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
1. This is in response to application filed on 12/19/2023 in which claim 1-19 are presented for examination.
Status of Claims
2. Claims 1-19 are pending, of which claim 1 is in independent form. Applicant elects group 1 (claim 1-17) without traverse. Claims 18 and 19 has been withdrawn from examination.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101
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 1-17 rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract without significantly more.
Step 1: Is the claim statutory?
Claims 1-17 are directed to a method. Therefore, claims 1-17 are directed to one of the four statutory categories.
Step 2A – Is the claim directed to a judicial exception?
Prong 1: (Does the claim recite an abstract idea, law of nature, or natural phenomenon?)
Independent claim 1: Yes, the limitation “generating, a first response by a Large Language Model based on an initial user prompt, comprising of a text-based instruction, in a first and at least a second independent prompt-response chain. Wherein an initial user prompt and first response is different in each chain and the prompts and responses are graphically represented as blocks;” is the abstract idea of a mental process that can practically be performed in the human mind, with or without the use of a physical aid such as pen and paper (including an observation, evaluation, judgment, opinion). The limitations are analogous to a person merely observing where a user is looking and whether a user is looking at a particular object. Thus, the claim recites an abstract idea. See MPEP § 2106.04(a)(2)(III).
Claims 2-17 incorporate the limitations of the parent claim 1 and thus recited the same abstract idea.
Prong 2: (Does the claim recited additional elements that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application?)
Independent claim 1: No. Claim 1 further recites “dragging at least one of a prompt and/or response block to generate subsequent prompt between blocks and/or replace a block; and
differentiating the first prompt response chain by introducing and/or replacing at least one of a prompt or response from within the chain or from at least the second chain to regenerate text of the response, wherein differentiating is altering a stylistic and/or thematic element of the first chain based on the import from the second chain and insertion point in the first chain.”. However, since claim 1 is a method claim and this limitation is contingent dragging at least one of a prompt and/or response block to generate subsequent prompt between blocks and/or replace a block, the breadth or scope of this limitation does not actually occur when the displayed prompt does not drag by the user. Consequently, claim 1 being a method claim, when the user does not drag the one of a prompt and/or response block to generate subsequent prompt between blocks and/or replace a block, the method stops. Therefore, claim 1 does not recite additional elements that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application.
Claim 2: No, all elements are part of the abstract idea as shown above. Claim 2 recites “wherein the dragging occurs by a drag and drop in at least one form of a mouse cursor, vocalized request, hand gesture, or touch control” which are further mental process steps within the abstract idea. Thus, the claim does not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application.
Claim 3: No, Claim 3 recites “wherein the dragging further comprises the option to regenerate the entire chain.” which merely generally links the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use. See MPEP §§ 2106.04(d), 2106.05(h). dragging a prompt or response block is also further mental process steps within the abstract idea. Thus, the claim does not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application.
Claim 4: No, claim 4 recites “wherein the dragging further comprises the option to regenerate pre-selected blocks.” which are further mental process steps within the abstract idea. Thus, the claim does not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application.
Claim 5: No, the limitation “wherein the dragging further comprises the option to regenerate the inserted block.” is an additional element that generally links the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use. See MPEP §§ 2106.04(d), 2106.05(h). Thus, the claim does not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application.
Claim 6: No, all elements are part of the abstract idea as shown above. Claim 6 recites “wherein the dragging further comprises the option to insert imported files.” which are further mental process steps within the abstract idea. Thus, the claim does not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application.
Claim 7: No. Claim 7 recites “wherein the imported files may be at least one of: technology, media, audio, or video files” which merely generally links the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use. See MPEP §§ 2106.04(d), 2106.05(h). dragging a prompt or response block is also further mental process steps within the abstract idea. Thus, the claim does not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application.
Claim 8: No, all elements are part of the abstract idea as shown above. Claim recites “the step of a pinpoint drop, wherein different prompt commands are issued depending on the location of a dropped block” which are further mental process steps within the abstract idea. Thus, the claim does not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application.
Claim 9: No, all elements are part of the abstract idea as shown above. Claim 9 recites “tapping for value, wherein the number of taps on a block increases its value and impact on the prompt-response chain” which are further mental process steps within the abstract idea. Thus, the claim does not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application.
Claim 10: No, all elements are part of the abstract idea as shown above. Claim 10 recites “the user controls the intensity of the differentiation caused by the imported block” which are further mental process steps within the abstract idea. Thus, the claim does not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application.
Claim 11: No, all elements are part of the abstract idea as shown above. Claim 11 recites “wherein user directs modification of the subsequent chain and/or modifies the chain prior to the insertion point of the prompt and/or response” which are further mental process steps within the abstract idea. Thus, the claim does not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application.
Claim 12: No, all elements are part of the abstract idea as shown above. Claim 12 recites “wherein an inserted block differentiates pre-selected responses of the first chain” which are further mental process steps within the abstract idea. Thus, the claim does not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application.
Claim 13: No, all elements are part of the abstract idea as shown above. Claim 13 recites “further comprising an option of a chain clean up wherein every prompt is removed” which are further mental process steps within the abstract idea. Thus, the claim does not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application.
Claim 14: No, all elements are part of the abstract idea as shown above. Claim recites further comprising of an option to keep the initial user prompt” which are further mental process steps within the abstract idea. Thus, the claim does not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application.
Claim 15: No, all elements are part of the abstract idea as shown above. Claim recites further comprising of an option to maintain consistency within the text of the chain.” which are further mental process steps within the abstract idea. Thus, the claim does not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application.
Claim 16: No, all elements are part of the abstract idea as shown above. Claim recites “further comprising the step of block checking, wherein a user may remove unnecessary response blocks” which are further mental process steps within the abstract idea. Thus, the claim does not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application.
Claim 17: No, all elements are part of the abstract idea as shown above. Claim 17 recites “further comprising the option to save and/or share the chain” which are further mental process steps within the abstract idea. Thus, the claim does not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application.
Prong 2B – Does the claim recite additional elements that amount to significantly more than the abstract idea?
Independent claim 1: No, Claim 1 further recites “dragging at least one of a prompt and/or response block to generate subsequent prompt between blocks and/or replace a block; and
differentiating the first prompt response chain by introducing and/or replacing at least one of a prompt or response from within the chain or from at least the second chain to regenerate text of the response, wherein differentiating is altering a stylistic and/or thematic element of the first chain based on the import from the second chain and insertion point in the first chain.”. However, since claim 1 is a method claim and this limitation is contingent dragging at least one of a prompt and/or response block to generate subsequent prompt between blocks and/or replace a block, the breadth or scope of this limitation does not actually occur when the displayed prompt does not drag by the user. Consequently, claim 1 being a method claim, when the user does not drag the one of a prompt and/or response block to generate subsequent prompt between blocks and/or replace a block, the method stops. Therefore, the claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception.
Claim 2: No, the limitation “dragging occurs by a drag and drop in at least one form of a mouse cursor, vocalized request, hand gesture, or touch control” is an additional element that generally links the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use. See MPEP § 2106.05(h). Thus, the claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception.
Claim 3: No, the limitation “option to regenerate the entire chain” is an additional element that generally links the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use. See MPEP § 2106.05(h). Thus, the claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception.
Claim 4: No, the limitation “option to regenerate pre-selected blocks” is an additional element that generally links the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use. See MPEP § 2106.05(h). Thus, the claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception.
Claim 5: No, the limitation “option to regenerate the inserted block” is an additional element that generally links the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use. See MPEP § 2106.05(h). Thus, the claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception.
Claim 6: No, the limitation “the option to insert imported files” is an additional element that generally links the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use. See MPEP § 2106.05(h). Thus, the claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception.
Claim 7: No, The claim does not recite additional elements other than the abstract idea as shown above. Thus, the claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception.
Claim 8: No, the limitation “the step of a pinpoint drop, wherein different prompt commands are issued depending on the location of a dropped block” is an additional element that generally links the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use. See MPEP § 2106.05(h). Thus, the claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception.
Claim 9: No, the limitation “the step of tapping for value, wherein the number of taps on a block increases its value and impact on the prompt-response chain.” is an additional element that generally links the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use. See MPEP § 2106.05(h). Thus, the claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception.
Claim 10: No, the limitation “the user controls the intensity of the differentiation caused by the imported block.” is an additional element that generally links the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use. See MPEP § 2106.05(h). Thus, the claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception.
Claim 11: No, the limitation “wherein user directs modification of the subsequent chain and/or modifies the chain prior to the insertion point of the prompt and/or response.” is an additional element that generally links the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use. See MPEP § 2106.05(h). Thus, the claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception.
Claim 12: No, The claim does not recite additional elements other than the abstract idea as shown above. Thus, the claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception.
Claim 13: No, the limitation “an option of a chain clean up wherein every prompt is removed” is an additional element that generally links the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use. See MPEP § 2106.05(h). Thus, the claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception.
Claim 14: No. The claim does not recite additional elements other than the abstract idea as shown above. Thus, the claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception.
Claim 15: No. The claim does not recite additional elements other than the abstract idea as shown above. Thus, the claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception.
Claim 16: No, the limitation “the step of block checking, wherein a user may remove unnecessary response blocks” is an additional element that generally links the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use. See MPEP § 2106.05(h). Thus, the claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception.
Claim 17: No. The claim does not recite additional elements other than the abstract idea as shown above. Thus, the claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to RAYEEZ R CHOWDHURY whose telephone number is (571)270-3069. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 9AM-6:30PM EST.
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 L Bashore can be reached at 571-272-4088. 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.
/RAYEEZ R CHOWDHURY/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2174 Monday, April 13, 2026
Prosecution Insights