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 1-4, 6-11, 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. The claims recite a mental process – concepts performed in the human mind.
Claims 1, 10, and 15 recite:
1. detecting a technical solution of a television device without user input;
2. generating a prompt with a request to identify a technical solution for
solving the technical issue;
3. 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
4. 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 ‘detecting a technical issue of a television device without user is a mental process – concept performed in the human mind by observation, evaluation, judgment, and/or opinion.
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 "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.
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.
Claims 4, 16 recite: obtaining device information about the television device, wherein the prompt also includes the device information 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).
Claims 6, 11, and 18 recite: wherein the request is a first request and the prompt includes a second request to generate the source code for performing the technical solution. The "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 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).
Claims 7,12,19 recite: generating troubleshooting session data, the troubleshooting session data including the technical issue, the technical solution, and whether the technical solution was successful in resolving the technical issue is directed to adding insignificant extra-solution activity to the judicial exception (MPEP 2106.05(g)); and re-calibrating the large language model with the troubleshooting session data is directed to generic computer components recited at a high-level of generality such that they amount to nothing more than mere instructions to apply the exception using generic computer components (MPEP 2106.05(f))..
Claims 8 and 13 recite: 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 is directed to adding insignificant extra-solution activity to the judicial exception (MPEP 2106.05(g)).
Claims 9,14,20 recite: 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, the method further comprising: detecting an error event about a second technical issue on the television device is a mental process is a mental process – concept performed in the human mind by observation, evaluation, judgment, and/or opinion; 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 is directed to adding insignificant extra-solution activity to the judicial exception (MPEP 2106.05(g)); receiving, from the large language model, a second prompt response with information about the second technical solution is directed to generic computer components recited at a high-level of generality such that they amount to nothing more than mere instructions to apply the exception using generic computer components (MPEP 2106.05(f)); and displaying the second technical solution on a user interface of a media application is directed to adding insignificant extra-solution activity to the judicial exception (MPEP 2106.05(g)).
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 1-4, 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: detecting a technical issue of television device without user input (paragraph 0019 teaches target system 180 includes display or video device; paragraph 0021 - Diagnostic tool 160 may apply hardware diagnostics 162 and software diagnostics 164 to target system 180 and generate one or more diagnostic logs 166 that represent records, made in any suitable format, of one or more performed diagnostic operations. In one example, a diagnostic log 164 may include a list of operations, individual operations indexed by respective operation identifications (IDs), and outcomes of the operations. Some operations may include binary outcomes (e.g., “check: pass” or “check: fail”) while other operations may have multivalued (e.g., continuous) outcomes (e.g., network latency “83 ms”). Some operations may include discrete error/fault malfunction indicators (e.g., codes/faults), each error or fault indicative of a particular type of a malfunction of target system 180 A number of operations performed by hardware diagnostics 162 and/or software diagnostics 164 and documented in diagnostic logs 166 is not limited and may range from a single operation (for relatively simple target systems 180) to hundreds, thousands, or even more operations. Similarly, individual diagnostic operations may have any number—two or more—of faults, errors, and/or continuous values.),;
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 Page 16 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 claims 4,16, 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 claims 6,11,18, 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 claims 7,12,19 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 resolving 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 claims 8,13, 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 claims 9,14,20, 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 Page 20 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);
detecting a technical issue of television device without user input (paragraph 0019 teaches target system 180 includes display or video device; paragraph 0021 - Diagnostic tool 160 may apply hardware diagnostics 162 and software diagnostics 164 to target system 180 and generate one or more diagnostic logs 166 that represent records, made in any suitable format, of one or more performed diagnostic operations. In one example, a diagnostic log 164 may include a list of operations, individual operations indexed by respective operation identifications (IDs), and outcomes of the operations. Some operations may include binary outcomes (e.g., “check: pass” or “check: fail”) while other operations may have multivalued (e.g., continuous) outcomes (e.g., network latency “83 ms”). Some operations may include discrete error/fault malfunction indicators (e.g., codes/faults), each error or fault indicative of a particular type of a malfunction of target system 180 A number of operations performed by hardware diagnostics 162 and/or software diagnostics 164 and documented in diagnostic logs 166 is not limited and may range from a single operation (for relatively simple target systems 180) to hundreds, thousands, or even more operations. Similarly, individual diagnostic operations may have any number—two or more—of faults, errors, and/or continuous values.),;
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]).
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, SWDiagnostics 164 includes software instructions, see also paragraphs 0050, 0120), the operations comprising:
detecting a technical issue of television device without user input (paragraph 0019 teaches target system 180 includes display or video device; paragraph 0021 - Diagnostic tool 160 may apply hardware diagnostics 162 and software diagnostics 164 to target system 180 and generate one or more diagnostic logs 166 that represent records, made in any suitable format, of one or more performed diagnostic operations. In one example, a diagnostic log 164 may include a list of operations, individual operations indexed by respective operation identifications (IDs), and outcomes of the operations. Some operations may include binary outcomes (e.g., “check: pass” or “check: fail”) while other operations may have multivalued (e.g., continuous) outcomes (e.g., network latency “83 ms”). Some operations may include discrete error/fault malfunction indicators (e.g., codes/faults), each error or fault indicative of a particular type of a malfunction of target system 180 A number of operations performed by hardware diagnostics 162 and/or software diagnostics 164 and documented in diagnostic logs 166 is not limited and may range from a single operation (for relatively simple target systems 180) to hundreds, thousands, or even more operations. Similarly, individual diagnostic operations may have any number—two or more—of faults, errors, and/or continuous values.),;
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]).
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments and amendments filed 07/15/2026 have been fully considered. The 101 rejection still stands. Concerning Applicant’s arguments of the 101 rejection, the ‘detecting’ limitation is a mental process that can be detected with the aid of a computer as a tool and by observation, evaluation, judgment, and/or opinion. Executing a solution is insignificant extra-solution activity to correct an issue found. The 102 rejection still stands. Sundaram does disclose the newly added limitation. Please see the above rejection. Claim 7 appears to have not been rejected under 35 USC 101 and it is now rejected. Therefore, this office action is a second action non-final.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Yolanda L Wilson whose telephone number is (571)272-3653. The examiner can normally be reached M-F (7:30 am - 4 pm).
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, Bryce Bonzo can be reached at 571-272-3655. 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.
/Yolanda L Wilson/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2113
Prosecution Insights