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 .
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statements (IDS) submitted on 09/16/2025, 11/05/2025 and 12/17/2025 are is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statements are being considered by the examiner.
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 and 2 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1 and 6 of U.S. Patent No. 12,493,775. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because the claim are obvious variants. The instant application claim 1 discloses selecting at least one generator whereas claim 1 of Patent No. 12,493,775 discloses selecting a set of generators as disclosed in the comparison table below. Claims 3-15 are also rejected for their dependency on claim 1.
Instant Application Claims
Patent 12,493,775 Claims
Claim 1. A method comprising:
obtaining initial content that was generated during a content editing session;
generating a prompt based on the initial content;
selecting at least one generator from among a set of generators based, at least in part, on a content type of the initial content;
for each selected generator:
using the prompt to produce new content;
comparing the new content to the initial content; and
making a respective determination whether the new content and the initial content are similar based on whether a similarity threshold is satisfied;
using the respective determination for each selected generator, ensuring that an authorship token is associated with the initial content,
wherein the authorship token includes a form indicating that an associated content region has human rather than an artificial authorship or artificial rather than human authorship.
Claim 1. A method comprising:
obtaining initial content;
generating a prompt based on the initial content;
selecting a set of generators;
for each respective generator of the set of generators:
using the prompt to produce new content;
comparing the new content to the initial content; and
making a respective determination whether the new content and the initial content are similar based on whether a similarity threshold is satisfied;
using the respective determinations of the set of generators, ensuring that an authorship token is associated with the initial content,
wherein the authorship token includes a form indicating that an associated content region has human rather than an artificial authorship or artificial rather than human authorship.
Claim 2. The method of claim 1, wherein the at least one generator is selected based on a likelihood that the at least one generator was used to generate the initial content.
Claim 6. The method of claim 1, wherein selecting the set of generators includes: selecting the set of generators based on a content type of the initial content; and selecting the set of generators based on a likelihood that respective generators were used to produce the initial content.
Claims 16 and 18 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1, 6 and 7 of U.S. Patent No. 12,493,775 in view of Higgins et al. (US PGPub 2025/0061137; hereinafter Higgins). Claims 1 and 6 of Patent No. 12,493,775 discloses obtaining initial content; generating a prompt based on the initial content; selecting at least one generator from among a set of generators based, at least in part, on a content type of the initial content; for each selected generator: using the prompt to produce new content; comparing the new content to the initial content; and making a respective determination whether the new content and the initial content are similar based on whether a similarity threshold is satisfied; using the respective determination for each selected generator, ensuring that an authorship token is associated with the initial content, wherein the authorship token includes a form indicating that an associated content region has human rather than an artificial authorship or artificial rather than human authorship of claim 1 of the instant invention (see at least Column 93, line 15 – Column 94, line 23), but fails to disclose initial content that was generated during a content editing session and selecting at least one generator via an artificial intelligence model from among a set of generators based, at least in part, on a content type of the initial content determined by the artificial intelligence model. However, Higgins discloses initial content that was generated during a content editing session in at least [0038], [0103], [0118] obtaining one or more files via an application for editing files; and selecting at least one generator via an artificial intelligence model from among a set of generators based, at least in part, on a content type of the initial content determined by the artificial intelligence model in at least [0038], [0089] generative framework represents one or a set of generative AI models that can be selected for generating new content based on the type of one or more input files/content. Therefore, it would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which said subject matter pertains, to combine the generators of Patent No. 12,493,775 with the generative AI models of Higgins to quickly and efficiently synthesize existing file content to generate new content much more quickly thereby increasing productivity and creativity instead of having to open an application to dig into the application's proprietary generative AI functionality, or instead of typing lengthy prompts into a generative AI conversational assistant, the user can select multiple files and enter a much more simplified prompt and providing a platform for experimentation with different combinations of files, where combining content from disparate files (e.g., of different formats or types) may previously not have been possible or may have been computationally intensive and laborious as disclosed by Higgins [0038], [0039]. Additionally, claim 7 of Patent No. 12,493,775 is similar to claim 18 of the instant invention. And claims 17, 19 and 20 are also rejected for their dependency on claim 16.
Claims 8, 10-12, 19 and 20 are provisionally rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1, 4, 5, 7, 16 and 17 of copending Application No. 19/194,225 (reference application). Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because the claims are obvious variants with independent claims 1 and 16 of Application No. 19/194,225 fully encompassing claims 8 and 19 of the instant invention as shown in the comparison table below. Claim 9 is also rejected for its dependency on claim 8.
Instant Application Claims
Application No. 19/194,225 Claims
Claim 8. The method of claim 1, further comprising:
obtaining event tracking capability regarding a device;
while a user is editing second content using a content editor running at least in part on the device:
tracking events associated with the device;
detecting an occurrence of a snapshot event;
responsive to detecting the occurrence of the snapshot event, adding data to an audit trail associated with the second content, the data being descriptive of the events; and
using one or both of the events and the audit trail to ensure that an authorship token is associated with the second content.
Claim 1. A method comprising:
obtaining event tracking capability regarding a device;
while a user is editing content using a content editor running at least in part on the device:
tracking events associated with the device;
detecting the occurrence of a snapshot event;
responsive to detecting the occurrence of the snapshot event, adding data to an audit trail associated with the content, the data being regarding the events; and
using one or both of the events and the audit trail to ensure that an authorship token is associated with the content, wherein the authorship token includes a first form indicating that a portion of the content has human rather than artificial authorship or a second form indicating that the portion of the content has artificial rather than human authorship.
Claim 10. The method of claim 8, wherein the audit trail is configured to resist tampering by being stored as part of a blockchain data structure or a Merkle tree data structure.
Claim 7. The method of claim 6, wherein the audit trail is configured to resist tampering by being stored as part of a blockchain data structure or a Merkle tree data structure.
Claim 11. The method of claim 8, wherein the snapshot event comprises at least one of: a save event, an upload event, a change in focus event, a change to a different region event, an edit significance event, a timer expiration event, a code execution event, or a code compilation event.
Claim 5. The method of claim 1, wherein the snapshot event is an event selected from a group consisting of: a save event, an upload event, a change in focus event, a change to a different region event, an edit significance event, a timer expiration event, a code execution event, and a code compilation event.
Claim 12. The method of claim 8, wherein tracking the events includes using one or more application programming interfaces of an operating system of the device or the content editor to perform tracking.
Claim 4. The method of claim 1, wherein tracking the events includes using one or more application programming interfaces of an operating system of the device or the content editor to perform tracking.
Claim 19. The non-transitory computer-readable storage medium of claim 14, wherein the instructions, when executed, cause the one or more processors to perform:
obtaining event tracking capability regarding a device;
while a user is editing second content using a content editor running at least in part on the device:
tracking events associated with the device;
detecting an occurrence of a snapshot event; and
responsive to detecting the occurrence of the snapshot event, adding data to an audit trail associated with the second content, the data being descriptive of the events; and
using one or both of the events and the audit trail to ensure that an authorship token is associated with the second content.
Claim 16. A non-transitory computer-readable storage medium storing instructions that, when executed by one or more processors, cause the one or more processors to perform operations comprising:
obtaining event tracking capability regarding a device;
while a user is editing content using a content editor running at least in part on the device:
tracking events associated with the device;
detecting the occurrence of a snapshot event;
responsive to detecting the occurrence of the snapshot event, adding data to an audit trail associated with the content, the data being regarding the events; and
using one or both of the events and the audit trail to ensure that an authorship token is associated with the content, wherein the authorship token includes a first form indicating that a portion of the content has human rather than artificial authorship or a second form indicating that the portion of the content has artificial rather than human authorship.
Claim 20. The non-transitory computer-readable storage medium of claim 19, wherein the snapshot event comprises at least one of: a save event, an upload event, a change in focus event, a change to a different region event, an edit significance event, a timer expiration event, a code execution event, or a code compilation event.
Claim 17. The non-transitory computer-readable storage medium of claim 16, wherein the snapshot event comprises at least one of: a save event, an upload event, a change in focus event, a change to a different region event, an edit significance event, a timer expiration event, a code execution event, or a code compilation event.
This is a provisional nonstatutory double patenting rejection because the patentably indistinct claims have not in fact been patented.
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.
Claims 11 and 20 are 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 applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention. Claims 11 and 20 recite “a change in focus event, a change to a different region event, an edit significance event, a timer expiration event,” and it is unclear from the claim language what each of these elements entail. Therefore, the claims are rejected as being indefinite for failing to clearly and distinctly disclose what a change in focus event, a change to a different region event, an edit significance event, and a timer expiration event entail.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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 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) 1-7 and 16-18 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Higgins et al. (US PGPub 2025/0061137; hereinafter Higgins) in view of Kuhn et al. (US PGPub 2024/0193204; hereinafter Kuhn) and further in view of Aman (US PGPub 2024/0371510).
Regarding claim 1, Higgins discloses a method comprising:
obtaining initial content that was generated during a content editing session ([0038], [0103], [0118] obtaining one or more files via an application for editing files);
generating a prompt based on the initial content ([0038], [0042] providing/generating a prompt/query based on the one or more files);
selecting at least one generator from among a set of generators based, at least in part, on a content type of the initial content ([0038], [0089] generative framework represents one or a set of generative AI models that can be selected for generating new content based on the type of one or more input files/content);
for each selected generator:
using the prompt to produce new content ([0038], [0067], [0089] new content is generated based on the file(s)/content and prompt/query).
Higgins fails to disclose:
comparing the new content to the initial content; and
making a respective determination whether the new content and the initial content are similar based on whether a similarity threshold is satisfied;
using the respective determination for each selected generator, ensuring that an authorship token is associated with the initial content,
wherein the authorship token includes a form indicating that an associated content region has human rather than an artificial authorship or artificial rather than human authorship.
However, Kuhn discloses:
comparing the new content to the initial content ([0042], [0045] new content/output is compared to the input/original content); and
making a respective determination whether the new content and the initial content are similar based on whether a similarity threshold is satisfied ([0042], [0047] the initial input/content is compared to the new/output content to determine similarity based on a threshold being met for author attribution);
using the respective determination for each selected generator, ensuring that an authorship token is associated with the initial content ([0042], [0045], [0047] author attribution for the initial content is provided based on the determining of similarity based on the generative AI derived/generated content).
Therefore, it would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which said subject matter pertains, having the teachings of Higgins and Kuhn before him/her, to modify the teachings of Higgins with the teachings of Kuhn. The motivation for doing so would combine the new content generation of Higgins with the new content generation of Kuhn to determine the proportion of content items used by a generative artificial intelligence to generate derivative/new content, thereby enabling attribution (and compensation) to content creators that created the content items used to generate the derivative/new content as disclosed by Kuhn [0002].
The combination of Higgins and Kuhn fails to disclose, however, Aman discloses wherein the authorship token includes a form indicating that an associated content region has human rather than an artificial authorship or artificial rather than human authorship ([0043], [0277], [0278] human generated content is labeled organic/proof-of-organic while artificially generated content is labeled synthetic).
Therefore, it would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which said subject matter pertains, having the teachings of Higgins, Kuhn, and Aman before him/her, to modify the teachings of Kuhn with the teachings of Aman. The motivation for doing so would combine the author attribution of Kuhn with the content-authorship of Aman to provide a unique solution for assuring that any work products created during an authenticated session of operation of a computing system, such as a digital document comprising virtually any type of digital content, can be labeled as “organic” because their composer is the authenticated asset (computer) operator as disclosed by Aman [0019], [0023].
Regarding claim 2, the combination of Higgins, Kuhn, and Aman discloses the method of claim 1, wherein the at least one generator is selected based on a likelihood that the at least one generator was used to generate the initial content (Higgins: [0067]).
Regarding claim 3, the combination of Higgins, Kuhn, and Aman discloses the method of claim 2, wherein the likelihood that the at least one generator was used to generate the initial content is based on at least one of: an availability of the at least one generator at a time of generation of the initial content ;or an amount of resources used by the at least one generator to generate the initial content (Higgins: [0059], [0106]).
Regarding claim 4, the combination of Higgins, Kuhn, and Aman discloses the method of claim 1, wherein selecting the at least one generator is performed via an artificial intelligence model (Higgins: [0038]).
Regarding claim 5, the combination of Higgins, Kuhn, and Aman discloses the method of claim 4, wherein the initial content includes a plurality of types of content including at least a first content type and a second content type, and wherein selecting at least one generator includes selecting, via the artificial intelligence model, at least a first generator that generates content of the first content type and a second generator that generates content of the second content type (Higgins: [0089], [0093]).
Regarding claim 6, the combination of Higgins, Kuhn, and Aman discloses the method of claim 1, wherein the at least one generator includes a plurality of generators, and wherein the method further includes: determining that the new content produced by the prompt for each of the plurality of generators satisfies the similarity threshold; and ensuring that the authorship token takes a form indicating that the associated content region has default authorship selected from among human or artificial authorship (Higgins: [0038], [0089]; Kuhn: [0042], [0057]; Aman: [0043], [0277], [0278]).
Regarding claim 7, the combination of Higgins, Kuhn, and Aman discloses the method of claim 1, wherein the at least one generator includes a plurality of generators, and wherein the method further includes: determining that the new content produced by the prompt for one of the plurality of generators satisfies the similarity threshold; and ensuring that the authorship token takes a form indicating that the associated content region has artificial rather than human authorship (Higgins: [0038], [0089]; Kuhn: [0042], [0057]; Aman: [0043], [0277], [0278]).
Regarding claim 16, Higgins discloses a non-transitory computer-readable storage medium storing instructions that, when executed by one or more processors, cause the one or more processors to perform operations comprising: one or more processors communicatively coupled to a memory subsystem storing instructions which, when executed, cause the one or more processors to perform ([0008]):
obtaining initial content that was generated during a content editing session ([0038], [0103], [0118]);
generating a prompt based on the initial content ([0038], [0042]);
selecting at least one generator via an artificial intelligence model from among a set of generators based, at least in part, on a content type of the initial content determined by the artificial intelligence model ([0038], [0089]);
for each selected generator:
using the prompt to produce new content ([0038], [0067], [0089]).
Higgins fails to disclose:
comparing the new content to the initial content; and
making a respective determination whether the new content and the initial content are similar based on whether a similarity threshold is satisfied;
using the respective determination for each selected generator, ensuring that an authorship token is associated with the initial content,
wherein the authorship token includes a form indicating that an associated content region has human rather than an artificial authorship or artificial rather than human authorship.
However, Kuhn discloses:
comparing the new content to the initial content ([0042], [0045]); and
making a respective determination whether the new content and the initial content are similar based on whether a similarity threshold is satisfied ([0042], [0047]);
using the respective determination for each selected generator, ensuring that an authorship token is associated with the initial content ([0042], [0045], [0047]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which said subject matter pertains, having the teachings of Higgins and Kuhn before him/her, to modify the teachings of Higgins with the teachings of Kuhn. The motivation for doing so would combine the new content generation of Higgins with the new content generation of Kuhn to determine the proportion of content items used by a generative artificial intelligence to generate derivative/new content, thereby enabling attribution (and compensation) to content creators that created the content items used to generate the derivative/new content as disclosed by Kuhn [0002].
The combination of Higgins and Kuhn fails to disclose, however, Aman discloses wherein the authorship token includes a form indicating that an associated content region has human rather than an artificial authorship or artificial rather than human authorship ([0043], [0277], [0278]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which said subject matter pertains, having the teachings of Higgins, Kuhn, and Aman before him/her, to modify the teachings of Kuhn with the teachings of Aman. The motivation for doing so would combine the author attribution of Kuhn with the content-authorship of Aman to provide a unique solution for assuring that any work products created during an authenticated session of operation of a computing system, such as a digital document comprising virtually any type of digital content, can be labeled as “organic” because their composer is the authenticated asset (computer) operator as disclosed by Aman [0019], [0023].
Regarding claim 17, the combination of Higgins, Kuhn, and Aman discloses the non-transitory computer-readable storage medium of claim 14, wherein the at least one generator is selected based on a likelihood that the at least one generator was used to generate the initial content, and wherein the likelihood that the at least one generator was used to generate the initial content is based on at least one of: an availability of the at least one generator at a time of generation of the initial content; or an amount of resources used by the at least one generator to generate the initial content (Higgins: [0059], [0067], [0106]).
Regarding claim 18, the combination of Higgins, Kuhn, and Aman discloses the non-transitory computer-readable storage medium of claim 14, wherein the instructions, when executed, cause the one or more processors to perform: determining a distance between at least a portion of the initial content and the new content, wherein the distance is determined based on edit distance or distance in embedding space (Kuhn: [0037], [0042], [0059]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which said subject matter pertains, having the teachings of Higgins, Kuhn, and Aman before him/her, to modify the teachings of Higgins with the teachings of Kuhn. The motivation for doing so would combine the new content generation of Higgins with the new content generation of Kuhn to determine the proportion of content items used by a generative artificial intelligence to generate derivative/new content, thereby enabling attribution (and compensation) to content creators that created the content items used to generate the derivative/new content as disclosed by Kuhn [0002].
Claim(s) 8-12, 19 and 20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Higgins et al. (US PGPub 2025/0061137; hereinafter Higgins) in view of Kuhn et al. (US PGPub 2024/0193204; hereinafter Kuhn) in view of Aman (US PGPub 2024/0371510) and further in view of Angelo et al. (US PGPub 2020/0099513; hereinafter Angelo).
Regarding claim 8, the combination of Higgins, Kuhn, and Aman discloses the method of claim 1, further comprising:
obtaining event tracking capability regarding a device (Aman: [0043], [0182]);
while a user is editing second content using a content editor running at least in part on the device (Aman: [0267], [0290], [0442]):
tracking events associated with the device (Aman: [0249], [0277]);
detecting an occurrence of a snapshot event (Aman: [0249]);
Therefore, it would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which said subject matter pertains, having the teachings of Higgins, Kuhn, and Aman before him/her, to modify the teachings of Kuhn with the teachings of Aman. The motivation for doing so would combine the author attribution of Kuhn with the content-authorship of Aman to provide a unique solution for assuring that any work products created during an authenticated session of operation of a computing system, such as a digital document comprising virtually any type of digital content, can be labeled as “organic” because their composer is the authenticated asset (computer) operator as disclosed by Aman [0019], [0023].
The combination of Higgins, Kuhn, and Aman fails to disclose, however, Angelo discloses responsive to detecting the occurrence of the snapshot event, adding data to an audit trail associated with the second content, the data being descriptive of the events ([0019]-[0025]); and using one or both of the events and the audit trail to ensure that an authorship token is associated with the second content ([0013], [0033]-[0035]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which said subject matter pertains, having the teachings of Higgins, Kuhn, Aman and Angelo before him/her, to modify the teachings of Aman with the teachings of Angelo. The motivation for doing so would combine the activity tracking of Aman with the transaction tracking of Angelo to provide blockchain-based program change tracking techniques to allow any entity that wishes to use or otherwise consume a program to ensure that the program components of the program are authentic, are from a trusted source, and/or have not been tampered with (i.e., illicitly modified) as disclosed by Angelo [0015].
Regarding claim 9, the combination of Higgins, Kuhn, Aman and Angelo discloses the method of claim 8, wherein the second content was generated alongside the initial content at the device during the content editing session (Aman: [0442]).
Regarding claim 10, the combination of Higgins, Kuhn, Aman and Angelo discloses the method of claim 8, wherein the audit trail is configured to resist tampering by being stored as part of a blockchain data structure or a Merkle tree data structure (Angelo: [0025]).
Regarding claim 11, the combination of Higgins, Kuhn, Aman and Angelo discloses the method of claim 8, wherein the snapshot event comprises at least one of: a save event, an upload event, a change in focus event, a change to a different region event, an edit significance event, a timer expiration event, a code execution event, or a code compilation event (Aman: [0049], [0358]; Angelo: [0023]).
Regarding claim 12, the combination of Higgins, Kuhn, Aman and Angelo discloses the method of claim 8, wherein tracking the events includes using one or more application programming interfaces of an operating system of the device or the content editor to perform tracking (Aman: [0431], [0432]; Angelo [0019]).
Claims 19 and 20 contain corresponding limitations as claims 5 and 11 and are therefore rejected for the same rationale.
Claim(s) 13 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Higgins et al. (US PGPub 2025/0061137; hereinafter Higgins) in view of Kuhn et al. (US PGPub 2024/0193204; hereinafter Kuhn) in view of Aman (US PGPub 2024/0371510) and further in view of Jain et al. (US Patent No. 12,111,747; hereinafter Jain).
Regarding claim 13, the combination of Higgins, Kuhn, and Aman discloses the method of claim 1, but fails to disclose, however, Jain discloses wherein selecting the at least one generator from among the set of generators includes excluding at least one generator from the set of generators from the selected at least one generator based on a determination that the excluded at least one generator would have consumed more than a threshold amount of compute resources (Col. 5, Lines 32-54; Col. 6, Lines 6-29: determines whether a selected model satisfies a threshold for a performance metric based on a cost for generating the output of the model; the performance metric can track the CPU usage associated with the model/platform).
Therefore, it would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which said subject matter pertains, having the teachings of Higgins, Kuhn, Aman and Jain before him/her, to modify the teachings of Higgins with the teachings of Jain. The motivation for doing so would combine the model selection of Higgins with the model selection of Jain for dynamically selecting models for processing user prompts in a resource-sensitive manner based on one or more performance metrics that can be impacted by processing an input as disclosed by Jain Col. 5, Lines 32-54.
Support for Amendments and Newly Added Claims
Applicants are respectfully requested, in the event of an amendment to claims or submission of new claims, that such claims and their limitations be directly mapped to the specification, which provides support for the subject matter. This will assist in expediting compact prosecution and reducing potential 35 USC § 112(a) or 35 USC § 112, 1st paragraph issues that can arise when claims are amended. MPEP 714.02 recites: “Applicant should also specifically point out the support for any amendments made to the disclosure. See MPEP § 2163.06. An amendment which does not comply with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.121(b), (c), (d), and (h) may be held not fully responsive. See MPEP § 714.” Amendments not pointing to specific support in the disclosure may be deemed as not complying with provisions of 37 C.F.R. 1.121(b), (c), (d), and (h) and therefore held not fully responsive. Generic statements such as “Applicants believe no new matter has been introduced” may be deemed insufficient. The examiner thanks the Applicant in advance for providing support for any amendments or newly added claims.
Examiner cites particular columns and line numbers or paragraphs in the references as applied to claims above for the convenience of the applicant. Although the specified citations are representative of the teachings in the art and are applied to the specific limitations within the individual claim, other passages and figures may be applied as well. It is respectfully requested that, in preparing responses, the applicant fully consider the references in entirety as potentially teaching all or part of the claimed invention, as well as the context of the passage as taught by the prior art or disclosed by the examiner.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to DIEDRA M MCQUITERY whose telephone number is (571)272-9607. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Thursday, 8 am - 6 pm (C.S.T.).
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, Sanjiv Shah can be reached at (571)272-4098. 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.
/Diedra McQuitery/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2166