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 .
Detail Information
On 8/15/2023, Application is filed with claims 1-19.
That is Non-Final Action.
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 1-19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to abstract idea/mental process without significantly more.
Claim 1:
(Prong 2A Analysis: Whether a Claim is Directed to a Judicial Exception)
Claim 1 recites the step of:
process, via a language model (LM) engine, the set of natural language instructions to generate one or more application programming interface (API) methods to perform the task; MPEP 2106.04(a)
This step can reasonably be performed in the human mind, through observation, judgement and opinion, with the aid of pen and paper, and therefore recite a mental process.
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application because the claim only recites mere instructions to apply an exception (system), with additional elements comprising only insignificant extra-solution activity.
(2B Analysis: Whether a claim amounts to significantly more)
Claim 1 recites the additional element of:
receive, from one or more source point associated with one or more user devices, a set of natural language instructions for performing a task;…
generate, via one or more pathway builder engines, one or more pathways to one or more destination endpoints associated with one or more destination devices; and transmit one or more signals to each of the one or more destination endpoints to cause the corresponding one or more destination devices to execute the one or more API methods transmitted via said one or more signals, wherein the one or more signals comprises the one or more API methods and a data structure having data required for execution of said one or more API methods. MPEP 2106.05(d)
amount to insignificant extra-solution activity of mere data outputting, and are additionally well-understood, routine or conventional activities for storing data. Further, these additional elements merely recite using computing components in their ordinary capacity to store data that is a result of the recited mental process, and thus can be considered mere instructions to apply an exception. These additional elements of insignificant extra-solution activity and mere instructions to apply are not indicative of integration into a practical application. Even when considered in combination, the additional elements do not provide an inventive concept, thus the claim is not eligible.
Claim 2
(Prong 2A Analysis: Whether a Claim is Directed to a Judicial Exception)
Claim 2 is dependent on claim 1, and therefore inherits the same judicial exception recited in claim 1.
The judicial exceptions recited in claims 2 and 1 are not integrated into a practical application because the recited additional elements comprise only mere instructions to apply an exception (system) and insignificant extra-solution activity.
(2B Analysis: Whether a claim amounts to significantly more)
Claim 2 recites the additional element of:
receive, from the one or more destination endpoints, a response having an output generated on execution of the one or more API methods in the corresponding destination devices; and determine, using the LM engine, whether the output in the response corresponds to an expected output for the set of natural language instructions. MPEP 2106.05(d);
amount to insignificant extra-solution activity of mere data outputting, and are additionally well-understood, routine or conventional activities for storing data. Additionally, these additional elements merely recite using computing components in their ordinary capacity to store data that is a result of the recited mental process, and thus can be considered mere instructions to apply an exception. These additional elements of insignificant extra-solution activity and mere instructions to apply recited in claim 2 are not indicative of integration into a practical application. Even when considered in combination with the additional elements of claim 1, the additional elements do not provide an inventive concept, thus the claim is not eligible.
Claim 3:
(Prong 2A Analysis: Whether a Claim is Directed to a Judicial Exception)
Claim 3 is dependent on claims 2 and 1, and therefore inherits the same judicial exception recited in claims 2 and 1.
(Prong 2A Analysis: Whether a Claim is Directed to a Judicial Exception)
Claim 3 also recites the step of:
wherein the LM engine is provided with a feedback during training by a heuristics engine that generates said feedback by comparing the one or more attributes with a predefined set of heuristics; MPEP 2106.04(a)
This step can reasonably be performed in the human mind, through observation, judgement and opinion, with the aid of pen and paper, and therefore recites a mental process.
The judicial exceptions recited in claims 3, 2 and 1 are not integrated into a practical application because the recited additional elements comprise only mere instructions to apply an exception (system) and insignificant extra-solution activity.
(2B Analysis: Whether a claim amounts to significantly more)
Claim 3 recites the additional element of:
the LM engine with supervised and unsupervised machine learning techniques based on the response received from the destination endpoint, wherein the response comprises one or more attributes associated with an execution environment of the one or more destination devices in which the one or more API methods are executed, MPEP 2106.05(d);
amount to insignificant extra-solution activity of mere data outputting, and are additionally well-understood, routine or conventional activities for storing data. Additionally, these additional elements merely recite using computing components in their ordinary capacity to store data that is a result of the recited mental process, and thus can be considered mere instructions to apply an exception. These additional elements of insignificant extra-solution activity and mere instructions to apply recited in claim 3 are not indicative of integration into a practical application. Even when considered in combination with the additional elements of claim 1, the additional elements do not provide an inventive concept, thus the claim is not eligible.
Claim 4:
(Prong 2A Analysis: Whether a Claim is Directed to a Judicial Exception)
Claim 4 is dependent on claim 1, and therefore inherits the same judicial exception recited in claim 1.
The judicial exceptions recited in claims 4 and 1 are not integrated into a practical application because the recited additional elements comprise only mere instructions to apply an exception (system) and insignificant extra-solution activity.
(2B Analysis: Whether a claim amounts to significantly more)
Claim 4 recites the additional element of:
wherein the one or more destination devices is selected from a group comprising a software application on a computing device, a virtual machine, Internet of Things (loT) device, autonomous robots, and industrial/commercial equipment. MPEP 2106.05(d);
amount to insignificant extra-solution activity of mere data outputting, and are additionally well-understood, routine or conventional activities for storing data. Additionally, these additional elements merely recite using computing components in their ordinary capacity to store data that is a result of the recited mental process, and thus can be considered mere instructions to apply an exception. These additional elements of insignificant extra-solution activity and mere instructions to apply recited in claim 4 are not indicative of integration into a practical application. Even when considered in combination with the additional elements of claim 1, the additional elements do not provide an inventive concept, thus the claim is not eligible.
Claim 5:
(Prong 2A Analysis: Whether a Claim is Directed to a Judicial Exception)
Claim 5 is dependent on claim 1, and therefore inherits the same judicial exception recited in claim 1.
The judicial exceptions recited in claims 4 and 1 are not integrated into a practical application because the recited additional elements comprise only mere instructions to apply an exception (system) and insignificant extra-solution activity.
(2B Analysis: Whether a claim amounts to significantly more)
Claim 5 recites the additional element of:
wherein the one or more API methods are displayed on the user interface of the one or more user device, the one or more API methods being editable via the user interface. MPEP 2106.05(d);
amount to insignificant extra-solution activity of mere data outputting, and are additionally well-understood, routine or conventional activities for storing data. Additionally, these additional elements merely recite using computing components in their ordinary capacity to store data that is a result of the recited mental process, and thus can be considered mere instructions to apply an exception. These additional elements of insignificant extra-solution activity and mere instructions to apply recited in claim 5 are not indicative of integration into a practical application. Even when considered in combination with the additional elements of claim 1, the additional elements do not provide an inventive concept, thus the claim is not eligible.
Claim 6:
(Prong 2A Analysis: Whether a Claim is Directed to a Judicial Exception)
Claim 6 is dependent on claim 1, and therefore inherits the same judicial exception recited in claim 1.
The judicial exceptions recited in claims 6 and 1 are not integrated into a practical application because the recited additional elements comprise only mere instructions to apply an exception (system) and insignificant extra-solution activity.
(2B Analysis: Whether a claim amounts to significantly more)
Claim 6 recites the additional element of:
wherein the processor is to generate, via the pathway builder engine, one or more staging points associated with one or more intermediate processing engines configured to transform the data transmitted via the one or more signals, wherein the one or more staging points configured to receive the one or more signals from the one or more source points, process the data and the one or more API methods in the one or more signals, and transmit the processed data and the one API methods to the destination endpoints for execution. MPEP 2106.05(d);
amount to insignificant extra-solution activity of mere data outputting, and are additionally well-understood, routine or conventional activities for storing data. Additionally, these additional elements merely recite using computing components in their ordinary capacity to store data that is a result of the recited mental process, and thus can be considered mere instructions to apply an exception. These additional elements of insignificant extra-solution activity and mere instructions to apply recited in claim 6 are not indicative of integration into a practical application. Even when considered in combination with the additional elements of claim 1, the additional elements do not provide an inventive concept, thus the claim is not eligible.
Claim 7:
(Prong 2A Analysis: Whether a Claim is Directed to a Judicial Exception)
Claim 7 is dependent on claim 1, and therefore inherits the same judicial exception recited in claim 1.
The judicial exceptions recited in claims 7 and 1 are not integrated into a practical application because the recited additional elements comprise only mere instructions to apply an exception (system) and insignificant extra-solution activity.
(2B Analysis: Whether a claim amounts to significantly more)
Claim 7 recites the additional element of:
wherein the one or more API methods are either generated by the LM engine in real-time based on the set of natural language instructions, or retrieved from an API repository based on the set of natural language instructions, the API repository being periodically updated. MPEP 2106.05(d);
amount to insignificant extra-solution activity of mere data outputting, and are additionally well-understood, routine or conventional activities for storing data. Additionally, these additional elements merely recite using computing components in their ordinary capacity to store data that is a result of the recited mental process, and thus can be considered mere instructions to apply an exception. These additional elements of insignificant extra-solution activity and mere instructions to apply recited in claim 7 are not indicative of integration into a practical application. Even when considered in combination with the additional elements of claim 1, the additional elements do not provide an inventive concept, thus the claim is not eligible.
Claim 8:
(Prong 2A Analysis: Whether a Claim is Directed to a Judicial Exception)
Claim 8 is dependent on claim 1, and therefore inherits the same judicial exception recited in claim 1.
The judicial exceptions recited in claims 8 and 1 are not integrated into a practical application because the recited additional elements comprise only mere instructions to apply an exception (system) and insignificant extra-solution activity.
(2B Analysis: Whether a claim amounts to significantly more)
Claim 8 recites the additional element of:
wherein each of the one or more source points and the one or more destination endpoints are interconnected with each other by the one or more pathways such that said one or more source points receive and process the set of natural language instructions and transmit the set of signals to the one or more of the destination endpoints for executing the one or more API methods, wherein said one or more of the sources points is configured to receive the set of natural language instructions from any one or combination of:
the one or more user devices, the one or more source points, or the responses from one or more of the destination endpoints; wherein one or more of the destination endpoints are configured to receive the set of signals from the one or more source points, said one or more of the destination endpoints being configured to execute the one or more API methods in the set of signals, and transmit the responses to one or more of the destination endpoints and the one or more source points. MPEP 2106.05(d);
amount to insignificant extra-solution activity of mere data outputting, and are additionally well-understood, routine or conventional activities for storing data. Additionally, these additional elements merely recite using computing components in their ordinary capacity to store data that is a result of the recited mental process, and thus can be considered mere instructions to apply an exception. These additional elements of insignificant extra-solution activity and mere instructions to apply recited in claim 8 are not indicative of integration into a practical application. Even when considered in combination with the additional elements of claim 1, the additional elements do not provide an inventive concept, thus the claim is not eligible.
Claim 9:
(Prong 2A Analysis: Whether a Claim is Directed to a Judicial Exception)
Claim 9 is dependent on claim 1, and therefore inherits the same judicial exception recited in claim 1.
The judicial exceptions recited in claims 9 and 1 are not integrated into a practical application because the recited additional elements comprise only mere instructions to apply an exception (system) and insignificant extra-solution activity.
(2B Analysis: Whether a claim amounts to significantly more)
Claim 9 recites the additional element of:
wherein the one or more pathways are ephemerally coupled such that the one or more pathways between the one or more source points and the one or more destination endpoints are generated and deleted based on satisfaction of one or more predefined constraints via the pathway builder engine. MPEP 2106.05(d);
amount to insignificant extra-solution activity of mere data outputting, and are additionally well-understood, routine or conventional activities for storing data. Additionally, these additional elements merely recite using computing components in their ordinary capacity to store data that is a result of the recited mental process, and thus can be considered mere instructions to apply an exception. These additional elements of insignificant extra-solution activity and mere instructions to apply recited in claim 9 are not indicative of integration into a practical application. Even when considered in combination with the additional elements of claim 1, the additional elements do not provide an inventive concept, thus the claim is not eligible.
Claims 10-18 are directed to the computer-implemented method comprise the steps which the at least one processing platform of the system of claims 1-9 are configured to perform. Claims 10-18 recite the same limitations as claims 1-9, respectively; therefore, claims 10-18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea of a method without significantly more for the same reasons presented with respect to claims 1-18. See above.
Claim 19 is directed to the non-transitory computer-readable medium comprise the steps which the at least one processing platform of the system of claim 1 is configured to perform. Claim 19 recite the same limitations as claim 1, respectively; therefore, claim 19 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea of a method without significantly more for the same reasons presented with respect to claim 1. See above.
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, 6-13, and 15-19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hong US 2021/0136433 in view of Choi US 2022/0404956.
18/234,352
Hong US 2021/0136433 in view of Choi US 2022/0404956.
A system, comprising:
a processor; and a memory operatively coupled with the processor, wherein the memory comprises processor-executable instructions which, when executed by the processor, cause the processor to:
Hong Fig. 1 p0078-p0116;
receive, from one or more source point associated with one or more user devices, a set of natural language instructions for performing a task;
Hong p0259-262;
Hong Fig. 8, items s810-s880, p0256-p0321;
process, via a language model (LM) engine, the set of natural language instructions to generate one or more application programming interface (API) methods to perform the task;
Hong p0064, p0122, p0138, p0239, p260, p0314;
Hong Fig. 8, items s810-s880, p0256-p0321;
generate, via one or more pathway builder engines, one or more pathways to one or more destination endpoints associated with one or more destination devices; and
Hong teaches convert command conversion module to operation information about new device into a control command; p0257.
Hong teaches generate a control command for controlling the device; p0075-p0085;
Hong teaches transmit the control command to the device; p0110-p0170.
Hong Fig. 8, items s810-s880, p0256-p0321;
Hong does not specifically teach pathways.
Choi teaches having paths for electronic application. (see Fig. 10, p201, p0199-p0202)
It would have been obvious at the time of the invention for a person ordinary skill in the art (POSITA) to include Choi’s teaching with method of Hong in order to provide connection relationships between device and applications.
transmit one or more signals to each of the one or more destination endpoints to cause the corresponding one or more destination devices to execute the one or more API methods transmitted via said one or more signals, wherein the one or more signals comprises the one or more API methods and a data structure having data required for execution of said one or more API methods.
Hong teaches convert command conversion module to operation information about new device into a control command; p0257.
Hong teaches generate a control command for controlling the device; p0075-p0085;
Hong teaches transmit the control command to the device; p0110-p0170.
Hong teaches voice transmitting command through API; p0161, p0239-p0314.
Hong Fig. 8, items s810-s880, p0256-p0321;
Claim 2
The system of claim 1, wherein the processor is configured to:receive, from the one or more destination endpoints, a response having an output generated on execution of the one or more API methods in the corresponding destination devices; and determine, using the LM engine, whether the output in the response corresponds to an expected output for the set of natural language instructions.
Hong teaches the hub device may receive a notification message indicating an execution result of an operation from an operation-performing device; p0140; p0181-p0182;
Hong Fig. 8, items s810-s880, p0256-p0321;
Clam 3
The system of claim 2, wherein the processor is configured to:
train the LM engine with supervised and unsupervised machine learning techniques based on the response received from the destination endpoint, wherein the response comprises one or more attributes associated with an execution environment of the one or more destination devices in which the one or more API methods are executed, and wherein the LM engine is provided with a feedback during training by a heuristics engine that generates said feedback by comparing the one or more attributes with a predefined set of heuristics.
Hong teaches train AI Model based on executes specific function; p0166.
Hong teaches train model based on word with a pre-defined intents; p0262.
Claim 4
The system of claim 1, wherein the one or more destination devices is selected from a group comprising a software application on a computing device, a virtual machine, Internet of Things (loT) device, autonomous robots, and industrial/commercial equipment.
Hong p0026, p0075.
Claim 6
The system of claim 1, wherein the processor is to:
generate, via the pathway builder engine, one or more staging points associated with one or more intermediate processing engines configured to transform the data transmitted via the one or more signals, wherein the one or more staging points configured to receive the one or more signals from the one or more source points, process the data and the one or more API methods in the one or more signals, and transmit the processed data and the one API methods to the destination endpoints for execution.
Hong p0064, p0122, p0138, p0239, p260, p0314;
Hong Fig. 8, items s810-s880, p0256-p0321;
Claim 7
The system of claim 1, wherein the one or more API methods are either generated by the LM engine in real-time based on the set of natural language instructions, or retrieved from an API repository based on the set of natural language instructions, the API repository being periodically updated.
Hong p0103;
Claim 8
The system of claim 1, wherein each of the one or more source points and the one or more destination endpoints are interconnected with each other by the one or more pathways such that said one or more source points receive and process the set of natural language instructions and transmit the set of signals to the one or more of the destination endpoints for executing the one or more API methods, wherein said one or more of the sources points is configured to receive the set of natural language instructions from any one or combination of:
Hong p0064, p0122, p0138, p0239, p260, p0314;
Hong Fig. 8, items s810-s880, p0256-p0321;
the one or more user devices, the one or more source points, or the responses from one or more of the destination endpoints; wherein one or more of the destination endpoints are configured to receive the set of signals from the one or more source points, said one or more of the destination endpoints being configured to execute the one or more API methods in the set of signals, and transmit the responses to one or more of the destination endpoints and the one or more source points.
Hong p0064, p0122, p0138, p0239, p260, p0314;
Hong Fig. 8, items s810-s880, p0256-p0321;
Claim 9
The system of claim 1, wherein the one or more pathways are ephemerally coupled such that the one or more pathways between the one or more source points and the one or more destination endpoints are generated and deleted based on satisfaction of one or more predefined constraints via the pathway builder engine.
Hong teaches generate a control command for controlling the device; p0075-p0085;
Hong teaches transmit the control command to the device; p0110-p0170.
Hong Fig. 8, items s810-s880, p0256-p0321;
Hong does not specifically teach pathways.
Choi teaches having paths for electronic application. (see Fig. 10, p201, p0199-p0202)
As per claims 1-13 and 15-18, they are rejected under the same rationale as claims 1-4 and 6-9. See rejection above.
As per claim 19 is rejected under the same rationale as claim 1. See rejection above.
Claims 5 and 14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hong US 2021/0136433 in view of Choi US 2022/0404956 and Arditi US 2024/0394604.
18/234,352
Hong US 2021/0136433 in view of Choi US 2022/0404956 and Arditi US 2024/0394604
Claim 5
The system of claim 1, wherein the one or more API methods are displayed on the user interface of the one or more user device, the one or more API methods being editable via the user interface.
Arditi teaches Interface can be modified; p0098.
It would have been obvious at the time of the invention for a person ordinary skill in the art (POSITA) to include Choi’s teaching with method of Hong in order to provide connection relationships between device and applications.
As per claim 14, it is rejected under the same rationale as claim 5. See rejection above.
Conclusion
Here is a list of references related to language training model:
Chen US Publication 2021/0357752: Model Processing Method, Apparatus, Storage Medium, And Processor
Han US Publication 20210272585: Server for Providing Response Message on Basis of User’s Voice Input and Operating Method Thereof.
Lee US Publication 2020/0349952: Hub Device, Multi-Device System Including the Hub Device and Plurality of Devices, and Method of Operating the same.
Contact Information
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to PENG KE whose telephone number is (571)272-4062. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 6:30-5:00.
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, Kevin Young can be reached at (571) 270-3180. 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.
PENG KE
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 2194
/PENG KE/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2194