DETAILED ACTION
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 .
Election/Restrictions
During a telephone conversation with Jeffery Streets on 4/21/2026 a provisional election was made without traverse to prosecute the invention of elected group, claims 1-19. Affirmation of this election must be made by applicant in replying to this Office action. Claim 20 is withdrawn from further consideration by the examiner, 37 CFR 1.142(b), as being drawn to a non-elected invention.
Claims 1-19 are drawn to a method comprising determining whether to render HTML code on a browser baked on HTML token content description
Claim 20 is a computer program product drawn to receiving a search query for webpages that relate to target content, and providing search results for webpages that have HTML with token content descriptions that most closely satisfy the query
The inventions are independent or distinct from each other because:
Inventions group 1 and group 2 are independent as group 1 uses HTML token descriptions to determine whether to render HTML code on a web page browser. While, group 2 uses HTML token descriptions for search queries and identifying results that closely satisfy the search query
Restriction for examination purposes as indicated is proper because all the inventions listed in this action are independent or distinct for the reasons given above and there would be a serious search and/or examination burden if restriction were not required because one or more of the following reasons apply:
Each of the identified groups recite subject matter that would require entirely different search strategies and additional search burden based on different classification and claim scope outlined above.
Claim Objections
Claim 1, 6, 12-13, 17-19 objected to because of the following informalities:
In claims 1 and 12-13 it recites: “to rendered”. Examiner suggests amending to “to render”,
In claims 1, 6, 12-13, 17-19 it recites: “HTML”. The applicant is requested to write out the acronym “HTML” in full.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 6-13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Claim 6-8 and 11 recites the limitation "the large language module". There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. The applicant is suggested to amend to “the large language model”
Claims 9 depends on claim 6. Therefore, the claim suffers the same deficiency as the parent claim.
Claims 10 depends on claim 9. Therefore, the claim suffers the same deficiency as the parent claim.
Claims 12 depends on claim 11. Therefore, the claim suffers the same deficiency as the parent claim.
Claims 13 depends on claim 11. Therefore, the claim suffers the same deficiency as the parent claim.
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.
Claim 1-19 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
Claim(s) 1 recite(s):
accessing HTML code from one or more webpages;
tokenizing the HTML code to form one or more HTML tokens;
submitting each HTML token to a large language model;
obtaining a token content description for each HTML token from the large language model;
and determining, for each of the one or more webpages, whether to rendered the HTML code on the web browser based on the token content descriptions of the HTML tokens formed for the HTML code from the one or more webpages.
Step 1: are the claims to a process, machine, manufacture, or a composition of matter?
Claim 1 is directed to software per se. As it is a computer program product comprising a computer readable medium that is not non-transitory
Step 2A, Prong I; Does the claim recite an abstract idea, law of nature, or natural phenomenon?
Yes: (an) abstract idea(s).
The limitation of “tokenizing”, as drafted in #2 above, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the mind, but with generic computer parts. That is, other than reciting "to cause the processor to perform operations", nothing in the claim element precludes the step from being performed by a person on paper.
The limitation of "determining", as drafted in #5 above, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the mind with generic computer parts. That is, other than reciting "to cause the processor to perform operations", nothing in the claim element precludes the step from being performed by a person on paper.
Step 2A Prong II: Does the claim recite additional elements that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application?
No.
The "accessing" limitations in #1 above, as claimed and under BRI, is an additional element that is insignificant extra-solution activity. For example, "accessing HTML code" in the context of this claim encompasses merely accessing the data sent from the webpage to a device. See in the MPEP §§ 2106.05(g).
The "submitting" limitations in #3 above, as claimed and under BRI, is an additional element that is insignificant extra-solution activity. For example, "submitting each HTML token to a large language model" in the context of this claim encompasses merely sending data over a network. See in the MPEP §§ 2106.05(g).
The "obtaining" limitations in #4 above, as claimed and under BRI, is an additional element that is insignificant extra-solution activity. For example, "obtaining a token content description" in the context of this claim encompasses merely receiving data over a network. See in the MPEP §§ 2106.05(g).
Additionally, the claims recite the following additional element:
A computer program product
a non-volatile computer readable medium
a processor
The element that is recited in the claims are stated at a high level of generality (i.e. as a generic processor performing a generic computer function) such that it amounts no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using generic computer component. See the MPEP §§ 2106.05(f). Accordingly, this additional element does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because it does not impose any meaningful limitation on practicing the abstract idea(s).
Step 2B: Does the claim recite additional elements that amount to significantly more than the judicial exception?
No.
The claim(s) does/do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because mere instructions to apply an exception using generic computer components cannot provide the inventive step.
Additionally, with regards to #3-4 above, per MPEP 2106.05(d)(ll), the courts have recognized the following computer function(s) as well-understood, routine, and conventional functions when they are claimed in a merely generic manner (e.g., at a high level of generality) or as insignificant extra-solution activity:
Inc., v. Amazon.com, Inc., 788 F.3d 1359, 1363, 115 USPQ2d 1090, 1093 (Fed. Cir. 2015) (sending messages over a network);
Claim(s) 2 recite(s):
wherein tokenizing the HTML code to form one or more HTML tokens includes: separating the HTML code into a plurality of tokens, wherein each token has a token type selected from a predetermined plurality of token types
Step 1: are the claims to a process, machine, manufacture, or a composition of matter?
Claim
Step 2A, Prong I; Does the claim recite an abstract idea, law of nature, or natural phenomenon?
Yes: (an) abstract idea(s).
The limitation, as drafted in #6 above, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the mind, but with generic computer parts. That is, other than reciting a computer program product, nothing in the claim element precludes the step from being performed by a person on paper.
Step 2A Prong II: Does the claim recite additional elements that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application?
No.
Additionally, the claims recite the following additional element:
a computer program product
The element that is recited in the claims are stated at a high level of generality (i.e. as a generic processor performing a generic computer function) such that it amounts no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using generic computer component. See the MPEP §§ 2106.05(f). Accordingly, this additional element does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because it does not impose any meaningful limitation on practicing the abstract idea(s).
Step 2B: Does the claim recite additional elements that amount to significantly more than the judicial exception?
No.
The claim(s) does/do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because mere instructions to apply an exception using generic computer components cannot provide the inventive step.
Claim(s) 3 recite(s):
wherein each token represents an element of HTML structure.
Step 1: are the claims to a process, machine, manufacture, or a composition of matter?
Claim 3 is directed to software per se. As it is a computer program product comprising a computer readable medium that is not non-transitory
Step 2A, Prong I; Does the claim recite an abstract idea, law of nature, or natural phenomenon?
Yes: (an) abstract idea(s).
The limitation, as drafted in #7 above, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the mind, but with generic computer parts. That is, other than reciting "computer program product", nothing in the claim element precludes the step from being performed by a person on paper.
Step 2A Prong II: Does the claim recite additional elements that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application?
No.
Additionally, the claims recite the following additional element:
a computer program product
The element that is recited in the claims are stated at a high level of generality (i.e. as a generic processor performing a generic computer function) such that it amounts no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using generic computer component. See the MPEP §§ 2106.05(f). Accordingly, this additional element does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because it does not impose any meaningful limitation on practicing the abstract idea(s).
Step 2B: Does the claim recite additional elements that amount to significantly more than the judicial exception?
No.
The claim(s) does/do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because mere instructions to apply an exception using generic computer components cannot provide the inventive step.
Claim(s) 4 recite(s):
wherein the predetermined plurality of token types includes one or more token types selected from text, script, image and tags.
Step 1: are the claims to a process, machine, manufacture, or a composition of matter?
Claim 4 is directed to software per se. As it is a computer program product comprising a computer readable medium that is not non-transitory
Step 2A, Prong I; Does the claim recite an abstract idea, law of nature, or natural phenomenon?
Yes: (an) abstract idea(s).
The limitation, as drafted in #8 above, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the mind, but with generic computer parts. That is, other than reciting "computer program product", nothing in the claim element precludes the step from being performed by a person on paper.
Step 2A Prong II: Does the claim recite additional elements that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application?
No.
Additionally, the claims recite the following additional element:
a computer program product
The element that is recited in the claims are stated at a high level of generality (i.e. as a generic processor performing a generic computer function) such that it amounts no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using generic computer component. See the MPEP §§ 2106.05(f). Accordingly, this additional element does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because it does not impose any meaningful limitation on practicing the abstract idea(s).
Step 2B: Does the claim recite additional elements that amount to significantly more than the judicial exception?
No.
The claim(s) does/do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because mere instructions to apply an exception using generic computer components cannot provide the inventive step.
Claim(s) 5 recite(s):
wherein the predetermined plurality of token types includes one or more token types selected from text, script, image, video, sound and tags.
Step 1: are the claims to a process, machine, manufacture, or a composition of matter?
Claim 5 is directed to software per se. As it is a computer program product comprising a computer readable medium that is not non-transitory
Step 2A, Prong I; Does the claim recite an abstract idea, law of nature, or natural phenomenon?
Yes: (an) abstract idea(s).
The limitation, as drafted in #9 above, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the mind, but with generic computer parts. That is, other than reciting "computer program product", nothing in the claim element precludes the step from being performed by a person on paper.
Step 2A Prong II: Does the claim recite additional elements that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application?
No.
Additionally, the claims recite the following additional element:
computer program product
The element that is recited in the claims are stated at a high level of generality (i.e. as a generic processor performing a generic computer function) such that it amounts no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using generic computer component. See the MPEP §§ 2106.05(f). Accordingly, this additional element does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because it does not impose any meaningful limitation on practicing the abstract idea(s).
Step 2B: Does the claim recite additional elements that amount to significantly more than the judicial exception?
No.
The claim(s) does/do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because mere instructions to apply an exception using generic computer components cannot provide the inventive step.
Claim(s) 6 recite(s):
the operations further comprising: causing, for each of the one or more webpages, the large language module to provide a webpage content description based on the token content descriptions obtained for each HTML token formed for the HTML code from the web
Step 1: are the claims to a process, machine, manufacture, or a composition of matter?
Claim 6 is directed to software per se. As it is a computer program product comprising a computer readable medium that is not non-transitory
Step 2A, Prong I; Does the claim recite an abstract idea, law of nature, or natural phenomenon?
Yes: (an) abstract idea(s).
Step 2A Prong II: Does the claim recite additional elements that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application?
No.
The limitations in #10 above, as claimed and under BRI, is an additional element that is insignificant extra-solution activity. For example, "provide a webpage content description" in the context of this claim encompasses merely receiving data. See in the MPEP §§ 2106.05(g).
Additionally, the claims recite the following additional element:
computer program product
The element that is recited in the claims are stated at a high level of generality (i.e. as a generic processor performing a generic computer function) such that it amounts no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using generic computer component. See the MPEP §§ 2106.05(f). Accordingly, this additional element does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because it does not impose any meaningful limitation on practicing the abstract idea(s).
Step 2B: Does the claim recite additional elements that amount to significantly more than the judicial exception?
No.
The claim(s) does/do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because mere instructions to apply an exception using generic computer components cannot provide the inventive step.
Additionally, with regards to #10 above, per MPEP 2106.05(d)(ll), the courts have recognized the following computer function(s) as well-understood, routine, and conventional functions when they are claimed in a merely generic manner (e.g., at a high level of generality) or as insignificant extra-solution activity:
Inc., v. Amazon.com, Inc., 788 F.3d 1359, 1363, 115 USPQ2d 1090, 1093 (Fed. Cir. 2015) (sending messages over a network);
Claim(s) 7 recite(s):
wherein the large language module is multi-modal
Step 1: are the claims to a process, machine, manufacture, or a composition of matter?
Claim 7 is directed to software per se. As it is a computer program product comprising a computer readable medium that is not non-transitory
Step 2A, Prong I; Does the claim recite an abstract idea, law of nature, or natural phenomenon?
Yes: (an) abstract idea(s).
Step 2A Prong II: Does the claim recite additional elements that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application?
No.
The limitation in #11 above. As claimed and under BRI, is an additional element that is mere instructions to apply an exception. For example, "large language module is multi-modal" in the context of this claim encompasses merely defines what the LLM is. See in the MPEP §§2106.05(f).
Additionally, the claims recite the following additional element:
computer program product
The element that is recited in the claims are stated at a high level of generality (i.e. as a generic processor performing a generic computer function) such that it amounts no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using generic computer component. See the MPEP §§ 2106.05(f). Accordingly, this additional element does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because it does not impose any meaningful limitation on practicing the abstract idea(s).
Step 2B: Does the claim recite additional elements that amount to significantly more than the judicial exception?
No.
The claim(s) does/do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because mere instructions to apply an exception using generic computer components cannot provide the inventive step.
Claim(s) 8 recite(s):
wherein the multi-modal large language module is able to provide a token content description for text tokens, script tokens, image tokens and audio tokens
Step 1: are the claims to a process, machine, manufacture, or a composition of matter?
Claim 8 is directed to software per se. As it is a computer program product comprising a computer readable medium that is not non-transitory
Step 2A, Prong I; Does the claim recite an abstract idea, law of nature, or natural phenomenon?
Yes: (an) abstract idea(s).
The limitation, as drafted in #12 above, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the mind, but with generic computer parts. That is, other than reciting large language module", nothing in the claim element precludes the step from being performed by a person on paper.
Step 2A Prong II: Does the claim recite additional elements that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application?
No.
Additionally, the claims recite the following additional element:
computer program product
The element that is recited in the claims are stated at a high level of generality (i.e. as a generic processor performing a generic computer function) such that it amounts no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using generic computer component. See the MPEP §§ 2106.05(f). Accordingly, this additional element does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because it does not impose any meaningful limitation on practicing the abstract idea(s).
Step 2B: Does the claim recite additional elements that amount to significantly more than the judicial exception?
No.
The claim(s) does/do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because mere instructions to apply an exception using generic computer components cannot provide the inventive step.
Claim(s) 9 recite(s):
identifying a rating system including a plurality of ratings, each rating having a rating description;
and causing, for each of the one or more webpages, the large language module to identify one of the plurality of ratings for which the rating description most closely represents the webpage content description.
Step 1: are the claims to a process, machine, manufacture, or a composition of matter?
Claim 9 is directed to software per se. As it is a computer program product comprising a computer readable medium that is not non-transitory
Step 2A, Prong I; Does the claim recite an abstract idea, law of nature, or natural phenomenon?
Yes: (an) abstract idea(s).
The limitation of "identifying", as drafted in #13 above, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the mind, but with generic computer parts. That is, other than reciting computer program product, nothing in the claim element precludes the step from being performed by a person on paper.
The limitation of "causing", as drafted in #14 above, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the mind, but with generic computer parts. That is, other than reciting "large language module", nothing in the claim element precludes the step from being performed by a person on paper.
Step 2A Prong II: Does the claim recite additional elements that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application?
No.
Additionally, the claims recite the following additional element:
computer program product
The element that is recited in the claims are stated at a high level of generality (i.e. as a generic processor performing a generic computer function) such that it amounts no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using generic computer component. See the MPEP §§ 2106.05(f). Accordingly, this additional element does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because it does not impose any meaningful limitation on practicing the abstract idea(s).
Step 2B: Does the claim recite additional elements that amount to significantly more than the judicial exception?
No.
The claim(s) does/do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because mere instructions to apply an exception using generic computer components cannot provide the inventive step.
Claim(s) 10 recite(s):
wherein the rating system includes a plurality of maturity ratings, wherein, for each maturity rating, the rating description identifies content that is appropriate for the maturity rating.
Step 1: are the claims to a process, machine, manufacture, or a composition of matter?
Claim 10 is directed to software per se. As it is a computer program product comprising a computer readable medium that is not non-transitory
Step 2A, Prong I; Does the claim recite an abstract idea, law of nature, or natural phenomenon?
Yes: (an) abstract idea(s).
The limitation, as drafted in #15 above, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the mind, but with generic computer parts. That is, other than reciting "computer program product", nothing in the claim element precludes the step from being performed by a person on paper.
Step 2A Prong II: Does the claim recite additional elements that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application?
No.
Additionally, the claims recite the following additional element:
computer program product
The element that is recited in the claims are stated at a high level of generality (i.e. as a generic processor performing a generic computer function) such that it amounts no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using generic computer component. See the MPEP §§ 2106.05(f). Accordingly, this additional element does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because it does not impose any meaningful limitation on practicing the abstract idea(s).
Step 2B: Does the claim recite additional elements that amount to significantly more than the judicial exception?
No.
The claim(s) does/do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because mere instructions to apply an exception using generic computer components cannot provide the inventive step.
Claim(s) 11 recite(s):
identifying a plurality of subject matter categories; and causing, for each of the one or more webpages, the large language module to identify one of the plurality subject matter categories that most closely represents the webpage content description
Step 1: are the claims to a process, machine, manufacture, or a composition of matter?
Claim 11 is directed to software per se. As it is a computer program product comprising a computer readable medium that is not non-transitory
Step 2A, Prong I; Does the claim recite an abstract idea, law of nature, or natural phenomenon?
Yes: (an) abstract idea(s).
The limitation, as drafted in #16 above, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the mind, but with generic computer parts. That is, other than reciting "computer program product", nothing in the claim element precludes the step from being performed by a person on paper.
Step 2A Prong II: Does the claim recite additional elements that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application?
No.
Additionally, the claims recite the following additional element:
computer program product
The element that is recited in the claims are stated at a high level of generality (i.e. as a generic processor performing a generic computer function) such that it amounts no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using generic computer component. See the MPEP §§ 2106.05(f). Accordingly, this additional element does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because it does not impose any meaningful limitation on practicing the abstract idea(s).
Step 2B: Does the claim recite additional elements that amount to significantly more than the judicial exception?
No.
The claim(s) does/do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because mere instructions to apply an exception using generic computer components cannot provide the inventive step.
Claim(s) 12 recite(s):
wherein determining, for each of the one or more webpages, whether to rendered the webpage on the web browser based on the token content descriptions of the HTML tokens formed for the HTML code from the webpage includes: accessing a predetermined denylist of content categories;
and allowing the web browser to display the one or more webpages in response to there being no HTML tokens from the one or more webpages with a content category on the denylist.
Step 1: are the claims to a process, machine, manufacture, or a composition of matter?
Claim 12 is directed to software per se. As it is a computer program product comprising a computer readable medium that is not non-transitory
Step 2A, Prong I; Does the claim recite an abstract idea, law of nature, or natural phenomenon?
Yes: (an) abstract idea(s).
Step 2A Prong II: Does the claim recite additional elements that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application?
No.
The "accessing" limitations in #17 above, as claimed and under BRI, is an additional element that is insignificant extra-solution activity. For example, "accessing a predetermined denylist of content categories" in the context of this claim encompasses merely retrieving stored data. See in the MPEP §§ 2106.05(g).
The “allowing” limitation in #18 above. As claimed and under BRI, is an additional element that is mere instructions to apply an exception. For example, "allowing the web browser to display" in the context of this claim encompasses merely running a function on a browser. See in the MPEP §§2106.05(f).
Additionally, the claims recite the following additional element:
computer program product
The element that is recited in the claims are stated at a high level of generality (i.e. as a generic processor performing a generic computer function) such that it amounts no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using generic computer component. See the MPEP §§ 2106.05(f). Accordingly, this additional element does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because it does not impose any meaningful limitation on practicing the abstract idea(s).
Step 2B: Does the claim recite additional elements that amount to significantly more than the judicial exception?
No.
The claim(s) does/do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because mere instructions to apply an exception using generic computer components cannot provide the inventive step.
Additionally, with regards to #17 above, per MPEP 2106.05(d)(ll), the courts have recognized the following computer function(s) as well-understood, routine, and conventional functions when they are claimed in a merely generic manner (e.g., at a high level of generality) or as insignificant extra-solution activity:
Storing and retrieving information in memory, Versata Dev. Group, Inc. v. SAP Am., Inc., 793 F.3d 1306, 1334, 115 USPQ2d 1681, 1701 (Fed. Cir. 2015); OIP Techs., 788 F.3d at 1363, 115 USPQ2d at 1092-93;
Claim(s) 13 recite(s):
wherein determining, for each of the one or more webpages, whether to rendered the webpage on the web browser based on the token content descriptions of the HTML tokens formed for the HTML code from the webpage includes: accessing a predetermined allowlist of content categories;
and allowing the web browser to display the one or more webpages in response to all of the HTML tokens from the one or more webpages having a content category on the allowlist.
Step 1: are the claims to a process, machine, manufacture, or a composition of matter?
Claim 13 is directed to software per se. As it is a computer program product comprising a computer readable medium that is not non-transitory
Step 2A, Prong I; Does the claim recite an abstract idea, law of nature, or natural phenomenon?
Yes: (an) abstract idea(s).
Step 2A Prong II: Does the claim recite additional elements that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application?
No.
The "accessing" limitations in #19 above, as claimed and under BRI, is an additional element that is insignificant extra-solution activity. For example, "accessing a predetermined denylist of content categories" in the context of this claim encompasses merely retrieving stored data. See in the MPEP §§ 2106.05(g).
The “allowing” limitation in #20 above. As claimed and under BRI, is an additional element that is mere instructions to apply an exception. For example, "allowing the web browser to display" in the context of this claim encompasses merely running a function on a browser. See in the MPEP §§2106.05(f).
Additionally, the claims recite the following additional element:
computer program product
The element that is recited in the claims are stated at a high level of generality (i.e. as a generic processor performing a generic computer function) such that it amounts no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using generic computer component. See the MPEP §§ 2106.05(f). Accordingly, this additional element does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because it does not impose any meaningful limitation on practicing the abstract idea(s).
Step 2B: Does the claim recite additional elements that amount to significantly more than the judicial exception?
No.
The claim(s) does/do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because mere instructions to apply an exception using generic computer components cannot provide the inventive step.
Additionally, with regards to #19 above, per MPEP 2106.05(d)(ll), the courts have recognized the following computer function(s) as well-understood, routine, and conventional functions when they are claimed in a merely generic manner (e.g., at a high level of generality) or as insignificant extra-solution activity:
Storing and retrieving information in memory, Versata Dev. Group, Inc. v. SAP Am., Inc., 793 F.3d 1306, 1334, 115 USPQ2d 1681, 1701 (Fed. Cir. 2015); OIP Techs., 788 F.3d at 1363, 115 USPQ2d at 1092-93;
Claim(s) 14 recite(s):
wherein the accessing, tokenizing, submitting, obtaining, and determining operations are performed in real-time in response to a user entering a uniform resource locator into a web browser.
Step 1: are the claims to a process, machine, manufacture, or a composition of matter?
Claim 14 is directed to software per se. As it is a computer program product comprising a computer readable medium that is not non-transitory
Step 2A, Prong I; Does the claim recite an abstract idea, law of nature, or natural phenomenon?
Yes: (an) abstract idea(s).
Step 2A Prong II: Does the claim recite additional elements that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application?
No.
The limitation in #21 above. As claimed and under BRI, is an additional element that is mere instructions to apply an exception. For example, "in response to a user entering a uniform resource locator into a web browser" in the context of this claim encompasses merely running a function in response to a user action. See in the MPEP §§2106.05(f).
Additionally, the claims recite the following additional element:
computer program product
The element that is recited in the claims are stated at a high level of generality (i.e. as a generic processor performing a generic computer function) such that it amounts no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using generic computer component. See the MPEP §§ 2106.05(f). Accordingly, this additional element does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because it does not impose any meaningful limitation on practicing the abstract idea(s).
Step 2B: Does the claim recite additional elements that amount to significantly more than the judicial exception?
No.
The claim(s) does/do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because mere instructions to apply an exception using generic computer components cannot provide the inventive step.
Claim(s) 15 recite(s):
wherein the large language model is performed locally on the same computer as the web browser.
Step 1: are the claims to a process, machine, manufacture, or a composition of matter?
Claim 15 is directed to software per se. As it is a computer program product comprising a computer readable medium that is not non-transitory
Step 2A, Prong I; Does the claim recite an abstract idea, law of nature, or natural phenomenon?
Yes: (an) abstract idea(s).
Step 2A Prong II: Does the claim recite additional elements that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application?
No.
The limitation in #22 above. As claimed and under BRI, is an additional element that is mere instructions to apply an exception. For example, "performed locally" in the context of this claim encompasses merely running an application on a local device. See in the MPEP §§2106.05(f).
Additionally, the claims recite the following additional element:
computer program product
The element that is recited in the claims are stated at a high level of generality (i.e. as a generic processor performing a generic computer function) such that it amounts no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using generic computer component. See the MPEP §§ 2106.05(f). Accordingly, this additional element does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because it does not impose any meaningful limitation on practicing the abstract idea(s).
Step 2B: Does the claim recite additional elements that amount to significantly more than the judicial exception?
No.
The claim(s) does/do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because mere instructions to apply an exception using generic computer components cannot provide the inventive step.
Claim(s) 16 recite(s):
wherein the large language model is a cloud application accessible over a network.
Step 1: are the claims to a process, machine, manufacture, or a composition of matter?
Claim 16 is directed to software per se. As it is a computer program product comprising a computer readable medium that is not non-transitory
Step 2A, Prong I; Does the claim recite an abstract idea, law of nature, or natural phenomenon?
Yes: (an) abstract idea(s).
Step 2A Prong II: Does the claim recite additional elements that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application?
No.
The limitation in #23 above. As claimed and under BRI, is an additional element that is mere instructions to apply an exception. For example, "large language model is a cloud application accessible over a network" in the context of this claim encompasses merely accessing an application remotely over a network. See in the MPEP §§2106.05(f).
Additionally, the claims recite the following additional element:
computer program product
The element that is recited in the claims are stated at a high level of generality (i.e. as a generic processor performing a generic computer function) such that it amounts no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using generic computer component. See the MPEP §§ 2106.05(f). Accordingly, this additional element does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because it does not impose any meaningful limitation on practicing the abstract idea(s).
Step 2B: Does the claim recite additional elements that amount to significantly more than the judicial exception?
No.
The claim(s) does/do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because mere instructions to apply an exception using generic computer components cannot provide the inventive step.
Claim(s) 17 recite(s):
recommending, based on the content of one or more of the HTML tokens on a webpage, one or more alternative webpages that has content that is similar to the content of one or more of the HTML tokens.
Step 1: are the claims to a process, machine, manufacture, or a composition of matter?
Claim 17 is directed to software per se. As it is a computer program product comprising a computer readable medium that is not non-transitory
Step 2A, Prong I; Does the claim recite an abstract idea, law of nature, or natural phenomenon?
Yes: (an) abstract idea(s).
The limitation, as drafted in #24 above, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the mind, but with generic computer parts. That is, other than reciting "computer program product", nothing in the claim element precludes the step from being performed by a person.
Step 2A Prong II: Does the claim recite additional elements that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application?
No.
Additionally, the claims recite the following additional element:
computer program product
The element that is recited in the claims are stated at a high level of generality (i.e. as a generic processor performing a generic computer function) such that it amounts no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using generic computer component. See the MPEP §§ 2106.05(f). Accordingly, this additional element does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because it does not impose any meaningful limitation on practicing the abstract idea(s).
Step 2B: Does the claim recite additional elements that amount to significantly more than the judicial exception?
No.
The claim(s) does/do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because mere instructions to apply an exception using generic computer components cannot provide the inventive step.
Claim(s) 18 recite(s):
sending targeted advertising to the web browser, wherein the targeted advertising is selected based on the token content description of the one or more of the HTML tokens.
Step 1: are the claims to a process, machine, manufacture, or a composition of matter?
Claim 18 is directed to software per se. As it is a computer program product comprising a computer readable medium that is not non-transitory
Step 2A, Prong I; Does the claim recite an abstract idea, law of nature, or natural phenomenon?
Yes: (an) abstract idea(s).
Step 2A Prong II: Does the claim recite additional elements that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application?
No.
The limitations in #25 above, as claimed and under BRI, is an additional element that is insignificant extra-solution activity. For example, "sending targeted advertisement" in the context of this claim encompasses merely sending data over a network. See in the MPEP §§ 2106.05(g).
Additionally, the claims recite the following additional element:
computer program product
The element that is recited in the claims are stated at a high level of generality (i.e. as a generic processor performing a generic computer function) such that it amounts no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using generic computer component. See the MPEP §§ 2106.05(f). Accordingly, this additional element does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because it does not impose any meaningful limitation on practicing the abstract idea(s).
Step 2B: Does the claim recite additional elements that amount to significantly more than the judicial exception?
No.
The claim(s) does/do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because mere instructions to apply an exception using generic computer components cannot provide the inventive step.
Additionally, with regards to #25 above, per MPEP 2106.05(d)(ll), the courts have recognized the following computer function(s) as well-understood, routine, and conventional functions when they are claimed in a merely generic manner (e.g., at a high level of generality) or as insignificant extra-solution activity:
Inc., v. Amazon.com, Inc., 788 F.3d 1359, 1363, 115 USPQ2d 1090, 1093 (Fed. Cir. 2015) (sending messages over a network);
Claim(s) 19 recite(s):
the operations further comprising: determining, for each of the one or more HTML tokens for a webpage, whether to rendered the HTML code that formed the HTML token on the web browser based on the token content description of the HTML token code.
Step 1: are the claims to a process, machine, manufacture, or a composition of matter?
Claim 19 is directed to software per se. As it is a computer program product comprising a computer readable medium that is not non-transitory
Step 2A, Prong I; Does the claim recite an abstract idea, law of nature, or natural phenomenon?
Yes: (an) abstract idea(s).
The limitation, as drafted in #26 above, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the mind, but with generic computer parts. That is, other than reciting "computer program product", nothing in the claim element precludes the step from being performed by a person on paper.
Step 2A Prong II: Does the claim recite additional elements that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application?
No.
Additionally, the claims recite the following additional element:
computer program product
The element that is recited in the claims are stated at a high level of generality (i.e. as a generic processor performing a generic computer function) such that it amounts no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using generic computer component. See the MPEP §§ 2106.05(f). Accordingly, this additional element does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because it does not impose any meaningful limitation on practicing the abstract idea(s).
Step 2B: Does the claim recite additional elements that amount to significantly more than the judicial exception?
No.
The claim(s) does/do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because mere instructions to apply an exception using generic computer components cannot provide the inventive step.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
Claim(s) 1-3 and 19 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable in view of US 20230325598 A1 (Hereinafter referred to as Risuleo) and US 8527504 B1 (hereinafter referred to as Krishnamurthy).
Regarding claim 1, Risuleo teaches:
A computer program product comprising a non-volatile computer readable medium and non-transitory program instructions embodied therein, the program instructions being configured to be executable by a processor to cause the processor to perform operations comprising: accessing HTML code from one or more webpages (Para. [20], Risuleo shows "the one or more web pages 102 may be obtained (e.g., by downloading via a network such as the Internet) and the system of the present disclosure may extract various interface elements, such as HyperText Markup Language (HTML) elements, from the one or more web pages 102. In some implementations, the system of the present disclosure may obtain the one or more web pages 102 automatically, whereas in other implementations, another system or a human operator may obtain the one or more web pages 102 for the system of the present disclosure");
tokenizing the HTML code to form one or more HTML tokens; (Para. [17], Risuleo shows "the environment may include elements of one or more web pages 102 that are input into a tokenizer 104 that tokenizes (derives a set of tokens from) the elements");
submitting each HTML token to a large language model (Para. [14], Risuleo shows "the HTML string is transformed into a feature vector suitable to input into a machine learning algorithm by at least tokenizing the HTML string into a set of tokens according to the tokenization scheme and iterating over the set of tokens to generate a set of word vectors, computing the feature vector by aggregating the set of word vectors according to a reduction function. Finally, in the example, a classification for the HTML element from the machine learning model is obtained as a result of inputting the feature vector into a machine learning model trained to classify HTML elements")
obtaining a token content description for each HTML token from the large language model (Para. [14], Risuleo shows "the HTML string is transformed into a feature vector suitable to input into a machine learning algorithm by at least tokenizing the HTML string into a set of tokens according to the tokenization scheme and iterating over the set of tokens to generate a set of word vectors, computing the feature vector by aggregating the set of word vectors according to a reduction function. Finally, in the example, a classification for the HTML element from the machine learning model is obtained as a result of inputting the feature vector into a machine learning model trained to classify HTML elements" In this citation the classification of the HTML element is considered to be the token content description for each HTML token);
Risuleo does not disclose:
and determining, for each of the one or more webpages, whether to rendered the HTML code on the web browser based on the token content descriptions of the HTML tokens formed for the HTML code from the one or more webpages
However in the analogous art of data network content filtering, Krishnamurthy teaches:
and determining, for each of the one or more webpages, whether to rendered the HTML code on the web browser based on the token content descriptions of the HTML tokens formed for the HTML code from the one or more webpages (Col. [2] line [49-53], Krishnamurthy shows “the received content comprises advertising and is filtered using the categorized filtering parameters. A webpage is then rendered using the filtered content such that at least a portion of the advertising is not displayed to the user.” Col. [3] line [23-51], Krishnamurthy shows “browser 102 sends requests 106 for content 108 to a content web server 104 via a data network 110, for example the Internet. The content web server 104 responds with the requested content 108. The browser 102 renders the received content and displays the rendered content on a computer display 112 for viewing by a user. This well known and standard browser functionality is represented generally in FIG. 1 as 124. The request for information sent by a browser is generally in the form of a Uniform Resource Locator (URL) which identifies a web server and a particular web page stored on that server. For example, a URL may be: http://www.servername.com/webpage.html. The first part of the URL indicates the protocol. In the example, the protocol is the HyperText Transfer Protocol (HTTP). The URL then specifies the network address (e.g. Internet Protocol (IP) address) of the server. In the example, the network address is www.servername.com. The last part of the address specifies the particular webpage or other resources stored on the server. In the example, the resource is a web page (webpage.html). URL's, HTTP, and HTML (Hyper Text Markup Language) are all well known in the art and will not be described in further detail herein.” These citations show determining whether to render content from a webpage on the browser and when determined to not render webpage content filtered content is instead rendered)
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate the teachings of Krishnamurthy into the teachings of Risuleo to implement “determining, for each of the one or more webpages, whether to rendered the HTML code on the web browser based on the token content descriptions of the HTML tokens formed for the HTML code from the one or more webpages”. The modification would have been obvious as one of ordinary skill in the art would be motivated to filter undesired content without false positives and risk of incomplete coverage, (Krishnamurthy, Col. [2] line [6-13]).
Regarding claim 2, Risuleo as modified in claim 1 teaches:
wherein tokenizing the HTML code to form one or more HTML tokens includes: separating the HTML code into a plurality of tokens, wherein each token has a token type selected from a predetermined plurality of token types (Para. [23], Risuleo shows “the tokenizer 104 may be hardware or software, that, when executed, tokenizes strings (such as HTML strings representing HTML elements) in order to produce tokens, such as a set of strings representative of the web elements. The process of tokenization be referred to also, as a tokenization scheme wherein at least one, but not limited to, method of tokenization can occur. The system 100 may iterate over the set of tokens to generate a set of word vectors. A set of web pages, such as the one or more web pages 102, may be transformed in such a way wherein elements of a web page are converted to strings. Strings may be text and/or may be associated with a certain type of element or elemental function” This citation shows that when tokenizing HTML elements, they may be transformed into text or may be associated with a certain type of element or elemental function, meaning other types of tokens in this circumstance).
Regarding claim 3, Risuleo as modified in claim 2 teaches:
wherein each token represents an element of HTML structure (Para. [23], Risuleo shows "the tokenizer 104 may be hardware or software, that, when executed, tokenizes strings (such as HTML strings representing HTML elements) in order to produce tokens, such as a set of strings representative of the web elements. The process of tokenization be referred to also, as a tokenization scheme wherein at least one, but not limited to, method of tokenization can occur. The system 100 may iterate over the set of tokens to generate a set of word vectors. A set of web pages, such as the one or more web pages 102, may be transformed in such a way wherein elements of a web page are converted to strings. Strings may be text and/or may be associated with a certain type of element or elemental function").
Regarding claim 19, Risuleo as modified teaches claim 1 as cited above, but does not explicitly disclose:
determining, for each of the one or more HTML tokens for a webpage, whether to rendered the HTML code that formed the HTML token on the web browser based on the token content description of the HTML token code.
However in the analogous art of data network content filtering, Krishnamurthy teaches:
determining, for each of the one or more HTML tokens for a webpage, whether to rendered the HTML code that formed the HTML token on the web browser based on the token content description of the HTML token code (Col. [2] line [49-53], Krishnamurthy shows “the received content comprises advertising and is filtered using the categorized filtering parameters. A webpage is then rendered using the filtered content such that at least a portion of the advertising is not displayed to the user.” Col. [3] line [23-51], Krishnamurthy shows “browser 102 sends requests 106 for content 108 to a content web server 104 via a data network 110, for example the Internet. The content web server 104 responds with the requested content 108. The browser 102 renders the received content and displays the rendered content on a computer display 112 for viewing by a user. This well known and standard browser functionality is represented generally in FIG. 1 as 124. The request for information sent by a browser is generally in the form of a Uniform Resource Locator (URL) which identifies a web server and a particular web page stored on that server. For example, a URL may be: http://www.servername.com/webpage.html. The first part of the URL indicates the protocol. In the example, the protocol is the HyperText Transfer Protocol (HTTP). The URL then specifies the network address (e.g. Internet Protocol (IP) address) of the server. In the example, the network address is www.servername.com. The last part of the address specifies the particular webpage or other resources stored on the server. In the example, the resource is a web page (webpage.html). URL's, HTTP, and HTML (Hyper Text Markup Language) are all well known in the art and will not be described in further detail herein”. Col. [6] line [10-28], Krishnamurthy shows "within each category of filtering parameters, there may be additional hierarchical levels of organization whereby categories may be further divided into multiple sub-categories related to the higher level category. For example, consider the sports category. This category may be further divided into individual related sports categories such as baseball, basketball and football. Thus, there may be categorized filtering parameters relating to baseball websites 216, basketball websites 218 and football websites 220. Thus, a user interested only in the sub-category of baseball may download only baseball categorized filtering parameters 216. Similarly, a user interested only in the sub-category of basketball may download only basketball categorized filtering parameters 218. A user interested only in the sub-category of football may download only football categorized filtering parameters 220. A user interested in all of the filtering parameters within the hierarchy may download the higher level categorized filtering parameters 222 and get all of the filtering parameters in each of the sub-categories (216, 218, 220)" This citation shows determining whether to render HTML elements of the webpage based on the categories they have been assigned. And when it is determined they need to be filtered the browser receives filtered content removing the HTML element that is unneeded from being rendered such that at least a portion of the HTML content is removed from being rendered).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate the teachings of Krishnamurthy into the teachings of Risuleo as modified to implement “determining, for each of the one or more HTML tokens for a webpage, whether to rendered the HTML code that formed the HTML token on the web browser based on the token content description of the HTML token code”. The modification would have been obvious as one of ordinary skill in the art would be motivated as there are several problems with the use of a filter set and to instead use. Since it is not possible to create rules that will perfectly filter out unwanted advertising while allowing all desired content to be rendered, there is the danger of certain rules filtering out desired content (i.e., false positives). The more rules in the filter set, the greater the danger of such over coverage and false positives. One is motivated to use the categorized filtering parameters of Krishnamurthy, (Krishnamurthy, Col. [2] line [6-13]).
Claim(s) 4-5 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable in view of US 20230325598 A1 (Hereinafter referred to as Risuleo) and US 8527504 B1 (hereinafter referred to as Krishnamurthy) and in further view of US 6088707 A (hereinafter referred to as Bates).
Regarding claim 4, Risuleo as modified teaches claim 2 as cited above and teaches:
wherein the predetermined plurality of token types includes one or more token types selected from text, image. (Para. [19], Risuleo shows "the one or more web pages 102 may operate as interfaces to a blogging or microblogging service that allows a user to transfer content, such as text, images, or video. Additionally, or alternatively, the one or more web pages 102 may be interfaces to a messaging service that allow a user to send text messages, voice messages, images, documents, user locations, live video, or other content to others" Para. [20], Risuleo shows "the one or more web pages 102 may be obtained (e.g., by downloading via a network such as the Internet) and the system of the present disclosure may extract various interface elements, such as HyperText Markup Language (HTML) elements, from the one or more web pages 102")
Risuleo does not explicitly disclose:
wherein the predetermined plurality of token types includes one or more token types selected from script, and tags.
However, in the analogous art of linked hyperlink documents, Bates teaches:
wherein the predetermined plurality of token types includes one or more token types selected from script, and tags (Col. [4] line [5-16], Bates shows the embodiments described hereinafter may be used to monitor and display the update status of documents stored at various locations on one or more computer systems. In one preferred application, the embodiments are used to monitor and display the update status of hypertext documents, e.g., in HTML format, that are stored on public computer networks such as the World Wide Web portion of the Internet, and that are viewable through a browser computer application executing on a computer system. Documents are typically identified on the Internet via an address known as a Uniform Resource Locator (URL). Col. [10] line [66] - Col. [11] line [15], Bates shows a section may also be defined by a user based upon a specific content delimiter within a document, whereby a user may define a characteristic of the document contents, e.g., a specific text style, text type or text format. Moreover, contents delimited by specific tags, e.g., different HTML tags, may be included or excluded from analysis. Other types of multimedia objects, e.g., tables, images, videos, sounds, executable programs, scripts, etc. may also include object definitions that delimit sections to be included or excluded from analysis. One specific application of this feature is that for documents that display the source code of a computer program, a user could specify that updates to the comments in the source code be excluded from the notification criteria for the document (e.g., by defining excluded sections delimited by the comment tokens in the document). Other manners of delimiting sections within a document may be used in the alternative).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate the teachings of Bates into the teachings of Risuleo as modified to implement ". The modification would have been obvious as one of ordinary skill in the art would be motivated as to use tags attached to content to include or exclude them from analysis or determining (.
Regarding claim 5, Risuleo as modified teaches claim 2 as cited above and teaches:
wherein the predetermined plurality of token types includes one or more token types selected from text, image, video, sound (Para. [19], Risuleo shows "the one or more web pages 102 may operate as interfaces to a blogging or microblogging service that allows a user to transfer content, such as text, images, or video. Additionally, or alternatively, the one or more web pages 102 may be interfaces to a messaging service that allow a user to send text messages, voice messages, images, documents, user locations, live video, or other content to others" Para. [20], Risuleo shows "the one or more web pages 102 may be obtained (e.g., by downloading via a network such as the Internet) and the system of the present disclosure may extract various interface elements, such as HyperText Markup Language (HTML) elements, from the one or more web pages 102")
Risuleo does not explicitly disclose:
wherein the predetermined plurality of token types includes one or more token types selected from text, script, image, video, sound and tags
However, in the analogous art of linked hyperlink documents, Bates teaches:
wherein the predetermined plurality of token types includes one or more token types selected from script, tags (Col. [4] line [5-16], Bates shows the embodiments described hereinafter may be used to monitor and display the update status of documents stored at various locations on one or more computer systems. In one preferred application, the embodiments are used to monitor and display the update status of hypertext documents, e.g., in HTML format, that are stored on public computer networks such as the World Wide Web portion of the Internet, and that are viewable through a browser computer application executing on a computer system. Documents are typically identified on the Internet via an address known as a Uniform Resource Locator (URL). Col. [10] line [66] - Col. [11] line [15], Bates shows a section may also be defined by a user based upon a specific content delimiter within a document, whereby a user may define a characteristic of the document contents, e.g., a specific text style, text type or text format. Moreover, contents delimited by specific tags, e.g., different HTML tags, may be included or excluded from analysis. Other types of multimedia objects, e.g., tables, images, videos, sounds, executable programs, scripts, etc. may also include object definitions that delimit sections to be included or excluded from analysis. One specific application of this feature is that for documents that display the source code of a computer program, a user could specify that updates to the comments in the source code be excluded from the notification criteria for the document (e.g., by defining excluded sections delimited by the comment tokens in the document). Other manners of delimiting sections within a document may be used in the alternative).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate the teachings of Bates into the teachings of Risuleo as modified to implement ". The modification would have been obvious as one of ordinary skill in the art would be motivated as to use tags attached to content to include or exclude them from analysis or determining (Bates, Col. [11] line [2-4]).
Claim(s) 6 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable in view of US 20230325598 A1 (Hereinafter referred to as Risuleo) and US 8527504 B1 (hereinafter referred to as Krishnamurthy) and in further view of US 20230018387 A1 (Hereinafter referred to as Kuksta).
Regarding claim 6, Risuleo as modified teaches claim 2 as cited above and does not explicitly disclose:
causing, for each of the one or more webpages, the large language module to provide a webpage content description based on the token content descriptions obtained for each HTML token formed for the HTML code from the webpage.
However in the analogous art of webpage classification, Kuksta teaches:
causing, for each of the one or more webpages, the large language module to provide a webpage content description based on the token content descriptions obtained for each HTML token formed for the HTML code from the webpage (Para. [35], Kuksta shows the methods and systems further include extracting specific classification attributes from the URL, textual content, HTML elements and meta elements to determine the category of the target web page based on the Machine Learning predictive analytics algorithm. Para. [71], Kuksta shows “return a prediction of the category the specific set of attributes corresponds to, together with the probability score for each category” Para. [58], Kuksta shows "Webpage Classifier Model (WCM) 215 is an internal component of WCL 210 that classifies and labels the datapoints provided to it for classification" Para. [66], Kuksta shows "user device 102 initially sends a data collection request to scraper tool 106 present within the service provider infrastructure 104. Scraper tool 106 receives and executes the request from user device 102 via network 140. Specifically, scraping tool 106 accesses the target(s) through a proxy server(s) to obtain the target's response data. While executing the data collection request, scraper tool 106 communicates with webpage classifier 210 by sending the obtained response data for analysis, classification, and predicting the probability percentile of the target web page's type. Webpage classifier 210 sends a resultant data comprising a single or multiple datapoints classified and labelled, which in turn constitutes the dataset as suitable for returning to the user device 102. Coupled with the classified and labelled datapoints is the probability percentile of the target web page's type" In this citation, the category the webpage is classified can be considered as a type of description for the webpage given by the machine learning model).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate the teachings of Kuksta into the teachings of Risuleo to implement "causing, for each of the one or more webpages, the large language module to provide a webpage content description based on the token content descriptions obtained for each HTML token formed for the HTML code from the webpage. The modification would have been obvious as one of ordinary skill in the art would be motivated to filter pages that are not in line with the desired information (Kuksta, Para. [32]).
Claim(s) 7-8 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable in view of US 20230325598 A1 (Hereinafter referred to as Risuleo), US 8527504 B1 (hereinafter referred to as Krishnamurthy), US 20230018387 A1 (Hereinafter referred to as Kuksta) and in further view of US 20230409298 A1 (Hereinafter referred to as Ciminelli).
Regarding claim 7, Risuleo as modified teaches claim 6 as cited above and does not explicitly disclose:
wherein the large language module is multi-modal
However in the analogous art of generation of user interfaces, Ciminelli teaches:
wherein the large language module is multi-modal (Para. [69] LLM may generate textual outputs in natural language, or in a desired structured format, such as a table or a formal language (such as a programming language, a digital file format, and so forth). In many cases, a LLM may be part of a multimodal large model, allowing the model to analyze both textual inputs as well as other kind of inputs (such as images, videos, audio, sensor data, telemetries, and so forth) and/or to generate both textual outputs as well as other kinds of outputs (such as images, videos, audio, telemetries, and so forth))
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate the teachings of Ciminelli into the teachings of Risuleo as modified to implement “wherein the large language module is multi-modal". The modification would have been obvious as one of ordinary skill in the art would be motivated to allow the model to be able to analyze inputs that include multimedia such as images, videos and audio (Ciminelli, (Para. [69])).
Regarding claim 8, Risuleo as modified teaches claim 7 as cited above and teaches:
able to provide a token content description for text tokens, script tokens, image tokens and audio tokens (Para. [18-19], Risuleo shows "The one or more web pages 102 may be user interfaces to one or more computing resource services available on the Internet. A user may interact with the one or more web pages 102 using an input device, such as a mouse, keyboard, or touch screen. The one or more web pages 102 may include various interface elements, such as text, images, links, tables, and the like. In an example, the one or more web pages 102 may operate as interfaces to a service of an online merchant (also referred to as an online merchant service) that allows a user to obtain, exchange, or trade goods and/or services with the online merchant and/or other users of the online merchant service.. the one or more web pages 102 may operate as interfaces to a blogging or microblogging service that allows a user to transfer content, such as text, images, or video. Additionally, or alternatively, the one or more web pages 102 may be interfaces to a messaging service that allow a user to send text messages, voice messages, images, documents, user locations, live video, or other content to others" Para. [20], Risuleo shows "the one or more web pages 102 may be obtained (e.g., by downloading via a network such as the Internet) and the system of the present disclosure may extract various interface elements, such as HyperText Markup Language (HTML) elements, from the one or more web pages 102" Para. [14], Risuleo shows "an HTML string of an HTML element of a web page is obtained. Also in the example, the HTML string is transformed into a feature vector suitable to input into a machine learning algorithm by at least tokenizing the HTML string into a set of tokens according to the tokenization scheme and iterating over the set of tokens to generate a set of word vectors, computing the feature vector by aggregating the set of word vectors according to a reduction function. Finally, in the example, a classification for the HTML element from the machine learning model is obtained as a result of inputting the feature vector into a machine learning model trained to classify HTML elements." Risuleo shows in the above citations that webpages can include text, script, image, and audio. Risuleo also shows tokenizing the HTML elements present in a webpage and classifying them, which can act as a type of description).
However in the analogous art of generation of user interfaces, Ciminelli teaches:
wherein the multi-modal large language module (Para. [69] LLM may generate textual outputs in natural language, or in a desired structured format, such as a table or a formal language (such as a programming language, a digital file format, and so forth). In many cases, a LLM may be part of a multimodal large model, allowing the model to analyze both textual inputs as well as other kind of inputs (such as images, videos, audio, sensor data, telemetries, and so forth) and/or to generate both textual outputs as well as other kinds of outputs (such as images, videos, audio, telemetries, and so forth))
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate the teachings of Ciminelli into the teachings of Risuleo as modified to implement “wherein the multi-modal large language module is able to provide a token content description for text tokens, script tokens, image tokens and audio tokens.". The modification would have been obvious as one of ordinary skill in the art would be motivated to allow the model to be able to analyze inputs that include multimedia such as images, videos and audio (Ciminelli, (Para. [69])).
Claim(s) 9 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable in view of US 20230325598 A1 (Hereinafter referred to as Risuleo), US 8527504 B1 (hereinafter referred to as Krishnamurthy), US 20230018387 A1 (Hereinafter referred to as Kuksta) and in further view of US 20170250989 A1 (Hereinafter referred to as Bhattacharya).
Regarding claim 9, Risuleo as modified teaches claim 6 as cited above, but does not disclose:
identifying a rating system including a plurality of ratings, each rating having a rating description; and causing, for each of the one or more webpages, the large language module to identify one of the plurality of ratings for which the rating description most closely represents the webpage content description
However in the analogous art of safe internet browsing, Bhattacharya teaches:
identifying a rating system including a plurality of ratings, each rating having a rating description; and causing, for each of the one or more webpages, the large language module to identify one of the plurality of ratings for which the rating description most closely represents the webpage content description (Para. [33], Bhattacharya "the use of whitelists/blacklists/greylists and the categorization of websites as safe, unsafe or needing more analysis may be accomplished by comparing the safety rank of a particular website to a set of predetermined threshold safety rank values, a safe threshold safety rank and an unsafe threshold safety rank, where the safe threshold safety rank is equal or higher than the unsafe threshold safety rank. If the particular website safety rank is above the safe threshold safety rank value, it may be categorized as a safe website and may be included in a whitelist. If the particular website safety rank is below the unsafe threshold safety rank value, it may be categorized as an unsafe website and may be included in a blacklist. If the safety rank of the particular website falls in between the safe threshold safety rank and the unsafe threshold safety rank, it may be categorized as a website requiring further analysis prior to designating it as safe or unsafe and maybe included in a greylist. According to some embodiments, the safe and unsafe threshold safety rank values may be different depending upon user profile. In yet another embodiment, the safe and unsafe threshold safety rank values may be adjusted through machine learning techniques discussed below." The citation above shows a rating system where websites are given a rating based on how the websites based on a safety rank and categorized based on safety rank into a rating category. White being considered as a safe website. Black being considered an unsafe website. The safety rank values of websites can be determined by machine learning techniques as cited above.)
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate the teachings of Bhattacharya into the teachings of Risuleo as modified to implement “identifying a rating system including a plurality of ratings, each rating having a rating description; and causing, for each of the one or more webpages, the large language module to identify one of the plurality of ratings for which the rating description most closely represents the webpage content description”. The modification would have been obvious as one of ordinary skill in the art would be motivated so the prevent users from accessing unsafe websites (Bhattacharya, Para. [33]).
Claim(s) 10 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable in view of US 20230325598 A1 (Hereinafter referred to as Risuleo), US 8527504 B1 (hereinafter referred to as Krishnamurthy), US 20230018387 A1 (Hereinafter referred to as Kuksta) and in further view of US 20170250989 A1 (Hereinafter referred to as Bhattacharya) and US 20210065043 A1 (Hereinafter referred to as Sastri).
Regarding claim 10, Risuleo as modified teaches claim 9 as cited above and does not disclose:
wherein the rating system includes a plurality of maturity ratings, wherein, for each maturity rating, the rating description identifies content that is appropriate for the maturity rating
However, in the analogous art of content rating, Sastri teaches:
wherein the rating system includes a plurality of maturity ratings, wherein, for each maturity rating, the rating description identifies content that is appropriate for the maturity rating (Para. [2], Sastri shows "conventionally, media contents including motion pictures, TV shows, and song lyrics, are rated for audiences of certain age groups with respect to various types and degrees of mature content. Such rating systems are different from country to country based on the unique cultural and societal background and the level of freedom of expression and/or tolerance of each country. Certain countries have diversified rating systems for minor audiences in which numerous age groups are set and corresponding ratings for each age group are provided primarily for child protection, such that guardians, often parents, can make use of the guidelines in selecting media contents suitable for minor audience in each age group minor in their care. Certain rating systems can be less diversified, and include some form of complete ban even for mature audiences without age concerns. In certain countries, multiple distinctive rating systems exist within the same country according to their national/municipal laws. Motion picture rating systems are particularly of interest as movies are often screened in countries other than the country of origin, with various versions pursuant to an issued rating by a locally applicable rating system." Para. [28], Sastri "the viewing of the in-viewing content 207 via the viewer device 230, the dynamic content rating engine 120 determines a viewer maturity level 283 based on the real-time viewer feedback at location G 205. The dynamic content rating engine 120 determines whether or not the in-viewing content 207 is suitable for a current viewer generating the real-time viewer feedback at location G 205. The dynamic content rating engine 120 further generates a viewer-maturity oriented content 287 from the in-viewing content 207 by automatically editing certain features not suitable for the viewer maturity level 283 according to the rating rules for location G 285 and the maturity classifiers 181 associated with respective features that concerns the rating rules for location G 285. The dynamic content rating engine 120 subsequently displays the viewer-maturity oriented content 287 on the viewer device 230")
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate the teachings of Sastri into the teachings of Risuleo as modified to implement "wherein the rating system includes a plurality of maturity . The modification would have been obvious as one of ordinary skill in the art would be motivated in selecting media contents suitable for minor audience (Sastri Para. [2]).
Claim(s) 11 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable in view of US 20230325598 A1 (Hereinafter referred to as Risuleo), US 8527504 B1 (hereinafter referred to as Krishnamurthy), US 20230018387 A1 (Hereinafter referred to as Kuksta) and in further view of US 20240372830 A1 (Hereinafter referred to as Vörös).
Regarding claim 11, Risuleo as modified teaches claim 6 as cited above and does not disclose:
identifying a plurality of subject matter categories; and causing, for each of the one or more webpages, the large language module to identify one of the plurality subject matter categories that most closely represents the webpage content description
However, in the analogous art of web content filtering, Vörös teaches:
identifying a plurality of subject matter categories (Para. [89], "The labelled data set 502 may be used by the model refinement process 508 to generate the categorization model 514 by fine-tuning the large language model 512 with the labelled data set 502 to identify one of the plurality of categories for an input content item (e.g., HTML metadata for web pages, text, images, etc.) or input URL. As a result, the large language model 512 may be trained/refined to provide a discrete category for an input content item or input URL. For example, the categorization model 514 may assign the category “Sports” to the input URL “detroitlions.com” "); and causing, for each of the one or more webpages, the large language module to identify one of the plurality subject matter categories that most closely represents the webpage content description (Para. [90], Tamas shows "URL's may be mapped using a set of categories such as “Chat”, “Games”, “Shopping”, “Sports”, “News”, “Job Search”, “Search Engines”, “Alcohol”, “Gambling”, “Weapons”, “Porn”, “Banking”, “Business”, “Education”, “Entertainment”, “Food and Dining”, “Government”, “Health and Medicine”, “Motor Vehicles”, “Peer to Peer”, “Real Estate”, “Religion”, “Travel”, “Translators”, “Computer and Internet”, “Hunting and Fishing”, “Marijuana”, “Radio and Audio Hosting”, “Social Networking”, and “Video Hosting” ")
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate the teachings of Vörös into the teachings of Risuleo as modified to implement “identifying a plurality of subject matter categories; and causing, for each of the one or more webpages, the large language module to identify one of the plurality subject matter categories that most closely represents the webpage content description”. The modification would have been obvious as one of ordinary skill in the art would be motivated as it may be efficient to process requests based on content categories (Vörös, Para. [89]).
Claim(s) 12-13 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable in view of US 20230325598 A1 (Hereinafter referred to as Risuleo), US 8527504 B1 (hereinafter referred to as Krishnamurthy), US 20230018387 A1 (Hereinafter referred to as Kuksta) and in further view of US 20240372830 A1 (Hereinafter referred to as Vörös) and US 20170250989 A1 (Hereinafter referred to as Bhattacharya).
Regarding claim 12, Risuleo as modified teaches claim 11 as cited above, but does not disclose:
wherein determining, for each of the one or more webpages, whether to rendered the webpage on the web browser based on the token content descriptions of the HTML tokens formed for the HTML code from the webpage includes: accessing a predetermined denylist of content categories;
and allowing the web browser to display the one or more webpages in response to there being no HTML tokens from the one or more webpages with a content category on the denylist.
However, in the analogous art of safe internet browsing, Bhattacharya teaches:
wherein determining, for each of the one or more webpages, whether to rendered the webpage on the web browser based on the token content descriptions of the HTML tokens formed for the HTML code from the webpage includes: accessing a predetermined denylist of content categories (Para. [33], Bhattacharya "the use of whitelists/blacklists/greylists and the categorization of websites as safe, unsafe or needing more analysis may be accomplished by comparing the safety rank of a particular website to a set of predetermined threshold safety rank values, a safe threshold safety rank and an unsafe threshold safety rank, where the safe threshold safety rank is equal or higher than the unsafe threshold safety rank. If the particular website safety rank is above the safe threshold safety rank value, it may be categorized as a safe website and may be included in a whitelist. If the particular website safety rank is below the unsafe threshold safety rank value, it may be categorized as an unsafe website and may be included in a blacklist. If the safety rank of the particular website falls in between the safe threshold safety rank and the unsafe threshold safety rank, it may be categorized as a website requiring further analysis prior to designating it as safe or unsafe and maybe included in a greylist. According to some embodiments, the safe and unsafe threshold safety rank values may be different depending upon user profile. In yet another embodiment, the safe and unsafe threshold safety rank values may be adjusted through machine learning techniques discussed below");
Additionally, in the analogous art of data network content filtering, Krishnamurthy teaches:
and allowing the web browser to display the one or more webpages in response to there being no HTML tokens from the one or more webpages with a content category on the denylist (Col. [6] line [10-28], Krishnamurthy shows "within each category of filtering parameters, there may be additional hierarchical levels of organization whereby categories may be further divided into multiple sub-categories related to the higher level category. For example, consider the sports category. This category may be further divided into individual related sports categories such as baseball, basketball and football. Thus, there may be categorized filtering parameters relating to baseball websites 216, basketball websites 218 and football websites 220. Thus, a user interested only in the sub-category of baseball may download only baseball categorized filtering parameters 216. Similarly, a user interested only in the sub-category of basketball may download only basketball categorized filtering parameters 218. A user interested only in the sub-category of football may download only football categorized filtering parameters 220. A user interested in all of the filtering parameters within the hierarchy may download the higher level categorized filtering parameters 222 and get all of the filtering parameters in each of the sub-categories (216, 218, 220)." Col. [2] line [49-53], Krishnamurthy shows the received content comprises advertising and is filtered using the categorized filtering parameters. A webpage is then rendered using the filtered content such that at least a portion of the advertising is not displayed to the user. Col. [3] line [23-51], Krishnamurthy shows browser 102 sends requests 106 for content 108 to a content web server 104 via a data network 110, for example the Internet. The content web server 104 responds with the requested content 108. The browser 102 renders the received content and displays the rendered content on a computer display 112 for viewing by a user. This well known and standard browser functionality is represented generally in FIG. 1 as 124. The request for information sent by a browser is generally in the form of a Uniform Resource Locator (URL) which identifies a web server and a particular web page stored on that server. For example, a URL may be: http://www.servername.com/webpage.html. The first part of the URL indicates the protocol. In the example, the protocol is the HyperText Transfer Protocol (HTTP). The URL then specifies the network address (e.g. Internet Protocol (IP) address) of the server. In the example, the network address is www.servername.com. The last part of the address specifies the particular webpage or other resources stored on the server. In the example, the resource is a web page (webpage.html). URL's, HTTP, and HTML (Hyper Text Markup Language) are all well known in the art and will not be described in further detail herein).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate the teachings of Bhattacharya into the teachings of Risuleo as modified to implement “wherein determining, for each of the one or more webpages, whether to rendered the webpage on the web browser based on the token content descriptions of the HTML tokens formed for the HTML code from the webpage includes: accessing a predetermined denylist of content categories”. The modification would have been obvious as one of ordinary skill in the art would be motivated so the deny user access from unsafe websites (Bhattacharya, Para. [33]).
In addition, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate the teachings of Krishnamurthy into the teachings of Risuleo as modified to implement “and allowing the web browser to display the one or more webpages in response to there being no HTML tokens from the one or more webpages with a content category on the denylist”. The modification would have been obvious as one of ordinary skill in the art would be motivated to filter undesired content without false positives and risk of incomplete coverage, (Krishnamurthy, Col. [2] line [6-13]).
Regarding claim 13, Risuleo as modified teaches claim 11 as cited above, but does not disclose:
wherein determining, for each of the one or more webpages, whether to rendered the webpage on the web browser based on the token content descriptions of the HTML tokens formed for the HTML code from the webpage includes: accessing a predetermined allowlist of content categories;
and allowing the web browser to display the one or more webpages in response to all of the HTML tokens from the one or more webpages having a content category on the allowlist.
However, in the analogous art of safe internet browsing, Bhattacharya teaches:
wherein determining, for each of the one or more webpages, whether to rendered the webpage on the web browser based on the token content descriptions of the HTML tokens formed for the HTML code from the webpage includes: accessing a predetermined allowlist of content categories; (Para. [33], Bhattacharya "the use of whitelists/blacklists/greylists and the categorization of websites as safe, unsafe or needing more analysis may be accomplished by comparing the safety rank of a particular website to a set of predetermined threshold safety rank values, a safe threshold safety rank and an unsafe threshold safety rank, where the safe threshold safety rank is equal or higher than the unsafe threshold safety rank. If the particular website safety rank is above the safe threshold safety rank value, it may be categorized as a safe website and may be included in a whitelist. If the particular website safety rank is below the unsafe threshold safety rank value, it may be categorized as an unsafe website and may be included in a blacklist. If the safety rank of the particular website falls in between the safe threshold safety rank and the unsafe threshold safety rank, it may be categorized as a website requiring further analysis prior to designating it as safe or unsafe and maybe included in a greylist. According to some embodiments, the safe and unsafe threshold safety rank values may be different depending upon user profile. In yet another embodiment, the safe and unsafe threshold safety rank values may be adjusted through machine learning techniques discussed below");
Additionally, in the analogous art of data network content filtering, Krishnamurthy teaches:
and allowing the web browser to display the one or more webpages in response to all of the HTML tokens from the one or more webpages having a content category on the allowlist. (Col. [6] line [10-28], Krishnamurthy shows "within each category of filtering parameters, there may be additional hierarchical levels of organization whereby categories may be further divided into multiple sub-categories related to the higher level category. For example, consider the sports category. This category may be further divided into individual related sports categories such as baseball, basketball and football. Thus, there may be categorized filtering parameters relating to baseball websites 216, basketball websites 218 and football websites 220. Thus, a user interested only in the sub-category of baseball may download only baseball categorized filtering parameters 216. Similarly, a user interested only in the sub-category of basketball may download only basketball categorized filtering parameters 218. A user interested only in the sub-category of football may download only football categorized filtering parameters 220. A user interested in all of the filtering parameters within the hierarchy may download the higher level categorized filtering parameters 222 and get all of the filtering parameters in each of the sub-categories (216, 218, 220)." Col. [2] line [49-53], Krishnamurthy shows the received content comprises advertising and is filtered using the categorized filtering parameters. A webpage is then rendered using the filtered content such that at least a portion of the advertising is not displayed to the user. Col. [3] line [23-51], Krishnamurthy shows browser 102 sends requests 106 for content 108 to a content web server 104 via a data network 110, for example the Internet. The content web server 104 responds with the requested content 108. The browser 102 renders the received content and displays the rendered content on a computer display 112 for viewing by a user. This well known and standard browser functionality is represented generally in FIG. 1 as 124. The request for information sent by a browser is generally in the form of a Uniform Resource Locator (URL) which identifies a web server and a particular web page stored on that server. For example, a URL may be: http://www.servername.com/webpage.html. The first part of the URL indicates the protocol. In the example, the protocol is the HyperText Transfer Protocol (HTTP). The URL then specifies the network address (e.g. Internet Protocol (IP) address) of the server. In the example, the network address is www.servername.com. The last part of the address specifies the particular webpage or other resources stored on the server. In the example, the resource is a web page (webpage.html). URL's, HTTP, and HTML (Hyper Text Markup Language) are all well known in the art and will not be described in further detail herein).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate the teachings of Bhattacharya into the teachings of Risuleo as modified to implement “wherein determining, for each of the one or more webpages, whether to rendered the webpage on the web browser based on the token content descriptions of the HTML tokens formed for the HTML code from the webpage includes: accessing a predetermined allowlist of content categories”. The modification would have been obvious as one of ordinary skill in the art would be motivated to deny user access from unsafe websites (Bhattacharya, Para. [33]).
In addition, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate the teachings of Krishnamurthy into the teachings of Risuleo as modified to implement “and allowing the web browser to display the one or more webpages in response to all of the HTML tokens from the one or more webpages having a content category on the allowlist”. The modification would have been obvious as one of ordinary skill in the art would be motivated to filter undesired content without false positives and risk of incomplete coverage, (Krishnamurthy, Col. [2] line [6-13]).
Claim(s) 14 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable in view of US 20230325598 A1 (Hereinafter referred to as Risuleo), US 8527504 B1 (hereinafter referred to as Krishnamurthy) and in further view of US 20230169364 A1 (Hereinafter referred to as Mueller).
Regarding claim 14, Risuleo as modified teaches claim 1 as cited above and does not disclose:
wherein the accessing, tokenizing, submitting, obtaining, and determining operations are performed in real-time in response to a user entering a uniform resource locator into a web browser
However in the analogous art of data network content filtering, Krishnamurthy teaches:
wherein the determining operations are performed in real-time in response to a user entering a uniform resource locator into a web browser (Col. [4] line [13-34] Krishnamurthy shows "the uniform resource locators (URLs) of all objects to be retrieved by the browser are compared against these filtering parameters and if a match occurs then the object is either not retrieved or not rendered by the browser. For example, as described above the content 108 received from content web server 104 may contain a reference (in the form of a URL) to advertising stored on advertising server 114. Upon receipt of the content at the browser 102, the ad blocking plug-in 120 will compare the reference URL against the filtering parameters 122. If there is a match, then either 1) the ad blocking plug-in 120 will cause the browser 102 to not request the advertising from the advertising server 114, or 2) the ad blocking plug-in 120 will allow the browser 102 to request (116) and receive (118) the advertising content from advertising server 114, but will block the rendering of the advertising content. In either alternative, the result is that the advertising content is not displayed on user display 112. In one particular embodiment, the ad blocking plug-in may be implemented using the Adblock plug-in available for the Firefox Web Browser")
However in the analogous art of classifying webpages, Mueller teaches:
wherein the accessing, tokenizing, submitting, obtaining operations are performed in real-time in response to a user entering a uniform resource locator into a web browser ([Abstract], Mueller shows "a method include detecting, by a user device, that a user of the user device has navigated to the webpage using a web browser installed on the user device and classifying, by the user device, the webpage or the one or more webpage elements into a classification by inputting first input data into one or more machine learning models" Fig. 3, Para. [55], Mueller shows " FIG. 3 depicts a flowchart of an exemplary process 300 for classifying one or more webpages and/or one or more webpage elements, e.g., by utilizing a trained machine-learning model, according to certain embodiments. In some embodiments, the process 300 may be performed “client-side,” e.g., on or by the user device 102 and/or by utilizing components of or local to the user device 102. At step 302, the process 300 may include detecting that a user of a user device has navigated to a webpage using a web browser installed on the user device. For example, the user device 102, via an electronic application installed on the user device 102, may detect that the user has navigated to the webpage that includes one or more webpage elements using the web browser. In some embodiments, the user device 102 may detect that the user has navigated to the webpage based on the user entering a uniform resource locator (URL) into the web browser to access the webpage, detecting that the web browser has loaded and displayed the webpage, and/or the like")
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate the teachings of Krishnamurthy into the teachings of Risuleo as modified to implement “wherein the determining operations are performed in real-time in response to a user entering a uniform resource locator into a web browser”. The modification would have been obvious as one of ordinary skill in the art would be motivated to block rendering as the server requests content or block the request from going through.
In addition, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate the teachings of Mueller into the teachings of Risuleo as modified to implement “wherein the accessing, tokenizing, submitting, obtaining operations are performed in real-time in response to a user entering a uniform resource locator into a web browser“. The modification would have been obvious as one of ordinary skill in the art would be motivated to detect that a webpage has been loaded and displayed on browser and monitor them based on web browsing activity (Mueller, Para. [55-56]).
Claim(s) 15 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable in view of US 20230325598 A1 (Hereinafter referred to as Risuleo), US 8527504 B1 (hereinafter referred to as Krishnamurthy) and in further view of US 20230169364 A1 (Hereinafter referred to as Mueller) and US 20250217603 A1 (Hereinafter referred to as Mangalam).
Regarding claim 15, Risuleo as modified teaches claim 14 as cited above, but does not disclose:
wherein the large language model is performed locally on the same computer as the web browser
However, in the analogous art of categorical classification of natural language text, Mangalam teaches:
wherein the large language model is performed locally on the same computer as the web browser (Para. [27], Mangalam shows "The LLM 130 may execute on-premises and/or be executed via a network-accessed implementation, such as a cloud-based or Application Programming Interface (API) service")
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate the teachings of Mangalam into the teachings of Risuleo as modified to implement “wherein the large language model is performed locally on the same computer as the web browser”. The modification would have been obvious as one of ordinary skill in the art would be motivated to allow the LLM to run on premise or in a cloud based application over network “execute on-premises and/or be executed via a network-accessed implementation, such as a cloud-based or Application Programming Interface” (Mangalam, Para. [27]).
Claim(s) 16 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable in view of US 20230325598 A1 (Hereinafter referred to as Risuleo), US 8527504 B1 (hereinafter referred to as Krishnamurthy) and in further view of US 20250217603 A1 (Hereinafter referred to as Mangalam).
Regarding claim 16, Risuleo as modified teaches claim 1 as cited above, but does not disclose:
wherein the large language model is a cloud application accessible over a network.
However, in the analogous art of categorical classification of natural language text, Mangalam teaches:
wherein the large language model is a cloud application accessible over a network. (Para. [27], Mangalam shows "The LLM 130 may execute on-premises and/or be executed via a network-accessed implementation, such as a cloud-based or Application Programming Interface (API) service")
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate the teachings of Mangalam into the teachings of Risuleo as modified to implement “wherein the large language model is a cloud application accessible over a network.”. The modification would have been obvious as one of ordinary skill in the art would be motivated to allow the LLM to run on premise or in a cloud based application over network “execute on-premises and/or be executed via a network-accessed implementation, such as a cloud-based or Application Programming Interface” (Mangalam, Para. [27]).
Claim(s) 17 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable in view of US 20230325598 A1 (Hereinafter referred to as Risuleo), US 8527504 B1 (hereinafter referred to as Krishnamurthy) and in further view of US 20140331119 A1 (Hereinafter referred to as Dixon).
Regarding claim 17, Risuleo as modified teaches claim 1 as cited above, but does not disclose:
recommending, based on the content of one or more of the HTML tokens on a webpage, one or more alternative webpages that has content that is similar to the content of one or more of the HTML tokens
However in the analogous art of indicating website reputation, Dixon teaches:
recommending, based on the content of one or more of the HTML tokens on a webpage, one or more alternative webpages that has content that is similar to the content of one or more of the HTML tokens (Para. [114], Dixon shows a user may attempt to interact with a poor-reputation Website, and the reputation service host facility 112 may provide a list of recommended Websites offering similar products or services Para. [155], Dixon shows " the collection facility 116 may involve Web crawling. In an embodiment, Web crawling may be used to detect the business model of a Web site. For example, a Web crawl may detect whether a Web site advertises (e.g. identifying ads based on image placement and size on pages, recognizing common ad service networks, and so forth). As another example, a Web crawl may detect if a Web site makes money through trustworthy means such as providing ad-supported content (e.g. such as the NY Times or other well known news sites) or pay-for-service (e.g. such as Amazon or other e-commerce providers). If a Web crawl detects that there are no payment systems associated with a Web site and that Web site advertises, then the Web site may have covert means of making money from user traffic and as a result negative reputation may be inferred. In another embodiment, Web crawling may be used to detect the genre of a Web site. For example, a Web crawl may identify Web content, Web content associated with finances, Web content associated with personal information, and so forth. The Web crawl may identify `check out`, `shopping cart,` and other such links to determine if a Web site is an e-commerce site. The Web crawl may look for distinct pages linked from a top page or advertisements to see if the Web site is a content site. In still another embodiment, Web crawling may proceed through an ad network. For example, a Web crawl may repeatedly crawl a site to receive different ads; may run a Web page to crawl JavaScript ads; and may detect ads based on size and placement of images, ad servers, and so forth")
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate the teachings of Dixon into the teachings of Risuleo as modified to implement "recommending, based on the content of one or more of the HTML tokens on a webpage, one or more alternative webpages that has content that is similar to the content of one or more of the HTML tokens". The modification would have been obvious as one of ordinary skill in the art would be motivated to provide websites with similar content or services for the user (Dixon, Para. [114]).
Claim(s) 18 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable in view of US 20230325598 A1 (Hereinafter referred to as Risuleo), US 8527504 B1 (hereinafter referred to as Krishnamurthy) and in further view of US 20100293063 A1 (Atherton).
Regarding claim 18, Risuleo as modified teaches claim 1 as cited above, but does not disclose:
sending targeted advertising to the web browser, wherein the targeted advertising is selected based on the token content description of the one or more of the HTML tokens
However in the analogous art of content quality control, Atherton teaches:
sending targeted advertising to the web browser, wherein the targeted advertising is selected based on the token content description of the one or more of the HTML tokens (Para. [18], Atherton shows "a method for applying content quality controls to display advertisements offered by advertisers at publishers' sites and applications. The publishers' sites and applications are adaptively and asynchronously scanned to monitor their content. The content is analyzed to determine if objectionable or other type of undesirable content that may cause the user to negatively associate the surrounding content on the site with the brand being advertised in the ad itself is present" Para. [52-53], Atherton shows "Ad network system 200 maintains a list of publishers' sites and applications on which advertisers 205 expect it to run their advertising campaigns. All sites and applications on the list are crawled by ad network system 200 (415). The objective of the crawling is to collect all web pages on a given publisher's site and uniquely identify them by their URL. This unique identifier is used in reference to the page as well as to potentially tie an ad call to a page on a publisher's site. Once a page has been crawled, the page is graphically rendered (415). All text and images, including the page-level layout details are captured for further analysis by Page-Level Content Categorization Module 275. Page-Level Content Categorization Module 275 analyzes a page's content to determine both the content/semantics of the page and what, if any, objectionable or undesirable content, including profanity, is present (420). First, the content on the page is analyzed to determine all relevant categories. For example, the site http://www.ufc.com (a site for Ultimate Fighting) can be classified into "Sports" and "Violence" categories. Each page analyzed is tagged with all content categories that are identified thereon. Pages with objectionable or undesirable content are ineligible for serving advertising campaigns and Public Service Ads ("PSAs") are served in those cases. It is appreciated that the decision to serve PSAs is a business policy decision and may be optional. Alternatively, other ads may be served in their place")
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate the teachings of Atherton into the teachings of Risuleo as modified to implement “sending targeted advertising to the web browser, wherein the targeted advertising is selected based on the token content description of the one or more of the HTML tokens”. The modification would have been obvious as one of ordinary skill in the art would be motivated to determine appropriate advertising for the user based on website content (Atherton, Para. [53]).
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
US 11223670 B1 – This prior art teaches whether to render webpage modules
US 20140380144 A1 – This prior art teaches rendering portions of webpage content
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ZEERICK A MALIK whose telephone number is (571)272-8110. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Thurs, 7-5.
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, Chat Do can be reached at (571) 272-3721. 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.
/Z.A.M./Examiner, Art Unit 2193 /Chat C Do/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2193
Prosecution Insights