DETAILED ACTION
This communication is in response to the Amendments and Arguments filed on 3/6/2026.
Claims 1-20 are pending and have been examined.
All previous objections / rejections not mentioned in this Office Action have been withdrawn by the examiner.
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 / Amendments
Regarding the Applicant’s arguments for the rejections under 35 U.S.C. § 101, applicant asserts that independent claims are not directed to an abstract idea because the claim limitation cannot be performed in the mind and the claims are directed to an improvement to a relevant technology. Examiner respectfully disagrees. During patent examination, pending claims must be “given their broadest reasonable interpretation consistent with the specification.” MPEP 2111. Also, claims should not be interpreted by reading limitations of the specification into the claim, to narrow the scope of the claim, by implicitly adding disclosed limitations that have no express basis in the claim language. In re Prater, 415 F.2d 1393. Here, the steps in the claim language are broad and examiner interprets the claim broadly. First, the steps recited in the claim limitation can be performed in the mind. Specifically, the human mind can hear speech, classify the speech in a spectrum to obtain a closed or open response, think of information related to the speech based on a request for closed or open response, think of the specific response to the speech request for closed or open response, and write the response on paper using a pen or pencil. The use of cloud-based platform and large language model controller can be categorized as generic computer components to perform the method in the claim limitation. MPEP 2106.05(a)(II). Moreover, the use of a large language model is an additional element that does not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application. The large language model simply respond to an input. Second, MPEP 2106.05(f) provides the following considerations for determining whether a claim simply recites a judicial exception with the words “apply it” (or an equivalent), such as mere instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer: (1) whether the claim recites only the idea of a solution or outcome i.e., the claim fails to recite details of how a solution to a problem is accomplished; (2) whether the claim invokes computers or other machinery merely as a tool to perform an existing process; and (3) the particularity or generality of the application of the judicial exception. Here, the use of classification of user input to deterministic-stochastic spectrum classification where the probability is in a spectrum of scores dees not include any details of how the steps are accomplished. The probability is used to map the request for data to at least one data location. The mapping and retrieving data from a data location according to a probability does not solve a technical problem to provide more deterministic results in response to natural language query as applicant asserts. Therefore, the claims as currently recited does not overcome the 35 U.S.C. § 101 abstract idea 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 1-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
Regarding claim 1, 14, and 20 the limitations of “receiving, via a cloud-based platform and a large language model controller, user input comprising at least one request for data”, “classifying, at the large language model controller, the user input into a first of a plurality of deterministic-stochastic spectrum classifications based at least in part on the user input and a probability of mapping the at least one request for data to at least one data location, wherein the probability is determined by the large language model controller based at least in part on whether one or more data location indications are included in the user input, and wherein the plurality of deterministic-stochastic spectrum classifications comprise predetermined reference points alone a deterministic-stochastic spectrum that indicates a continuous range of possible deterministic-stochastic scores”, “retrieving, with the large language model controller, the data from the at least one data location and based at least in part on the first deterministic-stochastic spectrum classification”, “transmitting, from the large language model controller and based at least in part on the first deterministic-stochastic spectrum classification and the user input, an input to a large language model”, and “presenting, via the large language model controller, a response to the user input, where the response is based at least in part on a combination of an output of the large language model and the data retrieved from the at least one data location”, as drafted, are processes that, under broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind but for the recitation of generic computer components. More specifically, the mental process of a human hearing speech, classifying the speech in a spectrum to obtain a closed or open response, thinking of information related to the speech based on a request for closed or open response, thinking of the specific response to the speech request for closed or open response, and writing the response on paper using a pen or pencil. If a claim limitation, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind but for the recitation of generic computer components, then it falls within the --Mental Processes-- grouping of abstract ideas. Accordingly, the claims recite an abstract idea.
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application because the recitation of an apparatus in claim 14 and a non-transitory computer readable medium in claims 20, reads to generalized computer components, based upon the claim interpretation wherein the structure is interpreted using P0181-P0183 in the specification. Accordingly, these additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because it does not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. The claims are directed to an abstract idea.
The claims do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. As discussed above with respect to the integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, the additional element of using generalized computer components to hear speech, classify the speech in a spectrum to obtain a closed or open response, think of information related to the speech based on a request for closed or open response, think of the specific response to the speech request for closed or open response, and write the response on paper using a pen or pencil amounts to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component. Mere instructions to apply an exception using a generic computer component cannot provide an inventive concept. The claims are not patent eligible.
With respect to claim 2, the claim recites “wherein the large language model is a publicly accessible large language model”, which reads on a human utilizing the mind to generate a response sentence. No additional limitations are present.
With respect to claim 3, the claim recites “wherein the large language model is a private large language model stored within the cloud-based platform”, which reads on a human utilizing the mind to generate a response sentence. No additional limitations are present.
With respect to claim 4 and 15, the claim recites “presenting an indication of the first deterministic-stochastic spectrum classification with the response.”, which reads on a human providing a response for a demand for specific information or content generation. No additional limitations are present.
With respect to claim 5 and 16, the claim recites “identifying, based at least in part on the user input, one or more external services that are external to the cloud-based platform and that are capable of providing the data”, “transmitting one or more queries to the one or more external services”, “receiving the data from the one or more external services”, and “wherein the at least one data location comprises one or more data locations associated with the one or more external services”, which reads on a human thinking of an answer to a query. The use of an external service to retrieve data for a query recite the use of a generic computing environment to perform a mental process. No additional limitations are present.
With respect to claim 6 and 17, the claim recites “identifying the one or more external services comprises performing a vector distance calculation between one or more first vectors associated with a vector embedding of the user input and a plurality of second vectors associated with one or more vector embeddings of one or more descriptions of a plurality of external services that comprise the one or more external services to identify the one or more external services based at least in part on one or more second vectors of the plurality of second vectors that are associated with the one or more external services and satisfy a vector distance threshold” and “receiving the data from the one or more external services comprises receiving one or more responses to the one or more queries that comprise the data that is associated with the one or more second vectors of the plurality of second vectors”, which reads on a human thinking of an answer to a query by thinking of a domain that the query belongs to. The domain is selected by calculating the similarity of the representations of the query and representation of the domain where the calculations are performed in the mind or on paper using a pen or pencil. No additional limitations are present.
With respect to claim 7, the claim recites “wherein retrieving the data comprises: performing a vector distance calculation between one or more first vectors associated with a vector embedding of the user input and a plurality of second vectors associated with a plurality of vector embeddings of the at least one data location to identify the data based at least in part on one or more second vectors of the plurality of second vectors that are associated with the data and satisfy a vector distance threshold” and “retrieving the data that is associated with the one or more second vectors of the plurality of second vectors”, which reads on a human determining a response for specific information by utilizing vector distance calculations on paper using a pen or pencil comparing user input representation and representation of categorical information in the mind. No additional limitations are present.
With respect to claim 8 and 18, the claim recites “determining the at least one data location based at least in part on metadata associated with the user input, an explicit action indication in the user input, a matching rule, a machine-learning derived match, a keyword match between one or more tokens of the user input and one or more entries in a table of tokens that are associated with the at least one data location, or any combination thereof”, which reads on a human determining a response for specific information by utilizing keyword matching comparing user input and categorical information in the mind. No additional limitations are present.
With respect to claim 9, the claim recites “selecting the first deterministic-stochastic spectrum classification based at least in part on a mapping between one or more data retrieval actions associated with the data and one or more of the plurality of deterministic-stochastic spectrum classifications, the mapping based at least in part on a specificity measure of the user input”, which reads on a human classifying heard speech by the action requested in the speech in the mind. No additional limitations are present.
With respect to claim 10 and 19, the claim recites “classifying the user input into the first deterministic-stochastic spectrum classification based at least in part on a classification bias towards a deterministic classification”, which reads on a human classifying heard speech by a bias towards a request for specific information in the mind. No additional limitations are present.
With respect to claim 11, the claim recites “ranking one or more of the plurality of deterministic-stochastic spectrum classifications based at least in part on a classification bias towards a deterministic classification, wherein classifying the user input into the first deterministic-stochastic spectrum classification is based at least in part on the ranking”, which reads on a human ranking the classification of the speech based on a bias towards a request for specific information in the mind. No additional limitations are present.
These claims further do not remedy the judicial exception being integrated into a practical application and further fail to include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception.
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.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to DANIEL WONSUK CHUNG whose telephone number is (571)272-1345. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday (7am-4pm)[PT].
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.
/DANIEL W CHUNG/Examiner, Art Unit 2659
/PIERRE LOUIS DESIR/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2659