DETAILED ACTION
This Office Action is in response to Applicant’s Application filed on June 4, 2025. Claims 1-20 are pending and presented for examination.
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 .
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on August 5, 2026 has been considered by the examiner.
Claim Objections
Claim 7 is objected to because of the following informalities: the acronym for HTTP must be spelled out before use. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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) 1-6, 9-13 and 16-20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Ashfaq et al (hereinafter, “Ashfaq”, U.S. Pub. No. 2025/0384064).
As per claims 1, 9 and 16, Ashfaq discloses a computer-implemented method, computing device and non-transitory computer-readable medium comprising:
establishing, at a server, a first connection between a client device and the server in response to receiving a first request from the client device (paragraph 0016 discloses receiving a query from a user device);
transmitting, based on a first message from the client device, a first prompt from the server to a large language model (LLM) and, in response, receiving a tool call (i.e. function calling) from the LLM (paragraph 0016 discloses sending a first prompt including the user query what is the weather in Seattle to a generative artificial intelligence (AI) model and receiving from the generative AI model a function call with a list of functions for the first prompt);
determining that the tool call is a client-side tool call and transmitting, via the first connection, the tool call and a conversation identifier to the client device in response to the first message (paragraph 0030 discloses returning a call to the relevant function call and the prompt including the conversation history and query);
closing the first connection and storing a conversation history object in memory at the server in association with the conversation identifier (paragraph 0036 discloses storing the conversation history in a data source);
establishing, at the server, a second connection with the client device in response to receiving, from the client device, a second request (paragraph 0043 discloses receiving a second prompt to the user request);
retrieving the conversation history object from memory based on the conversation identifier in response to receiving, from the client device, a second message and the conversation identifier (paragraph 0044 discloses retrieving conversation history information based on the second prompt);
determining, based in part on the conversation history object, that the second message includes a tool response in reply to the tool call and transmitting to the LLM a third message including the tool response and at least a portion of the conversation history object (paragraphs 0044 and 0045 discloses returning a call to the relevant function call in response to the prompt including the last question with conversation history from the user); and
receiving a first assistant message from the LLM in reply to the third message and transmitting the first assistant message to the client device (0045 discloses returning a call to the relevant function call in response to the prompt).
As per claims 2, 10 and 17, Ashfaq discloses:
wherein determining that the tool call is a client-side tool call includes processing, by the server, the tool call and determining it references a function executable by the client device (paragraph 0030).
As per claims 3, 11 and 18, Ashfaq discloses:
wherein determining the second message includes a tool response in reply to the tool call based in part on the conversation history object includes determining, from the conversation history object, that a next expected response from the client device is a tool response type message (paragraph 0044).
As per claims 4, 12 and 19, Ashfaq discloses:
wherein closing the first connection occurs without transmitting an assistant response message in reply to the first message from the client device (paragraph 0036).
As per claims 5, Ashfaq further discloses:
executing, at the client device, a tool function in response to receipt of the tool call from the server and wherein the tool function produces content for the tool response (paragraphs 0044 and 0045).
As per claims 6, 13 and 20, Ashfaq further discloses:
establishing, at the server, a third connection between the client device and the server in response to receiving a third request from the client device and a fourth message containing a second prompt (paragraph 0044);
assigning a further conversation identifier and initializing a further conversation history object for storing conversation history (paragraph 0045); and
transmitting the third message to the LLM, receiving a second assistant message from the LLM in reply to the third message, and transmitting the second assistant message and the further conversation identifier to the client device (paragraph 0045).
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.
Claim(s) 7, 8, 14 and 15 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ashfaq in view of Shi et al (hereinafter, “Shi”, U.S. Pat. No. 12,586,578).
As per claims 7 and 14, Ashfaq further discloses:
the first connection between the client device and the server (paragraph 0016).
However, Ashfaq does not explicitly disclose:
opening a HTTP session.
Shi discloses natural processing language comprising:
opening a HTTP session (col. 19, lines 45-56).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to modify Ashfaq by incorporating or implementing a HTTP session for purpose of allowing communication between a user and server in a timely and efficient manner.
As per claims 8 and 15, Ashfaq discloses:
wherein closing the first connection releases a port on the server (paragraph 0036).
However, Ashfaq does not explicitly disclose:
HTTP session.
Shi discloses natural processing language comprising:
opening a HTTP session (col. 19, lines 45-56).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to modify Ashfaq by incorporating or implementing a HTTP session for purpose of allowing communication between a user and server in a timely and efficient manner.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Sun et al (U.S. Pub. No. 2024/0414108) discloses a chatbot system for retrieving a conversation history of one or more conversations between a user and a chatbot from a conversation history datastore and generates one or more summarized memories using the conversation history.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to LASHONDA T JACOBS-BURTON whose telephone number is (571)272-4004. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8:30 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, Ario Etienne can be reached at 571-272-4001. 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.
/LASHONDA JACOBS-BURTON/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2457
ljb
September 18, 2026
