DETAILED ACTION
Claims 1-20 are currently pending and have been examined.
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 .
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.
Subject Matter Eligibility Criteria - Step 1:
Claims 1-16 & 20 are directed to a method (i.e., a process); Claims 17-19 are directed to a system (i.e., a machine). Accordingly, claims 1-20 are all within at least one of the four statutory categories.
Subject Matter Eligibility Criteria - Alice/Mayo Test: Step 2A - Prong One:
Regarding Prong One of Step 2A, the claim limitations are to be analyzed to determine whether, under their broadest reasonable interpretation, they “recite” a judicial exception or in other words whether a judicial exception is “set forth” or “described” in the claims. MPEP 2106.04(II)(A)(1). An “abstract idea” judicial exception is subject matter that falls within at least one of the following groupings: a) certain methods of organizing human activity, b) mental processes, and/or c) mathematical concepts. MPEP 2106.04(a).
Representative independent claim 17 includes limitations that recite at least one abstract idea. Specifically, independent claim 17 recites:
17. A system, comprising:
one or more processors; and a memory having stored thereon instructions that, upon execution by the one or more processors, cause the one or more processors to:
receiving, via a graphical user interface of a design application, an input comprising configuration data of a system;
generating a first prompt requesting a category associated with the configuration data;
transmitting the first prompt to a large language model;
receiving a first response to the first prompt from the large language model, the first response comprising the category;
extracting an entered data model from the design application, wherein the entered data model comprises interaction context;
generating a second prompt requesting a complete data model, the second prompt comprising the interaction context;
transmitting the second prompt to the large language model; and
receiving a second response to the second prompt from the large language model, the second response comprising the complete data model.
The Examiner submits that the foregoing underlined limitations constitute “methods of organizing human activity” because designing a system of an industrial automation environment are associated with managing personal behavior or relationships or interactions between people. For example, but for the system, this claim encompasses a person facilitating data access, receiving data, and outputting data in the manner described in the identified abstract idea. The Examiner notes that “method of organizing human activity” includes a person’s interaction with a computer – see MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(II)(C). If a claim limitation, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers managing personal behavior or interactions between people but for the recitation of generic computer components, then it falls within the “method of organizing human activity” grouping of abstract ideas. Accordingly, the claim recites an abstract idea.
The Examiner submits that the foregoing underlined limitations constitute “a mental process” because designing a system of an industrial automation environment are observations/evaluations/judgments/analyses that can, at the currently claimed high level of generality, be practically performed in the human mind. As an example, a user could practically in their mind or using pen and paper receive industrial design inputs and prompts and generate a model based on the inputs and prompts. Thus, these limitations fall within the “Mental Process” grouping of abstract ideas.
Accordingly, independent claim 17 and analogous independent claim 1 recite at least one abstract idea.
Furthermore, dependent claims 2-16 & 18-19 further narrow the abstract idea described in the independent claims 1 & 17. Claims 2 & 18 recites validating a response, and generating a new prompt if an invalid response is returned; Claims 3-4 recites the content of the prompt; Claim 5 recites editing configuration data; Claims 8-9 recites detecting input; Claims 10 & 19 recites receiving a difference summary and outputting the summary and model; Claim 12 recites outputting additional prompts and receiving indications; Claims 14-16 recites receiving feedback and inputting feedback into a model, and updating the model to generating a final model. These limitations only serve to further limit the abstract idea and hence, are directed towards fundamentally the same abstract idea as independent claim 17 and analogous independent claim 1, even when considered individually and as an ordered combination.
Representative independent claim 20 includes limitations that recite at least one abstract idea. Specifically, independent claim 20 recites:
20. A method of operating an interface service to an industrial automation environment, the method comprising:
receiving, via a graphical user interface of a design application, an input requesting information about the industrial automation environment;
generating a first prompt requesting a search query to use with an embedding database associated with the industrial automation environment;
transmitting the first prompt to a large language model;
receiving a first response to the first prompt from the large language model, the first response comprising the search query;
generating a second prompt requesting an answer to the input, the second prompt comprising the search query;
transmitting the second prompt to the large language model;
receiving a second response to the second prompt from the large language model, the second response comprising the answer;
generating a third prompt requesting a validation of the answer, the third prompt comprising the answer;
transmitting the third prompt to the large language model;
receiving a third response to the third prompt from the large language model, the third response comprising the validation; and
providing, via the graphical user interface, the answer, and the validation.
The Examiner submits that the foregoing underlined limitations constitute “methods of organizing human activity” because designing a system of an industrial automation environment are associated with managing personal behavior or relationships or interactions between people. For example, but for the system, this claim encompasses a person facilitating data access, receiving data, and outputting data in the manner described in the identified abstract idea. The Examiner notes that “method of organizing human activity” includes a person’s interaction with a computer – see MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(II)(C). If a claim limitation, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers managing personal behavior or interactions between people but for the recitation of generic computer components, then it falls within the “method of organizing human activity” grouping of abstract ideas. Accordingly, the claim recites an abstract idea.
The Examiner submits that the foregoing underlined limitations constitute “a mental process” because designing a system of an industrial automation environment are observations/evaluations/judgments/analyses that can, at the currently claimed high level of generality, be practically performed in the human mind. As an example, a user could practically in their mind or using pen and paper receive industrial design inputs and prompts and generate a model based on the inputs and prompts. Thus, these limitations fall within the “Mental Process” grouping of abstract ideas.
Accordingly, independent claim 20 recites at least one abstract idea.
Subject Matter Eligibility Criteria - Alice/Mayo Test: Step 2A - Prong Two:
Regarding Prong Two of Step 2A of the Alice/Mayo test, it must be determined whether the claim as a whole integrates the abstract idea into a practical application. As noted at MPEP §2106.04(II)(A)(2), it must be determined whether any additional elements in the claim beyond the abstract idea integrate the exception into a practical application in a manner that imposes a meaningful limit on the judicial exception. The courts have indicated that additional elements merely using a computer to implement an abstract idea, adding insignificant extra solution activity, or generally linking use of a judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use do not integrate a judicial exception into a “practical application.” MPEP §2106.05(I)(A).
In the present case, the additional limitations beyond the above-noted at least one abstract idea recited in the claim are as follows (where the bolded portions are the “additional limitations” while the underlined portions continue to represent the at least one “abstract idea”):
17. A system, comprising:
one or more processors; and a memory having stored thereon instructions that, upon execution by the one or more processors, cause the one or more processors to:
receiving, via a graphical user interface of a design application, an input comprising configuration data of a system;
generating a first prompt requesting a category associated with the configuration data;
transmitting the first prompt to a large language model;
receiving a first response to the first prompt from the large language model, the first response comprising the category;
extracting an entered data model from the design application, wherein the entered data model comprises interaction context;
generating a second prompt requesting a complete data model, the second prompt comprising the interaction context;
transmitting the second prompt to the large language model; and
receiving a second response to the second prompt from the large language model, the second response comprising the complete data model.
20. A method of operating an interface service to an industrial automation environment, the method comprising:
receiving, via a graphical user interface of a design application, an input requesting information about the industrial automation environment;
generating a first prompt requesting a search query to use with an embedding database associated with the industrial automation environment;
transmitting the first prompt to a large language model;
receiving a first response to the first prompt from the large language model, the first response comprising the search query;
generating a second prompt requesting an answer to the input, the second prompt comprising the search query;
transmitting the second prompt to the large language model;
receiving a second response to the second prompt from the large language model, the second response comprising the answer;
generating a third prompt requesting a validation of the answer, the third prompt comprising the answer;
transmitting the third prompt to the large language model;
receiving a third response to the third prompt from the large language model, the third response comprising the validation; and
providing, via the graphical user interface, the answer, and the validation.
For the following reasons, the Examiner submits that the above identified additional limitations do not integrate the above-noted at least one abstract idea into a practical application.
Regarding the additional limitations of the processor, memory, graphical user interface; the Examiner submits that these limitations amount to merely using computers as tools to perform the above-noted at least one abstract idea (see MPEP § 2106.05(f)).
Regarding the additional limitation of using a large language model, the Examiner submits that these additional claim limitations amount to an attempt to cover any solution to an identified problem with no restriction on how the result is accomplished and no description of the mechanism for accomplishing the result and is equivalent to the words “apply it”. See MPEP 2106.05(f)(1).
Thus, taken alone, the additional elements do not integrate the at least one abstract idea into a practical application.
Looking at the additional limitations as an ordered combination adds nothing that is not already present when looking at the elements taken individually. For instance, there is no indication that the additional elements, when considered as a whole with the abstract idea, reflect an improvement in the functioning of a computer or an improvement to another technology or technical field, apply or use the above-noted judicial exception to effect a particular treatment or prophylaxis for a disease or medical condition, implement/use the above-noted judicial exception with a particular machine or manufacture that is integral to the claim, effect a transformation or reduction of a particular article to a different state or thing, or apply or use the judicial exception in some other meaningful way beyond generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment, such that the claim as a whole does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application of the abstract idea. MPEP §2106.05(I)(A) and §2106.04(II)(A)(2).
For these reasons, representative independent claims 17 & 20 and analogous independent claim 1 do not recite additional elements that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application.
Accordingly, the claims recite at least one abstract idea.
The remaining dependent claim limitations not addressed above fail to integrate the abstract idea into a practical application as set forth below:
Claims 6-7, 10-13, 15-16: These claims recite training a machine learning model, such as a large language model, using stored data and using the machine learning model to detail differences and updating a model using feedback which amounts to an attempt to cover any solution to an identified problem with no restriction on how the result is accomplished and no description of the mechanism for accomplishing the result and is equivalent to the words “apply it”. See MPEP 2106.05(f)(1).
Thus, taken alone, any additional elements do not integrate the at least one abstract idea into a practical application. Therefore, the claims are directed to at least one abstract idea.
Subject Matter Eligibility Criteria - Alice/Mayo Test: Step 2B:
Regarding Step 2B of the Alice/Mayo test, representative independent claims 17 and 20 do not include additional elements (considered both individually and as an ordered combination) that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception for reasons the same as those discussed above with respect to determining that the claim does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application.
As discussed above, regarding the additional limitations of the processor, memory, graphical user interface; the Examiner submits that these limitations amount to merely using computers as tools to perform the above-noted at least one abstract idea (see MPEP § 2106.05(f)). Regarding the additional limitation of using a large language model, the Examiner submits that these additional claim limitations amount to an attempt to cover any solution to an identified problem with no restriction on how the result is accomplished and no description of the mechanism for accomplishing the result and is equivalent to the words “apply it”. See MPEP 2106.05(f)(1).
The dependent claims also do not include additional elements (considered both individually and as an ordered combination) that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception for the same reasons to those discussed above with respect to determining that the dependent claims do not integrate the at least one abstract idea into a practical application.
Regarding the additional limitations of outputting results for display which the Examiner submits merely adds insignificant extra-solution activity to the abstract idea, the Examiner has reevaluated such limitations and determined them to not be unconventional as they merely consist of receiving and transmitting data over a network. See MPEP 2106.05(d)(II).
Therefore, claims 1-20 are ineligible under 35 USC §101.
Double Patenting
The nonstatutory double patenting rejection is based on a judicially created doctrine grounded in public policy (a policy reflected in the statute) so as to prevent the unjustified or improper timewise extension of the “right to exclude” granted by a patent and to prevent possible harassment by multiple assignees. A nonstatutory double patenting rejection is appropriate where the conflicting claims are not identical, but at least one examined application claim is not patentably distinct from the reference claim(s) because the examined application claim is either anticipated by, or would have been obvious over, the reference claim(s). See, e.g., In re Berg, 140 F.3d 1428, 46 USPQ2d 1226 (Fed. Cir. 1998); In re Goodman, 11 F.3d 1046, 29 USPQ2d 2010 (Fed. Cir. 1993); In re Longi, 759 F.2d 887, 225 USPQ 645 (Fed. Cir. 1985); In re Van Ornum, 686 F.2d 937, 214 USPQ 761 (CCPA 1982); In re Vogel, 422 F.2d 438, 164 USPQ 619 (CCPA 1970); In re Thorington, 418 F.2d 528, 163 USPQ 644 (CCPA 1969).
A timely filed terminal disclaimer in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(c) or 1.321(d) may be used to overcome an actual or provisional rejection based on nonstatutory double patenting provided the reference application or patent either is shown to be commonly owned with the examined application, or claims an invention made as a result of activities undertaken within the scope of a joint research agreement. See MPEP § 717.02 for applications subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA as explained in MPEP § 2159. See MPEP § 2146 et seq. for applications not subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA . A terminal disclaimer must be signed in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(b).
The filing of a terminal disclaimer by itself is not a complete reply to a nonstatutory double patenting (NSDP) rejection. A complete reply requires that the terminal disclaimer be accompanied by a reply requesting reconsideration of the prior Office action. Even where the NSDP rejection is provisional the reply must be complete. See MPEP § 804, subsection I.B.1. For a reply to a non-final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.111(a). For a reply to final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.113(c). A request for reconsideration while not provided for in 37 CFR 1.113(c) may be filed after final for consideration. See MPEP §§ 706.07(e) and 714.13.
The USPTO Internet website contains terminal disclaimer forms which may be used. Please visit www.uspto.gov/patent/patents-forms. The actual filing date of the application in which the form is filed determines what form (e.g., PTO/SB/25, PTO/SB/26, PTO/AIA /25, or PTO/AIA /26) should be used. A web-based eTerminal Disclaimer may be filled out completely online using web-screens. An eTerminal Disclaimer that meets all requirements is auto-processed and approved immediately upon submission. For more information about eTerminal Disclaimers, refer to www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/applying-online/eterminal-disclaimer.
The nonstatutory double patenting rejection is based on a judicially created doctrine grounded in public policy (a policy reflected in the statute) so as to prevent the unjustified or improper timewise extension of the “right to exclude” granted by a patent and to prevent possible harassment by multiple assignees. A nonstatutory double patenting rejection is appropriate where the conflicting claims are not identical, but at least one examined application claim is not patentably distinct from the reference claim(s) because the examined application claim is either anticipated by, or would have been obvious over, the reference claim(s). See, e.g., In re Berg, 140 F.3d 1428, 46 USPQ2d 1226 (Fed. Cir. 1998); In re Goodman, 11 F.3d 1046, 29 USPQ2d 2010 (Fed. Cir. 1993); In re Longi, 759 F.2d 887, 225 USPQ 645 (Fed. Cir. 1985); In re Van Ornum, 686 F.2d 937, 214 USPQ 761 (CCPA 1982); In re Vogel, 422 F.2d 438, 164 USPQ 619 (CCPA 1970); In re Thorington, 418 F.2d 528, 163 USPQ 644 (CCPA 1969).
A timely filed terminal disclaimer in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(c) or 1.321(d) may be used to overcome an actual or provisional rejection based on nonstatutory double patenting provided the reference application or patent either is shown to be commonly owned with the examined application, or claims an invention made as a result of activities undertaken within the scope of a joint research agreement. See MPEP § 717.02 for applications subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA as explained in MPEP § 2159. See MPEP § 2146 et seq. for applications not subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA . A terminal disclaimer must be signed in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(b).
The filing of a terminal disclaimer by itself is not a complete reply to a nonstatutory double patenting (NSDP) rejection. A complete reply requires that the terminal disclaimer be accompanied by a reply requesting reconsideration of the prior Office action. Even where the NSDP rejection is provisional the reply must be complete. See MPEP § 804, subsection I.B.1. For a reply to a non-final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.111(a). For a reply to final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.113(c). A request for reconsideration while not provided for in 37 CFR 1.113(c) may be filed after final for consideration. See MPEP §§ 706.07(e) and 714.13.
The USPTO Internet website contains terminal disclaimer forms which may be used. Please visit www.uspto.gov/patent/patents-forms. The actual filing date of the application in which the form is filed determines what form (e.g., PTO/SB/25, PTO/SB/26, PTO/AIA /25, or PTO/AIA /26) should be used. A web-based eTerminal Disclaimer may be filled out completely online using web-screens. An eTerminal Disclaimer that meets all requirements is auto-processed and approved immediately upon submission. For more information about eTerminal Disclaimers, refer to www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/applying-online/eterminal-disclaimer.
Claims 1-20 rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-20 of U.S. Patent No. 12607987 and copending Application No. 18343374. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because each application is directed to using prompt engineering for artificial intelligence assisted industrial system design through the use of an LLM. The anomaly type, category, and application type are known aspects of industrial design software and are managed by workflows in the prior art. These applications all share this inventive idea and are obvious to each other and must be linked by Terminal Disclaimer.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Prickel et al (US 2014/0195126 A1) disclose a setup wizard.
Lawson et al (US 2013/0211546 A1) disclose a smart device for automation.
D'Souza (US 2012/0272146 A1) disclose an automatic application wizard.
Weatherhead (US 7,966,523 B2) disclose industrial automation.
Kodosky et al (US 2003/0184596 A1) disclose a configuration system.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Jonathan K Ng whose telephone number is (571)270-7941. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8 AM - 5 PM.
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, Anita Coupe can be reached at 571-270-7949. 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.
/J
oNg av/Jonathan Ng/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3619 nathan Ng/d pPrimary Examiner, Art Unit 3619
Prosecution Insights