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 .
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.
Claim 1 recites the limitation "the Generative Pre-Trained Transformer architecture" in line 2. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 2 recites the limitation "the semantic engine" in line 1. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 3 recites the limitation "the GPT model" in line 1. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 4 recites the limitation "the query function" in line 1. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 5 recites the limitation "the semantic engine" in line 1. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 6 recites the limitation "the GPT model" in line 1. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 7 recites the limitation "the response retrieval" in line 1. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 8 recites the limitation "the response translation module" in line 1. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 10 recites the limitation "the output interface" in line 1. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 9 is rejected for being dependent of claim 1.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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 (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) 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 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.
Claim(s) 1-10 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Yannam et al. (US 2024/0169158 A1).
As to claim 1, Yannam et al. [US 2024/0169158 A1] discloses a chatbot system [402 on FIG. 4] utilizing a GPT model [AI analysis] based on the Generative Pre-Trained Transformer architecture [“The system decoupling the translation of the input by the AI models.” Paragraph 0065].
As to claim 2, Yannam discloses the semantic engine in the multilingual chatbot system employs a translation engine for sentence parsing and interpretive services [“The chatbot multilingual is configured to receive a request utterance from a remote user device.” Paragraph 0014].
As to claim 3, Yannam discloses the multilingual chatbot system requires valid Application Programmer Interfaces (APIs) for the GPT model and semantic transformation [“The software application programs include computer executable instructions for invoking user functionality related to communication.” Paragraph 0081].
As to claim 4, Yannam discloses the system of claim 1, wherein the query function module is configured to handle user inputs in a plurality of languages [The multilingual chatbot system is configured for receiving request utterances in all languages.” Paragraph 0011].
As to claim 5, Yannam discloses the system of claim 1, wherein the semantic engine includes a machine learning algorithm to improve translation accuracy over time [“The machine learning model that training re-trained to reduce response time for responding to request utterances.” Paragraphs 0020-0021].
As to claim 6, Yannam discloses the system of claim 1, wherein the GPT model is fine-tuned to understand and generate responses based on diverse cultural contexts [The utterance is a gesture, the gesture being a cultural gesture.” Paragraph 0015].
As to claim 7, Yannam discloses the system of claim 1, wherein the response retrieval API ensures secure and efficient communication between the GPT model and other system components [“The system decoupling the translation of the input by the AI models.” Paragraph 0065].
As to claim 8, Yannam discloses the system of claim 1, wherein the response translation module uses context-aware translation techniques to maintain the meaning and intent of the original response [“The features are illustrated in the context of selected embodiments.” Paragraph 0076].
As to claim 9, Yannam discloses the system of claim 1, further comprising a feedback mechanism to collect user feedback and improve system performance [“The user return a request in the form of a text and chat message.” Paragraph 0014].
As to claim 10, Yannam discloses the system of claim 1, wherein the output interface is designed to support various forms of text-based communication, including chat applications, social media platforms, and customer support interfaces [“The user return a request in the form of a text and chat message (social media).” Paragraph 0014].
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. See PTO-892 form.
Garcia et al. (US 2023/0274100 A1) discloses the technology provides a model-based approach for multilingual text rewriting that is applicable across many languages and across different styles including formality levels or other textual attributes.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to GERALD GAUTHIER whose telephone number is (571)272-7539. The examiner can normally be reached 8:00 AM to 4:30 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, CAROLYN R EDWARDS can be reached at (571) 270-7136. 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.
/GERALD GAUTHIER/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2692
February 9, 2026