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 .
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.
Regarding Independent claims 1, 11, and 19 recites “accessing a database comprising prompt modification profiles,”. The term “prompt modification profiles” is a coined term that lack of defining characteristics for what constitutes such a profile nor does it certain the boundaries between different profiles. The claim further recites “...identify a first prompt modification profile matching the prompt...”. The term “matching” is a relative term that fails to provide an objective standard for determining when a prompt modification profile corresponds to a given prompt. The claim does not specify whether matching is based on exact correspondence. As such, the scope of this limitation is dependent on subjective interpretation, and one of ordinary skill in the art would not be able to determine, with reasonable certainty when a profile “matches” a prompt. Additionally, the term “modifying” is functional and lacks objective boundaries, the claim does not define the nature or extent of the modification required. Furthermore, the term “updated prompt” is defined solely by the result of the unclear “modifying” step and does not have an independent, well-defined meaning.
Therefore, the scope of these limitations cannot be determined with reasonable certainty. As such, one of ordinary skill in the art would not be reasonably apprised of the scope of the claimed invention.
Dependent claims are further rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112 second paragraph, for being dependent upon rejected base independent claims.
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)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 1-6, 10-16, and 19-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Trache et al. (US Pub. 2024/0419658 A1, hereinafter "Trache") which claims priority from Provisional Application No. 63/508,201, filed 06/14/2023.
Claim 1: Trache teaches A method, comprising:
receiving, from a client device, a prompt for a generative artificial intelligence (AI) tool (“Trache”, Fig. 1A, Abstract, [0035], [0037], [0042]-[0043], [0048], receiving natural language input (e.g., prompt) from a user device 150 via a user interface);
accessing a database comprising prompt modification profiles to identify a first prompt modification profile matching the prompt (“Trache”, Fig. 1A, [0038]-[0039], e.g., profile selection module 106);
modifying the prompt, based upon the first prompt modification profile, to generate an updated prompt (“Trache”, Figs. 1A-1B, [0041], [0049], generated update prompt e.g., LLM prompt 190);
generating, using the generative AI tool, a first content item based upon the updated prompt; and providing the first content item for presentation on the client device (“Trache”, Figs. 1A-1B, [0045], generated outputs are returned to and presented via user interface).
Claim 2: Trache teaches the method of claim 1, wherein generating the first content item comprises:
submitting, to the generative AI tool, the updated prompt to generate a second content item (“Trache”, Figs. 1A-1B, Abstract, [0041]-[0043], a language module (e.g., LLM 130a) receives input and generates content);
analyzing the second content item to identify a portion, of the second content item, relevant to a first entity associated with the first prompt modification profile; and modifying, based upon the portion of the second content item and the first prompt modification profile, the second content item to generate the first content item (“Trache”, Figs. 1A-1B, Abstract, [0041]-[0043], [0049], generated update prompt e.g., LLM prompt 190).
Claim 3: Trache teaches the method of claim 2, wherein modifying the second content item to generate the first content item comprises supplementing the second content item with a supplemental content item indicated by the first prompt modification profile to generate the first content item (“Trache”, Figs. 1A-1B, Abstract, [0041]-[0043], [0049], generated update prompt e.g., LLM prompt 190), the method comprising:
receiving, from the client device, a selection of the supplemental content item; and in response to the selection, directing the client device to an internet resource associated with the first entity (“Trache”, Figs. 1A-1B, Abstract, [0037]-[0042]).
Claim 4: Trache teaches the method of claim 2, wherein:
modifying the second content item to generate the first content item comprises supplementing the second content item with a supplemental content item indicated by the first prompt modification profile to generate the first content item; and the supplemental content item comprises a link to an internet resource associated with the first entity (“Trache”, Figs. 1A-1B, Abstract, [0037]-[0042], [0045]).
Claim 5: Trache teaches the method of claim 2, comprising:
prior to receiving the prompt, receiving an automatic prompt modification request from the first entity; and
storing the first prompt modification profile in the database in response to the automatic prompt modification request, wherein the first prompt modification profile is based upon the automatic prompt modification request (“Trache”, Figs. 1A-1B, [0029], [0031], [0051], [0064]-[0065]).
Claim 6: Trache teaches the method of claim 1, comprising:
determining that the first prompt modification profile matches the prompt based upon the prompt comprising a set of text matching a prompt key of the first prompt modification profile (“Trache”, Figs. 1A-1B, [0023]-[0024]).
Claim 10: Trache teaches the method of claim 1, wherein modifying the prompt comprises: supplementing the prompt with a set of text indicated by the first prompt modification profile to generate the updated prompt (“Trache”, Figs. 1A-1B, [0023]-[0024]).
Claim 11: claim 11 is directed to a computing device for implementing the method steps of claim 1. Therefore, claim 11 is rejected under similar rationale.
Claim 12: claim 12 is directed to the computing device of claim 11 for implementing the method steps of claim 3. Therefore, claim 12 is rejected under similar rationale.
Claim 13: claim 13 is directed to the computing device of claim 12 for implementing the method steps of claim 3. Therefore, claim 13 is rejected under similar rationale.
Claim 14: claim 14 is directed to the computing device of claim 12 for implementing the method steps of claim 4. Therefore, claim 14 is rejected under similar rationale.
Claim 15: claim 15 is directed to the computing device of claim 13 for implementing the method steps of claim 5. Therefore, claim 15 is rejected under similar rationale.
Claim 16: claim 16 is directed to the computing device of claim 11 for implementing the method steps of claim 6. Therefore, claim 16 is rejected under similar rationale.
Claim 19: claim 19 is directed to a non-transitory machine-readable medium for implementing the method steps of claim 1. Therefore, claim 19 is rejected under similar rationale.
Claim 20: claim 20 is directed to the non-transitory machine-readable medium of claim 19 for implementing the method steps of claim 2. Therefore, claim 20 is rejected under similar 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.
The text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office action.
Claims 7-9 and 17-18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Trache in view of Rosenkranz et al. (US 2024/0296425 A1, hereinafter "Rosenkranz").
Claim 7: Trache teaches the method of claim 1, comprising:
identifying a plurality of prompt modification profiles, stored in the database, matching the prompt, wherein the plurality of prompt modification profiles comprises the first prompt modification profile (“Trache”, Fig. 1A, [0038]-[0039], [0041], e.g., profile selection module 106). However, Trache does not explicitly teach demining scores associated with respective prompt modification profiles based on bids and selecting a profile based on a comparison of such scores.
Rosenkranz explicitly teaches determining a first score associated with the first prompt modification profile based upon a first bid associated with the first prompt modification profile; and determining a second score associated with a second prompt modification profile of the plurality of prompt modification profiles based upon a second bid associated with the second prompt modification profile, wherein the prompt is modified based upon the first prompt modification profile to generate the updated prompt based upon the first score exceeding the second score (“Rosenkranz”, [0084], [0102], [0194], [0197], [0229]-[0230], evaluating multiple candidate templates or profile associated data based on relevance and contextual suitability).
It would have been obvious to one having the ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the teachings of Trache to include the evaluation and selection techniques taught by Rosenkranz in order to improve selection of an appropriate profile among multiple candidate profiles. Determining scores for respective profiles and selecting a profile based on a higher score represents a predictable implementation of known ranking and selecting techniques. Accordingly, it would have been an obvious modification of the combined teachings.
Claim 8: Trache teaches the method of claim 1, comprising:
identifying a plurality of prompt modification profiles, stored in the database, matching the prompt, wherein the plurality of prompt modification profiles comprises the first prompt modification profile (“Trache”, Fig. 1A, [0041], [0048], e.g., profile selection module 106).
However, Trache does not explicitly teach the following feature, taught by Rosenkranz who teaches
determining a first score associated with the first prompt modification profile based upon at least one of: a first bid associated with the first prompt modification profile; a first matching score associated with a relevance of the first prompt modification profile to the prompt; or a first predicted user experience impact associated with modifying the prompt based upon the first prompt modification profile; determining a second score associated with a second prompt modification profile of the plurality of prompt modification profiles based upon at least one of: a second bid associated with the second prompt modification profile; a second matching score associated with a relevance of the second prompt modification profile to the prompt; or a second predicted user experience impact associated with modifying the prompt based upon the second prompt modification profile (“Rosenkranz”, [0084], [0102], [0194], [0197], [0229]-[0230], evaluating multiple candidate templates or profile associated data based on relevance and contextual suitability);
assigning a first probability to the first prompt modification profile based upon the first score, wherein the first probability corresponds to a probability that the first prompt modification profile is selected for use in modifying the prompt to generate the updated prompt; assigning a second probability to the second prompt modification profile based upon the second score, wherein the second probability corresponds to a probability that the second prompt modification profile is selected for use in modifying the prompt to generate the updated prompt (“Rosenkranz”, [0084], [0102], [0194], [0197], [0229]-[0230], evaluating multiple candidate templates or profile associated data based on relevance and contextual suitability); and
selecting the first prompt modification profile according to the first probability and the second probability, wherein the prompt is modified based upon the first prompt modification profile to generate the updated prompt in response to the selection of the first prompt modification profile (“Rosenkranz”, [0084], [0102], [0193], [0194], [0197], [0229]-[0230], evaluating multiple candidate templates or profile associated data based on relevance and contextual suitability).
It would have been obvious to one having the ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the teachings of Trache to include the evaluation and selection techniques taught by Rosenkranz in order to improve selection of an appropriate profile among multiple candidate profiles. Determining scores for respective profiles and selecting a profile based on a higher score represents a predictable implementation of known ranking and selecting techniques. Accordingly, it would have been an obvious modification of the combined teachings.
Claim 9: Trache and Rosenkranz teach the method of claim 8, comprising:
determining the first predicted user experience impact based upon the first prompt modification profile and a user profile associated with the client device; and
determining the second predicted user experience impact based upon the second prompt modification profile and the user profile (“Trache”, Fig. 1A, [0041], [0048]-[0049], [0051], e.g., profile selection module 106).
Claim 17: claim 17 is directed to the computing device of claim 11 for implementing the method steps of claims 7 and 8. Therefore, claim 17 is rejected under similar rationale.
Claim 18: claim 18 is directed to the computing device of claim 17 for implementing the method steps of claim 9. Therefore, claim 18 is rejected under similar rationale.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Rezajoo et al. (U.S. 2025/0131205 A1) discloses GUI for layered transformative AI data article compression.
Hattangady et al. (U.S. 2025/0005295 A1) discloses context-enhanced advanced feedback for draft messages.
Examiner has cited particular columns and line and/or paragraph numbers in the references applied to the claims above for the convenience of the applicant. Although the specified citations are representative of the teachings of the art and are applied to specific limitations within the individual claim, other passages and figures may apply as well. It is respectfully requested from the applicant in preparing responses, to fully consider the references in entirety as potentially teaching all or part of the claimed invention, as well as the context of the passage as taught by the prior art or disclosed by the Examiner.
The examiner requests, in response to this Office action, support be shown for language added to any original claims on amendment and any new claims. That is, indicate support for newly added claim language by specifically pointing to page(s) and line no(s) in the specification and/or drawing figure(s). This will assist the examiner in prosecuting the application.
When responding to this office action, Applicant is advised to clearly point out the patentable novelty which he or she thinks the claims present, in view of the state of the art disclosed by the references cited or the objections made. He or she must also show how the amendments avoid such references or objections See 37 CFR 1.111(c).
Point of Contact
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to PHUONG H NGUYEN whose telephone number is (571)270-1300. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 9:30-4:00 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, William Bashore can be reached at 571-272-4088. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of 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.
/PHUONG H NGUYEN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2174
Prosecution Insights