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 .
Priority
Acknowledgment is made of applicant's claim for foreign priority based on an application filed in China on 11/21/2023. Applicant has filed a certified copy of the foreign priority application as required by 37 CFR 1.55.
Claim Rejections – 35 USC § 101
35 U.S.C. 101 reads as follows:
Whoever invents or discovers any new and useful process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter, or any new and useful improvement thereof, may obtain a patent therefor, subject to the conditions and requirements of this title.
Claims 1-6, 9 and 12-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
Claim 1 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
The claim recites the following limitations: replying with an outline content in the dialog component, wherein the outline content is generated based on the theme of the presentation document, the outline content comprises a content heading and/or descriptive information for the content heading, and the dialog component is configured to receive and reply to a message; generating a target presentation document based on the outline content of the presentation document and the style of the presentation document. The above limitations can be performed in the mind as part of a mental process, or using pen and paper. They thus fall under the “Mental Processes” grouping of abstract ideas. The claim does not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application. The claim includes additional limitations, including: in response to receiving a theme of the presentation document in a dialog component of a presentation document page; in response to receiving a determination instruction for a style of the presentation document in the dialog component; the dialog component is configured to receive and reply to a message. The receiving steps amount to insignificant extra-solution activity i.e., data gathering. See MPEP 2106.05(g). The dialog component amounts to merely applying the abstract idea using generic computer components. In other words, the dialog component amounts to the well-known concept of a user interface that can receive and display data. See MPEP 2106.05(f). Accordingly, these additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because they do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea.
The claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. As noted above, the receiving steps pertain to insignificant extra-solution activity, because they pertain to mere data gathering. The dialog component amounts to applying the abstract idea using generic computer components. Additionally, the receiving limitations also amount to a well-understood, routine and conventional activity i.e., data gathering/collection. See MPEP 2106.05(d) II. Considering the additional elements individually and in combination and the claim as a whole, the additional elements do not provide significantly more than the abstract idea. The claim is not patent eligible.
Claim 2 recites the limitation, “wherein the receiving the theme of the presentation document in the dialog component of the presentation document page comprises: receiving the message comprising the theme sent by a user in the dialog component of the presentation document page.” As noted above, the receiving step amounts to insignificant extra solution activity and well-understood, routine and conventional activity i.e., data gathering/collection. The claim is not patent eligible.
Claim 3 recites the limitation, “replying with a theme message in the dialog component, wherein the theme message comprises a candidate theme, wherein the receiving the theme of the presentation document in the dialog component of the presentation document page comprises: receiving a selection instruction for the theme of the presentation document in the dialog component of the presentation document page.” As noted above, the replying step pertains to an abstract idea i.e., generating data based on input. As noted above, the receiving step amounts to insignificant extra solution activity and well-understood, routine and conventional activity i.e., data gathering/collection. The claim is not patent eligible.
Claim 4 recites the limitation, “displaying the message comprising the theme of the presentation document sent by a user in the dialog component.” The displaying step pertains to insignificant extrasolution activity i.e., displaying or presenting data. See MPEP 2106.05(g). The displaying step also pertains to well-understood, routine and conventional activity i.e., the display of data. The claim is not patent eligible. See MPEP 2106.05(d) II. The claim is not patent eligible.
Claim 5 recites the limitation, “replying with a style message in the dialog component, wherein the style message comprises a to-be-determined style of the presentation document, and the to-be-determined style of the presentation document is a candidate style, wherein the receiving the determination instruction for the style of the presentation document in the dialog component comprises: receiving a selection instruction for the style of the presentation document in the dialog component, wherein the style of the presentation document belongs to the candidate style.” As noted above, the replying step pertains to an abstract idea i.e., generating data based on input. As noted above, the receiving step amounts to insignificant extra solution activity and well-understood, routine and conventional activity i.e., data gathering/collection. The claim is not patent eligible.
Claim 6 recites the limitation, “wherein the candidate style matches the theme.” This limitation merely modifies the replying step, which pertains to an abstract idea. The claim is not patent eligible.
Claim 9 recites the limitation, “in response to receiving an outline confirmation instruction in the dialog component, replying with a style message in the dialog component, wherein the outline confirmation instruction is a text dialog message, and the style message comprises a to-be-determined style of the presentation document.” As noted above, the replying step pertains to an abstract idea i.e., generating data based on input. As noted above, the receiving step amounts to insignificant extra solution activity and well-understood, routine and conventional activity i.e., data gathering/collection. The claim is not patent eligible.
Claim 12 recites the limitation, “wherein the target presentation document comprises a template content, and the template content is obtained by expanding the outline content.” The limitation modifies the generating step of claim 1, which amounts to an abstract idea i.e., a mental process that can be carried out in the mind or with pen and paper. The claim is not patent eligible.
Claim 13 recites the limitation, “wherein the template content is obtained by processing the outline content by a first natural language processing model.” The obtaining step amounts to insignificant extra solution activity and well-understood, routine and conventional activity i.e., data gathering/collection. Additionally, the use of a natural processing model amounts to applying the abstract idea using generic, known computer applications e.g., see MPEP 2106.05(f). The claim is not patent eligible.
Claim 14 recites the limitation, “wherein the outline content is obtained by processing the theme of the presentation document by a second natural language processing model.” The obtaining step amounts to insignificant extra solution activity and well-understood, routine and conventional activity i.e., data gathering/collection. Additionally, the use of a natural processing model amounts to applying the abstract idea using generic, known computer applications e.g., see MPEP 2106.05(f). The claim is not patent eligible.
Claim 15 recites the limitation, “wherein the target presentation document is generated by processing the style of the presentation document and the outline content of the presentation document by an artificial intelligence model.” The limitation involves applying the abstract using generic computer applications e.g., an artificial intelligence model. See MPEP 2106.05(f). The claim is not patent eligible.
Claims 16-20 correspond to claims 1-4, and are rejected for the same reasons.
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 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.
Claims 1-6, 8-14, 16-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Tuffnell (YouTube video by C. Tuffnell, “Create Presentation in Minutes with Gamma AI,” published May 16, 2023, downloaded from https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qZka__gVDRk).
Regarding claim 1, Tuffnell teaches a method for generating a presentation document, comprising:
in response to receiving a theme of the presentation document in a dialog component of a presentation document page, replying with an outline content in the dialog component, wherein the outline content is generated based on the theme of the presentation document (0:57-3:15, Tuffnell relates to a video of an application presenting an interface for dialog i.e., dialog component; a user, using natural language, types in a desired topic/theme for a slide presentation; the system responds with an outline),
the outline content comprises a content heading and/or descriptive information for the content heading, and the dialog component is configured to receive and reply to a message (0:57-3:15, the system provides an outline, including bullet point headings and descriptive information; the interface is designed to receive input and respond); and
in response to receiving a determination instruction for a style of the presentation document in the dialog component, generating a target presentation document based on the outline content of the presentation document and the style of the presentation document (2:50-4:40, after a user has indicated that the outline is satisfactory, the system presents various theme/style candidate options; the use can select one, and then a slide presentation is displayed).
Regarding claim 2, Tuffnell teaches the invention as claimed in claim 1. Tuffnell also teaches wherein the receiving the theme of the presentation document in the dialog component of the presentation document page comprises:
receiving the message comprising the theme sent by a user in the dialog component of the presentation document page (2:15-3:00, the user can describe a theme/topic using natural language in a dialog-based interface).
Regarding claim 3, Tuffnell teaches the invention as claimed in claim 1. Tuffnell also teaches
replying with a theme message in the dialog component, wherein the theme message comprises a candidate theme,
wherein the receiving the theme of the presentation document in the dialog component of the presentation document page comprises:
receiving a selection instruction for the theme of the presentation document in the dialog component of the presentation document page (2:15-3:00, the user can describe a theme/topic using natural language in a dialog-based interface i.e., the system receives a proposed theme/topic via the interface).
Regarding claim 4, Tuffnell teaches the invention as claimed in claim 3. Tuffnell also teaches
displaying the message comprising the theme of the presentation document sent by a user in the dialog component (2:15-3:00, the user can describe a theme/topic using natural language in a dialog-based interface, i.e. the theme/topic is visibly presented and is typed in by the user).
Regarding claim 5, Tuffnell teaches the invention as claimed in claim 1. Tuffnell also teaches
replying with a style message in the dialog component, wherein the style message comprises a to-be-determined style of the presentation document, and the to-be-determined style of the presentation document is a candidate style,
wherein the receiving the determination instruction for the style of the presentation document in the dialog component comprises:
receiving a selection instruction for the style of the presentation document in the dialog component, wherein the style of the presentation document belongs to the candidate style (3:10-3:40, after the user presents a candidate topic/theme and optionally edits a proposed outline presented by the system, the system presents candidate themes/styles in the interface e.g., controlling color patterns and formatting for the presentation; the user can select one of the candidate themes/styles to apply to the presentation; note that “style” can be broadly interpreted to cover almost any kind of format; thus the above presentation of the outline and the editing/selection by the user in response could be understood as relating to a “selection instruction” for a style e.g., see 2:40-3:10) .
Regarding claim 6, Tuffnell teaches the invention as claimed in claim 1. Tuffnell also teaches wherein the candidate style matches the theme (2:50-3:30, the selected style/theme is matched to the topic/theme).
Regarding claim 8, Tuffnell teaches the invention as claimed in claim 1. Tuffnell also teaches
in response to receiving an edit instruction for the outline content in the dialog component, presenting the outline content in a session input area of the dialog component for editing by a user; and
in response to receiving an edited outline content, generating a new outline content based on the edited outline content, and replying with the new outline content in the dialog component (2:20-3:15, a user can receive an outline for the presentation based on their submitted theme/topic; the user can then add edits to the outline; as the user edits, the outline reflects all the edits in real-time and thus changes visually as it is edited).
Regarding claim 9, Tuffnell teaches the invention as claimed in claim 1. Tuffnell also teaches
in response to receiving an outline confirmation instruction in the dialog component, replying with a style message in the dialog component, wherein the outline confirmation instruction is a text dialog message, and the style message comprises a to-be-determined style of the presentation document (2:20-3:30, in the dialog-like interface, the user can indicate that they are satisfied with the outline presentation and wish to continue i.e., an outline confirmation message in a text dialog message; in response, the system presents candidate styles/themes to select).
Regarding claim 10, Tuffnell teaches the invention as claimed in claim 1. Tuffnell also teaches wherein, after the generating the target presentation document based on the outline content of the presentation document and the style of the presentation document, the method further comprises:
replying with an edit message for the target presentation document in the dialog component, wherein the edit message comprises at least one edit control; and
in response to receiving a trigger operation on the edit control, adjusting the target presentation document (4:00-5:00, after the system generates a presentation based on the user’s topic/theme and style/theme input, the system can present a control option for finding a web image, and inserting it into the presentation; for example, in the presentation, the user finds an image of a blue brain, and inserts it into the presentation).
Regarding claim 11, Tuffnell teaches the invention as claimed in claim 10. Tuffnell also teaches wherein the edit control comprises an image control and/or a style control, the image control is configured to output an image content in the dialog component based on a user input, and the style control is configured to adjust the style of the target presentation document in response to the user input (4:00-5:00, after the system generates a presentation based on the user’s topic/theme and style/theme input, the system can present a control option for finding a web image, and inserting it into the presentation; for example, in the presentation, the user finds an image of a blue brain, and inserts it into the presentation).
Regarding claim 12, Tuffnell teaches the invention as claimed in claim 1. Tuffnell also teaches wherein the target presentation document comprises a template content, and the template content is obtained by expanding the outline content (4:00-5:00, the generated presentation document can be understood as a basic template, upon which the user can make further adjustments of various kinds e.g., inserting images etc.; 2:20-3:15, the presentation may have been generated by a user adding to and expanding upon an earlier presented outline of the presentation; the generated presentation is then based on the outline).
Regarding claim 13, Tuffnell teaches the invention as claimed in claim 12. Tuffnell also teaches wherein the template content is obtained by processing the outline content by a first natural language processing model (0:50-1:20, 2:30-3:20, the system utilizes artificial intelligence to process natural language input in the form of outline content, and based on the outline, generate a presentation; inherently, there is therefore a model to perform these operations).
Regarding claim 14, Tuffnell teaches the invention as claimed in claim 1. Tuffnell also teaches wherein the outline content is obtained by processing the theme of the presentation document by a second natural language processing model (0:50-1:20, 2:30-3:20, the system utilizes artificial intelligence to process natural language input from a user in the form of a theme/topic description and outline content; based on this input, a presentation is generated; inherently, there is a model to perform these operations).
Regarding claim 16, the claim corresponds to claim 1 and is rejected for the same reasons. Tuffnell also teaches an electronic device, comprising:
at least one processor; and
at least one memory storing one or more programs (inherently, to implement the invention described in Tuffnell, a device, memory and instructions are required).
Regarding claim 17, Tuffnell teaches the invention as claimed in claim 16. Claim 17 also corresponds to claim 2 and is rejected for the same reasons.
Regarding claim 18, Tuffnell teaches the invention as claimed in claim 16. Claim 18 also corresponds to claim 3 and is rejected for the same reasons.
Regarding claim 19, Tuffnell teaches the invention as claimed in claim 18. Claim 19 also corresponds to claim 4 and is rejected for the same reasons.
Regarding claim 20, the claim corresponds to claim 1 and is rejected for the same reasons. Tuffnell also teaches a non-transitory computer-readable storage medium, storing computer programs, wherein the computer programs upon being executed by a processor implement a method (inherently, to implement the invention described in Tuffnell, a device, memory and instructions are required). 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 of this title, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
Claim 7 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Tuffnell, as applied in claim 1, and further in view of Classpoint (YouTube video by Classpoint, “3 Ways to Create Powerpoint Presentations with ChatGPT,” published Sept. 24, 2023, downloaded from https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JmVWz2PFVA0).
Regarding claim 7, Tuffnell teaches the invention as claimed in claim 1. However, Tuffnell does not expressly disclose in response to receiving a re-generation instruction for the outline content m the dialog component, displaying a new outline content in the dialog component.
In the same field of endeavor, Classpoint teaches in response to receiving a re-generation instruction for the outline content m the dialog component, displaying a new outline content in the dialog component (0:55-1:25, a user can enter a prompt into ChatGPT regarding a topic/theme for a slide presentation; the system can respond with an outline of the presentation; the user can enter an additional prompt, asking the system to elaborate more on aspects of the outline; the system then recreates the outline and adds the requested elaboration).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have incorporated in response to receiving a re-generation instruction for the outline content m the dialog component, displaying a new outline content in the dialog component as suggested in Classpoint into Tuffnell, because Tuffnell and Classpoint pertain to analogous fields of technology. Both Tuffnell and Classpoint relate to AI applications which receive natural language prompts from users to generate outlines and presentations. In Classpoint, a user can enter a prompt to ask the system to rewrite or regenerate a presented outline. It would be desirable to incorporate this feature into Tuffnell, so that a user can use known techniques to further edit and revise a presented outline e.g., see Classpoint 0:55-1:25.
Claim 15 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Tuffnell, as applied in claim 1, and further in view of Cai (US 2023/0385320).
Regarding claim 15, Tuffnell teaches the invention as claimed in claim 1. Tuffnell also teaches wherein the target presentation document is generated by processing the style of the presentation document and the outline content of the presentation document (2:30-4:10), the user inputs in a theme/topic, and the system responds with an outline of a presentation; the user can also then select a candidate style/theme; both of these are processed by the system to generate a presentation).
However, Tuffnell does not expressly disclose the processing by an artificial intelligence model.
In the same field of endeavor, Cai teaches the processing by an artificial intelligence model (Abstract, claim 9, Figs. 7A-7E, [0075-0078, 0029-0042], an artificial intelligence model can be used to generate draft content based on a variety of sources e.g., an identified style, an outline etc.).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have incorporated the processing by an artificial intelligence model as suggested in Cai into Tuffnell because Tuffnell and Cai pertain to analogous fields of technology. Both Tuffnell and Cai pertain to utilizing AI to generate draft content e.g., a presentation. The Tuffnell system receives a theme/topic, generates an outline, receives a theme/style selection, and then generates a presentation, where it is strongly suggested that AI is used to generate the presentation based on the inputs e.g., see Tuffnell 0:50-1:10. In Cai, there are explicit teachings that AI can be used to generate content based on an outline, user input and an identified style. It would be desirable to incorporate this feature into Tuffnell to provide an effective means for the Tuffnell system to take into various types of data in generating a presentation e.g., see Cai Abstract, claim 9, Figs. 7A-7E, [0075-0078, 0029-0042].
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Ward (US 2025/0005278) teaches a system with a user interface that accepts unstructured text strings and provides a response e.g., see Ward Abstract.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ERIC YOON whose telephone number is (408)918-7581. The examiner can normally be reached on 9 am to 5 pm ET Monday through Friday.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Scott Baderman, can be reached at telephone number 571-272-3644. 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.
/ERIC J YOON/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2118
Prosecution Insights