DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Specification
The amendments to paragraphs [0072], [0074], [0080] and [0084] have been accepted.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 21-40 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Claim 21 is rejected for similar reasons as presented in the Non-Final Office Action.
Applicant makes note in their remarks of everything claim 21 does not state, and this in fact is where the indefiniteness lies. The lack of correlation between elements and steps leads to the indefiniteness of the invention claimed.
For example, with regards to the input content and particular input content, the Applicant makes note that the particular input content is at a different time from the input content. However, this is not claimed, leading to a lack of clarity regarding the correlation between the two inputs.
Further, there is a lack of correlation between the steps of training, obtaining and presenting regarding the different input contents. If there is indeed a relationship between the inputs (i.e. inputs at different times) then there needs to be a clear relationship between the steps containing the two inputs, and how one step relates to the other.
Still further, given the input content and particular input content, and output content and particular output content, are not specifically stated in the claim as being at different times, then indefiniteness arises regarding the source of the different input and output contents. The particular input and particular output contents are recited as being from or generated from the claimed interface, however no source is provided for the input and output contents.
As for the network-accessible services, Applicant makes note that the Specification cites examples of such services and that the claim does not state that a user is involved. After further consideration of the Specification, it is indicated that network-accessible services are network provided, cloud-based, storage, etc., accessible via the internet and/or other networks (i.e. external services). The Specification also states that these services are meant to enable client learning (i.e. interaction with a client or user).
Therefore, it is unclear whether the interface at the service is at the same location as the client, and whether this service is implemented on a separate computer or network (i.e. claim recites a computer implemented method) from the trained model. If the client is indeed at the interface of the network-accessible service, then please clarify whether the training step, and the input content, are initiated/provided from said interface, or whether these steps are automatic.
This is another example of a lack of correlation between elements of the invention, leading to a lack of cohesiveness within the invention the Applicant intends to claim.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 21-40 are believed to be allowable if rewritten or amended to overcome the rejection(s) under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), 2nd paragraph, set forth in this Office action.
No prior art could be found which teaches, or fairly suggests, alone or in combination, all the claimed elements of the present invention.
The closest prior art of record found are the US patents to Zappella (10,909,604), Zhang (11,182,691), London (11,200,511) and Gokalp et al. (11,120,364), the US patent application publications to Rashad et al. (US 2016/0196812), Kendrick et al. (US 2015/0206221) and Rahman et al. (US 2015/0137994), and the European publication to Pachet et al. (EP 3620991 A1). However, none of the prior art train generative machine learning models to produce output content comprising a newly generated portion which shares properties with input content, and present output content via a programmatic interface of a network-accessible service using said learning models as claimed.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 05/20/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Please see the discussion above in the 35 USC 112(b) section, wherein the Examiner has addressed the Applicant’s arguments regarding the rejections.
Conclusion
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. 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 Christina Schreiber whose telephone number is (571)272-4350. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 7-4 PM.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Dedei Hammond can be reached at 571-270-7938. 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.
/CHRISTINA M SCHREIBER/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2837 08/21/2026
Prosecution Insights