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 1-21 remain pending and are ready for examination.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 07/09/2025 and 12/15/2025, were filed. The submission 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 § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claim 19 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor, or for pre-AIA the applicant regards as the invention.
Regarding claim 19, Applicant recites in lines 1 of the claim a " further comprising the terminal". Claim is rejected for being indefinite because the claim is unclear. The term “terminal” has been mentioned previously in claim 1. Claim 19 recites the term “further comprising” which is an indication of a new terminal. This make the claim unclear. Suggested amendment to overcome the rejection:
“The search control system according to claim 1,
Double Patenting
The nonstatutory double patenting rejections are 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 rejections are appropriate where the claims at issue 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); and 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 a nonstatutory double patenting ground provided the reference application or patent either is shown to be commonly owned with this 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 §§ 706.02(1)(1) - 706.02(1)(3) 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 USPTO Internet website contains terminal disclaimer forms which may be used. Please visit www.uspto.gov/forms/. The 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
http://www.uspto.gov/patents/process/fil e/efs/g uid ance/e TD-info-1.jsp.
Claims 1-21 provisionally rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-14 of co-pending Application No. 19/258917. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because the claims corresponding to the copending application contain the scope of the invention of the instant application’s claims.
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 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)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 1-2, and 13-21 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Smyth et al., U.S. Pub No: US 20250363140 A1 (Hereinafter “Smyth”).
Smyth disclose:
1. A search control system, comprising:
at least one processor; and
at least one memory device storing instructions which, when executed by the at least one processor (see para. [0005]), cause the at least one processor to perform operations comprising:
generating, based on a chat message received from a terminal, a prompt to be output to a language model (see para. [0028, 0036], wherein a user providing requests to a chat interface. The system uses a large language model to interpret the user’s input and guide the conversation);
outputting the prompt to the language model (see para. [0036], wherein a user 502 may provide creative requests to a chat interface 504 and receive back questions. The chat interface 504 may be communicatively coupled to a first LLM 506 configured to respond with natural language, e.g., asking questions. A chat history 508 from the chat interface 504 may be provided to a second LLM 510 configured to build detailed search queries);
outputting, to the terminal, a chat message based on an answer from the language model to the prompt (see para. [0033, 0036], wherein a user may provide creative requests to a chat interface and receive back questions. The chat interface may provide natural language responses to the user (e.g., asking questions) using a language model. A chat history for a conversation between the user and chat interface (i.e., the language model) may be used to build a detailed);
generating a search query based on a log related to exchange of a chat message with the terminal (see para. [0053], wherein Chat history log construction module 826 may be configured to construct a chat history log that records the interactive conversational exchange. The chat history log may be utilized to inform the construction of the search query);
outputting the search query to a search system (see para. [0005, 0053], wherein search queries can be submitted);
and outputting, to the terminal, a search result of a search received from the search system in response to the output of the search query to the search system (see para. [0039-0040] and claim 1, wherein presenting plurality of assets/ results on a display screen of the client device (terminal)).
2. The search control system according to claim 1, wherein the generating the search query includes generating a search query generation prompt which gives an instruction to generate the search query based on the log, and wherein the generating the search query includes generating the search query based on an answer output from the language model in response to output of the search query generation prompt to the language model (see para. [0030, 0036], wherein he chat interface 504 may be communicatively coupled to a first LLM 506 configured to respond with natural language, e.g., asking questions. A chat history 508 from the chat interface 504 may be provided to a second LLM 510 configured to build detailed search queries. The large language model may collect information from the conversation and use it to generate a query with a high degree of specificity, which may then be used by the search service to provide the user with asset data that closely aligns with their described needs).
13. The search control system according to claim 1, wherein the outputting the chat message to the terminal includes outputting a predetermined chat message indicating that a search is executable in response to satisfaction of a given condition (see para. [0026, 0037], wherein the system prompts the user with questions to elicit more detailed descriptions, and upon gathering sufficient keyword intake from the user’s responses, it constructs and submits the detailed search query), and wherein the outputting the search query to the search system includes outputting the search query to the search system in response to reception of a search request in response to the output of the predetermined chat message (see para. [0026, 0037], wherein the system prompts the user with questions to elicit more detailed descriptions, and upon gathering sufficient keyword intake from the user’s responses, it constructs and submits the detailed search query).
14. The search control system according to claim 13, wherein the outputting the search query to the search system includes outputting the search query to the search system in response to reception of a chat message indicating that a search is requested for the output of the predetermined chat message (see para. [0026, 0037], wherein the system prompts the user with questions to elicit more detailed descriptions, and upon gathering sufficient keyword intake from the user’s responses, it constructs and submits the detailed search query).
15. The search control system according to claim 1, wherein the log includes a search result in the search (see para. [0039-0040] and claim 1).
16. The search control system according to claim 1, wherein the search system is configured to execute a search having, as a search target, one of a product or a service (see para. [0026], wherein searching for assets (e.g., images, videos, media content, etc.). assets from database inherently maps to a product or a service).
17. The search control system according to claim 1, wherein the search query is a keyword to be used for a search for one of a product or a service (see para. [0026], wherein searching for assets (e.g., images, videos, media content, etc.). assets from database inherently maps to a product or a service).
18. The search control system according to claim 1, wherein the search result indicates one of a product or a service (see para. [0026], wherein searching for assets (e.g., images, videos, media content, etc.). assets from database inherently maps to a product or a service).
19. The search control system according to claim 1, further comprising the terminal, wherein the terminal includes a display configured to display a screen on which chat messages and the search results are arranged in chronological order (see para [0036-0037] and fig. 7C).
Claims 20 and 21 are rejected under the same rationale as claim 1.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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.
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 3-8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Smyth et al., U.S. Pub No: US 20250363140 A1 (Hereinafter “Smyth”) in view of WHITE et al., U.S. Pub No: US 20250181656 or (20250110995) A1 (Hereinafter “WHITE”) parent US continuation 18374533 09/28/2023 .
Regarding claim 3, Smyth discloses utilizing the chat history log across it integrated models (both the conversational first LLM and query-build second LLM) to maintain context in para. 0036.
Smyth fails to explicitly disclose the limitations below.
WHITE discloses wherein the operations further comprise repeatedly executing processing of determining, based on the log, a target model out of a plurality of the language models, wherein the outputting the prompt to the language model includes outputting a prompt based on a chat message received from the terminal, to the target model at a time of receiving the chat message, and wherein the log is a log related to exchange of a chat message via the plurality of the language models (WHITE, see para. [0003, 0052], wherein the routing decision can be based on a current search request 124 or based on, more broadly, on a search session history or chat conversation history (all interactions in the session or conversation up to and including the current request). The routing, by the router 112, can be a default option for each request or can be recommended during the search session or conversation if the system infers that the user is, for example, struggling or exploring. To do this, the system 100 can infer a current state of the search based on their observable actions. A demonstrated lack of convergence can aid the decision in determining whether to trigger the router 112).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify the system of Smyth to include the missing limitation/s, as taught by WHITE, since doing so would the system to balance cost of operating search equipment and accuracy of responses provided (WHITE; paragraph [0003]).
Regarding claim 4, Smyth in view of WHITE further disclose wherein the processing of determining the target model is processing of determining the target model each time a chat message is received from the terminal (WHITE, see para. [0003, 0052], wherein the routing decision can be based on a current search request 124 or based on, more broadly, on a search session history or chat conversation history (all interactions in the session or conversation up to and including the current request). The routing, by the router 112, can be a default option for each request or can be recommended during the search session or conversation if the system infers that the user is, for example, struggling or exploring. To do this, the system 100 can infer a current state of the search based on their observable actions. A demonstrated lack of convergence can aid the decision in determining whether to trigger the router 112).
Regarding claim 5, Smyth in view of WHITE further disclose wherein each of the plurality of the language models is any one of a language model associated with a search system or a language model unassociated with a search system, and wherein the outputting the search query to the search system includes outputting, in a situation in which the target model is a language model associated with a search system, the search query to the search system associated with the target model in response to satisfaction of a given condition (WHITE, see para. [0003, 0052], wherein routing to a search engine configure to provide exiting content (associated with index target) and routing to chat engine configure to generate new content (unassociated with index target)).
Regarding claim 6, Smyth in view of WHITE further disclose wherein the plurality of the language models are associated with search systems having search targets different from one another, wherein the outputting the search query to the search system includes outputting the search query to a search system associated with the target model in response to satisfaction of a given condition, and wherein the outputting the search result to the terminal includes outputting, to the terminal, a search result which is received from the search system in response to the output of the search query to the search system and which is obtained for a search target of the search system (WHITE, see para. [0003, 0052]).
Regarding claim 7, Smyth in view of WHITE further disclose wherein all of the plurality of the language models are allowed to refer to the log (Smyth, see para. [0036], wherein utilizing the chat history log across it integrated models (both the conversational first LLM and query-build second LLM) to maintain context).
Regarding claim 8, Smyth in view of WHITE further disclose wherein all of the plurality of the language models are set in advance to generate an answer in a common communication style (Smyth, see para. [0028, 0036]).
Claims 9-12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Smyth et al., U.S. Pub No: US 20250363140 A1 (Hereinafter “Smyth”) in view of Wen et al., U.S. Pub No: US 20250335718 A1 (Hereinafter “Wen”) us-provisional-application US 63640131 04/29/2024.
Regarding claim 9, Smyth discloses utilizing the chat history log across it integrated models (both the conversational first LLM and query-build second LLM) to maintain context in para. 0036.
Smyth fails to explicitly disclose the limitations below.
Wen discloses wherein the operations further comprise repeatedly executing processing of determining, based on the log, a target template out of a plurality of templates, and wherein the outputting the prompt to the language model includes outputting, to the language model, a prompt based on a chat message received from the terminal and on the target template at a time of receiving the chat message (Wen, see abstract and fig. 5, wherein the system repeatedly evaluates incoming natural language requests and generates prompts requesting the language model to identify a particular conversation flow type relevant to the request).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify the system of Smyth to include the missing limitation/s, as taught by Wen, since doing so would improve the system to provide accurate answers (Wen; paragraph [0003]).
Regarding claim 10, Smyth in view of WHITE further disclose wherein the processing of determining the target template is processing of determining the target template each time a chat message is received from the terminal (Wen, see abstract and fig. 5, wherein the system repeatedly evaluates incoming natural language requests and generates prompts requesting the language model to identify a particular conversation flow type relevant to the request).
Regarding claim 11, Smyth in view of WHITE further disclose wherein each of the plurality of templates is any one of a template associated with a search system or a template unassociated with a search system, and wherein the outputting the search query to the search system includes outputting, in a situation in which the target template is a template associated with a search system, the search query to the search system associated with the target template in response to satisfaction of a given condition (Wen, see abstract and fig. 5, wherein the system repeatedly evaluates incoming natural language requests and generates prompts requesting the language model to identify a particular conversation flow type relevant to the request).
Regarding claim 12, Smyth in view of WHITE further disclose wherein the plurality of templates are associated with search systems having search targets different from one another, wherein the outputting the search query to the search system includes outputting the search query to a search system associated with the target template in response to satisfaction of a given condition, and wherein the outputting the search result to the terminal includes outputting, to the terminal, a search result which is received from the search system in response to the output of the search query to the search system and which is obtained for a search target of the search system (Wen, see abstract and fig. 5, wherein the system repeatedly evaluates incoming natural language requests and generates prompts requesting the language model to identify a particular conversation flow type relevant to the request).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MAHER N ALGIBHAH whose telephone number is (571)272-0718. The examiner can normally be reached on Monday-Thursday.
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, Aleksandr Kerzhner can be reached on (571) 270-1760. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-1264.
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). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/MAHER N ALGIBHAH/Primary Examiner , Art Unit 2165
Prosecution Insights