Introduction
1. This office action is in response to Applicant’s submission filed on 1/22/2026. Claims 1-20 are pending in the application and have been examined.
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
2. The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Response to Amendment
3. The Amendment filed 1/22/2026 has been entered and fully considered. With regard to the rejection under 35 USC 103, the arguments presented are rendered moot by the new rejection below based on U.S. Pat. App. Pub. No. 20220058562 (SWAMINATHAN et al., hereinafter “Swam”).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
4. 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 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.
5. Claims 1-4, 8, 11-14, 17, 18, and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as unpatentable over U.S. Pat. App. Pub. No. 20220084511 (Nickson et al., hereinafter “Nickson”) in view of U.S. Pat. App. Pub. No. 20210241600 (Kim et al., hereinafter “Kim”) and U.S. Pat. App. Pub. No. 20220058562 (SWAMINATHAN et al., hereinafter “Swam”).
With regard to Claim 1, Nickson describes:
“An artificial intelligence (AI)-based interface system for a notes application, the AI-based interface system comprising:
a processor; (Paragraph 51, processor 220) and
a memory (Paragraph 51, memory 202) in communication with the processor, the memory comprising executable instructions that, when executed by the processor alone or in combination with other processors, cause the system to perform functions of:
receiving a prompt via a user interface (UI) component of an interface client, the prompt defining at least one task to be performed in the notes application [[implementing a hierarchical scheme for managing content of the notes application, the hierarchical scheme including a notebook configured to store information associated with a topic, a section of the notebook configured to store information associated with a sub-topic of the topic, and a page of the section configured with a canvas area for storing content of a note of the page]]; (Paragraph 252 describes that the device prompts the user for a command. Paragraph 35 describes that the command is to perform a task to be identified.)
sending, over a communication network, the prompt to an AI notes interface including at least one language model (Paragraph 213 describes that he user input is sent to a language model 732.), the prompt being provided to at least one language model as input, the at least one language model being trained to process the prompt to identify the at least one task to be performed and to generate [[notes domain-specific language (NDSL)]] instructions for execution in the notes application to perform the at least one task, the at least one language model providing the [[NDSL]] instructions as an output, the [[NDSL]] instructions being based on a [[NDSL]] framework implemented for the notes application; (Paragraph 219 describes that the device chooses from among “task flow models,” which are instructions to perform the selected task.)
receiving, over the communication network, the output including the [[NDSL]] instructions from the at least one language model; and (Figure 4 shows that the device includes a plurality of applications 236 that can be commanded as part of the tasks.)
executing the [[NDSL]] instructions using a [[NDSL]] handler in the notes application to perform the at least one task indicated by the prompt. (Paragraph 139 describes that the application 236-1 includes a handler to perform commanded tasks.)
Nickson does not explicitly describe the use of notes domain-specific language (NDSL) instructions, or the notes application implementing a hierarchical scheme for managing content of the notes application, the hierarchical scheme including a notebook configured to store information associated with a topic, a section of the notebook configured to store information associated with a sub-topic of the topic, and a page of the section configured with a canvas area for storing content of a note of the page.
However, paragraph 56 of Kim describes that instructions to perform tasks using a notes application such as a calendar or reminder application can be used to respond to commands from a user.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to include the notes domain-specific language (NDSL) instructions as described by Kim into the invention of Nickson to allow a user to add notes (“bedding laundry this week”) to a task, as described in paragraph 56 of Kim.
Nickson in view of Kim does not explicitly describe the notes application implementing a hierarchical scheme for managing content of the notes application, the hierarchical scheme including a notebook configured to store information associated with a topic, a section of the notebook configured to store information associated with a sub-topic of the topic, and a page of the section configured with a canvas area for storing content of a note of the page.
However, Figure 19 of Swam shows a hierarchical scheme for managing text data storage. An exemplary notebook is “Cricket,” an exemplary topic is “Cricketeers,” an exemplary sub-topic is “Cricketers by nationality,” and an exemplary note is “English cricketeers.” Text for each of these topics/sub-topics/notes is stored in an appropriate place in the hierarchy.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to include the text storage hierarchy as described by Swam into the invention of Nickson in view of Kim to efficiently order text content storage, as described in paragraph 17 of Swam.
With regard to Claim 2, Nickson describes “the prompt is in a natural language format.” Paragraph 35 describes that the model receives as input natural language entries.
With regard to Claim 3, Nickson describes “the at least one task includes adding a new element to the notes application, the new element being at least one of a new note, a new notebook, a new section, and a new page.” Paragraph 121 describes that the device includes a notes module 253 to manage notes in accordance with user instructions.
With regard to Claim 4, Nickson does not explicitly describe this subject matter. However, Kim describes “the at least one task includes adding new content to a note of the notes application, the at least one language model is trained to generate the new content, and wherein the output of the at least one language model includes a NDSL instruction for adding the new content to the note of the notes application.” Paragraph 56 of Kim describes that instructions to perform tasks using a notes application can include adding content to a note (“bedding laundry this week”).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to include the notes domain-specific language (NDSL) instructions as described by Kim into the invention of Nickson to allow a user to add notes to a task, as described in paragraph 56 of Kim.
With regard to Claim 8, Nickson describes “the at least one task includes retrieving new content and adding the new content to a note in the notes application, the at least one language model is trained to retrieve the new content from an external source, and the output of the at least one language model includes a NDSL instruction for adding the new content to the note.” Paragraph 36 describes adding new content from a user to a calendar note. Figure 1 shows that the calendar service 120 is an external service.
With regard to Claim 11, Nickson describes “the at least one language model includes at least a first language model and a second language model, (Paragraph 81 describes that the device includes both natural language processing models and task flow models.) and the first language model is trained to process the prompt to identify the at least one task to be performed and to generate the NDSL instruction for causing the at least one task to be performed in the notes application (the task flow model), the first language model being further trained to process the prompt to determine when new content is required as part of the at least one task and to generate a prompt for the new content which is output to the second language model (the natural language processing model), the second language model is trained to generate the new content in response to receiving the prompt for the new content from the first language model and to output the new content to the first language model, and in response to receiving the new content from the second language model, the first language model is trained to generate the NDSL instructions with the new content.” Paragraph 36 describes adding new content from a user to a calendar note.
With regard to Claim 12, Nickson describes “the at least one language model includes a manager model and a plurality of additional language models, the additional language models being trained to perform different actions for the AI notes interface (Paragraph 81 describes that the device includes a plurality of different types of models for different tasks.), the manager model is trained to process the prompt to identify the at least one task to be performed and to generate the NDSL instruction for causing the at least one task to be performed in the notes application (the natural language model determines what task is being invoked), the manager model being further trained to process the prompt to select at least one additional language model from the plurality of additional language models to perform at least one action in connection with the at least one task and to generate a prompt for causing the at least one language model to perform the at least one action, the at least one additional language model is trained to process the prompt to generate a result that is output to the manager model, the manager model is trained to generate the NDSL instructions with the result from at least one additional language model. (Paragraph 219 describes that the task flow model generates instructions to perform the task that is determined using the natural language model.)
With respect to Claims 13, 14, and 17, method Claim 13 and system Claim 1 are related as a system programmed to perform the same method, with each claimed system function corresponding to each claimed method step. Accordingly, Claims 13, 14, and 17 are similarly rejected under the same rationale as applied above with respect to Claims 1, 4, and 11.
With respect to Claims 18 and 20, computer readable medium Claim 18 and system Claim 1 are related as a computer readable medium programmed to perform the same system function, with each claimed system function corresponding to each claimed computer readable medium function. Accordingly, Claims 18 and 20 are similarly rejected under the same rationale as applied above with respect to Claims 1 and 11.
6. Claims 5-7, 9, 10, 15, 16, and 19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as unpatentable over Nickson in view of Kim and Swam and further in view of U.S. Pat. App. Pub. No. 20230153546 (Peleg et al., hereinafter “Peleg”).
With regard to Claim 5, Nickson in view of Kim and Swam does not explicitly describe this subject matter. However, Peleg describes “the new content includes a summary of content of the note, the at least one language model is trained to generate the summary of the content of the note, and the output of the at least one language model includes a NDSL instruction for adding the summary to the note.” Paragraph 457 describes that a natural language model can create summary snippets to add summaries to a text.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to include the summarizations as described by Peleg into the invention of Nickson in view of Kim and Swam to allow a user to read a summary of a text portion, as described in paragraph 457 of Peleg.
With regard to Claim 6, Nickson in view of Kim and Swam does not explicitly describe this subject matter. However, Peleg describes “the new content includes a rewrite of content of the note with a predetermined tone, the at least one language model is trained to generate the rewrite of the content of the note with the predetermined tone, and the output of the at least one language model includes a NDSL instruction for adding the rewrite to the note.” Paragraph 371 describes that the model can rewrite text portions to modify the tone of the text.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to include the rewritten sections as described by Peleg into the invention of Nickson in view of Kim and Swam to automatically conform the text to writing standards, as described in paragraph 371 of Peleg.
With regard to Claim 7, Nickson in view of Kim and Swam does not explicitly describe this subject matter. However, Peleg describes “the new content is generated from existing content of the note, the NDSL instructions include instructions for retrieving the existing content of the note, and the memory further includes executable instructions that, when executed by the processor alone or in combination with other processors, cause the system to perform functions of: receiving the NDSL instructions for retrieving the existing content of the page, in response to receiving the NDSL instructions for retrieving the existing content of the page, sending the existing content to the at least one language model over the communication network; and in response to receiving the existing content of the page, the at least one language model generates the new content from the existing content.” Paragraph 457 describes that a natural language model can create summary snippets (new content) to add summaries to a text (existing content).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to include the summarizations as described by Peleg into the invention of Nickson in view of Kim and Swam to allow a user to read a summary of a text portion, as described in paragraph 457 of Peleg.
With regard to Claim 9, Nickson in view of Kim and Swam does not explicitly describe this subject matter. However, Peleg describes “the at least one task includes generating a list of synonyms for a word, the at least one language model is trained to generate the list of synonyms for the word, and the output of the at least one language model includes a NDSL instruction for displaying the list in the UI component.” Paragraph 73 describes that the device can offer a list of synonyms to a user.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to include the synonyms as described by Peleg into the invention of Nickson in view of Kim and Swam to allow a user to upgrade the original text, as described in paragraph 73 of Peleg.
With regard to Claim 10, Nickson in view of Kim and Swam does not explicitly describe this subject matter. However, Peleg describes “the at least one language model is trained to determine suggested actions to perform based at least in part on the at least one task indicated by the prompt, and the output includes at least one NDSL instruction for displaying the suggested actions in the UI component.” Paragraph 66 describes that the device can provide several suggestions to a user.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to include the suggestions as described by Peleg into the invention of Nickson in view of Kim and Swam to provide unique, well-written, and context-fitting texts, as described in paragraph 66 of Peleg.
With respect to Claims 15 and 16, method Claim 13 and system Claim 1 are related as a system programmed to perform the same method, with each claimed system function corresponding to each claimed method step. Accordingly, Claims 15 and 16 are similarly rejected under the same rationale as applied above with respect to Claims 5 and 6 (combined), and 7.
With respect to Claim 19, computer readable medium Claim 18 and system Claim 1 are related as a computer readable medium programmed to perform the same system function, with each claimed system function corresponding to each claimed computer readable medium function. Accordingly, Claim 19 is similarly rejected under the same rationale as applied above with respect to Claims 5 and 6.
Conclusion
7. The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
U.S. Pat. App. Pub. No. 20150278171 (Lefebvre et al.) also describes hierarchical storage of data.
8. 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.
9. Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to EDWARD TRACY whose telephone number is (571)272-8332. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 9 AM- 5PM.
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, Bhavesh Mehta can be reached on 571-272-7453. 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.
/EDWARD TRACY JR./Examiner, Art Unit 2656
/BHAVESH M MEHTA/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2656
Prosecution Insights