CTNF 18/242,691 CTNF 91110 Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status 07-03-aia AIA 15-10-aia The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA. Claims 1-20 are presented for examination. Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112 07-30-02 AIA 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. 07-34-01 Claims 12-19 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 12 recites the limitation " the user interface”. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim, rendering the claim indefinite. For examination purposes the examiner has interpreted “the user interface” to be “a user interface”. Claim(s) 13-19 do not contain claim limitations that cure the indefiniteness of claim(s) 12, and therefore are also indefinite under 35 U.S.C. 112(b). Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101 07-04-01 AIA 07-04 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 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to non-statutory subject matter. Claim(s) 1-20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more . Step 1 : Claim(s) 1-11 is/are method type claim. Claim (s) 12 - 19 is/are system type claim(s). Claim (s) 20 is/are product type claim(s). Therefore, claims 1-20 is/are directed to either a process, machine, manufacture or composition of matter. Independent claim(s): Step 2A Prong 1 : Regarding claim(s) 1, 12 and 20, this/these claim(s) recite(s) determining ,... a stylistic scheme and a contextual scheme for a response to the user query,...; generating , ... the response to the user query that is articulated in accordance with the stylistic scheme and the contextual scheme. The above limitations of determining and generating appear to be practically implementable in the human mind and is understood to be a recitation of a mental process – a user can mentally determine a stylistic and contextual scheme for a desired response to a user query and can also mentally come up with a response to a query in accordance with the stylistic and the contextual scheme. Step 2A Prong 2 : Regarding claim(s) 1, 12 and 20, t his judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. Additional elements: Regarding claim(s) 1, 12 and 20, this/these claim(s) recite(s) one or more processors in claim 1 , one or more processors ; and a non-transitory computer-readable memory in claim 12 , and a tangible machine-readable medium comprising instructions in claim 20 , ( which are mere instructions stored in a generic memory component to apply the exception using a generic computer component). Regarding claim(s) 1, 12 and 20, this/these claim(s) further recite(s) receiving , ... a user query from a user ( Adding insignificant extra-solution activity ( receiving information) to the judicial exception - see MPEP 2106.05(g). Examiner’s note: the obtaining is recited at a high level of generality and could constitute mere receiving of transmitted information ); by ...executing a machine learning (ML) chatbot ( Adding the words “apply it” (or an equivalent) with the judicial exception, or mere instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer, or merely uses a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea - see MPEP 2106.05(f) – Examiner’s note: high level application of a previously trained model to make a prediction );, wherein the ML chatbot is trained ...to generate a plurality of training responses as outputs ( Adding the words “apply it” (or an equivalent) with the judicial exception, or mere instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer, or merely uses a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea - see MPEP 2106.05(f) – Examiner’s note: high level recitation of training a machine learning model with previously determined data ) with a plurality of training user queries as inputs ( These limitations appear to be directed to the specification of data to be used, and is understood to be generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use, which is not indicative of integration into a practical application. MPEP 2106.05(h)); causing ,... the response to be conveyed to the user (These limitations appear to represents extrasolution activity because it is a mere nominal or tangential addition to the claim, amounting to mere data output). The additional element(s) as disclosed above alone or in combination do not integrate the judicial exception into practical application as they are mere insignificant extra solution activity in combination of generic computer functions being implemented with generic computer elements in a high level of generality to perform the disclosed abstract idea above. Therefore, the claim(s) is/are directed to an abstract idea . Step 2B : receiving , ... a user query from a user ( Adding insignificant extra-solution activity ( receiving information) to the judicial exception - see MPEP 2106.05(g). Furthermore, MPEP 2106.05(d)(II) indicate that merely “Receiving or transmitting data” buySAFE, Inc. v. Google, Inc., 765 F.3d 1350, 1355, 112 USPQ2d 1093, 1096 (Fed. Cir. 2014) is a well‐understood, routine, conventional function when it is claimed in a merely generic manner (as it is in the present claim). Thereby, a conclusion that the claimed obtaining step is well-understood, routine, conventional activity is supported under Berkheimer) ; by.... executing a machine learning (ML) chatbot ( Adding the words “ apply it” (or an equivalent) with the judicial exception, or mere instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer, or merely uses a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea - see MPEP 2106.05(f) – Examiner’s note: high level application of a previously trained model) , wherein the ML chatbot is trained ...to generate a plurality of training responses as outputs ( Adding the words “apply it” (or an equivalent) with the judicial exception, or mere instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer, or merely uses a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea - see MPEP 2106.05(f) – Examiner’s note: high level recitation of training a machine learning model with previously determined data ) with a plurality of training user queries as inputs ( These limitations appear to be directed to the specification of data to be used, and is understood to be generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use, which is not indicative of integration into a practical application. MPEP 2106.05(h)); causing , ... the response to be conveyed to the user (These limitations appear to represents extrasolution activity because it is a mere nominal or tangential addition to the claim, amounting to mere data output , Furthermore, these limitations directed towards outputting information determined by the abstract idea, is a well‐understood, routine, conventional function when it is claimed in a merely generic manner (as it is in the present claim). Thereby, a conclusion that the claimed outputting step is well-understood, routine, conventional activity). The additional element(s) as disclosed above in combination of the abstract idea are not sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception as they are mere insignificant extra solution activity in combination of generic computer functions being implemented with generic computer elements in a high level of generality to perform the disclosed abstract idea above. Therefore, the claim(s) is/are not patent eligible . Step 2A Prong 1, Dependent claims : Regarding claim(s) 3 and 14, this/these claim(s) recite(s) converting , ...the user query to a first text string; determining , ... the stylistic scheme and the contextual scheme for the response to the user query based upon the first text string; generating , ... the response to the user query as a second text string. Regarding claim(s) 4 and 15, this/these claim(s) recite(s) predicting , ...a conversation style of the user based upon one or more stylistic characteristics of the user query; and determining , ... the stylistic scheme for the response based upon the conversation style of the user. Regarding claim(s) 5 and 16, this/these claim(s) recite(s) predicting , ... a conversational context and a conversational tone of the user based upon one or more contextual characteristics of the user query; and determining , ... the contextual scheme for the response based upon the conversational context and the conversational tone of the user. Regarding claim(s) 6, this/these claim(s) recite(s) wherein the response includes a set of information predicted to address at least a portion of the user query. Regarding claim(s) 7, this/these claim(s) recite(s) determining , ... an updated stylistic scheme and an updated contextual scheme for a subsequent response to the subsequent user query, wherein the updated stylistic scheme is based upon the stylistic scheme and the subsequent user query, and the updated contextual scheme is based upon the contextual scheme and the subsequent user query; generating , ... the subsequent response to the user query that is articulated in accordance with the updated stylistic scheme and the updated contextual scheme. Regarding claim(s) 8 and 17, this/these claim(s) recite(s) based upon one or more differences between (i) the stylistic scheme and the updated stylistic scheme or (ii) the contextual scheme and the updated contextual scheme. Regarding claim(s) 9 and 18, this/these claim(s) recite(s) wherein determining the stylistic scheme and the contextual scheme further comprises: generating , by the one or more processors, one or more embeddings associated with the user query; comparing , by the one or more processors, the one or more embeddings to a library of embeddings; and determining , by the one or more processors, the stylistic scheme and the contextual scheme based upon the comparing. Regarding claim(s) 10 and 19, this/these claim(s) recite(s) based upon the one or more embeddings, generating , ...the response based upon the stylistic scheme, the contextual scheme, and the one or more prior responses. Regarding claim(s) 11, this/these claim(s) recite(s) corresponding to conversation topics. The above limitations appear to be practically implementable in the human mind and is understood to be a recitation of a mental process. Step 2A Prong 2, Dependent claims : Regarding claim(s) 3 and 14 this/these claim(s) recite(s) receiving ... the user query, Regarding claim(s) 7, this/these claim(s) recite(s) receiving , ...a subsequent user query, Regarding claim(s) 10 and 19, this/these claim(s) recite(s) retrieving , ... from a response database. Regarding claim(s) 11, this/these claim(s) recite(s) inputting , ... into the ML chatbot. ( Adding insignificant extra-solution activity ( receiving information ) to the judicial exception - see MPEP 2106.05(g). Examiner’s note: the obtaining is recited at a high level of generality and could constitute mere receiving of transmitted information ) Regarding claim(s) 2 and 13, this/these claim(s) recite(s) wherein the user query and the response include at least one of: (i) a verbal communication, (ii) a textual communication, or (iii) a visual communication, Regarding claim(s) 3 and 14, this/these claim(s) recite(s) a first verbal communication or a first visual communication comprising the user query Regarding claim(s) 10 and 19, this/these claim(s) recite(s) one or more prior responses Regarding claim(s) 11, this/these claim(s) recite(s) a plurality of documentation ( These limitations appear to be directed to the specification of data to be used, and is understood to be generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use, which is not indicative of integration into a practical application. MPEP 2106.05(h)); Regarding claim(s) 3 and 14, this/these claim(s) recite(s) converting , by the one or more processors , the second text string to a second verbal communication or a second visual communication ( Adding the words “ apply it ” (or an equivalent) with the judicial exception, or mere instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer, or merely uses a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea - see MPEP 2106.05(f) – Examiner’s note: high level text to speech or image conversion using generic computers ). Regarding claim(s) 8 and 17, this/these claim(s) recite(s) re-training , ..., the ML chatbot ( Adding the words “apply it” (or an equivalent) with the judicial exception, or mere instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer, or merely uses a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea - see MPEP 2106.05(f) – Examiner’s note: high level recitation of training a machine learning model with previously determined data ). Regarding claim(s) 3 and 14, this/these claim(s) recite(s) causing, ... the second verbal communication or the second visual communication to be conveyed to the user. Regarding claim(s) 7, this/these claim(s) recite(s) causing, ... the subsequent response to be conveyed to the user. (These limitations appear to represents insignificant extrasolution activity because it is a mere nominal or tangential addition to the claim, amounting to mere data output ). Step 2B, Dependent claims : Regarding claim(s) 3 and 14 this/these claim(s) recite(s) receiving ... the user query, Regarding claim(s) 7, this/these claim(s) recite(s) receiving , ...a subsequent user query, Regarding claim(s) 10 and 19, this/these claim(s) recite(s) retrieving , ... from a response database. Regarding claim(s) 11, this/these claim(s) recite(s) inputting , ... into the ML chatbot. ( Adding insignificant extra-solution activity ( receiving information ) to the judicial exception - see MPEP 2106.05(g). Furthermore, MPEP 2106.05(d)(II) indicate that merely “Receiving or transmitting data” buySAFE, Inc. v. Google, Inc., 765 F.3d 1350, 1355, 112 USPQ2d 1093, 1096 (Fed. Cir. 2014) is a well‐understood, routine, conventional function when it is claimed in a merely generic manner (as it is in the present claim). Thereby, a conclusion that the claimed obtaining step is well-understood, routine, conventional activity is supported under Berkheimer). Regarding claim(s) 2 and 13, this/these claim(s) recite(s) wherein the user query and the response include at least one of: (i) a verbal communication, (ii) a textual communication, or (iii) a visual communication, Regarding claim(s) 3 and 14, this/these claim(s) recite(s) a first verbal communication or a first visual communication comprising the user query Regarding claim(s) 10 and 19, this/these claim(s) recite(s) one or more prior responses Regarding claim(s) 11, this/these claim(s) recite(s) a plurality of documentation ( These limitations appear to be directed to the specification of data to be used, and is understood to be generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use, which is not indicative of integration into a practical application. MPEP 2106.05(h)); Regarding claim(s) 3 and 14, this/these claim(s) recite(s) converting , by the one or more processors , the second text string to a second verbal communication or a second visual communication ( Adding the words “ apply it ” (or an equivalent) with the judicial exception, or mere instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer, or merely uses a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea - see MPEP 2106.05(f) – Examiner’s note: high level text to speech or image conversion using generic computers ). Regarding claim(s) 8 and 17, this/these claim(s) recite(s) re-training , ..., the ML chatbot ( Adding the words “apply it” (or an equivalent) with the judicial exception, or mere instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer, or merely uses a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea - see MPEP 2106.05(f) – Examiner’s note: high level recitation of training a machine learning model with previously determined data ). Regarding claim(s) 3 and 14, this/these claim(s) recite(s) causing, ... the second verbal communication or the second visual communication to be conveyed to the user. Regarding claim(s) 7, this/these claim(s) recite(s) causing, ... the subsequent response to be conveyed to the user. (These limitations appear to represents extrasolution activity because it is a mere nominal or tangential addition to the claim, amounting to mere data output , Furthermore, these limitations directed towards outputting information determined by the abstract idea, is a well‐understood, routine, conventional function when it is claimed in a merely generic manner (as it is in the present claim). Thereby, a conclusion that the claimed outputting step is well-understood, routine, conventional activity). Claim 20 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to signals per se . Regarding 20, this claim recites a “tangible machine-readable medium” comprising instructions that perform various functions. Applicant specification does not include a clear definition of machine-readable medium Therefore, the broadest reasonable interpretation of “machine-readable medium” could include signals make the claims signals per se. Therefore claim 20 is directed to non-statutory subject matter. Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103 07-06 AIA 15-10-15 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. 07-20-aia AIA 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. 07-21-aia AIA Claim s 1-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Baeuml (US 20230074406 A1), in view of Spiegel (US 20240249318 A1) . Regarding claim 1, Baeuml teaches a computer-implemented method for generating dynamic responses in a communication system, the method comprising ( Baeuml [ Abstract, 5, 136] method implemented as processor executing instructions stored on medium, to provide responses in response to queries) : receiving, at one or more processors, a user query from a user ( Baeuml [5, 20, 43] query is received from user) ; determining, by the one or more processors executing a machine learning (ML) chatbot, a stylistic scheme and a contextual scheme for a response to the user query, wherein the ML chatbot is trained ... ( Baeuml [63, 64] style parameters (scheme) are determined, Baeuml [47, 79, 87] context based parameters (scheme) are determined, Baeuml [1, 5, 89] parameters used for assistant (chatbot) response using model(s), response is for user query, Baeuml [66] chatbot model is trained (implied since it is retrained)) ; generating, by the one or more processors executing the ML chatbot, the response to the user query that is articulated in accordance with the stylistic scheme and the contextual scheme ( Baeuml [14, 15, 63, 64, 73] responses are generated and then output is generated based on responses, output is based on determined parameters) ; and causing, by the one or more processors, the response to be conveyed to the user ( Baeuml [73] generated output is rendered (conveyed) to user) . Baeuml does not specifically teach wherein the ML chatbot is trained with a plurality of training user queries as inputs to generate a plurality of training responses as outputs However Spiegel teaches wherein the ML chatbot is trained with a plurality of training user queries as inputs to generate a plurality of training responses as outputs ( Spiegel [200, 203, 210, 215-218, 222] model is trained using conversations (including user queries) and provides answers, Spiegel [199, 92, 94] model provides answers based on conversation style and context). It would have been obvious to one of an ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have incorporated the concept taught by Spiegel of wherein the ML chatbot is trained with a plurality of training user queries as inputs to generate a plurality of training responses as outputs , into the invention suggested by Baeuml ; since both inventions are directed towards assistants providing answers based on conversation style and context, and incorporating the teaching of Spiegel into the invention suggested by Baeuml would provide the added advantage of leveraging user input by using existing conversation history to train the model, and the combination would perform with a reasonable expectation of success ( Spiegel [200, 203, 210, 215-218, 222, 199, 92, 94 ). Regarding claim 2, Baeuml and Spiegel teach the invention as claimed in claim 1 above. Baeuml further teaches wherein the user query and the response include at least one of: (i) a verbal communication or (ii) a textual communication... ( Baeuml [20, 51] user query and response may be verbal or text ). Regarding claim 3, Baeuml and Spiegel teach the invention as claimed in claim 2 above. Baeuml further teaches wherein, responsive to receiving a first verbal communication ...comprising the user query, the method further comprises ( Baeuml [5, 20, 43] query is received from user, Baeuml [20, 51] user query and response may be verbal or text, steps performed to provide response to user ): converting, by the one or more processors, the user query to a first text string ( Baeuml [43, 76] speech to text conversion may be performed for user query) ; determining, by the one or more processors executing the ML chatbot, the stylistic scheme and the contextual scheme for the response to the user query based upon the first text string ( Baeuml [1, 5, 63, 64, 47, 79, 87] style and context based parameters (scheme) for assistant (chatbot) response using model(s), response is for user query, Baeuml [ 89, 100] analysis may be for text representation of user query) ; generating, by the one or more processors executing the ML chatbot, the response to the user query as a second text string ( Baeuml [89, 122] query response may be formulated as text) ; converting, by the one or more processors, the second text string to a second verbal communication ( Baeuml [51, 122] text response may be converted to synthesized speech) ; and causing, by the one or more processors, the second verbal communication ... to be conveyed to the user ( Baeuml [51, 122] synthesizes speech may be audibly rendered to user). Regarding claim 4, Baeuml and Spiegel teach the invention as claimed in claim 1 above. Baeuml further teaches predicting, by the one or more processors executing the ML chatbot, a conversation style of the user based upon one or more stylistic characteristics of the user query; and determining, by the one or more processors executing the ML chatbot, the stylistic scheme for the response based upon the conversation style of the user ( Baeuml [11, 15, 16] user speaking style may be predicted using prior conversations, parameters (scheme) for response personality may be based on the speaking style). Regarding claim 5, Baeuml and Spiegel teach the invention as claimed in claim 1 above. Baeuml does not specifically teach predicting, by the one or more processors executing the ML chatbot, a conversational context and a conversational tone of the user based upon one or more contextual characteristics of the user query; and determining, by the one or more processors executing the ML chatbot, the contextual scheme for the response based upon the conversational context and the conversational tone of the user However Spiegel teaches predicting, by the one or more processors executing the ML chatbot, a conversational context and a conversational tone of the user based upon one or more contextual characteristics of the user query; and determining, by the one or more processors executing the ML chatbot, the contextual scheme for the response based upon the conversational context and the conversational tone of the user ( Spiegel [141, 144, 199, 92, 94] user speaking style and context may be predicted using conversation history, speaking style may include tone, response to user generating using personality incorporating the context and style). Regarding claim 6, Baeuml and Spiegel teach the invention as claimed in claim 1 above. Baeuml further teaches wherein the response includes a set of information predicted to address at least a portion of the user query ( Baeuml [11, 17] response may be an answer to a user question). Regarding claim 7, Baeuml and Spiegel teach the invention as claimed in claim 7 above. Baeuml further teaches receiving, at the one or more processors, a subsequent user query ( Baeuml [2, 82] additional query may be received as part of an existing conversation) ; determining, by the one or more processors executing the ML chatbot, an updated stylistic scheme and an updated contextual scheme for a subsequent response to the subsequent user query, wherein the updated stylistic scheme is based upon the stylistic scheme and the subsequent user query, and the updated contextual scheme is based upon the contextual scheme and the subsequent user query ( Baeuml [11, 16, 19, 105, 120, 122] model determines changes in conversation context and/or style and updates context and style (personality) parameters based on change) ; generating, by the one or more processors executing the ML chatbot, the subsequent response to the user query that is articulated in accordance with the updated stylistic scheme and the updated contextual scheme ( Baeuml [105, 120-122] responses to additional query are based on updated context and style parameters ; and causing, by the one or more processors, the subsequent response to be conveyed to the user ( Baeuml [105 ] response to additional query (based on updated context and style parameters) are rendered to user). Regarding claim 8, Baeuml and Spiegel teach the invention as claimed in claim 7 above. Baeuml does not specifically teach re-training, by the one or more processors, the ML chatbot based upon one or more differences between (i) the stylistic scheme and the updated stylistic scheme or (ii) the contextual scheme and the updated contextual scheme However Spiegel teaches re-training, by the one or more processors, the ML chatbot based upon one or more differences between (i) the stylistic scheme and the updated stylistic scheme .... ( Spiegel [94, 107, 108, 185, 186, 196, 211, 254] model may be retrained based in differences between determined response and updated response, differences could be in style information). Regarding claim 9, Baeuml and Spiegel teach the invention as claimed in claim 1 above. Baeuml further teaches wherein determining the stylistic scheme and the contextual scheme further comprises: generating, by the one or more processors, one or more embeddings associated with the user query; comparing, by the one or more processors, the one or more embeddings to a library of embeddings ( Baeuml [10] embeddings are generated from user query and compared with embeddings indexed in memory (library)) ; and determining, by the one or more processors, the stylistic scheme and the contextual scheme based upon the comparing ( Baeuml [63-65, 120] comparison yields information about context and style which is used to determine style and context parameters (scheme)). Regarding claim 10, Baeuml and Spiegel teach the invention as claimed in claim 9 above. Baeuml further teaches wherein generating the response further comprises: retrieving, by the one or more processors, one or more prior responses from a response database based upon the one or more embeddings; and generating, by the one or more processors executing the ML chatbot, the response based upon the stylistic scheme, the contextual scheme, and the one or more prior responses ( Baeuml [5, 16, 50] output response may be based on previous responses, Baeuml [14, 15, 63, 64, 73] output is based on determined parameters for style and context). Regarding claim 11, Baeuml and Spiegel teach the invention as claimed in claim 1 above. Baeuml does not specifically teach wherein generating the response further comprises: inputting, by the one or more processors, a plurality of documentation corresponding to conversation topics into the ML chatbot; and generating, by the one or more processors executing the ML chatbot, the response based upon the user query and the plurality of documentation However Spiegel teaches wherein generating the response further comprises: inputting, by the one or more processors, a plurality of documentation corresponding to conversation topics into the ML chatbot ( Spiegel [181, 209, 217, 247, 256] information used by model may include text documents, documents may correspond to concepts and attributes (topics)) ; and generating, by the one or more processors executing the ML chatbot, the response based upon the user query and the plurality of documentation ( Spiegel [203, 217, 218] chatbot response may be based on user query and model (which is based on documentation)). Claim 12 is directed towards a system executing instructions similar in scope to the instructions performed by the method of claim 1, and is rejected under the same rationale. Baeuml further teaches system for generating dynamic responses in a communication system, comprising: one or more processors; and a non-transitory computer-readable memory coupled to the one or more processors and the user interface, the memory storing instructions thereon that, when executed by the one or more processors, cause the one or more processors ( Baeuml [Abstract, 5, 108, 136] method implemented as processor executing instructions stored on medium, to provide responses in response to queries, device includes user interface) . Claim(s) 13-16, 17-19 is/are dependent on claim 12 above, is/are directed towards a system executing instructions similar in scope to the instructions performed by the method of claim(s) 2-5, 8-10 respectively, and is/are rejected under the same rationale. Claim 20 is directed towards a medium storing instructions similar in scope to the instructions performed by the method of claim 1, and is rejected under the same rationale. Baeuml further teaches a tangible machine-readable medium comprising instructions for generating dynamic responses in a communication system that, when executed, cause a machine to ( Baeuml [ Abstract, 5, 136] method implemented as processor executing instructions stored on medium, to provide responses in response to queries) . Conclusion Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to SANCHITA ROY whose telephone number is (571)272-5310. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 12-8. 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, Usmaan Saeed can be reached at (571) 272-4046. 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. SANCHITA ROY Primary Examiner Art Unit 2146 /SANCHITA ROY/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2146 Application/Control Number: 18/242,691 Page 2 Art Unit: 2146 Application/Control Number: 18/242,691 Page 3 Art Unit: 2146 Application/Control Number: 18/242,691 Page 4 Art Unit: 2146 Application/Control Number: 18/242,691 Page 5 Art Unit: 2146 Application/Control Number: 18/242,691 Page 6 Art Unit: 2146 Application/Control Number: 18/242,691 Page 8 Art Unit: 2146 Application/Control Number: 18/242,691 Page 9 Art Unit: 2146 Application/Control Number: 18/242,691 Page 10 Art Unit: 2146 Application/Control Number: 18/242,691 Page 11 Art Unit: 2146
Prosecution Insights