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 Action
In the amendment filed on 04/27/2026, Claims 1-21 are pending, claims 1, 10, 14-16, 18, 20 and 21 are amended.
That is a Final Action.
Response to Argument
35 USC § 101
Applicant arguments focused on the following:
“…generate an aggregation notification message based on the plurality of event messages…” is not a mental process.
The additional steps of “…transmitting the aggregation notification message to the user device;” is significantly more because it compresses multiple messages into one and therefore reduce traffic and bandwidth.
Examiner disagrees:
The Court has found that an abstract idea to ideas that could be “performed by humans without a computer.” Mortgage Grader, 811 F.3d. at 1318, 1324-25, 117 USPQ2d at 1695, 1699-1700. There ideas include an application program interface for extracting and processing information from a diversity of types of hard copy documents – Content Extraction, 776 F.3d at 1345, 113 USPQ2d at 1356; and A post office for receiving and redistributing email messages on a computer network – Symantec, 838 F.3d at 1316, 120 USPQ2d at 1359. Here the applicant claims a process of “generate an aggregation notification message based on the plurality of event messages,” which is extracting and processing information from documents and redistributing a message on a computer network. Therefore, claim 1 discloses an abstract idea.
The court has found followings to well-understood, routine, conventional activity: Receiving or transmitting data over a network, e.g., using the Internet to gather data, Symantec, 838 F.3d at 1321, 120 USPQ2d at 1362 (utilizing an intermediary computer to forward information); TLI Communications LLC v. AV Auto. LLC, 823 F.3d 607, 610, 118 USPQ2d 1744, 1745 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (using a telephone for image transmission); OIP Techs., Inc., v. Amazon.com, Inc., 788 F.3d 1359, 1363, 115 USPQ2d 1090, 1093 (Fed. Cir. 2015) (sending messages over a network); buySAFE, Inc. v. Google, Inc., 765 F.3d 1350, 1355, 112 USPQ2d 1093, 1096 (Fed. Cir. 2014) (computer receives and sends information over a network); but see DDR Holdings, LLC v. Hotels.com, L.P., 773 F.3d 1245, 1258, 113 USPQ2d 1097, 1106 (Fed. Cir. 2014). Here, claim 1’s additional steps of receiving and transmitting or messages over a network has found to be to be well-understood and routine. Further, it is unclear whether the bandwidth is reduced when all the messages have transmitted to the Large Langue Model server first then the combine message is transmitted to the user device.
35 USC § 103
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claims 1-21 have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection.
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 1-21 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to abstract idea/mathematical algorithm without significantly more.
Claim 1:
(2A Prong 1 Analysis: Whether a Claim is Directed to a Judicial Exception)
Claim 1 recites the step of:
generate an aggregation notification message based on the plurality of event messages, wherein the aggregation notification message is generated by the large language model based on the input prompt; and;
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; 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 (the computer-implemented method), with additional elements comprising only insignificant extra-solution activity.
(2A Prong 2/2B Analysis: Whether a claim amounts to significantly more)
Claim 1 recites the additional element of:
Aggregating a plurality of event message to form an input prompt, wherein the plurality of event message are associated with at least one event occurring in at least one computer system and wherein at least one event message of the plurality of event messages includes a notification message to be transmitted from the at last one computer system to a user device;
Using a large language model inputting the input prompt into a generative language model to…
Transmitting the aggregation notification message to the user device; 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:
(2A Prong 1 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 (The method) and insignificant extra-solution activity.
(2A Prong 2/2B Analysis: Whether a claim amounts to significantly more)
Claim 2 recites the additional element of:
The computer-implemented method of claim 1, wherein the at least one event comprises a plurality of related events; MPEP 2106.5(d);
amount to is merely an attempt to limit the use of the abstract idea to a particular technological environment and/or 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:
(2A Prong 1 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.
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 (The method) and insignificant extra-solution activity.
(2A Prong 2/2B Analysis: Whether a claim amounts to significantly more)
Claim 3 recites the additional element of:
wherein the plurality of related events comprises a root event and a dependent event having a dependency relationship with the root event, and wherein the plurality of event messages comprises an event message associated with the root event and an event message associated with the dependent event.; MPEP 2106.5(d);
amount to is merely an attempt to limit the use of the abstract idea to a particular technological environment and/or 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 claims 2 and 1, the additional elements do not provide an inventive concept, thus the claim is not eligible.
Claim 4:
(2A Prong 1 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 (the method) and insignificant extra-solution activity.
(2A Prong 2/2B Analysis: Whether a claim amounts to significantly more)
Claim 4 recites the additional element of:
aggregating the plurality of event messages as the input prompt in response to an aggregation trigger. MPEP 2106.5(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 claims 1, the additional elements do not provide an inventive concept, thus the claim is not eligible.
Claim 5:
Claim 5 is dependent on claims 4 and 1, and therefore inherits the same judicial exception recited in claims 4 and 1.
(2A Prong 1 Analysis: Whether a Claim is Directed to a Judicial Exception)
The judicial exceptions recited in claims 5, 4 and 1 are not integrated into a practical application because the recited additional elements comprise only mere instructions to apply an exception (the method) and insignificant extra-solution activity.
(2A Prong 2/2B Analysis: Whether a claim amounts to significantly more)
Claim 5 recites the additional element of:
a duration of time having elapsed. MPEP 2106.5(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 claims 1 and 4, the additional elements do not provide an inventive concept, thus the claim is not eligible.
Claim 6:
(2A Prong 1 Analysis: Whether a Claim is Directed to a Judicial Exception)
Claim 6 is dependent on claims 4 and 1, and therefore inherits the same judicial exception recited in claims 4 and 1.
The judicial exceptions recited in claims 6, 4 and 1 are not integrated into a practical application because the recited additional elements comprise only mere instructions to apply an exception (the method) and insignificant extra-solution activity.
(2A Prong 2/2B Analysis: Whether a claim amounts to significantly more)
Claim 6 recites the additional element of:
a duration of time having elapsed since an earlier event message of the plurality of event messages. MPEP 2106.5(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 claims 1 and 4, the additional elements do not provide an inventive concept, thus the claim is not eligible.
Claim 7:
(2A Prong 1 Analysis: Whether a Claim is Directed to a Judicial Exception)
Claim 7 is dependent on claims 6, 4 and 1, and therefore inherits the same judicial exception recited in claims 6, 4 and 1.
The judicial exceptions recited in claims 7, 6, 4 and 1 are not integrated into a practical application because the recited additional elements comprise only mere instructions to apply an exception (the method) and insignificant extra-solution activity.
(2A Prong 2/2B Analysis: Whether a claim amounts to significantly more)
Claim 7 recites the additional element of:
the duration of time is based on an event associated with the earlier event message.
MPEP 2106.5(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 claims 1, 4 and 6, the additional elements do not provide an inventive concept, thus the claim is not eligible.
Claim 8:
(2A Prong 1 Analysis: Whether a Claim is Directed to a Judicial Exception)
Claim 8 is dependent on claims 6, 4 and 1, and therefore inherits the same judicial exception recited in claims 6, 4 and 1.
The judicial exceptions recited in claims 8, 6, 4 and 1 are not integrated into a practical application because the recited additional elements comprise only mere instructions to apply an exception (the method) and insignificant extra-solution activity.
(2A Prong 2/2B Analysis: Whether a claim amounts to significantly more)
Claim 8 recites the additional element of:
receiving a further event message after the earlier event message during the duration of time; and adding the further event message to the input prompt. MPEP 2106.5(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 claims 1, 4 and 6, the additional elements do not provide an inventive concept, thus the claim is not eligible.
Claim 9:
(2A Prong 1 Analysis: Whether a Claim is Directed to a Judicial Exception)
Claim 9 is dependent on claims 4 and 1, and therefore inherits the same judicial exception recited in claims 4 and 1.
The judicial exceptions recited in claims 9, 4 and 1 are not integrated into a practical application because the recited additional elements comprise only mere instructions to apply an exception (the method) and insignificant extra-solution activity.
(2A Prong 2/2B Analysis: Whether a claim amounts to significantly more)
Claim 9 recites the additional element of:
wherein the aggregation trigger is based on at least one of a relative priority between the plurality of event messages or a priority of an earlier event message of the plurality of event messages. MPEP 2106.5(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 claims 1 and 4, the additional elements do not provide an inventive concept, thus the claim is not eligible.
Claim 10:
(2A Prong 1 Analysis: Whether a Claim is Directed to a Judicial Exception)
Claim 10 is dependent on claim 1, and therefore inherits the same judicial exception recited in claim 1.
The judicial exceptions recited in claims 10 and 1 are not integrated into a practical application because the recited additional elements comprise only mere instructions to apply an exception (the method) and insignificant extra-solution activity.
(2A Prong 2/2B Analysis: Whether a claim amounts to significantly more)
Claim 10 recites the additional element of:
a pre-trained large language model that was fine-tuned by: creating a training set based on at least training input prompts and training notification messages; and fine-tune training the pre-trained generative language model using the training set. MPEP 2106.5(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 10 are not indicative of integration into a practical application. Even when considered in combination with the additional elements of claims 1, the additional elements do not provide an inventive concept, thus the claim is not eligible.
Claim 11
(2A Prong 1 Analysis: Whether a Claim is Directed to a Judicial Exception)
Claim 11 is dependent on claims 1 and 10, and therefore inherits the same judicial exception recited in claims 1 and 10.
The judicial exceptions recited in claims 11, 10 and 1 are not integrated into a practical application because the recited additional elements comprise only mere instructions to apply an exception (the method) and insignificant extra-solution activity.
(2A Prong 2/2B Analysis: Whether a claim amounts to significantly more)
Claim 11 recites the additional element of:
an aggregation of training event messages; and generating a plurality of the training pairs, wherein the plurality of the training pairs form the training set. MPEP 2106.5(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 11 are not indicative of integration into a practical application. Even when considered in combination with the additional elements of claims 1 and 10, the additional elements do not provide an inventive concept, thus the claim is not eligible.
Claim 12
(2A Prong 1 Analysis: Whether a Claim is Directed to a Judicial Exception)
Claim 12 is dependent on claims 1 and 10, and therefore inherits the same judicial exception recited in claims 1 and 10.
The judicial exceptions recited in claims 12, 10 and 1 are not integrated into a practical application because the recited additional elements comprise only mere instructions to apply an exception (the method) and insignificant extra-solution activity.
(2A Prong 2/2B Analysis: Whether a claim amounts to significantly more)
Claim 12 recites the additional element of:
generating a training plurality of notification messages based on a particular training input prompt; associating each of the training plurality of notification messages with a corresponding rank as a training pair; and creating a plurality of the training pairs, wherein the plurality of the training pairs form the training set. MPEP 2106.5(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 12 are not indicative of integration into a practical application. Even when considered in combination with the additional elements of claims 1 and 10, the additional elements do not provide an inventive concept, thus the claim is not eligible.
Claim 13:
(2A Prong 1 Analysis: Whether a Claim is Directed to a Judicial Exception)
Claim 13 is dependent on claim 1, and therefore inherits the same judicial exception recited in claim 1.
The judicial exceptions recited in claims 13 and 1 are not integrated into a practical application because the recited additional elements comprise only mere instructions to apply an exception (the method) and insignificant extra-solution activity.
(2A Prong 2/2B Analysis: Whether a claim amounts to significantly more)
Claim 13 recites the additional element of:
a relative priority between the plurality of event messages, an event message associated with a high priority event, an event message associated with a root event, features of a desired notification message, one or more examples of the desired notification message, or any prior notification messages transmitted to the user device. MPEP 2106.5(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 13 are not indicative of integration into a practical application. Even when considered in combination with the additional elements of claims 1, the additional elements do not provide an inventive concept, thus the claim is not eligible.
Claim 14:
Claim 14 is dependent on claim 1, and therefore inherits the same judicial exception recited in claim 1.
(2A Prong 1 Analysis: Whether a Claim is Directed to a Judicial Exception)
The judicial exceptions recited in claims 14 and 1 are not integrated into a practical application because the recited additional elements comprise only mere instructions to apply an exception (the method) and insignificant extra-solution activity.
(2A Prong 2/2B Analysis: Whether a claim amounts to significantly more)
Claim 14 recites the additional element of:
the notification message includes text representing at least one action to respond to the at least one event. MPEP 2106.5(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 14 are not indicative of integration into a practical application. Even when considered in combination with the additional elements of claims 1, the additional elements do not provide an inventive concept, thus the claim is not eligible.
Claim 15:
(2A Prong 1 Analysis: Whether a Claim is Directed to a Judicial Exception)
Claim 15 is dependent on claim 1, and therefore inherits the same judicial exception recited in claim 1.
The judicial exceptions recited in claims 15 and 1 are not integrated into a practical application because the recited additional elements comprise only mere instructions to apply an exception (the method) and insignificant extra-solution activity.
(2A Prong 2/2B Analysis: Whether a claim amounts to significantly more)
Claim 15 recites the additional element of:
the notification message includes text identifying at least one of a priority event of the at least one event or a root event of the at least one event. MPEP 2106.5(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 15 are not indicative of integration into a practical application. Even when considered in combination with the additional elements of claims 1, the additional elements do not provide an inventive concept, thus the claim is not eligible.
Claims 16-20 are directed to a system comprise the steps which the at least one processing platform of the method of claims 1, 4, 10, and 13-14 are configured to perform. Claims 16-20 recite the same limitations as claims 1, 4, 10, and 13-14, respectively; therefore, claims 16-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea of a system without significantly more for the same reasons presented with respect to claims 1, 4, 10, and 13-14. See above.
Claim 21 is directed to a medium comprise the steps which the at least one processing platform of the method of claim 1 is configured to perform. Claim 21 recites the same limitations as claim 1, respectively; therefore, claim 21 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea of a medium 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 1-8, 10-12, 14, 16-18 and 20-21 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wang US Publication 2023/0245651 in view of Horev US Publication 2024/0354375.
18/354,908
Wang US Publication 2023/0245651 in view of Horev US Publication 2024/0354375
Claim 1
A computer-implemented method comprising:
Wang abstract;
aggregating a plurality of event messages to form an input prompt, wherein the plurality of event messages associated with at least one event occurring in at least one computer system and
wherein at least one event messages of plurality of event messages includes a notification message to be transmitted from the at least one computer system to a user device;
Wang Fig. 16, p0362-p0377;
Horev teaches trigger/prompting aggregating system by a plurality of notification messages. Horev p0046-p0050;
It would have been obvious at the time of the invention for a person ordinary skill in the art (POSITA) to include Horev’s teaching with method of Wang in order to provide user with a notification system.
Using a large language model to generate an aggregation notification message based on the plurality of event messages;
Wherein the aggregation notification message is generated by the large language model based on the input prompt;
Wang Fig. 16, p0362-p0377;
Wang’s categorized data based on plurality event messages. (see Fig. 12 and Fig.13)
Wang teaches training Language Models with Language and text. (see Wang p0439-p0455)
Horev p0046-p0050;
transmitting the notification message to a user device.
Wang teaches push personalization notification and feedback. See Wang p0226, p0276-p0289
Horev p0046-p0050;
Claim 2
The computer-implemented method of claim 1, wherein the at least one event comprises a plurality of related events.
Wang’s categorized data based on plurality event messages. (see Fig. 12 and Fig.13)
Claim 3
The computer-implemented method of claim 2, wherein the plurality of related events comprises a root event and a dependent event having a dependency relationship with the root event, and wherein the plurality of event messages comprises an event message associated with the root event and an event message associated with the dependent event.
Wang teaches determine the root cause/event of the feed and adjust its response accordingly. See Wang p0481;
Claim 4
The computer-implemented method of claim 1, further comprising: aggregating the plurality of event messages as the input prompt in response to an aggregation trigger.
Wang Fig. 16, p0362-p0377;
Wang’s categorized data based on plurality event messages. (see Fig. 12 and Fig.13)
Wang teaches training Language Models with Language and text. (see Wang p0439-p0455)
Claim 5
The computer-implemented method of claim 4, wherein the aggregation trigger comprises a duration of time having elapsed.
Wang Fig .14 p0340-p0343.
Claim 6
The computer-implemented method of claim 4, wherein the aggregation trigger comprises a duration of time having elapsed since an earlier event message of the plurality of event messages.
Wang Fig .14 p0340-p0343.
Wang teaches previous analysis based on previous interactions, dialogue history. (see Wang p0052, p0212; p244; p0343)
Claim 7
The computer-implemented method of claim 6, wherein the duration of time is based on an event associated with the earlier event message.
Wang Fig .14 p0340-p0343.
Wang teaches previous analysis based on previous interactions, dialogue history. (see Wang p0052, p0212; p244; p0343)
Claim 8
The computer-implemented method of claim 6, further comprising: receiving a further event message after the earlier event message during the duration of time; and adding the further event message to the input prompt.
Wang Fig .14 p0340-p0343.
Wang teaches previous analysis based on previous interactions, dialogue history. (see Wang p0052, p0212; p244; p0343)
Claim 10
The computer-implemented method of claim 1, wherein the generative language model comprises a pre-trained generative language model that was fine-tuned by:
creating a training set based on at least training input prompts and training notification messages; and fine-tune training the pre-trained generative language model using the training set.
Wang teaches a training process; p0079-p0131;
Wang teaches input-output pairs and storage in a dataset; p0081;
Claim 11
The computer-implemented method of claim 10, wherein creating the training set comprises:
associating a training input prompt with a training notification message as a training pair, the training input prompt comprising an aggregation of training event messages; and generating a plurality of the training pairs, wherein the plurality of the training pairs form the training set.
Wang p0079-p0131;
Claim 12
The computer-implemented method of claim 10, wherein creating the training set comprises:
generating a training plurality of notification messages based on a particular training input prompt; associating each of the training plurality of notification messages with a corresponding rank as a training pair; and creating a plurality of the training pairs, wherein the plurality of the training pairs form the training set.
Wang p0079-p0131;
Claim 14
The computer-implemented method of claim 1, wherein the notification message includes text representing at least one action to respond to the at least one event.
Wang teaches push personalization notification and feedback. See Wang p0226, p0276-p0289
As per claims 16 and 21, they are rejected under the same rationale as claim 1. See rejection above.
As per claims 17, 18, and 20, they are rejected under the same rationales as claims 4, 10, and 14. See rejection 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 9, 13, 15 and 19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wang US Publication 2023/0245651 in view of Horev US Publication 2024/0354375 and Breen US Publication 2023/0222379.
18/354,908
Wang US Publication 2023/0245651in view of Horev US Publication 2024/0354375 and Breen US Publication 2023/0222379
Claim 9
The computer-implemented method of claim 4, wherein the aggregation trigger is based on at least one of a relative priority between the plurality of event messages or a priority of an earlier event message of the plurality of event messages.
Wang teaches AI system may prioritize notification; p0287; and updated related event p0279
Breen teaches priority score for each predicative input entity; p0025 and processing related subset of high priority score input; p0191
It would have been obvious at the time of the invention for a person ordinary skill in the art (POSITA) to include Breen’s teaching with method of Wang in order to allow the system prioritize the events and task numerically.
Claim 13
The computer-implemented method of claim 1, wherein the input prompt further includes text representing input prompt context associated with one or more of the plurality of event messages, wherein the input prompt context comprises an indication of at least one of: a relative priority between the plurality of event messages, an event message associated with a high priority event, an event message associated with a root event, features of a desired notification message, one or more examples of the desired notification message, or any prior notification messages transmitted to the user device.
Wang teaches AI system may prioritize notification; p0287; and updated related event p0279; and finding root cause of the feedback; p0481.
Breen teaches priority score for each predicative input entity; p0025 and processing related subset of high priority score input; p0191
It would have been obvious at the time of the invention for a person ordinary skill in the art (POSITA) to include Breen’s teaching with method of Wang in order to allow the system prioritize the events and task numerically.
Claim 15
The computer-implemented method of claim 1, wherein the notification message includes text identifying at least one of a priority event of the at least one event or a root event of the at least one event.
Wang teaches AI system may prioritize notification; p0287; and updated related event p0279; and finding root cause of the feedback; p0481.
Breen teaches priority score for each predicative input entity; p0025 and processing related subset of high priority score input; p0191
It would have been obvious at the time of the invention for a person ordinary skill in the art (POSITA) to include Breen’s teaching with method of Wang in order to allow the system prioritize the events and task numerically.
As per claims 19, it is rejected under the same rationale as claim 13. See rejection above.
Related Prior Art
Here is a list of references relates to AI system:
Eck et al: US Publication 2019/0065992: Machine Learning for Time Series Using Semantic and Time Series Data.
Lora et al. US Publication 2019/0251759: Vehicle Data Aggregation and Analysis Platform Providing Dealership Service Provider Dashboard.
Nadig US Publication 2023/0120966: Sensitive Data Control.
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Contact Information
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to 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
Prosecution Insights