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 .
DETAILED ACTION
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101
35 U.S.C. 101 reads as follows:
Whoever invents or discovers any new and useful process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter, or any new and useful improvement thereof, may obtain a patent therefor, subject to the conditions and requirements of this title.
Claim 1 – 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to abstract ideas without significantly more.
Regarding claim 1:
Step 2A Prong 1:
Identifying metadata maintained by the CMS for the stored content objects; (Mental process, a person can identify metadata for the content objects.)
Identifying a generative Al entity (GAIE) to interact with the CMS; (Mental process, a person can choose a Gen AI model or entity in their head)
Forming a GAIE prompt, wherein the GAIE prompt comprises at least a portion of the metadata identified from the CMS for the stored content objects; (Mental process, a person with pen and paper can write a prompt with identified data.)
Step 2A Prong 2:
Configuring a content management system to implement a workflow process wherein the content management system (CMS) exposes instances of stored content objects to a plurality of user devices through an electronic interface; (Adding the words “apply it” (or an equivalent) with the judicial exception, or mere instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer, or merely uses a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea - see MPEP 2106.05(f) – Examiner’s note: applying a workflow process of a system to generic computers)
Receiving a response from the GAIE, wherein the response corresponds to the GAIE prompt; (Adding insignificant extra-solution activity to the judicial exception MPEP 2106.05(g) – Examiner’s note: merely data gathering)
Using, by the CMS, the response from the GAIE to implement processing of the content management system workflow; (Adding the words “apply it” (or an equivalent) with the judicial exception, or mere instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer, or merely uses a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea - see MPEP 2106.05(f) – Examiner’s note: high level recitation of applying an AI response to the workflow)
Step 2B:
The claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception.
Configuring a content management system to implement a workflow process wherein the content management system (CMS) exposes instances of stored content objects to a plurality of user devices through an electronic interface; (Adding the words “apply it” (or an equivalent) with the judicial exception, or mere instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer, or merely uses a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea - see MPEP 2106.05(f) – Examiner’s note: applying a workflow process of a system to generic computers)
Receiving a response from the GAIE, wherein the response corresponds to the GAIE prompt; (Receiving an AI response from a prompt is routine and conventional, see MPP 2106.05(d))
Using, by the CMS, the response from the GAIE to implement processing of the content management system workflow; (Adding the words “apply it” (or an equivalent) with the judicial exception, or mere instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer, or merely uses a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea - see MPEP 2106.05(f) – Examiner’s note: high level recitation of applying the workflow using an AI response)
The additional elements as disclosed above alone or in combination do not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application as they are mere insignificant extra solution activity in combinations or generic computer functions being implemented with generic computer elements in a high level generality to perform the disclosed abstract ideas.
The claim is ineligible.
Regarding claim 2:
Claim 2 recites
The method of claim 1, wherein the response from the GAIE is used (1) to advance the content management system workflow, or (2) to provide a metadata value to the content management system workflow, or (3) is used in a further GAIE prompt to request further information from the GAIE.
This provides a further description of the workflow within the abstract ideas, as discussed with regards to claim 1. The limitations of claim 2, under broadest reasonable interpretation, does not include any new abstract ideas.
Claim 2 recites additional elements of adding the words “apply it” (or an equivalent) with the judicial exception, or mere instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer, or merely uses a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea - see MPEP 2106.05(f) – (Examiner’s note: high level recitation of applying the exceptions Identifying a generative Al entity (GAIE) to interact with the CMS; Identifying metadata maintained by the CMS for the stored content objects; and Forming a GAIE prompt, wherein the GAIE prompt comprises at least a portion of the metadata identified from the CMS for the stored content objects. It applies a GAIE entity’s response to interact with the CMS, applies metadata from the CMS into the response, and applies the forming of a GAIE prompt using the response.)
The claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exceptions when taken alone or in combination with previous claims. The claimed additional element is just an application of the judicial exceptions.
Claim 2 is ineligible
Regarding claim 3:
Claim 3 recites
The method of claim 2, wherein the further information from the GAIE is used to inform a decision of the content management system workflow.
This provides a further description of the workflow within the abstract ideas, as discussed with regards to claim 2. The limitations of claim 3, under broadest reasonable interpretation, does not include any new abstract ideas.
Claim 3 recites an additional element of adding the words “apply it” (or an equivalent) with the judicial exception, or mere instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer, or merely uses a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea - see MPEP 2106.05(f) – (Examiner’s note: high level recitation of applying the exception Identifying a generative Al entity (GAIE) to interact with the CMS)
The claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exceptions when taken alone or in combination with previous claims. The claimed additional element is just an application of the judicial exceptions.
Claim 3 is ineligible
Regarding claim 4:
Claim 4 recites
The method of claim 2, wherein one or more values corresponding to the metadata are derived at least in part from the response from the AI entity.
This provides a further description of the workflow within the abstract ideas, as discussed with regards to claim 2.
The limitations of the dependent claim 4, as drafted, is a process that, under broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind. A user could easily pick and choose data given the response from the GAIE. This is considered a mental process under abstract ideas as they can be performed in the human mind by observation and judgement.
Claim 4 does not include any additional elements that integrate the abstract idea into a practical application or amount to significantly more than the judicial exceptions, see MPEP 2106.05
Claim 4 is ineligible
Regarding claim 5:
Claim 5 is recites
The method of claim 4, wherein one or more values corresponding to the metadata comprises a summary of all or portions of the content object.
This provides a further description of the workflow within the abstract ideas, as discussed with regards to claim 4. The limitations of claim 5, under broadest reasonable interpretation, does not include any new abstract ideas.
The claim recites additional elements of adding insignificant extra-solution activity to the judicial exception MPEP 2106.05(g) – (Examiner’s note: merely mentions what the metadata is)
The claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exceptions when taken alone or in combination with previous claims. The claimed additional element is just insignificant extra-solution activity. Mentioning what the data is, when taken individually or in combination with previous additional elements, is well understood and routine conventional activity that adds nothing meaningful to the exceptions. Therefore, the judicial exceptions are not integrated into a practical application.
Claim 5 is ineligible
Regarding claim 6:
Claim 6 recites
The method of claim 5, wherein at least a portion of the summary comprises one or more of, a total contract value, a summary of quarterly results, an indication of a policy violation, a summary of contents of a CMS folder, or a summary of user notifications
This provides a further description of the workflow within the abstract ideas, as discussed with regards to claim 5. The limitations of claim 6, under broadest reasonable interpretation, does not include any new abstract ideas.
The claim recites additional elements of adding insignificant extra-solution activity to the judicial exception MPEP 2106.05(g) – (Examiner’s note: merely mentions what the data is)
The claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exceptions when taken alone or in combination with previous claims. The claimed additional element is just insignificant extra-solution activity. Mentioning what the data is, when taken individually or in combination with previous additional elements, is well understood and routine conventional activity that adds nothing meaningful to the exceptions. Therefore, the judicial exceptions are not integrated into a practical application.
Claim 6 is ineligible
Regarding claim 7:
Claim 7 recites
The method of claim 5, wherein at least a portion of the summary is provided as a further GAIE prompt to the AI entity.
This provides a further description of the workflow within the abstract ideas, as discussed with regards to claim 5. The limitations of claim 7, under broadest reasonable interpretation, does not include any new abstract ideas.
The claim recites additional elements of elements of adding insignificant extra-solution activity to the judicial exception MPEP 2106.05(g) – (Examiner’s note: merely sending)
The claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exceptions when taken alone or in combination with previous claims. The claimed additional element is just insignificant extra-solution activity. Merely sending data, when taken individually or in combination with previous additional elements, is well understood and routine conventional activity that adds nothing meaningful to the exceptions. Data must be sent to prompt an GAIE. Therefore, the judicial exceptions are not integrated into a practical application.
Claim 7 is ineligible
Regarding claim 8:
Claim 8 recites
The method of claim 7, further compromising receiving a second response from the AI entity.
This provides a further description of the workflow within the abstract ideas, as discussed with regards to claim 7. The limitations of claim 8, under broadest reasonable interpretation, does not include any new abstract ideas.
The claim recites additional elements of elements of adding insignificant extra-solution activity to the judicial exception MPEP 2106.05(g) – (Examiner’s note: merely receiving data)
The claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exceptions when taken alone or in combination with previous claims. The claimed additional element is just insignificant extra-solution activity. Merely receiving data, when taken individually or in combination with previous additional elements, is well understood and routine conventional activity that adds nothing meaningful to the exceptions. Therefore, the judicial exceptions are not integrated into a practical application.
Claim 8 is ineligible
Regarding claim 9:
Claim 9 recites
The method of claim 8, wherein the second response is a blog post.
This provides a further description of the workflow within the abstract ideas, as discussed with regards to claim 8. The limitations of claim 9, under broadest reasonable interpretation, does not include any new abstract ideas.
The claim recites additional elements of elements of adding insignificant extra-solution activity to the judicial exception MPEP 2106.05(g) – (Examiner’s note: merely saying what the data is)
The claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exceptions when taken alone or in combination with previous claims. The claimed additional element is just insignificant extra-solution activity. Merely saying what the data is, when taken individually or in combination with previous additional elements, is well understood and routine conventional activity that adds nothing meaningful to the exceptions. Therefore, the judicial exceptions are not integrated into a practical application.
Claim 9 is ineligible
Regarding claims 10-18:
Claims 10 – 18 refer to a non-transitory computer readable medium which does the same activities as listed in the limitations of claims 1-9. Therefore, they receive the same judicial exceptions and additional elements as claims 1-9 where the claims do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exceptions.
Claims 10-18 are ineligible.
Regarding claim 19:
Claim 19 is a system claim reciting a storage medium, processors, and instructions consisting of the same limitations as claim 1. Therefore, the limitations which are the same form claim 1 have the same judicial exceptions and additional elements. Otherwise, it claims generic parts of a computer, making it an additional element. The judicial exceptions and additional elements of claim 19 do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exceptions as a result.
Claim 19 is ineligible.
Regarding claim 20:
Claim 20 is dependent on claim 19 and has the same limitations as claim 2. Therefore, it has the same judicial exceptions and additional elements of claim 2 along with the extra limitation inherited from claim 19. It does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exceptions as a result.
Claim 20 is ineligible.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 1-8, 10-17, 19, and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Jayawardena et al (US PG PUB 12088667 B1).
Claim 1 recites:
A method for processing a computer-implemented content management system workflow, the method compromising:
configuring a content management system to implement a workflow process wherein the content management system (CMS) exposes instances of stored content objects to a plurality of user devices through an electronic interface;
Jayawardena [Col 2, Line 53 - 58] discloses a system that stores digital, non-webpage content items or objects in a content management system. The content items are being exposed in a virtual space to user respective client devices in Fig 2 as well as [Col 5, Lines 6 - 12], which teaches content blocks modifiable or interactable by users at their own client devices. These consist of electronic interfaces that users can interact with. They also teach multiple workflow processes that implement all these elements in Fig 7, Fig 18, and Fig 24 in the form of flowcharts.
identifying metadata maintained by the CMS for the stored content objects;
Jayawardena [Col 8, Line 13 - 30] teaches digital content items made from digital objects and files. For example: digital text, images, audio, webpages, and other content; and they’re stored either locally or remotely with different formats. These digital objects and files make up metadata and is associated with digital content items or content objects.
identifying a generative Al entity (GAIE) to interact with the CMS;
Jayawardena [Col 21, Line 3 - 7] discloses a neural network in the form of a large language model known as ChatGPT as the Generative AI Entity (GAIE).
forming a GAIE prompt, wherein the GAIE prompt comprises at least a portion of the metadata identified from the CMS for the stored content objects;
Jayawardena [Col 26, Line 21 - 27] teaches creating a prompt from the digital content for the large language model by extracting and combining digital content from multiple content blocks into one data input also known as a block summarization element. The digital content in those multiple content blocks falls within metadata from the CMS as disclosed in [Col 25, Line 51 - 57] where the content items are more text and image data which fall under metadata from the CMS as previously defined. Altogether, metadata from the CMS is used for the block summarization element. In order to summarize metadata using a large language model, a prompt must be made compromised of said metadata.
receiving a response from the GAIE, wherein the response corresponds to the GAIE prompt;
Jayawardena [Col 26, Line 27 - 38] teaches that the content blocks taken from the prompt are used to generate a response. It extracts feature vectors from content blocks making up the prompt, processes it to into a new vector, and generates a summary from the new vector as a response.
using, by the CMS, the response from the GAIE to implement processing of the content management system workflow.
Jayawardena disclosed the response is a block summary before. This is used later in the workflow of Fig. 8 and [Col 21, Line 12 - 18] which teaches the content block system changes or processes the content block using the summary which was received from the GAIE.
Claim 2 recites:
The method of claim 1, wherein the response from the GAIE is used (1) to advance the content management system workflow, or (2) to provide a metadata value to the content management system workflow, or (3) is used in a further GAIE prompt to request further information from the GAIE.
Jayawardena teaches advancing the workflow and providing metadata to the workflow in Fig. 8 And [Col 21, Line 12 - 18] for the same reason as claim 1.
Claim 3 recites
The method of claim 2, wherein the further information from the GAIE is used to inform a decision of the content management system workflow.
Jayawardena [Col 46, Line 54 - 61] teaches that the disclosed methods can be done in a different order or repeated. Meaning any section of his system may be modified including repeating of workflows. Therefore, after one iteration of getting a block summary as a response from the Gen AI entity and modifying the original content item, this workflow can be repeated and can send the new content item’ metadata in a further prompt to the Gen AI entity. In which case, the rationale from claim 1 applies to this claim as well for sending a prompt to the Gen AI entity.
Claims 4 recites:
The method of claim 2, wherein one or more values corresponding to the metadata are derived at least in part from the response from the AI entity.
Jayawardena [Col 21, Line 7 - 11] teaches the AI entities response is a block summary that creates metadata of the previously disclosed forms including digital text, images, videos, etc. Meaning the AI entity’s response corresponds to the metadata.
Claim 5 recites:
The method of claim 4, wherein one or more values corresponding to the metadata comprises a summary of all or portions of the content object.
Jayawardena [Col 21, Line 7 - 11] teaches the AI entities response is a block summary of the content objects.
Claim 6 recites
The method of claim 5, wherein at least a portion of the summary comprises one or more of, a total contract value, a summary of quarterly results, an indication of a policy violation, a summary of contents of a CMS folder, or a summary of user notifications
Jayawardena teaches that multilocational data blocks are made using metadata from within conventional files and folders. [Col 7, Line 37 - 47] discloses the CMS makes blocks which are summaries of the metadata within CMS folders and shares them virtually instead of copying and moving the entire CMS folders.
Claim 7 recites
The method of claim 5, wherein at least a portion of the summary is provided as a further GAIE prompt to the AI entity.
Using the same rationale from claim 3’s rejection, Jayawardena teaches that a further prompt can be sent to the GAIE entity by repeating the workflow. In the first iteration, the response from the GAIE is a block summary and modifies the original content items as per the workflow. In the second iteration, the content item used in the prompt is made up of block summary data from the first iteration.
Claim 8 recites
The method of claim 7, further compromising receiving a second response from the AI entity.
Using the same rationale from claim 3’s rejection, Jayawardena teaches that a further prompt can be sent to the GAIE entity by repeating the workflow. Using the same rationale from claim 1’s rejection, Jayawardena teaches that the GAIE gives a response to a prompt which in this case is made of another content block. Since the further prompt is still a prompt for the GAIE, it will receive a further response from the GAIE.
Claim 10 – 17 are machine claims recites the same limitations as Claims 1-8 and as a result invoke the same 102(a) rejections according to Jayawardena.
Claims 19 and 20 are system claims reciting the same limitations as claims 1 and 2 hence they invoke the same 102(a) rejections according to Jayawardena.
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 and 18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Jayawardena et al (US PG PUB 12088667 B1) in view of Tran et al (US PG PUB 2022/0237368 A1).
Claim 9 recites
The method of claim 8, wherein the second response is a blog post.
Jayawardena does not teach “the second response is a blog post”.
Tran teaches “the second response is a blog post” (Tran [0280] teaches that a blog or website is text incorporating conversational language text. A blog post is also just readable text or writing in a different format meant to be posted on a blog or forum under its broadest reasonable interpretation.)
It would be obvious for a person of ordinary skill in the art to reformat the summary data from Jayawardena’s second GAIE response into the conversational format of a blog post as disclosed by Tran to assist in writing more correct and professional blog posts. (Tran [002])
Claim 18 is a machine claim consisting of the same limitations as claim 9. It invokes the same 103 rejection as a result.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to AJAY J KANJOOR whose telephone number is (571)270-0965. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 8am-4pm.
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, Mariela Reyes can be reached at (571) 270-1006. 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.
/AJAY J KANJOOR/
/Mariela Reyes/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2142
Prosecution Insights