DETAILED ACTION
This action is made in response to the Preliminary amendment filed on 07/31/2024. This action is made non-final.
Claims 11-29 are pending. Claims 11, 20 and 29 are independent claims.
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Claim Objections
Claims 11-29 are objected to because of the following informalities:
Regarding claim 11, claim 11 recites “a generative AI system” in line 2 of the claim which needs to be spelled out for clarity.
Regarding claim 20, claim 20 recites similar limitation “a generative AI system” in line 7 of the claim which also needs to be spelled out for clarity.
Regarding claim 29, claim 29 also recites limitation “a generative AI system” in line 5 of the claim which needs to be spelled out for clarity
Dependent claims 12-19, 21-28 are objected as incorporating the deficiencies of the claim upon which they depend.
Appropriate correction is required.
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 11-29 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.
As to claim 11,
Step 1 Analysis: Is the claim to a process, machine, manufacture or composition of matter? See MPEP § 2106.03.
Yes, the claim is directed to a process because claim 11 recites a method of providing web content for a plurality of users, which is within the statutory category of a process.
Step 2A Prong One Analysis: Does the claim recite an abstract idea, law of nature, or natural phenomenon? See MPEP § 2106.04(II)(A)(1).
Yes, the limitations:
“inputting a query to a generative AI system, wherein the query includes a plurality of keywords including a location identifier;
“receiving an output from the generative AI system based on the query, wherein the output includes text-based web content, image-based web content, audio-based web content, video-based web content, or a combination thereof;
inputting the revised query to the generative AI system, wherein the revised query includes an additional keyword based on the required criterion or an additional keyword based on the optimization criterion;
receiving a revised output of the web content from the generative AI system, wherein the revised output includes text-based web content, image-based web content, audio-based web content, video-based web content, or a combination thereof;”
as presently drafted, under the broadest reasonable interpretation, covers a method of organizing human activity (i.e., managing personal behavior including following rules or instructions) but for the recitation of generic computer components. That is, other than reciting “a generative AI system”; the claimed invention amounts to organizing human activity. The examiner further notes that “methods of organizing human activity” includes a person’s interaction with a computer (see October 2019 Update: Subject Matter Eligibility at Pg. 5). If the claim limitation, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers managing persona behavior or interactions between people but for the recitation of generic computer components, then it falls within the “method of organizing human activity” grouping of abstract ideas.
Yes, the limitations:
“analyzing the output to determine whether the output meets a required criterion;
analyzing the output to determine whether the output meets an optimization criterion;
forming a revised query for the generative AI system based on the results of the analysis against the required criterion and against the optimization criterion;”
as presently drafted, under the broadest reasonable interpretation, is the abstract idea of a mental process that can practically be performed in the human mind, with or without the use of a physical aid such as pen and paper (including an observation, evaluation, judgment, opinion). See MPEP § 2106.04(a)(2)(III).
Yes, the limitations:
“storing the revised output of the web content at a server for retrieval by a user.”
as presently drafted, under the broadest reasonable interpretation, is mere insignificant extra solution activity and something the courts have recognized as being well-understood, routine and conventional.
Accordingly, the claim recites an abstract idea.
Step 2A Prong Two Analysis: Does the claim recite additional elements that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application? See MPEP § 2106.04(d).
No, the limitations:
“inputting a query to a generative AI system, wherein the query includes a plurality of keywords including a location identifier;
“receiving an output from the generative AI system based on the query, wherein the output includes text-based web content, image-based web content, audio-based web content, video-based web content, or a combination thereof;
inputting the revised query to the generative AI system, wherein the revised query includes an additional keyword based on the required criterion or an additional keyword based on the optimization criterion;
receiving a revised output of the web content from the generative AI system, wherein the revised output includes text-based web content, image-based web content, audio-based web content, video-based web content, or a combination thereof;”
The additional elements merely amount to instructions to apply the exception using generic computer components (“generative AI system”—all recited at a high level of generality). Although they have and execute instructions to perform the abstract idea itself, this also does not serve to integrate the abstract idea into a practical application as it merely amounts to instructions to "apply it." (See MPEP 2106.04(d)(2) indicating mere instructions to apply an abstract idea does not amount to integrating the abstract idea into a practical application).
No, the limitations:
“analyzing the output to determine whether the output meets a required criterion;
analyzing the output to determine whether the output meets an optimization criterion;
forming a revised query for the generative AI system based on the results of the analysis against the required criterion and against the optimization criterion;”
are additional elements that generally link the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use. See MPEP §§ 2106.04(d), 2106.05(h).
No, the limitation:
“storing the revised output of the web content at a server for retrieval by a user”
is an additional element that generally links the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use. See MPEP §§ 2106.04(d), 2106.05(h).
Accordingly, the additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because they do not impose meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. Therefore, the claims are directed to an abstract idea.
Step 2B Analysis: Does the claim recite additional elements that amount to significantly more than the judicial exception? See MPEP § 2106.05.
No. The claims do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception for the same reasons as presented in Step 2A Prong 2. Moreover, the additional elements recited are known and conventional generic computing elements (“generative AI system”, describing the various components as general purpose, common, standard, known to one of ordinary skill, and at a high level of generality, and in a manner that indicates that the additional elements are sufficiently well-known that the specification does not need to describe the particulars of such additional elements to satisfy the statutory disclosure requirements). Therefore, these additional elements amount 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 that amounts to significantly more. See MPEP 2106.05(f).
The Federal Circuit has recognized that "an invocation of already-available computers that are not themselves plausibly asserted to be an advance, for use in carrying out improved mathematical calculations, amounts to a recitation of what is 'well-understood, routine, [and] conventional.'" SAP Am., Inc. v. InvestPic, LLC, 890 F.3d 1016, 1023 (Fed. Cir. 2018) (alteration in original) (citing Mayo v. Prometheus, 566 U.S. 66, 73 (2012)). Apart from the instructions to implement the abstract idea, they only serve to perform well-understood functions (e.g., receiving, translating, and displaying data—see Specification above as well as Alice Corp.; Intellectual Ventures I LLC v. Symantec Corp., 838 F.3d 1307 (Fed. Cir. 2016); and Versata Dev. Group, Inc. v. SAP Am., Inc., 793 F.3d 1306, 1334 (Fed. Cir. 2015) covering the well-known nature of these computer functions).
As to claim 12-19. The claims depend on claim 11 and includes all the limitations of claim 11. Therefore, claims 12-19 recite the same abstract idea. The claims recite additional limitations directed, but do not otherwise add any meaningful limits beyond the abstract idea.
As to claim 20-29, claims 20-29 are rejected for the similar reasons discussed above with respect to claim 1. Claims 20-28 recite a computing apparatus for providing web content for a plurality of users, which is within the statutory class of a machine. Claim 29 recites a non-transitory computer storage medium encoded with a computer program…for providing web content for a plurality of users, which is within the statutory class of a composition of matter. The claims do not recite additional elements that amount to significantly more than the judicial exception.
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.
Claims 11-29 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ding et al. (US 2023/0177254 A1; hereinafter Ding) in view of Wilde et al (US 2024/0303415 A1; hereinafter Wilde).
As to claim 11, Ding teaches:
A method of providing web content for a plurality of users (see ¶ 0007), the method comprising:
inputting a query to a generative AI system (see ¶ 0031; in response to a request [~query] for the web page, content platform 100 constructs the requested page from the plurality of atomic elements. While constructing the web page, content platform 100 can generate dynamic content based on one or more atomic elements, apply personalization algorithms to one or more atomic elements, use machine learning to select additional atomic elements or other content to include in the web page, and/or the like), wherein the query includes a plurality of keywords including a location identifier (¶ 0078-0079; page building engine selects machine learning models based on one or more of the content generation parameters [~keywords]. ¶ 0032, 0034; parameters associated with a web page includes but not limited to content included in a web page, title, tags …. ¶ 0039; the editor can specify one or more parameters used to generate the dynamic content, such as content type (e.g., text, video, image, list or feed, gallery, and/or the like), types of user information (e.g., favorited content items, watch history, location, preferred content types, preferred media genres, and/or the like). Examiner notes that “location identifier” is non-functional descriptive material which does not carry any patentable weight. See In re Gulack, 703 F.2d 1381, 1386 (Fed. Cir. 1983); see also In re Ngai, 367 F. 3d 1336, 1338 (Fed. Cir. 2004));
receiving an output from the generative AI system based on the query, wherein the output includes text-based web content, image-based web content, audio-based web content, video-based web content, or a combination thereof (see ¶ 0031; constructed the requested web page. ¶ 0033, 0036-0037, 0039; web page content includes video, text, media).
Ding does not appear to teach, but Wilde is relied upon for teaching the limitations:
analyzing the output to determine whether the output meets a required criterion (see Fig. 2C and ¶ 0035-0036; the user can edit content generated by a generative model [after determining if the generated content meets a requirement]);
analyzing the output to determine whether the output meets an optimization criterion (see Fig. 2C and ¶ 0035-0036; The user can collaborate with the AI to refine the collaborative content in a couple of ways. First, the user may directly edit the collaborative content included in the content pane 240, and the edited content is provided as a subsequent prompt to the generative model to further refine the generated content [after determining if the content meets an optimization criteria]);
forming a revised query for the generative AI system based on the results of the analysis against the required criterion and against the optimization criterion (see 2C and ¶ 0035-0036; The user can collaborate with the AI to refine the collaborative content in a couple of ways. First, the user may directly edit the collaborative content included in the content pane 240, and the edited content is provided as a subsequent prompt to the generative model to further refine the generated content. Second, the user may enter a textual prompt in the prompt field 215, in manner similar to that shown in the user interface 205. As will be shown in the examples which follow, the user may both edit the collaborative content and provide a textual prompt in the prompt field 215 to provide as an input to the generative model);
inputting the revised query to the generative AI system, wherein the revised query includes an additional keyword based on the required criterion or an additional keyword based on the optimization criterion (see 2C and ¶ 0035-0036; the user may both edit the collaborative content and provide a textual prompt in the prompt field 215 to provide as an input to the generative model. Once the user is satisfied with their edits to the collaborative content of the content pane 240 and/or the textual prompt, the user can click on or otherwise activate the submit option 220 to cause the revised collaborative content and/or the textual prompt from the prompt field 215 to be submitted to the generative model);
receiving a revised output of the web content from the generative AI system, wherein the revised output includes text-based web content, image-based web content, audio-based web content, video-based web content, or a combination thereof (see 2C and ¶ 0035-0036; the user may both edit the collaborative content and provide a textual prompt in the prompt field 215 to provide as an input to the generative model. Once the user is satisfied with their edits to the collaborative content of the content pane 240 and/or the textual prompt, the user can click on or otherwise activate the submit option 220 to cause the revised collaborative content and/or the textual prompt from the prompt field 215 to be submitted to the generative model. ¶ 0046; The GPT model 466 analyzes these inputs and outputs collaborative content based on these inputs); and
storing the revised output of the web content at a server for retrieval by a user (see Fig. 4 and ¶ 0046; the request processing unit 432 associates the attribution information with the content so that the user and/or collaborators can determine whether a human user or the AI generated a particular portion of the content. The request processing unit 432 can keep track of changes made by a human user or the AI by comparing a previous version of the collaborative content with a current version of the collaborative content that has been modified by a user via the collaboration application 414 or by GPI model 466 of the AI services 460. The attribution information is associated with the collaborative content and is stored in a persistent collaborative content datastore, such as workspace datastore used by the collaborative platform 410 to store information about workspaces and the collateral items associates with each of the workspaces).
Wilde further teaches wherein the query includes a plurality of keywords including a location identifier (see Figs. 2A-2C and ¶ 0033; the user can enter a textual prompt in the prompt field to submit the generative model, the textual prompt can include any non-functional descriptive language including location identifier as shown in Fig. 2D “at home”)
Both references each discloses a mechanism for generating content using artificial intelligence; therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify the mechanism of Ding to include the features of refining input data to generate a refined output as suggested by Wilde to allow the users to achieve the desired output; thus, improve the user experience when generating content using AI (Wilde: see ¶ 0001).
As to claim 12, the rejection of claim 11 is incorporated. Ding and Wilde further teach:
receiving a request for the web content from the user, wherein the request includes the location identifier (Ding: see ¶ 0031; in response to a request for the web page. ¶ 0039; the editor can specify one or more parameters used to generate the dynamic content, such as content type (e.g., text, video, image, list or feed, gallery, and/or the like), types of user information (e.g., favorited content items, watch history, location, preferred content types, preferred media genres, and/or the like);
analyzing the location identifier to identify a first portion of the web content that corresponds to the query (Ding: see ¶ 0045; static section);
generating, at the server, a second portion of the web content that corresponds to the query based on live data (Ding: see ¶ 0039; a web page includes dynamic content such as placeholder sections or placeholder content items that are not explicitly defined by the editor; the dynamic content can be content related to types of user information including location; pre-defined dynamic sections could include a section that lists the most popular articles, a section that lists the newest articles, a section that lists trending articles, a section that lists articles suggested for the user requesting the web page, a section that displays videos associated with the content of the web page (e.g., a specific person, movie, tv show, and/or the like), a section that summarizes the content of the web page, and/or the like); and
providing the first portion of the web content and the second portion of the web content to the user as a web page in response to the request (Ding: see ¶ 0031, 0039, 0045; construct requested web page).
As to claim 13, the rejection of claim 11 is incorporated. Ding and Wilde further teach:
wherein the required criterion includes a predetermined level of accuracy of the output, a predetermined level of completeness of the output, or a combination thereof (Wilde: see ¶ 0036; until the user is satisfied with the output/edits). Thus, combining Ding and Wilde would meet the claimed limitations for the same reasons as set forth in claim 11.
As to claim 14, the rejection of claim 11 is incorporated. Ding and Wilde further teach:
the optimization criterion includes obtaining an indexation and a presence in a search engine ranking for the web content (Ding: see ¶ 0149; the request for a web page comprises result ranking methods (e.g., most relevant, most popular, newest, and so forth)).
As to claim 15, the rejection of claim 14 is incorporated. Ding and Wilde further teach:
wherein the search engine ranking is based on a keyword extracted from the web content or a keyword defined in a related user search (Ding: see ¶ 0149; the request for a web page comprises result ranking methods (e.g., most relevant, most popular, newest, and so forth)).
As to claim 16, the rejection of claim 11 is incorporated. Ding and Wilde further teach:
wherein forming the revised query based on the results of the analysis comprises: adding keywords to the query so that the revised output of the web content meets the required criterion or the optimization criterion (Wilde: see 2C and ¶ 0035-0036; the user may both edit the collaborative content and provide a textual prompt in the prompt field 215 to provide as an input to the generative model. Once the user is satisfied with their edits to the collaborative content of the content pane 240 and/or the textual prompt, the user can click on or otherwise activate the submit option 220 to cause the revised collaborative content and/or the textual prompt from the prompt field 215 to be submitted to the generative model). Thus, combining Ding and Wilde would meet the claimed limitations for the same reasons as set forth in claim 11.
As to claim 17, the rejection of claim 11 is incorporated. Ding and Wilde further teach: wherein the location identifier comprises an identifier of an airport or an identifier of a city, and the method further comprises: generating the plurality of keywords to input into the query based on a region surrounding the airport or the city (Ding: see ¶ 0031; in response to a request for the web page. ¶ 0039; the editor can specify one or more parameters used to generate the dynamic content, such as content type (e.g., text, video, image, list or feed, gallery, and/or the like), types of user information (e.g., favorited content items, watch history, location, preferred content types, preferred media genres, and/or the like. Examiner notes that “location identifier” is non-functional descriptive material which does not carry any patentable weight. See In re Gulack, 703 F.2d 1381, 1386 (Fed. Cir. 1983); see also In re Ngai, 367 F. 3d 1336, 1338 (Fed. Cir. 2004). Wilde. see Figs. 2A-2C and ¶ 0033; the user can enter a textual prompt in the prompt field to submit the generative model, the textual prompt can include any non-functional descriptive language including location identifier as shown in Fig. 2D “at home”). Thus, combining Ding and Wilde would meet the claimed limitations for the same reasons as set forth in claim 11.
As to claim 18, the rejection of claim 11 is incorporated. Ding and Wilde further teach:
wherein the query or the revised query is based on a previously-generated portion of web content (Wilde: see 2C and ¶ 0035-0036; the user may both edit the collaborative content and provide a textual prompt in the prompt field 215 to provide as an input to the generative model. Once the user is satisfied with their edits to the collaborative content of the content pane 240 and/or the textual prompt, the user can click on or otherwise activate the submit option 220 to cause the revised collaborative content and/or the textual prompt from the prompt field 215 to be submitted to the generative model). Thus, combining Ding and Wilde would meet the claimed limitations for the same reasons as set forth in claim 11.
As to claim 19, the rejection of claim 11 is incorporated. Ding and Wilde further teach:
wherein the query or the revised query is based on data relating to search queries submitted by the plurality of users (Wilde: see 2C and ¶ 0035-0036; the user may both edit the collaborative content and provide a textual prompt in the prompt field 215 to provide as an input to the generative model. Once the user is satisfied with their edits to the collaborative content of the content pane 240 and/or the textual prompt, the user can click on or otherwise activate the submit option 220 to cause the revised collaborative content and/or the textual prompt from the prompt field 215 to be submitted to the generative model. ¶ 0024-0026; The user may then click on or otherwise select a highlighted keyword to cause the collaboration platform to conduct a search for candidate collateral items. The candidate collateral items are presented in the content pane 148. In other implementations, the collaboration platform automatically conducts a search for the candidate collateral items in response to the user adding or modifying textual content of the textual description field 142). Thus, combining Ding and Wilde would meet the claimed limitations for the same reasons as set forth in claim 11.
As to claims 20-28, claims 20-28 are directed to a computing apparatus for providing web content for a plurality of users, the computing apparatus comprising: one or more processors; and one or more memory devices coupled to the one or more processors, wherein the one or more memory devices contain a plurality of program instructions that, when executed by the one or more processors, cause the computing apparatus to perform the method steps as claimed in claims 11-19, respectively; therefore, are rejected under similar rationale. (Ding: see ¶ 0028-0030, 0203, 0212).
As to claim 29, claim 29 is directed to a non-transitory computer storage medium encoded with a computer program, the computer program comprising a plurality of program instructions that when executed by one or more processors cause the one or more processors to perform operations to perform the method steps as claimed in claim 11; therefore, is rejected under similar rationale. (Ding: see ¶ 0203-0212)
Conclusion
The prior art made of record on form PTO-892 and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Applicant is required under 37 C.F.R. § 1.111(c) to consider these references fully when responding to this action.
It is noted that any citation to specific, pages, columns, lines, or figures in the prior art references and any interpretation of the references should not be considered to be limiting in any way. A reference is relevant for all it contains and may be relied upon for all that it would have reasonably suggested to one having ordinary skill in the art. In re Heck, 699 F.2d 1331, 1332-33,216 USPQ 1038, 1039 (Fed. Cir. 1983) (quoting In re Lemelson, 397 F.2d 1006,1009, 158 USPQ 275,277 (CCPA 1968)).
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to TUYETLIEN T TRAN whose telephone number is (571)270-1033. The examiner can normally be reached M-F: 8:00 AM - 8:00 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, Irete (Fred) Ehichioya can be reached on 571-272-4034. 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.
/TUYETLIEN T TRAN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2179
Prosecution Insights