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 .
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) was filed on 1/7/2026. The submission is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement is being considered by the examiner.
Response to Amendment
The response filed on 1/15/2026 has been entered and made of record. Claims 1, 10, and 16 are amended. Claims 1-20 are pending.
The previous rejections of claims 1, 10, and 16 under 35 USC 102 under Yuan et al, claims 2-9, 11-15, and 17-20 under 35 USC 103 under Yuan et al in view of Amoli et al are maintained, but have been updated as necessitated by the amendment. The previous rejections to claims 1-20 under 35 USC 101 have been withdrawn.
Specification
The lengthy specification has not been checked to the extent necessary to determine the presence of all possible minor errors. Applicant’s cooperation is requested in correcting any errors of which applicant may become aware in the specification.
Drawings
The drawings filed on 6/16/2023 were accepted.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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 the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 1, 10, and 16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being unpatentable over Yuan et al (Ann Yuan, Andy Coenen, Emily Reif, and Daphne Ippolito. 2022. Wordcraft: Story Writing With Large Language Models. In Proceedings of the 27th International Conference on Intelligent User Interfaces (IUI '22). Association for Computing Machinery, New York, NY, USA, 841–852. https://doi.org/10.1145/3490099.3511105) in view of de Witte et al (US20240281457A1; filed .
With regards to claim 1, Yuan et al discloses A computing apparatus comprising: one or more computer-readable storage media; one or more processors operatively coupled with the one or more computer-readable storage media; and program instructions stored on the one or more computer-readable storage media that, when executed by the one or more processors, direct the computing apparatus to at least (Yuan et al, abstract: “Wordcraft, a text editor in which users collaborate with a generative language model to write a story.” A text editor with a user interface connected to a large language model requires a computer, which requires storage media, program instructions, and processors to execute them):
identify a context of a content environment into which a local instance of a collaborative prompt object was inserted (Yuan et al, 3.1 Prompting Methods: “When a user triggers a control in Wordcraft, such as replace selection (Figure 1- left), Wordcraft provides LaMDA with a prompt carefully constructed using the context of the current story;” the prompt objects that have been inserted can be interpreted as previous suggestions that were added to the text content (see Fig. 1, where selected prompt text is selected and added to the text as new portions of text));
generate a prompt for a large language model (LLM) service to elicit suggestions for follow-on prompts based on content of the content environment (Yuan et al, 3.1 Prompting Methods: “When a user triggers a control in Wordcraft, such as replace selection (Figure 1- left), Wordcraft provides LaMDA with a prompt carefully constructed using the context of the current story so that the model will perform the task– in this case, generating alternatives for the selected text.”) wherein the prompt tasks the LLM service with generating the suggestions in a form of natural language inputs to be submitted to the LLM service when selected by a user (Yuan et al, Fig. 4: Prompts are in natural language, and, as shown by the cursor icons, can be selected by the user); and
display, in the local instance, graphical input devices corresponding to the suggestions; receive user input comprising a selection of a graphical input device of the graphical input devices (Yuan et al, Figs. 1 and 4: multiple options are available for user selection via clicking; the selections include prompts, and can include prompts such as option 3 in fig. 4, which suggests additional prompts (item 4 in fig. 4) for the user regarding the text); and
generate a follow-on prompt based on the suggestion corresponding to the selected graphical input device (Yuan et al, 3.1 Prompting methods: “Figure 4: (right) Meta prompting in the Wordcraft interface. The user asks for suggestions for requests they could make of the model (3), and browses those suggestions (4);” 3.1.2 Meta-prompting describes the prompt suggestions in more detail).
Claim 10 recites substantially similar limitations to claim 1 and is thus rejected along the same rationale.
Claim 16 recites substantially similar limitations to claim 1 and is thus rejected along the same rationale.
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 2-9, 11-15, and 17-20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yuan et al in view of Amoli et al (US 20200117850 A1; filed 10/21/2019).
With regards to claim 2, which depends on claim 1, Yuan et al discloses maintain a record of events indicative of prompts, replies from the LLM service, and user interaction with respect to the local instance of the collaborative prompt object (Yuan et al, abstract: “Wordcraft, a text editor in which users collaborate with a generative language model to write a story… large language models enable novel co-writing experiences” The story (text content) that the user is writing with the large language model is a record of the interactive process, and is considered “indicative” of the prompts, replies, and user interaction because it is a result of those steps).
However, Yuan et al does not disclose update one or more remote instances of the collaborative prompt object based on the record of events.
Amoli et al teaches update one or more remote instances of the collaborative prompt object based on the record of events (Amoli et al, abstract: “The web-based application comprises a set of native operating system application code, a web content viewer, and a native operating system interface, which are configured to facilitate a transfer of one or more objects between the native operating system application code and the web content viewer… Shared access to the editable document and shared access to uploaded objects are provided by the server;” Fig. 1A: multiple users of multiple devices are shown interacting with the content in a cloud-based environment).
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to have combined Yuan et al and Amoli et al such that the document can be edited by multiple users using a network. This would have enabled multiple users to view and edit documents together in real time (Amoli et al, paragraph 3: “Certain cloud-based shared content management platforms might further provide document creation and editing applications (apps) for such user devices so the collaborators can create and/or edit documents within the cloud-based system for real-time, multi-environment sharing”).
With regards to claim 3, which depends on claim 2, Yuan et al does not disclose wherein to update the one or more remote instances of the collaborative prompt object based on the record of events, the program instructions direct the computing apparatus to distribute the events, via a relay service, to the one or more remote instances of the collaborative prompt object.
However, Amoli et al teaches wherein to update the one or more remote instances of the collaborative prompt object based on the record of events, the program instructions direct the computing apparatus to distribute the events, via a relay service, to the one or more remote instances of the collaborative prompt object (Amoli et al, Fig. 1A: the user devices are shown downloading or remotely accessing the content files from the storage systems. The relay service which is used to distribute the events can be interpreted as the network or cloud-based environment which transmits the edited files to and from the remote devices).
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to have combined Yuan et al and Amoli et al such that the document can be edited by multiple users using a network. This would have enabled multiple users to view and edit documents together in real time (Amoli et al, paragraph 3: “Certain cloud-based shared content management platforms might further provide document creation and editing applications (apps) for such user devices so the collaborators can create and/or edit documents within the cloud-based system for real-time, multi-environment sharing”).
With regards to claim 4, which depends on claim 3, Yuan et al does not disclose wherein the program instructions further direct the computing apparatus to synchronize changes to the content of the content environment through a collaboration service, wherein the collaboration service is different from the relay service.
However, Amoli et al teaches wherein the program instructions further direct the computing apparatus to synchronize changes to the content of the content environment through a collaboration service, wherein the collaboration service is different from the relay service (Amoli et al, Fig. 1A: sync server 120 or collaboration server 152, whichever is in charge of synchronizing the content to be viewed in real time, is interpreted as providing the collaboration service; paragraph 24: “The created document and/or certain portions (e.g., inserted objects) of the created document can be stored and managed by a cloud-based shared content management platform for sharing among collaborators in real time”).
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to have combined Yuan et al and Amoli et al such that the document can be edited in real time by multiple users using a network. This would have enabled multiple users to view and edit documents together in real time (Amoli et al, paragraph 3: “Certain cloud-based shared content management platforms might further provide document creation and editing applications (apps) for such user devices so the collaborators can create and/or edit documents within the cloud-based system for real-time, multi-environment sharing”).
With regards to claim 5, which depends on claim 4, Yuan et al does not disclose wherein the program instructions further direct the computing apparatus to direct the one or more remote instances of the collaborative prompt object to refrain from performing an event of the record of events.
However, Amoli et al teaches wherein the program instructions further direct the computing apparatus to direct the one or more remote instances of the collaborative prompt object to refrain from performing an event of the record of events (Amoli et al, paragraph 33: “cloud-based environment 1A00 where two or more of the collaborators 121 share a content object (e.g., computer file, electronic document, image, etc.), and where each collaborator has a certain access (e.g., for viewing, editing, downloading, etc.) to the shared object in a respective collaborator-specific workspace (e.g., workspace 122 1, workspace 122 2, etc.);” the remote instance viewed by a collaborator with limited access is unable to view or edit the file).
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to have combined Yuan et al and Amoli et al such that the document can be edited by multiple users using a network based on access levels. This would have enabled only certain users to access or edit specific documents (Amoli et al, paragraph 33: “One or more roles can be associated with one or more access configurations, and such roles and/or access configurations can be used in determining rules pertaining to how users share documents.”).
With regards to claim 6, which depends on claim 2, Yuan et al discloses wherein the user interaction comprises a selection to insert content from a reply of the replies from the LLM service into the content of the content environment (Yuan et al, Fig. 1: user selects LLM responses which are inserted into the text via “infilling” or “continuation”).
With regards to claim 7, which depends on claim 2, Yuan et al does not disclose wherein the content environment of the local instance of the collaborative prompt object is different from a content environment of a remote instance of the collaborative prompt object.
However, Amoli et al teaches wherein the content environment of the local instance of the collaborative prompt object is different from a content environment of a remote instance of the collaborative prompt object (Amoli et al, Fig. 1A: user devices can include multiple types of devices which can be interpreted as part of the environment; Amoli et al, paragraph 33: “Such an associated role profile can comprise certain attributes such as user information (e.g., user ID, device ID, etc.) and/or user workspace metadata (e.g., file ID, etc.) and/or access permissions and/or role descriptions.” The user’s role and/or permissions can also be interpreted as part of the environmental context in which the content is viewed, and is different between users).
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to have combined Yuan et al and Amoli et al such that the document can be edited by multiple users using a network on different devices. This would have enabled multiple users to view and edit documents together in real time (Amoli et al, paragraph 3: “Certain cloud-based shared content management platforms might further provide document creation and editing applications (apps) for such user devices so the collaborators can create and/or edit documents within the cloud-based system for real-time, multi-environment sharing”).
With regards to claim 8, which depends on claim 2, Yuan et al discloses receive user input comprising a natural language input (Yuan et al, Fig. 1 and 4: each figure has an input box for a natural language prompt; fig. 4 shows the text: “describe the character’s emotional state” as a user-typed input); and
generate a follow-on prompt based on the natural language input (Yuan et al, Fig. 4: in response to the input on the left side of fig. 4, suggestions for text input and additional prompt modifications (“choose”, “refine”, etc.) are displayed).
With regards to claim 9, which depends on claim 2, Yuan et al discloses wherein the content environment comprises a document of a word processing application (Yuan et al, abstract: “Wordcraft, a text editor in which users collaborate with a generative language model to write a story”).
Claims 11-15 recite substantially similar limitations to claims 2-6 respectively and are thus rejected along the same rationales.
Claims 17-20 recite substantially similar limitations to claims 2-5 respectively and are thus rejected along the same rationales.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments, see remarks filed 1/15/2026, with respect to the 35 USC 102(a)(1) rejections to claim(s) 1, 10, and 16 have been fully considered but are not persuasive. Applicant argues that the amendment to the independent claims overcomes the previous rejection over Yuan. While examiner tentatively agreed with this position during the interview held 11/3/2025, upon additional consideration disagrees that the amendment fully overcomes the prior art as claimed. Examiner argues that the suggested prompts of Fig. 4 of Yuan disclose prompt suggestions in the form of natural language inputs that are to be submitted to the LLM service when selected by the user. Thus the argument is not persuasive.
Applicant’s arguments, see remarks filed 1/15/2026, with respect to the 35 USC 101 rejection have been fully considered and are persuasive. Applicant argues that the claims as amended provide concrete technical improvements, in that the prompts tailored according to the disclosed technology reduce the amount of data traffic between the application service and the LLM for generating information for the user. The improvements of the claims correspond to the specification (paragraphs 49-50) in which the technological improvement is described. The 35 USC 101 rejections have been withdrawn.
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.
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Beauchamp (US20240256762A1): Teaches submitting prompts to edit a document from a user when a submit button is selected.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to BRODERICK C ANDERSON whose telephone number is (313)446-6566. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Tuesday, Thursday-Saturday 9-5 PST.
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, Stephen Hong can be reached at 5712724124. 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.
/B.C.A/Examiner, Art Unit 2178
/STEPHEN S HONG/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2178
Prosecution Insights