DETAILED ACTION
This Office Action is in response to Application 18/926,590 filed on 10/25/2024.
In the instant application, claims 1 and 14 are independent claims; Claims 1-20 have been examined and are pending. This action is made non-final.
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 .
Drawings
The drawings submitted on 10/25/2024 are acceptable.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statements (IDS) submitted on 10/25/2024 and 01/12/2026 were filed before the mailing date of the first office action on the merits. The submissions are in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statements are being considered by the examiner.
Double Patenting
The nonstatutory double patenting rejection is based on a judicially created doctrine grounded in public policy (a policy reflected in the statute) so as to prevent the unjustified or improper timewise extension of the “right to exclude” granted by a patent and to prevent possible harassment by multiple assignees. A nonstatutory obviousness-type double patenting rejection is appropriate where the conflicting claims are not identical, but at least one examined application claim is not patentably distinct from the reference claim(s) because the examined application claim is either anticipated by, or would have been obvious over, the reference claim(s). See, e.g., In re Berg, 140 F.3d 1428, 46 USPQ2d 1226 (Fed. Cir. 1998); In re Goodman, 11 F.3d 1046, 29 USPQ2d 2010 (Fed. Cir. 1993); In re Longi, 759 F.2d 887, 225 USPQ 645 (Fed. Cir. 1985); In re Van Ornum, 686 F.2d 937, 214 USPQ 761 (CCPA 1982); In re Vogel, 422 F.2d 438, 164 USPQ 619 (CCPA 1970); and In re Thorington, 418 F.2d 528, 163 USPQ 644 (CCPA 1969).
A timely filed terminal disclaimer in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(c) or 1.321(d) may be used to overcome an actual or provisional rejection based on a nonstatutory double patenting ground provided the conflicting application or patent either is shown to be commonly owned with this application, or claims an invention made as a result of activities undertaken within the scope of a joint research agreement.
Effective January 1, 1994, a registered attorney or agent of record may sign a terminal disclaimer. A terminal disclaimer signed by the assignee must fully comply with 37 CFR 3.73(b).
Independent Claims 1 and 14 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting over claims 1 and 12 of US Patent No. 12153874 (hereinafter 874’) since the claims, if allowed, would improperly extend the "right to exclude" already granted in the patent.
Instant Application 18/926,590
Patent 874’
Claim 1:
A computing system comprising:
+ a processor; and memory storing instructions that, when executed by the processor, cause the processor to perform acts comprising:
+ receiving a first input from a client computing device;
+ causing a generative model to generate an output based upon the first input, wherein the output comprises a first text; identifying, within the first text, a citation indicative of one or more sources of content used by the generative model to generate the output; obtaining a first content based upon the citation; providing the output of the generative model and the first content to a computer-implemented text rewriting model;
+ generating, by the computer-implemented text rewriting model, a second text, where the computer-implemented text rewriting model generates the second text based upon: the first text; and the first content; and
+ causing the second text to be displayed at the client computing device.
Claim 14:
A method performed by a computing system, the method comprising:
+ receiving a first input from a client computing device;
+ causing a generative model to generate an output based upon the first input, wherein the output comprises a first text; identifying, within the first text, a citation indicative of one or more sources of content used by the generative model to generate the output;
+ obtaining a first content based upon the citation;
+ providing the output of the generative model and the first content to a computer-implemented text rewriting model;
+ generating, by the computer-implemented text rewriting model, a second text, where the computer-implemented text rewriting model generates the second text based upon: the first text; and the first content; and
+ causing the second text to be displayed at the client computing device.
Claim 1:
A computing system comprising:
+ a processor; and memory storing instructions that, when executed by the processor, cause the processor to perform acts comprising:
+ providing text generated by a generative model and content of a webpage to a computer-implemented text rewriting model, where the generative model generated the text based upon user input received from a client computing device, and further where the generative model generated a citation to the webpage to indicate that the text generated by the generative model is supported by the content of the webpage;
+ generating, by the computer-implemented text rewriting model, a rewriting of the text, where the computer-implemented text rewriting model generates the rewriting of the text based upon: the text generated by the generative model; and
+ the content of the webpage; and transmitting the rewriting of the text to the client computing device for presentment as a response to the user input received from the client computing device.
Claim 12:
A method performed by a computing system, the method comprising:
+ receiving user input from a client computing device that is in network communication with the computing system; based upon the user input,
+ identifying a webpage that includes content that is related to the user input;
+ generating, by a generative model, text and a citation that pertains to the content, where the generative model generates the text and the citation based upon the user input and the content of the webpage;
+ providing the text and the content of the webpage to a classifier, where the classifier has been trained to output indications as to whether texts generated by the generative model are supported by webpage contents provided to the generative model when generating the texts;
+ obtaining an indication from the classifier that the text is not supported by the content of the webpage;
+ based upon the indication from the classifier that the text is not supported by the content of the webpage,
+ providing the text and the content of the webpage to a computer-implemented text rewriting model;
+ generating, by the computer-implemented text rewriting model, a rewriting of the text, where the computer-implemented text rewriting model generated the rewriting of the text based upon the text generated by the generative model and the content of the webpage; and
+ transmitting the rewriting of the text to the client computing device as a response to the user input received from the client computing device.
As can be seen from the table above, independent Claim 1 of the instant application is anticipated by Claim 1 of 874’, in that Claim 1 of 874’ contains all the limitations of claim 1 of the instant application therefore is not patently distinct from the earlier patent claim and as such is unpatentable for obvious-type double patenting. Claim 14 is similarly mapped to claim 12 of 874’ as such is unpatentable for obvious-type double patenting. The instant application claim is broader in every aspect than the patent claim and is therefore an obvious variant thereof.”
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 1-20 are allowed when the double patenting issues are resolved.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record on form PTO-892 and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Applicant is required under 37 C.F.R. § 1.111(c) to consider these references fully when responding to this action.
It is noted that any citation to specific, pages, columns, lines, or figures in the prior art references and any interpretation of the references should not be considered to be limiting in any way. A reference is relevant for all it contains and may be relied upon for all that it would have reasonably suggested to one having ordinary skill in the art. In re Heck, 699 F.2d 1331, 1332-33,216 USPQ 1038, 1039 (Fed. Cir. 1983) (quoting In re Lemelson, 397 F.2d 1006,1009, 158 USPQ 275,277 (CCPA 1968)).
Inquiry
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Tam T. Tran whose telephone number is (571) 270-5029. The examiner can normally be reached M-F: 7:30 AM - 5:00 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, William L. Bashore can be reached on 571-272-4088. 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.
/TAM T TRAN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2174
