DETAILED ACTION
Introduction
This office action is in response to Applicant’s submission filed on February 9, 2026.
Claims 1, 10 and 15 have been amended. Claims 1-20 are pending in the application. As such, claims 1-20 have been examined.
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on February 9, 2026, has been entered.
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 .
Drawings
The drawings were received on June 30, 2023. Revised drawings were received on November 12, 2023. These drawings have been accepted and considered by the Examiner.
Response to Amendments and Arguments
In view of the amendments to claims, the amendments to claims 1, 10 and 15, have been acknowledged and entered.
In view of the amendments to claims the rejections to claims 1-20 under 35 U.S.C. 103 have been withdrawn.
In light of the amendments to the claims, new grounds for rejection for claims 1-20 under 35 U.S.C. 103 are provided in the response below. New grounds for rejection is based at least upon the following new elements:
A computer-implemented method for accessing a generative content creation and modification tool configured to generate, format, and insert new content into an electronic document of a first platform, the new content generated based on a content item managed by a second platform different from the first platform, the generative content creation and modification tool accessed from within an editor region of [[a]] the first platform, the method comprising:
caus[[e]]ing display of [[an]]the editor region in a graphical user interface of a frontend application instance of the first platform, the graphical user interface displayed on a display of a client device having instantiated the frontend application instance;
in response to a selection of an electronic document by a user of the frontend application instance via the graphical user interface, caus[[e]]jng display of document content of the electronic document within the editor region, the editor region operable to receive new user- generated content and modify existing user-generated content, the new and modified user- generated content formatted in accordance with a platform-specific markup language schema;
subsequent to causing display of the document content and in response to;
a user input invoking the generative content creation and modification tool, the user input referencing[[a]]h content item managed by [[a]]the second platform; and a user selection of a command control corresponding to a content modification action, generat[[e]]ing a prompt comprising:
context-defining text including an output schema example that corresponds to the content modification action and to the platform-specific markup language schema; and content extracted from the content item managed by the second platform;
providing the generated prompt to an external generative output engine using an application program interface call;
obtaining a generative response from the external generative output engine, the generative response including content formatted in accordance with the output schema example and the platform-specific markup language schema;
causing display of at least a portion of the generative response in the editor region of the graphical user interface; and in response to a user insertion command, caus[[e]]ing the at least the portion of the generative response to be inserted into the electronic document
Applicant’s arguments regarding the prior art rejections under 35 U.S.C 103, received on February 9, 2026, have been fully considered.
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claims 1-20 have been considered, are directed to the newly amended matter in the claims, are not considered to be persuasive, and are addressed accordingly in the updated rejection rationale below.
Claim Objections
Claims 10-14 are objected to because of the following informalities:
Claim 10, line 6, reads “an editor region”. Examiner believes this to be a clerical error and it is intended to read “the editor region”. Claims 11-14 depend from claim 10 and therefore inherit this objection.
Appropriate correction is required.
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.
Claims 1-2, 5-15 and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hariri et al. (US Patent Pub. No. 20240330580 A1 [as supported by the provisional filed 3/29/2023]), hereinafter Hariri, in view of Iu et al. (US Patent Pub. No. 20240273286 A1), hereinafter Iu, in view of Kakar et al. (US Patent Pub. No. 20100287188 A1).
Regarding claims 1, 10 and 15, Hariri teaches a computer-implemented method and system (Hariri in [0009] teaches a computer implemented method, and system)
[claim 15 only] system for providing a document editor for a first platform (Hariri in [0009] teaches a computing system for automatically generating personalized and structured content in a collaborative, integrated environment [0081] including editing and refining [0078]),
[claim 15 only] the system comprising:
[claim 15 only] a backend of the first platform configured to manage a set of content items for a network of client devices, each client device operating a frontend of the first platform, the backend of the first platform executing on a server having a processing unit and computer readable memory storing instructions for (Hariri in [0037, Fig. 1] teaches using a backend server (130), frontend devices (102), a processor (132), memory (134) and instructions (138)):
for accessing a generative content creation and modification tool configured to generate, format, and insert new content into an electronic document of a first platform, the new content generated based on a content item managed by a second platform different from the first platform, the generative content creation and modification tool accessed from within an editor region of the first platform [claim 10 only – collaboration platform] (Hariri in [0009] teaches using a first system for generating content which receives generative output from a second system, and in [0086] teaches using an insert button to replace or add content from the generative output to the general workspace),
the method comprising:
causing display of the editor region in a graphical user interface of a frontend application instance of the first platform [claim 10 only – collaboration platform], the graphical user interface displayed on a display of a client device having instantiated the frontend application instance (Hariri in [0104] teaches using a user interface for receiving input and displaying content);
in response to a [selection of an electronic document by a user of the frontend application instance via the graphical user interface], cause display of [document content of the electronic document within] within the editor region, the editor region operable to receive new user-generated content and modify existing user-generated content, the new and modified user-generated content formatted in accordance with a platform-specific markup language schema (Hariri in [0104] teaches using a user interface for receiving input and displaying content, and in [0093] teaches providing for manual user input to modify portions that could not be automatically filled in, and in [0007] teaches using an environment which includes at least one formatting selection interface for selecting formatting rules for text in-line within the integrated development environment);
subsequent to causing display of the document content and in response to;
a user input invoking the generative content creation and modification tool, the user input referencing the content item managed by the second platform; and a user selection of a command control corresponding to a content modification action [claim 10 only - a first user selection of a portion of the user-generated content and a second user selection of a command control corresponding to a content modification action] (Hariri in [0082] teaches receiving user input for requesting generative content, and in [0085] teaches providing refinement request buttons to alter the results),
generating a prompt comprising:
context-defining text including an output schema example that corresponds to the content modification action [and to the platform-specific markup language schema] (Hariri in [0086] teaches generating a prompt which includes a selected text and a refinement option);
and
content extracted from the content item managed by the second platform [claim 10 only - at least a portion of user-generated content selected by the first user selection] [claim 15 only - from a set of content items of a second platform different from the first platform, the set of content items retrieved from the second platform by the first platform, the set of content items identified using the user input] (Hariri in [0086] teaches generating a prompt which includes a selected text and a refinement option);
providing the generated prompt to an external generative output engine using an application program interface call (Hariri in [0072] teaches using a common API across all applications);
obtaining a generative response from the external generative output engine, the generative response including content formatted in accordance with the output schema example [and the platform-specific markup language schema] (Hariri in [0007] teaches receiving generative output from a generative model which is formatted according to the formatting rules);
[claim 10 only] modifying the generative response to convert a format to the platform-specific markup language schema (Hariri in in [0007] teaches using an environment which includes at least one formatting selection interface for selecting formatting rules for text in-line within the integrated development environment;
causing display of at least a portion of the generative response in the editor region of the graphical user interface [claim 10 only - in accordance with the platform-specific markup language schema] (Hariri in [0007] teaches providing the generative output via a user interface, and teaches using an environment which includes at least one formatting selection interface for selecting formatting rules for text in-line within the integrated development environment);
and
in response to a user insertion command, cause the at least the portion of the generative response to be inserted into the electronic document
Hariri does not teach, however Iu teaches
[claim 15 only] causing display within the graphical user interface of document content of an electronic document of the first platform within the editor region (Iu in [0077] teaches documents can be loaded for display in the user interface);
[in response to a] selection of an electronic document [by a user of the frontend application instance via the graphical user interface], cause display of document content of the electronic document within within the editor region (Iu in [0077] teaches documents can be loaded for display).
Iu is considered to be analogous to the claimed invention because it is in the same field of generative models. Therefore, it would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Hariri further in view of Iu to allow for loading documents into a display. Motivation to do so would allow for a prompt generation subsystem which generates and refines prompts before a generative language model (GLM) is applied to the prompts to improve the likelihood that the GLM will produce output that does not need human review or only needs minimal human review (Iu [0040]).
Hariri, as modified above, does not teach, however Kakar teaches
[the generative response including content] formatted in accordance with the output schema example and the platform-specific markup language schema (Kakar in 0008] teaches providing formatting according to a schema for generating markup language content and according to the presentation features used to format the input content).
Kakar is considered to be analogous to the claimed invention because it is in the same field of formatting according to a selected schema. Therefore, it would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Hariri, as modified above, further in view of Kakar to allow for providing formatting according to a schema for generating markup language content and according to the presentation features used to format the input content. Motivation to do so would allow for a publisher to select or define a schema for generating XML content (Kakar [0034]).
Regarding claims 2 and 20, Hariri, as modified above, teaches the computer-implemented method and system of claims 1 and 15.
Hariri further teaches
wherein:
the user input regarding the content item includes a project [claim 20 only – epic] name (Hariri in [0093] teaches requiring the user to manually enter a project name);
[claim 20 only] the second platform is an issue tracking platform having a set of issues corresponding to the project epic name (Hariri in [0081 Fig. 3] teaches the user inputs a request which includes an issue (help me to write), and the generative system (tracking platform) provides results that will be associated with the request [which includes identifying data, such as project epic name]),
and
the content item is an issue managed by an issue tracking platform and is associated with the project [claim 20 only – epic] name included in the user input (Hariri in [0081 Fig. 3] teaches the user inputs a request which includes an issue (help me to write), and the generative system (tracking platform) provides results that will be associated with the request [which includes identifying data, such as project name]),
[claim 20 only] the set of content items includes the set of issues from the issue tracking platform (Hariri in [0081 Fig. 3] teaches the user inputs a request which includes an issue (help me to write), and the generative system (tracking platform) provides results that will be associated with the request [here the generative system has a database containing information on topics which maps to the set of issues]).
Regarding claim 5, Hariri, as modified above, teaches the computer-implemented method of claim 1.
Hariri further teaches
wherein:
the output schema example is a list of links object schema (Hariri in [0093, Fig. 8B] teaches the output contains links, such as email links);
PNG
media_image1.png
592
658
media_image1.png
Greyscale
the prompt includes a set of content items managed by the second platform (Hariri in [0082] teaches receiving user input for requesting generative content);
the generative response includes a set of link objects, each link object corresponding to a content item of the set of content items (Hariri in [0095, Fig. 9B] teaches the output contains a set of links, such as email links).
PNG
media_image2.png
541
530
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 6, Hariri, as modified above, teaches the computer-implemented method of claim 5.
Hariri further teaches
wherein:
the set of link objects include content extracted from the set of content items (Hariri in [0093, Fig. 8B] teaches the output contains links, such as email links);
and
each link object of the set of link objects is selectable to cause redirection of the graphical user interface to a respective content item of the second platform (Hariri in [0093, Fig. 8B] teaches the output contains links, such as email links).
Regarding claims 7 and 11, Hariri, as modified above, teaches the computer-implemented method of claims 1 and 10.
Hariri further teaches
wherein:
the platform-specific markup language schema is an editor-specific format schema (Hariri in [0007] teaches using an environment which includes at least one formatting selection interface for selecting formatting rules for text in-line within the integrated development environment, and in [0105] teaches using a prompt-generation markup language and/or may be natural language syntax that may denote traditional syntactical use);
the output schema example is a markdown schema example (Hariri in [0100] teaches the prompt may requests code from the model (e.g., “a hello world program in java, with the code formatted using markdown”));
the generative response is formatted in accordance with the markdown format schema (Hariri in [0100, Figs. 12A-B] teaches the block template explicitly includes codes responsive to the prompt (e.g., “public class HelloWorld…”), and description of the code block (e.g., “Sure. Here is a Java program that prints “Hello World!”);
and
[claim 11 only] the modifying the generative response converts the generative response from the markdown format schema to the editor-specific format (Hariri in [0101] teaches before being inserted into the general workspace of the integrated development environment, the generative content may be modified (e.g., by the server computing system and/or the user computing system) based on the formatting rules of the development environment),
prior to causing display of the generative response in the graphical user interface, the generative response is converted from the markdown format schema to the editor-specific format schema (Hariri in [0101] teaches before being inserted into the general workspace of the integrated development environment, the generative content may be modified (e.g., by the server computing system and/or the user computing system) based on the formatting rules of the development environment).
Regarding claim 8, Hariri, as modified above, teaches the computer-implemented method of claim 1.
Hariri further teaches
wherein:
the platform-specific markup language schema defines a first markup schema (Hariri in [0007] teaches using an environment which includes at least one formatting selection interface for selecting formatting rules for text in-line within the integrated development environment, and in [0105] teaches using a prompt-generation markup language and/or may be natural language syntax that may denote traditional syntactical use);
the output schema example is a second markup schema (Hariri in [0100] teaches the prompt may requests code from the model (e.g., “a hello world program in java, with the code formatted using markdown”));
the generative response is formatted in accordance with the second markup schema (Hariri in [0100, Figs. 12A-B] teaches the block template explicitly includes codes responsive to the prompt (e.g., “public class HelloWorld…”), and description of the code block (e.g., “Sure. Here is a Java program that prints “Hello World!”);
and
prior to causing display of the generative response in the graphical user interface, the generative response is converted from the second markup schema to the first markup schema (Hariri in [0101] teaches before being inserted into the general workspace of the integrated development environment, the generative content may be modified (e.g., by the server computing system and/or the user computing system) based on the formatting rules of the development environment).
Regarding claim 9, Hariri, as modified above, teaches the computer-implemented method of claim 1.
Hariri further teaches
wherein the context-defining text includes a path to the content item of the second platform (Hariri in [0093, Fig. 8B] teaches the output contains links, such as email links [links provide paths to content]).
Regarding claim 12, Hariri, as modified above, teaches the computer-implemented method of claim 10.
Hariri further teaches
further comprising:
processing the user-generated content included in the prompt to remove predicted personally identifiable information (Hariri in [0102] teaches personal user data is not provided to the generative model);
and
prior to causing the display of the at least the portion of the generative response in the graphical user interface, adding the removed predicted personally identifiable information to the generative response (Hariri in [0102] teaches the computing system only needs to populate the user information-based fields based on the personal user data after the generative model has provided results).
Regarding claim 13, Hariri, as modified above, teaches the computer-implemented method of claim 10.
Hariri further teaches
wherein:
the output schema example is a table formatting example including an example column data type (Hariri in [0098, Fig. 11B] teaches providing the output in a table as requested);
PNG
media_image3.png
369
374
media_image3.png
Greyscale
and
the generative response inserted into the editor region includes a table formatted in accordance with the table formatting example (Hariri in [0098, Fig. 11B] teaches providing the results in a table);
and
respective portions of selected user-generated content are positioned in a column of the table in accordance with the example column data type column (Hariri in [0098, Fig. 11B] teaches providing a title and a status in separate columns).
Regarding claim 14, Hariri, as modified above, teaches the computer-implemented method of claim 10.
Hariri further teaches
wherein:
the output schema example is a bulleted list formatting example (Hariri in [0081, Fig. 7B] teaches the output contains bullet items);
PNG
media_image4.png
648
768
media_image4.png
Greyscale
and
respective portions of the selected user-generated content are arranged in accordance with the bulleted list formatting example (Hariri in [0081, Fig. 7B] teaches the output contains bullet items, and arranging them accordingly).
Claims 3-4 and 16-17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hariri, in view of Iu, in view of Kakar, in view of Fabian et al. (US Patent Pub. No. 20240303440 A1), hereinafter Fabian.
Regarding claims 3 and 16, Hariri, as modified above, teaches the computer-implemented method and system of claims 1 and 15.
Hariri further teaches
wherein:
the user input includes a project name name (Hariri in [0093] teaches requiring the user to manually enter a project name);
the second platform is an issue tracking platform configured to manage issues in accordance with an issue [workflow] (Hariri in [0081 Fig. 3] teaches the user inputs a request which includes an issue (help me to write), and the generative system (tracking platform) provides results that will be associated with the request [which includes identifying data, such as project epic name]);
and
the set of content items are a set of issues corresponding to the project name (Hariri in [0081 Fig. 3] teaches the user inputs a request which includes an issue (help me to write), and the generative system (tracking platform) provides results that will be associated with the request [which includes identifying data, such as project name]).
Hariri, as modified above, does not teach, however Fabian teaches
the second platform is an issue tracking platform configured to manage issues in accordance with an issue workflow (Fabian in [0017] teaches using a LLM which implements Excel intelligence workflow).
Fabian is considered to be analogous to the claimed invention because it is in the same field of generative models. Therefore, it would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Hariri, as modified above, further in view of Fabian to allow for managing workflow issues. Motivation to do so would allow for an application service to also display further inquiries suggested by the LLM service to discern the intent of the user and provide a more focused reply (Fabian [0056]).
Regarding claims 4 and 17, Hariri, as modified above, teaches the computer-implemented method and system of claims 3 and 16.
Hariri further teaches
wherein:
the output schema example is a table schema (Hariri in [0098, Fig. 11B] teaches providing the output in a table as requested);
PNG
media_image5.png
677
687
media_image5.png
Greyscale
the generative response includes a title of each issue and an issue status of each issue (Hariri in [0098, Fig. 11B] teaches providing a title and a status in a table);
and
the generative response includes a table with each title of each issue positioned in a first column and an issue status of each issue positioned in a second column (Hariri in [0098, Fig. 11B] teaches providing a title and a status in separate columns).
Claims 18 and 19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hariri, in view of Iu, in view of Kakar, in view of Fabian in view of Gray et al. (US Patent No. 11900068 B1 [as supported by the provisional filed 12/30/2022]), hereinafter Gray.
Regarding claim 18, Hariri, as modified above, teaches the system of claim 16.
Hariri further teaches
wherein:
the output schema example is a list schema (Hariri in [0080] teaches the output may be provided in a particular structure, such as list form);
the generative response includes a title of each issue and an issue status of each issue (Hariri in [0098, Fig. 11B] teaches providing a title and a status in separate columns [this information can alternatively be presented in list form]);
and
the generative response includes a set of link objects (Hariri in [0093, Fig. 8B] teaches the output contains links, such as email links [links provide paths to content]),
Hariri does not teach, however Gray teaches
each link object corresponding to an issue of the set of issues (Gray in [col 27 ln 49 – col 28 ln 6, Fig. 7A1] teaches providing linkified portions corresponding to the content)
PNG
media_image6.png
719
478
media_image6.png
Greyscale
and
each link object displaying at least a respective issue title or a respective issue status (Gray in [col 27 ln 49 – col 28 ln 6, Fig. 7A1] teaches providing linkified portions corresponding to the content, and the titles are displayed in the links).
Gray is considered to be analogous to the claimed invention because it is in the same field of generative models. Therefore, it would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Hariri, as modified above, further in view of Gray to allow for providing links with labels. Motivation to do so would allow for selectively utilizing an LLM in generating an NL based summary to be rendered (e.g., audibly and/or graphically) in response to a query (e.g., a submitted query or an automatically generated query) (Gray [col 1 ln 67 – col 2 ln 3]).
Regarding claim 19, Hariri, as modified above, teaches the system of claim 18.
Hariri, as modified above, does not teach, however Gray teaches
wherein each link object of the set of link objects is selectable to cause redirection of the graphical user interface to a respective issue of the issue tracking platform
Gray is considered to be analogous to the claimed invention because it is in the same field of generative models. Therefore, it would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Hariri, as modified above, further in view of Gray to allow for providing links with labels. Motivation to do so would allow for selectively utilizing an LLM in generating an NL based summary to be rendered (e.g., audibly and/or graphically) in response to a query (e.g., a submitted query or an automatically generated query) (Gray [col 1 ln 67 – col 2 ln 3]).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to PAUL J. MUELLER whose telephone number is (571)272-1875. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 9:00am-5:00pm (Eastern).
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, Daniel C. Washburn can be reached at 571-272-5551. 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.
PAUL MUELLER
Examiner
Art Unit 2657
/PAUL J. MUELLER/Examiner, Art Unit 2657