DETAILED ACTION
This action is in response to the application filed 4/22/2024.
Claims 1-20 have been submitted for examination.
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 .
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 1-14 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 1 recites the limitation "each block" in eighth line of the claim. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. It is unclear as to which “block” the limitation refers as the claim recite the “first and second pages are blocks” in the fifth line and “multiple blocks” in the seventh line.
Claims 2-14 are rejected as being dependent upon Claim 1.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
Claim(s) 1, 2, 5-7, 15, 16, 18, and 19 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over O’Shaugnessy et al. (US 7,814,425), hereinafter O’Shaugnessy, in view of Quine (US 2012/0290940), in view of Sommerer et al. (US 2004/0205514), hereinafter Sommerer.
As per claim 1, O’Shaugnessy teaches the following:
a computer-implemented method for providing a link and associated preview of content on a workspace, (see abstract), the method comprising:
causing, on a first page of the workspace, display of a link to a second page of the workspace. As O’Shaugnessy shows in Fig. 3, a web browser with a web site (workspace) is shown with a current page displayed. O’Shaugnessy further shows in Fig. 3, and corresponding column 5, lines 23-36, a current page may have an embedded link 304 to a a second page,
. As O’Shaugnessy teaches in column 5, lines 23-36, the link is embedded in the current page. O’Shaugnessy teaches in column 5, lines 52-67, that the second page may comprise various “features” (multiple blocks of in-page objects),
wherein each block has multiple properties that are defined by a block type of the respective block. As O’Shaugnessy teaches in column 11, lines 34-54, a feature may have multiple characteristics for determining how the feature is handled, such as, for example a high resolution image, where “high resolution” and “image” are interpreted as being two separate properties;
pregenerating, prior to runtime of the display of the link to the second page in the first page, a textual summary of the second page by using a generative artificial intelligence (AI) system. As O’Shaugnessy teaches in column 11, lines 34-54, a preview is generated through removing certain features and scaling others, which is interpreted as a form of summarization and as the system makes such determination, this is interpreted as functioning as an “artificial intelligence”. As O’Shaugnessy shows in Fig. 9a, upon receiving an instant message 902, an embedded link is pre-fetched 906 before display of said message 910. Therefore, an embedded link of a web page may also be pre-fetched prior to displaying said web page,
wherein the textual summary is stored as a summary property for . As O’Shaugnessy shows in Fig. 5a, 522 and 524, a second web page and thumbnail associated with an embedded link is stored in local cache;
receiving an input relative to the link on the first page, wherein the input incudes moving a cursor to a location that is within a threshold distance from the link. As O’Shaugnessy teaches in column 3, lines 25-37, a preview may be presented when a user “mouses over” a link;
in response to determining that the second page includes the summary property, causing, while displaying the link on the first page, display of a preview of the second page. See Fig. 4, 306 and Fig. 5a, 526,
wherein the preview includes the textual summary of the second page that was generated using the generative AI system. See Fig. 4, 306, where the preview includes text “CNN.com World News”.
However, O’Shaugnessy does not explicitly teach of the pages being blocks of a workspace. As Quine teaches in the abstract, a workspace may comprise a plurality of designed pages, i.e., the pages are blocks of the workspace. Quine further shows in Fig. 4, 412, that a page may comprise widgets with various characteristics including a “go to page” option, similar to the links of O’Shaugnessy.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of applicant’s claimed invention to have modified the pages of O’Shaugnessy with the pages of a workspace of Quine. One of ordinary skill would have been motivated to have made such modification because as Quine teaches in paragraph [0003], such low-level layout tools, such as page blocks, benefit users in designing interfaces without requiring in-depth knowledge by a designer.
Furthermore, O’Shaugnessy does not explicitly teach of determining if the second page includes a summary in response to an input. In a similar field of endeavor, Sommerer teaches of a method of previewing links (see abstract). Sommerer further teaches in paragraph [0034], and corresponding Fig. 4A, upon a preview hover event 408 occurring, preview may be created in step 412, or if the preview is already in an archive storage, simply retrieve the preview from the storage and display. Therefore, the system of Sommerer must determine if a summary exists in response to a user input.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of applicant’s claimed invention to have modified the preview of O’Shaugnessy with the existence of a preview determination of Sommerer. One of ordinary skill would have been motivated to have made such modification because the on demand determination of Sommerer may improve loading speeds as previews may not be created/retrieved unless they are desired by a user.
Regarding claim 2, modified O’Shaugnessy teaches the method of claim 1 as described above. O’Shaugnessy further teaches the following:
in response to the determination that the second page includes the summary property, retrieving the textual summary of the second page from a cache record associated with the workspace. As O’Shaugnessy teaches in column 7, lines 60-67, the preview is stored and retrieved from local cache.
Regarding claim 5, Modified O’Shaugnessy teaches the method of claim 1 as described above. O’Shaugnessy further teaches the following:
the preview includes metadata of the second page, and wherein the metadata includes a title of the second page and a location of the second page in the workspace. As O’Shaugnessy shows in Fig. 6, and corresponding column 9, line 58 – column 10, line 25, previews may include images of further embedded links (location of second page in workspace) and include the title of the page.
Regarding claim 6, modified O’Shaugnessy teaches the method of claim 1 as described above. O’Shaugnessy further teaches the following:
the input relative to the link on the first page includes moving a cursor to a location that is within a threshold distance from an edge of the link. As O’Shaugnessy teaches in column 2, lines 10-15, the pointing device hovers “over” the link, where “over” the link is interpreted as a threshold.
Regarding claim 7, modified O’Shaugnessy teaches the method of claim 1 as described above. O’Shaugnessy further teaches the following:
in response to an additional input on the link on the first page, display the second page while forgoing displaying the first page. As O’Shaugnessy teaches in column 5, lines 37-51, the preview is presented for enabling a user to make a decision about whether to select the embedded link to access the web page, where accessing the web page is interpreted to encompass Applicant’s limitation as the selected page would be presented in place of the first page.
Regarding claim 10, modified O’Shaugnessy teaches the method of claim 1 as described above. O’Shaugnessy further teaches the following:
providing, on the first page of the workspace, an additional link including a Uniform Resource Locator (URL) linked to content located outside the workspace; and in response to an additional input on the additional link, providing a preview of the content located outside the workspace, wherein the preview includes metadata associated with the content. As O’Shaugnessy teaches in the abstract, a link may be to any web page, whether within the same web site (workspace) or to another web site (outside workspace).
As per claim 15, O’Shaugnessy teaches the following:
an electronic server device for providing a link and associated preview of content on a workspace, (see abstract), the server device comprising:
at least one hardware processor, (see Fig. 2, 202); and
at least one non-transitory memory storing instructions, (see Fig. 2, 220), which, when executed by the at least one hardware processor, cause the server device to:
cause, on a first page of the workspace, display of a link to a second page of the workspace. As O’Shaugnessy shows in Fig. 3, a web browser with a web site (workspace) is shown with a current page displayed. O’Shaugnessy further shows in Fig. 3, and corresponding column 5, lines 23-36, a current page may have an embedded link 304 to a a second page,
. As O’Shaugnessy teaches in column 5, lines 23-36, the link is embedded in the current page;
pregenerate, prior to runtime of the display of the link to the second page in the first page, a textual summary of the second page by using a generative artificial intelligence (AI) system. As O’Shaugnessy teaches in column 11, lines 34-54, a preview is generated through removing certain features and scaling others, which is interpreted as a form of summarization and as the system makes such determination, this is interpreted as functioning as an “artificial intelligence”. As O’Shaugnessy shows in Fig. 9a, upon receiving an instant message 902, an embedded link is pre-fetched 906 before display of said message 910. Therefore, an embedded link of a web page may also be pre-fetched prior to displaying said web page,
wherein the textual summary is stored as a summary property for As O’Shaugnessy shows in Fig. 5a, 522 and 524, a second web page and thumbnail associated with an embedded link is stored in local cache;
receive an input relative to the link on the first page. As O’Shaugnessy teaches in column 3, lines 25-37, a preview may be presented when a user “mouses over” a link;
in response to determining that the second page includes the summary property, cause display of a preview of the second page. See Fig. 4, 306 and Fig. 5a, 526,
wherein the preview includes the textual summary of the second page that was generated using the generative AI system. See Fig. 4, 306, where the preview includes text “CNN.com World News”.
However, O’Shaugnessy does not explicitly teach of the pages being blocks of a workspace. As Quine teaches in the abstract, a workspace may comprise a plurality of designed pages, i.e., the pages are blocks of the workspace. Quine further shows in Fig. 4, 412, that a page may comprise widgets with various characteristics including a “go to page” option, similar to the links of O’Shaugnessy.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of applicant’s claimed invention to have modified the pages of O’Shaugnessy with the pages of a workspace of Quine. One of ordinary skill would have been motivated to have made such modification because as Quine teaches in paragraph [0003], such low-level layout tools, such as page blocks, benefit users in designing interfaces without requiring in-depth knowledge by a designer.
Furthermore, O’Shaugnessy does not explicitly teach of determining if the second page includes a summary in response to an input. In a similar field of endeavor, Sommerer teaches of a method of previewing links (see abstract). Sommerer further teaches in paragraph [0034], and corresponding Fig. 4A, upon a preview hover event 408 occurring, preview may be created in step 412, or if the preview is already in an archive storage, simply retrieve the preview from the storage and display. Therefore, the system of Sommerer must determine if a summary exists in response to a user input.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of applicant’s claimed invention to have modified the preview of O’Shaugnessy with the existence of a preview determination of Sommerer. One of ordinary skill would have been motivated to have made such modification because the on demand determination of Sommerer may improve loading speeds as previews may not be created/retrieved unless they are desired by a user.
Regarding claim 16, modified O’Shaugnessy teaches the device of claim 15 as described above. The remaining limitations of claim 16 are substantially similar to those of claim 2 and are rejected for the same reasoning.
As per claim 18, O’Shaugnessy teaches the following:
a non-transitory, computer-readable storage medium comprising instructions recorded thereon, wherein the instructions, when executed by at least one data processor of a system. See Fig. Fig. 2, 202 and 220.
Regarding claim 19, modified O’Shaugnessy teaches the medium of claim 18 as described above. The remaining limitations of claim 19 are substantially similar to those of claim 2 and are rejected for the same reasoning.
Claim(s) 3, 4, 14, 17, and 20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over O’Shaugnessy in view of Quine in view of Sommerer as applied to claims 1, 15, and 18 above, and further in view of Yalovsky et al. (US 7,519,579), hereinafter Yalovsky.
Regarding claim 3, modified O’Shaugnessy teaches the method of claim 1 as described above. However, O’Shaugnessy does not explicitly teach of modifying the preview in response to modifications to the textual summary. In a similar field of endeavor, Yalovsky teaches of a method of displaying summaries of documents (see abstract). Yalovsky further teaches the following:
while displaying the preview and in response to a modification to the textual summary property on the second page, causing display of a modified preview on the first page that is different from the preview, wherein the modified preview includes the modification to the textual summary on the second page. As Yalovsky teaches in column 6, lines 4-20, a summary page is dynamically and continuously updated to reflect changes made to the source of the summary.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of applicant’s claimed invention to have modified the preview summary of O’Shaugnessy with the updating summary of Yalovsky. One of ordinary skill would have been motivated to have made such modification because as Yalovsky teaches in column 1, lines 6-15, such updating benefits users in keeping an accurate summary of a document that may be under modification.
Regarding claim 4, modified O’Shaugnessy teaches the method of claim 1 as described above. However, O’Shaugnessy does not explicitly teach of modifying the preview in response to modifications to the second page. In a similar field of endeavor, Yalovsky teaches of a method of displaying summaries of documents (see abstract). Yalovsky further teaches the following:
causing, in response to an additional input on the second page that modifies content of the second page, the generative AI system to create a modified textual summary of the second page. As Yalovsky teaches in column 6, lines 4-20, in step 430 of Fig. 4, a change to a source document is detected and in step 440 the summary is updated in response;
storing the modified textual summary as a property of the second page. See Fig. 2, 250; and
modifying the display of the preview of the second page to include the modified textual summary. As Yalovsky teaches in column 6, lines 4-20, a summary page is dynamically and continuously updated to reflect changes made to the source of the summary.
Regarding claim 14, modified O’Shaugnessy teaches the method of claim 1 as described above. However, O’Shaugnessy does not explicitly teach of modifying the preview in response to modifications to the textual summary. In a similar field of endeavor, Yalovsky teaches of a method of displaying summaries of documents (see abstract). Yalovsky further teaches the following:
detecting a change to in-page content of the second page; in response to detecting the change to the in-page content, automatically causing the generative AI system to regenerate the textual summary; and storing the regenerated textual summary as the property for the page-type block. As Yalovsky teaches in column 6, lines 4-20, a summary page is dynamically and continuously updated to reflect changes made to the source of the summary.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of applicant’s claimed invention to have modified the preview summary of O’Shaugnessy with the updating summary of Yalovsky. One of ordinary skill would have been motivated to have made such modification because as Yalovsky teaches in column 1, lines 6-15, such updating benefits users in keeping an accurate summary of a document that may be under modification.
Regarding claim 17, modified O’Shaugnessy teaches the device of claim 15 as described above. The remaining limitations of claim 17 are substantially similar to those of claim 3 and are rejected for the same reasoning.
Regarding claim 20, modified O’Shaugnessy teaches the medium of claim 18 as described above. The remaining limitations of claim 20 are substantially similar to those of claim 3 and are rejected for the same reasoning.
Claim(s) 8 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over O’Shaugnessy in view of Quine in view of Sommerer as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Chang et al. (US 8,875,172), hereinafter Chang, in view of Platt et al. (US 2007/0106956), hereinafter Platt.
Regarding claim 8, modified O’Shaugnessy teaches the method of claim 1 as described above. However, O’Shaugnessy does not explicitly teach of displaying default data when no summary exists. In a similar field of endeavor, Chang teaches of displaying supplemental content for links (see abstract). Chang further teaches the following:
causing, on the first page of the workspace, display of a link to a third page of the workspace; and in response to a determination that the third page does not include a textual summary in a preview property of the third page, causing display of the preview to include default . As Chang teaches in column 2, line 57 – column 3, line 11, in response to a determination that a previously generated content preview file does not exist, a default content preview may be generated.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of applicant’s claimed invention to have modified the preview summary of O’Shaugnessy with the default summary generation of Chang. One of ordinary skill would have been motivated to have made such modification because default information benefits users in decreased wait time rather than waiting for a summary to be generated.
Furthermore, Chang does not explicitly teach of the default preview being default metadata. In a similar field of endeavor, Platt teaches of displaying information about links when hovered (see abstract). Platt further teaches in paragraph [0036], information in a pup-up region when a link is hovered may comprise metadata about a link.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of applicant’s claimed invention to have modified the default preview summary of O’Shaugnessy in view of Chang with the metadata of Platt. One of ordinary skill would have been motivated to have made such modification because as Platt teaches in the abstract, such metadata is beneficial to users in that it is readily available without requiring the user to perform secondary downloads.
Claim(s) 9 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over O’Shaugnessy in view of Quine in view of Sommerer as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Chang.
Regarding claim 9, modified O’Shaugnessy teaches the method of claim 1 as described above. However, O’Shaugnessy does not explicitly teach of displaying an image in response to a page not including a summary. O’Shaugnessy in view of Chang teaches the following:
in response to a determination that the second page does not include the summary property, determining whether the second page includes an image object designated as a graphical representation of content of the second page; and in response to a determination that the second page includes the image object, displaying, concurrently with displaying of the link, an image block including the image object designated as a graphical representation of the content of the second page. As Chang teaches in column 2, line 57 – column 3, line 11, in response to a determination that a previously generated content preview file does not exist, a default content preview may be generated. O’Shaugnessy teaches that thumbnails of a page may be presented as a preview. Therefore, upon the modification of O’Shaugnessy in view of Chang, the thumbnail of O’Shaugnessy may be the default preview of Chang, arriving at a determination if a summary exists, and if not (Chang), present a thumbnail of the page (O’Shaugnessy).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of applicant’s claimed invention to have modified the preview summary of O’Shaugnessy with the default summary generation of Chang. One of ordinary skill would have been motivated to have made such modification because a default image benefits users in decreased wait time rather than waiting for a summary to be generated.
Claim(s) 11-13 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over O’Shaugnessy in view of Quine in view of Sommerer as applied to claim1 above, and further in view of Jalasutram et al. (12,038,997), hereinafter Jalasutram.
Regarding claim 11, modified O’Shaugnessy teaches the method of claim 1 as described above. However, O’Shaugnessy does not explicitly teach of creating a summary based upon an input. In a similar field of endeavor, Jalasutram teaches of creating snippets of content (see abstract). Jalasutram further teaches the following:
wherein pregenerating the textual summary of the second page comprises:
receiving an input that actuates a control of a block configured to initiate a generative process to create the textual summary. As Jalasutram teaches in column 20, lines 46-63, and corresponding Fig. 12, a user may create a summary via a summarize user interface element;
determining a selection of in-page content based on a location of the block relative to the in-page content. As Jalasutram teaches in column 20, lines 46-63, and corresponding Fig. 12, the user has selected a portion of a page 1202;
causing the AI system to create textual summary the selection of the in-page content. As Jalasutram teaches in column 4, lines 43-50, machine-learned models are utilized to generate a semantic understanding of content that can be utilized for summarization; and
populating the block to present the textual summary. As Jalasutram teaches in column 20, lines 46-63, and corresponding Fig. 12, a summarized text is utilized to generate a graphical card 1204.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of applicant’s claimed invention to have modified the preview summary of O’Shaugnessy with the user selection summary of Jalasutram. One of ordinary skill would have been motivated to have made such modification because as Jalasutram teaches in column 1, lines 23-34, such user selection benefits users in remembering a section of a page that interests them.
Regarding claim 12, modified O’Shaugnessy teaches the method of claim 11 as described above. However, as described above, O’Shaugnessy does not explicitly teach of creating a summary based upon an input. Jalasutram further teaches the following:
wherein determining the selection of in-page content based on the location of the block relative to the in-page content comprises: selecting a portion of the in-page content bounded by the location of the block and a top or bottom of the page of the workspace. As Jalasutram shows in Fig. 12, the selection of text goes from a selection point to the bottom of the page.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of applicant’s claimed invention to have modified the preview summary of O’Shaugnessy with the user selection summary of Jalasutram. One of ordinary skill would have been motivated to have made such modification because as Jalasutram teaches in column 1, lines 23-34, such user selection benefits users in remembering a section of a page that interests them.
Regarding claim 13, modified O’Shaugnessy teaches the method of claim 11 as described above. However, as described above, O’Shaugnessy does not explicitly teach of creating a summary based upon an input. O’Shaugnessy in view of Jalasutram further teaches the following:
wherein determining the selection of in-page content based on the location of the block relative to the in-page content comprises: selecting an entirety of the in-page content bounded by the page of the workspace. As Jalasutram teaches in the abstract, the summary packet is generated based upon user selection of content. O’Shaugnessy teaches in column 11, lines 34-54, that specific features selected from an entirety of a page may be selected for preview display. Therefore, upon the modification of O’Shaugnessy in view of Jalasutram, a user of Jalasutram may select an entire page for summarization as in O’Shaugnessy.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of applicant’s claimed invention to have modified the preview summary of O’Shaugnessy with the user selection summary of Jalasutram. One of ordinary skill would have been motivated to have made such modification because as Jalasutram teaches in column 1, lines 23-34, such user selection benefits users in remembering a section of a page that interests them.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
-Reuter (2020/0410026), determine if a preview of a page exists, and if not queue the preview for cration.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to GREGORY A DISTEFANO whose telephone number is (571)270-1644. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday: 9 am - 5 pm.
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, William Bashore can be reached at 5712424088. 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.
/GREGORY A. DISTEFANO/
Examiner
Art Unit 2174
/WILLIAM L BASHORE/ Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2174