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 .
Response to Amendment / Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to the amended claims have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument.
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, 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.
Claim(s) 1-3, 7-9, 13-16 and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Heller (U.S. Patent App. Pub. No. 2024/0412003 A1) in view of Kuhn (U.S. Patent App. Pub. No. 2024/0193204 A1)
Regarding claim 1:
Heller teaches: a system comprising: one or more processors; and one or more non-transitory computer-readable media storing computer-executable instructions that, when executed, cause the one or more processors to perform operations (claim 1, system with non-transitory memory in communication with processors, the memory storing processor executable instructions) comprising:
receiving, from a user profile associated with a user (para. 70, receive “A request from a client machine”, the client machine corresponding to a user profile associated with a user. See also para. 57, “a user at a client machine”. A user at a client machine sending a request teaches/suggests a user profile associated with a user. Another alternative teaching example: para. 115, user profile associated with a user can be that of a user of Google Chat, iMessage, or SMS) of a communication platform (para. 46, non-limiting examples of communication platforms for client machines: a dedicated application, a web browser, or other types of interaction techniques. Other examples: para. 115: Google Chat, iMessage, SMS. Another example: para. 62: text generation interface system), a user request to perform multiple types of modification operations on data within a virtual space associated with the communication platform (Heller teaches a plurality of examples of requests to modify data: (1) para. 62: a request to parse a document that may be uploaded to the system; (2) para. 144: request to revise correspondence; or (3) para. 299: request to summarize; see also Figs. 4-6, 9. In terms of multiple types of modification operations, this is also within the purview of Heller, more than one of the above can be requested. See also, e.g. para. 510, “the document review prompt may instruct the text generation model to perform different tasks”);
Regarding: wherein the user request includes a specific order to perform the multiple types of modification operations, the reference of Kuhn teaches that it is known in generative AI models (both references are relevant/related to generative AI), it is known for users to have the ability to specific in a prompt a particular order of how the user wants tasks to be performed (see para. 66). This is also obvious over Heller, in that the Heller reference is not particularly limited with what tasks or order the user can specify in prompts (i.e. a user that has document input, may specify to first parse the document, and the provide a summary; or answer questions presented in the document, and then summarize the responses). Modifying the applied references, such to include the above, in view of Kuhn and/or Heller, is taught and suggested by the prior art, and would have been obvious and predictable to one of ordinary skill in the art as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention. See MPEP §2143(A).
Heller further teaches: identifying, based on the user request, first content to modify, the first content comprising text posted to the virtual space at a previous time (in the example of a request to summarize content, see Fig. 9: 902, documents to summarize, and paras. 165-66. Per para 165: “a document may be returned in a search result responsive to a query provided by a client machine. A single summary request may include documents identified and provided in various ways.” Documents obtained responsive to search query triggered by a request to summarize teaches the above claimed first content. Heller is also open to “various ways” to identify and include documents, which further suggests documents posted/uploaded at a previous time).
determining, from the user request, that multiple types of modification operations include a first type of modification operation and a second type of modification operation to perform on the first content (see Figure 9, reproduced below for convenience. In the example of a “request to summarize content”, there are at least two modification operations to perform on the first content (text). Non-limiting examples of a first and second type of modification operation, per Fig. 9: (1) chunker functions that can “involve processing one or more input documents via the chunker” (para. 167); (2) pre-processing, sharding, and/or chunking text (para. 167); (3) summarizing chunks (para. 167); (4) generate raw summaries based on the text; (5) parse summaries (para. 212); and (6) consolidate parsed summaries (para. 212).
See also Heller, Fig. 3, for more information on “parsing”, which have further modification operations on text; and Fig. 5 on sharding. Heller teaches many modification operations.
*ALTERNATIVE MAPPING to the above determining step: the multiple types of modification operations can be determined based on the user prompt itself, or what the user specified in the prompt, per Kuhn, para. 66.
PNG
media_image1.png
678
526
media_image1.png
Greyscale
determining, based on the specific order, the second type of modification operation (respectfully, redundant, the second modification was already determined in the above “determining” step), and inputting the first content and the first type of modification operation into a machine-learning model trained to output second content consistent with the first type of modification operation (in the case of sharding, see Heller, Fig. 5 and related description. For example, para. 86: the sharding of text can be done using a large language model (machine-learning model) trained to output second content consistent with sharding), the second content being associated with the first content and modified according to the first type of modification operation and the second type of medication operation (the second content that is output per modification of first content is associated with said first content, and modified accordingly per the second type of modification operation, as mapped above); and
causing, in response to receiving the second content from the machine-learning model, the second content to be displayed via a user interface of a user device associated with the user profile (para. 113, which teaches that: “A computer system or computing device may include or communicate with a monitor, printer, or other suitable display for providing any of the results mentioned herein to a user” . The “second content” fails within “any of the results” for display, via para. 212, user interface of a client machine, as mapped above, which can be a laptop, desktop, mobile device, or the like (para. 46)).
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art to have modified the applied reference(-s), in view of same, to have obtained the above, and the results of the modification would have been obvious and predictable to one of ordinary skill in the art as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention. See MPEP §2143(A).
The prior art included each element recited in claim 1, although not necessarily in a single embodiment, with the only difference being between the claimed element and the prior art being the lack of actual combination of certain elements in a single prior art embodiment, as described above.
One of ordinary skill in the art could have combined the elements as claimed by known methods, and in that combination, each element merely performs the same function as it does separately. One of ordinary skill in the art would have also recognized that the results of the combination were predictable as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Regarding claim 2:
Heller teaches: the system of claim 1, wherein the first type of modification operation includes instructions to perform operations associated with at least one of:
summarizing the first content (see mapping to claim 1),
simplifying the first content (para. 35, simplifying language; para. 244: “If it is described in multiple pages, simply use the first occurrence”, para. 262, d deduplication),
modifying a spelling of one or more words associated with the first content,
modifying grammar associated with the first content, or
modifying a tone associated with the first content (para. 143, 144).
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art, as of the effective filing date of Applicant’s claims, to have further modified Heller, in view of same, to have obtained the above, motivated to provide a natural large language model capable of performing multiple tasks for users.
Regarding claim 3:
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art to have further modified the applied reference(-s), in view of same, to have obtained: the system of claim 2, wherein the tone is at least one of: a formal tone, a casual tone, or a confident tone, and the results of the modification would have been obvious and predictable to one of ordinary skill in the art as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention. See MPEP §2143(A).
Heller teaches, at para. 144, requests that include “an indication that the tone of the letter should be changed”. The request can be made by a lawyer (para. 145), which suggests that the tone could be a formal or confident tone as of the legal domain (para. 34). Alternatively, the style of tone would have been an obvious design choice for one of ordinary skill. Applicant’s specification describes no criticality as to design/style of tone, to Applicant’s claimed invention.
One of ordinary skill in the art could have combined the elements as claimed by known methods, and in that combination, each element merely performs the same function as it does separately. One of ordinary skill in the art would have also recognized that the results of the combination were predictable as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Regarding claim 7: see also claim 1.
Heller teaches: one or more non-transitory computer-readable media storing instructions executable by one or more processors, wherein the instructions, when executed, cause the one or more processors to perform operations (claim 1) comprising.
The operations of claim 7 corresponds to those of claim 1; the same rationale for rejection applies; claim 7 is also broader than claim 1
Regarding claim 8: see claim 2.
These claims are similar; the same rationale for rationale for rejection applies.
Regarding claim 9: see claim 3.
These claims are similar; the same rationale for rationale for rejection applies.
Regarding claim 13: see claim 1.
This is part of claim 1; the same rationale for rejection applies.
Regarding claim 14: see claim 1.
The method of claim 14 corresponds to the operations of claim 1; the same rationale for rejection applies; claim 14 is also broader than claim 1.
Regarding claim 15: see claim 2.
These claims are similar; the same rationale for rationale for rejection applies.
Regarding claim 16: see claim 3.
These claims are similar; the same rationale for rationale for rejection applies.
Regarding claim 20: see claim 1.
This is part of claim 1; the same rationale for rejection applies.
Claim(s) 5, 11 and 18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Heller in view of Kuhn, and further in view of Guha (U.S. Patent App. Pub. No. 2024/0104467).
Regarding claim 5:
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art to have combined and modified the applied reference(-s), in view of same, to have obtained: the system of claim 1, wherein generating the second content comprises: determining, based on the specific order, that the second type of modification operation is to be performed prior to performing the first type of modification operation;
determining, based on the specific order and inputting the first content and the second type of modification operation into the machine-learning model, third content; and
determining, based on inputting the third content and the first type of modification operation into a second machine-learning model, the second content, and the results of the modification would have been obvious and predictable to one of ordinary skill in the art as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention. See MPEP §2143(A).
Guha, relevant to workflow and task management (Abstract), which is relevant to Applicant’s field of communication platforms to facilitate work related communications and avoid or minimize inaccurate data, delays in updating such data, and inefficient use of user time, (Applicant’s specification as filed, para. 2: Technical Field), teaches that it is known to associate attributes to tasks, such as: “an order, a sequence, or a schedule of the performance of the respective tasks; an amount of time allocated to perform a task; a priority level associated with a task” (para. 42). This can be done via a task organizer or AI component (para. 43).
Modifying the applied references, such that the tasks (orders) as per Heller, are decided to be performed in a different order (the second type of modification is to be performed prior to the first type of medication), per the teachings of Guha (i.e. the tasks can be reordered based on a designated attribute of order, or a priority level associated with the task), is all of taught and suggested by the prior art, and would have been obvious and predictable to one of ordinary skill. Per the teachings of Heller, the summarizing task can be prioritized over sharding by way of user preference, or an attribute sequence, as per Guha. Per claim 5, the third content would be un-sharded summarized content, and then this summarized content is sharded in the third determining step of claim 5.
The prior art included each element recited in claim 5, although not necessarily in a single embodiment, with the only difference being between the claimed element and the prior art being the lack of actual combination of certain elements in a single prior art embodiment, as described above.
One of ordinary skill in the art could have combined the elements as claimed by known methods, and in that combination, each element merely performs the same function as it does separately. One of ordinary skill in the art would have also recognized that the results of the combination were predictable as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Regarding claim 11: see claim 5
These claims are similar; the same rationale for rationale for rejection applies.
Regarding claim 18: see claim 5
These claims are similar; the same rationale for rationale for rejection applies.
Claim(s) 6, 12 and 19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Heller in view of Kuhn, and further in view of Kim (U.S. Patent App. Pub. No. 2025/0007870 A1).
Regarding claim 6:
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art to have combined and modified the applied reference(-s), in view of same, to have obtained: the system of claim 1, the operations further comprising: receiving, in response to displaying the second content (see mapping to claim 1, the second content is sharded content), user input data including an instruction to modify the second content based on a second type of modification operation (recall, per Heller, para. 86 and Fig. 5, sharding is used to divide a body of text into smaller units. Sharding is one example (in the mapping to claim 1), that yielded the second content. The sharded content (second content) are displayed. A user can then give a prompt (instruction) to modify the second (sharded) content by, for example: (1) correct a factual assertion in the displayed sharded text before summarization (see claim 2), or (2) a request for revision of content in the sharded text (para. 144), or (3) a timeline generation request (para. 220), or (4) a request to identify one or more hallucinations in the sharded text before summarization (para. 300), or (5) identify factual claims in the sharded text (para.303));
inputting, based on the user input data, the second content into a second machine-learning model (Heller does not specify inputting into a second machine learning model, second content to generate third content. Consider the reference of Kim. In analogous art, Kim teaches that it is known to have a system configured to have multiple trained models. See e.g., para. 356: “a generative output engine and other trained models may be used to identify and generate content that is tailored to the user's inquiry”; or para. 376: The following examples use multiple models of output engines in order to provide content to the user. Specifically, the system 3200 includes a generative output engine 3212 and also a content model 3214. Each of these models of output engines may be adapted for different purposes and may be trained using different training sets to help adapt each engine or model to perform in accordance with the system”. Modifying Heller, in view of Kim, such that the system of Heller incorporated multiple trained models (i.e. a first and a second model), each used to identify and generate content that is tailored to the user’s inquiry (i.e. user request as per Heller), is al of taught and suggested by the prior art, and would have been obvious and predictable to one of ordinary skill);
receiving, from the second machine-learning model, third content that is associated with the second content and that is modified according to the second type of modification operation (Id., Heller, above mapping to the second type of modification operation); and
causing, in response to receiving the third content from the second machine-learning model, the third content to be displayed via the user interface of the user device associated with the user profile (Heller, see mapping to the causing step of claim 1, also applies here),
and the results of the modification would have been obvious and predictable to one of ordinary skill in the art as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention. See MPEP §2143(A).
The prior art included each element recited in claim 6, although not necessarily in a single embodiment, with the only difference being between the claimed element and the prior art being the lack of actual combination of certain elements in a single prior art embodiment, as described above. Moreover, Heller is not particularly limited or teaches any restrictions on user input of prompts or requests, to the system of Heller. Claim 6 is one embodiment within the purview of one of ordinary skill, practicing the system of Heller, and its artificial intelligence system (para. 24) as modified by Kim.
One of ordinary skill in the art could have combined the elements as claimed by known methods, and in that combination, each element merely performs the same function as it does separately. One of ordinary skill in the art would have also recognized that the results of the combination were predictable as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Regarding claim 12: see claim 6
These claims are similar; the same rationale for rationale for rejection applies.
Regarding claim 19: see claim 6
These claims are similar; the same rationale for rationale for rejection applies.
Claim(s) 21 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Heller in view of Kuhn, and further in view of Kupershtein E, Kumar Y, Manikandan A, Morreale P, Li JJ. ChatGPT as a Game-Changer for Embedding Emojis in Faculty Feedback. In2023 Congress in Computer Science, Computer Engineering, & Applied Computing (CSCE) 2023 Jul 24 (pp. 1039-1046). IEEE. (“Kupershtein”).
Regarding claim 21:
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art to have further modified the applied reference(-s), in view of same, to have obtained: the system of claim 1, wherein the first type of modification operation includes instructions to determine a graphical identifier based on the first content, and the results of the modification would have been obvious and predictable to one of ordinary skill in the art as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention. See MPEP §2143(A).
Kupershtein teaches that it is known in LLM and generative AI (such as ChatGPT) to have a user prompt include an instruction or request to generate or determine a graphical identifier based on input text content (see Section V, Emoji mapping to text). Modifying the applied references, such to include capabilities for a user to be able to prompt/request an emoji mapping to text, as per Kupershtein, in the generative AI of Heller and Kuhn, is all of taught and suggested by the prior art, and would have been obvious and predictable to one of ordinary skill in the art.
One of ordinary skill in the art could have combined the elements as claimed by known methods, and in that combination, each element merely performs the same function as it does separately. One of ordinary skill in the art would have also recognized that the results of the combination were predictable as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claim(s) 22-23 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Heller in view of Kuhn, and further in view of Gardner (U.S. Patent App. Pub. No. 2025/0061290 A1).
Regarding claim 22:
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art to have further modified the applied reference(-s), in view of same, to have obtained: the oen or more non transitory computer readable media of claim 7, wherein the first type of modification operation includes instructions to generate a list of one or more action items based at least in part on the first content, and the results of the modification would have been obvious and predictable to one of ordinary skill in the art as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention. See MPEP §2143(A).
Heller isn’t particularly limited with respect to what types of requests can be received/processed from clients via its large language model (para. 22). Generating lists of items based on first content is taught (see e.g. para. 264). Gardner further teaches that generating lists of action items is known for LLMs (large language models), see e.g. para. 1009, in this non-limiting example, the action items are related to a planned travel itinerary, whereby the input will be travel guides. Modifying the applied references, in view of same, such to have included the above, is all of taught and suggested by the prior art, and the results of the modification would have been obvious and predictable to one of ordinary skill in the art as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention. See MPEP §2143(A).
The prior art included each element recited in claim 21, although not necessarily in a single embodiment, with the only difference being between the claimed element and the prior art being the lack of actual combination of certain elements in a single prior art embodiment, as described above.
One of ordinary skill in the art could have combined the elements as claimed by known methods, and in that combination, each element merely performs the same function as it does separately. One of ordinary skill in the art would have also recognized that the results of the combination were predictable as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Regarding claim 23: see claim 22.
These claims are similar; the same rationale for rejection applies.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Sarah Lhymn whose telephone number is (571)270-0632. The examiner can normally be reached M-F, 9:00 AM to 6:00 PM EST.
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, Xiao Wu can be reached at 571-272-7761. 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.
Sarah Lhymn
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 2613
/Sarah Lhymn/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2613
Prosecution Insights