DETAILED ACTION
The action is responsive to the Application filed on 09/18/2024. Claims 1-22 are pending in the case. Claims 1, 15 and 16 are independent claims.
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
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.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 16-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention. As to claim 16, the claim recites “receiving seed content, the seed content;” which is grammatically incorrect therefore making the claim indefinite. For the purposes of examination, Examiner assumed the claim to recite “receiving seed content
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, 2, 5-18 and 20-22 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Smith-Kipnis et al. (US 20240362288 A1, hereinafter Smith-Kipnis).
As to claim 1, Smith-Kipnis discloses a method comprising:
receiving, from a client device, a navigation request related to an intent ("In act 201, the facility receives a page request. The page request identifies a particular page of the website, and is sent on behalf of a particular user," Smith-Kipnis paragraph 0020; "In various embodiments, known present state of the current user takes into account a variety of ways of interacting with the website, including following links," Smith-Kipnis paragraph 0013; "The display further includes substantive section 410 relating to the user's test results 420. For example, the user may have reached this page by activating test results control navigation control 404," Smith-Kipnis paragraph 0029; "FIG. 3 is a data flow diagram showing the facility's scoring of candidate actions in some embodiments. The facility generates these scores 331 using one or more action determinant factors 321. In various embodiments, these factors include web activity 301 of the requesting user, as well as other users. In some embodiments, the user web activity includes information about browsing actions as well as information about actions taken, for each recent session of the user interacting with the website. From this can be derived information about the current status or intent of the user, as well as the past patterns of interacting that led to certain actions being taken, all of which is considered by the facility among the factors in some embodiments," Smith-Kipnis paragraph 0027, Smith-Kipnis Figure 2 201 "Receive page request for a particular page of a website on behalf of a particular user", user page request via clicking on links and using the user's navigation history (including the navigation request) to determine user intent);
determining seed content related to the navigation request ("In act 202, the facility accesses the list of all actions currently available on the website to the user. In various embodiments, this list is static and consistent for all users; variant between users, but static for individual users; dynamic over time, but consistent across users at a particular time; or fully dynamic, variant both between users and over time," Smith-Kipnis paragraph 0021, seed action content determined for the navigation request);
using a large foundational model to generate a web page based on the seed content, a navigation model, and the intent ("In some embodiments, the facility uses a large language model or a transformer model to discern intent," Smith-Kipnis paragraph 0013; "In some embodiments, the factors include an intent derived by applying an intent prediction model 310—such as a large language model or a transformer model," Smith-Kipnis paragraph 0027; "In act 203, the facility determines the score for each available action. Aspects of this score determination are discussed below in connection with FIG. 3," Smith-Kipnis paragraph 0022; "FIG. 3 is a data flow diagram showing the facility's scoring of candidate actions in some embodiments. The facility generates these scores 331 using one or more action determinant factors 321. In various embodiments, these factors include web activity 301 of the requesting user, as well as other users. In some embodiments, the user web activity includes information about browsing actions as well as information about actions taken, for each recent session of the user interacting with the website. From this can be derived information about the current status or intent of the user, as well as the past patterns of interacting that led to certain actions being taken, all of which is considered by the facility among the factors in some embodiments," Smith-Kipnis paragraph 0027; "In act 204, the facility selects from among the available actions certain actions for inclusion in the menu. The facility performs this selection based at least in part on the scores determined in act 203," Smith-Kipnis paragraph 0023; "In act 205, the facility generates a menu containing controls each corresponding to one of the actions selected in act 204. In act 206, the facility includes the menu generated in act 205 in a version of the requested page that the facility serves in response to receiving the page request," Smith-Kipnis paragraph 0024, using the user's navigation actions (i.e., a navigational model), LLM determined intent and seed content possible actions to generate the menu in the requested webpage); and
providing the web page for display on the client device ("In act 206, the facility includes the menu generated in act 205 in a version of the requested page that the facility serves in response to receiving the page request," Smith-Kipnis paragraph 0024; "For example, the user may have reached this page by activating test results control navigation control 404. The display further includes menu 480, containing a vertical stack of buttons 481-485. Each of buttons 481-485 corresponds to an action that is available to the user that has been dynamically selected by the facility as relevant for the user in their present situation," Smith-Kipnis paragraph 0029).
As to claim 2, Smith-Kipnis further discloses the method of claim 1, wherein the navigation request is related to the intent and a domain and the seed content is determined to be related to the domain ("FIG. 3 is a data flow diagram showing the facility's scoring of candidate actions in some embodiments. The facility generates these scores 331 using one or more action determinant factors 321. In various embodiments, these factors include web activity 301 of the requesting user, as well as other users. In some embodiments, the user web activity includes information about browsing actions as well as information about actions taken, for each recent session of the user interacting with the website. From this can be derived information about the current status or intent of the user, as well as the past patterns of interacting that led to certain actions being taken, all of which is considered by the facility among the factors in some embodiments," Smith-Kipnis paragraph 0027; "For example, the user may have reached this page by activating test results control navigation control 404. The display further includes menu 480, containing a vertical stack of buttons 481-485. Each of buttons 481-485 corresponds to an action that is available to the user that has been dynamically selected by the facility as relevant for the user in their present situation," Smith-Kipnis paragraph 0029; "FIG. 5 is a display diagram showing a second page of the website containing a menu included by the facility. The display 500 is similar to display 400 shown in FIG. 4. It corresponds to a medications page, as seen in its substantive content area 510. The medications page includes a control 511 that the user can activate in order to request medication refills as well as medication detail entries 520 and 530 each about a different medication prescribed or recommended to the user. Entry 520 includes a remove control 521 that the user can activate in order to remove its medication, lisinopril, from the shown list. It can be seen that menu 590 contains different actions 591-593, relating to the medications page," Smith-Kipnis paragraph 0031; "In act 202, the facility accesses the list of all actions currently available on the website to the user. In various embodiments, this list is static and consistent for all users; variant between users, but static for individual users; dynamic over time, but consistent across users at a particular time; or fully dynamic, variant both between users and over time. The facility can rely on various factors about actions in determining which to make available at a particular time," Smith-Kipnis paragraph 0021, using the user's navigation history (including the navigation request) to determine user intent where the nav request is related to a particular domain such as the "test results" domain and using the domain to determine actions relevant to the particular domain).
As to claim 5, Smith-Kipnis further discloses the method of claim 1, wherein a first seed content of the seed content includes a tag and determining the seed content related to the navigation request includes determining that the tag permits use of the first seed content for the navigation request ("In act 202, the facility accesses the list of all actions currently available on the website to the user. In various embodiments, this list is static and consistent for all users; variant between users, but static for individual users; dynamic over time, but consistent across users at a particular time; or fully dynamic, variant both between users and over time. The facility can rely on various factors about actions in determining which to make available at a particular time," Smith-Kipnis paragraph 0021, if an action is "tagged" as available then it can be used as action seed content for generating the menu).
As to claim 6, Smith-Kipnis further discloses the method of claim 5, wherein the web page is a first web page and the large foundational model is configured to generate a second web page from the seed content based on features describing a different user, wherein the first web page has a different structure from the second web page ("FIG. 3 is a data flow diagram showing the facility's scoring of candidate actions in some embodiments. The facility generates these scores 331 using one or more action determinant factors 321. In various embodiments, these factors include web activity 301 of the requesting user, as well as other users. In some embodiments, the user web activity includes information about browsing actions as well as information about actions taken, for each recent session of the user interacting with the website. From this can be derived information about the current status or intent of the user, as well as the past patterns of interacting that led to certain actions being taken, all of which is considered by the facility among the factors in some embodiments," Smith-Kipnis paragraph 0027, actions are scored based on the browsing action history of the user).
As to claim 7, Smith-Kipnis further discloses the method of claim 1, wherein the web page is generated based on the seed content, the navigation model, the intent, and features describing a user of the client device ("In some embodiments, the facility uses a large language model or a transformer model to discern intent," Smith-Kipnis paragraph 0013; "In some embodiments, the factors include an intent derived by applying an intent prediction model 310—such as a large language model or a transformer model," Smith-Kipnis paragraph 0027; "In act 203, the facility determines the score for each available action. Aspects of this score determination are discussed below in connection with FIG. 3," Smith-Kipnis paragraph 0022; "FIG. 3 is a data flow diagram showing the facility's scoring of candidate actions in some embodiments. The facility generates these scores 331 using one or more action determinant factors 321. In various embodiments, these factors include web activity 301 of the requesting user, as well as other users. In some embodiments, the user web activity includes information about browsing actions as well as information about actions taken, for each recent session of the user interacting with the website. From this can be derived information about the current status or intent of the user, as well as the past patterns of interacting that led to certain actions being taken, all of which is considered by the facility among the factors in some embodiments... In some embodiments, the factors include state about one or more users, such as electronic medical record (“EMR”) records maintained for each user. In various embodiments, this user state can involve aspects such as a history of messaging with providers; a history of in-person or video conferencing visits; a history of labs performed and their results; a history of procedures performed; and current or past status information. In various embodiments, the facility uses information from these or other sources for the requesting user; all users; and/or users who share a characteristic with the requesting user, such as age, sex, geographical region, user class, etc." Smith-Kipnis paragraph 0027; "In act 204, the facility selects from among the available actions certain actions for inclusion in the menu. The facility performs this selection based at least in part on the scores determined in act 203," Smith-Kipnis paragraph 0023; "In act 205, the facility generates a menu containing controls each corresponding to one of the actions selected in act 204. In act 206, the facility includes the menu generated in act 205 in a version of the requested page that the facility serves in response to receiving the page request," Smith-Kipnis paragraph 0024, using the user's navigation actions (i.e., a navigational model), LLM determined intent, seed content possible actions and user specific data to generate the menu in the requested webpage).
As to claim 8, Smith-Kipnis further discloses the method of claim 1, wherein the navigation request is associated with a non-existent domain ("The display further includes menu 480, containing a vertical stack of buttons 481-485. Each of buttons 481-485 corresponds to an action that is available to the user that has been dynamically selected by the facility as relevant for the user in their present situation," Smith-Kipnis paragraph 0029, menus on the served page are dynamic and thus the domain in its served form did not exist prior to the navigation request).
As to claim 9, Smith-Kipnis further discloses the method of claim 1, wherein the large foundational model generates the web page based on preferences provided by a user ("From this can be derived information about the current status or intent of the user, as well as the past patterns of interacting that led to certain actions being taken, all of which is considered by the facility among the factors in some embodiments," Smith-Kipnis paragraph 0027, actions are scored based on intent and intent is derived in part from learned patterns of past user interaction (i.e., user preferences)).
As to claim 10, Smith-Kipnis further discloses the method of claim 9, wherein the preferences include one of a device type, a topic, or a type of content ("In some embodiments, the factors include state about one or more users, such as electronic medical record ('EMR') records maintained for each user. In various embodiments, this user state can involve aspects such as a history of messaging with providers; a history of in-person or video conferencing visits; a history of labs performed and their results; a history of procedures performed; and current or past status information. In various embodiments, the facility uses information from these or other sources for the requesting user; all users; and/or users who share a characteristic with the requesting user, such as age, sex, geographical region, user class, etc.," Smith-Kipnis paragraph 0027; "While FIG. 4 and each of the display diagrams discussed below show a display whose formatting, organization, informational density, etc., is best suited to certain types of display devices, those skilled in the art will appreciate that actual displays presented by the facility may differ from those shown, in that they may be optimized for particular other display devices, or have shown visual elements omitted, visual elements not shown included, visual elements reorganized, reformatted, revisualized, or shown at different levels of magnification, etc.," Smith-Kipnis paragraph 0030).
As to claim 11, Smith-Kipnis further discloses the method of claim 1, wherein a first seed content of the seed content includes a tag indicating criteria for grouping the first seed content with other seed content, and determining the seed content related to the navigation request includes determining that the tag permits grouping of the first seed content with remaining seed content ("In act 202, the facility accesses the list of all actions currently available on the website to the user. In various embodiments, this list is static and consistent for all users; variant between users, but static for individual users; dynamic over time, but consistent across users at a particular time; or fully dynamic, variant both between users and over time," Smith-Kipnis paragraph 0021, grouping action seed content in "currently available" or "not currently available" tags).
As to claim 12, Smith-Kipnis further discloses the method of claim 1, wherein a first seed content of the seed content includes a tag indicating a preference for content generated using the first seed content ("In act 202, the facility accesses the list of all actions currently available on the website to the user. In various embodiments, this list is static and consistent for all users; variant between users, but static for individual users; dynamic over time, but consistent across users at a particular time; or fully dynamic, variant both between users and over time," Smith-Kipnis paragraph 0021, action seed content tagged as "currently available" or "not currently available" (i.e., a preference for availability)).
As to claim 13, Smith-Kipnis further discloses the method of claim 12, wherein the preference is one of tone, layout, or format ("In act 202, the facility accesses the list of all actions currently available on the website to the user. In various embodiments, this list is static and consistent for all users; variant between users, but static for individual users; dynamic over time, but consistent across users at a particular time; or fully dynamic, variant both between users and over time," Smith-Kipnis paragraph 0021, action seed content tagged as "currently available" or "not currently available" (i.e., a preference for availability format)).
As to claim 14, Smith-Kipnis further discloses the method of claim 1, wherein a first seed content of the seed content is used to ground the web page ("In act 202, the facility accesses the list of all actions currently available on the website to the user. In various embodiments, this list is static and consistent for all users; variant between users, but static for individual users; dynamic over time, but consistent across users at a particular time; or fully dynamic, variant both between users and over time," Smith-Kipnis paragraph 0021, action seed content tagged as "currently available" or "not currently available" and thus is grounded since only currently available tags are allowed to be scored and selected).
As to claim 15, Smith-Kipnis discloses a system comprising:
memory identifying a seed content corpus (“In various embodiments, the computer systems and devices include zero or more of each of the following: a processor 101 for executing computer programs and/or training or applying machine learning models, such as a CPU, GPU, TPU, NNP, FPGA, or ASIC; a computer memory 102 for storing programs and data while they are being used, including the facility and associated data,” Smith-Kipnis paragraph 0019; “In act 202, the facility accesses the list of all actions currently available on the website to the user. In various embodiments, this list is static and consistent for all users; variant between users, but static for individual users; dynamic over time, but consistent across users at a particular time; or fully dynamic, variant both between users and over time. The facility can rely on various factors about actions in determining which to make available at a particular time,” Smith-Kipnis paragraph 0021);
a navigational graph model ("FIG. 3 is a data flow diagram showing the facility's scoring of candidate actions in some embodiments. The facility generates these scores 331 using one or more action determinant factors 321. In various embodiments, these factors include web activity 301 of the requesting user, as well as other users. In some embodiments, the user web activity includes information about browsing actions as well as information about actions taken, for each recent session of the user interacting with the website. From this can be derived information about the current status or intent of the user, as well as the past patterns of interacting that led to certain actions being taken, all of which is considered by the facility among the factors in some embodiments," Smith-Kipnis paragraph 0027);
at least one processor (“In various embodiments, the computer systems and devices include zero or more of each of the following: a processor 101 for executing computer programs and/or training or applying machine learning models, such as a CPU, GPU, TPU, NNP, FPGA, or ASIC; a computer memory 102 for storing programs and data while they are being used, including the facility and associated data,” Smith-Kipnis paragraph 0019; “In act 202, the facility accesses the list of all actions currently available on the website to the user. In various embodiments, this list is static and consistent for all users; variant between users, but static for individual users; dynamic over time, but consistent across users at a particular time; or fully dynamic, variant both between users and over time. The facility can rely on various factors about actions in determining which to make available at a particular time,” Smith-Kipnis paragraph 0021); and
memory storing instructions that, when executed by the at least one processor, causes the system to perform operations (“In various embodiments, the computer systems and devices include zero or more of each of the following: a processor 101 for executing computer programs and/or training or applying machine learning models, such as a CPU, GPU, TPU, NNP, FPGA, or ASIC; a computer memory 102 for storing programs and data while they are being used, including the facility and associated data,” Smith-Kipnis paragraph 0019) including:
receiving, from a client device, a navigation request related to an intent ("In act 201, the facility receives a page request. The page request identifies a particular page of the website, and is sent on behalf of a particular user," Smith-Kipnis paragraph 0020; "In various embodiments, known present state of the current user takes into account a variety of ways of interacting with the website, including following links," Smith-Kipnis paragraph 0013; "The display further includes substantive section 410 relating to the user's test results 420. For example, the user may have reached this page by activating test results control navigation control 404," Smith-Kipnis paragraph 0029; "FIG. 3 is a data flow diagram showing the facility's scoring of candidate actions in some embodiments. The facility generates these scores 331 using one or more action determinant factors 321. In various embodiments, these factors include web activity 301 of the requesting user, as well as other users. In some embodiments, the user web activity includes information about browsing actions as well as information about actions taken, for each recent session of the user interacting with the website. From this can be derived information about the current status or intent of the user, as well as the past patterns of interacting that led to certain actions being taken, all of which is considered by the facility among the factors in some embodiments," Smith-Kipnis paragraph 0027, Smith-Kipnis Figure 2 201 "Receive page request for a particular page of a website on behalf of a particular user", user page request via clicking on links and using the user's navigation history (including the navigation request) to determine user intent),
determining seed content from the seed content corpus that is related to the navigation request ("In act 202, the facility accesses the list of all actions currently available on the website to the user. In various embodiments, this list is static and consistent for all users; variant between users, but static for individual users; dynamic over time, but consistent across users at a particular time; or fully dynamic, variant both between users and over time," Smith-Kipnis paragraph 0021, seed action content determined for the navigation request),
using a large foundational model to generate a web page based on the seed content, the navigational graph model, and the intent ("In some embodiments, the facility uses a large language model or a transformer model to discern intent," Smith-Kipnis paragraph 0013; "In some embodiments, the factors include an intent derived by applying an intent prediction model 310—such as a large language model or a transformer model," Smith-Kipnis paragraph 0027; "In act 203, the facility determines the score for each available action. Aspects of this score determination are discussed below in connection with FIG. 3," Smith-Kipnis paragraph 0022; "FIG. 3 is a data flow diagram showing the facility's scoring of candidate actions in some embodiments. The facility generates these scores 331 using one or more action determinant factors 321. In various embodiments, these factors include web activity 301 of the requesting user, as well as other users. In some embodiments, the user web activity includes information about browsing actions as well as information about actions taken, for each recent session of the user interacting with the website. From this can be derived information about the current status or intent of the user, as well as the past patterns of interacting that led to certain actions being taken, all of which is considered by the facility among the factors in some embodiments," Smith-Kipnis paragraph 0027; "In act 204, the facility selects from among the available actions certain actions for inclusion in the menu. The facility performs this selection based at least in part on the scores determined in act 203," Smith-Kipnis paragraph 0023; "In act 205, the facility generates a menu containing controls each corresponding to one of the actions selected in act 204. In act 206, the facility includes the menu generated in act 205 in a version of the requested page that the facility serves in response to receiving the page request," Smith-Kipnis paragraph 0024, using the user's navigation actions (i.e., a navigational model), LLM determined intent and seed content possible actions to generate the menu in the requested webpage), and
providing the web page for display on the client device ("In act 206, the facility includes the menu generated in act 205 in a version of the requested page that the facility serves in response to receiving the page request," Smith-Kipnis paragraph 0024; "For example, the user may have reached this page by activating test results control navigation control 404. The display further includes menu 480, containing a vertical stack of buttons 481-485. Each of buttons 481-485 corresponds to an action that is available to the user that has been dynamically selected by the facility as relevant for the user in their present situation," Smith-Kipnis paragraph 0029).
As to claim 16, Smith-Kipnis discloses a method comprising:
receiving seed content (“In act 202, the facility accesses the list of all actions currently available on the website to the user. In various embodiments, this list is static and consistent for all users; variant between users, but static for individual users; dynamic over time, but consistent across users at a particular time; or fully dynamic, variant both between users and over time. The facility can rely on various factors about actions in determining which to make available at a particular time,” Smith-Kipnis paragraph 0021);
associating at least one content generation tag or at least one content criteria tag with the seed content ("In act 202, the facility accesses the list of all actions currently available on the website to the user. In various embodiments, this list is static and consistent for all users; variant between users, but static for individual users; dynamic over time, but consistent across users at a particular time; or fully dynamic, variant both between users and over time. The facility can rely on various factors about actions in determining which to make available at a particular time," Smith-Kipnis paragraph 0021, if an action is "tagged" as available then it can be used as action seed content for generating the menu);
indexing the seed content ("In act 202, the facility accesses the list of all actions currently available on the website to the user. In various embodiments, this list is static and consistent for all users; variant between users, but static for individual users; dynamic over time, but consistent across users at a particular time; or fully dynamic, variant both between users and over time. The facility can rely on various factors about actions in determining which to make available at a particular time," Smith-Kipnis paragraph 0021, indexing actions by tagging actions as currently available or currently unavailable);
using the seed content to generate a web page on-demand based on a navigation request associated with a non-existent domain ("In act 201, the facility receives a page request. The page request identifies a particular page of the website, and is sent on behalf of a particular user," Smith-Kipnis paragraph 0020; "In various embodiments, known present state of the current user takes into account a variety of ways of interacting with the website, including following links," Smith-Kipnis paragraph 0013; "The display further includes substantive section 410 relating to the user's test results 420. For example, the user may have reached this page by activating test results control navigation control 404," Smith-Kipnis paragraph 0029; "FIG. 3 is a data flow diagram showing the facility's scoring of candidate actions in some embodiments. The facility generates these scores 331 using one or more action determinant factors 321. In various embodiments, these factors include web activity 301 of the requesting user, as well as other users. In some embodiments, the user web activity includes information about browsing actions as well as information about actions taken, for each recent session of the user interacting with the website. From this can be derived information about the current status or intent of the user, as well as the past patterns of interacting that led to certain actions being taken, all of which is considered by the facility among the factors in some embodiments," Smith-Kipnis paragraph 0027, Smith-Kipnis Figure 2 201; "In act 203, the facility determines the score for each available action. Aspects of this score determination are discussed below in connection with FIG. 3," Smith-Kipnis paragraph 0022; "In act 204, the facility selects from among the available actions certain actions for inclusion in the menu. The facility performs this selection based at least in part on the scores determined in act 203," Smith-Kipnis paragraph 0023; "In act 205, the facility generates a menu containing controls each corresponding to one of the actions selected in act 204. In act 206, the facility includes the menu generated in act 205 in a version of the requested page that the facility serves in response to receiving the page request," Smith-Kipnis paragraph 0024; "The display further includes menu 480, containing a vertical stack of buttons 481-485. Each of buttons 481-485 corresponds to an action that is available to the user that has been dynamically selected by the facility as relevant for the user in their present situation," Smith-Kipnis paragraph 0029, using the user's navigation actions (i.e., a navigational model), LLM determined intent and seed content possible actions to generate the menu in the requested webpage where menus on the requested served page are dynamic and thus the domain in its served form did not exist prior to the navigation request); and
providing the web page for display on a client device ("In act 206, the facility includes the menu generated in act 205 in a version of the requested page that the facility serves in response to receiving the page request," Smith-Kipnis paragraph 0024; "For example, the user may have reached this page by activating test results control navigation control 404. The display further includes menu 480, containing a vertical stack of buttons 481-485. Each of buttons 481-485 corresponds to an action that is available to the user that has been dynamically selected by the facility as relevant for the user in their present situation," Smith-Kipnis paragraph 0029).
As to claim 17, Smith-Kipnis further discloses the method of claim 16, wherein the content generation tag indicates a style preference ("In act 202, the facility accesses the list of all actions currently available on the website to the user. In various embodiments, this list is static and consistent for all users; variant between users, but static for individual users; dynamic over time, but consistent across users at a particular time; or fully dynamic, variant both between users and over time. The facility can rely on various factors about actions in determining which to make available at a particular time," Smith-Kipnis paragraph 0021, action is "tagged" as available or unavailable style).
As to claim 18, Smith-Kipnis further discloses the method of claim 16, wherein the content criteria tag indicates a permitted use of the seed content ("In act 202, the facility accesses the list of all actions currently available on the website to the user. In various embodiments, this list is static and consistent for all users; variant between users, but static for individual users; dynamic over time, but consistent across users at a particular time; or fully dynamic, variant both between users and over time. The facility can rely on various factors about actions in determining which to make available at a particular time," Smith-Kipnis paragraph 0021, if an action is "tagged" as available then it can be used as action seed content for generating the menu).
As to claim 20, Smith-Kipnis further discloses the method of claim 16, wherein a large foundational model is used to generate the web page based on the seed content and the content generation tag ("In some embodiments, the facility uses a large language model or a transformer model to discern intent," Smith-Kipnis paragraph 0013; "In some embodiments, the factors include an intent derived by applying an intent prediction model 310—such as a large language model or a transformer model," Smith-Kipnis paragraph 0027; "In act 203, the facility determines the score for each available action. Aspects of this score determination are discussed below in connection with FIG. 3," Smith-Kipnis paragraph 0022; "FIG. 3 is a data flow diagram showing the facility's scoring of candidate actions in some embodiments. The facility generates these scores 331 using one or more action determinant factors 321. In various embodiments, these factors include web activity 301 of the requesting user, as well as other users. In some embodiments, the user web activity includes information about browsing actions as well as information about actions taken, for each recent session of the user interacting with the website. From this can be derived information about the current status or intent of the user, as well as the past patterns of interacting that led to certain actions being taken, all of which is considered by the facility among the factors in some embodiments," Smith-Kipnis paragraph 0027; "In act 204, the facility selects from among the available actions certain actions for inclusion in the menu. The facility performs this selection based at least in part on the scores determined in act 203," Smith-Kipnis paragraph 0023; "In act 205, the facility generates a menu containing controls each corresponding to one of the actions selected in act 204. In act 206, the facility includes the menu generated in act 205 in a version of the requested page that the facility serves in response to receiving the page request," Smith-Kipnis paragraph 0024, using seed content available actions to generate the menu in the requested webpage).
As to claim 21, Smith-Kipnis further discloses the method of claim 16, further comprising:
using the seed content to generate a link on a second web page, the link being generated using a navigational graph model; and using the seed content to generate the web page in response to selection of the link (("In some embodiments, the facility uses a large language model or a transformer model to discern intent," Smith-Kipnis paragraph 0013; "In some embodiments, the factors include an intent derived by applying an intent prediction model 310—such as a large language model or a transformer model," Smith-Kipnis paragraph 0027; "In act 203, the facility determines the score for each available action. Aspects of this score determination are discussed below in connection with FIG. 3," Smith-Kipnis paragraph 0022; "FIG. 3 is a data flow diagram showing the facility's scoring of candidate actions in some embodiments. The facility generates these scores 331 using one or more action determinant factors 321. In various embodiments, these factors include web activity 301 of the requesting user, as well as other users. In some embodiments, the user web activity includes information about browsing actions as well as information about actions taken, for each recent session of the user interacting with the website. From this can be derived information about the current status or intent of the user, as well as the past patterns of interacting that led to certain actions being taken, all of which is considered by the facility among the factors in some embodiments," Smith-Kipnis paragraph 0027; "In act 204, the facility selects from among the available actions certain actions for inclusion in the menu. The facility performs this selection based at least in part on the scores determined in act 203," Smith-Kipnis paragraph 0023; "In act 205, the facility generates a menu containing controls each corresponding to one of the actions selected in act 204. In act 206, the facility includes the menu generated in act 205 in a version of the requested page that the facility serves in response to receiving the page request," Smith-Kipnis paragraph 0024, using the user's navigation actions (i.e., a navigational model), LLM determined intent and seed content possible actions to generate the menu in the requested webpage)).
As to claim 22, Smith-Kipnis further discloses the method of claim 16, wherein the seed content includes text lacking a finalized form ("In act 202, the facility accesses the list of all actions currently available on the website to the user. In various embodiments, this list is static and consistent for all users; variant between users, but static for individual users; dynamic over time, but consistent across users at a particular time; or fully dynamic, variant both between users and over time," Smith-Kipnis paragraph 0021, seed action content determined for the navigation request is just a list of action content is not in its displayed-as-a-link-on-the-site finalized form).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
Claims 3 and 4 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Smith-Kipnis et al. (US 20240362288 A1, hereinafter Smith-Kipnis) in view of Soubbotin (US 12038958 B1).
As to claim 3, Smith-Kipnis further discloses the method of claim 1, wherein the web page includes links, the links being represented by titles, the links and the titles being generated by the large foundational model ("In some embodiments, the facility uses a large language model or a transformer model to discern intent," Smith-Kipnis paragraph 0013; "In some embodiments, the factors include an intent derived by applying an intent prediction model 310—such as a large language model or a transformer model," Smith-Kipnis paragraph 0027; "In act 203, the facility determines the score for each available action. Aspects of this score determination are discussed below in connection with FIG. 3," Smith-Kipnis paragraph 0022; "FIG. 3 is a data flow diagram showing the facility's scoring of candidate actions in some embodiments. The facility generates these scores 331 using one or more action determinant factors 321. In various embodiments, these factors include web activity 301 of the requesting user, as well as other users. In some embodiments, the user web activity includes information about browsing actions as well as information about actions taken, for each recent session of the user interacting with the website. From this can be derived information about the current status or intent of the user, as well as the past patterns of interacting that led to certain actions being taken, all of which is considered by the facility among the factors in some embodiments," Smith-Kipnis paragraph 0027; "In act 204, the facility selects from among the available actions certain actions for inclusion in the menu. The facility performs this selection based at least in part on the scores determined in act 203," Smith-Kipnis paragraph 0023; "In act 205, the facility generates a menu containing controls each corresponding to one of the actions selected in act 204. In act 206, the facility includes the menu generated in act 205 in a version of the requested page that the facility serves in response to receiving the page request," Smith-Kipnis paragraph 0024; Smith-Kipnis Figure 4 481,482,483,484,485, using the user's navigation actions (i.e., a navigational model), LLM determined intent and seed content possible actions to generate the menu in the requested webpage where the menu is a link to another page/action and has a title).
However Smith-Kipnis does not appear to explicitly disclose the links being represented by snippets and the snippets being generated by the large foundational model.
Soubbotin teaches the links being represented by snippets and the snippets being generated by the large foundational model (“In the present example, each search result in search results list 103 may be displayed with relevant information such as, but not limited to, a title, a URL to the location of the document, a snippet of text that the search engine has associated with the result, etc.,” Soubbotin column 20 lines 53-57; “To re-iterate, the present invention is agnostic as to the particular language model or AI that is employed to generate the summarization,” Soubbotin column 21 lines 19-22).
Accordingly it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the method of Smith-Kipnis to display snippets for the links in addition to titles as taught by Soubbotin. One would have been motivated to make such a combination so that the user could have more context and explanation for each generated link, thus providing more information to help the user make a choice from the generated link and increasing ease of use.
As to claim 4, Smith-Kipnis as modified by Soubbotin further discloses the method of claim 3, further comprising:
receiving a selected link from the links ("In act 201, the facility receives a page request. The page request identifies a particular page of the website, and is sent on behalf of a particular user," Smith-Kipnis paragraph 0020; "In various embodiments, known present state of the current user takes into account a variety of ways of interacting with the website, including following links," Smith-Kipnis paragraph 0013; "The display further includes substantive section 410 relating to the user's test results 420. For example, the user may have reached this page by activating test results control navigation control 404," Smith-Kipnis paragraph 0029 Smith-Kipnis Figure 2 201 "Recieve page request for a particular page of a website on behalf of a particular user", user page request via clicking on links);
determining seed content related to the selected link ("In act 202, the facility accesses the list of all actions currently available on the website to the user. In various embodiments, this list is static and consistent for all users; variant between users, but static for individual users; dynamic over time, but consistent across users at a particular time; or fully dynamic, variant both between users and over time," Smith-Kipnis paragraph 0021, seed action content determined for the navigation request);
using the large foundational model to generate a second web page based on the seed content, the navigation model, and an inferred query based on the selected link ("In some embodiments, the facility uses a large language model or a transformer model to discern intent," Smith-Kipnis paragraph 0013; "In some embodiments, the factors include an intent derived by applying an intent prediction model 310—such as a large language model or a transformer model," Smith-Kipnis paragraph 0027; "In act 203, the facility determines the score for each available action. Aspects of this score determination are discussed below in connection with FIG. 3," Smith-Kipnis paragraph 0022; "FIG. 3 is a data flow diagram showing the facility's scoring of candidate actions in some embodiments. The facility generates these scores 331 using one or more action determinant factors 321. In various embodiments, these factors include web activity 301 of the requesting user, as well as other users. In some embodiments, the user web activity includes information about browsing actions as well as information about actions taken, for each recent session of the user interacting with the website. From this can be derived information about the current status or intent of the user, as well as the past patterns of interacting that led to certain actions being taken, all of which is considered by the facility among the factors in some embodiments," Smith-Kipnis paragraph 0027; "In act 204, the facility selects from among the available actions certain actions for inclusion in the menu. The facility performs this selection based at least in part on the scores determined in act 203," Smith-Kipnis paragraph 0023; "In act 205, the facility generates a menu containing controls each corresponding to one of the actions selected in act 204. In act 206, the facility includes the menu generated in act 205 in a version of the requested page that the facility serves in response to receiving the page request," Smith-Kipnis paragraph 0024, using the user's navigation actions (i.e., a navigational model), LLM determined intent and seed content possible actions to generate the menu in the requested webpage); and
providing the second web page for display on the client device ("In act 206, the facility includes the menu generated in act 205 in a version of the requested page that the facility serves in response to receiving the page request," Smith-Kipnis paragraph 0024; "For example, the user may have reached this page by activating test results control navigation control 404. The display further includes menu 480, containing a vertical stack of buttons 481-485. Each of buttons 481-485 corresponds to an action that is available to the user that has been dynamically selected by the facility as relevant for the user in their present situation," Smith-Kipnis paragraph 0029).
Claim 19 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Smith-Kipnis et al. (US 20240362288 A1, hereinafter Smith-Kipnis) in view of Choi et al. (US 20250068662 A1, hereinafter Choi).
As to claim 19, Smith-Kipnis further discloses the method of claim 16, wherein the seed content comprises health data (“In some embodiments, the factors include state about one or more users, such as electronic medical record (“EMR”) records maintained for each user. In various embodiments, this user state can involve aspects such as a history of messaging with providers; a history of in-person or video conferencing visits; a history of labs performed and their results; a history of procedures performed; and current or past status information. In various embodiments, the facility uses information from these or other sources for the requesting user; all users; and/or users who share a characteristic with the requesting user, such as age, sex, geographical region, user class, etc.,” Smith Kipnis paragraph 0027).
However Smith-Kipnis does not appear to explicitly disclose a limitation wherein the content generation tag or the content criteria tag is associated with a profile of a content creator providing the seed content.
Choi teaches a limitation wherein the content generation tag or the content criteria tag is associated with a profile of a content creator providing the seed content (“As an example, the processing system may receive specific user privacy preferences/settings as input, which may be stored in memory. The processing system may use the user privacy preferences/settings inputs to make decisions regarding selectively enabling or disabling LLM access to (e.g., by selectively activating or deactivating) various information sub-modules 212-218 based upon the user privacy settings as well as the context of the incoming communication and current user activities. For example, the user inputs may include user privacy settings that set the permissions for Location, Calendar, Camera, and Microphone set to ‘ON,’ and set the permissions for Bluetooth, Health, ECG, and Motion set to ‘OFF,’” Choi paragraph 0060, owner of content tags the content with available or not available tag to the LLM).
Accordingly it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the method of Smith-Kipnis to allow a content owner to tag content as private as taught by Choi. One would have been motivated to make such a combination so that the generated content is “tailored to… the privacy preferences of the user” (Choi paragraph 0028).
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure:
US 20230283580 A1 to Rodriguez et al. discloses story message generation where a navigational history model is used to alter or generate a webpage using a language model;
US 20240346233 A1 to Paulino et al. discloses efficient generation of review summaries where each item on a webpage has a corresponding link to view a review summary for the item and generating a summary for the item in response to selecting the link; and
US 20250086244 A1 to Desrosiers et al. discloses systems and methods for computer research management using large language models where an LLM is used to generate a page and address to the page in response to selecting a link associated with the page.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to DANIEL SAMWEL whose telephone number is (313) 446-6549. The examiner can normally be reached Monday through Thursday 8:00-6:00 EST.
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, Kieu Vu can be reached at (571) 272-4057. 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 SAMWEL/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2171
Prosecution Insights