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 .
DETAILED ACTION
2. This office action is in response to the original filing of 09/27/2023. Claims 1-20 are pending and have been considered below.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101
3. 35 U.S.C. 101 reads as follows:
Whoever invents or discovers any new and useful process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter, or any new and useful improvement thereof, may obtain a patent therefor, subject to the conditions and requirements of this title.
Claims 1-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to abstract ideas without significantly more.
Claim 1:
Step 1: The claim is directed to a method, falling under one of the four statutory categories of invention.
Step 2A Prong 1: The claim recites following abstract ideas:
The limitations “constructing a prompt based upon the input”; inputting the prompt into an orchestrator”; “using the orchestrator, selecting one or more artificial intelligence (AI) plugins for processing the prompt at one or more corresponding orchestration stages selected by the orchestrator”; “using the orchestrator, and based on the prompt, forming a context variable to reference complex data”; “providing modified input to a first AI plugin at a first orchestration stage”; “receiving the complex data from the first AI plugin”; “modifying the prompt to include a reference to the context variable without modifying the prompt to include the complex data, thereby forming a modified prompt”; “providing the modified prompt to a generative model”; “receiving generated text from the generative model, the generated text comprising the reference to the context variable” under broadest reasonable interpretation covers a mental process including an observation, evaluation, judgment or opinion that could be performed in the human mind or with the aid of pencil and paper.
2A – Prong 2: This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. Claim 1 recites the additional elements:
“receiving, at the computing system, an input from a client”; “providing the generated text and the complex data to the client” insignificant extra-solution activity of mere data gathering and output. MPEP § 2106.05(g)
“storing the complex data as the context variable” insignificant extra-solution activity of mere data gathering and output. MPEP § 2106.05(g). This limitation is directed to the well-understood, routine, and conventional activity of receiving or transmitting data over a network. MPEP § 2106.05(d)(II); OIP Techs., Inc., v. Amazon.com, Inc., 788 F.3d 1359, 1363, 115 USPQ2d 1090, 1093 (Fed. Cir. 2015) (sending messages over a network).
Step 2B: The claim does not contain significantly more than the judicial exception.
“receiving, at the computing system, an input from a client”; “providing the generated text and the complex data to the client” insignificant extra-solution activity of mere data gathering and output. MPEP § 2106.05(g)
“storing the complex data as the context variable” insignificant extra-solution activity of mere data gathering and output. MPEP § 2106.05(g). This limitation is directed to the well-understood, routine, and conventional activity of receiving or transmitting data over a network. MPEP § 2106.05(d)(II); OIP Techs., Inc., v. Amazon.com, Inc., 788 F.3d 1359, 1363, 115 USPQ2d 1090, 1093 (Fed. Cir. 2015) (sending messages over a network).
Claim 10:
Step 1: The claim is directed to a system, falling under one of the four statutory categories of invention.
Step 2A Prong 1: The claim recites following abstract ideas:
The limitations “construct a prompt based upon the input”; input the prompt into an orchestrator”; “using the orchestrator, select one or more artificial intelligence (AI) plugins for processing the prompt at one or more corresponding orchestration stages selected by the orchestrator”; “using the orchestrator, and based on the prompt, form a context variable to reference complex data”; “provide modified input to a first AI plugin at a first orchestration stage”; “receive the complex data from the first AI plugin”; “modify the prompt to include a reference to the context variable without modifying the prompt to include the complex data, thereby forming a modified prompt”; “provide the modified prompt to a generative model”; “receive generated text from the generative model, the generated text comprising the reference to the context variable” under broadest reasonable interpretation covers a mental process including an observation, evaluation, judgment or opinion that could be performed in the human mind or with the aid of pencil and paper.
2A – Prong 2: This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. Claim 10 recites the additional elements:
“receive, at the computing system, an input from a client”; “provide the generated text and the complex data to the client” insignificant extra-solution activity of mere data gathering and output. MPEP § 2106.05(g)
“store the complex data as the context variable” insignificant extra-solution activity of mere data gathering and output. MPEP § 2106.05(g). This limitation is directed to the well-understood, routine, and conventional activity of receiving or transmitting data over a network. MPEP § 2106.05(d)(II); OIP Techs., Inc., v. Amazon.com, Inc., 788 F.3d 1359, 1363, 115 USPQ2d 1090, 1093 (Fed. Cir. 2015) (sending messages over a network).
“a logic subsystem” and “a storage subsystem comprising instructions executable by the logic subsystem to receive, at the computing system, an input from a client” amount to elements that have been recognized as well-understood, routine, and conventional activity in particular fields, as demonstrate by: Relevant court decision: the followings are examples of court decisions demonstrating well-understood, routine and conventional activities, see e.g., MPEP 2106.05(d)(II) and MPEP 2106.05(f)(2): Computer readable storage media comprising instructions to implement a method, e.g., see Versata Dev. Group, Inc. v. SAP Am., Inc., 793 F.3d 1306, 1334, 115 USPQ2d 1681, 1701 (Fed. Cir. 2015). The courts have found limitations directed to obtaining information electronically, recited at a high level of generality, to be well-understood routine, and conventional (see MPEP 2106.05(d)(II), “receiving or transmitting data over a network”, "electronic record keeping," and "storing and retrieving information in memory"). As explained by the Supreme Court, a claim directed to a judicial exception cannot be made eligible "simply by having the applicant acquiesce to limiting the reach of the patent for the formula to a particular technological use." Diamond v. Diehr, 450 U.S. 175, 192 n.14, 209 USPQ 1, 10 n. 14 (1981). Thus, limitations that amount to merely indicating a field of use or technological environment in which to apply a judicial exception do not amount to significantly more than the exception itself, and cannot integrate a judicial exception into a practical application. Accordingly, these additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because it does not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea.
Step 2B: The claim does not contain significantly more than the judicial exception.
“receive, at the computing system, an input from a client”; “provide the generated text and the complex data to the client” insignificant extra-solution activity of mere data gathering and output. MPEP § 2106.05(g)
“store the complex data as the context variable” insignificant extra-solution activity of mere data gathering and output. MPEP § 2106.05(g). This limitation is directed to the well-understood, routine, and conventional activity of receiving or transmitting data over a network. MPEP § 2106.05(d)(II); OIP Techs., Inc., v. Amazon.com, Inc., 788 F.3d 1359, 1363, 115 USPQ2d 1090, 1093 (Fed. Cir. 2015) (sending messages over a network).
“a logic subsystem” and “a storage subsystem comprising instructions executable by the logic subsystem to receive, at the computing system, an input from a client” amount to elements that have been recognized as well-understood, routine, and conventional activity in particular fields, as demonstrate by: Relevant court decision: the followings are examples of court decisions demonstrating well-understood, routine and conventional activities, see e.g., MPEP 2106.05(d)(II) and MPEP 2106.05(f)(2): Computer readable storage media comprising instructions to implement a method, e.g., see Versata Dev. Group, Inc. v. SAP Am., Inc., 793 F.3d 1306, 1334, 115 USPQ2d 1681, 1701 (Fed. Cir. 2015). The courts have found limitations directed to obtaining information electronically, recited at a high level of generality, to be well-understood routine, and conventional (see MPEP 2106.05(d)(II), “receiving or transmitting data over a network”, "electronic record keeping," and "storing and retrieving information in memory"). As explained by the Supreme Court, a claim directed to a judicial exception cannot be made eligible "simply by having the applicant acquiesce to limiting the reach of the patent for the formula to a particular technological use." Diamond v. Diehr, 450 U.S. 175, 192 n.14, 209 USPQ 1, 10 n. 14 (1981). Thus, limitations that amount to merely indicating a field of use or technological environment in which to apply a judicial exception do not amount to significantly more than the exception itself, and cannot integrate a judicial exception into a practical application. Accordingly, these additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because it does not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea.
Claim 17:
Step 1: The claim is directed to a system, falling under one of the four statutory categories of invention.
Step 2A Prong 1: The claim recites following abstract ideas:
The limitations “receive, at the computing system, an input from a user, the input comprising a request for information on a chemical”, “send the input to a remote computing system comprising an artificial intelligence (AI) orchestrator, the AI orchestrator configured to generate a context variable to store chemical structure data received from an AI plugin selected by the orchestrator for responding to the input” under broadest reasonable interpretation covers a mental process including an observation, evaluation, judgment or opinion that could be performed in the human mind or with the aid of pencil and paper.
2A – Prong 2: This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. Claim 10 recites the additional elements:
“receive generated text from the remote computing system”, “receive the chemical structure data from the computing system”, “output the generated text to the user, and display a visualization of a structure of the chemical to the user” insignificant extra-solution activity of mere data gathering and output. MPEP § 2106.05(g).
“a logic subsystem” and “a storage subsystem comprising instructions executable by the logic subsystem to receive, at the computing system, an input from a client” amount to elements that have been recognized as well-understood, routine, and conventional activity in particular fields, as demonstrate by: Relevant court decision: the followings are examples of court decisions demonstrating well-understood, routine and conventional activities, see e.g., MPEP 2106.05(d)(II) and MPEP 2106.05(f)(2): Computer readable storage media comprising instructions to implement a method, e.g., see Versata Dev. Group, Inc. v. SAP Am., Inc., 793 F.3d 1306, 1334, 115 USPQ2d 1681, 1701 (Fed. Cir. 2015). The courts have found limitations directed to obtaining information electronically, recited at a high level of generality, to be well-understood routine, and conventional (see MPEP 2106.05(d)(II), “receiving or transmitting data over a network”, "electronic record keeping," and "storing and retrieving information in memory"). As explained by the Supreme Court, a claim directed to a judicial exception cannot be made eligible "simply by having the applicant acquiesce to limiting the reach of the patent for the formula to a particular technological use." Diamond v. Diehr, 450 U.S. 175, 192 n.14, 209 USPQ 1, 10 n. 14 (1981). Thus, limitations that amount to merely indicating a field of use or technological environment in which to apply a judicial exception do not amount to significantly more than the exception itself, and cannot integrate a judicial exception into a practical application. Accordingly, these additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because it does not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea.
Step 2B: The claim does not contain significantly more than the judicial exception.
“receive generated text from the remote computing system”, “receive the chemical structure data from the computing system”, “output the generated text to the user, and display a visualization of a structure of the chemical to the user” insignificant extra-solution activity of mere data gathering and output. MPEP § 2106.05(g).
“a logic subsystem” and “a storage subsystem comprising instructions executable by the logic subsystem to receive, at the computing system, an input from a client” amount to elements that have been recognized as well-understood, routine, and conventional activity in particular fields, as demonstrate by: Relevant court decision: the followings are examples of court decisions demonstrating well-understood, routine and conventional activities, see e.g., MPEP 2106.05(d)(II) and MPEP 2106.05(f)(2): Computer readable storage media comprising instructions to implement a method, e.g., see Versata Dev. Group, Inc. v. SAP Am., Inc., 793 F.3d 1306, 1334, 115 USPQ2d 1681, 1701 (Fed. Cir. 2015). The courts have found limitations directed to obtaining information electronically, recited at a high level of generality, to be well-understood routine, and conventional (see MPEP 2106.05(d)(II), “receiving or transmitting data over a network”, "electronic record keeping," and "storing and retrieving information in memory"). As explained by the Supreme Court, a claim directed to a judicial exception cannot be made eligible "simply by having the applicant acquiesce to limiting the reach of the patent for the formula to a particular technological use." Diamond v. Diehr, 450 U.S. 175, 192 n.14, 209 USPQ 1, 10 n. 14 (1981). Thus, limitations that amount to merely indicating a field of use or technological environment in which to apply a judicial exception do not amount to significantly more than the exception itself, and cannot integrate a judicial exception into a practical application. Accordingly, these additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because it does not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea.
Claim 2 recites “wherein the first AI plugin comprises a chemical database application” insignificant extra-solution activity of mere data gathering and output. MPEP § 2106.05(g).
Claim 3 recites “wherein the generative model comprises a large language model” amount to mere instructions to apply the judicial exception using a generic computer programmed with a generic class of computer algorithm. MPEP § 2106.05(f).
Claim 4 recites “wherein the context variable is a first context variable, wherein the complex data is first complex data, and further comprising: using the orchestrator, forming a second context variable to reference second complex data, receiving the second complex data from a second AI plugin at a second orchestration stage”; “providing the second complex data to the client with the first complex data” insignificant extra-solution activity of mere data gathering and output. MPEP § 2106.05(g), “storing the second complex data as the second context variable, including a reference to the second context variable in the modified prompt” insignificant extra-solution activity of mere data gathering and output. MPEP § 2106.05(g). This limitation is directed to the well-understood, routine, and conventional activity of receiving or transmitting data over a network. MPEP § 2106.05(d)(II); OIP Techs., Inc., v. Amazon.com, Inc., 788 F.3d 1359, 1363, 115 USPQ2d 1090, 1093 (Fed. Cir. 2015) (sending messages over a network).
Claim 5 recites “wherein the second AI plugin comprises a literature search model” amount to mere instructions to apply the judicial exception using a generic computer programmed with a generic class of computer algorithm. MPEP § 2106.05(f).
Claim 6 recites “wherein the second context variable comprises a uniform resource locator (URL)” insignificant extra-solution activity of mere data gathering and output. MPEP § 2106.05(g).
Claim 7 recites “wherein the first AI plugin comprises a chemical database application” amount to mere instructions to apply the judicial exception using a generic computer programmed with a generic class of computer algorithm. MPEP § 2106.05(f), and the first complex data comprises chemical structure data” insignificant extra-solution activity of mere data gathering and output. MPEP § 2106.05(g).
Claim 8 recites “wherein the complex data comprises chemical structure data insignificant extra-solution activity of mere data gathering and output. MPEP § 2106.05(g).
Claim 9 recites “wherein the complex data comprises citation data insignificant extra-solution activity of mere data gathering and output. MPEP § 2106.05(g).
Claims 11-16 and 18-20 recite subject matter similar to claims 2-9, respectively, and are therefore rejected for the same reasons and based on the same rationale set forth with respect to claims 10-14.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
4. 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, 9-10 and 16 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kulkarni et al. (US 204/0311652) in view of Austin et al. (US2024/0420012) and further in view of Heller et al. (US 2024/0273309).
Claim 1. Kulkarni discloses enacted on a computing system, a method, comprising:
receiving, at the computing system, an input from a client (abstract, [0004],[0031]);
inputting the prompt into an orchestrator (The operations can include processing the plurality of input characters to determine an intent of the user prompt request. The operations can include generating a refined prompt based on performing a mark-up language transform on the plurality of input characters.)([0004],[0037]-[0052]);
using the orchestrator, selecting one or more artificial intelligence (AI) plugins for processing the prompt at one or more corresponding orchestration stages selected by the orchestrator (…providing, by the computing system, one or more selectable user interface elements to the user computing system via the user interface. In some implementations, the one or more selectable user interface elements can be associated with the one or more prompt term suggestions.)([0006])…(…the plurality of input characters may be processed as a whole to determine the intent. In some implementations, one or more other processing techniques may be utilized to determine intent. Intent determination can include processing with one or more models (e.g., a semantic understanding model, a segmentation model, a detection model, a sentiment model, and/or a classification model). The intent can be associated with a determined portion of the user input that is associated with a task for the generative model to perform and/or a context for the generative model) ([0034],[0058]);
providing modified input to a first AI plugin at a first orchestration stage ([0060]-[0066]);
Kulkarni fails to explicitly disclose
receiving the complex data from the first AI plugin;
providing the modified prompt to a generative model;
providing the generated text and the complex data to the client;
using the orchestrator, and based on the prompt, forming a context variable to reference complex data;
storing the complex data as the context variable;
modifying the prompt to include a reference to the context variable without modifying the prompt to include the complex data, thereby forming a modified prompt;
receiving generated text from the generative model, the generated text comprising the reference to the context variable.
However, Heller discloses using the orchestrator, and based on the prompt, forming a context variable to reference complex data ([0055-[0071]);
storing the complex data as the context variable ([0068]-0078]);
modifying the prompt to include a reference to the context variable without modifying the prompt to include the complex data, thereby forming a modified prompt ([0072]-[0085]);
receiving generated text from the generative model, the generated text comprising the reference to the context variable ([0081]-[0089]). Therefore, it would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Kulkarni further in view of Heller to incorporate the above cited feature. One would have been motivated to do so in order to reduce prompt size and conserve LLM context window resources.
However, Austin discloses constructing a prompt based upon the input ([0035]-[0045]); receiving the complex data from the first AI plugin ([0063]-[0069]); providing the modified prompt to a generative model ([0074]-[0081]); providing the generated text and the complex data to the client ([0090]-[0095]). Therefore, it would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Kulkarni further in view of Austin to incorporate the above cited feature. One would have been motivated to do so in order to reduce computational cost.
Claim 3. Kulkarni, Heller and Austin disclose the method of claim 1, Kulkarni further discloses wherein the generative model comprises a large language model (foundation model, LLM) ([0020]-[0025]).
Claim 9. Kulkarni, Heller and Austin disclose the method of claim 1, Heller further discloses wherein the complex data comprises citation data ([0274]). One would have been motivated to do so to improve techniques for text generation.
Claims 10 and 16 represent the system of claims 1, 9, respectively and are rejected along the same rationale.
5. Claim(s) 2, 8, 15 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kulkarni et al. (US 204/0311652) in view of Austin et al. (US2024/0420012) in view of Heller et al. (US 2024/0273309) and further in view of OLSON et al. (US 2014/0372448).
Claim 2. Kulkarni, Heller and Austin disclose the method of claim 1 wherein the first AI plugin but fail to explicitly disclose comprises a chemical database application.
However, OLSON discloses chemical database application ([0031]). Therefore, it would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Kulkarni further in view of OLSON to incorporate the above cited feature. One would have been motivated to do so to facilitate searches of chemical structures and substructures.
Claim 8. Kulkarni, Heller and Austin disclose the method of claim 1, wherein the complex data but fail to explicitly disclose comprises chemical structure data.
However, OLSON discloses chemical structure data ([0031]). Therefore, it would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Kulkarni further in view of OLSON to incorporate the above cited feature. One would have been motivated to do so to facilitate searches of chemical structures and substructures.
Claim 15 represents the system of claim 8 and is rejected along the same rationale.
6. Claim(s) 4-6 and 11-13 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kulkarni et al. (US 204/0311652) in view of Austin et al. (US2024/0420012) in view of Heller et al. (US 2024/0273309) and further in view of Kotikalapudi et al. (US 2024/0378394).
Claim 4. Kulkarni, Heller and Austin disclose the method of claim 1, wherein the context variable is a first context variable, wherein the complex data is first complex data, and fail to explicitly disclose further comprising:
using the orchestrator, forming a second context variable to reference second complex data, receiving the second complex data from a second AI plugin at a second orchestration stage, storing the second complex data as the second context variable, including a reference to the second context variable in the modified prompt, and providing the second complex data to the client with the first complex data.
However, Kotikalapudi discloses using the orchestrator, forming a second context variable to reference second complex data, receiving the second complex data from a second AI plugin at a second orchestration stage, storing the second complex data as the second context variable, including a reference to the second context variable in the modified prompt, and providing the second complex data to the client with the first complex data. ([0060]-[0083]) [wherein chained orchestration, multiple plugins, sequential tool execution and multiple placeholders/context references are taught by Kotikalapudi]. Therefore, it would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Kulkarni further in view of Kotikalapudi to incorporate the above cited feature. One would have been motivated to do so to facilitate responses being provided that reduce the number of follow-up NL based inputs.
Claim 5. Kulkarni, Austin Heller and Kotikalapudi disclose the method of claim 4, Heller further discloses wherein the second AI plugin comprises a literature (research) search model ([0029]). One would have been motivated to do so to improve techniques for text generation.
Claim 6. Kulkarni, Austin Heller and Kotikalapudi disclose the method of claim 5, Heller further discloses wherein the second context variable comprises a uniform resource locator (URL) ([0125]). One would have been motivated to do so to improve techniques for text generation.
Claims 11-13 represents the system of claims 4-6, respectively and are rejected along the same rationale.
7. Claim(s) 7, 14 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kulkarni et al. (US 204/0311652) in view of Austin et al. (US2024/0420012) in view of Heller et al. (US 2024/0273309) in view of Kotikalapudi et al. (US 2024/0378394) and further in view of OLSON et al. (US 2014/0372448)
Claim 7. Kulkarni, Heller Austin and Kotikalapudi disclose the method of claim 4, wherein the first AI plugin but fail to explicitly disclose comprises a chemical database application, and the first complex data comprises chemical structure data.
However, OLSON discloses a chemical database application, and the first complex data comprises chemical structure data ([0031],[0009]). Therefore, it would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Kulkarni further in view of OLSON to incorporate the above cited feature. One would have been motivated to do so to facilitate searches of chemical structures and substructures.
Claim 14 represents the system of claim 7 and is rejected along the same rationale.
8. Claim(s) 17 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kulkarni et al. (US 204/0311652) in view of OLSON et al. (US 2014/0372448).
Claim 17. Kulkarni discloses a computing system comprising:
a logic subsystem (processor) ([0004]; and
a storage subsystem comprising instructions executable by the logic subsystem ([0004]) to
receive, at the computing system, an input from a user, the input comprising a request for information (…plurality of input characters from the user computing system via the user interface. The plurality of input characters can be descriptive of a user prompt request) ([0004]) on a chemical,
send the input to a remote computing system comprising an artificial intelligence (AI) orchestrator, the AI orchestrator configured to generate a context variable to store structure data received from an AI plugin selected by the orchestrator for responding to the input ([0004]-[0006],[0043],[0075]),
receive generated text from the remote computing system ([0006]),
receive the structure data from the computing system ([0007]),
output the generated text to the user, and display a visualization of a structure to the user ([0043]-[0046]).
Kulkarni does not explicitly disclose chemical structure. However, OLSON discloses chemical structure data ([0031]). Therefore, it would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Kulkarni further in view of OLSON to incorporate the above cited feature. One would have been motivated to do so to facilitate searches of chemical structures and substructures.
9. Claim(s) 18-20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kulkarni et al. (US 204/0311652) in view of OLSON et al. (US 2014/0372448) and further in view of Heller et al. (US 2024/0273309).
Claim 18. Kulkarni, and Olson disclose the computing system of claim 17, but fail to explicitly disclose wherein the generated text further comprises a reference to citation data, and the instructions are further executable to receive a uniform resource locator (URL) from the computing system.
However, Heller discloses further discloses wherein the generated text further comprises a reference to citation data ([0274]), and the instructions are further executable to receive a uniform resource locator (URL) from the computing system ([0125]). Therefore, it would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Kulkarni further in view of Heller to incorporate the above cited feature. One would have been motivated to do so to improve techniques for text generation.
Claim 19. Kulkarni, Olson and Heller disclose the computing system of claim 18, Heller further discloses wherein the instructions are further executable to perform an action based on the URL ([0125]). One would have been motivated to do so to improve techniques for text generation.
20. Kulkarni, Olson and Heller disclose the computing system of claim 18, Heller further discloses wherein the instructions are further executable to store the citation data with the URL ([0125]). One would have been motivated to do so to improve techniques for text generation.
Conclusion
10. The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure (See PTO-892).
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Phenuel S. Salomon whose telephone number is (571) 270-1699. The examiner can normally be reached on Mon-Fri 7:00 A.M. to 4:00 P.M. (Alternate Friday Off) EST.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Usmaan Saeed can be reached on (571) 272-4046. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-3800.
Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/PHENUEL S SALOMON/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2146
Prosecution Insights