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 .
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.
Obligation Under 37 CFR 1.56 – Joint Inventors
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Response to Amendment
Applicant’s amendment filed on December 30, 2025 has been entered. Claims 1, 3, 5, 7-8 and 10-20 have been amended. No claims have been added. Thus, claims 1-20 are still pending in this application, with claims 1, 8 and 11 being independent.
Applicant’s amendment of December 30, 2025 overcomes the following objections/rejections:
Objection(s) to the specification.
Objections to claims 3, 5, 7, 12, 14-18 and 20.
Rejection of claims 11-20 under 35 USC 101.
Claim Objections
Claim 1 is objected to because of the following informalities:
line 17 of claim 1 now recites “submitting a script template”; however, it is unclear to where or what the recited script template is being submitted to (i.e., in order to be clear, “submitting” requires a recipient or destination). Substituting “using” for “submitting” is one suggestion for curing the deficiency.
“the group” (line 18 of claim 1) lacks proper antecedent basis. Amending claim 1 to instead recite “a group” is one suggestion for curing the deficiency.
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim 8 is objected to because of the following informalities: “the group” (line 7 of claim 8) lacks proper antecedent basis. Amending claim 8 to instead recite “a group” is on suggestion for curing the deficiency. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim 11 is objected to because of the following informalities:
lines 16 of claim 11 now recites “submitting a script template”; however, it is unclear to where or what the recited script template is being submitted to (i.e., in order to be clear, “submitting” requires a recipient or destination). Substituting “using” for “submitting” is one suggestion for curing the deficiency.
“the group” (lines 16-17 of claim 11) lacks proper antecedent basis. Amending claim 11 to instead recite “a group” is one suggestion for curing the deficiency.
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112(a)
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
Claims 1-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention.
Regarding claims 1-7, independent claim 1 has been amended to newly recite: “wherein generating the script includes submitting a script template generated by at least one of a group consisting of a designer, a mental health professional, and an operator of the computing system, integrated in the healthcare system, as part of a constructed prompt” (lines 17-19 of amended claim 1, emphasis added). In applicant’s REMARKS (page 9, 1st paragraph), applicant asserts that “Support for the amendments may be found in the original claims and specification; e.g., at least at FIG. 4 and paragraphs [0011], [0022]-[0025] of the published application”. However, after a careful review of the originally filed application, in its entirety, including the originally filed specification, drawings, claims and abstract, the examiner has not been able to find any clear support for “generating the script includes submitting a script template” … “as part of a constructed prompt.”
For instance, in the flow chart shown in FIG. 4, the only step relevant to the subject matter of the amendment is step is step 407, which only shows “generate a script template using person’s details and received input”. There is nothing at all in FIG. 4 regarding “a constructed prompt,” much less is there any support for “generating the script includes submitting a script template” … “as part of a constructed prompt.”
In paragraph [0011] of the specification (in the published version of the application) recites:
[0011] In some embodiments, to generate this script, the facility selects from among a set of script templates prepared by mental health professionals or other human experts one that is appropriate to the described feelings, and uses the person's details and/or description to customize the script template. In some embodiments, the facility uses the description and the person's details to construct a prompt requesting that a generative language model such as GPT-4 or another large language model generate the script, and submits the constructed prompt to the generative language model.
As is clear from paragraph [0011], a script template can be customized using the person’s details and/or description to generate the script, or, alternatively, the description and the person’s details are used to construct a prompt for submitting to a large language model trained to generate the script in response to the constructed prompt.
Nowhere, does paragraph [0011] explicitly disclose, or even suggest, generating the script by submitting a script template as part of a constructed prompt.
Paragraph [0016] of the published specification recites:
[0016] FIG. 2 is a flow diagram showing a process performed by the facility in some embodiments to compile script templates. In act 201, the facility receives a script template, such as a script template prepared by a mental health professional or other human expert. In some embodiments, the script template is designed for a particular mental health scenario, and includes fields and/or options that permit it to be tailored to a particular person based upon their details and their contemporaneous input about their present emotional state. In act 202, the facility receives one or more script attributes for the script template received in act 201. The script attributes characterize the situation or situations for which the script template is appropriate. In various embodiments, the script attributes are keywords, per-situation flags, nodes of a taxonomy, ontology, or other hierarchy of situations, etc. In act 203, the facility stores the script template received in act 201 together with its attributes received in step 202 to be available to use to generate particular scripts for particular people, such as in a script template table.
Thus, paragraph [0016] only describes creating and storing (e.g., in a script template table) script templates used to generate particular scripts for particular people. Once again, nothing in paragraph [0016] can be understood to disclose, or be interpreted as meaning, that a script is generated by submitting a script template as part of a constructed prompt.
Paragraph [0018] of the published specification recites:
[0018] FIG. 3 is a table diagram showing sample contents of a script template table used by the facility in some embodiments to store script templates and their attributes. The script template table 300 is made up of rows, such as rows 301-303, which each correspond to a different script template available for use by the facility to generate a script for a particular person. Each row is divided into the following columns: a script template attributes column 311 containing attributes describing the script template to which the row corresponds that can be used to match that script template to a particular person in their situation; and a script template column 312 containing the textual content of the script template to which the row corresponds.
Thus, paragraph [0018] only further describes storing script templates in a script template table. Clearly, nothing in paragraph [0018] can be understood to disclose, or be interpreted as meaning, that a script is generated by submitting a script template as part of a constructed prompt.
Applicant states that paragraphs [0022]-[0025] (part of the detailed description of FIG. 4) provide support for the amendment; however, paragraphs [0022] and [0023] disclose nothing describing “script templates” or “constructed prompts”.
Paragraph [0024] of the published application recites:
[0024] In act 407, the facility generates a script using the person's details and received input. In some embodiments, the facility generates this script by selecting one of the script templates stored by the facility in the script template table, by matching script template attributes stored in the script template table for each script template with the person's details and input about emotional state. The facility then populates and/or customizes the selected script template for the person, such as by using the person's details and input to populates fields, choose among options, etc.
As is clear in the cited text, paragraph [0024] only describes generating a script by using a person's details and input about their emotional state to first select a script template and then populate and/or customize the selected script template by using the person's details and input to populates fields, choose among options, etc. Clearly, nothing in paragraph [0024] can be understood to disclose, or be interpreted as meaning, that a script is generated by submitting a script template as part of a constructed prompt.
Paragraph [0025] of the published application recites:
[0025] In some embodiments, the facility uses a generative language model such as GPT4 or another large language model to generate the script. In particular, the facility generates a prompt tailored to elicit a positive statement about self relating to a situation discerned from the person's received input. In various embodiments, the facility uses various kinds of generative language models, invoked in various ways. In various such embodiments, the facility uses a stock or standard generative language model; uses a generative language model trained from scratch on materials generated or selected by the designers or operators of the facility and/or mental health experts, in some cases including the script templates or example scripts; uses a stock or standard generative language model that is further trained with materials generated or selected by designers or operators of the facility, in some cases including script templates or example scripts; uses standard or stock generative language models that are fine-tuned using materials generated or selected by the designers and/or operators of the facility. In various embodiments, this fine tuning includes such approaches as updating the model's embedding layers; updating the model's language modeling head; updating parameters of the model; prompt engineering; prompt-tuning or optimization; reinforcement learning from human feedback, such as pre-training a language model, gathering data and training a reward model, or fine-tuning the language model with reinforcement learning. In some embodiments, the facility submits materials generated or selected by the designers and/or operators of the facility as part of the prompt that the facility submits to the generative language model.
Thus, paragraph [0025] describes training and using a language model to generate the script. In particular, a prompt is generated from the person’s received input, the prompt being input to the language model trained to output the script according to the input prompt. Although paragraph [0025] discloses using, in some cases, script templates or example scripts to train a language model, nowhere does paragraph [0025] explicitly disclose or clearly suggest submitting a script template as part of a constructed prompt. At best, the last sentence of paragraph [0025] discloses using materials generated to selected by the designers and/or operators of the facility as part of the prompt that the facility submits to the generative language model. However, this falls short of being any clear disclosure of the newly claimed submitting a script template as part of a constructed prompt -- nor would a person of ordinary skill in the art understand it as suggesting such.
Finally, claim 10 in the originally filed application recites: “a generative language model prompt template, such that the generative language model prompt template is customizable using the attributes and text to use as a basis for invoking a generative language model to generate the script.”
Although, original claim 10 discloses “a generative language model prompt template,” a “prompt template” is not a “script template,” and moreover, claim 10 clearly does not provide clear support for “generating the script includes submitting a script template” … “as part of a constructed prompt.” Furthermore, other than claim 10, the originally filed application fails to provide any detailed description of “a generative language model prompt template,” and certainly no description or suggestion that “generating the script includes submitting a script template” … “as part of a constructed prompt.”
Thus, independent claim 1 is properly rejected under 35 USC § 112(a) as introducing prohibited new matter.
Similarly, dependent claims 2-7 each incorporate the new matter in independent claim 1 by virtue of their dependency, and as such, dependent claims 2-7 are likewise properly rejected under 35 USC § 112(a) as incorporating prohibited new matter.
Regarding claims 8-10, independent claim 8 has been amended to newly recite: “wherein the textual script includes a script template generated by at least one of the group consisting of a designer, a mental health professional, and an operator of the computing system, integrated in the healthcare system, as part of a constructed prompt” (lines 7-9 of amended claim 8, emphasis added). In applicant’s REMARKS (page 9, 1st paragraph), applicant asserts that “Support for the amendments may be found in the original claims and specification; e.g., at least at FIG. 4 and paragraphs [0011], [0022]-[0025] of the published application”. However, after a careful review of the originally filed application, in its entirety, including the originally filed specification, drawings, claims and abstract, the examiner has not been able to find any clear support for “the textual script includes a script template” … “as part of a constructed prompt.”
For instance, in the flow chart shown in FIG. 4, the only step relevant to the subject matter of the amendment is step is step 407, which only shows “generate a script template using person’s details and received input”. There is nothing at all in FIG. 4 regarding “a constructed prompt,” much less is there any support for “the textual script includes a script template” … “as part of a constructed prompt.”
In paragraph [0011] of the specification (in the published version of the application) recites:
[0011] In some embodiments, to generate this script, the facility selects from among a set of script templates prepared by mental health professionals or other human experts one that is appropriate to the described feelings, and uses the person's details and/or description to customize the script template. In some embodiments, the facility uses the description and the person's details to construct a prompt requesting that a generative language model such as GPT-4 or another large language model generate the script, and submits the constructed prompt to the generative language model.
As is clear from paragraph [0011], a script template can be customized using the person’s details and/or description to generate the script, or, alternatively, the description and the person’s details are used to construct a prompt for submitting to a large language model trained to generate the script in response to the constructed prompt.
Nowhere, does paragraph [0011] explicitly disclose, or even suggest, the textual script includes a script template as part of a constructed prompt.
Paragraph [0016] of the published specification recites:
[0016] FIG. 2 is a flow diagram showing a process performed by the facility in some embodiments to compile script templates. In act 201, the facility receives a script template, such as a script template prepared by a mental health professional or other human expert. In some embodiments, the script template is designed for a particular mental health scenario, and includes fields and/or options that permit it to be tailored to a particular person based upon their details and their contemporaneous input about their present emotional state. In act 202, the facility receives one or more script attributes for the script template received in act 201. The script attributes characterize the situation or situations for which the script template is appropriate. In various embodiments, the script attributes are keywords, per-situation flags, nodes of a taxonomy, ontology, or other hierarchy of situations, etc. In act 203, the facility stores the script template received in act 201 together with its attributes received in step 202 to be available to use to generate particular scripts for particular people, such as in a script template table.
Thus, paragraph [0016] only describes creating and storing (e.g., in a script template table) script templates used to generate particular scripts for particular people. Once again, nothing in paragraph [0016] can be understood to disclose, or be interpreted as meaning, that the textual script includes a script template as part of a constructed prompt.
Paragraph [0018] of the published specification recites:
[0018] FIG. 3 is a table diagram showing sample contents of a script template table used by the facility in some embodiments to store script templates and their attributes. The script template table 300 is made up of rows, such as rows 301-303, which each correspond to a different script template available for use by the facility to generate a script for a particular person. Each row is divided into the following columns: a script template attributes column 311 containing attributes describing the script template to which the row corresponds that can be used to match that script template to a particular person in their situation; and a script template column 312 containing the textual content of the script template to which the row corresponds.
Thus, paragraph [0018] only further describes storing script templates in a script template table. Clearly, nothing in paragraph [0018] can be understood to disclose, or be interpreted as meaning, that the textual script includes a script template as part of a constructed prompt.
Applicant states that paragraphs [0022]-[0025] (part of the detailed description of FIG. 4) provide support for the amendment; however, paragraphs [0022] and [0023] disclose nothing describing “script templates” or “constructed prompts”.
Paragraph [0024] of the published application recites:
[0024] In act 407, the facility generates a script using the person's details and received input. In some embodiments, the facility generates this script by selecting one of the script templates stored by the facility in the script template table, by matching script template attributes stored in the script template table for each script template with the person's details and input about emotional state. The facility then populates and/or customizes the selected script template for the person, such as by using the person's details and input to populates fields, choose among options, etc.
As is clear in the cited text, paragraph [0024] only describes generating a script by using a person's details and input about their emotional state to first select a script template and then populate and/or customize the selected script template by using the person's details and input to populates fields, choose among options, etc. Clearly, nothing in paragraph [0024] can be understood to disclose, or be interpreted as meaning, that the textual script includes a script template as part of a constructed prompt.
Paragraph [0025] of the published application recites:
[0025] In some embodiments, the facility uses a generative language model such as GPT4 or another large language model to generate the script. In particular, the facility generates a prompt tailored to elicit a positive statement about self relating to a situation discerned from the person's received input. In various embodiments, the facility uses various kinds of generative language models, invoked in various ways. In various such embodiments, the facility uses a stock or standard generative language model; uses a generative language model trained from scratch on materials generated or selected by the designers or operators of the facility and/or mental health experts, in some cases including the script templates or example scripts; uses a stock or standard generative language model that is further trained with materials generated or selected by designers or operators of the facility, in some cases including script templates or example scripts; uses standard or stock generative language models that are fine-tuned using materials generated or selected by the designers and/or operators of the facility. In various embodiments, this fine tuning includes such approaches as updating the model's embedding layers; updating the model's language modeling head; updating parameters of the model; prompt engineering; prompt-tuning or optimization; reinforcement learning from human feedback, such as pre-training a language model, gathering data and training a reward model, or fine-tuning the language model with reinforcement learning. In some embodiments, the facility submits materials generated or selected by the designers and/or operators of the facility as part of the prompt that the facility submits to the generative language model.
Thus, paragraph [0025] describes training and using a language model to generate the script. In particular, a prompt is generated from the person’s received input, the prompt being input to the language model trained to output the script according to the input prompt. Although paragraph [0025] discloses using, in some cases, script templates or example scripts to train a language model, nowhere does paragraph [0025] explicitly disclose or clearly suggest that the textual script includes a script template as part of a constructed prompt. At best, the last sentence of paragraph [0025] discloses using materials generated or selected by the designers and/or operators of the facility as part of the prompt that the facility submits to the generative language model. However, this falls short of being any clear disclosure of the textual script includes a script template as part of a constructed prompt -- nor would a person of ordinary skill in the art understand it as suggesting such.
Finally, claim 10 in the originally filed application recites: “a generative language model prompt template, such that the generative language model prompt template is customizable using the attributes and text to use as a basis for invoking a generative language model to generate the script.”
Although, original claim 10 discloses “a generative language model prompt template,” a “prompt template” is not a “script template,” and moreover, claim 10 clearly does not provide clear support for “the textual script includes a script template” … “as part of a constructed prompt.” Furthermore, other than claim 10, the originally filed application fails to provide any detailed description of “a generative language model prompt template,” and certainly no description or suggestion that “the textual script includes a script template” … “as part of a constructed prompt.”
Thus, independent claim 8 is properly rejected under 35 USC § 112(a) as introducing prohibited new matter.
Similarly, dependent claims 9-10 each incorporate the new matter in independent claim 8 by virtue of their dependency, and as such, dependent claims 9-10 are likewise properly rejected under 35 USC § 112(a) as incorporating prohibited new matter.
Regarding claims 11-20, independent claim 11 has been amended to newly recite: “wherein generating the script includes submitting a script template generated by at least one of a group consisting of a designer, a mental health professional, and an operator of the computing system, integrated in the healthcare system, as part of a constructed prompt” (lines 16-18 of amended claim 11, emphasis added). In applicant’s REMARKS (page 9, 1st paragraph), applicant asserts that “Support for the amendments may be found in the original claims and specification; e.g., at least at FIG. 4 and paragraphs [0011], [0022]-[0025] of the published application”. However, after a careful review of the originally filed application, in its entirety, including the originally filed specification, drawings, claims and abstract, the examiner has not been able to find any clear support for “generating the script includes submitting a script template” … “as part of a constructed prompt.”
For instance, in the flow chart shown in FIG. 4, the only step relevant to the subject matter of the amendment is step is step 407, which only shows “generate a script template using person’s details and received input”. There is nothing at all in FIG. 4 regarding “a constructed prompt,” much less is there any support for “generating the script includes submitting a script template” … “as part of a constructed prompt.”
In paragraph [0011] of the specification (in the published version of the application) recites:
[0011] In some embodiments, to generate this script, the facility selects from among a set of script templates prepared by mental health professionals or other human experts one that is appropriate to the described feelings, and uses the person's details and/or description to customize the script template. In some embodiments, the facility uses the description and the person's details to construct a prompt requesting that a generative language model such as GPT-4 or another large language model generate the script, and submits the constructed prompt to the generative language model.
As is clear from paragraph [0011], a script template can be customized using the person’s details and/or description to generate the script, or, alternatively, the description and the person’s details are used to construct a prompt for submitting to a large language model trained to generate the script in response to the constructed prompt.
Nowhere, does paragraph [0011] explicitly disclose, or even suggest, generating the script by submitting a script template as part of a constructed prompt.
Paragraph [0016] of the published specification recites:
[0016] FIG. 2 is a flow diagram showing a process performed by the facility in some embodiments to compile script templates. In act 201, the facility receives a script template, such as a script template prepared by a mental health professional or other human expert. In some embodiments, the script template is designed for a particular mental health scenario, and includes fields and/or options that permit it to be tailored to a particular person based upon their details and their contemporaneous input about their present emotional state. In act 202, the facility receives one or more script attributes for the script template received in act 201. The script attributes characterize the situation or situations for which the script template is appropriate. In various embodiments, the script attributes are keywords, per-situation flags, nodes of a taxonomy, ontology, or other hierarchy of situations, etc. In act 203, the facility stores the script template received in act 201 together with its attributes received in step 202 to be available to use to generate particular scripts for particular people, such as in a script template table.
Thus, paragraph [0016] only describes creating and storing (e.g., in a script template table) script templates used to generate particular scripts for particular people. Once again, nothing in paragraph [0016] can be understood to disclose, or be interpreted as meaning, that a script is generated by submitting a script template as part of a constructed prompt.
Paragraph [0018] of the published specification recites:
[0018] FIG. 3 is a table diagram showing sample contents of a script template table used by the facility in some embodiments to store script templates and their attributes. The script template table 300 is made up of rows, such as rows 301-303, which each correspond to a different script template available for use by the facility to generate a script for a particular person. Each row is divided into the following columns: a script template attributes column 311 containing attributes describing the script template to which the row corresponds that can be used to match that script template to a particular person in their situation; and a script template column 312 containing the textual content of the script template to which the row corresponds.
Thus, paragraph [0018] only further describes storing script templates in a script template table. Clearly, nothing in paragraph [0018] can be understood to disclose, or be interpreted as meaning, that a script is generated by submitting a script template as part of a constructed prompt.
Applicant states that paragraphs [0022]-[0025] (part of the detailed description of FIG. 4) provide support for the amendment; however, paragraphs [0022] and [0023] disclose nothing describing “script templates” or “constructed prompts”.
Paragraph [0024] of the published application recites:
[0024] In act 407, the facility generates a script using the person's details and received input. In some embodiments, the facility generates this script by selecting one of the script templates stored by the facility in the script template table, by matching script template attributes stored in the script template table for each script template with the person's details and input about emotional state. The facility then populates and/or customizes the selected script template for the person, such as by using the person's details and input to populates fields, choose among options, etc.
As is clear in the cited text, paragraph [0024] only describes generating a script by using a person's details and input about their emotional state to first select a script template and then populate and/or customize the selected script template by using the person's details and input to populates fields, choose among options, etc. Clearly, nothing in paragraph [0024] can be understood to disclose, or be interpreted as meaning, that a script is generated by submitting a script template as part of a constructed prompt.
Paragraph [0025] of the published application recites:
[0025] In some embodiments, the facility uses a generative language model such as GPT4 or another large language model to generate the script. In particular, the facility generates a prompt tailored to elicit a positive statement about self relating to a situation discerned from the person's received input. In various embodiments, the facility uses various kinds of generative language models, invoked in various ways. In various such embodiments, the facility uses a stock or standard generative language model; uses a generative language model trained from scratch on materials generated or selected by the designers or operators of the facility and/or mental health experts, in some cases including the script templates or example scripts; uses a stock or standard generative language model that is further trained with materials generated or selected by designers or operators of the facility, in some cases including script templates or example scripts; uses standard or stock generative language models that are fine-tuned using materials generated or selected by the designers and/or operators of the facility. In various embodiments, this fine tuning includes such approaches as updating the model's embedding layers; updating the model's language modeling head; updating parameters of the model; prompt engineering; prompt-tuning or optimization; reinforcement learning from human feedback, such as pre-training a language model, gathering data and training a reward model, or fine-tuning the language model with reinforcement learning. In some embodiments, the facility submits materials generated or selected by the designers and/or operators of the facility as part of the prompt that the facility submits to the generative language model.
Thus, paragraph [0025] describes training and using a language model to generate the script. In particular, a prompt is generated from the person’s received input, the prompt being input to the language model trained to output the script according to the input prompt. Although paragraph [0025] discloses using, in some cases, script templates or example scripts to train a language model, nowhere does paragraph [0025] explicitly disclose or clearly suggest submitting a script template as part of a constructed prompt. At best, the last sentence of paragraph [0025] discloses using materials generated to selected by the designers and/or operators of the facility as part of the prompt that the facility submits to the generative language model. However, this falls short of being any clear disclosure of the newly claimed submitting a script template as part of a constructed prompt -- nor would a person of ordinary skill in the art understand it as suggesting such.
Finally, claim 10 in the originally filed application recites: “a generative language model prompt template, such that the generative language model prompt template is customizable using the attributes and text to use as a basis for invoking a generative language model to generate the script.”
Although, original claim 10 discloses “a generative language model prompt template,” a “prompt template” is not a “script template,” and moreover, claim 10 clearly does not provide clear support for “generating the script includes submitting a script template” … “as part of a constructed prompt.” Furthermore, other than claim 10, the originally filed application fails to provide any detailed description of “a generative language model prompt template,” and certainly no description or suggestion that “generating the script includes submitting a script template” … “as part of a constructed prompt.”
Thus, independent claim 11 is properly rejected under 35 USC § 112(a) as introducing prohibited new matter.
Similarly, dependent claims 12-20 each incorporate the new matter in independent claim 11 by virtue of their dependency, and as such, dependent claims 12-20 are likewise properly rejected under 35 USC § 112(a) as incorporating prohibited new matter.
Response to Arguments
In the paragraph spanning pages 12-13 of the REMARKS, applicant alleges that support for the amendment is found in paragraph [0025] on the basis of the sentence: “In some embodiments, the facility submits materials generated or selected by the designers and/or operators of the facility as part of the prompt that the facility submits to the generative language model” (last sentence in ¶ [0025], emphasis added).
The examiner respectfully disagrees. Quite simply, nothing in this cited text (nor anywhere else in the specification) clearly discloses or even suggests that these “materials,” submitted as part of the prompt to the generative language model, comprise a script template.
The remainder of Applicant's arguments filed on December 30, 2025 with respect to the rejection claims 1-20 under 35 USC § 103 have been considered but are moot in view of the new ground(s) of rejection.
Conclusion
At present, it is not apparent to the examiner which part of the application could serve as a basis for new and allowable claims. However, should the applicant nevertheless regard some particular matter as patentable, the examiner encourages applicant to appropriately amend the claims to include such matter and to indicate in the REMARKS the difference(s) between the prior art and the claimed invention as well as the significance thereof.
Furthermore, should applicant decide to amend the claims, examiner respectfully requests that the applicant please indicate in the REMARKS from which page(s), line(s) or claim(s) of the originally filed application that any amendments are derived. See MPEP § 2163(II)(A) (There is a strong presumption that an adequate written description of the claimed invention is present in the specification as filed, Wertheim, 541 F.2d at 262, 191 USPQ at 96; however, with respect to newly added or amended claims, applicant should show support in the original disclosure for the new or amended claims.).
Action is Final
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 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 date of this final action.
Contact Information
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to VINCENT PEREN who can be reached by telephone at (571) 270-7781, or via email at vincent.peren@uspto.gov. The examiner can normally be reached on Monday-Friday from 10:00 A.M. to 6:00 P.M.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, KING POON, can be reached at telephone number (571)272-7440. 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. Status information for published applications may be obtained from Patent Center. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Patent Center for authorized users only. Should you have questions about access to Patent Center, 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.
/VINCENT PEREN/
Examiner, Art Unit 2617
/KING Y POON/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2617
Prosecution Insights