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 § 101
Applicant’s amendment provides for “generating a LLM prompt that is submitted to the LLM, wherein the LLM prompt comprises the smaller corpus of passages that was reduced from the larger corpus of content objects, and the LLM prompt is smaller in size than the large language model prompt size for the LLM” which provides for additional elements, and is not directed to any of the groupings of abstract ideas [mathematical concepts (mathematical relationships/ formulas/ equations/ calculations), mental process (observation, evaluation, judgement, opinion), and methods of organizing human activity (fundamental economic principles/practices, commercial / legal interactions, managing personal behavior/relationships/interactions between people)].
The additional elements provide for a need to process huge corpus of content objects and cms metadata to a much smaller corpus of context passages that are used in generating an LLM prompt that does not exceed the LLM’s limit, 0046. The specification provides for evidence of improvement over fig. 1A1, 1A2, 0049 a success scenario that occurs when passages taken from context laden collaboration system content objects and provided as a prompt to a large language mode are limited to observe a large language model prompt size. The additional elements integrate the exception into a practical application.
The rejections under 35 USC 101 of claims 1-20 are therefore withdrawn in view of at least pathway b at step 2a prong two in the subject matter eligibility test for product and processes (see mpep 2106.04).
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.
Claims 1-20 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 1 recites the limitation "the collaborator activities" in line 6 of claim 1. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. Claim 1 line 4 recites “collaboration” not “collaborator”.
Claims 2-10 fail to resolve the deficiencies of claim 1 and are therefore also rejected.
Claim 11 recites the limitation "the collaborator activities" in line 8-9 of claim 11. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. Claim 11 lines 6-7 recites “collaboration” not “collaborator”.
Claims 12-18 fail to resolve the deficiencies of claim 1 and are therefore also rejected.
Claim 19 recites the limitation "the collaborator activities" in lines 9-10 of claim 19. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. Claim 19 lines 7-8 recites “collaboration” not “collaborator.”
Claims 12-18 fail to resolve the deficiencies of claim 1 and are therefore also rejected.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments, see remarks page 11, filed 4/27/26, with respect to 35 USC 102 rejections of claims 1-2, 11-12, and 19-20 have been fully considered and are persuasive. The 35 USC 102 rejections of claims 1-2, 11-12, and 19-20 has been withdrawn.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
The closest reference was already applied in the last office action.
Other references of note:
U.S. 12008332 by Gardner et. al. discloses to produce a summary of document at various zoom levels, col. 9 lines 40-45. At col. 39 lines 46-56, determining sizes of the responses for the LLM. The system automatically generates a series of prompts corresponding to these zoom levels, sends them to the LLM, and receives responses from the LLM. However, it appears the claim calls for LLM prompt size and not the size of response from the LLM (zoom levels). Gardner appears to disclose LLM prompt that is submitted to the LLM (series of prompts corresponding to the zoom levels, sends them to the LLM). Gardner further appears to disclose wherein the LLM prompt comprises the smaller corpus of context passages that was reduced from the larger corpus of content objects (system may estimate that the document size contains 250000 words in total (e.g. 5000 words per page, and determine the desired lengths or sizes of the responses based on percentages that correspond to abstraction levels)) Gardner does not appear to disclose LLM prompt (series of prompts corresponding to the zoom levels) is smaller in size than the large language model prompt size limit for the LLM.
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. 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.
Contact Information
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MICHAEL PHAM whose telephone number is (571)272-3924. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 11-730pm Eastern.
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, Kavita Stanley can be reached at 571-272-8352. 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.
/MICHAEL PHAM/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2153
Prosecution Insights