DETAILED ACTION
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Notice as to Grounds of Rejection and Pre-AIA or AIA Status
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.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 1-4, 6, 12-16, 18-19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Ishchenko et al. (U.S. Patent Application Publication 2025/0335450 hereinafter Ishchenko (Provisional filed on Apr. 29, 2024 fully discloses limitations as rejected))
With regard to claims 1, 15, 18, Ishchenko teaches a system, a method, a non-transitory computer-readable medium comprising:
at least one memory that stores instructions <fig 1 item 1006, para 0148>; and
one or more processors configured by the instructions to perform operations comprising <<fig 10 item 1004, para 0148>:
accessing a backend response comprising response data, the backend response having been generated automatically in response to user input provided via a user interface associated with a digital assistant <AI assistant can process user queries para 0019, 0090-0093>;
generating prompt data comprising an instruction to generate an intermediate representation of an output data structure supported by the digital assistant <prompt can be provided and hint can be provided as interim response para 0019, fig 3 para 0070-0075>;
providing the prompt data to a generative machine learning model to obtain the intermediate representation <prompt data is provided to machine learning model para 0019-0020, 0072>;
processing the intermediate representation to obtain the output data structure <see fig 3 items 320, 324, 332 response is evaluated and generated para 0073-0084> ; and
causing, based on the output data structure, rendering of one or more user interface elements to present the response data via the user interface associated with the digital assistant <response is displayed on a user interface para 0084>.
With regard to claims 2, 16, 19, these claims depend upon claims 1, 15, 18 respectively, which are rejected below. In addition, Ishchenko teaches wherein the intermediate representation is a scripting syntax representation or a condensed metalanguage representation <template (scripting language) can be used to generate intermediate response para 0076, see fig 3>.
With regard to claim 3, this claim depends upon claim 1, which is rejected above. In addition, Ishchenko teaches wherein the output data structure comprises a message in a predetermined format supported by the digital assistant <specific APIs can be used para 0078>, and the message is processed to generate the one or more user interface elements to present the response data via the user interface <response is displayed on a user interface para 0084>.
With regard to claim 4, this claim depends upon claim 1, which is rejected above. In addition, Ishchenko teaches wherein the intermediate representation comprises a scripting syntax representation <API can be used para 0078>, and the processing of the intermediate representation comprises using the response data to resolve scripting code of the scripting syntax representation to obtain the output data structure <context information can be used to resolve response para 0085, see fig 4>.
With regard to claim 6, this claim depends upon claim 4, which is rejected above. In addition, Ishchenko teaches wherein the scripting syntax representation is generated using a scripting language that supports at least one of: iterative operations with respect to the response data in the resolving of the scripting code <iterative process can be performed para 0082> , or conditional operations with respect to the response data in the resolving of the scripting code.
With regard to claim 12, this claim depends upon claim 1, which is rejected above. In addition, Ishchenko teaches, wherein the one or more user interface elements comprise at least one of: a button object, a list object, a card object, a text object, a hyperlink object, a table object, or a chart object <user interaction can be text messages para 0024-0026>.
With regard to claim 13, this claim depends upon claim 1, which is rejected above. In addition, Ishchenko teaches, the operations further comprising:
identifying, based at least partially on the user input, a function identifier associated with a function from among a plurality of functions supported by the digital assistant <function can be identified and invoked based upon user interaction para 0026-0028>; and
automatically invoking the function to obtain the backend response <function can be invoked para 0026-0028>.
With regard to claim 14, this claim depends upon claim 1, which is rejected above. In addition, Ishchenko teaches, wherein the generative machine learning model comprises a large language model (LLM) <machine learning models can include LLMs para 0019, 0072> .
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 of this title, 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.
Claims 5, 10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ishchenko in view of Ahmed et al (US Patent Application Publication 2025/00055269 A1 hereinafter Ahmed (Provisional filed on Jun. 30, 2023, fully discloses limitations)).
With regard to claim 5, this claim depends upon claim 4, which is rejected above. Ishchenko does not appear to fully disclose limitations of this claim.
In the same field of endeavor, Ahmed teaches wherein the scripting syntax representation comprises one or more placeholders for at least a subset of the response data <place holders can be used fig 3 item 330>.
Accordingly, it would have been obvious before the effective filing date to one of ordinary skill in the art, having the teachings of Ishchenko, Ahmed before him/her before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify the teachings of Ishchenko to include the teachings of Ahmed, in order to obtain limitations taught by Ahmed. One would have been motivated to make such a combination because it provides flexibility in providing dynamic content.
With regard to claim 10, this claim depends upon claim 1, which is rejected above. Ishchenko does not appear to fully disclose limitations of this claim.
In the same field of endeavor, Ahmed teaches the operations further comprising:
selecting, based on the backend response, one or more user interface element templates, wherein the one or more user interface element templates are identified in the prompt data provided to the generative machine learning model, and the one or more user interface elements rendered via the user interface each correspond to one of the one or more user interface element templates <templates are used for user interaction along with prompt using GAI model see fig 3 para 0045>.
Accordingly, it would have been obvious before the effective filing date to one of ordinary skill in the art, having the teachings of Ishchenko, Ahmed before him/her before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify the teachings of Ishchenko to include the teachings of Ahmed, in order to obtain limitations taught by Ahmed. One would have been motivated to make such a combination because it provides a customized response to a user.
Claims 11, 17, 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ishchenko in view of Chen (US Patent Application Publication 2025/0335222 A1 hereinafter Chen).
With regard to claims 11, 17, 20, these claims depend upon claims 1, 15, 18 respectively, which are rejected below. Ishchenko does not appear to fully disclose limitations of this claim.
In the same field of endeavor, Chen teaches wherein the intermediate representation has a first data format and the output data structure has a second data format that differs from the first data format, and the intermediate representation comprises fewer tokens than the output data structure <input, output can be in different formats (containing different tokens) para 00046-0047, 0090>.
Accordingly, it would have been obvious before the effective filing date to one of ordinary skill in the art, having the teachings of Ishchenko, Chen before him/her before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify the teachings of Ishchenko to include the teachings of Chen, in order to obtain limitations taught by Chen. One would have been motivated to make such a combination because it provides better representation on various platforms.
Allowable Subject Matter
Each of claims 7-9 is objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of its base claim and any intervening claims set forth in this action and if rewritten to overcome all the objection(s) and/or rejection(s) set forth above in this action.
Prior art listed above in the Office action and Nair et al (US 2025/0156465) though teaches using condensed representation see para 0049 and other prior similarly fails to disclose limitations of claim 7. Therefore claim 7 contains allowable subject matter. The dependent claims 8 and 9 further add limitations to the allowable subject matter of the claim 7; thus, are also allowable.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record (see PTO-892) and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure:
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ANIL K BHARGAVA whose telephone number is (571)270-3278. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 8:30 am - 5:00 pm.
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, Adam Queler can be reached at 571-272-4140. 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.
/ANIL K BHARGAVA/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2172
Prosecution Insights