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
This communication is in response to: Remarks filed on July 13th, 2026
This action is made Final.
Claims 1-4, 7-11, 14-18 and 20 are pending claims.
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 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.
Claims 1-5, 7-12, 14-19 and 20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Chen, US PG PUB# 2024/0020096 (hereinafter) in view of Yin, US PG PUB# 2021/0027190 A1 (hereinafter Yin).
As for independent claim 1:
Chen discloses a system, comprising:
a computing device comprising a processor, a memory, and a display (Chen discloses a computing device in 0082);
an intelligent document application comprising machine-readable instructions stored in the memory that, when executed by the processor, cause the computing device to at least (Chen, 0043 and 0128, instructions stored in the memory and processor):
display a user interface on the display of the computing device, wherein at least a portion of a document is presented within the user interface (0049, 0086, 0124, Chen discloses a user interface display document);
receive a prompt via the user interface (0049 and 0086, Chen discloses a prompt field which can receive a docstring representing natural language text, also see user interface which user may input computer code and natural language text into a prompt field);
execute a language model (LM) to generate a response to the prompt, wherein the response is based at least in part on the content of the document (0050, 0081, Chen discloses generating, using trained machine learning model and based o the docstring, one or more computer code samples configured to produce respective candidate result. The machine learning model output computer code);
present the response within the user interface (Chen discloses present the response in the user interface in 0056, 0081).
Chen does not disclose wherein the LM is embedded within the intelligent dynamic document and the response is based at least in part on the content of the intelligent dynamic document. Yin discloses wherein the LM is embedded within the intelligent dynamic document and the response is based at least in part on the content of the intelligent dynamic document in 0003, 0039-0040 and 0042-0043. In the cited section Yin discloses serializing a machine learning model into a serialized format, embedding a delimiter indicator into a documentation file comprising information regarding the use of the model, embedding the serialized model into the documentation file at a file position after the delimiter indicator, and storing the documentation file with the delimiter indicator and the model embedded. Yin further discloses documentation file includes text document file, pdf, image file and video file. Accordingly it would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a skilled artisan to modify the system of Chen to incorporate the teaching of embedding the LM within the document application taught by Yin, thus producing a self-contained document that carries the model used to generate responses about its own content. (Yin, 0012 and 0013).
As for dependent claim 2:
An Official Notice is taken that LM compression techniques (quantization, pruning, and etc. ) were well-known in the art before the effective filing date. It would have been obvious to a skilled artisan to compress the LM of the Chen–Yin and decompress it prior to execution in order to reduce memory on a computing device, thus faster output.
As for dependent claim 3:
Chen – Yin discloses the system of claim 1, wherein the machine-readable instructions that cause the computing device to execute the LM embedded within the intelligent dynamic document further cause the computing device to at least load the LM into a code interpreter, wherein the code interpreter is a component of the intelligent document application (Chen, 0054, 0074, discloses computer codes to be executed in a sandbox computing environment. Chen further discloses computer code may be processed by a processor or interpreted by an interpreter).
As for dependent claim 4:
Chen – Yin discloses the system of claim 1, wherein the machine-readable instructions, when executed by the processor, further cause the computing device to at least: execute the LM to offer a suggested annotation for the intelligent dynamic document (Chen, 0047, 0078, see automatically generating comments and annotations plus intelligent templates for building, Chen further discloses outputting the identified docstring together with the associated portion of the computer code in 0091).
As for dependent claim 5:
Chen – Yin discloses the system of claim 1, wherein the intelligent dynamic document comprises at least one of a code object, an image object, a video object, a text object, or an annotation object (Chen, 0047, 0049, discloses text object may be generated, also see system generates comments and annotations. Yin discloses documentation file includes text document file, pdf, image file and video file 0013, 0041).
As for dependent claim 7:
Chen – Tunstall-Pedoe discloses the system of claim 1, wherein the LM is trained on the contents of the intelligent dynamic document (Chen, (0044, 0046, 0065).
As for independent claim 8:Claim 8 contains substantial subject matter as claimed in claim 1 and is respectfully rejected along the same rationale.
As for dependent claims 9-12, 14:
Claim 9-12, 14 contains substantial subject matter as claimed in claims 2-5, 7 and are respectfully rejected along the same rationale.
As for independent claim 15:Claim 15 contains substantial subject matter as claimed in claim 1 and is respectfully rejected along the same rationale.
As for dependent claims 16-18, 20:Claims 16-, 18 20 contain substantial subject matter as claimed in claims 2-5, 7 and are respectfully rejected along the same rationale.
Claims 6, 13 and 19 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Chen, US PG PUB# 2024/0020096 (hereinafter) in view of Yin, US PG PUB# 2021/0027190 A1 (hereinafter Yin) in further view of Tunstall-Pedoe, US PG PUB# 2023/0259705 A1 (hereinafter Tunstall-Pedoe).
As for dependent claim 6:
Chen – Yin does not disclose wherein the response is a graphical representation of data within the intelligent dynamic document. Tunstall-Pedoe discloses wherein the response is a graphical representation of data within the intelligent dynamic document in 0152-015, 0621, Figs. 5, 6, see user interface. Tunstall- Pedoe discloses wherein the LLM is embedded within the intelligent dynamic document and the response is based at least in part on the content of the intelligent dynamic document. In the cited section. Accordingly it would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a skilled artisan to modify the system of Chen – Yin to incorporate the teaching of embedding the LM within the document application, thus enable context aware Al responses within a document application to the user (Tunstall-Pedoe, 0022-0023, 0596-0598).
As for dependent claims 13 and 19:
Claims 13 and 19 contain substantial subject matter as claimed in claim 6 and are respectfully rejected along the same rationale.
It is noted that any citation to specific, pages, columns, lines, or figures in the prior art references and any interpretation of the references should not be considered to be limiting in any way. A reference is relevant for all it contains and may be relied upon for all that it would have reasonably suggested to one having ordinary skill in the art. In re Heck, 699 F.2d 1331, 1332-33,216 USPQ 1038, 1039 (Fed. Cir. 1983) (quoting In re Lemelson, 397 F.2d 1006, 1009, 158 USPQ 275, 277 (CCPA 1968)).
The Examiner notes MPEP § 2144.01, that quotes In re Preda, 401 F.2d 825,159 USPQ 342, 344 (CCPA 1968) as stating “in considering the disclosure of a reference, it is proper to take into account not only specific teachings of the reference but also the inferences which one skilled in the art would reasonably be expected to draw therefrom.” Further MPEP 2123, states that “a reference may be relied upon for all that it would have reasonably suggested to one having ordinary skill the art, including nonpreferred embodiments. Merck & Co. v. Biocraft Laboratories, 874 F.2d 804, 10 USPQ2d 1843 (Fed. Cir.), cert. denied, 493 U.S. 975 (1989).
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claim(s) 1-20 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.
. Conclusion
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 DAVID PHANTANA ANGKOOL whose telephone number is (571) 272-2673. The examiner can normally be reached M-F, 7:00-3:30 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, can Adam Queler be reached on 571-272-4140. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of published or unpublished applications may be obtained from Patent Center. Unpublished application information in Patent Center is available to registered users. To file and manage patent submissions in Patent Center, visit: https://patentcenter.uspto.gov. Visit https://www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/patent-center for more information about Patent Center and https://www.uspto.gov/patents/docx for information about filing in DOCX format. For additional questions, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/David Phantana-angkool/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2172
Prosecution Insights