DETAILED ACTION
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
This action is responsive to the Application filed on 09/11/2024, said application claims a priority date of 09/20/2023.
Claims 1-17 are pending in the case.
Claims 1, 9 and 10 are independent claims.
Claim Interpretation
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(f):
(f) Element in Claim for a Combination. – An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The claims in this application are given their broadest reasonable interpretation using the plain meaning of the claim language in light of the specification as it would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art. The broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim element (also commonly referred to as a claim limitation) is limited by the description in the specification when 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is invoked.
As explained in MPEP § 2181, subsection I, claim limitations that meet the following three-prong test will be interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
(A) the claim limitation uses the term “means” or “step” or a term used as a substitute for “means” that is a generic placeholder (also called a nonce term or a non-structural term having no specific structural meaning) for performing the claimed function;
(B) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is modified by functional language, typically, but not always linked by the transition word “for” (e.g., “means for”) or another linking word or phrase, such as “configured to” or “so that”; and
(C) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function.
Use of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim with functional language creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites sufficient structure, material, or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Absence of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is not to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is not interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites function without reciting sufficient structure, material or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Claim limitations in this application that use the word “means” (or “step”) are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action. Conversely, claim limitations in this application that do not use the word “means” (or “step”) are not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action.
This application includes one or more claim limitations that do not use the word “means,” but are nonetheless being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, because the claim limitation(s) uses a generic placeholder that is coupled with functional language without reciting sufficient structure to perform the recited function and the generic placeholder is not preceded by a structural modifier. Such claim limitation(s) is/are: an operation acquisition unit configure to obtain…the first processing unit configured to adjust a summary…the second processing unit configured to adjust a display scale… in claim 9.
Because this/these claim limitation(s) is/are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, it/they is/are being interpreted to cover the corresponding structure described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof.
If applicant does not intend to have this/these limitation(s) interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, applicant may: (1) amend the claim limitation(s) to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph (e.g., by reciting sufficient structure to perform the claimed function); or (2) present a sufficient showing that the claim limitation(s) recite(s) sufficient structure to perform the claimed function so as to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph.
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) 1-8 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Krete (US 2010/0223571 A1, published 09/02/2010, hereinafter “Krete”).
Independent Claim 1:
Krete discloses a method comprising:
obtaining an interactive operation for a text content (The user can provide a scroll and click operation for the text document via the scroll wheel input, Krete: Figs. 4(b)-4(c), ¶ [0026]);
in response to the text content being in a first operation mode, adjusting a summary content corresponding to the text content according to an operation parameter of the interactive operation, the summary content including at least one summary sentence (According to MPEP § 2111.04(II) “The broadest reasonable interpretation of a method (or process) claim having contingent limitations requires only those steps that must be performed and does not include steps that are not required to be performed because the condition(s) precedent are not met.” Since only this limitation or the subsequent “in response to” limitation below can be performed based on the obtained interactive operation, only one is necessary to be performed. Accordingly, since this limitation is not required to be performed, the prior art does not need to teach this limitation.); and
in response to the text content being in a second operation mode, adjusting a display scale of a display screen corresponding to the text content according to the operation parameter of the interactive operation (The text content can be in one of various modes, including a zoom mode (second operation mode), Krete: Fig. 5, ¶ [0028]-[0029]. In zoom mode the scale of the display is changed based on the zoom icon selected with the scroll wheel operation (operation parameter), Krete: Figs. 4(b)-4(c), ¶ [0026]);
wherein, under different operation parameters, a quantity of summary sentences included in the summary content is different (This limitation is a nested limitation of the above identified contingent limitation that is not required to be performed, as such this limitation does not need to be taught by the prior art as well.).
Claim 2:
The rejection of claim 1 is incorporated. Krete does not have to teach a method comprising:
in response to the text content being in a third operation mode, simultaneously adjusting the summary content corresponding to the text content and the display scale of the display screen corresponding to the text content according to the operation parameter of the interactive operation (This limitation is a third contingent limitation that does not need to be performed (the text can only be in one of the three modes when the interactive operation is obtained). Accordingly, only one of the three modes need to be taught by the prior art (MPEP 2111.04(II). Since Krete already teaches the second operation mode, Krete does not need to teach this limitation.).
Claim 3:
The rejection of claim 1 is incorporated. Krete further teaches a method wherein:
the operation parameter correspondingly indicates adjusting the display scale to increase or decrease to a corresponding scale value (Krete: Figs. 4(b)-4(c), ¶ [0026]);
in response to the display scale being in a first value range, a first quantity of summary sentences are included in the summary content (This limitation only occurs when the first contingent limitation of claim 1 is triggered. Since Krete teaches the second contingent limitation, this limitation does not have to be taught by Krete.);
in response to the display scale being in a second value range, a second quantity of summary sentences are included in the summary content; and the first value range is greater than the second value range, and the first quantity is smaller than the second quantity (This limitation only occurs when the first contingent limitation of claim 1 is triggered. Since Krete teaches the second contingent limitation of claim 1, this limitation does not have to be taught by Krete.).
Claim 4:
The rejection of claim 3 is incorporated. Krete does not have to teach a method wherein adjusting the summary content corresponding to the text content according to the operation parameter of the interactive operation includes:
in response to the display screen being at a minimum scale value, if the operation parameter indicates adjusting the display scale to become smaller, obtaining a target content associated with the text content; obtaining the summary content according to the target content and the text content (This limitation is an additional contingent limitation that is nested in the first contingent limitation of claim 1. Since Krete teaches the second contingent limitation of claim 1, this limitation does not have to be taught by Krete.).
Claim 5:
The rejection of claim 4 is incorporated. Krete does not have to teach a method wherein the target content is a content obtained by searching in at least one data source according to a target keyword, and the target keyword is a keyword within the text content, and the target content includes at least one keyword matching the target keyword (This limitation only occurs when the first contingent limitation of claim 1 (and the nested contingent limitation of claim 4) is triggered. Since Krete teaches the second contingent limitation of claim 1, this limitation does not have to be taught by Krete.).
Claim 6:
The rejection of claim 4 is incorporated. Krete does not have to teach a method further comprising, after obtaining the summary content according to the target keyword and the text content:
displaying the target content;
wherein the target content and the text content being displayed includes at least one of:
a display window where the target content is located being displayed above the display screen as a floating window;
the display window and the display screen being displayed side by side; or
the display window and the display screen being displayed in layers, and the display screen being output at the top (These limitations only occurs when the first contingent limitation of claim 1 (and the nested contingent limitation of claim 4) is triggered. Since Krete teaches the second contingent limitation of claim 1, this limitation does not have to be taught by Krete.).
Claim 7:
The rejection of claim 1 is incorporated. Krete does not have to teach a method wherein:
the summary content is at least related to the content in a focus point area and the operation parameter, and the operation parameter at least includes an operation focus point of the interactive operation; and
the focus point area is the content area where the operation focus point is located in the display screen of the present content (These limitations only occurs when the first contingent limitation of claim 1 is triggered. Since Krete teaches the second contingent limitation of claim 1, this limitation does not have to be taught by Krete.).
Claim 8:
The rejection of claim 1 is incorporated. Krete does not have to teach a method wherein:
a generative pre-trained transformer model is configured to perform processing on at least the text content to obtain the summary content corresponding to the text content (This limitation only occurs when the first contingent limitation of claim 1 is triggered. Since Krete teaches the second contingent limitation of claim 1, this limitation does not have to be taught by Krete.).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claim(s) 9-10 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Krete in view of Bornstein et al. (US 5,867,164, issued 02/02/1999, hereinafter “Bornstein”) and further in view of Wroblewski (US 2006/0250358 A1, published 11/09/2006, hereinafter “Wroblewski”).
Independent Claim 9:
Krete discloses a processing apparatus comprising:
an operation acquisition unit configured to obtain an interactive operation for a text content, trigger a first processing unit in response to the text content being in a first operation mode, and trigger a second processing unit in response to the text content being in a second operation mode (The user can provide input via the scroll wheel and the function performed by the scroll wheel is determined based on the operation mode that the content is set to, Krete: ¶ [0028]-[0029]. Examiner considers the portion of the programming code that controls the respective functions to be the first and second processing units, Krete: ¶ [0020], [0027], [0030]. The content can correspond to text content, Krete: ¶ [0019]);
the second processing unit configured to adjust a display scale of a display screen corresponding to the text content according to the operation parameter of the interactive operation (The text content can be in one of various modes, including a zoom mode (second operation mode), Krete: Fig. 5, ¶ [0028]-[0029]. In zoom mode the scale of the display is changed based on the zoom icon selected with the scroll wheel operation (operation parameter), Krete: Figs. 4(b)-4(c), ¶ [0026]);
Krete does not appear to expressly teach a method wherein:
the first processing unit configured to adjust a summary content corresponding to the text content according to an operation parameter of the interactive operation, the summary content including at least one summary sentence; and
under different operation parameters, a quantity of summary sentences included in the summary content is different.
However, Bornstein teaches a method wherein:
a processing unit is configured to adjust a summary content corresponding to the text content according to an operation parameter of an interactive operation, the summary content including at least one summary sentence (The user can provide input to control the slider 203, wherein based on the value corresponding to the slider position, the summary content is adjusted accordingly, even at the lowest setting, at least one sentence is included in the summary, Bornstein: Figs. 2-4, column 4 lines 53-67 and column 5 lines 1-35.); and
under different operation parameters, a quantity of summary sentences included in the summary content is different (Bornstein: Figs. 2-4, column 4 lines 53-67 and column 5 lines 1-35.).
Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify the method of Krete wherein:
a processing unit is configured to adjust a summary content corresponding to the text content according to an operation parameter of an interactive operation, the summary content including at least one summary sentence; and
under different operation parameters, a quantity of summary sentences included in the summary content is different, as taught by Bornstein.
One would have been motivated to make such a combination in order to improve the user’s experience by better assisting the user in determining whether or not they should invest time in reading the full document (Bornstein: column 1 lines 25-67 and column 2 lines 1-30.).
Although Krete provides different modes of operation for interacting with the text document via a scroll wheel, Krete does not specifically describe a mode of operation that can control a slider element in the graphical user interface. However, Wroblewski teaches a method for controlling a sider via a scroll wheel by entering into a slider mode (Wroblewski: Fig. 23, ¶ [0100].). Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify the method of Krete in view of Bornstein to include a slider mode to the plurality of modes in the invention of Krete in order to control, via the scroll wheel of Krete, the slider of Bornstein.
One would have been motivated to make such a combination in order to provide the same efficient operation for the text document graphical controls that Krete already provides for the various other operational modes via the scroll wheel available on the user device.
Accordingly, in combination, Krete in view of Bornstein and further in view of Wroblewski teaches a method comprising:
the first processing unit configured to adjust a summary content corresponding to the text content according to an operation parameter of the interactive operation, the summary content including at least one summary sentence (The user can provide input via the scroll wheel and the function performed by the scroll wheel is determined based on the operation mode that the content is set to, Krete: ¶ [0028]-[0029]. Examiner considers the portion of the programming code that controls the respective functions to be the first and second processing units, Krete: ¶ [0020], [0027], [0030]. The content can correspond to text content, Krete: ¶ [0019]. The modes comprise a slider mode that enables the user to control a slider via the scroll wheel, Wroblewski: Fig. 23, ¶ [0100]. The user can provide input to control the slider 203, wherein based on the value corresponding to the slider position, the summary content is adjusted accordingly and wherein even at the lowest setting, at least one sentence is included in the summary, Bornstein: Figs. 2-4, column 4 lines 53-67 and column 5 lines 1-35.).
Independent Claim 10:
Krete discloses an electronic device comprising:
an input/output apparatus configured to output a text content and obtain an interactive operation for the text content (The user can provide input via the scroll wheel and the function performed by the scroll wheel is determined based on the operation mode that the content is set to, Krete: Figs. 1 and 2, ¶ [0020], [0028]-[0029].);
one or more processors configured to (Krete: Fig. 2, ¶ [0020]):
in response to the text content being in a second operation mode, adjust a display scale of a display screen corresponding to the text content according to the operation parameter of the interactive operation (The text content can be in one of various modes, including a zoom mode (second operation mode), Krete: Fig. 5, ¶ [0028]-[0029]. In zoom mode the scale of the display is changed based on the zoom icon selected with the scroll wheel operation (operation parameter), Krete: Figs. 4(b)-4(c), ¶ [0026]);
Krete does not appear to expressly teach a device wherein the one or more processors are configured to:
in response to the text content being in a first operation mode, adjust a summary content corresponding to the text content according to an operation parameter of the interactive operation, the summary content including at least one summary sentence; and
wherein, under different operation parameters, a quantity of summary sentences included in the summary content is different.
However, Bornstein teaches a device wherein the one or more processors are configured to:
adjust a summary content corresponding to the text content according to an operation parameter of the interactive operation, the summary content including at least one summary sentence (The user can provide input to control the slider 203, wherein based on the value corresponding to the slider position, the summary content is adjusted accordingly, even at the lowest setting, at least one sentence is included in the summary, Bornstein: Figs. 2-4, column 4 lines 53-67 and column 5 lines 1-35.); and
wherein, under different operation parameters, a quantity of summary sentences included in the summary content is different (Bornstein: Figs. 2-4, column 4 lines 53-67 and column 5 lines 1-35.).
Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify the device of Krete wherein the one or more processors are configured to:
adjust a summary content corresponding to the text content according to an operation parameter of the interactive operation, the summary content including at least one summary sentence; and
wherein, under different operation parameters, a quantity of summary sentences included in the summary content is different, as taught by Bornstein.
One would have been motivated to make such a combination in order to improve the user’s experience by better assisting the user in determining whether or not they should invest time in reading the full document (Bornstein: column 1 lines 25-67 and column 2 lines 1-30.).
Although Krete provides different modes of operation for interacting with the text document via a scroll wheel, Krete does not specifically describe a mode of operation that can control a slider element in the graphical user interface. However, Wroblewski teaches a device for controlling a sider via a scroll wheel by entering into a slider mode (Wroblewski: Fig. 23, ¶ [0100].). Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify the device of Krete in view of Bornstein to include a slider mode to the plurality of modes in the invention of Krete in order to control, via the scroll wheel of Krete, the slider of Bornstein.
One would have been motivated to make such a combination in order to provide the same efficient operation for the text document graphical controls that Krete already provides for the various other operational modes via the scroll wheel available on the user device.
Accordingly, in combination, Krete in view of Bornstein and further in view of Wroblewski teaches a device wherein the one or more processors are configured to:
in response to the text content being in a first operation mode, adjust a summary content corresponding to the text content according to an operation parameter of the interactive operation, the summary content including at least one summary sentence (The user can provide input via the scroll wheel and the function performed by the scroll wheel is determined based on the operation mode that the content is set to, Krete: ¶ [0028]-[0029]. The content can correspond to text content, Krete: ¶ [0019]. The modes comprise a slider mode that enables the user to control a slider via the scroll wheel, Wroblewski: Fig. 23, ¶ [0100]. The user can provide input to control the slider 203, wherein based on the value corresponding to the slider position, the summary content is adjusted accordingly and wherein even at the lowest setting, at least one sentence is included in the summary, Bornstein: Figs. 2-4, column 4 lines 53-67 and column 5 lines 1-35.).
Claim(s) 17 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Krete in view of Bornstein, further in view of Wroblewski and further in view of Gardner et al. (US 12,008,332 B1, issued 06/11/2024, hereinafter “Gardner”).
Claim 17:
The rejection of claim 10 is incorporated. Krete in view of Bornstein and further in view of Wroblewski does not appear to expressly teach a device wherein:
a generative pre-trained transformer model is configured to perform processing on at least the text content to obtain the summary content corresponding to the text content.
However, Gardner teaches a device wherein:
a generative pre-trained transformer model is configured to perform processing on at least the text content to obtain the summary content corresponding to the text content (Gardner: abstract, column 9 lines 60-67 and column 10 lines 1-3).
Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify the device of Krete in view of Bornstein and further in view of Wroblewski wherein:
a generative pre-trained transformer model is configured to perform processing on at least the text content to obtain the summary content corresponding to the text content, as taught by Gardner.
One would have been motivated to make such a combination in order to provide a more effective means for generating the summary (Gardner: abstract, column 1 lines 14-22, column 9 lines 60-67 and column 10 lines 1-3).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 11-16 are objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
Conclusion
Examiner has cited particular columns and line and/or paragraph numbers in the references applied to the claims above for the convenience of the applicant. Although the specified citations are representative of the teachings of the art and are applied to specific limitations within the individual claim, other passages and figures may apply as well. It is respectfully requested from the applicant in preparing responses, to fully consider the references in entirety as potentially teaching all or part of the claimed invention, as well as the context of the passage as taught by the prior art or disclosed by the examiner.
The examiner requests, in response to this Office action, support be shown for language added to any original claims on amendment and any new claims. That is, indicate support for newly added claim language by specifically pointing to page(s) and line number(s) in the specification and/or drawing figure(s). This will assist the examiner in prosecuting the application.
When responding to this office action, Applicant is advised to clearly point out the patentable novelty which he or she thinks the claims present, in view of the state of the art disclosed by the references cited or the objections made. He or she must also show how the amendments avoid such references or objections See 37 CFR 1.111(c).
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to Applicants’ disclosure.
Bederson et al., US 2003/0159113 A1 (portions of the text is removed as the text reduces in size, abstract)
Fink et al., US 2015/0269153 A1 (The user can select a portion of text and then a summary is generated based on the selected portion of text, claim 11)
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to DANIEL RODRIGUEZ whose telephone number is (571)272-3633. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 5:30 am - 2:30 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, Stephen Hong can be reached at (571) 272-4124. 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.
/DANIEL RODRIGUEZ/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2178
Prosecution Insights