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 .
DETAILED ACTION
The action is in response to claims dated 1/30/2024
Claims pending in the case: 1-20
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112:
The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor of carrying out his invention.
Claim 6, 14, 19 rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for pre-AIA the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention.
Claim 6, 14, 19 recites “determining a likelihood that the large language model was trained using outdated training data”. There is no support on how such a determination may be done in the current specification. There are no direct models or standard process that predict a specific "likelihood" or probability of a model being trained using outdated training data that is known in the art. The applicant is requested to identify the paragraphs and lines in the specification that supports how this limitation may be achieved.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claim(s) 6, 14, 19 rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor, or for pre-AIA the applicant regards as the invention.
Claim(s) 6, 14, 19 in the relevant part read: “determining a likelihood that the large language model was trained using outdated training data”. Based on the claim language, it is unclear what criteria is to be used to determine “a likelihood”. Since there is no standard process known in the art that predict a specific "likelihood" or probability of a model being trained using outdated training data this limitation is not definite. As such, a person of reasonable skill in the art would not be apprised of the metes and bounds of the invention.
For the purpose of examination, a reasonable interpretation was not possible.
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(s) 1-2, 4-5, 8-10, 12-13, 16-18 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Pinel (US 20190317648) in view of Heller (US 20240273309).
Regarding Claim 1, Pinel teaches, A method comprising:
obtaining, using at least one processing device of an electronic device, information associated with a webpage presented to a user (Pinel: [26]: webpage information);
providing, using the at least one processing device, the information to an on-device … learning model of the electronic device (Pinel: [52]: providing information to the action device; [70]: learning device for providing prompts and responses) ;
generating, using the on-device machine learning model, a prompt … based on the information, the prompt including (i) an action from a set of candidate actions that the large language model is able to perform and (ii) at least some of the information (Pinel: [63]: “generate a prompt which describes the contents of a web page and invites a user to take an action”; [70]: learning device for providing prompts and responses);
providing, using the at least one processing device, the prompt as input to the … model (Pinel: [77]: user selection transmitted to the analysis system);
receiving, using the at least one processing device, a response from the … model (Pinel: [77-78]: action response based on user selection); and
presenting, using the at least one processing device, the response to the user (Pinel: [77-78]: present action response based on user selection);
However, Pinel does not specifically teach, the learning model is a large language model;
Heller teaches, a large language model (Heller: [41-42]: provide prompt with text and instructions to a large language model to generate response);
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the teachings of Pinel and Heller because the combination would enable using a machine learning model to perform the functions taught in Pinel. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to combine the teachings because the combination would automate a process done by humans by using large language model. The combination enables using the advances made large language models to produce text that approaches that which would be generated by humans (see Heller [2]).
Regarding claim 2 Pinel and Heller teach the invention as claimed in claim 1 above and, wherein the set of candidate actions comprises at least one of: locating content related to the webpage; generating a summary of the webpage; identifying one or more key points of the webpage; or answering a user question about the content of the webpage (Pinel: [77]: prompt to provide headlines, go to the second article etc.) .
Regarding claim 4, Pinel and Heller teach the invention as claimed in claim 1 above and, further comprising: identifying how the user interacts with the presented response; and updating one or more weights of the on-device machine learning model based on how the user interacts with the presented response (Heller: [38, 42, 46]: text generation flow based on user input by large language model – model adjusts weights).
Regarding claim 5 Pinel and Heller teach the invention as claimed in claim 4 above and, wherein identifying how the user interacts with the presented response comprises at least one of: determining whether the user copies content included in the response; determining a time that the user spends viewing the response; or determining how the user rates the response (Pinel: [73]: stored information of previous viewing).
Regarding claim 8, Pinel and Heller teach the invention as claimed in claim 1 above and, wherein:
the prompt comprises a first prompt (Pinel: [63]: generate a first prompt) (Heller: [75, 269]: generate one or more prompts);
the response comprises a first response (Pinel: [77-78]: action response based on user selection) (Heller: [82-83]: generate one or more prompts); and
the method further comprises: generating a second prompt for the large language model based on the information, the second prompt phrased differently than the first prompt (Heller: Fig. 4, [83]: generate additional prompts);
providing the second prompt as input to the large language model (Heller: Fig. 4, [77]: transmit prompt to modelling system);
receiving a second response from the large language model (Heller: Fig. 4, [78]: receive response);
comparing the first and second responses; and selecting one of the first and second responses for presentation to the user (Heller: [147-149]: use relevancy score to compare responses and prioritize responses).
Regarding Claim(s) 9-10, 12-13, 16, this/these claim(s) is/are similar in scope as claim(s) 1-2, 4-5, 8 respectively. Therefore, this/these claim(s) is/are rejected under the same rationale.. Therefore, this/these claim(s) is/are rejected under the same rationale.
Regarding Claim(s) 17-18, this/these claim(s) is/are similar in scope as claim(s) 1, 12 respectively. Therefore, this/these claim(s) is/are rejected under the same rationale.
Claim(s) 3, 11 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Pinel (US 20190317648) and Heller (US 20240273309) in view of Lombardi (US 20150042570).
Regarding claim 3 Pinel and Heller teach the invention as claimed in claim 1 above and, wherein: the information associated with the webpage comprises webpage metadata associated with the webpage (Pinel: [26]: web page – all web pages have metadata);
the method further comprises obtaining a browsing history associated with the user and profile information associated with the user (Pinel: [73, 75]: checks for data associated with webpage like navigation info and user context; [26]: profile information);
the prompt is generated based on the browsing history, …, and the webpage metadata (Pinel: [76]: generates prompt based on analysis);
However, Pinel, Heller does not specifically recite, based on profile information;
Lombardi teaches, generated based on the profile information (Lombardi: [68, 71]: contextual prompt based on browsing history, user profile and metadata);
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the teachings of Pinel, Heller and Lombardi because the combination would enable using user context to generate contextual prompts. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to combine the teachings because the combination would enable providing most relevant information to the user as is common in the art (see Lombardi [17]).
Regarding Claim(s) 11, this/these claim(s) is/are similar in scope as claim(s) 3. Therefore, this/these claim(s) is/are rejected under the same rationale.
Claim(s) 7, 15, 20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Pinel (US 20190317648) and Heller (US 20240273309) in view of Fisher (US 20150348023).
Regarding claim7, Pinel and Heller teach the invention as claimed in claim 1 above and, further comprising: determining whether the webpage includes sensitive information; and in response to determining that the webpage includes sensitive information, at least one of: not providing the sensitive information to the on-device machine learning model or not including the sensitive information in the prompt (Fisher: claim 4, [49]: sensitive information may be excluded from a generated prompt).;
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the teachings of Pinel, Heller and Fisher because the combination would enable excluding sensitive information from prompts. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to combine the teachings because the combination would improve the system by making ecommerce interactions more secure (see Fisher [5, 12]).
Regarding Claim(s) 15, 20, this/these claim(s) is/are similar in scope as claim(s) 7. Therefore, this/these claim(s) is/are rejected under the same rationale.
Claim Rejections using prior art
Regarding claims 6, 14, 19 please refer to the 112 (b) rejection above. As explained, a reasonable interpretation was not possible and hence a prior art rejection has not been presented.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure in attached 892.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MANDRITA BRAHMACHARI whose telephone number is (571)272-9735. The examiner can normally be reached Monday to Friday, 11 am to 8 pm EST.
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, Tamara Kyle can be reached at 571 272 4241. 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.
/Mandrita Brahmachari/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2144
Prosecution Insights