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 .
This Office Action is in response to the submission filed January 12, 2024. Claims 1-20 are pending.
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. Claims 1, 12, and 20 are directed to methods, apparatus and computer readable medium for generating an output data object. The claims recite limitations for
receiving first user input comprising a request for generation of the output data object that is to comprise a plurality of responses to a prompt which is a data gathering step that can be achieved by the person hearing a user’s request to generate data/object or output;
Generating the prompt based at least in part on the first user input and a prompt appendix that defines a response format for the plurality of responses to the prompt that are to be generated by a large language model (LLM), the prompt appendix further defining a plurality of response types to which the LLM is to map individual responses of the plurality of responses and including an instruction to generate the plurality of responses in the output data object in accordance with the plurality of response types that can be achieved by the person understanding the request and accessing knowledge of the context of the request that includes responses, formats and organization, using natural language processing rules and principles, determine what information is needed to generate the data/object/output and using pen and paper create the prompt;
transmitting the prompt from the processing layer to the LLM, can be achieved by the person, using natural language processing rules and principles, determine what information is needed to generate the data/object/output;
receiving, from the LLM at the processing layer, the plurality of responses formatted in the response format, can be achieved by the person using natural language processing rules and principles, determine the specific responses, information, formats and/or data is needed to generate the data/object/output and organizing the output; and
generating the output data object that comprises the plurality of responses based at least in part on a mapping between one or more elements of the response format and one or more elements of a data format corresponding to the output data object, can be achieved by the person, using pen and paper, providing the finalized organized output.
The recited limitations are directed a process that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind but for the recitation of the generic computer, apparatus, medium, and generic computer components (memory processor). 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 recited the generic computer, apparatus, medium, and generic computer components (memory processor) and code amounts to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using generic computer components. Accordingly, the elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because they do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. The claims are directed to an abstract idea. The claims are not patent eligible.
The claim(s) does/do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because, as indicated with respect to integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, the additional elements of the generic computer, apparatus, medium, and generic computer components (memory processor) and code to perform the various steps amounts to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using generic computer components. Mere instructions to apply an exception using generic computer components cannot provide an inventive concept. The claims are not patent eligible.
Dependent claims 2-11 and 13-19 do not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application and do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. The limitations of the dependent claims are directed to steps of organizing or manipulating data for formatting responses, data gathering, extra solution activity for outputting information, applying natural language processing to update/adapt models/rules used in generating responses and translating responses in desired languages. The limitations of the dependent claims are steps that can be achieved via mental processing and/or using pen and paper.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
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)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
(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 1-9 and 11-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1)/(a)(2) as being anticipated by Fabian et al (US Patent No. 12,481,823), hereinafter Fabian,
Regarding claim 1, Fabian discloses a method for generating an output data object [figs 2, 6, 13], comprising: receiving, via a cloud-based platform, first user input comprising a request for generation of the output data object that is to comprise a plurality of responses to a prompt [natural language input received from user – col. 3, lines 11-22; col. 8, line 51 to col. 9, line 23]; generating, at a processing layer of the cloud-based platform, the prompt based at least in part on the first user input and a prompt appendix that defines a response format for the plurality of responses to the prompt that are to be generated by a large language model (LLM), the prompt appendix further defining a plurality of response types to which the LLM is to map individual responses of the plurality of responses and including an instruction to generate the plurality of responses in the output data object in accordance with the plurality of response types [generates prompts based on the input and portion of the spreadsheet…tailored prompts…prompts generated based on scope, tasks to be completed, examples, contextual information, rules, output format, cues.. –col.2, lines 11-22; col. 3, line 48 to col. 4, line 67; col. 5, lines 23-31; col. 9, line 62 to col. 10, line 23]; transmitting the prompt from the processing layer to the LLM [submits prompt to LLM service -- col. 3, lines 11-22; col. 10, lines 24-30]; receiving, from the LLM at the processing layer, the plurality of responses formatted in the response format [receives reply from the LLM – col. 3, lines 11-22; col. 10, line 32 to col. 11, line 58]; and generating the output data object that comprises the plurality of responses based at least in part on a mapping between one or more elements of the response format and one or more elements of a data format corresponding to the output data object [response generated to the user – col. 11, lines 11-22; col. 10, line 32 to col. 11, line 58; figs 9A-10C].
Regarding claim 2, Fabian discloses the response format comprises a response name field, a response type field, a help text field, an optionality field, or any combination thereof [Task Pane -- col.2, lines 11-22; col. 3, line 48 to col. 4, line 67; col. 5, lines 23-31; col. 9, line 62 to col. 10, line 23; col. 10, line 32 to col. 11, line 58].
Regarding claim 3, Fabian teaches the first user input further comprises an indication of an output data object type, an indication of a quantity of requested responses, an indication of one or more metrics associated with the plurality of responses, an indication of an industry to be associated with the plurality of responses, an indication of a geographic region to be associated with the plurality of responses, or any combination thereof [modify spreadsheet request..user’s query request -- col.2, lines 11-22; col. 3, line 48 to col. 4, line 67; col. 5, lines 23-31; col. 9, line 62 to col. 10, line 23; col. 10, line 32 to col. 11, line 58].
Regarding claim 4, Fabian teaches receiving second user input modifying the prompt [user’s subsequent inputs --col. 7, lines 10-20; figs 9A-10C]
Regarding claim 5, Fabian teaches comprising: receiving third user input that comprises one or more indications of one or more selected response types of the plurality of response types corresponding to individual responses of the plurality of responses, wherein the one or more selected response types are to be associated with the corresponding individual responses in the output data object [user selects from alternate suggestions -- col.2, lines 11-22; col. 3, line 48 to col. 4, line 67; col. 5, lines 23-31; col. 7, lines 10-20; col. 9, line 62 to col. 10, line 23; col. 10, line 32 to col. 11, line 58; figs 9A-10C].
Regarding claim 6, Fabian teaches the plurality of response types comprises a single selection response type, a multiple selection response type, a picklist response type, a net promoter score response type, a customer satisfaction response type, a text entry response type, or any combination thereof [ user selects from alternate suggestions -- col.2, lines 11-22; col. 3, line 48 to col. 4, line 67; col. 5, lines 23-31; col. 7, lines 10-20; col. 9, line 62 to col. 10, line 23; col. 10, line 32 to col. 11, line 58; figs 9A-10C].
Regarding claim 7, Fabian teaches generating the output data object comprises converting the plurality of responses to the data format corresponding to the output data object based at least in part on the mapping between the one or more elements of the response format and the one or more elements of the data format [request to modify spreadsheet -- col.2, lines 11-22; col. 3, line 48 to col. 4, line 67; col. 5, lines 23-31; col. 7, lines 10-20; col. 9, line 62 to col. 10, line 23; col. 10, line 32 to col. 11, line 58; figs 9A-10C].
Regarding claim 8, Fabian teaches wherein the prompt appendix comprises a request to map each of the plurality of responses to one or more response types of the plurality of response types [generates prompts based on the input and portion of the spreadsheet…tailored prompts…prompts generated based on scope, tasks to be completed, examples, contextual information, rules, output format, cues -- col.2, lines 11-22; col. 3, line 48 to col. 4, line 67; col. 5, lines 23-31; col. 7, lines 10-20; col. 9, line 62 to col. 10, line 23; col. 10, line 32 to col. 11, line 58; figs 9A-10C].
Regarding claim 9, Fabian teaches training the LLM with training data comprising feedback information associated with previously-generated output data objects, a plurality of translations of previously-generated output data objects, customer data, customer relationship management software data, or any combination thereof [trained GPT---tailored prompts – col. 3, lines 31-474; col. 8, line 16].
Regarding claim 11, Fabian teaches the plurality of responses comprises survey questions, the output data object comprises a survey data object, or both [Fig 10A -- How are sales trending over time? – question based on survey of spreadsheet data].
Claims 12-20 are apparatus and non-transitory computer readable medium claims similar in scope and content to method claims 1-9 and 11, and are therefore rejected under similar rationale.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
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.
Claim 10 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Fabian in view of Bharadwaj et al (US Patent Application Publication No. 2024/0273345), hereinafter Bharadwaj.
Regarding claim 10, Fabian fails to teach, but Bharadwaj teaches the prompt further indicates a target language to which the plurality of responses is to be translated by the LLM; and the plurality of responses comprise information expressed in the target language [0005]. One having ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention would have recognized the advantages of implementing the output language translation techniques suggested by Bharadwaj, so as to provide outputs tailored to specific use cases as suggested by Bharadwaj, and the results would have been predictable and provide an improved system that enhances the user’s experience with the system.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
XU et al (US Patent Application Publication No. 2025/0077765) discloses system and methods to facilitate generative artificial intelligence models.
Mansour et al (US Patent Application Publication No. 2025/0005263) discloses automated content creation and content services for collaboration platforms.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ANGELA A ARMSTRONG whose telephone number is (571)272-7598. The examiner can normally be reached M,T,TH,F 11:30-8:00.
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, Pierre 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.
ANGELA A. ARMSTRONG
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 2659
/ANGELA A ARMSTRONG/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2659
Prosecution Insights