DETAILED ACTION
This is the initial Office action based on the application filed on December 1, 2025. Claims 1-20 are currently pending and have been considered below.
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.
Claims 1, 8 and 15 recite:
obtaining a textual prompt at a user interface associated with a productivity application – Displaying a prompt on a screen is a well-understood, routine and conventional functionality of a computer as discussed in MPEP 2106.05.
identifying, based on content of the textual prompt, a query within the textual prompt – Identifying that there is a query presented is something that is a well-understood, routine and conventional functionality of a computer as discussed in MPEP 2106.05. It is also something that a person can identify in their mind, and is thus an abstract concept.
based on analyzing the query, determining whether the query is one of (i) a detail-seeking query type, requesting a set of data that is currently available within one or more respective data sources associated with the productivity application, or (ii) a panoptic query type requesting another set of data that is not currently available within the productivity application and requires aggregation of two or more respective data sources associated with the productivity application – Identifying whether data is available for use is something that may be done in the mind and/or with help of pen and paper.
in accordance with a first determination that the query is of the detail-seeking query type, providing the set of data to a large-language model (LLM) to format an answer based on an attribute or metric from the set of data – Identifying what a query is looking for is something that may be done in the mind and/or with help of pen and paper. Also, using of an LLM to a particular technological field does not make the claim eligible under 101 at least in view of Recentive Analytics, Inc. v. Fox Corp.
identifying, based on other content of another textual prompt, another query within the textual prompt – Identifying whether another query is submitted is a well-understood, routine and conventional functionality of a computer as discussed in MPEP 2106.05.
in accordance with a second determination that the other query is of the panoptic query type requires the other set of data that is not currently available, providing respective data from the two or more respective data sources to another LLM to perform an analytical function on the respective data from the two or more respective data sources – Retrieving data from a particular source is considered as insignificant extra-solution activity as discussed in MPEP 2106.05. Also, retrieving data from other sources if the initial source did not contain the data that is queried is well-understood, routine and conventional functionality of a searching system (see at least Hashimoto (2026/0003900) para [0067-0068].)
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. Other, the abstract idea, the claims recite additional elements of hardware executing the abstract idea. The additional elements such a processor, storage device, etc are recited at a high level of generality, i.e. as generic computer components performing generic computer functions of information processing. Accordingly, these additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because they do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. The claim is directed to an abstract idea.
Dependent Claims 2-7, 9-14 and 16-20 recite further mental processes that may be completed with aid of pen and paper and as such are directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
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 1-3, 6-10, 13-17 and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hashimoto et al (US Patent Application Publication 2026/0003900) in view of Schubert et al (US Patent Application Publication 2026/0099516).
Claims 1, 8 and 15: Hashimoto discloses a method, a non-transitory computer-readable storage medium and a system at an electronic device associated with a workforce management application, the electronic device having one or more processors and memory, the memory storing instructions for causing presentation of the workforce management application:
obtaining a textual prompt at a user interface associated with a productivity application [Fig. 1, 0030]. [See at least where a user submits queries.]
identifying, based on content of the textual prompt, a query within the textual prompt [Fig. 1, 0030]. [See at least processing the user query.]
based on analyzing the query, determining whether the query is one of (i) a detail-seeking query type, requesting a set of data that is currently available within one or more respective data sources associated with the productivity application, or (ii) a panoptic query type requesting another set of data that is not currently available within the productivity application and requires aggregation of two or more respective data sources associated with the productivity application [Fig. 2, 0063]. [See at least identifying a query based on user query embeddings, including if it’s “data that is currently available within one or more respective data sources…”]
in accordance with a first determination that the query is of the detail-seeking query type, providing the set of data to a large-language model (LLM) to format an answer based on an attribute or metric from the set of data [0071]. [See at least providing a response to a user.]
identifying, based on other content of another textual prompt, another query within the textual prompt [0030]. [Multiple queries may be submitted in a session.]
in accordance with a second determination that the other query is of the panoptic query type requires the other set of data that is not currently available, providing respective data from the two or more respective data sources [0104]. [See at least determining that a response is not available in internal sources and then using external sources to provide a response.]
Hashimoto alone does not explicitly disclose providing data to another LLM to perform an analytical function on the respective data from the two or more respective data sources.
However, Hashimoto [0104] uses multiple external sources to provide a response to a query and Schubert [0029, 0031] discloses providing a query to an external LLM to “generate an appropriate response to the user request.”
As such, it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify Hashimoto with Schubert. One would have been motivated to do so in order to “generate an appropriate response to the user request.”
Claims 2, 9 and 16: Hashimoto as modified disclose the method, the medium and the system of Claims 1, 8 and 15 above, and Schubert, for the same reasons as above, further discloses in accordance with the second determination that the query is the panoptic query type, providing additional context data to the LLM from one or more of: (i) a vector database, (ii) an embedding model, and (iii) usage data [0029]. [See at least providing context based at least a user history.]
Claims 3, 10 and 17: Hashimoto as modified disclose the method, the medium and the system of Claims 1, 8 and 15 above, and Hashimoto further discloses wherein the determination whether the query is of the detail-seeking query type further comprises determining whether the query is (i) answerable with stored attributes, and/or (ii) answerable with available metrics [0031]. [See at least identifying “known responses.”]
Claims 6, 13 and 20: Hashimoto as modified disclose the method, the medium and the system of Claims 1, 8 and 15 above, and Hashimoto further discloses after providing the respective data from the two or more respective data sources to the other LLM to perform the analytical function on the respective data from the two or more respective data sources: causing presentation of a visual representation provided as an output of the other LLM based on a result of the analytical function performed on the respective data [0069]. [See at least the response generation module.]
Claims 7 and 14: Hashimoto as modified disclose the method and the medium of Claims 1 and 8 above, and Hashimoto further discloses after identifying the query within the textual prompt, determining whether one or more previous textual prompts within a thread associated with the user interface are related to the query; and based on a determination that the one or more previous textual prompts are related to the query, using data associated with the previous textual prompts to determine whether the query is a detail-seeking query or a panoptic query [0062, 0067]. [See at least identifying a user session with prior prompts and also identifying similar queries to reduce “duplicative computational processing of these similar user queries.”]
Claims 4, 11 and 18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hashimoto et al (US Patent Application Publication 2026/0003900) in view of Schubert et al (US Patent Application Publication 2026/0099516) and further in view of Hatter (US Patent Application Publication 2026/0169985).
Claims 4, 11 and 18: Hashimoto as modified disclose the method, the medium and the system of Claims 1, 8 and 15 above, but Hashimoto alone does not explicitly disclose in accordance with the second determination that the query is the panoptic query type, generating an index bundle based on the respective data from the two or more respective data sources that is to be provided to the other LLM.
However, Hatter [0063] discloses “integrate external data sources and content repositories by performing an initial and recurring synchronization to index documents…”
As such, it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify Hashimoto with Hatter. One would have been motivated to do so in order to be able to retrieve data easier after it’s been indexed.
Claims 5, 12 and 19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hashimoto et al (US Patent Application Publication 2026/0003900) in view of Schubert et al (US Patent Application Publication 2026/0099516) and further in view of Ajgaonkar (US Patent Application Publication 2025/0298796).
Claims 5, 12 and 19: Hashimoto as modified disclose the method, the medium and the system of Claims 1, 8 and 15 above, but Hashimoto alone does not explicitly disclose after providing the set of data to the LLM to format the answer based on the attribute or the metric from the set of data, identifying a set of predefined panoptic queries related to the answer; presenting a set of user interface elements associated with one or more respective predefined panoptic queries of the set of predefined panoptic queries.
However, Ajgaonkar [0066] discloses identifying and displaying similar queries that are related to the answer.
As such, it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify Hashimoto with Ajgaonkar. One would have been motivated to do so in order to provide a user options of how to query a system.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure:
Dubey et al (2025/0363104) describes at least aggregating different data sources for query processing.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ALEX GOFMAN whose telephone number is (571)270-1072. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 8-5.
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, Tony Mahmoudi can be reached at 571-272-4078. 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.
/ALEX GOFMAN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2163
Prosecution Insights