iii) simultaneously present the first viewing pane and the second viewing pane side-by-side and without overlapping each other within the viewport responsive to the user request where the first viewing pane presents the first content including the descriptive text and the second viewing pane presents the second content, by disclosing that In response to invoking summarizer 301 by selecting summarizer 301 from a menu or a list of functions provided by browser application 300 [Hutchins, column 4, lines 47-50; column 9, lines 25-29], displaying a user interface element for adjusting a summarization range 355 and summary 350 in a popup window or page right next to the article within the same web page where the article is displayed [Hutchins, column 8, lines 29-41; column 11, lines 41-47; column 11, line 65 to column 12, line 24; column 17, lines 26-28] and without overlapping each other [Howes, column 2, lines 30-45; column 3, lines 39-45, 51-65; figures 1-2]. The pane displaying the article (first content) may be considered the first viewing pane, and the popup or page displaying the user interface element (second content) and summary may be considered the second viewing pane.
Hutchins-Howes-Zhang teach wherein the second content includes the user input element that is user-activatable to enable the summary of the first content including the descriptive text to be created using the neural language model based on the transformer architecture trained for abstractive text summarization and then presented within the second viewing pane while the first viewing pane presents the first content including the descriptive text, by disclosing that in response to user input on the user interface element to adjust the summarization range, calling an AI platform to process text from a main body of the content so as to produce a summary of the text block for display in the popup or page [Hutchins, column 8, lines 36-43; column 11, lines 45-47; column 17, lines 29-45; figures 3B, 3C]. As discussed above with respect to claim 1, Gap Sentences Generation (GSG) are used to pre-train a Transformer encoder-decoder on large corpora of documents to generate an abstractive summary [Zhang, page 2, left column, first paragraph; page 2, right column, paragraphs 2-5; page 8, “6.3 Qualitative observations”].
8-3. Regarding claim 3, Hutchins-Howes-Zhang teach all the limitations of claim 2, wherein the user input element is a first user input element, wherein the user request originates from activating a second user input element presented in the user interface external to the first content presented within the viewport, by disclosing that In response to invoking summarizer 301 by selecting summarizer 301 from a menu or a list of functions provided by browser application 300 [Hutchins, column 4, lines 47-50; column 9, lines 25-29], displaying a user interface element for adjusting a summarization range 355 and summary 350 in a popup window or page right next to the article within the same web page where the article is displayed [Hutchins, column 8, lines 29-41; column 11, lines 41-47; column 11, line 65 to column 12, line 24; column 17, lines 26-28]. The interface element for invoking summarizer 301 is interpreted as the second user input element and the user interface element for specifying a desired summarization range [Hutchins, column 8, lines 36-43; column 11, lines 45-47; column 17, lines 26-28] is interpreted as the first user input element.
8-4. Regarding claim 4, Hutchins-Howes-Zhang teach all the limitations of claim 2, wherein the first content is a Portable Document Format (PDF) file, by disclosing that the content may be .pdf file [Hutchins, column 12, lines 38-40].
8-5. Regarding claim 5, Hutchins-Howes-Zhang teach all the limitations of claim 2, wherein the user input element is a button that initiates the summary to be created responsive to the button being user-activated, by disclosing that in response to user input on the user interface element to adjust the summarization range, calling an AI platform to process text from a main body of the content so as to produce a summary of the text block for display in the popup or page [Hutchins, column 8, lines 36-43; column 11, lines 45-47; column 17, lines 29-45; figures 3B, 3C]. As discussed above with respect to claim 1, Gap Sentences Generation (GSG) are used to pre-train a Transformer encoder-decoder on large corpora of documents to generate an abstractive summary [Zhang, page 2, left column, first paragraph; page 2, right column, paragraphs 2-5; page 8, “6.3 Qualitative observations”].
8-6. Regarding claim 6, Hutchins-Howes-Zhang teach all the limitations of claim 2, wherein the processor is among a plurality of processors collectively generating the user interface of the web browser, by disclosing that the system comprises one or more processors [Hutchins, column 13, lines 55-59; column 15, lines 1-5].
9. Claims 1, 7, and 9-13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Cady et al (U.S. Patent No. 9,311,340) in view of Wang (U.S. Patent No. 5,802,361), herein after Wang ‘361.
9-1. Regarding claim 1, Cady teaches the claim comprising: causing a processor to perform at least one of:
(a) generating a user interface of a web browser where the user interface is programmed to (i) present an address bar and a viewport where the viewport presents a first content including a descriptive text, (ii) receive a user request from the user interface after the address bar and the viewport are presented, and (iii) simultaneously present a first viewing pane and a second viewing pane side-by-side and without overlapping teach other within the viewport responsive to the user request where the first viewing pane presents the first content including the descriptive text and the second viewing pane presents a second content, wherein the second content includes a user input element that is user-activatable to enable a summary of the first content including the descriptive text to be created using a neural language model based on a transformer architecture trained for abstractive summarization and then presented within the second viewing pane while the first viewing pane presents the first content including the descriptive text;
(b) generating a screen of a user interface on a mobile computing device responsive to a user input into the mobile computing device where the screen of the user interface is programmed to (i) receive a gesture consisting of a… selection of an area of an image, (ii) request a search of a set of content items for what is depicted in the area responsive to the freeform selection based on the gesture, and (iii) present a result of the search in the user interface responsive to the… selection based on the gesture, wherein the… selection of the area is a shape enclosing a portion of a content depicted in the image for which the search of the set of content items is performed,… wherein the mobile computing device is a smartphone or a tablet computer, wherein the set of content items is stored external to the mobile computing device, wherein the user input is into the user interface; or
(c) generating a user interface of a web browser where the user interface is programmed to (i) present an address bar and a viewport where the viewport presents a web page, (ii) receive a user request from the user interface after the address bar and the viewport are presented, and (iii) simultaneously present a first viewing pane and a second viewing pane side-by-side and without overlapping teach other within the viewport responsive to the user request where the first viewing pane presents the web page and the second viewing pane presents a visual interface enabled to receive a user selection of a data file containing a descriptive text and a user command to create a summary of the descriptive text such that (iv) a copy of the data file is accessed based on the user selection and the user command, (v) an Optical Character Recognition (OCR) process is performed on the copy of the data file such that the descriptive text in the copy of the data file is recognized in its entirety, (vi) the descriptive text as recognized in its entirety is read in its entirety, (vii) the summary of the descriptive text as read in its entirety is created using a neural language model based on a transformer architecture trained for abstractive text summarization, and (viii) the summary of the descriptive text is presented in the visual interface based on the user selection and the user command as the first viewing pane presents the web page, wherein the OCR process is performed remote to the processor,
by disclosing a portable computing device that may be a handheld device such as a tablet computing device [column 5, lines 45-61] that provides a graphical partial-image compositional search interface in response to determining that a partial-image search has been initiated by a user [column 14, lines 16-23]. The search interface displays an initial image to initiate partial-image selection and searching [column 14, lines 31-32]. The user provides input on the initial image to designate the partial-image selection comprising an area of the image, which is highlighted by a dashed partial-image selection box 306 [Cady, column 9, lines 37-44; figure 3A]. The portable computing device receives visually-selected search criteria selected by a user by an input device 206 [column 8, lines 64-67] wherein the input device 206 may be a touchscreen [column 6, lines 31-36]. In response to determining that a partial-image selection has been detected, retrieving and displaying images similar to the selected partial image [column 14, lines 32-38]. The images similar to the selected partial image is retrieved from a server [column 5, lines 17-20].
Cady does not expressly teach that the selection is a freeform selection and wherein the image is a photo. Wang ‘361 discloses using a conventional selection tool, such as a lasso, to select a desired part of an image for use in searching an image database for images that contain objects or images similar to those included in existing images [column 16, lines 25-31]. The image may be a digitized photograph [column 7, lines 13-20]. This would expand such image-based searches to those based on images taken by a user, and allow for more accurate selection of objects within those images having irregular shapes. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to allow use of the lasso tool for selection of an area of an image, wherein the image is a photo, as taught by Wang ‘361. This would expand such image-based searches to those based on images taken by a user, and allow for more accurate selection of objects within those images having irregular shapes.
9-2. Regarding claim 7, Cady-Wang ‘361 teach all the limitations of claim 1, wherein the processor performs (b) generating the screen of the user interface on the mobile computing device responsive to the user input into the mobile computing device where the screen of the user interface is programmed to (i) receive the gesture consisting of the freeform selection of the area of the image, by disclosing a portable computing device [Cady, column 5, lines 45-61] that provides a graphical partial-image compositional search interface in response to determining that a partial-image search has been initiated by a user [Cady, column 14, lines 16-23]. The search interface displays an initial image to initiate partial-image selection and searching [Cady, column 14, lines 31-32]. The partial-image selection of an image comprises an area of the image, and is highlighted by a dashed partial-image selection box 306 [Cady, column 9, lines 40-44; figure 3A]. A conventional selection tool, such as a lasso, is used to select a desired part of an image for use in searching an image database for images that contain objects or images similar to those included in existing images [Wang ‘361, column 16, lines 25-31]. The portable computing device receives visually-selected search criteria selected by a user by an input device 206 [Cady, column 8, lines 64-67] wherein the input device 206 may be a touchscreen [Cady, column 6, lines 31-36].
Cady-Wang ‘361 teach (ii) request the search of the set of content items for what is depicted in the area responsive to the freeform selection based on the gesture, and (iii) present the result of the search in the user interface responsive to the freeform selection based on the gesture, wherein the freeform selection of the area is a shape enclosing the portion of the content depicted in the image for which the search of the set of content items is performed, by disclosing that in response to determining that a partial-image selection has been detected, retrieving and displaying images similar to the selected partial image [Cady, column 14, lines 32-38]. A conventional selection tool, such as a lasso, is used to select a desired part of an image for use in searching an image database for images that contain objects or images similar to those included in existing images [Wang ‘361, column 16, lines 25-31].
Cady-Wang ‘361 teach wherein the image is the photo, by disclosing that the image may be a digitized photograph [Wang ‘361, column 7, lines 13-20].
Cady-Wang ‘361 teach wherein the mobile computing device is the smartphone or the tablet computer, by disclosing that the portable device may be a handheld device such as a tablet computing device [Cady, column 5, lines 45-61].
Cady-Wang ‘361 teach wherein the set of content items is stored external to the mobile computing device, by disclosing that the images similar to the selected partial image is retrieved from a server [Cady, column 5, lines 17-20].
Cady-Wang ‘361 teach wherein the user input is into the user interface, by disclosing that the user provides input on the initial image to designate the partial-image selection comprising an area of the image, which is highlighted by a dashed partial-image selection box 306 [Cady, column 9, lines 37-44; figure 3A]. The portable computing device receives visually-selected search criteria selected by the user by an input device 206 [Cady, column 8, lines 64-67] wherein the input device 206 may be a touchscreen [Cady, column 6, lines 31-36].
9-3. Regarding claim 9, Cady-Wang ‘361 teach all the limitations of claim 7, wherein the image is presented in a web page displayed within a browser application, by disclosing that the portable computing device comprises a web browser for implementing the partial-image compositional searching of the core processing module [Cady, column 6, line 66 to column 7, line 4].
9-4. Regarding claim 10, Cady-Wang ‘361 teach all the limitations of claim 7, wherein the image is stored within a photo album application running on the mobile computing device, by disclosing that the searching of images is based on a selected region of an existing image that is stored in a library of images [Wang ‘361, column 1, line 65 to column 2, line 31; column 7, lines 13-20]. This would allow for more effective use of a library of images stored on the user’s computer. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to perform imaging searching based on a portion of an image stored in a library to the user’s computer, as taught by Wang ‘361. This would allow for more effective use of a library of images stored on the user’s computer.
9-5. Regarding claim 11, Cady-Wang ‘361 teach all the limitations of claim 7, wherein the result is presented over the screen, by disclosing that in response to determining that a partial-image selection has been detected, retrieving and displaying images similar to the selected partial image [Cady, column 14, lines 32-38].
9-6. Regarding claim 12, Cady-Wang ‘361 teach all the limitations of claim 7, wherein the shape forms a bounding box enclosing the portion of the content depicted in the image, by disclosing that the partial-image selection of an image comprises an area of the image, and is highlighted by a dashed partial-image selection box 306 [Cady, column 9, lines 40-44; figure 3A]. A conventional selection tool, such as a lasso, is used to select a desired part of an image for use in searching an image database for images that contain objects or images similar to those included in existing images [Wang ‘361, column 16, lines 25-31].
9-7. Regarding claim 13, Cady-Wang ‘361 teach all the limitations of claim 7, wherein the processor is among a plurality of processors collectively generating the screen of the user interface, by disclosing that the portable device comprises one or more processors [Cady, column 6, lines 22-24; column 8, lines 17-23].
10. Claims 1, 14-17, 19, and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wang (U.S. Patent No. 8,607,137), herein after Wang ‘137, in view of Terman (U.S. Patent No. 8,488,916), and further in view of Zhang et al (“PEGASUS: Pre-training with Extracted Gap-sentences for Abstractive Summarization,” December 18, 2019).
10-1. Regarding claim 1, Wang ‘137 teaches the claim comprising: causing a processor to perform at least one of:
(a) generating a user interface of a web browser where the user interface is programmed to (i) present an address bar and a viewport where the viewport presents a first content including a descriptive text, (ii) receive a user request from the user interface after the address bar and the viewport are presented, and (iii) simultaneously present a first viewing pane and a second viewing pane side-by-side and without overlapping each other within the viewport responsive to the user request where the first viewing pane presents the first content including the descriptive text and the second viewing pane presents a second content, wherein the second content includes a user input element that is user-activatable to enable a summary of the first content including the descriptive text to be created using a neural language model based on a transformer architecture trained for abstractive summarization and then presented within the second viewing pane while the first viewing pane presents the first content including the descriptive text;
(b) generating a screen of a user interface on a mobile computing device responsive to a user input into the mobile computing device where the screen of the user interface is programmed to (i) receive a gesture consisting of a freeform selection of an area of an image, (ii) request a search of a set of content items for what is depicted in the area responsive to the freeform selection based on the gesture, and (iii) present a result of the search in the user interface responsive to the freeform selection based on the gesture, wherein the freeform selection of the area is a shape enclosing a portion of a content depicted in the image for which the search of the set of content items is performed, wherein the image is a photo, wherein the mobile computing device is a smartphone or a tablet computer, wherein the set of content items is stored external to the mobile computing device, wherein the user input is into the user interface; or
(c) generating a user interface of a web browser where the user interface is programmed to (i) present an address bar and a viewport where the viewport presents a web page, (ii) receive a user request from the user interface after the address bar and the viewport are presented, and (iii) simultaneously present a first viewing pane and a second viewing pane side-by-side and without overlapping each other within the viewport responsive to the user request where the first viewing pane presents the web page,
by disclosing displaying a main user interface 2 of a web browser where a user enters an internet address in a user input element 10 [column 8, lines 43-45; figure 1] and in response to input on an action element 14, presents a web page in an information region 56 of an information page 52 within a main content area 48 [column 8, lines 54-59; column 10, lines 33-35, 43-45]. The information page 52 comprises a status and control region 54 that displays page information such as URL, as well as various commands pertaining to the information page 52 [column 10, lines 38-43]. The main content area 48 may be considered the viewport that displays a web page within information region 56. A request is received to open a second web page while in gallery view [column 12, lines 63-67]. When opening the second web page, position anchors are checked to determine the insertion position for a new page, a status and control region of a corresponding gallery page is displayed in the corresponding insertion position in the content area 48 [column 13, lines 3-11], and an information region is displayed with corresponding content for the corresponding gallery view page in the corresponding insertion position in the content area 48 [column 13, lines 13-16]. The position anchors are located next to an existing informational page [column 10, lines 35-37; figure 1] that cause the web pages to be displayed side-by-side within the main content area 48 [column 3, lines 13-26; column 26, lines 10-18; figure 37].
Wang ‘137 does not expressly teach wherein the second viewing pane presents a visual interface enabled to receive a user selection of a data file containing a descriptive text and a user command to create a summary of the descriptive text such that (iv) a copy of the data file is accessed based on the user selection and the user command, (v) an Optical Character Recognition (OCR) process is performed on the copy of the data file such that the descriptive text in the copy of the data file is recognized in its entirety, (vi) the descriptive text as recognized in its entirety is read in its entirety, (vii) the summary of the descriptive text as read in its entirety is created… and (viii) the summary of the descriptive text is presented in the visual interface based on the user selection and the user command as the first viewing pane presents the web page, wherein the OCR process is performed remote to the processor. Terman discloses a computer 107a has a browser display that may access portal 110 [column 21, lines 61-65] to display interface 200 [column 24, lines 13-16, 26-29]. The interface has a data entry field 209 adapted for enabling a user to enter a URL and document path to a full text document that the user wishes to have a summary of [column 24, lines 43-48]. A user actionable icon summarize 206 is provided that, when clicked, the portal aided by software navigates to the document, downloads the full text version, and summarizes the document according to configured user preferences [column 24, lines 48-56]. OCR may be performed on a document [column 10, lines 20-38, 41-45]. The entire document may be summarized [column 13, lines 62-64] and then displayed in the interface [column 24, lines 57-60]. The OCR process may be performed on a remote system [column 14, lines 46-52]. This would allow a user to more easily and efficiently capture the concepts of a file. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to provide, as part of the information page displaying the second web page of Wang ‘137, a data entry field 209 and a user actionable icon summarize 206 that allows the user to specify a data file and create and display a summary of the contents of the data file using an OCR process, as taught by Terman. This would allow a user to more easily and efficiently capture the concepts of a file.
Wang ‘137-Terman do not expressly teach that the summary is created using a neural language model based on a transformer architecture trained for abstractive text summarization. Zhang discloses using Gap Sentences Generation (GSG) to pre-train a Transformer encoder-decoder on large corpora of documents to generate abstractive summaries [page 2, left column, first paragraph; page 2, right column, paragraphs 2-5; page 8, “6.3 Qualitative observations”]. This would help achieve good abstractive summarization performance across broad domains with very little supervision. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use the PEGASUS model to generate abstractive summaries, a taught by Zhang. This would help achieve good abstractive summarization performance across broad domains with very little supervision.
10-2. Regarding claim 14, Wang ‘137-Terman-Zhang teach all the limitations of claim 1, wherein the processor performs (c) generating the user interface of the web browser programmed to (i) present the address bar and the viewport where the viewport presents the webpage, by disclosing displaying a main user interface 2 of a web browser where a user enters an internet address in a user input element 10 [Wang ‘137, column 8, lines 43-45; figure 1] and in response to input on an action element 14, presents a web page in an information region 56 of an information page 52 within a main content area 48 [Wang ‘137, column 8, lines 54-59; column 10, lines 33-35, 43-45]. The information page 52 comprises a status and control region 54 that displays page information such as URL, as well as various commands pertaining to the information page 52 [Wang ‘137, column 10, lines 38-43]. The main content area 48 may be considered the viewport that displays a web page within information region 56 of the main content area 48.
Wang ‘137- Terman-Zhang teach (ii) receive the user request from the user interface after the address bar and the viewport are presented, by disclosing receiving a request to open a second web page while in gallery view [Wang ‘137, column 12, lines 63-67].
Wang ‘137-Terman-Zhang teach and (iii) simultaneously present the first viewing pane and the second viewing pane side-by-side and without overlapping each other within the viewport responsive to the user request, where the first viewing pane presents the web page, by disclosing that when opening the second web page, checking position anchors to determine the insertion position for new pages, display the status and control region of the corresponding gallery page in the corresponding insertion position in the content area 48 [Wang ‘137, column 13, lines 3-11], and display the information region with corresponding content for the corresponding gallery view page in the corresponding insertion position in the content area 48 [Wang ‘137, column 13, lines 13-16]. The position anchors are located next to an existing informational page [Wang ‘137, column 10, lines 35-37; figure 1] that cause the web pages to be displayed side-by-side within the main content area 48 [Wang ‘137, column 3, lines 13-26; column 26, lines 10-18; figure 37].
Wang ‘137-Terman-Zhang teach where the second viewing pane presents the visual interface enabled to receive the user selection of the data file containing the descriptive text and the user command to create the summary of the descriptive text such that (iv) the copy of the data file is accessed based on the user selection and the user command, by disclosing that, as described above with respect to claim 1, the information page displaying the second web page [Wang, ‘137, figure 37] comprises a data entry field 209 adapted for enabling a user to enter a URL and document path to a full text document that the user wishes to have a summary of [Terman, column 24, lines 43-48]. A user actionable icon summarize 206 is provided that, when clicked, the portal aided by software navigates to the document, downloads the full text version, and summarizes the document according to configured user preferences [Terman, column 24, lines 48-56].
Wang ‘137-Terman-Zhang teach (v) the OCR process is performed on the copy of the data file such that the descriptive text in the copy of the data file is recognized in its entirety, (vi) the descriptive text as recognized in its entirety is read in its entirety, (vii) the summary of the descriptive text as read in its entirety is created using the neural language model based on the transformer architecture trained for abstractive text summarization, (viii) the summary of the descriptive text is presented in the visual interface based on the user selection and the user command as the first viewing pane presents the web page, by disclosing that the entire document may be summarized [Terman, column 13, lines 62-64] and then displayed in the interface [Terman, column 24, lines 57-60]. The web pages are displayed side-by-side within the main content area 48 [Wang ‘137, column 3, lines 13-26; column 26, lines 10-18; figure 37]. Gap Sentences Generation (GSG) is used to pre-train a Transformer encoder-decoder on large corpora of documents to generate abstractive summaries [Zhang, page 2, left column, first paragraph; page 2, right column, paragraphs 2-5; page 8, “6.3 Qualitative observations”].
Wang ‘137-Terman-Zhang teach wherein the OCR process is performed remote to the processor, by disclosing that the OCR process may be performed on a remote system [Terman, column 14, lines 46-52].
10-3. Regarding claim 15, Wang ‘137-Terman-Zhang teach all the limitations of claim 14, wherein the visual interface has a screen enabled to (i) receive the user selection of the data file and the user command and (ii) present the summary, by disclosing that the information page allows a user to specify a document that the user wishes to have a summary of, which will be retrieved for summarization [Terman, column 24, lines 39-56].
10-4. Regarding claim 16, Wang ‘137-Terman-Zhang teach all the limitations of claim 14, wherein the user command is input via a physical or a virtual keyboard, by disclosing a keyboard for receiving input [Terman, column 11, lines 11].
10-5. Regarding claim 17, Wang ‘137-Terman-Zhang teach all the limitations of claim 14, wherein the descriptive in the copy of the data file, text is recited in a first human language, wherein the summary is recited in a second human language different from the first human language as machine-translated, by disclosing that a foreign language document may be translated, processed through OCR, and then summarized [Terman, column 21, lines 9-19].
10-6. Regarding claim 19, Wang ‘137-Terman-Zhang teach all the limitations of claim 17, wherein the descriptive text sourced from the copy of the data file after the OCR process is machine-translated from the first language to the second language before the summary is created, by disclosing that a foreign language document may be translated, processed through OCR, and then summarized [Terman, column 21, lines 9-19].
10-7. Regarding claim 20, Wang ‘137-Terman-Zhang teach all the limitations of claim 14, wherein the processor is among a plurality of processors collectively generating the user interface, by disclosing a multiprocessor system [Terman, column 11, lines 3-5]. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use a plurality of processors, as taught by Terman. This would provide faster performance.
11. Claim 8 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Cady et al (U.S. Patent No. 9,311,340), in view of Wang ‘361 (U.S. Patent No. 5,802,361), and further in view of Du et al (U.S. Patent No. 9,251,144).
11-1. Regarding claim 8, Cady-Wang ‘361 teach all the limitations of claim 7. Cady-Wang ‘361 do not expressly teach wherein the area contains a descriptive text recited in a first language such that the descriptive text is detected, machine-translated from the first language to the second language, and the result as presented depicts the descriptive text recited in the second language. Du discloses that a user may view media content, such as an image, via a user device [column 2, lines 23-26]. The media content may include characters of a first language [column 2, lines 26-27]. The user may select a first portion of the media content that includes at least a portion of the characters of the first language using a gesture on a touchscreen of the user device [column 2, lines 31-37]. The user device sends the image to a remote server via a network where the remote server extracts text including the characters of the first language, and translates the characters of the first language in the image to a second language [column 2, line 64 to column 3, line 1]. The server performs a visual search based on the image, a text-based search based on the characters in the first language, a text-based search based on the characters in the second language, another type of search based on the image, or any combination thereof, and returns the search results to the user for display [column 3, lines 23-29]. This would provide search results that may be more relevant for the user. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to extract text from a selected portion of an image in a first language, translate the extracted text into a second language, performs a search based on the translated text, and display results of the search, as taught by Du. This would provide search results that may be more relevant for the user.
12. Claim 18 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wang ‘137 (U.S. Patent No. 8,607,137), in view of Terman (U.S. Patent No. 8,488,916), in view of Zhang et al (“PEGASUS: Pre-training with Extracted Gap-sentences for Abstractive Summarization,” December 18, 2019), and further in view of Farzindar (Pub. No. US 2008/0104506).
12-1. Regarding claim 18, Wang ‘137-Terman-Zhang teach all the limitations of claim 17. Wang ‘137-Terman-Zhang do not expressly teach wherein the summary is machine-translated from the first human language to the second human language before the summary is presented in the visual interface. Farzinsar discloses producing a document summary from a document [paragraph 1] and then translating the document summary into a language different from the language in which it has been produced [paragraph 67]. This would allow the generated summary to be understood by a larger number of users. Since Wang ‘137-Terman-Zhang disclose using a summarizer that recognizes foreign languages, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to generate a document summary in a first language, and then translate the document summary into another language, as taught by Farzinsar. This would allow the generated summary to be understood by a larger number of users.
Response to Arguments
13. The Examiner acknowledges the Applicant’s amendments to claims 1, 2, and 14.
Regarding the rejection of claim 1 clause (c) and claim 14 under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) for lack of written description, Applicant alleges that clause (c) is supported by [paragraphs 78, 218, 263-264, and 392-393] of related parent application 17/627719, which correspond to [paragraphs 125, 265, 310-311, and 439-440] of the instant application, because:
[Paragraph 265] and [FIG. 10A] disclose the claimed pane-based visual interface because the user interface "utilizes at least two viewing panes" to present data and, as shown in [FIG. 10A], presents a figure and descriptive text side-by-side in respective viewing panes.
[Paragraph 125] supports the claimed user selection of the data file containing descriptive text because it discloses that "the user computer 710 can access the first server 720 and request" processing "on a selected figure or a file," where the file may be "uploaded by or selected by the user or retrieved from a data source or file sharing service pointed or identified by the user."
[Paragraphs 310-311] further support that the pane-based visual interface receives user input through pane-associated visual elements, including buttons or other user input elements, to selectively present document text in a viewing pane.
[Paragraphs 439-440] support the claimed user command to create the summary of the descriptive text because they disclose forming a summary from patent or other document content, including abstraction-based summarization using PEGASUS, and expressly disclose that "the user interface, as described herein, can present a button (or another user input element) to cause the summary to be presented within the viewing pane," including "a summary button presented over the text pane."
Contrary to Applicant’s arguments, although Applicant’s specification discloses two viewing panes displayed side-by-side [paragraph 265; figure 10A], that a file may be uploaded by a user [paragraph 125], and that button positioning within a pane may vary [paragraphs 310-311], the specification fails to describe details of the combined functionality of the user interface being claimed, having two side-by-side viewing panes wherein one of the panes requires both a selection of a data file and an input of a user command to create a summary of descriptive text within the data file, to access the data file. Although [paragraphs 439-440] disclose providing a user interface that presents a button (or another user input element) to generate a summary from a patent text and presenting the generated summary within a viewing pane, nowhere discloses that such a button or user input element, along with a selection of a data file, is used to access the data file. That is, the specification only provides support for first accessing the data file based on user input [paragraph 125] and then generating a summary of the accessed data file based on input on a button [paragraph 440]. The generic “boilerplate” statement in [paragraph 56] of the instant application, which recites, “Features or functionality described with respect to certain embodiments may be combined and subcombined in and/or with various other embodiments” does not provide an adequate written description to show Applicant had “possession” of the specific combination of elements being claimed. The “boilerplate” language in [paragraphs 111 and 161] are also insufficient to demonstrate that Applicant had “possession” of the specific combination of elements being claimed. Such “boilerplate” language are simply roadmaps to every possible combination, and do not identify which specific paths Applicant actually invented. Applicant cannot establish written description support by simply picking and choosing elements from different embodiments that were never linked together in the original text.
Regarding dependent claim 8, Applicant alleges support for the limitation based on [paragraphs 97-105 and 175] of related parent application 17/627719, which corresponds to [paragraphs 144-152 and 222] of the instant application. Contrary to Applicant’s arguments, [paragraphs 144-152 and 222] of the instant application are directed towards translating identifiers or references found after OCR of a patent, such as shown in [figure 9B], whereas “the presented result” in claim 8 refers to the result of the search of a set of content items for what is depicted in the freeform selection. Applicant also points to [paragraph 9] of related parent application 17/627719, which corresponds to [paragraph 56] of the instant application. [Paragraph 56] of the instant application provides generic “boilerplate” language by reciting, “Features or functionality described with respect to certain embodiments may be combined and subcombined in and/or with various other embodiments.” However, such a disclosure, along with [paragraphs 144-152 and 222] or other sections of the specification that discuss freeform selection, such as [paragraphs 214 and 406], are not sufficient information to demonstrate that the inventor had “possession” of the specific combination of elements being claimed. The “boilerplate” language in [paragraphs 111 and 161] are also insufficient to demonstrate that the Applicant had “possession” of the specific combination of elements being claimed. Such sections do not provide sufficient detail because claim 8 requires performance of the following together: (1) a freeform selection of an area in an image containing descriptive text in a first language, (2) machine-translating the descriptive text in the first language to a second language, and (3) responsive to the freeform selection, displaying the results of a search for what is depicted in the selected area with the descriptive text in the second language. Applicant cannot establish written description support by simply picking and choosing elements from different embodiments that were never linked together in the original text.
Regarding the rejection of claim 1, clause (a), Applicant alleges that Hutchins (U.S. Patent No. 11,720,758) does not expressly teach the claimed browser presentation behavior where, responsive to the user request, simultaneously presenting two viewing panes side-by-side within the viewport because an overlay popup is not the same thing as reconfiguring the viewport into a first pane that continues to show the first content and a second pane that is simultaneously presented side-by-side with the first pane. Examiner notes that claim 1 has been amended to recite that the first viewing pane and the second viewing pane are simultaneously presented side-by-side and without overlapping each other. Due to Applicant’s amendments, Examiner has rejected claim 1 under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hutchins, in view of Howes et al (U.S. Patent No. 9,342,208), and further in view of Zhang et al (“PEGASUS: Pre-training with Extracted Gap-sentences for Abstractive Summarization,” December 18, 2019). Applicant’s arguments have been considered but are moot in view of the new grounds of rejection.
Regarding claim 1, clause (a), Applicant separately argues that Hutchins does not disclose the claimed role of the user input element in the second content, which is user-activatable to enable the summary of the first content to be generated and then presented within the second viewing pane while the first viewing pane continues to present the first content, because the summarizer in Hutchins is initially invoked by selecting the summarizer from a browser menu or list of functions, and only after that invocation does Hutchins show a popup with a summarization-range control such as a slider.
Contrary to Applicant’s arguments, the pane displaying the article (first content) may be considered the first viewing pane, and the popup or page displaying the user interface element (second content) and summary may be considered the second viewing pane [figure 3B]. The element 355 of Hutchins that adjusts the summary range is interpreted as the claimed user input element, not the button 301 [figure 3B]. In response to user input on the user interface element 355 to adjust the summarization range, an AI platform is called to process text from a main body of the content so as to produce a summary of the text block for display in the popup or page [column 8, lines 36-43; column 11, lines 45-47; column 17, lines 29-45; figures 3B, 3C]. Thus, Hutchins discloses a user interface element within a second pane that is user-activatable to enable a summary of the first content to be generated and then presented within the second viewing pane while the first viewing pane continues to present the first content.
Regarding the rejection of claim 1, clause (b), Applicant alleges that Cady et al (U.S. Patent No. 9,311,340) in view of Wang (U.S. Patent No. 5,802,361) do not teach receiving a gesture consisting of a freeform selection of an area of an image, because, based on Applicant’s specification of separately listing “lassos” and “freeform sketchers” among available user-interface elements, and separately referring to “free-form area” and “freeform selection,” the disclosure distinguishes lasso from freeform, thus making Wang’s teaching of a lasso selection insufficient to read on the claimed freeform selection.
Applicant’s specification [paragraph 214] and [paragraph 291] are provided below:
[0214] When a certain section of a figure or image or page is desired to be processed, as described herein, then that section can be user selected via a lasso or freeform shape that is user drawn or via a predetermined shape that is user drawn or dragged or moved onto or menu selected. This functionality can be browser-based (e.g., user workspace, extension) and enables the user to selectively annotate (or otherwise process) specific portion of figure or some specific file (e.g., local, remote).
[0291] The edit toggle allows/disallows various figure editing operations via an add a single bounding box button, an add multiple bounding boxes button, a remove selected bounding button, a remove erroneous bounding box button, a save button, and a go back to a default bounding box state button. Note that although these are described as user interface buttons, such configuration can vary and other user input elements (e.g., sliders, dials, dropdown menus, lassos, freeform sketchers, checkboxes) can be used, whether additionally or alternatively.
As shown above, [paragraph 214] discloses “that section can be user selected via a lasso or freeform shape.” One could reasonably interpret lasso as a type of freeform shape selection. Further, while Applicant has used the term “freeform” in the specification, the specification does not explicitly define the term “freeform,” “freeform selection,” “freeform shape,” “freeform sketchers,” or “freeform drawing.” Therefore, the claim limitation is not bound by Applicant’s definition that a freeform selection behaves as an open-ended stroke, analogous to a pencil mark on paper, that lacks an auto-closing constraint, allowing a user to self-define a path or “fence” that selects only certain items or defines a boundary without implying a contained region. Nor is the claim limitation bounded by the specific “freeform selection tool” described by Autodesk [see Applicant’s arguments dated 5/3/26, pages 9-10 and Applicant’s arguments dated 5/5/26, pages 10-11]. Applicant’s specification never uses the term “freeform selection tool” or points to the specific freeform selection tool described by Autodesk. Thus, a lasso selection may be considered a type of freeform selection since a lasso allows a user to draw a custom freehand outline around an object or area. Further, as pointed out by Applicant on [page 19, paragraph 4 of Applicant’s Arguments dated 3/17/26], clause (b) of claim 1 recites “wherein the freeform selection of the area is a shape enclosing a portion of a content depicted in the image” and thus, a lasso selection reads on such a freeform selection.
Applicant alleges that the combination of Cady in view of Wang ‘361 is based upon improper hindsight reasoning because the Office action treats lasso selection, as disclosed in Wang ‘361, as equivalent to the freeform selection in the claim without addressing the disclosure’s contrary teaching that they are different.
Contrary to Applicant’s argument, and as discussed above, based on the lack of an explicit definition of freeform in Applicant’s specification, a lasso selection may be considered a type of freeform selection. Therefore, no hindsight reasoning was used in the combination of Cady in view of Wang to teach the claim limitation.
Regarding claim 1, clause (c), Applicant alleges that Wang (U.S. Patent No. 8,607,137), in view of Terman (U.S. Patent No. 8,488,916) do not teach a user selection of a data file because Applicant’s specification [paragraph 125] distinguishes between selecting a file and retrieving a file from a data source identified by the user, and because entering a path or URL, as taught by Terman, is entering location information that points to where a document may reside, whereas selecting a data file is choosing the data file itself through the interface.
Examiner notes that claim 1, clause (c) simply recites “a visual interface enabled to receive a user selection of a data file.” The language in [paragraph 125] fails to adequately distinguish between selecting a file and retrieving it, and retrieving a file identified by the user. Nowhere recites any other requirements or graphics of the visual interface that enables user selection of a data file based on the language disclosed. The term “selection” is interpreted as the act of choosing something, or the specific item(s) that have been picked. Contrary to Applicant’s arguments, Terman discloses an interface that has a data entry field 209 adapted for enabling a user to enter a URL and document path to a full text document that the user wishes to have a summary of [column 24, lines 43-48]. Based on the definition of “selection,” entering a URL and document path is a selection by the user of a specific file. Nowhere in the claim recites presenting any icons or objects representing data files that the user may select with a cursor, as Applicant seems to require. Therefore, Terman’s disclosure of a data entry field 209 reads on the claim limitation of a visual interface enabled to receive a user selection of a data file.
Regarding claim 1, clause (c), Applicant alleges that the rejection does not adequately show the separate limitations requiring: (1) that an OCR process be performed on the copy of the data file "such that the descriptive text in the copy of the data file is recognized in its entirety," and (2) that "the descriptive text as recognized in its entirety is read in its entirety" because a general statement that OCR may be performed on a document, or that an entire document may be summarized, is not a teaching of the specific claimed sequence in which the descriptive text is first recognized in its entirety and then read in its entirety as separate recited operations.
Contrary to Applicant’s argument, Terman discloses that OCR may be performed on textual material [column 10, lines 20-38, 41-45]. Nowhere does Terman disclose performing OCR on only a section or part of the textual material. Further, Terman discloses that the entire document may be summarized using a summarizer [column 13, lines 62-64] and then displayed in the interface [column 24, lines 57-60]. In order for the summary to be of the entire document, the entire document must be scanned by the summarizer. Otherwise, the summary would only be of the part of the document that was scanned. Therefore, Terman does disclose performing an OCR process on a data file such that the descriptive text in the data file is recognized in its entirety, and that the descriptive text as recognized in its entirety is read in its entirety by the summarizer.
Regarding claim 1, clause (c), Applicant alleges that the stated rationale for combining Wang ‘137 and Terman does not explain why a person or ordinary skill in the art would have specifically modified Wang '137's second page so that it presented a visual interface that receives a user selection of a data file, as opposed to merely receiving a typed path or URL, and then performed the precise claimed copy/OCR/read sequence.
Contrary to Applicant’s arguments, and as discussed above, a user may select a data file by entering the location of the data file. Nowhere in the claim recites presenting any icons or objects representing data files that the user may select with a cursor, as Applicant seems to require. Thus, Terman’s disclosure of a data entry field 209 reads on the claim limitation of a visual interface enabled to receive a user selection of a data file. A user actionable icon summarize 206 is provided that, when clicked, the portal aided by software navigates to the document, downloads the full text version, and summarizes the document according to configured user preferences [column 24, lines 48-56]. OCR may be performed on a document [column 10, lines 20-38, 41-45]. The entire document may be summarized [column 13, lines 62-64] and then displayed in the interface [column 24, lines 57-60]. The OCR process may be performed on a remote system [column 14, lines 46-52]. This would allow a user to more easily and efficiently capture the concepts of a file. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to provide, as part of the information page displaying the second web page of Wang ‘137, a data entry field 209 and a user actionable icon summarize 206 that allows the user to specify a data file and create and display a summary of the contents of the data file using an OCR process, as taught by Terman. This would allow a user to more easily and efficiently capture the concepts of a file.
Regarding claim 1, clause (c), Applicant alleges that Terman teaches no such two-pane configuration and the Examiner’s proposed combination with Wang ‘137 is hindsight reconstruction because Terman teaches away from such combination.
Contrary to Applicant’s arguments, one cannot show nonobviousness by attacking references individually where the rejections are based on combinations of references. See In re Keller, 642 F.2d 413, 208 USPQ 871 (CCPA 1981); In re Merck & Co., 800 F.2d 1091, 231 USPQ 375 (Fed. Cir. 1986). The combination of Wang ’137 in view of Terman teach claim 1(c)(i)-(iii). Wang ‘137 discloses a two-pane configuration [Wang ‘137, figure 37]. Terman discloses an interface that has a data entry field 209 adapted for enabling a user to enter a URL and document path to a full text document that the user wishes to have a summary of [column 24, lines 43-48]. A user actionable icon summarize 206 is provided that, when clicked, the portal aided by software navigates to the document, downloads the full text version, and summarizes the document according to configured user preferences [column 24, lines 48-56]. Such a data entry field and user actionable icon are easily added to a browser via browser plug-in [column 25, lines 59-65]. This would allow a user to more easily and efficiently capture the concepts of a file. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to provide, as part of the information page displaying the second web page of Wang ‘137, a data entry field 209 and a user actionable icon summarize 206 that allows the user to specify a data file and create and display a summary of the contents of the data file using an OCR process, as taught by Terman. This would allow a user to more easily and efficiently capture the concepts of a file.
In response to applicant's argument that the examiner's conclusion of obviousness is based upon improper hindsight reasoning, it must be recognized that any judgment on obviousness is in a sense necessarily a reconstruction based upon hindsight reasoning. But so long as it takes into account only knowledge which was within the level of ordinary skill at the time the claimed invention was made, and does not include knowledge gleaned only from the applicant's disclosure, such a reconstruction is proper. See In re McLaughlin, 443 F.2d 1392, 170 USPQ 209 (CCPA 1971). Wang ‘137 discloses the need to be able to view information from the internet at an enhanced pace [Wang ‘137, column 1, lines 56-58]. Providing a tool that allows a user to obtain a summary of information, as taught by Terman, would allow a user to more easily and efficiently capture the concepts of a file. Thus, one of ordinary skill in the art would be motivated to provide, as part of the information page displaying the second web page of Wang ‘137, a data entry field 209 and a user actionable icon summarize 206 that allows the user to specify a data file and create and display a summary of the contents of the data file using an OCR process, as taught by Terman. This would allow a user to more easily and efficiently capture the concepts of a file.
Conclusion
14. THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. 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.
15. Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ALVIN H TAN whose telephone number is (571)272-8595. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 10AM-6PM.
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, Scott Baderman can be reached at 571-272-3644. 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.
/ALVIN H TAN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2118
Prosecution Insights