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 amendment filed on 06/16/2026 in which claim 1-17 are presented for examination.
Status of Claims
2. Claims 1-17 are pending, of which claim 1 is in independent form.
Response to Arguments
3. Applicant’s arguments with respect to 101 have been considered but are moot because examiner has withdrawn the 101 rejection.
Claim Interpretation
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(f):
(f) Element in Claim for a Combination. – An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The claims in this application are given their broadest reasonable interpretation using the plain meaning of the claim language in light of the specification as it would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art. The broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim element (also commonly referred to as a claim limitation) is limited by the description in the specification when 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is invoked.
As explained in MPEP § 2181, subsection I, claim limitations that meet the following three-prong test will be interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
(A) the claim limitation uses the term “means” or “step” or a term used as a substitute for “means” that is a generic placeholder (also called a nonce term or a non-structural term having no specific structural meaning) for performing the claimed function;
(B) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is modified by functional language, typically, but not always linked by the transition word “for” (e.g., “means for”) or another linking word or phrase, such as “configured to” or “so that”; and
(C) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function.
Use of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim with functional language creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites sufficient structure, material, or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Absence of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is not to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is not interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites function without reciting sufficient structure, material or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Claim limitations in this application that use the word “means” (or “step”) are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action. Conversely, claim limitations in this application that do not use the word “means” (or “step”) are not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action.
This application includes one or more claim limitations that do not use the word “means,” but are nonetheless being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, because the claim limitation(s) uses a generic placeholder that is coupled with functional language without reciting sufficient structure to perform the recited function and the generic placeholder is not preceded by a structural modifier. Such claim limitation(s) is/are: “translating, by a reward translator module; generating, by a prompt generation module” in claim 1.
Because this/these claim limitation(s) is/are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, it/they is/are being interpreted to cover the corresponding structure described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof.
If applicant does not intend to have this/these limitation(s) interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, applicant may: (1) amend the claim limitation(s) to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph (e.g., by reciting sufficient structure to perform the claimed function); or (2) present a sufficient showing that the claim limitation(s) recite(s) sufficient structure to perform the claimed function so as to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
4. Claims 1-17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Claim limitation “1” invokes 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. However, the written description fails to disclose the corresponding structure, material, or acts for performing the entire claimed function and to clearly link the structure, material, or acts to the function. No association between the structure and the function can be found in the specification. Therefore, the claim is indefinite and is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, second paragraph.
Applicant may:
(a) Amend the claim so that the claim limitation will no longer be interpreted as a limitation under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph;
(b) Amend the written description of the specification such that it expressly recites what structure, material, or acts perform the entire claimed function, without introducing any new matter (35 U.S.C. 132(a)); or
(c) Amend the written description of the specification such that it clearly links the structure, material, or acts disclosed therein to the function recited in the claim, without introducing any new matter (35 U.S.C. 132(a)).
If applicant is of the opinion that the written description of the specification already implicitly or inherently discloses the corresponding structure, material, or acts and clearly links them to the function so that one of ordinary skill in the art would recognize what structure, material, or acts perform the claimed function, applicant should clarify the record by either:
(a) Amending the written description of the specification such that it expressly recites the corresponding structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function and clearly links or associates the structure, material, or acts to the claimed function, without introducing any new matter (35 U.S.C. 132(a)); or
(b) Stating on the record what the corresponding structure, material, or acts, which are implicitly or inherently set forth in the written description of the specification, perform the claimed function. For more information, see 37 CFR 1.75(d) and MPEP §§ 608.01(o) and 2181.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(B) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
5. Claims 1-17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor, or for pre-AIA the applicant regards as the invention. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim 1, the sentences recites “translating, by a reward translator module, the dragging and/or replacement of the prompt and/or response block into a quantitative machine-readable representation associated with the one or more response drivers” seems to be ambiguous in definition. It is not clear from specification or in figures as to how the reward translator module translate dragging or replacement of the prompt or response block into a quantitative machine-readable representation associated with the one or more response drivers. Appropriate correction is requested.
For the prosecution on merits, examiner assumes as “translating response block into a quantitative machine-readable representation.
If the language of a claim, considered as a whole in light of the specification and given its broadest reasonable interpretation, is such that a person of ordinary skill in the relevant art would read it with more than one reasonable interpretation, then a rejection of the claims under 35 U.S.C. 112, second paragraph, is appropriate. See MPEP 2173.05(a), MPEP 2143.03(I), and MPEP 2173.06.
In light of the aforementioned rejections of the claim(s) under 35 U.S.C. 112, any subsequent rejections under 35 U.S.C. 102 and/or 103 are based on prior art that reads on the interpretation of the claim language of the instant application as best understood by the examiner.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph:
The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor of carrying out his invention.
6. Claims 1-17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for pre-AIA the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention. The specification fails to support the limitation "translating, by a reward translator module, the dragging and/or replacement of the prompt and/or response block into a quantitative machine-readable representation associated with the one or more response drivers; and
“generating, by a prompt generation module, a modified prompt using (i) the one or more response drivers and (ii) the quantitative machine-readable representation”. Specifically the specification notes that " AI system that is designed to identify response drivers from a text-based prompt provided by a user to an AI model" (¶0048, similarly at ¶0049).
Nothing within the specification supports that translating, by a reward translator module, the dragging and/or replacement of the prompt and/or response block into a quantitative machine-readable representation associated with the one or more response drivers; and a modified prompt using (i) the one or more response drivers and (ii) the quantitative machine-readable representation.
7. Claims 8- 10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for pre-AIA the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention. The specification fails to support the limitation " the step of a pinpoint drop, wherein different prompt commands are issued depending on the location of a dropped block(claim 8), the step of tapping for value, wherein the number of taps on a block increases its value and impact on the prompt-response chain(claim 9), wherein, the user controls the intensity of the differentiation caused by the imported block(claim 10) ”. Nothing within the specification supports the limitation in question.
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.
8. Claims 1-12 and 15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C 103 as being unpatentable over Ganjee (US PG Pub 2024/0404428) filed on June 05, 2024 in view of Etgen et al. (US PG Pub 2007/0180040) published on August 02, 2007.
As per claim 1, Ganjee teaches (Currently amended) A drag-to-prompt method, said method comprising the steps of:
generating, a first response by a Large Language Model based on an initial
user prompt(Para[0068] discloses LLM response based on input, as taught by Ganjee), comprising of a text-based instruction, in a first and at least a second independent prompt-response chain(fig 3A-D
5 a-b, 6 and 7A-C Para[0064-0082] discloses text base input and prompt response e.g. increase or decease, more formal and (140-0148 in fig 3A), as taught by Gabjee),
wherein an initial user prompt and first response is different in each chain and the prompts
and responses are graphically represented as blocks(fig 3A-D 5 a-b, 6 and 7A-C Para[0064-0082] discloses text base input and prompt response displays in tile, as taught by Gabjee);
extracting, by a feature extraction module, one or more response drivers from at least the first response of the first prompt-response chain(fig 3A-D 5 a-b, 6 and 7A-C Para[0064-0082] prompt response displays in tile, as taught by Ganjee), wherein the one or more response drivers comprise at least one of sentiment information(fig 3B-D Para[0065] a text identifier 161 along with the cross-hatching to associate the content response with an emotional identifier of “Excited”, as taught by Ganjee), stylistic information, thematic information, named entities, topics, or embedding information;
translating, by a reward translator module, the dragging and/or replacement of the
prompt and/or response block into a quantitative machine-readable representation
associated with the one or more response drivers(fig 3A-D, 5A and 6 Para[0068] the LLM generates responses to the input message based on instructions that achieve a desired tone and format. It is noted that the LLM can also be used to generate the visual distinguishing feature of the tile (e.g., colors, shading, icons, etc.), as taught by Ganjee);
generating, by a prompt generation module, a modified prompt using (i) the one or more response drivers and (ii) the quantitative machine-readable representation(Para[0073] fig 3A-D, 5A and 6 Para[0068] The user types a message input into the input prompt 210. The system allows the user to make their best attempt to type out their intended message in the input prompt 210. Next, an LLM can then be prompted to take the string of characters in the input prompt and guess what the user was trying to say based on a multitude of personal information data factors related to the user, as taught by Ganjee);
supplying the modified prompt to the Large Language Model to generate a modified prompt-response chain(Para[0073] fig 3A-D, 5A and 6 Para[0068] The user types a message input into the input prompt 210. The system allows the user to make their best attempt to type out their intended message in the input prompt 210. Next, an LLM can then be prompted to take the string of characters in the input prompt and guess what the user was trying to say based on a multitude of personal information data factors related to the user, as taught by Ganjee); and
rendering the modified prompt-response chain within a graphical user interface(fig 3A-D, 5A and 6 displays response prompt, as taught by Ganjee), wherein the modified prompt-response chain exhibits a modified stylistic, thematic, sentiment, or topical characteristic corresponding to the one or more
response drivers(fig 3A-D, 5A Para[0064-0082]and 6 e.g. 140-148, 160-161 and 210, as taught by Ganjee).
Ganjee does not explicitly teach dragging at least one of a prompt and/or response block to generate subsequent prompt between blocks and/or replace a block; and
On the other hand, Etgen teaches dragging at least one of a prompt and/or response block to generate subsequent prompt between blocks and/or replace a block(fig 6A-B Para[0024] the participant creates a new thread by using a mouse to "drag-and-drop" conversation element 615, as taught by Etgen); and
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the filing date of the
invention to modify Ganjee invention with the teaching of Etgen because doing so would
result in allowing participants to select preferences for displaying threads.
As per claim 2, the combination of Ganjee and Etgen teaches wherein the dragging occurs by a drag and drop in at least one form of a mouse cursor(Para[0024], as taught by Etgen), vocalized request, hand gesture, or touch control.
As per claim 3, the combination of Ganjee and Etgen teaches wherein the dragging further comprises the option to regenerate the entire chain(fig 6A-B Para[0024] the participant creates a new thread by using a mouse to "drag-and-drop" conversation element 615, as taught by Etgen).
As per claim 4, the combination of Ganjee and Etgen teaches wherein the dragging further
Comprises the option to regenerate pre-selected blocks(fig 6A-B Para[0024], as taught by Etgen).
As per claim 5, the combination of Ganjee and Etgen teaches wherein the dragging further
Comprises the option to regenerate the inserted block(fig 6A-B Para[0024] creates a new thread by
using a mouse to "drag-and-drop" conversation element 615, as taught by Etgen).
As per claim 9, the combination of Ganjee and Etgen teaches further comprising the step of
Tapping for value, wherein the number of taps on a block increases its value and impact on the
prompt-response chain(Para[0073-0078], as taught by Ganjee).
As per claim 10, the combination of Ganjee and Etgen teaches wherein, the user controls the
Intensity of the differentiation caused by the imported block(Para[0065-0078], as taught by Ganjee).
As per claim 11, the combination of Ganjee and Etgen teaches wherein user directs modification
of the subsequent chain and/or modifies the chain prior to the insertion point of the prompt
and/or response(Para[0065-0078] e.g. changes based on input, as taught by Ganjee).
As per claim 12, the combination of Ganjee and Etgen teaches wherein an inserted block
differentiates pre-selected responses of the first chain(fig 3b-c shows response chain, as taught by
Ganjee).
9. Claims 6-8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C 103 as being unpatentable over Ganjee (US PG Pub 2024/0404428) filed on June 05, 2024 in view of Etgen et al. (US PG Pub 2007/0180040) published on August 02, 2007 in further view of Yang (US PG Pub 2014/0155111) published on June 05, 2014.
As per claim 6, the combination of Ganjee and Etgen does not tech wherein the dragging further
Comprises the option to insert imported files.
On the other hand, Yang teaches wherein the dragging further Comprises the option to
insert imported files(Para[0185-0187] inserting video, as taught by Yang), as ).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the filing date of the
invention to modify Ganjee and Etgen’s invention with the teaching of Yang because doing so would
result in increased efficiency by allowing participants easily adding content.
As per claim 7, the combination of Ganjee, Etgen and Yang teaches wherein the imported files
may be at least one of. technology, media, audio, or video files(Para[0187] e.g. video files, as taught by
Yang).
As per claim 8, the combination of Ganjee, Etgen and Yang teaches further comprising the step of a pinpoint drop, wherein different prompt commands are issued depending on the location of a dropped block(Para[0185-186][0196-0197], as taught by Yang).
10. Claims 13-17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C 103 as being unpatentable over Ganjee (US PG Pub 2024/0404428) filed on June 05, 2024 in view of Etgen et al. (US PG Pub 2007/0180040) published on August 02, 2007 in further view of Ryan (US PG Pub 2022/0365638) published on November 17, 2022.
As per claim 13, the combination of Ganjee and Etgen does not teach further comprising an
option of a chain clean up wherein every prompt is removed.
On the other hand, Ryan teaches further comprising an option of achain clean up wherein
every prompt is removed(fig 5AI-5AK Para[0209][0211][0228][0278] discloses prompt to delete
message thread, as taught by Ryan).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the filing date of the
invention to modify Ganjee and Etgen’s invention with the teaching of Ryan because doing so would
result in increased efficiency by allowing participants easily removing unwanted item.
As per claim 14, the combination of Ganjee, Ryan and Etgen teaches further comprising of an
option to keep the initial user prompt(fig 3A para[0064-0066], as taught by Ganjee).
As per claim 15, the combination of Ganjee, Ryan and Etgen teach further comprising of an
option to maintain consistency within the text of the chain(fig 3A-C, as taught by Ganjee).
As per claim 16, the combination of Ganjee, Ryan and Etgen teach further comprising the step
of block checking, wherein a user may remove unnecessary response blocks(fig 5AI-5AK
Para[0209][0211][0228][0278], as taught by Ryan).
As per claim 17, the combination of Ganjee, Ryan and Etgen teach further comprising the option
to save and/or share the chain(Para[0211], as taught by Ryan).
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 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 Tuesday, August 25, 2026
Prosecution Insights