DETAILED ACTION
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Notice as to Grounds of Rejection and Pre-AIA or AIA Status
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.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 1-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Claims 1, 8, 15 recite "accessing, by a computing system, profile information provided by a user, terms selected by the user that are particular for a conversation, or both", It is not clear as how to interpret if there’s an implicit “or” for accessing user profile or selecting terms as “or both” is recited. Likewise, for limitation “identifying, by the computing system, one or more large language model services that qualify to take part in the conversation based, at least in part, on the conversation type and the profile information provided by the user, the user-selected terms selected by the user specific to the conversation, or both”. It is not clear if there is an implicit “or” between “on the conversation type and the profile information provided by the user” and “the user-selected terms selected by the user specific to the conversation” as “or both” is recited. For the purpose of examiner, implicit “or” is assumed otherwise “or both” is redundant. Examiner suggests to rewrite the limitation in a clear way so that it can be correctly interpreted. Similarly claims 4, 11 and 18 recite “or both”.
In addition, dependent claims 2-7, 9-14, 16-20 are rejected incorporating the deficiencies of claims 1, 8 and 15 respectively upon which they depend.
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 of this title, 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 1-2, 8-9, 15-16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over GUPTA et al (US Patent Application Publication 2025/0131024 A1 hereinafter Gupta) in view of English et al (US Patent Application Publication 2019/0258685 A1 hereinafter English).
With regard to claims 1, 8, 15, Gupta teaches a computer-implemented method, a system, a nom-transitory computer-readable media comprising:
accessing, by a computing system, profile information provided by a user <user profile can be accessed para 0005>, terms selected by the user that are particular for a conversation, or both;
determining, by the computing system, a conversation type for the conversation <user is communicating with a person is determined para 0138>;
identifying, by the computing system, one or more large language model services that qualify to take part in the conversation based, at least in part, on the conversation type and the profile information provided by the user, the user-selected terms selected by the user specific to the conversation, or both <based upon user profile and user input via a prompt, data is sent to large language model application para 0118-122, 0039,0048 fig 2F>;
rendering, by the computing system, a conversation screen within a graphical user interface, wherein the conversation screen comprises: (i) a representation of the one or more large language model services <LXM APIs para 0152-0154>, and (ii) one or more dialog boxes <prompt is rendered on the user interface para 0153-0154, fig 2F blocks 262, 264>;
receiving, by the computing system, a prompt input into a dialog box of the one or more dialog boxes <fig 2F item 212, para 0126>;
one or more processors (claim 8) <fig 1>; and
one or more computer-readable media storing instructions which, when executed by the one or more processors, cause the system to perform operations (claim 8) <para 0220>.
Gupta does not appear to explicitly disclose communicating, by the computing system, the prompt input to each of the one or more large language model services; receiving, by the computing system, one or more responses from the one or more large language model services based on the prompt input; rendering, by the computing system, the one or more responses in a dialog box of the one or more dialog boxes with an indication of which of the one or more large language model services provided each of the one or more responses.
In the same field of endeavor, English teaches
communicating, by the computing system, the prompt input to each of the one or more large language model services <English teaches communicating the prompt source to each travel provider (services) that are selected para 0016, see fig 7 where travel providers can be selected >;
receiving, by the computing system, one or more responses from the one or more large language model services based on the prompt input <results are provided from the travel providers see fig 7, para 0038>; and
rendering, by the computing system, the one or more responses in a dialog box of the one or more dialog boxes with an indication of which of the one or more large language model services provided each of the one or more responses <list of travel provides with their response is provided <results are provided from the travel providers see fig 7, para 0038>.
Accordingly, it would have been obvious before the effective filing date to one of ordinary skill in the art, having the teachings of Gupta, English before him/her before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify the teachings of Gupta to include the teachings of English, in order to obtain selecting services to send data and receive data from the selected services as taught by English. One would have been motivated to make such a combination because it provides receiving data from the user preferred services.
With regard to claims 2, 9, 16, these claims depend upon claims 1, 8 and 15 respectively, which are rejected above. In addition, Gupta teaches wherein communicating the prompt input comprises communicating at least some of the profile information with the prompt input to the one or more large language model services, and wherein the responses from the one or more large language model services are received based on the prompt input and at least some of the profile information <see fig 2F items 208, 210, 212, 262>.
Claims 5-6, 12-13, 19-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Gupta in view of English in view of Krishnan et al (US Patent Application Publication 2025/0238443 A1 hereinafter Krishnan).
With regard to claims 5, 12, 19, these claims depend upon claims 1, 8 and 15 respectively, which are rejected above. Gupta, English do not appear to explicitly disclose limitations of this claim.
In the same field of endeavor, Krishnan teaches the method further comprising ranking, by the computing system, the one or more responses from the one or more large language model services based on: (i) an estimation of probable preferences for the user, (ii) overall ratings of the one or more large language model services <models can be ranked para 0190, fig 5> , (iii) ratings applicable to the profile information provided by the user, (iv) past ratings by the user of prior responses from the one or more large language model services, or (v) any combination thereof, wherein the responses are rendered in the one or more dialog boxes based on the ranking.
Accordingly, it would have been obvious before the effective filing date to one of ordinary skill in the art, having the teachings of Gupta, English, Krishnan before him/her before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify the teachings of Gupta, English to include the teachings of Krishnan, in order to obtain limitations as taught by Krishnan. One would have been motivated to make such a combination because it provides communication with the recommended system.
With regard to claims 6, 13, 20, these claims depend upon claims 1, 8 and 15 respectively, which are rejected above. Gupta, English do not appear to explicitly disclose limitations of this claim.
In the same field of endeavor, Krishnan teaches the method further comprising:
receiving, by the computing system, a subsequent prompt input into the one or more dialog boxes by the user <fig 2A, Dialog Input (2) para 0118-0126>;
communicating, by the computing system, the subsequent prompt input and the one or more responses to the prompt input to the one or more large language model services <fig 2A shows communication with the large language model fig 2A item 120, para 0118-0126>;
receiving, by the computing system, one or more subsequent responses from the one or more large language model services based on the one or more subsequent prompt inputs and the one or more responses to the prompt input <fig 2A, Response (2) para 0118-0126>; and
rendering, by the computing system, the one or more subsequent responses in the one or more dialog boxes with an indication of which of the one or more large language model services provided each of the one or more subsequent responses <response is rendered to computing device para 0241>.
Accordingly, it would have been obvious before the effective filing date to one of ordinary skill in the art, having the teachings of Gupta, English, Krishnan before him/her before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify the teachings of Gupta, English to include the teachings of Krishnan, in order to obtain limitations as taught by Krishnan. One would have been motivated to make such a combination because it can effectively provide contextual data based upon preference/history.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record (see PTO-892) and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure:
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ANIL K BHARGAVA whose telephone number is (571)270-3278. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 8:30 am - 5:00 pm.
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, Adam Queler can be reached at 571-272-4140. 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.
/ANIL K BHARGAVA/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2172