DETAILED ACTION
This Office action is in reply to application no. 18/434,675, filed 6 February 2024. Claims 1-20 are pending and are considered below.
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 .
Election/Restriction
Restriction to one of the following inventions is required under 35 U.S.C. 121:
I. Claims 1-14, drawn to systems and methods for generating parsed content using a previously-trained large language model, classified in G06F40/40.
II. Claims 15-20, drawn to methods for training and testing a large language model, classified in G06N3/092.
The inventions are independent or distinct, each from the other because:
Inventions I and II are directed to related processes involving large language models. The related inventions are distinct if: (1) the inventions as claimed are either not capable of use together or can have a materially different design, mode of operation, function, or effect; (2) the inventions do not overlap in scope, i.e., are mutually exclusive; and (3) the inventions as claimed are not obvious variants. See MPEP § 806.05(j). In the instant case, the inventions as claimed have a materially different function and effect. Furthermore, the inventions as claimed do not encompass overlapping subject matter and there is nothing of record to show them to be obvious variants.
Restriction for examination purposes as indicated is proper because all the inventions listed in this action are independent or distinct for the reasons given above and there would be a serious search and/or examination burden if restriction were not required because one or more of the following reasons apply:
The inventions claim independent and distinct processes, are classified differently, and a search for one is unlikely to yield results relevant to the other.
Applicant is advised that the reply to this requirement to be complete must include (i) an election of an invention to be examined even though the requirement may be traversed (37 CFR 1.143) and (ii) identification of the claims encompassing the elected invention.
The election of an invention may be made with or without traverse. To reserve a right to petition, the election must be made with traverse. If the reply does not distinctly and specifically point out supposed errors in the restriction requirement, the election shall be treated as an election without traverse. Traversal must be presented at the time of election in order to be considered timely. Failure to timely traverse the requirement will result in the loss of right to petition under 37 CFR 1.144. If claims are added after the election, applicant must indicate which of these claims are readable upon the elected invention.
Should applicant traverse on the ground that the inventions are not patentably distinct, applicant should submit evidence or identify such evidence now of record showing the inventions to be obvious variants or clearly admit on the record that this is the case. In either instance, if the examiner finds one of the inventions unpatentable over the prior art, the evidence or admission may be used in a rejection under 35 U.S.C. 103 or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(a) of the other invention.
During a telephone conversation with Dan DeLuca on 28 July 2026 a provisional election was made without traverse to prosecute the invention of group I, claims 1-14. Affirmation of this election must be made by applicant in replying to this Office action. Claims 15-20 are withdrawn from further consideration by the examiner, 37 CFR 1.142(b), as being drawn to a non-elected invention.
Claim Objections
Claims 2 and 9 are objected to because of the following informalities: “a curricula vitae” is grammatically incorrect, because “curricula” is a plural word. The Examiner suggests “a curriculum vitae”. Appropriate correction is required.
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.
Claims 1-14 are 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 applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention. The claims all require the use of a “specialized LLM focused on parsing only the target document type in the target human language”. No such LLM is described in any detail anywhere in the originally filed application; it is merely mentioned and its benefits touted, but there is no description of how to make such an LLM sufficient to convince one of ordinary skill in the art at the relevant time that the inventor was in possession of such an LLM. For the purpose of compact prosecution, the Examiner will assume the use of a general-purpose LLM capable of carrying out the process it performs in the claims.
Further in regard to claims 6 and 14, the specification does not adequately support a claim of “using reduced system resources”.
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.
Claims 3, 5, 6, 10 and 14 are 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 applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention. Claim 5 requires hosting an LLM on a “local computer system”. This is a term of degree and the originally filed application gives no hint as to how it would be determined whether any particular computer is “local”, nor what it is supposed to be local as compared to; it is an open comparative. Claims 3 and 10 each require the use of “one human language” selected from a list including “Chinese”. Chinese is not a single human language but a family of related languages. Claims 6 and 14 claim to use “reduced system resources”, but this, like “local” in claims 3 and 10, is an open comparative and there is no basis for the comparison; further, they use an unestablished abbreviation, “Int8”.
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 1-14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more. The claims lie within statutory categories of invention, as each is directed to a method (process) or system (machine). The claim(s) recite(s) a data gathering step (receiving a document), parsing the document in no particular manner, generating parsed content in no particular manner, populating fields with the parsed content, and providing output.
Receiving information, parsing it and filling in forms are human mental work which, in the absence of computers, can be done mentally and with pen and paper. A person can receive a document, e.g. on paper, can find relevant terms within the document (which is all that parsing requires), can fill in a form with those terms and can provide the form to someone else, e.g. by sending it via the post. None of this presents any practical difficulty, and none requires any technology beyond a pen and paper.
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application because aside from the bare inclusion of a generic computer and nondescript use of AI, discussed below, nothing is done beyond what was set forth above, which does not go beyond generally linking the abstract idea to the technological environment of AI-enabled computers. See MPEP § 2106.05(h).
As the claims only manipulate information about resumes, they do not improve the “functioning of a computer” or of “any other technology or technical field”. See MPEP § 2106.05(a). They do not apply the abstract idea “with, or by use of a particular machine”, MPEP § 2106.05(b), as the below-cited Guidance is clear that a generic computer is not the particular machine envisioned.
They do not effect a “transformation or reduction of a particular article to a different state or thing”, MPEP § 2106.05(c). First, such information, being intangible, is not a particular article at all. Second, the claimed manipulation is neither transformative nor reductive; as the courts have pointed out, in the end, data are still data.
They do not apply the abstract idea “in some other meaningful way beyond generally linking [it] to a particular technological environment”, MPEP § 2106.05(e), as the lack of technical and algorithmic detail in the claims is so as not to go beyond such a general linkage.
The claim(s) does/do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because the additional claim limitations, considered individually and as an ordered combination, are insufficient to elevate an otherwise-ineligible claim.
Claim 8, which has the most, includes a computer comprising a processor and memory storing instructions. These elements are recited at a high degree of generality and the specification is clear, e.g. ¶ 52, that no particular type of computer is required but a number of pre-existing, general purpose computing devices will suffice, which encompasses a generic computer.
It only performs generic computer functions of nondescriptly manipulating information and sharing information with persons and/or other devices. Generic computers performing generic computer functions, without an inventive concept, do not amount to significantly more than the abstract idea.
The type of information being manipulated does not impose meaningful limitations or render the idea less abstract. LLMs were well-understood, routine and conventional before the filing of the present invention. For example, Tholfsen et al. (U.S. Publication No. 2024/0394483, filed 10 November 2023) could by then describe them as “ubiquitous”. [0005]
In light of Recentive1, the use of known AI techniques where the only improvement lies in the type of data being used or generated is not, per se, sufficient. The claim limitations when considered as an ordered combination – a generic computer performing a sequence of abstract steps while using well-understood, routine and conventional AI techniques – does nothing more than when they are analyzed individually.
The other independent claim is simply a different embodiment but is likewise directed to a generic computer performing, essentially, the same process. The dependent claims further do not amount to significantly more than the abstract idea: claims 2, 3, 7, 9 and 10 are simply further descriptive of the type of information being manipulated; claims 4, 5, 11 and 12 are simply further specific of where data are stored; claims 6, 13 and 14 simply recite further, abstract manipulation of data.
The claims are not patent eligible. The Examiner has thoroughly reviewed the originally filed application, including the specification and drawing sheets, and finds nothing likely sufficient to overcome this rejection. For further guidance please see MPEP § 2106.03 – 2106.07(c) (formerly referred to as the “2019 Revised Patent Subject Matter Eligibility Guidance”, 84 Fed. Reg. 50, 55 (7 January 2019, revised October 2019)).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
Claim(s) 1-5 and 8-10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Singh (U.S. Publication No. 2023/0385085) in view of Muriqi (U.S. Publication No. 2024/0046318, filed 4 August 2023).
In-line citations are to Singh.
With regard to Claim 1:
Singh teaches: A method for processing a document, [0059; “document processing”] the method comprising:
receiving a document of a target document type and in a target human language; [0081; data are received such as “UI elements” which may include, 0023, text which has been entered]
parsing, using a large language model (LLM), the document, [0081; LLMs are used; 0024; data are extracted from human interactions] wherein the LLM is a specialized LLM focused on parsing only the target document type in the target human language, the LLM having been trained using a set of training documents of the target document type… [abstract; the model is “trained to recognize matching n-grams of user interactions”] has a completion score equal or greater than a threshold value; [0035; the “model may observe that the user has entered information in several fields”; several reads on a number greater than one]
generating parsed content of the document including content extracted from the document; [0024 as cited above]
populating a plurality of predefined fields with the parsed content of the document; [0035; the user may ask the system to automatically fill “fields”] and
outputting the populated predefined fields to an output device. [0093; output is displayed]
Singh does not explicitly teach each training document of the set of training documents is a résumé that has been downloaded at least once by a user, but in addition to being of no patentable significance as explained below, it is known in the art. Muriqi teaches a social network system [title] that can be used to manage “curriculum vitae”. [0513] It uses an LLM, [0497] and performs “deep parsing” of text. [0436] Data may be obtained by downloading it. [0071] Text may be in English. [Sheet 1, Fig. 1] Muriqi and Singh are analogous art as each is directed to electronic means for managing text data using LLMs.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art just prior to the filing of the claimed invention to combine the teaching of Muriqi with that of Singh in order to incentivize desired user behavior, as taught by Muriqi; [0009] further, it is simply a substitution of one known part for another with predictable result, simply using data such as that of Muriqi rather than, or in addition to, that of Singh; the substitution produces no new and unexpected result.
In this and the subsequent claims, that an LLM is “a specialized LLM focused on parsing only the target document type in the target human language”, in addition to being unsupported as noted above, consists entirely of nonfunctional, descriptive language, simply noting characteristics of a model but which imparts neither structure nor functionality to any claimed environment and so is considered but given no patentable weight. That a document is a “resume that has been downloaded at least once by a user, and has a completion score equal or greater than a threshold value” consists entirely of nonfunctional, descriptive language, disclosing details of a step entirely outside the scope of the claimed process and so is considered but given no patentable weight. That the LLM was previously trained is outside the scope of the claimed process, so details of the training are considered but given no patentable weight. The content of information which is merely transmitted or displayed and then not further processed, such as “the populated predefined fields”, consists entirely of nonfunctional printed matter which bears no functional relation to the claimed substrate and so is considered but given no patentable weight. References, where provided, are for the purpose of compact prosecution. The broadest reasonable interpretation of “document” includes any recorded information or data container such as text.
With regard to Claim 2:
The method of Claim 1, wherein the target document type is a résumé document type, and the résumé document type includes at least one document selected from a group consisting of: a résumé, and a curricula vitae. [Muriqi, 0513 as cited above in regard to claim 1]
With regard to Claim 3:
The method of Claim 1, wherein the target human language is any one human language selected from a group consisting of: English, Spanish, French, German, Chinese, and Japanese. [Muriqi, Fig. 1 as cited above in regard to claim 1]
With regard to Claim 4:
The method of Claim 1, wherein the predefined fields are fields of a database record. [0029; all the data may be stored on a database]
With regard to Claim 5:
The method of Claim 1, further comprising hosting the LLM on a local computer system. [0059; the models my be “deployed locally on at least one of computing systems 102, 104, 106”]
With regard to Claim 8:
Singh teaches: A system for processing a document, the system comprising:
a memory;
one or more storage devices storing computer-readable instructions;
one or more processors configured, when executing the computer-readable instructions, [0006; “a non-transitory computer-readable medium stores a computer program. The computer program is configured to cause at least one processor” to perform the process] to:
receive a document of a target document type and in a target human language; [0081; data are received such as “UI elements” which may include, 0023, text which has been entered]
parse the document using a large language model (LLM), [0081; LLMs are used; 0024; data are extracted from human interactions] wherein the LLM is a specialized LLM focused on parsing only the target document type in the target human language, the LLM having been trained using a set of training documents of the target document type… [abstract; the model is “trained to recognize matching n-grams of user interactions”] has a completion score equal or greater than a threshold value; [0035; the “model may observe that the user has entered information in several fields”; several reads on a number greater than one]
generate parsed content of the document including content extracted from the document; [0024 as cited above]
populate a plurality of predefined fields with the parsed content of the document; [0035; the user may ask the system to automatically fill “fields”] and
output the populated predefined fields to an output device. [0093; output is displayed]
Singh does not explicitly teach each training document of the set of training documents is a résumé that has been downloaded at least once by a user, but in addition to being of no patentable significance as explained below, it is known in the art. Muriqi teaches a social network system [title] that can be used to manage “curriculum vitae”. [0513] It uses an LLM, [0497] and performs “deep parsing” of text. [0436] Data may be obtained by downloading it. [0071] Text may be in English. [Sheet 1, Fig. 1] Muriqi and Singh are analogous art as each is directed to electronic means for managing text data using LLMs.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art just prior to the filing of the claimed invention to combine the teaching of Muriqi with that of Singh in order to incentivize desired user behavior, as taught by Muriqi; [0009] further, it is simply a substitution of one known part for another with predictable result, simply using data such as that of Muriqi rather than, or in addition to, that of Singh; the substitution produces no new and unexpected result.
With regard to Claim 9:
The system of Claim 8, wherein the target document type is a résumé document type, and the résumé document type includes at least one document selected from a group consisting of: a résumé, and a curricula vitae. [Muriqi, 0513 as cited above in regard to claim 8]
With regard to Claim 10:
The system of Claim 8, wherein the target human language is any one human language selected from a group consisting of: English, Spanish, French, German, Chinese, and Japanese. [Muriqi, Fig. 1 as cited above in regard to claim 8]
With regard to Claim 12:
The system of Claim 8, wherein the predefined fields are fields of a database record. [0029; all the data may be stored on a database]
With regard to Claim 13:
The system of Claim 8, wherein the one or more storage devices store LLM instructions, the LLM instructions being executed by the one or more processors to collectively implement the LLM. [0059; the models my be “deployed locally on at least one of computing systems 102, 104, 106”]
Claim(s) 6 and 14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Singh in view of Muriqi further in view of Bouchard et al. (U.S. Publication No. 2006/0075206).
These claims are similar so are analyzed together.
With regard to Claim 6:
The method of Claim 5, further comprising configuring the LLM to parse the target document type using reduced system resources, wherein the LLM is configured with parameters modified to use Int8 values.
With regard to Claim 14:
The system of Claim 13, wherein the one or more processors are configured to parse the target document type by the LLM using reduced system resources, wherein the LLM is configured with parameters modified to use Int8 values.
Singh and Muriqi teach the method of claim 5 and system of claim 13, including parsing and the use of parameters, [e.g. 0032], but do not explicitly teach using 8 bit integers, but it is known in the art. Bouchard teaches a search system [abstract] which uses an LLM and in which the input is a “string of (8 bit) bytes”. [0049] The bytes are inherently integers but may also store integer digits. [id.] Bouchard and Singh are analogous art as each is directed to electronic means for using LLMs to process data.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art just prior to the filing of the claimed invention to combine the teaching of Bouchard with that of Singh and Muriqi in order to allow complex expressions to be managed, as taught by Bouchard; [0006] further, it is simply a substitution of one known part for another with predictable results, simply storing data in 8-bit bytes as in Bouchard rather than, or in addition to, Singh’s structures; the substitution produces no new and unexpected result.
Claim(s) 7 and 11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Singh in view of Muriqi further in view of Nguyen (U.S. Publication No. 2021/0256868).
These claims are similar so are analyzed together.
With regard to Claim 7:
The method of Claim 1, wherein the threshold value is .80 completion, and each training document of the set of training documents is a résumé document that is 80% complete.
With regard to Claim 11:
The system of Claim 8, wherein the threshold value is .80 completion, and each training document is 80% complete.
Singh and Muriqi teach the method of claim 1 and system of claim 8, but do not explicitly teach this level of completion, but it is known in the art. Nguyen teaches a cognitive assistant [abstract] that treats a document differently based on a completion level such as 80%. [0166] It may use “machine learning algorithms”. [0102] Nguyen and Singh are analogous art as each is directed to electronic means for using AI to process textual information.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art just prior to the filing of the claimed invention to combine the teaching of Nguyen with that of Singh and Muriqi in order to improve efficiency, as taught by Nguyen; [abstract] further, it is simply a substitution of one known part for another with predictable results, simply using Nguyen’s value in place of that of Singh; the substitution produces no new and unexpected result.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to SCOTT C ANDERSON whose telephone number is (571)270-7442. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 9:00 to 5:30.
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, Bennett Sigmond can be reached at (303) 297-4411. 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.
/SCOTT C ANDERSON/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3694
1 Recentive Analytics, Inc. v. Fox Corp. et al., 134 F.4th 1205, 1216 (Fed. Cir. 2025)
Prosecution Insights