DETAILED ACTION
1. This office action is in response to Applicant’s submission filed on 4/30/2025. Claims 1-20 are pending in the application and have been examined.
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
2. The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Information Disclosure Statement
3. The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 4/30/2025 is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement is being considered by the examiner.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
4. 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.
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.
5. Claims 1-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as unpatentable over U.S. Pat. Ap. Pub. No. 20260134205 (Rahman et al., hereinafter “Rahman”) in view of U.S. Pat. Ap. Pub. No. 20250068885 (Poupyrev et al., hereinafter “Pou”).
With regard to Claim 1, Rahman describes:
“A system to build dynamic application prompts with summarization from interaction data, the system comprising:
a processing device; (Paragraph 55)
a non-transitory storage device (Paragraph 55) containing instructions when executed by the processing device, causes the processing device to perform the steps of:
receive an interaction between a first participant and a second participant; (Paragraph 32 describes that a transcript of an interaction between multiple users may be input.)
consolidate a set of context data associated with the interaction via a first micro language model to form a context summary; (Paragraph 34 describes that a first model generates a first summary of the input data.)
monitor the interaction for a set of interaction data via a second micro language model, wherein the set of interaction data monitored by the second micro language model forms an interaction summary via the second micro language model; (Paragraph 34 describes that a second model generates an interaction summary based on the input data.)
generate a [[set of resolutions and a]] set of warnings associated with the received interaction based on the context summary and the interaction summary; and (Paragraph 51 describes that a set of warnings can be generated based on the summary data.)
highlight components within the interaction based on the set of warnings [[and the set of resolutions]. (Paragraph 51 describes that the warnings can be highlighted with a visual marker.)
Rahman does not explicitly describe generating a set of resolutions based on the summary of the interaction. However, paragraph 172 of Pou describes that both a set of warnings and a set of recommended action (resolutions) can be generated based on interaction summaries.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to include the resolutions as described by Pou into the system of Rahman to provide more flexible output for the user, as describes in paragraph 172 of Pou.
With respect to Claim 2, Rahman describes “highlighted components within the interaction are updated on a predetermined periodic basis during the interaction.” Paragraph 22 describes that the summaries are updated as more interaction data is received.
With respect to Claim 3, Rahman describes “interaction summary is added to the set of context data upon conclusion of the interaction.” Paragraph 30 describes that the contextual analysis can be done using related, previous summary data.
With respect to Claim 4, Rahman describes “the set of context data comprises previously conducted interactions, historical requests, and participant actions before the interaction.” Paragraph 30 describes that the contextual analysis can be done using related prior summarized content and/or user submitted feedback information (cited as historical requests and participant actions before the interaction.)
With respect to Claim 5, Rahman describes “the set of context data within the interaction comprises indirect communications between the first participant and the second participant.” Paragraph 30 describes that the contextual analysis can be done using user submitted feedback information (cited as “indirect communications.”)
With respect to Claim 6, Rahman describes “the set of resolutions and the set of warnings are categorized into predetermined groups.” Paragraph 51 describes that the warnings are categorized into groups, such as a cross and a warning symbol.
Rahman does not explicitly describe categorizing resolutions. However, paragraph 205 describes categories for the describes recommended actions (cited as “resolutions.”)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to include the resolutions as described by Pou into the system of Rahman to provide more flexible output for the user, as describes in paragraph 172 of Pou.
With respect to Claim 7, Rahman describes “interaction summary is updated on a predetermined periodic basis during the interaction.” Paragraph 35 describes that the second narrative model, which generates the interaction summary, can be updated as the input data is updated.
With respect to Claims 8-14, computer program product Claim 8 and system Claim 1 are related as a product programmed to perform the same method as the system, with each claimed product function corresponding to each claimed system function. Accordingly, Claims 8-14 are similarly rejected under the same rationale as applied above with respect to Claims 1-7.
With respect to Claims 15-20, method Claim 15 and system Claim 1 are related as a method to perform the same method as the system, with each claimed method function corresponding to each claimed system function. Accordingly, Claims 15-20 are similarly rejected under the same rationale as applied above with respect to Claims 1-6.
Conclusion
6. The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
U.S. Pat. Ap. Pub. No. 20240338554 (Schmidt et al.) also describes using multiple models to generate summaries.
7. Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to EDWARD TRACY whose telephone number is (571)272-8332. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 9 AM- 5PM.
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, Bhavesh Mehta can be reached on 571-272-7453. 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.
/EDWARD TRACY JR./Examiner, Art Unit 2656
Prosecution Insights