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 .
Response to Amendment
The amendments filed 06/30/2026 have been entered. Applicant’s amendments to the claims have overcome the 35 USC § 102 rejections previously set forth in the non-final office action mailed 04/15/2026, however new 35 USC § 103 rejections have been entered as necessitated by amendment. Applicant’s amendments to the specification have overcome the previously set forth objections to the drawings and said objections are accordingly withdrawn.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 06/30/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. Applicant argues with respect to independent claims 1, 12 and 19 that Parasnis fails to teach "any events that [...] specify supplemental visual content using the fields of the standardized schema that represent the action type and the action content. Examiner does not find this argument persuasive. When Parasnis generates content, this content is displayed. This content (image, text, etc.) is displayed according to the previously selected standardized schema (Fig. 9 – blog post, Instagram ad, landing page etc.). One example of this is in figure 12A which shows an prompt entered for generating a blog post (action type is multi-modal generation, action content is the prompt, schema is blog post) and based on this prompt generates the images (supplemental visual content) shown in the “Outputs” section (field of standardized schema) and the user additionally selects one of these images which “has been added to the canvas” (col. 10 lines 28-30), which is another field of the schema with content representative of the action type and action content.
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claim(s) 1, 12, and 19, specifically around the limitation regarding verbal responses, have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, 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.
Claim(s) 1-20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Parasnis (US 11,809,688 B1) in view of Corzo (US 2025/0159078 A1).
Regarding claim 1, 12, 19 Parasnis teaches One or more processors comprising processing circuitry (col. 25 lines 8-10, col. 26 lines 49-51) to:
generate: i) one or more events that specify one or more responses associated with one or more conversations with an interactive agent, (Figs 10, 13-20, 32, #1606 in fig 16, col. 10 lines 49-59, col. 13 lines 57-64, col. 22 lines 9-15) using a standardized schema including fields that represent action type and action content (figs. 9, 12A, 32, col. 9 lines 25-39 – the described out-of-the box template options can be considered standardized schema which includes action type (blog post, landing page, Instagram ad, etc.) and action content (prompt input, settings, keyboard features, etc.), col. 10 lines 28-30), and ii) one or more second events(figs 12A, 16 & 17, col. 10 lines 28-30, col. 13 lines 4-18, col. 22 lines 20-24 – the generation of content is a second event, the content which is generated is supplemental visual content, the generation is based on the user’s selected portion, inputted text, among others. The action content is the portion or text itself, the different action types are image generation, text generation, etc.);
convert the one or more second events into one or more visual layouts that represent an arrangement of the supplemental visual content in one or more overlays (Figs 9, 13-20, 23-25, col. 8 lines 33-48, col. 9 lines 25-39, col. 17 lines 1-60); and
cause presentation of a rendering of the one or more visual layouts of the interactive scene (fig 8, 9, 12A, 13, 14, col. 9 lines 25-39).
Parasnis fails to teach one or more verbal responses; and presentation synchronized with the one or more verbal responses.
However, Corzo teaches one or more verbal responses (paragraph [0012] – “In some arrangements, a process for artificial intelligence (AI), automated, real-time, facilitation of support interactions between an agent and a client in multi-modal communications can comprise one or more steps such as, for example: initiating, over a voice channel in response to a request from the client, voice communications via an interactive voice response (IVR) system in which the client provides user identification and identifies an issue with which assistance is required”); and presentation synchronized with the one or more verbal responses (paragraphs [0013] – “synchronizing, by the AI assistant, the voice communications and the digital communications”, [0073]). Corzo describes a multi-modal AI assistant which utilizes voice responses. Corzo is considered analogous to the claimed invention as it is in the same field of multi-modal interactive agentic systems. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date, to combine the voice communication and synchronization of Corzo with the multi-modal agentic system of Parasnis to extend the capabilities of voice generation suggested in column 10 lines 21-24 of Parasnis and improve the user experience.
Regarding claim 2 Parasnis in view of Corzo teaches The one or more processors of claim 1. Parasnis further teaches wherein the processing circuitry is further to convert the one or more second events based at least on: selecting one or more template visual layouts based at least on which of the fields corresponding to the action content are used to specify the supplemental visual content in the one or more second events (figs. 11, 12A, 13, 14, 17 & 37, col. 9 lines 40-col. 10 line 14), and populating one or more placeholders in the one or more selected template visual layouts with the supplemental visual content specified by the fields corresponding to the action content (figs. 13-16, 22, col. 9 lines 40-52).
Regarding claim 3, Parasnis in view of Corzo teaches the one or more processors of claim 1. Parasnis further teaches wherein the processing circuitry is further to convert the one or more second events based at least on generating one or more modular graphical user interface configurations comprising one or more blocks of the supplemental visual content corresponding to the fields that represent the action content specified by the one or more second events (figs. 10-12A, 31 col. 8 lines 7-48, col. 26 lines 51-67) and arranging the one or more block into the one or more visual layouts (fig. 31, col. 20 lines 19-31).
Regarding claim 4 Parasnis in view of Corzo teaches the one or more processors of claim 1. Parasnis further teaches wherein the fields of one or more second events identify the action type categorizing the supplemental visual content (col. 20 lines 19-24, col. 26 lines 51-67), a target state for the supplemental visual content, and the action content of the supplemental visual content (fig. 8, 12A & 13, col 5 line 61-col 6 line 6, col 10 lines 25-35, col. 11 lines 39-63, col. 13 lines 46-54 – The target state for supplemental visual content is based on the template fields and user prompts).
Regarding claims 5 Parasnis in view of Corzo teaches the one or more processors of claim 1. Parasnis further teaches wherein a corresponding one of the fields categorizes the action type of the one or more second events (col. 20 lines 19-24, col. 26 lines 51-67) as a visual information scene action that instructs visualization of information about a topic associated with the one or more conversations (figs 27, 34 #3414-3418, 37 #3706-3712, col. 19 lines 4-36, col. 29 lines 1-17).
Regarding claim 6 Parasnis in view of Corzo teaches the one or more processors of claim 1. Parasnis further teaches wherein a corresponding one of the fields categorizes the action type of the one or more second events as a visual choice action that instructs visualization of one or more choices associated with the one or more conversations (fig 34 #3410, col. 24 lines 40-54 & lines 63-67).
Regarding claim 7, Parasnis in view of Corzo teaches the one or more processors of claim 1. Parasnis further teaches wherein a corresponding one of the fields categorizes the action type of the one or more second events as a visual form action that instructs visualization of one or more form fields that accept one or more inputs associated with the one or more conversations (figs 27, 32 #3202, col. 22 lines 9-24, col 19 lines 4-36).
Regarding claim 8, Parasnis in view of Corzo teaches the one or more processors of claim 1. Parasnis further teaches wherein at least one of the fields of the one or more second events comprises text generated using one or more large language models (fig. 13 col. 11 lines 28-38, col. 10 lines 16-24 – GPT-3 is an LLM).
Regarding claim 9, Parasnis in view of Corzo teaches the one or more processors of claim 1. Parasnis further teaches wherein at least one of the fields of the one or more second events instructs retrieval or generation of one or more images based at least on one or more natural language descriptions of the one or more images (figs 1, 14, 16, 34, 35, col. 3 lines 53 - col. 4 line 7, col. 11 lines 45-49, 53-54, col. 13 lines 11-18, col. 24 lines 21-26, col. 25 line 59- col. 26 line 5).
Regarding claim 10, Parasnis in view of Corzo teaches the one or more processors of claim 1. Parasnis further teaches wherein the processing circuitry is further to cause the presentation of the rendering of the one or more visual layouts based at least on including the one or more visual layouts in a stack of the one or more overlays (Figs 9, 10 #1002, 13 #1304, 14, 16, col. 9 lines 41-45, col. 11 lines 39-44, col. 13 lines 11-18).
Regarding claim 11 Parasnis in view of Corzo teaches the one or more processors of claim 1. Parasnis further teaches wherein the one or more processors are comprised in at least one of:
a system for performing conversational AI operations (fig. 32, col 19 lines 4-36);
a system implementing one or more language models (col. 10 lines 16-24, col. 19 lines 9-12);
a system implementing one or more large language models (LLMs) (col. 10 lines 16-24);
a system for generating synthetic data (col. 3 lines 46-52 – AI generated content is synthetic data);
a system for generating synthetic data using AI (col. 3 lines 46-52);
Claims 12-17 and 18 are drawn to a broader set of limitations of claims 1-6 and 11, respectively, and are rejected for the same reasons of obviousness as used above.
Method claims 19 and 20 are drawn to the method of using the corresponding apparatus claimed in claims 1 and 11. Therefore, the method claims 19 and 20 correspond to the apparatus claims 1 and 11, and are rejected for the same reasons of obviousness as used above.
Conclusion
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 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.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Aidan W McCoy whose telephone number is (571)272-5935. The examiner can normally be reached 8:00 AM-5:00 PM EST.
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, Tammy Goddard can be reached at (571)272-7773. 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.
/AIDAN W MCCOY/Examiner, Art Unit 2611
/HAIXIA DU/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2611
Prosecution Insights