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
Claims 1, 11 and 20 are amended. Claims 1-20 are presented for examination.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments filed on 7/17/2026 have been reviewed. Following is the response:
Applicant argues “The Office Action relies on Riscutia for a collaborative prompt object that generates prompts based on contextual information associated with an underlying shared document and receives LLM-generated content. But Riscutia's disclosure is directed to generating or inserting content into an underlying shared document or canvas and synchronizing that shared document among collaborators. Riscutia therefore concerns collaborative prompting and shared-document insertion, not reconfiguring content stored as an entity-associated data object from a first physical-device display category to a different second physical-device display category.” Examiner agrees that reconfigure the content associated with an entity from one physical device to another. However, upon further consideration a new ground(s) of rejection under Riscutia ( US 20240419465) and further in view of Agrawal (US 20240362631) is applicable.
Applicant argues “Birson does not cure such deficiency. The Office Action relies on Birson for text as a data object and creation of a new data object. However, Birson is directed to dynamically conducting messaging campaigns by adjusting message schedules responsive to customer events. In the cited disclosure, a new combined data object is generated when an adjusted schedule would cause two messages from respective data objects to be scheduled in close temporal proximity, and the combined data object replaces the separate messages with a single combined message. That scheduling-based combination of message content is materially different from the amended claims' prompt-directed use of an LLM to configure content for display on a second category of physical device that is different from a first category of physical device. Moreover, Applicant respectfully submits that the proposed combination does not teach or suggest the amended claim elements as a whole. At most, the rejection identifies Riscutia's collaborative LLM content generation and Birson's scheduling-based message data objects. The rejection does not provide an articulated reason with rational underpinning why a person of ordinary skill would have modified Riscutia's collaborative shared-document system using Birson's event-driven messaging schedule system to arrive at the claimed device-category reconfiguration of entity-associated content.” However, since the concept of text is not present in the claims, this argument is moot. Birson was only relied about for the case where content of the object text is being changed.
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.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
And
KSR, 550 U.S. at 418, 82 USPQ2d at 1396. Exemplary rationales that may support a conclusion of obviousness include:
(A) Combining prior art elements according to known methods to yield predictable results;
(B) Simple substitution of one known element for another to obtain predictable results;
(C) Use of known technique to improve similar devices (methods, or products) in the same way;
(D) Applying a known technique to a known device (method, or product) ready for improvement to yield predictable results;
(E) "Obvious to try" – choosing from a finite number of identified, predictable solutions, with a reasonable expectation of success;
(F) Known work in one field of endeavor may prompt variations of it for use in either the same field or a different one based on design incentives or other market forces if the variations are predictable to one of ordinary skill in the art;
(G) Some teaching, suggestion, or motivation in the prior art that would have led one of ordinary skill to modify the prior art reference or to combine prior art reference teachings to arrive at the claimed invention.
See MPEP § 2143 for a discussion of the rationales listed above along with examples illustrating how the cited rationales may be used to support a finding of obviousness. See also MPEP § 2144 - § 2144.09 for additional guidance regarding support for obviousness determination.
Claims 1-2, 5, 8, 11-12, 15, 18 and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Riscutia ( US 20240419465) and further in view of Agrawal (US 20240362631)
Regarding claim 1, Riscutia teach a method comprising: receiving, by a processor, content from an entity that stores the content as a data object( embodied within collaborative platform ) associated with the entity ( The collaborative prompt object identifies the context or application environment into which it is instantiated and generates the prompt to include contextual information from or about the application environment along with other information, such as content from the document or canvas, metadata from the document or canvas, user inputs received by the collaborative prompt object, preceding interactions with the LLM, and so on., Para 0026; here the document (entity) linked with the input content; the collaborative platform is an object storing the text content, Para 0026; Jon experience, , Para 0092-0097), the content being configured to be displayed on a first category of physical device ( laptop etc., Para 0032-0033) ; generating, by the processor, a prompt for a large language model that comprises the content and directions for modifying the content ( Fig 3; when a local instance of the collaborative prompt object is displayed in the user experience, the collaborative prompt object automatically generates a prompt based on the contextual information associated with the underlying (shared) document. Contextual information can include a portion or all of the content of the document, a document title, a filename, or other information relating to the document. The prompt tasks the LLM service with generating content relating to the document., Para 0058) ; providing, by the processor, the prompt to the large language model ( prompt to the LLM, Fig 1 and Fig 3); providing, by the processor, the prompt to the large language model; executing, by the processor, the large language model, the execution causing creation of modified content in accordance with the directions for modifying the content from the prompt ( Subsequent to displaying the generated content based on suggestion D, collaborative prompt object 112 may receive subsequent user input relating to the content, such as a modification of the content or a command to insert the content into the content item displayed in the content environment. Collaborative prompt object 112 may also receive a natural language input relating to the generated content (e.g., “make it shorter”) or input wholly unrelated to the generated content. Based on subsequent inputs from the user, collaborative prompt object 112 generates new prompts for submission to LLM service 150, including previous inputs from the user and replies from LLM service 150 as well as the identified context of the content environment., Para 0042, Fig 3-4), the modified content comprising content configured to be displayed on a second category of physical device that is different from the first category of physical device ( the collaborative platform can be displayed on computing devices such as laptop, mobile etc., Para 0032, 0033) receiving, by the processor from the large language model, the modified content (receiving modified content, Para 0042) ; creating, by the processor, a new data object that stores the modified content in association with the entity ( the updated document, Fig 7 and 8; for e.g. the new collaborative platform - the user experience for Jon (instance 732) is generated and managed through a relay framework that synchronizes multiple instances (702, 712, 722, 732) of a collaborative prompt object ); and causing, by the processor, display of the new data ( display, Fig 7-8)
Riscutia does not explicitly teach the modified content comprising content configured to be displayed on a second category of physical device that is different from the first category of physical device the directions for modifying the content comprising instructions to configure the modified content to be displayed on the second category of physical device,
However Agrawal teaches wherein: the content comprises content configured to be displayed on a first category of physical device; the modified text content comprises content configured to be displayed on a second category of physical device that is different from the first category of physical device; and the directions for modifying the text content comprise instructions to configure the modified text content to be displayed on the second category of physical device ( The content variants may include, for example, different versions of the same content (e.g., dynamic content 252 of FIG. 2, as described above), which has been adapted for various display screen sizes and/or resolutions associated with different types of user devices; programming code (or source code) 612 corresponding to tagged UI element 610 along with a portion of dynamic content 614 displayed within a content display area associated with tagged UI element 610 on content page 600. Source code 612 may specify a name (e.g., “penalty_of_perjury”) and a domain (e.g., “compliance”) pertaining to the type of content to be displayed with tagged UI element 610 on content page 600. It should be appreciated that tagged UI element 610 may be one of various UI elements, such as various data input fields, displayed on content page 600. It should also be appreciated that source code 612 for content page 600 may include additional code, e.g., written in JavaScript Object Notation (JSON) , Para 0052, 0054, 0075)
It would have been obvious having the teachings of Riscutia to further modify with the concept of Agrawal before effective filing date since its well known that that mobile and computer presents the pages/content differently to fit the size etc. to avoid poor user experience (Para 0026, Agrawal)
Regarding claim 2, Riscutia as above in claim 1, teaches wherein: receiving the text content comprises receiving the text content as input via a graphical user interface for creating content associated with the entity, the graphical user interface comprising multiple fields; and creating the new data object that stores the modified text content comprises populating the multiple fields of the graphical user interface with the modified text content ( fig 7 and Fig 8)
Regarding claim 5, Riscutia as above in claim 1, teaches wherein the modified text content comprises a JavaScript object notation object ( JSON, Para 0027)
Regarding claim 8, Agrawal as above in claim 1, teach the text content comprises content configured to be displayed on a first category of physical device; the modified text content comprises content configured to be displayed on a second category of physical device that is different from the first category of physical device; and the directions for modifying the text content comprise instructions to configure the modified text content to be displayed on the second category of physical device ( The content variants may include, for example, different versions of the same content (e.g., dynamic content 252 of FIG. 2, as described above), which has been adapted for various display screen sizes and/or resolutions associated with different types of user devices; programming code (or source code) 612 corresponding to tagged UI element 610 along with a portion of dynamic content 614 displayed within a content display area associated with tagged UI element 610 on content page 600. Source code 612 may specify a name (e.g., “penalty_of_perjury”) and a domain (e.g., “compliance”) pertaining to the type of content to be displayed with tagged UI element 610 on content page 600. It should be appreciated that tagged UI element 610 may be one of various UI elements, such as various data input fields, displayed on content page 600. It should also be appreciated that source code 612 for content page 600 may include additional code, e.g., written in JavaScript Object Notation (JSON) , Para 0052, 0054, 0075)
Regarding claim 11, arguments analogous to claim 1, are applicable. In addition, Riscutia teaches a non-transitory computer-readable storage medium tangibly storing computer program instructions capable of being executed by a processor, the computer program instructions defining steps of claim (Fig 4, Para 0103-0104)
Regarding claim 12, arguments analogous to claim 2, are applicable.
Regarding claim 15, arguments analogous to claim 5, are applicable.
Regarding claim 18, arguments analogous to claim 8, are applicable.
Regarding claim 20, arguments analogous to claim 1, are applicable. In addition, Riscutia teaches A device comprising: a processor; and a non-transitory computer-readable storage medium tangibly storing thereon logic for execution by the processor, the logic comprising instructions for performing a method ( Fig 4)
Claims 3, 10 and 13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Riscutia ( US 20240419465) and further in view of Agrawal (US 20240362631) and further in view of Swope ( US 11983228 )
Regarding claim 3, Riscutia modified by Agrawal as above in claim 1, teaches (training, Para 0025) however does not explicitly teaches wherein the large language model comprises a specialized large language model trained on advertising entity data to modify text content associated with entities
However, Swope teaches model trained on advertising entity data to modify text content associated with entities ( training LLM, where training set include advertising and entity document, Para 0055; where system generates electronic media ( text) for the entity, Col 15, line 45-67; Fig 8)
It would have been obvious having the teachings of Riscutia and to further include the concept of Swope before effective filing date so to fine tune a model for a specific purpose
Regarding claim 13, arguments analogous to claim 3, are applicable.
Regarding claim 10, Riscutia modified by Agrawal as above in claim 1, does not teach wherein the entity comprises a third-party entity, wherein the third-party entity comprises an advertisement entity
However, Swope teach wherein the entity comprises a third-party entity, wherein the third-party entity comprises an advertisement entity (An entity profile 108 may be created by a processor 104, a user, or a third party, Col 4, line 15-30)
It would have been obvious having the teachings of Riscutia and to further include the concept of Swope before effective filing date so to fine tune a model for a specific purpose
Claims 4 and 14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Riscutia ( US 20240419465) and further in view of Agrawal (US 20240362631) and further in view of Hernandez ( US 20250165698 )
Regarding claim 4, Riscutia as above in claim 1, mentions the task can be translation of languages ( LLM can be used to translate the language ) it does not explicitly teach the directions for modifying the text content comprise directions to translate the text content into a human-readable language that is different from an original human-readable language of the text content; and the modified text content comprises text in the human-readable language
However, Hernandez teaches the directions for modifying the text content comprise directions to translate the text content into a human-readable language that is different from an original human-readable language of the text content; and the modified text content comprises text in the human-readable language ( if a user selects “Translate to Spanish” function and selects the transformation icon 318, the content management tool 130 applies the selected generative transformation function to the captured content item and replaces the transformed text string “This is a poorly written text I copied” in the output field 318 with the new transformed content, Para 0066)
Language model is known for performing language translation task as described in Para 0025. Hence it would have been obvious that one of the directions for modification include the translation task ask taught by Hernandez before effective filing date so to have a productivity tools and information that facilitate the accomplishment of a variety of tasks, including copying and pasting content items between different devices and applications ( Para 0001, Hernandez)
Regarding claim 14, arguments analogous to claim 4, are applicable.
Claims 6 and 16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Riscutia ( US 20240419465) and further in view of Agrawal (US 20240362631) and further in view of Birson ( US 20230022851)
Regarding claim 6, Riscutia as above in claim 1, mentions the data object ( for e.g. collaborative platform pages) and the text content which can be anything
Riscutia does not explicitly teach wherein the data object comprises an advertisement campaign and the text content comprises a plurality of advertisement blurbs
Birson teaches wherein the data object comprises an advertisement campaign and the text content comprises a plurality of advertisement blurbs ( data object has a campaign and the text including messages for that campaign, Para 0081, 0083, 0093)
It would have been obvious having the teachings of Riscutia to further include the concept of Birson before effective filing date to use the model for intended purpose of advertisement.
Regarding claim 16, arguments analogous to claim 6, are applicable.
Claims 7 and 17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Riscutia ( US 20240419465) and further in view of Agrawal (US 20240362631) and further in view of Li ( US 20230205813)
Regarding claim 7, Riscutia modified by Agrawal as above in claim 1, does not teach identifying, by the processor, a plurality of images associated with the entity and selecting, by an algorithm executed by the processor, at least one image to pair with the modified text content, wherein the at least one image is selected based at least in part on the plurality of images
However, Li teaches identifying, by the processor, a plurality of images associated with the entity and selecting, by an algorithm executed by the processor, at least one image to pair with the modified text content, wherein the at least one image is selected based at least in part on the plurality of images ( the trained text embedding model and the trained image embedding model can both be used in an image classification system configured to process an image to generate an output which associates the image with a label from a predetermined set of labels, Para 0019, 0091)
It would have been obvious having the teachings of Riscutia to further include the concept of Li before effective filing date to classify images automatically ( Para 0017-0018, Li)
Regarding claim 17, arguments analogous to claim 7, are applicable.
Claims 9 and 19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Riscutia ( US 20240419465) and further in view of Agrawal (US 20240362631) and further in view of Iu (US 20240273286)
Regarding claim 9, Riscutia as above in claim 1, teaches : receiving feedback from a user about the modified text content (fig 8b) does not explicitly teach and providing the modified text content and the feedback to the large language model as training data
However, Iu teaches and providing the modified text content and the feedback to the large language model as training data (feedback after post publication, Para 0042, 0072, 0095)
It would have been obvious having the teachings of Riscutia to further include the concept of Iu before effective filing date to fine tune the model ( Para 0124, Iu)
Regarding claim 19, arguments analogous to claim 9, are applicable.
2nd Rejection
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.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
Independent claims 1, 11 and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Maschmeyer ( US 20240256764 ) and further in view of Hernandez ( US 20250165698 )
Regarding claim 1, Maschmeyer teaches a method comprising: receiving, by a processor, content from an entity that stores the content associated with the entity ( fig 3- object attributes related to entity, Para 0100-0106, 0140-0141, 0184), the content being configured to be displayed on a first category of physical device ( ( mobile and computer devices and the its known in the art that mobile and computer version of style can be different and image etc. does resize based on the device and certain things can be hidden on different versions basically a css/html code can hide a particular text in mobile vs. desktop version, Para 0163, 0164) ; generating, by the processor, a prompt for a large language model that comprises the content and directions for modifying the content ( prompt including the textual description, Para 0148; modify by defined format, Para 0147-0148; Fig 3c, Para 0190) ; providing, by the processor, the prompt to the large language model ( provide prompt to LLM, Para 0150-0151) ; executing, by the processor, the large language model, the execution causing creation of modified content in accordance with the directions for modifying the text content from the prompt ( At an operation 716, the generated description is presented for display via a user device. If operation 714 was performed, then the modified generated description may be presented., Para 0155-0153), the modified content comprising content configured to be displayed on a second category of physical device that is different from the first category of physical device ( mobile and computer devices and the its known in the art that mobile and computer version of style can be different and image etc. does resize based on the device and certain things can be hidden on different versions basically a css/html code can hide a particular text in mobile vs. desktop version, Para 0163, 0164); receiving, by the processor from the large language model, the modified content ( render generated description, Para 0154) ; and creating, by the processor, a new data object that stores the modified content in association with the entity ( update online page ( collection of the objects), Para 0157, product data object, Para 0184) and causing, by the processor, display of the new data object ( updated online page, Para 0157)
Even though Maschmeyer teach the displayed object can be on a laptop or mobile devices, it does not explicitly teach the modified content comprising content configured to be displayed on a second category of physical device that is different from the first category of physical device the directions for modifying the content comprising instructions to configure the modified content to be displayed on the second category of physical device
However, Hernandez teach wherein: the content comprises content configured to be displayed on a first category of physical device; the modified text content comprises content configured to be displayed on a second category of physical device that is different from the first category of physical device; and the directions for modifying the text content comprise instructions to configure the modified text content to be displayed on the second category of physical device ( the content database is synchronized between multiple devices of the user, such that the user can capture content items from any of the user's computing devices. Depending on resources, capabilities, and capacity of the computing device used to capture the content item, the content item may be transformed from the computing device or the server 160.., Para 0049)
It would have been obvious having the teachings of Maschmeyer to further include the concept of Hernandez before effective filing date since its well known that that mobile and computer presents the pages/content differently to fit the size etc. to avoid poor user experience ( Para 0049, Hernandez)
Regarding claim 11, arguments analogous to claim 1, are applicable. In addition Maschmeyer teaches A non-transitory computer-readable storage medium tangibly storing computer program instructions capable of being executed by a processor, the computer program instructions defining steps of claim ( computer readable medium, Para 0010)
Regarding claim 20, arguments analogous to claim 1, are applicable. In addition Maschmeyer teaches A device comprising: a processor; and a non-transitory computer-readable storage medium tangibly storing thereon logic for execution by the processor, the logic comprising instructions for performing a method ( fig 5, Abstract)
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
US 20210004770 ( Para 0097)
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.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Richa Sonifrank whose telephone number is (571)272-5357. The examiner can normally be reached M-T 7AM - 5:30PM.
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, Phan Hai can be reached at (571)272-6338. 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.
/Richa Sonifrank/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2654
Prosecution Insights