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 .
This office action is in response to Applicant’s argument filed on 22 July 2026.
This office action is made Final.
Claims 1, 4-8, 10, 13-17 and 19 have been amended.
The objection to the claims and all art rejections as presented in the previous office action have been withdrawn as neccessited by Applicant’s amendment.
Claims 1-19 are pending. Claims 1, 10, and 19 are pending.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101
35 U.S.C. 101 reads as follows:
Whoever invents or discovers any new and useful process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter, or any new and useful improvement thereof, may obtain a patent therefor, subject to the conditions and requirements of this title.
Claims 1-19 remain rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
Claim 1
Step 2A, Prong 1:
The limitation “determining a content consumption intention on the multimedia content based on browsing information corresponding to the first content page” as drafted, is a process that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind, and/or performed by a human with a pen and paper but for generic computer components. That is, other than reciting a “first content page”, nothing in the claim element precludes the step “determining” from practically being performed in the mind and/or performed by a human with a pen and paper but for generic computer components. For example, but for “first content page”, “determining” in the context of this claim encompasses the user able to figure out if a user is element with a multimedia based on the amount of time paying attention to.
Similarly, the limitation “determining generated summary information adapted to the content consumption intention” as drafted, is a process that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind, and/or performed by a human with a pen and paper but for generic computer components. That is, “determining” in the context of this claim encompasses the user is able to see that multimedia content has a written summarization associated with it.
Similarly, the limitation “wherein the generated summary information is generated at least based on the multimedia content; …in response to the content consumption intention being a shallow consumption intention, the generated summary information is first summary information; in response to the content consumption intention being a deep consumption intention, the generated summary information is second summary information; and information content of the second summary information is larger than information content of the first summary information” as drafted, is a process that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind, and/or performed by a human with a pen and paper but for generic computer components. That is, “generated” in the context of this claim encompasses the user able to write short and long forms of summaries for people with different attention spans.
If a claim limitation, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind and/or performed by a human with a pen and paper but for the recitation of generic computer components, then it falls within the “Mental Processes” grouping of abstract ideas. Accordingly, the claim recites an abstract idea.
Step 2A, Prong 2:
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. In particular, the claim recites these additional elements:
showing a first content page to display a multimedia content
displaying the generated summary information on the first content page.
by at least inputting the multimedia content and the content consumption intention into a pre-trained generative model, and outputting and obtaining the generated summary information after model operation processing
The “obtaining” limitation(s) is merely data gathering recited at a
high level of generality, and thus are insignificant extra-solution activity. See MPEP
2106.05(g) (“whether the limitation is significant”). Each of the “input” and “outputting” limitation(s) are merely post-solution steps of transmitting data recited at a high level of generality, and thus are insignificant extra-solution activity. See MPEP 2106.05(g) (“whether the limitation is significant”). In addition, all uses of the recited judicial exceptions require such data gathering and output, and, as such, these limitations do not impose any meaningful limits on the claim. These limitations amount to necessary data gathering and outputting. See MPEP 2106.05.
The recitation of “inputting the multimedia content and the content consumption intention into a pre-trained generative model” and “model operation processing” in the limitation also merely indicates a field of use or technological environment in which the judicial exception is performed. Although the additional elements of “inputting the multimedia content and the content consumption intention into a pre-trained generative model” and “model operation processing” limits the identified judicial exceptions in the limitation, this type of limitation merely confines the use of the abstract idea to a particular technological environment (document summarization) and thus fails to add an inventive concept to the claims. See MPEP 2106.05(h). Even when viewed in combination, these additional elements do not integrate the recited judicial exception into a practical application (Step 2A, Prong Two: NO), and the claim is directed to the judicial exception. (Step 2A: YES).
The “shows”/“displays” limitation is a mere nominal or tangential addition to the claim recited at a high level of generality, and thus are insignificant extra-solution activity. See MPEP 2106.05(g) (“whether the limitation is significant”) The target content page in the “showing”/”displaying” limitation is claimed at a high level of generality such that the view interface and client terminal are used as a tool to perform the generic computer function of displaying data. See MPEP 2106.05(f).
In addition, the claim recites these other additional elements: target content page to perform the showing, multiple determining, inputting, outputting, obtaining, generated and/or displaying steps. The : target content page in the steps are recited at a high-level of generality (i.e., as a generic target content page performing a generic computer function of showing, multiple determining, inputting, outputting, obtaining, generated and/or displaying functionality) such that it amounts no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic component. Accordingly, these additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because it does not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. The claim is directed to an abstract idea.
Step 2B:
The claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception.
Each of the “receiving”, “inputting” and “obtaining” limitations are recited at a high
level of generality. These elements amount to receiving or transmitting data over a network and are well-understood, routine, conventional activity(e.g. buySAFE, Inc. v.
Google, Inc., 765 F.3d 1350, 1355, 112 USPQ2d 1093, 1096 (Fed. Cir. 2014)). See MPEP 2106.05(d), subsection II. These elements amount to receiving or transmitting data over a network and are well-understood, routine, conventional activity. See MPEP 2106.05(d), subsection II.
The showing/displaying limitation(s) are recited at a high level of generality. These elements amount to presenting offers and gathering statistics, are well-understood, routine, conventional activity (OIP Techs., 788 F.3d at 1362-63, 115 USPQ2d at 1092-93). See MPEP 2106.05(d), subsection II.
In addition, as discussed above with respect to integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, the additional elements of using target content page to perform the showing, multiple determining, inputting, outputting, obtaining, generated and/or displaying steps amounts to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component. Mere instructions to apply an exception using a generic computer component cannot provide an inventive concept. The claim is not patent eligible.
Claim 10
Claim 10 recites the corresponding electronic device of the method of claim 1 wherein the electronic device of Claim 10 contains similar subject matter/limitations and (additional) elements of the method of Claim 1. Therefore, the corresponding electronic device of Claim 10 is rejected under similar rationale found in the rejection of the method of Claim 1.
Furthermore, Claim 10 has the following additional elements: processor, and memory. In regards to the processor, memory:
Step 2A, Prong 2:
In addition, the claim recites these other additional elements: processor, memory and target content page to perform the showing, multiple determining, inputting, outputting, obtaining, generated and/or displaying steps. The processor, memory, and target content page in the steps are recited at a high-level of generality (i.e., as a generic processor, memory, and target content page performing a generic computer function of showing, multiple determining, inputting, outputting, obtaining, generated and/or displaying functionality) such that it amounts no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic component. Accordingly, these additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because it does not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. The claim is directed to an abstract idea.
Step 2B:
In addition, as discussed above with respect to integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, the additional elements of using processor, memory, and target content page to perform the showing, multiple determining, inputting, outputting, obtaining, generated and/or displaying steps amounts to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component. Mere instructions to apply an exception using a generic computer component cannot provide an inventive concept. The claim is not patent eligible.
Claim 19
Claim 19 recites the corresponding medium of the method of claim 1 wherein the medium of Claim 19 contains similar subject matter/limitations of the method of Claim 1. Therefore, the corresponding medium of Claim 19 is rejected under similar rationale found in the rejection of the method of Claim 1.
Dependent Claims 2-9, 11-18
As per dependent claim 2, the limitation of “…the second summary information is generated.…” is a process that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind and/or performed by a human with a pen/pencil and paper but for generic computer components but for the recitation of generic computer components. That is, “generated” in the context of this claim encompasses the user able to write a summary of the viewed content.
If a claim limitation, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind and/or performed by a human with a pen and paper but for the recitation of generic computer components, then it falls within the “Mental Processes” grouping of abstract ideas. Accordingly, the claim recites an abstract idea.
As per dependent claim 3, the limitation of “…the content type is determined based on the multimedia content or the second summary information..…” is a process that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind and/or performed by a human with a pen/pencil and paper but for generic computer components but for the recitation of generic computer components. That is, “content type” in the context of this claim encompasses the user able to realize if the content is a video, a graphic, or text by visually looking at the content.
If a claim limitation, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind and/or performed by a human with a pen and paper but for the recitation of generic computer components, then it falls within the “Mental Processes” grouping of abstract ideas. Accordingly, the claim recites an abstract idea.
The recitation of “the extended content is generated by a generative model based on a content type corresponding to the multimedia content and a candidate content” in the limitation also merely indicates a field of use or technological environment in which the judicial exception is performed. Although the additional elements “the extended content is generated by a generative model based on a content type corresponding to the multimedia content and a candidate content” limits the identified judicial exceptions in the limitation, this type of limitation merely confines the use of the abstract idea to a particular technological environment (generative AI) and thus fails to add an inventive concept to the claims. See MPEP 2106.05(h). Even when viewed in combination, these additional elements do not integrate the recited judicial exception into a practical application (Step 10 2A, Prong Two: NO), and the claim is directed to the judicial exception. (Step 2A: YES).
As per dependent claim 4, the limitation of “display the second summary information…” encompasses insignificant extra-solution activity. 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. The claim is directed to an abstract idea. The claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. As noted above, display(ing) information has been found by the courts to be well understood, routine, and conventional functionality (See OIP Techs., 788 F.3d at 1362-63, 115 USPQ2d at 1092-93.). Mere instructions to apply an exception using a generic computer component cannot provide an inventive concept. The claim is not patent eligible.
As per dependent claim 5, the limitation(s) of “…popping up a displaying window” and “display the generated summary information…” encompasses insignificant extra-solution activity. 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. The claim is directed to an abstract idea. The claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. As noted above, display(ing) information has been found by the courts to be well understood, routine, and conventional functionality (See OIP Techs., 788 F.3d at 1362-63, 115 USPQ2d at 1092-93.). Mere instructions to apply an exception using a generic computer component cannot provide an inventive concept. The claim is not patent eligible.
As per dependent claim 6, the limitation(s) of “…displaying a summary guidance control…” and “displaying …the generated summary information…” encompasses insignificant extra-solution activity. 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. The claim is directed to an abstract idea. The claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. As noted above, display(ing) information has been found by the courts to be well understood, routine, and conventional functionality (See OIP Techs., 788 F.3d at 1362-63, 115 USPQ2d at 1092-93.). Mere instructions to apply an exception using a generic computer component cannot provide an inventive concept. The claim is not patent eligible.
As per dependent claim 7, the limitation(s) of “…displaying… a search result page…” and “displaying …a content detail page…” encompasses insignificant extra-solution activity. 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. The claim is directed to an abstract idea. The claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. As noted above, display(ing) information has been found by the courts to be well understood, routine, and conventional functionality (See OIP Techs., 788 F.3d at 1362-63, 115 USPQ2d at 1092-93.). Mere instructions to apply an exception using a generic computer component cannot provide an inventive concept. The claim is not patent eligible.
As per dependent claim 8, the limitation of “…determining the browsing information.…” is a process that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind and/or performed by a human with a pen/pencil and paper but for generic computer components but for the recitation of generic computer components. That is, “determining” in the context of this claim encompasses the user able to see if someone is skimming through or reading the content.
Similarly, the limitation of “…determining the content consumption intention.…” is a process that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind and/or performed by a human with a pen/pencil and paper but for generic computer components but for the recitation of generic computer components. That is, “determining” in the context of this claim encompasses the user able to see if someone is interested in the content they are reading/viewing based on their body reactions, the time took to viewing the content, and/or if they fully read the content.
If a claim limitation, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind and/or performed by a human with a pen and paper but for the recitation of generic computer components, then it falls within the “Mental Processes” grouping of abstract ideas. Accordingly, the claim recites an abstract idea.
As per dependent claim 9, the multiple limitation of “…determining … the content consumption intention.…” is a process that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind and/or performed by a human with a pen/pencil and paper but for generic computer components but for the recitation of generic computer components. That is, “determining” in the context of this claim encompasses the user able to see if someone is interested in the content they are reading/viewing based on their body reactions, the time took to viewing the content, and/or if they fully read the content.
If a claim limitation, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind and/or performed by a human with a pen and paper but for the recitation of generic computer components, then it falls within the “Mental Processes” grouping of abstract ideas. Accordingly, the claim recites an abstract idea.
As per dependent claims 11-18, Claims 11-18 recite the corresponding electronic device form of the method form of claims 2-9 wherein the electronic device
of Claims 11-18 contains similar subject matter/limitations and (additional) elements of
the method of claims 2-9. Therefore, Claims 11-18 of the corresponding electronic
device are rejected under similar rationale found in the rejection of the method of claims 2-9.
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, 8-10, 17-19 are and 6 and 15 remain rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Jeon (US20150324376, 2015) in further view of Hwang (US20190042551, 2019)
As per independent claim 1, Jeon et al discloses a method comprising:
showing a first content page to display a multimedia content; (0038, 0047; FIG 3, S310: webpage having plurality of contents ( each content being a combination of text and graphics) is display)
determining a content consumption intention on the multimedia content based on browsing information corresponding to the first content page; (0049, 0050, 0055, 0075: moving speed of webpage according of scroll input by a user is determined and compared to a threshold to determine intention)
determining generated summary information adapted to the content consumption intention, wherein the target summary information is generated at least based on the multimedia content…; in response to the content consumption intention being a shallow consumption intention, the generated summary information is first summary information; in response to the content consumption intention being a deep consumption intention, the generated summary information is second summary information; and information content of the second summary information is larger than information content of the first summary information; and (FIG 3-4B, 7A-7B; 0051-055; 0058, 0076-0077: if the moving speed is above a certain threshold (e.g. scrolling fast), then displaying only first/partial information of each content such as title. If the moving speed is below the certain threshold, displaying only the first/partial information and plus additional information (title and detailed information)
displaying the generated summary information on the target content page. (FIG 3-4B, 7A-7B; 0051-055; 0058, 0076-0077)
Furthermore, the cited art, Jeon, fails to specifically disclose by at least inputting the multimedia content and the content consumption intention into a pre-trained generative model, and outputting and obtaining the generated summary information after model operation processing. However, Hwang discloses the user’s content consumption intent and document/content being sent to the document summary apparatus. (FIG 4-5, 9-10; 00118, 0164-0165, 0174) Hwang discloses the document summary apparatus is an AI learning model. (0046, 0050-0051; Claim 1) In addition, Hwang discloses consumption intention based on the desired length selected by the user or based on the user history information. Information about the user involves if the user is interested or not interested about the content of the document, a form of content consumption intention. (0051, 0164, 0166) In addition, setting the desired length for the summary indicates a content consumption intention also. (0050, 0173-0174) Thus, Hwang discloses an AI learning model that receives the determined consumption intention and the document and outputs summary information based on the input. The output is then provided to the user.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of Applicant’s invention to have modified the cited art with the disclosed features of Hwang since it would have provided the benefit of a user with various user experiences through a summarization function to summarize a document using a summarization model suitable for tendency of a user or intellectual capacity (0009, 0015)
As per dependent claim 6, the cited art fails to specifically disclose displaying a summary guidance control on the first content page; and displaying, in response to a trigger operation on the summary guidance control, the generated summary information in a preset area of the first content page. However, based on the rejection of Claim 1 and the rationale, along with the motivation, incorporated, Hwang discloses displaying a summary guidance control on the first content page; and displaying, in response to a trigger operation on the summary guidance control, the generated summary information in a preset area of the first content page (0162, 0180: a summary button appears for the user to select. Once the user selects the button, a summary is generated and appears on the screen (0176, 0182, 0189; FIG 12))
As per dependent claim 8, Jeon discloses determining the browsing information based on browsing behavior data on the first content page; and determining the content consumption intention based on a comparison result between the browsing information and a preset browsing threshold, wherein the browsing information comprises at least one of a content browsing progress, content browsing duration, and a content browsing speed. (0049, 0055: determine the scrolling input by the user viewing the webpage; form of browsing behavior. FIG 3-4B, 7A-7B; 0051-055; 0058, 0076-0077: if the moving speed is above a certain threshold (e.g. scrolling fast), then displaying only first/partial information of each content such as title.)
As per dependent claim 9, Jeon discloses determining the content consumption intention based on the comparison result between the browsing information and the preset browsing threshold comprises at least one of the following: determining, in response to the browsing information being the content browsing progress and the content browsing progress being smaller than a preset browsing progress, the content consumption intention as the shallow consumption intention; determining, in response to the browsing information being the content browsing progress and the content browsing progress being greater than or equal to the preset browsing progress, the content consumption intention as the deep consumption intention; determining, in response to the browsing information being the content browsing duration and the content browsing duration being smaller than preset browsing duration, the content consumption intention as the shallow consumption intention; determining, in response to the browsing information being the content browsing duration and the content browsing duration being greater than or equal to the preset browsing duration, the content consumption intention as the deep consumption intention; determining, in response to the browsing information being the content browsing speed and the content browsing speed being greater than or equal to a preset browsing speed, the content consumption intention as the shallow consumption intention; and determining, in response to the browsing information being the content browsing speed and the content browsing speed being less than the preset browsing speed, the content consumption intention as the deep consumption intention. and (FIG 3-4B, 7A-7B; 0051-055; 0058, 0076-0077: if the moving speed (content browsing speed) is above a certain threshold (e.g. scrolling fast), then displaying only first/partial information of each content such as title. If the moving speed is below the certain threshold, displaying only the first/partial information and plus second information (title and detailed information)
As per independent claim 10, Claim 10 recites similar limitations of Claim 1 and is rejected under similar rationale. Furthermore, Jeon discloses a processor and memory. (0035, 0085)
As per dependent claim 15, 17-18, Claims 15, 17-18 recites similar limitations of Claims 6, 8-9 and is rejected under similar rationale.
As per independent claim 19, Claim 19 recites similar limitations of Claim 1 and is rejected under similar rationale. Furthermore, Jeon discloses medium. (0035, 0107)
Claim(s) 2-4, 11-13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Jeon in further view of Hwang in further view of Ahlstrom et al (US20220179904, 6/2022)
As per dependent claim 2, Jeon discloses wherein in response to the content consumption intention being the deep consumption intention, the second summary information is generated based on the multimedia content (0053, 0059) However, the cited art fails to specifically disclose extended content related to the multimedia content. However, Ahlstrom et al discloses generating a summary of a multimedia content item that includes summary information, and in addition, keyword tags and links to related content (0035, 0048-0052, 0058-0060; FIG 2)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of Applicant’s invention to have modified the cited art with the disclosed features of Ahlstrom et al since it would have provided the benefit of provide a user with accurate information prior to viewing or consuming the content item and allow for rapid cross-platform dissemination and intelligent content curation. (0025)
As per dependent claim 3, Jeon fails to specifically disclose wherein the extended content is generated by a generative model based on a content type corresponding to the multimedia content and a candidate content; and the content type is determined based on the multimedia content or the second summary information. However, based on the rejection of Claim 2 and the rationale, along with the motivation incorporated, Ahlstrom et al discloses the extended content is generated by a generative model based on a content type corresponding to the multimedia content and a candidate content; and the content type is determined based on the multimedia content or the second summary information (As stated 0035, 0048-0052, 0058-0060; FIG 2, keyword tags and links to related content are generated based on the summary. Furthermore, 0025: classifying and recommending content items based on the corresponding tag… identifying related content items. 0033: machine learning algorithm may identify appropriate tags for the content item in order to classify the content item as related to other content items with the same tag…tag model (machine learning algorithm) (generative model) may classify the content item based on the generated text transcript into one or more tags or categories and associate the content item with the identified tag or tags. 0051: The tag model implements a machine learning algorithm to identify a set of tags associated with the text transcript of the content item. The tag model may be trained using a recognized set of tags and associated content items corresponding to each of the tags. In other words, Ahlstrom discloses using ML algorithm/model to generated tags and recommended links to related content based on the content platform and other content items. Therefore, based on the type of content (e.g. content category/platform) and other content, tags and links to recommended content are generated.)
As per dependent claim 4, Jeon fails to specifically disclose wherein displaying the second summary information and the extended content on the first content page, wherein the extended content comprises a key word tag and/or a webpage content. However, based on the rejection of Claim 2 and the rationale, along with the motivation incorporated, Ahlstrom et al discloses displaying the second summary information and the extended content on the first content page, wherein the extended content comprises a key word tag and/or a webpage content. (FIG 2; 0035; 0040-0041)
As per dependents claims 11-13, Claim 11-13 recites similar limitations of Claims 2-4 and is rejected under similar rationale.
Claim(s) 5, 14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Jeon in further view of Hwang in further view of Li et al (US 20170187813, 2017)
As per dependent claim 5, the cited art fails to specifically disclose in response to the browsing information being within a preset browsing range, popping up a display window at a preset position on the first content page and displaying the generated summary information within the display window. (It is noted that the language is silent on what “browsing information being within a preset browsing range” means; therefore, the BRI is applied. Under BRI, Li discloses a page of content items is being displayed. When a user hovers a cursor over a content item, a summary is displayed (e.g., via a pop-up window that includes a headline or the first few lines of text included in the content item (form of a summary). (0011) A skilled artisan would have realized the user moving their cursor around on a page is a form of browsing and when the cursor is over the content item, then that is considered “browsing information being within a preset browsing range” of the content. )
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of Applicant’s invention to have modified the cited art with the disclosed features of Li et al since it would have provided the intrinsic advantage of a cleaner, more minimalist design while still providing deep, contextual information when needed.
As per dependent claim 14, Claim 14 recites similar limitations of Claim 5 and is rejected under similar rationale.
Claim(s) 7 and 16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Jeon in further view of Hwang in further view of Ahlstrom et al in further view of Kang et al (US20160320950, 2016)
As per dependent claim 7, Jeon fails to specifically if the extended content includes the webpage content, displaying, in response to a trigger operation on the webpage content, a content detail page of the webpage content. However, based on the rejection of Claim 2 and the rationale, along with the motivation incorporated, Ahlstrom et al discloses if the extended content includes the webpage content, displaying, in response to a trigger operation on the webpage content, a content detail page of the webpage content. (FIG 2; 0035; 0041, 0052: FIG 2 discloses related clips/content comprising a list of displayed selectable links to other content items. One of a skilled artisan would have realized that when a user selects one of the displayed user-selectable links, then the user would be directed to the page/content corresponding to that selected link.)
However, the cited art fails to specifically disclose if the extended content includes the key word tag, displaying, in response to a trigger operation on the key word tag, a search result page corresponding to the triggered key word tag. However, Kang et al discloses when the user clicks on the displayed keyword tags, the server will provide the search result page corresponding to the keyword tags and display such information to the user. (0045-0046, 0062)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of Applicant’s invention to have modified the cited art with the disclosed features of Kang since it would have provided the benefit of improving the efficiency of target information lookup. (0046)
As per dependent claim 16, Claim 16 recites similar limitations of Claim 7 and is rejected under similar rationale.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 7/22/26 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
On pages 11-12, in regards to claims 1-19 rejected under 35 USC 101, Applicant argues Claim 1 has been amended to state “at least inputting the multimedia content and the content consumption intention into a pre-trained generative model, and outputting and obtaining the generated summary information after model operation processing”. Applicant argues that added limitation “requires generating the summary through model operation processing, rather than through human subjective judgment or writing. The AI model used is specifically trained, and thus is not merely a generic use scenario. Steps involving training and inference of a neural network cannot practically be performed by the human brain and therefore do not constitute a mental process. The operation processing of the "pre-trained generative model" in amended Claim 1 likewise cannot be performed in the human mind and should not be classified as a mental process.” Thus, in summary, Applicant argues since the added limitation/subject matter is not a mental process, the 101 rejection should be withdrawn. However, the Examiner disagrees overall.
In response, the Examiner agrees that amended argued claim limitation is not
considered a mental process and eligible under Step 2A, Prong 1. However, the Examiner respectfully states that Applicant’s invention does not result in integrating the
claimed abstract into a practical application being performed, particularly Step 2A,
Prong Two. In other words, the Examiner states that the added subject matter/limitation to claim recites judicial exception wherein Applicant’s invention recite additional elements that do not integrate claimed abstract into a practical application. In particular, this judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application:
by at least inputting the multimedia content and the content consumption intention into a pre-trained generative model, and outputting and obtaining the generated summary information after model operation processing
The “obtaining” limitation(s) is merely data gathering recited at a
high level of generality, and thus are insignificant extra-solution activity. See MPEP
2106.05(g) (“whether the limitation is significant”). Each of the “input” and “outputting” limitation(s) are merely post-solution steps of transmitting data recited at a high level of generality, and thus are insignificant extra-solution activity. See MPEP 2106.05(g) (“whether the limitation is significant”). In addition, all uses of the recited judicial exceptions require such data gathering and output, and, as such, these limitations do not impose any meaningful limits on the claim. These limitations amount to necessary data gathering and outputting. See MPEP 2106.05.
The recitation of “inputting the multimedia content and the content consumption intention into a pre-trained generative model” and “model operation processing” in the limitation also merely indicates a field of use or technological environment in which the judicial exception is performed. Although the additional elements of “inputting the multimedia content and the content consumption intention into a pre-trained generative model” and “model operation processing” limits the identified judicial exceptions in the limitation, this type of limitation merely confines the use of the abstract idea to a particular technological environment (document summarization) and thus fails to add an inventive concept to the claims. See MPEP 2106.05(h). Even when viewed in combination, these additional elements do not integrate the recited judicial exception into a practical application (Step 2A, Prong Two: NO), and the claim is directed to the judicial exception. (Step 2A: YES).
In addition, the claim recites these other additional elements: target content page to perform the showing, multiple determining, inputting, outputting, obtaining, generated and/or displaying steps. The target content page in the steps are recited at a high-level of generality (i.e., as a generic target content page performing a generic computer function of showing, multiple determining, inputting, outputting, obtaining, generated and/or displaying functionality) such that it amounts no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic component. Accordingly, these additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because it does not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. The claim is directed to an abstract idea.
Thus, Applicant’s argument(s) are not persuasive and the claim(s) recite an
abstract idea.
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claims 1,10, 19 have been considered but are moot because the arguments do not apply to the new ground(s) of rejection(s) since the new ground(s) of rejection(s) was necessitated by Applicant's amendment.
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
If the Applicant chooses to amend the claims in future filings, the Examiner kindly states any new limitation(s) added to the claims must be described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art in order to meet the written description requirement of 35 USC 112, first paragraph. To help expedite prosecution, promote compact prosecution and prevent a possible 112(a)/first paragraph rejection, the Examiner respectfully requests for each new limitation added to the claims in a future filing by the Applicant that the Applicant would cite the location within the specification showing support for that new limitation within the remarks. In addition, MPEP 2163.04(I)(B) states that a prima facie under 112(a)/first paragraph may be established if a claim has been added or amended, the support for the added limitation is not apparent, and applicant has not pointed out where added the limitation is supported.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to DAVID FABER whose telephone number is (571)272-2751. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Thursday.
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. Please refer to MPEP 713.09 for scheduling interviews after the mailing of this office action.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Adam Queler can be reached at 5712724140. 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.
/ADAM M QUELER/ Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2172
/D.F/ Examiner, Art Unit 2172
Prosecution Insights