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 .
Status of Claims:
Claims 1-20 are pending in Instant Application.
Examiner notes claim 1 was amended and new claims 2-20 were added by preliminary amendment filed 02/03/2025.
Priority
Examiner acknowledges Applicant’s claim to priority benefits of continuation of Application No. 18/490,236 filed 10/19/2023, which claims priority benefits of U.S. Provisional Application No. 63/522,500 filed 06/22/2023.
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 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); 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 nonstatutory double patenting provided the reference application or patent either is shown to be commonly owned with the examined application, or claims an invention made as a result of activities undertaken within the scope of a joint research agreement. See MPEP § 717.02 for applications subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA as explained in MPEP § 2159. See MPEP § 2146 et seq. for applications not subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA . A terminal disclaimer must be signed in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(b).
The filing of a terminal disclaimer by itself is not a complete reply to a nonstatutory double patenting (NSDP) rejection. A complete reply requires that the terminal disclaimer be accompanied by a reply requesting reconsideration of the prior Office action. Even where the NSDP rejection is provisional the reply must be complete. See MPEP § 804, subsection I.B.1. For a reply to a non-final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.111(a). For a reply to final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.113(c). A request for reconsideration while not provided for in 37 CFR 1.113(c) may be filed after final for consideration. See MPEP §§ 706.07(e) and 714.13.
The USPTO Internet website contains terminal disclaimer forms which may be used. Please visit www.uspto.gov/patent/patents-forms. The actual filing date of the application in which the form is filed determines what form (e.g., PTO/SB/25, PTO/SB/26, PTO/AIA /25, or PTO/AIA /26) should be used. A web-based eTerminal Disclaimer may be filled out completely online using web-screens. An eTerminal Disclaimer that meets all requirements is auto-processed and approved immediately upon submission. For more information about eTerminal Disclaimers, refer to www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/applying-online/eterminal-disclaimer.
Claims 1-20 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-17 of U.S. Patent No. 12,218,890. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because they are drawn to obvious variations.
Claims of Instant Application
Claims of U.S. Patent No. 12,218,890
Reasons
1. A method, comprising: providing, to a plurality of users, access to a chat session that uses a large language model to provide responses to input messages received for the chat session; receiving changes to the chat session; updating the chat session in response to the changes to the chat session, wherein the large language model uses the changes to the chat session in responding to subsequent input messages received for the chat session; storing the changes to the chat session in a chat session history that maintains a state of the chat session; and resuming the chat session at a future time using the chat session history.
1. A method, comprising: providing, to a plurality of users, access to a chat session that uses a plurality of large language models to provide responses to input messages received for the chat session; receiving changes to the chat session; updating the chat session in response to the changes to the chat session, wherein the plurality of large language models use the changes to the chat session in responding to subsequent input messages received for the chat session; and storing the changes to the chat session in a chat session history, wherein the chat session history maintains a state of the chat session that includes exchanges between the plurality of users and pages created for the chat session and the plurality of large language models use the chat session history in preparing subsequent responses to subsequent input messages.
Instant claim 1 is not patentably distinct from patented claims 1 and 4.
Both claim sets are directed to providing a plurality of users access to an LLM based chat session, receiving changes, updating the chat session based on the changes, storing the changes in chat session history/state, and using the chat session history for later responses.
Patented claim 4 further recites resuming the chat session at a future time using the chat session history. The recitation of “a large language model” instead of “a plurality of large language models” is an obvious variation.
4. The method of claim 1, further comprising: resuming the chat session at a future time using the chat session history.
2. The method of claim 1, wherein the state of the chat session includes exchanges between the plurality of users and pages created for the chat session.
1
Same state/history including user exchanges and pages
3. The method of claim 1, wherein the changes to the chat session are made by different users of the plurality of users and the chat session history identifies which user made the changes.
1
User identification for changes is an obvious implementation of multi-user chat history.
7. The method of claim 1, wherein the changes include: a first input message provided to the plurality of large language models from a first user of the plurality of users and the chat session is updated to include the first input message and a first response from the plurality of large language models to the first input message; and a second input message provided to the plurality of large language models from a second user of the plurality of users and the chat session is updated to include the second input message and a second response from the plurality of large language models to the second input message.
4. The method of claim 1, wherein the plurality of users coedit the chat session and the chat session history tracks the changes made by each user of the plurality of users.
1 and 7
Tracking changes by each user is an obvious implementation of collaborative multi-user chat history.
5. The method of claim 1, wherein the state of the chat session includes a context for a main chat session and a side conversation of the chat session.
1
Main/side conversation context is an obvious variation of maintaining chat session state.
6. The method of claim 1, wherein the large language model uses the chat session history in preparing subsequent responses to subsequent input messages.
1
Same use of chat session history for later LLM responses.
7. The method of claim 1, wherein the changes include an input message provided to the large language model from a user of the plurality of users and the chat session is updated to include the input message and a response from the large language model to the input message.
5-7
Same input message and LLM response update functionality.
8. The method of claim 1, wherein the changes include a modification to a previous input message or response in the chat session.
8. The method of claim 1, wherein the changes include a modification to a previous input message or response in the chat session.
Same limitations.
9-14
13-16
Device counterparts of the method limitations discussed above. The recitation of memory and processor implementation does not render the claims patentably distinct.
15
1 and 12
Same multi-user LLM chat session with grounded data retrieval, reference links, and reasoning summary.
16
1, 4, and 12
Same grounded data chat session plus storing history/state, resume, and later use of history.
17
1 and 13
Same chat session state including pages.
18
2 and 3
Same pages including responses, plans, or user added data.
19
2
Same changes/modifications to pages in chat history.
20
1 and 7
User identification for changes is an obvious implementation of multi-user chat history.
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 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.
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 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.
The factual inquiries set forth in Graham v. John Deere Co., 383 U.S. 1, 148 USPQ 459 (1966), that are applied for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
Claims 1-2, 6-7, 9-10, and 14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Rosenberg (U.S. Publication No. 2024/0297857) in view of Berry et al. (U.S. Publication No. 2011/0289429).
As per claim 1, Rosenberg teaches a method, comprising:
providing, to a plurality of users, access to a chat session (Rosenberg: paragraph 0033; Each user experiences a traditional chat room with four other users…each user participates in a real-time conversation with the remaining four users in the chat room (i.e., sub-group)) that uses a large language model to provide responses to input messages received for the chat session (Rosenberg: paragraph 0036; The collaboration server 105 periodically sends chunks of each separate chat conversation to a Large Language Model 100 (LLM, for example, ChatGPT from OpenAI) via an Application Programming Interface (API) for processing and receives a summary from the LLM 100…paragraph 0037; large language model 100 processes the first conversational summary, the second conversational summary, and the third conversational summary using the large language model 100 to generate a global conversational summary expressed in conversational form);
receiving changes to the chat session (Rosenberg: paragraph 0041; sending chat input collected from the one user associated with the networked computing device 135 and other users of the assigned sub-group…paragraph 0047; sending text chat input collected from the one user associated with the computing device 225 to other users of the assigned sub-group, and vice versa);
updating the chat session in response to the changes to the chat session (Rosenberg: paragraph 0038; sending a conversational representation of the summary generated for a given chat room of a given sub-group into another chat room of another sub-group…paragraph 0053; sending the first conversational summary expressed in conversational form to each of the members of a first different sub-group), wherein the large language model uses the changes to the chat session in responding to subsequent input messages received for the chat session (Rosenberg: paragraph 0043; LLM 200 can capture the flow of the conversation (e.g., the speakers, content of the conversation, other speakers who disagreed, agreed, or argued, etc.) from the block dialog…LLM 200 can provide the conversational context…paragraph 0045; sends chat conversation chunks (via an API) to LLM 200 for processing (e.g., summarization)…paragraph 0134; the server captures a recent block of dialogue from a given sub-group and sends the dialogue block to a Large Language Model (LLM) for processing);
storing the changes to the chat session in a chat session history that maintains a state of the chat session (Rosenberg: paragraph 0035; keeps track of the chat conversations separately in a memory…paragraph 0048; a set of ordered chat messages including text…a respective member identifier…a respective timestamp identifier…paragraph 0131; tracks the conversational dialogue, i.e., the flow of messaging over time (t) as transpired between the users in a sub-group and stores it in a separable memory for each of the different sub-groups…paragraph 0133; the server records a history of the chat dialogue as seen by the users in the respective sub-group).
However Rosenberg does not explicitly mention resuming the chat session at a future time using the chat session history.
However Berry teaches:
resuming the chat session at a future time using the chat session history (Berry: paragraph 0067; each conversation is stored in a transcript…paragraph 0101; The system waits for the user to select a conversation to resume (1152), following which the system retrieves the associated transcript from persistent conversation storage (1205), shows (1153) a portion of the transcript in the GUI (1201), and optionally transmits (1154) the selected transcript(s) to the other conversants, which is described in more detail in the following paragraphs. Then, the system returns to waiting (1150) for the user to select another conversation to resume, as the invention allows the user to resume multiple conversations simultaneously).
Therefore it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to utilize the teachings as in Berry with the teachings as in Rosenberg. The motivation for doing so would have been providing the ability to recall and share previously conducted conversations (Berry: paragraph 0006).
As per claim 2, the modified Rosenberg teaches the method of claim 1, wherein the state of the chat session includes exchanges between the plurality of users and pages created for the chat session (Rosenberg: paragraph 0033; each user participates in a real-time conversation with the remaining four users in the chat room (i.e., sub-group)…paragraph 0048; a set of ordered chat messages including text…a respective member identifier…a respective timestamp identifier…paragraph 0133; the server tracks the dialogue that transpires over time, including a record of the speaker, the time of speaking, the content, and concerning comments from the other users of the same sub-group. Accordingly, the server records a history of the chat dialogue as seen by the users in the respective sub-group).
As per claim 6, the modified Rosenberg teaches the method of claim 1, wherein the large language model uses the chat session history in preparing subsequent responses to subsequent input messages (Rosenberg: paragraph 0043; LLM 200 can capture the flow of the conversation…LLM 200 can provide the conversational context…paragraph 0045; conversational observation agent 215 keeps track of each conversation separately and sends chat conversation chunks (via an API) to LLM 200 for processing (e.g., summarization)…paragraph 0134; the server captures a recent block of dialogue from a given sub-group and sends the dialogue block to a Large Language Model (LLM) for processing).
As per claim 7, the modified Rosenberg teaches the method of claim 1, wherein the changes include an input message provided to the large language model from a user of the plurality of users and the chat session is updated to include the input message and a response from the large language model to the input message (Rosenberg: paragraph 0041; sending chat input collected from the one user associated with the networked computing device 135 and other users of the assigned sub-group…paragraph 0036; sends chunks of each separate chat conversation to a Large Language Model 100 (LLM, for example, ChatGPT from OpenAI) via an Application Programming Interface (API) for processing and receives a summary from the LLM 100 that is associated with the particular sub-group…paragraph 0038; sending a conversational representation of the summary generated for a given chat room of a given sub-group into another chat room of another sub-group).
With respect to claim 9, it is substantially similar to claim 1 and is rejected in the same manner, the same art and reasoning applying. Further, Rosenberg also teaches a device, comprising: a memory to store data and instructions; and a processor operable to communicate with the memory, wherein the processor is operable to: (Rosenberg: paragraph 0195; computing device 1100 includes one or more processors 1105 that can execute instructions stored in memory subsystem 1110).
Regarding claims 10 and 14, they are substantially similar to claims 2 and 6, respectively, and are rejected in the same manner, the same arts and reasoning applying.
Claims 3-4, 8, and 11-12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Rosenberg (U.S. Publication No. 2024/0297857), in view of Berry et al. (U.S. Publication No. 2011/0289429), and further in view of Greenspan et al. (U.S. Patent No. 9,218,102).
As per claim 3, the modified Rosenberg teaches the method of claim 1, the chat session history identifies user (Rosenberg: paragraph 0048; a set of ordered chat messages including text…a respective member identifier…a respective timestamp identifier…paragraph 0133; the server tracks the dialogue that transpires over time, including a record of the speaker, the time of speaking, the content, and concerning comments from the other users of the same sub-group. Accordingly, the server records a history of the chat dialogue as seen by the users in the respective sub-group).
However the modified Rosenberg does not explicitly mention wherein the changes to the chat session are made by different users of the plurality of users and the chat session history identifies which user made the changes.
However Greenspan teaches:
wherein the changes to the chat session are made by different users of the plurality of users and the chat session history identifies which user made the changes (Greenspan: col. 10, lines 16-19; the host code maintains an ordered list of revision records, where a revision record is a data structure that comprises a changeset and authorship information…col. 10, lines 50-57; the client code transmits the revision number with the changeset, while in other embodiments the host code keeps track of the revision number for each client computing system 120 as the revision number advances with each update. In still further embodiments the client code transmits the revision number and the host code also tracks the revision number, which should agree, for redundancy and error checking).
Therefore it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to utilize the teachings as in Greenspan with the teachings as in the modified Rosenberg. The motivation for doing so would have been in order to keep track of the revision number for each client computing system as the revision number advances with each update (Greenspan: col. 10, lines 52-54).
As per claim 4, the modified Rosenberg teaches the method of claim 1.
Rosenberg teaches a chat session accessed by a plurality of users (Rosenberg: paragraph 0033; each user participates in a real-time conversation with the remaining four users in the chat room (i.e., sub-group)…paragraph 0133; the server tracks the dialogue that transpires over time, including a record of the speaker, the time of speaking, the content, and concerning comments from the other users of the same sub-group. Accordingly, the server records a history of the chat dialogue as seen by the users in the respective sub-group).
However the modified Rosenberg does not explicitly mention wherein the plurality of users coedit the chat session and the chat session history tracks the changes made by each user of the plurality of users.
However Greenspan teaches:
wherein the plurality of users coedit the chat session and the chat session history tracks the changes made by each user of the plurality of users (Greenspan: col. 4, lines 29-33; The several client codes running on the client computing systems 120 together with the host code permit multiple users to simultaneously edit the same text document so that each user sees the changes made by the other users in realtime…col. 10, lines 16-19; the host code maintains an ordered list of revision records, where a revision record is a data structure that comprises a changeset and authorship information).
Therefore it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to utilize the teachings as in Greenspan with the teachings as in the modified Rosenberg. The motivation for doing so would have been in order to permit multiple users to simultaneously edit the same text document so that each user sees the changes made by the other users in realtime (Greenspan: col. 4, lines 31-33).
As per claim 8, the modified Rosenberg teaches the method of claim 1.
Rosenberg teaches a chat session history including ordered chat messages (Rosenberg: paragraph 0048; a set of ordered chat messages including text…paragraph 0133; the server records a history of the chat dialogue as seen by the users in the respective sub-group).
However Rosenberg does not explicitly mention wherein the changes include a modification to a previous input message or response in the chat session.
However Greenspan teaches:
wherein the changes include a modification to a previous input message or response in the chat session (Greenspan: col. 4, lines 48-54; Each client code, when running on a client computing system 120, is configured to receive a version of the text document from the host computing system 110, receive user input specifying edits to the text document from the one or more input devices, modify the text document according to the edits, and display the text document in a browser window…col. 4, lines 64-66; The host code is further configured to create a new version of the text document according to the received edit…col. 5, lines 40-42; The changes can comprise additions and/or deletions of one or more characters to the version of the text document).
Therefore it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to utilize the teachings as in Greenspan with the teachings as in the modified Rosenberg. The motivation for doing so would have been in order to permit multiple users to simultaneously edit the same text document so that each user sees the changes made by the other users in realtime (Greenspan: col. 4, lines 31-33).
Regarding claims 11-12, they are substantially similar to claims 3-4, respectively, and are rejected in the same manner, the same arts and reasoning applying.
Claims 5 and 13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Rosenberg (U.S. Publication No. 2024/0297857), in view of Berry et al. (U.S. Publication No. 2011/0289429), and further in view of Chen et al. (U.S. Publication No. 2009/0089686).
As per claim 5, the modified Rosenberg teaches the method of claim 1.
Rosenberg teaches a chat session accessed by a plurality of users and a char session history, as discussed above.
However Rosenberg does not explicitly mention wherein the state of the chat session includes a context for a main chat session and a side conversation of the chat session.
However Chen teaches:
wherein the state of the chat session includes a context for a main chat session and a side conversation of the chat session (Chen: fig. 4 and paragraphs 0035, 0039; System 400 can be configured so that side conversations are showing up within main conversation in context…paragraph 0041; Side conversations provide the ability to have separate conversations that are kept as part of an overall, centrally-managed transcript or kept as a transcript for those IM clients that are granted access to the side conversation).
Therefore it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to utilize the teachings as in Chen with the teachings as in the modified Rosenberg. The motivation for doing so would have been in order to provide the ability to initiate a side conversation and limit access rights for participants in the larger conversation (Chen: paragraph 0040).
Regarding claim 13, it is substantially similar to claim 5, and is rejected in the same manner, the same arts and reasoning applying.
Claims 15 and 17-18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Rosenberg (U.S. Publication No. 2024/0297857) in view of Gray et al. (U.S. Publication No. 2024/0220735).
As per claim 15, Rosenberg discloses a method, comprising:
providing, to a plurality of users, access to a chat session (Rosenberg: paragraph 0033; Each user experiences a traditional chat room with four other users…each user participates in a real-time conversation with the remaining four users in the chat room (i.e., sub-group)) that uses a large language model to provide responses to input messages received for the chat session (Rosenberg: paragraph 0036; The collaboration server 105 periodically sends chunks of each separate chat conversation to a Large Language Model 100 (LLM, for example, ChatGPT from OpenAI) via an Application Programming Interface (API) for processing and receives a summary from the LLM 100…paragraph 0037; large language model 100 processes the first conversational summary, the second conversational summary, and the third conversational summary using the large language model 100 to generate a global conversational summary expressed in conversational form),
receiving changes to the chat session (Rosenberg: paragraph 0041; sending chat input collected from the one user associated with the networked computing device 135 and other users of the assigned sub-group…paragraph 0047; sending text chat input collected from the one user associated with the computing device 225 to other users of the assigned sub-group, and vice versa); and
updating the chat session in response to the changes to the chat session (Rosenberg: paragraph 0038; sending a conversational representation of the summary generated for a given chat room of a given sub-group into another chat room of another sub-group…paragraph 0053; sending the first conversational summary expressed in conversational form to each of the members of a first different sub-group), wherein the large language model uses the changes to the chat session in responding to subsequent input messages received for the chat session (Rosenberg: paragraph 0043; LLM 200 can capture the flow of the conversation (e.g., the speakers, content of the conversation, other speakers who disagreed, agreed, or argued, etc.) from the block dialog…LLM 200 can provide the conversational context…paragraph 0045; sends chat conversation chunks (via an API) to LLM 200 for processing (e.g., summarization)…paragraph 0134; the server captures a recent block of dialogue from a given sub-group and sends the dialogue block to a Large Language Model (LLM) for processing).
However Rosenberg does not explicitly mention wherein the large language model retrieves relevant data from a grounded dataset for answering an input message for the chat session; output, in the chat session, a response with the relevant data with reference links identifying a source of the relevant data and a summary with reasoning on how relevant data leads to conclusions in the response.
However Gray teaches:
wherein the large language model retrieves relevant data from a grounded dataset for answering an input message for the chat session (Gray: paragraph 0006; the additional content that is processed, using the LLM in generating the NL based summary to provide responsive to submission of a query, includes: content from query-responsive search result document(s) that are responsive to the query…content of a search result document can be selected based on it being determined to have a correlation to the submitted query);
output, in the chat session, a response with the relevant data with reference links identifying a source of the relevant data and a summary with reasoning on how relevant data leads to conclusions in the response (Gray: paragraph 0153; generating large language model (LLM) output based on processing, using an LLM, corresponding content from each of the search result documents of the set…paragraph 0071; The NL based summary is generated based on the LLM output…the LLM output optionally additionally reflects source identifier(s) and/or confidence measure(s) associated with corresponding portion(s) of the NL based summary… a source identifier appearing before and/or after a portion of the NL based summary can indicate that the SRD, corresponding to the source identifier, verifies the portion…a link to the SRD can be provided in conjunction with the portion).
Therefore it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to utilize the teachings as in Gray with the teachings as in the modified Rosenberg. The motivation for doing so would have been in order to generate output that reflects generative content that is responsive to the input(s) (Gray: paragraph 0001).
As per claim 17, the modified Rosenberg teaches the method of claim 16, wherein the state of the chat session includes pages created for the chat session (Rosenberg: paragraph 0033; each user participates in a real-time conversation with the remaining four users in the chat room (i.e., sub-group)…paragraph 0048; a set of ordered chat messages including text…a respective member identifier…a respective timestamp identifier…paragraph 0133; the server tracks the dialogue that transpires over time, including a record of the speaker, the time of speaking, the content, and concerning comments from the other users of the same sub-group. Accordingly, the server records a history of the chat dialogue as seen by the users in the respective sub-group).
As per claim 18, the modified Rosenberg teaches the method of claim 17, wherein the pages include previous responses generated by the large language model, plans that the large language model provided in the response, or data added by a user to the chat session (Rosenberg: paragraph 0036; receives a summary from the LLM 100…paragraph 0038; sending a conversational representation of the summary generated for a given chat room of a given sub-group into another chat room of another sub-group…paragraph 0041; sending chat input collected from the one user associated with the networked computing device 135 and other users of the assigned sub-group…paragraph 0048; a set of ordered chat messages including text… a respective member identifier…a respective timestamp identifier).
Claim 16 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Rosenberg (U.S. Publication No. 2024/0297857), in view of Gray et al. (U.S. Publication No. 2024/0220735), and further in view of Berry et al. (U.S. Publication No. 2011/0289429).
As per claim 16, the modified Rosenberg teaches the method of claim 15, further comprising: storing the changes to the chat session in a chat session history that maintains a state of the chat session (Rosenberg: paragraph 0035; keeps track of the chat conversations separately in a memory…paragraph 0048; a set of ordered chat messages including text…a respective member identifier…a respective timestamp identifier…paragraph 0131; tracks the conversational dialogue, i.e., the flow of messaging over time (t) as transpired between the users in a sub-group and stores it in a separable memory for each of the different sub-groups…paragraph 0133; the server records a history of the chat dialogue as seen by the users in the respective sub-group); wherein the large language model uses the chat session history in preparing subsequent responses to subsequent input messages (Rosenberg: paragraph 0043; LLM 200 can capture the flow of the conversation…LLM 200 can provide the conversational context…paragraph 0045; conversational observation agent 215 keeps track of each conversation separately and sends chat conversation chunks (via an API) to LLM 200 for processing (e.g., summarization)…paragraph 0134; the server captures a recent block of dialogue from a given sub-group and sends the dialogue block to a Large Language Model (LLM) for processing).
However the modified Rosenberg does not explicitly mention resuming the chat session at a future time using the chat session history.
However Berry teaches:
resuming the chat session at a future time using the chat session history (Berry: paragraph 0067; each conversation is stored in a transcript…paragraph 0101; The system waits for the user to select a conversation to resume (1152), following which the system retrieves the associated transcript from persistent conversation storage (1205), shows (1153) a portion of the transcript in the GUI (1201), and optionally transmits (1154) the selected transcript(s) to the other conversants, which is described in more detail in the following paragraphs. Then, the system returns to waiting (1150) for the user to select another conversation to resume, as the invention allows the user to resume multiple conversations simultaneously).
Therefore it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to utilize the teachings as in Berry with the teachings as in the modified Rosenberg. The motivation for doing so would have been providing the ability to recall and share previously conducted conversations (Berry: paragraph 0006).
Claims 19-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Rosenberg (U.S. Publication No. 2024/0297857), in view of Gray et al. (U.S. Publication No. 2024/0220735), in view of Berry et al. (U.S. Publication No. 2011/0289429), and further in view of Greenspan et al. (U.S. Patent No. 9,218,102).
As per claim 19, the modified Rosenberg teaches the method of claim 17.
However the modified Rosenberg does not explicitly mention wherein the changes include adding a page to the chat session, removing a page from the chat session, or modifying a page in the chat session.
However Greenspan teaches:
wherein the changes include adding a page to the chat session, removing a page from the chat session, or modifying a page in the chat session (Greenspan: col. 4, lines 48-54; Each client code, when running on a client computing system 120, is configured to receive a version of the text document from the host computing system 110, receive user input specifying edits to the text document from the one or more input devices, modify the text document according to the edits, and display the text document in a browser window…col. 5, lines 40-42; The changes can comprise additions and/or deletions of one or more characters to the version of the text document).
Therefore it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to utilize the teachings as in Greenspan with the teachings as in the modified Rosenberg. The motivation for doing so would have been in order to keep track of the revision number for each client computing system as the revision number advances with each update (Greenspan: col. 10, lines 52-54).
As per claim 20, the modified Rosenberg teaches the method of claim 16.
Rosenberg teaches that the chat session history identifies users (Rosenberg: paragraph 0048; a set of ordered chat messages including text…a respective member identifier… a respective timestamp identifier…paragraph 0133; the server tracks the dialogue that transpires over time, including a record of the speaker, the time of speaking, the content, and concerning comments from the other users of the same sub-group).
However the modified Rosenberg does not explicitly mention wherein the changes to the chat session are made by different users of the plurality of users and the chat session history identifies which user made the changes.
However Greenspan teaches:
wherein the changes to the chat session are made by different users of the plurality of users and the chat session history identifies which user made the changes (Greenspan: col. 10, lines 16-19; the host code maintains an ordered list of revision records, where a revision record is a data structure that comprises a changeset and authorship information…col. 10, lines 50-54; the client code transmits the revision number with the changeset, while in other embodiments the host code keeps track of the revision number for each client computing system 120 as the revision number advances with each update).
Therefore it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to utilize the teachings as in Greenspan with the teachings as in the modified Rosenberg. The motivation for doing so would have been in order to permit multiple users to simultaneously edit the same text document so that each user sees the changes made by the other users in realtime (Greenspan: col. 4, lines 31-33).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to KARINA J. GARCIA-CHING whose telephone number is (571)270-7159. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Wednesday (9:00 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, Vivek Srivastava can be reached at (571) 272-7304. 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.
/KARINA J GARCIA-CHING/Examiner, Art Unit 2449
/VIVEK SRIVASTAVA/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2449
Prosecution Insights