CTFR 18/771,803 CTFR 80217 Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status 07-03-aia AIA 15-10-aia The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA. Detailed Action 1. This action is responsive to communication filed on: 2 February 2026 with acknowledgement of an original application filed on 12 July 2024. 2. Claims 1-20 are currently pending. Claims 1, 10, and 16, are independent claims. Claims 1-2, 4, 6-11, 14-18, and 20, have been amended. Response to Arguments 3. Applicant's arguments filed 2 February 2026 have been fully considered however they moot due to new grounds of rejection necessitated by applicant’s amendments to the claims. The Examiner notes the previous 101 rejection, 112 rejections, and objections to the specification are withdrawn due to amendment. The Examiner also notes, the amendments to the claims raises new issues such as a 112 1 st and 2 nd rejections. An updated search was performed and additional prior art references are used to teach the amended claims in a 103 rejection below. Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112 07-30-01 4. The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a): (a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention. 5. Claims 1-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention. The independent claims have been amended to include the phrase “wherein the role context vector is usable in an attention layer to lower a probability of selection of the role-integrated document vector by the LLM based on a user’s role”. The Examiner notes nowhere in the Applicant’s disclosure is the term “probability” used. In addition, the term “lower” is only used once in the specification in paragraph 156, which states “If the pre-attention is not resolved, the document may receive a lower rating and be skipped (e.g., role-integrated document vectors 602C and 602E).” The Examiner concludes the amended limitation is not disclosed in the Applicant’s disclosure. Appropriate Correction required. 6. 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. 7. Claims 1-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention. As discussed above the term “probability” is never used in the Applicant’s disclosure. Therefore, the claims are indefinite because the added limitation “wherein the role context vector is usable in an attention layer to lower a probability of selection of the role-integrated document vector by the LLM based on a user’s role”, does not make sense. The Examiner is confused as to the limitation that is attempted to be claimed. The Abstract states the follow: “The IHS may also apply pre-attention and post-attention layers to the role context vector to manage access control during document retrieval based on user roles”. In addition, paragraphs 7 states: “The IHS may apply a pre-attention layer’s attention to the role context vector, and the pre-attention layer may be configured to exclude the document from an LLM search if a user’s role does not match a role specified in the role-integrated document vector”. Perhaps the independent claims should be amended as indicated below so that the claims coincide with the language used in the Applicant’s disclosure.(Examiner’s Amendment to Claim 1, to overcome the 112 rejections) An Information Handling System (IHS), comprising: a processor; and a memory coupled to the processor, the memory having program instructions stored thereon that, upon execution, cause the IHS to: generate a role-integrated document vector for use in a Large Language Model (LLM), the role-integrated document vector comprising: a document vector corresponding to content from a document; and a role context vector corresponding to one or more roles having an access privilege for the content from the document; wherein the IHS applies pre-attention and post-attention layers to the role context vector to manage access control during document retrieval is usable in an attention layer to lower a probability of selection of the role-integrated document vector by the LLM based on a user's role Appropriate Correction is required. 8. To expedite a complete examination of the instant application the claims rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112 above are further rejected as set forth below in anticipation of applicant amending these claims to overcome the above rejections. Claim Rejections – 35 USC § 103 07-20-aia AIA 9. 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. 07-21-aia AIA 10. Claim s 1-5 and 7-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Austin et al. U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2024/0420012 (hereinafter ‘012) in view of Lo et al. U.S. Patent No. 12,061,970 (hereinafter ‘970) . As to independent claim 1, “An Information Handling System (IHS), comprising: a processor; and a memory coupled to the processor, the memory having program instructions stored thereon that, upon execution, cause the IHS to: generate a role-integrated document vector for use in a Large Language Model (LLM)” is taught in ‘012 Abstract and paragraphs 27-28;the following is not explicitly taught in ‘012: “the role-integrated document vector comprising: a document vector corresponding to content from a document; and a role context vector corresponding to one or more roles having an access privilege for the content from the document; wherein the role context vector is usable in an attention layer to lower a probability of selection of the role-integrated document vector by the LLM based on a user's role” however ‘970 teaches using user attributes such as persona/role to input context attributes into large language model (LLM) in the Abstract and col. 10, lines 38-47. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention of a system and methods for interoperable generative artificial intelligence orchestration taught in ‘012 to include a means to integrate a role context vector to lower the probability of selection of document by the LLM based in a user’s role. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to perform such a modification because existing machine learning algorithms do not meet the required compliance guidelines, rules, regulations and other standards to conformance, see ‘970 col. 1 lines 16 et seq. As to dependent claim 2, “The IHS of claim 1, wherein the role context vector includes an indication of differentiating entity” is taught in ‘012 paragraphs 46 and 51. As to dependent claim 3, “The IHS of claim 2, wherein the differentiating entity comprises a customer identifier” is shown in ‘012 paragraphs 46 and 51. As to dependent claim 4, “The IHS of claim 2, wherein the role context vector includes context indicators” is disclosed in ‘970 col. 15, lines 1-12. As to dependent claim 5, “The IHS of claim 4, wherein the context indicators comprise at least one of : human resources , financial information , Information Technology (IT), customer service , sales data, marketing analytics, product details, legal documents, compliance records, supply chain information, project management data, research and development reports, inventory levels, procurement details, or executive summaries” is taught in ‘012 paragraphs 17 and 21. As to dependent claim 7, “The IHS of claim 6, wherein the role context vector prepends the document vector in the role-integrated document vector and is usable in a pre-attention layer to exclude the role-integrated document vector from a search performed by the LLM if a user's role does not match a role specified in the role context vector” is shown in ‘012 paragraphs 37 and 46. As to dependent claim 8, “The IHS of claim 6, wherein the role context vector postpends the document vector in the role-integrated document vector and is usable in a post-attention layer to determine whether a user's context matches a context specified in the role context vector” is disclosed in ‘012 paragraphs 37 and 46. As to dependent claim 9, “The IHS of claim 1, wherein the role-integrated document vector comprises: a first role context vector that prepends the document vector; and a second role context vector that postpends the document vector” is taught in ‘012 paragraph 46. As to independent claim 10, “A method comprising: generating a role-integrated document vector for use in a Large Language Model (LLM), the role-integrated document vector comprising: a document vector corresponding to content from a document” is taught in ‘012 Abstract and paragraphs 27-28;the following is not explicitly taught in ‘012: “and a role context vector corresponding to one or more roles having an access privilege for the content from the document; wherein the role context vector is usable in an attention layer to lower a probability of selection of the role-integrated document vector by the LLM based on a user's role” however ‘970 teaches using user attributes such as persona/role to input context attributes into large language model (LLM) in the Abstract and col. 10, lines 38-47. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention of a system and methods for interoperable generative artificial intelligence orchestration taught in ‘012 to include a means to integrate a role context vector to lower the probability of selection of document by the LLM based in a user’s role. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to perform such a modification because existing machine learning algorithms do not meet the required compliance guidelines, rules, regulations and other standards to conformance, see ‘970 col. 1 lines 16 et seq. As to dependent claim 11, “The method of claim 10, wherein the role context vector includes an indication of a differentiating entity and one or more context indicators” is taught in ‘012 paragraphs 46 and 51. As to dependent claim 12, “The method of claim 11, wherein the differentiating entity comprises a customer identifier” is shown in ‘012 paragraphs 46 and 51. As to dependent claim 13, “The method of claim 11, wherein the one or more context indicators comprise at least one of: human resources, financial information, Information Technology (IT), customer service, sales data, marketing analytics, product details, legal documents, compliance records, supply chain information, project management data, research and development reports, inventory levels, procurement details, or executive Summaries” is taught in ‘012 paragraphs 17 and 21. As to dependent claim 14, “The method of claim 10, wherein generating the role- integrated document vector comprises: assembling role-specific tokens into the role context vector; and concatenating the role context vector to the document vector by prepending the role context vector to the document vector” is shown in ‘012 paragraphs 46 and 51. As to dependent claim 15, “The method of claim 14, wherein generating the role- integrated document vector further comprises: concatenating a second role context vector to the document vector by postpending the role context vector to the document vector” is disclosed in ‘012 paragraphs 41-44. As to independent claim 16, this claim is directed to a hardware memory device having program instructions executing the method of claim 10; therefore, it is rejected along the same rationale. As to dependent claim 17, “The hardware memory device of claim 16, wherein the role context vector includes context indicators that are indicative of user roles” is taught in ‘012 paragraphs 46 and 51. As to dependent claim 18, “The hardware memory device of claim 16, wherein to generate the role-integrated document vector, the program instructions, upon execution, further cause the IHS to: apply a pre-attention layer’s attention to the role context vector, wherein the pre-attention layer is configured to exclude the document from a Large Language Model (LLM) search if a user's role does not match a role specified in the role-integrated document vector; and apply a post-attention layer’s attention to the role context vector, wherein the post-attention layer is configured to determine whether a user's context matches a context specified in the role-integrated document vector” is shown in ‘012 127-128. As to dependent claim 19, “The hardware memory device of claim 16, wherein the processor is part of a heterogenous computing platform selected from the group consisting of: a System-On-Chip (SoC), a Field-Programmable Gate Array (FPGA), and an Application-Specific Integrated Circuit (ASIC)” is disclosed in ‘012 paragraph 135. As to dependent claim 20, “The hardware memory device of claim 19, wherein the role- integrated document vector comprises: a first role context vector that prepends the document vector; and a second role context vector that postpends the document vector” is taught in ‘012 paragraphs 95-97 . 07-21-aia AIA 11. Claim 6 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Austin et al. U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2024/0420012 (hereinafter ‘012) in view of Lo et al. U.S. Patent No. 12,061,970 (hereinafter ‘970) in further view of Burshan et al. U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2025/0023899 (hereinafter ‘899) . As to dependent claim 6, the following is not explicitly taught in ‘012 and ‘970: “The IHS of claim 1, wherein the role context vector includes role-specific tokens based, at least in part, upon role data retrieved from an Identity and Access Management (IAM) database” however ‘899 teaches using a large language model to identify attackers in paragraphs 22 and 27. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention of a system and methods for interoperable generative artificial intelligence orchestration taught in ‘012 and ‘970 to include a means to retrieve role data from an Identity and Access Management (IAM) database. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to perform such a modification because convention threat detection mechanisms fail to proactively asses the real risk associated with the actions of a malicious actor, see ‘899 paragraph 2 . Conclusion 07-40 AIA Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL . See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a). A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any extension fee 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 date of this final action. 12. Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ELLEN C TRAN whose telephone number is (571) 272-3842. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday. 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, Jeff Pwu can be reached at 571-272-6798. 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. /ELLEN TRAN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2433 12 June 2026 Application/Control Number: 18/771,803 Page 2 Art Unit: 2433 Application/Control Number: 18/771,803 Page 3 Art Unit: 2433 Application/Control Number: 18/771,803 Page 4 Art Unit: 2433 Application/Control Number: 18/771,803 Page 5 Art Unit: 2433 Application/Control Number: 18/771,803 Page 6 Art Unit: 2433 Application/Control Number: 18/771,803 Page 7 Art Unit: 2433 Application/Control Number: 18/771,803 Page 8 Art Unit: 2433 Application/Control Number: 18/771,803 Page 9 Art Unit: 2433 Application/Control Number: 18/771,803 Page 10 Art Unit: 2433 Application/Control Number: 18/771,803 Page 11 Art Unit: 2433
Prosecution Insights