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 .
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument.
Regarding the 101 issue, applicant’s arguments are not persuasive. As explained in a previous communication that all the steps can be performed by a human being. The claims need meaningful limitations that go beyond generally linking the use of an abstract idea to a particular technological environment. These steps merely add “insignificant extra-solution activity to the judicial exception”. The additional elements of LLM and moderation engine are recited at a high-level of generality such that it amounts no more than mere instructions to apply the exception to generic components. For these reasons, examiner maintains the previous 101 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.
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. The additional elements of LLM and moderation engine are recited at recited at a high-level of generality such that it amounts no more than mere instructions to apply the exception to generic components. 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 § 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 1-3, 5-10, 12-17, and 19-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Gnanasekaran et al. (USPG 2025/0131126, hereinafter Gnanasekaran) in view of Sela (USPG 2023/0037069, hereinafter Sela).
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, wherein each string comprises a set of characters (figures 3-4, window 302 accumulates text as the user inputs the text);
processing the strings through a moderation engine to determine whether any of the strings comprise prohibited content (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”).
Gnanasekaran fails to explicitly disclose, however, Sela teaches when at least one of the strings changes length due to an addition or deletion of a character at that string after it has already been defied (paragraphs 34-37, “The text scanner 202 may preprocess the file by, for example, determining a format of the file and parsing the file into one or more sentences 220 (included in the file 114 in FIG.). Text scanner 202 may transmit each of the parsed sentences to sentence processor 204”; parsing the text changes in length of the text; each sentence is then forwarded to the text processor for processing to remove prohibited content; “In response to a determination that the sentence 220 contains one or more sensitive terms 222, the entity extractor 206 may extract the one or more sensitive terms 222 from the sentence 220.”).
Since Gnanasekaran and Sela 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 parsing text into sentences to forward to text process to remove prohibited content. 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).
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”).
Claims 4, 11, and 18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Gnanasekaran in view of Sela, and further 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
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.
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
Prosecution Insights