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 .
Introductory Remarks
In response to communications filed on 10 August 2026, no claims are amended, new or cancelled per Applicant’s request. Therefore, claims 1-20 are presently pending in the application, of which, claim(s) 1, 13, and 17 is/are presented in independent form.
An IDS was received on 4 September 2026; all references have been considered.
The previously raised double patenting rejection is withdrawn in view of the accepted terminal disclaimer.
Examiner’s Note
The rejections below group claims that may not be identical, but whose language and scope are so substantively similar as to lend themselves to grouping, in the interests of clarity and conciseness. Any citation to the instant specification herein is made to the PGPub version (if applicable). The examiner notes that no statement has been entered regarding the inventorship of individual claims as required under 37 CFR 1.56, and therefore assumes that all claims have the same inventorship or are directed to inventions that were commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the invention.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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 (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) 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 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 –
(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.
Claim(s) 1-3 and 12 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Garg et al. (U.S. PGPub No. 2024/0070434 A1) (hereinafter Garg).
As per claim 1, Garg teaches a computer-implemented method (Figure 1 and corresponding description), comprising:
receiving, during a current interaction session of a first application, event data of user interaction events for the first application generated during the current interaction session (Figure 1 step 107);
obtaining a use case definition for an application type of the first application that includes event descriptions of events that can occur during user interactions with the application type (Figure 1 step 108 – knowledge base (use case definition) includes question answer pairs for questions that the user has);
generating, during the current interaction session, enhanced event descriptions based on enhancing the event descriptions of the use case definition, wherein the enhanced event descriptions include semantic information for a first event (0048, 0054, 0059, and 0060) for establishing context for a generative large language model (LLM) AI engine (Intended uses are not afforded patentable weight. MPEP 2111.02; See also In re Schreiber, 128 F.3d 1473, 1477, 44 USPQ2d 1429, 1431 (Fed.Cir. 1997));
configuring, during the current interaction session, the generative LLM AI engine using a context that includes the enhanced event descriptions (0041);
generating a response to a user query received during the current interaction session using the configured generative LLM AI engine (Figure 1 step 110); and
outputting the generated response in the current interaction session (Figure 1 “response” and 0058).
As per claim 2, Garg teaches the computer-implemented method of claim 1, wherein enhancing the event descriptions in the use case definition includes enhancing the event descriptions in the use case definition using the event data (0048, 0054, 0059, and 0060).
As per claim 3, Garg teaches the computer-implemented method of claim 1, wherein generating the response to the user query comprises:
providing, to the generative LLM AI engine, instructions for generating the response to the user query (0013 and Figure 1); and
receiving the response to the user query from the generative LLM AI engine (Figure 1 step 109).
As per claim 12, Garg teaches the computer-implemented method of claim 3, further comprising:
generating keywords from the enhanced event descriptions (0046);
providing the keywords in a request to at least one data source for keyword-based resources (id.);
receiving at least one keyword-based resource from a data source that provides information related to at least one generated keyword (0048); and
including information from or a link to the at least one keyword-based resource in the generative LLM Al context (id.).
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.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claim(s) 13-15 and 17-19 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Garg as applied to claim 1, and further in view of Dintenfass et al. (U.S. PGPub No. 2024/0069987 A1) (hereinafter Dintenfass).
As per claim 13, Garg teaches most of the limitations, but does not appear to explicitly teach:
a processor; and
a memory coupled to the processor, the memory storing computer-executable instructions that, when executed by the processor, configure the processor to:
For the remaining limitations, see the examiner’s remarks regarding claim 1.
While these limitations would seem to be implicit given the disclosure of Garg, Dintenfass makes explicit what Garg does not. Dintenfass at Figure 1B items 102, 104, 114, and their corresponding descriptions. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to incorporate the teachings of Dintenfass into the invention of Garg in order to have the Garg methodology operate on a computer. This would have been clearly advantageous as it would automate system of Garg. The combination hereinafter GD.
As per claim 17, GD teaches a non-transitory, computer-readable medium storing computer-readable instructions, that upon execution by at least one hardware processor, cause performance of operations (Dintenfass at 0038), comprising:
For the remaining limitations, see the examiner’s remarks regarding claim 1.
As per claims 14 and 18, see the examiner’s remarks regarding claim 2.
As per claims 15 and 19, see the examiner’s remarks regarding claim 3.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 4-11, 16, and 20 are objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 4 September 2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. Applicant’s arguments are treated here in the order they were presented by the applicant.
First, with respect to the 102 rejection, the applicant argues that the enhanced event descriptions are not generated nor is the LLM configured during the current interaction session in Garg. The applicant appears to focus on the interaction session being a session with the user that submitted the query (i.e. the end user). However, the examiner applied Garg in the context of the operation user (e.g. an administrator). The cited passages of Garg reflect that the operation user moderates the question-answer pairs (0048), trains the knowledge base (0054), review and take action to modify or add to them based on the semantic information for user events (0059-60), which are then fine tuned within the model (0041). These all are done during the interaction session with the operation user as defined by the instant specification. See instant specification at 0029.
Second, the applicant argues that Garg does not generate enhanced descriptions of an event. Enhanced descriptions are not defined by the instant specification, and indeed are only mentioned at 0005-06 and 0169. Under the broadest reasonable interpretation, the examiner views Garg’s report generation to read on this. See Garg at 0059.
Third, the applicant argues that Garg does not teach configuring an LLM’s context window with enhanced descriptions. In response to applicant's argument that the references fail to show certain features of the invention, it is noted that the features upon which applicant relies (i.e., a context window) are not recited in the rejected claim(s). Although the claims are interpreted in light of the specification, limitations from the specification are not read into the claims. See In re Van Geuns, 988 F.2d 1181, 26 USPQ2d 1057 (Fed. Cir. 1993). Claim 1 does not recite a “context window” rather it recites a context. Given that the definition of context is “the situation in which something happens” (https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/context), Garg’s implementation of fine-tuning of the model clearly meets this.
Applicant offers no other arguments beyond arguing allowability for the reasons cited for the independent claim(s) or dependence upon said claims. These arguments are considered met.
Conclusion
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. 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 TYLER J TORGRIMSON whose telephone number is (571)270-5550. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 9 am - 5:30 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, Aleksander Kerzhner can be reached at 571.270.1760. 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.
/TYLER J TORGRIMSON/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2165
Prosecution Insights