DETAILED ACTION
This action is in response to the original filing dated 23 May 2024. Claims 1-20 are pending and have been considered below.
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 .
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 26 September 2025 has been received, entered into the record, and considered. The submission is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement is being considered by the examiner.
Claim Objections
Claim 15 is objected to because of the following informalities: claim 15 recites “dismissing the second user interaction, from displaying on the post editing page”. Examiner suggests “dismissing the second interactive element from displaying on the post editing page”. Appropriate correction is required.
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 11 and 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. Dependent claim 11 recites “switching between multiple versions of user-confirmed post content”. It is unclear what “user-confirmed post content” is referring to or how the post content becomes/became user-confirmed; therefore, it is indefinite.
The term “nondisruptive manner” in claim 13 is a relative term which renders the claim indefinite. The term “nondisruptive manner” is not defined by the claim, the specification does not provide a standard for ascertaining the requisite degree, and one of ordinary skill in the art would not be reasonably apprised of the scope of the invention. Examiner notes that what may be nondisruptive to one user may actually be disruptive to another.
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.
Independent claims 1, 16 and 17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to a judicial exception (i.e., a law of nature, a natural phenomenon, or an abstract idea) without significantly more. Claims 1, 16 and 17 are directed to the abstract idea of generating a title, as explained in detail below. The claims do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because the additional computer elements, which are recited at a high level of generality, provide conventional computer functions that do not add meaningful limits to practicing the abstract idea.
Claims 1, 16 and 17 recite, in part, “generating, based on the at least a part of content of the post, a suggested title of the post.” These steps describe the concept of generating a title, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind but for the recitation of generic computer components. Nothing in the claim precludes the step from practically being performed in the mind. For example, but for the “electronic device/processor” language, “generating” in the context of these claims encompasses a user manually creating a title for the content. If a claim limitation, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind but for the recitation of generic computer components, then it falls within the “Mental Processes” grouping of abstract ideas. As such, the description in claims 1, 16 and 17 of generating a title is an abstract idea.
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. In particular, the claim recites additional elements – using an electronic device/processor to perform the steps and receive/provide input/output. The electronic device/processor in the steps is recited at a high-level of generality such that it amounts no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component. Accordingly, these additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because they do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. Thus, these claims are directed to an abstract idea.
The claims do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because the additional elements when considered both individually and as an ordered combination do not amount to significantly more than the abstract idea. The claims recite the additional limitations of “electronic device/processor,” and “receiving/providing input/output.” Receiving input of content and providing output of the result are pre-solution and post-solution extra-solution activities. Generic computer components recited as performing generic computer functions that are well-understood, routine and conventional activities (e.g. see references cited) amount to no more than implementing the abstract idea with a computerized system. There is no indication that the combination of elements improves the functioning of a computer or improves any other technology. Thus, taken alone or in combination, the additional elements do not amount to significantly more than the above-identified judicial exception.
Further, the additional elements found in dependent claims 2-5, 8-14 and 18-20, considered both individually and as an ordered combination along their dependency trees with their respective independent claims, also do not appear to be drawn to a practical application or amount to significantly more than the abstract idea. Therefore, dependent claims 2-5, 8-14 and 18-20 are similarly rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
Claims 1-3, 5-9, 12 and 16-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Berglund et al. (US 2024/0403569 A1, provisional: 63/505405, dated 31 May 2023) in view of McAnallen (US 2024/0104055 A1).
As for independent claim 1, Berglund teaches a method comprising:
receiving, by an electronic device, user input of at least a part of content of a post on a post editing page of an application on the electronic device [(e.g. see Berglund paragraphs 0015, 0025, 0029; prov: paragraphs 0008, 0012, 0014) ”The content repository stores content items such as documents, videos, images, audio recordings, 3D renderings, 3D models, or immersive content files (e.g., metaverse files). Documents stored in the content repository can include, for example, technical reports, sales brochures, books, web pages, transcriptions of video or audio recordings, presentations, or any other type of document … The content management platform 110 uses the LLM 140 to generate electronic messages or message content. Messages can be any form of electronic communication, such as emails, social media posts, SMS messages, or messages transmitted within proprietary services such as Slack, Signal, WeChat, or WhatsApp. Some of the messages generated by the platform 110 are generated based on content items in the content repository 150 and can be configured to carry the content item in a link or attachment … a user interacting with a content viewing or sharing interface can select an option to share a content item with another person, which can cause the content management platform 110 to generate a message to accompany the shared content”].
generating, based on the at least a part of content of the post, a suggested title of the post [(e.g. see Berglund paragraphs 0012, 0037; prov: paragraphs 0005, 0017, 0023) ”To generate message content associated with the content item, the content management platform sends the description to the LLM with a prompt instructing the LLM to generate a type of message based on the description … the platform generates a prompt to the LLM 140 to populate the subject line 244 and message content 246”].
providing, on the post editing page, the suggested title of the post [(e.g. see Berglund paragraphs 0011, 0029; prov: paragraphs 0014, 0022) ”The system populates, into the user interface, content for the electronic message that is generated based on output by the LLM … generate a new message in a message platform associated with the content management platform 110 or a third-party message platform”].
in response to receiving the user confirmation, displaying the suggested title of the post on the post editing page [(e.g. see Berglund paragraphs 0011, 0029, 0042; prov: paragraphs 0014, 0022, 0025) ”The system populates, into the user interface, content for the electronic message that is generated based on output by the LLM … generate a new message in a message platform associated with the content management platform 110 or a third-party message platform … The user can modify the content within the user interface if desired. Once the user is satisfied with the message, and with or without the user modifying any of the text in the user interface 210, the user can select the “Send Pitch” button 250 to send the message.”]. Examiner notes that, based on a previous limitation (see above), the suggested title of the post is already provided on the post editing page.
Berglund does not specifically teach receiving a user confirmation of the suggested title of the post. However, in the same field of invention, McAnallen teaches:
receiving a user confirmation of the suggested title of the post [(e.g. see McAnallen paragraphs 0046, 0054) ”The ranking and selection engine 250 sorts and/or ranks the generated titles based on their similarity scores. The top one or few titles in the ranked titles are then selected as candidate titles … the top N number of titles (e.g., top 3 or top 5) are selected and provided as candidate titles in the output 270 … The selected title(s) are then transmitted as the output 270 … the title or top few titles are provided to a user for review and/or selection. In scenarios where the title is presented to a user for selection, feedback relating to the selection may be collected and used for ongoing training of the ML models … The candidate titles may be provided to an application for display to a user. The user may have the option of selecting a title from among a group of title candidates”].
Therefore, considering the teachings of Berglund and McAnallen, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to add receiving a user confirmation of the suggested title of the post, as taught by McAnallen, to the teachings of Berglund because requiring user confirmation allows for ongoing training of the machine learning models based on the feedback (e.g. see McAnallen paragraph 0046)
As for dependent claim 2, Berglund and McAnallen teach the method as described in claim 1 and Berglund further teaches:
wherein generating, based on the at least part of content of the post, the suggested title of the post comprises: sending the at least the part of content of the post to one or more pre-trained generative artificial intelligence (GenAI) models and receiving the suggested title of the post outputted by the one or more pre-trained GenAI models [(e.g. see Berglund paragraphs 0012, 0037, 0061; prov: paragraphs 0005, 0017, 0023, 0026) ”To generate message content associated with the content item, the content management platform sends the description to the LLM with a prompt instructing the LLM to generate a type of message based on the description … the platform generates a prompt to the LLM 140 to populate the subject line 244 and message content 246 … train one or more ML models, each ML model, e.g., having a particular architecture, having a particular training procedure, being describable by a set of model hyperparameters, and/or otherwise being varied from the other of the one or more ML models”].
As for dependent claim 3, Berglund and McAnallen teach the method as described in claim 2 and Berglund further teaches:
wherein the one or more pre-trained GenAI models are executed in a remote server [(e.g. see Berglund paragraph 0084; prov: paragraph 0038) ”computer system can access a remote language model (e.g., a cloud-based language model), such as ChatGPT or GPT-3, via a software interface (e.g., an API). Additionally or alternatively, such a remote language model can be accessed via a network such as the Internet”].
As for dependent claim 5, Berglund and McAnallen teach the method as described in claim 1 and Berglund further teaches:
wherein the at least a part of content of the post comprises at least one of graphical content items or textual content items [(e.g. see Berglund paragraphs 0015, 0025; prov: paragraphs 0008, 0012) ”The content repository stores content items such as documents, videos, images, audio recordings, 3D renderings, 3D models, or immersive content files (e.g., metaverse files). Documents stored in the content repository can include, for example, technical reports, sales brochures, books, web pages, transcriptions of video or audio recordings, presentations, or any other type of document … The content management platform 110 uses the LLM 140 to generate electronic messages or message content. Messages can be any form of electronic communication, such as emails, social media posts, SMS messages, or messages transmitted within proprietary services such as Slack, Signal, WeChat, or WhatsApp. Some of the messages generated by the platform 110 are generated based on content items in the content repository 150 and can be configured to carry the content item in a link or attachment”].
As for dependent claim 6, Berglund and McAnallen teach the method as described in claim 5 and Berglund further teaches:
wherein: the at least a part of content of the post comprises one or more graphical items [(e.g. see Berglund paragraph 0015; prov: paragraph 0008) ”The content repository stores content items such as documents, videos, images, audio recordings, 3D renderings, 3D models, or immersive content files (e.g., metaverse files). Documents stored in the content repository can include, for example, technical reports, sales brochures, books, web pages, transcriptions of video or audio recordings, presentations, or any other type of document”].
receiving, by the electronic device, the user input of at least a part of content of the post on the post editing page of the application on the electronic device comprises: receiving, by the electronic device, the one or more graphical content items at the post editing page of the application on the electronic device [(e.g. see Berglund paragraph 0025; prov: paragraph 0012) ”The content management platform 110 uses the LLM 140 to generate electronic messages or message content. Messages can be any form of electronic communication, such as emails, social media posts, SMS messages, or messages transmitted within proprietary services such as Slack, Signal, WeChat, or WhatsApp. Some of the messages generated by the platform 110 are generated based on content items in the content repository 150 and can be configured to carry the content item in a link or attachment”].
generating, based on the at least a part of content of the post, the suggested title of the post comprises: generating, based on the one or more graphical content items, a textual description of the one or more graphical content items using a first model [(e.g. see Berglund paragraph 0049; prov: paragraph 0020) ”the computer system uses the LLM to generate descriptions for content items stored by or available to the system. The description of a content item that is generated by the LLM can include a summary of subject matter of the content item and/or key highlights from the content item”].
generating, based on the textual description of the graphical content items, the suggested title of the post using a second model [(e.g. see Berglund paragraphs 0012, 0037, 0061; prov: paragraphs 0005, 0017, 0023, 0026) ”To generate message content associated with the content item, the content management platform sends the description to the LLM with a prompt instructing the LLM to generate a type of message based on the description … the platform generates a prompt to the LLM 140 to populate the subject line 244 and message content 246 … train one or more ML models, each ML model, e.g., having a particular architecture, having a particular training procedure, being describable by a set of model hyperparameters, and/or otherwise being varied from the other of the one or more ML models”].
As for dependent claim 7, Berglund and McAnallen teach the method as described in claim 5 and Berglund further teaches:
wherein: the at least a part of the post comprises one or more graphical content items and one or more textual content items [(e.g. see Berglund paragraph 0015; prov: paragraph 0008) ”The content repository stores content items such as documents, videos, images, audio recordings, 3D renderings, 3D models, or immersive content files (e.g., metaverse files). Documents stored in the content repository can include, for example, technical reports, sales brochures, books, web pages, transcriptions of video or audio recordings, presentations, or any other type of document”].
receiving, by the electronic device, the user input of at least a part of content of the post on the post editing page of the application on the electronic device comprises: receiving, by the electronic device, the one or more graphical content items and the one or more textual content items at the post editing page of the application on the electronic device [(e.g. see Berglund paragraph 0025; prov: paragraph 0012) ”The content management platform 110 uses the LLM 140 to generate electronic messages or message content. Messages can be any form of electronic communication, such as emails, social media posts, SMS messages, or messages transmitted within proprietary services such as Slack, Signal, WeChat, or WhatsApp. Some of the messages generated by the platform 110 are generated based on content items in the content repository 150 and can be configured to carry the content item in a link or attachment”].
generating, based on the at least a part of content of the post, the suggested title of the post comprises: generating, based on the one or more graphical content items, a textual description of the one or more graphical content items using a third model [(e.g. see Berglund paragraph 0049; prov: paragraph 0020) ”the computer system uses the LLM to generate descriptions for content items stored by or available to the system. The description of a content item that is generated by the LLM can include a summary of subject matter of the content item and/or key highlights from the content item”].
generating, based on the one or more textual content items and the textual description of the one or more graphical content items, the suggested title of the post using a fourth model [(e.g. see Berglund paragraphs 0012, 0037, 0061; prov: paragraphs 0005, 0017, 0023, 0026) ”To generate message content associated with the content item, the content management platform sends the description to the LLM with a prompt instructing the LLM to generate a type of message based on the description … the platform generates a prompt to the LLM 140 to populate the subject line 244 and message content 246 … train one or more ML models, each ML model, e.g., having a particular architecture, having a particular training procedure, being describable by a set of model hyperparameters, and/or otherwise being varied from the other of the one or more ML models”].
As for dependent claim 8, Berglund and McAnallen teach the method as described in claim 1, but Berglund does not specifically teach the following limitation. However, McAnallen teaches:
wherein: generating, based on the at least a part of content of the post, the suggested title of the post comprises: generating, based on the at least a part of content of the post, a plurality of titles of the post; and providing, on the post editing page, the suggested title of the post comprises: providing, on the post editing page, a suggestion of the plurality of titles of the post [(e.g. see McAnallen paragraph 0046) ”The ranking and selection engine 250 sorts and/or ranks the generated titles based on their similarity scores. The top one or few titles in the ranked titles are then selected as candidate titles … the top N number of titles (e.g., top 3 or top 5) are selected and provided as candidate titles in the output 270. This involves identifying the title(s) that correspond with the embedding(s) having the highest similarity scores and may require examining the title embeddings and their corresponding input titles to retrieve the original title for the embeddings. The selected title(s) are then transmitted as the output 270 … the title or top few titles are provided to a user for review and/or selection”].
The motivation to combine is the same as that used for claim 1.
As for dependent claim 9, Berglund and McAnallen teach the method as described in claim 1 and Berglund further teaches:
further comprising: receiving a user instruction to continue drafting the post; in response to receiving the user instruction, generating, based on existing content of the post, additional textual content and inserting the additional textual content in the post [(e.g. see Berglund paragraph 0042; prov: paragraph 0025) ”The user can modify the content within the user interface if desired. Once the user is satisfied with the message, and with or without the user modifying any of the text in the user interface 210, the user can select the “Send Pitch” button 250 to send the message. In some implementations, selection of the “send” button causes the content management platform to format the message for transmission and to transmit the message to the recipient”].
As for dependent claim 12, Berglund and McAnallen teach the method as described in claim 1 and Berglund further teaches:
further comprising: receiving a user instruction to change a tone of textual content of the post; in response to receiving the user instruction, providing one or more tone options on the post editing page; receiving, as a selected tone option, a user selection of the one of the one or more tone options; and generating new textual content of the post that corresponds to the selected tone option [(e.g. see Berglund paragraph 0053; prov: paragraph 0023) ”cause the LLM to customize the message for a particular sender or recipient. For example, the prompt includes information about a location of the recipient to enable the LLM to modify greetings, formality of the message, or directness of the message to conform to cultural customs of the recipient. In another example, the computer system sends the LLM past communications from the recipient to enable the LLM to evaluate tone or style of the past communications and to mimic the recipient's tone or style in the new message. Similarly, the computer system can send the LLM past communications from the sender to enable the LLM to mimic the sender's tone or style”].
As for independent claim 16, Berglund and McAnallen teach an apparatus. Claim 16 discloses substantially the same limitations as claim 1. Therefore, it is rejected with the same rational as claim 1.
As for independent claim 17, Berglund and McAnallen teach a non-transitory computer readable storage medium. Claim 17 discloses substantially the same limitations as claim 1. Therefore, it is rejected with the same rational as claim 1.
As for dependent claim 18, Berglund and McAnallen teach the medium as described in claim 17; further, claim 18 discloses substantially the same limitations as claim 2. Therefore, it is rejected with the same rational as claim 2.
As for dependent claim 19, Berglund and McAnallen teach the medium as described in claim 18; further, claim 19 discloses substantially the same limitations as claim 3. Therefore, it is rejected with the same rational as claim 3.
As for dependent claim 20, Berglund and McAnallen teach the medium as described in claim 18 and Berglund further teaches:
wherein the non-transitory computer readable storage medium stores programming instructions executable by the one or more processors to perform operations comprising: generating, by the electronic device based on the at least the part of content of the post, the suggested title of the post using one or more pre-trained GenAI models [(e.g. see Berglund paragraphs 0012, 0037, 0061; prov: paragraphs 0005, 0017, 0023, 0026) ”To generate message content associated with the content item, the content management platform sends the description to the LLM with a prompt instructing the LLM to generate a type of message based on the description … the platform generates a prompt to the LLM 140 to populate the subject line 244 and message content 246 … train one or more ML models, each ML model, e.g., having a particular architecture, having a particular training procedure, being describable by a set of model hyperparameters, and/or otherwise being varied from the other of the one or more ML models”].
Claim 4 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Berglund et al. (US 2024/0403569 A1, provisional: 63/505405, dated 31 May 2023) in view of McAnallen (US 2024/0104055 A1), as applied to claim 2 above, and further in view of Tang et al. (US 2025/0131275 A1).
As for dependent claim 4, Berglund and McAnallen teach the method as described in claim 2, but do not specifically teach wherein the one or more pre-trained GenAI models are executed in the electronic device. However, in the same field of invention or solving similar problems, Tang teaches:
wherein the one or more pre-trained GenAI models are executed in the electronic device [(e.g. see Tang paragraph 0041) ”a locally deployed local GPT model to obtain local response information returned from the local GPT model, and providing a response to the user based on the local response information”].
Therefore, considering the teachings of Berglund, McAnallen and Tang, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to add wherein the one or more pre-trained GenAI models are executed in the electronic device, as taught by Tang, to the teachings of Berglund and McAnallen because a local model improves data security and user privacy (e.g. see Tang paragraph 0003)
Claims 10, 11, 13 and 14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Berglund et al. (US 2024/0403569 A1, provisional: 63/505405, dated 31 May 2023) in view of McAnallen (US 2024/0104055 A1), as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Sokolov et al. (US 2024/0303247 A1).
As for dependent claim 10, Berglund and McAnallen teach the method as described in claim 1, but do not specifically teach further comprising: receiving, as a selected portion of textual content, a first user selection of a portion of textual content of the post; and in response to receiving the first user selection, displaying, on the post editing page, one or more editing options or receiving, as a selected editing option, a second user selection of the one of the one or more editing options; and in response to the second user selection, performing an editing operation corresponding to the selected editing option on the selection portion of textual content. However, in the same field of invention, Sokolov teaches:
further comprising: receiving, as a selected portion of textual content, a first user selection of a portion of textual content of the post; and in response to receiving the first user selection, displaying, on the post editing page, one or more editing options [(e.g. see Sokolov paragraph 0061, 0062 and Fig. 3A) ”As also shown in FIG. 3A, the portion of the document 204 to which the recommendation(s) pertain may be highlighted 250. Within this highlight 250, only the original section of the document may be display or the highlight may include some combination of the original and suggested text from the recommendation(s) 212. The highlight 250 may also be accompanied by a user interface tool 251 that allows the user to respond to the recommendation(s). This tool 251 may also be referred to as a context card displayed over the document canvas … The user interface shown in FIG. 3A can be adapted to any such scenario. For example, the first button may read “INSERT?” in such a case, rather than “KEEP IT.” The button might also be labeled with “REPLACE,” “REWRITE,” “SWAP” or any other command term appropriate to the recommendation being offered”].
receiving, as a selected editing option, a second user selection of the one of the one or more editing options; and in response to the second user selection, performing an editing operation corresponding to the selected editing option on the selection portion of textual content [(e.g. see Sokolov paragraph 0061 and Fig 3A) ”The highlight 250 may also be accompanied by a user interface tool 251 that allows the user to respond to the recommendation(s). This tool 251 may also be referred to as a context card displayed over the document canvas. In the illustrated example, the tool 251 includes an option for the user to “keep it” or implement the proposed recommendation. Upon selection of this option, the recommended text is inserted into the document 204 in place of the original text. Consequently, with just a single action, e.g., mouse click or button tap, the user can implement the AI recommendation”].
Therefore, considering the teachings of Berglund, McAnallen and Sokolov, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to add further comprising: receiving, as a selected portion of textual content, a first user selection of a portion of textual content of the post; and in response to receiving the first user selection, displaying, on the post editing page, one or more editing options and receiving, as a selected editing option, a second user selection of the one of the one or more editing options; and in response to the second user selection, performing an editing operation corresponding to the selected editing option on the selection portion of textual content, as taught by Sokolov, to the teachings of Berglund and McAnallen because it allows for readily available, rapid, and high-quality feedback on a written document (e.g. see Sokolov paragraph 0004).
As for dependent claim 11, Berglund and McAnallen teach the method as described in claim 1, but do not specifically teach the following limitation. However, Sokolov teaches:
further comprising: providing, on the post editing page, one or more interactive elements for switching between multiple versions of user-configured post content; and in response to a user interaction with one of the one or more interactive elements, replacing current content of the post with one of the multiple versions of user-confirmed post content [(e.g. see Sokolov paragraphs 0053, 0060, 0065) ”once the AI feedback has been obtained, a number of feedback cards 220 may be displayed in the AI feedback pane 205. The cards 220 may organize the feedback from the AI engine into different categories. The user can then review the category or categories of feedback that are of interest and may implement or discard specific suggestions made by the AI engine … the feedback cards 220, mentioned above, are populated in the AI feedback pane 205. Each card 220 may include a specific recommendation or recommendations 212 provided by the AI engine. As noted above, each card 220 may be devoted to feedback in a specific category or for a specific portion of the document 204. As shown in FIG. 3A, one of the feedback cards may have focus and be the active feedback card 221. In this case, the active card 221 is extended to show the recommendation or recommendations 212 of that card … the card 207 may include an icon 213 to implement the recommendation(s)”].
The motivation to combine is the same as that used for claim 10.
As for dependent claim 13, Berglund and McAnallen teach the method as described in claim 1, but do not specifically teach the following limitation. However, Sokolov teaches:
further comprising: providing, on the post editing page, a first interactive element to exit an AI-assisted editing mode; receiving a first user interaction with the first interactive element [(e.g. see Sokolov paragraph 0052 and Fig. 2A) ”As the user is viewing or drafting the document 204, the illustrative application may provide a pop-up window 231 that invites the user to utilize the AI writing feedback feature. Specifically, this pop-up window 231 could be triggered when the user saves the document, prepares to close the document, pauses in writing the document for a predetermined amount of time or a variety of other events or points in the drafting of the document 204]. Examiner notes that, as depicted in Fig. 2A, the user can select “no” to exit.
in response to receiving the first user interaction with the first interactive element, providing, on the post editing page, a second interactive element for prompting user feedback in a nondisruptive manner [(e.g. see Sokolov paragraphs 0053, 0064, 0068 and Fig. 3C) ”The cards 220 may organize the feedback from the AI engine into different categories. The user can then review the category or categories of feedback that are of interest and may implement or discard specific suggestions made by the AI engine … the AI feedback pane 205. Specifically, as shown in FIG. 3C, categories and corresponding cards may include: word choice 206, structure & flow 207, evidence and support 208, tone & style 209, grammar & spelling 210, and format & design 211 … Triaging the feedback cards: in this option, the user interface for the AI feedback pane or other interface element of the application allows the user to mark the feedback cards that have been reviewed, mark others for later review, delete others, etc. As shown in FIG. 4, a feedback card 220 may include icons for marking the card as reviewed 403, for holding the card for later review 405 or deleting the card 404. These features may help the user manage feedback cards more effectively”]. Examiner notes that, as depicted in Fig 4, the feedback is displayed off to the side in a sidebar away from the document being edited.
The motivation to combine is the same as that used for claim 10.
As for dependent claim 14, Berglund and McAnallen teach the method as described in claim 13, but do not specifically teach the following limitations. However, Sokolov teaches:
further comprising: receiving a second user interaction with the second interactive element [(e.g. see Sokolov paragraph 0065 and Fig. 3C-D) ”As shown in FIG. 3D, one of these cards may be selected in the user interface as the focus. In FIG. 3D, this is the card 207 for “Structure & Flow” 207. As before, selecting this card will display the recommendation(s) for this category that have been returned by the AI engine”].
in response to receiving the second user interaction, providing a feedback page [(e.g. see Sokolov paragraph 0065 and Fig. 3D) ”the focused card of FIG. 3D may include an icon or icons 214 with which a user can give feedback on the quality of the recommendation(s) 212. If the user indicates disapproval of the recommendation(s), this feedback may be used to finetune the training of the AI engine being used”].
The motivation to combine is the same as that used for claim 10.
Claim 15 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Berglund et al. (US 2024/0403569 A1, provisional: 63/505405, dated 31 May 2023) in view of McAnallen (US 2024/0104055 A1) and further in view of Sokolov et al. (US 2024/0303247 A1), as applied to claim 14 above, and further in view of Ding et al. (US 2024/0220077 A1).
As for dependent claim 15, Berglund, McAnallen and Sokolov teach the method as described in claim 14, but do not specifically teach further comprising: in response to determining that no user interaction with the second interactive element is received within a threshold duration, dismissing the second user interaction, from displaying on the post editing page. However, in the same field of invention or solving similar problems, Ding teaches:
further comprising: in response to determining that no user interaction with the second interactive element is received within a threshold duration, dismissing the second user interaction, from displaying on the post editing page [(e.g. see Ding paragraphs 0005, 0027, 0100) ”detecting that the electronic device meets a first preset condition, and displaying a first floating ball, where an identifier of a first application and first information are displayed in the first floating ball … after the floating ball is displayed for a period of time, and no operation of the user on the floating ball is detected, the electronic device may adjust the floating ball from an unfolded state to a thumbnail state, and display a countdown identifier on the floating ball in the thumbnail state, to prompt the user that the floating ball is about to disappear. If the electronic device has still not detected any operation of the user on the floating ball when the countdown identifier indicates that the countdown is over, the electronic device may confirm that the user does not need the shortcut provided by the floating ball, and then the electronic device may end the displaying of the floating ball … According to the timeliness characteristics of the services provided by different floating balls, the first electronic device may set different ending mechanisms (disappearance mechanisms) for different floating balls”].
Therefore, considering the teachings of Berglund, McAnallen, Sokolov and Ding, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to add further comprising: in response to determining that no user interaction with the second interactive element is received within a threshold duration, dismissing the second user interaction, from displaying on the post editing page, as taught by Ding, to the teachings of Berglund, McAnallen and Sokolov because it reduces the blocking of the foreground application and avoids interference with the user (e.g. see Ding paragraph 0027).
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
U.S. PGPub 2014/0282011 A1 issued to Dellinger et al. on 18 September 2014. The subject matter disclosed therein is pertinent to that of claims 1-20 (e.g. automatically generating a title for user uploaded content).
U.S. PGPub 2023/0326454 A1 issued to Miller-Smith et al. on 12 October 2023. The subject matter disclosed therein is pertinent to that of claims 1-20 (e.g. generating titles based on a textual transcript).
Contact Information
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to CHRISTOPHER J FIBBI whose telephone number is (571)-270-3358. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Thursday (8am-6pm).
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, William Bashore can be reached at (571)-272-4088. 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.
/CHRISTOPHER J FIBBI/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2174