DETAILED ACTION
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Claims 1-4, 6-16 and 18-20 are pending for examination in this application. Claims 1, 10, and 15 are independent claims. This Office Action is Non-Final.
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 1-4, 6, 8-11, 13-16, 18, and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to (an) abstract idea(s) without significantly more.
Claims 1, 10, and 15 recite:
receiving, via a user interface of a media application, information about a technical issue of a television device;
generating a prompt with a request to identify a technical solution for solving the technical issue;
receiving, from a large language model, a prompt response with information about the technical solution, the prompt response including source code for performing the technical solution, the large language model being calibrated based on at least one of television user manuals, television call center recording, television source code, or online discussion forums; and
executing the source code without user interaction to perform the technical solution.
Step 1: Is the claim to a process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter?
Yes:
Claim 1 is a process.
Claim 10 is a machine.
Claim 15 is an article of manufacture.
Step 2A, Prong I: Does the claim recite an abstract idea, law of nature, or natural phenomenon?
Yes: (an) abstract idea(s).
The “generating …a request to identify a technical solution for solving the technical issue” limitation in # 2 above and “receiving … response with information about the technical solution, the prompt response including source code… based on at least one of television user manuals, television call center recording, television source code, or online discussion forums” limitation in #3 above, as claimed and under broadest reasonable interpretation (BRI), are both mental processes that cover performance of the limitations in the mind. For example, limitation #2 “generating” in the context of this claim encompasses a person analyzing data and information to determine the technical issue and request a technical solution. In limitation #3 “receiving” in the context of this claim encompasses a person going through and analyzing information in manuals, recordings, source code and forums to determine technical solutions and source code for performing the solutions.
Step 2A, Prong II: Does the claim recite additional elements that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application?
No.
The “receiving” limitation in # 1 above, as claimed and under BRI, is an additional element that is insignificant extra-solution activity. For example, “receiving” in the context of this claim encompasses mere data gathering. See MPEP 2106.05(g).
The “executing” limitation in # 4 above, as claimed and under BRI, is an additional element that is insignificant extra-solution activity. For example, “executing the source code without user interaction” in the context of this claim encompasses mere data gathering for determining if technical solution solves the issue. See MPEP 2106.05(g).
The “perform the technical solution” limitation in # 4 above, as claimed and under BRI, is an additional element that is mere instructions to apply an exception. For example, “perform” in the context of this claim encompasses executing the source code that are mere instructions to implement the abstract idea (the claimed response with information about the technical solution based on manuals, recordings) on a computer. See MPEP 2106.05(f).
The “generating a prompt” limitation in # 2 above and “receiving…a prompt response” limitation in #3 above, as claimed and under BRI, is an additional element that is mere instructions to apply an exception. For example, “generating a prompt” in the context of this claim encompasses creating a generic computer input into large language model that are mere instructions to implement the abstract idea (the claimed request to identify a technical solution) on a computer. Similarly, “receiving… a prompt response” in the context of this claim encompasses outputting from a large language model a prompt response that are mere instructions to implement the abstract idea (the claimed response with information about the technical solution based on manuals, recordings) on a computer. The added limitation of “prompt response including source code for performing the technical solution” merely further describes the claimed prompt response information. See MPEP 2106.05(f).
Additionally, one or more of the claims recite the following additional elements:
a user interface (Claims 1, 10, 15),
a media application (Claims 1, 10, 15),
a large language model (Claims 1, 10, 15),
at least one processor (Claims 10, 15),
a non-transitory computer readable medium (Claims 10, 15).
These additional elements are recited at a high level of generality (i.e. as generic computer components) such that they amount to no more than components comprising mere instructions to apply the exception. Accordingly, these additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea(s) into a practical application because they do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea(s).
Step 2B: Does the claim recite additional elements that amount to significantly more than the judicial exception?
No.
As discussed above with respect to integration of the abstract idea(s) into a practical application, the aforementioned additional elements amount to no more than components comprising mere instructions to apply the exception. Mere instructions to apply an exception using generic computer components cannot provide an inventive concept.
Additionally, with regards to # 1 above, per MPEP 2106.05(d)(Il), the courts have recognized the following computer functions as well-understood, routine, and conventional functions when they are claimed in a merely generic manner (e.g., at a high level of generality) or as insignificant extra-solution activity:
i. Receiving or transmitting data over a network, e.g., using the Internet to gather data, Symantec, 838 F.3d at 1321, 120 USPQ2d at 1362 (utilizing an intermediary computer to forward information); TLI Communications LLC v. AV Auto. LLC, 823 F.3d 607, 610, 118 USPQ2d 1744, 1745 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (using a telephone for image transmission); OIP Techs., Inc., v. Amazon.com, Inc., 788 F.3d 1359, 1363, 115 USPQ2d 1090, 1093 (Fed. Cir. 2015) (sending messages over a network); buySAFE, Inc. v. Google, Inc., 765 F.3d 1350, 1355, 112 USPQ2d 1093, 1096 (Fed. Cir. 2014) (computer receives and sends information over a network).
Furthermore, with regards to #4 above, per MPEP 2106.05(d)(II), merely executing source code to perform a technical solution would be recognized by those of ordinary skill in the reliability art as elements that describe well-understood, routine and conventional activities.
Claim 2 and claim 10 (“a natural language query”) merely further describes the claimed information about the technical issue of Claim 1.
Claim 3 merely further describes the claimed information about the technical issue of Claim 1.
Claims 4, 16 recite:
obtaining device information about the television device, wherein the prompt also includes the device information.
Step 1: Is the claim to a process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter?
Yes:
Claim 4 is a process.
Claim 16 is an article of manufacture.
Step 2A, Prong I: Does the claim recite an abstract idea, law of nature, or natural phenomenon?
Yes: (an) abstract idea(s). There is no change to the abstract idea(s) of independent Claim 1.
Step 2A, Prong II: Does the claim recite additional elements that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application?
No.
The “obtaining device information” limitation in # 5 above, as claimed and under BRI, is an additional element that is insignificant extra-solution activity. For example, “obtaining” in the context of this claim encompasses mere data gathering. See MPEP 2106.05(g).
Step 2B: Does the claim recite additional elements that amount to significantly more than the judicial exception?
No.
With regards to # 5 above, per MPEP 2106.05(d)(Il), the courts have recognized the following computer functions as well-understood, routine, and conventional functions when they are claimed in a merely generic manner (e.g., at a high level of generality) or as insignificant extra-solution activity:
i. Receiving or transmitting data over a network, e.g., using the Internet to gather data, Symantec, 838 F.3d at 1321, 120 USPQ2d at 1362 (utilizing an intermediary computer to forward information); TLI Communications LLC v. AV Auto. LLC, 823 F.3d 607, 610, 118 USPQ2d 1744, 1745 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (using a telephone for image transmission); OIP Techs., Inc., v. Amazon.com, Inc., 788 F.3d 1359, 1363, 115 USPQ2d 1090, 1093 (Fed. Cir. 2015) (sending messages over a network); buySAFE, Inc. v. Google, Inc., 765 F.3d 1350, 1355, 112 USPQ2d 1093, 1096 (Fed. Cir. 2014) (computer receives and sends information over a network).
Claims 6, 11, and 18 recites:
7. wherein the request is a first request and the prompt includes a second request to generate the source code for performing the technical solution.
Step 1: Is the claim to a process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter?
Yes:
Clam 6 is a process.
Claim 11 is a machine.
Claim 18 is an article of manufacture.
Step 2A, Prong I: Does the claim recite an abstract idea, law of nature, or natural phenomenon?
Yes: (an) abstract idea(s).
The “prompt includes a second request to generate the source code …” limitation in #7 above is a mental process that covers performance of the limitations in the mind. For example, limitation #7 “a second request” in the context of this claim encompasses a person analyzing data and information to determine the source code for performing technical solution.
Step 2A, Prong II: Does the claim recite additional elements that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application?
No.
In the limitation in #7 above, “the prompt includes a second request”, as claimed and under BRI, is an additional element that is mere instructions to apply an exception. For example, generating “the prompt” in limitation #7 above in the context of this claim encompasses creating a generic computer input into large language model that are mere instructions to implement the abstract idea (the claimed request to generate the source code) on a computer. The added limitation in #7 above “wherein the request is a first request”, as claimed and under BRI, merely further describes the claimed request. See MPEP 2106.05(f).
Step 2B: Does the claim recite additional elements that amount to significantly more than the judicial exception?
No.
As discussed above with respect to integration of the abstract idea(s) into a practical application, the aforementioned additional elements amount to no more than components comprising mere instructions to apply the exception. Mere instructions to apply an exception using generic computer components cannot provide an inventive concept.
Claims 8 and 13 recites:
8. providing a user interface (UI) element on the user interface, wherein selection of the UI element causes the television device to perform the technical solution.
Step 1: Is the claim to a process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter?
Yes:
Claim 8 is a process.
Claim 13 is a machine.
Step 2A, Prong I: Does the claim recite an abstract idea, law of nature, or natural phenomenon?
Yes: (an) abstract idea(s). There is no change to the abstract idea(s) of independent Claim 1.
Step 2A, Prong II: Does the claim recite additional elements that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application?
No.
The additional element of “a user interface element on the user interface” is recited at a high level of generality (i.e. as generic computer components) such that it amounts to no more than components comprising mere instructions to apply the exception. Accordingly, this additional element does not integrate the abstract idea(s) into a practical application because they do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea(s).See MPEP 2106.05(f).
The “causes the television device to perform the technical solution” limitation in #8 above, as claimed and under BRI, is an additional element that is mere instructions to apply an exception. For example, “device to perform the technical solution” in the context of this claim encompasses performing the technical solution that is mere instructions to implement the abstract idea (the claimed response with information about the technical solution based on manuals, recordings) on a computer. See MPEP 2106.05(f).
Step 2B: Does the claim recite additional elements that amount to significantly more than the judicial exception?
No.
As discussed above with respect to integration of the abstract idea(s) into a practical application, the aforementioned additional elements amount to no more than components comprising mere instructions to apply the exception. Mere instructions to apply an exception using generic computer components cannot provide an inventive concept.
Claims 9, 14, 20 are rejected under the same reasoning as claims 1, 10, 15, respectively.
For at least the reasoning provided above, claims 1-4, 6, 8-11, 13-16, 18, and 20 are patent ineligible.
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 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)(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 1-4, 6-16, and 18-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Sundaram et al., (U.S. Patent Publn. Num. 2025/0217224 A1), hereinafter Sundaram.
Regarding claim 1, Sundaram teaches:
A method comprising:
receiving, via a user interface of a media application (Sundaram, Abstract teaches user interface and Figs. 1-2 show user interface. Specification describing Figs. 1-2 teaches user interface, Fig. 5 and portions of specification describing Fig. 5 teaches user interface. Fig. 1, Application 124 and paragraph 0024 teaches “ Application 124 may be or include any application that runs on, deploys, or otherwise uses target system 180.” See also paragraph 0033), information about a technical issue of a television device (Sundaram, paragraph 0019 teaches target system 180 includes display or video device and “may further include any combination of software codes, modules, routines, drivers, application programming interfaces (APIs), and/or any other software programs, scripts, instructions, and/or the like that are executed thereon, in association with, or to facilitate operations of the hardware devices.” Abstract teaches “receiving, via a user interface (UI), a natural language (NL) query associated with one or more malfunction indicators indicative of a malfunction state of a system …”. Fig. 5, paragraph 0052 “At block 510, method 600 may include receiving, via a user interface (UI), a natural language (NL) query associated with one or more malfunction indicators indicative of a malfunction state of a system. The malfunction indicators may include … description of the malfunction state (e.g., using natural language or any predetermined set of descriptors), and/or using other indicators capable of identifying one or more malfunctions of the system. … The NL query can include a text prompt, a speech prompt, an audio prompt, an image prompt, and/or the like, or any combination thereof. For example, a user may type a text using a keyboard, utter speech using a microphone, or via some other action.”);
generating a prompt with a request to identify a technical solution for solving the technical issue (Sundaram, Abstract teaches “receiving, via a user interface (UI), a natural language (NL) query associated with one or more malfunction indicators indicative of a malfunction state of a system” and Fig. 5, blocks 510 and 520 and paragraphs 0051-0053 Paragraph 0053 “input can include a prompt that is based at least on the NL query.”);
receiving, from a large language model, a prompt response with information about the technical solution (Sundaram, Fig. 5, block 530, paragraph 0054), the prompt response including source code for performing the technical solution (Sundaram, paragraph 0015 “and the LM can respond …and run a diagnostic (e.g., hardware, software, and/or firmware) tool…” and paragraph 0120 describes software as “code (e.g., executable code or source code)” that causes computerized systems such as television to perform operations. Paragraph 0020 teaches “Diagnostic tool 160 may …confirm adherence to specifications of target system 180 and/or otherwise facilitate operations of target system 180.” [i.e. performing the technical solution so system operates properly]), the large language model being calibrated based on at least one of television user manuals, television call center recording, television source code, or online discussion forums (Sundaram, paragraphs 0015, 0016 “may have been provided over phone, chat, and/or some other recorded customer service modality…”. Paragraph 0081 teaches “an existing machine learning model that needs to be optimized or updated. … feedback data 908 may be received from various channels, such as forums, web forms, or the like.” LLM being calibrated is taught in paragraphs 0030-0031, 0043, 0074, 0081); and
executing the source code without user interaction to perform the technical solution (Sundaram, paragraph 0015 “and the LM can respond …and run a diagnostic (e.g., hardware, software, and/or firmware) tool…” and paragraph 0120 describes software as source code [i.e. executing the source code] and paragraph 0020 teaches “Diagnostic tool 160 may …confirm adherence to specifications of target system 180 and/or otherwise facilitate operations of target system 180.” [i.e. perform the technical solution]. Furthermore, paragraph 0015, and paragraph 0022 teaches “diagnostic tool 160 may be launched automatically by computing device 102” [i.e. executing the source code without user interaction]).
Regarding dependent claim 2, Sundaram teaches wherein the information about the technical issue includes a natural language query (Sundaram, Abstract teaches “receiving, via a user interface (UI), a natural language (NL) query associated with one or more malfunction indicators indicative of a malfunction state of a system …”. Fig. 5, paragraph 0052 “At block 510, method 600 may include receiving, via a user interface (UI), a natural language (NL) query associated with one or more malfunction indicators indicative of a malfunction state of a system. The malfunction indicators may include … description of the malfunction state (e.g., using natural language or any predetermined set of descriptors), … The NL query can include a text prompt, a speech prompt, an audio prompt, an image prompt, and/or the like, or any combination thereof. For example, a user may type a text using a keyboard, utter speech using a microphone, or via some other action.”).
Regarding dependent claim 3, Sundaram teaches wherein the information about the technical issue includes an image of at least a portion of an interface of the television device or a video that includes at least a portion of the television device (Sundaram, Fig. 5, paragraph 0052 “At block 510, method 600 may include receiving, via a user interface (UI), a natural language (NL) query associated with one or more malfunction indicators indicative of a malfunction state of a system. The malfunction indicators may include … description of the malfunction state (e.g., using natural language or any predetermined set of descriptors), … The NL query can include a text prompt, a speech prompt, an audio prompt, an image prompt, and/or the like, or any combination thereof. For example, a user may type a text using a keyboard, utter speech using a microphone, or via some other action.” Paragraph 0022 teaches “an image (e.g., an image of an output of target system 180 indicative of a malfunction)” Paragraph 0023 teaches “a video device, such as a digital camera to capture an image or a sequence of two or more images (video frames).”).
Regarding dependent claim 4, Sundaram teaches further comprising:
obtaining device information about the television device, wherein the prompt also includes the device information (Sundaram, paragraph 0047-0048 teaches target system information and operations into query and prompt).
Regarding dependent claim 6, Sundaram teaches wherein the request is a first request (Sundaram, paragraph 0053 “input can include a prompt that is based at least on the NL query.” [i.e. first request]) and the prompt includes a second request to generate the source code for performing the technical solution (Sundaram, Fig. 5, block 520, paragraph 0053 teaches logs associated with performed diagnostics from execution of diagnostic tool [i.e. second request to generate the source code] that may be API or plug in software. Paragraph 0015 also teaches for “another prompt into the [LLM]” attaching portion of testing log that can include request to generate source code that is automatically attached to the prompt with first request to LLM ).
Regarding dependent claim 7, Sundaram teaches further comprising:
generating troubleshooting session data, the troubleshooting session data including the technical issue, the technical solution, and whether the technical solution was successful in solving the technical issue (Sundaram, paragraph 0015 success code or error codes (i.e. troubleshooting session data)); and
re-calibrating the large language model with the troubleshooting session data (Sundaram, paragraphs 0015, 0016 “The LM may also be trained using multiple training diagnostic logs indicative of one or more system malfunctions. Some of the training diagnostic logs can be logs of actual malfunctions encountered during system installation (including assembly), updates, or operations. Some of the training diagnostic logs can be logs generated by the diagnostic tool for the hardware and/or software malfunctions purposely caused by developers to generate training inputs into the LM.”. Paragraph 0081 teaches “an existing machine learning model that needs to be optimized or updated. … feedback data 908 may be received from various channels, such as forums, web forms, or the like.”).
Regarding dependent claim 8, Sundaram teaches further comprising:
providing a user interface (UI) element on the user interface (Sundaram, paragraph 0022 “diagnostic tool 160 may be launched by a user 101, e.g., responsive to a user instruction”), wherein selection of the UI element causes the television device to perform the technical solution (Sundaram, paragraph 0022, user launches diagnostic tool that executes on target device as taught in paragraph 0020-0021, diagnostic tool performs solution).
Regarding dependent claim 9, Sundaram teaches wherein the technical issue is a first technical issue, the prompt is a first prompt, the request is a first request, the technical solution is a first technical solution, and the prompt response is a first prompt response (Sundaram, Fig. 5, first iteration of blocks 501, 510-540, see paragraphs 0051-0055. Paragraph 0053 “input can include a prompt that is based at least on the NL query.” [i.e. the request is a first request]), the method further comprising:
detecting an error event about a second technical issue on the television device (Sundaram, Fig. 5, second iteration of blocks 501, 510-540, because of looping back with dashed arrow line, see paragraphs 0051-0055 and paragraph 0055 last sentence “for the second iteration of method 500”, block 501);
in response to detection of the error event, generating, without user interaction, a second prompt with a second request to identify a second technical solution for solving the second technical issue (Sundaram, Fig. 5, second iteration of blocks 501, 510-540, because of looping back with dashed arrow line, see paragraphs 0051-0055 and paragraph 0055 last sentence “for the second iteration of method 500”, blocks 510, 520);
receiving, from the large language model, a second prompt response with information about the second technical solution (Sundaram, Fig. 5, second iteration of blocks 501, 510-540, because of looping back with dashed arrow line, see paragraphs 0051-0055 and paragraph 0055 last sentence “for the second iteration of method 500”, block 530); and
displaying the second technical solution on the user interface of the media application (Sundaram, Fig. 5, second iteration of blocks 501, 510-540, because of looping back with dashed arrow line, see paragraphs 0051-0055 and paragraph 0055 last sentence “for the second iteration of method 500”, block 540).
Regarding claim 10, Sundaram teaches:
A television device (Sundaram, Fig. 1 Target System 1870, paragraphs 0018-0019 teaches display, video devices. Paragraph 0022 diagnostic tool 160 is integrated into target system 180. ) comprising:
at least one processor (Sundaram, paragraph 0019, “hardware components, e.g., processing devices”); and
a non-transitory computer-readable medium storing executable instructions that cause the at least one processor to (Sundaram, paragraph 0018, 0019 teaches memory devices and Fig. 1, SW Diagnostics 164 includes software instructions, see also paragraphs 0050, 0120):
receive, via a user interface of a media application (Sundaram, Abstract teaches user interface and Figs. 1-2 show user interface. Specification describing Figs. 1-2 teaches user interface, Fig. 5 and portions of specification describing Fig. 5 teaches user interface. Fig. 1, Application 124 and paragraph 0024 teaches “ Application 124 may be or include any application that runs on, deploys, or otherwise uses target system 180.” See also paragraph 0033), a natural language query about a technical issue of the television device (Sundaram, paragraph 0019 teaches target system 180 includes display or video device and “may further include any combination of software codes, modules, routines, drivers, application programming interfaces (APIs), and/or any other software programs, scripts, instructions, and/or the like that are executed thereon, in association with, or to facilitate operations of the hardware devices.” Abstract teaches “receiving, via a user interface (UI), a natural language (NL) query associated with one or more malfunction indicators indicative of a malfunction state of a system …”. Fig. 5, paragraph 0052 “At block 510, method 600 may include receiving, via a user interface (UI), a natural language (NL) query associated with one or more malfunction indicators indicative of a malfunction state of a system. The malfunction indicators may include … description of the malfunction state (e.g., using natural language or any predetermined set of descriptors), and/or using other indicators capable of identifying one or more malfunctions of the system. … The NL query can include a text prompt, a speech prompt, an audio prompt, an image prompt, and/or the like, or any combination thereof. For example, a user may type a text using a keyboard, utter speech using a microphone, or via some other action.”);
generate a prompt with a request to identify a technical solution for solving the technical issue (Sundaram, Abstract teaches “receiving, via a user interface (UI), a natural language (NL) query associated with one or more malfunction indicators indicative of a malfunction state of a system” and Fig. 5, blocks 510 and 520 and paragraphs 0051-0053 Paragraph 0053 “input can include a prompt that is based at least on the NL query.”);
receive, from a large language model, a prompt response with information about the technical solution (Sundaram, Fig. 5, block 530, paragraph 0054), the prompt response including source code for performing the technical solution (Sundaram, paragraph 0015 “and the LM can respond …and run a diagnostic (e.g., hardware, software, and/or firmware) tool…” and paragraph 0120 describes software as “code (e.g., executable code or source code)” that causes computerized systems such as television to perform operations. Paragraph 0020 teaches “Diagnostic tool 160 may …confirm adherence to specifications of target system 180 and/or otherwise facilitate operations of target system 180.” [i.e. performing the technical solution so system operates properly]), the large language model being calibrated based on at least one of television user manuals, television call center recording, television source code, or online discussion forums (Sundaram, paragraphs 0015, 0016 “may have been provided over phone, chat, and/or some other recorded customer service modality…”. Paragraph 0081 teaches “an existing machine learning model that needs to be optimized or updated. … feedback data 908 may be received from various channels, such as forums, web forms, or the like.” LLM being calibrated is taught in paragraphs 0030-0031, 0043, 0074, 0081); and
executing the source code without user interaction to perform the technical solution (Sundaram, paragraph 0015 “and the LM can respond …and run a diagnostic (e.g., hardware, software, and/or firmware) tool…” and paragraph 0120 describes software as source code [i.e. executing the source code] and paragraph 0020 teaches “Diagnostic tool 160 may …confirm adherence to specifications of target system 180 and/or otherwise facilitate operations of target system 180.” [i.e. perform the technical solution]. Furthermore, paragraph 0015, and paragraph 0022 teaches “diagnostic tool 160 may be launched automatically by computing device 102” [i.e. executing the source code without user interaction]).
Claims 11-14, the television device apparatus that implements the method of claims 6-9, respectively, are rejected on the same grounds as claims 6-9.
Regarding claim 15, Sundaram teaches:
A non-transitory computer-readable medium storing executable instructions that when executed by at least one processor cause the at least one processor to execute operations (Sundaram, paragraph 0019, “hardware components, e.g., processing devices”. Paragraph 0018, 0019 teaches memory devices and Fig. 1, SW Diagnostics 164 includes software instructions, see also paragraphs 0050, 0120), the operations comprising:
receiving, via a user interface of a media application (Sundaram, Abstract teaches user interface and Figs. 1-2 show user interface. Specification describing Figs. 1-2 teaches user interface, Fig. 5 and portions of specification describing Fig. 5 teaches user interface. Fig. 1, Application 124 and paragraph 0024 teaches “ Application 124 may be or include any application that runs on, deploys, or otherwise uses target system 180.” See also paragraph 0033), information about a technical issue of a television device (Sundaram, paragraph 0019 teaches target system 180 includes display or video device and “may further include any combination of software codes, modules, routines, drivers, application programming interfaces (APIs), and/or any other software programs, scripts, instructions, and/or the like that are executed thereon, in association with, or to facilitate operations of the hardware devices.” Abstract teaches “receiving, via a user interface (UI), a natural language (NL) query associated with one or more malfunction indicators indicative of a malfunction state of a system …”. Fig. 5, paragraph 0052 “At block 510, method 600 may include receiving, via a user interface (UI), a natural language (NL) query associated with one or more malfunction indicators indicative of a malfunction state of a system. The malfunction indicators may include … description of the malfunction state (e.g., using natural language or any predetermined set of descriptors), and/or using other indicators capable of identifying one or more malfunctions of the system. … The NL query can include a text prompt, a speech prompt, an audio prompt, an image prompt, and/or the like, or any combination thereof. For example, a user may type a text using a keyboard, utter speech using a microphone, or via some other action.”);
generating a prompt with a request to identify a technical solution for solving the technical issue (Sundaram, Abstract teaches “receiving, via a user interface (UI), a natural language (NL) query associated with one or more malfunction indicators indicative of a malfunction state of a system” and Fig. 5, blocks 510 and 520 and paragraphs 0051-0053 Paragraph 0053 “input can include a prompt that is based at least on the NL query.”);
receiving, from a large language model, a prompt response with information about the technical solution (Sundaram, Fig. 5, block 530, paragraph 0054), the prompt response including source code for performing the technical solution (Sundaram, paragraph 0015 “and the LM can respond …and run a diagnostic (e.g., hardware, software, and/or firmware) tool…” and paragraph 0120 describes software as “code (e.g., executable code or source code)” that causes computerized systems such as television to perform operations. Paragraph 0020 teaches “Diagnostic tool 160 may …confirm adherence to specifications of target system 180 and/or otherwise facilitate operations of target system 180.” [i.e. performing the technical solution so system operates properly]), the large language model being calibrated based on at least one of television user manuals, television call center recording, television source code, or online discussion forums (Sundaram, paragraphs 0015, 0016 “may have been provided over phone, chat, and/or some other recorded customer service modality…”. Paragraph 0081 teaches “an existing machine learning model that needs to be optimized or updated. … feedback data 908 may be received from various channels, such as forums, web forms, or the like.” LLM being calibrated is taught in paragraphs 0030-0031, 0043, 0074, 0081); and
executing the source code without user interaction to perform the technical solution (Sundaram, paragraph 0015 “and the LM can respond …and run a diagnostic (e.g., hardware, software, and/or firmware) tool…” and paragraph 0120 describes software as source code [i.e. executing the source code] and paragraph 0020 teaches “Diagnostic tool 160 may …confirm adherence to specifications of target system 180 and/or otherwise facilitate operations of target system 180.” [i.e. perform the technical solution]. Furthermore, paragraph 0015, and paragraph 0022 teaches “diagnostic tool 160 may be launched automatically by computing device 102” [i.e. executing the source code without user interaction]).
Claims 16, 18-20, the non-transitory computer readable medium article of manufacture that implements the method of claims 4, 6-7 and 9, respectively, are rejected on the same grounds as claims 4, 6-7 and 9.
Response to Arguments
With regards to the arguments for 35 U.S.C. 101 rejection, Applicant argues on page 7 of the Amendment and Response with respect to the independent claims “plain language of the limitation [#4] recites that the source code is executed ‘to perform the technical solution.’ This is not a data gathering step, nor is it performed merely for determining if the solution solves the issue. Rather, it is the functional application of the solution to the hardware.” The Examiner respectfully disagrees with Applicant’s argument as no technical solution or hardware is recited in any details in claims 1, 10, and 15 or dependent claims. Furthermore, the 35 U.S.C. 101 rejection for claims 1, 10, and 15 given above recites that limitation #4 does not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application because this element is mere instructions to apply an exception. Thus, Applicant’s arguments given above for rejection under 35 U.S.C. 101 are not persuasive and the rejection of the claims are respectfully maintained.
With regards to the arguments for 35 U.S.C. 102 rejection on page 8 of the Amendment and Response, Applicant’s arguments with respect to independent claims have been fully considered but are moot because of the new claim mappings and new grounds of rejections given in this office action necessitated by Applicant’s claim amendments.
Furthermore, Applicant’s arguments given on bottom of page 8 and page 9 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. Applicant cites to paragraph 0120 of Sundaram and argues on the bottom of page 8:
Furthermore, the Final Office Action's reliance on paragraph [0120] of Sundaram to equate "software" with "source code" does not bridge the gap. While Sundaram may generally define software as code, it does not teach that the LM's response actually includes such source code for the purpose of automated, non-interactive execution on the hardware.
The Examiner respectfully disagrees with Applicant’s argument that Sundaram “does not teach that the LM’s response actually includes source code for the purpose of automated, non-interactive execution on the hardware” as the Examiner clearly describes this teaching of Sundaram in the claim mappings given above. Applicant further argues on page 9 that “the amended claims implement a specific automated feedback loop …” but this claim language is not recited in the any of the claims. Thus, Applicant’s arguments given above for the independent claims are not persuasive and the rejection of independent claims are respectfully maintained.
Applicant on page 9, states that the “Claims 2-4, 6-9, 11-14, 16, and 18-20 are patentable over Sundaram due to their dependence on an allowable independent claim.” and provide no other evidence or arguments for the remaining claims. Thus, the Examiner respectfully maintains the rejections of these claims as given in the claim mappings above.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to Applicants’ disclosure. Applicants are required under 37 C.F.R. § 1.111(c) to consider these references fully when responding to this action.
It is noted that any citation to specific pages, columns, lines, or figures in the prior art references and any interpretation of the references should not be considered to be limiting in any way. A reference is relevant for all it contains and may be relied upon for all that it would have reasonably suggested to one having ordinary skill in the art. In re Heck, 699 F.2d 1331, 1332-33, 216 U.S.P.Q. 1038, 1039 (Fed. Cir. 1983) (quoting In re Lemelson, 397 F.2d 1006, 1009, 158 U.S.P.Q. 275, 277 (C.C.P.A. 1968)).
In the interests of compact prosecution, Applicants are invited to contact the examiner via electronic media pursuant to USPTO policy outlined MPEP § 502.03. All electronic communication must be authorized in writing. Applicants may wish to file an Internet Communications Authorization Form PTO/SB/439. Applicants may wish to request an interview using the Interview Practice website: http://www.uspto.gov/patent/laws-and-regulations/interview-practice.
Applicants are reminded Internet e-mail may not be used for communication for matters under 35 U.S.C. § 132 or which otherwise require a signature. A reply to an Office action may NOT be communicated by Applicants to the USPTO via Internet e-mail. If such a reply is submitted by Applicants via Internet e-mail, a paper copy will be placed in the appropriate patent application file with an indication that the reply is NOT ENTERED. See MPEP § 502.03(II).
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to INDRANIL CHOWDHURY whose telephone number is (571)272-0446. The examiner can normally be reached Mon.-Fri. 9:30-7:00 CST.
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, Ashish Thomas can be reached on (571) 272-0631. 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.
/INDRANIL CHOWDHURY/Examiner, Art Unit 2114
/ASHISH THOMAS/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2114
Prosecution Insights