DETAILED ACTION
Claims 1-8 and 10-21 are pending in this action.
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 .
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.
Claims 1, 7-8, 10, 14-16 and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kamyshenko et al. (US PGPUB No. 2025/0013773) [hereinafter “Kamyshenko”] in view of Chengalvala et al. (US PGPUB No. 2025/0209138) [hereinafter “Chengalvala”] in further view of Weik (US PGPUB No. 2025/0139088).
As per claim 1, Kamyshenko teaches a method, comprising: obtaining at least one query, for a processor-based digital human, based at least in part on an input from at least one user (Abstract and [0007], user queries an AI-powered assistant with a request for data from a resource like a private database); obtaining information characterizing one or more permissions of the at least one user based at least in part on an identity authentication of the at least one user (Abstract and [0007], determining permissions of the user); performing one or more information retrieval searches based at least in part on the user query to obtain information retrieval results, wherein the retrieval results are filters ([0007], resource being queried can be a large language model filtered with user permissions and restrictions); determining whether the at least one user is authorized to access the at least one content portion by comparing the one or more permissions of the at least one user to the at least one associated access restriction ([0009], permissions and restrictions for the user and data are compared, i.e. evaluated); and providing, by the processor-based digital human, a response to the at least one user based at least in part on the at least one response from the at least one language model ([0007], transferring the queried data item with any redactions or modifications to satisfy restrictions and privacy policies); wherein the method is performed by at least one processing device comprising a processor coupled to a memory ([0085], processor in a special computer may implement the invention).
Kamyshenko does not explicitly teach generating one or more prompts for at least one language model based at least in part on the information retrieval results, wherein the one or more prompts are limited to information that the at least one user is authorized to access; and obtaining at least one response to the at least one query from the at least one language model based at least in part on the one or more prompts. Chengalvala teaches generating one or more prompts for at least one language model based at least in part on the information retrieval results ([0047], generating a prompt based on vectors using past user queries), wherein the one or more prompts are limited to information that the at least one user is authorized to access ([0040], retrieved data is subject to security operations including user level access controls); and obtaining at least one response to the at least one query from the at least one language model based at least in part on the one or more prompts ([0045], responses are received that are more enriched and specific).
At the time of filing, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to combine Kamyshenko with the teachings of Chengalvala, generating one or more prompts for at least one language model based at least in part on the information retrieval results, wherein the one or more prompts are limited to information that the at least one user is authorized to access; and obtaining at least one response to the at least one query from the at least one language model based at least in part on the one or more prompts, to tailor a query response to a specific user based on recorded characteristics.
The combination of Kamyshenko and Chengalvala does not explicitly teach wherein a content of the one or more prompts is limited to information that at least one user is authorized to access. PRIOR teaches wherein a content of the one or more prompts is limited to information that at least one user is authorized to access (Abstract, [0204] and [0210], taking into account user permissions when engineering and generating queries and prompts).
At the time of filing, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to combine Kamyshenko and Chengalvala with the teachings of Weik, wherein a content of the one or more prompts is limited to information that at least one user is authorized to access, to tailor a query response to a specific user based on recorded characteristics.
As per claim 7, the combination of Kamyshenko, Chengalvala and Weik teaches the method of claim 1, wherein the determining whether the at least one user is authorized to access at least one content portion of the information retrieval results and authenticating the at least one user (Kamyshenko; [0011], authenticating user request and validating user identity).
As per claim 8, the combination of Kamyshenko, Chengalvala and Weik teaches the method of claim 1, wherein the performing one or more information retrieval searches (Kamyshenko; [0009], system implementation includes among many other components large language models) comprises performing an information lookup in one or more databases that provide one or more access restrictions for stored information (Kamyshenko; [0007], looking up access restrictions with respect to the requesting user and the stored data item being requested).
As per claim 10, the substance of the claimed invention is identical or substantially similar to that of claim 1. Accordingly, this claim is rejected under the same rationale.
As per claim 14, the substance of the claimed invention is identical or substantially similar to that of claim 7. Accordingly, this claim is rejected under the same rationale.
As per claim 15, the substance of the claimed invention is identical or substantially similar to that of claim 9. Accordingly, this claim is rejected under the same rationale.
As per claim 16, the substance of the claimed invention is identical or substantially similar to that of claim 1. Accordingly, this claim is rejected under the same rationale.
As per claim 20, the substance of the claimed invention is identical or substantially similar to that of claim 9. Accordingly, this claim is rejected under the same rationale.
Claims 2-3, 11 and 17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kamyshenko, Chengalvala and Weik in view of Jones (US PGPUB No. 2006/0112107).
As per claim 2, the combination of Kamyshenko, Chengalvala and Weik teaches the method of claim 1 further comprising determining whether the at least one user is authorized to access the at least one content portion of the information retrieval results (Kamyshenko; [0009], permissions and restrictions for the user and data are compared, i.e. evaluated) see also (Chengalvala; [0040], retrieved data is subject to security operations including user level access controls).
The combination of Kamyshenko, Chengalvala and Weik does not explicitly teach determining whether the at least one user is authorized to know of an existence of the at least one content portion. Jones teaches and determining whether the at least one user is authorized to know of an existence of the at least one content portion ([0029], determining whether user is authorized to know the existence of a set of data).
At the time of filing, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to combine Kamyshenko, Chengalvala and Weik with the teachings of Jones, determining whether the at least one user is authorized to know of an existence of the at least one content portion, to provide further permissions checks that can fully articulate the privacy and security concerns of the implementing entity or company.
As per claim 3, the combination of Kamyshenko, Chengalvala, Weik and Jones teaches the method of claim 2, wherein the response to the at least one user indicates that the processor-based digital human does not have knowledge of a topic associated with the at least one query in response to determining that the at least one user is not authorized to know of the existence of the at least one content portion (Jones; [0029], responding by not presenting requested data where the user is restricted from knowing the existence of, indicates that the system does not have knowledge on the data).
As per claim 11, the substance of the claimed invention is identical or substantially similar to that of claim 3. Accordingly, this claim is rejected under the same rationale.
As per claim 17, the substance of the claimed invention is identical or substantially similar to that of claim 3. Accordingly, this claim is rejected under the same rationale.
Claims 4-6, 12-13, 18-19 and 21 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kamyshenko, Chengalvala and Weik in view of Kanevsky et al. (US Patent No. 7,360,248) [hereinafter “Kanevsky”].
As per claim 4, the combination of Kamyshenko, Chengalvala and Weik teaches the method of claim 1.
The combination of Kamyshenko, Chengalvala and Weik does not explicitly teach evaluating an environment of the at least one user and determining whether the at least one user is authorized to access the at least one content portion based on a result of the evaluating. Kanevsky teaches evaluating an environment of the at least one user and determining whether the at least one user is authorized to access the at least one content portion based on a result of the evaluating (Abstract, evaluating the location of a user and whether it is a secured location and if the user is ultimately an authorized user).
At the time of filing, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to combine Kamyshenko, Chengalvala and Weik with the teachings of Kanevsky, evaluating an environment of the at least one user and determining whether the at least one user is authorized to access the at least one content portion based on a result of the evaluating, to provide further permissions checks that can fully articulate the privacy and security concerns of the implementing entity or company.
As per claim 5, the combination of Kamyshenko, Chengalvala, Weik and Kanevsky teaches the method of claim 4, further comprising providing a response to the at least one user indicating that the response comprises information that cannot be shared with the at least one user in the environment (Kanevsky; Col. 3, lines 50-51 and Col. 5, lines 7-8, denying or rejecting access request indicates that information cannot be shared with the user in its present location) (Examiner Note: a denying or rejecting is interpreted to include sending back a denial or rejection message).
As per claim 6, the combination of Kamyshenko, Chengalvala, Weik and Kanevsky teaches the method of claim 4, wherein the evaluating the environment of the at least one user evaluates one or more of a physical security of the environment and a presence of one or more additional users in the environment (Kanevsky; Col. 6, lines 17-35, evaluating security of location includes determining presence of other users within a predetermined distance of the requestor).
As per claim 12, the substance of the claimed invention is identical or substantially similar to that of claim 4. Accordingly, this claim is rejected under the same rationale.
As per claim 13, the substance of the claimed invention is identical or substantially similar to that of claim 5. Accordingly, this claim is rejected under the same rationale.
As per claim 18, the substance of the claimed invention is identical or substantially similar to that of claim 4. Accordingly, this claim is rejected under the same rationale.
As per claim 19, the substance of the claimed invention is identical or substantially similar to that of claim 5. Accordingly, this claim is rejected under the same rationale.
As per claim 21, the substance of the claimed invention is identical or substantially similar to that of claim 6. Accordingly, this claim is rejected under the same rationale.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to the rejection of claims 1-8 and 10-21 have been fully considered. In light of the new amendments, a new prior art reference, Weik, has been introduced to teach the new feature.
To expedite prosecution, Examiner is open to conducting an interview to discuss claim amendments to overcome the current rejection and/or place the application in condition for allowance.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Ahmadia et al. (US PGPUB No. 2025/0258874), Dicklin et al. (US PGPUB No. 2025/0103827), Silver et al. (US Patent No. 12,093,658), Sun et al. ("Permit: Permission-Aware Representation Intervention for Controlled Generation in Large Language Models," arXiv:2605.09480, May 10, 2026) and Stanley et al. ("An AI Agent Execution Environment to Safeguard User Data," arXiv:2604.19657, April 21, 2026) all disclose various aspects of the claimed invention including user and data access permissions and restrictions when querying and prompting AI-assisted database storage.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to PETER C SHAW whose telephone number is (571)270-7179. The examiner can normally be reached Max Flex.
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, Carl Colin can be reached at 571-272-3862. 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.
/PETER C SHAW/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2493 June 23, 2026
Prosecution Insights