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 the application filed on 14 August 2024.
This office action is made Non Final.
Claims 1-20 are pending. Claims 1, 8, and 16 are independent claims.
Drawings
The drawings filed on 8/14/24 has been accepted
Specification
The specification, including the abstract, filed on 8/14/24 has been accepted
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 1-20 are 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 of “determining, by the semantic zoom tool, a plurality of semantic zoom levels for displaying dynamic abstractive text summarizations of the document in a semantic zoom operation of an application, the plurality of semantic zoom levels including at least a first semantic zoom level and a second semantic zoom level, where the second semantic zoom level corresponds to an amount of textual information that is less than the first semantic zoom level” 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 the recitation of generic computer components. That is, other than reciting “semantic zoom tool” and “application”, 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. For example, but for the “semantic zoom tool” and “application” language, “determining” in the context of this claim encompasses the user manually indicate that they want two different forms of summaries with one being longer than the other.
Similarly, the limitation of “causing, via the semantic zoom level, …generate a first dynamic abstractive text summarization corresponding to the first semantic zoom level and a second dynamic abstractive text summarization corresponding to the second semantic zoom level” 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 the recitation of generic computer components. That is, but for the “semantic zoom tool” language, “generate” in the context of this claim encompasses the user manually able write two different summaries on paper with a pen/pencil where one is more detailed.
Similarly, the limitation of “…allow the application to replace at least a portion of the document with the first dynamic abstractive text summarization or the second dynamic abstractive text summarization in response to obtaining a user input associated with the first semantic zoom level or the second semantic zoom level” 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 the recitation of generic computer components. That is, but for “application”, “replace” in the context of this claim encompasses the user manually able to erase previous writing(s) on paper using a pencil and write new different writing(s) in the same area.
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:
obtaining, by a semantic zoom tool, a document
displaying dynamic abstractive text summarizations of the document in a semantic zoom operation of an application
causing, via the semantic zoom tool, a machine learning model to generate…
providing, by the semantic zoom tool to the application, the first dynamic abstractive text summarization and the second dynamic abstractive text summarization to allow the application to replace at least a portion of the document with the first dynamic abstractive text summarization or the second dynamic abstractive text summarization in response to obtaining a user input associated with the first semantic zoom level or the second semantic zoom level.
The “obtaining” limitation(s) mere 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”). The “provide” limitation(s) are merely post-solution steps of transmitting data recited at a high level of generality, and thus are insignificant extra-solution activity. In addition, all uses of the recited judicial exceptions require such data gathering and/or transmitting data, as such, these limitations do not impose any meaningful limits on the claim. These limitation(s) amount to necessary data gathering or transmitting data. See MPEP 2106.05. The semantic zoom tool in the limitation is claimed at a high level of generality such that the semantic zoom tool is used as tool to perform the generic computer function of gathering or transmitting data. See MPEP 2106.05(f).
The “displaying” 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 recitation of “causing, via the semantic zoom tool, a machine learning model to generate a first dynamic abstractive text summarization …and a second dynamic abstractive text summarization…” limitation also merely indicates a field of use or technological environment in which the judicial exception is performed. Although the additional elements “generate a first dynamic abstractive text summarization …and a second dynamic abstractive text summarization” 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 (natural language 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 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 – semantic zoom tool and application to perform obtaining, displaying, generate, providing, and replace steps. The semantic zoom tool and application in the steps are recited at a high-level of generality (i.e., as a generic processor performing a generic computer function of obtaining, displaying, generate, providing, and replace 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 “providing”, 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 recitation and use of the semantic zoom tool and application in the providing and/or obtaining steps amounts to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component. Even when considered in combination, these additional elements represent mere instructions to implement an abstract idea or other exception on a processing and insignificant extra-solution activity, which do not provide an inventive concept.
The displaying limitation is 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 element(s) of using the semantic zoom tool and application to perform obtaining, displaying, generate, providing, and replace 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 8
Step 2A, Prong 1:
The limitation of “causing…generate a dynamic abstractive text summarization at the first semantic zoom level of the document, where the dynamic abstractive text summarization includes less text than the textual 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 the recitation of generic computer components. That is, nothing in the claim element precludes the step “generate” from practically being performed in the mind and/or performed by a human with a pen and paper. For example, “generate” in the context of this claim encompasses the user manually able write different summaries on paper with a pen/pencil.
Similarly, the limitation of “modifying the user interface…” 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 the recitation of generic computer components. That is, but for the “the user interface” language, “modifying” in the context of this claim encompasses the user manually able make changes to existing written text/data on paper using a pencil.
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:
causing a user interface of an application to display a document including textual information
obtaining, via a user interface element, a selection of a first semantic zoom level of a plurality of semantic zoom levels
causing a machine learning model to generate a dynamic abstractive text summarization…
modifying the user interface of the application to display the dynamic abstractive text summarization.
The “obtaining” limitation(s) are mere 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”). These limitation(s) amount to necessary data gathering or transmitting data. See MPEP 2106.05. The user interface element in the limitation is claimed at a high level of generality such that the user interface element is used as tool to perform the generic computer function of gathering or transmitting data. See MPEP 2106.05(f).
The “displaying” limitation(s) are 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 user interface and application in the displays limitation is claimed at a high level of generality such that the user interface and application is used as a tool to perform the generic computer function of displaying data. See MPEP 2106.05(f).
The recitation of “causing a machine learning model to generate a dynamic abstractive text summarization…” limitation also merely indicates a field of use or technological environment in which the judicial exception is performed. Although the additional elements “generate a dynamic abstractive text summarization …and a second dynamic abstractive text summarization” 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 (natural language 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 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 – medium, processing device, user interface, user interface element, and application to perform obtaining, display(x2), and modifying steps. The medium, processing device, user interface, user interface element, and application in the steps are recited at a high-level of generality (i.e., as a generic medium, processing device, user interface and application performing a generic computer function of obtaining, display(x2), and modifying 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.
The “obtaining” limitation(s) 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 recitation and use of the user interface element in the providing and/or obtaining steps amounts to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component. Even when considered in combination, these additional elements represent mere instructions to implement an abstract idea or other exception on a processing and insignificant extra-solution activity, which do not provide an inventive concept.
The display limitation(s) 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 element(s) of using the user interface element to perform obtaining, display(x2), and modifying 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 16
Step 2A, Prong 1:
The limitation of “determining a plurality of semantic zoom levels associated with the document” 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 the recitation of generic computer components. That is, other than reciting “processing device” and “memory”, 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. For example, but for the “processing device” and “memory” language, “determining” in the context of this claim encompasses the user manually indicate that they want different forms of summaries for a document.
Similarly, the limitation of “causing…generate a plurality of dynamic abstractive text summarizations corresponding to the document at the plurality of semantic zoom levels” 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 the recitation of generic computer components. That is, but for the “processing device” and “memory” language, “generate” in the context of this claim encompasses the user manually able write a plurality of different summaries on paper with a pen/pencil.
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:
obtaining a document from an application
displaying dynamic abstractive text summarizations of the document in a semantic zoom operation of an application
causing, via the semantic zoom tool, a machine learning model to generate a plurality of dynamic abstractive text summarizations…
providing the plurality of dynamic abstractive text summarizations to the application.
The “obtaining” limitation(s) mere 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”). The “providing” limitation(s) are merely post-solution steps of transmitting data recited at a high level of generality, and thus are insignificant extra-solution activity. In addition, all uses of the recited judicial exceptions require such data gathering and/or transmitting data, as such, these limitations do not impose any meaningful limits on the claim. These limitation(s) amount to necessary data gathering or transmitting data. See MPEP 2106.05. The application in the limitation(s) is claimed at a high level of generality such that the application is used as tool to perform the generic computer function of gathering or transmitting data. See MPEP 2106.05(f).
The “displaying” 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 recitation of “causing a machine learning model to generate a plurality of dynamic abstractive text summarization…” limitation also merely indicates a field of use or technological environment in which the judicial exception is performed. Although the additional elements “generate a first dynamic abstractive text summarization …and a second dynamic abstractive text summarization” 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 (natural language 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 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 – memory, processing device, and application to perform obtaining, displaying, generate and providing steps. The memory, processing device, and application in the steps are recited at a high-level of generality (i.e., as a generic memory, processing device, and application performing a generic computer function of obtaining, displaying, generate, and providing 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 “providing”, 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 recitation and use of the application in the providing and/or obtaining steps amounts to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component. Even when considered in combination, these additional elements represent mere instructions to implement an abstract idea or other exception on a processing and insignificant extra-solution activity, which do not provide an inventive concept.
The displaying limitation is 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 element(s) of using the memory, processing device, and application to perform obtaining, displaying, generate, providing, 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.
Dependent claims 2-7, 9-15, 17-20
As per dependent claim 2, the limitation “plurality of semantic zoom levels are determined based on a structure of the document” 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 but for the recitation of generic computer components. That is, “determined” in the context of this claim encompasses the user be able to identify chapters, sections, titles etc in making a summary.
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 (s) 3-5, 7, 14, each claim does not appear to add additional elements beyond those described in claim 1 or 8. The claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. 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 of “causing…generate … abstractive text summarizations” 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 the recitation of generic computer components. That is, “generate” in the context of this claim encompasses the user manually able write a plurality of different summaries on paper with a pen/pencil.
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.
In addition, the limitation of “obtaining a selection of text…” 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, receiving information has been found by the courts to be well understood, routine, and conventional functionality (See e.g. buySAFE, Inc. v. Google, Inc.). Mere instructions to apply an exception using a generic computer component cannot provide an inventive concept. The claim is not patent eligible.
In addition, the recitation of “causing a machine learning model to generate a …abstractive text summarization…” limitation also merely indicates a field of use or technological environment in which the judicial exception is performed. Although the additional elements “generate a …abstractive text summarization” 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 (natural language 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 2A, Prong Two: NO), and the claim is directed to the judicial exception. (Step 2A: YES).
As per dependent claim 9, the limitation of “replacing a portion…” 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 the recitation of generic computer components. That is, “generate” in the context of this claim encompasses the user manually able to erase previous writing(s) on paper using a pencil and write new different writing(s) in the same area.
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 10, the limitation of “generate…the summarization is perform prior..” 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 the recitation of generic computer components. That is, “performed prior” in the context of this claim encompasses the user manually able to determine when to create a summary when making a list of actions to perform.
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.
In addition, the limitation of “obtaining the document…” 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, receiving information has been found by the courts to be well understood, routine, and conventional functionality (See e.g. buySAFE, Inc. v. Google, Inc.). 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 11, the limitation of “causing…generate … abstractive text summarizations” 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 the recitation of generic computer components. That is, “generate” in the context of this claim encompasses the user manually able write a plurality of different summaries on paper with a pen/pencil.
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.
In addition, the recitation of “causing a machine learning model to generate a plurality of…abstractive text summarization…” limitation also merely indicates a field of use or technological environment in which the judicial exception is performed. Although the additional elements “generate a plurality of …abstractive text summarization” 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 (natural language 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 2A, Prong Two: NO), and the claim is directed to the judicial exception. (Step 2A: YES).
As per dependent claim 12, the limitation of “selecting…a portion of the document” 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 the recitation of generic computer components. That is, but for the “cursor”, “selecting” in the context of this claim encompasses the user manually able underline/choose text on paper that is deemed important.
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.
In addition, the limitation of “…contextual user interface element that is displayed in the user interface …;” 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(ed) information has been found by the courts to be well understood, routine, and conventional functionality (See e.g. 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 13, the limitation of “select the first semantic zoom level” 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 the recitation of generic computer components. That is, but for the “cursor”, “selecting” in the context of this claim encompasses the user manually able to choose an option from a list of options.
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 15, “modifying the user interface…” 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 the recitation of generic computer components. That is, but for the “the user interface” language, “modifying” in the context of this claim encompasses the user manually able make changes to existing written text/data on paper using a pencil.
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.
In addition, the limitation “ “obtaining…” 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, receiving information has been found by the courts to be well understood, routine, and conventional functionality (See e.g. buySAFE, Inc. v. Google, Inc.). Mere instructions to apply an exception using a generic computer component cannot provide an inventive concept. The claim is not patent eligible.
In addition, the limitation of “…display… summarization …;” 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(ed) information has been found by the courts to be well understood, routine, and conventional functionality (See e.g. 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 17, the limitation of “selecting…a portion of the document” 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 the recitation of generic computer components. That is, but for the “cursor”, “selecting” in the context of this claim encompasses the user manually able underline/choose text on paper that is deemed important.
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.
In addition, the limitation of “modify a display …;” 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(ed) information has been found by the courts to be well understood, routine, and conventional functionality (See e.g. 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 18, the limitation “determining a set of speakers” 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 but for the recitation of generic computer components. That is, “determined” in the context of this claim encompasses the user be able to identify people who spoke by reading the names on a paper/brochure.
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 19, the limitation “determining a structure of the document” 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 but for the recitation of generic computer components. That is, “determined” in the context of this claim encompasses the user be able to identify chapters, sections, titles etc. for making a summary.
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 20, the limitation of “determining a first semantic zoom level…and a second semantic zoom level” 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 the recitation of generic computer components. That is, other than reciting “semantic zoom tool” and “application”, 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. For example, but for the “semantic zoom tool” and “application” language, “determining” in the context of this claim encompasses the user manually indicate that they want two different forms of summaries with one being longer than the other.
In addition, the recitation of “causes the machine learning model to generate a…abstractive text summarization…” limitation also merely indicates a field of use or technological environment in which the judicial exception is performed. Although the additional elements “generate a …abstractive text summarization” 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 (natural language 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 2A, Prong Two: NO), and the claim is directed to the judicial exception. (Step 2A: YES).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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 the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claim(s) 1-3, 5-11, 13-16, 18-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Gardner et al (US12008332, pub. 6/11/2024) .
As per independent claim 1, Gardner et al discloses a method comprising
obtaining, by a semantic zoom tool, a document; (col 6, ll. 7-14; col 7, ll. 47-50; col 8, ll. 63 – col 9, ll. 2; col. 12, ll. 58-60; col 13, ll. 19-42: loading a document. All of the original text (such as from the document) is sent to the LLM, the semantic zoom tool )
determining, by the semantic zoom tool, a plurality of semantic zoom levels for displaying dynamic abstractive text summarizations of the document in a semantic zoom operation of an application, the plurality of semantic zoom levels including at least a first semantic zoom level and a second semantic zoom level, where the second semantic zoom level corresponds to an amount of textual information that is less than the first semantic zoom level; (Col 13, ll. 9-19; Col 17; ll. 13-27; Col 19, ll. 32-63; Col 27, ll. 11-20; Col 31, ll. 10 – Col 32, ll. Col39, ll. 39-45: a level of abstraction among many levels of abstraction may be selected wherein a first level of abstraction has more textual information than a second level of abstraction)
causing, via the semantic zoom tool, a machine learning model to generate a first dynamic abstractive text summarization corresponding to the first semantic zoom level and a second dynamic abstractive text summarization corresponding to the second semantic zoom level: Col 13, ll. 9-19; Col 17; ll. 13-27; Col 19, ll. 32-63; Col 27, ll. 11-20; Col 29, ll. 53- Col. 30. ll 8; Col 32, ll. 64 – Col 33, ll. 32; Col39, ll. 39-45: different levels of abstraction based on the predetermined (and selected) zoom levels are generated by the LLM. LLM are machine learning models (Col 1; ll. 18-23)
providing, by the semantic zoom tool to the application, the first dynamic abstractive text summarization and the second dynamic abstractive text summarization to allow the application to replace at least a portion of the document with the first dynamic abstractive text summarization or the second dynamic abstractive text summarization in response to obtaining a user input associated with the first semantic zoom level or the second semantic zoom level. (Col 13, ll. 9-19; Col 17; ll. 13-27; Col 19, ll. 32-63; Col 27, ll. 11-25; Col 29, ll. 53- Col. 30. ll 8; Col39, ll. 39-45: the generated level of abstraction is sent to the client from the LLM and displayed. FIG 5A-5C show the display of different level of abstraction of the document)
As per dependent claim 2, Gardner et al discloses the plurality of semantic zoom levels are determined based on a structure of the document. (Col 17, ll. 15-27; Col 24, ll. 12-14; Col 31, ll. 26-34, Col 59, ll. 24-67: Discloses level of abstraction regarding legal contracts involve summarize lengthy, complex legal contracts into various levels of detail—from highly condensed overviews to clause-by-clause breakdowns. Form of plurality of semantic zoom levels are determined based on a structure of the document)
As per dependent claim 3, Gardner et al discloses the structure of the document corresponds to a set of speakers identified in the document. (Col 40, ll. 58- Col 41, ll. 57: the summaries generated by the LLM of the transcript of a sales call between a sale representative and the client include both entities (form of speakers). Thus, in order for both entities to be in the summaries, the entities had to be determined first within the transcript.
As per dependent claim 5, Gardner et al discloses wherein the second dynamic abstractive text summarization includes less text than the first dynamic abstractive text summarization. (Col 17, ll. 15-27; Col 29, ll. 53- Col. 30. ll 8; FIG 5A, 5B: level of abstraction of a decreased zoom level has less text )
As per dependent claim 6, Gardner et al discloses obtaining a selection of text from the document and an indication of the first semantic zoom level; and causing the machine learning model to generate a third dynamic abstractive text summarization of the selection of text corresponding to the first semantic zoom level. (Note: the Examiner respectfully states that the language is silent on how the selection of text and the indication of the zoom level are obtained; therefore, the BRI is applied. col. 12, ll. 58-60 discloses scraping a website. One of a skilled artisan would have realized that scraping a website involves obtaining text from a document. Col 13, ll. 9-19 discloses the level of abstraction is obtained (Col 18, ll. 40-42; Col 41, ll. 20-25: zoom level). Furthermore, a level of abstraction is generated. (Col 13, ll. 9-19; Col 17; ll. 13-27; Col 19, ll. 32-63; Col 27, ll. 11-20; Col 29, ll. 53- Col. 30. ll 8; Col 32, ll. 64 – Col 33, ll. 32; Col39, ll. 39-45; Col 41, ll. 20-25)
As per dependent claim 7, Gardner et al discloses wherein the plurality of semantic zoom levels include at least a long, medium, and short semantic zoom level. (Col 8, ll. 60-61; Col 17; ll. 13-27; Col 29, ll. 55-58: discloses no level of abstraction to middle to a lot)
As per independent claim 8, Gardner et al discloses a medium (Claim 16) comprising:
causing a user interface of an application to display a document including textual information; (Col 13, ll. 9-19; Col 17; ll. 13-27; Col 19, ll. 32-63; Col 27, ll. 11-20; Col 29, ll. 53- Col. 30. ll 8; Col39, ll. 39-45: the generated level of abstraction is sent to the client from the LLM and displayed. Col 19, ll. 36-39; FIG 4A: discloses the document with no level of abstraction, form of displaying the document)
obtaining, via a user interface element, a selection of a first semantic zoom level of a plurality of semantic zoom levels; (Col 19, ll. 36-39; FIG 5A: sliders, dials, or buttons to change the zoom level on-the-fly)
causing a machine learning model to generate a dynamic abstractive text summarization at the first semantic zoom level of the document, where the dynamic abstractive text summarization includes less text than the textual information; (Col 13, ll. 9-19; Col 17; ll. 13-27; Col 19, ll. 32-63; Col 27, ll. 11-20; Col 29, ll. 53- Col. 30. ll 8; Col 32, ll. 64 – Col 33, ll. 32; Col39, ll. 39-45: different levels of abstraction based on the predetermined (and selected) zoom levels are generated by the LLM. LLM are machine learning models (Col 1; ll. 18-23)
modifying the user interface of the application to display the dynamic abstractive text summarization. (Col 13, ll. 9-19; Col 17; ll. 13-27; Col 19, ll. 32-63; Col 27, ll. 11-25; Col 29, ll. 53- Col. 30. ll 8; Col39, ll. 39-45: the generated level of abstraction is sent to the client from the LLM and displayed. Changing the zoom level results in a new level of abstraction being generated and replacing the existing display. FIG 5A-5C show the display of different level of abstraction of the document)
As per dependent claim 9, Gardner et al discloses wherein modifying the user interface of the application to display the dynamic abstractive text summarization further comprises replacing a portion of the document with the dynamic abstractive text summarization. (Col 13, ll. 9-19; Col 17; ll. 13-27; Col 19, ll. 32-63; Col 27, ll. 11-25; Col 29, ll. 53- Col. 30. ll 8; Col39, ll. 39-45: the generated level of abstraction is sent to the client from the LLM and displayed. Changing the zoom level results in a new level of abstraction being generated and replacing the existing display. FIG 5A-5C show the display of different level of abstraction of the document)
As per dependent claim 10, Gardner et al discloses causing the machine learning model to generate the dynamic abstractive text summarization is performed prior to the application obtaining the document. (col 33, ll. 17-23; Col 43, ll. 5-17: discloses that the summaries are pre-stored/cache. One of a skilled artisan would have realized that the pre-computed cached summary was generated prior to an application of a user requesting a summary of the document (hence, pre-computed) and obtain the pre-computed cached summary in response to the request)
As per dependent claim 11, Gardner et al disclose causing the machine learning model to generate a plurality of dynamic abstractive text summarizations associated with the plurality of semantic zoom levels. (Col39, ll. 39-45: multiple summaries at different zoom levels are generated)
As per dependent claim 13, Gardner et al discloses wherein the user interface element includes a semantic zoom bar that allows a user to select the first semantic zoom level of the plurality of semantic zoom levels to be applied to the document. (Col 30, ll. 1-10)
As per dependent claim 14, Gardner et al discloses wherein the machine learning model is a large language model. (Col 3, ll. 38-42; Col 12, ll. 52-56)
As per dependent claim 15, Gardner et al discloses:
obtaining, via a second user interface element, a second selection of a second semantic zoom level of the plurality of semantic zoom levels; ((Col 19, ll. 36-39; FIG 5A: sliders, dials, or buttons to change the zoom level on-the-fly. FIG 5A-5C discloses the “+” or “-“ button)
modifying the user interface of the application to display a second dynamic abstractive text summarization of at least a portion of the document, where the second dynamic abstractive text summarization corresponds to the second semantic zoom level. (Col 13, ll. 9-19; Col 17; ll. 13-27; Col 19, ll. 32-63; Col 27, ll. 11-20; Col 29, ll. 53- Col. 30. ll 8; Col 32, ll. 64 – Col 33, ll. 32; Col39, ll. 39-45; Col 41, ll. 20-25)
As per independent claim 16, Claim 16 recites similar limitations as in Claim 1 and is rejected under similar rationale. Furthermore, Gardner et al discloses a processor and memory. (FIG 8)
As per dependent claim 18, Gardner et al discloses determining the plurality of semantic zoom levels further comprises determining a set of speakers associated with the document based on metadata associated with the document. (Col 40, ll. 58- Col 41, ll. 57: the summaries generated by the LLM of the transcript of a sales call between a sale representative and the client include both entities (form of speakers). Thus, in order for both entities to be in the summaries, the entities had to be determined first within the transcript. Col 12, ll. 30-40 discloses identifying people)
As per dependent claim 19, Gardner et al discloses determining the plurality of semantic zoom levels further comprises determining a structure of the document based on at least one of: chapters, headings, and sections included in the document (Col 17, ll. 15-27; Col 24, ll. 12-14; Col 31, ll. 26-34, Col 59, ll. 24-67: Discloses level of abstraction regarding legal contracts involve summarize lengthy, complex legal contracts into various levels of detail—from highly condensed overviews to clause-by-clause breakdowns (form of sections). Form of plurality of semantic zoom levels are determined based on a structure of the document)
As per dependent claim 20, Gardner et al discloses determining the plurality of semantic zoom levels further comprises determining a first semantic zoom level based on a proportion of a length of the document and a second semantic zoom level based on the proportion of the length of the document, where the second semantic zoom level causes the machine learning model to generate a first dynamic abstractive text summarization that is shorter than a second dynamic abstractive text summarization generated based on the first semantic zoom level. ; (Col 8; ll. 58-62; Col 10, ll. 31-33; Col 13, ll. 9-19; Col 17; ll. 13-27; Col 19, ll. 32-63; Col 27, ll. 11-20; Col 29, ll. 53- Col. 30. ll 8; Col 32, ll. 64 – Col 33, ll. 32; Col 35, ll. 38-40; Col39, ll. 39-55; Claim 3: different levels of abstraction based on the predetermined (and selected) zoom levels are generated by the LLM. Each level of abstraction has different amount of text)
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
Claim(s) 4 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Gardner et al in further view of Eyal (US 20250140005, EFD 11/1/2023)
As per dependent claim 4, Gardner discloses transcribing a video when identifying the content item to be summaries. (col. 12, ll. 58-62). However, the cited art fails to specifically disclose wherein the application is a video editing application and the document is a transcript extracted from a video. However, Eyal discloses the application is a video editing application (0028) and the document is a transcript extracted from a video (0013-0014, 0032, 0035: transcript of the video is generated which can be used to generate a summary of the video)
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, cited feature(s) of Eyal since it would have provided the benefit of allows the user to efficiently progress from raw footage to an edited video through use of intuitive and user-friendly tools. (0029)
Claim(s) 12 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Gardner et al in further view of Fink et al (US 20150269153, 2015)
As per dependent claim 12, the cited art fails to specifically wherein the user interface element includes a contextual user interface element that is displayed in the user interface in response to a user selecting, via a cursor, a portion of the document. However, Fink et discloses in response to user selecting text (highlighting or hovering a screen pointer over the text (i.e. using a cursor to select), a pop-up window (form of contextual UI element) is displayed (FIG. 2; 0016, 0020)
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, cited feature(s) of Fink et al since it would have provided the benefit of providing assistance to readers of electronic documents trying to understand or recall terms or phrases in electronic documents (0032)
Claim(s) 17 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Gardner et al in further view of Zheng et al (US 20250094689, EFD 9/20/2023)
As per dependent claim 17, Gardner et al discloses the user interface to modify a display of the document to include an dynamic abstractive text summarization of the portion of the document corresponding to a semantic zoom level selected by the user. (Col 13, ll. 9-19; Col 17; ll. 13-27; Col 19, ll. 32-63; Col 27, ll. 11-20; Col 29, ll. 53- Col. 30. ll 8; Col 32, ll. 64 – Col 33, ll. 32; Col39, ll. 39-45) However, the cited art fails to specifically disclose a user interface that enables a user to select a portion of the document. However, Zheng et al discloses disclose a user interface that enables a user to select a portion of the document (0046, 0048; 0068 FIG. 11: performs a zoom-in or zoom-out of the displayed content; form of selecting) As the user selects the portion, the display of the document is also modified to include summarization corresponding to a semantic zoom level selected by the user. ((0046, 0048; 0068 FIG. 11: Performing the zoom-in operation, causes less and less summary sentences in the summary content corresponding to the text content to appear. Performing the zoom-out operation causes more and more summary sentences in the summary content corresponding to the text content to appear)
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, cited feature(s) of Fink et al since it would have provided the benefit of having quantity of operations be reduced while realizing the operation goals, the operation complexity be lowered, and the efficiency of obtaining the summary content be improved (0091)
col 4, ll. 65 – col. 5, ll. 12: client application a form of a semantic zoom tool.
Conclusion
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.
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