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 .
This Office Action is responsive to: Amendment filed 09 Jun. 2026
Claims 1-19 and 21 are pending in this case. Claims 1, 8 and 16 are independent claims
Applicant’s Response
In Applicant’s Response dated 09 Jun. 2026, Applicant amended claims 1, 8 and 16; canceled claim 20; added new claim 21; argued against all rejections previously set forth in the Office Action dated 09 Mar. 2026.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, 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 1-3, 7- 11, 15-19 and 21 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Setlur et al. (Pat. No.: US 12,217,000 B1; Filed: Sep. 10, 2021)(hereinafter “Setlur”) in view of Mishchenko et al. (Pat. No.: US 11,922,144 B1; Filed: Mar. 20, 2023)(hereinafter “Mishchenko”), further in view of Geller et al. (Pub. No.: US 2023/0244506 A1; Filed: Feb. 1, 2022) (hereinafter “Geller”).
Regarding independent claims 1, 8 and 16, Setlur disclose a computing system, comprising:
one or more processors (col 2 lines 23-25); and
one or more non-transitory computer-readable media storing instructions that are executable to cause the one or more processors to perform operations, the operations comprising (col 5 lines 62-65):
generating, by the custom language model, an output comprising a predicted user intent (col 3 lines 28-35; col 7 line 44-col 8 line 2);
determining one or more actions associated with the content creation structured interface to perform by:
parsing the output generated by the custom language mode (col 3 line 59-col 4 line 11);
generating an action data structure comprising executable instructions that cause a processor to perform an operation associated with completing the action (col 7 line 44-col 8 line 2; col 25 lines 36-55);
determining a natural language response by:
parsing the output generated by the custom language model (col 3 line 59-col 4 line 11);
generating a response data structure comprising a natural language response to the obtained natural language input (col 1 line 61-col2 line 7; col 3 line 59-col 4 line 11; col 10 lines 13-25);
Setlur does not expressly disclose transmitting, to an action component, the action data structure comprising executable instructions that cause the action component to automatically perform operations associated with completing the action;
transmitting to the conversation campaign assistant interface, the response data structure comprising the natural language response to be provided for display to a user via the conversational campaign assistant interface;
obtaining, subsequent to transmitting the action data structure and response data structure, user input indicative of a validation of the action data structure or the response data structure; and
updating the custom language model based on the user input.
Mishchenko teach transmitting, to an action component, the action data structure comprising executable instructions that cause the action component to automatically perform operations associated with completing the action (col. 5 lines 10-39; col 7 line 8-25; col. 19 line 14-36);
transmitting to the conversation campaign assistant interface, the response data structure comprising the natural language response to be provided for display to a user via the conversational campaign assistant interface (col. 5 lines 10-39; col 7 line 8-25; col. 19 line 14-36);
obtaining, subsequent to transmitting the action data structure and response data structure, user input indicative of a validation of the action data structure or the response data structure (col. 5 lines 10-39; col 7 line 8-25; col. 19 line 14-36); and
updating the custom language model based on the user input (col 8 lines 43-66; col 17 lines 42-66).
Therefore, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to one or ordinary skill in the art to combine Mishchenko with Setlur for the benefit of improving the trainability, scalability, and generation of natural language models with respect to external data and applications.
Setlur in view of Mishchenko does not expressly disclose obtaining, via a conversational campaign assistant interface provided for display alongside a content creation structured interface, by a custom language model, natural language input;
determining an action associated with the output wherein the action comprises performing operations within the content creation structured interface comprising automatically updating the content creation structured interface to be populated with one or more generated content elements.
Geller teach obtaining, via a conversational campaign assistant interface provided for display alongside a content creation structured interface, by a custom language model, natural language input (0023; 0080-0081; 0087-0095; Figs 3-6);
determining an action associated with the output wherein the action comprises performing operations within the content creation structured interface comprising automatically updating the content creation structured interface to be populated with one or more generated content elements (0023; 0080-0081; 0087-0095; Figs 3-6)
Therefore, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to one or ordinary skill in the art to combine Geller with Setlur in view of Mishchenko for the benefit of automatedly controlling elements of a graphical user interface.
Regarding dependent claims 2 and 10, Setlur disclose the computing system of claims 1 and 8 respectively, wherein the action data structure comprises data to be populated within one or more fields of a content creation structured interface (col 7 line 44-col 8 line 2; col 25 lines 36-55).
Regarding dependent claims 3 and 11, Setlur in view of Mishchenko disclose the computing system of claims 1 and 8 respectively, wherein the natural language input comprises a uniform resource locator (URL), and wherein the action component comprises a generative model that generates a summary of information parsed from a page associated with the URL (col 7 line 50 – col 8 line 4 and col 8 lines 43-66).
Regarding dependent claims 7 and 15, Setlur in view of Mishchenko disclose the computing system of claims 1 and 8 respectively, wherein the action component comprises a generative model, wherein the generative model obtains the action data structure as an input prompt and generates an output comprising a creative asset (col 9 lie 65-col 10 line 19).
Regarding dependent claim 9, Setlur in view of Mishchenko disclose the computer-implemented method of claim 8, comprising:
updating the custom language model based on the user input (col 8 lines 43-66; col 17 lines 42-66).
Regarding dependent claim 17, Setlur in view of Mishchenko disclose the one or more non-transitory computer readable media of claim 16, the operations comprising:
obtaining, subsequent to transmitting the action data structure and response data structure, user input indicative of a validation of the action data structure or the response data structure (col. 5 lines 10-39; col 7 line 8-25; col. 19 line 14-36); and
updating the custom language model based on the user input (col 8 lines 43-66; col 17 lines 42-66).
Regarding dependent claim 18, Setlur in view of Mishchenko disclose the one or more non-transitory computer readable media of claim 16, wherein the action component comprises a generative model, wherein the generative model obtains the action data structure as an input prompt and generates an output comprising a creative asset (col 9 line 65-col 10 line 19).
Regarding dependent claim 19, Setlur disclose the one or more non-transitory computer readable media of claim 18, wherein the generative model comprises a machine learning model (col 1 lines 30-40).
Regarding dependent claim 21, Setlur in view of Mishchenko does not expressly disclose the computing system of claim 1, wherein the operations further comprise:
generating a content score based on a number of completed input fields within the content
creation structured interface (0015; 0103; 0107; 0116);
comparing the content score to a threshold score value; and
providing a prompt for display via the conversational campaign assistant interface to request additional user input based on a determination that the content score is below the threshold score value.
Geller teach generating a content score based on a number of completed input fields within the content creation structured interface (0015; 0103; 0107; 0116);
comparing the content score to a threshold score value (0015; 0103; 0107; 0116); and
providing a prompt for display via the conversational campaign assistant interface to request additional user input based on a determination that the content score is below the threshold score value (0015; 0103; 0107; 0116).
Therefore, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to one or ordinary skill in the art to combine Geller with Setlur in view of Mishchenko for the benefit of automatedly controlling elements of a graphical user interface.
Claims 4-6 and 12-14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Setlur and Mishchenko in view of Geller, further in view of Deng et al. (Pat. No.: US 11,868,884 B2; Filed: Jun. 17, 2020) (hereinafter “Deng”).
Regarding dependent claims 4 and 12, Setlur and Mishchenko in view of Geller does not expressly disclose the computing system of claims 1 and 8 respectively, wherein the action component comprises a content campaign performance model.
Deng teach wherein the action component comprises a content campaign performance model (col 13 line 24-39).
Therefore, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to one or ordinary skill in the art to combine Deng with Setlur and Mishchenko in view of Geller for the benefit of improving privacy issues concerning massive data collection and/or serving machine learning models.
Regarding dependent claims 5 and 13, Setlur and Mishchenko in view of Geller does not expressly disclose the computing system of claims 1 and 8 respectively, wherein the action component comprises a content campaign analysis model.
Deng teach wherein the action component comprises a content campaign analysis model (col 13 line 24-39).
Therefore, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to one or ordinary skill in the art to combine Deng with Setlur and Mishchenko in view of Geller for the benefit of improving privacy issues concerning massive data collection and/or serving machine learning models.
Regarding dependent claims 6 and 14, Setlur and Mishchenko in view of Geller does not expressly disclose the computing system of claims 1 and 8 respectively, wherein the action component comprises a bidding strategy model.
Deng teach wherein the action component comprises a bidding strategy model (col 13 line 24-39).
Therefore, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to one or ordinary skill in the art to combine Deng with Setlur and Mishchenko in view of Geller for the benefit of improving privacy issues concerning massive data collection and/or serving machine learning models.
NOTE
It is noted that any citations to specific, pages, columns, lines, or figures in the prior art references and any interpretation of the reference should not be considered to be limiting in any way. A reference is relevant for all it contains and may be relied upon for all that it would have reasonably suggested to one having ordinary skill in the art. See MPEP 2123.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument.
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 extension fee 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 JAMES J DEBROW whose telephone number is (571)272-5768. The examiner can normally be reached on 09:00 - 06:00.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, William Bashore can be reached on 571-272-4088. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from Patent Center and the Private Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from Patent Center or Private PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Patent Center or Private PAIR to authorized users only. Should you have questions about access to Patent Center or the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free).
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) Form at https://www.uspto.gov/patents/uspto-automated- interview-request-air-form.
/James J Debrow/
Primary Patent Examiner
Art Unit 2174
571-272-5768
Prosecution Insights