CTNF 18/988,553 CTNF 76099 DETAILED ACTION 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. This action is in response to the communication filed on December 19, 2024. Claims 1-20 are pending in this action. Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101 07-04-01 AIA 07-04 35 U.S.C. 101 reads as follows: Whoever invents or discovers any new and useful process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter, or any new and useful improvement thereof, may obtain a patent therefor, subject to the conditions and requirements of this title. Claims 1-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to a judicial exception (i.e., law of nature, a natural phenomenon, or an abstract idea) without significantly more. The claim(s) recite(s) an abstract idea of prompt generation using prompt template. The claim(s) does/do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because the claims directed to an abstract idea of prompt generation using prompt template. The claim is drawn to process (a series of steps or acts) that similar to an idea ‘Of itself such as an instantiated concept, plan or scheme, as well as a mental process (thinking) that “can be performed in the human mind, or by a human using a pen and paper’. The claim does not require that the method be implemented by a particular machine. The method does not require a particular transformation of a particular article. There is not transformation of a physical objects or data into a different state or thing. This prompt generation using prompt template is similar to displaying certain results of the collection and analysis found by the courts to be abstract idea ( Elec. Power Grp., LLC v. Alstom S.A. , 119 USPQ2d 1739 (Fed. Cir. 2016). This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application because claims broadly recite the result (prompt generation using prompt template, retrieving, generating, and prompting), rather than sufficiently claiming a technical means of achieving the result. See Two-Way Media Ltd. v. Comcast Cable Commons, LLC , 874 F.3d 1329, 1337 (Fed. Cir. 2017) (“The claim requires the functional results ... but does not sufficiently describe how to achieve these results in a non-abstract way.”). The claims recite a Judicial exception relating to “prompt generation using prompt template, along with a generic computing device that simply used as tool to implement the abstract idea”. Here the claims do not change the underlying or other technology, rather the claimed techniques playing using computing device as pedagogical tool. The claimed additional elements - - computing device - -“merely use a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea” or “do no more than generally link the use of a judicial exception to a particular technological environment.” Memorandum, 84 Fed. Reg. at 55; see Customedia Techs., LLC v. Dish Network Corp. , No. 2018- 2239, 2020 WL 1069742, at *3 (Fed. Cir. Mar. 6, 2020) (“We have held that it is not enough, however, to merely improve a fundamental practice or abstract process by invoking a computer merely as a tool.”). Accordingly, claims 1-20 do not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application. See Memorandum, 84 Fed. Reg. at 54. As the claim recites a judicial exception and fails to integrate the exception into a practical application, the claim is “directed to the .. . judicial exception.” Id. at 54. The claim(s) does/do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because the additional elements are simply a generic computer. The claim amounts to no more than prompt generation using prompt template. Taking the claimed elements either individually or as ordered combination, that transform claims into patent-eligible application, since claims merely recite use of already existing computer-based Large Language Model to generate prompt, and there is no “inventive concept” in play using computing device well- understood, routine, and conventional activities commonly used in industry of computer based prompt generation, since claims, at most, attempt to limit abstract idea to particular technological environment, and such limitation has been held insufficient to save claims in this context, and since dependent claims are not rendered patent-eligible by recitation of additional steps, such as per claims 2 and 12, recites, “generate a prompt based on the field type”; as per claims 3 and 13, recites, “plurality of parameters defining the prompt”; as per claim 5 and 15, recites, “the external data reference from one of local, a network storage, or the internet”; even though additional limitations may narrow scope of claims. The claim as a whole does not amount to significantly more than the abstract idea itself. Accordingly, claims 1-20, are ineligible. Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102 07-07-aia AIA 07-07 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 – 07-12-aia AIA (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. 07-15-03-aia AIA Claim(s) 1-20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Goligorsky (US 12,608,548) . As per claim 1, Goligorsky discloses, a method, comprising: as retrieving, by one or more computing devices (col. 11, lines 4-48, “computing system”), context data using an external data reference included in a prompt template selected from a plurality of prompt templates based on a field type of an input field in an interface (col. 25, lines 1-41, “text input field”, “prompt templets”); generating, by the one or more computing devices, a prompt from the prompt template incorporating the context data (col. 25, line 62-col. 26, line 63); and prompting, by the one or more computing devices, a Large Language Model (LLM) with the generated prompt to generate an output (col. 25, line 62-col. 26, line 63, “LLM”). As per claim 2, Goligorsky discloses, wherein the prompt template is configured to automatically generate a prompt based on the field type (col. 25, lines 1-41, “text input field”, “prompt templets”). As per claim 3, Goligorsky discloses, wherein the prompt template comprises a plurality of parameters defining the prompt (col. 25, lines 52-62). As per claim 4, Goligorsky discloses, wherein the plurality of parameters comprise instructions, policies, examples, hyperparameters, format of the output, interaction context, locale, style, or tone (col. 25, lines 52-62). As per claim 5, Goligorsky discloses, wherein the context data is at least one data file corresponding to the external data reference from one of local storage, a network storage, or the Internet (col. 11, line 49-col. 14, line 61). As per claim 6, Goligorsky discloses, wherein the field type is one of an email or a text area (col. 25, lines 1-41). As per claim 7, Goligrsky discloses, wherein the prompt template is selected when a user performs an action, the action being a query in a text area (col. 11, line 49-col. 12, line 13). As per claim 8, Goligrsky discloses, wherein the prompt template is selected when a user performs an action, the action being a single-click action (col. 13, lines 34-42, “”buy-buttons”). As per claim 9, Goligrsky discloses, wherein each prompt template in the plurality of prompt templates is embedded in at least one of a plurality of interfaces, invocable actions, or a generative artificial intelligence (AI) chatbot (col. 11, line 49-col. 12, line 13). As per claim 10, Goligrsky discloses, further comprising adding, to the prompt template by the one or more computing devices, a second external data reference to a second context data (col. 25, line 65-col. 26, line 16). As per claims 11-20, they are analyzed and thus rejected for the same reasons set forth in the rejections of claims 1-10, because the corresponding claims have similar limitations . Conclusion 07-96 AIA The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Sengupta et al. (US 2024/0403566) discloses, flexible artificial intelligence based system with prompt enhancement. Guez et al. (US 2026/0050768) discloses, split LLM prompt. Contact Information Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Abul K. Azad whose telephone number is (571) 272-7599. If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner's supervisor, Bhavesh Mehta , can be reached at (571) 272-7453. Any response to this action should be mailed to: Commissioner for Patents P.O. Box 1450 Alexandria, VA 22313-1450 Or faxed to: (571) 273-8300. Hand-delivered responses should be brought to 401 Dulany Street, Alexandria, VA-22314 (Customer Service Window). Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). June 15, 2026 /ABUL K AZAD/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2656 Application/Control Number: 18/988,553 Page 2 Art Unit: 2656 Application/Control Number: 18/988,553 Page 3 Art Unit: 2656 Application/Control Number: 18/988,553 Page 4 Art Unit: 2656 Application/Control Number: 18/988,553 Page 5 Art Unit: 2656 Application/Control Number: 18/988,553 Page 6 Art Unit: 2656 Application/Control Number: 18/988,553 Page 7 Art Unit: 2656
Prosecution Insights