DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Response to Arguments
1. Regarding the rejection under 35 USC § 101, Applicant's arguments filed 04/13/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant argues on pgs. 13-14 that the claims are patent eligible as they recite significantly more beyond the recited judicial exception and amount to an improvement to the training of LLMs for handling unexpected utterances. The Examiner respectfully disagrees. The claims as currently written do not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application nor amount to significantly more than the judicial exception.
First, the claims recite mental processes and mathematical concepts. A person can read/listen to an utterance and write down information about the utterance by pooling together information about individual tokens (i.e. words). A person can further write down target embedding vectors for different classes. A person can then write down a vector (i.e. list of numbers), the number of dimensions equal to the number of classes, and can write down a positive or negative value based on determining whether or not they think a particular utterance belongs to a particular category/domain (i.e. sports, science, history, food, etc.). A person can then decide to label an utterance as unhandled if they write down a negative value for each class. Furthermore, the recited similarity utilizing a first and second distance from a centroid and threshold boundary respectively, amounts to mathematical calculations. Similarly, the use of the predictions in a loss function to updates parameters amounts to mathematical calculations. Therefore, the claims recite abstract ideas under Step 2A Prong 1 analysis.
The claims as currently written do not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application under Step 2A Prong 2 analysis. The only additional elements in the claims are the use of the “pre-trained large language model” for generating the utterance embedding vectors, and the updating of the parameters of “the pre-trained large language model”. These limitations are not enough by themselves, even when viewed with the claims as a whole, to integrate the judicial exception into a practical application as they do not fully reflect the technical improvement of the invention. Further technical detail would be needed regarding the newly added “mapping” step in order to fully integrate the judicial exception into a practical application via a technical improvement. Without this further detail, the additional elements as a whole amount to mere instructions to implement the judicial exception using a generic computer. Mere instructions to implement the judicial exception using a generic computer do not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application under Step 2A Prong 2 as they do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract ideas, and do not amount to significantly more than the judicial exception under Step 2B as they do not provide an inventive concept.
Hence, Applicant’s arguments are not persuasive. Please see note below.
Note:
The Examiner notes that incorporating further technical language from the specification into the independent claims would help to overcome the rejection under 35 USC § 101. Specifically, incorporating language from para. 0060 of Applicant’s specification to specifically recite the use of the linear layer for performing the mapping operation, would help to integrate the judicial exception into a practical application.
2. Regarding the rejection under 35 USC § 103, Applicant’s amendments overcome the prior art. Accordingly, the rejection is withdrawn.
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.
3. Claims 1-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
Regarding claim 1, “A method” is recited, which is directed to one of the four statutory categories of invention (process) (Step 1: YES). However, the claims limitations, under their broadest reasonable interpretation, recite mental processes or mathematical concepts which fall into the category of abstract idea (Step 2A Prong 1: YES).
The following limitations, under their broadest reasonable interpretation, recite mental processes or mathematical concepts:
“receiving an input utterance”: a person reads an utterance (e.g. a sentence)
“processing the input utterance …in which each class of a plurality of classes …has a target embedding, determining that the input utterance corresponds to an unhandled utterance”: a person determines that an utterance is unhandled (e.g. not associated with a particular class/topic of a plurality of predefined classes having target embeddings)
“generating…an utterance embedding vector … based on the input utterance, the utterance embedding vector representing the input utterance relative to the plurality of classes, the utterance embedding vector generated by pooling token embedding vectors for tokens of the input utterance”: a person reads an input utterance, and then creates a vector reflecting an expected class the input belongs to by pooling/combining information from token embeddings (i.e. information about individual words), and then writes the vector down using pen and paper.
mapping…the utterance embedding vector to a number of dimensions equal to a number of classes of the plurality of classes, each dimension representing a single class of the plurality of classes: a person writes down information as a vector, with a number of dimension matching the number of classes
based on all the dimensions being associated with negative values for the utterance embedding vector relative to the plurality of classes, determining…that the input utterance corresponds to an unhandled utterance: a person writes down a positive or negative number for each class based on whether they think the utterance belongs to the particular class (e.g. ‘+1’ if utterance is believed to belong to sports, or ‘-1’ if utterance is believed to not belong to science)
“obtaining…a predicted class within the plurality of classes for the input utterance, the predicted class identified based on a similarity of the predicted class to an expected class for a similar utterance, the expected class within the plurality of classes, the similarity of the predicted class to the expected class determined based on a spatial parameter representing a first distance of the utterance embedding vector for the predicted class from a centroid of the target embedding vector associated with the expected class and a second distance of the utterance embedding vector for the predicted class from a threshold boundary of the target embedding vector associated with the expected class”: a person obtains a predicted class for the input by using a similarity of the predicted class to the expected class. The person then selects the class with the highest similarity. Determining the spatial parameter representing a first distance of the utterance embedding vector to a centroid and a second distance of the utterance embedding vector to a threshold boundary recites a mathematical calculation in words, and thus falls under the abstract idea grouping of mathematical concepts.
“passing the similarity between the predicted class and the expected class to a loss function and, … updating parameters of the pre-trained large language model mapping the input utterance to the plurality of classes, including the predicted class and the expected class”: Using a loss function to update parameters of a pre-trained large language model recites a mathematical calculation in words, and thus falls under the abstract idea grouping of mathematical concepts.
Claim 1 does not contain any additional elements which integrate the judicial exception into a practical application (Step 2A Prong 2: NO). The only additional limitations are “using a pre-trained language model operating on at least one processing device of an electronic device”, “generating, using the pre-trained large language model operating on the at least one processing device, an utterance embedding”, and “updating parameters of the pre-trained large language model…”. These limitations are recited at a high level of generality, and amount to mere instructions to implement the judicial exception using a generic computer. Even when viewed in combination, mere instructions to implement the judicial exception using a generic computer are not enough to integrate the judicial exception into a practical application as they do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. Accordingly, claim 1 is directed to an abstract idea.
Claim 1 does not contain any additional elements which amount to significantly more than the judicial exception (Step 2B: NO). As discussed above with respect to integration into a practical application, the additional limitations amount to mere instructions to implement the judicial exception using a generic computer. Even when viewed in combination, mere instructions to implement the judicial exception using a generic computer are not enough to allow the claim to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception as they do not provide an inventive concept. Therefore, claim 1 is not patent eligible.
Regarding dependent claims 2-8, “The method” is recited, which is directed to one of the four statutory categories of invention (process) (Step 1: YES). However, the claims limitations, under their broadest reasonable interpretation, recite mental processes which fall into the category of abstract idea (Step 2A Prong 1: YES).
Claims 2-8 contain the mental processes of claim 1 due to their dependence on claim 1. Additionally, the following limitations, under their broadest reasonable interpretation, recite mental processes or mathematical concepts, both of which fall under the category of abstract idea:
Claim 2: “obtaining training data comprising a plurality of historical embedding vectors representing historical utterances labeled with one or more classes; and for each class of the plurality of classes, (i) determining a mean or a median of embedding vectors in that class and (ii) identifying one of the historical embedding vectors closest to the mean or the median as the target embedding vector for that class”: a person obtains training data of embedding vectors for one or more classes. A person then calculates a mean of embedding vector each class using pen and paper, and then selects a particular vector as the target vector using a distance metric to find the closest vector to the mean.
Claim 3: “a positive value of the second distance corresponds to the utterance embedding vector being inside the threshold boundary; and a negative value of the second distance corresponds to the utterance embedding vector being outside the threshold boundary.”: a person calculates a distance (e.g. Euclidean distance) using pen and paper between a vector and a threshold boundary, with the value being made positive if it is inside the boundary, and the value being made negative if it is outside the boundary.
Claim 4: “a distance of an utterance embedding to an unhandled class comprises a smooth negative maximum of distances from the utterance embedding vector to the class targets of the plurality of classes.”: a person calculates a distance (e.g. Euclidean distance) using pen and paper between a vector and a class target vector for a class. Calculating a smooth negative maximum of distances from the utterance embedding vector to the class targets is a mathematical concept.
Claim 5: “wherein the smooth negative maximum of distances is calculated using a trainable vector.”: using a trainable vector to calculate the smooth negative maximum is a mathematical concept.
Claim 6: “a positive value of a specified dimension indicates a positive label for the corresponding class”: a person writes down a vector with “n” dimensions, with n=number of classes, and writes down a positive value (e.g. +1) for classes that the input is believed to fall into.
Claim 7: “inputting the input utterance to the … model, the input utterance comprising multiple tokens and outputting, by the … model, a token embedding vector for each of the tokens of the input utterance”: a person takes an input of multiple tokens (e.g. a sentence with multiple words), and uses a language model as a set of rules to write down a vector corresponding to each word.
Claim 8: “the target embedding vectors include multiple training utterances representing an unhandled class; and the predicted class associated with the input utterance is obtained based on distances of the utterance embedding vector to (i) the spatial parameters representing the plurality of classes and (ii) additional spatial parameters representing the unhandled class.”: a person includes unhandled inputs, and predicts what class a vector belongs to using a distance (e.g. Euclidean distance) from a spatial parameter (e.g. centroid of a class), and decides what class it belongs to (either one of the plurality of classes or the unhandled class) based on the shortest distance to one of the spatial parameters.
Claims 2-8 do not contain any additional elements which integrate the judicial exception into a practical application (Step 2A Prong 2: NO). The only additional limitations are those from claim 1, as discussed above for integration of the judicial exception into a practical application for claim 1, “inputting…to the pre-trained large language model” (claim 7), and “outputting, by the pre-trained large language model” (claim 7). As discussed above, these limitations are recited at a high level of generality, and amount to mere instructions to implement the judicial exception using a generic computer. Furthermore, the limitations in claim 7 further recite mere instructions to implement the judicial exception using a generic computer. Even when viewed in combination, mere instructions to implement the judicial exception using a generic computer are not enough to integrate the judicial exception into a practical application as they do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. Accordingly, claims 2-8 are directed to an abstract idea.
Claims 2-8 do not contain any additional elements which amount to significantly more than the judicial exception (Step 2B: NO). As discussed above with respect to integration into a practical application, the additional limitations amount to mere instructions to implement the judicial exception using a generic computer. Even when viewed in combination, mere instructions to implement the judicial exception using a generic computer are not enough to allow the claim to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception as they do not provide an inventive concept. Therefore, claims 2-8 are not patent eligible.
Regarding claim 9, “A electronic device” is recited, which is directed to one of the four statutory categories of invention (machine) (Step 1: YES). However, the claims limitations, under their broadest reasonable interpretation, recite limitations similar to those recited in claim 1, and thus also recite mental processes (Step 2A Prong 1:YES; see explanation above for claim 1).
Claim 9 does not contain any additional elements which integrate the judicial exception into a practical application (Step 2A Prong 2: NO). The only additional limitations are those discussed with regards to claim 1, and “An electronic device comprising: at least one processing device configured to:”. These limitations are recited at a high level of generality, and amount to mere instructions to implement the judicial exception using a generic computer. Even when viewed in combination, mere instructions to implement the judicial exception using a generic computer are not enough to integrate the judicial exception into a practical application as they do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. Accordingly, claim 9 is directed to an abstract idea.
Claim 9 does not contain any additional elements which amount to significantly more than the judicial exception (Step 2B: NO). As discussed above with respect to integration into a practical application, the additional limitations amount to mere instructions to implement the judicial exception using a generic computer. Even when viewed in combination, mere instructions to implement the judicial exception using a generic computer are not enough to allow the claim to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception as they do not provide an inventive concept. Therefore, claim 9 is not patent eligible.
Regarding dependent claims 10-16, “The electronic device” is recited, which is directed to one of the four statutory categories of invention (machine) (Step 1: YES). However, the claims limitations, under their broadest reasonable interpretation, recite limitations similar to claims 2-8 respectively, and thus also recite mental processes and mathematical concepts (Step 2A Prong 1: YES; see explanation above for claims 2-8).
Claims 10-16 do not contain any additional elements which integrate the judicial exception into a practical application (Step 2A Prong 2: NO). The only additional limitations are those from claim 9, as discussed above for integration of the judicial exception into a practical application for claim 9. As discussed above, these limitations are recited at a high level of generality, and amount to mere instructions to implement the judicial exception using a generic computer. Even, when viewed in combination, mere instructions to implement the judicial exception using a generic computer are not enough to integrate the judicial exception into a practical application as they do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. Accordingly, claims 10-16 are directed to an abstract idea.
Claims 10-16 do not contain any additional elements which amount to significantly more than the judicial exception (Step 2B: NO). As discussed above with respect to integration into a practical application, the additional limitations amount to mere instructions to implement the judicial exception using a generic computer. Even when viewed in combination, mere instructions to implement the judicial exception using a generic computer are not enough to allow the claim to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception as they do not provide an inventive concept. Therefore, claims 10-16 are not patent eligible.
Regarding claim 17, “A non-transitory machine-readable medium” is recited, which is directed to one of the four statutory categories of invention (article of manufacture) (Step 1: YES). However, the claims limitations, under their broadest reasonable interpretation, recite limitations similar to those in claim 1, and thus also recites mental processes which fall into the category of abstract idea (Step 2A Prong 1: YES; see explanation above for claim 1).
Claim 17 does not contain any additional elements which integrate the judicial exception into a practical application (Step 2A Prong 2: NO). The only additional limitations are those discussed with respect to claim 1 and “A non-transitory machine-readable medium containing instructions that when executed cause at least one processor of an electronic device to:”. These limitations are recited at a high level of generality, and amount to mere instructions to implement the judicial exception using a generic computer. Even when viewed in combination, mere instructions to implement the judicial exception using a generic computer are not enough to integrate the judicial exception into a practical application as they do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. Accordingly, claim 17 is directed to an abstract idea.
Claim 17 does not contain any additional elements which amount to significantly more than the judicial exception (Step 2B: NO). As discussed above with respect to integration into a practical application, the additional limitations amount to mere instructions to implement the judicial exception using a generic computer. Even when viewed in combination, mere instructions to implement the judicial exception using a generic computer are not enough to allow the claim to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception as they do not provide an inventive concept. Therefore, claim 17 is not patent eligible.
Regarding dependent claims 18-20, “The non-transitory machine-readable medium” is recited, which is directed to one of the four statutory categories of invention (article of manufacture) (Step 1: YES). However, the claims limitations, under their broadest reasonable interpretation, recite limitations similar to claims 2-4 respectively, and thus also recite mental processes or mathematical concepts (Step 2A Prong 1: YES; see explanation above for claims 2-4).
Claims 18-20 do not contain any additional elements which integrate the judicial exception into a practical application (Step 2A Prong 2: NO). The only additional limitations are those from claim 17, as discussed above for integration of the judicial exception into a practical application for claim 17. As discussed above, these limitations are recited at a high level of generality, and amount to mere instructions to implement the judicial exception using a generic computer. Even when viewed in combination, mere instructions to implement the judicial exception using a generic computer are not enough to integrate the judicial exception into a practical application as they do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. Accordingly, claims 18-20 are directed to an abstract idea.
Claims 18-20 do not contain any additional elements which amount to significantly more than the judicial exception (Step 2B: NO). As discussed above with respect to integration into a practical application, the additional limitations amount to mere instructions to implement the judicial exception using a generic computer. Even when viewed in combination, mere instructions to implement the judicial exception using a generic computer are not enough to allow the claim to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception as they do not provide an inventive concept. Therefore, claims 18-20 are not patent eligible.
Allowable Subject Matter
4. Claims 1-20 would be allowable if rewritten or amended to overcome the rejection under 35 USC § 101.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure:
Kato & Minemura (US 2019/0108836 A1): determining a certainty factor representing degree to which an utterance fits a particular intention/domain (para. 0029), obtaining distances between a position of the utterance text and a center of gravity position for a particular domain region (para. 0062), decision made as to whether a maximum value of the certainty factors calculated is lower than a threshold (para. 0066).
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. 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.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to CODY DOUGLAS HUTCHESON whose telephone number is (703)756-1601. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8:00AM-5:00PM EST.
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, Pierre-Louis Desir can be reached at (571)-272-7799. 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.
/CODY DOUGLAS HUTCHESON/Examiner, Art Unit 2659
/PIERRE LOUIS DESIR/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2659
Prosecution Insights