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 .
DETAILED ACTION
This communication is in response to: Application filed on August 26th, 2024
Claims 1-20 are pending claims.
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 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.
Claims 1, 5, 6, 9, 12, 13, 16 and 18 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Bavarian (US 11,886,826 B1) in view of Ballinger (US 2011/0153324 A1).
As for independent claim 1:
Bavarian discloses a method comprising:
receiving textual data from a user related to an input for a text field of digital content displayed on a user device (8:41-58, 11: 35-49, Bavarian discloses data input engine obtaining an input text prompt comprising prefix input data and insertion point entered by a user);
generating context data about the digital content (6:42-56, see Context Analysis Engine and output a set of context parameters associated with the input data);
providing the textual data and the context data to a generative language model (5:44-65, 7:29-44, 24:9-22, language model based on input text);
Bavarian does not disclose receiving a response generated by the generative language model; and providing the response as a suggestion for the input for the text field. Ballinger discloses receiving a response generated by the generative language model; and providing the response as a suggestion for the input for the text field in 0053 and 0054. In the cited sections Ballinger discloses receiving the converted text back from the remote server along with n-best list of candidates presented to the user for selection of the correct candidate before the selected text is passed to the application as the user input for the field. Accordingly it would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a skilled artisan to modify the method of Bavarian to incorporate the teaching of Ballinger generating context data, thus allow allowing analyzing input and preparing model for a specific website (Ballinger, 0059).
As for dependent claim 5:
Bavarian–Ballinger discloses the method of claim 1, further comprising: receiving a selection to a user interface object with respect to the text field of the digital content; rendering a compose assistant interface for the text field, the compose assistant interface having an input field configured to receive the textual data from the user; and in response to selection of a generate control of the compose assistant interface, transmitting the textual data and the context data to the generative language model (Ballinger, 0050, 0052, 0055, discloses receiving a selection of a UI object with respect to text field, microphone icon or button in a search field, displaying assistant interface configured to receive user text input and prompting the user to provide input and “speak now” instructions, see 0051 and Figure 3).
As for dependent claim 6:
Bavarian–Ballinger discloses the method of claim 1, further comprising: receiving a selection of the textual data inputted by the user into the text field; and rendering a compose assistant interface with a control, which when selected, causes transmission of the textual data and the context data to the generative language model (0050 and 0052).
As for dependent claim 9:
Bavarian–Ballinger discloses the method of claim 1, further comprising: inserting the response into the text field (Bavarian, 11:34-50, discloses text insertion engine and identifying insertion position along with inserting generated text).
As for dependent claim 12:
Bavarian–Ballinger discloses the method of claim 1, wherein the digital content is a web page, the method further comprising: retrieving an accessible content structure of the web page; and generating the context data to include the accessible content structure (Bavarian, 14:1-11, see web page).
As for independent claims 13, 18:Claims 13, 18 contain substantial subject matter as claimed in claim 1 and are respectfully rejected along the same rationale.
Claims 2-4, 7, 8, 14, 15, 19 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Bavarian (US 11,886,826 B1) in view of Ballinger (US 2011/0153324 A1) and in further in view of Sapoznik (US 9,807,037 B1).
As for dependent claim 2:
Bavarian–Ballinger does not disclose the method of claim 1, further comprising: detecting an interaction with the text field; and determining, by a model, whether to render a callout affordance, the callout affordance, when selected, configured to render a compose assistant interface for the text field, the compose assistant interface having an input field configured to receive the textual data from the user. Sapoznik discloses the method of claim 1, further comprising: detecting an interaction with the text field; and determining, by a model, whether to render a callout affordance, the callout affordance, when selected, configured to render a compose assistant interface for the text field, the compose assistant interface having an input field configured to receive the textual data from the user in 16:58-17:15, 19:1-20 and 23:33-47. In the cited sections Sapoznik discloses detecting CSR typing and generating auto completion and suggestions by language model along with displaying suggestions entry. Accordingly it would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a skilled artisan to modify the method of Bavarian–Ballinger to incorporate the teaching of Sapoznik language model completions, thus allow auto completions when typing (Sapoznik, 18:5-15).
As for dependent claim 3:
Bavarian–Ballinger–Sapoznik discloses the method of claim 2, further comprising: determining whether to render the callout affordance based on signals, the signals including one or more signals about the text field, one or more signals about the digital content, or one or more signals about the user and other users of a compose assistant (Sapoznik, 19:1-20, see signals and text field, discloses training data obtained from the sessions and adapting suggestions for CSRs). Accordingly it would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a skilled artisan to modify the method of Bavarian–Ballinger to incorporate the teaching of Sapoznik language model completions, thus allow auto completions when typing (Sapoznik, 18:5-15).
As for dependent claim 4:
Bavarian–Ballinger–Sapoznik discloses the method of claim 1, further comprising: in response to an amount of the textual data inputted by the user into the text field achieving a threshold level, rendering a callout affordance, the callout affordance, when selected, configured to render a compose assistant interface for the text field, the compose assistant interface having an input field with the textual data (Sapoznik 16:58-17:15). Accordingly it would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a skilled artisan to modify the method of Bavarian–Ballinger to incorporate the teaching of Sapoznik language model completions, thus allow auto completions when typing (Sapoznik, 18:5-15).
As for dependent claim 7:
Bavarian–Ballinger–Sapoznik discloses the method of claim 1, further comprising: in response to an amount of the textual data inputted by the user into the text field achieving a threshold level, transmitting the textual data and the context data; and providing the response as a suggestion in a compose assistant interface (Sapoznik 16:58-17:15 and 19:1-20, see generated text and transmitting suggested text). Accordingly it would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a skilled artisan to modify the method of Bavarian–Ballinger to incorporate the teaching of Sapoznik language model completions, thus allow auto completions when typing (Sapoznik, 18:5-15).
As for dependent claim 8:
Bavarian–Ballinger–Sapoznik discloses the method of claim 7, further comprising: detecting a cursor position on the suggestion; and providing a preview of the response in the text field (Sapoznik, 23:43-47, 26:17-24, discloses receiving a selection of a suggestion by the user clicking on the suggestion and also discloses that selecting the suggested response may copy it to the text box to allow the user to review/edit before sending). Accordingly it would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a skilled artisan to modify the method of Bavarian–Ballinger to incorporate the teaching of Sapoznik language model completions, thus allow auto completions when typing (Sapoznik, 18:5-15).
As for dependent claims 14, 15, 19:Claims 14, 15, 19 contain substantial subject matter as claimed in claims 2-4 and are respectfully rejected along the same rationale.
Claims 10, 11, 17, and 20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Bavarian (US 11,886,826 B1) in view of Ballinger (US 2011/0153324 A1) in view of Harrison (US 2014/0026034 A1).
As for dependent claim 10:
Bavarian–Ballinger does not disclose the method of claim 1, wherein the digital content is a web page, the method further comprising: retrieving first page content of the web page; retrieving second page content of a web page embedded into the web page; and generating the context data to include the first page content and the second page content. Harrison discloses the method of claim 1, wherein the digital content is a web page, the method further comprising: retrieving first page content of the web page; retrieving second page content of a web page embedded into the web page; and generating the context data to include the first page content and the second page content in 0008, 0090, 0092. In the cited sections, Harrison discloses extracting first portion of article content from a web page received in the browser, identifying a second web page referenced within the first webpage and automatically preloading the second web page in the background and extracting portion in 0090-0091. In 0092, Harrison discloses combining first and second portions into a single presentation as one article. Accordingly it would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a skilled artisan to modify the method of Bavarian–Ballinger to incorporate the teaching of Harrison of DOM-based content extraction, thus allow isolating content of a page and populate relevant content to the user along with preloading (Harrison, 0092).
As for dependent claim 11:
Bavarian–Ballinger–Harrison discloses the method of claim 1, wherein the digital content is a web page, the method further comprising: retrieving a document object model (DOM) representation of the web page; extracting a DOM portion from the DOM representation; and generating the context data to include the DOM portion (0037, Harrison discloses processing a retrieved document to identify doc elements and build a DOM tree representing the web page). Accordingly it would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a skilled artisan to modify the method of Bavarian–Ballinger to incorporate the teaching of Harrison of DOM-based content extraction, thus allow isolating content of a page and populate relevant content to the user along with preloading (Harrison, 0092).
As for dependent claims 17, 20:Claims 17, 20 contain substantial subject matter as claimed in claim 10 and is respectfully rejected along the same rationale.
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)).
The Examiner notes MPEP § 2144.01, that quotes In re Preda, 401 F.2d 825,159 USPQ 342, 344 (CCPA 1968) as stating “in considering the disclosure of a reference, it is proper to take into account not only specific teachings of the reference but also the inferences which one skilled in the art would reasonably be expected to draw therefrom.” Further MPEP 2123, states that “a reference may be relied upon for all that it would have reasonably suggested to one having ordinary skill the art, including nonpreferred embodiments. Merck & Co. v. Biocraft Laboratories, 874 F.2d 804, 10 USPQ2d 1843 (Fed. Cir.), cert. denied, 493 U.S. 975 (1989).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to DAVID PHANTANA ANGKOOL whose telephone number is (571) 272-2673. The examiner can normally be reached M-F, 7:00-3:30 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, can Adam Queler be reached on 571-272-4140. 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.
/David Phantana-angkool/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2172
Prosecution Insights