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
Claims 1-20 are pending.
Examiner Notes
Examiner cites particular paragraphs and/or columns and lines in the references as applied to Applicant’s claims for the convenience of the Applicant. Although the specified citations are representative of the teachings in the art and are applied to the specific limitations within the individual claim, other passages and figures may apply as well. It is respectfully requested that, in preparing responses, the Applicant fully consider the references in entirety as potentially teaching all or part of the claimed invention, as well as the context of the passage as taught by the prior art or disclosed by the examiner. The prompt development of a clear issue requires that the replies of the Applicant meet the objections to and rejections of the claims. Applicant should also specifically point out the support for any amendments made to the disclosure. See MPEP § 2163.06.
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
Authorization for Internet Communications in a Patent Application
Applicant is encouraged to file an Authorization for Internet Communications in a Patent Application form (http://www.uspto.gov/sites/default/files/documents/sb0439.pdf) along with the response to this office action to facilitate and expedite future communication between Applicant and the examiner. If the form is submitted then Applicant is requested to provide a contact email address in the signature block at the conclusion of the official reply.
Claim Objections
Claim 1 is objected to because of the following informalities: at the end of ll. 10 and 15 insert “and”. Appropriate correction is required.
As per claim 11, it has similar limitations as claim 1 and is therefore rejected using the same rationale.
Claim 18 is objected to because of the following informalities: in ll. 1 “8The” should be “The”. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim 19 is objected to because of the following informalities: in ll. 16 “being being” should be “being”. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101
35 U.S.C. 101 reads as follows:
Whoever invents or discovers any new and useful process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter, or any new and useful improvement thereof, may obtain a patent therefor, subject to the conditions and requirements of this title.
Claims 1-10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to non-statutory subject matter.
As per claim 1, it does not fall within at least one of the four categories of patent eligible subject matter because it recites a “system comprising a web browser in memory” and it appears that the recited system could reasonably be interpreted by one of ordinary skill in the art as software, per se, failing to be tangibly embodied or include any recited hardware as part of the system. Software alone is directed to a non-statutory subject matter. Applicant is advised to amend the claims to include a hardware (i.e., a hardware processor) to overcome the 101 rejection.
As per claims 2-10, they are dependent on claim 1 and do not overcome the 35 U.S.C. 101 deficiency of claim 1. Therefore, they are rejected using the same rationale.
Claims 1-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to a judicial exception (an abstract idea) without significantly more.
Step 1: The claim is a process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter:
Claim 1. A system comprising.
Step 2A Prong One: The claim recites an abstract idea because it includes limitations that can be considered mental processes (concepts performed in the human mind including an observation, evaluation, judgment, and/or opinion). If a claim limitation, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the human mind or via pen and paper, then it falls within the “Mental Processes” grouping of abstract ideas. Accordingly, the claim recites an abstract idea:
parse and analyze web content of multiple browser tabs of a browser session to identify a subset of the multiple browser tabs referencing webpage subjects pertaining to a common decision task (abstract idea mental process);
create a decision task tab group that includes the subset of the multiple browser tabs (abstract idea mental process);
analyze web content displayed within browser tabs of the decision task tab group to discover attributes of the webpage subjects pertaining to the common decision task (abstract idea mental process).
Step 2A Prong Two: The abstract idea is not integrated into a practical application because the abstract idea is recited but for generically recited additional computer elements (i.e. data storage, processor, memory, computer readable medium, etc.) which do not add meaningful limitations to the abstract idea amounting to simply implementing the abstract idea on a generic computer using generic computing hardware and/or software (e.g. generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use (see MPEP 2106.05(h)). Mere instructions to apply an exception using a generic computer component cannot provide an inventive concept. The generic computing components are recited at a high-level of generality such that they amount to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using the recited generic computer components. Accordingly, these additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because they do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea:
a web browser stored in memory (generic computing components) and configured to:
generate and display a decision task summary for the decision task tab group (generic computing components performing extra-solution activity of generating data/information and displaying/presenting/outputting data/information), the decision task summary including:
content summary cards each featuring one of the webpage subjects corresponding to a different one of the multiple browser tabs of the decision task tab group (generic computing components performing extra-solution activity of generating data/information and displaying/presenting/outputting data/information);
task-specific comparative parameters usable to compare aspects of the content summary cards, the task-specific comparative parameters referencing one or more of the attributes of the webpage subjects discovered in association with the decision task tab group (generic computing components performing extra-solution activity of generating data/information and displaying/presenting/outputting data/information).
Step 2B: The claim includes limitations which can be considered extra-solution activity (see MPEP 2106.05(g)) insufficient to amount to significantly more than the abstract idea because the additional limitations only perform at least one of collecting, gathering, displaying, generating, modifying, updating, storing, retrieving, sending, and receiving data/information data which are well-understood, routine, conventional computer functions as recognized by the court decisions listed in MPEP § 2106.05(d)II. The claim further includes limitations that do not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application because they merely recite the words "apply it" (or an equivalent) with the judicial exception, or merely including instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer, or merely using a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea, as discussed in MPEP § 2106.05(f). Therefore, the claim, and its limitations when considered separately and in combination, is directed to patent ineligible subject matter:
generate and display a decision task summary for the decision task tab group (extra-solution activity of generating data/information and displaying/presenting/outputting data/information), the decision task summary including:
content summary cards each featuring one of the webpage subjects corresponding to a different one of the multiple browser tabs of the decision task tab group (extra-solution activity of generating data/information and displaying/presenting/outputting data/information);
task-specific comparative parameters usable to compare aspects of the content summary cards, the task-specific comparative parameters referencing one or more of the attributes of the webpage subjects discovered in association with the decision task tab group (extra-solution activity of generating data/information and displaying/presenting/outputting data/information).
Claim 2. The system of claim 1, wherein the task-specific comparative parameters are parameters that change from one decision task to another and that are selected based on commonalities of the webpage subjects being considered for fulfillment of the common decision task or based on characteristics of a user of the browser session (abstract idea mental process).
Claim 3. The system of claim 1, wherein the task-specific comparative parameters include filter options that each reference a given attribute of the attributes discovered, the filter options being selectable by a user to hide or unhide a subset of the content summary cards featuring a subset of the webpage subjects characterized by the filter options (extra-solution activity of generating data/information and displaying/presenting/outputting data/information).
Claim 4. The system of claim 1, wherein identifying the attributes of the webpage subjects further comprises: transmitting a request to a large language model (LLM), the request identifying the webpage subjects and prompting the LLM to return attributes shared by multiple of the webpage subjects (extra-solution activity of sending/transmitting data/information).
Claim 5. The system of claim 4, wherein the web browser is further adapted to: select a subset of attributes returned by the LLM to feature as the task-specific comparative parameters, each attribute in the subset being either: descriptive of a subject referenced by a webpage that a user of the browser session previously interacted with; or descriptive of a subject referenced in web-based profile information stored for the user (abstract idea mental process).
Claim 6. The system of claim 1, wherein the task-specific comparative parameters are personalized to a user based on previous web interactions of the user or based on stored profile data for the user (extra-solution activity of modifying/updating data/information).
Claim 7. The system of claim 1, wherein the task-specific comparative parameters identify an attribute characterizing a subject of a past web interaction of a user (extra-solution activity of generating data/information and displaying/presenting/outputting data/information).
Claim 8. The system of claim 1, wherein the task-specific comparative parameters identify an attribute characterizing a subject referenced within profile data stored by the web browser for a user (extra-solution activity of generating data/information and displaying/presenting/outputting data/information).
Claim 9. The system of claim 1, wherein the decision task summary includes a UI tool that allows sharing of the decision task summary and collaboration by multiple users (extra-solution activity of generating data/information and displaying/presenting/outputting data/information).
Claim 10. The system of claim 1, wherein the web browser is further configured to: detect a user web interaction indicating completion of a task associated with the decision task tab group (abstract idea mental process); and in response to detection of the user web interaction, automatically delete the decision task tab group and the decision task summary (extra-solution activity of modifying/updating data/information).
As per claim 11, it has similar limitations as claim 1 and is therefore rejected using the same rationale.
As per claim 12, it has similar limitations as claim 2 and is therefore rejected using the same rationale.
As per claim 13, it has similar limitations as claim 3 and is therefore rejected using the same rationale.
As per claim 14, it has similar limitations as claim 4 and is therefore rejected using the same rationale.
As per claim 15, it has similar limitations as claim 5 and is therefore rejected using the same rationale.
As per claim 16, it has similar limitations as claim 6 and is therefore rejected using the same rationale.
As per claim 17, it has similar limitations as claim 7 and is therefore rejected using the same rationale.
As per claim 18, it has similar limitations as claim 9 and is therefore rejected using the same rationale.
Step 1: The claim is a process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter:
Claim 19. One or more tangible computer-readable storage media encoding computer-executable instructions for executing a computer process, the computer process comprising.
Step 2A Prong One: The claim recites an abstract idea because it includes limitations that can be considered mental processes (concepts performed in the human mind including an observation, evaluation, judgment, and/or opinion). If a claim limitation, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the human mind or via pen and paper, then it falls within the “Mental Processes” grouping of abstract ideas. Accordingly, the claim recites an abstract idea:
parsing and analyzing web content of multiple browser tabs of a browser session to identify a subset of the multiple browser tabs referencing webpage subjects pertaining to a common decision task (abstract idea mental process);
creating a decision task tab group that includes the subset of the multiple browser tabs (abstract idea mental process).
Step 2A Prong Two: The abstract idea is not integrated into a practical application because the abstract idea is recited but for generically recited additional computer elements (i.e. data storage, processor, memory, computer readable medium, etc.) which do not add meaningful limitations to the abstract idea amounting to simply implementing the abstract idea on a generic computer using generic computing hardware and/or software (e.g. generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use (see MPEP 2106.05(h)). Mere instructions to apply an exception using a generic computer component cannot provide an inventive concept. The generic computing components are recited at a high-level of generality such that they amount to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using the recited generic computer components. Accordingly, these additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because they do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea:
generating and displaying a decision task summary for the decision task tab group, the decision task summary (generic computing components performing extra-solution activity of generating data/information and displaying/presenting/outputting data/information) including:
content summary cards each featuring a summary of content displayed by a different one of the multiple browser tabs of the decision task tab group (generic computing components performing extra-solution activity of generating data/information and displaying/presenting/outputting data/information); and
filter options personalized to at least one of the common decision task or a user of the browser session, each of the filter options referencing a discovered attribute of the webpage subjects referenced by the web content of one of the multiple browser tabs, the filter options each being being selectable by a user to hide or unhide a subset of the content summary cards featuring a subset of the webpage subjects characterized by the filter options (generic computing components performing extra-solution activity of generating data/information and displaying/presenting/outputting data/information).
Step 2B: The claim includes limitations which can be considered extra-solution activity (see MPEP 2106.05(g)) insufficient to amount to significantly more than the abstract idea because the additional limitations only perform at least one of collecting, gathering, displaying, generating, modifying, updating, storing, retrieving, sending, and receiving data/information data which are well-understood, routine, conventional computer functions as recognized by the court decisions listed in MPEP § 2106.05(d)II. The claim further includes limitations that do not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application because they merely recite the words "apply it" (or an equivalent) with the judicial exception, or merely including instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer, or merely using a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea, as discussed in MPEP § 2106.05(f). Therefore, the claim, and its limitations when considered separately and in combination, is directed to patent ineligible subject matter:
generating and displaying a decision task summary for the decision task tab group, the decision task summary (extra-solution activity of generating data/information and displaying/presenting/outputting data/information) including:
content summary cards each featuring a summary of content displayed by a different one of the multiple browser tabs of the decision task tab group (extra-solution activity of generating data/information and displaying/presenting/outputting data/information); and
filter options personalized to at least one of the common decision task or a user of the browser session, each of the filter options referencing a discovered attribute of the webpage subjects referenced by the web content of one of the multiple browser tabs, the filter options each being being selectable by a user to hide or unhide a subset of the content summary cards featuring a subset of the webpage subjects characterized by the filter options (extra-solution activity of generating data/information and displaying/presenting/outputting data/information).
Claim 20. The one or more tangible computer-readable storage media of claim 19, wherein generating and displaying the decision task summary further comprises: transmitting a request to a large language model (LLM), the request identifying the webpage subjects and a request asking the LLM to discover and return attributes of the webpage subjects (extra-solution activity of sending/transmitting data/information); and selecting a subset of attributes returned by the LLM to feature as the filter options, each attribute in the subset being either selected based on similarity to previous web interactions of the user or similarity to stored profile data for the user (abstract idea mental process).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
Claims 1, 6, 11, and 16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Karunamuni et al. (US 2015/0346929) (hereinafter Karunamuni) in view of Bur et al. (US 12,099,561) (hereinafter Bur).
As per claim 1, Karunamuni primarily teaches the invention as claimed including a system comprising:
a web browser (fig. 1A, block 147) stored in memory (fig. 1A, block 102) and configured to:
parse and analyze web content of multiple browser tabs of a browser session to identify a subset of the multiple browser tabs referencing webpage subjects pertaining to a common decision task ([0007] tab overview UI includes groupings of representations of webpages in currently open tabs in the tabbed web browser. The groupings of representations are constructed according to tab grouping criteria, such as a common domain, and visually distinguishable from each other in the tab overview UI and [0037] information identifying the webpage associated with each tab and selecting different tabs);
create a decision task tab group that includes the subset of the multiple browser tabs ([0034] tabs in the tab overview UI can be displayed as representations of the webpages currently open in the respective tabs and grouped according to information about the webpages. Groups of tabs are constructed according to tab grouping criteria such as a common domain associated with tabs in a group);
analyze web content displayed within browser tabs of the decision task tab group to discover attributes of the webpage subjects pertaining to the common decision task ([0194] webpages in currently open tabs according to grouping criteria and the grouping criteria for forming groupings is sharing a common domain amongst the webpages in currently open tabs).
Karunamuni does not explicitly teach:
generate and display a decision task summary for the decision task tab group, the decision task summary including:
content summary cards each featuring one of the webpage subjects corresponding to a different one of the multiple browser tabs of the decision task tab group;
task-specific comparative parameters usable to compare aspects of the content summary cards, the task-specific comparative parameters referencing one or more of the attributes of the webpage subjects discovered in association with the decision task tab group.
However, Bur teaches:
generate and display a decision task summary for the decision task tab group, the decision task summary including:
content summary cards each featuring one of the webpage subjects corresponding to a different one of the multiple browser tabs of the decision task tab group (col. 16, ll. 10-15 generate content card data sets and to provide those content card data sets to a web browser displaying a company's website);
task-specific comparative parameters usable to compare aspects of the content summary cards, the task-specific comparative parameters referencing one or more of the attributes of the webpage subjects discovered in association with the decision task tab group (col. 19, ll. 26-42 rules/parameters relating to an individual content card may specify conditions under which information is to be presented or is not to be presented via the content card. Those rules/parameters could be time based and/or based on characteristics of the user to whom information is to be presented via the content card. The content card identification unit could compare the current time and/or the obtained user characteristics to configuration rules/parameters associated with each of the content cards that are embedded in the software application or website. This allows the content card identification unit to determine which of the content cards that are embedded in the software application or website should actually present information or messages to the identified user. Those content cards are then identified as the ones for which the dynamic data set generation unit should generate data sets).
Bur and Karunamuni are both concerned with web browsers and are therefore combinable/modifiable. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Karunamuni in view of Bur because it would provide a way for different users to be presented with different personalized or customized messages or information within the same content card location in a company's software application. This same concept can be applied to embed a content card in a company's website, and to then present personalized or customized messages or information to individual users at a particular location of the company's website corresponding to the content card.
As per claim 6, Bur teaches wherein the task-specific comparative parameters are personalized to a user based on previous web interactions of the user or based on stored profile data for the user (col. 4, ll. 64 to col. 5, ll. 5 request sent from the software application to the data service will include some information that is indicative of the identity of the user. The data service then locates the three previously generated data sets for the three content cards that were customized for that user and sends the three customized data sets back to the software application. The software application then uses information in the three data sets to provide customized or personalized information and messages to the user).
As per claim 11, it has similar limitations as claim 1 and is therefore rejected using the same rationale.
As per claim 16, it has similar limitations as claim 6 and is therefore rejected using the same rationale.
Claims 2, 7-8, and 12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Karunamuni in view of Bur in view of Chikkala et al. (US 11,106,756) (hereinafter Chikkala).
As per claim 2, Karaunamuni view of Bur do not explicitly teach wherein the task-specific comparative parameters are parameters that change from one decision task to another and that are selected based on commonalities of the webpage subjects being considered for fulfillment of the common decision task or based on characteristics of a user of the browser session.
However, Chikkala teaches wherein the task-specific comparative parameters are parameters that change from one decision task to another (col. 15, ll. 46-57 enhanced browser tab manager monitors for changes to the browser interface for example indicating that a new tab group is to be formed, the membership of an existing tab group has changed or that changes to existing tab group criteria should be proposed) and that are selected based on commonalities of the webpage subjects being considered for fulfillment of the common decision task or based on characteristics of a user of the browser session (col. 16, ll. 8-13 selected ones of the unclassified web pages can be dragged and dropped on a given web page to form a new tab group. The enhanced browser tab manager will learn the patterns and commonality of the web pages that the user has selected for the new tab group and will propose a set of tab group criteria for the new tab group).
Chikkala and Karunamuni are both concerned with web browsers and are therefore combinable/modifiable. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Karunamuni in view of Bur in view of Chikkala because it would provide for tab group criteria based on user intent. The system allows the user to construct the rules dynamically and for user specified sessions. The system observes the user behavior, suggests when to modify existing tab group rules and suggests new tab groups based on behavior such as session behavior or behavior related to regrouping the tabs. Feedback from the user based on the system proposals allows the system to learn when new detected patterns should be used to define these dynamic rules. As user behaviors or preferences can change over a period of time, these dynamic rules can more accurately reflect the true intent of user with the tab groupings.
As per claim 7, Karaunamuni view of Bur do not explicitly teach wherein the task-specific comparative parameters identify an attribute characterizing a subject of a past web interaction of a user.
However, Chikkala teaches wherein the task-specific comparative parameters identify an attribute characterizing a subject of a past web interaction of a user (col. 2, ll. 41-61 parameters such as browsing and searching behaviors, browsing history, tab grouping history and type of scripts currently running in open web pages are used for the system to suggest tab groups and for the user to specify tab groups. Machine learning learns the prior or current user browsing behavior and analyzes the web content and other attributes of web pages retrieved by the user into a set of candidate tab grouping rules).
Chikkala and Karunamuni are both concerned with web browsers and are therefore combinable/modifiable. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Karunamuni in view of Bur in view of Chikkala because it would provide for a dynamic, user intent based solution to tab management. While some user tasks are repetitive, and hence there is an option to set some predefined tab groups, most web sessions are seeking new information and web pages. Thus, the system will propose a new tab group if there are a number of open web pages which do not fit in an existing tab group, which is greater than a threshold number of open web pages that have not been classified into a tab group i.e., non-classified web pages. In addition to the system prompts, at any time, the user can provide a new user intent and ask the enhanced tab management function to group tabs based on the new user intent.
As per claim 8, Karaunamuni view of Bur do not explicitly teach wherein the task-specific comparative parameters identify an attribute characterizing a subject referenced within profile data stored by the web browser for a user.
However, Chikkala teaches wherein the task-specific comparative parameters identify an attribute characterizing a subject referenced within profile data stored by the web browser for a user (col. 10, ll. 26-30 user tab group criteria can be derived from a predefined tab group criteria from the service profile and stored in the user profile, i.e. according to a certain user defined selections from the service profile defaults, instructions and conditions).
Chikkala and Karunamuni are both concerned with web browsers and are therefore combinable/modifiable. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Karunamuni in view of Bur in view of Chikkala because it would provide a way for a user to essentially shut off the enhanced browser tab management function of suggesting new tab groups, while enjoying the function of automatically assigning the web pages to the tab groups already in the user profile. The dynamic mode in which the enhanced browser tab management looks at recent history, the content in already running windows and those in recent history and improves upon the user profile by learning the user preferences and intent is the mode in which most users will choose to operate.
As per claim 12, it has similar limitations as claim 2 and is therefore rejected using the same rationale.
Claims 3 and 13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Karunamuni in view of Bur in view of Sherwin et al. (US 2018/0174229) (hereinafter Sherwin).
As per claim 3, Karaunamuni view of Bur do not explicitly teach wherein the task-specific comparative parameters include filter options that each reference a given attribute of the attributes discovered, the filter options being selectable by a user to hide or unhide a subset of the content summary cards featuring a subset of the webpage subjects characterized by the filter options.
However, Sherwin teaches wherein the task-specific comparative parameters include filter options that each reference a given attribute of the attributes discovered, the filter options being selectable by a user to hide or unhide a subset of the content summary cards featuring a subset of the webpage subjects characterized by the filter options ([0028] and [0050] filter the multiple widget cards based on at least one of: relevance, urgency and user defined criteria; a card feed prioritizer to prioritize the filtered multiple widget cards based on at least one of: relevance, urgency and the user defined criteria; a card updater to update the multiple widget cards within the feed based on real time events; and a card feed manager to perform at least one of: re-sorting the feed, filtering the feed, hiding and unhiding the cards).
Sherwin and Karunamuni are both concerned with web browsers and are therefore combinable/modifiable. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Karunamuni in view of Bur in view of Sherwin because it would provide for a system that can link users or visitors of a website belonging to a website building system such as consumers, visitors etc. with feeds and actions provided by multiple publishers or producers such as websites, e-shops, blogs etc. via a message card, i.e. a system that communicates via product centered cards possibly including an underlying product definition or product instance reference and understands the semantic hierarchy of the product that is presented in a user feed.
As per claim 13, it has similar limitations as claim 3 and is therefore rejected using the same rationale.
Claims 4 and 14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Karunamuni in view of Bur in view of Mushnuri et al. (US 2025/0291694) (hereinafter Mushnuri).
As per claim 4, Karunamuni in view of Bur do not explicitly teach wherein identifying the attributes of the webpage subjects further comprises: transmitting a request to a large language model (LLM), the request identifying the webpage subjects and prompting the LLM to return attributes shared by multiple of the webpage subjects.
However, Mushnuri teaches wherein identifying the attributes of the webpage subjects further comprises: transmitting a request to a large language model (LLM), the request identifying the webpage subjects and prompting the LLM to return attributes shared by multiple of the webpage subjects ([0172]-[0175] prompt the LLM with a question/directive/command to return a result of the prompt such as the latency in loading a webpage).
Mushnuri and Karunamuni are both concerned with web browsers and are therefore combinable/modifiable. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Karunamuni in view of Bur in view of Mushnuri because it would provide a way to facilitate mapping of performance objectives for a computing system into specific and quantifiable metrics of that computing system. This mapping helps enable rapid and accurate identification of relevant key performance indicators as well as the corresponding data to use for measuring the relevant key performance indicators. By improving the selection of key performance indicators and the integrity of associated data, the resulting system could provide better measurements of computing system performance, improved threat and defect detection, and serve to prevent degradation in system performance.
As per claim 14, it has similar limitations as claim 4 and is therefore rejected using the same rationale.
Claims 5 and 15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Karunamuni in view of Bur in view of Mushnuri in view of Iguchi (US 2008/0126176).
As per claim 5, Karunamuni in view of Bur in view of Mushnuri do not explicitly teach wherein the web browser is further adapted to: select a subset of attributes returned by the LLM to feature as the task-specific comparative parameters, each attribute in the subset being either: descriptive of a subject referenced by a webpage that a user of the browser session previously interacted with; or descriptive of a subject referenced in web-based profile information stored for the user.
However, Iguchi teaches wherein the web browser is further adapted to: select a subset of attributes returned by the LLM to feature as the task-specific comparative parameters, each attribute in the subset being either: descriptive of a subject referenced by a webpage that a user of the browser session previously interacted with; or descriptive of a subject referenced in web-based profile information stored for the user ([0003] content-based filtering approach uses the profiles to select the most appropriate web pages from the set of the newly updated pages and recommend them to the users. The collaborative filtering approach uses the profiles to find the most similar users having similar profiles, and recommend the pages browsed by them and [0075] if the selected strategy is content-based filtering, then the system can receive newly updated web pages from the world wide web through an RSS feed for example, calculate the feature vector for each page, calculate the similarity of each web page with the user profile, and recommend the web pages that exhibit high similarity with the user profile).
Iguchi and Karunamuni are both concerned with web browsers and are therefore combinable/modifiable. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Karunamuni in view of Bur in view of Mushnuri in view of Iguchi because it would provide a way to solve the problem of selecting an appropriate recommendation strategy of content-base or collaborative filtering by tracking two types of user profiles, a long-term profile and a short-term profile, for each user, and measuring the stability of the user's preference by comparing these two profiles.
As per claim 15, it has similar limitations as claim 5 and is therefore rejected using the same rationale.
Claims 9 and 18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Karunamuni in view of Bur in view of Kittur et al. (US 2022/0215068) (hereinafter Kittur).
As per claim 9, Karunamuni in view of Bur do not explicitly teach wherein the decision task summary includes a UI tool that allows sharing of the decision task summary and collaboration by multiple users.
However, Kittur teaches wherein the decision task summary includes a UI tool that allows sharing of the decision task summary and collaboration by multiple users ([0045] search-result items, interactive workspaces, and task cards can be shared and collaborated on by multiple users on separate computer devices. These individuals may either choose to explicitly share and collaborate with each other or to implicitly share by setting permissions and [0096] user shares task card and perhaps gives contributor rights to those collaborators so that they can contribute content to and/or interactions with search-results items of the task card).
Kittur and Karunamuni are both concerned with web browsers and are therefore combinable/modifiable. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Karunamuni in view of Bur in view of Kittur because it would provide search-results items in an interactive workspace in which a user can manipulate the search-result items to make review more efficient by allowing users to pick out useful sources of information through starring, saving potentially good ones for later reading, and/or trashing useless information sources, among other actions. Users can quickly glance at visualizations to get an idea about how much information they have processed from a particular search result. Part of this information may also be shown on an interactive workspace screen so that users can quickly know which subtasks they need to continue working on and which ones are mainly complete.
As per claim 18, it has similar limitations as claim 9 and is therefore rejected using the same rationale.
Claim 10 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Karunamuni in view of Bur in view of Vaid et al. (US 11,405,433) (hereinafter Vaid).
As per claim 10, Karunamuni in view of Bur do not explicitly teach wherein the web browser is further configured to: detect a user web interaction indicating completion of a task associated with the decision task tab group; and in response to detection of the user web interaction, automatically delete the decision task tab group and the decision task summary.
However, Vaid teaches wherein the web browser is further configured to: detect a user web interaction indicating completion of a task associated with the decision task tab group; and in response to detection of the user web interaction, automatically delete the decision task tab group and the decision task summary (col. 8, ll. 15-18 another example data change operation may include a deletion of a tab from the tab group in response to a closure of a webpage).
Vaid and Karunamuni are both concerned with web browsers and are therefore combinable/modifiable. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Karunamuni in view of Bur in view of Vaid because it would provide a way for a user to denote importance of or have quick access to a particular webpage that may be included the user’s or another user's tab group included in the collective tab group for a project. Accordingly, the user may select to save or bookmark the webpage tab, which may add the tab to the saved resources list included in the collective tab group, while the session storage may further include operations that summarize past operations to improve performance for clients that join sessions later and for efficiencies when saving to persistent storage.
Claim 17 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Karunamuni in view of Bur in view of Mushnuri in view of Iguchi in view of Chikkala.
As per claim 17, Karunamuni in view of Bur in view of Mushnuri in view of Iguchi do not explicitly teach wherein the task-specific comparative parameters identify at least one of: an attribute characterizing a subject of a past web interaction of the user; or a subject referenced within profile data stored by the web browser for the user.
However, Chikkala teaches wherein the task-specific comparative parameters identify at least one of: an attribute characterizing a subject of a past web interaction of the user; or a subject referenced within profile data stored by the web browser for the user (col. 2, ll. 41-61 parameters such as browsing and searching behaviors, browsing history, tab grouping history and type of scripts currently running in open web pages are used for the system to suggest tab groups and for the user to specify tab groups. Machine learning learns the prior or current user browsing behavior and analyzes the web content and other attributes of web pages retrieved by the user into a set of candidate tab grouping rules).
Chikkala and Karunamuni are both concerned with web browsers and are therefore combinable/modifiable. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Karunamuni in view of Bur in view of Mushnuri in view of Iguchi in view of Chikkala because it would provide for a dynamic, user intent based solution to tab management. While some user tasks are repetitive, and hence there is an option to set some predefined tab groups, most web sessions are seeking new information and web pages. Thus, the system will propose a new tab group if there are a number of open web pages which do not fit in an existing tab group, which is greater than a threshold number of open web pages that have not been classified into a tab group i.e., non-classified web pages. In addition to the system prompts, at any time, the user can provide a new user intent and ask the enhanced tab management function to group tabs based on the new user intent.
Claim 19 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Karunamuni in view of Statchuk (US 2008/0027971) in view of Sherwin.
As per claim 19, Karaunamuni primarily teaches the invention as claimed including one or more tangible computer-readable storage media encoding computer-executable instructions for executing a computer process, the computer process comprising:
parsing and analyzing web content of multiple browser tabs of a browser session to identify a subset of the multiple browser tabs referencing webpage subjects pertaining to a common decision task ([0007] tab overview UI includes groupings of representations of webpages in currently open tabs in the tabbed web browser. The groupings of representations are constructed according to tab grouping criteria, such as a common domain, and visually distinguishable from each other in the tab overview UI and [0037] information identifying the webpage associated with each tab and selecting different tabs);
creating a decision task tab group that includes the subset of the multiple browser tabs ([0034] tabs in the tab overview UI can be displayed as representations of the webpages currently open in the respective tabs and grouped according to information about the webpages. Groups of tabs are constructed according to tab grouping criteria such as sharing a common domain associated with tabs in a group).
Karaunamuni does not explicitly teach:
generating and displaying a decision task summary for the decision task tab group, the decision task summary including:
content summary cards each featuring a summary of content displayed by a different one of the multiple browser tabs of the decision task tab group; and
filter options personalized to at least one of the common decision task or a user of the browser session, each of the filter options referencing a discovered attribute of the webpage subjects referenced by the web content of one of the multiple browser tabs, the filter options each being being selectable by a user to hide or unhide a subset of the content summary cards featuring a subset of the webpage subjects characterized by the filter options.
However, Statuchuk teaches:
generating (abstract card generator generates an index summary card for storing the representation of the target content instance) and displaying a decision task summary for the decision task tab group ([0072] index summary cards may also include display text which is used to direct an operator to the referenced content instance when the summary card is displayed), the decision task summary including:
content summary cards each featuring a summary of content displayed by a different one of the multiple browser tabs of the decision task tab group ([0055] each index summary card contains summaries of target or referenced content instances. These summaries include terms, topic hierarchies, report metadata, related information and URIs needed to show the content instances);
filter options personalized to at least one of the common decision task or a user of the browser session ([0038] metadata content management system organizes business oriented metadata content in ways that are more relevant and meaningful to users and also includes several personalization and administration options).
Statuchuk and Karunamuni are both concerned with web browsers and are therefore combinable/modifiable. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Karunamuni in view of Statuchuk because it would provide for a metadata content management system that can enhance search and drill-through capabilities across the range of user report applications without requiring drill-through authoring in source content. A report author simply publishes target reports and lets the metadata content management system find drill locations to the target content. The metadata content management system describes data using names and labels from actual reports. These names are often more familiar and relevant to report users. The metadata content management system also provides enhanced report-to-report drilling and product-to-product navigation. It expands the number of places where report users can "drill-to" and "drill-from" in a report. Most drilling requires no advance authoring. The metadata content management system improves the capabilities of search tools. This includes the concept of `federated` search across a variety of portal and web search indices. A single set of index files is typically maintained in the index store in the content index component for all users and user groups for the organization. By storing a single set of index files in a single store, the metadata content management system can provide optimal or improved performance.
Karunamuni in view of Statuchuk do not explicitly teach:
each of the filter options referencing a discovered attribute of the webpage subjects referenced by the web content of one of the multiple browser tabs, the filter options each being being selectable by a user to hide or unhide a subset of the content summary cards featuring a subset of the webpage subjects characterized by the filter options.
However, Sherwin teaches:
each of the filter options referencing a discovered attribute of the webpage subjects referenced by the web content of one of the multiple browser tabs, the filter options each being being selectable by a user to hide or unhide a subset of the content summary cards featuring a subset of the webpage subjects characterized by the filter options ([0028] and [0050] filter the multiple widget cards based on at least one of: relevance, urgency and user defined criteria; a card feed prioritizer to prioritize the filtered multiple widget cards based on at least one of: relevance, urgency and the user defined criteria; a card updater to update the multiple widget cards within the feed based on real time events; and a card feed manager to perform at least one of: re-sorting the feed, filtering the feed, hiding and unhiding the cards).
Sherwin and Karunamuni are both concerned with web browsers and are therefore combinable/modifiable. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Karunamuni in view of Statuchuk in view of Sherwin because it would provide for an insight analyzer which may only be activated when enough relevant/similar additional websites and mobile apps can be analyzed on aggregated level, to preserve the privacy and anonymity of these additional analyzed websites, prevent use of proprietary information which is not aggregated from a substantial number of sites, and allow the analysis to have sufficient statistical significance. Furthermore, the system may offer an opt-in or opt-out mechanism, whereby a site would allow some or all of their information to be analyzed and could specify which information, for example in return for receiving similar analysis from other sites or some other form of monetary or otherwise incentive.
Claim 20 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Karunamuni in view of Statchuk in view of Sherwin in view of Mushnuri in view of Iguchi.
As per claim 20, Karunamuni in view of Statchuk in view of Sherwin do not explicitly teach wherein generating and displaying the decision task summary further comprises: transmitting a request to a large language model (LLM), the request identifying the webpage subjects and a request asking the LLM to discover and return attributes of the webpage subjects; and selecting a subset of attributes returned by the LLM to feature as the filter options, each attribute in the subset being either selected based on similarity to previous web interactions of the user or similarity to stored profile data for the user.
However, Mushnuri teaches wherein generating and displaying the decision task summary further comprises: transmitting a request to a large language model (LLM), the request identifying the webpage subjects and a request asking the LLM to discover and return attributes of the webpage subjects ([0172]-[0175] prompt the LLM with a question/directive/command to return a result of the prompt such as the latency in loading a webpage).
Mushnuri and Karunamuni are both concerned with web browsers and are therefore combinable/modifiable. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Karunamuni in view of Statchuk in view of Sherwin in view of Mushnuri because it would provide a way to facilitate mapping of performance objectives for a computing system into specific and quantifiable metrics of that computing system. This mapping helps enable rapid and accurate identification of relevant key performance indicators as well as the corresponding data to use for measuring the relevant key performance indicators. By improving the selection of key performance indicators and the integrity of associated data, the resulting system could provide better measurements of computing system performance, improved threat and defect detection, and serve to prevent degradation in system performance.
Karunamuni in view of Statchuk in view of Sherwin in view of Mushnuri do not explicitly teach selecting a subset of attributes returned by the LLM to feature as the filter options, each attribute in the subset being either selected based on similarity to previous web interactions of the user or similarity to stored profile data for the user.
However, Iguchi teaches selecting a subset of attributes returned by the LLM to feature as the filter options, each attribute in the subset being either selected based on similarity to previous web interactions of the user or similarity to stored profile data for the user ([0003] content-based filtering approach uses the profiles to select the most appropriate web pages from the set of the newly updated pages and recommend them to the users. The collaborative filtering approach uses the profiles to find the most similar users having similar profiles, and recommend the pages browsed by them and [0075] if the selected strategy is content-based filtering, then the system can receive newly updated web pages from the world wide web through an RSS feed for example, calculate the feature vector for each page, calculate the similarity of each web page with the user profile, and recommend the web pages that exhibit high similarity with the user profile).
Iguchi and Karunamuni are both concerned with web browsers and are therefore combinable/modifiable. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Karunamuni in view of Statchuk in view of Sherwin in view of Mushnuri in view of Iguchi because it would provide a way to solve the problem of selecting an appropriate recommendation strategy of content-base or collaborative filtering by tracking two types of user profiles, a long-term profile and a short-term profile, for each user, and measuring the stability of the user's preference by comparing these two profiles.
Citation of Relevant Prior Art
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to Applicant's disclosure:
Romanenko et al. (US 10,860,676) disclose controlling presentation of web resources in a browser window.
Levi et al. (US 2015/0347616) disclose administering a browser store.
Grewal et al. (US 2023/0297622) disclose custom data filtering.
Gleadall et al. (US 9,065,793) disclose rendering web content using pre-caching.
Dipin (US 2017/0293419) disclose context based tab management.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Adam Lee whose telephone number is (571) 270-3369. The examiner can normally be reached on M-TH 8AM-5PM.
If attempts to reach the above noted Examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the Examiner’s supervisor, Pierre Vital, can be reached at the following telephone number: (571) 272-4215. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from Patent Center. Status information for published applications may be obtained from Patent Center. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Patent Center for authorized users only. Should you have questions about access to Patent Center, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free).
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) Form at https://www.uspto.gov/patents/uspto-automated-interview-request-air-form.
/Adam Lee/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2198 July 13, 2026
Prosecution Insights