DETAILED 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 .
Status of Claims
In response to communications filed on 29 May 2024, claims 1-20 are presently pending in the application, of which, claims 1, 16, and 20 are presented in independent form.
Priority
Receipt is acknowledged of certified copies of papers required by 37 CFR 1.55.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 06 August 2024 is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement is being considered by the examiner.
Drawings
The drawings, filed 29 May 2024, have been reviewed and accepted by the Examiner.
Specification
The lengthy specification has not been checked to the extent necessary to determine the presence of all possible minor errors. Applicant’s cooperation is requested in correcting any errors of which applicant may become aware in the specification.
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.
Regarding claims 1-20, under Step 2A claims 1-15 recite a judicial exception (abstract idea) that is not integrated into a practical application and does not provide significantly more.
Under Step 2A (prong 1), and taking claim 1 as representative, claim 1 recites:
receiving one or more first content messages, the one or more first content messages comprising a first prompt specifying a requested response to be computed;
responsive to the first prompt, submitting a second prompt to one or more generative neural network models based, at least in part, on the first prompt, the second prompt specifying a plurality of computing tools for use in constructing the requested response, the second prompt requesting an identification of tasks to be executed based, at least in part, on at least some of the plurality of computing tools and based, at least in part, on execution dependencies between and/or among the identified tasks;
receiving from the one or more generative neural network models, one or more second content messages specifying the identified tasks and an order of execution of the identified tasks based, at least in part, on the execution dependencies between and/or among the identified tasks; and
initiating execution of identified tasks according to the order of execution to generate the requested response.
These limitations recite mental processes, such as concepts performed in the human mind (see: 2019 PEG, p. 52). This is because the each of the limitations above recite a series of steps that may be mentally performed by which an evaluation is made for an abstract data. For example, the limitations of ‘receiving one or more first content messages, the one or more first content messages comprising a first prompt specifying a requested response to be computed; responsive to the first prompt, submitting a second prompt to one or more generative neural network models based, at least in part, on the first prompt, the second prompt specifying a plurality of computing tools for use in constructing the requested response, the second prompt requesting an identification of tasks to be executed based, at least in part, on at least some of the plurality of computing tools and based, at least in part, on execution dependencies between and/or among the identified tasks; receiving from the one or more generative neural network models, one or more second content messages specifying the identified tasks and an order of execution of the identified tasks based, at least in part, on the execution dependencies between and/or among the identified tasks; and initiating execution of identified tasks according to the order of execution to generate the requested response,’ illustrate a judgement being performed to find matching results and does not perform any technical operation. This represents a judgement or decision which are concepts performed in the human mind and falls under certain methods of mental processes. Accordingly, under step 2A (prong 1) the claim recites an abstract idea because the claim recites limitations that fall within the “Certain methods of mental processes” grouping of abstract ideas (see again: 2019 PEG, p. 52).
Under Step 2A (prong 2), the abstract idea is not integrated into a practical application. The Examiner acknowledges that representative claim 1 does recite additional elements, including hardware processing circuitry, such as edge device.
Although reciting these additional elements, taken alone or in combination these elements are not sufficient to integrate the abstract idea into a practical application. This is because the additional elements of claim 1 are recited at a high level of generality (i.e. as generic computing hardware) such that they amount to nothing more than the mere instructions to implement or apply the abstract idea on generic computing hardware (or, merely uses a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea). Further, the additional elements do no more than generally link the use of a judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use (such as the Internet or computing networks).
Secondly, the additional elements are insufficient to integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because the claim fails to (i) reflect an improvement in the functioning of a computer, or an improvement to other technology or technical field, (ii) implement the judicial exception with, or use the judicial exception in conjunction with, a particular machine or manufacture that is integral to the claim, (iii) effect a transformation or reduction of a particular article to a different state or thing, or (iv) applies or uses the judicial exception in some other meaningful way beyond generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment.
In view of the above, under Step 2A (prong 2), claim 1 does not integrate the recited exception into a practical application (see again: 2019 Revised Patent Subject Matter Eligibility Guidance).
Under Step 2B, examiners should evaluate additional elements individually and in combination to determine whether they provide an inventive concept (i.e., whether the additional elements amount to significantly more than the exception itself). In this case, the claims do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. That is, the limitations of ‘responsive to the first prompt, submitting a second prompt to one or more generative neural network models based, at least in part, on the first prompt, the second prompt specifying a plurality of computing tools for use in constructing the requested response, the second prompt requesting an identification of tasks to be executed based, at least in part, on at least some of the plurality of computing tools and based, at least in part, on execution dependencies between and/or among the identified tasks,’ are additional elements that are insignificant extra solution activities that that do not amount to significantly more than the judicial exception.
Returning to representative claim 1, taken individually or as a whole the additional elements of claim 1 do not provide an inventive concept (i.e. they do not amount to “significantly more” than the exception itself). As discussed above with respect to the integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, the additional elements used to perform the claimed process amount to no more than the mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer and/or no more than a general link to a technological environment.
Furthermore, the additional elements fail to provide significantly more also because the claim simply appends well-understood, routine, conventional activities previously known to the industry, specified at a high level of generality, to the judicial exception. For example, the additional elements of claim 1 utilize operations the courts have held to be well-understood, routine, and conventional (see: MPEP 2106.05(d)(lI)), including at least:
• receiving or transmitting data over a network, and/or
• storing and retrieving information in memory
• performing repetitive calculations
Even considered as an ordered combination (as a whole), the additional elements of claim 1 do not add anything further than when they are considered individually.
In view of the above, representative claim 1 does not provide an inventive concept (“significantly more”) under Step 2B, and is therefore ineligible for patenting.
Dependent claim 2 also does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application. Notably, claim 2 recites ‘ wherein the one or more first content messages are initiated by a graphical user interface (GUI),’ all which are more complexities descriptive of the abstract idea itself. Such complexities do not themselves provide further additional elements in addition to the abstract ideas themselves. Further, claim 2 relies upon at least similar additional elements that are mere instructions to implement the abstract idea or other exception on a computer. Considered both individually and as a whole, claim 2 does not integrate the recited exception into a practical application for at least similar reasons as discussed above.
Considered individually or as a whole, claim 2 also fail to result in “significantly more” than the abstract idea under step 2B. This is again because the claims merely recite additional elements that are insignificant extra-solution activity that apply the exception on generic computing hardware, generally link the exception to a technological environment, and append well-understood, routine, conventional activities previously known to the industry, specified at a high level of generality, to the judicial exception (see discussion above).
Even when viewed as an ordered combination (as a whole), the additional elements of the dependent claims do not add anything further than when they are considered individually.
In view of the above, claim 2 does not provide an inventive concept (“significantly more”) under Step 2B, and are therefore ineligible for patenting.
Dependent claim 3 also does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application. Notably, claim 3 recites ‘the first prompt and/or second prompt makes reference to one or more previous interactions of a user with at least one of the one or more generative neural network models; and the identified tasks and/or the order of execution of the identified tasks are further based, at least in part, on the one or more previous interactions of the user with the at least one of the one or more generative neural network models’ all which are more complexities descriptive of the abstract idea itself. Such complexities do not themselves provide further additional elements in addition to the abstract ideas themselves. Further, claim 3 relies upon at least similar additional elements that are mere instructions to implement the abstract idea or other exception on a computer. Considered both individually and as a whole, claim 3 does not integrate the recited exception into a practical application for at least similar reasons as discussed above.
Considered individually or as a whole, claim 3 also fail to result in “significantly more” than the abstract idea under step 2B. This is again because the claims merely recite additional elements that are insignificant extra-solution activity that apply the exception on generic computing hardware, generally link the exception to a technological environment, and append well-understood, routine, conventional activities previously known to the industry, specified at a high level of generality, to the judicial exception (see discussion above).
Even when viewed as an ordered combination (as a whole), the additional elements of the dependent claims do not add anything further than when they are considered individually.
In view of the above, claim 3 does not provide an inventive concept (“significantly more”) under Step 2B, and are therefore ineligible for patenting.
Dependent claim 4 also does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application. Notably, claim 4 recites ‘wherein at least one of the execution dependencies between and/or among the identified tasks reflects that at least a first task of the identified tasks is to complete execution prior to commencement of at least a second task of the identified tasks,’ all which are more complexities descriptive of the abstract idea itself. Such complexities do not themselves provide further additional elements in addition to the abstract ideas themselves. Further, claim 4 relies upon at least similar additional elements that are mere instructions to implement the abstract idea or other exception on a computer. Considered both individually and as a whole, claim 4 does not integrate the recited exception into a practical application for at least similar reasons as discussed above.
Considered individually or as a whole, claim 4 also fail to result in “significantly more” than the abstract idea under step 2B. This is again because the claims merely recite additional elements that are insignificant extra-solution activity that apply the exception on generic computing hardware, generally link the exception to a technological environment, and append well-understood, routine, conventional activities previously known to the industry, specified at a high level of generality, to the judicial exception (see discussion above).
Even when viewed as an ordered combination (as a whole), the additional elements of the dependent claims do not add anything further than when they are considered individually. In view of the above, claim 4 do not provide an inventive concept (“significantly more”) under Step 2B, and are therefore ineligible for patenting.
Dependent claim 5 also does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application. Notably, claim 5 recites ‘wherein an execution result of the first task affects an execution result of the second task,’ all which are more complexities descriptive of the abstract idea itself. Such complexities do not themselves provide further additional elements in addition to the abstract ideas themselves. Further, claim 5 relies upon at least similar additional elements that are mere instructions to implement the abstract idea or other exception on a computer. Considered both individually and as a whole, claim 5 does not integrate the recited exception into a practical application for at least similar reasons as discussed above.
Considered individually or as a whole, claim 5 also fail to result in “significantly more” than the abstract idea under step 2B. This is again because the claims merely recite additional elements that are insignificant extra-solution activity that apply the exception on generic computing hardware, generally link the exception to a technological environment, and append well-understood, routine, conventional activities previously known to the industry, specified at a high level of generality, to the judicial exception (see discussion above).
Even when viewed as an ordered combination (as a whole), the additional elements of the dependent claims do not add anything further than when they are considered individually. In view of the above, claim 5 does not provide an inventive concept (“significantly more”) under Step 2B, and are therefore ineligible for patenting.
Dependent claim 6 also does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application. Notably, claim 6 recites ‘the requested response comprises computer code to provide a computation result; and the identified tasks comprise computer code modules,’ all which are more complexities descriptive of the abstract idea itself. Such complexities do not themselves provide further additional elements in addition to the abstract ideas themselves. Further, claim 6 relies upon at least similar additional elements that are mere instructions to implement the abstract idea or other exception on a computer. Considered both individually and as a whole, claim 6 does not integrate the recited exception into a practical application for at least similar reasons as discussed above.
Considered individually or as a whole, claim 6 also fail to result in “significantly more” than the abstract idea under step 2B. This is again because the claims merely recite additional elements that are insignificant extra-solution activity that apply the exception on generic computing hardware, generally link the exception to a technological environment, and append well-understood, routine, conventional activities previously known to the industry, specified at a high level of generality, to the judicial exception (see discussion above).
Even when viewed as an ordered combination (as a whole), the additional elements of the dependent claims do not add anything further than when they are considered individually. In view of the above, claim 6 does not provide an inventive concept (“significantly more”) under Step 2B, and are therefore ineligible for patenting.
Dependent claim 7 also does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application. Notably, claim 7 recites ‘wherein the first prompt further comprises natural language descriptions of the computing tools,’ all which are more complexities descriptive of the abstract idea itself. Such complexities do not themselves provide further additional elements in addition to the abstract ideas themselves. Further, claim 7 relies upon at least similar additional elements that are mere instructions to implement the abstract idea or other exception on a computer. Considered both individually and as a whole, claim 7 does not integrate the recited exception into a practical application for at least similar reasons as discussed above.
Considered individually or as a whole, claim 7 also fail to result in “significantly more” than the abstract idea under step 2B. This is again because the claims merely recite additional elements that are insignificant extra-solution activity that apply the exception on generic computing hardware, generally link the exception to a technological environment, and append well-understood, routine, conventional activities previously known to the industry, specified at a high level of generality, to the judicial exception (see discussion above).
Even when viewed as an ordered combination (as a whole), the additional elements of the dependent claims do not add anything further than when they are considered individually. In view of the above, claim 7 does not provide an inventive concept (“significantly more”) under Step 2B, and are therefore ineligible for patenting.
Dependent claim 8 also does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application. Notably, claim 8 recites ‘wherein the natural language descriptions of the computing tools comprise indications of input values and/or output values for respective computing tools in a library of computer code module’ all which are more complexities descriptive of the abstract idea itself. Such complexities do not themselves provide further additional elements in addition to the abstract ideas themselves. Further, claim 8 relies upon at least similar additional elements that are mere instructions to implement the abstract idea or other exception on a computer. Considered both individually and as a whole, claim 8 does not integrate the recited exception into a practical application for at least similar reasons as discussed above.
Considered individually or as a whole, claim 8 also fail to result in “significantly more” than the abstract idea under step 2B. This is again because the claims merely recite additional elements that are insignificant extra-solution activity that apply the exception on generic computing hardware, generally link the exception to a technological environment, and append well-understood, routine, conventional activities previously known to the industry, specified at a high level of generality, to the judicial exception (see discussion above).
Even when viewed as an ordered combination (as a whole), the additional elements of the dependent claims do not add anything further than when they are considered individually. In view of the above, claim 8 does not provide an inventive concept (“significantly more”) under Step 2B, and are therefore ineligible for patenting.
Dependent claim 9 also does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application. Notably, claim 9 recites ‘wherein the computer code modules are identified based, at least in part, on an execution history of at least some of a plurality of computer code modules in a library of computer code modules,’ all which are more complexities descriptive of the abstract idea itself. Such complexities do not themselves provide further additional elements in addition to the abstract ideas themselves. Further, claim 9 relies upon at least similar additional elements that are mere instructions to implement the abstract idea or other exception on a computer. Considered both individually and as a whole, claim 9 does not integrate the recited exception into a practical application for at least similar reasons as discussed above.
Considered individually or as a whole, claim 9 also fail to result in “significantly more” than the abstract idea under step 2B. This is again because the claims merely recite additional elements that are insignificant extra-solution activity that apply the exception on generic computing hardware, generally link the exception to a technological environment, and append well-understood, routine, conventional activities previously known to the industry, specified at a high level of generality, to the judicial exception (see discussion above).
Even when viewed as an ordered combination (as a whole), the additional elements of the dependent claims do not add anything further than when they are considered individually. In view of the above, claim 9 does not provide an inventive concept (“significantly more”) under Step 2B, and are therefore ineligible for patenting.
Dependent claim 10 also does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application. Notably, claim 10 recites ‘the first prompt is formulated by a user; and the first prompt further comprises a history of previous interactions of the user with a graphical user interface (GUI),’ all which are more complexities descriptive of the abstract idea itself. Such complexities do not themselves provide further additional elements in addition to the abstract ideas themselves. Further, claim 10 relies upon at least similar additional elements that are mere instructions to implement the abstract idea or other exception on a computer. Considered both individually and as a whole, claim 10 does not integrate the recited exception into a practical application for at least similar reasons as discussed above.
Considered individually or as a whole, claim 10 also fail to result in “significantly more” than the abstract idea under step 2B. This is again because the claims merely recite additional elements that are insignificant extra-solution activity that apply the exception on generic computing hardware, generally link the exception to a technological environment, and append well-understood, routine, conventional activities previously known to the industry, specified at a high level of generality, to the judicial exception (see discussion above).
Even when viewed as an ordered combination (as a whole), the additional elements of the dependent claims do not add anything further than when they are considered individually. In view of the above, claim 10 does not provide an inventive concept (“significantly more”) under Step 2B, and are therefore ineligible for patenting.
Dependent claim 11 also does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application. Notably, claim 11 recites ‘wherein the history of previous interactions of the user with the GUI further comprises previous prompts submitted to the GUI and corresponding responses to the previous prompts,’ all which are more complexities descriptive of the abstract idea itself. Such complexities do not themselves provide further additional elements in addition to the abstract ideas themselves. Further, claim 11 relies upon at least similar additional elements that are mere instructions to implement the abstract idea or other exception on a computer. Considered both individually and as a whole, claim 11 does not integrate the recited exception into a practical application for at least similar reasons as discussed above.
Considered individually or as a whole, claim 11 also fail to result in “significantly more” than the abstract idea under step 2B. This is again because the claims merely recite additional elements that are insignificant extra-solution activity that apply the exception on generic computing hardware, generally link the exception to a technological environment, and append well-understood, routine, conventional activities previously known to the industry, specified at a high level of generality, to the judicial exception (see discussion above).
Even when viewed as an ordered combination (as a whole), the additional elements of the dependent claims do not add anything further than when they are considered individually. In view of the above, claim 11 does not provide an inventive concept (“significantly more”) under Step 2B, and are therefore ineligible for patenting.
Dependent claim 12 also does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application. Notably, claim 12 recites ‘wherein: computing tools comprise one or more modules of computer-readable instructions; and the requested response comprises computer code integrating at least one of the one or more modules,’ all which are more complexities descriptive of the abstract idea itself. Such complexities do not themselves provide further additional elements in addition to the abstract ideas themselves. Further, claim 12 relies upon at least similar additional elements that are mere instructions to implement the abstract idea or other exception on a computer. Considered both individually and as a whole, claim 12 does not integrate the recited exception into a practical application for at least similar reasons as discussed above.
Considered individually or as a whole, claim 12 also fail to result in “significantly more” than the abstract idea under step 2B. This is again because the claims merely recite additional elements that are insignificant extra-solution activity that apply the exception on generic computing hardware, generally link the exception to a technological environment, and append well-understood, routine, conventional activities previously known to the industry, specified at a high level of generality, to the judicial exception (see discussion above).
Even when viewed as an ordered combination (as a whole), the additional elements of the dependent claims do not add anything further than when they are considered individually. In view of the above, claim 12 does not provide an inventive concept (“significantly more”) under Step 2B, and are therefore ineligible for patenting.
Dependent claim 13 also does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application. Notably, claim 13 recites ‘wherein: the one or more second content messages comprise instructions formatted according to a JavaScript Object Notation (JSON),’ all which are more complexities descriptive of the abstract idea itself. Such complexities do not themselves provide further additional elements in addition to the abstract ideas themselves. Further, claim 13 relies upon at least similar additional elements that are mere instructions to implement the abstract idea or other exception on a computer. Considered both individually and as a whole, claim 13 does not integrate the recited exception into a practical application for at least similar reasons as discussed above.
Considered individually or as a whole, claim 13 also fail to result in “significantly more” than the abstract idea under step 2B. This is again because the claims merely recite additional elements that are insignificant extra-solution activity that apply the exception on generic computing hardware, generally link the exception to a technological environment, and append well-understood, routine, conventional activities previously known to the industry, specified at a high level of generality, to the judicial exception (see discussion above).
Even when viewed as an ordered combination (as a whole), the additional elements of the dependent claims do not add anything further than when they are considered individually. In view of the above, claim 13 does not provide an inventive concept (“significantly more”) under Step 2B, and are therefore ineligible for patenting.
Dependent claim 14 also does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application. Notably, claim 14 recites ‘wherein execution of at least one of the identified tasks comprises: submitting a third prompt to at least one of the one or more generative neural network models, the third prompt specifying a plurality of computing tools for use in executing the at least one of the identified tasks, the third prompt requesting an identification of subtasks to be executed based, at least in part, on at least some of the plurality of computing tools for use in executing the at least one of the identified tasks and based, at least in part, on execution dependencies between and/or among the identified subtasks; and receiving from the at least one of the one or more generative neural network models, one or more third messages specifying the identified subtasks and an order of execution of the identified subtasks based, at least in part, on the execution dependencies between and/or among the identified subtasks,’ all which are more complexities descriptive of the abstract idea itself. Such complexities do not themselves provide further additional elements in addition to the abstract ideas themselves. Further, claim 14 relies upon at least similar additional elements that are mere instructions to implement the abstract idea or other exception on a computer. Considered both individually and as a whole, claim 14 does not integrate the recited exception into a practical application for at least similar reasons as discussed above.
Considered individually or as a whole, claim 14 also fail to result in “significantly more” than the abstract idea under step 2B. This is again because the claims merely recite additional elements that are insignificant extra-solution activity that apply the exception on generic computing hardware, generally link the exception to a technological environment, and append well-understood, routine, conventional activities previously known to the industry, specified at a high level of generality, to the judicial exception (see discussion above).
Even when viewed as an ordered combination (as a whole), the additional elements of the dependent claims do not add anything further than when they are considered individually. In view of the above, claim 14 does not provide an inventive concept (“significantly more”) under Step 2B, and are therefore ineligible for patenting.
Dependent claim 15 also does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application. Notably, claim 15 recites ‘wherein: the first prompt and/or third prompt specify one or more previous interactions of a user with at least one of the one or more generative neural network models; and the identified subtasks and/or the order of execution of the identified subtasks are further based, at least in part, on the specified one or more previous interactions of the user with the at least one of the one or more generative neural network models,’ all which are more complexities descriptive of the abstract idea itself. Such complexities do not themselves provide further additional elements in addition to the abstract ideas themselves. Further, claim 15 relies upon at least similar additional elements that are mere instructions to implement the abstract idea or other exception on a computer. Considered both individually and as a whole, claim 15 does not integrate the recited exception into a practical application for at least similar reasons as discussed above.
Considered individually or as a whole, claim 15 also fail to result in “significantly more” than the abstract idea under step 2B. This is again because the claims merely recite additional elements that are insignificant extra-solution activity that apply the exception on generic computing hardware, generally link the exception to a technological environment, and append well-understood, routine, conventional activities previously known to the industry, specified at a high level of generality, to the judicial exception (see discussion above).
Even when viewed as an ordered combination (as a whole), the additional elements of the dependent claims do not add anything further than when they are considered individually. In view of the above, claim 15 does not provide an inventive concept (“significantly more”) under Step 2B, and are therefore ineligible for patenting.
Claims 16-19 appear to include similar subject matter as in claims 1-15 as discussed above. More specifically, independent claim 16 additionally recites ‘a non-transitory machine-readable medium having instructions stored therein…’ which is recited at a high level of generality and are recited as performing mere generic computer functions routinely used in computer applications. Generic computer components recited as performing generic computer functions that are well-understood, routine and conventional activities amount to no more than implementing the abstract idea with a computerized system in addition to merely indicating a field of use or technological environment in which the judicial exception do not amount to significantly more than the exception itself. All the comments made with respect to the rejection of claims 1-15 equally apply and therefore stand rejected.
Claim 20 appear to include similar subject matter as in claim 1 as discussed above. More specifically, independent claim 20 additionally recites ‘a system comprising …’ and is recited at a high level of generality and are recited as performing mere generic computer functions routinely used in computer applications. Generic computer components recited as performing generic computer functions that are well-understood, routine and conventional activities amount to no more than implementing the abstract idea with a computerized system in addition to merely indicating a field of use or technological environment in which the judicial exception do not amount to significantly more than the exception itself. All the comments made with respect to the rejection of claim 1 equally apply and therefore stand rejected.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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.
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.
Claims 1-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable by Amershi, Saleema, et al (U.S. 2024/0386038 and known hereinafter as Amershi) in view of Ramos, Gonzalo, et al (U.S. 2025/0217588 and known hereinafter as Ramos).
As per claim 1, Amershi teaches a method, comprising:
receiving one or more first content messages, the one or more first content messages comprising a first prompt specifying a requested response to be computed (e.g. Amershi, see paragraphs [0026-0027], which discloses a prompt acquirer is configured to receive, obtain, or otherwise acquire a prompt, where the prompt is an input or a query that the user may provide a prompt for one or more generative AI systems.);
responsive to the first prompt, submitting a second prompt to one or more generative neural network models based (e.g. Amershi, see paragraphs [0027-0029], which discloses generative AI systems.), at least in part, on the first prompt (e.g. Amershi, see paragraph [0029], which discloses the prompt manager is configured to generate a new supplemental prompt and/or modify an original prompt input by a user for one or more generative AI systems based on the one or more embedded attributes.), the second prompt specifying a plurality of computing tools for use in constructing the requested response, the second prompt requesting an identification of tasks to be executed based (e.g. Amershi, see paragraph [0030-0032], which discloses the prompt provider is configured to provide one or more prompts to one or more generative AI systems, where the one or more prompts may include a new supplemental prompt, a modified prompt, and/or the original input prompt.), at least in part, on at least some of the plurality of computing tools and based, at least in part, on execution dependencies between and/or among the identified tasks (e.g. Amershi, see paragraphs [0032-0033], which discloses the AI guidance system may be any tool that is capable of generating a new prompt or modifying an existing prompt and is communicatively coupled to a computing device providing an input prompt.);
receiving from the one or more generative neural network models (e.g. Amershi, see paragraphs [0027-0029], which discloses generative AI systems.), one or more second content messages specifying the identified tasks and an order of execution of the identified tasks based, at least in part, on the execution dependencies between and/or among the identified tasks (e.g. Amershi, see paragraph [0033-0034], which discloses the input prompt describes the requested task to be performed by the one or more generative AI systems, where the AI system determines one or more applications, documents, interfaces, and/or contents associated with the input prompt.); and
initiating execution of identified tasks according to the order of execution to generate the requested response (e.g. Amerishi, see paragraphs [0028-0030], which discloses an attribute determiner is configured to perform the requested task based on a prompt, where the attribute determine determines one or more applications, documents, interfaces, and/or content that are configured to communicate with the generative AI systems.).
Although Amershi teaches generative AI systems, it does not explicitly disclose one or more generative neural network model.
Ramos teaches one or more generative neural network model (e.g. Ramos, see paragraph [0022], which discloses a generative neural network model.).
Amershi is directed to embedded attributes for modifying behavior of generative AI systems. Ramos is directed to generative neural network model. Both are analogous art because they are directed to directing prompt to dictate to generative AI systems to produce desired results and therefore it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skilled in the art at the time the invention was filed to include the claimed features with the motivation to improve generative AI systems.
As per claim 16, Amershi teaches an apparatus comprising:
one or more memory devices (e.g. Amershi, see paragraph [0006], which discloses one or more processor coupled to one or more memory.); and
one or more processors coupled to the memory device (e.g. Amershi, see paragraph [0006], which discloses one or more processor coupled to one or more memory.), the one or more processors to:
receiving one or more first content messages, the one or more first content messages comprising a first prompt specifying a requested response to be computed (e.g. Amershi, see paragraphs [0026-0027], which discloses a prompt acquirer is configured to receive, obtain, or otherwise acquire a prompt, where the prompt is an input or a query that the user may provide a prompt for one or more generative AI systems.);
responsive to the first prompt, submitting a second prompt to one or more generative neural network models based (e.g. Amershi, see paragraphs [0027-0029], which discloses generative AI systems.), at least in part, on the first prompt (e.g. Amershi, see paragraph [0029], which discloses the prompt manager is configured to generate a new supplemental prompt and/or modify an original prompt input by a user for one or more generative AI systems based on the one or more embedded attributes.), the second prompt specifying a plurality of computing tools for use in constructing the requested response, the second prompt requesting an identification of tasks to be executed based (e.g. Amershi, see paragraph [0030-0032], which discloses the prompt provider is configured to provide one or more prompts to one or more generative AI systems, where the one or more prompts may include a new supplemental prompt, a modified prompt, and/or the original input prompt.), at least in part, on at least some of the plurality of computing tools and based, at least in part, on execution dependencies between and/or among the identified tasks (e.g. Amershi, see paragraphs [0032-0033], which discloses the AI guidance system may be any tool that is capable of generating a new prompt or modifying an existing prompt and is communicatively coupled to a computing device providing an input prompt.);
receiving from the one or more generative neural network models (e.g. Amershi, see paragraphs [0027-0029], which discloses generative AI systems.), one or more second content messages specifying the identified tasks and an order of execution of the identified tasks based, at least in part, on the execution dependencies between and/or among the identified tasks (e.g. Amershi, see paragraph [0033-0034], which discloses the input prompt describes the requested task to be performed by the one or more generative AI systems, where the AI system determines one or more applications, documents, interfaces, and/or contents associated with the input prompt.); and
initiating execution of identified tasks according to the order of execution to generate the requested response (e.g. Amerishi, see paragraphs [0028-0030], which discloses an attribute determiner is configured to perform the requested task based on a prompt, where the attribute determine determines one or more applications, documents, interfaces, and/or content that are configured to communicate with the generative AI systems.).
Although Amershi teaches generative AI systems, it does not explicitly disclose one or more generative neural network model.
Ramos teaches one or more generative neural network model (e.g. Ramos, see paragraph [0022], which discloses a generative neural network model.).
Amershi is directed to embedded attributes for modifying behavior of generative AI systems. Ramos is directed to generative neural network model. Both are analogous art because they are directed to directing prompt to dictate to generative AI systems to produce desired results and therefore it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skilled in the art at the time the invention was filed to include the claimed features with the motivation to improve generative AI systems.
As per claim 20, Amershi teaches an article, comprising:
a storage device having computer-readable instructions stored thereon that are executable by one or more processors of a computing device (e.g. Amershi, see paragraph [0006], which discloses one or more processor coupled to one or more memory.) to:
receiving one or more first content messages, the one or more first content messages comprising a first prompt specifying a requested response to be computed (e.g. Amershi, see paragraphs [0026-0027], which discloses a prompt acquirer is configured to receive, obtain, or otherwise acquire a prompt, where the prompt is an input or a query that the user may provide a prompt for one or more generative AI systems.);
responsive to the first prompt, submitting a second prompt to one or more generative neural network models based (e.g. Amershi, see paragraphs [0027-0029], which discloses generative AI systems.), at least in part, on the first prompt (e.g. Amershi, see paragraph [0029], which discloses the prompt manager is configured to generate a new supplemental prompt and/or modify an original prompt input by a user for one or more generative AI systems based on the one or more embedded attributes.), the second prompt specifying a plurality of computing tools for use in constructing the requested response, the second prompt requesting an identification of tasks to be executed based (e.g. Amershi, see paragraph [0030-0032], which discloses the prompt provider is configured to provide one or more prompts to one or more generative AI systems, where the one or more prompts may include a new supplemental prompt, a modified prompt, and/or the original input prompt.), at least in part, on at least some of the plurality of computing tools and based, at least in part, on execution dependencies between and/or among the identified tasks (e.g. Amershi, see paragraphs [0032-0033], which discloses the AI guidance system may be any tool that is capable of generating a new prompt or modifying an existing prompt and is communicatively coupled to a computing device providing an input prompt.);
receiving from the one or more generative neural network models (e.g. Amershi, see paragraphs [0027-0029], which discloses generative AI systems.), one or more second content messages specifying the identified tasks and an order of execution of the identified tasks based, at least in part, on the execution dependencies between and/or among the identified tasks (e.g. Amershi, see paragraph [0033-0034], which discloses the input prompt describes the requested task to be performed by the one or more generative AI systems, where the AI system determines one or more applications, documents, interfaces, and/or contents associated with the input prompt.); and
initiating execution of identified tasks according to the order of execution to generate the requested response (e.g. Amerishi, see paragraphs [0028-0030], which discloses an attribute determiner is configured to perform the requested task based on a prompt, where the attribute determine determines one or more applications, documents, interfaces, and/or content that are configured to communicate with the generative AI systems.).
Although Amershi teaches generative AI systems, it does not explicitly disclose one or more generative neural network model.
Ramos teaches one or more generative neural network model (e.g. Ramos, see paragraph [0022], which discloses a generative neural network model.).
Amershi is directed to embedded attributes for modifying behavior of generative AI systems. Ramos is directed to generative neural network model. Both are analogous art because they are directed to directing prompt to dictate to generative AI systems to produce desired results and therefore it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skilled in the art at the time the invention was filed to include the claimed features with the motivation to improve generative AI systems.
As per claim 2, the modified teachings of Amershi and Ramos teaches the method of claim 1, wherein the one or more first content messages are initiated by a graphical user interface (GUI) (e.g. Amershi, see paragraph [0070], which discloses a GUI.).
As per claims 3 and 17, the modified teachings of Amershi and Ramos teaches the method of claim 1 and the apparatus of claim 16, respectively, wherein:
the first prompt and/or second prompt makes reference to one or more previous interactions of a user with at least one of the one or more generative neural network models (e.g. Amershi, see paragraphs [0026-0027], which discloses a prompt acquirer is configured to receive, obtain, or otherwise acquire a prompt, where the prompt is an input or a query that the user may provide a prompt for one or more generative AI systems.); and
the identified tasks and/or the order of execution of the identified tasks are further based, at least in part, on the one or more previous interactions of the user with the at least one of the one or more generative neural network models (e.g. Amershi, see paragraph [0033-0034], which discloses the input prompt describes the requested task to be performed by the one or more generative AI systems, where the AI system determines one or more applications, documents, interfaces, and/or contents associated with the input prompt.).
As per claim 4, the modified teachings of Amershi and Ramos teaches the method of claim 1, wherein at least one of the execution dependencies between and/or among the identified tasks reflects that at least a first task of the identified tasks is to complete execution prior to commencement of at least a second task of the identified tasks (e.g. Amershi, see paragraph [0033-0034], which discloses the input prompt describes the requested task to be performed by the one or more generative AI systems, where the AI system determines one or more applications, documents, interfaces, and/or contents associated with the input prompt.).
As per claim 5, the modified teachings of Amershi and Ramos teaches the method of claim 4, wherein an execution result of the first task affects an execution result of the second task (e.g. Amershi, see paragraph [0033-0034], which discloses the input prompt describes the requested task to be performed by the one or more generative AI systems, where the AI system determines one or more applications, documents, interfaces, and/or contents associated with the input prompt.).
As per claim 6, the modified teachings of Amershi and Ramos teaches the method of claim 1, wherein:
the requested response comprises computer code to provide a computation result (e.g. Amershi, see paragraph [0033], which discloses code snippets or commands, or any combination of text or code.); and
the identified tasks comprise computer code modules (e.g. Amershi, see paragraph [0033], which discloses code snippets or commands, or any combination of text or code.).
As per claim 7, the modified teachings of Amershi and Ramos teaches the method of claim 1, wherein the first prompt further comprises natural language descriptions of the computing tools (e.g. Amershi, see paragraph [0029], which discloses the prompt manager is configured to generate a new supplemental prompt and/or modify an original prompt input by a user for one or more generative AI systems based on the one or more embedded attributes.).
As per claim 8, the modified teachings of Amershi and Ramos teaches the method of claim 7, wherein the natural language descriptions of the computing tools comprise indications of input values and/or output values for respective computing tools in a library of computer code modules (e.g. Amershi, see paragraph [0029], which discloses the prompt manager is configured to generate a new supplemental prompt and/or modify an original prompt input by a user for one or more generative AI systems based on the one or more embedded attributes.).
As per claim 9, the modified teachings of Amershi and Ramos teaches the method of claim 6, wherein the computer code modules are identified based, at least in part, on an execution history of at least some of a plurality of computer code modules in a library of computer code modules (e.g. Amershi, see paragraph [0030-0032], which discloses the prompt provider is configured to provide one or more prompts to one or more generative AI systems, where the one or more prompts may include a new supplemental prompt, a modified prompt, and/or the original input prompt.).
As per claim 10, the modified teachings of Amershi and Ramos teaches the method of claim 1, wherein:
the first prompt is formulated by a user (e.g. Amershi, see paragraphs [0026-0027], which discloses a prompt acquirer is configured to receive, obtain, or otherwise acquire a prompt, where the prompt is an input or a query that the user may provide a prompt for one or more generative AI systems.); and
the first prompt further comprises a history of previous interactions of the user with a graphical user interface (GUI) (e.g. Amershi, see paragraph [0070], which discloses a GUI.).
As per claim 11, the modified teachings of Amershi and Ramos teaches the method of claim 10, wherein the history of previous interactions of the user with the GUI further comprises previous prompts submitted to the GUI and corresponding responses to the previous prompts (e.g. Amershi, see paragraph [0030-0032], which discloses the prompt provider is configured to provide one or more prompts to one or more generative AI systems, where the one or more prompts may include a new supplemental prompt, a modified prompt, and/or the original input prompt.).
As per claim 12, the modified teachings of Amershi and Ramos teaches the method of claim 1, wherein:
computing tools comprise one or more modules of computer-readable instructions (e.g. Amershi, see paragraph [0033], which discloses code snippets or commands, or any combination of text or code.); and
the requested response comprises computer code integrating at least one of the one or more modules (e.g. Amershi, see paragraph [0033], which discloses code snippets or commands, or any combination of text or code.).
As per claim 13, the modified teachings of Amershi and Ramos teaches the method of claim 1, wherein: the one or more second content messages comprise instructions formatted according to a JavaScript Object Notation (JSON) (e.g. Amershi, see paragraph [0033-0034], which discloses the input prompt describes the requested task to be performed by the one or more generative AI systems, where the AI system determines one or more applications, documents, interfaces, and/or contents associated with the input prompt.).
As per claims 14 and 18, the modified teachings of Amershi and Ramos teaches the method of claim 1 and the apparatus of claim 16, respectively, wherein execution of at least one of the identified tasks comprises:
submitting a third prompt to at least one of the one or more generative neural network models, the third prompt specifying a plurality of computing tools for use in executing the at least one of the identified tasks (e.g. Amershi, see paragraph [0029], which discloses the prompt manager is configured to generate a new supplemental prompt and/or modify an original prompt input by a user for one or more generative AI systems based on the one or more embedded attributes.), the third prompt requesting an identification of subtasks to be executed based, at least in part, on at least some of the plurality of computing tools for use in executing the at least one of the identified tasks and based, at least in part, on execution dependencies between and/or among the identified subtasks (e.g. Amershi, see paragraph [0030-0032], which discloses the prompt provider is configured to provide one or more prompts to one or more generative AI systems, where the one or more prompts may include a new supplemental prompt, a modified prompt, and/or the original input prompt.); and
receiving from the at least one of the one or more generative neural network models, one or more third messages specifying the identified subtasks and an order of execution of the identified subtasks based, at least in part, on the execution dependencies between and/or among the identified subtasks (e.g. Amershi, see paragraph [0029], which discloses the prompt manager is configured to generate a new supplemental prompt and/or modify an original prompt input by a user for one or more generative AI systems based on the one or more embedded attributes.).
As per claims 15 and 19, the modified teachings of Amershi and Ramos teaches the method of claim 14 and the apparatus of claim 19, respectively, wherein:
the first prompt and/or third prompt specify one or more previous interactions of a user with at least one of the one or more generative neural network models (e.g. Amershi, see paragraphs [0026-0027], which discloses a prompt acquirer is configured to receive, obtain, or otherwise acquire a prompt, where the prompt is an input or a query that the user may provide a prompt for one or more generative AI systems.); and
the identified subtasks and/or the order of execution of the identified subtasks are further based, at least in part, on the specified one or more previous interactions of the user with the at least one of the one or more generative neural network models (e.g. Amershi, see paragraph [0030-0032], which discloses the prompt provider is configured to provide one or more prompts to one or more generative AI systems, where the one or more prompts may include a new supplemental prompt, a modified prompt, and/or the original input prompt.).
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant’s disclosure. See attached PTO-892 that includes additional prior art of record describing the general state of the art in which the invention is directed to.
Contact Information
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to FARHAN M SYED whose telephone number is (571)272-7191. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8:30AM-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, Apu Mofiz can be reached at 571-272-4080. 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.
/FARHAN M SYED/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2161 August 1, 2026
Prosecution Insights