Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
1. The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Information Disclosure Statement
2. The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on November 6, 2023 is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement is being considered by the examiner.
Response to Amendments and Arguments
3. The amendment filed on December 31, 2025 has been entered. Claims 1-20 remain pending in the application. Claims 1, 5, 8, 11, 15, and 18 are amended.
Applicant’s arguments with respect to the 35 U.S.C. 102 rejections for claims 1-4, 6-10, 12-17, and 19-20 have been considered and are persuasive. Accordingly, these rejections have been withdrawn.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101
3. 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.
4. Claims 1-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
Independent claim 1 recites “A method comprising: evaluating heuristics data of one or more data elements in a database response to determine which of the one or more data elements comprise malicious content; replacing, based on the evaluating, the one or more data elements in [[a]] the database response with one or more tokens to produce a tokenized database response; providing the tokenized database response to a large language model (LLM);receiving a tokenized LLM output that comprises at least one of the one or more tokens; and producing, by a processing device, a detokenized LLM output by replacing the at least one of the one or more tokens in the tokenized LLM output with at least one of the one or more data elements”.
The limitations “evaluating heuristics data of one or more data elements in a database response to determine which of the one or more data elements comprise malicious content; replacing, based on the evaluating, the one or more data elements in [[a]] the database response with one or more tokens to produce a tokenized database response; providing the tokenized database response to a large language model (LLM);receiving a tokenized LLM output that comprises at least one of the one or more tokens; and producing, by a processing device, a detokenized LLM output by replacing the at least one of the one or more tokens in the tokenized LLM output with at least one of the one or more data elements” as drafted, covers a mental process, as this could be done by mentally or by hand with pen and paper.
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. Claim 1 recites “A method comprising:…”.
The claim(s) does/do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. The addition of the generic computer components recited above with regard to claim 1 do not amount to more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component. Mere instructions to apply an exception using a generic computer component cannot provide an inventive concept. Claim 1 does not recite any additional limitations. The claim as drafted, is not patent eligible.
Independent claim 8 recites “A system comprising: a processing device; and a memory, operatively coupled to the processing device, to store instructions that, when executed by the processing device cause the processing device to: evaluate heuristics data of one or more data elements in a database response to determine which of the one or more data elements comprise malicious content; replace, based on the evaluating, the one or more data elements in the database response with one or more tokens to produce a tokenized database response; provide the tokenized database response to a large language model (LLM); receive a tokenized LLM output that comprises at least one of the one or more tokens; and produce a detokenized LLM output by replacing the at least one of the one or more tokens in the tokenized LLM output with at least one of the one or more data elements”.
The limitations “evaluate heuristics data of one or more data elements in a database response to determine which of the one or more data elements comprise malicious content; replace, based on the evaluating, the one or more data elements in the database response with one or more tokens to produce a tokenized database response; provide the tokenized database response to a large language model (LLM); receive a tokenized LLM output that comprises at least one of the one or more tokens; and produce a detokenized LLM output by replacing the at least one of the one or more tokens in the tokenized LLM output with at least one of the one or more data elements” as drafted, covers a mental process, as this could be done by mentally or by hand with pen and paper.
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. Claim 8 recites “A system comprising: a processing device; and a memory, operatively coupled to the processing device, to store instructions that, when executed by the processing device cause the processing device to:..”.
The claim(s) does/do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. The addition of the generic computer components recited above with regard to claim 8 do not amount to more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component. Mere instructions to apply an exception using a generic computer component cannot provide an inventive concept. Claim 8 does not recite any additional limitations. The claim as drafted, is not patent eligible.
Independent claim 15 recites “A non-transitory computer readable medium, having instructions stored thereon which, when executed by a processing device, cause the processing device to: evaluate heuristics data of one or more data elements in a database response to determine which of the one or more data elements comprise malicious content; replace, based on the evaluating, the one or more data elements in [[a]] the database response with one or more tokens to produce a tokenized database response; provide the tokenized database response to a large language model (LLM);receive a tokenized LLM output that comprises at least one of the one or more tokens; and produce, by the processing device, a detokenized LLM output by replacing the at least one of the one or more tokens in the tokenized LLM output with at least one of the one or more data elements”.
The limitations “evaluate heuristics data of one or more data elements in a database response to determine which of the one or more data elements comprise malicious content; replace, based on the evaluating, the one or more data elements in [[a]] the database response with one or more tokens to produce a tokenized database response; provide the tokenized database response to a large language model (LLM);receive a tokenized LLM output that comprises at least one of the one or more tokens; and produce, by the processing device, a detokenized LLM output by replacing the at least one of the one or more tokens in the tokenized LLM output with at least one of the one or more data elements” as drafted, covers a mental process, as this could be done by mentally or by hand with pen and paper.
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. Claim 15 recites ““A non-transitory computer readable medium, having instructions stored thereon which, when executed by a processing device, cause the processing device to:…”.
The claim(s) does/do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. The addition of the generic computer components recited above with regard to claim 15 do not amount to more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component. Mere instructions to apply an exception using a generic computer component cannot provide an inventive concept. Claim 15 does not recite any additional limitations. The claim as drafted, is not patent eligible.
Conclusion
5. The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Bose (U.S. Publication No. 20240379096) discloses retrieval-augmented prompt for intent detection. Schaefer (U.S. Publication No. 202040311272) discloses test checking of pull request changes using large language model.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ETHAN DANIEL KIM whose telephone number is (571) 272-1405. The examiner can normally be reached on Monday - Friday 9:00 - 5:00.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Richemond Dorvil can be reached on (571) 272-7602. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see https://ppair-my.uspto.gov/pair/PrivatePair. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/ETHAN DANIEL KIM/
Examiner, Art Unit 2658
/RICHEMOND DORVIL/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2658
Prosecution Insights