DETAILED ACTION
This action is in response to the amendment filed 10/31/2025.
Claims 1-20 are currently pending.
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 Arguments
Applicant’s arguments, see pages 9 and 10 of amendment, filed 10/31/2025, with respect to the rejection(s) of claim(s) 1 under 35 U.S.C. 103 over Robertson in view of LIn have been fully considered and are persuasive. Therefore, the rejection has been withdrawn. However, upon further consideration, a new ground(s) of rejection is made in view of Tran et al. (US 2021/0082419), hereinafter Tran.
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) 1-20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being obvious over Robertson et al. (US 7,149,983), hereinafter Robertson, in view of Lin et al. (US 2021/0374133), hereinafter Lin, in view of Tran.
The applied Robertson reference has a common assignee with the instant application. Based upon the earlier effectively filed date of the reference, it constitutes prior art under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2).
This rejection under 35 U.S.C. 103 might be overcome by: (1) a showing under 37 CFR 1.130(a) that the subject matter disclosed in the reference was obtained directly or indirectly from the inventor or a joint inventor of this application and is thus not prior art in accordance with 35 U.S.C.102(b)(2)(A); (2) a showing under 37 CFR 1.130(b) of a prior public disclosure under 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(B); or (3) a statement pursuant to 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) establishing that, not later than the effective filing date of the claimed invention, the subject matter disclosed and the claimed invention were either owned by the same person or subject to an obligation of assignment to the same person or subject to a joint research agreement. See generally MPEP § 717.02.
As per claim 1, Robertson teaches the following:
a method for generating prompts on a computing device, (see abstract, “facilitate specification of queries”), the method comprising:
on the computing device:
displaying, in a user interface to an application, modifier key components for modifying a prompt to be submitted . Robertson teaches in column 17, lines 32-47, “with each selection, a results pane is populated with items”, thus teaching the prompt is updated as headings are selected. Further see Fig. 3, 152, interface manager 140 along with filter generator 120 which generates a natural language sentence and results;
displaying, in the user interface, modifier value components for adding the modifier values to the prompt, wherein a selection of any one of the modifier value components adds a corresponding one of the modifier values to the prompt. As Robertson teaches in column 23, lines 30-40, explicit values may be added to the prompt through subheadings;
submitting the prompt . As Robertson teaches in column 13, lines 27-44, filter 122/124 provide results that satisfy a filter; and
displaying a reply from the foundation model in the user interface. As Robertson teaches in column 13, lines 27-44, filter 122/124 provide results that satisfy a filter as the results data object 110 in the user interface.
However, Robertson does not explicitly teach of the prompt being utilized with a foundation model. In a similar field of endeavor, Lin teaches of a method of receiving natural language queries (see abstract). Lin further teaches in paragraph [0024] that a serialized question may be an input to a BERT encoder.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the application was filed to have modified the system of Robertson with the BERT of Lin. One of ordinary skill would have been motivated to have made such modification because as Lin teaches in paragraph [0011], such language models like BERT benefit users in boosting parsing accuracy by providing better representation of text.
Furthermore, Robertson does not explicitly teach of the foundation model receiving requests for modifier values and returning said values. In a similar field of endeavor, Tran teaches of a method of assisting a user in writing text (see abstract). Tran further teaches the following:
submitting, to the foundation model, a request for modifier values, wherein the request comprises the prompt and wherein the prompt comprises a modifier key corresponding to a selected one of the modifier key components; receiving, from the foundation model, the modifier values generated by the foundation model based on the request. As Tran shows in the flowchart of Fig. 12, and the example in Figs. 2-11, an AI system may generate a document based upon “back and forth” conversation with a user. This is interpreted as encompassing Applicant’s limitation as the user input being a request comprising a prompt, with the AI returning modifier values. This is exemplified in Fig. 2B, where the user requests to write a persuasive essay, and Fig. 3A, where the AI responds with follow-up prompts for specification by the user. Upon the modification of Robertson in view of Tran,s one of ordinary skill would have arrived at the headings/selections of Robertson (see Fig. 8) being presented in a sequential and adaptive format by the AI of Tran (see Figs. 2-11).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of applicant’s claimed invention to have modified the selections of Robertson with the interactive AI of Tran. One of ordinary skill would have been motivated to have made such modification because as Tran teaches in paragraph [0001], such AI interaction benefits users in allowing the user to better express what they desire to be written, which would be a search query of Robertson.
Regarding claim 2, modified Robertson teaches the method of claim 1 as described above. Robertson further teaches the following:
each modifier key corresponding to each of the modifier key components differs relative to each other modifier key corresponding to each other of the modifier key components. As Roberston shows in Fig. 4, 202, each key is different from one another and “relative” to one another in they are all actions the user may wish to take, e.g. edit, view, play, etc.
Regarding claim 3, modified Robertson teaches the method of claim 2 as described above. Robertson further teaches the following:
in response to a selection of a first modifier key component of the modifier key components, adding a first modifier key to the prompt. As Robertson shows in Fig. 8, 206, “show me news” is generated based on user selection of “news” (modifier key); and
in response to a selection of a first modifier value component of the modifier value components, adding a first modifier value to the prompt. As Robertson further shows in Fig. 8, 230, “show me news about international issues or the environment” is generated in response to user selection of “international” and “environment” (modifier values).
Regarding claim 4, modified Robertson teaches the method of claim 3 as described above. Robertson further teaches the following:
in response to a selection of a second modifier key component of the modifier key components, adding a second modifier key to the prompt; and in response to a selection of a second modifier value component of the modifier value components, adding a second modifier value to the prompt. As Robertson shows in Fig. 8, other key components and values may be added to the prompt such as “priority” (key) and “medium” (value).
Regarding claim 5, modified Robertson teaches the method of claim 4 as described above. Robertson further teaches the following:
the prompt as-submitted to the foundation model includes the first modifier key, the first modifier value, the second modifier key, and the second modifier value. As Robertson shows in Fig. 8, 240, a natural language sentence is created based upon all values and keys selected.
Regarding claim 6, modified Robertson teaches the method of claim 1 as described above. Robertson further teaches the following:
when the first modifier key component is selected, the first modifier key is prepended to the prompt, wherein when the first modifier value component is selected, the first modifier value is appended to the prompt, wherein when the second modifier key component is selected, the second modifier key is appended to the prompt, and wherein when the second modifier value component selected, the second modifier value is appended to the prompt. Robertson teaches in column 18, lines 25-39, real-time full-text feedback can be provided by a natural language generation system as a user makes selections. Further see Fig. 8, 240 for appending various keys and values.
Regarding claim 7, modified Robertson teaches the method of claim 1 as described above. Robertson further teaches the following:
receiving, in the user interface, user input comprising a custom modifier value; and adding the custom modifier value to the prompt. As Robertson teaches in column 23, lines 30-41, a user may select a key of “property” and then manually enter a desired quantity (custom value).
Regarding claim 8, modified Robertson teaches the method of claim 1 as described above. Robertson further teaches the following:
wherein each of the modifier key components comprises a graphical button which when selected causes a corresponding modifier key to be added to the prompt and wherein each of the modifier value components comprises a selectable text element which when selected causes a corresponding one of the modifier values to be added to the prompt. As Robertson shows in Fig. 8, input items (both keys and values) are that of selectable text boxes which are interpreted as encompassing both applicant’s “button” and “selectable text element”.
As per claim 9, modified Robertson teaches the following:
a computing apparatus comprising: one or more computer readable storage media; one or more processors operatively coupled with the one or more computer readable storage media; and program instructions stored on the one or more computer readable storage media. See Fig. 44.
The remaining limitations of claim 9 are substantially similar to those of claim 1 and are rejected using the same reasoning.
Regarding claims 10-16, modified Robertson teaches the apparatus of claim 9 as described above. The remaining limitations of claims 10-16 are substantially similar to those of claims 2-8 respectively, and are rejected using the same reasoning.
As per claim 17, Robertson teaches the following:
one or more computer-readable storage media having program instructions stored thereon that, (see Fig. 44, 916).
The remaining limitations of claim 17 are substantially similar to those of claim 1 and are rejected using the same reasoning.
Regarding claims 18-20, modified Robertson teaches the apparatus of claim 9 as described above. The remaining limitations of claims 18-20 are substantially similar to those of claims 3-5 respectively, and are rejected using the same reasoning.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Downs et al. (US 2025/0061284), generates text based on user requests.
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 nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) 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 mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to GREGORY A DISTEFANO whose telephone number is (571)270-1644. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday: 9 am - 5 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 5712424088. 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.
/GREGORY A. DISTEFANO/
Examiner
Art Unit 2174
/WILLIAM L BASHORE/ Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2174