DETAILED ACTION
Status of Claims
This action is in reply to the response and amendments filed on 21 July 2026. As of the date of this communication no Information Disclosure Statement (IDS) has been filed on behalf of this case. The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Claims 1, 9, 15, and 17 have been amended.
Claims 2-8, 10-14, 16, and 18-20 are original / previously presented.
Claims 1-20 are currently pending and have been examined.
Response to Arguments
Regarding the Applicant’s arguments filed regarding the previous 35 USC 101 rejection of claims 1-20 have been considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant argues the claims are eligible in Step 2A Prong 1 because “independent claim 1 does not recite ‘certain methods of organizing human activity,’ nor does it recite a ‘mental process’ or any other judicial exception” (Remarks pg. 9). Examiner disagrees. The claims recite certain methods of organizing human activities because claim limitations represent mitigating risks, managing personal behavior or relationships or interactions between people, and following rules or instructions. For example, mitigating risks includes authenticating a user account…, displaying a content region displaying current content…, receiving user generated content…, in response to a trigger obtaining an event history log…, displaying of an event history log for a target content item…, analyzing event history log…, a user input…, identifying a page / document / version with a prior view event…, determining a content delta…, replacing text elements with static textual placeholders…, generating a prompt comprising text instructions / first content / delta…, obtaining a response…, producing a summary of content change summaries, locating static textual placeholders…, rehydrating / re-inserting text elements into content change summaries at the static placeholders. These are each activities a person may perform to mitigate risks associated with documentation version control and personally identifiable content. Next, managing personal behavior or relationships or interactions between people includes authenticating a user account…, displaying a content region displaying current content…, receiving user generated content…, in response to a trigger obtaining an event history log…, displaying of an event history log for a target content item…, analyzing event history log…, identifying a page / document / version with a prior view event…, determining a content delta…, replacing text elements with static textual placeholders…, generating a prompt comprising text instructions / first content / delta…, obtaining a response…, producing a summary of content change summaries…, locating static textual placeholders…, rehydrating / re-inserting text elements into content change summaries at the static placeholders. These are each activities that either a person may perform individually or people may perform between each other when handling documentation. Finally, following rules or instructions includes authenticating a user account…, displaying a content region displaying current content…, receiving user generated content…, in response to a trigger obtaining an event history log…, displaying of an event history log for a target content item…, analyzing event history log…, identifying a page / document / version with a prior view event…, determining a content delta…, replacing text elements with static textual placeholders…, generating a prompt comprising text instructions / first content / delta…, obtaining a response…, producing a summary of content change summaries, locating static textual placeholders…, rehydrating / re-inserting text elements into content change summaries at the static placeholders. These activities are instructions a person or people may perform regarding documentation changes and updates. Hence, these limitations recite certain methods of organizing human activities in Step 2a Prong 1. This argument is not persuasive.
Applicant argues the claims are eligible in Step 2A Prong 1 because “Amended independent claim 1 contains structural and computational steps that require machine execution and exceed human cognitive limits. Specifically, the active steps of amended independent claim 1 represent a computational necessity that cannot practically be performed in the human mind or through human activity including Heterogeneous Rich Text Ingestion and Rendering… A human mind cannot ingest, normalize, and parse rich text formatting schemas in real-time. Context Delta Extraction and Pre-processing Substitution… A human being cannot identify and isolate historical page states, compute structural differences between documents, programmatically swap active relational entities for static placeholders, and format a multi-part prompt in memory. Post-Generation Location and Rehydration… Executing coordinate-based text tracking, locating markers within model output, and re-linking database objects cannot be executed mentally” (Remarks pg. 10-11). Examiner disagrees. The activities in the judicial exception are claimed at such a high level of generality that they represent certain methods of organizing human activities and could otherwise be performed by a person. First, regarding “Heterogeneous Rich Text Ingestion and Rendering… A human mind cannot ingest, normalize, and parse rich text formatting schemas in real-time”, this is represented by the limitations “displaying current content of a target page comprising rich text elements”, and “replacing, by a content change generation service, the rich text elements within the first content and the content delta with static textual placeholders”, which a person could otherwise present a document that has text elements in bold or italics to another person, and a person could otherwise replace certain text elements in the document with different static textual placeholders. Second, regarding “Context Delta Extraction and Pre-processing Substitution… A human being cannot identify and isolate historical page states, compute structural differences between documents, programmatically swap active relational entities for static placeholders, and format a multi-part prompt in memory” this is represented by the limitations “analyzing the event history log to identify a cached page associated with a prior view event of the target page with respect to the user account; determining a content delta using first content… and second content… ; replacing, by a content change generation service, the rich text elements within the first content and the content delta with static textual placeholders; causing generation of a prompt, the prompt comprising: predetermined query prompt text including text-based instructions; the first content; and the content delta”, which a person could analyze event history and identify an earlier version of a document, a person could determine a difference in content between document versions, a person could otherwise replace certain text elements in the document with different static textual placeholders, and a person could generate text-based instructions and content for another person to create a summary. Third, regarding “Post-Generation Location and Rehydration… Executing coordinate-based text tracking, locating markers within model output, and re-linking database objects cannot be executed mentally”, this is represented by the limitations “ locating the static textual placeholders within the generative response; and rehydrating the generative response comprising re-inserting the rich text elements into the topically arranged list of content change summaries at positions corresponding to the static textual placeholders” which a person could otherwise search a document for text placeholders and replace the placeholders with the original text elements that were masked during from another person’s view (e.g. content hidden from view of the person generating the summary). Hence, these limitations are claimed at such a high level of generality lacking particular technical steps that the activities recited could otherwise be performed by a person. This argument is not persuasive.
Applicant argues the claims are eligible in Step 2A Prong 1 because “Amended independent claim 1 does not merely calculate statistics. Instead, amended independent claim 1 recites steps that: Evaluate incoming rich text documents containing active user mentions and embedded links; Identify prior view events from an event history log; Construct content deltas based on historical view states; and Programmatically swap rich text elements for placeholders and reconstruct those active elements via coordinate-based rehydration” (Remarks pg. 11). Examiner disagrees. First, active user mentions and embedded links are not recited in the claims. Although the claims are interpreted in light of the specification, limitations from the specification are not read into the claims. See In re Van Geuns, 988 F.2d 1181, 26 USPQ2d 1057 (Fed. Cir. 1993). Second, these argued features align with the judicial exception represented in the claims. The steps that are most associated with the features of evaluating incoming rich text documents (e.g. replacing, by a content change generation service, the rich text elements within the first content and the content delta with static textual placeholders), identifying prior view events from an event history log (e.g. analyzing the event history log to identify a cached page associated with a prior view event of the target page with respect to the user account), constructing content deltas based on historical view states (e.g. determining a content delta using first content… from the cached page and second content… from the target page); and programmatically swapping rich text elements for placeholders and reconstruct those active elements via coordinate-based rehydration (e.g. locating the static textual placeholders within the generative response; and rehydrating the generative response comprising re-inserting the rich text elements into the topically arranged list of content change summaries at positions corresponding to the static textual placeholders) are each high-level certain methods of organizing human activities (managing personal behavior, following rules or instructions) applied by general purpose computers / computer components (e.g. computer, a content change generation service) generally linking use of the judicial exception to a field of use (i.e. rich text elements, which Examiner notes may be cosmetic since rich text may be ‘special characters’ per Applicant specification ¶[0200]). These activities of replacing, analyzing, determining, locating, and rehydrating / re-inserting lack technical details in the claims so each still represents managing personal behavior. This argument is not persuasive.
Applicant argues the claims are eligible in Step 2A Prong 1 because “the claim recites the structural, database, and algorithmic parameters through which this text mapping is physically achieved, including: Parsing editor content to identify specific rich text elements; Swapping those rich elements for static textual placeholders using a content change generation service; Directing a generative engine with a structured prompt comprising first content, content delta, and prompt text; Locating the static placeholders within the generative response; and Rehydrating the summary by re-inserting the rich text elements into corresponding positions. Because the limitations of amended independent claim 1 define the structural constraints and step-by-step logic of the software architecture rather than a high-level outcome, it escapes the results-oriented trap barred by Constellation Designs” (Remarks pg. 12). Examiner disagrees. These argued features align with the judicial exception represented in the claims, implemented by general purpose computers / general computer components, which is not a structural constraint that precludes the claim from reciting a judicial exception. These argued features align with the judicial exception represented in the claims. The steps that are most associated with the features of parsing editor content to identify specific rich text elements (e.g. replacing, by a content change generation service, the rich text elements within the first content and the content delta with static textual placeholders), swapping those rich elements for static textual placeholders using a content change generation service (e.g. replacing, by a content change generation service, the rich text elements within the first content and the content delta with static textual placeholders), directing a generative engine with a structured prompt comprising first content, content delta, and prompt text (e.g. causing generation of a prompt, the prompt comprising: predetermined query prompt text including text-based instructions;
the first content; and the content delta; obtaining a generative response from a generative output engine, the generative response produced in response to the prompt being provided to the generative output engine), locating the static placeholders within the generative response (e.g. locating the static textual placeholders within the generative response), and rehydrating the summary by re-inserting the rich text elements into corresponding positions (e.g. rehydrating the generative response comprising re-inserting the rich text elements into the topically arranged list of content change summaries at positions corresponding to the static textual placeholders) are each high-level certain methods of organizing human activities (managing personal behavior, following rules or instructions) applied by general purpose computers / computer components (e.g. computer, a content change generation service, a generative output engine) generally linking use of the judicial exception to a field of use (i.e. rich text elements, which Examiner notes may be cosmetic since rich text may be ‘special characters’ per Applicant specification ¶[0200]; and artificial intelligence / LLM, which Examiner notes there are no technical details regarding how the generative response (result) is produced from the first content, second content, content delta (input); see MPEP 2106.05(f) no restriction how the result is accomplished and no description of the mechanism for accomplishing the result does not integrate a judicial exception into a practical application or provide significantly more because this type of recitation is equivalent to the words ‘apply it’). These activities of replacing, generating, obtaining, locating, rehydrating / re-inserting lack particular technical details in the claims so each still represent managing personal behavior and/or following rules or instructions. This argument is not persuasive.
Applicant argues the claims are eligible in Step 2A Prong 2 because “the claimed limitations integrate the alleged abstract idea into a practical application that improves machine functionality under MPEP 2106.04(d)” (Remarks pg. 12). Examiner disagrees. A computer itself outside of a judicial exception is not improved in the claims. At best, the claims only improve a judicial exception of organizing human activities in authenticating a user account…, displaying a content region displaying current content…, receiving user generated content…, in response to a trigger obtaining an event history log…, displaying of an event history log for a target content item…, analyzing event history log…, identifying a page / document / version with a prior view event…, determining a content delta…, replacing text elements with static textual placeholders…, generating a prompt comprising text instructions / first content / delta…, obtaining a response…, producing a summary of content change summaries…, locating static textual placeholders…, rehydrating / re-inserting text elements into content change summaries at the static placeholders. Per MPEP 2106.05(a) citing Diamond v. Diehr, it is important to note the judicial exception alone cannot provide the improvement. The improvement can be provided by one or more additional elements. However, the additional elements are no more than mere instructions to apply the judicial exception using generic computers / general computer components (a computer, a content change generation service, a frontend application on a client device, a graphical user interface of the content collaboration platform, an editor, a generative output engine, processing units, computer readable memory), generally applied to a technical environment / field of use (artificial intelligence, rich text); and adding high-level extra-solution and/or post-solution activities (e.g. storing data, data gathering, outputting data), which is not a practical application. This argument is not persuasive.
Applicant argues the claims are eligible in Step 2A Prong 2 because “claim 1 recites a specific, non-conventional placeholder substitution, content delta prompt mapping, and post-generation rehydration method that directly implements the type of technical optimizations found to be subject matter eligible under USPTO’s Appeal Review Panel in the precedential decision Ex parte Desjardins… In alignment with the reduced storage and reduced system complexity metrics of eligibly established in Desjardins, the newly added limitations of amended independent claim 1 actively optimize interface and model-to-platform communication. Specifically, as recited by amended independent claim 1, instructing the processor to replace the rich text elements with static textual placeholders before prompting, and subsequently locating the placeholders and re-inserting the original rich text elements to rehydrate the response, actively modifies the data transmission structure. This specific method, as recited by amended independent claim 1, inhibits desynchronization, facilitates preserving database references, and inhibits data degradation in the interface… ” (Remarks pg. 12). Examiner disagrees. First, the claims in Desjardins provided an improved method of training a machine learning model to address ‘catastrophic forgetting’ with a concrete, technical improvement regarding how computers function in continual (machine) learning systems, and the claims reflected the improvement disclosed in the specification. Per the Desjardins memo, whether or not the claims improve computers, a technology, or a technical field based on the specification and claim language was considered in the analysis. Unlike the claims in Desjardins, the Applicant claims do not improve a computer technology (e.g. artificial intelligence) or the computer itself outside of a judicial exception. The Applicant Specification does not discuss technical improvements to computer interface and model-to-platform communication. The closest Applicant Specification discussion regarding ‘inhibits desynchronization, facilitates preserving database references, and inhibits data degradation’ are discussed in a conclusory manner at best (see Specification ¶[0200] discussing rich text elements may not be preserved when processed by the generative output system so rich text elements are replaced with placeholders in the content prior to using the generative output system, and after the response is received the placeholders are replaced with their corresponding rich text elements in the content change summary; ¶[0184] discussing that non-textual content may be preserved through any generative processing with textual placeholders and allowing the non-textual content to be replaced; and ¶[0185] discussing identifying differences between two content items with a content delta such that one version of the content item and the content delta may be sufficient to reconstruct the other version of the content item; ¶[0234-235] discussing prohibiting executing prompts for offensive content and personally identifiable information (PII) by using preconditioning and then rehydrating the PII or other potentially sensitive data after), such that these are bare assertions of a improvements and not sufficient to determine the claim improves technology. Next, ‘instructing the processor to replace the rich text elements with static textual placeholders before prompting, and subsequently locating the placeholders and re-inserting the original rich text elements to rehydrate the response’ is a judicial exception (organizing human activities: managing personal behavior, following rules or instructions) ‘applied’ by a general purpose computer (processor) and generally linked to a field of use (i.e. limiting features to rich text elements); and per MPEP 2106.05(f) and 2106.05(h) mere instructions to apply an exception on a computer and generally limiting use of the exception to a field of use / technology is not a technical solution that provides a practical application. Hence, unlike Desjardins, the Applicant’s Specification does not support an improvement upon conventional technology or conventional technological processes that is a technical improvement; and the claims do not provide sufficient technical details to demonstrate a technical solution. This argument is not persuasive.
Applicant argues the claims are eligible in Step 2A Prong 2 because “the newly added limitations of amended claim 1 recite a specific, non-conventional pre-processing data substitution and post-processing rehydration mechanism. Conventional systems suffer from technical friction: when a user receives a page update, conventional systems simply strip rich formatting or pass raw text containing active links directly to generative models, causing processing failures, broken mentions, and desynchronization” (Remarks pg. 13). Examiner disagrees. First, the Applicant Specification does not identify that conventional systems suffer from stripping rich formatting or passing raw text containing active links to generative models that causes failures, broken mentions, and desynchronization. Applicant specification only states in ¶[0200] that “Such editor-specific text elements may not be preserved when the extracted content from the content item is processed by the generative output system 319”. The language (1) does not address conventional systems at the time of filing the invention, and (2) uses optional ‘may not’ language equally recognizing editor-specific text elements may also be preserved when the extracted content is processed. Second, the claimed pre-processing data substitution and post-processing rehydration activities (e.g. replacing, by a content change generation service, the rich text elements within the first content and the content delta with static textual placeholders; locating the static textual placeholders within the generative response; and rehydrating the generative response comprising re-inserting the rich text elements into the topically arranged list of content change summaries at positions corresponding to the static textual placeholders) are part of the judicial exception / abstract idea, and merely adding novel or non-routine components to the claimed idea does not necessarily turn an abstract idea into something concrete, per Ultramercial, Inc. v. Hulu, LLC, 722 F.3d 1335 (Fed. Cir. 2013). Also note that replacing rich text with a static placeholder, and then later re-inserting the rich text in the place of the static placeholder is no more than performing data transformation in the paradigmatic ‘abstract idea’, which the courts have deemed is not an eligible transformation. See MPEP 2106.05(c) citing CyberSource v. Retail Decisions (Fed. Cir 2011). This argument is not persuasive.
Applicant argues the claims are eligible in Step 2A Prong 2 because “independent claim 1 should be evaluated as a whole… Evaluating amended independent claim 1 ‘as a whole’ reveals an integrated technological tool… Every limitation of amended independent claim 1 is functionally integrated to solve a concrete, real-world technical problem, specifically, the preservation of active database entities when processing rich document content through generative engines” (Remarks pg. 14). Examiner disagrees. First, when viewing the combination of the additional elements with the other limitations, it is still no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using generic computers / general computer components (a computer, a content change generation service, a frontend application on a client device, a graphical user interface of the content collaboration platform, an editor, a generative output engine, processing units, computer readable memory), generally applying the invention to a technical environment / field of use (artificial intelligence, rich text), and adding high-level extra-solution and/or post-solution activities (e.g. storing data, data gathering, outputting data). In combination, these additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because they do not impose any meaningful limitations on practicing the abstract idea. Second, the claimed solution to ‘preserve active database entities when processing rich content through generative engines’ is not claimed with particular technical details. It is represented by the judicial exception (e.g. replacing, by a content change generation service, the rich text elements within the first content and the content delta with static textual placeholders; locating the static textual placeholders within the generative response; obtaining a generative response from a generative output engine, the generative response produced in response to the prompt being provided to the generative output engine; processing the generative response to produce a generative summary having a topically arranged list of content change summaries comprising; and rehydrating the generative response comprising re-inserting the rich text elements into the topically arranged list of content change summaries at positions corresponding to the static textual placeholders) with high level additional elements that are only applying the invention by computers (a content change generation service, generative response engine) with high level general linkages to a field of use (artificial intelligence, noting that there are no technical details claimed regarding how the generative output engine produces its results from the inputs, which is the equivalent of using computers as a tool to apply a judicial exception; and rich text elements, noting that rich text elements may include special characters which is cosmetic). Since there are no particular technical details recited in the claim elements, the claimed solution does not provide a technical solution and it is no more than applying a judicial exception using computers. Also note that replacing rich text with a static placeholder, and then later re-inserting the rich text in the place of the static placeholder is no more than performing data transformation in the paradigmatic ‘abstract idea’, which the courts have deemed is not an eligible transformation. See MPEP 2106.05(c) citing CyberSource v. Retail Decisions (Fed. Cir 2011). This argument is not persuasive.
Applicant argues the claims are eligible in Step 2B because “The ordered combination of authenticating a user account, rendering a target page containing rich text elements (e.g., user mentions, electable graphical objects, embedded content links), calculating a content delta from an event log, replacing the rich text elements with static placeholders, generating a structured multi-component prompt, locating placeholders in the generative response, rehydrating the response by re-inserting the rich text elements, and rendering the topically arranged summary in a window object recited by amended claim 1 is non-conventional, non-routine, and absent from the prior art. Further, as described above, the Specification details how this sequence of database and interface operations overcomes the inherent technical limits of conventional systems, namely, database desynchronization and processing failures” (Remarks pg. 15). Examiner disagrees. First, viewing the claim limitations as an ordered combination does not add anything further than looking at each of the claim limitations individually. Note that the combination of limitations and claim elements add nothing that is not already present when the steps are considered separately, simply reciting implementation as performed by using generic computers / general computer components (a computer, a content change generation service, a frontend application on a client device, a graphical user interface of the content collaboration platform, an editor, a generative output engine, processing units, computer readable memory), see Alice (2014), and does not provide a non-conventional and non-generic arrangement of these computer components to achieve a technical improvement, see BASCOM Global Internet v. AT&T Mobility LLC (2016). Second, the Applicant specification does not establish the state of the art of conventional systems at the time of filing the invention in detail that conventional systems have the technical limits of database desynchronization and processing failures. Applicant specification only states in ¶[0200] that “Such editor-specific text elements may not be preserved when the extracted content from the content item is processed by the generative output system 319. Accordingly, the link generation engine 328 (or another module or service of the content change generation service 304) may replace editor-specific rich text elements in the extracted content and the content delta with placeholders before the extracted content and the content delta are provided to the generative output system 319 in the prompt. Once a generative response is received, and prior to the generative summary being displayed, the link generation engine 328 may insert the editor-specific rich text elements into the content change summaries (e.g. by replacing the placeholders with their corresponding editor-specific rich text elements”. This language (1) does not address conventional systems at the time of filing the invention, (2) uses optional ‘may not’ language equally recognizing editor-specific text elements may also be preserved when the extracted content is processed, and (3) is conclusory and lacks particular technical details regarding the process. This argument is not persuasive.
Regarding the previous 35 USC 103 rejection of claims 2-4, and 6, the Applicant has successfully amended the claims, and accordingly the rejection is rescinded.
Regarding the Applicant’s arguments with respect to the prior art rejections of claims 1-20 have been considered but are moot because the arguments do not apply to the combination of references being used in the current rejection (claims 1, 5, 7-8: Dorai in view of Thomsen in view of Cantu in view of Baker; claims 9-10, 14-18, 20: Dorai in view of Cantu in view of Baker; claim 11: Dorai in view of Cantu in view of Baker in further view of Cunningham; claim 12: Dorai in view of Cantu in view of Baker in further view of Crane; claim 13: Dorai in view of Cantu in view of Baker in further view of McNeill; claim 19 Dorai in view of Cantu in view of Baker in further view of Friesenhahn).
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: editor in claims 1-8.
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 § 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 1-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
Claims 1-20:
Step 1:
Claims 1-8 recite a method; claims 9-14 recite a system; claims 15-20 recite a method. Since the claims recite either a process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter, the claims satisfy Step 1 of the Subject Matter Eligibility Framework in MPEP 2106 and the 2019 Patent Examination Guidelines (PEG). Analysis proceeds to Step 2A Prong One.
Step 2A – Prong One:
Claims 1-20 recite an abstract idea. Independent claim 1 recites in accordance with a successful authentication of a user account of a user, causing display of a content region for receiving user-generated content and displaying current content of a target page comprising text elements; in response to a trigger condition being satisfied, obtaining an event history log associated with the target page; analyzing the event history log to identify a page associated with a prior view event of the target page with respect to the user account; determining a content delta using first content and second content; replacing, the text elements within the first content and the content delta with static textual placeholders; causing generation of a prompt, the prompt comprising: predetermined query prompt text including text-based instructions; the first content; and the content delta; obtaining a response, the response produced in response to the prompt being provided; processing the response to produce a summary having a topically arranged list of content change summaries comprising: locating the static textual placeholders within the generative response; and rehydrating the generative response comprising re-inserting the text elements into the topically arranged list of content change summaries at positions corresponding to the static textual placeholders. Independent claim 9 recites subsequent to an authentication of a user account of a user, cause display of a content region displaying current content of a target document; identify a previously saved document associated with a prior view event with respect to the user account comprising text elements; determine a content delta using first content and second content; replace, the text elements within the first content and the content delta with static textual placeholders; cause generation of a prompt, the prompt comprising: predetermined query prompt text including text-based instructions; the first content; and the content delta; obtain a response, the response produced in response to the prompt being provided; process the response to produce a summary having a set of content change summaries comprising: locating the static textual placeholders within the generative response; and rehydrating the generative response comprising re-inserting the text elements into the set of content change summaries at positions corresponding to the static textual placeholders. Independent claim 15 recites causing display of an event history log for a target content item, the event history log including identifiers of a set of one or more previously saved versions of the target content item, the target content item comprising text elements; in response to a user input, identifying a particular previously saved version of the target content item; determining a content delta using first content and second content; replacing, the text elements within the first content and the content delta with static textual placeholders; causing generation of a prompt, the prompt comprising: predetermined query prompt text including text-based instructions; one or more of the first content or the second content; and the content delta; obtaining a response, the response produced in response to the prompt being provided; processing the response to produce a summary having a set of content change summaries comprising: locating the static textual placeholders within the generative response; and rehydrating the generative response comprising re-inserting the text elements into the topically arranged list of content change summaries at positions corresponding to the static textual placeholders. The claims as a whole recite certain methods of organizing human activities.
First, the limitations of (claim 1) in accordance with a successful authentication of a user account of a user, causing display of a content region for receiving user-generated content and displaying current content of a target page comprising text elements; in response to a trigger condition being satisfied, obtaining an event history log associated with the target page; analyzing the event history log to identify a page associated with a prior view event of the target page with respect to the user account; determining a content delta using first content and second content; replacing, the text elements within the first content and the content delta with static textual placeholders; causing generation of a prompt, the prompt comprising: predetermined query prompt text including text-based instructions; the first content; and the content delta; obtaining a response, the response produced in response to the prompt being provided; processing the response to produce a summary having a topically arranged list of content change summaries comprising: locating the static textual placeholders within the generative response; and rehydrating the generative response comprising re-inserting the text elements into the topically arranged list of content change summaries at positions corresponding to the static textual placeholders; (claim 9) subsequent to an authentication of a user account of a user, cause display of a content region displaying current content of a target document; identify a previously saved document associated with a prior view event with respect to the user account comprising text elements; determine a content delta using first content and second content; replace, the text elements within the first content and the content delta with static textual placeholders; cause generation of a prompt, the prompt comprising: predetermined query prompt text including text-based instructions; the first content; and the content delta; obtain a response, the response produced in response to the prompt being provided; process the response to produce a summary having a set of content change summaries comprising: locating the static textual placeholders within the generative response; and rehydrating the generative response comprising re-inserting the text elements into the set of content change summaries at positions corresponding to the static textual placeholders; (claim 15) causing display of an event history log for a target content item, the event history log including identifiers of a set of one or more previously saved versions of the target content item, the target content item comprising text elements; in response to a user input, identifying a particular previously saved version of the target content item; determining a content delta using first content and second content; replacing, the text elements within the first content and the content delta with static textual placeholders; causing generation of a prompt, the prompt comprising: predetermined query prompt text including text-based instructions; one or more of the first content or the second content; and the content delta; obtaining a response, the response produced in response to the prompt being provided; processing the response to produce a summary having a set of content change summaries comprising: locating the static textual placeholders within the generative response; and rehydrating the generative response comprising re-inserting the text elements into the topically arranged list of content change summaries at positions corresponding to the static textual placeholders are certain methods of organizing human activities.
For instance, these limitations represent the sub-groupings of mitigating risks, managing personal behavior or relationships or interactions between people, and following rules or instructions. For example, mitigating risks includes authenticating a user account…, displaying a content region displaying current content…, receiving user generated content…, in response to a trigger obtaining an event history log…, displaying of an event history log for a target content item…, analyzing event history log…, a user input…, identifying a page / document / version with a prior view event…, determining a content delta…, replacing text elements with static textual placeholders…, generating a prompt comprising text instructions / first content / delta…, obtaining a response…, producing a summary of content change summaries, locating static textual placeholders…, rehydrating / re-inserting text elements into content change summaries at the static placeholders; managing personal behavior or relationships or interactions between people includes authenticating a user account…, displaying a content region displaying current content…, receiving user generated content…, in response to a trigger obtaining an event history log…, displaying of an event history log for a target content item…, analyzing event history log…, identifying a page / document / version with a prior view event…, determining a content delta…, replacing text elements with static textual placeholders…, generating a prompt comprising text instructions / first content / delta…, obtaining a response…, producing a summary of content change summaries…, locating static textual placeholders…, rehydrating / re-inserting text elements into content change summaries at the static placeholders… ; and following rules or instructions includes authenticating a user account…, displaying a content region displaying current content…, receiving user generated content…, in response to a trigger obtaining an event history log…, displaying of an event history log for a target content item…, analyzing event history log…, identifying a page / document / version with a prior view event…, determining a content delta…, replacing text elements with static textual placeholders…, generating a prompt comprising text instructions / first content / delta…, obtaining a response…, producing a summary of content change summaries, locating static textual placeholders…, rehydrating / re-inserting text elements into content change summaries at the static placeholders. The presence of generic / general computer components such as a computer, a content change operation service (i.e. software and computing resources, see Applicant Specification ¶[0062], ¶[0116], ¶[0175]), a frontend application on a client device, a graphical user interface of the content collaboration platform, an editor (i.e. GUI, see Applicant Specification Fig 4A, ¶[0205]), a generative output engine (i.e. server / computing resources and software, see Applicant Specification Fig 1, ¶[0034], ¶[0175]), processing units, computer readable memory does not preclude the steps from reciting certain methods of organizing human activities, since the number of people involved in the activities is not dispositive as to whether a claim limitation falls within this grouping and instead it is based on whether an activity itself falls within one of the sub-groupings. If a claim limitation, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers certain methods of organizing human activity (e.g. mitigating risks, managing personal behavior or relationships or interactions between people, following rules or instructions) regardless of the recitation of generic computer components or other machinery in its ordinary capacity, then it falls within the ‘Certain Methods of Organizing Human Activity’ grouping of abstract ideas.
Accordingly, the claims recite an abstract idea. Analysis proceeds to Step 2A Prong Two.
Step 2A – Prong Two:
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. First, claims 1, 9, and 15 as a whole merely describes how to generally ‘apply’ the concept of certain methods of organizing human activities in a computer environment. The claimed computer components (i.e. a computer, a content change operation service, a frontend application on a client device, a graphical user interface of the content collaboration platform, an editor, a generative output engine, processing units, computer readable memory) are recited at a high-level of generality and are merely invoked as tools to perform manual processes. Simply implementing the abstract idea on a generic / general purpose computer is not a practical application of the abstract idea. See MPEP 2106.04(d) and 2016.05(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.
Next, the additional element of the rich text elements in the limitations (e.g. displaying current content of a target page comprising rich text elements; replacing, by a content change generation service, the rich text elements within the first content and the content delta with static textual placeholders; re-inserting the rich text elements into the topically arranged list of content change summaries at positions corresponding to the static textual placeholders) does no more than generally link the use of the judicial exception to a particular field of use (i.e. rich text), and as such does not provide integration into a practical application. See MPEP 2106.04(d) and 2106.05(h). Hence, this additional element does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because it does not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea.
Next, the additional element of cached / previously saved pages / documents / content items (e.g. analyzing the event history log to identify a cached page associated with a prior view event of the target page with respect to the user account; identify a previously saved document associated with a prior view event with respect to the user account; identifying a particular previously saved version of the target content item) are recited at a high level of generality (i.e. as a general means of storing data for the identifying / determining), and amount to mere electronic record keeping / storing data, which is a form of insignificant extra-solution activity and not a practical application. See MPEP 2106.04(d) and 2106.05(g). Note that there are no particular technical steps regarding caching / saving more than using computers as a tool to perform an otherwise manual process (saving / storing information). 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.
Next, the additional element of extracting and its steps of first content extracted from the cached page and second content extracted from the target page; first content extracted from the previously saved document and second content extracted from the target document; first content extracted from the particular previously saved version of the target content item and second content extracted from a current version of the target content item are recited at a high level of generality (i.e. as a general means of gathering data for subsequent determining), and amounts to mere data gathering, which is a form of insignificant extra-solution activity and not a practical application. See MPEP 2106.04(d) and 2106.05(g). Furthermore, the computer / processing unit (generic computer) is only being used as a tool in the extracting, which is also not indicative of integration into a practical application. See MPEP 2106.04(d) and 2106.05(f). Note that there are no particular technical steps regarding extracting more than using computers as a tool to perform an otherwise manual process. Accordingly, this additional element does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because it does not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea.
Next, the additional element of the generative response / generative output engine / generative summary in the limitations (e.g. obtaining a generative response from a generative output engine, the generative response produced in response to the prompt being provided to the generative output engine; processing the generative response to produce a generative summary having a topically arranged list of content change summaries) does no more than generally link the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use (i.e. artificial intelligence / LLM), and as such does not provide integration into a practical application. See MPEP 2106.04(d) and 2106.05(h). Hence, this additional element does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because it does not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea.
Next, the additional element of displaying summary and its limitations causing display of the generative summary within a window object in the graphical user interface are recited at a high level of generality (i.e. a general means of displaying / presenting / outputting of the produced summary), and amounts to mere outputting of data, which is a form of extra-solution activity and not a practical application. See MPEP 2106.04(d) and 2106.05(g). Furthermore, the window object, graphical user interface (general computer component) are only being used as a tool in the displaying, which is also not indicative of integration into a practical application. See MPEP 2106.04(d) and 2106.05(f). Note that there are no particular technical steps regarding displaying more than using computers as a tool to perform an otherwise manual process (presenting information). 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.
Also, while identified above as an organizing human activity in Step 2A Prong One, note that the step of receiving in claim 1 (e.g. receiving user-generated content) is/are recited at a high level of generality (i.e. as a general means of gathering data for subsequent displaying / determining), and also amounts to mere data gathering, which is a form of insignificant extra-solution activity and not a practical application. See MPEP 2106.04(d) and 2106.05(g). Furthermore, the graphical user interface, editor (general computer components) are only being used as a tool in the receiving, which is also not indicative of integration into a practical application. See MPEP 2106.04(d) and 2106.05(f). Note that there are no particular technical steps regarding receiving more than using computers as a tool to perform an otherwise manual process. Accordingly, this element does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because it does not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea.
Also, while identified above as an organizing human activity in Step 2A Prong One, note that the step of inputting in claim 15 (e.g. in response to a user input) is/are recited at a high level of generality (i.e. as a general means of gathering data for subsequent identifying), and also amounts to mere data gathering, which is a form of insignificant extra-solution activity and not a practical application. See MPEP 2106.04(d) and 2106.05(g). Furthermore, the computer (generic computer) is only being used as a tool in the input, which is also not indicative of integration into a practical application. See MPEP 2106.04(d) and 2106.05(f). Note that there are no particular technical steps regarding inputting more than using computers as a tool to perform an otherwise manual process. Accordingly, this element does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because it does not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea.
The combination of these additional elements is no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using generic computers / general computer components (a computer, a content change generation service, a frontend application on a client device, a graphical user interface of the content collaboration platform, an editor, a generative output engine, processing units, computer readable memory), generally applied to a technical environment / field of use (artificial intelligence, rich text); and adding high-level extra-solution and/or post-solution activities (e.g. storing data, data gathering, outputting data). Accordingly, even in combination, these additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because they do not impose any meaningful limitations on practicing the abstract idea. Hence, the claim is directed to an abstract idea. Analysis proceeds to Step 2B.
Step 2B:
The claims do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. As discussed above in Step 2A Prong Two with respect to integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, the additional element of using a computer, a content change generation service, a frontend application on a client device, a graphical user interface of the content collaboration platform, an editor, a generative output engine, processing units, computer readable memory to perform authenticating a user account…, displaying a content region displaying current content…, receiving user generated content…, in response to a trigger obtaining an event history log…, displaying of an event history log for a target content item…, analyzing event history log…, identifying a page / document / version with a prior view event…, determining a content delta…, replacing text elements with static textual placeholders…, generating a prompt comprising text instructions / first content / delta…, obtaining a response…, producing a summary of content change summaries…, locating static textual placeholders…, rehydrating / re-inserting text elements into content change summaries at the static placeholders amounts to no more than mere instructions to ‘apply’ the exception using generic / general purpose computers. The same analysis applies here in Step 2B, i.e. mere instructions to apply an exception on a generic computer cannot integrate a judicial exception into a practical application at Step 2A or provide an inventive concept in Step 2B. See MPEP 2106.05(f). Hence, these features do not provide an inventive concept / significantly more.
As discussed above in Step 2A Prong Two with respect to integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, the additional element regarding the rich text elements does no more than generally link the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use (i.e. rich text). The same analysis applies here in Step 2B, i.e. generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use does not provide integration into a practical application in Step 2A or provide an inventive concept in Step 2B. See MPEP 2106.05(h). See the Applicant’s specification ¶[0180] describing the additional element of rich text may include @mention objects, selectable graphical objects, embedded content, special characters, content regions, content panels, and other similar elements at such a high level that indicates this additional element is sufficiently well-known that the specification does not need to describe the particulars to satisfy 35 USC 112(a). Also note the introductory paragraph of “Rich Text Vs. Plain Text: Learn the Difference” <https://froala.com/blog/general/learn-the-differences-rich-text-vs-plain-text/> to Saeed (2024) demonstrating the well-understood, routine, conventional nature of this additional element (see Saeed ¶1 beginning “Both rich text and plain text formats…” detailing both rich text and plain text have been used for many years for crafting documents and are very popular and editable by most processing software). Hence, these features do not provide an inventive concept / significantly more.
As discussed above in Step 2A Prong Two with respect to integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, the additional elements regarding the cached / previously saved pages / documents / content items are recited at a high level of generality (i.e. as a general means of storing data for the identifying / determining), and amount to mere electronic record keeping / storing data, which is a form of insignificant extra-solution activity. The same analysis applies here in Step 2B, i.e. adding insignificant extra-solution activity to the judicial exception does not provide integration into a practical application in Step 2A or provide an inventive concept in Step 2B. See MPEP 2106.05(g). Furthermore, these elements are also claimed at a high level of generality, and/or as insignificant extra-solution activities (e.g. data storage) representing computer functions that the courts have recognized as well-understood, routine, and conventional functions that do not present an inventive concept. See MPEP 2106.05(d)(II) in particular storing and retrieving information in memory (Versata; OIP Techs). See the Applicant’s specification ¶[0173] describing the additional element of different versions of content item may be cached, saved or otherwise stored in a data store at such a high level that indicates this additional element is sufficiently well-known that the specification does not need to describe the particulars to satisfy 35 USC 112(a). Hence, these features do not provide an inventive concept / significantly more. Also note the background of US patent 8,549,041 B2 to Thomsen (2013) demonstrating the well-understood, routine, conventional nature of this additional element (see Thomsen col 1 ln 11-17 detailing conventional database systems use a data store to store data pages and a cache to provide fast access to the data pages). Hence, these limitations do not provide an inventive concept.
As discussed above in Step 2A Prong Two with respect to integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, the additional elements regarding the extracting are recited at a high level of generality (i.e. as a general means of gathering data for subsequent determining), and amount to mere data gathering, which is a form of insignificant extra-solution activity. The same analysis applies here in Step 2B, i.e. adding insignificant extra-solution activity to the judicial exception does not provide integration into a practical application in Step 2A or provide an inventive concept in Step 2B. See MPEP 2106.05(g). The use of the computer (i.e. computer, processing unit) in these steps merely represents using a generic / general purpose computer as a tool, and is not indicative of an inventive concept. See MPEP 2106.05(f). Furthermore, these extracting steps are also claimed at a high level of generality, and/or as insignificant extra-solution activities (e.g. data gathering) representing computer functions that the courts have recognized as well-understood, routine, and conventional functions that do not present an inventive concept. See MPEP 2106.05(d)(II) in particular receiving or transmitting data over a network, using the Internet to gather data (Symantec), electronically scanning or extracting data from a physical document (Content Extraction). See the Applicant’s specification ¶[0069], ¶[0184] describing the additional element of content extraction performed by a processing plugin at such a high level that indicates this additional element is sufficiently well-known that the specification does not need to describe the particulars to satisfy 35 USC 112(a). Hence, these features do not provide an inventive concept / significantly more.
As discussed above in Step 2A Prong Two with respect to integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, the additional element regarding the generative response / generative output engine / generative summary does no more than generally link the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use (i.e. artificial intelligence / LLM). The same analysis applies here in Step 2B, i.e. generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use does not provide integration into a practical application in Step 2A or provide an inventive concept in Step 2B. See MPEP 2106.05(h). See the Applicant’s specification ¶[0033-34] describing the additional element of a generative output engine / generative output system / generative output platform as any combination of computing resources that cooperate to instantiate an instance of software (an ‘engine’) in turn configured to receive a string prompt as input and configured to provide, as deterministic or pseudo-deterministic output generated text which may include phrases, paragraphs, and so on human languages / code / pseudocode / structured data at such a high level that indicates this additional element is sufficiently well-known that the specification does not need to describe the particulars to satisfy 35 USC 112(a). Hence, these features do not provide an inventive concept / significantly more.
As discussed above in Step 2A Prong Two with respect to integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, the additional elements regarding the displaying summary are recited at a high level of generality (i.e. a general means of displaying / presenting / outputting of the produced summary results), and amounts to mere outputting data, which is a form of insignificant extra-solution activity. The same analysis applies here in Step 2B, i.e. adding insignificant extra-solution activity to the judicial exception does not provide integration into a practical application in Step 2A or provide an inventive concept in Step 2B. See MPEP 2106.05(g). The use of the computer (i.e. window object, graphical user interface) in these steps merely represents using a generic / general purpose computer as a tool, and is not indicative of an inventive concept. See MPEP 2106.05(f). Furthermore, these displaying steps are also claimed at a high level of generality, and/or as insignificant extra-solution activities (e.g. outputting data) representing computer functions that the courts have recognized as well-understood, routine, and conventional functions that do not present an inventive concept. See MPEP 2106.05(d)(II) in particular receiving or transmitting data over a network (Symantec), a computer receives and sends information over a network (buySAFE). Hence, these limitations do not provide an inventive concept.
Also, as discussed above in Step 2A Prong Two with respect to integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, the Step 2A Prong One organizing human activity elements regarding the (claim 1) receiving user-generated content are recited at a high level of generality (i.e. as a general means of gathering data for subsequent displaying / determining), and also amounts to the extra-solution activity of data gathering, which is not a practical application or an inventive concept. See MPEP 2106.05(g). The use of the computer (i.e. graphical user interface, editor) in these steps merely represents using a generic / general purpose computer as a tool, and is not indicative of an inventive concept. See MPEP 2106.05(f). Furthermore, these receiving steps are also claimed at a high level of generality, and/or as insignificant extra-solution activities (e.g. data gathering) representing computer functions that the courts have recognized as well-understood, routine, and conventional functions that do not present an inventive concept. See MPEP 2106.05(d)(II) in particular receiving or transmitting data over a network (Symantec), a computer receives and sends information over a network (buySAFE), recording a customer’s order (Apple). Hence, these features do not provide an inventive concept / significantly more.
Also, as discussed above in Step 2A Prong Two with respect to integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, the Step 2A Prong One organizing human activity elements regarding the (claim 15) in response to a user input are recited at a high level of generality (i.e. as a general means of gathering data for subsequent identifying), and also amounts to the extra-solution activity of data gathering, which is not a practical application or an inventive concept. See MPEP 2106.05(g). The use of the computer in this step merely represents using a generic / general purpose computer as a tool, and is not indicative of an inventive concept. See MPEP 2106.05(f). Furthermore, this input step is also claimed at a high level of generality, and/or as insignificant extra-solution activities (e.g. data gathering) representing computer functions that the courts have recognized as well-understood, routine, and conventional functions that do not present an inventive concept. See MPEP 2106.05(d)(II) in particular receiving or transmitting data over a network (Symantec), a computer receives and sends information over a network (buySAFE), recording a customer’s order (Apple). Hence, these features do not provide an inventive concept / significantly more.
The claims do not improve another technology or technical field. Instead the claims represent a generic implementation of organizing human activities ‘applied’ by generic / general purpose computers, generally ‘applied’ to a field of use, and using general computer components in extra-solution capacities such as data gathering, data storage, and outputting data. The claims do not provide meaningful limitations beyond generally linking the user of an abstract idea to a particular technological environment. At best, the claims are more directed towards solving a business / commercial / entrepreneurial problem (i.e. how to tell what changes have happened to a document), that is tangentially associated with a technology element (e.g. computers, artificial intelligence), rather than solving a technology based problem. See MPEP 2106.05(a). The claims do not improve the functioning of a computer itself. The claims do not improve the functioning of artificial intelligence itself. The claims are more directed towards improving a business / commercial / entrepreneurial process rather than improving a computer outside of a business use, i.e. using computers a tool. The claims do not apply the judicial exception with or by use of a particular machine. The claims do not effect a transformation or reduction to a particular article to a different state or thing. The claims do not add a specific limitation other than what is well understood, routine, and conventional in a way that confines the claim to a particular useful application.
Viewing the claim limitations as an ordered combination does not add anything further than looking at each of the claim limitations individually, both with respect to the independent claims 1, 9, 15, and further considering the addition of dependent claims 2-8, 10-14, and 16-20. Note that the combination of limitations and claim elements add nothing that is not already present when the steps are considered separately, simply reciting implementation as performed by using generic computers / general computer components, see Alice (2014), and does not provide a non-conventional and non-generic arrangement of computer components to achieve a technical improvement, see BASCOM Global Internet v. AT&T Mobility LLC (2016). Hence, the ordered combination of elements does not provide significantly more. With respect to the dependent claims:
Dependent claim 2: The limitations wherein: the prompt further includes instructions to generate the list of content change summaries, each content change summary of the list of content change summaries used to generate the topically arranged list of content change summaries; the prompt further includes instructions to preserve a respective text snippet for each content change summary of the list of content change summaries in the generative response; processing the generative response includes generating a selectable element for each content change summary of the list of content change summaries; and user selection of a particular selectable element causes the frontend application to cause display of a respective portion of the target page containing the respective text snippet are further directed to methods of organizing human activity (managing personal behavior, following rules or instructions) as described in the independent claim. The recitation of the frontend application is a computer component recited at a high level of generality and amounts to ‘applying’ the abstract idea on a generic computer / general computer component; and the recitation of the generative response is a general linkage to a technology (artificial intelligence / LLM), neither of which are a practical application or significantly more. Similar to the independent claims, these recitations do not meaningfully integrate the abstract idea in a practical application, and are not significantly more than the abstract idea.
Dependent claim 3: First, the limitation selection of the particular selectable element causes… at least a portion of the respective text snippet is further directed to methods of organizing human activity (managing personal behavior, following rules or instructions) as described in the independent claim. Second, the limitations wherein: the frontend application is a browser application; and generation of a uniform resource identifier only generally links the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use (i.e. Internet). See the Applicant’s specification ¶[0197] describing the additional element of a browser application and the data structure causing a uniform resource identifier including at least a portion of the respective text snippet to be generated and/or supplied to the browser application such a high level that indicates this additional element is sufficiently well-known that the specification does not need to describe the particulars to satisfy 35 USC 112(a). Similar to the independent claims, these recitations do not meaningfully integrate the abstract idea in a practical application, and are not significantly more than the abstract idea.
Dependent claim 4: The limitation wherein the topically arranged list of content change summaries comprises: at least one topic heading generated by the generative output engine; and at least one content change summary below the at least one topic heading is further directed to a method of organizing human activity (managing personal behavior, following rules or instructions) as described in the independent claim. The recitation of the generative output engine is a computer component recited at a high level of generality and amounts to ‘applying’ the abstract idea on a generic / general purpose computer, generally linking the judicial exception to a technology / field of use (artificial intelligence / LLM). See the Applicant’s specification ¶[0214] describing the additional element of using a generative output engine to generate a topic heading and at least one content change summary that this additional element is sufficiently well-known that the specification does not need to describe the particulars to satisfy 35 USC 112(a). Similar to the independent claims, this recitation does not meaningfully integrate the abstract idea in a practical application, and is not significantly more than the abstract idea.
Dependent claim 5: First, the limitations analyzing the event history log to identify a set of events occurring between a timestamp associated with the cached page and a timestamp of the target page; and generating an event summary based on the set of events are further directed to methods of organizing human activity (managing personal behavior, following rules or instructions) as described in the independent claim. Reciting the cached page amounts to mere electronic record keeping / storing data, which is a form of insignificant extra-solution activity, and adding insignificant extra-solution activity to the judicial exception does not provide integration into a practical application or provide an inventive concept. Second, the limitation causing display of the event summary in the window object of the graphical user interface is an additional element (extra-solution activity of outputting data, a general means of outputting the result of the generating step, using a computer as a tool) that is not indicative of a practical application or significantly more. Furthermore, the display step here is claimed at a high level of detail, and represents computer functions that the courts have recognized as well-understood, routine, and conventional functions that do not present an inventive concept. See MPEP 2106.05(d)(II) in particular receiving or transmitting data over a network (Symantec), sending messages over a network (OIP Techs). Similar to the independent claims, this recitation does not meaningfully integrate the abstract idea in a practical application, and is not significantly more than the abstract idea.
Dependent claim 6: First, the limitations subsequent to causing display of the generative summary and in response to a subsequent trigger condition, determining a subsequent content delta; in accordance with a determination that the subsequent content delta does not satisfy a modification threshold, causing generation of a full summary of the current content are further directed to methods of organizing human activity (managing personal behavior, following rules or instructions) as described in the independent claim. Second, the limitation causing display of the full summary within the window object is an additional element (extra-solution activity of outputting data, a general means of outputting the result of the generating step, using a computer as a tool) that is not indicative of a practical application or significantly more. Furthermore, the display step here is claimed at a high level of detail, and represents computer functions that the courts have recognized as well-understood, routine, and conventional functions that do not present an inventive concept. See MPEP 2106.05(d)(II) in particular receiving or transmitting data over a network (Symantec), sending messages over a network (OIP Techs). Similar to the independent claims, this recitation does not meaningfully integrate the abstract idea in a practical application, and is not significantly more than the abstract idea.
Dependent claim 7: First, the limitation wherein: the current content includes editor-specific rich text elements merely narrow the previously recited abstract idea limitations. Second, the limitations of the editor-specific rich text elements are replaced with placeholders in the first content extracted from the cached page and in the content delta; and prior to displaying the generative summary, the editor-specific rich text elements are inserted into the topically arranged list of content change summaries represent an additional element (extra-solution activities of extracting data / record keeping / outputting data, a general means of extracting data and record keeping, a general means of outputting information) that is not indicative of a practical application or significantly more. Furthermore, the replacing and inserting steps here is claimed at a high level of detail, and represents computer functions that the courts have recognized as well-understood, routine, and conventional functions that do not present an inventive concept. See MPEP 2106.05(d)(II) in particular receiving or transmitting data over a network (Symantec), a computer receives and sends information over a network (buySAFE), electronic record keeping (Alice), electronically scanning or extracting data from a physical document (Content Extraction). Similar to the independent claims, this recitation does not meaningfully integrate the abstract idea in a practical application, and is not significantly more than the abstract idea.
Dependent claim 8: The limitation wherein the prior view event corresponds to a most recent historical page view event associated with the user account and the target page merely narrow the previously recited abstract idea limitations. For the reasons described above with respect to the independent claims, these judicial exceptions are not meaningfully integrated into a practical application, or significantly more than an abstract idea.
Dependent claim 10: First, the limitation wherein: the generative summary includes a set of selectable elements, each selectable element positioned adjacent to a respective content change summary of the set of content change summaries narrows the previously recited abstract idea limitations, and the generative summary generally links the judicial exception to a technology / field of use (artificial intelligence / LLM). Second, the limitation selection of a particular selectable element causes the graphical user interface to display a respective portion of the target document corresponding to a particular content change summary displayed adjacent to the particular selectable element is further directed to a method of organizing human activity (managing personal behavior, following rules or instructions) as described in the independent claim. The recitation of the graphical user interface is a computer component recited at a high level of generality and amounts to ‘applying’ the abstract idea on a generic / general purpose computer. Similar to the independent claims, this recitation does not meaningfully integrate the abstract idea in a practical application, and is not significantly more than the abstract idea.
Dependent claim 11: The limitation wherein the generative summary comprises a set of topic headings generated by the generative output engine, wherein each topic heading is associated with at least one content change summary of the set of content change summaries is further directed to a method of organizing human activity (managing personal behavior, following rules or instructions) as described in the independent claim. The recitation of the generative output engine is a computer component recited at a high level of generality and amounts to ‘applying’ the abstract idea on a generic / general purpose computer, generally linking the judicial exception to a technology / field of use (artificial intelligence / LLM). See the Applicant’s specification ¶[0214] describing the additional element of using a generative output engine to generate a topic heading and at least one content change summary that this additional element is sufficiently well-known that the specification does not need to describe the particulars to satisfy 35 USC 112(a). Similar to the independent claims, this recitation does not meaningfully integrate the abstract idea in a practical application, and is not significantly more than the abstract idea.
Dependent claim 12: First, the limitations wherein the computer readable instructions further cause the system to: subsequent to causing display of the generative summary, determine a subsequent content delta; in accordance with a determination that the subsequent content delta does not satisfy a modification threshold, cause generation of a full summary of the current content of the target document is further directed to methods of organizing human activity (managing personal behavior, following rules or instructions) as described in the independent claim. The recitation of computer readable instructions is a computer component recited at a high level of generality and amounts to ‘applying’ the abstract idea on a generic computer. Second, the limitation cause display of the full summary within the window object is an additional element (extra-solution activity of outputting data, a general means of outputting the result of the generating step, using a computer as a tool) that is not indicative of a practical application or significantly more. Furthermore, the display step here is claimed at a high level of detail, and represents computer functions that the courts have recognized as well-understood, routine, and conventional functions that do not present an inventive concept. See MPEP 2106.05(d)(II) in particular receiving or transmitting data over a network (Symantec), sending messages over a network (OIP Techs). Similar to the independent claims, this recitation does not meaningfully integrate the abstract idea in a practical application, and is not significantly more than the abstract idea.
Dependent claim 13: The limitation wherein identification of the previously saved document is performed in response to a user selection of a selectable control displayed in the graphical user interface is further directed to methods of organizing human activity (managing personal behavior, following rules or instructions) as described in the independent claim. The recitation of the graphical user interface is a computer component recited at a high level of generality and amounts to ‘applying’ the abstract idea on a generic computer. Reciting the previously saved document amounts to mere electronic record keeping / storing data, which is a form of insignificant extra-solution activity, and adding insignificant extra-solution activity to the judicial exception does not provide integration into a practical application or provide an inventive concept. Similar to the independent claims, this recitation does not meaningfully integrate the abstract idea in a practical application, and is not significantly more than the abstract idea.
Dependent claim 14: The limitation wherein: identification of the previously saved document is performed by analyzing an event history log of the target document; and the previously saved document is associated with a prior view event of the event history log with respect to the user account is further directed to methods of organizing human activity (managing personal behavior, following rules or instructions) as described in the independent claim. Reciting the previously saved document amounts to mere electronic record keeping / storing data, which is a form of insignificant extra-solution activity, and adding insignificant extra-solution activity to the judicial exception does not provide integration into a practical application or provide an inventive concept. Similar to the independent claims, this recitation does not meaningfully integrate the abstract idea in a practical application, and is not significantly more than the abstract idea.
Dependent claim 16: First, the limitation wherein: the graphical user interface is displayed subsequent to a successful authentication of a user account associated with a frontend application operating on a client device are further directed to methods of organizing human activity (managing personal behavior, following rules or instructions) as described in the independent claim. The recitation of the graphical user interface, frontend application, and client device are generic computers / computer components recited at a high level of generality and amounts to ‘applying’ the abstract idea on a generic computer. Second, the limitation of the event history log includes one or more events with respect to the set of one or more previously saved versions of the target content item merely narrows the previously recited abstract idea limitations. Reciting the previously saved content item amounts to mere electronic record keeping / storing data, which is a form of insignificant extra-solution activity, and adding insignificant extra-solution activity to the judicial exception does not provide integration into a practical application or provide an inventive concept. Similar to the independent claims, this recitation does not meaningfully integrate the abstract idea in a practical application, and is not significantly more than the abstract idea.
Dependent claim 17: First, the limitations analyzing the event history log to identify a set of events occurring between a timestamp associated with the particular previously saved version of the target content item and a timestamp of the current version of the target content item; generating an event summary based on the set of events are further directed to methods of organizing human activity (managing personal behavior, following rules or instructions) as described in the independent claim. Reciting the previously saved content item amounts to mere electronic record keeping / storing data, which is a form of insignificant extra-solution activity, and adding insignificant extra-solution activity to the judicial exception does not provide integration into a practical application or provide an inventive concept. Second, the limitation causing display of the event summary in the window object of the graphical user interface is an additional element (extra-solution activity of outputting data, a general means of outputting the result of the generating step, using a computer as a tool) that is not indicative of a practical application or significantly more. Furthermore, the display step here is claimed at a high level of detail, and represents computer functions that the courts have recognized as well-understood, routine, and conventional functions that do not present an inventive concept. See MPEP 2106.05(d)(II) in particular receiving or transmitting data over a network (Symantec), sending messages over a network (OIP Techs). Similar to the independent claims, this recitation does not meaningfully integrate the abstract idea in a practical application, and is not significantly more than the abstract idea.
Dependent claim 18: The limitation wherein the particular previously saved version of the target content item is an item that is at least two versions older than the current version of the target content item merely narrows the previously recited abstract idea limitations. Reciting the previously saved content item amounts to mere electronic record keeping / storing data, which is a form of insignificant extra-solution activity, and adding insignificant extra-solution activity to the judicial exception does not provide integration into a practical application or provide an inventive concept. Similar to the independent claims, this recitation does not meaningfully integrate the abstract idea in a practical application, and is not significantly more than the abstract idea.
Dependent claim 19: The limitation wherein one or more of the set of one or more previously saved versions of the target content item is generated in response to a publication of the target content item is further directed to methods of organizing human activity (managing personal behavior, following rules or instructions) as described in the independent claim. Reciting the previously saved content item amounts to mere electronic record keeping / storing data, which is a form of insignificant extra-solution activity, and adding insignificant extra-solution activity to the judicial exception does not provide integration into a practical application or provide an inventive concept. Similar to the independent claims, this recitation does not meaningfully integrate the abstract idea in a practical application, and is not significantly more than the abstract idea.
Dependent claim 20: First, the limitation wherein: the content collaboration platform is one of:
a document management platform; or an issue tracking platform represents an additional element (generally linking a field of use, e.g. document management, issue tracking) that is not indicative of a practical application or significantly more. Second, the limitation of the target content item is one of an electronic document hosted by the document management platform or an issue hosted by the issue tracking platform, merely narrows the previously recited abstract idea limitations, generally linking to the same field of use (document management, issue tracking). See the Applicant’s specification ¶[0088-89], ¶[0102-103], ¶[0108] describing the additional element of using documentation tools and issue tracking systems element is sufficiently well-known that the specification does not need to describe the particulars to satisfy 35 USC 112(a). For the reasons described above with respect to the independent claims, this judicial exception is not meaningfully integrated into a practical application, and is not significantly more than the abstract idea.
Therefore claims 1, 9, 15, and the dependent claims 2-8, 10-14, 16-20 and all limitations taken both individually and as an ordered combination, do not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application, nor do they include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. Accordingly, claims 1-20 are ineligible.
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.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or non-obviousness.
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.
Claims 1, 5, and 7-8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US patent application publication 2018/0314680 A1 to Dorai et al. in view of US patent publication 8,549,041 B2 to Thomsen et al. in view of US patent application publication 2025/0371417 A1 to Cantu et al. in view of US patent application publication 2025/0272091 A1 to Baker.
Claim 1:
Dorai, as shown, teaches the following:
A computer-implemented method for generating and displaying content change summaries within a graphical user interface of a content collaboration platform (Dorai Abstract, Fig 3 details identifying the changed context not yet accessed by a user in an electronic document, identifying changes, and presenting the document with information identifying the changes in an end user application), the method comprising:
in accordance with a successful authentication of a user account of a user operating a frontend application on a client device (Dorai ¶[0068] details receiving a request from an end user application on a client computer to access an electronic document and authenticating the user to access the document), causing display of the graphical user interface of the content collaboration platform, the graphical user interface including a content region including an editor for receiving user-generated content and displaying current content of a target page comprising rich text elements (Dorai Fig 3-4, ¶[0032], ¶[0056], ¶[0064], ¶[0068-70], ¶[0102] details after authenticating the user, obtaining the content and information about the changes made to the electronic document and providing this data to the end user application on the client computer; the document pane provides the ability to edit the electronic document in an editing component; and data within the document can be viewed with special formatting or other emphasis, i.e. rich text elements);
in response to a trigger condition being satisfied, obtaining an event history log associated with the target page (Dorai Fig 7, ¶[0076], ¶[0082] details receiving the request for the stored electronic document, the version of the electronic document immediately preceding or identical to the time stamp stored for the given user and identifying the history of all revisions which occur after the time stamp);
With respect to the following:
analyzing the event history log to identify a cached page associated with a prior view event of the target page with respect to the user account;
Dorai, as shown in ¶[0025], ¶[0078-82] details analyzing the timestamps and user identifiers of the previous electronic document versions to identify the most recent stored version of the electronic document viewed by the current user, i.e. analyzing an event history log to identify a page associated with a prior view event of the target page with respect to the user account; and temporarily storing a document in cache, but does not explicitly state the stored electronic version is a cached page. However, Thomsen teaches this remaining limitation, using a datastore to store data pages, and a cache to provide fast access to the data pages (Thomsen col 1 ln 12-16).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to include a cached page as taught by Thomsen with the teachings of Dorai, with the motivation “to provide fast access to the data pages” (Thomsen col 1 ln 12-13). In addition, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to include a cached page as taught by Thomsen in the system of Dorai, since the claimed invention is merely a combination of old elements, and in the combination each element merely would have performed the same function as it did separately, and one of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that the results of the combination were predictable. See MPEP 2141 citing KSR International Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 82 USPQ2d 1385 (2007).
Dorai (in view of Thomsen, applying that the stored document is a cached page, per Thomsen above) also teaches the following:
determining a content delta using first content extracted from the cached page and second content extracted from the target page (Dorai ¶[0082-85] details identifying all content changes in the electronic document occurring from a timestamp stored for the end user from a stored version (i.e. cached page) and the set of revisions from the revision history occurring after the timestamp);
With respect to the following:
replacing, by a content change generation service, the rich text elements within the first content and the content delta with static textual placeholders;
Dorai, as shown in Fig 3, ¶[0056], ¶[0082-85] details identifying data representing all content changes in the electronic document occurring from a timestamp stored for the end user from a stored version (i.e. cached page) and the set of revisions from the revision history occurring after the timestamp (i.e. the delta); and data within the document can be viewed with special formatting or other emphasis, i.e. rich text elements; but does not explicitly state replacing, by a content change generation service the rich text elements in the content with static textual placeholders. However, Cantu teaches this remaining limitation, when an LLM may not have access to incorporate graphics, interactive elements and formatting (i.e. rich text elements) or other non-textual examples this data and other user specific or other identifiable data may be excluded from the context portion of a command generated for an LLM and replaced with template tokens by one or more services (Cantu ¶[0159], ¶[0162], ¶[0165], ¶[0173], ¶[0177[).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to include replacing, by a content change generation service, the rich text elements within the content (i.e. first content and the content delta, per Dorai) with static textual placeholders as taught by Cantu with the teachings of Dorai in view of Thomsen, with the motivation that “the response generated by the method may be dynamic, interactive, and extend beyond the capabilities offered by the LLM… to provide the end user with further information” (Cantu ¶[0166]). In addition, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to include replacing, by a content change generation service, the rich text elements within the content (i.e. first content and the content delta, per Dorai) with static textual placeholders as taught by Cantu in the system of Dorai in view of Thomsen, since the claimed invention is merely a combination of old elements, and in the combination each element merely would have performed the same function as it did separately, and one of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that the results of the combination were predictable. See MPEP 2141 citing KSR International Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 82 USPQ2d 1385 (2007).
With respect to the following:
causing generation of a prompt, the prompt comprising:
predetermined query prompt text including text-based instructions;
the first content; and
the content delta;
obtaining a generative response from a generative output engine, the generative response produced in response to the prompt being provided to the generative output engine;
Dorai (in view of Thomsen in view of Cantu, applying that the electronic document version is a cached page, per Thomsen above), as shown in Fig 3, ¶[0054], ¶[0060-61] details using computer programming instructions, the content of the latest document, and the content of the latest version last viewed by the user, the changes in content between these content document versions (i.e. delta), the response produces a displayed adjacent summary of the changes in a change summary panel that summarizes the changes made since the last time the user opened the document and a complete / filtered list of changes in an adjacent activity pane; but does not explicitly state: causing generation of a prompt, the prompt comprising: predetermined query prompt text including text-based instructions, first content extracted, content delta; obtaining a generative response from a generative output engine. However, Baker teaches these remaining features, providing a generative AI prompt with a query mapped to usage scenarios including ‘summarize the changes made to this file’, the request triggers search for relevant code change context (i.e. extracted content, delta) and the user may include additional request options including ‘show history’, ‘summarize’, and/or ‘please summarize the changes made to this file’, and the change history response and summary is then produced and displayed in a popup window (Baker Fig 4B-4C, ¶[0015], ¶[0055], ¶[0071-72]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to include causing generation of a prompt, the prompt comprising: predetermined query prompt text including text-based instructions; the first content; and the content delta; obtaining a generative response from a generative output engine, the generative response produced in response to the prompt being provided to the generative output engine as taught by Baker with the teachings of Dorai in view of Thomsen in view of Cantu, with the motivation of “understanding the change history” and providing “insights into a range of information that can help… make more informed decisions about new features and code changes” (Baker ¶[0001]). In addition, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to include causing generation of a prompt, the prompt comprising: predetermined query prompt text including text-based instructions; the first content; and the content delta; obtaining a generative response from a generative output engine, the generative response produced in response to the prompt being provided to the generative output engine as taught by Baker in the system of Dorai in view of Thomsen in view of Cantu, since the claimed invention is merely a combination of old elements, and in the combination each element merely would have performed the same function as it did separately, and one of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that the results of the combination were predictable. See MPEP 2141 citing KSR International Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 82 USPQ2d 1385 (2007).
Dorai (in view of Thomsen in view of Cantu in view of Baker, is a generative response and the summary is a generative summary, per Baker above) also teaches the following:
processing the generative response to produce a generative summary having a topically arranged list of content change summaries comprising: (Dorai Fig 3, ¶[0060-61], ¶[0113] details producing a change summary panel that summarizes the changes made since the last time the user opened this document including a list of the other users that made changes, and also producing the activity pane with a filtered list of each content changes);
Cantu (of Dorai in view of Cantu in view of Thomsen in view of Baker, applying that the summary has topically arranged list of content change summaries, per Dorai above) also teaches the following:
locating the static textual placeholders within the generative response (Cantu ¶[0177] details template tokens within the LLM response identify portions of the response that should be replaced by an image, chart, graphic, bullet point, hyperlink, data related to the user, proprietary data, interactive element, or formatted text); and
rehydrating the generative response comprising re-inserting the rich text elements into the topically arranged list of content change summaries at positions corresponding to the static textual placeholders (Cantu ¶[0151], ¶[0177] details the response is provided to the user with the rich text replacing the template tokens, reincorporated into the response prior to the response being sent to the user); and
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to include locating the static textual placeholders within the generative response; and rehydrating the generative response comprising re-inserting the rich text elements into the response (i.e. topically arranged list of content change summaries, per Dorai) at positions corresponding to the static textual placeholders as taught by Cantu with the teachings of Dorai in view of Thomsen (in view of Cantu in view of Baker), with the motivation that “the response generated by the method may be dynamic, interactive, and extend beyond the capabilities offered by the LLM… to provide the end user with further information” (Cantu ¶[0166]). In addition, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to include locating the static textual placeholders within the generative response; and rehydrating the generative response comprising re-inserting the rich text elements into the response (i.e. topically arranged list of content change summaries, per Dorai) at positions corresponding to the static textual placeholders as taught by Cantu in the system of Dorai in view of Thomsen (in view of Cantu in view of Baker), since the claimed invention is merely a combination of old elements, and in the combination each element merely would have performed the same function as it did separately, and one of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that the results of the combination were predictable. See MPEP 2141 citing KSR International Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 82 USPQ2d 1385 (2007).
Dorai (in view of Thomsen in view of Cantu in view of Baker) also teaches the following:
causing display of the generative summary within a window object in the graphical user interface (Dorai Fig 3, ¶[0060-61] details displaying the change summary panel and the activity pane in window objects of the GUI).
Claim 5:
Dorai in view of Thomsen in view of Cantu in view of Baker, as shown above, teach the limitations of claim 1. Dorai (in view of Thomsen in view of Cantu in view of Baker, applying that the electronic document version is a cached page, per Thomsen above) also teaches the following:
analyzing the event history log to identify a set of events occurring between a timestamp associated with the cached page and a timestamp of the target page Dorai ¶[0082] details identifying the version of the electronic document associated preceding or identical to the timestamp stored for the end user with the timestamp of end user last access, and all the changes / revisions from a revision history which occur after that time stamp);
generating an event summary based on the set of events (Dorai Fig 3, ¶[0060-61] ¶[0082] details identifying all the revisions from a revision history which occur after the time stamp for the given user, and presenting the activity panel and change summary panel on the GUI); and
causing display of the event summary in the window object of the graphical user interface (Dorai Fig 3, ¶[0060-61] details presenting the activity panel and change summary panel on the GUI with the changes).
Claim 7:
Dorai in view of Thomsen in view of Cantu in view of Baker, as shown above, teach the limitations of claim 1. Dorai also teaches the following:
wherein: the current content includes editor-specific rich text elements (Dorai Fig 3 ¶[0056] details changed text is presented as underlined);
With respect to the following:
the editor-specific rich text elements are replaced with placeholders in the first content extracted from the cached page and in the content delta; and
prior to displaying the generative summary, the editor-specific rich text elements are inserted into the topically arranged list of content change summaries.
Dorai, as shown in Fig 3, ¶[0056], ¶[0060-61], ¶[0082], ¶[0115] details displaying changed text / content delta from since the previous saved version accessed by the user as underlined text (i.e. editor specific rich text elements), displaying changes including change summaries, and activity data including the changes made to the electronic document since the end user accessed the electronic document which are presented in a list; Thomsen, as shown in col 1 ln 12-16 details the page is a cached page; and Baker, as shown in Fig 4B-4C, ¶[0015], ¶[0055], ¶[0071-72] details displaying a generative content change summary; but Dorai / Thomsen / Baker does not explicitly state that the rich text elements are replaced with placeholders in the first content extracted from the page (cached page, per Thomsen), and prior to displaying (the generative summary, per Baker), the rich text elements are inserted back (into the topically arranged list of content change summaries, per Dorai). However Cantu teaches these remaining features, replacing graphics, interactive elements and formatting (i.e. rich text elements) or other non-textual examples and other user specific or other identifiable data from the context portion of a command generated for an LLM and replacing it with template tokens (i.e. placeholders) (Cantu ¶[0159], ¶[0162], ¶[0165], ¶[0173], ¶[0177]); and providing the user with the rich text replacing the template tokens, reincorporated into the response prior to the response being sent to the user (Cantu ¶[0151], ¶[0177]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to include rich text elements are replaced with placeholders in the first content extracted from the page (cached page, per Thomsen), and prior to displaying (the generative summary, per Baker), the rich text elements are inserted back (into the topically arranged list of content change summaries, per Dorai) as taught by Cantu with the teachings of Dorai in view of Thomsen (in view of Cantu in view of Baker), with the motivation that “the response generated by the method may be dynamic, interactive, and extend beyond the capabilities offered by the LLM… to provide the end user with further information” (Cantu ¶[0166]). In addition, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to include rich text elements are replaced with placeholders in the first content extracted from the page (cached page, per Thomsen), and prior to displaying (the generative summary, per Baker), the rich text elements are inserted back (into the topically arranged list of content change summaries, per Dorai) as taught by Cantu in the system of Dorai in view of Thomsen (in view of Cantu in view of Baker), since the claimed invention is merely a combination of old elements, and in the combination each element merely would have performed the same function as it did separately, and one of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that the results of the combination were predictable. See MPEP 2141 citing KSR International Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 82 USPQ2d 1385 (2007).
Claim 8:
Dorai in view of Thomsen in view of Cantu in view of Baker, as shown above, teach the limitations of claim 1. Dorai also teaches the following:
wherein the prior view event corresponds to a most recent historical page view event associated with the user account and the target page (Dorai ¶[0082] details identifying the version of the electronic document associated preceding or identical to the timestamp stored for the end user with the timestamp of end user last access).
Claims 9-10, 14-18 and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US patent application publication 2018/0314680 A1 to Dorai et al. in view of US patent application publication 2025/0371417 A1 to Cantu et al. in view of US patent application publication 2025/0272091 A1 to Baker.
Claim 9:
Dorai, as shown, teaches the following:
A system of a content collaboration platform (Dorai Fig 1, ¶[0027] details a collaboration system for electronic documents), the system comprising:
one or more processing units (Dorai ¶[0088] details at least one processing unit);
computer readable memory storing computer readable instructions that when executed by the one or more processing units (Dorai ¶[0088-90] details memory for instructions executed by the processing units) cause the system to:
subsequent to an authentication of a user account of a user operating a frontend application on a client device, cause display of a graphical user interface of the content collaboration platform (Dorai ¶[0068] details receiving a request from an end user application on a client computer to access an electronic document and authenticating the user to then access the document), the graphical user interface including a content region displaying current content of a target document (Dorai Fig 3, ¶[0013], ¶[0056] details displaying the content of the electronic document in the GUI);
identify a previously saved document associated with a prior view event with respect to the user account comprising rich text elements (Dorai Fig 3, ¶[0053], ¶[0078], ¶[0082] details each saved document has a save identifier, and metadata about the end user’s last access to the electronic document when it was opened for read / opened for write / closed / saved, and identifying the version of the electronic document with content immediately preceding or identical to the timestamp stored for the end user; and data within the document can be viewed with special formatting or other emphasis, i.e. rich text elements);
determine a content delta using first content extracted from the previously saved document and second content extracted from the target document (Dorai ¶[0082] identifying the version of the electronic document with content immediately preceding or identical to the timestamp stored for the end user and accessing all revisions from the revision history which occur after the timestamp (i.e. first content extracted) to the most up-to-date version of the electronic document, i.e. second content extracted);
With respect to the following:
replacing, by a content change generation service, the rich text elements within the first content and the content delta with static textual placeholders;
Dorai, as shown in Fig 3, ¶[0056], ¶[0082-85] details identifying data representing all content changes in the electronic document occurring from a timestamp stored for the end user from a stored version (i.e. cached page) and the set of revisions from the revision history occurring after the timestamp (i.e. the delta); and data within the document can be viewed with special formatting or other emphasis, i.e. rich text elements; but does not explicitly state replacing, by a content change generation service the rich text elements in the content with static textual placeholders. However, Cantu teaches this remaining limitation, when an LLM may not have access to incorporate graphics, interactive elements and formatting (i.e. rich text elements) or other non-textual examples this data and other user specific or other identifiable data may be excluded from the context portion of a command generated for an LLM and replaced with template tokens by one or more services (Cantu ¶[0159], ¶[0162], ¶[0165], ¶[0173], ¶[0177[).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to include replacing, by a content change generation service, the rich text elements within the content (i.e. first content and the content delta, per Dorai) with static textual placeholders as taught by Cantu with the teachings of Dorai, with the motivation that “the response generated by the method may be dynamic, interactive, and extend beyond the capabilities offered by the LLM… to provide the end user with further information” (Cantu ¶[0166]). In addition, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to include replacing, by a content change generation service, the rich text elements within the content (i.e. first content and the content delta, per Dorai) with static textual placeholders as taught by Cantu in the system of Dorai, since the claimed invention is merely a combination of old elements, and in the combination each element merely would have performed the same function as it did separately, and one of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that the results of the combination were predictable. See MPEP 2141 citing KSR International Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 82 USPQ2d 1385 (2007).
With respect to the following:
cause generation of a prompt, the prompt comprising:
predetermined query prompt text including text-based instructions;
the first content; and
the content delta;
obtain a generative response from a generative output engine, the generative response produced in response to the prompt being provided to the generative output engine;
Dorai, as shown in Fig 3, ¶[0054], ¶[0060-61] details using computer programming instructions, the content of the latest document, and the content of the latest version last viewed by the user, the changes in content between these content document versions (i.e. delta), the response produces a displayed adjacent summary of the changes in a change summary panel that summarizes the changes made since the last time the user opened the document and a complete / filtered list of changes in an adjacent activity pane; but does not explicitly state: causing generation of a prompt, the prompt comprising: predetermined query prompt text including text-based instructions, first content, content delta; obtaining a generative response from a generative output engine. However, Baker teaches these remaining features, providing a generative AI prompt with a query mapped to usage scenarios including ‘summarize the changes made to this file’, the request triggers search for relevant code change context (i.e. extracted content, delta) and the user may include additional request options including ‘show history’, ‘summarize’, and/or ‘please summarize the changes made to this file’, and the change history response and summary is then produced and displayed in a popup window (Baker Fig 4B-4C, ¶[0015], ¶[0055], ¶[0071-72]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to include causing generation of a prompt, the prompt comprising: predetermined query prompt text including text-based instructions; the first content; and the content delta; obtaining a generative response from a generative output engine, the generative response produced in response to the prompt being provided to the generative output engine as taught by Baker with the teachings of Dorai in view of Cantu, with the motivation of “understanding the change history” and providing “insights into a range of information that can help… make more informed decisions about new features and code changes” (Baker ¶[0001]). In addition, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to include causing generation of a prompt, the prompt comprising: predetermined query prompt text including text-based instructions; the first content; and the content delta; obtaining a generative response from a generative output engine, the generative response produced in response to the prompt being provided to the generative output engine as taught by Baker in the system of Dorai in view of Cantu, since the claimed invention is merely a combination of old elements, and in the combination each element merely would have performed the same function as it did separately, and one of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that the results of the combination were predictable. See MPEP 2141 citing KSR International Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 82 USPQ2d 1385 (2007).
Dorai (in view of Cantu in view of Baker, applying that the response is a generative response and the summary is a generative summary, per Baker above) also teaches the following:
process the generative response to produce a generative summary having a set of content change summaries comprising (Dorai Fig 3, ¶[0060-61], ¶[0113] details producing a change summary panel that summarizes the changes made since the last time the user opened this document including a list of the other users that made changes, and also producing the activity pane with a filtered list of each content changes):
Cantu (of Dorai in view of Cantu in view of Baker, applying that the summary has topically arranged list of content change summaries, per Dorai above) also teaches the following:
locating the static textual placeholders within the generative response (Cantu ¶[0177] details template tokens within the LLM response identify portions of the response that should be replaced by an image, chart, graphic, bullet point, hyperlink, data related to the user, proprietary data, interactive element, or formatted text); and
rehydrating the generative response comprising re-inserting the rich text elements into the topically arranged list of content change summaries at positions corresponding to the static textual placeholders (Cantu ¶[0151], ¶[0177] details the response is provided to the user with the rich text replacing the template tokens, reincorporated into the response prior to the response being sent to the user); and
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to include locating the static textual placeholders within the generative response; and rehydrating the generative response comprising re-inserting the rich text elements into the response (i.e. topically arranged list of content change summaries, per Dorai) at positions corresponding to the static textual placeholders as taught by Cantu with the teachings of Dorai (in view of Cantu in view of Baker), with the motivation that “the response generated by the method may be dynamic, interactive, and extend beyond the capabilities offered by the LLM… to provide the end user with further information” (Cantu ¶[0166]). In addition, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to include locating the static textual placeholders within the generative response; and rehydrating the generative response comprising re-inserting the rich text elements into the response (i.e. topically arranged list of content change summaries, per Dorai) at positions corresponding to the static textual placeholders as taught by Cantu in the system of Dorai (in view of Cantu in view of Baker), since the claimed invention is merely a combination of old elements, and in the combination each element merely would have performed the same function as it did separately, and one of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that the results of the combination were predictable. See MPEP 2141 citing KSR International Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 82 USPQ2d 1385 (2007).
Dorai (in view of Cantu in view of Baker) also teaches the following:
cause display of the generative summary within a window object in the graphical user interface (Dorai Fig 3, ¶[0060-61] details displaying the change summary panel and the activity panel in window objects of the GUI).
Claim 10:
Dorai in view of Cantu in view of Baker, as shown above, teaches the limitations of claim 9. Dorai (in view of Cantu in view of Baker, applying that the summary results are generative summary results, as shown above) also teaches the following:
wherein: the generative summary includes a set of selectable elements, each selectable element positioned adjacent to a respective content change summary of the set of content change summaries (Dorai Fig 3, ¶[0057-58] details selectable change indicators in the scroll bar that indicate where a change has occurred, and also next / previous buttons to jump to changes; scroll bars with change indicators are adjacent to document area, and previous / next buttons are adjacent to the document area and the content change summary); and
selection of a particular selectable element causes the graphical user interface to display a respective portion of the target document corresponding to a particular content change summary displayed adjacent to the particular selectable element (Dorai Fig 3, ¶[0057-58] details in response to the user input selecting a change indicator in the scroll bar or the previous / next buttons, the document pane is then updated to show the content of the document corresponding to the position of the selected change indicator).
Claim 14:
Dorai in view of Cantu in view of Baker, as shown above, teaches the limitations of claim 9. Dorai also teaches the following:
wherein: identification of the previously saved document is performed by analyzing an event history log of the target document (Dorai ¶[0025], ¶[0078-82] details analyzing the timestamps and user identifiers of the previous electronic document versions and version history to identify the most recent stored version of the electronic document viewed by the current user); and
the previously saved document is associated with a prior view event of the event history log with respect to the user account (Dorai ¶[0082] details identifying the version of the electronic document with a timestamp immediately preceding or identical to the timestamp stored for the end user when the user last accessed the electronic document).
Claim 15:
Dorai, as shown, teaches the following:
A computer-implemented method for generating and displaying content change summaries within a graphical user interface of a content collaboration platform (Dorai Fig 3, ¶[0027] details a collaboration system for electronic documents displaying content change summaries), the method comprising:
causing display of a graphical user interface of the content collaboration platform, the graphical user interface including an event history log for a target content item (Dorai Fig 3 details Fig 3, ¶[0061], details an activity pane that shows activity history associated with the electronic document), the event history log including identifiers of a set of one or more previously saved versions of the target content item, the target content item comprising rich text elements (Dorai Fig 3, ¶[0056], ¶[0061], ¶[0109], claim 5 details the activity pane can include changes to the document, including a plurality of versions of the electronic document where each version has a time stamp; and data within the document can be viewed with special formatting or other emphasis, i.e. rich text elements);
in response to a user input, identifying a particular previously saved version of the target content item (Dorai Fig 7, ¶[0076-82] details in response to the user request for an electronic document from the end user application, obtaining the previous versions of the electronic document and identifying the version with a timestamp that is immediately preceding or identical to the timestamp stored for the end user when they last accessed the electronic document);
determining a content delta using first content extracted from the particular previously saved version of the target content item and second content extracted from a current version of the target content item (Dorai ¶[0082] details identifying all revisions from a revision history which occur after the timestamp in which the user last accessed / viewed the electronic document up to the most up to date version of the electronic document);
With respect to the following:
replacing, by a content change generation service, the rich text elements within the first content, the second content, and the content delta with static textual placeholders;
Dorai, as shown in Fig 3, ¶[0056], ¶[0082-85] details identifying data representing all content changes in the electronic document occurring from a timestamp stored for the end user from all versions (i.e. first content, second content) and the set of revisions from the revision history occurring after the timestamp (i.e. the delta); and data within the document can be viewed with special formatting or other emphasis, i.e. rich text elements; but does not explicitly state replacing, by a content change generation service the rich text elements in the content with static textual placeholders. However, Cantu teaches this remaining limitation, when an LLM may not have access to incorporate graphics, interactive elements and formatting (i.e. rich text elements) or other non-textual examples this data and other user specific or other identifiable data may be excluded from the context portion of a command generated for an LLM and replaced with template tokens by one or more services (Cantu ¶[0159], ¶[0162], ¶[0165], ¶[0173], ¶[0177[).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to include replacing, by a content change generation service, the rich text elements within the content (i.e. first content, second content, and the content delta, per Dorai) with static textual placeholders as taught by Cantu with the teachings of Dorai, with the motivation that “the response generated by the method may be dynamic, interactive, and extend beyond the capabilities offered by the LLM… to provide the end user with further information” (Cantu ¶[0166]). In addition, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to include replacing, by a content change generation service, the rich text elements within the content (i.e. first content, second content, and the content delta, per Dorai) with static textual placeholders as taught by Cantu in the system of Dorai, since the claimed invention is merely a combination of old elements, and in the combination each element merely would have performed the same function as it did separately, and one of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that the results of the combination were predictable. See MPEP 2141 citing KSR International Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 82 USPQ2d 1385 (2007).
With respect to the following:
causing generation of a prompt, the prompt comprising:
predetermined query prompt text including text-based instructions;
one or more of the first content or the second content; and
the content delta;
obtaining a generative response from a generative output engine, the generative response produced in response to the prompt being provided to the generative output engine;
Dorai, as shown in Fig 3, ¶[0054], ¶[0060-61] details using computer programming instructions, the content of the latest document, and the content of the latest version last viewed by the user, the changes in content between these content document versions (i.e. delta), the response produces a displayed adjacent summary of the changes in a change summary panel that summarizes the changes made since the last time the user opened the document and a complete / filtered list of changes in an adjacent activity pane; but does not explicitly state: causing generation of a prompt, the prompt comprising: predetermined query prompt text including text-based instructions, one or more of the first content or the second content, content delta; obtaining a generative response from a generative output engine. However, Baker teaches these remaining features, providing a generative AI prompt with a query mapped to usage scenarios including ‘summarize the changes made to this file’, the request triggers search for relevant code change context (i.e. first / second content, delta) and the user may include additional request options including ‘show history’, ‘summarize’, and/or ‘please summarize the changes made to this file’, and the change history response and summary is then produced and displayed in a popup window (Baker Fig 4B-4C, ¶[0015], ¶[0055], ¶[0071-72]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to include causing generation of a prompt, the prompt comprising: predetermined query prompt text including text-based instructions; one or more of the first content or the second content; and the content delta; obtaining a generative response from a generative output engine, the generative response produced in response to the prompt being provided to the generative output engine as taught by Baker with the teachings of Dorai in view of Cantu, with the motivation of “understanding the change history” and providing “insights into a range of information that can help… make more informed decisions about new features and code changes” (Baker ¶[0001]). In addition, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to include causing generation of a prompt, the prompt comprising: predetermined query prompt text including text-based instructions; one or more of the first content or the second content; and the content delta; obtaining a generative response from a generative output engine, the generative response produced in response to the prompt being provided to the generative output engine as taught by Baker in the system of Dorai in view of Cantu, since the claimed invention is merely a combination of old elements, and in the combination each element merely would have performed the same function as it did separately, and one of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that the results of the combination were predictable. See MPEP 2141 citing KSR International Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 82 USPQ2d 1385 (2007).
Dorai (in view of Cantu in view of Baker, applying that the response is a generative response and the summary is a generative summary, per Baker above) also teaches the following:
processing the generative response to produce a generative summary having a set of content change summaries comprising (Dorai Fig 3, ¶[0060-61], ¶[0113] details producing a change summary panel that summarizes the changes made since the last time the user opened this document including a list of the other users that made changes, and also producing the activity pane with a filtered list of each content changes):
Cantu (of Dorai in view of Cantu in view of Baker, applying that the summary has topically arranged list of content change summaries, per Dorai above) also teaches the following:
locating the static textual placeholders within the generative response (Cantu ¶[0177] details template tokens within the LLM response identify portions of the response that should be replaced by an image, chart, graphic, bullet point, hyperlink, data related to the user, proprietary data, interactive element, or formatted text); and
rehydrating the generative response comprising re-inserting the rich text elements into the topically arranged list of content change summaries at positions corresponding to the static textual placeholders (Cantu ¶[0151], ¶[0177] details the response is provided to the user with the rich text replacing the template tokens, reincorporated into the response prior to the response being sent to the user); and
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to include locating the static textual placeholders within the generative response; and rehydrating the generative response comprising re-inserting the rich text elements into the response (i.e. topically arranged list of content change summaries, per Dorai) at positions corresponding to the static textual placeholders as taught by Cantu with the teachings of Dorai (in view of Cantu in view of Baker), with the motivation that “the response generated by the method may be dynamic, interactive, and extend beyond the capabilities offered by the LLM… to provide the end user with further information” (Cantu ¶[0166]). In addition, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to include locating the static textual placeholders within the generative response; and rehydrating the generative response comprising re-inserting the rich text elements into the response (i.e. topically arranged list of content change summaries, per Dorai) at positions corresponding to the static textual placeholders as taught by Cantu in the system of Dorai (in view of Cantu in view of Baker), since the claimed invention is merely a combination of old elements, and in the combination each element merely would have performed the same function as it did separately, and one of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that the results of the combination were predictable. See MPEP 2141 citing KSR International Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 82 USPQ2d 1385 (2007).
Dorai (in view of Cantu in view of Baker) also teaches the following:
causing display of the generative summary within a window object in the graphical user interface (Dorai Fig 3, ¶[0060-61] details displaying the change summary panel and the activity panel in window objects of the GUI).
Claim 16:
Dorai in view of Cantu in view of Baker, as shown above, teach the limitations of claim 15. Dorai also teaches the following:
wherein: the graphical user interface is displayed subsequent to a successful authentication of a user account associated with a frontend application operating on a client device (Dorai ¶[0068] details receiving a request from an end user application on a client computer to access an electronic document and authenticating the user to then access the document); and
the event history log includes one or more events with respect to the set of one or more previously saved versions of the target content item (Dorai Fig 3, ¶[0061], ¶[0109], claim 5 details the activity pane can include changes to the document, including a plurality of versions of the electronic document where each version has a time stamp).
Claim 17:
Dorai in view of Cantu in view of Baker, as shown above, teach the limitations of claim 15. Dorai also teaches the following:
the method further comprises analyzing the event history log to identify a set of events occurring between a timestamp associated with the particular previously saved version of the target content item and a timestamp of the current version of the target content item (Dorai ¶[0025], ¶[0078-82] details analyzing the timestamps and user identifiers of the previous electronic document versions and version history to identify the most recent stored version of the electronic document viewed by the current user and the changes between);
generating an event summary based on the set of events (Dorai Fig 3, ¶[0060-61] details generating a change summary panel summarizing all the changes since the user last viewed the electronic document, and an activity pane identifying changes relating to modifying content of the electronic document); and
causing display of the event summary in the window object of the graphical user interface (Dorai Fig 3, ¶[0060-61] details displaying a change summary panel summarizing all the changes since the user last viewed the electronic document, and an activity pane identifying changes relating to modifying content of the electronic document).
Claim 18:
Dorai in view of Cantu in view of Baker, as shown above, teach the limitations of claim 15. Dorai also teaches the following:
wherein the particular previously saved version of the target content item is an item that is at least two versions older than the current version of the target content item (Dorai Fig 3, ¶[0051], ¶[0082] details storing each version of the electronic document in a separate data file each time there is a revision, and the example in Figure 3 shows that three users made changes while the end user was away, i.e. at least three versions older than the target version).
Claim 20:
Dorai in view of Cantu in view of Baker, as shown above, teach the limitations of claim 15. Dorai also teaches the following:
wherein: the content collaboration platform is one of:
a document management platform (Dorai ¶[0029] details a collaboration system for managing contemporaneous access to shared electronic documents); or
an issue tracking platform; and
the target content item is one of an electronic document hosted by the document management platform or an issue hosted by the issue tracking platform (Dorai ¶[0029] details a collaboration system for managing contemporaneous access to shared electronic documents).
Claim 11 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US patent application publication 2018/0314680 A1 to Dorai et al. in view of US patent application publication 2025/0371417 A1 to Cantu et al. in view of US patent application publication 2025/0272091 A1 to Baker, as applied to claim 9 above, and further in view of US patent application publication 2025/0272475 A1 to Cunningham et al.
Claim 11:
Dorai in view of Cantu in view of Baker, as shown above, teach the limitations of claim 15. Dorai does not explicitly state, but Cunningham teaches the following:
wherein the generative summary comprises a set of topic headings generated by the generative output engine, wherein each topic heading is associated with at least one content change summary of the set of content change summaries (Cunningham Fig 6A-6B, ¶[0077], ¶[0080], ¶[0084] details a content change summary interface generating the activity differences according to activity type including modification / addition / removal of video, document, image, and folder changes from the LLM; topic headings includes ‘Type’).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to include the generative summary comprises a set of topic headings generated by the generative output engine, wherein each topic heading is associated with at least one content change summary of the set of content change summaries as taught by Cunningham with the teachings of Dorai in view of Cantu in view of Baker, with the motivation for “providing content update synopses using a large language model”, to solve problems and issues that “exist with regard to conventional file sharing systems” including “inefficient user interfaces” (Cunningham ¶[0004-6]). In addition, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to include the generative summary comprises a set of topic headings generated by the generative output engine, wherein each topic heading is associated with at least one content change summary of the set of content change summaries as taught by Cunningham in the system of Dorai in view of Cantu in view of Baker, since the claimed invention is merely a combination of old elements, and in the combination each element merely would have performed the same function as it did separately, and one of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that the results of the combination were predictable. See MPEP 2141 citing KSR International Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 82 USPQ2d 1385 (2007).
Claim 12 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US patent application publication 2018/0314680 A1 to Dorai et al. in view of US patent application publication 2025/0371417 A1 to Cantu et al. in view of US patent application publication 2025/0272091 A1 to Baker, as applied to claim 9 above, and further in view of US patent application publication 2020/0349120 A1 to Crane et al.
Claim 12:
Dorai in view of Cantu in view of Baker, as shown above, teach the limitations of claim 9. Dorai also teaches the following:
wherein the computer readable instructions further cause the system to:
subsequent to causing display of the generative summary, determine a subsequent content delta (Dorai ¶[0035-36] details the user accessing an electronic document on a desktop computer at an office (viewing changes, per method in Fig 5, ¶[0067-68]), and then accessing the document on a mobile device and understanding what has changed since that document was last viewed on another device; and identifying when content of has changed when the user accesses the server computer from any device, i.e. determining a subsequent content delta);
Dorai does not explicitly state, but Crane teaches the following:
in accordance with a determination that the subsequent content delta does not satisfy a modification threshold, cause generation of a full summary of the current content of the target document (Crane Fig 6, Fig 8, ¶[0066-67], ¶[0069] details receiving changes to an electronic document by a first user and determining whether or not the user account and changes to a section satisfy a privilege threshold; and if the threshold is not met, then all the proposed changes and updates (i.e. full summary of the current content) are then displayed with an approve option and rejection option at a user device associated with a second user that does have an editing and/or reviewing privilege that satisfies the threshold); and
cause display of the full summary within the window object (Crane Fig 6, ¶[0069] details presenting the full summary of the proposed change and update to the current content on the second user device GUI).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to include in accordance with a determination that the subsequent content delta does not satisfy a modification threshold, cause generation of a full summary of the current content of the target document; cause display of the full summary within the window object as taught by Crane with the teachings of Dorai in view of Cantu in view of Baker, with the motivation for “collaborating during document creation” and “support multiple users concurrently editing a document” (Crane ¶[0004]). In addition, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to include in accordance with a determination that the subsequent content delta does not satisfy a modification threshold, cause generation of a full summary of the current content of the target document; cause display of the full summary within the window object as taught by Crane in the system of Dorai in view of Cantu in view of Baker, since the claimed invention is merely a combination of old elements, and in the combination each element merely would have performed the same function as it did separately, and one of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that the results of the combination were predictable. See MPEP 2141 citing KSR International Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 82 USPQ2d 1385 (2007).
Claim 13 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US patent application publication 2018/0314680 A1 to Dorai et al. in view of US patent application publication 2025/0371417 A1 to Cantu et al. in view of US patent application publication 2025/0272091 A1 to Baker, as applied to claim 9 above, and further in view of US patent application publication 2017/0199915 A1 to McNeill et al.
Claim 13:
Dorai in view of Cantu in view of Baker, as shown above, teach the limitations of claim 9. With respect to the following:
wherein identification of the previously saved document is performed in response to a user selection of a selectable control displayed in the graphical user interface.
Dorai, as shown in ¶[0068] details identification of the previously saved document and the changes is performed in response to the user requesting access to the electronic document, but does not explicitly state identification of the previously saved document is performed in response to a user selection of a selectable control displayed in the graphical user interface. However, McNeill teaches this feature, where the user selects a ‘versions’ or ‘history’ menu option, and then the application will display a list of previous versions associated with the document, and the document versions in the document history are also selectable (McNeill Fig 2A-2B, ¶[0035-37]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to include identification of the previously saved document is performed in response to a user selection of a selectable control displayed in the graphical user interface as taught by McNeill with the teachings of Dorai in view of Cantu in view of Baker, with the motivation of “enabling the user to access previous versions of the document… a user may want to locate and view a particular version, see how a document has evolved over time” (McNeill ¶[0002]). In addition, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to include identification of the previously saved document is performed in response to a user selection of a selectable control displayed in the graphical user interface as taught by McNeill in the system of Dorai in view of Cantu in view of Baker, since the claimed invention is merely a combination of old elements, and in the combination each element merely would have performed the same function as it did separately, and one of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that the results of the combination were predictable. See MPEP 2141 citing KSR International Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 82 USPQ2d 1385 (2007).
Claim 19 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US patent application publication 2018/0314680 A1 to Dorai et al. in view of US patent application publication 2025/0371417 A1 to Cantu et al. in view of US patent application publication 2025/0272091 A1 to Baker, as applied to claim 15 above, and further in view of US patent application publication 2007/0260648 A1 to Friesenhahn et al.
Claim 19:
Dorai in view of Cantu in view of Baker, as shown above, teach the limitations of claim 15. With respect to the following:
wherein one or more of the set of one or more previously saved versions of the target content item is generated in response to a publication of the target content item.
Dorai, as shown in ¶[0034], ¶[0109] details storing one or more previously versions of the electronic document (target content item), but does not explicitly state that one or more of the versions is generated in response to a publication of the target content item. However, Friesenhahn teaches this limitation, creating minor versions of documents that are restricted to authors of the document, and publicly-available versions of the document associated with a major release of the document (Friesenhahn Fig 4, ¶[0042], ¶[0078]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to include wherein one or more of the set of one or more previously saved versions of the target content item is generated in response to a publication of the target content item as taught by Friesenhahn with the teachings of Dorai in view of Cantu in view of Baker, with the motivation that “provides an audience-appropriate version of a document, upon request” and “some versions of a document might be suitable for wide distribution, while other versions should be more closely held” (Friesenhahn ¶[0003-4]). In addition, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to include wherein one or more of the set of one or more previously saved versions of the target content item is generated in response to a publication of the target content item as taught by Friesenhahn in the system of Dorai in view of Cantu in view of Baker, since the claimed invention is merely a combination of old elements, and in the combination each element merely would have performed the same function as it did separately, and one of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that the results of the combination were predictable. See MPEP 2141 citing KSR International Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 82 USPQ2d 1385 (2007).
Novelty / Non-Obviousness
Claims 2-4 and 6 are not rejected under 35 USC 102 or 35 USC 103. The Examiner knows of no art which teaches or suggests the features as recited in claim 2 (including all claimed features in the claim which claim 2 is dependent on), and the features as recited in claim 4 (including all claimed features in the claim which claim 4 is dependent on), and the features as recited in claim 6 (including all claimed features in the claim which claim 6 is dependent on). The following reference(s) teach the additional individual features in the limitations of claims 2, 4, 6, however the Examiner has determined it would not have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective date of the claimed invention to combine these references in combination with the previously applied references (e.g. claim 1: Dorai in view of Cantu in view of Thomsen in view of Baker) to render claims 2-4, 6 obvious.
Claim 2:
in accordance with a successful authentication of a user account of a user operating a frontend application on a client device, causing display of the graphical user interface of the content collaboration platform, the graphical user interface including a content region including an editor for receiving user-generated content and displaying current content of a target page comprising rich text elements;
in response to a trigger condition being satisfied, obtaining an event history log associated with the target page;
analyzing the event history log to identify a cached page associated with a prior view event of the target page with respect to the user account;
determining a content delta using first content extracted from the cached page and second content extracted from the target page;
replacing, by a content change generation service, the rich text elements within the first content and the content delta with static textual placeholders;
causing generation of a prompt, the prompt comprising:
predetermined query prompt text including text-based instructions;
the first content extracted from the cached page; and
the content delta;
obtaining a generative response from a generative output engine, the generative response produced in response to the prompt being provided to the generative output engine;
processing the generative response to produce a generative summary having a topically arranged list of content change summaries comprising:
locating the static textual placeholders within the generative response; and
rehydrating the generative response comprising re-inserting the rich text elements into the topically arranged list of content change summaries at positions corresponding to the static textual placeholders; and
causing display of the generative summary within a window object in the graphical user interface;
wherein:
the prompt further includes instructions to generate the list of content change summaries, each content change summary of the list of content change summaries used to generate the topically arranged list of content change summaries;
the prompt further includes instructions to preserve a respective text snippet for each content change summary of the list of content change summaries in the generative response;
processing the generative response includes generating a selectable element for each content change summary of the list of content change summaries; and
user selection of a particular selectable element causes the frontend application to cause display of a respective portion of the target page containing the respective text snippet.
The prior art of Cunningham (US 2025/0272475 A1) details generating a summary generation prompt using the activity difference system and the text representation, and the prompt including summary generation instructions for filtering the summary according to the selected edit / activity types; the instructions in the prompt can include summary generation instructions for eliciting a response that provides a summary or synopsis; extracting text representations of the changes to the content changes, combining the text-based instructions with the text representation of the changes to generate the summary generation prompt; and the text representation in the prompt and content change summary can include portions of a content item, i.e. text snippet (Cunningham Fig 6A-6B, ¶[0018], ¶[0021], ¶[0028], ¶[0030], ¶[0034], ¶[0049], ¶[0085], claim 7).
Claim 4:
in accordance with a successful authentication of a user account of a user operating a frontend application on a client device, causing display of the graphical user interface of the content collaboration platform, the graphical user interface including a content region including an editor for receiving user-generated content and displaying current content of a target page comprising rich text elements;
in response to a trigger condition being satisfied, obtaining an event history log associated with the target page;
analyzing the event history log to identify a cached page associated with a prior view event of the target page with respect to the user account;
determining a content delta using first content extracted from the cached page and second content extracted from the target page;
replacing, by a content change generation service, the rich text elements within the first content and the content delta with static textual placeholders;
causing generation of a prompt, the prompt comprising:
predetermined query prompt text including text-based instructions;
the first content extracted from the cached page; and
the content delta;
obtaining a generative response from a generative output engine, the generative response produced in response to the prompt being provided to the generative output engine;
processing the generative response to produce a generative summary having a topically arranged list of content change summaries comprising:
locating the static textual placeholders within the generative response; and
rehydrating the generative response comprising re-inserting the rich text elements into the topically arranged list of content change summaries at positions corresponding to the static textual placeholders; and
causing display of the generative summary within a window object in the graphical user interface;
wherein the topically arranged list of content change summaries comprises: at least one topic heading generated by the generative output engine; and at least one content change summary below the at least one topic heading.
The prior art of Cunningham (US 2025/0272475 A1) details a content change summary interface generating the activity differences according to activity type including modification / addition / removal of video, document, image, and folder changes from the LLM; topic headings includes ‘Type’; and shared video, shared document, shared image, and shared folder updates below the topic heading of Type (Cunningham Fig 6A-6B, ¶[0077], ¶[0080], ¶[0084] ).
Claim 6:
in accordance with a successful authentication of a user account of a user operating a frontend application on a client device, causing display of the graphical user interface of the content collaboration platform, the graphical user interface including a content region including an editor for receiving user-generated content and displaying current content of a target page comprising rich text elements;
in response to a trigger condition being satisfied, obtaining an event history log associated with the target page;
analyzing the event history log to identify a cached page associated with a prior view event of the target page with respect to the user account;
determining a content delta using first content extracted from the cached page and second content extracted from the target page;
replacing, by a content change generation service, the rich text elements within the first content and the content delta with static textual placeholders;
causing generation of a prompt, the prompt comprising:
predetermined query prompt text including text-based instructions;
the first content extracted from the cached page; and
the content delta;
obtaining a generative response from a generative output engine, the generative response produced in response to the prompt being provided to the generative output engine;
processing the generative response to produce a generative summary having a topically arranged list of content change summaries comprising:
locating the static textual placeholders within the generative response; and
rehydrating the generative response comprising re-inserting the rich text elements into the topically arranged list of content change summaries at positions corresponding to the static textual placeholders; and
causing display of the generative summary within a window object in the graphical user interface;
subsequent to causing display of the generative summary and in response to a subsequent trigger condition, determining a subsequent content delta;
in accordance with a determination that the subsequent content delta does not satisfy a modification threshold, causing generation of a full summary of the current content; and
causing display of the full summary within the window object.
The prior art of Dorai (US 2018/0314680 A1) details a user accessing an electronic document on a desktop computer at an office (viewing changes, per method in Fig 5, ¶[0067-68]), and then accessing the document on a mobile device and understanding what has changed since that document was last viewed on another device; and identifying when content of has changed when the user accesses the server computer from any device, i.e. determining a subsequent content delta (Dorai Fig 5, ¶[0035-36], ¶[0067-68]).
The prior art of Crane (US 2020/0349120 A1) details receiving changes to an electronic document by a first user and determining whether or not the user account and changes to a section satisfy a privilege threshold; and if the threshold is not met, then all the proposed changes and updates (i.e. full summary of the current content) are then displayed with an approve option and rejection option at a user device associated with a second user that does have an editing and/or reviewing privilege that satisfies the threshold; and presenting the full summary of the proposed change and update to the current content on the second user device GUI (Crane Fig 6, Fig 8, ¶[0066-67], ¶[0069]).
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to BRIAN TALLMAN whose telephone number is (571)272-3198. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 9-5.
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, Jeff Zimmerman can be reached at (571) 272-4602. 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.
BRIAN TALLMAN
Examiner
Art Unit 3628
/BRIAN A TALLMAN/Examiner, Art Unit 3628
/MICHAEL P HARRINGTON/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3628
Prosecution Insights