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 .
Status of Claims
Claims 1-20 are currently pending in application 18/830,353.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statements (IDS) submitted on 9/10/2024 and 2/20/2025 are in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statements are being considered by the examiner.
Double Patenting
The nonstatutory double patenting rejection is based on a judicially created doctrine grounded in public policy (a policy reflected in the statute) so as to prevent the unjustified or improper timewise extension of the “right to exclude” granted by a patent and to prevent possible harassment by multiple assignees. A nonstatutory double patenting rejection is appropriate where the claims at issue are not identical, but at least one examined application claim is not patentably distinct from the reference claim(s) because the examined application claim is either anticipated by, or would have been obvious over, the reference claim(s). See, e.g., In re Berg, 140 F.3d 1428, 46 USPQ2d 1226 (Fed. Cir. 1998); In re Goodman, 11 F.3d 1046, 29 USPQ2d 2010 (Fed. Cir. 1993); In re Longi, 759 F.2d 887, 225 USPQ 645 (Fed. Cir. 1985); In re Van Ornum, 686 F.2d 937, 214 USPQ 761 (CCPA 1982); In re Vogel, 422 F.2d 438, 164 USPQ 619 (CCPA 1970); and In re Thorington, 418 F.2d 528, 163 USPQ 644 (CCPA 1969).
A timely filed terminal disclaimer in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(c) or 1.321(d) may be used to overcome an actual or provisional rejection based on a nonstatutory double patenting ground provided the reference application or patent either is shown to be commonly owned with this application, or claims an invention made as a result of activities undertaken within the scope of a joint research agreement. A terminal disclaimer must be signed in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(b).
The USPTO internet Web site contains terminal disclaimer forms which may be used. Please visit http://www.uspto.gov/forms/. The filing date of the application will determine what form should be used. A web-based eTerminal Disclaimer may be filled out completely online using web-screens. An eTerminal Disclaimer that meets all requirements is auto-processed and approved immediately upon submission. For more information about eTerminal Disclaimers, refer to http://www.uspto.gov/patents/process/file/efs/guidance/eTD-info-I.jsp.
Claims 1-20 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-19 of U.S. Patent No. 12,118,513. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because both inventions disclose equivalent elements for providing users with an in-page object for creating content on a workspace page.
18/830,353
US 12,118,513 (18/408,429)
Independent Claims 1, 12, and 17
A (computer-implemented method, A non-transitory, computer-readable storage medium) electronic device for creating content presented on a user interface including a page of a workspace comprising: at least one hardware processor; and at least one non-transitory memory storing instructions, which, when executed by the at least one hardware processor, cause the electronic device to:
cause a control of a container to initiate a generative process to create in-container content of a particular type, wherein the container is an in-page object on the page in response to the generative process:
[Dependent Claims 4./15./20.The electronic device of claim 1, wherein the electronic device is further caused to: determine a selection of the particular content based on a location of the container on the page relative to the particular content by: determining a location of an additional container on the page of the workspace, wherein the selection of the particular content associated with the workspace is bounded between any two of the container, the additional container, and a border of the page of the workspace.]
cause a generative artificial intelligence (AI) system to create generative content of the particular type based on particular content associated with the workspace; and
[Dependent Claims 3./14./19. The electronic device of claim 1, wherein the electronic device is further caused to: modify a size of the area to hold the generative content as the in-container content.]
populate an area of the container to present the generative content as in-container content.
Independent Claims 1, 16, and 17
A computer-implemented method (non-transitory, computer-readable storage medium; electronic device) for creating in-block content presented in a block on a page of a workspace, the method comprising:
receiving an input that actuates a control of the block configured to initiate a generative process to create in-block content of a particular type, wherein the block is embedded as an in-page object on the page of the workspace and has dimensions that define a block area occupying a corresponding page area on the page of the workspace;
in response to the input: determining a selection of in-page content based on a location of the block relative to the in-page content and the particular type of in-block content, wherein the in-page content is presented on the page of the workspace and is located outside of the block area;
causing a generative artificial intelligence (AI) system to create generative content of the particular type based on input including the selection of the in-page content;
modifying a size of the block area to contain the generative content as generative in-block content, wherein the size of the block area is dynamically constrained to fit the generative in-block content; and
populating the modified block area to present the generative in-block content.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112 (b)
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
Claims 12-16 rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b), as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
Claims 12 recites “causing a generative artificial intelligence (AI) system to create generative content of the particular type based on particular associated with the workspace”. The Examiner is unclear what the “particular associated with the workspace” is referring to. The Examiner suspects that the Applicant intended to claim, “particular content associated with the workplace”, and is examined as such below. Correction is requested.
Claims 13-16 are also rejected as being dependent from claim 12, under the same rationale and reasoning as identified above.
Claim 13 recites “the particular content associated with the workspace” which contains insufficient antecedent basis. See rejection of Claim 12 above. Correction for proper antecedent basis is requested.
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)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 1-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Kumar (US 2025/0110618 A1).
As per independent Claims 1, 12, and 17, Kumar discloses aa electronic device (computer-implemented method; a non-transitory, computer-readable storage medium) for creating content presented on a user interface including a page of a workspace comprising:
at least one hardware processor (See at least Fig.1, Para 0061, Processor); and
at least one non-transitory memory storing instructions, which, when executed by the at least one hardware processor (See at least Fig.1, Para 0061), cause the electronic device to:
cause a control of a container to initiate a generative process to create in-container content of a particular type, wherein the container is an in-page object on the page in response to the generative process (See at least Fig. 6, Para 0118, “A user of the client devices may trigger production of generative output in a number of suitable ways. One example is shown in FIG. 1. In particular, in this embodiment, each of the software platforms can share a common feature, such as a common centralized editor rendered in a frame of the frontend user interfaces of both platforms.”; Para 0218, “As shown in FIG. 6, the graphical user interface also includes a generative interface panel 620, which may be displayed in response to a user input instantiating or invoking the generative service. In some implementations, the generative service may be instantiated or invoked by use of a selectable control or in response to a command or text provided to the graphical user interface 600. Similar to previous examples, the generative interface panel 620 includes an input region configured to receive natural language user input and other user input. In this particular implementation, user input is treated as a discrete message, which is displayed in a stream of messages within the generative interface panel 620. The messages may be arranged chronologically and include generative responses 624 produced by the generative service.”; See also Para 0094-0095, “… structured data that includes tenant-owned content may be referred to herein as a “data object” or a “tenant-specific data object” … any software platform described herein can be configured to store one or more data objects in any form or format unique to that platform. Any data object of any platform may include one or more attributes and/or properties or individual data items that, in turn, include tenant-owned content input by a user.”; and Para 0184):
cause a generative artificial intelligence (AI) system to create generative content of the particular type based on particular content associated with the workspace; (See at least Fig. 6, Para 0219, “As described previously, a user input provided to the text region 622 may be analyzed by the generative service in order to select a plugin of a set of registered or recognized plugins. Specifically, the generative service may perform natural language processing including tokenization, lemmatization, stemming, and other natural language processing techniques. Additionally or alternatively, the generative service may use a trained intent recognition module to determine an intent (also referred to as an action intent) for the user input. The intent or action intend may indicate which corpus of content is relevant to the user input and a candidate set of operations required to perform the requested task. The action intent may then be used to select a particular plugin from the set of registered plugins. The system may determine that the particular plugin has a predicted relevance or correlation to the user input. In some cases, the intent recognition module is adapted to output a suggested plugin instead of or in addition to the action intent. In some implementations, system uses a plugin selection model that provides a recommended plugin in response an action intent or other characteristic of the user input. In some examples, the system may select a set of candidate plugins and score each plugin with respect to the user input indicating a confidence level or degree of relation. One or more plugins having a score that satisfies a criteria may be selected for use with the user input. In some cases, elements corresponding to one or more candidate plugins may be displayed to the user for selection or confirmation. The displayed elements may include a plugin description and/or a summary of the operations performed by the plugin.”; Para 0221, “In this example, the document parsing plugin may perform some of the preconditioning, prompt selection and composition and post-conditioning operations described above with respect to FIGS. 1-5B. Specifically, in this example, the selected plugin may perform an analysis of the user input to determine an object or content item, which is to be used for the operations. Here, an explicit reference to a content item is not provided but the selected plugin is configured to interpret grammatical phrases, like “this page,” “the last page,” “my most recent pages,” and other implicit references to content in order to identify the specific content that is to be operated in or be the subject of the query. In this case, the selected plugin is able to determine that the content of the currently displayed page or document is the subject of the query. The selected plugin is then able to extract content from the current page and use the extracted content to construct a prompt. Specifically, the prompt includes the extracted text content and one or more commands that were extracted from or determined based on the user input. Here, the word “summarize” may be used as the proposed action in the prompt but, in other cases, the plugin may substitute a known or better word or phrase into the prompt, which is based on or similar to a word or phrase in the user input.”; Para 0222, “… a prompt may then be provided to a generative output engine either through an internal call or using an advanced programming interface (API) call, which includes the prompt and other information or parameters regarding the request.”);
and populate an area of the container to present the generative content as in-container content (See at least Fig.6; Para 0222, “… In response, the generative output engine may provide a generative response, which is used by the selected plugin to generate the response 624 rendered in the generative interface panel 620. Based on an analysis of the generative response, the selected plugin may determine how the response 624 is displayed. ….”; “Para 0223, “Once the response 624 has been rendered, the output may be inserted into another document or content item via one or more user operations. …”.
As per Claims 2, 13, and 18, Kumar discloses wherein the electronic device is further caused to: detect a change to the particular content associated with the workspace; in response to detecting the change to the particular content associated with the workspace: cause the generative AI system to regenerate content; and populate the area of the container to present the regenerative content as in-container regenerative content, wherein the regenerated content replaces, changes, or augments the in-container content (See at least Fig. 10B and Para 0240).
As per Claims 3, 14, and 19, Kumar discloses wherein the electronic device is further caused to: modify a size of the area to hold the generative content as the in-container content (See at least Figs. 6-10B and Para 0175).
As per Claims 4, 15, and 20, Kumar discloses wherein the electronic device is further caused to: determine a selection of the particular content based on a location of the container on the page relative to the particular content by: determining a location of an additional container on the page of the workspace, wherein the selection of the particular content associated with the workspace is bounded between any two of the container, the additional container, and a border of the page of the workspace (See at least Figs. 6-10B).
As per Claims 5, 16, Kumar discloses wherein causing the generative AI system to create the generative content comprises: accessing external content outside of the workspace; and providing the external content in addition to the particular content associated with the workspace as input to the generative AI system, wherein the generative content is created based on the external content and the particular content associated with the workspace (See at least Para 0050, Para 0177, and Para 0233).
As per Claim 6, Kumar discloses wherein causing the generative AI system to create the generative content comprises: accessing additional in-page content from multiple pages of the workspace; and providing the particular content associated with the workspace and the additional in-page content as input to the generative AI system, wherein the generative content is created based on the particular content associated with the workspace and the additional in-page content (See at least Fig.7, Para 0177, and Para 0233). .
As per Claim 7, Kumar discloses wherein the particular type of in-container content is a predefined type corresponding to a summary, and wherein causing the generative AI system to generate the summary comprises: causing the generative AI system to generate a summary of the particular content associated with the workspace (See at least Fig.6, Para 0022).
As per Claim 8, Kumar discloses wherein the particular type of in-container content is a predefined type corresponding to a list of action items, and wherein causing the generative AI system to create the generative content comprises: causing the generative AI system to generate a list of action items based on text included in the particular content associated with the workspace (See at least Fig.8, Para 0186-0187).
As per Claim 9, Kumar discloses wherein the particular type of in-container content is a user-defined type of generative output, and wherein causing the generative AI system to create the generative content comprises: causing the generative AI system to generate the user-defined type of generative output based on text included in the particular content associated with the workspace (See at least Para 0026, Para 0068-0069).
As per Claim 10, Kumar discloses wherein the particular content associated with the workspace includes textual content including a Uniform Resource Locator (URL) linked to an online source of content, and wherein causing the generative AI system to create the generative content comprises: causing the generative AI system to create the generative content based in part on the online source of content (See at least Fig.9, Para 0196).
As per Claim 11, Kumar discloses wherein the control is a component of the container, and wherein populating the container with the in-container content comprises: replacing the control with the in-container content (See at least Fig. 6-10B, Para 0051, Para 0244).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JONATHAN P OUELLETTE whose telephone number is (571)272-6807. The examiner can normally be reached on M-F 8am-6pm.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Lynda C Jasmin, can be reached at telephone number (571) 272-6782. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from Patent Center. Status information for published applications may be obtained from Patent Center. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Patent Center for authorized users only. Should you have questions about access to Patent Center, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free).
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) Form at https://www.uspto.gov/patents/uspto-automated- interview-request-air-form.
April 21, 2026
/JONATHAN P OUELLETTE/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3629
Prosecution Insights