DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
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.
Independent claims 1, 8, and 15 recite “accumulating …”, “… processing …”, and “triggering …”. These limitations, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, cover performance of the limitation in the mind but for the recitation of generic computer components. That is, other than reciting “processor”. For example, but for the “processor” language, these steps in the context of this claim encompasses the user manually accumulating textual characters, processing them, and triggering an action based on the processed text. All of these steps can be performed in the mind and/or using a pen and paper. 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 claim recites an abstract idea. This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. In particular, the claim only recites additional elements - using a processor to perform these steps. The use of a processor is recited at a high-level of generality (i.e., as a generic computer device performing a generic computer function) such that it amounts no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component. Accordingly, this additional element does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because it does not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. The claim is directed to an abstract idea. The claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. As discussed above with respect to integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, the additional step of “receiving …” is merely for the purpose of data gathering and/or insignificant extra-solution activity that amount 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 claim is not patent eligible.
Similar to independent claims above, the steps of “extracting …” and “transferring …” in dependent claims 2, 9, and 16, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, cover performance of the limitation in the mind but for the recitation of generic computer components in the context of this claim encompasses the user manually performing these steps. All of these steps can be performed in the mind and/or using a pen and paper. 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.
Similar to independent claims above, the steps of “processing the action to automatically interrupt …” or “processing the action to automatically generate …” in dependent claims 3, 10, and 17, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, cover performance of the limitation in the mind but for the recitation of generic computer components in the context of this claim encompasses the user manually performing these steps. All of these steps can be performed in the mind and/or using a pen and paper. 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.
Similar to independent claims above, the steps of “processing a response …” in dependent claims 4, 11, and 18, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, cover performance of the limitation in the mind but for the recitation of generic computer components in the context of this claim encompasses the user manually performing these steps. All of these steps can be performed in the mind and/or using a pen and paper. 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.
Similar to independent claims above, the steps of “receiving new characters …” and “… processing the new strings …” in dependent claims 5, 12, and 19, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, cover performance of the limitation in the mind but for the recitation of generic computer components in the context of this claim encompasses the user manually performing these steps. All of these steps can be performed in the mind and/or using a pen and paper. 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.
Similar to independent claims above, the steps of “concatenating … characters …” and “transferring the concatenated …” in dependent claims 6 and 13, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, cover performance of the limitation in the mind but for the recitation of generic computer components in the context of this claim encompasses the user manually performing these steps. All of these steps can be performed in the mind and/or using a pen and paper. 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.
Similar to independent claims above, the steps of “detecting …”, “extracting …”, and “transferring …” in dependent claims 3, 14, and 20, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, cover performance of the limitation in the mind but for the recitation of generic computer components in the context of this claim encompasses the user manually performing these steps. All of these steps can be performed in the mind and/or using a pen and paper. 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.
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 1-3, 5-10, 12-17, and 19-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Gnanasekaran et al. (USPG 2025/0131126, hereinafter Gnanasekaran).
Regarding claims 1, 8, and 15, Gnanasekaran discloses a method, non-transitory CRM, and system for processing text of a chat window communicatively linked to a Large Language Model (LLM) system, the method comprising:
receiving a plurality of characters from a user interacting with the chat window (figures 3-4, windows 302 and/or 306);
accumulating one or more of the characters in memory to form a text comprising one or more strings (figures 3-4, window 302 accumulates text as the user inputs the text);
when at least one of the strings changes length, processing the strings through a moderation engine (paragraph 36, “The image component 125 and the text component 127 may identify the PII information in the prompt. The image component 125 and the text component 127 may also sanitize (e.g., hide/remove) the PII information in the prompt before the prompt is sent to the LLM 134”); and
triggering an action in the chat window via the moderation engine that prevents at least one of the strings from being transferred to the LLM system (paragraph 36, “The image component 125 and the text component 127 may identify the PII information in the prompt. The image component 125 and the text component 127 may also sanitize (e.g., hide/remove) the PII information in the prompt before the prompt is sent to the LLM 134”).
Regarding claims 2, 9, and 16, Gnanasekaran further discloses extracting at least one of the strings from the text based on the action, as the user interacts with the chat window; and transferring remaining strings of the text from the chat window to the LLM system to initiate response processing (paragraph 36, “The image component 125 and the text component 127 may identify the PII information in the prompt. The image component 125 and the text component 127 may also sanitize (e.g., hide/remove) the PII information in the prompt before the prompt is sent to the LLM 134”)
.
Regarding claims 3, 10, and 17, Gnanasekaran further discloses further comprising at least one of: processing the action to automatically interrupt a session between the user and the chat window; or processing the action to automatically generate a response to the user highlighting any extracted strings (figure 7, response section 702 telling the user to sanitize/remove PII in the text).
Regarding claims 5, 12, and 19, Gnanasekaran further discloses further comprising: receiving new characters via interactions of the user with the chat window, resulting in a new text comprising new strings (figures 3-4, windows 302 and/or 306; can be a subsequent input); and when at least one of the new strings changes length, processing the new strings through the moderation engine to extract at least one of the new strings from the new text, and transferring remaining new strings from the new text to the LLM system for response processing (paragraph 36, “The image component 125 and the text component 127 may identify the PII information in the prompt. The image component 125 and the text component 127 may also sanitize (e.g., hide/remove) the PII information in the prompt before the prompt is sent to the LLM 134”).
Regarding claims 6 and 13, Gnanasekaran further discloses further comprising: concatenating the received plurality of characters without any extracted strings (figure 2, step S210); and transferring the concatenated plurality of characters to the LLM system to generate a response by the LLM system (process in figure 2, S212 determines that the received prompt is PII-free to be forwarding to the LLM).
Regarding claims 7, 14, and 20, Gnanasekaran further discloses further comprising: detecting, via the moderation engine, that at least one of the strings comprises at least one of personally identifiable information (PII), personal health information (PHI), or profanity (paragraph 48, “Sensitive PII may include, but is not limited to, a full name, face, home address, social security number, passport number, birthdate, driver's license, financial information, medical records, finger prints or handwriting sample, email address, phone number, etc.”); extracting the at least one detected string from the text (paragraph 36, “The image component 125 and the text component 127 may identify the PII information in the prompt. The image component 125 and the text component 127 may also sanitize (e.g., hide/remove) the PII information in the prompt before the prompt is sent to the LLM 134”); and transferring remaining strings of the text from the chat window to the LLM system for response processing (paragraph 36, “The image component 125 and the text component 127 may identify the PII information in the prompt. The image component 125 and the text component 127 may also sanitize (e.g., hide/remove) the PII information in the prompt before the prompt is sent to the LLM 134”).
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 4, 11, and 18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Gnanasekaran in view of Jayaraman (USPG 2024/0303371, hereinafter Jayaraman).
Regarding claims 4, 11, and 18, Gnanasekaran fails to explicitly disclose, however, Jayaraman teaches processing a response provided by the LLM system through the moderation engine to extract one or more strings from the response (paragraph 15, “generate, in response to the command and contemporaneously with the virtual chat communication session, a reply message; identify PII in the reply message; redact the identified PII in the reply message”).
Since Gnanasekaran and Jayaraman are analogous in the art because they are from the same field of endeavor, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to use the known technique of detecting and removing PII from the response. One of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that the results of the combination were predictable since the use of that known technique provides the rationale to arrive at a conclusion of obviousness. See KSR International Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 82 USPQ2d 1385 (U.S. 2007).
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Joshi et al. (USPG 2025/0068764) teach a method of removing PPI from the input query before sending to the LLM that is considered pertinent to the claimed invention.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to HUYEN X VO whose telephone number is (571)272-7631. The examiner can normally be reached M-F, 8-4.
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, Bhavesh Mehta can be reached at 571-272-7453. 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.
/HUYEN X VO/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2656