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 .
DETAILED ACTION
Applicant has amended claims 1, 11 in the filed amendment on 8/7/2026.
Claims 1-20 are pending in this office action.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claim(s) have been considered but are moot in the new ground of rejection.
For 101 rejection: on pages 1-14, Applicant argued that amended claims 1, 11 recited operations, considered as a whole, cannot practically be performed in the human mind. The claims recite specific technical operations performed by "one or more processors coupled to non-transitory memory" including "maintain a plurality of content items respectively identifying a plurality of application interfaces of an application executing on a client device," "a prompt for a language model," "output text data that is responsive to the prompt," "a content item comprising an interactive element that, when interacted with, causes the application executing on the client device to navigate to a respective application interface," and "a graphical user interface."
Specification at paragraph [0060] describes that "[c]onventional techniques for supplying input contexts to language models fail to ameliorate these issues. For example, conventional approaches often require sending large contexts, which often include an entire accumulated input, across multiple requests to achieve a requested output. Increasing the size of the input context results in increased network latency and bandwidth consumption." (Spec. 1 [0060]). The Specification at paragraph [0061] describes that "[t]he techniques described herein address these and other issues by generating targeted input contexts for a language model that include only data determined to be relevant to a given prompt." (Spec. 1 [0061]).
Applicant submit that claims are not directed to any judicial exception. The Specification further describes the technical improvements provided by the claimed features. The Specification at paragraph [0062] describes that " selectively reducing the contents of an input context based on prompt relevance and by avoiding redundant transmission of static context data, the techniques described herein can lower processing time and memory requirements for language model execution." (Spec. 1 [0062]). The Specification further describes that "[t]hese improvements can provide faster response times for multi-turn interactions, sustain throughput in high-load scenarios, and enable the use of large-scale language models within low-latency applications where conventional approaches would exceed performance constraints." (Spec. 1 [0062]). The claimed "generate, based on the input context input into the language model, output text data that is responsive to the prompt" and "select, using the output text data of the language model, a content item from the plurality of content items" provide these technical improvements by reducing the processing resources required to generate output and select relevant content items.
Applicant argued that Applicant does not concede to characterizations that the claim elements amount to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using generic computing components because the combination of recited elements amounts to significantly more than the purported abstract idea.
As disclosed in the Specification, the claimed features provide specific technical improvements. The Specification at paragraph [0064] describes that "the systems and methods described herein can dynamically generate an input context that includes a subset of data that can be used to carry out requested computing operations By automatically selecting certain data to be included in the input context, the systems and methods described herein automatically limit the input context for the language model to a targeted subset of available data, thereby reducing the latency (e.g., processing time) and memory allocation required to carry out the requested operations using the language model." (Spec. 1 [0064]).
Examiner respectfully disagrees.
The limitations of ("one or more processors coupled to non-transitory memory", "a prompt for a language model," "output text data that is responsive to the prompt," and "a graphical user interface.") are a computer or computer environment as tools to perform abstract idea.
Merely applying the mental processes (i.e. generate an input context……or generate output text data……) by using a computer or computer environment as tools (i.e. based on the prompt or based on the input context input into the language model) are not an improvement and do not negate the identified mental processes. Rather this appears to be nothing more than mere instructions to apply the abstract idea on a computer or in a computer environment as per MPEP 2106.05(f).
The limitations of ( selectively reducing the contents of an input context based on prompt relevance and by avoiding redundant transmission of static context data, the techniques described herein can lower processing time and memory requirements for language model execution; providing faster response times for multi-turn interactions, sustain throughput in high-load scenarios, and enable the use of large-scale language models within low-latency applications where conventional approaches would exceed performance constraint) are not recited in in claims.
However, claims 1,11, similarly recite abstract limitations of
(generate or generating, based on the prompt, an input context including the prompt and data corresponding to at least a subset of the plurality of content items;
generate or generating, based on the input context input into the language model, output text data that is responsive to the prompt;
select or selecting, using the output text data of the language model, a content item from the plurality of content items) as drafted, is a process or system or medium that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitations in the mind but for the recitation of generic computer components. If a claim limitation, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind but for the recitation of generic computer components, then it falls within the “Mental Processes” grouping of abstract ideas. The human mind can perform steps of generating, generating, and selecting. Accordingly, the claims recite an abstract idea.
step 2A Prong Two:
Claims do not recite additional elements that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application because the additional limitations of one or more processors coupled to non-transitory memory, the one or more processors configured to (in claim 1); and by one or more processors coupled to non-transitory memory; by the one or more processors (in claim 11) that are recited at a high-level of generality such that it amounts no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component.
The additional limitations of (maintain a plurality of content items respectively identifying a plurality of application interfaces of an application executing on a client device; receive a prompt for a language model from the application executing on the client device during a communication session; provide the output text data and the content item to the client device in response to the prompt, causing the client device to present the output text data with the content item in a graphical user interface) that represent well-understood, routine, conventional activity (See MPEP 2106.05(g) or 2106.05(d) for Presenting offers and gathering statistics, OIP Techs and Receiving or transmitting data over a network, e.g. see Intellectual Ventures v. Symantec; Storing and retrieving information in memory: Versata; Analyzing data: Genetic Techs; Determining: OIP Techs; Electronic recordkeeping: Alice Corp).
The additional limitation of (the content item comprising an interactive element that, when interacted with, causes the application executing on the client device to navigate to a respective application interface of the plurality of application interfaces) that just indicates item including element when selected causes application navigated to present the interface and that represent well-understood, routine, conventional activity (See MPEP 2106.05(g) or 2106.05(d) for Presenting offers and gathering statistics, OIP Techs and Receiving or transmitting data over a network, e.g. see Intellectual Ventures v. Symantec; Storing and retrieving information in memory: Versata; Analyzing data: Genetic Techs; Determining: OIP Techs; Electronic recordkeeping: Alice Corp).
Accordingly, these additional elements do not recite additional elements that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application. The claims are not patent eligible.
Step: 2B
Claims do not recite any additional elements that amount to significantly more than the judicial because additional limitation of one or more processors coupled to non-transitory memory, the one or more processors configured to (in claim 1); and by one or more processors coupled to non-transitory memory; by the one or more processors (in claim 11) that are recited at a high-level of generality such that it amounts no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component.
The additional limitations of (maintain a plurality of content items respectively identifying a plurality of application interfaces of an application executing on a client device; receive a prompt for a language model from the application executing on the client device during a communication session; provide the output text data and the content item to the client device in response to the prompt, causing the client device to present the output text data with the content item in a graphical user interface) that represent well-understood, routine, conventional activity (See MPEP 2106.05(g) or 2106.05(d) for Presenting offers and gathering statistics, OIP Techs and Receiving or transmitting data over a network, e.g. see Intellectual Ventures v. Symantec; Storing and retrieving information in memory: Versata; Analyzing data: Genetic Techs; Determining: OIP Techs; Electronic recordkeeping: Alice Corp).
The additional limitation of (the content item comprising an interactive element that, when interacted with, causes the application executing on the client device to navigate to a respective application interface of the plurality of application interfaces) that just indicates item including element when selected causes application navigated to present the interface and that represent well-understood, routine, conventional activity (See MPEP 2106.05(g) or 2106.05(d) for Presenting offers and gathering statistics, OIP Techs and Receiving or transmitting data over a network, e.g. see Intellectual Ventures v. Symantec; Storing and retrieving information in memory: Versata; Analyzing data: Genetic Techs; Determining: OIP Techs; Electronic recordkeeping: Alice Corp).
Accordingly, these additional elements do not amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. The claims are not patent eligible.
As discussed above 101 rejection for claims is still maintained in this office action.
For 103 rejection:
Applicant argued that prior arts of the record do not teach amended claims 1, 11.
In response to Applicant’s argument claims are rejected under the new ground.
In addition, Me teaches limitations
“generate, based on ……, output text data that is responsive to the prompt” as in response to the request as the prompt, generate, based on player profile(s), a personalized session interface having a subset of one or more active sessions that is identified by using the request as the prompt, the personalized session interface further includes one or more content items that each identifies a respective active session of the ranked subset of active sessions (fig. 5, paragraphs 164, 166, 157, 82).
The personalized session interface, which includes a number of viewers of each active session 465, an indication of a social media relationship e.g., followed, friend as text, one or more content items 475 (paragraph 164), is represented as output text data. For example, the request for the list of active sessions 465 can include an indication that the subset should include active sessions 465 that are hosted using player profiles 460 that the requesting player profile 460 has followed. To accommodate this request, the session identifier 440 can identify the subset of the active sessions 465 as the active sessions 465 that are hosted using player profiles 460 that are indicated as “followed” by the requesting player profile 460 (paragraph 157). The method can include maintaining active sessions that each identify a corresponding host player profile (STEP 502), receiving a request for a list of active sessions from a client device (STEP 504), identifying a subset of the active sessions based on one or more attributes of the active sessions (STEP 506), ranking the subset based on a historic record of events performed by the host of each session (STEP 508), generating a personalized session interface including a subset according to the ranking (STEP 510), and providing the personalized session interface to the requesting client device (STEP 512) (paragraph 166);
“select, using the output text data of ……, a content item from the plurality of content items” as select, using the personalized session interface of one or more active sessions, an interactive user interface element in a content item as select a content item from the content items that are displayed based on the subset of active sessions as the output text data and the request (fig. 5, paragraphs 125, 165-166, 183); or display as select a content item from the content items that are identified based on the request as the prompt and the personalized session interface (paragraph 182). In particularly: The lists of active sessions can be, for example, one or more content items (e.g., the content items 275). An example list of active sessions is described in connection with FIG. 6A (paragraph 125). At step 512, the method 500 can include providing, to the client device, the personalized session interface to cause the client device to display a list of the subset of the plurality of active sessions according to the ranking Once the display instructions for the personalized interface have been generated, the session processing system can transmit the display instructions to the client device. The application at the client device can receive and parse the instructions, and display the content items corresponding to the subset of the active sessions in order of their ranking. An example personalized interface is described in connection with FIG. 6A. As described herein, one or more of the content items can include interactive user interface elements that, when selected, cause the client device to transmit a request to join the active session represented by the content item (paragraph 183). An example personalized interface is described in connection with FIG. 6A. As described herein, one or more of the content items 475 can include interactive user interface elements that, when selected, cause the client device 420 to transmit a request to join the active session 465 represented by the content item 475 (paragraph 165).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101
35 U.S.C. 101 reads as follows:
Whoever invents or discovers any new and useful process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter, or any new and useful improvement thereof, may obtain a patent therefor, subject to the conditions and requirements of this title.
Claims 1-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
Step 1 (The Statutory Categories): Is the claim to a process, machine, manufacture or composition of matter? MPEP 2106.03
Per Step 1, claim 1 is directed to a system, and claim 11 is directed to a method, which are statutory categories of invention per Step 1. However, the claims are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because they are directed to an abstract idea, a judicial exception, without reciting additional elements that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application or are significantly more.
Step 2A:
a) In analyzing under step 2A Prong One, Does the claim recite an abstract idea law of nature or natural phenomenon? Yes.
Claims 1,11, similarly recite abstract limitations of
(generate or generating, based on the prompt, an input context including the prompt and data corresponding to at least a subset of the plurality of content items;
generate or generating, based on the input context input into the language model, output text data that is responsive to the prompt;
select or selecting, using the output text data of the language model, a content item from the plurality of content items) as drafted, is a process or system or medium that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitations in the mind but for the recitation of generic computer components. If a claim limitation, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind but for the recitation of generic computer components, then it falls within the “Mental Processes” grouping of abstract ideas. The human mind can perform steps of generating, generating, and selecting. Accordingly, the claims recite an abstract idea.
b) In analyzing under step 2A Prong Two, Does the claim recite additional elements that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application? NO.
Claims do not recite additional elements that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application because the additional limitations of one or more processors coupled to non-transitory memory, the one or more processors configured to (in claim 1); and by one or more processors coupled to non-transitory memory; by the one or more processors (in claim 11) that are recited at a high-level of generality such that it amounts no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component.
The additional limitations of (maintain a plurality of content items respectively identifying a plurality of application interfaces of an application executing on a client device; receive a prompt for a language model from the application executing on the client device during a communication session; provide the output text data and the content item to the client device in response to the prompt, causing the client device to present the output text data with the content item in a graphical user interface) that represent well-understood, routine, conventional activity (See MPEP 2106.05(g) or 2106.05(d) for Presenting offers and gathering statistics, OIP Techs and Receiving or transmitting data over a network, e.g. see Intellectual Ventures v. Symantec; Storing and retrieving information in memory: Versata; Analyzing data: Genetic Techs; Determining: OIP Techs; Electronic recordkeeping: Alice Corp).
The additional limitation of (the content item comprising an interactive element that, when interacted with, causes the application executing on the client device to navigate to a respective application interface of the plurality of application interfaces) that just indicates item including element when selected causes application navigated to present the interface and that represent well-understood, routine, conventional activity (See MPEP 2106.05(g) or 2106.05(d) for Presenting offers and gathering statistics, OIP Techs and Receiving or transmitting data over a network, e.g. see Intellectual Ventures v. Symantec; Storing and retrieving information in memory: Versata; Analyzing data: Genetic Techs; Determining: OIP Techs; Electronic recordkeeping: Alice Corp).
Accordingly, these additional elements do not recite additional elements that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application. The claims are not patent eligible.
c) In analyzing under step 2B, does the claim recite additional elements that amount to significantly more than the judicial exception? NO
Claims do not recite any additional elements that amount to significantly more than the judicial because additional limitation of one or more processors coupled to non-transitory memory, the one or more processors configured to (in claim 1); and by one or more processors coupled to non-transitory memory; by the one or more processors (in claim 11) that are recited at a high-level of generality such that it amounts no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component.
The additional limitations of (maintain a plurality of content items respectively identifying a plurality of application interfaces of an application executing on a client device; receive a prompt for a language model from the application executing on the client device during a communication session; provide the output text data and the content item to the client device in response to the prompt, causing the client device to present the output text data with the content item in a graphical user interface) that represent well-understood, routine, conventional activity (See MPEP 2106.05(g) or 2106.05(d) for Presenting offers and gathering statistics, OIP Techs and Receiving or transmitting data over a network, e.g. see Intellectual Ventures v. Symantec; Storing and retrieving information in memory: Versata; Analyzing data: Genetic Techs; Determining: OIP Techs; Electronic recordkeeping: Alice Corp).
The additional limitation of (the content item comprising an interactive element that, when interacted with, causes the application executing on the client device to navigate to a respective application interface of the plurality of application interfaces) that just indicates item including element when selected causes application navigated to present the interface and that represent well-understood, routine, conventional activity (See MPEP 2106.05(g) or 2106.05(d) for Presenting offers and gathering statistics, OIP Techs and Receiving or transmitting data over a network, e.g. see Intellectual Ventures v. Symantec; Storing and retrieving information in memory: Versata; Analyzing data: Genetic Techs; Determining: OIP Techs; Electronic recordkeeping: Alice Corp).
Accordingly, these additional elements do not amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. The claims are not patent eligible.
Dependent claims include all the limitations of claims 1, 11. Therefore, claims 2-10, 12-20 recite the same abstract idea being performed in the mind, and the analysis must therefore proceed to Step 2A Prong Two.
In particularly:
Claims 2, 12 similarly recite abstract idea of (generate or generating at least a portion of the content item using the language model and the output text data) as drafted, is a process or system or medium that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitations in the mind but for the recitation of generic computer components. If a claim limitation, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind but for the recitation of generic computer components, then it falls within the “Mental Processes” grouping of abstract ideas. The human mind can perform step of generating. Accordingly, the claims recite an abstract idea.
Claims 3, 13 similarly recite abstract idea of (generate or generating at least a portion of the content item using the language model and the respective application interface identified in the content item) as drafted, is a process or system or medium that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitations in the mind but for the recitation of generic computer components. If a claim limitation, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind but for the recitation of generic computer components, then it falls within the “Mental Processes” grouping of abstract ideas. The human mind can perform step of generating. Accordingly, the claims recite an abstract idea.
Claims 4, 14 recite limitation of (wherein the content item comprises at least one image associated with the respective application interface) that just indicates content item including image associated with interface.
Claims 5, 15 similarly recite limitation of (receive or receiving, from the application executing on the client device, an indication of an interaction with the content item; and provide or providing, in response to the indication, data of the application interface to the application for display) that represent well-understood, routine, conventional activity (See MPEP 2106.05(g) or 2106.05(d) for Presenting offers and gathering statistics, OIP Techs and Receiving or transmitting data over a network, e.g. see Intellectual Ventures v. Symantec; Storing and retrieving information in memory: Versata; Analyzing data: Genetic Techs; Determining: OIP Techs; Electronic recordkeeping: Alice Corp).
Claims 6, 16, similarly recites abstract idea of (select or selecting the content item further based on data of the player profile) as drafted, is a process or system or medium that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitations in the mind but for the recitation of generic computer components. If a claim limitation, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind but for the recitation of generic computer components, then it falls within the “Mental Processes” grouping of abstract ideas. The human mind can perform step of selecting. Accordingly, the claims recite an abstract idea.
The addition limitation of (wherein the client device is associated with a player profile) that just indicates device associated with profile.
Claims 7, 17 similarly recite abstract idea of (select or selecting the content item using a searching function, the prompt, and the output text data) as drafted, is a process or system or medium that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitations in the mind but for the recitation of generic computer components. If a claim limitation, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind but for the recitation of generic computer components, then it falls within the “Mental Processes” grouping of abstract ideas. The human mind can perform step of selecting. Accordingly, the claims recite an abstract idea.
Claims 8, 18 similarly recite abstract idea of (select or selecting the content item using the one or more portions of the prompt and the output text data) as drafted, is a process or system or medium that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitations in the mind but for the recitation of generic computer components. If a claim limitation, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind but for the recitation of generic computer components, then it falls within the “Mental Processes” grouping of abstract ideas. The human mind can perform step of selecting. Accordingly, the claims recite an abstract idea.
The additional limitation of (extract or extracting one or more portions of the prompt and the output text data) that represent well-understood, routine, conventional activity (See MPEP 2106.05(g) or 2106.05(d) for Presenting offers and gathering statistics, OIP Techs and Receiving or transmitting data over a network, e.g. see Intellectual Ventures v. Symantec; Storing and retrieving information in memory: Versata; Analyzing data: Genetic Techs; Determining: OIP Techs; Electronic recordkeeping: Alice Corp).
Claims 9, 19 similarly recite abstract idea of (generate or generating, using the language model and a second prompt received from the client device, second output text data that is responsive to the second prompt; select or selecting, based on the second prompt and the second output, a second content item from the plurality of second content items) as drafted, is a process or system or medium that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitations in the mind but for the recitation of generic computer components. If a claim limitation, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind but for the recitation of generic computer components, then it falls within the “Mental Processes” grouping of abstract ideas. The human mind can perform step of generating and selecting. Accordingly, the claims recite an abstract idea.
The additional limitation of (maintain or maintaining data of a plurality of contests for one or more live events, the plurality of contests respectively corresponding to a plurality of second content items) that represent well-understood, routine, conventional activity (See MPEP 2106.05(g) or 2106.05(d) for Presenting offers and gathering statistics, OIP Techs and Receiving or transmitting data over a network, e.g. see Intellectual Ventures v. Symantec; Storing and retrieving information in memory: Versata; Analyzing data: Genetic Techs; Determining: OIP Techs; Electronic recordkeeping: Alice Corp).
The additional limitation of (the second content item comprising a second interactive element that, when interacted with, causes the application executing on the client device to transmit a request corresponding to a respective contest of the plurality of contests) that just indicates item including element when selected causes application navigated to present the interface.
Claims 10, 20 similarly recite limitations of (provide or providing the second output and the second content item to the client device; receive or receiving, from the application executing on the client device, an indication of an interaction with the second content item; and provide or providing, to the application executing on the client device, at least one second graphical user interface corresponding to the respective contest) that represent well-understood, routine, conventional activity (See MPEP 2106.05(g) or 2106.05(d) for Presenting offers and gathering statistics, OIP Techs and Receiving or transmitting data over a network, e.g. see Intellectual Ventures v. Symantec; Storing and retrieving information in memory: Versata; Analyzing data: Genetic Techs; Determining: OIP Techs; Electronic recordkeeping: Alice Corp).
Accordingly, these additional elements do not recite additional elements that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application and do not amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. The claims are not patent eligible.
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.
Claims 1, 4-7, 11, 14-17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Mendell et al (or hereinafter “Me”) (US 20240144777) in view of Asgekar et al (or hereinafter “As”) (US 20240428700) and Azarmi (or hereinafter “Az”) (US 20250086190).
As to claim 1, Me teaches a system, comprising:
“one or more processors coupled to non-transitory memory, the one or more processors configured to:” one or more processors coupled to non-transitory memory, the one or more processors configured to: (paragraphs 15-16):
“maintain a plurality of content items respectively ……of an application executing on a client device” as maintain content items respectively including interactive user interface elements of user interface(s) of an application executing on client device (fig. 6A-6D, paragraphs 78, 95). In particularly: The content items 275, stored and maintained at the storage 215. The client application can present one or more actionable objects (e.g., interactive user interface elements) in a user interface of the client application via the display of the client device 220. Such actionable objects can include selectable hyperlinks, buttons, graphics, videos, images, or other application features that generate a signal that is processed by the application executing on the respective client device 220 (paragraph 78). The content items 275 can include instructions that allow the content items to include interactive user interface elements (e.g., actionable objects, etc.). The user interface elements can include instructions that cause the client devices 220 displaying the content items 275 (and receiving interactions) to carry out one or more operations (paragraph 95);
“receive a prompt for ……from the application executing on the client device during a communication session” as receive a request as a prompt for a list of active sessions from the application executing on the client device during a communication session (fig. 5, paragraphs 79, 157, 166-167). For example, the request for the list of active sessions 465 can include an indication that the subset should include active sessions 465 that are hosted using player profiles 460 that the requesting player profile 460 has followed (paragraph 157). The request may identify the host player profile as a host of the session. The request can be transmitted by a client device, for example, via an application executing on the client device (paragraph 168);
“generate, based on ……, output text data that is responsive to the prompt” as in response to the request as the prompt, generate, based on player profile(s), a personalized session interface having a subset of one or more active sessions that is identified by using the request as the prompt, the personalized session interface further includes one or more content items that each identifies a respective active session of the ranked subset of active sessions (fig. 5, paragraphs 164, 166, 157, 82).
The personalized session interface, which includes a number of viewers of each active session 465, an indication of a social media relationship e.g., followed, friend as text, one or more content items 475 (paragraph 164), is represented as output text data. For example, the request for the list of active sessions 465 can include an indication that the subset should include active sessions 465 that are hosted using player profiles 460 that the requesting player profile 460 has followed. To accommodate this request, the session identifier 440 can identify the subset of the active sessions 465 as the active sessions 465 that are hosted using player profiles 460 that are indicated as “followed” by the requesting player profile 460 (paragraph 157). The method can include maintaining active sessions that each identify a corresponding host player profile (STEP 502), receiving a request for a list of active sessions from a client device (STEP 504), identifying a subset of the active sessions based on one or more attributes of the active sessions (STEP 506), ranking the subset based on a historic record of events performed by the host of each session (STEP 508), generating a personalized session interface including a subset according to the ranking (STEP 510), and providing the personalized session interface to the requesting client device (STEP 512) (paragraph 166);
“select, using the output text data of ……, a content item from the plurality of content items” as select, using the personalized session interface as the output text data of one or more active sessions, an interactive user interface element in a content item as select a content item from the content items that are displayed based on the subset of active sessions as the output text data and the request (fig. 5, paragraphs 125, 165-166, 183); or display as select a content item from the content items that are identified based on the request as the prompt and the personalized session interface (paragraph 182). In particularly: The lists of active sessions can be, for example, one or more content items (e.g., the content items 275). An example list of active sessions is described in connection with FIG. 6A (paragraph 125). At step 512, the method 500 can include providing, to the client device, the personalized session interface to cause the client device to display a list of the subset of the plurality of active sessions according to the ranking Once the display instructions for the personalized interface have been generated, the session processing system can transmit the display instructions to the client device. The application at the client device can receive and parse the instructions, and display the content items corresponding to the subset of the active sessions in order of their ranking. An example personalized interface is described in connection with FIG. 6A. As described herein, one or more of the content items can include interactive user interface elements that, when selected, cause the client device to transmit a request to join the active session represented by the content item (paragraph 183). An example personalized interface is described in connection with FIG. 6A. As described herein, one or more of the content items 475 can include interactive user interface elements that, when selected, cause the client device 420 to transmit a request to join the active session 465 represented by the content item 475 (paragraph 165);
“the content item comprising an interactive element that, when interacted with, causes the application executing on the client device to……” as the content item includes interactive user interface element, that when interacted with, causes the application executing on the client device to display the content item (paragraphs 164, 168, 182-183);
“provide the output text data and the content item to the client device in response to the prompt, causing the client device to present the output text data with the content item in a graphical user interface” as provide the personalized session interface as the output text data that includes the subset of the active sessions and one or more content item to the client device in response to the request, causing the client device to display the personalized session interface (fig. 6A) including the list of active text session including the content item in a graphical user interface (figs. 5-6A, paragraphs 164, 166, 170-171).
Me do not explicitly teach limitations
identifying a plurality of application interfaces;
navigate to a respective application interface of the plurality of application interfaces;
a language model; the language model;
generate, based on the prompt, an input context including the prompt and data corresponding to at least a subset of the plurality of content items;
the input context input into the language model.
As teaches limitation
“identifying a plurality of application interfaces” as selecting as identifying application interfaces of an application (fig. 3, paragraphs 102, 103) executing on a client device (paragraph 72). For example, in a request to integrate one or more of the application interfaces 285 with the item of media content 270 (paragraph 93);
“navigate to a respective application interface of the plurality of application interfaces” as upon selection with the actionable object 285, the computing device can execute the instructions in the application interface 285, causing the application interface 285 of the application interfaces (paragraph 93) to be displayed as navigated at the computing device (paragraphs 103-104). In particularly: Once an application interface selector 250 has selected one or more application interfaces 285 for the data objects 275 of an item of media content 270, the application interface selector 250 can store instructions that reference the selected application interfaces 285 in association with the item of media content 270. The instructions can cause a computing device (e.g., the client device 270) rendering the media content 270 to display one or more actionable objects corresponding to the application interfaces 285 associated with the media content 270. Upon selection with the actionable object 285, the computing device can execute the instructions in the application interface 285, causing the application interface 285 to be displayed at the computing device. In some implementations, the application interface selector 250 can generate modified media content 270 that includes the instructions for the selected application interfaces 285 (paragraph 103)
As further teaches limitations
“maintain a plurality of content items respectively identifying a plurality of application interfaces of an application executing on a client device” as maintain content items of the media content 270 (paragraph 80) that correspond selecting as identifying application interfaces of an application (fig. 3, paragraphs 80, 84, 93, 105) executing on a client device (paragraph 72). In particularly: The application interface 285 integration request can include a selection of one or more items of the media content 270 maintained by the educational content system 205, such that the request specifies that the specified application interface 285 should be integrated in the one or more selected items of the media content 270 (paragraph 80). The provider device 260 can make a selection of one or more items of media content 270 using a user interface displayed at the provider device 260. The provider device 260 can make the selection, for example, in a request to integrate one or more of the application interfaces 285 with the item of media content 270 (paragraph 93);
“an interactive element that, when interacted with, causes the application executing on the client device to navigate to a respective application interface of the plurality of application interfaces” as upon selection with an actionable object 285 that is represented as causes , an application of a client device 220 (paragraph 72) executes the instructions in an application interface 285, causing the application interface 285 of the application interfaces to be displayed as navigated at the client device 220 (paragraphs 103-104). The actionable object 285 that is in an item of media content 270 is represented as an interactive element (paragraph 105).
As and Me disclose a method of receiving user input to generate a result to select item. These references are in the same field with application field. Thus, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to apply As’s teaching to Me’s system in order to enable a user to interact with one or more actionable objects presented as part of graphical user interfaces easily and efficiently and further to efficiently create media content in multiple different formats that is localized or targeted for various environments and contexts.
Az teaches limitations
“generate, based on the prompt, an input context including the prompt and data corresponding to at least a subset of the plurality of content items” as
generate, based on a user query as the prompt, an augmented prompt as the input context including the user prompt and context data retrieved from the context data store (abstract, paragraphs 20, 36), the context data is a subset of documents 104 as content items that is stored at the context datastore that is responsive to the terms of the query (paragraph 32)
“the input context input into the language model” as the augmented prompt as the input context is transmitted to a language model (abstract, paragraphs 4-5).
a language model; the language model as a language model (paragraphs 4-5).
Az further teaches limitations
“the output text data of the language model” as a model response as output text data of the language model is returned (paragraph 20).
Az and Me disclose a method of receiving user input to generate a result for selecting documents. These references are in the same field with application field. Thus, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to apply Az’s teaching to Me’s system in order to reduce number of user prompts that user may have to submit to receive a quality, accurate response, to increase the quality of model responses generated by a language model and further to provide improvements in cost control, speed, and/or privacy.
As to claims 4, 14, Me, As and Az teach limitations
“wherein the content item comprises at least one image associated with the respective application interface” as the content item includes (Az: paragraph 104) image with (Me: paragraph 93) the corresponding application interface as the respective application (As: paragraph 89).
As to claims 5, 15, Me, As and Az teach limitations
“wherein the one or more processors are further configured to: receive, from the application executing on the client device, an indication of an interaction with the content item or
receiving, by the one or more processors, from the application executing on the client device, an indication of an interaction with the content item” as the one or more processors configured to: (Me: paragraphs 15-16) receive, from the application executing on the client device (Me: paragraph 80), a request as indication of (Me: paragraph 8) interaction of object or selection of one or more items of media content (As: paragraphs 13, 80); and
“provide, in response to the indication, data of the application interface to the application for display; or providing, by the one or more processors, in response to the indication, data of the application interface to the application for display” as transmit as provide, by the processor, (Me: paragraphs 15-16) to the application for display, in response to the request as indication (Me: paragraphs 8, 126), a response message including the candidate list of application interface(s) 285 for display (e.g., in the user interface as one or more actionable objects, etc.) (As: paragraph 79). The response message of an application interface(s) 285 is represented as data of the application interface.
As to claims 6, 16, Me, As and Az teach limitations
“wherein the client device is associated with a player profile” as the client device is associated with a player profile (Me: paragraphs 4-5);
“wherein the one or more processors are further configured to: select the content item further based on data of the player profile; or selecting, by the one or more processors, the content item further based on data of the player profile” as the one or more processors configured to: (Me: paragraphs 15-16) select the content item further based on (As: paragraph 80; Az: paragraphs 4-5) event as data of the player profile (Me: paragraph 7).
As to claims 7,17, Me, As and Az teach limitations
“wherein the one or more processors are further configured to: select the content item using a searching function, the prompt, and the output text data; or selecting, by the one or more processors, the content item using a searching function, the prompt, and the output text data” as the one or more processors configured to (Me: paragraphs 15-16): select the content item using integration request as the prompt, a list of media content 270 as the output text data and (As: paragraph 80) user search query as searching function (Az: paragraph 20).
Claim 11 has the same limitation subject matter as discussed in claim 1; thus claim 11 is rejected under the same reason as discussed in claim 1. In addition, Me teaches a method, comprising:
“maintaining, by one or more processors coupled to non-transitory memory, a plurality of content items respectively ……of an application executing on a client device” as maintain, by one or more processors coupled to non-transitory memory ( paragraphs 15-16), content items respectively including interactive user interface elements of user interface(s) of an application executing on client device (fig. 6A-6D, paragraphs 78, 95). In particularly: The content items 275, stored and maintained at the storage 215. The client application can present one or more actionable objects (e.g., interactive user interface elements) in a user interface of the client application via the display of the client device 220. Such actionable objects can include selectable hyperlinks, buttons, graphics, videos, images, or other application features that generate a signal that is processed by the application executing on the respective client device 220 (paragraph 78). The content items 275 can include instructions that allow the content items to include interactive user interface elements (e.g., actionable objects, etc.). The user interface elements can include instructions that cause the client devices 220 displaying the content items 275 (and receiving interactions) to carry out one or more operations (paragraph 95);
“receiving, by the one or more processors, a prompt for ……from the application executing on the client device during a communication session” as receive, by the one or more processors (paragraphs 15-16), a request as a prompt for a list of active sessions from the application executing on the client device during a communication session (fig. 5, paragraphs 79, 157, 166-167). For example, the request for the list of active sessions 465 can include an indication that the subset should include active sessions 465 that are hosted using player profiles 460 that the requesting player profile 460 has followed (paragraph 157). The request may identify the host player profile as a host of the session. The request can be transmitted by a client device, for example, via an application executing on the client device (paragraph 168);
“generating, by the one or more processors, based on……, output text data that is responsive to the prompt” as in response to the request as the prompt, generate, by the one or more processors (paragraphs 15-16), based on player profile(s), a personalized session interface having as using a subset of one or more active sessions that is identified by using the request as the prompt, the personalized session interface further includes one or more content items that each identifies a respective active session of the ranked subset of active sessions (fig. 5, paragraphs 164, 166, 157, 82). The personalized session interface, which includes a number of viewers of each active session 465, an indication of a social media relationship e.g., followed, friend as text, one or more content items 475 (paragraph 164), is represented as output text data. In particularly: For example, the request for the list of active sessions 465 can include an indication that the subset should include active sessions 465 that are hosted using player profiles 460 that the requesting player profile 460 has followed. To accommodate this request, the session identifier 440 can identify the subset of the active sessions 465 as the active sessions 465 that are hosted using player profiles 460 that are indicated as “followed” by the requesting player profile 460 (paragraph 157). The method can include maintaining active sessions that each identify a corresponding host player profile (STEP 502), receiving a request for a list of active sessions from a client device (STEP 504), identifying a subset of the active sessions based on one or more attributes of the active sessions (STEP 506), ranking the subset based on a historic record of events performed by the host of each session (STEP 508), generating a personalized session interface including a subset according to the ranking (STEP 510), and providing the personalized session interface to the requesting client device (STEP 512) (paragraph 166);
“selecting, by the one or more processors, using the output text data of ……, a content item from the plurality of content items” as select, by the one or more processors (paragraphs 15-16), using the personalized session interface of one or more active sessions, an interactive user interface element in a content item as select a content item from the content items that are displayed based on the subset of active sessions as the output text data and the request (fig. 5, paragraphs 125, 165-166, 183); or display as select a content item from the content items that are identified based on the request as the prompt and the personalized session interface (paragraph 182).
In particularly:
The lists of active sessions can be, for example, one or more content items (e.g., the content items 275). An example list of active sessions is described in connection with FIG. 6A (paragraph 125). At step 512, the method 500 can include providing, to the client device, the personalized session interface to cause the client device to display a list of the subset of the plurality of active sessions according to the ranking Once the display instructions for the personalized interface have been generated, the session processing system can transmit the display instructions to the client device. The application at the client device can receive and parse the instructions, and display the content items corresponding to the subset of the active sessions in order of their ranking. An example personalized interface is described in connection with FIG. 6A. As described herein, one or more of the content items can include interactive user interface elements that, when selected, cause the client device to transmit a request to join the active session represented by the content item (paragraph 183). An example personalized interface is described in connection with FIG. 6A. As described herein, one or more of the content items 475 can include interactive user interface elements that, when selected, cause the client device 420 to transmit a request to join the active session 465 represented by the content item 475 (paragraph 165);
“providing, by the one or more processors, the output text data and the content item to the client device in response to the prompt, causing the client device to present the output text data with the content item in a graphical user interface” as provide, the one or more processors (paragraphs 15-16), the personalized session interface that includes the subset of the active sessions as the output text data and one or more content item to the client device in response to the request, causing the client device to display the list of active text session including the content item in a graphical user interface (figs. 5-6A, paragraphs 164, 170-171).
Az teaches limitations
“generate, by the one or more processors, based on the prompt, an input context including the prompt and data corresponding to at least a subset of the plurality of content items” as generate, by a processor (paragraph 5), based on a user query as the prompt, an augmented prompt as the input context including the user prompt and context data retrieved from the context data store (abstract, paragraphs 20, 36), the context data is a subset of documents 104 as content items that is stored at the context datastore 106 that is responsive to the terms of the query (paragraph 32)
“the input context input into the language model” as the augmented prompt as the input context is transmitted to a language model (abstract, paragraphs 4-5).
a language model; the language model as a language model (paragraphs 4-5).
Az and Me disclose a method of receiving user input to generate a result for selecting documents. These references are in the same field with application field. Thus, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to apply Az’s teaching to Me’s system in order to reduce number of user prompts that user may have to submit to receive a quality, accurate response, to increase the quality of model responses generated by a language model and further to provide improvements in cost control, speed, and/or privacy.
Claims 2-3, 12-13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Me in view of Ac and Az and further in view of Cunningham et al (or hereinafter “Cu”) (US 20250094708)
As to claims 2, 12, Me, As and Az teach limitations
“ wherein the one or more processors are further configured to: generate ……using the language model and the output text data; or generating, by the one or more processors, ……using the language model and the output text data” as the one or more processors configured to: (Me: paragraphs 15-16) generate a response, using a the language model and (Az: abstract, paragraphs 3-4) the generated interface, which includes text sessions, is represented as the output text data (Me: figs. 5-6a, paragraphs 164-166).
Me, As and Az do not explicitly teach limitation
at least a portion of the content item.
Cu teaches limitation
“at least a portion of the content item” as generate a portion of content item corresponding to extracted text segments (paragraph 28).
Cu further teaches limitation
generate or generating at least a portion of the content item using the language model and the output text data (as generate, using a language model and result, a portion of content item corresponding to extracted text segments (paragraph 28)).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to apply Cu’s teaching to Me’s system in order to quickly generate a model output from a prompt that includes one or more selected text segments and the model output request correctly.
As to claims 3, 13, Me, As and Az teach limitations
“wherein the one or more processors are further configured to: generate ……using the language model and the respective application interface identified in the content item; or generating, by the one or more processors, ……using the language model and the respective application interface identified in the content item” as the one or more processors configured to: (Me: paragraph 8) generate a response, using a the language model and (Az: abstract, paragraphs 3-4) the application interface selected in (As: fig. 4, paragraphs 65, 103) the content item (Me: paragraph 135)
Me, As and Az do not explicitly teach limitation
at least a portion of the content item.
Cu teaches limitation
“at least a portion of the content item” as generate a portion of content item corresponding to extracted text segments (paragraph 28).
Cu further teaches limitation
generate or generating at least a portion of the content item using the language model and the output text data (as generate, using a language model and result, a portion of content item corresponding to extracted text segments (paragraph 28)).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to apply Cu’s teaching to Me’s system in order to quickly generate a model output from a prompt that includes one or more selected text segments and the model output request correctly.
Claims 8, 18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Me in view of As and Az and further in view of Agarwal et al (or “hereinafter “Ag”) (US 20140289236).
As to claims 8, 18, Me, As and Az teach limitations
“wherein the one or more processors are further configured to: extract ……; or extracting, by the one or more processors, ……” as the one or more processors configured to: (Me: paragraphs 15-16) retrieving data (Az: paragraph 79);
“select the content item using ……” as select the content item using integration request (As: paragraph 80)
Me, As and Az do not explicitly teach limitations
one or more portions of the prompt and the output text data;
the one or more portions of the prompt and the output text data.
Ag teaches limitation
one or more portions of the prompt and the output text data; the one or more portions of the prompt and the output text data (as latest movie as a portion of the query 310 as the prompt and search result 332 because the prompt and the search result include latest movie (fig. 3 paragraph 28)).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to apply Ag’s teaching to Me’s system in order to allow a user select an option to refine search results around a chosen sub-query result, thereby narrowing down other sub-query results
Claims 9-10, 19-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Me in view of As and Az and further in view of Leondires et al (or hereinafter “Le”) (US 20240216820).
As to claims 9, 19, Me, As and Az teach limitations
“wherein the one or more processors are further configured to maintain ……, ……respectively corresponding to a plurality of second content items; or maintaining, by the one or more processors, ……, ……respectively corresponding to a plurality of second content items” as the one or more processors configured to: (Me: paragraphs 15-16) maintain, one or more session events 270 (Me: paragraph 71), the one or more session events respectively correspond to content items as a plurality of second content items (Me: paragraphs 92-93);
“generate, using the language model and a second prompt received from the client device, second output text data that is responsive to the second prompt; or generating, by the one or more processors, using the language model and a second prompt received from the client device, second output text data that is responsive to the second prompt” as generate, by the one or more processors (Me: paragraphs 15-16),
a interface including a subset of the active sessions as second output text data using the request as the second prompt and (Me: figs. 5-6A, paragraphs 164-166, 171) the language model (Az: abstract);
“select, based on the second prompt and the second output, a second content item from the plurality of second content items; or selecting, by the one or more processors, based on the second prompt and the second output, a second content item from the plurality of second content items” as select, by the one or more processors (Me: paragraphs 15-16), based on the request as the second prompt and the personalized session interface including subset of the active sessions as second output text data, a second content item from a second content items upon selection of interactive element in the second content item (Me: fig. 4, paragraph 164-165, 170-171),
“the second content item comprising a second interactive element that, when interacted with, causes the application executing on the client device to……” as the second content item includes a second interactive user interface element, that when interacted with, causes the application executing on the client device (Me: paragraphs 93, 133) to display the content item (Me: paragraph 182).
Me, As and Az do not explicitly teach limitations
data of a plurality of contests for one or more live events, the plurality of contests;
transmit a request corresponding to a respective contest of the plurality of contests.
Le teaches limitations
“data of a plurality of contests for one or more live events, the plurality of contests” as outcome as data of contests for one or more live sporting events (paragraph 141), each contest of the plurality of contests can define a respective plurality of slots for entrants of the contest (paragraph 9);
“transmit a request corresponding to a respective contest of the plurality of contests” as transmit a request corresponding to available contests 290 (paragraph 86).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to apply Le’s teaching to Me’s system in order to enable faster processing of the contest and reduce latency issues associated with repeated queries of the blockchain.
As to claims 10, 20, Me, As, Az and Le teach limitations
“wherein the one or more processors are further configured to: provide the second output and the second content item to the client device; or providing, by the one or more processors, the second output and the second content item to the client device” as the one or more processors configured to: (Me: paragraphs 15-16) provide a personalized session interface that includes the subset of the active sessions as the second output text data and the second content item to the client device (Me: figs. 5-6A, paragraphs 164, 170-171);
“receive, from the application executing on the client device, and indication of an interaction with the second content item; or receiving, by the one or more processors, from the application executing on the client device, an indication of an interaction with the second content item” as receive, by the one or more processors (Me: paragraphs 15-16), from the application executing on the client device, (Me: paragraph 183) an indication of selection of object (As: paragraph 71) or selection of content item (Le: paragraphs 180-181);
“provide, to the application executing on the client device, at least one second graphical user interface corresponding to the respective contest; or providing, by the one or more processors, to the application executing on the client device, at least one second graphical user interface corresponding to the respective contest” as providing, by the one or more processors (Me: paragraphs 15-16), to the client device, (Me: paragraphs 12, 177) a second graphical user interface corresponding to (As: paragraphs 72, 79) the respective contest (Le: paragraph 9).
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Zhou et al (US 20240289395) disclose using language model to generate a responses to prompts (abstract).
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). 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.
Contact Information
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to CAM-Y T TRUONG whose telephone number is (571)272-4042. The examiner can normally be reached (571) 272 4042.
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, SHERIEF BADAWI can be reached at (571) 272-9782. 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.
/CAM Y T TRUONG/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2169
Prosecution Insights