DETAILED ACTION
This action is responsive to the application filed 5/15/2024.
Claims 1-20 are pending.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 1-4, 7-11, 14-17 and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by White, U.S. PGPUB No. 2008/0172606 (“White”).
With regard to Claim 1, White teaches a method, comprising:
receiving a current article that a user is reviewing on a graphical user interface (GUI) ([0082] describes a user can initiate dynamic webpage analysis by capturing or extracting contents of a page that a user is viewing in a browser. [0074] describes the page content as an article);
extracting, from the current article, relevant information ([0082]-[0083] describe that the page information is captured and transferred to a server system);
retrieving contextual information associated with the current article based on the extracted relevant information ([0085] describes that captured page information has primary information extracted therefrom and stored, where [0089] describes that the stored information is obtained. [0117]-[0119] describes that the relevant information is then matched with information in a database and the internet to retrieve various types of information);
automatically generating a zoom-out summary of the contextual information to characterize background of the current article ([0119] describes that the retrieved information is used to generate a summary page for presentation of the user information relevant to the displayed content); and
providing a zoom-out option to the user on the GUI that allows, once activated, the user to review the zoom-out summary of the contextual information providing the background associated with the current article ([0123] describes that a button can be provided in the interface which a user selects to return a generated summary).
Claim 8 recites a medium having information stored thereon (White, [0071]) which causes a machine to perform the method of Claim 1, and the claim is similarly rejected. Claim 15 recites a system comprising a processor (White, [0049]) which carries out the method of Claim 1, and is likewise rejected.
With regard to Claim 2, White teaches that the relevant information includes: a source of the current article; one or more entities mentioned in the current article; and one or more topics that the current article covers. [0115]-[0116] describe that the extracted information includes entities such as people and companies, and topics such as those entities as well as events such as a product announcement or other noteworthy topic. [0130] describes that the company can be the company that published the product announcement. [0133] describes that the page can also identify the server hosting the web page.
Claim 9 recites a medium having information stored thereon (White, [0071]) which causes a machine to perform the method of Claim 2, and the claim is similarly rejected. Claim 16 recites a system comprising a processor (White, [0049]) which carries out the method of Claim 2, and is likewise rejected.
With regard to Claim 3, White teaches identifying one or more historic documents/articles related to the one or more entities and/or the one or more topics via a knowledge representation characterizing relationships among a plurality of historic documents/articles; retrieving, from a content archive, at least one of some of the one or more historic documents/articles and statistics associated with the one or more historic documents/articles; and generating the contextual information based on what is retrieved from the content archive.
White teaches at [0121] that the generated summary page includes a number of news stories or other relevant sites which have been indexed for each person or entity. [0125] describes that the summary can include a total number of news stories that mention each company, and [0127] describes that event types likewise have counts associated therewith, which can also be displayed per company or per a specific time period.
Claim 10 recites a medium having information stored thereon (White, [0071]) which causes a machine to perform the method of Claim 3, and the claim is similarly rejected. Claim 17 recites a system comprising a processor (White, [0049]) which carries out the method of Claim 3, and is likewise rejected.
With regard to Claim 4, White teaches that the one or more historic documents/articles and the statistics associated therewith are retrieved with respect to a first set of zoom-out summary parameter. [0101] describes that an options menu is available for a user to specify parameters for how the process should run, where [0109] describes an exemplary parameter where a user can specify that the page analysis be limited to an article and not the advertisements.
Claim 11 recites a medium having information stored thereon (White, [0071]) which causes a machine to perform the method of Claim 4, and the claim is similarly rejected.
With regard to Claim 7, White teaches receiving an indication from the GUI that the user activates the zoom-out option; and rendering the zoom-out summary of the contextual information of the current article on the GUI. [0123] describes a button a user activates which causes the summary to be displayed on the screen.
Claim 14 recites a medium having information stored thereon (White, [0071]) which causes a machine to perform the method of Claim 7, and the claim is similarly rejected. Claim 20 recites a system comprising a processor (White, [0049]) which carries out the method of Claim 7, and is likewise rejected.
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.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claims 5, 6, 12, 13, 18 and 19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over White, in view of Hwang, U.S. PGPUB No. 2019/0042551 (“Hwang”).
With regard to Claim 5, Hwang teaches receiving a second set of zoom-out summary parameters for controlling the generation of the zoom-out summary; receiving the contextual information identified based on the relevant information extracted from the current article; and creating, based on large language models (LLMs), the zoom-out summary of the contextual information in compliant with the second set of zoom-out summary parameters.
Hwang teaches at [0046] that a user can enter a command for accessing documents related to a current document, to use the information therefrom. [0047]-[0048] describes that an AI system can use a keyword to obtain documents as well as summaries. [0050] describes a user interface for entering parameters related to the generated summaries, where summary information is generated in accordance with the parameters. [0202] describes that the model learns using self-supervised learning in some embodiments, which suggests the use of an LLM to one of ordinary skill in the art, as such models were well-known, self-supervised learning models trained to perform generative tasks such as text summarization.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time this application was filed to combine Hwang with White. One of skill in the art would have sought the combination, to introduce more advanced summarization techniques that can assist users in reviewing a larger amount of related information in a shorter amount of time.
Claim 12 recites a medium having information stored thereon (White, [0071]) which causes a machine to perform the method of Claim 5, and the claim is similarly rejected. Claim 18 recites a system comprising a processor (White, [0049]) which carries out the method of Claim 5, and is likewise rejected.
With regard to Claim 6, Hwang teaches that the second set of zoom-out summary parameters include at least one of: a first parameter relating to topics to be covered by the zoom-out summary; a second parameter relating to a limit to length of the zoom-out summary; and a third parameter relating to a tone of text in the zoom-out summary. [0050] describes that a user can input settings for both a length and a tone of a generated summary.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time this application was filed to combine Hwang with White. One of skill in the art would have sought the combination, to introduce more advanced summarization techniques that can assist users in reviewing a larger amount of related information in a shorter amount of time.
Claim 13 recites a medium having information stored thereon (White, [0071]) which causes a machine to perform the method of Claim 6, and the claim is similarly rejected. Claim 19 recites a system comprising a processor (White, [0049]) which carries out the method of Claim 6, and is likewise rejected.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Vu, et al., U.S. PGPUB No. 2002/0078091 describes additional methods for automatic summary generation using collected data external to an input document.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to KEITH D BLOOMQUIST whose telephone number is (571)270-7718. The examiner can normally be reached M-F, 8:30-5 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, Kieu Vu can be reached at 571-272-4057. 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.
/KEITH D BLOOMQUIST/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2171
2/11/2026