Introduction
1. This office action is in response to Applicant’s submission filed on 2/5/2026. Claims 1-21 are pending in the application and have been examined.
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
2. 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
3. The Amendment filed 2/5/2026 has been entered and fully considered. With regard to the rejections under 35 USC 103, the arguments and amendments are not persuasive.
It is noted that the present rejection is citing the input sequence to the decoder as “processing an input for the generation step,” the abstractive sentences 454 generated by the decoder as “the natural language summary,” and the abstractive summary 452 generated by combining the abstractive sentences 454 as the “generated natural language text of the section.” As the summary 452 is made up of multiple sentences 454, the summary 452 will be larger than a single sentence 454. Thus. the newly added claim language is still met by the primary reference.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
4. 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.
5. Claims 1-21 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as unpatentable over U.S. Pat. App. Pub. No. 20210365773 (SUBRAMANIAN et al., hereinafter “Sub”) in view of U.S. Pat. App. Pub. No. 20240314260 (Reale).
With regard to Claim 1, Sub describes:
“A method performed by one or more computers, the method comprising:
obtaining a [[natural language]] description for a textual work; (Paragraph 109 describes that a document is input.)
performing a hierarchy of generation steps to generate a respective natural language summary of each of a plurality of sections of the textual work, wherein performing each generation step comprises: processing an input for the generation step that is derived from (i) the natural language description for the textual work, (ii) an output of a preceding generation step within the hierarchy of generation steps, or (iii) both using a language model neural network to generate a natural language sequence output for the generation step; (Paragraph 173 describes that the device takes the input document and creates summaries for each section of the document.)
for each section in the sequence, processing an input for the section that is derived from the respective natural language summary of the section using the language model neural network to generate natural language text of the section from the textual work, wherein the generated natural language text of the section comprises a greater number of tokens than the respective natural language summary; and (Paragraph 173 describes that a series of abstractive sentences 454 are generated based on the input. The input sequence to the decoder as “processing an input for the generation step,” the abstractive sentences 454 generated by the decoder as “the natural language summary,” and the abstractive summary 452 generated by combining the abstractive sentences 454 as the “generated natural language text of the section.” As the summary 452 is made up of multiple sentences 454, the summary 452 will be larger than a single sentence 454.)
generating, as output, the textual work by combining the respective natural language text of each of the sections in the sequence.” (Paragraph 173 describes that the series of abstractive sentences 454 are combined to form an executive summary 452.)
Sub does not explicitly describe that the input is “natural language.” However, paragraph 72 of Reale describes that a natural language description is received from a user.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to include the “natural language” input as described by Reale into the invention of Sub to allow direct user input into the generated text, as described in paragraph 72 of Reale.
With regard to Claim 2, Sub does not explicitly describe this subject matter.
However, Reale describes “the textual work is a narrative and the plurality of sections of the textual work are a plurality of scenes of the narrative.” Paragraph 72 describes that the user inputs a narrative. Paragraph 74 describes that the narrative is divided into scenes.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to include the narrative input as described by Reale into the invention of Sub to allow direct user input into the generated text, as described in paragraph 72 of Reale.
With regard to Claim 3, Sub does not explicitly describe this subject matter.
However, Reale describes “obtaining the natural language description as input from a user.” Paragraph 72 describes receiving the natural language narrative from a user.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to include the “natural language” input as described by Reale into the invention of Sub to allow direct user input into the generated text, as described in paragraph 72 of Reale.
With regard to Claim 4, Sub does not explicitly describe this subject matter.
However, Reale describes “providing the generated narrative for presentation on a user device.” Paragraph 74 describes that the device provides a video to the user based on the input narrative.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to include the narrative input as described by Reale into the invention of Sub to allow the user to view the results, as described in paragraph 74 of Reale.
With regard to Claim 5, Sub does not explicitly describe this subject matter.
However, Reale describes “generating, from the input to the generation step, a prompt for the generation step; (Paragraph 9 describes that the user responds to prompts from the device.)
processing the prompt using the language model neural network to generate an initial output sequence for the generation step; (Paragraph 74 describes that the device provides the video based on the user input.)
providing, for presentation in a user interface on a user device, the initial output sequence; (Paragraph 74 describes that the device provides the video based on the user input.)
receiving, from the user device, a user input requesting a modification to the initial output sequence; and (Paragraph 73 describes that the user can issue new commands to change the narrative.)
in response to receiving the user input, modifying the initial output sequence.” (Paragraph 73 describes that the narrative is updated based on user input.)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to include the updated narrative as described by Reale into the invention of Sub to allow the user to modify the results, as described in paragraph 73 of Reale.
With regard to Claim 6, Sub does not explicitly describe this subject matter.
However, Reale describes “receiving a request to generate a new suggestion for the generation step, and (Paragraph 73 describes that the user can issue new commands to change the narrative.)
wherein in response to receiving the user input, modifying the initial output sequence comprises: performing another instance of processing the prompt using the language model neural network to generate a new output sequence for the generation step. (Paragraph 73 describes that the narrative is updated based on user input.)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to include the updated narrative as described by Reale into the invention of Sub to allow the user to modify the results, as described in paragraph 73 of Reale.
With regard to Claim 7, Sub does not explicitly describe this subject matter.
However, Reale describes “receiving, from the user device, a user input requesting a modification to the initial output sequence comprises: receiving a request to generate a continuation of the initial output sequence for the generation step, and (Paragraph 73 describes that the user can issue new commands to change the narrative.)
wherein in response to receiving the user input, modifying the initial output sequence comprises: processing a new input comprising the initial output sequence using the language model neural network to generate a new output sequence for the generation step; (Paragraph 73 describes that the narrative is updated based on user input.) and
concatenating the initial output sequence and the new output sequence.” (Paragraph 74 describes that the device provides the video based on the user input.)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to include the updated narrative as described by Reale into the invention of Sub to allow the user to modify the results, as described in paragraph 73 of Reale.
With regard to Claim 8, Sub does not explicitly describe this subject matter.
However, Reale describes “receiving, from the user device, a user input requesting a modification to the initial output sequence comprises: receiving an edited output sequence from the user device, and (Paragraph 74 describes that images and captions can be input by the user as the input sequence.)
wherein in response to receiving the user input, modifying the initial output sequence comprises: setting the initial output sequence equal to the edited output sequence. (Paragraph 74 describes that the input images and captions will be set as the output to the user.)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to include the updated narrative as described by Reale into the invention of Sub to allow the user to modify the results, as described in paragraph 73 of Reale.
With regard to Claim 9, Sub does not explicitly describe this subject matter.
However, Reale describes “for each generation step, the input for the generation step comprises a prompt that is a concatenation of at least: a prefix that comprises one or more examples, each example comprising (i) an example input for the generation step (Paragraph 74 describes that exemplary images and captions can be provided as the input, the images being cited as example input.) and (ii) an example output corresponding to the example input; and input text that is derived from (i) the natural language description for the narrative, (Paragraph 74 describes that exemplary images and captions can be provided as the input, the captions being cited as natural language description for the narrative.) (ii) an output of a preceding generation step within the hierarchy of generation steps, or (iii) both.”
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to include the updated narrative as described by Reale into the invention of Sub to allow the user to modify the results, as described in paragraph 73 of Reale.
With regard to Claim 10, Sub does not explicitly describe this subject matter.
However, Reale describes “within each example, the example input is separated from the example output by a natural language tag identifying the generation step and wherein the prefix also includes the natural language tag following the input text.” Paragraph 74 describes that images and captions may be input, and the captions would be separated from the images and tagged as captions.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to include the updated narrative as described by Reale into the invention of Sub to allow the user to modify the results, as described in paragraph 73 of Reale.
With regard to Claim 11, Sub describes “the same language model neural network is used to perform each generation step and to generate the respective text of each of the sections.” Paragraph 30 describes that the abstractive MLA performs both the generation step and generates the text of each section.
With respect to Claim 12, computer storage medium Claim 12 and method Claim 1 are related as a computer storage medium programmed to perform the same method, with each claimed computer storage medium function corresponding to each claimed method step. Accordingly, Claim 12 is similarly rejected under the same rationale as applied above with respect to Claim 1.
With respect to Claims 13-20, method Claim 1 and system Claim 13 are related as a system programmed to perform the same method, with each claimed system function corresponding to each claimed method step. Accordingly, Claims 13-20 are similarly rejected under the same rationale as applied above with respect to Claims 1-8.
With respect to Claim 21, Sub describes “the textual work has a total length exceeding a context window size of the language model neural network, and wherein, for each section, the input for the section fits within the context window size.” Paragraph 178 describes that text such as articles that are bigger than an input window are broken down so that the window size is not exceeded.
Conclusion
6. The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
U.S. Pat. App. Pub. No. 20220309231 (Yoon et al.) also describes detecting generating text summaries of an input document.
7. THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. 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.
8. Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to EDWARD TRACY whose telephone number is (571)272-8332. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 9 AM- 5PM.
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, Bhavesh Mehta can be reached on 571-272-7453. 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.
/EDWARD TRACY JR./Examiner, Art Unit 2656
/BHAVESH M MEHTA/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2656
Prosecution Insights